COMTÉS UNIS DE / UNITED COUNTIES OF
ORDRE DU JOUR AGENDA
RÉUNION ORDINAIRE DU REGULAR MEETING OF 22 juin 2016 June 22, 2016 9 h 00 9:00 a.m. ______
1. OUVERTURE DE LA RÉUNION 1. VISION / PRAYER
2. APPEL NOMINAL 2. ROLL CALL
3. DÉCLARATION D’INTÉRÊTS 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST PÉCUNIAIRES
4. ADOPTION DE L’ORDRE DU JOUR 4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
5. ADOPTION DU PROCÈS-VERBAL 5. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES Réunion régulière du 25 mai 2016 Regular meeting of May 25, 2016
6. PETITIONS ET DÉLÉGATIONS 6. PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS À 9h At 9:00 a.m. Mise à jour du RREO sur leur progrès et Presentation from EORN to share progress pour obtenir un appui sur le projet de large and obtain support for the mobile broadband bande mobile dans les trois domaines project on three key areas: Proposed Cell Gap suivants : projet de cellulaire; soumission Project; Municipal RFP on Fibre and DSL; and municipale fibre et DSL; et stratégie digitale Digital Strategy
7. COMMUNICATIONS 7. COMMUNICATIONS 7.1 Correspondance d’information 7.1 Information Correspondence 1) Les nouvelles lignes directrices du 1) New Program Guidelines of the Programme des ressources en eau Eastern Ontario Water Resources de l’Est de l’Ontario Program 2) Budget 2016 du Programme de 2) Eastern Ontario Water Resources ressources en eau de l’Est de Program 2016 Budget l’Ontario 3) De la ville de Petrolia informant la 3) From the Town of Petrolia advising the ministre des Services publics et de Minister of Public Services and l’Approvisionnement des récents Procurement of the recent changes to changements aux opérations de Canada Post operations pertaining to Postes Canada au sujet des boites Post Office Boxes postales 4) Communiqué de CAPRAC – bilan 4) Press release of CAPRAC – summary de l’AGA 2016 et plan stratégique of 2016 AGM and new strategic plan 5) Lettre de remerciement du président 5) Letter of thanks from AMO President de l’AMO pour le don au fonds de Gary McNamara, for the County’s Fort McMurray donation to the Fort McMurray Fund 6) De la ville d’Oshawa confirmant leur 6) From the City of Oshawa confirming don de 5 000 $ pour les sinistrés de their $5,000 donation for the Fort Fort McMurray McMurray Disaster 7) Avis d’achèvement du rapport 7) Notice of Completion of Environmental d’étude environnementale Route Study Report - Ottawa Road 174 d’Ottawa et route 17 des CUPR 174/Prescott-Russell County Road 17 8) Communiqué du Ministère des 8) Press release from the Ministry of Transports pour investissement de Transportation regarding $40-million 40 millions $ pour l’élargissement du investment for the widening of County chemin de Comté 17 Road 17 7.2 Correspondance à suivre 7.2 Action Correspondence 1) Le maire du village de Casselman 1) The Mayor of the Village of Casselman demande l’appui du Conseil requesting Council’s support in regards concernant sa proposition to his proposal to increase revenues d’augmenter les revenus et la and prosperity of municipalities prospérité des municipalités 2) Du canton de South-West Oxford 2) From the Township of South – West pour combiner les conférences Oxford encouraging the combining of ROMA et OGRA the OGRA and ROMA conferences
7.3 Résolutions provenant des autres 7.3 Resolutions from other Municipalities municipalités 1) De la ville de Kingston demandant à (1) From the City of Kingston requesting la Province d’adopter des the Province of Ontario to adopt a modifications au Code du bâtiment similar Building Code Amendment similaire à ce qui a été adopté par le passed by the Province of Quebec Québec 2) De la région de Niagara et du (2) From the Niagara Region and the canton d’Augusta concernant la Township of Augusta respecting Lyme maladie de Lyme Disease 3) De la municipalité de Chatham-Kent (3) From the Municipality of Chatham-Kent concernant les changements in regard to Climate Change climatiques 4) De la ville de Amherstburg en ce qui (4) From the Town of Amherstburg concerne la réduction des thérapies regarding Cutbacks to Behavioral comportementales pour les enfants Therapy for Children with Autism atteints d’autisme Spectrum Disorder 5) De la ville de Gananoque (5) From the Town of Gananoque concernant les prix de l’essence en regarding Gas Prices in Ontario Ontario 6) De la ville de Hawkesbury pour (6) From the Town of Hawkesbury to autoriser un accès au chemin de authorize an access to County Road 17 comté 17 7) Du conseiller Scott Moffatt, (7) From Councillor Scott Moffatt, Chair of président du Comité de l’agriculture the City of Ottawa Agriculture and et des affaires rurales de la Ville Rural Affairs Committee to the Minister d’Ottawa, concernant la résolution of Energy regarding the resolution adoptée par le Conseil de la ville passed by Ottawa City Council d’Ottawa
8. RAPPORTS DES DÉPARTEMENTS 8. REPORTS OF DEPARTMENTS 8.1 Administration / Greffe (s/o) 8.1 Administration / Clerk (n/a)
8.2 Finances 8.2 Finance 1) Compte du mois (1) Monthly Accounts
2) Rapport F-008/2016 (2) Report F-008/2016 Révisions budgétaires 2016 2016 Budget Revisions
8.3 Dév. économique et touristique (s/o) 8.3 Economic Development and Tourism (n/a) 8.4 Résidence (s/o) 8.4 Residence (n/a) 8.5 Ressources humaines (s/o) 8.5 Human Resources (n/a)
8.6 Travaux publics 8.6 Public Works 1) Plan de gestion des immobilisations (1) Asset Management Plan
8.7 Services sociaux 8.7 Social Services 1) Rapport SS-005/2016 (1) Report SS-005/2016 Élargissement 2014 du Programme Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) d’investissement dans le logement for Ontario 2014 Extension – Rental abordable de l’Ontario (PILAO) – Housing Component volet logement locatif
Ordre du jour / Agenda 2 2) Rapport SS-006/2016 (2) Report SS-006/2016 Information statistiques régulières Regular Statistics Information (mai 2016) (May 2016)
8.8 Urbanisme et Foresterie (s/o) 8.8 Planning and Forestry (n/a) 8.9 Services d’urgence (s/o) 8.9 Emergency Services (n/a)
9. RAPPORTS DES COMITÉS 9. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 9.1 Rapport du comité plénier du 8 juin 2016 9.1 Committee of the Whole of June 8, 2016
9.2 Rapport du comité de Développement 9.2 Economic Development and Tourism économique et touristique en date du 25 Committee Report dated May 25, 2016 and mai 2016 et le rapport du comité the Agricultural Advisory Committee Report consultatif de l’Agriculture en date du 12 dated April 12, 2016 avril 2016
9.3 Rapport comité de la Résidence en date 9.3 Home Committee Report dated June 8, du 8 juin 2016 2016
9.4 Rapport du comité des Services 9.4 Emergency Services Committee Report d'urgence en date du 24 mai 2016 dated May 24, 2016
9.5 Rapport du comité des Services sociaux 9.5 Social Services Committee Report dated en date du 8 juin 2016 June 8, 2016
9.6 Rapport du comité des Travaux publics 9.6 Public Works Committee Report (n/a) (s/o)
9.7 Rapport du comité d’Urbanisme et de 9.7 Planning and Forestry Committee Report Foresterie en date du 25 mai 2016 dated May 25, 2016
10. RÉSOLUTIONS DÉCOULANT DES 10. RESOLUTIONS ARISING FROM RAPPORTS DE COMITÉS COMMITTEE REPORTS (1) Modifications au système de sécurité (1) Modifications to the Residence’s Door des portes et au système de Security System and the Emergency communication d’urgence de la Communication System Résidence
11. PÉRIODE DE QUESTION AUX CHEFS 11. QUESTION PERIOD TO DEPARTMENT DE DÉPARTEMENT HEADS
12. AVIS DE MOTIONS 12. NOTICE OF MOTIONS
13. RÉSOLUTION(S) ÉCRITE(S) DES 13. MEMBERS’ WRITTEN RESOLUTIONS MEMBRES
14. RÈGLEMENTS 14. BY-LAWS Règlement no 2016-21 By-law Number 2016-21
15. SUJETS À HUIS CLOS 15. CLOSED SESSION
Stéphane P. Parisien Stéphane P. Parisien 1) Mise à jour sur la relance du Collège 1) Alfred Campus Update (Section d’Alfred (par. 239(2)c) acquisition ou 239)2)c) being a proposed or pending disposition projetée ou en cours d’un acquisition or disposition of land by the bien-fonds par les Comtés) Counties 2) Mise à jour sur l’acquisition d’un 2) Update on the proposed acquisition of bien-fonds à L’Orignal (par. 239(2)c) land in L’Orignal (Section 239)2)c) acquisition ou disposition projetée being a proposed or pending acquisition ou en cours d’un bien-fonds par les or disposition of land by the Counties Comtés)
16. RÈGLEMENT DE RATIFICATION 2016-22 16. CONFIRMATORY BY-LAW 2016-22
17. AJOURNEMENT 17. ADJOURNMENT
Ordre du jour / Agenda 3
PROCÈS-VERBAL DE LA RÉUNION RÉGULIÈRE DE LA CORPORATION DES COMTÉS UNIS DE PRESCOTT ET RUSSELL
Le Conseil de la Corporation des Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell s’est réuni à 9 h 00, le 25 mai 2016, à l’édifice administratif des Comtés à L'Orignal, pour sa réunion régulière mensuelle.
Le président du conseil, Guy Desjardins déclare la réunion ouverte.
VISION / PRIÈRE La vision est récitée par le maire du canton de Champlain, Gary J. Barton.
MOT DE BIENVENUE DU PRÉSIDENT ET APPEL NOMINAL Présences : Guy Desjardins, président, Gary J. Barton, Jeanne Charlebois, Fernand Dicaire, Robert Kirby, Conrad Lamadeleine, Pierre Leroux et François St-Amour, membres du conseil.
Également présents : Stéphane P. Parisien, Michel Chrétien, Marc Clermont, Anne Comtois Lalonde, Louise Lalonde, Carole Lavigne, Julie Ménard Brault et Louis Prévost, chefs de département, et Andrée Latreille, greffière.
DÉCLARATION D’INTÉRÊTS PÉCUNIAIRES (s/o)
ADOPTION DE L’ORDRE DU JOUR 101... Proposé par François St-Amour Appuyé par Pierre Leroux QUE l’ordre du jour soit adopté avec tel que présenté avec l’ajout du règlement 2016-19 au point 14 et une mise à jour à huis clos au point 15 concernant deux acquisitions de terrain plutôt qu’une. Adoptée
ADOPTION DU PROCÈS-VERBAL 102… Proposé par Jeanne Charlebois Appuyé par Fernand Dicaire QUE les procès-verbaux de la réunion régulière du 27 avril 2016, et des huis clos du 13 avril et 11 mai 2016 soient adoptés tels que présentés. Adoptée
PÉTITIONS ET DÉLÉGATIONS Madame Sylvie Leclair, directrice générale des Services communautaires de Prescott- Russell apporte des précisions sur leur demande de financement de 30 000 $ qui consiste en l’ajout d’un poste additionnel. Puisque le soutien financier des Comtés servait à combler le manque à gagner de cet organisme, le Conseil exige des explications sur la création et le financement d’un tel poste. Madame Leclair précise que cette nouvelle ressource est nécessaire pour répondre à la demande des besoins grandissants, pour éviter la création d’une liste d’attente et pour répondre au partenariat du Maillon de santé 1.
103… Proposé par François St-Amour Appuyé par Gary J. Barton D’autoriser le versement d’une somme additionnelle de 5 000 $ aux Services communautaires de Prescott-Russell afin d’augmenter la subvention à 35 000 $ dans le but d’augmenter le service dans l’ouest des Comtés. Défaite
Suivant le rejet de la motion ci-haut, il fut 104… Proposé par Jeanne Charlebois Que la somme de 30 000 $ soit versée aux Services communautaires de Prescott-Russell tel que recommandé lors de l’adoption du budget et que la subvention soit utilisée pour répondre uniquement aux besoins des aînés et des adultes à besoins spéciaux de Prescott et Russell et ce, en accord avec l’entente de financement. Adoptée
COMMUNICATIONS 105… Proposé par Fernand Dicaire Appuyé par Conrad Lamadeleine Que le Conseil reçoive les correspondances suivantes à titre d’information : (1) Du ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement concernant la proclamation de la Loi de 2015 sur l'infrastructure au service de l'emploi et de la prospérité Conseil des Comtés - 2 - L’Orignal (Ontario) le 25 mai 2016
(2) Lettre au ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation et des Affaires rurales concernant le Collège d’Alfred (3) Lettre de la Coalition de Prescott-Russell pour éliminer la violence faite aux femmes concernant la collaboration avec les CUPR Adoptée
106… Proposé par Pierre Leroux Appuyé par François St-Amour Que le Conseil appuie la résolution du canton de South Dundas visant à réexaminer la suspension et l'intégration du Programme de développement économique des collectivités rurales (DECOR) au Fonds pour l’emploi et la prospérité dans le but d’assurer la continuité du financement dudit Programme DECOR et ainsi stimuler la croissance économique des municipalités rurales. Adoptée
107… Proposé par Gary J. Barton Appuyé par Pierre Leroux Que le Conseil appuie la résolution du canton de Champlain concernant les coûts de l’électricité en Ontario en demandant à la province de décréter un moratoire sur le développement futur et de faire une analyse approfondie sur la Loi sur l’énergie verte pour offrir de l’électricité abordable à nos citoyens. Adoptée
108… Proposé par François St-Amour Appuyé par Pierre Leroux Que la résolution de la ville de Amherstburg concernant les installations de la pétrolière Marathon soit reçue et déposée. Adoptée
109… Proposé par Pierre Leroux Appuyé par Conrad Lamadeleine Que la résolution du canton de North Wellington demandant d’interdire les ventes porte-à- porte en Ontario soit reçue et déposée. Adoptée
RAPPORTS DES DÉPARTEMENTS 110… Proposé par Conrad Lamadeleine Appuyé par Gary J. Barton Qu’il soit résolu que le Conseil ratifie les listes des salaires et des comptes payés suivants : 1) Salaires du mois d’avril 2016 au montant de 2 163 849,84 $; 2) Comptes du mois d’avril 2016, pages 1 à 14, numéros 1 à 368 au montant de 4 096 012,69 $. Adoptée
Rapport F-006/2016 - Plafonnement de l’imposition de 2016 111… Proposé par Pierre Leroux Appuyé par Jeanne Charlebois QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU qu’après avoir pris connaissance du rapport lié à la politique sur le plafonnement de l’imposition 2016, le Conseil approuve ce qui suit :
1) Que les CUPR ont choisi de mettre fin à l’application de la partie IX de la Loi sur les municipalités pour la catégorie de propriétés multi-résidentielles pour l’année d’imposition 2016 et les suivantes;
2) Que le modèle de plafonnement de l’imposition 2016 inclut les limites et paramètres suivants : a) Établir une limite sur l’augmentation d’impôts fonciers calculée selon les règles de la partie IX de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités, selon le plus élevé de : i) 10 p. cent des impôts plafonnés annualisés de l’année précédente; ou, ii) 10 p. cent des impôts annualisés d’après l’ÉVA de l’année précédente
b) Établir le seuil-limite sur les ajustements plafonnés jusqu’à 250 $ pour les impôts à la hausse et 50 $ pour ceux à la baisse; à noter qu’aucun crédit de taxe moindre que le plafonnement ne sera versé;
Conseil des Comtés - 3 - L’Orignal (Ontario) le 25 mai 2016
c) Sont excluent du plafonnement, les propriétés étant : i) assujetties à l’ÉVA en 2015 ii) assujetties au rajustement relatif au plafond en 2015 et qui autrement seraient assujetties à la récupération fiscale en 2016; ou, iii) assujetties au rajustement relatif à la récupération en 2015 et qui autrement seraient assujetties au rajustement relatif au plafond en 2016.
3) Que le niveau de taxes sur les propriétés « nouvellement bâties » soit établi au niveau minimal de 100 p. cent des taxes d’après l‘ÉVA en 2016 et pendant les années d’imposition subséquentes;
4) Que le mécanisme de récupération soit utilisé pour le coût du plafonnement dans la mesure du possible.
5) Que le règlement 2016-18 soit adopté. Adoptée
Rapport F-007/2016 - Services de vérification 112… Proposé par Robert Kirby Appuyé par Gary J. Barton ATTENDU qu’à la fin du contrat du vérificateur, les membres du conseil révisent la nomination du vérificateur de la Corporation;
ET ATTENDU que Deloitte s.r.l. assure présentement les services de vérification de la Corporation;
QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que la firme Deloitte s.r.l. soit nommée à titre de vérificateurs pour la Corporation des Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell, et ce, jusqu’au 31 décembre 2020 et qu’un règlement soit adopté à cette fin. Adoptée
113… Proposé par François St-Amour Appuyé par Pierre Leroux Que le Conseil reçoive le rapport SS-004/2016, « Information statistiques régulières d’avril 2016 ». Adoptée
RAPPORTS DES COMITÉS 114… Proposé par Jeanne Charlebois Appuyé par Robert Kirby Que le rapport du comité plénier en date du 11 mai 2016 soit adopté tel que présenté. Adoptée
115… Proposé par Jeanne Charlebois Appuyé par Conrad Lamadeleine Que le rapport du comité de la Résidence du 27 avril 2016 soit adopté tel que présenté. Adoptée
116… Proposé par Pierre Leroux Appuyé par Robert Kirby Que le rapport du comité d’Urbanisme et de Foresterie en date du 27 avril 2016 soit adopté tel que présenté. Adoptée
RÉSOLUTIONS RELEVANT DES RAPPORTS DE COMITÉS
Don à Fort McMurray 117… Proposé par Fernand Dicaire Appuyé par Gary J. Barton ATTENDU que la Ville de Fort McMurray en Alberta a connu un feu de forêt dévastateur, provoquant des inquiétudes importantes pour les routes, la distribution d'eau potable, l'entretien des eaux usées, l'électricité et le gaz, ainsi que des matières dangereuses affectant la qualité de vie de nombreux résidents;
Conseil des Comtés - 4 - L’Orignal (Ontario) le 25 mai 2016
ATTENDU que pendant plusieurs semaines, les résidents seront évacués de leur communauté, leurs maisons et leur travail, causant de difficultés émotionnelles, financières, mentales et physiques;
ATTENDU que tous les gouvernements locaux devraient démontrer la force et le soutien pour faire face à une catastrophe dans une communauté, un événement comme celui-ci pouvant se produire dans leur propre municipalité;
QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que le Conseil fournisse un don de 20 000 $ à l'Association des municipalités de l'Ontario (AMO), qui dans le cadre de ses efforts de levée de fonds distribuera le don également à la fois à la Croix-Rouge canadienne et à l'Armée du Salut. Adoptée
Coalition pour éliminer la violence faite aux femmes 118… Proposé par Jeanne Charlebois Appuyé par François St-Amour ATTENDU que lors de la réunion du comité plénier du 11 mai 2016, le Conseil a discuté d’une lettre révisée reçue de la Coalition pour éliminer la violence faite aux femmes au sujet de la collaboration entre ce dernier et les CUPR;
ATTENDU que la Coalition a invité les CUPR, par l'entremise de ses représentants, à travailler en collaboration sur trois projets, dont : 1) identifier des pistes de solutions aux problèmes de transport; 2) identifier et démarquer trois lieux de vigile d'ici le 6 décembre 2016; 3) que le déjeuner des maires devienne une activité annuelle durant les 16 jours d'activisme;
QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que le Conseil entérine la proposition de collaboration de la Coalition pour éliminer la violence faite aux femmes et mandate ses représentants à participer sur les recommandations ci-identifiées. Adoptée
Agrandissement des terminaux portuaires de Picton 119… Proposé par Robert Kirby Appuyé par Conrad Lamadeleine ATTENDU que l'Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus (EOWC) a fortement appuyé la revitalisation des terminaux portuaires de Picton compte tenu de son important potentiel pour créer des emplois et stimuler l'économie régionale;
ATTENDU que le gouvernement fédéral et provincial a engagé des ressources financières considérables envers l’infrastructure et la création d’emploi dans les annonces budgétaires récentes;
ATTENDU que les navires sont deux fois plus efficace que le transport ferroviaire et 10 fois plus économe en carburant que le camionnage lourd;
ATTENDU que l’EOWC a demandé que le gouvernement fédéral et de l’Ontario priorise et finance la demande de 10 millions $ de l’ABNA Investments pour l'acquisition de deux grues portuaires afin de permettre au port de répondre à la demande anticipée de plus de 100 navires par année;
QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que le Conseil appuie ce projet et achemine son appui à ses deux députés, tel que demandé par l’EOWC. Adoptée
PÉRIODE DE QUESTIONS AUX CHEFS DE DÉPARTEMENT
AVIS DE MOTIONS (s/o)
RÉSOLUTION(S) ÉCRITE(S) DES MEMBRES (s/o)
Conseil des Comtés - 5 - L’Orignal (Ontario) le 25 mai 2016
RÈGLEMENTS 120… Proposé par Gary J. Barton Appuyé par François St-Amour QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que le Conseil ratifie les règlements suivants : 2016-18 Pour adopter les options municipales concernant Partie IX de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités, « Limitation des impôts prélevés sur certaines catégories de biens »
2016-19 Pour nommer la firme Deloitte s.r.l. à titre de vérificateur pour les Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell jusqu’au 31 décembre 2020 Adoptée
SUJETS À HUIS CLOS À 9h55, il fut 121… Proposé par Pierre Leroux Appuyé par Robert Kirby Que le Conseil poursuive à huis clos afin de recevoir une mise à jour sur deux propositions d’acquisition de propriétés dont l’une à L’Orignal et l’autre à Hawkesbury (article 239(2) c) acquisition ou proposition projetée ou en cours d’un bien-fonds). Adoptée
Le directeur général fait part du problème de contamination sur la propriété sise à L’Orignal et informe que le dépôt a été retenu tant et aussi longtemps que le problème n’aura pas été réglé. Il informera le Conseil du suivi dans ce dossier.
La proposition d’ASCO d’échanger leur terrain vacant à Hawkesbury en contrepartie de la Résidence ne tient plus. En revanche, le calcul du coût d’acquisition du terrain vacant a été évalué à 3,5 millions de $. Le Conseil n’est pas intéressé à donner suite à cette demande et avise le directeur général d’inclure ce sujet à l’ordre du jour du prochain comité plénier afin d’engager la discussion sur le futur site d’une nouvelle Résidence sur le territoire de Prescott et Russell.
À 10h00, il fut 122… Proposé par Conrad Lamadeleine Appuyé par François St-Amour QUE le Conseil retourne en séance ouverte. Adoptée
RÈGLEMENT DE RATIFICATION 123… Proposé par Pierre Leroux Appuyé par Fernand Dicaire QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que le Conseil adopte le règlement numéro 2016-20 afin de confirmer toutes les mesures et recommandations prises aux rapports, résolutions et règlements de la séance régulière du Conseil du 25 mai 2016. Adoptée
AJOURNEMENT 124… Proposé par Pierre Leroux Appuyé par Robert Kirby QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que la séance régulière du Conseil soit levée à compter de 10h08. Adoptée
______Guy Desjardins, Président
______Andrée Latreille, Greffière
MINUTES OF THE MAY 25, 2016 REGULAR MEETING OF THE UNITED COUNTIES OF PRESCOTT AND RUSSELL
The Council of the Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell met on May 25, 2016, in the Counties’ Administration Building in L’Orignal for its regular monthly meeting.
At 9:00 a.m., Warden Guy Desjardins called the meeting to order.
VISION Mr. Gary J. Barton, Mayor of Champlain Township, recited the vision and the prayer.
WARDEN’S WELCOME AND ROLL CALL Were present: Warden Guy Desjardins, Gary J. Barton, Jeanne Charlebois, Fernand Dicaire, Robert Kirby, Conrad Lamadeleine, Pierre Leroux and François St-Amour, Council Members.
Also present: Stéphane P. Parisien, Chief Administrative Officer, Michel Chrétien, Marc Clermont, Anne Comtois Lalonde, Louise Lalonde, Carole Lavigne, Julie Ménard Brault and Louis Prévost, Department Heads, and Andrée Latreille, Clerk.
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST (n/a)
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 101… Moved by François St-Amour Seconded by Pierre Leroux THAT the Agenda be adopted as presented with the addition of By-law 2016-19 at item 14 and an update in closed session at item 15 regarding two land acquisitions instead of one. Carried
ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 102… Moved by Jeanne Charlebois Seconded by Fernand Dicaire THAT the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 27, 2016 and of the In-Camera Meetings of April 13, 2016 and May 11, 2016 be adopted as presented. Carried
PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS Ms. Sylvie Leclair, Executive Director of Prescott-Russell Community Services, elaborated on the organization’s $30,000 funding request for the creation of an additional position. As the Counties’ financial support normally served to bridge the shortfall of this organization, Council requested an explanation regarding the creation and funding of this new position. Ms. Leclair explained that this new resource is required in order meet the growing demand for services, to avoid creating a waiting list, and to respond to the Community Health Link 1 partnership.
103… Moved by François St-Amour Seconded by Gary J. Barton To authorize the payment of an additional sum of $5,000 to Prescott-Russell Community Services in order to increase the funding grant to $35,000 with the goal of increasing services in the west of the Counties. Defeated
Following the rejection of the aforementioned motion, it was 104… Moved by Jeanne Charlebois THAT the sum of $30,000 be paid to Prescott-Russell Community Services as recommended in the adoption of the budget, and that the funding grant be used only for the needs of seniors and adults with special needs in Prescott and Russell, in accordance with the funding agreement. Carried
COMMUNICATIONS 105... Moved by Fernand Dicaire Seconded by Conrad Lamadeleine THAT Council receive the following correspondence for information purposes: 1) From the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the proclamation of the Infrastructure for Jobs & Prosperity Act, 2015 2) Letter to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the Alfred Campus 3) Letter from the Coalition to End Violence Towards Women regarding collaboration opportunities with the UCPR Carried
Counties’ Council - 2 - L’Orignal, Ontario May 25, 2016
106... Moved by Pierre Leroux Seconded by François St-Amour That Council support the resolution from the Township of South Dundas to reconsider the suspension of and the integration of the Rural Economic Development (RED) Program into the Jobs and Prosperity Fund, in order to ensure the continuity of the financing of the RED Program and stimulate the growth of rural municipalities. Carried
107... Moved by Gary J. Barton Seconded by Pierre Leroux That Council support the resolution from the Township of Champlain regarding the cost of electricity in Ontario, in requesting that the Province to declare a moratorium on future development and undertake a profound analysis of the Green Energy Act in order to offer affordable energy rates to our residents. Carried
108... Moved by François St-Amour Seconded by Pierre Leroux That the resolution from the Town of Amherstburg regarding the Marathon Petroleum Facility be received and filed. Carried
109... Moved by Pierre Leroux Seconded by Conrad Lamadeleine That the resolution from the Township of North Wellington requesting a ban on door-to-door sales in Ontario be received and filed. Carried
REPORTS OF DEPARTMENTS 110… Moved by Conrad Lamadeleine Seconded by Gary J. Barton BE IT RESOLVED that Council approve the salaries and accounts which have been subject to payment, namely: 1) Total salaries of $2,163,849.84 for April 2016; 2) Accounts for April 2016, pages 1 to 14, items 1 to 368 for a total of $4,096,012.69. Carried
Report F-006/2016 – 2016 Tax Capping Policy 111… Moved by Pierre Leroux Seconded by Jeanne Charlebois BE IT RESOLVED THAT, having read and acknowledged the 2016 Tax Capping Policy Report, Council approves the following:
1) That the UCPR opts to end the application of Part IX of the Municipal Act for the Multi- residential property class for 2016 and subsequent taxations years;
2) That the tax capping model for the year 2016 includes the following parameters and limitation: a) Set an upper limit on annual tax increases as calculated under Part IX of the Municipal Act, 2001 at the greater of: i) 10% of a property’s previous year’s annualized capped taxes; or, ii) 10% of a property’s previous year’s annualized CVA tax
b) Set a capping adjustment threshold of $250 for increasing properties and $50 for decreasing properties, whereby no capping adjustments less than the threshold amount will be applied;
c) Exempt from capping are properties that were: i) Subject to CVA tax in 2015, ii) Subject to a capping adjustment in 2015 and would otherwise be subject to claw- back in 2016; or, iii) Subject to a claw-back adjustment in 2015 and would otherwise be subject to a capping adjustment in 2016.
Counties’ Council - 3 - L’Orignal, Ontario May 25, 2016
3) That the tax level for “new construction” properties be set at a minimum level of 100% of their CVA taxes for 2016 and future taxation years;
4) That the claw-back mechanism be used to fund the cost of capping protection to the extent possible.
5) That By-law 2016-18 be adopted. Carried
Report F-007/2016 – Audit Services 112… Moved by Robert Kirby Seconded by Gary J. Barton WHEREAS at the end of the auditor’s contract, Members of Council review the appointment of the Corporation’s auditors;
AND WHEREAS Deloitte LLP presently provides audit services for the Corporation;
BE IT RESOLVED that Deloitte LLP be appointed as the auditors of the Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell until December 31st, 2020. Carried
113… Moved by François St-Amour Seconded by Pierre Leroux THAT Council receive Report SS-004/2016, “Regular Statistics Information for April 2016.” Carried
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 114… Moved by Jeanne Charlebois Seconded by Robert Kirby THAT the report of the Committee of the Whole of May 11, 2016 be adopted as circulated. Carried
115… Moved by Jeanne Charlebois Seconded by Conrad Lamadeleine THAT the report of the Residence Committee of April 27, 2016 be adopted as circulated. Carried
116… Moved by Pierre Leroux Seconded by Robert Kirby THAT the report of the Planning and Forestry Committee of April 27, 2016 be adopted as circulated. Carried
RESOLUTIONS ARISING FROM COMMITTEE REPORTS
Donation to Fort McMurray 117… Moved by Fernand Dicaire Seconded by Gary J. Barton WHEREAS the City of Fort McMurray, Alberta has experienced a devastating wildfire, causing significant concerns for roads, drinking water distribution, wastewater servicing, electricity and gas, as well as hazardous materials affecting the quality of life for many residents;
WHEREAS residents will be evacuated for several weeks from their community, home and work causing substantial emotional, financial, mental and physical hardship;
AND WHEREAS all local governments should show strength and support in responding to a disaster in any community, as an event could happen in their own municipality;
BE IT RESOLVED that Council provide a donation of $20,000 to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), which as part of its fundraising efforts will evenly distribute the donation to both the Canadian Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Carried
Counties’ Council - 4 - L’Orignal, Ontario May 25, 2016
Coalition To End Violence Towards Women 118… Moved by Jeanne Charlebois Seconded by François St-Amour WHEREAS during the Committee of the Whole meeting of May 11, 2016, Council discussed a revised letter received from the Coalition to End Violence Towards Women regarding partnership between this organization and the UCPR;
WHEREAS the Coalition invited the UCPR, through its representatives, to work in collaboration on three projects, being: 1) identify solutions to transportation issues; 2) identify et specify three vigil locations before December 6, 2016; 3) that the Mayors’ Breakfast become an annual activity during the 16 days of activism;
BE IT RESOLVED that Council support the collaboration proposal from the Coalition to End Violence Towards Women and mandate its representatives to participate with the aforementioned recommendations. Carried
Picton Terminals Expansion 119… Moved by Robert Kirby Seconded by Conrad Lamadeleine WHEREAS the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) has strongly supported the revitalization of the Picton Terminals given its significant potential to create jobs and boost the regional economy;
WHEREAS the federal and provincial governments have committed considerable financial resources towards infrastructure and job creation in recent budget announcements;
WHEREAS vessels are twice as fuel efficient as rail and 10 times more fuel efficient than heavy trucking;
WHEREAS the EOWC has requested that the Federal and Ontario governments prioritize and fund the request of $10 million from ABNA Investments for the acquisition of two port cranes to allow the Port to accommodate the anticipated demand of upwards of 100 ships annually;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council support this project and forward this support to its MP and MPP, as requested by the EOWC. Carried
QUESTION PERIOD TO DEPARTMENT HEADS
NOTICE OF MOTIONS (n/a)
MEMBERS WRITTEN RESOLUTIONS (n/a)
BY-LAWS 120… Moved by Gary J. Barton Seconded by François St-Amour BE IT RESOLVED that the following By-laws be adopted by the Council of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell: 2016-18 To adopt municipal options related to Part IX of the Municipal Act, 2001, “Limitation on Taxes for Certain Property Classes”
2016-19 To appoint Deloitte LLP as auditors of the Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell until December 31, 2020 Carried
Counties’ Council - 5 - L’Orignal, Ontario May 25, 2016
CLOSED SESSION At 9:55 a.m., it was 121… Moved by Pierre Leroux Seconded by Robert Kirby That Council proceed into closed session in order to receive an update regarding two proposed acquisitions of property, one in L’Orignal and the other in Hawkesbury, as per Section 239(2)c) proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the Counties. Carried
The Chief Administrative Officer explained the contamination issue on the property located in L’Orignal and informed Council that the deposit will be withheld for as long as the issue is not resolved. He will inform Council of any developments in this file.
The proposal from ASCO to exchange its vacant land in Hawkesbury for that of the Residence is no longer valid. As a result, the calculated cost of the vacant land acquisition was valued at $3.5 million. Council is not interested in pursuing this offer and advised the Chief Administrative Officer to include this subject on the agenda of the next Committee of the Whole in order to initiate discussion on the future site of a new Residence on the territory of Prescott and Russell.
At 10:00 a.m., it was 122… Moved by Conrad Lamadeleine Seconded by François St-Amour That Council return into the open meeting. Carried
CONFIRMATORY BY-LAW 123… Moved by Pierre Leroux Seconded by Fernand Dicaire BE IT RESOLVED that Council adopt By-Law 2016-20 to confirm the proceedings and recommendations made in the reports, resolutions and By-laws at this regular Council meeting of May 25, 2016. Carried
ADJOURNMENT 124… Moved by Pierre Leroux Seconded by Robert Kirby BE IT RESOLVED that Council adjourn this regular Council meeting at 10:08 a.m. Carried
______Guy Desjardins, Warden
______Andrée Latreille, Clerk
Presentation to United Counties of Prescott and Russell
June 22, 2016 Agenda
• EORN Project Update
• Improving Mobile Broadband/Cell Project
• Municipal Connectivity Project
• EOWC / EORN Advocacy
Program Guidelines
The Eastern Ontario Water Resources Management Committee (EOWRC) was established to implement the recommendations of the Eastern Ontario Water Resources Management Study. In 2015, EOWRC amalgamated with the South Nation Conservation Clean Water Committee (CWC) as a Program under the CWC. The following Guidelines set out the administration and operating procedures for the new Eastern Ontario Water Resources Program (EOWRP).
GOVERNANCE:
EOWRP will be governed by the South Nation Conservation Clean Water Committee (CWC). EOWRP will have representation on the CWC as per Membership section below. EOWRP will maintain separate Program Guidelines, annual Budget, and Grant Project Guidelines under the CWC.
South Nation Conservation (SNC) will oversee the financial administration of EOWRP and provide management services for EOWRP related business as per SNC’s approved Fee Schedule.
MEMBERSHIP:
Any EOWRP representative missing two consecutive meetings, without communicating justification to the CWC Chair, will be removed from the CWC.
EOWRP members will be permitted to participate fully in CWC business in accordance with the SNC Standing Committees Terms of Reference.
In accordance with the SNC Standing Committee Terms of Reference, each of the following organizations is invited to appoint one (1) member to the CWC to represent EOWRP, if they are not already represented on the CWC. Organizations that provide annual funding to EOWRP projects may appoint up to two (2) members.
• United Counties of Prescott and Russell • United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry • City of Ottawa • Agriculture and Agri-food Canada • Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs • Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change • Ontario Federation of Agriculture • L’Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens • Pork Producers
Eastern Ontario Water Resources Program Guidelines_approved 1 March 2016 1
• Dairy Producers • Beef Farmers of Ontario • Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association • Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario • Eastern Ontario Health Unit • University of Ottawa
EOWRP FUNDING:
SNC will request EOWRP funding support as per the direction of the Clean Water Committee.
Organizations providing funding to EOWRP maintain the right to set funding priorities on their contributed amount. This includes the provision to earmark all or a portion of their contribution to a designated “EOWRP Special Project”.
EOWRP funding will be maintained in a separate EOWRP budget and reported back to EOWRP funding partners. Any EOWRP surplus at year-end will be carried forward to the next year’s EOWRP budget.
EOWRP PROJECT GRANTS:
The eligible funding area will be limited to the areas that provide funding to EOWRP. If the funding partner designates their entire contribution to an EOWRP special project within their specific geographical area, this area will not be eligible for general EOWRP project grant funding. The areas of eligibility will be confirmed on an annual basis once partner organizations have approved their individual budgets.
Proponents wishing to submit EOWRP project grant proposals must complete an EOWRP application form, forms are available through SNC.
Organizations representing EOWRP on the CWC, who are applying for EOWRP project grants, will abstain from voting on EOWRP grant allocations.
EOWRP PROJECT PAYMENT: EOWRP funding will be provided after the approved project is completed, this includes: approval of the final report by the CWC and submission of an invoice with proof of payment for the approved amount. Any interim payment schedules requested for approved projects must be approved by the Clean Water Committee at the time of the initial request.
Eastern Ontario Water Resources Program Guidelines_approved 1 March 2016 2
38 rue Victoria Street, Finch, ON K0C 1K0 Tel: 613-984-2948 Fax: 613-984-2872 Toll Free: 1-877-984-2948 www.nation.on.ca
To: Clean Water Committee From: Ronda Boutz, Team Lead, Communications & Outreach Date: February 23, 2016 Subject: 2016 Eastern Ontario Water Resources Program Budget
RECOMMENDATION: The Clean Water Committee approve the 2016 Eastern Ontario Water Resources Program Draft Budget as presented.
DISCUSSION: The draft 2016 Eastern Ontario Water Resources Program (EOWRP) budget is outlined in the table and notes below.
2016 Budget Revenue: a) United Counties of Prescott-Russell $50,000.00 b) City of Ottawa $50,000.00 c) United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry $27,000.00 d) Carry-over of unspent 2015 dollars $27,581.00 TOTAL REVENUE $154,581.00 Expenses: e) EOWRP Project Management $14,500.00 f) EOWRP – Committee Representative Expenses $3,000.00 g) EOWRP Projects $50,081.00 h) EOWRP Special Projects $87,000.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $154,581.00
Budget Notes a) United Counties of Prescott-Russell (P&R) P&R has approved a $50,000 contribution to EOWRP for 2016; $30,000 of this amount has been earmarked for a special project, see budget note h). b) The City of Ottawa The City of Ottawa has contributed $50,000 to EOWRP for 2016. c) United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry (SDG) SDG has approved a $27,000 contribution to EOWRP for 2016 for a special project. d) Carry-over of unspent 2015 dollars This funding remained unspent in 2015 and has been carried into the 2016
Budget. Of this surplus, $26,880.00 is encumbered to two projects approved in 2015 for 2016 implementation. The remaining $701 is surplus from Committee meeting expenses, this amount will be reallocated within the 2016 EOWRP budget. e) Project Management South Nation Conservation is retained as the project manager for EOWRP to provide the following services: facilitation of the EOWRP reports to the Clean Water Committee; coordination of agreements and payments for EOWRP projects, reporting to EOWRP funders, and preparation of financial statements (as banker for EOWRP). f) EOWRP Committee Representative Expenses This item includes payment of EOWRP Clean Water Committee Representatives per diem and mileage to attend meeting and presentations related to EOWRP business. g) EOWRP Projects Funding for EOWRP projects to be allocated as per the EOWRP Guidelines. The breakdown of grant funding for EOWRP Projects is as follows:
Source Amount P&R $11,250.00 Ottawa $11,250.00 Uncommitted surplus from 2015 $701.00 EOWRC budget 2015 projects $26,880.00
Climate Change Adaptation: Programs Review ($21,880.00)
Treatment of Brewery Effluent Using Coagulation and Aeration Technologies ($5,000.00) Total $50,081.00 f) EOWRP Special Projects EOWRP funding partners have earmarked some or all of their funding contribution to EOWRP Special Projects as follows:
Project Amount P&R Infrastructure Assessment $30,000.00
SDG Stormwater Facilities Assessment $27,000.00 Project City of Ottawa Climate Change Project (to $30,000.00 be determined) TOTAL $87,000.00
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS/ADHERENCE TO SNC POLICY: Compliance with Budget: Funding for the Eastern Ontario Water Program (formerly Eastern Ontario Water Resources Committee) is included in the approved 2016 SNC Budget under Science and Research: Stewardship: Water, pages 24 and 25.
SNC Policy Adherence: Expenses and allocation of grants related to the Eastern Ontario Water Resources Program adhere to SNC’s Purchasing Policy.
______Ronda Boutz, Team Lead, Communications & Outreach.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PETROLIA 411 Greenfield Street P.O. Box 1270 PETROLIA, Ontario Canada N0N 1R0
Telephone: 519-882-2350 Fax: 519-882-3373 www.town.petrolia.on.ca “Celebrating our Heritage. Investing in our Future” May 10, 2016 The Honourable Judy Foote Minister of Public Services and Procurement House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
RE: recent changes to Canada Post PO Box addressing
Dear Minister Foote,
On behalf of the Council of the Town of Petrolia I’m reaching out to you today as the Minster responsible for the Canada Post Corporation.
On April 22nd our offices along with many residents of our Town, a community of just over 5500 residents received a letter from Canada Post (enclosed) advising of an amendment to our mailing address and also how we would access our PO Box at the Petrolia Post Office.
We were advised through this letter that the changes as outlined would become effective May 16, 2016, this did not leave much notice time or time to have questions answered and an understanding gained.
While we are very receptive to change and in this case understanding of the necessity to make changes to a “Civic Address” system for a mailing address, as you can imagine our office has been met with many challenges and concern by our ratepayer, some of which we as a Municipal Administration also share concern of.
During the short period of time between the release of the notices and today’s date our offices have fielded many telephone conversations and counter visits with ratepayers expressing their concerns, a selection of the concerns being voiced to us, and also of concern from administration are: Lack of notice from Canada Post; No public session with residents by Canada Post to explain the proposed changes; Canada Post only as recent as the day before the notice was issued, advised residents that did not have PO Box number indicated on a piece of mail, that they are to be sure this is included or risk mail not reaching them; Lacking of understanding why a new box number must be assigned, if PO Box numbers are to be no longer part of the mailing address, that is fine, but there is no need for a new Box; While there will be a one year grace period provided by Canada Post in which mail still addressed to the original PO Box will be delivered, to enable sufficient time to provide the sender with updated address information, for some this notification change is a major inconvenience; THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PETROLIA 411 Greenfield Street P.O. Box 1270 PETROLIA, Ontario Canada N0N 1R0
Telephone: 519-882-2350 Fax: 519-882-3373 www.town.petrolia.on.ca “Celebrating our Heritage. Investing in our Future” Many residents have been known by only their PO Box for decades; Business that operate from a home, but have PO Box for mail purposes to be able to separate home from work will no longer be able to; Business’ have letterhead, envelopes and cheques that reflect a PO Box number, if they had received more than a few weeks’ notice this change was coming, efforts could have been taken not to order these items with a PO Box reflective – the cost to replace and re-order these items is significant to business’. The cost to change letter head, envelopes and other items will be very costly; Suppliers will have to be contacted to change the address they use for the Town. We have over 2,000 suppliers; For Municipal property taxes bills sent out, we will have to remove the Post Office Box numbers and ensure the correct street address is inputted to our financial system. We have over 2,300 accounts. We will also have to ensure that this information is accurately provided to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation as they update our property tax information annually and also send out documentation to Petrolia residents on a regular basis. This process will be an extreme administrative burden; For the Municipal Administration accounts receivable we will have to update their addresses., creating a burden to staff; The new mail box at the local Post Office has changed from a large one to a very small one. Our mail will not physically fit; The Victoria Playhouse Petrolia (an entity of the Municipality) has a mail data base of 30,000 patron, many of these addresses will be incorrect, and when notification is received of the updates the staff time to amend the address will be significant; Patrons of the Victoria Playhouse Petrolia are largely of an elderly demographic and purchase tickets by mailing in their payment and request, and mail only to the PO Box as they’ve been instructed to for year, should this mail be returned to them, most are not likely to attempt to find an alternate solution and sales impacts to the theatre could be effected; The Oil Heritage Community Centre (an entity of the Municipality) will also have an administrative burden to not only provide updated information but also amend current member records;
While these are only a small sampling of the feedback we are receiving from our residents and ratepayers it paints the picture of concern, legitimate concern with the way changes to the mailing addresses have occurred.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PETROLIA 411 Greenfield Street P.O. Box 1270 PETROLIA, Ontario Canada N0N 1R0
Telephone: 519-882-2350 Fax: 519-882-3373 www.town.petrolia.on.ca “Celebrating our Heritage. Investing in our Future” We have had several residents including one Town Councillor reach out Canada Post for clarification and to express concern and they unfortunately have not received a response. As the letter is signed the Petrolia Post Office, and even advises the local post office phone number to express concern to. This has created some concern at our local post office as many residents are believing this to be a change at the local level and not on a Federal level.
We could continue to outline expressed concern and frustration, but that would become too lengthy, and while it is understood why the change is likely to be more beneficial than not, it is the process in which the change was outlined that is the biggest concern to us; It would have made a tremendous difference to how this change was received if Canada Post had implemented some proactive items such as holding a public session with the community, possibly creating a video clip message on the Canada Post webpage that explains the changes and reasoning that the post office could direct concerned ratepayers to, and even if we the Municipality had received some advance notice of the changes we would have happily created a small marketing campaign specific to our ratepayers to help them understand and ease into the change.
During our recent regular meeting of Town Council on May 9th a report outlining these concerns, and concerns of our residents as expressed to us was brought forward to Council and the following motion passed:
MOVED: Joel Field SECONDED: Liz Welsh
“THAT the Council of the Town of Petrolia adopt the report the Deputy Clerk/Operations Clerk dated May 9, 2016 regarding Canada Post – PO Box changes ; AND THAT the Council of the Town of Petrolia support staff addressing a letter to the Honorable Judy M Foote, Minister of Public Services and Procurement expressing concern for the implemented changes to the PO Box system with Canada Post and the way in which the changes were rolled out; AND THAT the financial and administrative burden these implemented changes will create are identified in the letter; AND THAT the letter of concern be forwarded to all Municipalities in the Province of Ontario”
Carried C -09–05-09/2016
We have as staff reached out direct to Canada Post, and understand that they are willing to meet with us to review our areas of concern, a response that while appreciated, unfortunately as an after effect does not assist us with the current situation. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PETROLIA 411 Greenfield Street P.O. Box 1270 PETROLIA, Ontario Canada N0N 1R0
Telephone: 519-882-2350 Fax: 519-882-3373 www.town.petrolia.on.ca “Celebrating our Heritage. Investing in our Future” We anticipate that this meeting should be quite positive and possibly resolve a few concerns, however as some areas are too late for our community we hope that by bringing this information and concern to your attention other Municipalities may not have a similar experience as we have.
Your time and review of our letter is much appreciated, thank you.
Yours truly,
Mandi Pearson Deputy Clerk/Operations Clerk
Encl. cc: Manny Baron, CAO Municipalities of Ontario via email
Communiqué Pour diffusion immédiate
Bilan de l’AGA 2016 et le plan stratégique du CAPRAC
Alfred, le vendredi 20 mai 2016 -- Le Conseil des arts Prescott Russell Arts Council (CAPRAC) rend compte des points saillants de son Assemblée générale annuelle (AGA) 2016, notamment du dévoilement de son nouveau plan stratégique triennal.
Le jeudi 12 mai dernier, une trentaine des membres du CAPRAC, appuyés par des gens de la communauté, se sont rassemblés au Centre Culturel Le Chenail pour le dévoilement du plan stratégique du Conseil des arts dans le cadre de son deuxième AGA. L’assemblée, mis à part quelques problèmes techniques mineurs, fut un réel succès. Michel Lalande, qui présidait la réunion, a réussi à présenter l’ensemble des différents éléments du plan stratégique. Les individus présents ont ensuite profité de petites bouchées lors d’une période de réseautage, le tout dans une ambiance de rêve créée par les toiles en exposition de l’artiste locale Nathalie Frenière et par la musique ambiante offerte par le pianiste Gaetan Pilon qui caressait les oreilles en arrière-plan.
Le plan stratégique, réalisé par les firmes de consultants, Lalande & Gougeon et Brunet-Sherwood Consultants, orientera les activités du CAPRAC jusqu’en 2018. Le plan triennal comprend, entre autres, une révision de la mission et de la vision du CAPRAC, ainsi que l’élaboration des valeurs qui caractérisent l’organisme : la collaboration, la créativité, l’éthique, l’inclusivité, le leadership et la qualité de service. En allant de l’avant, une partie du mandat du CAPRAC a été précisée et confirmée comme étant appuyeur de projets et d’initiatives. La Directrice générale, ainsi que le Conseil d’administration, verront à la formation de comités afin d’évaluer les projets qui y seront proposés et déterminer comment, et si, le CAPRAC peut s’impliquer. La nouvelle devise « informer, réseauter, promouvoir » identifie précisément les intentions du CAPRAC qui cherche à rassembler les acteurs culturels, artistiques et patrimoniaux de Prescott et Russell. Les axes stratégiques sur lesquels le CAPRAC se focalisera comprennent l’intéressement des membres, les services aux membres, les partenariats et affiliations, ainsi que le markéting et la visibilité de l’organisme.
Aussi, les membres présents ont procédé à l’élection de deux nouvelles administratrices, Francyn Leblanc de Casselman et Rita Iriarte de Chute-à-Blondeau, ainsi qu’à la réélection de Ronald Handfield à titre d’administrateur au Conseil d’administration. Le CAPRAC tient à rappeler qu’il y a toujours un poste vacant qui cherche à être comblé.
Finalement, le CAPRAC tient à remercier les administratrices sortantes, Nycol Vinette et Stéphanie Carrière, pour leur contribution inestimable à l’organisme durant les deux premières années d’opérations, le Centre Culturel Le Chenail pour l’accueil dans leur magnifique centre, la pâtisserie Cakes on St. Philippe pour leur don d'un délicieux gâteau, à notre député M. Francis Drouin de sa présence et de ses mots d'appui envers les arts, la culture et le patrimoine dans Prescott et Russell et aussi, à la Fondation Trillium de l’Ontario, sans qui le projet de la planification stratégique n’aurait pas été possible.
-30- Le Conseil des arts Prescott Russell Arts Council est un organisme à but non-lucratif dont la mission consiste à informer la collectivité des diverses manifestations culturelles, artistiques et patrimoniales de la région, rassembler les acteurs culturels, artistiques et patrimoniaux, accompagner la réalisation d’initiatives rassembleuses, et promouvoir les arts, la culture et le patrimoine de Prescott et Russell.
Shanna Steals Directrice générale Conseil des arts Prescott Russell Arts Council (CAPRAC)
Press Release For immediate release
CAPRAC’s 2016 AGM and New Strategic Plan Alfred, Friday, May 20, 2016 – The Conseil des arts Prescott Russell Arts Council (CAPRAC) presents the key points of their 2nd Annual General Meeting (AGM), notably their new triennial strategic plan.
On Thursday May 12th, approximately thirty CAPRAC members and members of the community gathered at Le Chenail Cultural Centre for the organization’s second AGM and the unveiling of their new strategic plan. Aside from a few minor technical problems, the meeting was a success. Michel Lalande, who presided over the meeting, presented an overview of the strategic plan and its key points. The evening ended with networking and delectable hors d’oeuvres accompanied by the ambient music of local pianist Gaetan Pilon and surrounded by the dream-like paintings of Le Chenail’s local exhibiting artist, Nathalie Frenière.
Developed by consultation firms, Lalande & Gougeon and Brunet-Sherwood Consultants, CAPRAC’s strategic plan will guide the organization’s activities through to 2018. The triennial plan includes, but is not limited to, revised mission and vision statements, and the establishing of the organization’s core values: collaboration, creativity, ethics, inclusiveness, leadership and service quality. Moving forward, part of CAPRAC’s mandate has been defined and confirmed as being a supporter of project initiatives. The Executive Director and the Board of Directors will create committees to assess projects proposed to them by the community and determine how, and if they can get involved. The organization’s new motto “inform, network, promote’’ precisely identifies CAPRAC’s purpose as an organization that brings together actors from the culture, arts and heritage communities in Prescott and Russell. The strategic directions on which CAPRAC will focus to continue to develop the organization, include member incentives, member services, partnerships and affiliations, as well as marketing and visibility.
Two new directors, Francyn Leblanc from Casselman and Rita Iriarte, from Chute-à-Blondeau, were elected to the Board of Directors. Ronald Handfield, from Hawkesbury, was also re-elected for a second mandate. One seat still remains open.
Finally, CAPRAC would like to give special thanks to their two exiting directors, Nycol Vinette and Stéphanie Carrière, for all the work they have done and the dedication they have shown to the organization during their first two years of operations; to Le Chenail Cultural Centre for having generously offered to host the AGM; to Cakes on St-Philippe for the donation of their delicious cake; to our MP Francis Drouin for his presence and his words of support on the importance of art, culture and heritage in Prescott & Russell, and last but not least, to the Ontario Trillium Foundation, without whom, the development of CAPRAC’s strategic plan would not have been possible. à -30- The Conseil des arts Prescott Russell Arts Council is a not-for-profit corporation whose mission consists in informing the community about the various cultural, artistic and heritage events in the region; bringing together actors from the spheres of culture, arts and heritage, supporting the implementation of unifying initiatives and promoting Prescott and Russell’s arts, culture and heritage.
Shanna Steals Executive Director Conseil des arts Prescott Russell Arts Council (CAPRAC)
May 31, 2016
Council and Administration United Counties of Prescott Russell 59 Court Street L’Original, ON K0B 1K0
Dear Warden, Council and Staff:
Re: Fort McMurray Challenge
On behalf of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, please accept my heartfelt thanks for your municipality’s donation, which will help those who have fled the wildfires of Fort McMurray, as well as those of emergency services, civic employees and volunteers assisting in the multitude of efforts to tackle this situation. Your generosity and those of other AMO members will make a difference in the lives of the Fort McMurray Community. AMO particularly appreciates the additional efforts of the Council and Administration in challenging your neighbours to donate to the fund.
Thanks to the efforts of the United Counties of Prescott Russell and other compassionate Ontario communities, I am pleased to advise that we have raised $105,482.00 to date and donations continue to come in.
Sincerely,
Gary McNamara President
Cc Justin Bromberg, Management and Communications Assistant
200 University Ave. Suite 801 www.amo.on.ca Tel 416. 971.9856 Toll Free in Ontario Toronto, ON, M5H 3C6 [email protected] Fax 416. 971.6191 877.426.6527
Corporate Services Department City Clerk Services
File: F-4200
May 31, 2016
Delivered By E-Mail ([email protected])
Justin Bromberg Communications and Policy Coordinator United Counties of Prescott and Russell
Re: Association of Municipalities of Ontario Requesting Financial Support for the Fort McMurray Disaster
This is in response to your correspondence of May 25, 2016 concerning the above matter.
Oshawa City Council considered the above matter at its meeting on May 24, 2016 and adopted the following resolution:
“Whereas Fort McMurray, Alberta and surrounding areas have been devastated by major wildfires and the community is in dire need of support; and,
Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has urged all its members to offer our collective support to the community; and,
Whereas the Federal Government has pledged to match any funds donated to assist in the Fort McMurray Disaster; and,
Whereas it is appropriate and there is a desire that Oshawa offers our support to assist the Fort McMurray community and surrounding areas;
Therefore, the City of Oshawa donate $5,000.00 through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and that the funds be taken from the Corporate Contingency Account.”
If you need further assistance please contact me at the address listed below or by telephone at 905-436-3311.
Sandra Kranc City Clerk /kb
The Corporation of the City of Oshawa, 50 Centre Street South, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 3Z7 Phone 905∙436∙3311 1∙800∙667∙4292 Fax 905∙436∙5697 www.oshawa.ca
Avis d’achèvement du rapport d’étude environnementale Route 174 d'Ottawa et chemin du comté 17 de Prescott-Russell Évaluation environnementale de portée générale
Les comtés unis de Prescott et Russell, en partenariat avec la Ville d’Ottawa, ont terminé l’évaluation environnementale (ÉE) de portée générale visant à améliorer la route 174 d’Ottawa, à partir de l’échangeur de l’autoroute 417 jusqu’au chemin Canaan, ainsi que la route 17 du comté de Prescott- Russell, à partir du chemin Canaan jusqu’au chemin Landry (chemin de comté 8).
Cette étude a été planifiée conformément aux exigences de l'annexe « C » de l’évaluation environnementale municipale de portée générale. Le plan recommandé comprend : • l'élargissement de la route 174 d'Ottawa à trois voies dans chaque direction entre l’autoroute 417 et le chemin Trim; • l'élargissement de la route 174 d'Ottawa à deux voies dans chaque direction entre le chemin Trim et le chemin Canaan; • l'élargissement de la route de comté 17 à deux voies dans chaque direction entre le chemin Canaan et le chemin Landry.
Le rapport d’évaluation environnementale (RÉE) a été préparé afin de documenter le processus de planification et de conception et la conception fonctionnelle du plan recommandé. Le RÉE sera soumis à l'examen du public à compter du 2 juin 2016, pour une période de 30 jours, aux endroits suivants pendant leurs heures normales d'ouverture :
Les comtés unis de Prescott et Hôtel de ville de Clarence- Bibliothèque de Clarence- Russell Rockland Rockland 59, rue Court, L’Orignal 1560, rue Laurier, Rockland 1525, ave. du Parc, Clarence- Rockland
Centre du service à la clientèle Centre du service à la Musée de Cumberland de l'hôtel de ville d'Ottawa clientèle d’Orléans 2490, chemin Old Montreal, 110, ave. Laurier O., Ottawa 255, boul. Centrum, Orléans Cumberland
Université Carleton Université d’Ottawa Bibliothèque publique Bibliothèque MacOdrum Pavillon Morisset d’Ottawa, succursale Centrale 1125, promenade Colonel By, 65, voie privée University, 120, rue Metcalfe, Ottawa Ottawa Ottawa
Bibliothèque d’Orléans Bibliothèque de North Bibliothèque de Cumberland 1705, boul. Orléans, Orléans Gloucester 1599, chemin Tenth Line, 2036, chemin Ogilvie, Orléans Gloucester
Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique 103-2430, chemin Don Reid, Ottawa
Le sommaire du RÉE sera également disponible en téléchargement sur www.etuderoute174et17.ca en français et en anglais.
Pendant la période d’examen public, les personnes intéressées sont invitées à lire le RÉE et à fournir des commentaires à l'un des promoteurs ou aux deux d'ici le 4 juillet 2016. Veuillez adresser vos commentaires écrits à :
Marc R. Clermont, P. Eng. Angela Taylor, P. Eng. Valerie McGirr, P. Eng. Directeur des Travaux publics Ingénieure chef de projet Gestionnaire de projet du Comtés unis de Prescott et Direction de la planification des consultant Russell transports AECOM 59, rue Court, C.P. 304 Urbanisme et Gestion de la 302-1150, promenade Morrison L’Orignal (Ontario) K0B 1K0 croissance Ottawa (Ontario) K2H 8S9 Tél. : 613-675-4661, poste Ville d'Ottawa Tél. : 613-820-8282, poste 243 3100 110, ave. Laurier Ouest Courriel : Courriel : MClermont@prescott- Ottawa (Ontario) K1P 1J1 [email protected] russell.on.ca Tél. : 613-580-2424, poste 15210 Courriel : [email protected]
Si vous avez discuté de vos préoccupations avec l’un des promoteurs ou les deux et que vous vous opposez au projet, vous pouvez demander que le ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique ordonne un changement dans l’état du projet et exige une évaluation plus approfondie en vertu d’un processus d’évaluation environnementale individuelle (désigné arrêté de la Partie II). Il faut fournir des raisons à la demande. Il faut envoyer des copies de la demande au :
Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique 77, rue Wellesley Ouest 11e étage, Édifice Ferguson Toronto (Ontario) M7A 2T5 -et- Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique Division de la planification environnementale 135, avenue St-Clair Ouest, 1er étage Toronto (Ontario) M4V 1P5
Une copie de la demande doit également être envoyée aux comtés unis de Prescott et Russell ou à la Ville d’Ottawa. Si aucune demande n’a été reçue d'ici le 4 juillet 2016, les comtés unis et la Ville pourront entreprendre la conception et la construction comme le prévoit le RÉE.
Conformément à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information municipale et la protection de la vie privée (LAIMPVP), les renseignements personnels compris dans une soumission présentée à la Ville d’Ottawa ou aux comtés unis ne seront pas divulgués à des tiers sans le consentement préalable de la personne à laquelle les renseignements se rapportent, sauf lorsque la LAIMPVP autorise la divulgation ou lorsque toute autre loi applicable exige que la Ville ou les comtés unis divulguent les renseignements personnels.
Les documents transmis directement au ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique sont assujettis à la Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée et à la Loi sur les évaluations environnementales. À moins de mention contraire dans la soumission, tous les renseignements personnels – nom, adresse, numéro de téléphone, emplacement de la propriété – compris dans la soumission feront partie du domaine public et pourront être divulgués à quiconque le demande.
Avis publié pour la première fois le 2 juin 2016.
Notice of Completion of Environmental Study Report Ottawa Road 174 / Prescott-Russell County Road 17 Class Environmental Assessment
The United Counties of Prescott and Russell in partnership with the City of Ottawa have completed the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study for improvements to Ottawa Road 174 from the Highway 417 Interchange to Canaan Road and improvements to Prescott-Russell County Road 17 from Canaan Road to Landry Road (County Road 8).
This Study was planned under Schedule C project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. The Recommended Plan includes: • widening OR 174 to 3 lanes in each direction between Highway 417 and Trim Road; • widening OR 174 to 2 lanes in each direction between Trim Road and Canaan Road; • widening CR 17 to 2 lanes in each direction between Canaan Road and Landry Road;
The Environmental Study Report (ESR) has been prepared to document the planning and design process and the functional design of the recommended plan. The ESR is available for public review at the following locations during regular business hours for a period of 30 calendar days, starting on Thursday June 2, 2016.
The United Counties of Prescott-Russell Clarence-Rockland Town Hall Clarence-Rockland Library 59 Court St., L’Orignal 1560 Laurier St., Rockland 1525 Du Parc Ave., Clarence-Rockland
Ottawa City Hall Client Service Centre Orléans Client Service Centre Cumberland Museum 110 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa 255 Centrum Blvd., Orléans 2490 Old Montreal Rd., Cumberland
Carleton University Ottawa University Main Public Library MacOdrum Library Morisset Hall 120 Metcalfe St., Ottawa 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa 65 University Pvt., Ottawa
Orléans Library North Gloucester Library Cumberland Library 1705 Orléans Blvd., Orléans 2036 Ogilvie Rd., Gloucester 1599 Tenth Line Rd., Orléans
Ministry of Environment and Climate Change 103-2430 Don Reid Dr., Ottawa
The Executive Summary of the ESR will also be available for download at www.hwy174and17study.ca in both French and English.
During the public review period, interested persons are encouraged to read the ESR and provide comments to one or both of the co-proponents by July 4, 2016. Please direct written comments to:
Marc R. Clermont, P. Eng. Angela Taylor, P Eng. Valerie McGirr, P. Eng. Director of Public Works Senior Project Engineer Consultant Project Manager United Counties of Prescott and Russell Transportation Planning Branch AECOM 59 Court St., P.O. Box 304 Planning & Growth Management 302-1150 Morrison Dr. L’Orignal, Ontario K0B 1K0 City of Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario K2H 8S9 Phone: 613-675-4661 ext. 3100 110 Laurier Ave. West Phone: 613-820-8282 ext. 243 E-mail: MClermont@prescott- Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1 E-mail: [email protected] russell.on.ca Phone: 613-580-2424 ext. 15210 E-mail: [email protected]
If you have discussed your issues with one or both of the co-proponents and you object to the project, you may request that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change order a change in the project status and require a higher level of assessment under an individual Environmental Assessment process (referred to as a Part II Order). Reasons must be provided for the request. Copies of the request must be sent to:
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change 77 Wellesley Street West 11th Floor, Ferguson Block Toronto, ON M7A 2T5 -and- Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Environmental Approvals Branch 135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor Toronto, ON M4V 1P5
A copy of the request must also be sent to the United Counties of Prescott and Russell and/or the City of Ottawa. If there are no requests received by July 4, 2016, the United Counties and the City may proceed to design and construction as presented in the ESR.
Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), personal information included in a submission to the City of Ottawa and/or the United Counties will not be disclosed to any third parties without having obtained the prior consent of the person to whom the information pertains, except when MFIPPA permits disclosure or other applicable law requires that the City/United Counties disclose the personal information.
Direct submissions to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change are subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. Unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in a submission will become part of the public record for this matter and will be released, if requested, to any person.
This Notice was first published on June 2, 2016.
NOUVELLES ministère des Transports
Ontario va de l'avant avec l'élargissement de la route de comté 17 Le projet fait partie de l’investissement de 2,1 G$ pour la construction de routes et de ponts partout en Ontario 16 juin 2016 13h00
L'Ontario investit 40 millions de dollars pour élargir la route de comté 17, ce qui permettra de créer des emplois, de contribuer à réduire la congestion routière et de raccourcir les temps de navettage.
Le projet comprendra l'élargissement sur neuf kilomètres de la route de comté 17, entre Canaan Road et Landry Road, dans le comté de Prescott-Russell. Une évaluation environnementale menée par les Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell devrait être terminée à l'automne. La construction devrait commencer en 2019.
L'Ontario investit 2,1 milliards de dollars en projets de construction de routes et de ponts cette année, et crée ou maintient environ 21 000 emplois.
L'élargissement de la route de comté 17 fait partie du plus grand investissement dans l'infrastructure de l'histoire de l'Ontario -- environ 160 milliards de dollars sur 12 ans. Cette initiative soutient 110 000 emplois chaque année dans toute la province, avec des projets tels que des routes, des ponts, des systèmes de transport en commun, des écoles et des hôpitaux. En 2015, la province a annoncé son soutien pour plus de 325 projets qui maintiendront en mouvement les personnes et les marchandises, relieront les collectivités et amélioreront la qualité de vie.
L'amélioration de l'infrastructure autoroutière s'inscrit dans le plan du gouvernement qui vise à favoriser l'essor de l'Ontario et à concrétiser sa principale priorité, à savoir stimuler l'économie et créer de nouveaux emplois. Ce plan en quatre volets consiste à investir dans les talents et les compétences, tout en aidant plus de gens à obtenir et à créer les emplois de l'avenir en élargissant l'accès à des études collégiales et universitaires de haute qualité. De plus, le plan fait le plus important investissement dans l'infrastructure publique de l'histoire de l'Ontario et investit dans une économie sobre en carbone guidée par des entreprises innovatrices, à forte croissance et axées sur l'exportation. Enfin, le plan aide la population ontarienne active à bénéficier d'une retraite plus sûre.
CITATIONS « L’élargissement de la route de comté 17 est un excellent exemple des nombreux projets d’ infrastructure publique dans lesquels notre gouvernement investit. Ce projet permettra de créer des emplois et des possibilités pour les résidents et les entreprises qui vivent et travaillent dans la région. Ce projet est la preuve de l’engagement de notre gouvernement à améliorer les déplacements quotidiens et la qualité de vie pour les résidents de l’Ontario. » - Steven Del Duca ministre des Transports
« Nous sommes ravis d’aller de l’avant avec l’élargissement de la route de comté 17. Les investissements comme celui-ci gardent les routes et les ponts de l’Ontario en bon état, réduisent la congestion, améliorent la sécurité et soutiennent l’économie. » - Grant Crack député provincial de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
FAITS EN BREF
• Depuis 2003, l’Ontario a engagé 142,1 millions de dollars pour des projets d’infrastructure routière dans les Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell. • L’Ontario compte 16 900 km de routes et 2800 ponts.
POUR EN SAVOIR DAVANTAGE
• Construire ensemble • Ontario 511 - Services d'information aux voyageurs
Patrick Searle Bureau du ministre Disponible en ligne [email protected] Available in English Bob Nichols Direction des communications 416-327-1158
NEWS Ministry of Transportation
Ontario Moving Forward on Widening County Road 17 Project Part of $2.1 Billion in Road and Bridge Construction Across Ontario June 16, 2016 1:00 P.M.
Ontario is investing $40 million to expand County Road 17, which will create jobs, help ease congestion and shorten commute times.
The project will include widening nine kilometres of County Road 17 between Canaan Road to Landry Road in Prescott-Russell. An environmental assessment led by the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, is expected to be completed in the fall. Construction is expected to start in 2019.
Ontario is investing more than $2.1 billion in road and bridge construction projects this year, creating or sustaining more than 21,000 jobs.
Widening County Road 17 is part of the largest infrastructure investment in Ontario's history -- about $160 billion over 12 years, which is supporting 110,000 jobs every year across the province, with projects such as roads, bridges, transit systems, schools and hospitals. In 2015, the province announced support for more than 325 projects that will keep people and goods moving, connect communities and improve quality of life.
Improving highway infrastructure is part of the government's economic plan to build Ontario up and deliver on its number-one priority to grow the economy and create jobs. The four-part plan includes investing in talent and skills, including helping more people get and create the jobs of the future by expanding access to high-quality college and university education. The plan is making the largest investment in public infrastructure in Ontario's history and investing in a low- carbon economy driven by innovative, high-growth, export-oriented businesses. The plan is also helping working Ontarians achieve a more secure retirement.
QUOTES " Widening County Road 17 is a great example of the many public infrastructure projects our government is investing in. This project will create jobs and opportunities for residents and businesses living and working in the region. It is further proof of our government’s commitment to making the daily commute and quality of life better for Ontario families." - Steven Del Duca Minister of Transportation
" We are excited to be moving forward with widening of County Road 17. Investments like this keep Ontario highways and bridges in good repair, reduce congestion, improve safety and support the economy. " - Grant Crack MPP for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
QUICK FACTS
• Since 2003, Ontario has committed $142.1 million for highway infrastructure projects in the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. • Ontario has 16,900 kilometres of highway and 2,800 bridges.
LEARN MORE
• Building Together • Traveller's Road Information Portal (TRIP)
Patrick Searle Minister’s Office Available Online [email protected] Disponible en Français Bob Nichols Communications Branch 416-327-1158
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH - WEST OXFORD
R. R. # 1, Mount Elgin, On. N0J 1N0 312915 Dereham Line Phone: (519) 877-2702; (519) 485-0477; Fax: (519) 485-2932
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Rural Ontario Municipal Association Attn: Chairperson Ronald Holdman 200 University Avenue Suite 801 Toronto, ON M5H 3C6
Dear Board of Directors:
The Council of the Township of South-West Oxford duly moved and carried the following resolution at the regular council meeting held on May 17, 2016:
Resolved that staff be directed to write a letter to ROMA indicating the Township’s opposition to the division of the Conferences and that this be sent to all municipalities in Ontario, AMO and Oxford MPP Ernie Hardeman.
Council has expressed concern that two separate conferences…only weeks apart…will have a negative impact on resources without a significant improvement in results. Provincial Ministers and support staff, Members of Provincial Parliament, Council members, municipal staff, vendors as well those sponsoring the conferences will see a doubling of costs as there is now an expectation to appear at two separate events.
The previous partnership provided diversity of content while streamlining costs between two important groups. Council does not see what efficiencies are to be gained by splitting the conferences. There has always been the opportunity to address Rural Ontario issues at the combined conference. It is questionable whether a separate conference will offer rural municipalities a clearer voice when dealing with the Province or other agencies or provide better educational opportunities to members. Diversity in a conference offers a great deal to the participants to bring back to their communities.
Council is hopeful that the ROMA Board of Directors will reconsider and reunite with OGRA for future conferences.
Yours truly,
Mary Ellen Greb, CAO
A leader in the development and delivery of municipal services for the growth & well being of our community
Office of the City Clerk
May 19, 2016
The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A OA2 justin .trudeau@parl .gc .ca
The Honourable Kathleen Wynne Premier of Ontario Legislative Building, Queen's Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 premier@ontario .ca
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Wynne:
RE: Kingston City Council Meeting, May 17, 2016 - New Motion 2
At the regular meeting of Kingston City Council held on May 17, 2016, Council approved the following resolution requesting the Province of Ontario to adopt a similar Building Code Amendment passed by the Province of Quebec:
Whereas an increasing number of motorists are planning to opt for electric vehicles, and many communities are committing to a carbon neutral future; and Whereas the province of Quebec is amending their Building Code to incorporate 220V outputs in all new buildings and major renovations to accommodate charging stations; and Whereas Kingston is committed to reducing greenhouse emissions; Therefore Be It Resolved That the City of Kingston request the Province of Ontario to adopt a similar Building Code Amendment; and That Council direct staff to include language in the Official Plan to encourage builders to accommodate infrastructure that will support ,electric vehicles; and That this motion be shared with the Ontario Premiers Office, the Ontario Opposition Party Leaders, the MOECC Minister, MPP of Kingston & Island's, FCM, AMO, & all Ontario Municipalities with populations greater than 50,000.
The Corporation of the City of Kingston 216 Ontario Street, Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3 Phone: (613) 546-4291 ext. 1247 Fax: (613) 546-5232 [email protected] Kingston City Council Meeting New Motion 2
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
c: rovincial Opposition Leaders: The Honourable Patrick Brown (patrick.brown@pc .ola .org) The Honourable Andrea Horwath (ahorwath-qp@ndp .on .ca) Glen Murray, Minister, Environment & Climate Change (gmurray .mpp@ liberal.ola .org) Sophie Kiwala MPP Kingston and the Islands ([email protected] .org) Federation of Canadian Municipalities (info@fcm .ca) Association of Municipalities of Ontario ([email protected] .ca) All Ontario Municipalities with populations greater than 50,000 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca
May 9, 2016
The Honourable Dr. Jane Philpotts The Honourable Dr. Eric Hoskins Health Canada Ministry of Health and Long Term Care 70 Colombine Driveway 10th Floor, Hepburn Block Tunney’s Pasture 80 Grosvenor Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9 Toronto, ON M7A 2C4
Sent via email: Sent via email: [email protected] [email protected]
RE: Lyme Disease Minute Item 9.3, CL 6-2016, April 28, 2016
Dear Ministers:
Regional Council at its meeting held on April 28, 2016, passed the following resolution:
Whereas the number of cases of ticks positive for Lyme disease is increasing throughout Ontario and specifically in Niagara Region;
Whereas the laboratory testing for and diagnosis of Lyme disease is sub-optimal; and
Whereas there are chronic sufferers of long term consequences of this disease.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That Niagara Region REQUEST the Province of Ontario to increase funding for research aimed to enhance the testing for Lyme disease;
2. That Niagara Region REQUEST the Government of Canada to increase funding for research aimed to enhance the testing for Lyme disease and determine better treatment for long term outcomes of Lyme disease;
3. That this resolution BE FORWARDED to all Municipalities in Ontario for their endorsement; and
4. That this resolution BE FORWARDED to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Health and local Members of Provincial Parliament.
…/2 The Hon. Dr. J. Philpotts and The Hon. Dr. E. Hoskins Lyme Disease May 9, 2016 Page 2
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Ralph Walton Regional Clerk cc: The Honourable K. Wynne, Premier of Ontario Sent via email: [email protected] W. Gates, MPP (Niagara Falls) Sent via email: [email protected] The Honourable R. Nicholson, MP (Niagara Falls) Sent via email: [email protected] T. Hudak, MPP (Niagara West) Sent via email: [email protected] D. Allison, MP (Niagara West) Sent via email: [email protected] The Honourable J. Bradley, MPP (St. Catharines) Sent via email: [email protected] C. Bittle, MP (St. Catharines) Sent via email: [email protected] C. Forster, MPP (Welland) Sent via email: [email protected] V. Badawey, MP (Niagara Centre) Sent via email: [email protected] All Ontario Municipalities Sent via email
Li L1 Nature
Li
CARRlED.
Declaration
THAT
for
THAT
of
RECORDED
Ontario, of
of
aimed
Seconded
BE Niagara
BE
Moved
Councillor
Councillor
Councillor
Mayor
Deputy
the
Canada
Ontario
Abstained
Vacated
Disclosed
the
IT
IT
vaccines
this
the
FURTHER
RESOLVED
to
control
of
By:
Malanka
the
Region
Mayor
eradicate
interest:
Municipality
His/Her/Their
and
resolution
provide
______
of
His/Her/Their Wynands
from
Conklin
Buckler
Minister
VOTE:
pecuniary of
—
the
developed
Elliott
discussion
at
Lyme
RESOLVED
)
Government
their
funding
Lyme
THAT
of
be
TOWNSHIP
Mayor
Seat
ncy-S,
of
disease
Interest
Health
April
forwarded
interest
Augusta
disease
&
Council
in
or
did
the 28,
increased
not
and
THAT
in
of
by:______
2016
United
vote
carrying
humans
requests
L Canada supports
to
Ontario
all
on
the
meeting
the
funding
States
Municipalities
Municipality
ticks
and
OF
provide
MPPs.
question
the
the
DEFEATED______FOR —
—
or
and;
Province
Lyme
and;
for
AUGUSTA
to
increased
research
develop
disease
of
Date:
in
Augusta
of
Ontario,
Ontario
a
aimed
Resolution
funding
resolution
new
AGAINST
request
the and —
— —
Canadian
to
Mayor
Premier for
test
the
passed
No
research
the
the
May
Government
Province
vaccine
of
efficacy
24,
by
6-052
the 2016
June 6, 2016 VIA EMAIL
The Honourable Kathleen O. Wynne Premier of Ontario Queen’s Park, Rm. 281 Main Legislative Building Toronto, ON M7A 1A1
Dear Premier Wynne,
Please be advised that at its meeting held on May 24th, 2016, Amherstburg Town Council passed the following motion:
Resolution # 20160524-237 - That Council SUPPORT the Town of Shelburne’s resolution regarding cutbacks to behavioral therapy for children affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Regards,
Tammy Fowkes Deputy Clerk
cc: Hon. Tracy MacCharles - Minister of Children and Youth Services Alexander Bezzina – Deputy Minister Hon. Eric Hoskins – Minister of Health Taras Natyshak – MPP, Essex Tracey Ramsey - MP, Essex Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Ontario Municipalities
Attached: Town of Shelburne’s letter re: Cutbacks to Behavioral Therapy
Website: www.amherstburg.ca 271 SANDWICH ST. SOUTH, AMHERSTBURG, ONTARIO N9V 2A5 Phone: (519) 736-0012 Fax: (519) 736-5403 TTY: (519)736-9860
The Corporation of the Separate Town of Gananoque
MOTION I RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL
DATE: June 7, 2016 MOTION NO. 2016 - I:SO
MOVED BY:
SECONDED BY:
Be it resolved that the Council of the Town of Gananoque hereby support the resolution passed by the City of Timmins and encourage the Government of Ontario to regulate fuel prices to the levels that are affordable and profitable as in jurisdictions within Ontario that have lower fuel prices.
Carried: Defeated: Tabled I Deferred:
Mayor, Erika Demchuk
MAs. 246- When a recorded vote is requested, the Clerk will call for each Councillors vote (Yea or Nay), mark the recorded vote as indicated by the member, and announce whether the motion is carried or defeated. The Mayor will then sign the motion.
RECORDED VOTE: Yea Nay Fletcher D Warren A. Jansen J. Girling J. Hayes J. Brooks B. Demchuk E TOTALS
Page 1 of 1
COMTÉS UNIS DE / UNITED COUNTIES OF
PRESCOTT-RUSSELL
R É S O L U T I O N / R E S O L U T I O N
Date: 22 juin / June22h 2016 Item no.: 8.2
Sujet / Subject: Adoption de la liste des salaires et des comptes payés / Adoption of the Salaries and Accounts Paid
Proposé par / Moved by: ______
Appuyé de / Seconded by: ______
Qu’il soit résolu que le Conseil ratifie les listes Be it resolved that Council approve the salaries des salaires et des comptes payés suivants : and accounts paid as follows:
1) Salaires du mois de mai 2016 au 1) Total salaries of $1,978,692.82 for May montant de 1 978 692,82 $; 2016;
2) Comptes du mois de mai 2016, pages 1 2) Accounts for May 2016, pages 1 to 13, à 13, numéros 1 à 304 au montant de items 1 to 304 for a total of 1 340 574,66 $. $1,340,574.66.
Adoptée / Adopted Vote enregistré demandé par / Recorded vote requested by:
Défaite / Defeated Initiales du secrétaire / Clerk’s initials:
COMTÉS UNIS DE / UNITED COUNTIES OF
PRESCOTT ET/AND RUSSELL
RAPPORT DU DÉPARTEMENT DES FINANCES / REPORT OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
RÉVISIONS BUDGÉTAIRES 2016 / 2016 BUDGET REVISIONS
RAPPORT / REPORT NO.: F-008/2016 DATE: 22 juin 2016 / June 22, 2016
APPROUVÉ / APPROVED:
Stéphane P. Parisien Directeur général / Chief Administrative Officer
NOTRE VISION / OUR VISION Prescott et Russell continuera d’être une communauté unie par ses traditions et ses cultures, en marche vers la prospérité de tous ses citoyens.
Prescott and Russell will continue to be a community united by its traditions and cultures, working towards prosperity of all its citizens.
SUJET SUBJECT Révisions budgétaires 2016 2016 Budget Revisions
PRÉAMBULE PREAMBLE Une révision budgétaire est requise et A budget revision is necessary and requires nécessite l’approbation du Conseil. approval by Council.
BUT PURPOSE Ce document a pour but de présenter au The purpose of this document is to present Conseil les révisions budgétaires requises to Council the required budget revisions for pour l’ensemble des départements et pour le all departments and Council for 2016 and to Conseil pour l’année budgétaire 2016 et de submit a recommendation to Council for its soumettre une recommandation au Conseil adoption. pour son adoption.
CHANGEMENTS PROPOSÉS SUGGESTED CHANGES Suite aux modifications apportées par les Following changes made by the various divers départements, et/ou membres du departments and/or Council Members, we Conseil, nous avons préparé un sommaire have prepared a summary of the required des révisions budgétaires requis pour budget revisions for 2016. None of the l’année 2016. Ces changements n’affectent changes affect the local municipalities’ levy pas la réquisition aux municipalités locales and tax rates as approved by By-law 2016- ainsi que les taux de taxes tel qu’approuvés 10. Some changes affect some reserves or par le règlement 2016-10. Certains reserve funds, current year surplus (or changements affectent certaines réserves deficit) on accrual basis, and some income ou fonds de réserve, le surplus (ou déficit) de or expense accounts. The majority of the l’année courante sur une base d’exercice, changes are related to new information ainsi que certains comptes de dépenses ou received since the beginning of the year or de revenus. La majorité des changements for projects that were not finished in 2015. sont reliés à de nouvelles informations reçues depuis le début de l’année ou à des projets non terminés de 2015.
IMPACT IMPACT L’adoption des révisions budgétaires The adoption of the budget revisions will facilitera le suivi budgétaire pour l’ensemble facilitate budgetary control for all de nos départements. departments.
RECOMMANDATION RECOMMENDATION Je recommande au Conseil d’adopter les I recommend that Council adopt the 2016 révisions budgétaires 2016 telles que budget revisions as presented and the 2016 présentées et par le fait même le budget revised budget. révisé 2016.
Julie Ménard-Brault, CPA, CA Trésorière / Treasurer
Budget approuvé Budget révisé Révisions proposées Commentaires / Comments 2016 2016 Proposed Revisions Approved Budget Revised Budget Dépenses / Expenditures 000 General 6417-0-00-000-0 Property Assessment 0 1,263,000 1,263,000 Redistribution des dépenses reliées aux taxes municipales 6419-0-00-000-0 Professional Fees - Others 0 80,000 80,000 Redistribution des dépenses reliées aux taxes municipales 6650-0-00-000-0 Taxes Written Off 0 325,000 325,000 Redistribution des dépenses reliées aux taxes municipales 6655-0-00-000-0 Tax Rebate for Low Income Persons 0 4,000 4,000 Redistribution des dépenses reliées aux taxes municipales Total 000 General 0 1,672,000 1,672,000 103 Finance 6417-0-00-103-0 Property Assessment 1,263,000 0 (1,263,000) Redistribution des dépenses reliées aux taxes municipales 6419-0-00-103-0 Professional Fees - Others 150,000 70,000 (80,000) Redistribution des dépenses reliées aux taxes municipales 6650-0-00-103-0 Taxes Written Off 325,000 0 (325,000) Redistribution des dépenses reliées aux taxes municipales 6655-0-00-103-0 Tax Rebate for Low Income Persons 4,000 0 (4,000) Redistribution des dépenses reliées aux taxes municipales Total 103 Finance 1,742,000 70,000 (1,672,000) 104 Human Resources 6411-0-00-104-0 Professional Fees - Legal 111,000 119,800 8,800 Restructuration TI 6920-0-00-104-0 Recoveries - Human Resources (233,200) (242,000) (8,800) Restructuration TI Total 104 Human Resources (122,200) (122,200) 0 105 Information Technology 6100-0-00-105-0 Salaries 559,300 603,600 44,300 Restructuration TI 98,300$ Redistribution du surplus de salaires à d'autres projets (54,000$) 6200-0-00-105-0 Benefits 147,500 152,600 5,100 Restructuration TI 6,100$ Redistribution du surplus de bénéfices à d'autres projets (1,000$) 6315-0-00-105-0 Small Equipment 115,000 115,500 500 Projet Filehold annulé (10,000$) Équipement de remplacement 10,500$ 6480-0-00-105-0 Service Agreement 285,500 375,000 89,500 Coupures: Projet Filehold annulé (5,000$) Logiciel Site Improve annulé (10,000$) Solution Vizion Core annulé (2,000$) Ajouts: Renouvellement Checkpoint 25,000$ Support Toshiba 3,500$ Licenses Microsoft EA 43,000$ Divers 35,000$
6920-0-00-105-0 Recoveries- Human Resources Services 0 8,800 8,800 Restructuration TI Total 105 Information Technology 1,107,300 1,255,500 148,200 260 Provincial Offences 6481-0-00-260-0 Service Agreement IT 23,500 0 (23,500) Redistribution des dépenses du 6481 au 6482 6482-0-00-260-0 ICON Charges 0 23,500 23,500 Redistribution des dépenses du 6481 au 6482 Total 260 Provincial Offences 23,500 23,500 0
1 Budget approuvé Budget révisé Révisions proposées Commentaires / Comments 2016 2016 Proposed Revisions Approved Budget Revised Budget 311 PW - Administration 6301-0-00-311-0 Materials and Supplies purchased for other 0 42,500 42,500 Redistribution des dépenses pour le pont de Casselman (16B02) de l'immobilisation à l'opération municipalities 6419-0-00-311-0 Professional Fees - Others 200,000 600,000 400,000 Augmentation des dépenses et revenus pour l'étude environnementale du CC17 6935-0-00-311-0 Recoveries - Public Works 0 (35,000) (35,000) Recouvrement pour le transport de gravier à la Forêt Larose Total 311 PW - Administration 200,000 607,500 407,500 320 PW - Buildings 6470-4-00-320-0 Repairs & Maintenance - Cassburn 35,000 28,000 (7,000) Redistribution des réparations de garages à l'immobilisation 6470-5-00-320-0 Repairs & Maintenance - Plantagenet 35,000 30,000 (5,000) Redistribution des réparations de garages à l'immobilisation 6470-6-00-320-0 Repairs & Maintenance - Embrun 35,000 31,000 (4,000) Redistribution des réparations de garages à l'immobilisation Total 320 PW - Buildings 105,000 89,000 (16,000) 341 PW - Maintenance-Bridges & Culverts 6491-0-00-341-0 Services and Rents 50,000 92,500 42,500 Redistribution des dépenses pour le pont de Casselman (16B02) de l'immobilisation à l'opération
Total 341 PW - Maintenance-Bridges & Culverts 50,000 92,500 42,500 541 Ambulance - Administration 6419-0-00-541-0 Professional Fees - Others 27,500 63,000 35,500 Projet de Transport communautaire Total 541 Ambulance - Administration 27,500 63,000 35,500 621 Residence-Nursing 6100-0-01-621-0 Salaries-Nursing-Rai-Upp 73,000 81,300 8,300 Augmentation RAI (.20 ETP) 6100-0-09-621-0 Salaries-Nursing-Assistant Director-Mos 0 39,800 39,800 Poste de Directrice adjointe des soins infirmiers à partir du 1er juillet 6100-0-39-621-0 Salaries-Nursing-Coordinator-Upp 128,700 71,300 (57,400) Réduction Coordonatrice (.60 ETP) 6100-0-41-621-0 Salaries-Nursing-Rpn-Upp 1,284,100 1,133,200 (150,900) Réduction IAA (2.8 ETP) 6200-0-01-621-0 Benefits-Nursing-Rai-Upp 19,000 21,200 2,200 Augmentation RAI (.20 ETP) 6200-0-09-621-0 Benefits-Nursing-Assistant Director-Mos 0 14,200 14,200 Poste de Directrice adjointe des soins infirmiers à partir du 1er juillet 6200-0-39-621-0 Benefits-Nursing-Coordinator-Upp 34,400 19,100 (15,300) Réduction Coordonatrice (.60 ETP) 6200-0-41-621-0 Benefits-Nursing-Rpn-Upp 351,700 310,400 (41,300) Réduction IAA (2.8 ETP) 6920-0-00-621-0 Recoveries-Human-Resources-Services 0 72,200 72,200 Redistribution des dépenses de la CSPAAT à chaque service Total 621 Residence-Nursing 1,890,900 1,762,700 (128,200) 624 Residence-Housekeeping Service 6920-0-00-624-0 Recoveries-Human-Resources-Services 0 2,800 2,800 Redistribution des dépenses de la CSPAAT à chaque service Total 624 Residence-Housekeeping Service 0 2,800 2,800 625 Residence-Building & Property 4714-0-01-625-0 Transfer to Reserve Fund 0 200,400 200,400 Transfert des économies au fonds réserve de la Résidence 6470-0-00-625-0 Repairs-&-Maintenance 342,200 575,200 233,000 Projet de rénovations majeures débuté en 2015. Financé par fonds réserve. Total 625 Residence-Building & Property 342,200 775,600 433,400 627 Residence-Laundry & Linen Service 6920-0-00-627-0 Recoveries-Human-Resources-Services 0 18,400 18,400 Redistribution des dépenses de la CSPAAT à chaque service Total 627 Residence-Laundry & Linen Service 0 18,400 18,400
2 Budget approuvé Budget révisé Révisions proposées Commentaires / Comments 2016 2016 Proposed Revisions Approved Budget Revised Budget 628 Residence-Administration 6920-0-00-628-0 Recoveries-Human-Resources-Services 194,800 101,400 (93,400) Redistribution des dépenses de la CSPAAT à chaque service Total 628 Residence-Administration 194,800 101,400 (93,400) 653 Private Home Day Care 6880-0-06-653-0 Wage Enhancement 0 207,300 207,300 Augmentation, selon le ministère, sur le programme augmentation salariale Total 653 Private Home Day Care 0 207,300 207,300 655 Daycare Centre 6880-0-01-655-0 Fee Subsidy - Regular - Non Profit 2,000,000 2,034,800 34,800 Transfert du programme de réaménagement des immobilisations et des fonds de transformation
6880-0-06-655-0 Wage Enhancement 608,200 1,081,200 473,000 Augmentation, selon le ministère, sur le programme augmentation salariale 6880-0-10-655-0 Retrofits 46,300 11,600 (34,700) Diminution de l'allocation du ministère, transférée aux places subventionnées 6880-0-12-655-0 Transformation Funds 31,600 31,500 (100) Diminution de l'allocation du ministère, transférée aux places subventionnées Total 655 Daycare Centre 2,686,100 3,159,100 473,000 771 Housing Services-Investment Affordable Housing 6494-0-88-771-0 Rental Housing 0 650,000 650,000 Redistribution des dépenses reliées au programme Rental Housing
6494-0-89-771-0 Homeownership 550,000 80,000 (470,000) Redistribution des dépenses reliées au programme Rental Housing (500,000$) Utilisation d'une partie du Fonds renouvelable pour le programme Accès à la propriété 30,000$
Total 771 Housing Services-Investment Affordable Housing 550,000 730,000 180,000 921 Economic Development 6419-0-00-921-0 Professional Fees - Others 110,000 91,500 (18,500) Diminution des dépenses pour le projet de développement économique (8,500$) Diminution des dépenses pour le projet de développement touristique (10,000$) 6423-0-00-921-0 Publicity 127,000 117,000 (10,000) Diminution des dépenses pour le projet de développement de produits touristiques (10,000$) 6880-0-00-921-0 Grants to Organizations 258,000 293,000 35,000 Projet plastic de ferme (Convex) Total 921 Economic Development 495,000 501,500 6,500 926 Industrial Park 6419-0-00-926-0 Professional Fees - Others 100,000 0 (100,000) Projet du Parc Industriel annulé Total 926 Industrial Park 100,000 0 (100,000) 941 Larose Forest - Administration 6419-0-00-941-0 Professional Fees - Others 33,000 68,000 35,000 Plan d'aménagement de 5 ans pour nouveaux sentiers pédestres et vélo dans la forêt
Total 941 Larose Forest - Administration 33,000 68,000 35,000 945 Larose Forest - Forestery 6419-0-00-945-0 Professional Fees - Others 67,000 77,000 10,000 Frais de nettoyage avec rasoir. Financé par fonds réserve. 6935-0-00-945-0 Recoveries - Public Work Services 0 35,000 35,000 Total 945 Larose Forest - Forestery 67,000 112,000 45,000 Total Dépenses / Expenditures 9,492,100 11,189,600 1,697,500
3 Budget approuvé Budget révisé Révisions proposées Commentaires / Comments 2016 2016 Proposed Revisions Approved Budget Revised Budget Revenus / Revenues 000 General 5110-0-00-000-0 Requisition on local municipalities (38,356,400) (39,154,100) (797,700) Réquisition locale - impact du 1% d'augmentation. Rapport au Conseil F-005/2016. 5120-0-00-000-0 Payment in lieu of taxes (215,600) (227,900) (12,300) Réquisition locale - impact du 1% d'augmentation. Rapport au Conseil F-005/2016. 5150-0-00-000-0 Growth/Loss Property (975,000) 0 975,000 Réquisition locale - impact du 1% d'augmentation. Rapport au Conseil F-005/2016. Total 000 General (39,547,000) (39,382,000) 165,000 102 Administration 4663-0-00-102-0 Transfer from Reserve (610,000) (185,300) 424,700 Réquisition locale - impact du 1% d'augmentation. Rapport au Conseil F-005/2016. 165,000$ Financement du module Capital du logiciel de budget 20,300$ Financement du parc Industriel annulé (610,000$)
Total 102 Administration (610,000) (185,300) 424,700 104 Human Resources 4664-0-00-104-0 Transfer from Reserve Funds 0 (113,200) (113,200) Restructuration département TI Total 104 Human Resources 0 (113,200) (113,200) 105 Information Technology 4663-0-00-105-0 Transfer from Reserve (48,500) (135,000) (86,500) Financement du module RH du logiciel de budget 16,200$ Financement du site Internet 25,300$ Financement de projets divers 45,000$ 5400-0-00-105-0 Contributions from other municipalities (110,000) (100,000) 10,000 Réduction des revenus des municipalités Total 105 Information Technology (158,500) (235,000) (76,500) 310 PW - General 5400-0-00-310-0 Contributions from municipalities 0 (42,500) (42,500) Redistribution des revenus pour le pont de Casselman (16B02) de l'immobilisation à l'opération
Total 310 PW - General 0 (42,500) (42,500) 382 PW - Capital Expenditures-Roads 5340-0-00-382-0 Provincial Grant - Construction (150,000) (550,000) (400,000) Augmentation des dépenses et revenus pour l'étude environnementale du CC17 5900-0-00-382-0 Provincial Grant - Construction (158,800) (198,800) (40,000) Subvention OMCIP reliée au projet 16R01 Total 382 PW - Capital Expenditures-Roads (308,800) (748,800) (440,000) 541 Ambulance - Administration 4663-0-00-541-0 Transfer from Reserve (694,900) (530,900) 164,000 Financement pour la perte de revenus Cross Border 118,700$ Redistribution du revenu de réserve relié au bâtiment à Bourget au 542 (282,700$) 5340-0-00-541-0 Provincial Grant (6,624,700) (6,660,200) (35,500) Projet de transport communautaire 5400-0-00-541-0 Surrounding Counties/Regional Municipality (118,700) 0 118,700 Perte des revenus Cross Border Total 541 Ambulance - Administration (7,438,300) (7,191,100) 247,200 542 Ambulance - Station 4663-0-00-542-0 Transfer from Reserve 0 (282,700) (282,700) Redistribution du revenu de réserve relié au bâtiment à Bourget de 541 au 542 Total 542 Ambulance - Station 0 (282,700) (282,700)
4 Budget approuvé Budget révisé Révisions proposées Commentaires / Comments 2016 2016 Proposed Revisions Approved Budget Revised Budget 625 Residence-Building & Property 4664-0-00-625-0 Transfer from Reserve Fund (204,000) (437,000) (233,000) Financement du projet de rénovations majeures débuté en 2015. Total 625 Residence-Building & Property (204,000) (437,000) (233,000) 650 Child Care Administration 5340-0-02-650-0 Provincial Grant - Administration (551,000) (564,500) (13,500) Redistribution des revenus selon prévisions budgétaires et allocation 2016 Total 650 Child Care Administration (551,000) (564,500) (13,500) 653 Private Home Day Care 5340-0-01-653-0 Provincial Grant (755,600) (804,200) (48,600) Redistribution des revenus selon prévisions budgétaires et allocation 2016 5340-0-05-653-0 Provincial Grant - Wage Enhancement 0 (207,300) (207,300) Augmentation, selon le ministère, sur le programme augmentation salariale Total 653 Private Home Day Care (755,600) (1,011,500) (255,900) 655 Daycare Centre 5340-0-00-655-0 Provincial Grant (3,618,100) (3,543,100) 75,000 Redistribution des revenus entre programmes suite à la prévision budgétaire soumise au ministère
5340-0-02-655-0 Provincial Grant - Capacity Building (37,200) (84,800) (47,600) Redistribution des revenus entre programmes suite à la prévision budgétaire soumise au ministère
5340-0-04-655-0 Provincial Grant - Capital Retrofits (46,300) (11,600) 34,700 Diminution de l'allocation du ministère, transférée aux places subventionnées 5340-0-05-655-0 Provincial Grant - Wage Enhancement (608,200) (1,081,200) (473,000) Augmentation, selon le ministère, sur le programme augmentation salariale Total 655 Daycare Centre (4,309,800) (4,720,700) (410,900) 771 Housing Services-Investment Affordable Housing 5200-0-00-771-0 Federal Grant - PILAO (475,700) (694,600) (218,900) Redistribution des revenus reliés au programme PILAO 200,300$ Utilisation d'une partie du Fonds de roulement pour le programme Accès à la propriété 18,600$ 5200-0-01-771-0 Federal Grant Administration PILAO (21,800) (26,000) (4,200) Redistribution des revenus reliés au programme PILAO 5340-0-00-771-0 Provincial Grant - PILAO (510,900) (472,000) 38,900 Redistribution des revenus reliés au programme PILAO (50,300$) Utilisation d'une partie du Fonds renouvelable pour le programme Accès à la propriété 11,400$ 5340-0-01-771-0 Provincial Grant - Administration PILAO (20,100) (15,900) 4,200 Redistribution des revenus reliés au programme PILAO Total 771 Housing Services-Investment Affordable Housing (1,028,500) (1,208,500) (180,000) 921 Economic Development and Tourism 4663-0-00-921-0 Transfer from Reserve 0 (6,500) (6,500) Financement d'une partie du projet pour le plastic de ferme (Convex) Total 921 Economic Development and Tourism 0 (6,500) (6,500) 943 Larose Forest -Mach. & Equip. 4664-0-00-943-0 Transfer from Reserve Fund (20,700) (31,300) (10,600) Financement pour l'achat d'un VTT pour la patrouille dans la FL Total 943 Larose Forest -Mach. & Equip. (20,700) (31,300) (10,600) 945 Larose Forest - Forestery 4664-0-00-945-0 Transfer from Reserve Fund (148,600) (193,600) (45,000) Financement frais de nettoyage avec rasoir et transport de gravier par la voirie Total 945 Larose Forest - Forestery (148,600) (193,600) (45,000) Total Revenus / Revenues (55,080,800) (56,354,200) (1,273,400)
Immobilisations / Fixed Assets 105 Information Technology
5 Budget approuvé Budget révisé Révisions proposées Commentaires / Comments 2016 2016 Proposed Revisions Approved Budget Revised Budget 8260-0-00-105-2 GG-IT-Wip Equipment & Software 125,000 186,800 61,800 Logiciel de budget - coût pour module RH et Capital 36,500$ Site web 25,300$ Total 105 Information Technology 125,000 186,800 61,800 106 Building Maintenance 8220-0-00-106-2 GG-BM-WIP LandImp 0 40,000 40,000 Embranchement d'égoûts pour le stationnement rue Queen 8240-0-00-106-2 GG-BM-WIP Bldgs 48,000 78,000 30,000 Rénovations majeures au 28 rue Court Total 106 Building Maintenance 48,000 118,000 70,000 320 PW - Buildings 8240-4-00-320-2 PW-CA-WIP Bldgs 150,000 157,000 7,000 Redistribution des réparations de garages à l'immobilisation 8240-5-00-320-2 PW-PL-WIP Bldgs 0 5,000 5,000 Redistribution des réparations de garages à l'immobilisation 8240-6-00-320-2 PW-EM-WIP Bldgs 0 4,000 4,000 Redistribution des réparations de garages à l'immobilisation Total 320 PW - Buildings 150,000 166,000 16,000 381 PW - Capital Expenditures-Bridge & Culvert 8520-0-00-381-2 PW-CB-WIP Bridges 1,570,000 1,712,500 142,500 Augmentation des coûts pour les projets de ponts: 16B01 = 212,500$ 16B02 = 15,000$ Redistribution des dépenses pour le pont de Casselman (16B02) de l'immobilisation à l'opération (85,000$) Total 381 PW - Capital Expenditures-Bridge & Culvert 1,570,000 1,712,500 142,500 382 PW - Capital Expenditures-Roads 8510-0-00-382-2 PW-CR-WIP Roads 5,598,800 5,383,800 (215,000) Redistribution des Services & Rent entre projets: 60,000$ - 16R03 40,000$ - 16R10 85,000$ - 16R15 (100,000$) - 16R05 (70,000$) - 16R09 (200,000$) - 16R13 (20,000$) - 16R12 (10,000$) - 16R04
Total 382 PW - Capital Expenditures-Roads 5,598,800 5,383,800 (215,000) 943 Larose Forest -Mach. & Equip. 8280-0-00-943-2 PD-LV-WIP Vehicles 0 10,600 10,600 Achat d'un VTT pour la patrouille dans la FL. financé par le fonds réserve Total 943 Larose Forest -Mach. & Equip. 0 10,600 10,600 Total Immobilisations / Fixed Assets 7,491,800 7,577,700 85,900
Land held for resale 926 Industrial Park 1520-0-00-926-0 Land held for resale 510,000 0 (510,000) Projet du Parc Industriel annulé Total 926 Industrial Park 510,000 0 (510,000) Total Land held for resale 510,000 (510,000)
6 Budget approuvé Budget révisé Révisions proposées Commentaires / Comments 2016 2016 Proposed Revisions Approved Budget Revised Budget Total des révisions proposées / Total Proposed Revisions (37,586,900) (37,586,900) 0
7 Balance on / 2016 2016 Balance on / Solde au Additions / Use / Solde au Dec 31, 2015 Ajouts Utilisation Dec 31, 2016 RESERVES / RÉSERVES Reserve for Working Capital / Réserve pour fonds de roulement 8,460,821 185,300 8,275,521 Reserve for Administration / Réserve pour l'administration 372,151 50,000 322,151 Reserve for Human Resources - WSIB / Réserve pour ressources humaines - CSPAAT 195,000 45,000 150,000 Reserve for Human Resources / Réserve pour ressources humaines 462,072 462,072 Reserve for Computer System / Réserve pour système informatique 151,918 45,000 135,000 61,918 Reserve for Ambulance Service / Réserve pour service d'ambulance 3,270,920 964,400 1,309,400 2,925,920 Reserve for Housing Services / Réserve pour services de logement 846,907 200,200 646,707 Reserve for Planning / Réserve pour urbanisme 27,942 27,942 Reserve for Economic Development & Tourism / Réserve pour développement économique et touristique 6,446 6,500 (54) Reserve for Child Care Services / Réserve pour les Services de garde 554,936 554,900 36 Reserve for Buildings / Réserve pour bâtiments 232,000 48,000 184,000 Reserve for Cycling Path / Réserve pour le circuit vélo 144,781 144,800 (19)
Total - Reserves / Réserves 14,725,894 1,009,400 2,679,100 13,056,194
RESERVE FUNDS / FONDS DE RÉSERVE Reserve Fund for involuntary departure of employees / Fonds de réserve pour départ involontaire d'employés 996,606 113,200 883,406 Reserve Fund for Machinery and Housing for PW / Fonds de réserve pour machinerie et édifices pour TP 674,363 602,000 994,000 282,363 Reserve Fund for Linear Assets for PW / Fonds de réserve pour actifs linéaires pour TP 2,960,648 2,442,900 517,748 Reserve Fund for Housing Services / Fonds de réserve pour les Services de logement 607,870 607,870 Reserve Fund for Capital Expenditures for PR Residence / Fonds de réserve pour les dépenses en capital pour le Résidence PR 2,478,689 200,400 437,000 2,242,089
Reserve Fund for Larose Forest / Fonds de réserve pour la Forêt Larose 497,387 153,300 438,200 212,487
Total - Reserve Funds / Fonds de Réserve 8,215,563 955,700 4,425,300 4,745,963
Grand Total - Reserves and Reserve Funds / Réserves et fonds de réserve 22,941,457 1,965,100 7,104,400 17,802,157 COMTÉS UNIS DE / UNITED COUNTIES OF PRESCOTT ET/AND RUSSELL
R É S O L U T I O N / R E S O L U T I O N
Date: 22 juin / June 22nd, 2016 Item no. : 8.2
Objet / Subject: Révisions budgétaires 2016 / 2016 Budget Revisions
Proposé par / Moved by:
Appuyé de / Seconded by:
ATTENDU que le rapport numéro F-008/2016 a WHEREAS the purpose of Report Number pour but d’identifier les modifications au budget F-008/2016 is to identify the amendments to the de 2016 ; 2016 budget;
ET ATTENDU que les révisions budgétaires 2016 AND WHEREAS the 2016 budget revisions are se détaillent comme suit : confirmed as follows:
1 273 400$ pour les sorties de fonds $ 1,273,400 for outflows of funds 1 273 400$ pour les entrées de fonds $ 1,273,400 for inflows of funds
ET ATTENDU que les taux de taxes 2016 ainsi AND WHEREAS the 2016 tax rates and the que la réquisition aux municipalités locales municipalities’ levy remain the same as approved demeurent inchangés tel qu’adoptés par le by By-law 2016-10; règlement 2016-10 ;
QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que le règlement 2016-21 BE IT RESOLVED that By-law 2016-21 to adopt visant à adopter les modifications au budget de the amendment to the 2016 budget be adopted 2016 soient ratifiés par le Conseil. by Council.
Adoptée / Adopted Vote enregistré demandé par / Recorded vote requested by: Défaite / Defeated Initiales du Secrétaire / Clerk’s initials:
2016
Asset Management Plan
United Counties of Prescott and Russell 6/1/2016 Preface
This Asset Management Plan is intended to describe the infrastructure owned, operated, and maintained by the United Counties of Prescott-Russell (UCPR) to support its core services. It is a compilation of studies and work undertaken by UCPR in its Asset Management implementation over the past few years. The plan is aligned to the content and format described in the Province of Ontario’s Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans.
This Plan was developed by County staff and a joint effort of the following consultants and partners:
WSCS Consulting Incorporated Roads and Structures: David Anderson, CET, 4 Roads Management Services Inc. Structures: HP Engineering Buildings – Includes Social Housing, Public Works Garages and Emergency Services Buildings - Prepared by ART Engineering Inc.
It is important to note that the plan has been updated and includes the inclusion of building assessments conducted.
This document identifies what has been achieved, what is being done and what needs to be done to ensure core services provided to citizens, business, and institutions attain sustainability. This document provides information regarding the implementation of Asset Management in UCPR which describes the current state of the roads and structures infrastructure with recommendations regarding the next steps to implement a comprehensive approach to asset management across the county. While this document contains some detail, many external documents contain additional levels of detail and are referenced throughout this document.
Page 1 of 59
Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 1.1 REPLACEMENT COST ...... 6 1.2 CURRENT NEED ...... 7 1.3 COST BY TIME OF NEED...... 7 1.4 ROAD SYSTEM SUMMARY ...... 8 1.5 BRIDGES AND CULVERTS SUMMARY ...... 10 1.6 BUILDINGS SUMMARY ...... 11 1.7 FINANCIAL PLANNING ...... 14 2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 16 2.1 GOALS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT ...... 16 2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMP ...... 16 2.3 AMP-RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ...... 16 2.4 REFINEMENT OF THE AMP ...... 16 2.5 CORPORATE ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY ...... 17 3 STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 18 3.1 INTRODUCTION FOR STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 18 3.1.1 Objective ...... 18 3.1.2 Scope ...... 18 3.1.3 Approach ...... 18 3.1.4 Data ...... 18 3.2 ROADS ...... 18 3.2.1 Roads – Inventory – What does UCPR own? ...... 18 3.2.2 Roads – Valuation/Replacement Costs – What is it Worth?...... 19 3.2.3 Roads – Asset condition and remaining service life...... 20 3.3 STRUCTURES ...... 23 3.3.1 Structures – Inventory – What Does UCPR Own? ...... 23 3.3.2 Structures – Valuation/Replacement Costs – What is it worth? ...... 24 3.3.3 Structures – Asset condition and remaining service life ...... 25 3.4 BUILDINGS ...... 30 3.4.1 Buildings – Inventory – What Does UCPR Own? ...... 30 3.4.2 Buildings – Valuation/Replacement Costs – What is it worth? ...... 32 3.4.3 Buildings – Asset condition and remaining service life ...... 33 4 DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE ...... 36 4.1 ROADS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE ...... 37
Page 2 of 59
4.1.1 System Adequacy ...... 37 4.1.2 Physical Condition ...... 38 4.1.3 Good to Very Good ...... 38 4.1.4 Desired Level of Service for Roads ...... 38 4.2 STRUCTURES DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE ...... 38 4.2.1 System Adequacy ...... 38 4.2.2 Structure Condition ...... 38 4.2.3 Desired Level of Service for Structures ...... 39 4.3 BUILDINGS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE ...... 39 4.3.1 Desired Level of Service for Buildings ...... 39 5 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ...... 40 5.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ...... 40 5.2 ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ...... 41 5.2.1 Priority Rating vs. Condition Rating ...... 41 5.2.2 Cross Asset Integration and Project Prioritization ...... 43 5.2.3 Performance Modeling – Budget Effect on System Performance ...... 44 5.2.4 Record of Assumptions – Performance Modeling ...... 45 5.3 STRUCTURES – SPECIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ...... 46 5.3.1 Bridge Deck and Superstructure Lifecycle Maintenance ...... 46 5.3.2 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation - Structures ...... 47 5.3.3 Program Funding Recommendations - Structures ...... 48 5.4 BUILDING – SPECIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ...... 48 5.4.1 Building Lifecycle Maintenance ...... 48 5.4.2 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation - Buildings ...... 48 6 FINANCING STRATEGY ...... 49 6.1 FINANCING STRATEGY - ROADS ...... 49 6.1.1 Capital Depreciation ...... 49 6.1.2 Hot Mix Resurfacing ...... 49 6.1.3 System Performance at Various Budget Levels ...... 50 6.1.4 Roads – How much will it Costs? ...... 52 6.1.5 Recommendations – Long term sustainability...... 53 6.2 FINANCING STRATEGY - STRUCTURES ...... 54 6.2.1 Capital Depreciation ...... 54 6.2.2 Structures – How much will it Costs? ...... 54 6.2.3 Structures – Recommendations – Long term sustainability ...... 55
Page 3 of 59
6.3 FINANCING STRATEGY - BUILDINGS ...... 55 6.3.1 Capital Depreciation ...... 55 6.3.2 Buildings – How much will it Costs? ...... 56 6.3.3 Recommendations – Long term sustainability...... 57 6.4 FINANCING STRATEGY ALL ASSETS ...... 57 6.4.1 10 Year Program ...... 59
Page 4 of 59
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2012, the Province of Ontario, introduced a requirement for an Asset Management Plan (AMP) as a prerequisite for municipalities seeking funding assistance for capital projects from the province; effectively creating a conditional grant. To qualify for future infrastructure grants, an AMP has to be developed and approved by a municipal council.
This Asset Management Plan has been prepared for the road assets, bridge infrastructure assets, social housing and some other building assets owned by the United Counties of Prescott-Russell to provide services to its citizens. Although UCPR desires to include all of its major infrastructure assets in its plan, it has prioritized its linear assets and some building assets at this point.
The Plan is intended to provide a preliminary reference for renewing, operating, maintaining, building, replacing and disposing of UCPR’s road and structure infrastructure assets. As the plan is a living document, it needs to be updated on a regular basis to reflect additional information as well as changing needs. The plan is based on the guidelines provided in the Province of Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure’s Building Together Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans.
This Plan reflects on the current and desired system condition, level of service, optimal asset management and financial strategies based on currently available data and information on the road and bridge assets.
UCPR’s data collection is ongoing and the plan will be updated over time as more Data Utilized data in terms of condition, capacity, The following data and studies were utilized to expansion and risks are available through assess UCPR’s assets in this report: ongoing data collection, modelling and 1. 2015 PSAB 3150 Tangible Capital Asset master planning programs. This report information was commissioned in late 2014 and 2. 2015 Road Inspection data uploaded to WorkTech represents the information available at Asset Manager that time. Additional information was 3. 2015 Bridge Management Study conducted by HP provided for building assessments, roads Engineering and structures which were commissioned 4. 2010-2015 Budget and Actual financial by the County and updated in 2015. information provided by the Finance Department Additional work is required to include all 5. 2014-15 Building Condition Assessment Report of remaining buildings at a later date. Social Housing, Public Works Garages and Emergency Services Buildings undertaken by Art It is important to note that, WSCS did not Engineering Inc. undertake conditions assessments itself and relied upon the inspection information provided by UCPR and the bridge management study mentioned above. There were some data gaps requiring assumptions. These assumptions are detailed in each section of this report. As additional information is gathered, UCPR is encouraged to update this plan and treat it as a living document. It should be noted that most municipalities are in a similar position with respect to asset condition and level of service information.
Page 5 of 59
1.1 REPLACEMENT COST
Table 1 below provides a summary of the quantity of assets included in the AMP and the replacement costs in 2015. Replacement Asset Type Length/quantity Cost
Roads 581.25 kms $387,585,033
Bridges and Culverts 110 structures $125,755,672 (over 3m of span) 83 Buildings, 319 Buildings $75,682,527 Units
Total $589,023,232
Table 1: Replacement costs - 2015
Note for roads: Roads length also includes the total length of all boundary roads which we are responsible for 50% of the cost.
Note for bridges and culverts: The replacement cost includes the full replacement value of boundary road structures however the Counties are only responsible for 50% of those cost. Also note that the Nation Municipality uploaded two (2) structures from the Ste-Catherine Street road transfer, which the replacement cost are not considered since we have not yet obtained current replacement cost values however the length/quantity is considered in the table above for those two (2) structures.
Note for Buildings: Buildings only includes Social Housing, Emergency Services and Public Works Garages. The replacement costs are provided by Art Engineering Inc. and assume that the building elements would be replaced as opposed to the entire building. Therefore, there are some building components that did not include a replacement cost (example: concrete slab on grade costs were not provided as it was assumed it would have a very long life expectancy).
Distribution of Replacement Cost by Asset Type
Buildings 13%
Bridges and Culverts 21% Roads 66%
Figure 1: Percentage of Replacement Costs
Page 6 of 59
1.2 CURRENT NEED
In terms of current needs based upon condition and remaining service life analysis, indicates that UCPR needs to invest $14.4 million “now” to replace key infrastructure. Since the annual capital budget from 2011 to 2015 is determined to be a yearly average of $7.85 million for roads, culverts, bridges and $500,000 for buildings there is an existing infrastructure deficit. However, the financial plan in this report will provide for the long term preservation at current levels of service. This is addressed further in this report.
Percentage Asset Type Current need of Current Need Roads $ 8,546,666 59% Bridges & Culverts $ 5,560,000 39% Buildings $ 318,227 2% Total Needs $ 14,424,893 100% Table 2: Current Needs ($ and Percentage of Need)
1.3 COST BY TIME OF NEED
Table 3 shows the required investments over the next 10 years. Over 10 years indicates the total cost of replacement of the assets. However, with a comprehensive asset management approach as outlined in this plan, the combination of repair and maintenance can reduce the cost of replacement or defer reconstruction. This is explored in this report further.
Cost by Time of Need Asset Type Current need 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years Totals 0-10 Years Roads $8,546,666 $16,132,647 $11,475,844 $36,155,158 Bridges and $5,560,000 $11,996,000 $3,421,000 $20,977,000 Culverts Buildings $318,227 $3,251,373 $4,726,792 $8,296,392 Total Needs $14,424,893 $31,380,020 $19,623,636 $65,428,550 Table 3: Replacement/Repair Costs by Time of Need
In assessing the municipality's state of the infrastructure, we examined and graded, both the current condition and remaining service lives of the asset categories as well as the municipality's financial capacity to fund the asset's average annual requirement for sustainability (Funding vs. Need). UCPR’s infrastructure ranges in condition by asset type in terms of time of need as shown in Figure 2. It is important to note that these numbers are based on condition assessments that have been completed and aged. Updated condition assessments, particularly for some structures, may result in additional requirements. The recommended approach includes a combination of time of need and replacement planning.
Page 7 of 59
Costs and Condition based upton Time of Need by Asset Type
$18,000,000 $16,132,647 $16,000,000
$14,000,000 $11,996,000 $12,000,000 $11,475,844
$10,000,000 $8,546,666 $8,000,000 $5,560,000 $6,000,000 $4,726,792 $4,000,000 $3,421,000 $3,251,373
$2,000,000 $318,227 $0 Roads Bridges and Culverts Buildings
Current Need 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years
Figure 2: Costs and Condition based on Time of Need by Asset Type
1.4 ROAD SYSTEM SUMMARY
The road system appears to be in good condition from a measure of the System Adequacy. However a significant length of the road system appears to have less than 10 years remaining service life.
Approximately 30.5% (177.4 km) of the road system appears to require improvements (R1,R2, PR1 & PR2). If not addressed, the resurfacing needs will become major rehabilitation or reconstruction needs at significantly greater cost.
Based on the current review of the road system, the current system adequacy measure is 94.5 % meaning that, 5.5% of the road system is deficient in the ‘NOW’ time period (Poor condition). The current system adequacy is above the minimum target level that was previously established by MTO when conditional grant funding was provided. Figure 3 shows the remaining service life of the road network.
Page 8 of 59
Remaining Service Life 100 >10 Yrs 90 Zero Remaining 1 to 10 Yrs Remaining 80 Service Life Remaining Service Life 70 Service Life 60 50 40 Length(km) 30 20 10 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Physical Condition
Figure 3: Remaining Service Life
Based on the condition rating of each road section, recommendations are provided in terms of improvement type, cost and time of need. Based on the current unit costs being experienced, the estimated total cost of recommended improvements is $36,155,158. The improvement costs include $8,546,666 for those roads identified as NOW needs and $27,608,491 is for road work required in the '1 to 10' year time period or for maintenance.
Based on the composition of the road system, budget recommendations have been developed for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows:
$7,751,700 for the roads capital/depreciation, excluding resurfacing, based upon a 50-year life cycle. (This would be similar to the PSAB 3150 amortization value using current replacement costs) $5,164,274 for average annual hot mix resurfacing, based upon a 16 (16.3)-year cycle. (This would approximate an average of 34.8 km per year)
For modeling purposes, a funding level described as the ‘Preservation Budget’ was developed. The Preservation Budget is the total of the recommended funding levels for hot mix resurfacing: $5,164,274. The premise being that if the preservation and resurfacing programs are adequately funded then the system should be sustained. The performance modeling is discussed in depth in this report. To clarify, the required funding level to sustain or improve the road system; it is not the total of all of the above recommendations. Sustainable funding has to be between the Preservation Budget and the Capital Depreciation.
The preservation budget and performance model thereof are computer derived. Intangible values and decisions and the effects of other external forces cannot be incorporated into the model. As such the preservation model is the minimum required to maintain the system- in theory. From a more pragmatic perspective and to deal with the real life realities of maintaining a road system, it should be greater. That being said, the yearly budget recommendation for UCPR is $7,200,000.
Page 9 of 59
Municipal pavement management strategies are critical to managing the performance of the road system, more so, if funding is limited. Funding constraints should push the strategy toward those programs that extend the life cycle of the road by providing the correct treatment at the optimum time. Resurfacing, rehabilitation, and preservation projects should be a higher priority than reconstruction projects. The objective is to “keep the good roads good”.
1.5 BRIDGES AND CULVERTS SUMMARY
As mentioned above, this plan is based upon the condition assessment contained in the 2015 HP Engineering Report entitled “Counties of Prescott and Russell; Bridge Management Study Report”. It is important to note that the report included 41 Bridges and 63 Culverts. Please note that the Counties are not responsible for the inspection of structures located on the City of Ottawa boundary but are accountable for 50% of replacement cost. This includes 3 bridges and 1 culvert shared with City of Ottawa. Also note that the Nation Municipality uploaded two (2) structures from the Ste-Catherine Street road transfer, which the replacement cost are not considered since we have not yet obtained current replacement cost values however the length/quantity is considered in this report for those two (2) structures. That being said, the Counties currently owns 42 bridges and 64 culverts along with four (4) City of Ottawa boundary bridge.
We understand that data and structure condition ratings were completed in accordance with the most current version of the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM). Ontario regulations require bi- annual structure appraisals. To assess the condition of the County’s bridge network, bridge inspection reports were used. Bridges were classified as Good, Fair and Poor using the Bridge Condition Index (BCI) from the report and the approach outlined in the table below. The Ministry uses the Bridge Condition Index to plan maintenance and repairs. The index does not indicate the safety of a bridge.
Figure 4: MTO Bridge Condition Index
Asset Type Poor Fair Good Bridges 22% 49% 29% Culverts 38% 22% 40% Table 4: Bridges & Culverts Condition (Data from HP Engineering Bridge Management Report 2015)
The 2015 Bridge Management Study (HP Engineering) identifies needs based on benchmarking costing methods and current unit costs being experienced for all structures at $22,022,000. The improvement
Page 10 of 59 costs include $5,560,000 for those structures identified as NOW/Urgent needs and $15,417,000 is for structure work required in the '1 to 10' year time period. Also included is an estimated $1,045,000 for normal maintenance activities and engineering investigations.
The average age of the bridges is approximately 51 years and the culverts 47 years (where the age is known). Both asset groups had a 50 year design life. However, with appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation a service life of 75 years would not be unreasonable. The average age of the bridge is a significant statistic as there is a significant impact to the municipality from financial and service delivery perspectives. Notwithstanding the life expectancy of structures, other measures may drive the need to replace a structure.
Based on the composition of the structures inventory, budget recommendations have been developed for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows;
$2,515,113 for the structures capital/depreciation and maintenance and rehabilitation, based upon an average 50 year design life of the existing inventory ($1,676,742 assuming 75 year service life). $2,201,683 for average minimum annual requirement, based upon the recommendations for the next 10 years as per the 10 Year Asset Management plan from the 2015 HP Engineering Bridge inspection report.
From a more pragmatic perspective and to deal with the real life realities of maintaining structures the yearly budget recommendation for UCPR is $2,201,683.
Given the age of the bridges structures there is a potential that the expenditures in the next few years will significantly exceed this annualized funding level. The funding gap can only be met by increased taxes, funding from reserves or debt financing. Since the annual capital budget from 2011 to 2015 is determined to be a yearly average of $490,000 for structures, there is an existing infrastructure deficit. However, the financial plan in this report will provide for the long term preservation at current levels of service. This is addressed further in this report.
1.6 BUILDINGS SUMMARY
Buildings are generally in good condition but need investments now to address requirements in the next 10 years
The County undertook building condition assessments for its social housing units, public works garages and emergency services buildings. The building inventory assessed is as follows:
Building Category Total # of Buildings Total # of Units Social housing 75 311 Public Works Garages 3 3 Emergency Services 5 5 Grand Total 83 319 Table 5: Building Inventory - Condition Assessments
Page 11 of 59
The assessments undertaken by Art Engineering Inc. in 2014 were very detailed and broken down into four key building components which shows that the remaining useful life of many of the components exceeds 15-20 years with the exception of interior finishes. The Table below shows the relative life expectancy and remaining life by building category and component.
Average of Average of Life Remaining Building Category Expectancy Life Building Envelope Components 46 29 Social Housing 47 28 Public Works Garage 46 22 Emergency Services 44 37 Electrical and Mechanical Systems 26 15 Social Housing 27 14 Public Works Garage 22 8 Emergency Services 26 20 Interior Finishes 20 11 Social Housing 18 9 Public Works Garage 23 11 Emergency Services 22 15 Site Work Components 38 28 Social Housing 38 26 Public Works Garage 37 24 Emergency Services 43 35 Grand Total 33 21 Table 6: Building Components - Remaining Life at 2014
The building components were further broken down into sub-components and priorities were assigned based upon the condition assessment. The priorities were ranked as high, medium and low representing the time of need being 0-1 year for high, 1-5 years for medium and low priority indicating more than 5 years. The assessment revealed that there were only 22 high priority items as shown in the table below:
Building Component High Med Low Building Envelope Components 12 23 152 Electrical and Mechanical Systems 1 23 93 Interior Finishes 30 118 Site Work Components 9 8 78 Grand Total 22 84 441 Table 7: Assessment by Building Component
The high priority items were primarily identified in Social housing buildings and may represent some risk to the County. The table below summarizes these priorities.
Page 12 of 59
Building Component High Social Housing 16 Building Envelope Components 11 Attic 6 Balconies 5 Electrical and Mechanical Systems 1 Electrical Distribution 1 Site Work Components 4 Site and Surface Drainage 4 Public Works Garage 1 Building Envelope Components 1 Superstructure 1 Emergency Services 5 Site Work Components 5 Concrete Paving 1 Site and Surface Drainage 3 Site and Surface Drainage/Well 1 Grand Total 22 Table 8: High Priority Building Requirements Based upon the condition assessments, the total needs over 20 years for the social housing, public works and emergency services buildings are as follows:
Current Sum of 1-5 Sum of 6-10 Sum of Over 10 Sum of total Building Category Need years years Years needs Social housing $263,951 $2,376,953 $3,432,498 $8,829,669 $14,903,072 Public Works Garages $46,006 $624,213 $1,153,298 $871,769 $2,695,286 Emergency Services $8,270 $250,206 $140,996 $1,143,191 $1,542,663 Grand Total $318,227 $3,251,373 $4,726,792 $10,844,628 $19,141,021 Table 9: Building investment required
The chart below shows the annual investment by year. It is important to note that the costs steadily increase up to 2022 and then are more significant. The average annual investment is $957,050. Therefore it is recommended that an increase in investment occur in the next few years to approach $1 million annually with the view to address issues early and reduce long term costs and/or build up the reserves to ensure that the funds are available to perform preventative maintenance and anticipate replacement.
Page 13 of 59
Figure 5: Building – Financial Plan – 20 Years 1.7 FINANCIAL PLANNING
In order for an AMP to be effectively put into action, it must be integrated with financial planning and long-term budgeting.
The average recommended annual investment for roads and bridges is $9.4 million in order to address the total needs. The average recommend annual investment for buildings is $1 million (this only applies to only major building components and not regular maintenance).
If we maintain the current 2016 budget for the next ten (10) years we will have a shortfall of $21.7 million.
As shown in the report, it is recommended to follow the developed strategy as follow:
allocate $7.2 million to roads to attain the recommended level of service allocate $2.2 million for bridges and culverts to maintain current level of service allocate $1 million for buildings to maintain current level of service
Table 10 outlines the recommended allocation based upon current budget of $7.9 million as well as the requirements to meet total needs as well as replacement over 10 years.
Page 14 of 59
Grand Total Asset 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 (10 Years) Roads 7,180,948 7,169,167 7,198,465 7,175,960 7,176,932 7,183,491 7,162,407 7,188,948 7,181,342 7,190,869 71,808,529 Bridges & 1,511,600 2,511,168 2,701,500 2,150,800 2,064,500 2,119,000 2,152,300 2,241,500 2,147,460 1,376,000 20,975,828 Culverts Buildings 325,117 734,657 786,408 586,674 818,516 852,027 1,083,210 771,007 1,338,604 681,945 7,978,165 Total 9,017,665 10,414,992 10,686,373 9,913,434 10,059,948 10,154,518 10,397,917 10,201,455 10,667,406 9,248,814 100,762,522 Recommended Existing budget 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 79,000,000 (2016) Shortfall -1,117,665 -2,514,992 -2,786,373 -2,013,434 -2,159,948 -2,254,518 -2,497,917 -2,301,455 -2,767,406 -1,348,814 -21,762,522 Table 10: Recommended Capital Investments – 10 Years
Page 15 of 59
2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
2.1 GOALS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT
The overall objectives of the plan are as follows:
To provide a comprehensive reference for council, managers and UCPR staff for renewing, operating, maintaining, building, replacing and disposing of UCPR’s assets; To reflect the current and desired system conditions, levels of service and safety; and To recommend optimal asset management and financial strategies; and To set strategic priorities to optimize decisions; and Maximize benefits, manage risks and provide satisfactory levels of service.
2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMP
The asset management plan was developed through consultations and the culmination of work completed by UCPR over the last year. As UCPR became aware of the need to undertake a comprehensive approach to asset management planning, it engaged consultants to assist in collecting data, performing condition assessments, and developing this strategy.
2.3 AMP-RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
An asset management plan is a key component of the municipality's planning process linking with multiple other corporate plans and documents. For example: Strategic Plan – The strategic plan should guide the AMP in terms of service levels, policies, processes, and budgets defined in the AMP. Currently, UCPR does not have a Strategic Plan. However, it does have an Economic Development Plan among others. Rate Studies The Official Plan - The AMP should utilize and influence the land use policy directions for long-term growth and development as provided through the Official Plan. Long Term Financial Plan - The AMP should both utilize and conversely influence the financial forecasts within the long term financial plan. UCPR does not currently have a long term financial plan but has moved to longer term capital planning. Capital Budget - The decision framework and infrastructure needs identified in the AMP form the basis on which future capital budgets are prepared. By-Laws, standards, and policies - The AMP will influence and utilize policies and by- laws related to infrastructure management practices and standards. Regulations - The AMP must recognize and abide by industry and senior government regulations.
2.4 REFINEMENT OF THE AMP
The AMP is a living document that should be updated on a regular basis as new information becomes available and as UCPR changes and grows. This plan provides a horizon of the life of the assets but focuses on the next 10 years. Ideally, the plan should be updated every 3-5 years once it is complete.
Page 16 of 59
As well, as infrastructure is replaced, updates to the performance model should be undertaken regularly in order to ensure that the priorities reflect changing condition ratings as well as financial decisions.
2.5 CORPORATE ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY
Through the development of this plan, all data, analysis, life cycle projections, and budget models were provided through the Worktech software, engineering reports and with the knowledge of County staff. The software and plan will be synchronized, will evolve together, and therefore, will allow for ease of update and annual reporting of performance measures and overall results.
This will allow for continuous improvement of the plan and its projections. It is therefore recommended that the plan be revisited and updated every 3-5 years.
Page 17 of 59
3 STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1 INTRODUCTION FOR STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1.1 Objective
To identify the state of UCPR's infrastructure today, identify priorities for the near and long term and provide for a financing strategy based upon current funding sources as well as recommendations for change. As well, the report is intended to highlight the current levels of service and a plan to develop the desired levels of service based upon community needs.
3.1.2 Scope
Within this State of the Infrastructure and assets section, the following asset categories are included:
Road network Structures (Bridges and Culverts) Buildings (Social services, Public Works Garage and Emergency Services
3.1.3 Approach
The report is based on the seven key questions of asset management as outlined within the National Guide for Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure: What does UCPR own? (inventory) What is the replacement cost? What is the condition / remaining service life of the asset(s)? What needs to be done and when? (maintain, rehabilitate, replace) How much will it cost? What should be done in the future to improve asset management and ensure sustainability?
3.1.4 Data
The base data for the United Counties of Prescott-Russell assets came from various sources with the view to capture the most up-to-date information as follows:
2015 PSAB 3150 Tangible Capital Asset information 2015 Condition Assessment of the Road Network from UCPR completed in Worktech 2015 Bridge Management Study from HP Engineering Additional Bridge and Culvert data from WorkTech and spreadsheets from UCPR 2014-15 Building Condition Assessment for Social Housing, Public Works Garages and Emergency Services conducted by Art Engineering
3.2 ROADS
3.2.1 Roads – Inventory – What does UCPR own?
Page 18 of 59
This section provides a review and analysis of the road system from a number of perspectives: functional classification, surface types and roadside environment. Road sections within road systems may be classified in a number of ways, to illustrate their roadside environment, surface type, functional classification, and so forth. The classifications provide assistance in developing further information with respect to the road system, such as replacement costs and performance expectations.
On January 1st, 2015, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell road network consisted of 581.25 kilometers of roadways. All of the County’s roads are paved with asphalt.
3.2.1.1 Surface Types and Roadside Environment
Roadside environment and surface type criteria of a road section are useful in characterization of the road section, and in determining costs for replacement, reconstruction and rehabilitation treatments.
The Inventory Manual classifies the roadside environment as Rural, Semi-Urban or Urban. The classification is determined by length, servicing, and adjacent land use.
Rural Roads – within areas of sparse development, or where development is less than 50% of the frontage, including developed areas extending less than 300 m on one side or 200 m on both sides, with no curbs and gutters.
Semi-Urban Roads – within areas where development exceeds 50% of the frontage for a minimum of 300 m on one side, or 200 m on both sides, with no curbs and gutters, with or without storm/combination sewers, or for subdivisions where the lot frontages are 30 m or greater.
Urban Roads – within areas where there are curbs and gutters on both sides, served with storm or combination sewers, or curb and gutter on one side, served with storm or combination sewers, or reversed paved shoulders with, or served by, storm or combination sewers, or for subdivisions with frontages less than 30 m.
Roadside Environment Rural Semi-Urban Urban Total Surface Type (km) (km) (km) (Centreline-km) High Class Bit-asphalt 506.65 24.7 49.9 581.25 % of Total 87.17% 4.25% 8.58% 100% *Please note that this includes the entire lane-km length of boundary roads Table 11: Surface Type and Roadside Environment Distribution
3.2.2 Roads – Valuation/Replacement Costs – What is it Worth?
The total historical cost for roads surface and base as of 2015 in accordance with PSAB is shown on the financial statements as follows:
Page 19 of 59
2015 Financial Statements Accumulated Asset Type Acquisition Cost Net Book Value Amortization Roads $129,337,432 $81,248,857 $48,088,575 Table 12: Roads Historical Cost – Roads - 2015 Financial Statements
The estimated replacement value of all County roads, in 2015 dollars, is shown in the table below:
Roadside Replacement Cost Environment Rural (R) $337,317,853 Semi-Urban (S) $20,863,267 Urban (U) $29,403,913 Total $387,585,033 Table 13: Roads Replacement Costs by Road Side Environment
3.2.3 Roads – Asset condition and remaining service life
3.2.3.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology
The provincial requirements for AMP’s include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard engineering practices. The County’s evaluation system was based on the Inventory Manual for Municipal Roads, 1991 (Ministry of Transportation, Ontario) methodology. Field data is obtained through a visual examination of the road system and includes: structural adequacy, level of service, maintenance demand, surface and shoulder width, surface condition, and drainage. This report is essentially a desktop analysis. As such, some data fields in the Inventory Manual, such as substandard horizontal and vertical alignment, were not populated.
Evaluations of each road section were completed in accordance with the MTO’s Inventory Manual for Municipal Roads (1991). Data collected was entered directly into WorkTech’s Asset Manager software. Condition ratings, Time of Need, Priority Ratings, and associated costs were then calculated by the software, in accordance with the Inventory Manual. Unit costs for construction were provided by staff. This report is essentially a desktop analysis. As such, some data fields in the Inventory Manual, such as substandard horizontal and vertical alignment, were not populated.
The Condition Ratings, developed through the scoring in the Inventory Manual, classify roads as ‘NOW’, ‘1 to 5’, or ‘6 to 10’ year needs for reconstruction. The Time of Need is a prediction of the time until the road requires reconstruction, not the time frame until action is required. For example, a road may be categorized as a ‘6 to 10’ year need with a resurfacing recommendation. This road should be resurfaced as soon as possible to further defer the need to reconstruct.
Recommendations are made based on the defects observed and other information available in the database at the time of preparation of the report. Once a road asset reaches the project level, the municipality may select another alternative based on additional information, asset management strategy, development considerations or available funding.
Page 20 of 59
Time ASTM Structural Physical MTO Surface Approximation of Description 6344 Adequacy* Condition PCI Condition PCI to SA Need Now Needs – Reconstruction or Poor to Very NOW 1-39 1 to 7 1 to 35 1 to 55 IF PCI <=55 then, PCI / 8 = SA Major Poor to Failed Rehabilitation 1 to 5 year Needs – R2 /more Fair / IF PCI >55<=75 then, PCI / 7 1 to 5 40-55 8 to 11 36 to 55 56 to 75 extensive Passable =SA rehabilitation 6 to 10 year IF PCI >75<=85 then, PCI / 6 6 to 10 55-70 12 to 14 56to 70 76 to 85 Needs – R1 Good =SA Resurfacing Adequate – Satisfactory/ 86 to ADEQ 71-100 15 to 20 75 to 100 Maintenance and Good/ If PCI >85 then, PCI /5.4 =SA 100 Preservation Excellent Table 14: Evaluation method comparison *Structural adequacy is the methodology that UCPR is using and the table above compares other methodology formats.
3.2.3.2 Road System Adequacy and Condition by Time of Need
The Inventory Manual methodology results in overall rating of road sections by Time of Need (TON); NOW, 1 to 5, 6 to 10, or Adeq (Adequate). Table 16 below provides a breakdown of the road system by time of need and roadside environment. In order to produce Table 15, we approximated the condition ratings to a time of need.
The system adequacy is a measure of the ratio of the ‘NOW’ needs to the total system, and includes needs from the six critical areas described earlier in the report. The overall TON is the most severe or earliest identified need. For example a road section may appear to be in good condition, but is identified as a NOW need for capacity, indicating that it requires additional lanes.
Equation 1: System Adequacy Calculation
System Adequacy = Total System (km) – NOW Deficiencies (km) X 100 Total System (km)
The United Counties of Prescott and Russell currently has a road system adequacy measure of 94.5%. The road system currently measures 581.25 centreline-kilometres (considering boundary roads), with 31.8 kilometres rated as deficient in the ‘NOW’ time period.
Time of Need Rural Semi-Urban Urban Total Time of Need (centreline-km) (centreline-km) (centreline-km) (centreline-km) Now 13.8 12 6 31.8 1-5 83.2 2.4 8 93.6 6-10 107.9 2.8 14.3 125
Page 21 of 59
ADEQ 301.75 7.5 21.6 330.85 Total 506.65 24.7 49.9 581.25 94.5% Table 15: Time of Need by roadside environment
Cost by Time of Need Asset Type Current need 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years Totals 0-10 Years Roads $8,546,666 $16,132,647 $11,475,844 $36,155,158 Table 16: Cost by Time of Need
The estimates provided in this report are in accordance with the formulae in the Inventory Manual, and utilize the unit costs as identified in Table 17. These costs include adjustment factors as per the Inventory Manual, such as Basic Construction, Terrain, Contingency Roadside Environment, and Engineering.
Item Unit 2015 Costs ($) Excavation m3 10.00 Hot Mix Asphalt t 100.00 Granular A t 15.00 Granular B t 12.00 Manholes Adjustment ea 500.00 Catch Basins - adjust ea 500.00 Asphalt Planing m2 4.50 Asphalt Pulverizing m2 2.4 Crack Sealing m 2.00 Micro-resurfacing m2 3.50 Table 17: Unit Costs
The traditional target adequacy for upper-tier road systems (Regions and Counties) was 75%, while a lower-tier’s target adequacy was 60%. Based on these former MTO targets, which were in effect when the municipal grant system was in place, the target adequacy for the Counties should be 75%, as a minimum. The minimum target adequacies were established by MTO, to reflect the nature and purpose of the road system.
3.2.3.3 Physical Condition
The Physical Condition is an alternate method of describing the condition of a road section or the average condition of the road system. The value is the structural adequacy converted to be expressed as a value out of 100, instead of 20. This methodology lends itself to modeling and comparators that may be more easily understood. There isn’t a 1:1 relationship between the weighted average physical condition and the system adequacy.
The Weighted Average Physical Condition of the road system is currently 75.6.
3.2.3.4 Good to very Good Roads
Page 22 of 59
One of the requirements of the annual FIR reporting is the percentage of the roads that are good to very good. We use a calculation similar to the system adequacy calculation to determine the good to very good roads as follows; Equation 2: Good to Very Good Equation Good to Very Good = Total System (km) – (NOW + 1 to 5 (km)) X 100 Total System (km)
The percentage of good to very good roads in UCPR is 78.42%.
3.2.3.5 Remaining Service Life
As indicated previously, the Time of Need is really a prediction model in terms of an estimate based on current condition to the time for reconstruction. The TON then also provides an estimate of the remaining life in the road system/section. The following figure summarizes the structural adequacy ratings of the road system and illustrates the estimated remaining service life of the road system.
Figure 6: Remaining Service Life
3.3 STRUCTURES
3.3.1 Structures – Inventory – What Does UCPR Own?
This section of the report addresses structure assets with a span of 3 metres or greater only. This includes structures defined as bridges and culverts. The content will provide review and analysis of the structures inventory from a number of perspectives including condition rating, functional classification, roadside environment, replacement cost. Information for this section of the report is drawn from the 2015 Bridge Management Report prepared by HP Engineering
On January 1st, 2015, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell bridge network consisted of the following:
Page 23 of 59
Total Length Total Width (Parallel to (Perpendicular to Type of Structure Quantity roadway) roadway) (m) (m) Bridges 42 1605.30 436.26 Culverts (>3m) 64 198.04 849 Bridges (City of Ottawa 4 64.1 60.4 boundary)
Total 110 1867.44 1345.66 Table 18: Structure Summary table *Data from HP ENGINEERING 2015 Bridge Management Report & City of Ottawa report
Note that the Nation Municipality uploaded two (2) structures from the Ste-Catherine Street road transfer and the length/quantity is considered in the table above for those two (2) structures.
3.3.2 Structures – Valuation/Replacement Costs – What is it worth?
Budget costs for the replacement of bridges are usually based on the deck surface area of individual structures (m2). Therefore, benchmark replacement costs for this AMP were extracted from the 2015 HP Engineering Bride Management Study Report. In the case of culvert type structures, the plan area (or deck surface area) used in the calculation was (‘length of spans’ + 1 m) x (‘width of roadway’ + 1 m).
The total historical cost for structures as of 2015 in accordance with PSAB is shown on the financial statements as follows:
2015 Financial Statements Accumulated Asset Type Acquisition Cost Net Book Value Amortization Bridges and Culverts $36,190,096 $17,904,427 $18,285,669 Table 19: Historical Costs – Structures – 2015 PSAB Values The estimated replacement value of all County bridges and culverts, in 2015 dollars, is shown in the table below:
Type of Structure Quantity Replacement Cost Bridges 41* $91,413,000 Culverts (>3m) 63* $33,347,000 Bridges (City of Ottawa 4 $995,672 boundary) Total 108 $125,755,672 Table 20: Structure replacement costs Note that we are responsible for 50% of the cost for those four (4) boundary structures with City of Ottawa. *Also note that the Nation Municipality uploaded two (2) structures from the Ste-Catherine
Page 24 of 59
Street road transfer, which the replacement cost are not considered in the table above since we have not yet obtained current replacement cost values.
The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the structures inventory. It is estimated that the cost to replace the bridge and culvert inventory, is $125,755,672. This estimate is based on the replacement costs between from $8,000 and $4,500 per square metre respectively for bridges and culverts. These benchmark costs can vary considerably once specific project requirements are realized.
3.3.3 Structures – Asset condition and remaining service life
3.3.3.1 Asset Condition Rating Methodology
The provincial requirements for AMP’s include asset condition assessment in accordance with standard engineering practices. Provincial legislation requires that all structures with a span of 3 metres or greater be inspected under the supervision of a structural engineer every two years, in accordance with the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) or equivalent. The UCPR reporting conforms to the OSIM format. Bridge and Culvert structures are rated as deficient in the ‘NOW’, 1 to 5 or 6 to 10 timelines due to: Insufficient width of structure Vertical clearance Level of Service (cannot accommodate peak hour traffic/capacity) Structural Capacity. Safety Treatments
The Condition Ratings, developed through the scoring in OSIM, classify structures as ‘NOW’, ‘1 to 5’, or ‘6 to 10’ year needs for reconstruction or rehabilitation. From an asset management perspective and similar to roads, structures with rehabilitation treatments offer the best return on investment, to further defer the need to reconstruct and maximize the value and life cycle of the asset. Safety defects are the priority.
Field data is obtained through a visual examination of each structure. Overall ratings and Time of Need are calculated based upon the condition ratings and a combination of other calculations and data.
The asset management plan utilized condition data from the 2015 HP Engineering Report entitled Counties of Prescott and Russell; Bridge Management Study Report, 41 Bridges / 63 Culverts and the WorkTech database. For structure assets, data and structure condition ratings were completed in accordance with the most current version of the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM).
3.3.3.2 Structures Inventory Overall Condition
Relating the overall condition of the structure inventory is more complex than the road section as the bridge structure evaluations will produce a ‘NOW’ need for a structure due to the absence of end treatments at the corners of a structure, or the end of the guide rail on a culvert structure. To gain a sense of the condition of the overall bridge structures inventory, we used the Bridge Condition Index (BCI) information provided in the 2015 HP Engineering Report. The Bridge Condition Index (BCI) is a measurement of the overall condition of the bridge. There are different accepted methods of calculating BCI. Please note that the index does not indicate the safety of a bridge.
Page 25 of 59
From the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Website: “A Bridge Condition Index (BCI) rating is a planning tool that helps the Ministry schedule maintenance and upkeep. The BCI is not used to rate or indicate the safety of a bridge. The result is organized into ranges from 0 to 100. Immediate action is taken to address any safety concerns.
Good - BCI Range 70 -100 For a bridge with a BCI greater than 70, maintenance work is not usually required within the next five years.
Fair - BCI Range 60 -70 For a bridge with a BCI between 60 and 70 the maintenance work is usually scheduled within the next five years. This is the ideal time to schedule major bridge repairs from an economic perspective.
Poor - BCI Less than 60 For a bridge with a BCI rating of less than 60, maintenance work is usually scheduled within approximately one year.”
Asset Type Poor Fair Good Bridges 22% 49% 29% Culverts 38% 22% 40% Table 21: Bridges & Culverts Condition (Data from HP Engineering Bridge Management Report 2015)
For the bridge structure inventory, 22% of the structures have a BCI of less than 60, indicating that these structures would be candidates for maintenance, major rehabilitation or replacement.
For the culvert inventory, 38% of the inventory have a BCI of less than 60 indicating that these structures would be candidates for maintenance, major rehabilitation or replacement.
3.3.3.3 Structures System Adequacy and Condition by Time of Need
Relating the overall condition of the structure inventory is more complex than the road section as the bridge structure evaluations will produce a ‘NOW’ need for a structure due to the absence of end treatments at the corners of a structure, or the end of the guide rail on a culvert structure. To gain a sense of the condition of the overall bridge structures inventory, the current estimated replacement cost has been compared to the estimated cost of the current needs that have been identified. The following equation describes the ratio of the replacement cost to the needs costs.
Equation3: Bridge Structure Replacement to Improvement Ratio Adequacy Index = Total Replacement Cost – Total Needs Cost X 100 Total Replacement Cost Using Equation 3, the Adequacy Index for the UCPR Bridge Structures Inventory is 88.5% using a replacement as identified in the OSIM Report and the estimated improvement costs from the Bridge Management Study.
Page 26 of 59
Applying the same calculation to the culvert structures inventory produces and Adequacy Index of 65.5% using a replacement cost as identified in the OSIM Report and the standardized improvement costs from the Bridge Management Study.
The OSIM Manual methodology results in overall rating of Bridge and Culvert Structures by Time of Need (TON); NOW, 1 to 5, 6 to 10, or Adeq (Adequate). Table 22 provides a breakdown of the Bridge Inventory and Culvert Structure Inventories system by Time of Need.
Time of Need Asset Type < 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years Normal Totals Bridges $3,212,000 $6,899,000 $0 $415,000 $10,526,000 Culverts $2,348,000 $5,097,000 $3,421,000 $630,000 $11,496,000 Totals $5,560,000 $11,996,000 $3,421,000 $1,045,000 $22,022,000 Table 22: Structures Needs, Cost by Time of Need (Data from HP Engineering Bridge Management Report 2015)
Note that Table 22 doesn’t include bridges on the City of Ottawa boundary roads however we are responsible for 50% of the cost for those four (4) boundary structures.
3.3.3.4 Record of Assumption – TON, Improvement and Replacement Costs – Structures
The methodology of this report is such that the OSIM Manual itself forms the basis of a large number of assumptions in terms of; Dimensional requirements for the development of improvement and replacement costs Structural requirements based on field ratings of elements Time of needs based on the ratings and subsequent calculations
3.3.3.5 Remaining Service Life
As indicated, the Time of Need is really a prediction model in terms of an estimate based on current condition to the time for reconstruction for some elements. The TON then may also provide an estimate of the remaining life in the structure. The following figures summarize two different perspectives on bridge life expectancy – design life and service life. This difference has a significant impact on development of the financial plan. Whereas structure constructed prior to 2000 had a 50 year design life, they typically had a service life in the 75 year range. Since 2000 the design life has been 75 years. To simplify the presentation the service life of 75 years has been used for both.
Remaining Design Life (50 yr. Design Life) Number of structures Asset Type 0 Years 1 to 10 Years >10 Years Total Bridges 18 11 12 41 Percentage 44% 27% 29% 100% Culverts 28 20 15 63 Percentage 44% 32% 24% 100% Table 23: Remaining Design Life (50 yr. Design Life)
Page 27 of 59
>10 years 29% 0 years 44%
1 to 10 years 27%
Figure 7: Remaining Design Life - Bridge Structures (50 yr. Design Life)
>10 years 24% 0 years 44%
1 to 10 years 32%
Figure 8: Remaining Design Life – Culvert Structures (50 yr. Design Life)
Page 28 of 59
Anticipated Remaining Service Life (75 yr. service Life) Number of structures Asset Type 0 Years 1 to 10 Years >10 Years Total Bridges 8 2 31 41 Percentage 19% 5% 76% 100% Culverts 1 9 53 63 Percentage 2% 14% 84% 100% Table 24: Anticipated Remaining Service Life (75 yr. Service life)
0 years 19% 1 to 10 years 5%
>10 years 76%
Figure 9: Anticipated Remaining Service Life – Bridge Structures (75 yr. Service life)
0 years 2%
1 to 10 years 14%
>10 years 84%
Figure 10: Anticipated Remaining Service Life – Culverts Structures (75 yr. Service life)
The condition reviews are just that; the physical condition of the structures. When other issues are considered, the time of need could change dramatically. Typically when the roads are assed a Time of
Page 29 of 59
Need for Drainage is developed based on visual observation, other reports, or anecdotal information. This isn’t the case for structures. It is important then, that when a structure is replaced that the size of the opening be confirmed through appropriate hydraulic modeling.
3.4 BUILDINGS
3.4.1 Buildings – Inventory – What Does UCPR Own?
The building condition assessments for social housing, public works garages and emergency services building were undertaken as a separate assignment by the County which was undertaken by Art Engineering Inc. which resulted in 3 separate reports. The reports can be obtained under separate cover and entitled:
Building Condition Assessment & 20 Year Capital Reserve Fund Study - Social Housing dated December 16, 2014 Building Condition Assessment & 20 Year Capital Reserve Fund Study - Public Works Buildings dated January 27, 2015 Building Condition Assessment & 20 Year Capital Reserve Fund Study - Emergency Services dated January 19, 2015
As these were very comprehensive reports, it is not the intention to repeat the findings in this report. However, the AMP is intended to take an enterprise view of all assets and allow the County to plan and prioritize across all asset classes, some key information has been extracted from those reports in order to provide that enterprise view. It is important to note that other buildings owned and operated by the County are not included in the condition assessments or this report.
The following buildings were included in the building condition assessments:
Total # of Total # of Building Category Buildings Units Social housing 75 311 2169 Laurier St. (19 Units) 1 19 345 Hamilton St. (30 Units) 1 30 472 Church St. (30 Units) 1 30 675 Portelance St. (52 Units) 1 52 69 Derby St. (14 Units) 1 14 810 Portelance St (30 Units) 1 30 Boyd St. (12 Units) 6 12 Gladstone St. (22 Units) 11 22 James St. (2 Units) 8 2 James St. (54 Units) 15 54 Portelance St. (30 Units) 27 30 Tache St. (16 Units) 2 16 Public Works Garages 3 3 1543 Notre-Dame St., Embrun 1 1
Page 30 of 59
2337 Cassburn Rd., L'Orignal 1 1 582 County Rd. 9, Plantagenet 1 1 Emergency Services 5 5 1350 Cameron St., Hawkesbury 1 1 15 L'Escale St., St-Isidore 1 1 215 Industriel Rd., Embrun 1 1 466 Landry St., Rockland 1 1 584 County Rd. 9, Plantagenet 1 1 Grand Total 83 319 Table 25: Inventory of Buildings Assessed
The assessment included the following building components:
Building Component Building Envelope Components Attic Balconies Caulking Cladding Doors Eavestrough, Fascia, Soffit Exterior Finishes Foundation Roofing Stairs Stairways Superstructure Windows Electrical and Mechanical Systems Central Vacuum Electrical Distribution Electrical Panels Electrical Distribution Elevator Exhaust Fans Furnace Garbage Collection Heating/Cooling Life Safety Systems Security System Sump Pump
Page 31 of 59
Telephone System Water Distribution Water Heaters Interior Finishes Appliances Cabinetry Flooring Interior Doors & Hardware Lighting Fixtures Miscellaneous Finishes Paint Plumbing Fixtures Staircase upgrade Wall Finishes Site Work Components Additional Structures Asphalt Paving Concrete Paving Decks Fencing Material Storage Site and Surface Drainage Site Lighting Stairs and Landings Grand Total Table 26: Building Elements 3.4.2 Buildings – Valuation/Replacement Costs – What is it worth?
The total historical cost for structures as of 2015 in accordance with PSAB is shown on the financial statements as follows:
2015 Financial Statements Accumulated Asset Type Acquisition Cost Net Book Value Amortization Emergency Services $3,763,699 $686,181 $3,077,518 Public Works Garages $596,946 $432,444 $164,502 Social Housing $31,239,277 $30,021,868 $1,217,408 Total $35,599,922 $31,140,494 $4,459,428 Table 27: Historical Costs – Buildings – 2015 PSAB Values
Page 32 of 59
While Art Engineering Inc. determined the replacement cost for most building components, there were some that were not included as it was believed that there would be no replacement. The approach taken was that each component would be replaced as opposed to the entire building. As such, UCPR estimated the actual replacement costs. Below is a summary of replacement costs by building assessed.
Category Location Replacement Cost Social Housing Boyd St. $3,705,588.00 Gladstone St. $6,613,624.00
Taché Blvd. $5,047,044.00
Portelance Ave. $9,263,970.00
James St. $16,089,470.00
James St. (bungalows) $266,250.00
810 Portelance $6,036,600.00
675 Portelance $7,353,200.00
2169 Laurier $2,945,050.00
345 Hamilton $3,958,900.00
69 Derby $2,417,925.00
472 Church $4,641,275.00
Public Works 1543 Notre-Dame St. $833,257.00 2337 Cassburn Rd. $833,257.00
582 County Road 9 $833,257.00
Emergency 15 L'Escale $505,135.00 Services 584 County Road 9 $926,020.00
466 Landry $746,335.00
215 Industriel $677,370.00
1350 Cameron $1,989,000.00
Total $75,682,527.00 Table 28: Building Replacement Costs at 2015
3.4.3 Buildings – Asset condition and remaining service life
According to the reports by Art Engineering, the building assessment reviewed the building components on the following basis:
Life Expectancy: The estimated life span of a building component shown in years.
Estimated Remaining Life: The estimated remaining useful years of a building component, from the date of inspection until major repairs or replacement is required.
Page 33 of 59
Effective Life: The apparent age of the building element are based on visual inspection considering wear, tear and weathering. It is not always the actual age of the element.
Cost Estimates: The total current replacement costs estimated for a building component. In certain cases it may be listed as an allowance.
Good Condition (Low Priority): The building component is in adequate condition and no work is foreseen in the next 5 years.
Fair Condition (Medium Priority): The building component is in deteriorating condition, but is still operational. Replacement/repair is expected in 3 to 5 years.
Poor Condition (Medium Priority): The building component will require replacement or major repair within the next 1 to 3 years.
Critical Condition (High Priority): The building component is past the point of economic repair or is not functioning and should be replaced or repaired within the year.
3.4.3.1 Building Inventory by Time of Need
The building condition assessment provides detailed recommendations. The table below shows the required investments by building type based upon time of need
Building Category Current Need 1-5 years 6-10 years Over 10 Years Total Needs Social housing $263,951 $2,376,953 $3,432,498 $8,829,669 $14,903,072 Public Works Garages $46,006 $624,213 $1,153,298 $871,769 $2,695,286 Emergency Services $8,270 $250,206 $140,996 $1,143,191 $1,542,663 Grand Total $318,227 $3,251,373 $4,726,792 $10,844,628 $19,141,021 Table 29: Building Condition based upon time of need
Building Category Average Social housing 745,154 Public Works 134,764 Garages Emergency Services 77,133 Grand Total 957,051 Table 30: Average Annual Requirements
Page 34 of 59
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0 Social housing Public Works Garages Emergency Services Current Need $263,951 $46,006 $8,270 Sum of 1-5 years $2,376,953 $624,213 $250,206 Sum of 6-10 years $3,432,498 $1,153,298 $140,996 Sum of Over 10 Years $8,829,669 $871,769 $1,143,191
Figure 11: Building Condition based on Time of need 3.4.3.2 Building Inventory Overall Condition
The overall condition shown in the table below was based on the Art Engineering report but was modified by UCPR staff to be easily updated.
Asset Type Overall Average Condition Social Housing Bungalows 85.0% Social Housing Semi-Detached 78.5% Social Housing Buildings 83.4% Emergency Services 88.8% Public Works Garage 74.5% Table 31: Overall Average Condition
Page 35 of 59
4 DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
In order to determine the “right” level of funding and what customers are willing to pay for, the County needs to establish levels of service. Without this, UCPR is operating and making decisions based on a belief that they are satisfied with the services and are not willing to pay for additional infrastructure.
Some key factors to consider are: community expectations, legislative requirement such as bridge studies, expected asset performance, long term goals and financial viability. Those municipalities that are in growth need to balance new needs with existing infrastructure requirements.
Currently, the County does not have an established system for collecting data regarding levels of services beyond the physical conditions. One of our main goals in the future is to establish a full system for the collection of levels of services and customer complaints. At the strategic level, the goals of this system are listed in the Table below.
Objective Scope Costs are minimized and distributed such that access to service does not Affordability cause undue hardship to customers and businesses. Accommodating growth Development is not hampered by the availability of capacity. Adequacy Services are delivered to acceptable quality and quantity. Reliability Service is reliable with minimal interruption. Safety Meet safety requirements, as regulated by legislation. Assure environmental compliance, as regulated by legislation and/or Compliance operating licenses or agreements. Customer issues are captured and acted upon in an efficient and timely Customer services manner. Table 32: Goals for level of service Traditional views of performance management focused on collecting data about physical conditions of facilities and developing an engineering rehabilitation and/or maintenance plan (what to fix, what to replace). However, the performance of assets (facilities) is not limited to its physical or engineering conditions only. Equally important is the level of service (LOS) of the facility. In other words, how adequate are the facility conditions and operational status in meeting its intended functions?
Understanding the balance between physical and service conditions is crucial for the success of facility operations. Both are essential to manage and promote the socio-economic activities of the users. At the same time, they both are needed to protect public health and safety.
There is, however, little agreement about the definition or elements of LOS. This stems from the discrepancy between expected LOS and actual LOS; user desired LOS versus the needs to minimize the life cycle costs of assets and their impacts on the environment; and visual perception of service quality versus and the actual/underlying status of the asset itself.
There are several factors that influence LOS. It is important to understand/track these factors to assure that the system is proactive.
Page 36 of 59
Factor Impact Examples include 1) extended winter months and more severe temperatures; 2) Climate severe rainfall events and their associated impact on the effectiveness of the Storm Change water system; and 3) flooding of roads and challenges in meeting winter control requirements Societal influences will continue to shape the County’s strategy and priorities. Social Trends Examples of such expectations include aspects like enhanced environmental stewardship and more cost-effective delivery of services. The County has some infrastructure that is in better shape than many Ontario municipalities. This provides an opportunity for our County to benefit from the Aging wealth of experiences developed in the last two decades in the area of Infrastructure infrastructure rehabilitation. Older parts of the network continue to deteriorate and will require increasing levels of funding to ensure that they continue to offer safe and reliable services. According to analysis of the latest data, the County has some areas with higher than average population growth. However, uncertainty remains if this will continue in the Growth next two decades given the changing economic situation in Ottawa. Uncertainty is Forecasts not entirely within the County’s control and will continue to impact several financial and operational performance indicators. Traditionally, the County has relied heavily on funding and tax levies. Changes in grant programs make it difficult to maintain service, forcing it to juggle priorities, and Funding target where and how it invests. Continued vigilance in asset management has Mechanisms allowed the County to extend asset life and reduce the total cost of ownership. However, current spending is insufficient to maintain service at current levels over the long-term. Table 33: Level of service factors Level of Service has a different meaning for different interests. For instance, the cost per unit may not have an impact to a ratepayer whose chief concern may be service delivery. Similarly, cost or expenditure per unit may not illustrate the condition of the asset to the end user. Further, municipalities are required to report on various Municipal Performance Measures (MPMP).
We believe that multiple service measures may be required to adequately relate the condition of an asset to the various user groups; condition, operating costs, and end user. The following sections identify various measurements of service of the road system, structures and buildings.
4.1 ROADS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
4.1.1 System Adequacy
As described earlier in the report, the system adequacy is the ration of the “NOW’ need roads to the total system. This is a holistic measure as, using the Inventory Manual Methodology, needs are identified in six critical areas, not just the distress on the road surface. The current system adequacy is 94.5%.
Page 37 of 59
4.1.2 Physical Condition
Physical condition is the Structural Adequacy rating multiplied by five to produce a rating of between 5 and 100. This is a measure of the amount of distress on the road however the scale is not linear. The current weighted average Physical Condition of the road system is 75.6. 4.1.3 Good to Very Good
The province requires annual reporting on the percentage of roads that are rated as good to very good. It has been assumed that the 6-10 and adequate roads are good to very good and this has been expressed as a percentage of the system. Good to very good roads represent 78.42 % of the road system.
4.1.4 Desired Level of Service for Roads
The desired level of service as well as the current and expected performance over the next ten years are provided in the table below: EXPECTED CURRENT DESIRED LEVEL OF COUNTY ASSET PERFORMANCE OVER PERFORMANCE SERVICE THE NEXT 10 YEARS Average physical Average physical Target achieved by Roads condition of road condition of road 2024 system is 75.6 system should be 80 Table 34: Overall Average Condition
4.2 STRUCTURES DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
We believe that multiple service measures may be required to adequately relate the condition of an asset to the various user groups; condition, operating costs, and end user. The following sections identify various measurements of service of the structures inventory.
4.2.1 System Adequacy
We examined the database provided and believed that one means of expressing the condition of the bridge and culvert structures inventory would be a measure of the ratio of the current improvement needs to the current replacement cost. The bridge structures Adequacy Index is 88.5% and the culvert structures Adequacy Index is 65.5%.
4.2.2 Structure Condition
We used the Bridge Condition Index (BCI) information provided in the 2015 HP Engineering Report. The Bridge Condition Index (BCI) is a measurement of the overall condition of the bridge. There are different accepted methods of calculating BCI. Please note that the index does not indicate the safety of a bridge. Asset Type Poor Fair Good Bridges 22% 49% 29% Culverts 38% 22% 40% Table 35: Bridges & Culverts Condition
Page 38 of 59
(Data from HP Engineering Bridge Management Report 2015)
4.2.3 Desired Level of Service for Structures
The desired levels of service as well as the current and expected performance over the next ten years are provided in the table below: EXPECTED DESIRED LEVEL OF COUNTY ASSET CURRENT PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE OVER SERVICE THE NEXT 10 YEARS 78% of County Bridges 78% of Bridges are rated Maintain current level Bridges are rated as Fair and as Fair and Good of service Good 62% of County Culverts 62% of Culverts are rated Maintain current level Culverts are rated as Fair and as Fair and Good of service Good Table 36: Overall Average Condition
4.3 BUILDINGS DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE
4.3.1 Desired Level of Service for Buildings
The desired levels of service as well as the current and expected performance over the next ten years are provided in the table below: EXPECTED DESIRED LEVEL OF COUNTY ASSET CURRENT PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE OVER SERVICE THE NEXT 10 YEARS Overall average Social Housing Overall average condition condition should be Maintain current level Bungalows is rated at 85.0% maintained at 75% or of service better Overall average Social Housing Overall average condition condition should be Maintain current level Semi-Detached is rated at 78.5% maintained at 75% or of service better Overall average Social Housing Overall average condition condition should be Maintain current level Buildings is rated at 83.4% maintained at 75% or of service better Overall average Emergency Overall average condition condition should be Maintain current level Services is rated at 88.8% maintained at 75% or of service better Overall average Public Works Overall average condition condition should be Maintain current level Garage is rated at 74.5% maintained at 75% or of service better Table 37: Overall Average Condition
Page 39 of 59
5 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
5.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The Province of Ontario’s document ‘Building Together- Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans’ indicates
‘The asset management strategy is the set of actions that, taken together, has the lowest total cost- not the set of actions that each has the lowest cost individually’
Regardless of the source of the definition, the key themes that keep being repeated are;
Managing Strategic Effective Efficient $$$$$ !! Service Optimizing asset life cycle Risk Management
As an absolute minimum, the objective of any asset management plan, or strategy, should be to ensure that the overall condition of an asset group does not diminish over time. The asset management strategy of an agency is heavily predicated, and inextricably linked to the available funding.
Most agencies are not fully funded, and a large number are not even funded sufficiently as to maintain the current condition of their system. In those circumstances, the strategy should be twofold;
Focus should be on a pavement management strategy that utilizes available funding on preservation and resurfacing programs as a priority. Reconstruction and replacement candidate will remain reconstruction and replacement candidates and cost increases will be incremental with inflation. Preservation and resurfacing opportunities that are missed will escalate in cost by several hundred percent depending on site specifics.
Develop the financial plan in order that there is sufficient funding to maintain the condition of the road system.
Focus should be on a bridge management strategy that utilizes available funding on maintain public safety as a priority and preservation and resurfacing/rehabilitation programs as a second priority. Preservation and resurfacing opportunities that are missed will escalate in cost by several hundred percent depending on site specifics.
Develop the financial plan in order that there is sufficient funding to maintain the condition of the asset group.
Adjust / confirm the plan and funding requirements annually
Page 40 of 59
Program funding recommendations are a function of the constitution of the assets inventory. Recommended funding for the assets inventory should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized.
Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth; those should be considered as additional. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges.
Notwithstanding the need for program development to include cross asset integration, for the foreseeable future the United Counties of Prescott and Russell’s will optimize and prioritize pavement preservation and rehabilitation programs as a priority. The needs in these program areas should be addressed before construction or reconstruction need.
5.2 ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
5.2.1 Priority Rating vs. Condition Rating
Information in a database may be sorted and analyzed in numerous ways. Understanding what information a data field represents, is key to the analysis. The Inventory Manual has many rated and calculated data fields and thus provides for many ways to sort data. Some commonly used representations, or sorting of information, from the database include:
Priority Rating Priority Guide Number Structural Adequacy (Condition)
Priority Rating is a calculated field in the Inventory Manual, and is a function of the traffic count and the overall condition rating of the road section. This approach adds weight to the traffic count of the section. Although the word ‘priority’ is included in the field name, a road section that has a higher calculated ‘Priority Rating’ is not necessarily a higher priority in the broader sense of asset management.
Similarly, a municipality may choose to sort the road sections based on condition and cost per vehicle. The Priority Guide Number data field would assist in providing that analysis, as sorting on that parameter would prioritize road sections that have higher traffic and thus a lower cost per vehicle.
Developing a road capital program around the Priority Rating or Priority Guide Number fields will result in programming that would lead to a less efficient expenditure of funds and reduced system performance per budget dollar, as road sections with high traffic and in poor condition would be selected first, as opposed to selecting the best rehabilitation candidates at the appropriate time in their life cycles. The exception to this statement would be cases where rehabilitation funding is at a high enough level to ensure that the preservation program requirements can be met.
From a more current asset management perspective, project selection should be predicated by condition (Structural Adequacy). Figure 12 clearly illustrates the financial advantages of managing the road system by performing the right treatment at the right time of the asset life cycle. If appropriate strategies are not undertaken at the correct time, there is a less effective usage of the available funding.
Page 41 of 59
In terms of structures, OSIM has many rated and calculated data fields and thus provides for many ways to sort data. From a more current asset management perspective, project selection should be predicated by public safety and then condition. Figure 12 is taken from a document that describes pavement management principles however, the concepts may be applied to other assets such as structures to optimize available funding. Figure 12 clearly illustrates the financial advantages of managing an asset by performing the right treatment at the right time of the asset life cycle. If appropriate strategies are not undertaken at the correct time, there is a less effective usage of the available funding. For example bridge deck waterproofing and repaving and minor deck rehabilitations performed at the appropriate condition will optimize funding and utilize the full service life of the asset.
Figure 12: Treatment Cost vs. Deterioration
Ideally, if a road is constructed and maintained with timely appropriate maintenance and resurfacing, the road system will reach a point where the majority of the activities will be preservation and resurfacing. Figure 13 clearly illustrates the effect the life span of a pavement by applying the correct treatment at the correction time in the life cycle.
Page 42 of 59
Figure 13: Pavement Management- The Right Treatment at the Right Time Source: Wirtgen Cold Recycling Manual
If an agency’s budget is fully funded, the programming will include reconstruction, resurfacing, and preservation programs. Prioritization within the different programs will vary as demands are different. However, within the resurfacing and preservation programs, the pavement condition should drive the decision making.
Where funding is limited, resurfacing and preservation programs should be prioritized over the construction program. The effect of this approach will be that ‘NOW’ need roads will remain ‘NOW’ needs. However, by virtue of their ‘NOW’ need condition, ‘NOW’ need roads will require increased maintenance and likely generate increased complaints from the driving public. To deal with this eventuality, a municipality should create a ‘maintenance paving budget’, over and above the resurfacing budget. The purpose of this budget is to defer the reconstruction needs, and reduce maintenance efforts and complaints until the road can be reconstructed.
5.2.2 Cross Asset Integration and Project Prioritization
Prioritizing projects from a purely asset management perspective is a relatively straightforward exercise, regardless of funding level. Complications arise when the specific needs, commitments of the agency, and priorities of other utilities factor into the decision making process.
The road system is, in reality, a utility corridor. Multiple utilities in both urban and rural roadside environments will present conflicting demands and priorities in advancing projects. The Road Needs Study provides ratings that deal strictly with the condition of various factors as they relate to the road section. Those factors have to be considered in conjunction with needs and priorities that may exist for other utilities or pending development. In fact, the condition of other infrastructure within the road allowance may be the key element in the prioritization. For example, a road rated as a reconstruction project may have a relatively low priority rating, but a trunk storm sewer servicing a greater area may require immediate installation. The priority of the road is then dictated by the other utility, and should be integrated into the capital plan, to best serve all interests.
Less tangible priorities may also be project prioritization tools for some agencies. For example, an agency may want to advance projects that also include bus routes or bike lanes.
Page 43 of 59
As a municipal road program is developed, opportunities to complete work on smaller sections adjacent to the main project, at a lesser cost than if completed as a stand-alone project, should be considered to realize economies of scale, and complete improvements that may otherwise be passed over.
5.2.3 Performance Modeling – Budget Effect on System Performance
5.2.3.1 Asset Management Plan and Strategy Analysis
The asset management plan is a function of the strategy and available financing. The development process for all elements is iterative, concurrent and holistic on a number of levels. It is complex.
The provincial guidelines for the preparation of an AMP indicate that the following must be considered;
Options must be compared on Lifecycle cost- the total cost of constructing, maintaining, renewing and operating an infrastructure asset throughout its service life. Future costs must be discounted and inflation must be incorporated.
Assessment of all other relevant direct and indirect costs and benefits associated with each option. o Direct benefits and Costs Efficiencies and network effects Investment scheduling to appropriately time expansion in asset lifecycles Safety Environmental Vulnerability to climate change o Indirect Benefits and Costs Municipal wellbeing and costs Amenity values Value of culturally or historically significant sites Municipal image
Assessment of Risks associated with all potential options. Each option must be evaluated based on its potential risk, using an approach that allows for comparative analysis. Risks associated with each option can be scored based on quantitative measures when reasonable estimates can be made of the probability of the risk event happening and the cost associated with the risk event. Qualitative measures can be used when reasonable estimates of probability and cost associated with the risk event cannot be made.
Significant effort (and expense) will be required to meet all of these requirements however a properly developed performance model will satisfy the majority of the requirements identified in the foregoing and is explained below.
5.2.3.2 Performance Model Overview
Key elements of a Performance Model will include; Deterioration Curves identifying anticipated deterioration of an appropriately constructed asset over the life cycle of the asset
Page 44 of 59
‘Trigger’ points throughout the deterioration curve identifying appropriate treatments at condition ranges Current costing for all treatments identified
To capture the essence of the provincial requirements, development and use of a Performance Model is recommended. Through modeling and the resultant outputs the following may be addressed;
Review of options and lifecycle effects based on a Return on Investment Analysis Efficiencies and network effects Budget requirements to achieve Level of Service goals
It is respectfully suggested that a 10 year AMP can be developed through a Performance model, however, we are of the opinion a number of other requirements that the province has identified should not be addressed until they reach the project stage. Further, a number of those requirements would be addressed through a Class Environmental Assessment process.
Through performance modeling appropriate budget levels, programming and associated costs can be determined, delivering key elements of any plan that can be refined or revisited as circumstances change. Once a model is developed, then the effect of any alternatives may also be measured.
5.2.4 Record of Assumptions – Performance Modeling
5.2.4.1 Pavement Classification for Modeling
In order to develop budget recommendations, we add an additional classification of roads differentiated by surface type, roadside environment and traffic volume. It is anticipated that each road classification will deteriorate at a different rate. Differentiation by roadside environment within a classification permits calculation of the different replacement costs to reflect the servicing and feature differences.
Asset Roadside AADT AADT Subtype Material Class Envt Low High HCB1 All HCB R 20,000 100,000 HCB2 All HCB R 10,000 20,000 HCB3 All HCB R 1,000 10,000 HCB4 All HCB R 1 1,000 Table 38: Road Asset Classes
Figure 14 illustrates treatment selection by time and asset classes for hot mix roads. Typical treatments and/or improvements have been superimposed over the deterioration curves, to illustrate the general timelines for implementing the treatments. Other road asset classes have been treated similarly. An important concept to remember is that as a road deteriorates the cost of rehabilitation increases. The deterioration curves, improvement types, current unit costs and current condition ratings are essentially the assumptions used to develop budget and programming recommendations in this report.
Page 45 of 59
Figure 14: Treatment Selection vs. Condition
5.3 STRUCTURES – SPECIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
5.3.1 Bridge Deck and Superstructure Lifecycle Maintenance
After construction of a new bridge, some initial maintenance/rehabilitation efforts will have to be undertaken within 12 to 25 years to maintain the lifecycle of the structure. Generally, the pavement and bridge deck waterproofing should be replaced in the 12 to 20 year timeframe, with a deck rehabilitation being undertaken in the 25 to 35 year timeframe. Failure to follow a preventive and proactive maintenance schedule of timely repairs and rehabilitations will result in higher than expected repair costs, or worse, missing the optimum rehabilitation window completely.
The following graph is from the Transportation Association of Canada’s (TAC) Bridge Management Guide and illustrates what is referred to as a deterioration curve.
Page 46 of 59
Figure 15: Bridge Deterioration Curve (TAC)
Similar to roads, structures (mostly bridge structures require major maintenance throughout the life cycle, in order to optimize and maximize the asset life span. Bridges require resurfacing, waterproofing and rehabilitation at the appropriate interval, dependent upon construction type and wearing surface. Different agencies categorize the expense differently, usually dependent upon the dollar value; however, bridge lifecycle minor and major rehabilitations are essentially a maintenance activity.
For structures, resurfacing and bridge deck waterproofing and rehabilitations offer a very good return on investment. When bridge structures are rehabilitated the opportunity to convert the structure to an integral or semi-integral structure will improve performance of over the longer term.
5.3.2 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation - Structures
The United Counties of Prescott and Russell’s practice has been to update the condition of the structures inventory in accordance with the legislated requirements. The bridge and culvert structures with a span greater than 3 metres should continue to be reviewed on a two year cycle, as required by regulation.
Page 47 of 59
5.3.3 Program Funding Recommendations - Structures
Program funding recommendations are a function of the constitution of the bridge and structure inventory. Recommended funding for the structures inventory should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized. Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth; those should be considered as additional. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges.
5.4 BUILDING – SPECIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
5.4.1 Building Lifecycle Maintenance
After construction of a new building, some initial maintenance/rehabilitation efforts will have to be undertaken within 12 to 25 years to maintain the lifecycle of the structure. Generally, the roof cladding, windows, HVAC system, some plumbing fixtures should be replaced in the 20 to 25 year timeframe, with the building envelope being undertaken in the 25 to 35 year timeframe. Failure to follow a preventive and proactive maintenance schedule of timely repairs and rehabilitations will result in higher than expected repair costs, or worse, missing the optimum rehabilitation window completely.
5.4.2 Condition Assessment Cycle Recommendation - Buildings
The United Counties of Prescott and Russell’s practice has been to update the condition of the building inventory every two years in accordance with good engineering practices. The buildings should continue to be reviewed on a two year cycle.
Page 48 of 59
6 FINANCING STRATEGY
6.1 FINANCING STRATEGY - ROADS
Program funding recommendations are a function of the dimensional information, surface type, roadside environment, functional class of the individual assets and current unit costing. Recommended funding for the road system should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized.
Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth; those should be considered as additional. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges.
The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the road system. UCPR estimates the cost to replace the road system, to its current standard, at $387,585,033. The budget recommendations provided in this report are based on the constitution of the road system. This represents an opportunity to develop a financial plan in concert with the asset management plan, for a phased implementation.
6.1.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of the County road system to the current standard is $387,585,033. This equates to an annual capital depreciation of $7,751,700. The annual capital depreciation is strictly a function of the replacement cost and the design life, and would best be described as an ‘Accountaneering’ number. This estimate does not include bridges, culverts, cross culverts less than 3 m, sidewalks, or street lighting. The typical design life for a road structure is 50 years before reconstruction/replacement. If the life span is 50 years, then 2% of the replacement cost should be the annual contribution to the capital reserve, to ensure that it can be reconstructed in that time frame.
The estimated replacement/depreciation is based upon the replacement value of the road system over a 50-year life cycle. However, the 50-year life cycle can only be a reality if maintenance and preservation treatments such as crack sealing and hot mix asphalt overlays are delivered at the appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and preservation will result in premature failure and increased life cycle costs.
Analogies to houses and cars sometimes make road maintenance easier to understand. If a house does not have the roof renewed within the correct time frame, there will be damage to the structure, below the roof, and if this is not dealt with, it will result in a rapid deterioration of the house. Similarly, roads require crack sealing and resurfacing at the appropriate time, during the life cycle, in order to maximize the life expectancy of the asset. Preservation and maintenance extend the useful life of the pavement, reducing life cycle costs.
6.1.2 Hot Mix Resurfacing
Roads require major maintenance throughout the life cycle, in order to optimize and maximize the asset life span. Roads require resurfacing at the appropriate interval, for the respective class of road. Different
Page 49 of 59 agencies categorize the expense differently, usually dependent upon the dollar value; however, resurfacing is essentially a maintenance activity.
Resurfacing schedules are dependent upon traffic loading and the percentage of commercial traffic. Higher traffic volumes and percentages of commercial traffic shorten the interval between resurfacings. Optimal resurfacing intervals will vary from ten to twenty years (or more), depending upon the road function, classification, and quality of design and construction.
The Hot Mix Asphalt Resurfacing recommendation in this report is based upon the distribution of the County’s hot mix asphalt inventory. As such, the optimal budget calculation will focus on the 19-year interval (18.98), for hot mix roads.
Given the aforementioned, and the information with respect to surface type contained in Table 39, the funding for the annual resurfacing program should be $5,164,274 per year on average, in order to maintain the system at its current adequacy level. This estimate is for the major resurfacing work only, and does not include any estimated costs for other pavement preservation activities or programs. Table 39 identifies the distribution of hot asphalt roads by asset class and the basis for the recommendation for the annual program budget recommendation.
Asset Asset Average L.C. Yrs Qty. Class Annual Cost (km) HCB1-R 10 $0 0 HCB1-S 10 $0 0 HCB1-U 10 $4,704 0.5 HCB2-R 12 $75,850 5.9 HCB2-S 12 $113,183 6.4 HCB2-U 12 $141,899 4.8 HCB3-R 15 $3,129,151 347.45 HCB3-S 15 $136,383 15.1 HCB3-U 15 $414,626 34.1 HCB4-R 20 $1,022,345 153.3 HCB4-S 20 $23,150 3.2 HCB4-U 20 $100,538 10.5 TOTALS $5,161,828 581.25
Table 39: Hot Mix Asphalt Roads by Asset Class and Life Cycle
6.1.3 System Performance at Various Budget Levels
Deterioration curves developed by 4 Roads have been utilized for development of funding and prediction models, and based on their experience with a large cross-section of municipalities and resultant feedback, we believe that those deterioration profiles are representative.
Page 50 of 59
This report includes budget recommendations for various aspects of the programming that are typical to road departments. System performance can be predicted based on the level of funding. UCPR has prepared four different 50-year performance models for the road system. The models have been prepared with the following parameters:
Zero budget – demonstrates the effect of no work being performed on the road system and how quickly it will deteriorate Existing budget - $7.3m.This is the average road expenditures from 2010 to 2015 inclusive. Preservation budget - $5.2m.This includes the total dollar value of the budget recommendations for Hot Mix Asphalt resurfacing. Capital Depreciation / Amortization budget - $7.8 full replacement cost of the road system annualized. Note that the model will not expend this amount annually when not required.
The Average Physical Condition of the road system is currently 75.6. The performance model calculations all begin with the current Physical Condition and for purposes of the graphing, the year-end Physical Condition is displayed based on the effects that the improvements have had on the overall condition of the road system.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
Average Average Physical Condition 20 10 0 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Year
Capital Depreciation - $7.8m Average - $7.2m Preservation - $5.2m Zero
Figure 16: Performance Modeling at Various Budget Levels
In reviewing the results of the performance models, it should be understood that, with the methodology being used, the trigger for a resurfacing activity is a Physical condition of 70. The existing system has an average Physical Condition of 75.6. At appropriate funding levels the system condition improves over time. However, the improvement in terms of the Physical Condition will only increase to approximately the mid 80’s.
Page 51 of 59
The deterioration curves that have been used consider an average/typical performance for the various road classes. When used in the model at a reasonable funding level the overall average system condition will remain at a similar level as the model will treat the pavements as perpetual.
R1- Resurface 1 Lift
New Construction
Figure 17: Graphical Representation of a Typical Life Cycle
For the purposes of a short to mid-term plan considering the pavement as performing as a perpetual pavement does not pose a problem. The aggregate road base will deteriorate over time however, the time frame where that may be contributory to the road decline would be beyond 50 years. Condition data is collected regularly and monitoring and analysis would alert the municipality to changes that are occurring.
6.1.4 Roads – How much will it Costs?
Table below shows the recommended allocation based upon the current average funding level. This will not address all needs but will maintain the current service level. Table 40 show the amount required annually based upon the time of need.
Imp.Type 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Grand Total BS 2781910 1085493 3867403 PR1 4136933 1365388 5502321 PR2 364624 1880840 4579939 1302724 1370385 292617 9791129 R1 2679391 3922939 2618526 5873236 4048091 3609261 3462462 6800905 2294990 7190869 42500670 R2 1758456 3574230 625418 388043 3800859 10147006 Grand 7,180,948 7,169,167 7,198,465 7,175,960 7,176,932 7,183,491 7,162,407 7,188,948 7,181,342 7,190,869 $71,808,529 Total Table 40: 10 Year Program -Performance Model Output (Average Funding Level)
Page 52 of 59
6.1.5 Recommendations – Long term sustainability
This report identifies the overall condition of the system. A regular review of the condition of the road system allow the municipality to gauge the effectiveness of the strategies, programs and funding levels over time; in effect benching marking against yourself. Regular reviews and analysis provide the opportunity to review and adjust any of the service delivery elements. It is recommended that a 3 to 5 year cycle review period with an update of the road system database.
Based on the composition of the road system, budget recommendations have been developed for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows:
$7,751,700 for the roads capital/depreciation, excluding resurfacing, based upon a 50-year life cycle. (This would be similar to the PSAB 3150 amortization value using current replacement costs) $5,164,274 for average annual hot mix resurfacing, based upon an 16(16.3)-year cycle.( This would approximate an average of 34.8 km per year)
For modeling purposes, we have created a funding level described as the ‘Preservation Budget’. The Preservation Budget is the total of the recommended funding levels for hot mix resurfacing: $5,164,274. The premise being that if the preservation and resurfacing programs are adequately funded then the system should be sustained. To clarify, the required funding level to sustain or improve the road system; it is not the total of all of the above recommendations. Sustainable funding has to be between the Preservation Budget and the Capital Depreciation. The preservation budget and performance model thereof are computer derived. Intangible values and decisions and the effects of other external forces cannot be incorporated into the model. As such the preservation model is the minimum required to maintain the system- in theory. From a more pragmatic perspective and to deal with the real life realities of maintaining a road system, it should be greater. That being said, the budget recommendation for UCPR is $7,200,000.
Municipal pavement management strategies are critical to managing the performance of the road system, more so, if funding is limited. Funding constraints should push the strategy toward those programs that extend the life cycle of the road by providing the correct treatment at the optimum time. Resurfacing, rehabilitation, and preservation projects should be a higher priority than reconstruction projects. The objective is to “keep the good roads good”.
The prime goal of any pavement management strategy should be to maintain overall system adequacy. The funding level for road-related programming should be set at a sufficient level so as to ensure that overall system adequacy does not decrease over time.
In addition to the budgetary recommendations, the following recommendations are provided for the management of the road inventory. The information and budget recommendations included in this report should be used to further develop the corporate Asset Management Plan. The cycle for review of the road system should be continued, reviewing the entire system on a two to four year cycle. Programming should be reviewed to ensure that resurfacing and preservation programs are optimized.
Page 53 of 59
Traffic counts should be updated and repeated on a regular basis. The counting should include the percentage of truck traffic. A field audit of the road system should be conducted to confirm attribute data and identify potentially substandard alignments. Boundary Roads should be confirmed and reviewed to ensure appropriate agreements are in place. For the foreseeable future the United Counties of Prescott and Russell’s priorities should be to optimize and prioritize pavement preservation and rehabilitation programs as a priority. The needs in these program areas should be addressed before construction or reconstruction need.
6.2 FINANCING STRATEGY - STRUCTURES
6.2.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of the UCPR Bridge and Culvert structures Inventory to the current standard is $125,755,672. The estimated capital depreciation is $2,515,113 based on a 50 year design life or $1,676,742 per year based on a 75 year service life. The annual capital depreciation is estimated based on replacement cost and the design life or service life, and would best be described as an ‘Accountaneering’ number. This estimate is strictly for structures over 3m span does not include any appurtenances. The typical design life for a bridge or culvert structure is 50 years if constructed prior to 2000.
The estimated replacement/depreciation is based upon the replacement value of the structures inventory over a 50-or 75 year life cycle. However, the life cycle can only be a reality if maintenance and preservation treatments such as waterproofing and resurfacing and minor rehabilitations delivered at the appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and preservation will result in premature failure and increased life cycle costs.
6.2.2 Structures – How much will it Costs?
Program funding recommendations are a function of the constitution of the bridge and structure inventory. Recommended funding for the structures inventory should include sufficient capital expenditures that would allow the replacement of infrastructure as the end of design life is approached, in addition to sufficient funding for maintenance, to ensure that that full life expectancy may be realized.
Budgetary recommendations in this report do not include items related to development and growth; those should be considered as additional. Generally, that type of improvement or expansion to the system would be funded from a different source, such as Development Charges.
The budget recommendations bear a direct relationship to the value of the structures inventory. UCPR estimates the cost to replace the structures inventory at $125,755,672. The budget recommendations provided in this report are based on the constitution of the structures inventory. This represents an opportunity to develop a financial plan in concert with the asset management plan, for a phased implementation.
Page 54 of 59
6.2.3 Structures – Recommendations – Long term sustainability
Based on the composition of the structures inventory, budget recommendations have been developed for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows;
$2,515,113 for the structures capital/depreciation and maintenance and rehabilitation, based upon an average 50 year design life of the existing inventory ($1,676,742 assuming 75 year service life). $2,201,683 for average minimum annual requirement, based upon the recommendations for the next 10 years as per the 10 Year Asset Management plan from the 2015 HP Engineering Bridge inspection report.
From a more pragmatic perspective and to deal with the real life realities of maintaining structures the budget recommendation for UCPR is $2,201,683 as identified in the 2015 HP Engineering Bridge inspection report.
In addition to the budgetary recommendations, the following recommendations are provided for the management of the structures inventories; The cycle for review of the structures inventory should be continued, reviewing the entire inventory on a two year cycle. Structures not currently in the being reviewed should be included in the next scheduled review cycle. Structures with a BCI of less than 60 should be closely reviewed for replacement versus rehabilitation. The average annual contribution for the structures should be $2,515,113 based on a 50 year design life. Using the 50 Year contribution should provide sufficient funding to include the maintenance activities such as bridge deck waterproofing and resurfacing, and minor rehabilitations. Capital reserves and an annual contribution should be established for the structure assets. Programming for the structures inventory should be reviewed to ensure that preservation and other service life extension treatments are optimized.
6.3 FINANCING STRATEGY - BUILDINGS
6.3.1 Capital Depreciation
The estimated replacement/depreciation value of the UCPR buildings to the current standard is $75,682,527. The estimated capital depreciation is $1,513,650 based on a 50 year design life. The annual capital depreciation is estimated based on replacement cost and the design life, and would best be described as an ‘Accountaneering’ number.
The estimated replacement/depreciation is based upon the replacement value of the building inventory over a 50 year life cycle. However, the life cycle can only be a reality if maintenance, preservation treatments and minor rehabilitations are delivered at the appropriate time. Inadequate maintenance and preservation will result in premature failure and increased life cycle costs.
Page 55 of 59
6.3.2 Buildings – How much will it Costs?
As outlined in the Art Engineering Inc reports, the following recommended investments should be undertaken over the next 20 years with a total of $19.1 million. Public Works Emergency Year Social housing Grand Total Garages Services Year 2015 $263,951 $46,006 $8,270 $318,227 Year 2016 $293,374 $26,452 $5,290 $325,117 Year 2017 $631,571 $47,127 $55,959 $734,657 Year 2018 $663,445 $32,413 $90,550 $786,408 Year 2019 $416,812 $92,230 $77,633 $586,674 Year 2020 $371,751 $425,991 $20,775 $818,516 Year 2021 $747,537 $104,490 $0 $852,027 Year 2022 $880,046 $165,497 $37,667 $1,083,210 Year 2023 $448,471 $307,093 $15,442 $771,007 Year 2024 $968,549 $337,892 $32,164 $1,338,604 Year 2025 $387,896 $238,325 $55,723 $681,945 Year 2026 $1,457,607 $140,087 $6,592 $1,604,286 Year 2027 $576,736 $76,743 $121,167 $774,646 Year 2028 $1,181,383 $199,050 $244,235 $1,624,668 Year 2029 $1,013,868 $216,057 $275,020 $1,504,945 Year 2030 $1,346,629 $59,878 $35,989 $1,442,496 Year 2031 $879,318 $18,038 $0 $897,356 Year 2032 $606,962 $19,528 $103,759 $730,249 Year 2033 $994,754 $138,610 $173,657 $1,307,021 Year 2034 $772,411 $3,778 $182,772 $958,961 Total $14,903,072 $2,695,286 $1,542,663 $19,141,021 Table 41: Buildings Financial Plan - 20 Years
Figure 18: Building – Financial Plan – 20 Years
Page 56 of 59
6.3.3 Recommendations – Long term sustainability
According to the Art Engineering Inc. Building Condition Reports, the average annual requirements is $957,051 over the next 20 years as shown in Table above. According to the 2014, 2015 and 2016 Budgets, the County allocated an average of $500,000 respectively to the three building types.
Based on the composition of the buildings, budget recommendations have been developed for annual capital and maintenance programs as follows:
$1,513,650 for the buildings capital/depreciation $957,051 for average annual requirement, based upon the recommendations for the next 20 years.
From a more pragmatic perspective and to deal with the real life realities of maintaining buildings the budget recommendation for UCPR is $1,000,000 as identified in the ART Engineering program.
6.4 FINANCING STRATEGY ALL ASSETS
The following tables outline the recommendations based upon current funding levels and Time of Need. As shown, the current funding levels is approximately $2.17 million short of the recommended budget when you consider the entire 10 years. Further analysis is required for recommendations with respect to debt and financing based upon the desired levels of service.
Page 57 of 59
Grand Total Asset 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 (10 Years) Roads 7,180,948 7,169,167 7,198,465 7,175,960 7,176,932 7,183,491 7,162,407 7,188,948 7,181,342 7,190,869 71,808,529 Bridges & 1,511,600 2,511,168 2,701,500 2,150,800 2,064,500 2,119,000 2,152,300 2,241,500 2,147,460 1,376,000 20,975,828 Culverts Buildings 325,117 734,657 786,408 586,674 818,516 852,027 1,083,210 771,007 1,338,604 681,945 7,978,165 Total 9,017,665 10,414,992 10,686,373 9,913,434 10,059,948 10,154,518 10,397,917 10,201,455 10,667,406 9,248,814 100,762,522 Recommended Existing budget 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,903,800 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000 79,000,000 (2016) Shortfall -1,117,665 -2,514,992 -2,786,373 -2,013,434 -2,159,948 -2,254,518 -2,497,917 -2,301,455 -2,767,406 -1,348,814 -21,762,522 Table 42: Recommended Capital Investments – 10 Years
Page 58 of 59
6.4.1 10 Year Program
Appendix A includes the results of a 10 Year program at the Average Budget level of $7.2m per year for the road system.
Appendix B includes the results of a 10 Year program for bridges and culverts based on HP Engineering 2015 inspection report.
Appendix C includes the results of a 20 Year program for buildings based on ART Engineering report.
Page 59 of 59
APPENDIX A: 10 YEARS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN - ROADS Year Asset ID Street Name Description Qty Improvement Cost Start Cond End Cond RDSD ENVT Known Road Name 2016 02-W-242-255 County Road 2 ( to ) 1.3 km West of County Road 9-to-County Road 9 1.3 R1 156,200 45 95 R County Road 2 2016 03-W-114-125 County Road 3 ( to ) St-Joseph Street-to-1.1 km East of St-Joseph 1.1 R1 132,700 55 95 R Notre-Dame Street 2016 05-N-138-161 County Road 5 ( to ) 0.2 km North of Calypso Street-to-Railway Tracks (100m North of Herbert St) 2.3 PR1 271,400 40 100 U Limoges Road 2016 08-N-075-081 County Road 8 ( to ) Baseline Road-to-0.6 km South of Baseline 0.6 R1 71,829 45 95 R Landry Road 2016 08-N-081-096 County Road 8 ( to ) 0.6 km South of Baseline-to-1.0 km North of Labonté Street 1.5 R1 179,571 55 95 R Landry Road 2016 08-N-220-230 County Road 8 ( to ) Bridge Champlain - 08-204-to-1.2km South of Bridge Champlain 08-204 1.2 R1 170,550 65 95 R County Road 8 2016 08-N-230-240 County Road 8 ( to ) 1.2 km South of Bridge Champlain 08-204-to-2.1 km South of Bridge Champlain 08-204 0.9 R1 127,913 40 95 R County Road 8 2016 08-N-240-250 County Road 8 ( to ) 2.1 km South of Bridge Champlain 08-204-to-3.2 km South of Bridge Champlain 08-204 1.1 R1 156,337 55 95 R County Road 8 2016 12-N-000-025 County Road 12 ( to ) County Road 17-to-300m North of Green Lane Road 2.5 BS 322,900 45 100 R County Road 12 2016 15-N-003-010 County Road 15 ( to ) 0.3 km South of County Road 24-to-1 km South of County Road 24 0.7 R1 120,000 60 95 R County Road 15 2016 16-W-012-021 County Road 16 ( to ) Concession 14-to-0.9 km North of Concession 14 0.9 R1 120,000 55 95 R County Road 16 2016 17-W-276-301 County Road 17 ( to ) 600 m East of Concession 3-to-County Road 9 2.3 Int. Improv. 201,224 95 95 R County Road 17 2016 17-W-301-366 County Road 17 ( to ) County Road 9-to-County Road 15 South 6.5 Int. Improv. 568,676 60 60 R County Road 17 2016 17-W-426-449 County Road 17 ( to ) Peladeau Road-to-County Road 20 2.3 PR2 402,756 45 100 R County Road 17 2016 17-W-449-489 County Road 17 ( to ) County Road 20-to-5.0 km West of County Road 11 4 PR2 700,444 35 100 R County Road 17 2016 17-W-684-700 County Road 17 ( to ) Golf Road-to-100 m West of Highway 417 Interchange 1.6 PR2 213,900 30 100 R County Road 17 2016 19-N-200-216 County Road 19 ( to ) Ettyville Road-to-County Road 8 1.6 R1 217,900 30 95 R Robillard Road 2016 20-N-045-067 County Road 20 ( to ) Caledonia Springs Road (curve, east)-to-700m West of Lalonde Side Road 2.4 BS 622,800 25 100 R Concession road 1 2016 21-N-027-053 County Road 21 ( to ) 0.6 km South of Poupart Street-to-Joanisse Road 2.6 R1 297,900 45 95 R Baseline road 2016 24-W-308-354 County Road 24 ( to ) Dufour Street-to-County Road 4 4.6 PR1 543,800 30 100 S Front Road 2017 01-W-021-035 County Road 1 ( to ) County Road 21-to-Gagné Road 1.4 BS 419,024 28.74 100 R Du Golf Road 2017 02-W-169-195 County Road 2 ( to ) County Road 19-to-0.4km West of Route 16 2.6 PR1 331,307 39.37 95 R County Road 2 2017 02-W-195-202 County Road 2 ( to ) 0.4km West of Route 16-to-CN tracks 0.7 PR1 87,729 39.37 95 R County Road 2 2017 03-W-000-022 County Road 3 ( to ) Boundary Road (Ottawa Boundary)-to-Olde Towne Ave (0.6 km East of Hamilton Rd) 2.2 PR1 296,593 39.37 95 R Craig Street 2017 05-N-161-170 County Road 5 ( to ) Railway Tracks (100m North of Herbert St)-to-0.2 km North of Savage Street 0.9 PR1 142,605 39.37 95 U Limoges Road 2017 05-N-170-184 County Road 5 ( to ) 0.2 km Noth of Savage Street-to-Russland Road 1.4 PR2 364,624 33.54 100 S Limoges Road 2017 08-N-000-017 County Road 8 ( to ) Ottawa River-to-Dallaire Road 1.7 PR1 194,464 39.27 95 R Guibord Road 2017 11-N-000-011 County Road 11 ( to ) King Street-to-County Road 17 1.1 PR1 155,477 33.54 95 U Longueil 2017 17-W-152-161 County Road 17 ( to ) 500 m East of Rollin Road-to-Division Road 0.9 PR2 267,009 33.54 100 R County Road 17 2017 17-W-642-684 County Road 17 ( to ) Champlain Boundary-to-Golf Road 5 PR2 1,393,858 39.37 100 R County Road 17 2017 19-N-091-119 County Road 19 ( to ) Concession 6 Road-to-County Road 2 2.8 PR1 360,350 39.37 95 R County Road 19 2017 21-N-129-139 County Road 21 ( to ) 1.4 km South of Du Golf Street-to-2.4 km South of Du Golf Street 1 PR1 123,435 39.37 95 R Joanisse Road 2017 21-N-155-160 County Road 21 ( to ) 0.3 km West of Gendron Road-to-0.2 km South of Lacroix Road 0.5 BS 494,107 28.73 95 U Lacroix Road 2017 24-W-282-297 County Road 24 ( to ) 1.9 km West of King Street-to-Des Chalets Street 1.5 PR1 189,897 39.37 95 R Bay Road 2017 26-W-000-023 County Road 26 ( to ) County Road 17-to-0.4 km West of Plantagenet Concession 3 Road 2.3 PR1 298,382 39.27 95 R County Road 26 2017 32-N-000-003 County Road 32 (Marionville( to )Road) Gregoire SDG Road-to-St-Pierre County Road 7 0.3 PR2 88,799 33.54 100 U Marionville Road 2017 41-N-117-147 County Road 41 ( to ) Route 400-to-Route 500 3 PR2 719,912 39.37 100 R Boundary Road 2017 03-W-030-034 County Road 3 ( to ) Concession Street-to-Warner Street (0.4 km East of Concession Street) 0.4 R1 69,474 62.14 97 U Castor Street 2017 03-W-034-038 County Road 3 ( to ) Warner Street (0.4 km East of Concession Street)-to-Eldon Street (0.8 km East of Concession Street) 0.4 R1 73,471 48.64 97 U Castor Street 2017 09-N-064-070 County Road 9 ( to ) Highway 17-to-Pitch Off Road 0.6 PR1 89,839 43.8 95 U Old Highway 17 2017 11-N-011-015 County Road 11 ( to ) County Road 17-to-0.4 km South of County Road 17 0.4 PR1 52,307 43.8 95 R Cassburn Road 2017 17-W-108-111 County Road 17 ( to ) Ramage Road-to-300m East of Ramage Road 0.3 PR2 87,395 48.63 100 R County Road 17 2017 17-W-111-114 County Road 17 ( to ) 300m East of Ramage Road-to-600m East of Ramage Road 0.3 PR2 87,395 48.63 100 R County Road 17 2017 21-N-004-009 County Road 21 ( to ) Patricia Street-to-Docteur Corbeil boulevard 0.5 R1 66,930 62.14 97 R St-Jean street 2017 24-W-297-301 County Road 24 ( to ) Des Chalets Street-to-King Street LOrignal 0.4 PR1 55,921 43.8 95 U Bay Road 2017 10-W-258-259 County Road 10 ( to ) Pendleton Street-to-Highway 34 0.1 R1 19,367 67.92 97 U Main Street Vankleekhill 2017 29-N-000-002 County Road 29 ( to ) Notre Dame Street-to-0.2 km South of Notre Dame Street 0.2 R1 36,735 67.92 97 U Ste Marie Road 2017 08-N-023-043 County Road 8 ( to ) Dallaire Road-to-County Road 17 2 PR1 260,623 33.54 33.54 S Old Highway 171 2017 09-N-122-149 County Road 9 ( to ) County Road 2-to-Concession 10 2.7 R1 351,841 53.83 53.83 R County Road 9 2018 20-N-045-067 County Road 20 ( to ) Caledonia Springs Road (curve, east)-to-700m West of Lalonde Side Road 2.4 REC 1,035,000 24.98 100 R Concession road 1 2018 05-N-138-161 County Road 5 ( to ) 0.2 km North of Calypso Street-to-Railway Tracks (100m North of Herbert St) 2.3 R2 670,446 39.37 100 U Limoges Road 2018 08-N-230-240 County Road 8 ( to ) 1.2 km South of Bridge Champlain 08-204-to-2.1 km South of Bridge Champlain 08-204 0.9 R2 193,431 39.37 100 R County Road 8 2018 17-W-684-700 County Road 17 ( to ) Golf Road-to-100 m West of Highway 417 Interchange 1.6 REC 1,349,795 28.74 100 R County Road 17 2018 19-N-200-216 County Road 19 ( to ) Ettyville Road-to-County Road 8 1.6 REC 676,818 29.36 100 R Robillard Road 2018 03-W-022-030 County Road 3 ( to ) Olde Towne Ave (0.6 km East of Hamilton Rd)-to-Concession Street 0.8 R1 142,945 46.17 97 U Craig Street 2018 04-W-066-078 County Road 4 ( to ) 0.3 km East of Des Erables Street-to-1.5 km East of Des Erables Street 1.2 R1 151,607 46.17 97 R Front Road 2018 04-W-170-191 County Road 4 ( to ) 2.0 km South-Easterly of 0.4 km East of Des Cedres Street-to-Highway 417 overpass 1.3 R1 168,367 56.5 97 R Front Road 2018 05-N-208-219 County Road 5 (Regional (Road to ) St-Thomas 8) Rd-to-Dunning Rd 1.1 R2 127,752 51.19 100 R Russland Road 2018 07-W-038-047 County Road 7 ( to ) East end of Bridge-to-0.9 km East of Bridge 0.9 R1 169,806 65.01 97 U Route 900 West 2018 07-W-128-135 County Road 7 ( to ) Racine Street-to-St-Isidore Street 0.7 R1 169,033 64.28 97 U Principale Street 2018 08-N-075-081 County Road 8 ( to ) Baseline Road-to-0.6 km South of Baseline 0.6 R2 144,696 43.8 100 R Landry Road 2018 08-N-220-230 County Road 8 ( to ) Bridge Champlain - 08-204-to-1.2km South of Bridge Champlain 08-204 1.2 R1 162,536 62.14 97 R County Road 8 2018 09-N-096-102 County Road 9 ( to ) 200 m North of Mary Street-to-200 m South of Station Street 0.6 R1 102,712 59.32 97 U County Road 9 2018 09-N-255-266 County Road 9 ( to ) County Road 3-to-200m South of Caledonia Rd 1.1 R1 136,658 59.31 97 R County Road 9 2018 10-W-263-271 County Road 10 ( to ) Bertha Street-to-East of Newton Road 0.8 R1 140,947 59.32 97 U Main Street Vankleekhill 2018 15-N-003-010 County Road 15 ( to ) 0.3 km South of County Road 24-to-1 km South of County Road 24 0.7 R1 88,872 59.1 97 R County Road 15 2018 16-W-119-128 County Road 16 ( to ) 200 m East of Proudfoot Road-to-County Road 9 0.9 R1 105,135 61.71 97 R County Road 16 2018 17-W-147-152 County Road 17 ( to ) Rollin Road-to-500m East of Rollin Road 0.5 PR2 145,659 46.17 100 R County Road 17 2018 18-W-021-031 County Road 18 ( to ) County Road 25-to-Gibbs Road 1.2 R1 151,565 61.71 97 R County Road 18 2018 23-W-000-010 County Road 23 ( to ) County Road 22-to-1.0 km East of County Road 22 1 PR1 116,903 41.55 95 R Concession Road 7 2018 23-W-010-020 County Road 23 ( to ) 1.0 km East of County Road 22-to-2.0 km East of County Road 22 1 R1 117,266 56.5 97 R Concession Road 7 2018 24-W-097-105 County Road 24 ( to ) 2.0 km East of Bolt Road-to-0.7 km west of County Road 15 0.8 R1 98,891 61.71 97 R Lajoie Street 2018 24-W-175-184 County Road 24 ( to ) Du Domaine Road-to-0.9 km South of Domaine Chartrand Road 0.9 R1 116,748 61.71 97 R Bay Road 2018 24-W-269-282 County Road 24 ( to ) 3.2 km West of King Street-to-1.9 km West of King Street 1.3 R1 157,424 65.01 97 R Bay Road 2018 26-W-023-033 County Road 26 ( to ) 0.4 km West of Plantagenet Concession 3 Road-to-0.6 km East of Plantagenet Concession 3 Road 1 R1 130,134 61.71 97 R County Road 26 2018 26-W-033-043 County Road 26 ( to ) 0.6 km East of Plantagenet Concession 3 Road-to-2 km West of County Road 9 1 PR1 129,732 41.55 95 R County Road 26 2018 32-N-003-030 County Road 32 (Marionville( to )Road) St-Pierre-to-County SDG County Road Road 7 6 2.7 R1 162,547 59.31 97 R Marionville Road 2018 41-N-055-067 County Road 41 ( to ) Route 200-to-Craig Street (County Road 3) 1.2 R1 81,827 65.01 97 R Boundary Road 2018 09-N-266-270 County Road 9 ( to ) 200m South of Caledonia Rd-to-Concession Rd 19 0.4 R1 53,130 70.83 97 R County Road 9 2019 24-W-308-354 County Road 24 ( to ) Dufour Street-to-County Road 4 4.6 REC 4,069,236 27.35 100 S Front Road 2019 08-N-023-043 County Road 8 ( to ) Dallaire Road-to-County Road 17 2 REC 309,729 31.83 100 S Old Highway 171 2019 09-N-076-096 County Road 9 ( to ) Int. County Road 26-to-200 m North of Mary Street 2 PR1 289,900 39.37 95 U County Road 9 2019 09-N-102-122 County Road 9 ( to ) 200 m South of Station Street-to-County Road 2 2 PR1 257,807 39.37 95 R County Road 9 2019 17-W-024-033 County Road 17 ( to ) 500 m West of Laporte Street-to-430 m West of Chamberland 0.9 PR2 292,617 39.84 100 U County Road 17 2019 19-N-028-051 County Road 19 ( to ) Concession 2 Road-to-Concession 3 Road 2.3 PR1 297,430 39.37 95 R County Road 19 2019 19-N-066-091 County Road 19 ( to ) 0.1 km South of concession 4 road-to-Concession 6 Road 2.5 PR1 321,741 39.37 95 R County Road 19 2019 24-W-062-077 County Road 24 ( to ) 1.7 km East of Ouellette Side Road-to-Bolt Road 1.5 PR1 193,398 39.27 95 R Alfred Concession 1 2019 29-N-002-017 County Road 29 ( to ) 0.2 km South of Notre Dame Street-to-Route 400 1.5 PR1 187,947 39.37 95 R Ste Marie Road 2019 10-W-079-089 County Road 10 ( to ) Concession 6 Rd-to-Montée Bradley 1 R1 122,337 64.32 97 R County Road 10 2019 14-N-106-117 County Road 14 ( to ) County Road 25-to-Bridge 14-146 North Of Ste-anne de Prescott 1.1 R1 134,039 64.32 97 R County Road 14 2019 17-W-141-147 County Road 17 ( to ) 600m West of Rollin Road-to-Rollin Road 0.6 PR2 174,791 43.8 100 R County Road 17 2019 18-W-049-056 County Road 18 ( to ) 0.5 km West of County Road 14-to-0.2 km East of County road 14 0.7 R1 121,580 64.32 97 U County Road 18 2019 19-N-144-152 County Road 19 ( to ) 0.2 km North of Concession 10 Road-to-0.6 km South of Concession 10 Road 0.8 R1 146,942 64.32 97 U County Road 19 2019 22-N-104-115 County Road 22 ( to ) St-Isidore Road-to-Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Boundary 1.1 R1 128,043 64.32 97 R County Road 22 2019 23-W-054-069 County Road 23 ( to ) Highway 417 Overpass-to-Skye Road 1.5 R1 96,824 64.32 97 R Lochiel Caledonia Boundary Rd 2019 08-N-017-023 County Road 8 ( to ) Onésime Guibord-to-Old Highway 17 0.2 R1 26,510 69.47 97 R Dallaire Road 2020 02-W-242-255 County Road 2 ( to ) 1.3 km West of County Road 9-to-County Road 9 1.3 R2 287,197 39.37 100 R County Road 2 2020 12-N-000-025 County Road 12 ( to ) County Road 17-to-300m North of Green Lane Road 2.5 R2 553,840 39.27 100 R County Road 12 2020 17-W-426-449 County Road 17 ( to ) Peladeau Road-to-County Road 20 2.3 R2 642,193 39.37 100 R County Road 17 2020 17-W-449-489 County Road 17 ( to ) County Road 20-to-5.0 km West of County Road 11 4 R2 1,082,127 30.22 100 R County Road 17 2020 17-W-489-531 County Road 17 ( to ) 5.0 km West of County Road 11-to-County Road 11 5 PR2 1,350,503 37.31 100 R County Road 17 2020 21-N-027-053 County Road 21 ( to ) 0.6 km South of Poupart Street-to-Joanisse Road 2.6 R2 609,825 39.37 100 R Baseline road 2020 03-W-078-086 County Road 3 ( to ) 0.2 km East of Industrial Street (Co-op Entrance)-to-County Road 29 (Ste-Marie Street) 0.8 R1 146,942 64.28 97 U Notre-Dame Street 2020 03-W-086-095 County Road 3 ( to ) County Road 29 (Ste-Marie Street)-to-East of Embrun Bridge ( bridge 03-101) in front of Civic # 958 0.9 R1 158,565 65.01 97 U Notre-Dame Street 2020 03-W-402-413 County Road 3 ( to ) 2.4 km West of County Road 9-to-1.3 km West of County Road 9 1.1 R1 142,009 65.01 97 R County Road 3 2020 03-W-413-426 County Road 3 ( to ) 1.3 km West of County Road 9-to-County Road 9 (St-Isidore) 1.3 R1 162,626 65.01 97 R County Road 3 2020 08-N-376-391 County Road 8 ( to ) Concession 17 Road-to-County Road 3 East 1.5 R1 191,734 65.01 97 R County Road 8 2020 10-W-442-458 County Road 10 ( to ) 1.6 km West of Grand Montée Road-to-La Grand Montée Road 1.6 R1 203,798 61.71 97 R County Road 10 2020 11-N-112-124 County Road 11 ( to ) 1.2 km North of County Road 10 (Recreation Trail)-to-County Road 10 1.2 R1 155,912 65.01 97 R Cassburn Road 2020 15-N-244-250 County Road 15 ( to ) 600m North of County Road 10-to-County Road 10 0.6 R2 187,170 46.33 100 U County Road 15 2020 16-W-012-021 County Road 16 ( to ) Concession 14-to-0.9 km North of Concession 14 0.9 R2 200,873 48.82 100 R County Road 16 2020 21-N-160-165 County Road 21 ( to ) 0.2 km South of Lacroix Road-to-0.2 km South of Des Tulipes Street 0.5 R1 88,092 65.01 97 U Gendron Road 2020 24-W-031-046 County Road 24 ( to ) 1.4 km West of Ouellette Side Road (Lac George Bridge)-to-0.1 km East of Ouellette Side Road 1.5 R1 188,318 56.5 97 R Alfred Concession 1 2020 24-W-046-062 County Road 24 ( to ) 0.1 km East of Ouellette Side Road-to-1.7 km East of Ouellette Side Road 1.6 R1 203,246 56.5 97 R Alfred Concession 1 2020 24-W-119-126 County Road 24 ( to ) Quai Street-to-0.2 km East of Ferry Road 0.7 R1 95,281 65.02 97 S Lajoie Street 2020 24-W-126-142 County Road 24 ( to ) 0.2 km East of Ferry Road-to-1.8 km East of Ferry Road 1.6 R1 203,578 56.5 97 R Alfred Concession 1 2020 24-W-250-259 County Road 24 ( to ) 3.4 km East of Blue Corner Road-to-4.3 km East of Blue Corner Road 0.9 R1 108,986 65.01 97 R Bay Road 2020 24-W-259-265 County Road 24 ( to ) 4.3 km East of Blue Corner Road-to-4.9 km East of Blue Corner Road 0.6 R1 72,657 65.01 97 R Bay Road 2020 09-N-074-076 County Road 9 ( to ) End of Small Bridge 09-073-to-Int. County Road 26 0.2 R1 38,734 70.84 97 U Old Highway 17 2020 21-N-000-004 County Road 21 ( to ) Laurier Street-to-Patricia Street 0.4 R1 70,473 70.84 97 U St-Jean street 2020 24-W-265-269 County Road 24 ( to ) 4.9 km East of Blue Corner Road-to-3.2 km West of King Street 0.4 R1 48,438 70.83 97 R Bay Road 2021 04-W-150-170 County Road 4 ( to ) 0.4 km East of Des Cedres Street-to-2.0 km South-Easterly of 0.4 km East of Des Cedres Street 2.2 R1 283,107 39.27 97 R Front Road 2021 05-N-219-251 County Road 5 (Regional (Road to ) Dunning 8) Rd-to-Rockdale Rd 3.2 R1 402,298 39.37 97 R Russland Road 2021 17-W-114-141 County Road 17 ( to ) 600m East of Ramage Road-to-600m West of Rollin Road 2.7 PR2 786,559 39.37 100 R County Road 17 2021 41-N-067-117 County Road 41 ( to ) Craig Street (County Road 3)-to-Route 400 5 R1 648,083 39.37 97 R Boundary Road 2021 01-W-000-021 County Road 1 ( to ) Canaan Road (Ottawa Boundary)-to-County Road 21 2.1 R1 292,336 62.14 97 R
United Counties of Prescott-Russell 2015 BIENNIAL BRIDGE INSPECTIONS
Additional Investigations (From 2015 OSIM) Replace and Rehabilitation Needs (From 2015 OSIM Inspections and Current Bridge Information) Prioritization of Capital Work Bridge Prioritized Year Prioritized Year of Estimated Major and Minor Capital Work Expenditures per Year (1) (2) (3) Name 6-10 No Investigation Cost < 1 year cost 1-5 years Cost Cost of Need - Major Need - Minor years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Capital Works Capital Works Rehabilitation/Replacement Study 14-146 7th Concession Bridge Monitor Settlements/Movements $ 25,000.00 $ - Major Rehabilitation on Bridge $ 1,511,600.00 $ - 2016 - $ 1,511,600.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 24-030 Treadwell Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 25,000.00 $ - Major Rehabilitation on Bridge $ 662,036.00 $ - 2017 - 0 $ 662,036.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 02-139 Cobb Lake Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 20,000.00 $ - Major Rehabilitation on Bridge $ 927,200.00 $ - 2017 - $ - $ 927,200.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 18-062 St. Anne Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 20,000.00 $ - Major Rehabilitation on Bridge $ 921,932.00 $ - 2017 - $ - $ 921,932.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Asphalt Surface Repair on Approaches Concrete Repair on End Walls 03-261 Paul Emile Levesque Bridge Replace Joint Seals Install Code Compliant End Treatments and Concrete Repairs on Sidewalk Connections Replace Deck Concrete Repairs on Curb Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 468,000.00 Repave Deck Wearing Surface $ 211,500.00 $ - - 2018 $ - $ - $ 679,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/ Replacement Study 98-002 South North Bridge Structural Evalutation $ 30,000.00 $ - Replace Bridge $ 506,500.00 $ - 2018 - $ - $ - $ 506,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Asphalt Surface Repair on Approaches Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Concrete Repairs on Soffit 03-101 Embrun Bridge Structural Evaluation Steel Repair on Girders Coating Survey Install Code Compliant Barrier Steel Repair on Diaphragms Monitor Settlements/Movements $ 17,500.00 Install Code Code Compliant End Treatments $ 68,000.00 ConcreteRe-coat Structural Repairs on Steel Curb $ 284,500.00 $ - - 2020 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 352,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Replace Deck Drains Concrete Repairs on Soffit Steel Repair on Diaphragms 06-027 East Branch Castor River Bridge Re-coat Structrural Steel Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Install Code Compliant End Treatments Replace Abutment Bearings Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 10,000.00 Replace Deck Barrier $ 100,000.00 ReplaceConcrete Joint Repairs Seals on Abutment Walls $ 187,500.00 $ - - 2019 $ - $ - $ - $ 287,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Concrete Repair on Concrete End Dams Concrete Repairs on Curb Concrete Repairs on Deck Top 06-077 South Russell Bridge Concrete Repair on Soffit Install Code Compliant End Treatments and Concrete Repair on Girders Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Connections Concrete Repairs on Wingwalls Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 10,000.00 Replace Deck Barrier $ 160,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Ballast Walls $ 237,300.00 $ - - 2019 $ - $ - $ - $ 397,300.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Concrete Repairs on Deck Top 98-004 Alfcal Bridge Concrete Repairs on Soffit Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Install Code Compliant Barrier on Deck and Concrete Repairs on Wingwalls Detailed Deck Condition Survey Approaches Concrete Repairs on Abutment Walls $ 10,000.00 $ 112,000.00 Asphalt Surface Repairs on $ 77,000.00 $ - - 2020 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 189,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 06-001 Russell Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Install Code Compliant Barrier on Deck and Approaches Monitor Settlements/Movements Approaches Concrete Repairs on Wingwalls $ 5,000.00 $ 164,000.00 Replace Deck Drains $ 17,300.00 $ - - 2022 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 181,300.00 $ - $ - $ - 17-003 Little Rideau Creek Crossing Bridge Install Code Compliant End treatments Concrete Repairs on Soffit Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Replace Deck Barrier $ 135,200.00 Concrete Repairs on Wingwalls $ 43,500.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 178,700.00 $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Install Code Compliant End Treatments and 05-082 Little Castor Bridge Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 13,000.00 Connections Replace $ 104,800.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 104,800.00 $ - $ - 04-139 Dan Kirby Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Install Code Compliant Barrier on Deck and $ 92,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Soffit $ 34,500.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 126,500.00 $ - $ - Install Code Compliant End Treatments and 10-421 St-Eugene Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Connections Replace Deck $ 104,800.00 Concrete Repairs on Sidewalk $ 7,500.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 112,300.00 $ - $ - Concrete Repairs on Sidewalk 09-073 Plantagenet Bridge Concrete Repairs on Wingwalls Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Install Code Compliant End Treatments $ 12,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Abutment Walls $ 26,000.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 38,000.00 $ - $ - Concrete Repairs on Soffit 15-146 Horse Creek Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 $ - Concrete Repairs on Abutment Walls $ 28,800.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 28,800.00 $ - $ -
Asphalt Surface Repairs on Approaches Concrete Repairs on Deck Barrier 17-002 Des Atocas Crossing Bridge Replace Joint Seals Concrete Repairs on Girders Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Concrete Repairs on Diaphragms Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 13,000.00 Install Code Compliant End treatments $ 16,000.00 Concerete Repairs on Abutment Walls $ 140,600.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 156,600.00 $ - $ - Install Code Compliant End Treatments and 15-221 Lalonde Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Connections Replace Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 13,000.00 Deck Barrier $ 144,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Curb $ 5,000.00 $ - - 2023 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 149,000.00 $ - $ - Asphalt Surface Repairs on Approaches Replace Joint Seals 98-006 Marionville Bridge Concrete Repairs on Curb Replace Deck Drains Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Asphalt Surface Repairs on Deck Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 10,000.00 Replace Deck Barrier $ 178,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Pier Shaft $ 133,000.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 311,000.00 $ - $ -
Concrete Repairs on Approach 24-294 Mill Creek Bridge (Alfred) Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Sidewalk Detailed Condition Survey Replace Deck Drains Monitor Settlements/Movements $ 15,500.00 Replace Deck Barrier $ 100,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Soffit $ 25,000.00 $ - - 2024 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 125,000.00 $ - Replace Joint Seals Install Code Compliant End Treatments and Replace Deck Drains 19-152 Pendleton Bridge (Clovis Tourigny Bridge) Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Connections Replace Deck Asphalt Surface Repairs on Deck Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 13,000.00 Barrier $ 190,500.00 Concrete Repairs on Girders $ 115,000.00 $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 305,500.00 $ - Install Code Compliant End Treatments and 29-079 Gaston Patenaude (South) Connections Replace Replace Joint Seals Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Deck Barrier $ 208,000.00 Replace Abutment Bearings $ 89,500.00 $ - - 2024 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 297,500.00 $ - Concrete Repairs on End Dams 29-078 Gaston Patenaude (North) Install Code Compliant End Treatments Replace Joint Seals Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Replace Deck Barrier $ 212,800.00 Concrete Repairs on Girders $ 23,000.00 $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 235,800.00 $ - Asphalt Surface Repair on Approaches Replace Expansion Joints 03-418 Bourgon Bridge Asphalt Surface Repair on Deck Concrete Repairs on Girders Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Concrete Repairs on Wingwalls Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 13,000.00 Install Code Compliant End Treatments $ 16,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Abutment Walls $ 157,260.00 $ - - 2024 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 173,260.00 $ - Asphalt Surface Repairs on Approaches 19-001 Bear Brook Bridge (Claude Lemay Bridge) Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Install Code Compliant End Treatments and Replace Joint Seal Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 13,000.00 Connections $ 28,000.00 Repave Deck Wearing Surface $ 100,000.00 $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 128,000.00
28-065 Menard Bridge Concrete Repairs on Soffit Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 8,000.00 Replace Damaged End Treatment $ 4,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Abutment Walls $ 33,000.00 $ - - 2025 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 37,000.00 17-004 Jessop's Falls Bridge (Nation River Bridge) Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Install Code Compliant End treatments $ 16,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Wingwalls $ 15,000.00 $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31,000.00
29-105 Rivard Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Install Code Compliant End Treatments Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 13,000.00 Replace Deck Barrier $ 54,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Soffit $ 15,000.00 $ - - 2025 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 69,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Deck Barrier Replace Joint Seals 25-020 Fitzhenry Bridge Install Code Compliant End Treatments and Replace Deck Drains Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Connections $ 49,000.00 Asphalt Surface Repair on Deck $ 56,000.00 $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 105,000.00
Concrete Repairs on Deck Barrier Replace Joint Seals Concrete Repairs on Soffit 08-308 Belanger Bridge Concrete Repairs on Diaphragms Concrete Repairs on Ballast Walls Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Install Code Compliant End Treatments and Concrete Repairs on Abutment Walls Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 13,000.00 Connections $ 28,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Pier Cap $ 363,000.00 $ - - 2025 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 391,000.00
Replace Abutment Bearings 16-109 Riceville Bridge Install Code Compliant End Treatments and Concrete Repairs on Pier Shaft Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Connections $ 28,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Retaining Walls $ 78,900.00 $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 106,900.00
07-040 St. Albert Bridge (L.E. Brisson Bridge) Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Install Code Compliant End Treatments and Asphalt Surface Repairs on Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 13,000.00 Connections $ 28,000.00 Approaches $ 15,000.00 $ - - 2025 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 43,000.00
09-071 Plantagenet Twin Arch Bridge Concrete Repairs on Wingwalls Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Install Code Compliant End Treatments $ 8,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Abutment Walls $ 62,000.00 $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 70,000.00
Concrete Repairs on Girders 03-397 Quesnel Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study Concrete Repairs on Wingwalls Detailed Deck Condition Survey $ 13,000.00 Install Code Compliant End Treatments $ 16,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Abutment Walls $ 20,000.00 $ - - 2025 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 36,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Concrete End Dams 09-176 J. Henri Seguin Bridge Replace Joint Seals Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Install Code Compliant End Treatments $ 16,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Deck Top $ 61,800.00 $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 77,800.00 24-192 Azatika Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Install Code Compliant End Treatments $ 16,000.00 $ - $ - - 2025 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 16,000.00 98-007 Scotch River Bridge $ - Install Code Compliant End Treatments $ 16,000.00 $ - $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 16,000.00 Install Code Compliant End Treatments and 08-100 Ferry Road Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Study $ 5,000.00 Connections $ 20,000.00 $ - $ - - 2025 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,000.00 08-204 Oullette Bridge $ - Concrete Repairs on Soffit $ 5,000.00 $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000.00 05-098 Brisson Bridge $ - $ - $ - $ - - 2025 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotals Bridges $ 411,000.00 $ 2,913,100.00 $ 7,197,728.00 $ - $ 1,511,600.00 $ 2,511,168.00 $ 1,186,000.00 $ 684,800.00 $ 541,500.00 $ - $ 181,300.00 $ 1,205,700.00 $ 1,137,060.00 $ 1,151,700.00 Subtotals Culverts $ 630,000.00 $ 2,025,500.00 $ 5,391,300.00 $ 3,448,200.00 $ - $ - $ 1,515,500.00 $ 1,466,000.00 $ 1,523,000.00 $ 2,119,000.00 $ 1,971,000.00 $ 1,035,800.00 $ 1,010,400.00 $ 224,300.00 Totals $ 1,041,000.00 $ 4,938,600.00 $ 12,589,028.00 $ 3,448,200.00 $ 1,511,600.00 $ 2,511,168.00 $ 2,701,500.00 $ 2,150,800.00 $ 2,064,500.00 $ 2,119,000.00 $ 2,152,300.00 $ 2,241,500.00 $ 2,147,460.00 $ 1,376,000.00
Notes: (1) For structures schedules for Major Rehabilitation / Replacement, it has been assumed that barrier work will be complete at the same time that the structure is replaced. Therefore, for these structures, the barrier costs have been not been included in the 'Prioritization of Capital Work' section of the table above. (2) Amount shown in year to year plan in 2015 dollars and does not consider any inflation. (3) Cost / final scopre may change based on outcome of rehabilitation study
HP Engineering Inc. 2039 Robertson Road, Suite 400, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Telephone: 613-695-3737 - Fax: 613-680-3636 Appendix B: 10 Year Asset Management Plan - Culverts
United Counties of Prescott-Russell 2015 BIENNIAL CULVERT INSPECTIONS
Additional Investigations (2015 OSIM) Replace and Rehabilitation Needs (2015 OSIM and Current Culvert Information) Prioritization of Capital Work Prioritized Prioritized Estimated Major and Minor Capital Work Expenditures per Year (1) (2) (3) Culvert Name Year of Need - Year of Need - No Investigation Cost < 1 year cost 1-5 years Cost 6-10 years Cost Major Capital Minor Capital 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Works Works Rehabilitation/Replacement 09-320 St. Isidore Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 322,500.00 $ - 2018 - $ - $ - $ 322,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 08-101 Clarence Creek Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 523,500.00 $ - 2018 - $ - $ - $ 523,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Rehabilitation/Replacement 17-009 County Road #17 Culvert Study Monitor Settlements/Movements $ 22,500.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 669,500.00 $ - 2018 - $ - $ - $ 669,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 22-017 Charlebois Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 306,500.00 $ - 2019 - $ - $ - $ - $ 306,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 17-098 East Hawkesbury Airport CulvertStudy Structural Evaluation $ 30,000.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 370,500.00 $ - 2019 - $ - $ - $ - $ 370,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 14-126 County Road 14 Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 389,500.00 $ - 2019 - $ - $ - $ - $ 389,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 04-204 Carillon Park Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 399,500.00 $ - 2019 - $ - $ - $ - $ 399,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Rehabilitation/Replacement 08-356 County Road 8 Culvert Study Monitor Settlements/Movements $ 22,500.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 395,500.00 $ - 2020 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 395,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 22-089 Beaver Creek Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 334,500.00 $ - 2020 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 334,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Rehabilitation/Replacement 18-022 St.Anne Culvert Study Monitor Settlements/Movements $ 20,000.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 329,500.00 $ - 2020 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 329,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 21-117 Regimbald Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 463,500.00 $ - 2020 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 463,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Rehabilitation/Replacement 17-160 Rollin Culvert Study Monitor Settlements/Movements $ 22,500.00 $ - $ - Replace Culvert $ 307,500.00 2021 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 307,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 03-027 Russell Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - $ - Replace Culvert $ 333,500.00 2021 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 333,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 02-178 Dupont Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - $ - Replace Culvert $ 357,500.00 2021 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 357,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 08-269 Lemieux Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - $ - Replace Culvert $ 331,500.00 2021 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 331,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 03-134 Embrun Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - $ - Replace Culvert $ 399,500.00 2021 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 399,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 14-121 Ranger Drain Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - $ - Replace Culvert $ 389,500.00 2021 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 389,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 10-142 County Road 10 Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 66,800.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 74,000.00 $ - 2022 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 140,800.00 $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 05-123 Whissel Creek Drain Culvert Study $ 20,000.00 $ - $ - Replace Culvert $ 376,500.00 2022 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 376,500.00 $ - $ - $ -
Rehabilitation/Replacement 24-095 County Road 24 Culvert Study Monitor Settlements/Movements $ 22,500.00 $ - Replace Culvert $ 337,500.00 2022 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 337,500.00 $ - $ - $ -
Rehabilitation/Replacement 03-319 Casselman Culvert Study Structural Evalutation Monitor Settlements/Movements $ 32,500.00 $ - $ - Replace Culvert $ 581,500.00 2022 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 581,500.00 $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 17-099 Albert Jean-Louis Drain Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 56,500.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 255,000.00 $ - - 2022 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 311,500.00 $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 01-105 St. Pascal Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 55,500.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 60,000.00 $ - - 2022 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 115,500.00 $ - $ - $ -
Rehabilitation/Replacement 10-401 Kelly Bridge (Culvert) Study Structural Evalutation Install Code Compliant Approach Monitor Settlements/Movements $ 15,000.00 Barrier $ 72,400.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 35,300.00 $ - - 2022 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 107,700.00 $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 01-010 Cannan Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 66,500.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 59,000.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 125,500.00 $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 17-100 Mill Creek Culvert Study Install Code Compliant Approach Structural Evaluation $ 15,000.00 Barrier $ 57,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 120,000.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 177,000.00 $ - $ - Monitor 08-388 BDY Culvert Settlements/Movements/Crack Concrete Repairs on Inlet Widths $ 2,500.00 $ - Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 91,000.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 91,000.00 $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 17-005 Ruisseau Lafontaine Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 55,900.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 52,500.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 108,400.00 $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 01-020 Golf Course Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 55,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 24,500.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 79,500.00 $ - $ - Concrete Repairs on Inlet 28-137 St. Guillaume Culvert Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach Concrete Repairs on Outlet Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 55,600.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 30,000.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 85,600.00 $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 14-040 Organico Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 76,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 15,000.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 91,000.00 $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 23-024 Caledonia Creek Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 77,600.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 7,500.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 85,100.00 $ - $ -
05-156 Limoges Culvert Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach Asphalt Surface Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 55,500.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 7,500.00 Repair on Approaches $ 33,700.00 - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 96,700.00 $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 03-211 417 Underpass Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 31,500.00 $ - $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31,500.00 $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 10-223 McAlpine Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 55,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 9,500.00 $ - - 2023 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 64,500.00 $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 10-362 Cat Creek Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 95,200.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 5,000.00 $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,200.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 05-100 Rudolph Brisson Drain Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 54,200.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 54,200.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 22-019 St-Bernadin Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 52,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 52,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 26-059 Old Highway 17 Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 55,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 6,000.00 $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 61,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 10-428 St. Eugene Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 52,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 22,500.00 $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 74,500.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 15-124 County Road 15 Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 55,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 55,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 14-089 Lalonde Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 54,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 54,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 15-001 Lefaivre Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 54,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 54,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 16-001 Moose Creek Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 60,500.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 60,500.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 08-114 Labonte Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 54,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 54,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 10-030 Fournier Bridge Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 55,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 55,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 10-104 Proudfoot Bridge (Culvert) Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 52,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 52,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 02-099 Cheney Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 55,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 55,000.00 $ - Install Code Compliant End 14-191 Michel Lalonde Culvert Rehabilitation/Replacement Treatments Study $ 5,000.00 Replace Concrete Barrier $ 156,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 156,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant End 20-080 Cross Bridge Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Treatments $ 16,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 16,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 09-215 Beaver Creek Bridge Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 57,000.00 $ - $ - - 2024 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 57,000.00 $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 22-043 Paxton Creek Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 87,200.00 $ - $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 87,200.00 Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 26-999 County Road 26 Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 54,100.00 $ - $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 54,100.00 Rehabilitation/Replacement Install Code Compliant Approach 29-137 Fraser Drain Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 Barrier $ 54,500.00 $ - $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 54,500.00 Install Code Compliant End 02-150 Mcallister Drain Culvert $ - Treatments $ 16,000.00 Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 5,000.00 $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 21,000.00 Asphalt Surface Repairs on 02-071 Hammond Culverrt $ - $ - Approaches $ 2,500.00 $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,500.00 15-228 Surch Bridge Culvert $ - Concrete Repairs on Barrel $ 5,000.00 $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000.00 03-335 Saint Rose Culvert $ - $ - $ - $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 07-109 Butternut Culvert $ - $ - $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 11-053 Cassburn Culvert $ - $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 98-009 Russwin Bridge Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 $ - $ - $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Rehabilitation/Replacement 98-008 Skye Bridge Culvert Study $ 5,000.00 $ - $ - $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 19-163 Harrigan Bridge Culvert $ - $ - $ - $ - - 2025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subyotals Culverts $ 630,000.00 $ 2,025,500.00 $ 5,391,300.00 $ 3,448,200.00 $ - $ - $ 1,515,500.00 $ 1,466,000.00 $ 1,523,000.00 $ 2,119,000.00 $ 1,971,000.00 $ 1,035,800.00 $ 1,010,400.00 $ 224,300.00 Subtotals Bridges $ 411,000.00 $ 2,913,100.00 $ 7,197,728.00 $ - $ 1,511,600.00 $ 2,511,168.00 $ 1,186,000.00 $ 684,800.00 $ 541,500.00 $ - $ 181,300.00 $ 1,205,700.00 $ 1,137,060.00 $ 1,151,700.00 Totals $ 1,041,000.00 $ 4,938,600.00 $ 12,589,028.00 $ 3,448,200.00 $ 1,511,600.00 $ 2,511,168.00 $ 2,701,500.00 $ 2,150,800.00 $ 2,064,500.00 $ 2,119,000.00 $ 2,152,300.00 $ 2,241,500.00 $ 2,147,460.00 $ 1,376,000.00
Notes (1) For structures schedules for Major Rehabilitation / Replacement, it has been assumed that barrier work will be complete at the same time that the structure is replaced. Therefore, for these structures, the barrier costs have been not been included in the 'Prioritization of Capital Work' section of the table above. (2) Amount shown in year to year plan in 2015 dollars and does not consider any inflation. (3) Cost / final scopre may change based on outcome of rehabilitation study
HP Engineering Inc. 2039 Robertson Road, Suite 400, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Telephone: 613-695-3737 - Fax: 613-680-3636 APPENDIX C: 20 YEARS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN - BUILDINGS - EMERGENCY SERVICES Study Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ID NumberLocation 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 3.0 15 L'Escale St., St-Isidore $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,928.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,955.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $109,380.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $56,711.47 $0.00 4.0 584 County Rd. 9, Plantagenet $5,763.00 $5,290.43 $0.00 $32,621.37 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,486.94 $0.00 $7,025.06 $0.00 $0.00 $134,854.49 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $116,945.81 $0.00 5.0 466 Landry St., Rockland $0.00 $0.00 $22,448.37 $0.00 $15,595.14 $0.00 $0.00 $28,068.27 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $78,416.95 $0.00 $19,010.39 $0.00 $0.00 $85,198.74 $0.00 $0.00 6.0 215 Industriel Rd., Embrun $2,506.91 $0.00 $33,510.67 $0.00 $0.00 $20,774.60 $0.00 $9,598.82 $0.00 $0.00 $48,697.75 $6,592.32 $42,749.62 $0.00 $0.00 $35,988.95 $0.00 $18,560.06 $0.00 $0.00 7.0 1350 Cameron St., Hawkesbury $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $62,037.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $32,163.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $256,009.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $182,772.27 Total Annual Expenses $8,269.91 $5,290.43 $55,959.04 $90,549.67 $77,632.61 $20,774.60 $0.00 $37,667.09 $15,442.45 $32,163.78 $55,722.81 $6,592.32 $121,166.57 $244,235.06 $275,019.51 $35,988.95 $0.00 $103,758.80 $173,657.28 $182,772.27
APPENDIX C: 20 YEARS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN - BUILDINGS - PUBLIC WORKS GARAGES Study Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ID NumberLocation 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 3.0 1543 Notre-Dame St., Embrun $6,788.81 $3,526.96 $9,353.49 $0.00 $36,555.01 $225,880.03 $30,503.35 $141,069.55 $35,111.82 $72,592.34 $9,413.59 $78,964.54 $35,082.61 $90,206.17 $124,586.49 $17,529.10 $0.00 $2,905.05 $8,230.98 $1,889.01 4.0 2337 Cassburn Rd., L'Orignal $21,524.81 $14,695.65 $30,758.58 $32,413.43 $27,821.73 $2,863.27 $73,986.84 $10,062.21 $194,195.37 $139,743.69 $90,658.46 $36,544.39 $6,577.99 $18,637.64 $20,531.22 $24,819.97 $18,037.91 $13,718.31 $130,378.77 $0.00 5.0 582 County Rd. 9, Plantagenet $17,692.41 $8,229.56 $7,015.12 $0.00 $27,852.92 $197,247.35 $0.00 $14,365.13 $77,786.19 $125,555.82 $138,253.28 $24,577.89 $35,082.61 $90,206.17 $70,939.17 $17,529.10 $0.00 $2,905.05 $0.00 $1,889.01 Total Annual Expenses $46,006.03 $26,452.17 $47,127.19 $32,413.43 $92,229.67 $425,990.64 $104,490.19 $165,496.89 $307,093.38 $337,891.84 $238,325.32 $140,086.82 $76,743.21 $199,049.97 $216,056.89 $59,878.17 $18,037.91 $19,528.41 $138,609.76 $3,778.02
APPENDIX C: 20 YEARS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN - BUILDINGS - PUBLIC WORKS GARAGES Study Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ID NumberLocation 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 3.0 Boyd St. (12 Units) $67,985.86 $23,503.39 $26,667.77 $13,768.54 $70,837.47 $17,762.73 $38,807.56 $17,288.07 $18,849.96 $39,818.40 $34,035.43 $47,621.77 $50,575.09 $102,918.08 $27,459.59 $45,400.77 $7,836.87 $10,900.38 $8,153.48 $10,433.49 4.0 Gladstone St. (22 Units) $30,619.58 $34,408.11 $44,599.26 $22,029.66 $21,908.50 $22,919.66 $49,117.28 $69,748.41 $20,066.08 $73,992.77 $20,876.75 $141,374.71 $75,296.60 $24,168.63 $23,967.22 $20,255.73 $109,744.69 $21,074.06 $233,486.04 $186,593.15 5.0 Tache St. (16 Units) $30,671.48 $29,961.52 $103,992.95 $41,525.91 $36,199.58 $26,128.41 $31,911.04 $56,991.01 $19,822.86 $48,501.55 $26,696.94 $134,573.44 $21,456.90 $50,619.85 $120,068.94 $79,709.78 $79,936.09 $155,584.69 $24,163.95 $31,300.47 6.0 Portelance St. (30 Units) $28,875.82 $30,829.67 $51,694.11 $198,178.82 $29,346.15 $33,944.01 $65,511.14 $89,266.05 $20,820.08 $74,265.66 $21,661.21 $285,175.67 $63,014.83 $40,173.63 $30,020.66 $322,862.33 $145,224.35 $77,748.74 $25,379.56 $250,434.01 7.0 James St. (54 Units) $62,277.12 $60,875.88 $44,210.50 $34,696.71 $89,993.36 $46,412.31 $235,270.86 $444,303.36 $26,146.71 $174,283.05 $27,203.04 $387,349.53 $53,892.36 $443,192.23 $109,701.41 $188,587.81 $163,434.39 $104,897.95 $422,202.06 $44,871.57 8.0 James St. (2 Units) $1,899.45 $5,378.25 $25,539.29 $13,768.54 $0.00 $3,896.34 $999.41 $7,630.60 $0.00 $7,256.63 $607.32 $27,101.82 $8,885.53 $4,699.46 $29,787.83 $4,190.84 $13,322.68 $5,086.84 $5,929.80 $0.00 9.0 810 Portelance St (30 Units) $21,848.89 $20,697.80 $39,928.76 $19,881.77 $45,558.44 $24,122.94 $64,464.97 $43,786.50 $105,073.30 $67,542.43 $48,079.79 $106,406.91 $48,672.93 $214,765.12 $134,969.71 $168,262.23 $140,351.24 $41,494.10 $60,854.62 $19,732.91 10.0 675 Portelance St. (52 Units) $3,954.60 $9,327.24 $79,214.98 $276,593.39 $40,794.74 $31,583.29 $76,574.81 $51,548.25 $109,737.15 $35,985.42 $38,033.65 $15,241.55 $62,600.17 $84,737.90 $162,100.60 $258,588.81 $117,674.18 $46,813.48 $47,156.77 $39,783.35 11.0 2169 Laurier St. (19 Units) $3,954.60 $31,888.38 $9,513.79 $18,185.48 $18,324.49 $19,034.78 $48,462.70 $17,657.68 $22,540.90 $95,322.28 $70,013.03 $104,206.50 $24,728.09 $52,795.03 $103,209.71 $67,905.58 $45,966.81 $21,524.61 $45,081.34 $13,964.24 12.0 345 Hamilton St. (30 Units) $3,954.60 $18,739.19 $88,048.44 $16,423.11 $9,898.15 $25,996.62 $51,589.51 $16,465.39 $36,951.99 $200,282.85 $49,705.65 $70,464.73 $36,772.91 $63,523.21 $163,538.64 $139,080.02 $22,171.22 $24,431.37 $52,345.35 $28,442.60 13.0 69 Derby St. (14 Units) $3,954.60 $17,955.74 $67,044.68 $4,196.65 $32,817.80 $20,123.46 $29,497.26 $26,540.17 $4,633.44 $62,158.89 $14,658.01 $32,986.79 $62,475.12 $14,111.79 $42,196.01 $22,784.20 $16,827.90 $33,733.03 $5,648.14 $28,442.60 14.0 472 Church St. (30 Units) $3,954.60 $9,808.96 $51,116.37 $4,196.65 $21,133.27 $99,826.57 $55,330.00 $38,820.66 $63,828.38 $89,138.65 $36,325.55 $105,103.44 $68,365.89 $85,677.79 $66,848.01 $29,000.61 $16,827.90 $63,672.73 $64,353.20 $118,412.56 Total Annual Expenses $263,951.19 $293,374.12 $631,570.89 $663,445.22 $416,811.95 $371,751.12 $747,536.55 $880,046.15 $448,470.86 $968,548.56 $387,896.38 $1,457,606.85 $576,736.41 $1,181,382.71 $1,013,868.33 $1,346,628.71 $879,318.32 $606,961.97 $994,754.30 $772,410.96 COMTÉS UNIS DE / UNITED COUNTIES OF PRESCOTT-RUSSELL
R É S O L U T I O N / R E S O L U T I O N
Date: 22 juin / June 22, 2016 Item no. : 10
Sujet / Subject: Plan de gestion des immobilisations (PGI) / Asset Management Plan (AMP)
Proposé par / Moved by: ______
Appuyé de / Seconded by:
ATTENDU que le Plan de gestion des WHEREAS the Asset Management Plan (AMP) immobilisations (PGI) aidera les CUPR dans ses will help the UCPR in its investment decisions, décisions d’investissement, dans l’élaboration de develop strategies and prioritize spending of our stratégies et la priorisation de nos besoins en infrastructure needs. infrastructure.
ET ATTENDU que le plan est une exigence de la AND WHEREAS the plan is a requirement of the Province afin d’assurer que les municipalités aient Province to ensure that municipalities will receive des possibilités de financement pour les projets funding opportunities for infrastructure projects; d’infrastructure;
ET ATTENDU que ce PGI identifie l’infrastructure AND WHEREAS this AMP is intended to describe appartenant aux CUPR qui en assure l’exploitation the infrastructure owned, operated, and et l’entretien pour soutenir les services essentiels; maintained by the UCPR to support its core services;
ET ATTENDU que ce document fournit des AND WHEREAS this document provides renseignements sur la mise en œuvre du plan de information regarding the implementation of asset gestion, l’état actuel de l’infrastructure, le niveau management, current state of the infrastructure, souhaité du service, ainsi que les stratégies du desired level of service, along with asset plan de gestion et les stratégies de financement management strategies and financing strategies pour les routes, les structures (ponts et ponceaux) for roads, structures (bridges and culverts) and et les bâtiments, y compris les travaux publics, les buildings including public works, social housing logements sociaux et les bâtiments des services and emergency services buildings. d’urgence.
QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que le Plan de gestion des BE IT RESOLVED that Council adopt the UCPR immobilisations des CUPR soit adopté par le Asset Management Plan and that the same be Conseil et affiché sur notre site Web pour répondre published on our Website thereby meeting the aux exigences de la Province. requirements of the Province.
Adoptée / Adopted Vote enregistré demandé par / Recorded vote requested by:
Défaite / Defeated Initiales du secrétaire / Clerk’s initials:
COMTÉS UNIS DE/UNITED COUNTIES OF
PRESCOTT ET/AND RUSSELL
RAPPORT DU DÉPARTEMENT DES SERVICES SOCIAUX REPORT OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ÉLARGISSEMENT 2014 DU PROGRAMME D’INVESTISSEMENT DANS LE LOGEMENT ABORDABLE DE L’ONTARIO (PILAO) – VOLET LOGEMENT LOCATIF INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING (IAH) FOR ONTARIO 2014 EXTENSION – RENTAL HOUSING COMPONENT
RAPPORT/REPORT NO. : SS-005/2016 DATE : 22 juin / June 22, 2016
Stéphane P. Parisien Directeur général
NOTRE VISION/OUR VISION Prescott et Russell continuera d’être une communauté unie par ses traditions et ses cultures, en marche vers la prospérité de tous ses citoyens.
Prescott and Russell will continue to be a community united by its traditions and cultures, working towards prosperity of all its citizens.
SUJET SUBJECT Élargissement 2014 du Programme Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) for d’investissement dans le logement abordable Ontario 2014 Extension – Rental Housing de l’Ontario (PILAO) – Volet logement locatif. Component.
PRÉAMBULE PREAMBLE Dans le budget 2016 du fonds PILAO, la In the 2016 budget of the IAH fund, an somme de 600 000 $ a été placée vers la amount of $600,000 was allocated towards construction d’un minimum de quatre unités de the building of a minimum of four affordable logement abordable. On entend par logement housing units. Affordable housing signifies abordable que le coût du loyer est réduit à that the cost of rent is reduced to 80% of the 80 p. cent du taux de loyer au prix du marché. average market rent.
Le 12 avril 2016, les Services de logement du On April 12, 2016, the Housing Services of département des Services sociaux des the United Counties of Prescott and Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell (CUPR) ont Russell’s (UCPR) Social Services diffusé une demande de propositions afin de Department released a Request for satisfaire leur financement cible avec des Proposals in order to meet their target projets « prêt à construire ». funding for “shovel ready” projects.
BUT PURPOSE Le but de ce rapport est de recommander The purpose of this report is to recommend l’approbation d’une proposition pour la the approval of one proposal to build construction de logements locatifs dans le affordable rental units under the Investment cadre de l’Élargissement 2014 du Programme in Affordable Housing (IAH) for Ontario 2014 d’investissement dans le logement abordable Extension – Rental Housing Component. de l’Ontario (PILAO) – Volet logement locatif.
FAITS FACTS À la suite de la diffusion de la demande de Following the release of the Request for proposition, deux promoteurs ont soumis un Proposals, two proponents submitted a total total de quatre propositions : of four proposals:
1. 6432581 Canada Inc. : 1. 6432581 Canada Inc. : 760, rue Principale, Hawkesbury 760 Main Street, Hawkesbury
2. 6432581 Canada Inc. : 2. 6432581 Canada Inc.: 772, rue Principale, Hawkesbury 772 Main Street, Hawkesbury
3. 6432581 Canada Inc. : 3. 6432581 Canada Inc.: chemin Baie, L’Orignal Bay Road, L’Orignal
4. Daniel D. Côté Construction Inc. : 4. Daniel D. Côté Construction Inc. : 259, rue Edwards, Rockland 259 Edwards Street, Rockland
Un comité d’évaluation, dont les membres An evaluation committee, comprised of provenaient des départements des Services members from the Social Services, sociaux, d’Urbanisme, d’Ingénierie et des Planning, Engineering, and Finance
Services sociaux/Social Services Page 1
Finances, a été créé pour évaluer chaque Departments, was established to assess projet. each project.
Les projets ont été évalués par l’entremise du The projects were assessed through the système de pointage suivant : following point system:
A. Plan d’affaires : Abordabilité et valeur – A. Business Plan: Affordability & Value – 40 p. cent ; 40%; B. Qualifications du soumissionnaire et B. Proponent Qualifications & Partnerships partenariats – 25 p. cent ; – 25%; C. Conception et emplacement du projet – C. Project Design and Location – 25%; 25 p. cent ; D. Rapidité de livraison – 10 p. cent ; D. Speed of Delivery – 10%;
pour un total de 100 p. cent. for a total of 100%.
Le 9 juin 2016, les résultats de chaque On June 9, 2016, the results from each évaluateur ont été compilés et le pointage evaluator were tabulated and the average moyen pour chaque projet est ce qui suit : score per project is as follows:
1. 6432581 Canada Inc. : 1. 6432581 Canada Inc.: 760, rue Principale, Hawkesbury – 61.8 p. 760 Main Street, Hawkesbury – 61.8% cent
2. 6432581 Canada Inc. : 2. 6432581 Canada Inc.: 772, rue Principale, Hawkesbury – 60.9 p. 772 Main Street, Hawkesbury – 60.9% cent
3. 6432581 Canada Inc. : 3. 6432581 Canada Inc.: chemin Baie, L’Orignal – 35.3 p. cent Bay Road, L’Orignal – 35.3%
4. Daniel D. Côté Construction Inc. : 4. Daniel D. Côté Construction Inc.: 259, rue Edwards, Rockland – 90.0 p. cent 259 Edwards Street, Rockland – 90.9%
Le projet avec le plus haut pointage global a The project with the highest overall score été soumis par Daniel D. Côté Construction was submitted by Daniel D. Côté Inc., du 259, rue Edward, Rockland. Construction Inc. of 259 Edwards Street, Rockland.
IMPACT IMPACT Il n’y aura aucun impact sur le budget des There will be no impact on the UCPR CUPR. Par contre, en guise de contribution, budget. However, by way of contribution, les taxes municipales du projet approuvé municipal taxes for the approved project will seront réduites de multi-résidentielle à be reduced from multi-residential to single résidentielle simple tout au long de la période residential throughout the 20-year d’abordabilité de 20 ans. affordability period.
Services sociaux/Social Services Page 2
Ce projet répondrait à un grand besoin de This project would fill a great need for logement abordable dans la région de affordable housing in the Prescott and Prescott et Russell et plus particulièrement à Russell area and more specifically in Rockland. Rockland.
OPTION OPTION Accepter ou non le projet avec le plus haut Accept or not the project with the highest pointage global soumis dans le cadre du overall score submitted under IAH by PILAO par résolution. resolution.
RECOMMANDATION RECOMMENDATION La directrice du département des Services The Director of the Social Services sociaux recommande au Conseil de procéder à Department recommends that Council l’allocation de quatre unités de logement proceed with the allocation of four affordable abordable au soumissionnaire ayant remporté housing units to the proponent with the le plus haut pointage et plus particulièrement à highest score and more particularly to Daniel Daniel D. Côté Construction Inc. D. Côté Construction Inc.
Anne Comtois Lalonde Directrice/Director
Services sociaux/Social Services Page 3
COMTÉS UNIS DE / UNITED COUNTIES OF PRESCOTT ET/AND RUSSELL
R É S O L U T I O N / R E S O L U T I O N
Date: Juin 22 / June 22, 2016 Item no. : 10
Sujet / Subject: Élargissement 2014 du Programme d’investissement dans le logement abordable de l’Ontario (PILAO) – Volet Logement locatif Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) for Ontario 2014 Extension - Rental Housing Component
Proposé par / Moved by:
Appuyé de / Seconded by:
ATTENDU que le rapport SS-005/2016 vise à WHEREAS Report SS-005/2016 is to approuver l’allocation de quatre unités de recommend the allocation of four affordable logements abordables dans le cadre de housing units under the Investment in Affordable l’Élargissement 2014 du Programme Housing (IAH) for Ontario 2014 Extension - d’investissement dans le logement abordable de Rental Housing Component; l’Ontario (PILAO - Volet Logement locatif ;
ET ATTENDU qu’un montant de 600 000 $ a été AND WHEREAS in the 2016 budget of the IAH inscrit au budget 2016 sous la rubrique du fonds funds, the amount of $600,000 was allocated PILAO pour financer la construction de quatre (4) towards the building of four (4) affordable housing unités de logement abordable ; units;
QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que le Conseil des Comtés BE IT RESOLVED that Council of the United unis de Prescott et Russell autorise l’allocation Counties of Prescott and Russell proceed with de quatre (4) unités de logement abordable et le the allocation of four (4) affordable housing units financement qui s’y rattache au soumissionnaire and related funding to the proponent with the ayant remporté le plus haut pointage lors de highest score according to the Ad Hoc Committee l’évaluation du comité ad hoc, soit celle de Daniel and more particularly to Daniel D. Côté D. Côté Construction Inc. à Rockland; Construction Inc. in Rockland;
Adoptée / Adopted Vote enregistré demandé par / Recorded vote requested by: Défaite / Defeated Initiales du Secrétaire / Clerk’s initials:
COMTÉS UNIS DE / UNITED COUNTIES OF
PRESCOTT ET/AND RUSSELL
RAPPORT DU DÉPARTEMENT DES SERVICES SOCIAUX / REPORT OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INFORMATION STATISTIQUES RÉGULIÈRES / REGULAR STATISTICS INFORMATION
RAPPORT / REPORT NO.: SS-006/2016 DATE: 22 juin / June 22, 2016
APPROUVÉ / APPROVED:
Stéphane P. Parisien Directeur général / Chief Administrative Officer
NOTRE VISION / OUR VISION Prescott et Russell continuera d’être une communauté unie par ses traditions et ses cultures, en marche vers la prospérité de tous ses citoyens.
Prescott and Russell will continue to be a community united by its traditions and cultures, working towards prosperity of all its citizens.
SUJET SUBJECT Information statistiques régulières. Regular Statistics Information.
PRÉAMBULE PREAMBLE Un rapport statistiques sur les programmes A statistics report for the Ontario Works Ontario au travail, Services de garde et Program, Child Care Services and Housing Services de logement sont présentés pour Services is presented for your information. votre information.
BUT PURPOSE Ce rapport a pour but de présenter The purpose of this report is to present the l’information statistique mensuelle des Department’s monthly statistical information programmes du département. on its programs and services.
RAISON REASON Le département des Services sociaux produit Statistical information on programs and mensuellement des statistiques sur les services is produced monthly by the Social programmes et services qu’il dispense. Le Services Department. The provincial gouvernement provincial, par l’entremise du government through the Ministry of Social and ministère des Services sociaux et Community Services, the Ministry of Children communautaires, du ministère des Services à and Youth Services, the Ministry of Education l’enfance et à la jeunesse, du ministère de and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and l’Éducation et du ministère des Affaires Housing establishes program targets for municipales et du logement, établit des performance measurement with Ontario objectifs de rendement pour les programmes Works, Child Care Services and Housing Ontario au travail, Services de garde et Services. It is imperative that County Council Services de logement. Il est important que les members be apprised of this information given membres du Conseil prennent connaissance the Department’s overall share of the United de cette information puisque le budget du Counties of Prescott and Russell’s budget. département est une composante importante du budget total des Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell.
IMPACT IMPACT Les dépenses reliées aux différents Expenses related to different services and programmes et services du département ont programs within the Department have an un impact important sur les dépenses important financial impact on the United annuelles des Comtés unis de Prescott et Counties of Prescott and Russell Russell. expenditures.
OPTION OPTION Aucune None
Département des Services sociaux / Social Services Department 1 DOCUMENTS DE SOUTIEN SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Annexe «A» – Statistiques des programmes Appendix “A” – Ontario Works Program, Child Ontario au travail, Services de garde et Care Services and Housing Services statistics Services de logement pour le mois de mai for the month of May 2016. 2016.
RECOMMANDATION RECOMMENDATION Que le conseil reçoive le rapport statistiques That Council receive the statistics report for des programmes Ontario au travail, Services the Ontario Works Program, Child Care de garde et Services de logement. Services and Housing Services.
Anne Comtois Lalonde Directrice / Director
Département des Services sociaux / Social Services Department 2 mars / March 2016
ANNEXE / APPENDIX "A"
DÉPARTEMENT DES SERVICES SOCIAUX SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
mai / May 2016
ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL / ONTARIO WORKS
Cumulatif mai 2016 avril 2016 Comparatif 2015 année 2016 Comparatif année 2015 Description May 2016 April 2016 Comparative 2015 Cumulative Comparative Year 2015 Year 2016
Charge de cas - OAT / 1079 1081 1191 N/A N/A OW Caseload Size
Bénéficiaires - OAT / Non disponible Non disponible Non disponible N/A N/A OW Beneficiaries
Bénéfices pour la période - OAT/ ** ESTIMÉ/ESTIMATED ** $791,868 $802,065 Non disponible $3,950,517 Non disponible Benefits for the Period - OW Part des comtés - OAT / ** ESTIMÉ/ESTIMATED ** $45,587 $45,849 Non disponible $226,429 Non disponible OW County Share
Bénéficiaires dans les foyers / (Max. 490) 485 483 484 N/A N/A Beneficiaries in Hostels Bénéfices pour la période - Foyers/ $278,173 $276,365 $262,741 $1,383,109 Non disponible Benefits for the period - Hostels Nombre de personnes en attente 0 0 0 N/A N/A Number of persons on waiting list TOTAL DES BÉNÉFICES / TOTAL BENEFITS
Charge de cas totale 1564 1564 1675 N/A N/A Total Caseload Size Bénéficiaires totaux / Non disponible Non disponible Non disponible N/A N/A Total Beneficiaries Total des bénéfices versés $1,070,041 $1,078,430 Non disponible $5,333,626 Non disponible Total Benefit Payments
Note: Quelques données sont non disponible en raison d'un problème informatique du système automatisé de gestion de l'aide sociale (SAGAS).
Page 1 mars / March 2016
SERVICE DE GARDE / CHILD CARE SERVICES Nombre d'enfants desservis par municipalité sans les Services à l'Intégration mai / Number of subsidized children served per municipality without the Integration Services May 2016 Champlain Township/Canton Champlain 29 Garderie Champlain - Vankleek Hill Atelier des Petits Champlain (École St-Jean Baptiste School - L'Orignal) Centre d'animation parascolaire Champlain (École St-Grégoire School - Vankleek Hill) Centre d'animation parascolaire Champlain (École St-Jean-Baptiste School - L'Orignal) Centre éducatif Champlain Learning Centre (École St-Jude School - Vankleek Hill) Agence de garde familiale agréée / Private Home Day Care Agency Cité Clarence - Rockland City 202 Garderie Le Carrousel (Clarence-Rockland) Garderie Carrefour-Jeunesse (École Carrefour-Jeunesse School - Rockland) Rockland Public School Daycare (Rockland) St-Patrick's School Age Daycare (Rockland) Garderie Ste-Trinité (École Ste-Trinité - Rockland) Centre préscolaire et parascolaire St-Mathieu (École St-Mathieu School - Hammond) Garderie Ste-Félicité (École Ste-Félicité School - Clarence Creek) Garderie Sacré Cœur (École Sacré Cœur School - Bourget) Garderie parascolaire de St-Pascal-Baylon (École du Rosaire) Agence de garde familiale agréée / Private Home Day Care Agency Canton East Hawkesbury township 16 Agence de garde familiale agréée / Private Home Day Care Agency Canton Nation Township 18 Centre Éducatif au jardin des Câlins (St-Isidore / St-Albert / Limoges) Agence de garde familiale agréée / Private Home Day Care Agency Canton Russell Township 67 Garderie L'Arche des Amis (École St-Joseph School - Russell) Cambridge Circle of Friends (École Cambridge Public School - Embrun) Centre Éducatif au jardin des Câlins (École St-Jean School) Centre Éducatif Pavillon Saint-Jean & Pavillon La Croisé (École St-Jean School - Embrun) Garderie Les P'tits Cœurs d'Embrun Centre éducatif de la Rivière Castor (École de la Rivière Castor School - Embrun) Kinder Kids Early Years Inc. (École Mother Theresa School-Russell) Early Learning Kindercare (École Russell Public School - Russell) Garderie des Amis Embrun Inc. Russell Cooperative Nursery School (Russell) Agence de garde familiale agréée / Private Home Day Care Agency
Page 2 mars / March 2016
Ville Hawkesbury Town 116 Centre Éducatif Jacqueline Lafrenière - Hawkesbury Centre Parascolaire Soleil des Petits (École Nouvel Horizon School - Hawkesbury) Centre Éducatif L'Oasis des Petits (École Paul VI School - Hawkesbury) Agence de garde familiale agréée / Private Home Day Care Agency Canton Alfred Plantagenet Township 111 Centre Éducatif Les Petits Trésors (École St-Paul School - Plantagenet) Centre Éducatif Les Petits Trésors (École St-Joseph School - Wendover) Centre éducatif Les Petits Trésors (École St-Victor School - Alfred) Agence de garde familiale agréée / Private Home Day Care Agency Village Casselman Village 49 Centre Éducatif Quatre Saisons (École Académie de la Seigneurie School - Casselman) Garderie Quatre Saisons (Casselman) Centre Éducatif au jardin des Câlins (École Ste-Euphémie School - Casselman) Agence de garde familiale agréée / Private Home Day Care Agency
OTHER THAN PRESCOTT-RUSSELL 3
Montant total des enfants desservis par les Services de garde/Total number of children served by the Child Care Services 611
Enfants subventionnés dans les centres de garde d'enfants/Subsidized Children in Child Care Centre Enfants subventionnés / Subsidized Children 393
Enfants subventionnés auprès de l'Agence de garde familiale de P-R/Subsidized Children with the P-R Private Home Day Care Agency Enfants subventionnés / Subsidized Children 52
Ontario au Travail/Ontario Works Enfants en garde informelle/Children in informal care 11
Enfants en garde formelle/Children in formal care 48
Page 3 mars / March 2016
Services d'intégration pour enfants à besoins particuliers/Integration Services for Children with Special Needs Nombre d'enfants desservis / Number of children served 125
Nombre de familles desservies / Number of families served 122
Enfants en attente de services / Children awaiting services 6
Agence de garde familiale de Prescott - Russell Home Child Care Agency Nombre de fournisseurs Municipalité / Municipality / Number of providers Canton Champlain Township 2 Cité Clarence-Rockland City 15 Canton Est-Hawkesbury-East Township 1 Canton Nation Township 2 Canton Russell Township 6 Ville Hawkesbury Town 7 Canton Alfred-Plantagenet Township 4 Village Casselman Village 4 Total 41
Montant total d'enfants desservis par l'Agence de garde familiale / Total number of children served by the Home Day Care Agency 180
Services de garde - Général / Child Care Services - General Enfants désservis / Children receiving services 736
Familles désservies / Families receiving services 673
Enfants en atttente de services / Children awaiting services 132
Page 4 mars / March 2016
SERVICES DE LOGEMENT / HOUSING SERVICES
mai / Composition des ménages / Household Breakdown May 2016 Nombre de logements / Nombre de résidents / Unités familiales / Family Units Number of Number of Residents Units Semi-détaché rue James Street Semi-detached - Hawkesbury 54 218 Appartements 810, rue Portelance Street Apartments - Hawkesbury 30 68 Semi-détaché rue Portelance Street Semi-detached - Hawkesbury 30 103 Semi-détaché rue Taché Street Semi-detached - Hawkesbury 16 71 Semi-détaché rue Gladstone Street Semi-detached - Hawkesbury 22 104 Bungalows rue James Street Bungalows - Hawkesbury 2 10 Semi-détaché rue Boyd Street Semi-detached, Vankleek Hill 12 41 Total des résidents dans les unités familiales / 166 615 Total Number of Residents in Family Units
Nombre de logements/ Nombre de résidents / Unités pour personnes âgées / Senior Citizen Units Number of Number of Residents Units 675 rue Portelance Street - Hawkesbury 52 55 345 rue Hamilton Street - Hawkesbury 30 32 69 avenue Derby Avenue - Vankleek Hill 14 14 2169 rue Laurier Street - Rockland 19 18 472 rue Church Street - Russell 30 36 Total des résidents dans les unités pour personnes agées / 145 155 Total Number of Residents in Senior Citizen Units Montant total des résidents du logement social / Total Number of Social Housing Residents 311 770
Revenus du logement public / Public Housing Rent Revenues Mois courant / Cumulatif 2016/ Description Current Month Cumulative 2016
Revenu de loyer / Rent revenue $122,109 $603,974
Page 5 mars / March 2016
Liste d'attente / Waiting List Logement public / Public Housing
Familles / Personnes âgées Familles / Personnes âgées / Description Families 2016 / Seniors 2016 Families 2015 Seniors 2015
Village de / Town of Vankleek Hill 13 34 11 26
Ville de / City of Rockland 149 96 146 89
Ville de / Town of Hawkesbury 210 117 162 97
Village de / Town of Russell 0 32 0 27
Village de / Town of Casselman 13 0 8 0
Total 385 279 327 239
Logement à but non lucratif / Non-Profit Housing
Familles / Personnes âgées Familles / Personnes âgées / Unités familiales / Family Units Families 2016 / Seniors 2016 Families 2015 Seniors 2015
Appartements Belle Vie Apartments, Alfred 0 29 0 20 Domaine Chatelain, Alfred 63 0 64 0 Place Cameron Place, Hawkesbury 56 0 47 0 Place Nelson Place, Hawkesbury 192 0 151 0 Place Victor Bruneau Place, Hawkesbury 0 106 0 83 Appartements Seigneurie Apartments, L'Orignal 0 28 0 22 Villa Ste-Thérèse Villa, Marionville 0 5 0 8 Domaine des Érables , Rockland 192 0 191 0 Manoir Belle Vue Manor, Rockland 0 78 0 64 Résidence Lajoie Residence, St-Albert 0 10 0 10 Villa St-Paul, Plantagenet 0 23 0 30 Apartement Villejoie 0 6 0 0 L'Escale, St-Isidore 0 9 0 5 Manoir Van Kleek Manor, Vankleek Hill 0 30 0 25 Total 503 324 453 267
Liste d'attente du Programme de logement abordable / Affrodable Housing Program Waiting List Notre Dame de la Paix, Limoges 0 40 0 40
Total Général / Grand Total 888 643 780 546
Page 6 mars / March 2016
Divers programmes gérés par les Services de logement / Various programs administered by Housing Services
Alfred / Casselman Champlain Clarence-Rockland Hawkesbury Nation Russell Plantagenet F S A F S A F S A F S A F S A F S A F S a (CUPR) Logement 311 unités/units public/) 12 14 19 154 82 30
Logement à but non 500 unités/units lucratif/ 25 75 34 66 25 32 86 40 50 67
Supplément au loyer/ Régulier/ Regular 68 unités/ 68 units Rent Supplement: 2 1 45 20 L'épanouissement Régulier 19 unités/ 19 units communautaire/ Strong Communities: 1 5 3 1 9 Services de 9 unités/9 units soutien/ support services 9
Logement abordable/ Affordable Housing:
Affectations 25 unités/25 units - Limoges d'immobilisation: 11 unités/units- Rockland Logement locatifs avec 4 unités-units - Hawkesbury des services de soutien / 24 unités/units - Hawkesbury Rental and Supportive (capital) 3 8 17 11 25 Investment Affordable 101 unités / units in total Housing 10 unités/units - Alfred/Plant. 11 unités/units - Casselman 5 unités/units - Champlain 32 unités/units - Clarence-Rockland 35 unités/units - Hawkesbury 2 unités/units - Nation 6 unités/units - Russell 1 9 2 3 6 2 3 6 9 17 2 4 29 1 1 4 2 Total géréral - Unités/units Grand Total 26 75 10 4 37 6 12 82 3 39 68 29 244 188 69 1 75 1 0 101 2 F - Familles/Families S - Personnes agées/Seniors ( 60 ans et plus / 60 years old or older) A - Adultes / Adults ( 59 ans et moins / 59 years old or younger)
Page 7 L’Orignal, Ontario 8 juin 2016
RAPPORT DU COMITÉ PLÉNIER
Au président et aux membres du conseil, Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell
Le Comité plénier s’est réuni le 8 juin 2016 à 9 h.
Présences : MM. Gary J. Barton, Jeanne Charlebois, Guy Desjardins, Fernand Dicaire, Robert Kirby, Conrad Lamadeleine, Pierre Leroux, membres.
MM. Stéphane P. Parisien (9h – 9h45), Michel Chrétien, Anne Comtois Lalonde, Louise Lalonde, Carole Lavigne, Julie Ménard Brault, Louis Prévost, chefs de département et Andrée Latreille, greffière.
Absences : François St-Amour, membre; Marc Clermont, chef de département
Le rapport est présenté comme suit:
1. Délégations au congrès de l’AMO Le directeur général s’enquiert du nombre de membres qui participeront au congrès de l’AMO qui sera tenu à Windsor du 14 au 17 août 2016. Seul M. Desjardins a signifié sa présence et son intention de demander une délégation pour le transfert de la route 17. La demande de délégation sera préparée par le bureau du directeur général.
2. Conférence ROMA et OGRA en 2017 Il fut déterminé par le conseil d’administration du Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) que leur congrès ne serait plus tenu conjointement avec le congrès de OGRA. Le directeur général ne sait pas encore à quel congrès la Province choisira de participer. De plus, les Comtés ne pourront assumer une suite d’hospitalité à chacun de ces congrès et il faudra déterminer lequel d’entre les deux sera choisi. Il fut mentionné de cesser cette activité. LE COMITÉ RECOMMANDE qu’une résolution soit adoptée par le Conseil confirmant son inquiétude à séparer les deux congrès et pour demander à ROMA de reconsidérer sa position.
3. Rencontre de l’EOWC avec les députés fédéraux à Ottawa Le directeur général mentionne que l’Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus (EOWC) a rencontré les députés fédéraux à Ottawa le 30 mai dernier lors d’un déjeuner causerie sur la colline du Parlement pour discuter des priorités et des possibilités de partenariat qui profiteraient directement aux régions rurales de l’Ontario. Le ministre du transport était également sur place.
4. Nouvel emplacement pour la Résidence Prescott-Russell Suivant l’information reçue à huis clos le 25 mai dernier concernant la possibilité d’un échange de terrain, le directeur général explique que le conseil doit se pencher sur un nouveau site pour la construction éventuelle d’une résidence de soins de longue durée. Une discussion s’ensuit dont, entre autres, l’importance de centraliser la future résidence dans Prescott-Russell. LE COMITÉ RECOMMANDE que le directeur général soit mandaté de répertorier des terrains aptes à bâtir sur le territoire, les prix et les services disponibles et de soumettre un rapport détaillé lors d’une prochaine réunion.
5. Projets 2016 du Programme des ressources en eau de l’Est de l’Ontario Mme Ronda Boutz, de la Conservation Nation Sud présente la liste des projets de 2016 qui seront gérés par le Programme des ressources en eau de l’Est de l’Ontario (PREEO anciennement CREEO) à même notre subvention de 50 000 $. Les projets comprennent : 30 000 $ pour faire évaluer l’infrastructure; 4 000 $ pour l’étude des eaux souterraines d’Alfred et Plantagenet; 5 000 $ pour évaluer le contrôle de la migration des nutriments; un projet concernant un radar météo 1 500 $; décontamination des puits 2 750 $; et le festival d’eau 5 375 $.
Comité plénier - 2 - L’Orignal, Ontario le 8 juin 2016
6. Lettre du maire Conrad Lamadeleine à la Première ministre Le maire de Casselman a fait circuler sa lettre adressée à la Première ministre concernant l’élimination du recours au gaz naturel pour le chauffage résidentiel. Il fait part de son inquiétude concernant cette proposition avancée par la Première ministre et lui propose de revoir sa position.
7. Processus sur la répartition des services d’incendie Le maire de Champlain explique que depuis l’étude sur la faisabilité du service de répartition d’incendie en 2014 mené par la firme WillowFall Consulting, les municipalités sont toujours en attente de régler ce dossier car les négociations sont dans une impasse. Il demande encore une fois l’aide du directeur des Services d’urgence pour coordonner le dossier dans le but de rassembler toutes les municipalités impliquées et leur permettre de prendre une décision rapidement.
En 2015, le consultant avait soumis une analyse des coûts qu’engendrerait un transfert du service de répartition vers la centrale d’Ottawa ainsi que la hausse des coûts pour les autres municipalités si l’une d’entre elles quittait le service de Hawkesbury. La municipalité de Clarence-Rockland actuellement desservie par le centre de répartition d’Ottawa et la ville de Hawkesbury n’ont pas l’intention d’absorber aucuns frais additionnels pouvant découler de ce dossier et avisent que les coûts devront être partagés entre les six municipalités impliquées.
Le directeur général approuve l’implication du directeur des Services d’urgence mais dans le seul but d’améliorer la coordination au sein du groupe.
LE COMITÉ RECOMMANDE que le directeur des Services d’urgence soit mandaté pour agir à titre de coordonnateur au nom des six municipalités dans le dossier sur la répartition des services d’incendie.
8. Panneaux publicitaires sur la route 17 à l’est de Hawkesbury Le maire de Champlain mentionne qu’il y a trop de panneaux publicitaires sur le bord de la route 17 à l’est de Hawkesbury. Il estime que ces enseignes publicitaires altèrent le paysage et peuvent avoir un effet négatif pour les municipalités. Il demande la possibilité de faire appliquer la politique visant les enseignes et les panneaux sur les routes de comté. Le directeur général explique que nous pouvons contrôler les enseignes sur l’emprise de nos routes et non celles installées sur les terrains privés.
9. Plan de gestion des infrastructures municipales (PGI) En l’absence du directeur des Travaux publics, la trésorière présente le Plan de gestion des infrastructures municipales (PGI). Ce plan aidera les CUPR dans ses décisions en matière d’investissement, à élaborer des stratégies et à prioriser les dépenses pour nos besoins en infrastructure. Afin d’être éligible aux subventions provinciales, notre PGI doit démontrer que les argents sont dirigés vers les besoins les plus critiques.
La trésorière passe en revue l’inventaire et l’état de nos infrastructures routières, des ponts et ponceaux, des bâtiments, et les coûts de remplacement. Notre analyse révèle que nous avons besoin de 14 424 893 $ pour répondre aux besoins immédiats en infrastructure. Elle informe qu’en maintenant le budget actuel de 2016 pour les dix prochaines années, nous aurons un manque à gagner de 21,7 millions de dollars.
Il est donc recommandé de suivre les stratégies élaborées comme suit : i) Allouer 7,2 M $ aux routes pour atteindre le niveau de service recommandé; ii) Allouer 2,2 M $ aux ponts et ponceaux pour maintenir le niveau de service actuel; iii) Allouer 1 M $ aux bâtiments afin de maintenir de niveau de service actuel.
LE COMITÉ RECOMMANDE d’adopter le plan de gestion des infrastructures municipales révisé le 1er juin 2016 et de le publier sur le site web des Comtés pour répondre aux exigences de la Province.
Comité plénier - 3 - L’Orignal, Ontario le 8 juin 2016
10. Étude des plaines inondables Le directeur d’Urbanisme et de Foresterie désire entreprendre une étude des plaines inondables pour identifier les zones inondables afin d’assurer la sécurité des personnes et des biens. Cette étude permettrait aux promoteurs d’éviter les régions sujettes aux inondations et à l’érosion. Cette cartographie ferait partie de notre Plan officiel pour mieux orienter les travaux de développement à venir.
Afin de mener ce travail, une somme annuelle de 50 000 $ serait affectée au budget pour les prochains 10 ans. Si les Comtés sont admissibles à une subvention fédérale, le directeur propose d’aller de l’avant avec ce projet.
Le directeur est d’avis que cette étude répondrait aux questions et inquiétudes des enjeux particuliers entourant les plaines inondables. Les maires de Hawkesbury et de Hawkesbury-Est demandent si leurs municipalités peuvent être exclues de l’étude. Le maire d’Alfred et Plantagenet propose d’élaborer un mode de tarification afin de récupérer un pourcentage des frais de l’étude par les futurs promoteurs.
11. Ajournement La réunion du comité plénier est levée à 10h21.
LE TOUT VOUS EST RESPECTUEUSEMENT SOUMIS.
______Guy Desjardins, Président du comité
Proposé par Conrad Lamadeleine Appuyé par Fernand Dicaire
QUE CE RAPPORT SOIT ADOPTÉ
Adopté par le Conseil le 22 juin 2016
______Guy Desjardins, Président
______Andrée Latreille, Greffière L’Orignal, Ontario June 8, 2016
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
To the Warden and Members of Council, United Counties of Prescott and Russell
The Committee of the Whole met in L’Orignal at 9:00 a.m. on June 8, 2016.
Were present: Gary J. Barton, Jeanne Charlebois, Guy Desjardins, Fernand Dicaire, Robert Kirby, Conrad Lamadeleine, Pierre Leroux and, Council Members.
Stéphane P. Parisien (9h – 9h45), Michel Chrétien, Anne Comtois Lalonde, Louise Lalonde, Carole Lavigne, Julie Ménard Brault, Louis Prévost, Department Heads, Andrée Latreille, Clerk
Were absent: François St-Amour, Council member; Marc Clermont, Department Head.
The report is presented as follows:
1. AMO Conference Delegations The Chief Administrative Officer enquired on the number of Members attending the AMO Conference to be held in Windsor from August 14 to 17, 2016. Mr. Desjardins is the only member attending and he intends to request a delegation for the transfer of County Road 17. The said request will be prepared by the CAO’s office.
2. ROMA and OGRA Conference in 2017 It was determined by the Board of Directors of the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) that their conference will no longer be held jointly with the OGRA Conference. The Chief Administrative Officer does not yet know which conference the Province will choose to attend. Moreover, the Counties will not be in a position to provide one hospitality suite for each conference and therefore will have to determine which one to choose. It was suggested that this activity be discontinued. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED that a resolution be adopted by Council to express its concerns regarding the division of the conferences and to ask ROMA to reconsider its position.
3. EOWC Meeting with Federal MPs on Parliament Hill The Chief Administrative Officer stated that the EOWC met with Federal MPs in Ottawa on May 30th during a luncheon on Parliament Hill to discuss priorities and partnership opportunities that would directly benefit rural Ontario. The Minister of Transportation also attended the meeting.
4. New location for the Prescott-Russell Residence Following the information heard in camera on May 25th last regarding a possible land exchange, the Chief Administrative Officer mentioned that Council must consider a new site for the future construction of a long-term care facility. A discussion resulted and, among others, the importance of centralizing the future facility in Prescott- Russell. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED that the Chief Administrative Officer be mandated to identify and list suitable land for construction on the territory, along with prices and services available and to submit a detailed report at a future meeting.
5. 2016 Projects for the Eastern Ontario Water Resources Program Mrs. Ronda Boutz, of the South Nation Conservation presented a list of the 2016 projects to be managed by the Eastern Ontario Water Resources Program (EOWRP formerly EOWRC) out of our $50,000 funding. Projects include: $30,000 for the infrastructure assessment; $4,000 for the Alfred and Plantagenet groundwater study; $5,000 for the evaluation of two BMPs to control nutrient migration from cropping systems; $1,500 for the SNC Volunteer Rain Gauge Network; $2,750 for Well Decommissioning Grants; and $5,375 for the Water Festival. Committee of the Whole - 2 - L’Orignal, Ontario June 8, 2016
6. Letter from Mayor Lamadeleine to the Premier of Ontario The Mayor of Casselman circulated his letter addressed to the Premier of Ontario regarding the government’s intention to eliminate the use of natural gas for home heating. He expressed concern about the proposal made by the Premier and asked for reconsideration of the matter.
7. Fire Dispatch Process The Mayor of Champlain explained that since the feasibility study on the fire dispatch process in 2014 conducted by WillowFall Consulting, municipalities are still waiting to resolve this issue as negotiations are at a standoff. He again appealed for help from the Director of Emergency Services to coordinate the file in order to bring together all municipalities involved and allow them to make a quick decision.
In 2015, the consultant submitted a cost analysis should a transfer of the dispatch service to Ottawa would occur and costs increase for other municipalities if one of them leave the Hawkesbury service. The City of Clarence-Rockland currently served by the Ottawa Dispatch Centre and the Town of Hawkesbury do not intend to absorb additional costs that could occur in this matter and they advised that costs should be borne by the six municipalities involved.
The Chief Administrative Officer approved the involvement of the Director of Emergency Services for the sole purpose of improving direction within the group.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED that the Emergency Services Director, on behalf of the six municipalities, be authorized to act as coordinator of the Fire Dispatch Process file.
8. Roadside Advertising on County Road 17 east of Hawkesbury The Mayor of Champlain mentioned that there are too many advertising signs on the side of County Road 17, East of Hawkesbury. He is of the opinion that these advertising signs alter the landscape and can have a negative impact for municipalities. He asked for the possibility of implementing the signage policy on county roads. The CAO confirmed that we can control the signs installed on our road rights-of-way but not those installed on private land.
9. Asset Management Plan In the absence of the Public Works Director, the Treasurer presented the updated Asset Management Plan (AMP). This plan will help the UCPR in its investment decisions, develop strategies and prioritize spending of our infrastructure needs. In order to be eligible for provincial grants, our AMP must demonstrate that the monies are directed towards the most critical needs.
The Treasurer reviewed the inventory and the state of our road infrastructure, bridges and culverts, buildings, and replacement costs. Our analysis shows that we require $14,424,893 to meet our current infrastructure need. She informed that if we maintain the current 2016 budget for the next ten (10) years, we will have a shortfall of $21.7 million.
Therefore, it is recommended to follow the developed strategies as follow: • Allocate $7.2 M to roads to attain the recommended level of service • Allocate $2.2 M to bridges and culverts to maintain current level of service • Allocate $1 M for buildings to maintain current level of service
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEDED that Council adopt the UCPR Asset Management Plan revised June 1st, 2016 and that the same be published on our Website thereby meeting the requirements of the Province.
Committee of the Whole - 3 - L’Orignal, Ontario June 8, 2016
10. Flood Plain Studies The Director of Planning and Forestry wishes to conduct a floodplain study to identify flood zones and insure the protection of people and property. This study will ensure that development does not occur in areas that are susceptible to flooding and erosion. The mapping would be part of our Official Plan to better guide future development.
To carry out this work, an annual sum of $50,000 would be budgeted for the next ten years. If the Counties are eligible for federal funding, the Director recommended to go ahead with the project.
The Director is of the opinion that the study would respond to the questions and concerns of the specific issues surrounding floodplains. Both Mayors of the Town of Hawkesbury and the Township of East Hawkesbury asked whether their municipality may be excluded from the study. The Mayor of Alfred and Plantagenet proposed to establish a pricing method to recover a percentage of the costs of the study by the future promoters.
11. Adjournment The Committee of the Whole adjourned at 10:21 a.m.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Guy Desjardins, Chairman
Moved by Conrad Lamadeleine Seconded by Gary J. Barton
THAT THIS REPORT BE ADOPTED
Adopted by Council June 22, 2016
Guy Desjardins, Warden
Andrée Latreille, Clerk L’Orignal, Ontario Le 25 mai 2016
RAPPORT DE LA RÉUNION DU COMITÉ DE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE ET TOURISTIQUE
Au président et aux membres du Conseil, Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell
Le comité de Développement économique et touristique s’est réuni à L’Orignal le mercredi 25 mai 2016 à 10 h 15.
Présences : Mme Jeanne Charlebois, présidente du comité, M. Conrad Lamadeleine, M. Pierre Leroux, membres du comité, M. Guy Desjardins, président du Conseil
M. Stéphane P. Parisien, directeur général, Mme Carole Lavigne, directrice du Développement économique et touristique, Mme France Lortie, adjointe administrative et de projets
Le rapport vous est présenté comme suit :
1. Statistiques annuelles – permis de construction À titre d’information, Mme Lavigne présente le tableau comparatif des permis de construction émis annuellement par chacune des municipalités, incluant les données pour l’année 2015.
2. Subventions annuelles TPRT et CAPRAC Mme Lavigne aimerait connaitre le plafond pour les réductions à la subvention versée à TPRT (Tourisme Prescott-Russell Tourism). Selon l’entente, une diminution de 16.6 % par année est appliquée et ce, après les trois premières années versées au plein montant de 300 000 $. Mme Lavigne mentionne que suite à un entretien avec M. Martin Lacelle, Directeur de TPRT, celui-ci étant inquiet des diminutions récurrentes, aurait souhaité atteindre un plafond de 200 000 $ afin de lui permettre d’obtenir d’autres sources de financement. M. Desjardins mentionne que ceci a déjà été discuté et voté sans plafond puisque TPRT devait obtenir du financement indépendamment de celui des Comtés. Mme Lavigne présente à titre de comparatif, un tableau des montants versés par les comtés avoisinants à leur organisme en tourisme. Une discussion s’ensuit sur les effets bénéfiques de la promotion touristique et des retombées encourues. Le comité aimerait voir des informations pertinentes et concrètes qui indiquent un retour valable sur l’investissement des Comtés. On propose d’attendre que TPRT complète son cinq ans d’opération avant d’évaluer adéquatement ce service tout en continuant la réduction annuelle de 16.6 %.
Pour ce qui est de la subvention de 84 000 $ versée au CAPRAC (Conseil des arts Prescott-Russell Arts Council), cet organisme en est qu’à sa deuxième année d’opération donc exempt de la réduction. Mme Lavigne explique la mission du CAPRAC, leurs projets à venir et ajoute que toutes les sphères des arts sont couvertes par cet organisme. Dans le cas présent, Mme Lavigne s’enquiert aussi d’un possible plafond pour les réductions et le comité souhaite s’en tenir à l’entente qui précise une diminution de 16,6 % après les trois premières années. Mme Lavigne ajoute que le président du CAPRAC viendra faire une présentation au Conseil afin d’expliquer leurs services et présenter leur plan stratégique.
3. La journée des petits entrepreneurs Mme Lavigne présente cette nouvelle initiative, en partenariat avec le CSDCEO (Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l’Est ontarien), laquelle reproduira le modèle qui se fait au Québec et qui constitue à initier les élèves du primaire à créer leur entreprise le temps d’une journée. Ce projet d’initiation à l’entrepreneuriat sera tenu aux écoles de L’Orignal et Embrun le 15 juin et à Alfred le 20 juin. Les élus demandent à recevoir les informations pour ces événements.
Page | 1
4. Festival de la rivière des Outaouais Mme Charlebois aimerait connaitre le nombre d’heures déployées par les employés des Comtés ainsi que les retombées réelles pour cet événement. Mme Lavigne explique le programme MCRTER (Modèle de calcul des répercussions du tourisme sur l’économie régionale) qui calcule les retombées économiques et elle fournira les informations demandées à Mme Charlebois.
5. Nouvelle entreprise Mme Lavigne informe le comité qu’une nouvelle microbrasserie verra bientôt le jour à Embrun, la Brasserie Étienne Brûlé qui occupera les anciens locaux de la caserne de pompiers. M. Leroux ajoute qu’une autre brasserie, Tuque de Broue a pris pignon dans les anciens locaux de l’imprimerie Impression à Embrun aussi.
6. VIA – voisins, présentation Mme Lavigne fait la présentation du document préparé par Louise Bissonnette au sujet du Sentier récréatif. Elle mentionne les différents usagers, le calendrier du Sentier créé annuellement, le géocaching, etc. Elle énumère aussi les activités dont le programme ACES, la plantation à St-Eugène, les Courses gourmandes, le Grand Tour Desjardins, et le Grand Fondo pour n’en nommer que quelques-unes. Elle enchaine avec la liste des améliorations apportées avec le temps et les contraintes vécues dont la circulation non permise sur le sentier et le vandalisme. Une discussion s’ensuit sur la question des accotements pavés. Suite à ceci, Mme Lavigne désire obtenir une direction du comité quant à l’avenir du Sentier et la question du bail. Sur ce, le comité souhaite garder le sentier et désire la négociation d’un nouveau bail d’une durée de 25 ans.
LE COMITÉ RECOMMANDE que le Conseil mandate le département de Développement économique et touristique de négocier un bail d’une durée de 25 ans pour le Sentier récréatif.
7. Clôture La réunion du comité est levée à 11 h 05.
LE TOUT VOUS EST RESPECTUEUSEMENT SOUMIS.
______Jeanne Charlebois, Présidente du Comité
Proposé par : Conrad Lamadeleine
Appuyé par : Guy Desjardins
QUE CE RAPPORT SOIT ADOPTÉ
Adopté par le Conseil Le 22 juin 2016
______Guy Desjardins, Président
______Andrée Latreille, Secrétaire
Page | 2 L’Orignal, Ontario Le 12 avril 2016
RAPPORT DE LA RÉUNION DU COMITÉ CONSULTATIF DE L’AGRICULTURE
Le comité consultatif de l’agriculture s’est réuni à L’Orignal dans les bureaux des Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell, le mardi 12 avril 2016 à 10 h
Présences : Gary Barton, Robert Kirby, Marc Laflèche, Johanne Lafrance, Réjean Leclerc, Jean-Guy Barrette, Nathalie Grenier, Denis Latour, Louis Prévost, Dominique Lefebvre, Carole Lavigne, Geneviève Bougie-Desjardins, France Lortie.
Absences motivées : Réjean Pommainville
Le rapport vous est présenté comme suit :
1. Mot de bienvenue Marc Laflèche souhaite la bienvenue à tous.
2. Adoption de l’ordre du jour Marc Laflèche présente l’ordre du jour qui est adopté tel que présenté.
Proposé : Réjean Leclerc Appuyé : Jean-Guy Barrette
3. Lecture du procès-verbal de la réunion du 13 novembre 2015 Geneviève Bougie Desjardins fait la lecture du procès-verbal de la réunion du 13 novembre 2015 qui est adopté tel que présenté.
Proposé : Gary Barton Appuyé : Johanne Lafrance
4. Affaires découlant des minutes de la réunion du 13 novembre dernier
Plastique de ferme Geneviève donne une mise à jour du projet de recyclage du plastique agricole et explique le bilan préparé par le Groupe Convex énumérant les mesures prises à jour. On propose que les conteneurs soient installés à des endroits stratégiques et fréquentés par les agriculteurs tels les coops où c’est possible, plutôt qu’aux dépotoirs municipaux et ceci afin d’encourager les agriculteurs à apporter leur plastique lorsqu’ils s’approvisionnent en semences. Mme Lavigne explique que cette proposition est à l’étude et ajoute que les collectes dans les dépotoirs se font maintenant sur appel lorsque les conteneurs sont pleins. M. Kirby ajoute que 18 tonnes de plastique ont été récupérées en 2015. En conclusion on confirme que le financement de 35 000 $ de la part des Comtés unis a été sécurisé pour l’année 2016. Page | 1
Coupe de bois Geneviève présente M. Louis Prévost, directeur de l’Urbanisme et Foresterie, ainsi que Dominique Lefebvre qui prendront dorénavant part aux réunions du comité. M. Prévost explique la situation des récentes coupes de bois qui ont été effectuées au grand détriment de la population. Ce sujet ayant été discuté au comité d’Urbanisme et foresterie en janvier dernier, il a été conclu que la solution à base des Comtés n’était pas souhaitable mais devait plutôt provenir des municipalités locales. Cependant, puisque les municipalités locales n’ont pas l’autorité d’adopter des règlements pour la coupe à blanc, La Loi sur les municipalités de l’Ontario permet aux paliers supérieurs comme les Comtés unis d’adopter des règlements régissant la coupe d’arbre sur les surfaces de plus de deux hectares et délègueront cette autorité aux municipalités pour adopter leurs règlements. M. Prévost rappelle que cette situation est délicate vu l’importance de l’agriculture dans notre région et ajoute que l’adoption de règlement pour la conservation des arbres peut contrevenir aux droits des agriculteurs qui sont régis par la Commission de protection des pratiques agricoles normales. Il faut aussi évaluer la raison de la coupe d’arbre et sur quel type de terrain elle a lieu puisque ces facteurs s’avèrent très importants dans la décision. M. Prévost ajoute que la Cité de Clarence-Rockland est la seule à administrer un règlement sur la coupe d’arbre.
Nouvelle responsabilité du comité en termes d’urbanisme M. Prévost rapporte qu’au mois de décembre 2015, la Province a adopté le projet de loi 73 soit une mise à jour de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire et explique qu’une des exigences est de créer un comité consultatif de l’urbanisme au niveau des Comtés. Il explique que le Conseil des Comtés unis a accepté que le Comité consultatif sur l’agriculture soit désigné comme étant le comité consultatif au terme des exigences du projet de loi 73. Pour ce faire, les termes de références actuels du comité seront modifiés afin de préciser les dossiers pour lesquels le comité sera consulté. M. Prévost se chargera d’en faire la révision pour la prochaine rencontre du comité afin d’y être adopté.
Traitement des semences pour le soya et le maïs En raison de l’absence de M. Pommainville qui devait traiter ce dossier, on mentionne que la nouvelle législation à ce sujet est en vigueur mais débattue par le Grain Farmers of Ontario. On mentionne que des cours obligatoires sont offerts gratuitement aux agriculteurs qui désirent utiliser les semences traitées de néonicotinoide sous de strictes conditions d’utilisation. M. Leclerc est d’avis que ceci est une question politique puisque d’autres facteurs interviennent dans la situation précaire des abeilles selon lui. Une discussion s’ensuit sur le sujet.
5. Réseau Agroalimentaire de l’Est ontarien – compte-rendu des initiatives
Comptoir des produits locaux de Prescott et Russell Geneviève donne un bilan du premier comptoir au Métro à Casselman qui se porte très bien et démontre une augmentation de 30 % des ventes dans le comptoir, après neuf mois d’opérations. On rappelle que Métro a l’exclusivité pour environ 1 ½ année, soit le reste du contrat de trois ans, donc le Réseau doit se limiter aux chaines nationales sous la bannière Métro, tels Food Basic ou aux petites épiceries privées. Geneviève mentionne qu’un deuxième comptoir a été installé chez L’Orignal Packing et le troisième verra le jour Page | 2
prochainement à la Fromagerie St-Albert. Elle mentionne aussi qu’un comptoir sera installé à Hawkesbury grâce à la subvention de 39 000 $ du fond Growing Forward 2. Métro souhaiterait voir un comptoir au Food Basic à Rockland, un autre à Orléans et un troisième au Marché Glebe à Ottawa. On propose avec la nouvelle législation sur l’alcool en Ontario, d’ajouter des bières et vins locaux à la gamme de produit vendus dans les comptoirs.
Viandes de l’Est Geneviève informe que le premier bœuf local de Prescott-Russell proviendra de la Ferme Wilson à Vankleek Hill et sera un croisement du bœuf Angus avec le Limousin ou le Charolais pour ne pas compétitionner directement avec la viande vendue par Métro. Elle ajoute qu’une ressource sera embauchée afin de vendre le 80 % d’excédents de viande dans les institutions ou autres, puisque Métro prendra que 20% du bœuf dans son comptoir. De plus, les fermes Wilson élèveront le bœuf selon les standards demandés par le Réseau, soit sans hormones ni antibiotiques. L’abattoir reste à confirmer mais L’Orignal Packing se chargera de la coupe et de l’emballage et le projet devrait voir le jour pour la saison du BBQ. Le Réseau prépare aussi un plan d’affaire pour la distribution du bœuf.
Food Hub – Phase 2: plan d’affaires Geneviève informe que le Réseau est dans la phase 2 du projet et a mandaté la firme Doyletech pour préparer le plan d’affaires, qui devrait être complété pour la fin mai. Elle s’est rendue à Atlanta en Géorgie pour assister au National Food-Hub Conference qui fut très enrichissant. On explique les diverses facettes d’un food hub, qui consiste en un centre alimentaire de distribution et transformation pour les produits locaux. Geneviève mentionne la Ferme Boudrias qui produit des verdures hydroponiques en serre, qui vendra bientôt ses produits à la chaine Métro, suite à l’implication du Réseau. M. Réjean Leclerc mentionne l’implantation d’une serre hydroponique près de Marionville qui produira du Tilapia et des légumes. Mme Lavigne mentionne que le concept du comptoir de produits locaux a été copié par un compétiteur sans l’autorisation du Réseau mais que ceci démontre l’ingéniosité du concept et encourage tout de même, la vente des produits locaux. On discute de l’ajout d’un rayon de produits non réfrigérés affichés Prescott et Russell ainsi que la possibilité de vendre du poulet local.
Foire Gourmande 2016 Geneviève informe que le Réseau est en période de recrutement pour les exposants de la Foire Gourmande 2016 et que les frais d’inscription sont baissés à 100 $ pour l’inscription hâtive et de 150 $ par la suite. La Foire sera tenue le 3 juillet à Rockland dans le cadre du Festival de la Rivière. La porte-parole pour cette année sera Mélissa Ouimet de St-Albert qui livrera une performance durant la Foire. Geneviève mentionne son plan de commandites offert aux intéressés. Elle ajoute que le Réseau travaille à développer un partenariat avec l’institut Cordon Bleu d’Ottawa pour les démonstrations alimentaires.
Souper gourmands – De la fourchette à la table / Fork to table Cette initiative discutée à la dernière réunion sera mise de côté pour l’instant vu le manque d’appui financier et le manque de temps pour la mise sur pied. On rappelle que ceci consiste à jumeler un chef et une ferme dans le but de préparer un repas gastronomique, avec des aliments locaux et les accords mets-vins, au coût de 50 $ pour un cinq services.
Page | 3
6. Autres sujets
Journée de l’abeille Pour souligner la Journée de l’abeille le 29 mai, Geneviève mentionne que le Réseau tente d’organiser une activité en partenariat avec le conseil scolaire catholique et Michel Dignard, apiculteur, afin que les élèves de 11e et 12e année de l’école d’Embrun visitent une ruche. On discute aussi des semences de fleurs pour attirer les abeilles et d’en fournir gratuitement aux agriculteurs pour aider à la situation des abeilles et créer un point de rapprochement entre les deux groupes, genre Save the bees.
Collège d’Alfred On mentionne qu’une présentation pour le Collège d’Alfred sera tenue à huis clos à la réunion du comité plénier des Comtés, le 13 avril prochain.
7. Varia Marc Laflèche souligne la journée porte-ouverte des fermes du Québec, tenue simultanément à travers la province, et aimerait voir la même chose dans la région la même journée. Une discussion s’ensuit à ce sujet.
8. Sujets à mettre à l’ordre du jour de la prochaine rencontre • Résultat du projet de plastique agricole
9. Prochaine rencontre La prochaine rencontre sera tenue à l’automne, en octobre ou novembre et la date reste à confirmer. De plus on aimerait tenir la réunion du printemps 2017 tôt en avril à la cabane à sucre de Jean-Marc Levac.
8. Clôture La réunion du comité est levée à 11 h 55. Proposé par : Denis Latour Appuyé par : Gary Barton
Page | 4 L’Orignal, Ontario May 25, 2016
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM COMMITTEE REPORT
To the Chair and the members of Council, United Counties of Prescott and Russell
The Economic Development and Tourism Committee met in L’Orignal on Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 10:15 a.m.
Were present: Mrs. Jeanne Charlebois, Chair, Mr. Conrad Lamadeleine, Mr. Pierre Leroux, Committee members, Mr. Guy Desjardins, Warden
Mr. Stéphane P. Parisien, Chief Administrative Officer, Mrs. Carole Lavigne, Director of Economic Development and Tourism, Mrs. France Lortie, Administrative and Projects Assistant
The report is presented as follows:
1. Annual stats – construction permits For information purposes, Mrs. Lavigne presented the comparative table of building permits issued annually by each municipality, including the 2015 information.
2. TPRT and CAPRAC annual grants Mrs. Lavigne wanted to know the ceiling for reductions in the grant paid to TPRT (Tourisme Prescott-Russell Tourism). Under the agreement, a decrease of 16.6% per year is applied and this, after the first three years paid in the full amount of $300,000. Mrs. Lavigne said that after discussions with Mr. Martin Lacelle, Director of TPRT, the latter being worried about recurring decreases and wished to reach a ceiling of $200,000 to enable him to obtain other sources of financing. Mr. Desjardins stated that this has already been discussed and voted without any ceiling since TPRT shall get funding independently from Counties. Mrs. Lavigne presented for comparison purposes, a table with the amounts paid by surrounding counties to their tourism organization. A discussion followed on the beneficial effects of tourism promotion and benefits incurred. The committee would like to see relevant and concrete information that indicates a valid return on Counties investment. Committee proposed to wait until TPRT has reached its five years of operation before properly assessing this service while continuing the annual reduction of 16.6%.
In terms of the grant of $84,000 paid to CAPRAC (Conseil des arts Prescott-Russell Arts Council), this organization is only in its second year of operation therefore exempt from a reduction. Mrs. Lavigne explained the mission of CAPRAC, their upcoming projects and added that all areas of the arts are covered by this organization. Mrs. Lavigne also inquired about a possible ceiling for reductions and the committee wanted to stick to the agreement that specifies a decrease of 16.6% after the first three years. Mrs. Lavigne added that the President of CAPRAC will make a presentation to Council to explain their services and present their strategic plan.
3. Small Entrepreneurs’ Day Mrs. Lavigne presented this new initiative in partnership with CSDCEO (Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l’Est ontarien), which is a duplicate of the model done in Quebec and that is to introduce elementary students to start their own business for one day. This project of initiation to entrepreneurship will be offered in schools of L'Orignal and Embrun on June 15th and in Alfred on June 20th. Members of committee asked to receive the information for these events.
Page | 1
4. Ottawa River Festival Mrs. Charlebois would like to know the amount of hours spent by Counties employees on this event and also the real benefits achieved. Mrs. Lavigne explained the TREIM program (Tourism Regional Economic Impact Model) that calculates the economic impacts and this will provide the requested information to Mrs. Charlebois.
5. New business Mrs. Lavigne informed the committee that a new microbrewery will soon open in Embrun, Brasserie Étienne Brûlé, which will occupy the premises of the former fire station. Mr. Leroux added that another brewery Tuque de Broue, opened in the former premises of Impression Printing in Embrun.
6. VIA – neighbors, presentation Mrs. Lavigne made a presentation of the Recreational Trail document prepared by Louise Bissonnette. She mentioned the various users, the annual calendar, Geocaching, etc. She also listed activities such as the ACES Program, the St-Eugene plantation, Courses gourmandes, the Grand Tour Desjardins and the Grand Fondo to name a few. She continued by listing the improvements made over time but also the constraints including vehicles not permitted on the trail and vandalism. A discussion followed on the issue of paved shoulders. Following this, Mrs. Lavigne asked Committee for instructions in regards to the future of the trail and the issue of the lease. On this, Committee wanted to keep the trail and to negotiate a new lease with a term of 25 years.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that Council mandated the Economic Development and Tourism Department to negotiate a lease for a term of 25 years for the Recreational Trail.
7. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
______Jeanne Charlebois, Chair
Moved by: Conrad Lamadeleine
Seconded by: Guy Desjardins
THAT THIS REPORT BE ADOPTED
Adopted by Council on June 22, 2016
______Guy Desjardins, Warden
______Andrée Latreille, Clerk
Page | 2 L’Orignal, Ontario April 12, 2016
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
The Agricultural Advisory Committee met in L’Orignal, in the offices of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, on Tuesday April 12, 2016 at 10:00 am
Were present : Gary Barton, Robert Kirby, Marc Laflèche, Johanne Lafrance, Réjean Leclerc, Jean-Guy Barrette, Nathalie Grenier, Denis Latour, Louis Prévost, Dominique Lefebvre, Carole Lavigne, Geneviève Bougie-Desjardins, France Lortie
Was absent: Réjean Pommainville
The report is presented as follows:
1. Word of welcome Marc Laflèche welcomed everyone.
2. Adoption of the agenda Marc Laflèche read the agenda, adopted as presented.
Proposed: Réjean Leclerc Seconded: Jean-Guy Barrette
3. Reading of the minutes of November 13, 2015 meeting Geneviève Bougie-Desjardins read the minutes of November 13th, 2015 meeting which were adopted as presented.
Proposed: Gary Barton Seconded: Johanne Lafrance
4. Updates on subjects arising from November 13th meeting
Farm plastic Geneviève gave an update of the farm plastic recycling project and explained the report prepared by Groupe Convex listing the measures already taken. It is proposed that the containers be installed in strategic places frequently visited by farmers such as Co-ops, rather than municipal dumps in order to encourage farmers to bring their plastic when buying seeds. Mrs. Lavigne explained that this proposal is under review and added that collections in landfills will now be made upon call, when containers are full. Mr. Kirby added that 18 tons of plastic were recovered in 2015. Finally, it was confirmed that the $35,000 funding from the United Counties has been secured for 2016.
Page | 1
Logging Genevieve introduced Mr. Louis Prévost, Director of Planning and Forestry, and Mrs. Dominique Lefebvre who will now both take part in committee meetings. Mr. Prévost explained the situation of the recent loggings that made the population react negatively. This topic has been discussed at the Planning and Forestry Committee in January, where they concluded that a Counties based solution was not suitable but should rather come from local municipalities. However, since local municipalities do not have the authority to adopt bylaws for clear-cut logging, the Ontario Municipal Act allows higher levels governments such as the United Counties, to adopt regulations governing tree cutting on surfaces of more than two hectares and will delegate that authority to municipalities to adopt their own regulations. Mr. Prévost reiterated that this is a delicate matter considering the importance of agriculture in our region and added that the adoption of bylaws for tree conservation may breach the rights of farmers, under the Normal Farm Practices Protection Act. Also, the reason for the logging and the type of land where it occurs must both be evaluated since these factors are very important in the decision. Mr. Prévost added that the City of Clarence-Rockland is the only municipality administering a tree cutting regulation.
New responsibility of the committee in terms of planning Mr. Prévost reported that in December 2015, the Province passed Bill 73 which is an update to the Planning Act and that one of the new requirements is to establish a Planning Advisory Committee at County level. He explained that County Council approved that the Agricultural Advisory Committee be designated as the official County advisory committee in accordance with the requirements of Bill 73. It was agreed that the current terms of reference will be modified to specify the details on which files this committee will be involved. Mr. Prévost will make the necessary modifications in time to be approved at the next Committee meeting.
Seed treatment for soybeans and corn Due to the absence of Mr. Pommainville who was supposed to address this subject, it was mentioned that the new legislation on this issue is now in force but contested by Grain Farmers of Ontario. Free compulsory courses are available to farmers who wish to use Neonicotinoid treated seed but under strict conditions. Mr. Leclerc believes that this is a political issue since other factors also interfere in the bees’ health issue. A discussion followed on the subject.
5. Eastern Ontario Agri-Food Network – update
Prescott and Russell Local Products Counter Geneviève gave an update of the first counter located at Metro in Casselman which is doing very well and showed a 30% increase in sales in the counter itself, after nine months of operations. She reminded that Metro has the exclusivity for another 1½ year, being the rest of the three-year contract, therefore the Network must limit expansion to stores under the Metro banner, such as Food Basics or small private stores. Geneviève mentioned the second counter installed at L'Orignal Packing and the third one soon to be installed at the St-Albert Cheese Coop. She also mentioned that another counter will be installed in Hawkesbury with the $39,000 grant from Growing Forward 2. She added that Metro would like to see a counter at Food Basics in Rockland, another in Orleans and a third one at Page | 2
Glebe Market in Ottawa. With the new alcohol legislation in Ontario, it is proposed to add local beers and wines to the line of products sold in the counters.
Viandes de l’Est Geneviève informed that the first Prescott-Russell local beef will come from Wilson Farms in Vankleek Hill and will be a crossbreed of Angus with Limousin or Charolais in order to not compete directly with the meat sold by Metro. She added that a resource will be hired to sell the 80% surplus of meat in institutions or others, as Metro will only sell 20% of the beef in the counter. In addition, Wilson Farms will raise the beef without hormones or antibiotics, as per the Network’s standards. The slaughterhouse remains to be confirmed but L'Orignal Packing will handle the cutting and packaging and the project should be ready for the BBQ season. The Network is also developing a business plan for the beef distribution.
Food Hub – phase 2: business plan Genevieve informed that the Network is in Phase 2 of the project and has commissioned Doyletech Firm to prepare the business plan, which should be completed by the end of May. She traveled to Atlanta, Georgia to attend the National Food-Hub Conference which was very rewarding. She explained the various facets of a food hub, which is a food processing and distribution center for local products. Geneviève also mentioned that Boudrias Farm which produces hydroponic greens in greenhouses, will soon sell its products to the Metro banner, following the involvement of the Network. Mr. Réjean Leclerc mentioned the implementation of a hydroponic greenhouse near Marionville that will produce Tilapia and vegetables. Mrs. Lavigne said that the concept of the Local Products Counter has been copied by a competitor without permission from the network but that this demonstrates the ingenuity of the concept and encourages after all, the sale of local products. A discussion followed on adding a range of non-refrigerated products under the Prescott and Russell branding and the possibility of selling local chicken.
La Foire Gourmande 2016 Genevieve informed that the Network is recruiting exhibitors for the Foire Gourmande 2016 edition and the registration fee are down to $100 for early registration and $150 thereafter. The Foire will be held on July 3rd in Rockland within the Ottawa River Festival. The spokesperson this year will be Mélissa Ouimet of St-Albert who will deliver a performance during the Foire. Genevieve mentioned the sponsorship plan available to all interested parties. She added that the Network is working to develop a partnership with the Cordon Bleu Institute of Ottawa for food demonstrations.
Gourmet Dinner - Fork to table This project discussed at the last meeting will be put on hold for now due to a lack of funding and lack of time for implementation. This initiative consists of pairing a chef and a farm in order to prepare a gourmet meal with local food and wine pairing, at a price of $50 for a five services meal.
Page | 3
6. Other subjects
Day of the Honey Bee To mark the Day of the Honey Bee on May 29th, Genevieve mentioned that the Network wants to organize an activity in partnership with the Catholic School Board and Michel Dignard, beekeeper, so students of grades 11th and 12th from Embrun High school can visit a hive. Also discussed are the flower seeds to attract bees to be provided free of charge to farmers to help the situation of bees and create a reconciliation between the two groups, kind of a Save the bees’ initiative.
Alfred College It is mentioned that a presentation for Alfred College will be held in camera at the next Counties’ Committee of the Whole on April 13th.
7. Varia Marc Laflèche mentioned the Quebec open house farms’ day, held simultaneously across the province, and he would like to see this kind of event in the area on the same day. A discussion ensued on this subject.
8. Topics for the next meeting’s agenda • Results of the Farm plastic project
9. Next meeting Next meeting will be held in the fall, either October or November but date remains to be confirmed. Furthermore, it was proposed to hold the spring 2017 meeting early in April at the sugar shack of Jean-Marc Levac.
10. Closing The Committee meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. Proposed by: Denis Latour Seconded by: Gary Barton
Page | 4 L’Orignal ON Le 8 juin 2016
RAPPORT DU COMITÉ DE LA RÉSIDENCE
Au Président et aux membres du Conseil, Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell
Madame, Messieurs,
Le comité de la Résidence s’est réuni à 10 h 30, le 8 juin 2016.
Présences : MM. Gary J. Barton, président du comité, Robert Kirby, vice-président du comité, Guy Desjardins, président du Conseil des Comtés, Jeanne Charlebois, membre du comité, Louise Lalonde, administrateure de la Résidence, Marie-Christine Neilon, adjointe administrative.
Absence motivée : M. Stéphane P. Parisien, directeur général
Le rapport est présenté comme suit :
1. Indicateurs a. Les indicateurs d’admissions et de départs pour les mois de mars et avril 2016 sont présentés par l’administrateure. Le taux d’occupation se maintient toujours au-delà de 97 %, soit le seuil établi par le MSSLD. Le nombre d’individus sur la liste d’attente des séjours permanents se situe au-dessus de 30.
b. Les indicateurs pour le service des soins infirmiers pour les mois de mars et avril 2016 sont présentés par l’administrateure.
2. Rapports d’événements critiques du mois de mars et avril 2016 Deux rapports furent acheminés au MSSLD en mars 2016 et aucun ne fut acheminé en avril 2016.
3. Correspondance Aucune
4. Sécurité et amélioration de la qualité a. Plan de la qualité et de la sécurité des résidents Le plan de la qualité et de la sécurité des résidents a été révisé et approuvé par le Comité, et ce, tel qu’exigé par les normes d’Agrément Canada.
5. Autres sujets a. Visite des inspectrices du MSSLD L’inspection annuelle portant sur la qualité des soins a été effectuée par les inspectrices du MSSLD, et ce, du 18 au 29 avril dernier. L’administrateure fait un survol du rapport concernant les normes non rencontrées et résume les principaux sujets du rapport.
b. Projet de réduction des coûts LE COMITÉ RECOMMANDE que le tableau présenté par l’administrateure et qui identifie une liste de projets, et ce, à l’égard d’une réduction d’équivalents à temps plein de 10.2 et pouvant représenter une réduction d’environ 900 000 $ par année soit retenu, que les démarches soient faites avec le département des Ressources humaines pour la réalisation des économies et qu’un suivi de l’impact au niveau des coûts, du service et de la satisfaction des résidents et des familles soit effectué auprès du Comité de la Résidence à la fin de la présente année.
Ajournement La séance du comité de la Résidence est levée à 11 h 45.
LE TOUT VOUS EST RESPECTUEUSEMENT SOUMIS.
______Gary J. Barton, Président du comité
Proposé par Guy Desjardins Appuyé par Robert Kirby
QUE CE RAPPORT SOIT ADOPTÉ Adopté par le Conseil Le 22 juin 2016
______Guy Desjardins, Président
______Andrée Latreille, Greffière L’Orignal ON June 8, 2016
REPORT OF THE HOME COMMITTEE
To the Warden and Members of Council United Counties of Prescott and Russell
Gentlemen:
The Home Committee met in L’Orignal at 10:30 on June 8, 2016
Were present: Messrs Gary J. Barton, Chair of the Committee, Robert Kirby, Vice- Chair of the Committee, Guy Desjardins, Warden, Jeanne Charlebois, Member of the Committee, Louise Lalonde, Home Administrator, Marie-Christine Neilon, Administrative Assistant
Excused absence: Stéphane P. Parisien, Chief Administrative Officer
The report is presented as follows.
1. Indicators a. Admission and departure indicators for March and April 2016 are stated by the Home administrator.
The occupancy rate remains beyond 97 per cent, which is the threshold that was established by the MHLTC.
The number of individuals on the permanent stays waiting list is above 30.
b. The Nursing Services indicators for March and April 2016 are presented by the Administrator.
2. Critical Incident Reports for March and April 2016 There were two critical incidents in March and none in April 2016.
3. Correspondence None 4. Safety and Quality Improvement a. Residents’ Quality and Security Plan The Residents’ Quality and Security Plan is approved by the Committee as required by the standards of Accreditation Canada.
5. Other Subjects a. MOHLTC’s Inspection The annual Resident Quality Inspection was conducted at the Prescott-Russell Residence from April 18 to April 29, 2016 by the MOHLTC’s inspector. An overview of the report is given by the Home Administrator.
b. Costs Reduction Projects THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the chart presented by the Home Administrator which identifies a list of projects, and with respect to a reduction of full time equivalent of 10.2 and that can represent a reduction of approximately 900 000 $ annually be retained, that the steps are made with the Human Resources Department for the achievement of economies and a follow up of the impact at the level of the costs and satisfaction of residents and families is carried out with the Home Committee at the end of the year.
6. Adjournment The Home Committee meeting is adjourned at 11:45.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
______Gary J. Barton, Chairman
Moved by Guy Desjardins Seconded by Robert Kirby
THAT THIS REPORT BE ADOPTED
Adopted by the Council June 22, 2016
______Guy Desjardins, Warden
______Andrée Latreille, Clerk L’Orignal, Ontario le 24 mai 2016
RAPPORT DU COMITÉ DES SERVICES D’URGENCE
Au président et aux membres du Conseil, Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell
Le comité des Services d’urgence s’est réuni le 24 mai 2016 à 9 h à la station d’ambulance de Hawkesbury.
Présences : M. Pierre Leroux, président, Madame Jeanne Charlebois, vice-présidente, Gary J. Barton et Guy Desjardins, membres. M. Michel Chrétien, directeur du département des Services d’urgence et M. Stéphane Parisien, directeur général et secrétaire.
Absence : Mme Sylvie Bois, adjointe au département des Services d’urgence.
Invité : M. Justin Bromberg, coordonnateur aux communications et politiques et M. Louis Rathier, chef adjoint aux opérations du département des Services d’urgence.
Le rapport est présenté comme suit :
1. Résultats préliminaires du projet de paramédecine communautaire Le directeur rappelle qu’en 2014, le ministère de la santé et des soins de longue durée avait investi 6 millions dans ce projet pour le développement de 30 projets de paramédecine communautaire à travers la province afin d’évaluer la façon dont ces modèles pourraient offrir de meilleurs résultats pour les patients.
Cet investissement a permis le développement d'une variété de modèles menés localement qui pourrait permettre aux paramédics de combler les lacunes dans les soins uniques et de mieux intégrer les soins pour les patients vulnérables de la communauté.
Il indique que le département des Services d’urgence a participer à un programme qui était financé à 100 pour cent et sans coûts continuels. Une formation de personnel ainsi qu’un changement aux ordinateurs furent les seuls changements affectés par ce programme.
Louis Rathier fait une présentation des résultats aux membres.
LE COMITÉ RECOMMANDE que le directeur présente les résultats préliminaires du projet de paramédecine communautaires au Conseil.
2. Conformité du département des Services d’urgence avec la Loi sur la protection civile et la gestion des situations d’urgence M. Chrétien informe que le département de Services d’urgence rencontre les normes 2015 de la Loi sur la protection civile et la gestion des situations d’urgence pour 2015.
3. Performance du temps de réponse rencontré pour 2015 Le directeur présente un tableau sur la performance du temps de réponse rencontré pour 2015. Le département a surpassé les cibles dans les catégories les plus importantes.
Il informe les membres que nous sommes légèrement en dessous de nos objectifs de 90% mais nous allons continuer de surveiller et faire les changements nécessaires afin d’être en conformité.
4. Facture inter-municipale M. Chrétien informe que le département a demandé au ministère de la santé et des soins de longue durée d’acheminer l’argent directement aux comtés unis de Prescott et Russell sans passer par la ville d’Ottawa.
Le ministère informe que les comtés unis de Prescott et Russell devront débourser 100 pour cent des coûts pendant la première année tout en indiquant qu’il ferait l’ajustement l’année suivante. M. Chrétien a envoyé de la correspondance au ministère les avisant de son inquiétude à ce que l’argent soit acheminé à la ville d’Ottawa car les citoyens de Prescott et Russell devront payer pour les bénéfices de la ville d’Ottawa.
Le directeur informe qu’il attend la réplique du ministère.
Le département a aussi envoyé une lettre à la ville d’Ottawa et Cornwall leur demandant leur appui afin de conclure une entente pour les coûts à fournir des services à et de la Ville d'Ottawa et Cornwall. Il avise que la ville de Cornwall est intéressée à cette proposition tandis que la ville d’Ottawa refuse sans équivoque.
M. Chrétien avise qu’il attend la réplique des représentants de L’Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus (EOWC) tout en travaillant avec le centre de répartition d’appels pour changer certaines stratégies de déploiement afin de diminuer le temps passé à l'extérieur de notre communauté.
Le directeur continuera à informer le comité sur l'évolution de ce dossier.
5. Station d’ambulance – Embrun Lors de l’instauration du département des Services d’urgence en 2001, il était profitable pour nous de construire des stations d’ambulance puisque nous pouvions nous louer à un frais raisonnable. Depuis le Conseil sur la comptabilité dans le secteur public (CCSP) / Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB), nous ne pouvons plus se louer et amortir sur 40 ans. Il est maintenant plus profitable pour nous d’être locataire au lieu d’être propriétaire puisque nous pouvons ramasser 50 cents sur le dollar immédiatement sans à avoir à dépenser.
M. Chrétien avise qu’il a discuté avec la municipalité de Russell car celle-ci est intéressée d’acquérir le bâtiment de la station d’ambulance d’Embrun. Le directeur souligne qu’il pourrait vendre au prix du marché tout en indiquant qu’il pourrait demander à la municipalité de Russell de construire un bâtiment pour notre station d’ambulance afin que nous puissions la louer. Nous pourrions alors être en mesure d’aller chercher 50 cents sur le dollar.
M. Chrétien informe que ce projet peut aussi être présenté à la cité de Clarence- Rockland.
6. Postes de Casselman et Bourget Poste de Casselman Le directeur informe qu’une demande de proposition pour louer un édifice pour le poste de Casselman sera présentée en 2016 pour un contrat en 2017 et au-delà.
Poste de Bourget M. Chrétien souligne que les soumissions pour le poste de Bourget sont fermées.
7. Tableau sur la formation des pompiers Le directeur fait une mise à jour sur la formation des pompiers. Il souligne qu’il rencontrera les chefs pompiers sous peu pour discuter des besoins.
8. Tableau sur les interventions médicales Le directeur fait une mise à jour sur les interventions médicales.
9. Prochaine rencontre La prochaine rencontre se tiendra le mercredi, 14 septembre 2016 suivant la rencontre du plénier.
10. Ajournement La réunion du comité des Services d’urgence a été levée à 10 h 15.
LE TOUT VOUS EST RESPECTUEUSEMENT SOUMIS
______Pierre Leroux, président
Proposé par Monsieur Gary J. Barton Appuyé par Madame Jeanne Charlebois
QUE CE RAPPORT SOIT ADOPTÉ Adopté par le Conseil le 22 juin 2016 ______Guy Desjardins, président du Conseil
______Stéphane P. Parisien, secrétaire L’Orignal, Ontario May 24, 2016
REPORT OF THE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMMITTEE
To the Warden and Members of Council, United Counties of Prescott and Russell
The Emergency Services Committee met on May 24, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. at the Hawkesbury ambulance station.
Present: Mr. Pierre Leroux, Chairman, Mrs. Jeanne Charlebois, Vice-Chair, Gary J. Barton and Guy Desjardins, Members. Mr. Michel Chrétien, Director of Emergency Services, Mr. Louis Rathier, Deputy Chief of Operations and Mr. Stéphane Parisien, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk.
Absence: Mrs. Sylvie Bois, Administrative Assistant.
Guest: Mr. Justin Bromberg, Communications and Policy Coordinator and Mr. Louis Rathier, Deputy Chief of Operations, Department of Emergency Services.
The report is presented as follows:
1. Preliminary Results of Community Paramedicine The Director reminds that in 2014, the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care invested $6 million to support the development of 30 community programs across the province to evaluate how these models could deliver better patient and system outcome.
This investment allowed for the development of a variety of locally driven models that could allow paramedics to fill unique care gaps and better integrate care for vulnerable patients in the community.
He indicates that the Department of Emergency Services participated on a project that was financed at 100 percent with no additional costs. The only changed affected by this program was training of staff and changes in the computer system.
Louis Rathier makes of presentation of the results to the members.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS the Director to present the preliminary results of community paramedicine to Council.
2. Compliance of the Emergency Services Department with the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act Mr. Chrétien informs that the Department of Emergency Services has complied with the 2015 Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act for 2015.
3. 2015 Achieved Response Time Perfomance The Director presents a spreadsheet on the 2015 achieved response time performance. The Department exceeded the targets on the most important categories.
The Director informs the committee that we are slightly below our targets of 90% but we will continue to monitor and make the necessary changes to strive towards our full compliance.
4. Inter-municipal Billing Mr. Chrétien informs that the Department has requested the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care to forward the funds directly to United Counties of Prescott and Russell without going through the City of Ottawa.
The Ministry informs that the United Counties of Prescott and Russell will have to pay 100 percent of the costs during the first year and indicated that they would make the adjustments the following year. Mr. Chrétien sent correspondence to the Ministry advising them of his concerns that the funds be sent directly to the City of Ottawa because Prescott and Russell taxpayers will pay for the benefits of the City of Ottawa.
The Director informs that he is waiting for the Ministry’s reply.
The Department also send a letter to the City of Ottawa and Cornwall asking for their support to enter into an agreement for costs to provide services to and from the City of Ottawa and Cornwall. He informs that the City of Cornwall is interested in our proposal whereas the City of Ottawa completely rejected the offer.
Mr. Chrétien advises that he awaits the reply from the Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus (EOWC) while working with dispatch call center towards changing certain deployment strategies in order to decrease the time spent outside our community.
The Director will continue to update the committee on the evolution of this issue.
5. Ambulance Station – Embrun During the establishment of the Emergency Services Department in 2001, it was profitable for us to build ambulance stations since we could rent ourselves at a reasonable cost. Since the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB), we can no longer rent and amortize over 40 years. It is now more profitable for us to be a tenant rather than be an owner since we can collect 50 cents on the dollar immediately without having to spend a dime.
Mr. Chrétien advises that he had discussions with the Township of Russell in regards to their interest in purchasing the building of the Embrun ambulance station. The Director informs that he could sell at market price while indicating that he could ask the Township of Russell to build an ambulance station so that we could rent it. We would then be able to collect 50 cents on the dollar.
Mr. Chrétien informs that this project can also be presented to the City of Clarence-Rockland.
6. Casselman and Bourget Posts Casselman Post The Director informs that a request for proposal to rent a building for the Casselman post will be presented in 2016 for a contract in 2017 and beyond.
Bourget Post Mr. Chrétien advises that the tenders for the Bourget post have closed.
7. Spreadsheet on firemen’s training The members receive an update on the firemen’s training. He mentions that he will meet the Fire Chiefs shortly to discuss their requirements.
8. Spreadsheet of medical responses The members receive an update on the firemen’s medical responses.
9. Next meeting The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 following the Committee of the Whole.
10. Adjournment The Emergency Services Committee was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
______Pierre Leroux, Chairman
Proposed by Mr. Gary J. Barton Seconded by Mrs. Jeanne Charlebois
THAT THIS REPORT BE ADOPTED
Adopted by Council on June 22, 2016
______Guy Desjardins, Warden
______Stéphane P. Parisien, Clerk L’Orignal, Ontario Le 8 juin 2016
RAPPORT DE LA RÉUNION DU COMITÉ DES SERVICES SOCIAUX
Au président et aux membres du Conseil, Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell
Le comité des Services sociaux s’est réuni à 8h le 8 juin 2016 à l’édifice administratif des Comtés à L’Orignal.
Présences : MM Fernand Dicaire, président du comité, Guy Desjardins, président des Comtés unis, Gary J. Barton et Conrad Lamadeleine, membres du Conseil
Mme Anne Comtois Lalonde, directrice des Services sociaux, Julie Ménard Brault, trésorière, M. Alain Lacelle, superviseur des Services de logement et Christiane Parisien, procès verbaliste
Invités : MM Daniel Vinette et Jacques Bourgon, BDO Canada
Absence : M. Stéphane P. Parisien, directeur général
Le rapport vous est présenté comme suit :
Adoption de l’ordre du jour L’ordre du jour est adopté avec l’ajout du sujet du Programme d’investissement dans le logement abordable de l’Ontario (PILAO).
1. Programme d’investissement dans le logement abordable de l’Ontario (PILAO) Mme Comtois Lalonde informe les membres qu’au budget 2016 du fonds Élargissement 2014 du Programme d’investissement du logement abordable Ontario (PILAO) – Volet Logement locatif, la somme de 600 000 $ a été placée vers la construction d’un minimum de quatre unités de logement abordable. Les Services de logement du département des Services sociaux ont diffusé une demande de propositions afin de satisfaire leur financement cible avec des projets « prêt à construire ». Cela dit, la directrice des Services sociaux informe les membres du comité qu’un rapport sera présenté à la réunion régulière du Conseil en juin afin de faire approuver la proposition ayant le pointage le plus élevé pour la construction de quatre logements locatifs dans le cadre de l’Élargissement 2014 du PILAO – Volet logement locatif.
2. Présentation sur l’étude de la fin des ententes d’opération par BDO Canada La directrice des Services sociaux informe les membres qu’une demande de propositions a été lancé pour obtenir les services d’un consultant pouvant préparer un rapport qui donnera les éléments nécessaires aux membres du comité et aux membres du Conseil pour décider de l’action à prendre lors de la fin des ententes d’opération des corporations de logement à but non but lucratif et dont la première vient à échéance en 2018. Avant d’aller plus loin et au risque d’être en conflit d’intérêt, MM Fernand Dicaire et Gary Barton mentionnent qu’ils siègent tous les deux sur un conseil d’administration d’une telle corporation. En réponse, M. Desjardins ne croit pas qu’il y a conflit d’intérêt puisque la réunion d’aujourd’hui en est une d’information seulement et qu’aucune décision ne sera prise pour l’instant.
MM. Daniel Vinette et Jacques Bourgon de la firme BDO mentionnent avoir rencontré tous les gérants et/ou bureau de direction des corporations de logements touchées et fait la cueillette d’information de chacune d’entre elles, en plus d’avoir passé en revue l’étude de planification (fonds de prévoyance) du Groupe MMM qui a L’Orignal, Ontario Comité des Services sociaux 2 Le 8 juin 2016
été préparée sur une période de 30 ans. Trois scénarios d’impact ont ensuite été préparés permettant de prévoir les impacts financiers des corporations à but non lucratif à la fin desdites ententes d’opération.
M. Bourgon procède avec la présentation de l’étude et répond aux questions des membres du comité.
Une copie du rapport final a été remise aux membres du comité et M. Dicaire recommande à ceux-ci d’en prendre connaissance et de poursuivre la discussion à la réunion du comité des Services sociaux en août 2016.
3. AJOURNEMENT La réunion du Comité des Services sociaux a été levée à 8 h 57
LE TOUT VOUS EST RESPECTUEUSEMENT SOUMIS
Fernand Dicaire, Président du comité
Proposé par Gary J. Barton Appuyé par Guy Desjardins
QUE CE RAPPORT SOIT ADOPTÉ
Adopté par le Conseil Le 22 juin 2016
Guy Desjardins, Président
Andrée Latreille, Secrétaire L’Orignal, Ontario June 8, 2016
REPORT OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
To the Warden and Members of Council, United Counties of Prescott and Russell
The Social Services Committee met in the County Administration Building in L’Orignal at 8:00 a.m. on June 8, 2016.
Were present: Messrs. Fernand Dicaire, Committee Chair, Guy Desjardins, Warden, Gary J. Barton and Conrad Lamadeleine, Council Members
Mrs. Anne Comtois Lalonde, Director of Social Services, Julie Ménard Brault, Treasurer, Alain Lacelle, Supervisor, Housing Services and Christiane Parisien, Minutes Writer
Were invited: Messrs. Daniel Vinette and Jacques Bourgon, BDO Canada
Was absent: Stéphane P. Parisien, Chief Administrative Officer
The report is presented as follows:
Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted with the addition of the subject Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) for Ontario
1. Affordable Housing for Ontario (IAH) Mrs. Comtois Lalonde informed members that in the 2016 budget of the Investment in Affordable Housing for Ontario (IAH) 2014 Extension – Rental Housing Component, the sum of $ 600,000 was allocated for the construction of a minimum of four affordable housing units. The Housing Services Division of the Social Services Department called for proposals in order to meet their target funding for "shovel ready” projects. The Director of Social Services then informed the committee that a report will be presented at Council’s regular meeting in June to approve the proposal with the highest score for the construction of four rental units under the 2014 Extension of the IAH – Rental Housing Component.
2. Presentation by BDO Canada on the Study on the End of Operating Agreements The Director of Social Services informed members that a request for proposals was released to obtain the services of a consultant who could produce a report to provide the necessary elements to both the committee and Council members to decide what actions to take at the end of the operating agreements of the Counties’ non-profit housing corporations which the first will come to term in 2018. Before going further and at the risk of being in conflict of interest, Messrs. Fernand Dicaire and Gary Barton mentioned that they both sit on the board of such a corporation. In response, Mr. Desjardins does not believe that there is conflict of interest since today's meeting is for information purposes only and no decision will be taken.
Messrs. Daniel Vinette and Jacques Bourgon of BDO stated that they met with all the managers and / board members of the housing corporations and gathered information from each of them. They also reviewed the planning study (contingency fund) by the MMM Group which was prepared over a period of 30 years. Three scenarios were then prepared to predict the financial impact of the non-profit corporations at the end of the said operation agreements.
L’Orignal, Ontario Social Services Committee 2 June 22, 2016
Mr. Bourgon proceeded with the presentation of the study and answered the committee members’ questions.
A copy of the final report having been presented to the committee members, Mr. Dicaire recommended they take cognizance of same and continue the discussion at the meeting of the Social Services Committee in August 2016.
3. AJOURNMENT The meeting of the Social Services Committee was adjourned at 8:55 a.m.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Fernand Dicaire, Chair
Moved by Gary J. Barton Seconded by Guy Desjardins
THAT THIS REPORT BE ADOPTED
Adopted by Council June 22, 2016
Guy Desjardins, Warden
Andrée Latreille, Clerk
L’Orignal, ON Le 25 mai 2016
RAPPORT DU COMITÉ D’URBANISME ET DE FORESTERIE
Au président et aux membres du Conseil, Comtés unis de Prescott et Russell
Le comité d’Urbanisme et de Foresterie s’est réuni dans le bureau du président à 8h00 le 25 mai 2016.
Étaient présents : MM. François St-Amour, Fernand Dicaire, Guy Desjardins, Robert Kirby, Louis Prévost et Madame Dominique Lefebvre.
Était absent : Aucun
Déclaration d’intérêts pécuniaires: Aucun
Le rapport vous est présenté comme suit :
1. Couvert forestier Le directeur présente un tableau qui illustre un sommaire des outils disponibles aux municipalités pour la protection du couvert forestier. Plusieurs discussions ont lieu et il est décidé qu’au cours des prochains mois, les Comtés unis adopteront un règlement qui aura pour but de déléguer son autorité d’adopter des règlements pour la coupe d’arbre dans les boisés aux municipalités locales.
2. Étude plaine inondable Le directeur explique que les gouvernements fédéral et provincial ont des subventions disponibles pour la production de carte de plaine inondable dans les endroits à haut risque. Certains endroits où le potentiel de développement est élevé ainsi que la rivière des Outaouais au grand complet sont envisagés. Le directeur explique qu’un tel projet s’effectuera sur un échéancier de 10 ans et fera une présentation lors du prochain plénier.
3. Types de peuplement forestiers vulnérables aux feux de végétation Le directeur souhaite faire une parallèle avec les feux de forêt à Fort McMurray et l’urbanisme. Il explique que la Déclaration de principes provinciale (DPP) 2014 contient des nouvelles politiques qui traitent de l’identification des zones à risques de feux de forêt. La révision de 5 ans du Plan officiel des Comtés tient compte de ces nouvelles politiques de la province.
4. Mouvement bleu Terre À la demande de monsieur Desjardins, le directeur présente de la documentation concernant le mouvement bleu Terre initié par David Suzuki en 2014. Depuis ce temps, plusieurs municipalités au Canada ont adopté des résolutions supportant le mouvement. Le comité reçoit la correspondance à titre d’information.
5. Ajournement
La séance est levée à 8 h 58.
LE TOUT VOUS EST RESPECTUEUSEMENT SOUMIS.
______Robert Kirby, Président du comité
Proposé par Fernand Dicaire Appuyé par François St-Amour QUE CE RAPPORT SOIT ADOPTÉ
Adopté par le Conseil ______Le 22 juin 2016 Guy Desjardins, Président du conseil
______Andrée Latreille, Greffière L’Orignal ON May 25th, 2016
REPORT OF THE PLANNING AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
To the Warden and Members of Council, United Counties of Prescott and Russell
The Planning and Forestry Committee met in the Council Chambers at 8h00 a.m. on May 25th, 2016.
Were present: Mr. François St-Amour, Mr. Fernand Dicaire, Mr. Guy Desjardins, Mr. Robert Kirby, Mr. Louis Prévost and Ms. Dominique Lefebvre.
Was absent: None
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest: None
The report is presented as follows:
1. Tree Cover The Director presents a table summarising the tools available to municipalities to protect the forest cover. Numerous discussions are held and it is recommended that County Council adopts a By-law to delegate its authority to adopt Tree Conservation By-laws to the local municipalities.
2. Flood Plain Study The Director explains that both the Federal and Provincial governments have funding available for the preparation of flood plain studies in high risk areas. Several vacant land areas with development potential having high risk of flooding as well as the entire stretch of the Ottawa River have been identified by staff. The Director explains that such a project will be completed over a 10 year period and proposes to make a presentation at the next Committee of the Whole on June 8th.
3. Hazardous Forest Types for Wildland Fire The Director draws a comparison with the forest fires in Fort McMurray and planning policies in Ontario. He indicates that the new Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 now contains policies that apply to hazardous forest types for wildland fire. He also indicates that some policies to that effect were introduced in the County Official Plan through its 5 year review process.
4. Blue Dot Planet At the request of Mr. Desjardins, the Director presents documentation relating to the Blue Dot movement initiated by David Suzuki in 2014. To date, several municipalities in Canada have endorsed this movement. The Committee receives this documentation as information only.
5. Adjournment
The meeting is adjourned at 8:58 a.m.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECFULLY SUBMITTED
______Robert Kirby, Chairman
Moved by Fernand Dicaire Seconded by François St-Amour
THAT THIS REPORT BE ADOPTED
Adopted by Council June 22nd, 2016 ______Guy Desjardins, Warden
______Andrée Latreille, Clerk COMTÉS UNIS DE / UNITED COUNTIES OF
PRESCOTT-RUSSELL
R É S O L U T I O N / R E S O L U T I O N
Date: Juin / Juin 22, 2016 Item no. : 10
Sujet / Subject: Modifications au système de sécurité des portes et au système de communication d’urgence de la Résidence/ Modifications to the Doors Security System and Emergency Communication System of the Residence
Proposé par / Moved by:
Appuyé de / Seconded by:
ATTENDU que l’inspection annuelle sur la qualité WHEREAS the annual Resident Quality des soins a été effectuée à la Résidence Prescott Inspection was conducted at the Prescott-Russell et Russell par les inspectrices du MSSLD, et ce, Residence from April 18 to April 29, 2016 by the du 18 au 29 avril 2016; MOHLTC’s inspectors;
ET ATTENDU qu’un ordre de non-conformité a AND WHEREAS a compliance order has been été émis au terme de l’inspection et que la issued following the inspection and that the Résidence doit se conformer aux normes de Residence must comply with the safety standards sécurité à l’effet que toutes les portes donnant to the effect that all doors leading to the outside accès sur l’extérieur de l’établissement doivent must be equipped with an audible door alarm that être munies d’un système d’alarme sonore allows calls to be cancelled only at the point of pouvant être désactivées au point d’activation activation; seulement;
ET ATTENDU qu’un avis de non-conformité a été AND WHEREAS a notification of non-compliance émis au terme de l’inspection et que la Résidence was issued following the inspection and that the doit être munie d’un système de communication Residence must be equipped with an emergency d’urgence facilement accessible à tous les communication system easily accessible to all résidents, visiteurs et employés en tout temps aux residents, visitors and employees at all times; endroits accessibles aux résidents;
ET ATTENDU qu’une demande de prix a été faite AND WHEREAS a proposal to perform the work auprès de l’entrepreneur spécialisé, soit la firme was submitted by Secur Fire Protection, being Secur Fire d’Ottawa, lequel fait partie de la liste part of the sole contractors of the Prescott- des fournisseurs exclusifs de la Résidence Russell Residence; Prescott et Russell;
ET ATTENDU que les travaux doivent être AND WHEREAS work must be done before effectués avant le 29 août 2016, et ce, tel qu’exigé August 29, 2016, as indicated by the MOHLTC’s au rapport d’inspection du MSSLD du 6 mai 2016; inspection report;
ET ATTENDU que la Résidence a révisé la liste AND WHEREAS the Residence has revised the des projets d’entretien du bâtiment prévus au list of the 2016 budget for the building budget 2016 et que certains projets seront maintenance projects and that some projects will reportés à une année subséquente afin de be carried over to a subsequent year in order to financer le total des dépenses afférentes à la finance the total costs relating to the door security modification du système de sécurité des portes system and for the emergency communication menant à l’extérieur et du système de system; communication d’urgence interne;
QU’IL SOIT RÉSOLU que le Conseil : BE IT RESOLVED that Council;
1. Approuve les améliorations imprévues et 1. Approves the unforeseen improvements in non incluses au budget 2016 en finançant the 2016 budget by financing such ladite dépense à même le budget expenditure within the operational budget opérationnel de la Résidence, et ce, suite of the Residence, and this, following a à une révision des projets pour l’année en review of the projects for the current year; cours;
2. Octroie à l’entrepreneur Secur Fire 2. Grants Secur Fire the contract to carry out l’autorisation d’effectuer les modifications the work to ensure that the door security au système de sécurité des portes et au system and emergency communication système de communication d’urgence aux system at identified places in the endroits identifiés au rapport de non- Residence as indicated in the inspection conformité des normes, et ce, pour le report, and this, for the amount of montant de 74 026,00$, taxes en sus. $74 026.00 (plus HST).
Adoptée / Adopted Vote enregistré demandé par / Recorded vote requested by: Défaite / Defeated Initiales du Secrétaire / Clerk’s initials:
THE CORPORATION OF THE UNITED COUNTIES
OF PRESCOTT AND RUSSELL
BY-LAW NUMBER 2016-21 ______
A BY-LAW TO ADOPT THE BUDGET REVISIONS FOR THE YEAR 2016 AS PART VII pursuant to s. 289 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.0. 2001 c.25, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Act");
WHEREAS Council deems it expedient to adopt the budget revisions of the Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell for the year 2016.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by Council of the Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell that:
1. The revised estimates expenditures and revenues to be incurred by the Corporation during the year 2016, be authorized, approved and adopted as shown on Appendix "A" attached hereto and forming part of this by-law.
2. This by-law shall come into force on the final passing hereof.
DONE AND PASSED in open Council this 22nd, day of June, 2016.
______Guy Desjardins, Warden
______Andrée Latreille, Clerk THE CORPORATION OF THE UNITED COUNTIES
OF PRESCOTT AND RUSSELL
BY-LAW NUMBER 2016-22 ______
A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE UNITED COUNTIES OF PRESCOTT AND RUSSELL
WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001 grants powers to a municipality to exercise its authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell at this meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell orders and enacts as follows:
1. That the action of the Council of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell in respect of each recommendation contained in the reports of the Committees and each motion and resolution passed and other action taken by the Council of the Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, at this meeting held on the 22nd day of June, 2016 are hereby adopted and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law.
2. That the Warden and proper officials of the Corporation of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the Council referred to in the proceeding section hereof.
3. That the Warden and Clerk be authorized and directed to execute all documents in that behalf and to affix the corporate seal of the Corporation to all such documents.
DONE AND PASSED in open Council this 22nd day of June, 2016.
______Guy Desjardins, Warden
______Andrée Latreille, Clerk