Corporation of the City of Cambridge General Committee Meeting No. 3 - 18 Historic City Hall - 46 Dickson Street Tuesday, March 6, 2018 7:00 p.m. AGENDA

Meeting Called to Order

Disclosure of Interest

Presentations

1. Karen Accursi, Traffic Engineering Technologist, re: Crossing Guard Appreciation Day 2018

2. James Etienne, City Engineer & Ron Scheckenberger, AMEC Foster Wheeler, re: item 6, Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment – Study Completion

Delegations

1. Carol Thorman, re: item 6, Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment – Study Completion

2. John Mitchell, re: item 6, Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment – Study Completion

3. Christine Rier, re: item 6, Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment – Study Completion

4. Kristine Dearlove, re: item 6, Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment – Study Completion

5. Allan Hilborn, re: item 6, Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment – Study Completion

6. Pat Kirby, re: item 6, Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment – Study Completion

7. Connie Perchaluk, re: item 6, Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment – Study Completion

1 8. Christiane Sadeler, Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council, re: Crime in Downtown Areas

9. Matthew Piggott, Community CarShare, re: item 7, Potential Sale of Community CarShare to a For-Profit Corporation

Consent Procedure

THAT all items listed under the heading of Public Consent Agenda for Tuesday, March 6, 2018, Public Meeting Agenda be adopted as recommended.

Items #

1. Cambridge Farmers’ Market Advisory Committee – Thursday, December 14, 2017

2. Service Agreement with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce for the Visitor Information Centre

3. Conestoga College Accelerated Funding Request

4. Enhanced BRP Funding -- 60 Main Street (former Right House)

5. True North Conference Sponsorship

8. Build a Better Neighbourhood Program

NOTE: General Committee Members, if you wish an item to be pulled from the Public Consent Agenda, please notify the City Clerk so the item can be listed on the Other Business Memo for tonight's meeting to be dealt with separately by General Committee. You will also have the opportunity to pull an item at the Meeting.

Minutes of Advisory Committee Meetings

1. Cambridge Farmers’ Market Advisory Committee PP. 7 - 10 Thursday, December 14, 2017

Recommendation - That the Committee recommend to City Council:

THAT the minutes of the Cambridge Farmers’ Market Advisory Committee Meeting held on Thursday, December 14, 2017, be approved.

2 Presentation and Consideration of Reports

Office of the City Manager

2. Service Agreement with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce PP. 11 - 38 for the Visitor Information Centre

Recommendation – That the Committee recommend to City Council:

THAT report number 18-004 OCM, re: Service Agreement with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce for the Visitor Information Centre services – be approved;

AND THAT City Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Service Agreement with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce for the provision of visitor information and services at 750 Hespeler Road (the Visitor lnformation Centre) for a three year and seven month period from June 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020 with a further renewal of an additional three year term (January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2023), subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached to this report as Appendix “A”;

AND THAT funding in the amount of $ 415,426.83 plus HST to be paid in equal monthly payments for the period of June 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018 be approved;

AND THAT funding in the amount of $266,310.48 plus HST to be paid in equal monthly payments for the period of January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 be approved;

AND THAT funding in the amount of $270,305.16 plus HST to be paid in equal monthly payments for the period of January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 be approved;

AND FURTHER THAT the payments outlined in the Service Agreement continue to be funded from the tax levy.

3 3. Conestoga College Accelerated Funding Request PP. 39 - 44

Recommendation – That the Committee recommend to City Council:

THAT Report No. 18-007 (OCM), re: Conestoga College Accelerated Funding Request – be approved;

AND THAT Council direct staff to release the remaining $400,000 of the previously approved funding commitment to Conestoga College for the Grand Innovations Technology Centre project;

AND THAT the funding be provided by the Industrial Development Reserve Fund;

AND FURTHER THAT the funding be repaid to the Industrial Development Reserve Fund from the increase in municipal taxes resulting from the overall Gaslight District development project.

4. Enhanced BRP Funding – 60 Main Street (former Right House) PP. 45 - 48

Recommendation – That the Committee recommend to City Council:

THAT report 18-006(OCM), re: Enhanced BRP Funding – 60 Main Street (former Right House) – be approved;

AND THAT Council approve a Building Revitalization Program (BRP) grant of $111,426 from the BRP Reserve Fund and interest-free loan of $206,935 from the Industrial Reserve Fund with a three (3) year term based on a total fundable amount of $318,361 to partially cover the cost of exterior renovations to the former Right House building located at 60 Main Street;

AND THAT this enhanced funding be available upon Council approval;

AND FURTHER THAT the work approved under this enhanced incentive be completed by December 31, 2019.

4 5. True North Conference Sponsorship PP. 49 - 54

Recommendation – That the Committee recommend to City Council:

THAT Report No. 18-008 (OCM), re: True North Conference Sponsorship – be approved;

AND THAT the City provides funding support of $15,000 to be funded from the Industrial Development Reserve.

Community Development Department

6. Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment PP. 55 - 132 – Study Completion

Recommendation – That the Committee recommend to City Council:

THAT Report 18-016 (CD), re: the Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment – be approved;

AND THAT Council authorizes Staff to finalize the Class Environmental Assessment Project File including authorization for staff to post the Notice of Study Completion for the 30-day review period;

AND FURTHER THAT Council approve of initiating the Detailed Design of the Preferred Alternative in 2018, if there are no requests for a Part II review received by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

7. Potential Sale of Community CarShare to a For-Profit Corporation PP. 133 - 140

Recommendation – That the Committee recommend to City Council:

THAT report 18-032(CD), re: the Potential Sale of Community CarShare to a For- Profit Corporation – be approved;

AND THAT Council authorize staff to negotiate with VRTUCAR to continue a carsharing service in the City of Cambridge in order to encourage a carsharing culture in the City of Cambridge;

5 AND FURTHER THAT the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the negotiated agreements, subject to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, the Manager of Transportation, and subject to available funding from the Transit Supportive Strategy.

8. Build a Better Neighbourhood Program PP. 141 - 150

Recommendation – That the Committee recommend to City Council:

THAT Report 18-019(CD), re: Build a Better Neighbourhood Program – be approved;

AND THAT Council approve the implementation of the Build a Better Neighbourhood Program as outlined in Report 18-019(CD);

AND FURTHER THAT Council approve the implementation of a Neighbourhood Matching Grant.

Correspondence

Unfinished Business

Non-Jurisdictional Items

Notice of Motion

Council Updates

Close of Meeting

6 ITEM #1

7 8 9 10 ITEM #2

To: GENERAL COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 03/06/18

Subject: Service Agreement with the Report No: 18-004 OCM Cambridge Chamber of Commerce for the Visitor Information Centre

From: James Goodram, Director of File No: LO4- LE Economic Development

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT report number 18-004 OCM, re: Service Agreement with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce for the Visitor Information Centre services be received;

AND THAT City Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Service Agreement with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce for the provision of visitor information and services at 750 Hespeler Road (the Visitor lnformation Centre) for a three year and seven month period from June 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020 with a further renewal of an additional three year term (January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2023), subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached to this report as Appendix “A”.

AND THAT funding in the amount of $ 415,426.83 plus HST to be paid in equal monthly payments for the period of June 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018 be approved,

AND THAT funding in the amount of $266,310.48 plus HST to be paid in equal monthly payments for the period of January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 be approved,

AND THAT funding in the amount of $270,305.16 plus HST to be paid in equal monthly payments for the period of January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 be approved,

AND FURTHER THAT the payments outlined in the Service Agreement continue to be funded from the tax levy.

11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose • To obtain Council approval for execution of a Service Agreement with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce to provide a Visitor Information Centre and staffing at 750 Hespeler Road. • The current Service Agreement with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce expired May 31, 2017 and a modification of this Service Agreement was prepared and has been accepted and executed by the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. • Staff is requesting Council’s authorization for the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Service agreement which will cover the period of June 1, 2017 to December 31, 2023.

Key Findings • This report outlines the major terms and conditions of the Service Agreement.

Financial Implications • The financial impact will total $952,042.47 for June 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020, and further funding is to be determined for one three-year renewal with the same terms and conditions, with funding to be sourced from the Tax Levy.

BACKGROUND

The City of Cambridge and the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce have historically partnered to have the Chamber deliver Tourism services. The most recent Visitor’s Service Agreement with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce had its renewal date on June 1, 2017. In order to allow time to revise the agreement and provide interim funding to the Chamber, Council approved an extension to the funding at their meeting of May 16, 2017 as per Report 17-017 OCM and motion 109-17. Since that time, Economic Development staff has been working with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce staff to determine the terms of a revised service agreement.

During budget deliberations Council’s direction for Visitor’s Services was no increase for the 2018 budget year.

This report provides details on the new Service Agreement that has been approved by the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce and is now being recommended to City Council for approval.

12

ANALYSIS

Strategic Alignment: PROSPERITY: To support and encourage the growth of a highly competitive local economy where there is opportunity for everyone to contribute and succeed.

Goal #6 - Economic Development and Tourism

Objective 6.3 Identify local economic strengths and leverage opportunities through collaboration with our partners.

By working in partnership with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, information and services can be provided to tourists at a key strategic location in the City.

Comments The main components of the Service Agreement as agreed to by the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce are as follows:

- Term of the Service Agreement is for the period June 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020, with a further 3 year term ending December 31, 2023.

- Allocation of 4052.75 square feet of space in the building at 750 Hespeler Road for a Visitor Information Centre. This area includes office, display space, public waiting area and public washrooms.

- City to pay the Chamber • a) $415,426.83 for 19 months from June 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, with monthly payments of $21,864.57 plus HST. This is at the current rate as directed by Council. • b) $266,310.48 for the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, payable monthly in the amount of $22,192.54 plus HST ( a 1.5% rate increase over the previous year), and • c) $270,305.16 for the period from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, payable in monthly amounts of $22,525.43 plus HST which also includes a 1.5% increase over the previous year.

- Increases for 2019 and 2020 are based on the average of the increase in the Consumer Price Index for the previous five years (1.5% annually). - Funding is to cover staff, service, operation, and maintenance costs.

- Hours of operation is to be 8 hours per day Monday to Saturday (9am – 5pm) and 5 hours on Sunday (11 am to 4 pm) with staff on duty weekends in July and August, (Saturdays and Sundays for 8 hours per day) for a total of 2,736 operating hours with staffing hours of 3855 person hours per year. Visitor Centre

13

is to be closed on Christmas Day, ½ day Christmas Eve, and one day on New Year’s Day.

- Also included are office service costs such as phones, photocopying, computer services, maintenance, etc.

- A dedicated website for Cambridge Tourism is to be maintained by the Chamber with updates to include events, points of interest, accommodations, etc. The website is to be compatible with mobile devices and shall link and co-ordinate information with the City of Cambridge website and the Waterloo Regional Tourism Marketing Corporation.

- An Annual Report and presentation will be provided to the City no later than September 1st in each year, with estimates on costs of operating the Visitor Information Centre for the next fiscal year, and the amount of any surplus funds from prior years’ operations along with a business plan for the operation of the Visitor Information Center.

- Information on Visitor Information Centre activity for the preceding year, including, number of visitors to the Centre, origin of visitors, purpose of visits, estimate of length of stay, and other performance indicators as determined will also be provided.

- Financial statements to be provided to the City annually.

- The Chamber to keep in force commercial general liability insurance not less than $5 million per occurrence, and the policy to be written on occurrence basis with coverage for any one occurrence or claim of at least $2 million, and include the City as an additional insured with severability of interest and cross liability clauses and to provide certificate to the City.

- Insurer is to provide 10 days’ notice of modification or cancellation or failure to renew said policy by the anniversary date.

- The Service Agreement may only be terminated by the City prior to the end of the term provided the Chamber is in default of the Agreement, and subject to providing twelve months written notice.

- The Service Agreement is to be terminated on the same date as the Lease and Joint Venture Agreement is terminated.

14

- The Chamber will have the right to one further term of Service Agreement with a three year duration which will cover the period of January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2023.

- Upon dissolution of the Visitor Information Centre or termination of the lease agreement, the Chamber is to convey assets to the City that were obtained out of the City’s funds.

A copy of the Service Agreement is attached as Appendix A.

Existing Policy/By-Law: The current Lease and Joint Venture Agreement between the City and the Chamber identifies that a portion of the lands at 750 Hespeler Road owned by the City be used for the Chamber to establish, service, operate and maintain a Visitor Information Centre on behalf of the City. A separate Visitor Services agreement was established to detail hours of operation and scope of services to be provided for a fee. It is the new Service Agreement that is the subject of this report.

Financial Impact: Council direction during the budget review process for the Visitors Services was to keep the payment amount at the current rate. This Service Agreement keeps the funding for the period of June 1, 2017 through to December 31, 2018 at monthly payments of $21,864.57 plus HST. For the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 payment is proposed to be increased by 1.5% to $22,192.54 plus HST, and the for the period of January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 monthly payments of $22,525.43 are proposed. The total for the 3 year, and 7 month term ending December 31, 2020 is $952,042.47 plus HST. As this agreement is for services, there are no requirements for any changes to City staffing levels or resources. The 2018 City of Cambridge approved budget has accounted for this fee for services in 2018. There is no anticipated deficit or surplus, however, the Cambridge Chamber shall report annually to City Council on the Visitor Information Centre activity and operational costs.

Public Input: Public input on this negotiation of the Service Agreement was not carried out. It is suggested that a review and update of the Tourism Strategic plan be included in a future budget year to collect public and stakeholder input and make recommendations for improvement/changes to the tourism activities offered through this Service Agreement.

15

Internal/External Consultation: The President/CEO, the Secretary/Treasurer and the Past Chair of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce were involved in negotiating the new Service Agreement, as were the City’s Director of Economic Development and the City’s Legal staff. The Cambridge Chamber Board of Directors has provided authorization to execute this agreement.

CONCLUSION

Staff recommends entering into this Service Agreement with the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce for Visitor Information Centre Services for a three year and seven month period of June 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020, with a further option to renew for an additional three years (January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2023).

SIGNATURE

Prepared by:

Name: James Goodram Title: Director of Economic Development

City Manager Approval:

Name: Gary Dyke Title: City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A – Visitor Information Service Agreement between the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce and the Corporation of the City of Cambridge.

Appendix B – Cambridge Visitor Services City Council Report.

Appendix C – Cambridge Chamber of Commerce Visitor Centre Services Business Plan 2017/2018.

16 VISITOR INFORMATION CENTRE SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT effective the 1sr day of June, 2017

BETWEEN:

CAMBRIDGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (hereinafter referred to as the "Chamber") of the FIRST PART

-and-

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE (hereinafter referred to as the "City") of the SECOND PART

WHEREAS the City recognizes that tourism is an important source of jobs and is a catalyst for economic growth;

AND WHEREAS the City wishes to provide information about local tourism destinations, increase the number of visitors, increase the length of stay and economic activity by visitors to the City by providing visitors with information and a quality visitor experience;

AND WHEREAS the Chamber and the City entered into a Lease and Joint Venture Agreement dated the 17th day of July, 2007 (herein called the "Lease and Joint Venture Agreement") wherein the City leased a portion of certain lands described as Part Lot 6, Concession 2, Beasley's Lower Block, designated as Part 1 on 58R-12962, Geographic Township of Waterloo, City of Cambridge, municipally known as 750 Hespeler Road, Cambridge ("the lands") to the Chamber for its office facilities (the "Chamber Portion") and a portion for the Chamber to establish, service, operate and maintain on behalf of the City as a Visitor Information Centre ("Visitor Information Centre Portion");

AND WHEREAS the Visitor Information Centre Portion occupies 4052.75 square feet within a building constructed on the lands;

AND WHEREAS the City and Chamber entered into a Visitor Information Centre Service Agreement for a five-year term commencing July 17, 2007 and terminating May 31, 2012 which was subsequently renewed for an additional five year term ending May 31, 2017 to provide for the establishment, operation, servicing and maintenance of a Visitor Information Centre (hereinafter "the Visitor Information Centre") by the Chamber on the City's behalf;

AND WHEREAS the Chamber has requested, by letter dated 31 March 2017, that upon its expiry on 31 May 2017, the 2012 Visitor Information Centre Service Agreement be replaced by a further agreement setting out the terms and conditions for the establishment, operation, servicing and maintenance of the Visitor Information Centre, hereinafter referred to as the "Service Agreement".

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESS ETH that in the consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the Chamber and the City agree as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and are hereby incorporated into the Service Agreement by reference.

17 TERM

2. The term of the Service Agreement shall be for a three-year, 7 month period, commencing on June 1, 2017 and expiring on December 31, 2020.

3. a) The Chamber shall have the right to renew one further Service Agreement of a three­ year term, under the same conditions and provisions by providing the City 6 months written notice prior to the expiration of the applicable term and provided that the Chamber is not in default of its obligations under the Service Agreement then in effect. b) Such renewal may include a review of service fees to be paid to the Chamber by the City, the area to be occupied by the Visitor Information Centre in the building, and the scope and nature of the services to be provided by the Chamber to the City.

VISITOR INFORMATION CENTRE

4. The Chamber shall establish, staff, service, operate and maintain on the Visitor Information Centre Portion of the lands, a year-round Visitor Information Centre (hereinafter "the Visitor Information Centre") on behalf of the City to the reasonable satisfaction of the City.

5. The Visitor Information Centre operated by the Chamber shall occupy 4052. 75 square feet of the building constructed on the lands unless an alternative area i.s negotiated between the Chamber and the City.

6.. Notwithstanding any other provisions and in addition thereto, the Visitor Information Centre shall include an office, display and counter space, a public wailing area and public washrooms maintained by the Chamber.

7. At the Visitor Information Centre, the Chamber shall provide up to date information and services in respect of tourism destinations in the City and throughout Waterloo Region, including but not limited to, literature and assistance to visitors concerning local destinations, events and festivals, in accordance with Schedule A.

8. The Chamber shall follow the hours, staffing, training, maintenance, signage/promolional activities and shall perform all the services set out in Schedule A to this Service Agreement in a professional manner

9. The Chamber agrees to, in cooperation with the City's Director of Economic Development, develop an annual Business Plan and estimated costs for Visitor Centre Services, that will include activities in cooperation with the Waterloo Region Tourism Marketing Corporation and meetings or correspondence with WRTMC Staff, as well as recommendations to increase visitor spending in our community.

PAYMENTS BY THE CITY

10. The City and the Chamber agree that the City will pay the Chamber the following fees for its services during the three-year term of this Service Agreement. Rates below are subject to change if City Council requires contracted City Services to pay a Living Wage as per the wage rate established by Living Wage Waterloo Region in any given year.

18 a) $ 415,426.83 for the period from June 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, payable in monthly in amounts of $21,864.57 plus HST. b) $266,310.48 for the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, payable in monthly amounts of $22, 192.54 plus HST and c) $270,305.16 for the period from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, payable in monthly amounts of $22,525.43

11. The City will pay the Chamber any service fee that is due under this Service Agreement within 30 days of the submission of a proper invoice to the City Director of Economic Development at the start of each month during the term of the Service Agreement.

COST ESTIMATES

12. The Chamber agrees that it will provide annually to the City no later than 1 September of each calendar year that this Service Agreement is in effect;

a)estimates of the costs of operating the Visitor Information Centre for the next fiscal year, and b) any changes to the operational costs that may affect the agreed 3-year amounts referred to in section (10) above.

ANNUAL REPORT

13. The Chamber shall prepare no later than 1 September in each calendar year of the Service Agreement an annual report and presentation to City Council summarizing information relating to Visitor Information Centre activity. Such reports shall include statistics on the number of visits per day, the origin of visitors, and the purpose of their visit. The City may request the Chamber to periodically undertake more detailed visitor surveys. The results of those surveys are to be included in the annual report.

AUDIT

14. The Chamber to provide the City with a copy of its approved Audited Statements within 6 months of its year end May 31st of each year of this contract.

INSURANCE

15. During the term of the Service Agreement;

a) The Chamber will keep in force, at its sole expense commercial general liability coverage which includes bodily injury and death, personal injury, premise operations, product/completed operations, contractual liability, independent contractors, broad form property damage, personal/advertising injury, and non­ owned automobiles with limits of not less than $5 million dollars per occurrence; b) These policies will be written on an occurrence basis with coverage for any one occurrence or claim of at least $2,000,000, include the City as an additional insured and contain severability of interest clause and cross liability clauses.

19 c) The foregoing coverages shall be evidenced by a certificate of insurance reasonably acceptable to the City and shall be issued annually by an insurance carrier licensed to carry on business in the Province of Ontario,; d) The insurance certificate shall state that the Chamber's insurer shall provide the City with ten-days prior written notice in the event that i. The coverages have been substantially modified, terminated or cancelled, or ii. The Chamber has failed to renew any policy on the insurance certificate by the policy anniversary date during the term of this Agreement. e) Prior to the City's execution of this Service Agreement, the Chamber shall provide the certificate of insurance required by the Service Agreement.

INDEMNITY

16. The Chamber shall indemnify and hold harmless the City its directors, officers, employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all liability, damages, costs and expenses (including professionals' fees) or other losses whatsoever incurred in connection with, resulting or arising from, or relating to the Chamber's performance of the obligations in the Service Agreement , except to the extent that liability was incurred as a result of the City's misconduct. The foregoing indemnity shall survive the termination or expiry of this Service Agreement.

DEFAULT

17. The City shall provide written notice of default to the Chamber specifying in detail the alleged event of default, the required remedy and a reasonable time to cure the default.

18. In the event that the Chamber fails to cure the default in accordance with the requirements of the notice of default, the City may terminate the Service Agreement, and upon such termination, the City is no longer obliged to make any service fee payment to the Chamber.

TERMINATION

19. The City may terminate the Service Agreement by providing twelve (12) months written notice to the Chamber, should the Chamber default in any of its requirements in this agreement and fails to remedy the default within a reasonable time.

20. In the event that the Lease and Joint Venture Agreement is terminated by either the City or the Chamber, this Service Agreement shall be terminated from the date of termination of the Lease and Joint Venture Agreement.

21. Upon either the dissolution of the Visitor Information Centre or upon the termination of the Service Agreement, the Chamber agrees to convey to the City within 60 days of the dissolution or termination any assets acquired by or on behalf of the Visitor Information Centre out of the City's funds for the purpose of establishing, operating, servicing and/or maintaining the Visitor Information Centre.

20 CITY LIAISON

22. The City Manager shall designate an appropriate staff liaison from the Economic Development Division of the City for ongoing communication and coordination between the City and the Chamber.

23. The Director of Economic Development is hereby designated as the City's liaison.

APPLICABLE LAW

24. The Service Agreement is governed by and is to be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable in that Province.

25. While the terms of this Agreement are being carried out, the Visitor Information Portion of the lands function as a municipal capital facility in accordance with s.110(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 2

26. This Service Agreement and any information provided pursuant to this Memorandum is subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56.

27. The parties shall conform to all applicable federal and provincial law and to any applicable City by-laws, policies and practices.

GENERAL

28. Each section of the Services Agreement is distinct and severable. If any section of the Service Agreement, in whole or in part, is or becomes illegal, invalid, void, voidable or unenforceable in any jurisdiction by any court of competent jurisdiction, the illegality, invalidity or unenforceability of that section, in whole or in part, will not affect: (a) the legality, validity or enforceability of the remaining sections of the Service Agreement, in whole or in part; or (b) the legality, validity or enforceability of that section, in whole or in part, in any other jurisdiction.

29. No amendment, discharge, modification, restatement, supplement, termination or waiver of the Service Agreement or any section of the Service Agreement is binding unless it is in writing and executed by the parties to be bound.

30. No waiver of, failure to exercise, or delay in exercising, any section of the Service Agreement constitutes a waiver of any other section (whether or not similar) nor does any waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless otherwise expressly provided.

31. The Parties agree and acknowledge that no party has been induced to enter into the Service Agreement in reliance on, and there will be no liability assessed, either in tort or contract, with respect to, any warranty, representation, opinion, advice or assertion of fact, except to the extent it has been reduced to writing and included as a term in the Service Agreement.

21 32. Any notices required or permitted to be provided hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been received five business days after the post-marked date thereof if sent by registered mail, the next business day following transmission if sent by fax, or at the time of delivery if hand-delivered, and shall be addressed as follows:

To the City: The Corporation of the City of Cambridge 50 Dickson Street Cambridge, Ontario N1R 5W8 Attention: City Clerk And Attention: Director of Economic Development

To the Chamber The Cambridge Chamber of Commerce 750 Hespeler Road Cambridge, Ontario N3H 5L8 Attention: President/CEO

33. This Service Agreement may be amended by the mutual consent of the parties. Any such amendment must occur through a written amendment agreement approved by the parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Service Agreement by virtue of affixing the signatures of their respective proper officers and agents duly authorized in that behalf.

President/CEO

We have authority to bind the Corporation

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Mayor Doug Craig

Michael Di Lullo, City Clerk We have the authority to bind the corporation

22 SCHEDULE A To the Service Agreement dated 1June2017

1) HOURS: a) Summer - Victoria Day to Thanksgiving (20 weeks)

6 days per week (Mon. to Sat.)@ 8 hours per day (9am to 5 pm)= 48 hrs. 1 day per week (Sunday)@ 5 hours per day (11 am to 4 pm)= 5 hrs. Total 53 hours per week @ 20 weeks = 1,060 hrs

(Mon to Fri Staffed by 1 - 800 hrs) (Sat and Sun Staffed by 2 - 520 hrs) (Summer Student 9 weeks@ 35 hrs per week- 315 hrs)

Total (20 wks) Summer person hours - 800 + 520 + 315 = 1635 b) Winter - Thanksgiving to Victoria Day (32 weeks)

6 days per week (Mon. to Sat.)@ 8 hours per day (9am to 5 pm)= 48 hrs. 1 day per week (Sunday)@ 5 hours per day (11 am to 4 pm)= 5 hrs. Total 53 hrs per week @ 32 weeks = 1,696 hours

(Mon to Fri Staffed by 1 -1280 hrs) (Sat and Sun Staffed by 2 - 832 hrs)

Total (32 wks) Winter person hours - 2112

Winter - Days Closed

% day Christmas Eve; Christmas Day and New Year's Day= 20 hours Statutory Holiday's the Centre is open and accumulate overtime pay - (Boxing Day, Family Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Civic Holiday, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day) c) Total Hours - Summer and Winter

Total Hours of operation for Summer and Winter: 1,060 + 1,696- 20 = 2, 736 hours Total person Hours for Summer and Winter: 1635 + 2112 - 20 = 3727 hours 8 Statutory Holidays 2 staff @ 8 hours = 128 hrs

Total payable Counselor hours =3855 hrs d) Staffing/Hours Staffing/hours may be adjusted according to actual volumes and demand and will be reviewed monthly or as necessary. Any proposed changes to be discussed with City liaison.

23 2) MANAGEMENT, TRAINING AND UNIFORMS

Management, trainjng, orientation of travel counselors and provision of suitable uniforms, to be provided by the Chamber. Training to include appropriate travel counselor courses and orientation of area facilities and events.

3) VISITOR INFORMATION CENTRE LAYOUT

The Visitor Information Centre shall include an area of 4,052.75 square feet of space in the building on the lands, including signage, office space, reception and waiting areas, counter and literature display space as well as public washrooms, unless an alternative area is negotiated between the Chamber and the City

4) OPERATING COSTS

Operating Costs shall include any and all costs without exception, including but not limited to utility costs, any applicable taxes, maintenance, janitorial and janitorial supply costs for the designated square footage of the building on the lands.

5) OFFICE SERVICES

Office Services shall include telephone, fax, photocopies, and computer services, internet connectivity for staff as well as Visitors WiFi.

6)WEBSITE

The Chamber shall maintain a Cambridge Visitor Information Centre website to be coordinated with/linked to Waterloo Region Tourism Marketing Corporation (WRTMC). The website www.visitcambridgeontario.com shall be maintained and updated weekly. The website shall contain tourism information including points of interest such as parks, accommodations, as well as a listing of special events. The website shall contain a link to the City website. The website shall be of a high caliber and of a professional standard incorporating the latest in tourism industry standards in order to represent the City of Cambridge in an attractive and competitive light. The Website shall be mobile device friendly.

24 Cambridge Visitor Services City Council Report

May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017

Executive Summary

Per the current Contract with the City of Cambridge, the cambridge Chamber of Commerce provided Visitor Services from May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017. The following is a report on activities and services provided by Cambridge Visitor Services during this period:

Since June 2001, the cambridge Chamber of Commerce has been operating a Visitor & Information Centre from this location at 750 Hespeler Road. It is an impressive facility, conveniently located and easily accessed from the city or highway 401. It provides a welcome stop for visitors and travelers who are seeking directions and/or information on local, regional or Ontario destinations. Our Visitor Services staff are proud to welcome guests from across Canada, the USA and from all over the world to cambridge, Ontario and Canada. Visitors are impressed by our large, comfortable and fully-accessible facility and by the wide range of brochures and maps available here. Free Wi-Fi throughout the building is a plus for many travelers and our friendly, knowledgeable Tourism Counsellors are always available to assist visitors with whatever questions they may have, if we don't have the information or maps a visitor needs, we will gladly research it for them on the internet. Cambridge and area residents frequently drop in and pick up the latest information on this area and Ontario. Many come to gather information on things to do and places to visit when friends and family come to visit.

The Visitor & Information Centre is open daily, year-round. We are open 363 days a year to provide Visitor Services, closing only on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. Our Hours of operation are 9am to Spm, Monday to Saturday and llam to 4pm on Sundays. The Visitor Centre is staffed by one Tourism Counsellor from Monday to Friday and for safety reasons, by two on weekends. Chamber of Commerce Staff monitor the Visitor Services area for lunch breaks during the week.

Why is Tourism/Visitor Services Important

According to Statistics Canada, in 2014, there were 182,504 Tourism-related businesses in Ontario. These include Accommodation, Arts, Entertainment and Recreation, Food and Beverage, Transportation, Travel Services, Retail and others. Tourism contributes to the economy of the city of Cambridge, the Region of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and the International community.

We not only provide a service to visitors coming off the 401, but we are the pride of many Cambridge residents who are looking to entertain visiting friends and family. This is an important tool to inspire people to look at their own community in another way, as a destination, as a place where others from outside might experience the things we often take for granted.

Adding value to the Tourist's experience by providing Visitor Services is a smart investment for the City of Cambridge. If we can make visitors feel interested, welcome, answer their questions, give directions, suggest things to do, then we are providing a valuable service to the businesses in Cambridge.

A few facts listed below may provide some insight into the impact of Tourism as a worldwide and local industry.

1

25 • International - Tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors in the world according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization. • According to the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport, International Tourism receipts accounts for 6.4% of world GDP and 9.4% of world employment. • Canada - The 2016 National Tourism Indicators released by Statistics Canada on June 29, 2016 state that total Tourism demand increased 3.5% in Ql 2016 totaling 17.7 billion dollars.%.

In 2007 Cambridge Tourism was disbanded in favour of a Regional Destination Marketing Organization, the WRTMC was established. Prior to that change, "The Gateway" Business and Visitor Information Centre were welcoming between 80 and 100,000 visitors a year. Cambridge Tourism had an aggressive destination marketing operation, leveraging $400,000 of investment by the City of cambridge into a $1,000,000 tourism operation reaching out to invite visitors from other parts of Ontario, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and beyond. There was evidence this was working as people were stopping to gather needed information and advice here at the Chamber's office Visitor & Information Centre. WRTMC promotes inbound visits, but stops short of marketing the place to stop, gather information and get a warm welcome. We know unconditionally we are the place to stop, we are the only visitor centre on the 401 between Windsor and Brockville, we have information from all over Ontario and of course our Region. We have never had one complaint, in fact, we are continually appreciated by visitors on the cleanliness and comfortable facilities, the quantity of information available here and the excellent customer service we provide to visitors.

We have a long and storied record of success in Tourism and Visitor Services, we can do more but resources limit us of course. We see that change in 2007 as being the turning point for cambridge businesses who relied on our organization to drive business their way. We have spoken to all Hoteliers in the City, restaurants who were active with Cambridge Tourism, all have said tourist visits have slowed to a crawl. The Province made a drastic error in moving to Zones for Tourism, a community is best to market itself, it knows itself better.

At the very least WRTMC should be highlighting the Gateway as the first stop a visitor should make coming into the Region to get all the information they require. Economic Development Staff know that tourism is the most cost-effective method to drive more economy locally. As our residents are proud of us, we are proud of our community, we have been more effective in the past, and there are ways to address that.

Thanks for the opportunity to serve our community in this manner, we look forward to serving our community further in this capacity.

Greg Durocher President/CEO Cambridge Chamber of Commerce

2

26 Visitor Services Staff Report

Events

Cambridge Visitor Services promotes Cambridge and area festivals and events by: • listing them on the Events Calendar on our website www.visitcambridgeontario.com • posting events on Facebook • posting events on our outside roadside sign • posting events on our inside sign • displaying event posters and brochures in the Visitor Centre • informing visitors about local festivals & events and encouraging them to attend • selling tickets and/or programs for selected events at no charge

Cambridge Qty Maps are printed by the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce and are distributed free of charge to visitors, local businesses, hotels, organizations and to Regional and Ontario Travel Centres. 50,000 Cambridge maps were printed in 2016. The maps feature a complete street listing and icons indicating schools, places of worship, arenas, parks, libraries and shopping. Cambridge maps are also included in our Welcome Kits and Relocation Packages. The Visitor Centre also distributes thousands of Ontario Maps every year. They are provided to us by Ontario Travel because we are a recognized Ontario Travel Centre. Kitchener-Waterloo Maps are provided to us by Coldwell Banker, Peter Benninger Realty Brokerage, hundreds are handed out to visitors to the region. A large variety of maps are also available at the Visitor & Information Centre, including Fishing the Grand River, the Cambridge Trails Map, Hamilton Brantford Cambridge Trails Maps, Buy Local Buy Fresh Maps, Region of Waterloo Cycling Map & Guide, GRT Transit Map, Guelph City Map, St. Jacobs Map and many other maps for other destinations in Ontario.

Relocation Packages

Relocation Packages provide new residents, or those considering moving to Cambridge, with information they will find helpful such as a list of schools, places of worship, sports organizations, shopping, transportation, public utilities, municipal services and more. Relocation Packages contain a Cambridge Guide, a Cambridge Map, a Regional Guide, a Town and Country Map and a Relocation Information Guide. The Relocation Information Guide is printed by the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce specifically for the purpose of providing newcomers and prospective residents with information on all the City of Cambridge has to offer and a reference for where to find local services and amenities. 139 Relocation Packages were distributed from May 2016 to April 2017.

Welcome Kits

Welcome Kits are information packages which we provide free of charge to any person or organization bringing a group into the city or area. People can request any amount they need and we will have them ready for them for the date requested. Welcome Kits are packaged in a biodegradable plastic bag and contain a Cambridge Guide, the Waterloo Region Guide, a Cambridge Map and a Town and Country Map. During the period from May 2016 to April 2017, 1831 Welcome Kits were distributed.

3

27 In Our Own Backyard - Cambridge Guide

75,000 copies of the "In Our Own Backyard" Cambridge Guide were printed in April 2016. The Cambridge Guides were inserted in the Cambridge Times for distribution to homes in Cambridge and some were distributed in other cities including Burlington, Flamborough, Oakville, Guelph and Kitchener. They are also distributed through our Visitor and Information Centre, at other Regional Visitor Information Centres and are included in our Welcome Kits and Relocation Packages. We are always happy to supply them to any hotels that would like to provide a Cambridge Guide to their guests as well.

Ontario Travel Information

As a recognized Ontario Travel Centre, Ontario Travel provides us with publications such as Ontario Maps, Ontario Guides and Festival and Events Ontario Guides. We also carry a wide range of information from most other destinations throughout Ontario. Local residents and those from adjoining municipalities know where to come for Tourist Information. Frequently, we assist residents from Kitchener/Waterloo, Guelph, and elsewhere in this area, they tell us they like our Visitor Centre because it is easy to get to, well-stocked with the information they want and open daily. Visitors from the USA and many other countries come here to find out about local and area attractions and to pick up maps and information on this area as well as all Ontario has to offer. They frequently comment that they are so happy to have finally found a Visitor Centre! Our friendly and knowledgeable staff are always ready to welcome and assist our neighbours and visitors from all over the world. www.visitcambridgeontario.com

Today, one of the primary tools people use when travelling or planning a trip is social media. Our Visitor Information website www.visitcambridgeontario.com is a resource potential visitors can use to plan their visit to Cambridge or find out information when they arrive. Our website features an up-to-date calendar of Cambridge & area events, information about parks, trails, shopping and a list of meeting and convention facilities in the city. Page sessions on our website this year were over 32,000, 86% were new sessions and the average session lasted about 1.5 minutes.

We also post and share local news and happenings on our Facebook page. Currently we have over 400 followers on Facebook.

WRTMC - Waterloo Regional Tourism Marketing Corporation

Since 2007 Waterloo Regional Tourism Marketing Corporation has been responsible for marketing Cambridge as a tourism destination. WRTMC provides us with the annual Waterloo Region Guide, we distribute hundreds annually. It is included it in our Welcome Kits and our Relocation Packages and we hand out hundreds to visitors annually. We also help promote WRTMC member businesses by displaying their brochures in the Visitor and Information Centre.

4

28 Suooort of Communitv Groups and Organizations

Cambridge Visitor Services provided support for local Community Groups and organizations this year by:

• Promoting their festivals and events by posting them on our outside sign & inside signs • Posting events on our website events listing and on Facebook • Providing Welcome Kits to organizations who are hosting events in the city or area • Creating awareness of local charitable organizations such as Ontario Christian Gleaners by referring groups and individuals for visits and tours • Assisting local charities such as the Royal Canadian Legion Poppy Fund with fundraising by having displays in the Visitor Centre • Selling tickets and/or programs for events without charge whenever asked • Enthusiastically providing information on local Festivals & Events to visitors and encouraging them to attend

Other Activities in 2015 -2016

As we have done for many years, we welcomed a summer student under the Canada Summer Jobs program to our Visitor Services Team for the months of July & August 2016. Jenna Brown, a student at Conestoga College, completed an eight week work term, mentoring and training were provided by the Visitor Services Staff during this time. Souvenir books called "Our Cambridge" are sold here, we also sell "Cambridge" totes and beautiful Cambridge postcards by local artist Alex Krajewski.

Toyota Tour Program

The Cambridge Chamber of Commerce has operated the Toyota Tour Program at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada since 2003. Our knowledgeable tour guides take guests on a one hour guided tour of the facility, driving through the huge plant on motorized trams. People from all age groups and backgrounds visit the Toyota Plant each year. The Toyota Tour Program is one of the most important contributors to Tourism in Cambridge and Ontario, drawing visitors from all over Ontario and as far away as Australia, China & Japan. Many guests who come to see the Toyota Plant also visit restaurants and other attractions while in the city, this contributes to our local economy. 19,453 people took our tour of the Cambridge Toyota Plant this past year and since 2003, when the Chamber started operating the Toyota Tour Program, over 240,000, almost a quarter of a inillion people have taken tours of the plant.

5

29 Visitor Services Statistics

Cambridge Visitor Services submits a monthly statistical report to the City of Cambridge. Summaries are also provided for May to September and October to April.

The following is a summary of the Visitors Serviced from May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017. A statistics report by month for this period is also attached for your information.

Summary of visitors serviced 2016/17 2015/16 2014/15

through Gateway 9022 10.994 14.566 oriainated from: Cambridae 51.5% 46.1% 50.2% Ontario 41.0% 44.6% 41% Other Provinces 2.5% 3.6% 2.1% USA 3.0% 3.9% 4.5% International 2.0% 1.8% 2.2% purpose of visit: Visitina Cambridae 49.1% 46.2% 50.0% Visitina Reaion 22.3% 16.7% 16.0% Visitina Ontario 23.2% 26.4% 24.5% Passing Through 5.5% 10.7% 9.5%

During this period:

49.1% of visitors were visiting Cambridge compared to 46.2% during the same period last year 22.3% of visitors were visiting the Region compared to 16.7% last year 23.2% of visitors were visiting Ontario compared to 26.4% last year 5.5% of visitors were passing through compared to 10.7% last year

Cambridge residents accounted for 51.5% of visits compared to 46.1% last year Visitors from Ontario decreased to 41.0% from 44.6% last year Visitors from other provinces decreased to 2.5% from 3.6% last year US visitors were down to 3.0% from 3.9% last year International visitors were 2.0%, compared to 1.8% last year

During the period from May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017:

1831 Welcome Kits were distributed 139 Relocation Packages were distributed 19,453 people took Toyota Plant Tours

If there are any questions or concerns please contact Greg Durocher, President/CEO, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce 750 Hespeler Road, Cambridge, Ontario N3H 5L8 519-622-6543 or by email [email protected]

6

30 ' '

Cambridge Chamber of Commerce

Visitor Centre Services

Business Plan 201712018

Prepared in cooperation with the Director of Economic Development for the City of Cambridge

President/Chief Executive Officer Greg Durocher 519,622.6543 [email protected]

31 Executive Summary

Cambridge Visitor Center Services operation out of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce "Gateway" building at the southwest corner of 401/Hespeler Road. It was named the Gateway project due to its proximity on being at the Communities most used entry point.

The Gateway was constructed by the Chamber in cooperation with the City of Cambridge to provide a visible, attractive 7 day a week operation where visitors to our Community and the Region can gather information, receive directions and are given recommendations on accommodations, dining, shopping, attractions and other services they may be interested in.

The 401 is Canada's busiest highway, there are only two other Ontario Visitor Centres on the 401, one being in Windsor the other in Brockville. Travellers often use service centres along the corridor, but quite often like to get off the highway for other experiences and other food options. Business Travellers like to stay close to the highway when in the Southwestern region because access is readily available, and Cambridge seems to be a central point to make for their home base.

We operate 7 days a week, 9 to 5 on weekdays, 9 to 5 on Saturdays and 11 to 4 on Sunday's. The Centre is closed completely only two days per year, Christmas Day and New Years Day. We are staffed with one full-time, fully trained visitor services counsellor during the week and two on the weekends. We also provide one summer student position during our 9 busiest weeks in the summer months.

When the Chamber had Cambridge Tourism a full-service destination marketing and visitor services operation, the Gateway was open to over 100,000 visitors a year, many step on guide tours for bus operators as well. In 2007 the Waterloo Region Tourism Marketing Corporation was created and since we've had a dramatic reduction in visitors, largely due to the fact that the new marketing organization does not promote visitor service centre operations throughout the region.

However, we still have a meaningful status in the minds of the thousands of visitors who still use our facility, some of them frequent visitors as we've been known for the cleanest public restrooms on the 401. We also have a strong following from our local community. People who have friends or family visiting, local hockey, soccer, baseball and other sporting tournaments often send their attendees our way to find their way around or seek out attractions and dining establishments. We are also used by our real estate industry for our welcome packages. This guide and directs new comers to the

32 City for employment or new residents to services that they may require, contact information that would be important to them and connections to industry and businesses to service their needs as well.

We pride ourselves in running a professional organization, keeping the facilities clean and top notch, offering services people need and want and having staff who are friendly, warm and welcoming, because in most cases, their face is the first face they get to see in our community. We are proud of Cambridge and the region, what it has to offer and we're proud to offer people insights to our community as well, through our exceptionally trained staff.

The movie industry has begun to show its benefits to Cambridge from our visitors. Many people land at our counter looking for maps of where shows like Murdock Mysteries, Handmaidens Tale and Designated Survivor were filmed. Opportunities like this has put us on the map, has driven visitors to our community and our job is to ensure they enjoy their stay, find their way around and spend some money in our businesses. Based on visitor spending calculations from Stats Canada, our Visitor Centre drives over 3 million dollars a year in economic activity to our community.

In 1997, when the Chamber and the City decided to embark on the Gateway project, we never thought it could be as important as it has ended up. Not only to visitors but also to area residents. Virtually every citizen of our community knows where the Visitor Centre is in Cambridge and most of them have been inside collecting brochures and getting ideas on how to share our community with their visitors and their families.

When we calculate not just the cars but the occupants of the vehicles that come to our facility, the City of Cambridge invests less than one dollar per visitor, which we believe is a remarkably good investment that enables us to drive that dollar and many more back into the community.

We're pleased to present to you our plan for the coming year.

33 Industry Analysis

Tourism is worth 28 billion dollars a year in Ontario alone, 142 million people live within a day's drive of Ontario, we're nestled in one of the best places in all the world to visit purely from a safety perspective. Over 126,000 people traveled to Ontario from outside of our Province, yet that is only about 30% of our tourism impact. 70% comes from domestic travellers, Canadian's visiting Canada.

As a Visitor Centre operation there is little we can do to drive people into our doors, we depend on marketing campaigns that are successful first in driving visitors to the Region, then we can only hope they see the signs and follow the off ramp to come see us. However, providing service, being ready when they arrive is essential for us.

Tourism is that very low cost Economic Development program that can have profound affects on a community.

Customer Analysis

We have a number of markets to attract customers from. Day travellers in the GTA looking for a more rural or different day in their lives. Due to the 401 being a connector between NY State and Michigan, US travellers are frequent visitors to our facility, often on business, but we get many dimply on vacation. Sports tourism is very big in our region with all the tournaments, not just in the summer but throughout the year. Business Visitors make up a big portion of the heads in beds at our local hotels due to the central location of Cambridge. And finally, Eco Tourism is big here as well, with the trail systems, the natural environment around the Grand River, its paradise for cyclists and hikers.

Back in the 90's when the Chamber and the City embarked on this path it was with the intent to capture and maximize what we could from having a strong and vibrant organization dedicated to Tourism. The City committed its support by offering the Chamber a 50-year Lease and Joint Venture agreement for the lands we currently occupy. We were on a great path, visitor counts were up, the industry was rallying around us and we were drawing visitors from the GTA, Windsor, and US Border communities as well.

We recognized our consumers were within a few hours drive, often spending a weekend touring African Lion Safari, Wings of Paradise, Doon Pioneer Village, and St. Jacobs. Our local hoteliers will tell you that their tourism visitors are down substantially over the last 1O years, some of that will relate to added hotel room space, but also due to the fact that fewer visits directly to Cambridge are happening.

34 Operation Analysis and Recommendations

Today, with current volumes the staff compliment is quite adequate, however during the days of 100,000 plus visitors a year, two full-time were required and often three during the summer peak season.

Our reviews are exceptional, often have verbal appreciation but also people take time to write in our visitor registry. I believe we had one complaint about the painted lines in our parking area, which we remedied immediately. This was noted as a Chamber Member who commented on the lines, not a visitor.

We will continue to produce the publication "Our Own Backyard". This is a piece we do to support local events and attractions to area residents, high income neighbourhoods in Burlington, Kitchener and Waterloo as well. We have a print run of over 80,000 pieces, which gets distributed by the Cambridge Times and its affiliates in other markets. A very popular publication where residents are encouraged to be a Tourist in their own community. This also brings awareness to the Visitor Centre which services many area residents in planning entertainment for visiting friends and relatives.

Recommendations can often come with a price. In order to provide the exceptional experience and service we offer, this can only come with people being available to answer questions, give guidance and direction on the spot. However, we do know that more visitors will mean more economic spin off, so it is very much worth the investment.

#1. The easy fix is to have WRTMC promote the Visitor Centre in their destination marketing pieces as a place where brochures, help and direction can be offered when visitors arrive in the Region.

#2. Our 401 City signage should be reviewed and a strategy in place to highlight them more, offer more of a visual on the friendliness of the City as well as noting the Visitor Centre at exit #282.

#3. We are working with the team from the Ontario Travel Centres operations (Ministry of Tourism) to help them transition centres like ours into the 21•1 century Visitor Centre. 3DNirtual Reality kiosks and an experience for a visitor coming to the community to get a highlight of what there is to offer with a reality view.

As always, we will continue to offer great service to our visitors and our members of the community, helping them find what they need or want and making everyone feel warm and welcomed in Cambridge.

35 Estimated 2017/2018 Expenses

Facility/Space (4052.75 sq ft)- $78,000 (Dedicated Visitor Services space including public washrooms, office space, reception area, display atrium, brochure display racks, and tourism promotional areas. High profile area, most preferred space at the primary intersection in the community and highest traffic volumes in both directions of any arterial in the Region. Borders Queens Highway 401, busiest highway in Canada charged at an annual rate of $19.24/sq ft)

Salaries/Benefits - $104,000 (Highly qualified and trained visitor services staff, assumptions for increases taken into consideration, also shifts on Stat Holidays for OT pay, compensation to non-working staff for holiday pay, Gateway staff have 13/15 yrs experience, 6% holiday taken into consideration as well as employer benefit costs for El and CPP. Management/Administrative staff allocation for the Chamber of $20,000, for direct management, lunch time coverage, Monday - Friday and finance/supplies management. Based on 3757-person hours of operation over 363 days of operation annually).

Office/Operations - $79,000 (Shared costs of heat/Hydro, grounds and parking lot maintenance, janitorial services, insurance, office equipment costs and services, Uniform costs, website maintenance, computer services and maintenance, telephone, internet, staff mileage for various off site meetings, or acquisition of brochures and tourism marketing materials, postage, equipment Amortization).

Safety and Security - $4,500 (At times, with only one person on duty during weekdays, there are occasions where the front counter is absent a Counsellor for various reasons, gathering supplies, photocopying, washroom breaks etc. We also experienced an incident this year where one of our Staff Members had their cell phone stolen from the front counter by a visitor browsing our brochure racks. We are testing a system currently that will require expansion when we analyse the results. While $4,500 may not provide what we need, we may need to possibly fund it over two separate fiscal years)

Total - $265,500

*Note - No provision made in this financial plan for "Living Wage Adjustments". On November 241h, 2017 it was reported that Living Wage Waterloo Region adjusted the living wage amount to $16.1 O/hr. This is the third adjustment made by Living Wage Waterloo Region in the last 12 months. One adjustment was down slightly, the other two have been an increase. It is extremely difficult to manage an expected rate of compensation that is eternally floating, and the

36 adjustments seem to be randomly made without regard to budgets, affordability, service level impacts.

37 38 ITEM #3

To: GENERAL COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 03/06/18

Subject: Conestoga College Accelerated Report No: 18-007 (OCM) Funding Request

From: James Goodram, Director of File No: Economic Development

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT Report No 18-007 (OCM), re Conestoga College Accelerated Funding Request be received;

AND THAT Council direct staff to release the remaining $400,000 of the previously approved funding commitment to Conestoga College for the Grand Innovations Technology Centre project;

AND THAT the funding be provided by the Industrial Development Reserve Fund;

AND FURTHER THAT the funding be repaid to the Industrial Development Reserve Fund from the increase in municipal taxes resulting from the overall Gaslight District development project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On December 13, 2016 Council approved funding in the order of $1 million in total; $500,000 to each Grand Innovations Incorporated and Conestoga College. Conestoga College originally planned their investment into the technology centre in a phased approach over 5 years. With that phased approach in mind, Council committed to $100,000 per year for 5 years. One installment has been released. Conestoga College has had tremendous success in obtaining Provincial funding for research projects and continue to make application for additional funds. With that success, the College has accelerated their timeframe and are moving in completely over the next month and have decided to move additional programming to the facility. Therefore, the College is requesting Council consider providing the remaining funding commitment at this time. Staff recommend supporting this request.

39

BACKGROUND

November 17, 2016 marked the official launch of a major transformational redevelopment project in Downtown Cambridge, known as the Gaslight District. In conjunction with two proposed 20 storey residential apartment/condo towers, HIP Developments along with partners including the City of Cambridge has created a not- for-profit innovation/tech incubator known as Grand Innovations to be located at 96 Grand Avenue South. The overall Gaslight District project includes the preservation and adaptive reuse of heritage assets along with the development of a public square, restaurants/shops, office space including the administrative operations of Energy+, as well as artistic space studio etc.

As noted above, a not-for-profit innovation/tech incubator has been established at 96 Grand Avenue South and is known as Grand Innovations. Much work has been completed to date to house burgeoning companies, supportive companies along with the City’s Invest Cambridge Office. In addition, Conestoga College has signed a lease for over 13,000 square feet within Grand Innovations. This will be the genesis of this type of facility within the city of Cambridge.

Conestoga College originally planned their investment into 96 Grand Avenue South in a phased approach over 5 years. With that phased approach in mind, Council committed to $100,000 per year for 5 years in December of 2016. One installment has been released.

ANALYSIS Strategic Alignment: PROSPERITY: To support and encourage the growth of a highly competitive local economy where there is opportunity for everyone to contribute and succeed.

Goal #6 - Economic Development and Tourism

Objective 6.1 Support the creation and retention of high quality and diverse employment opportunities by becoming the destination of choice for business and entrepreneurship, including helping existing firms thrive and grow.

With the provision of seed funding for the proposed innovation/tech incubator centre and Conestoga College, the City of Cambridge will be providing the necessary tools and opportunities to permit the development of a proactive and industry supportive venture.

40

Economic Development Staff are of the opinion that this investment will support and further enhance the Goals and Objectives contained in the City of Cambridge Strategic Plan.

Comments Conestoga College has had tremendous success in obtaining Provincial funding for research projects. With that success, the College has accelerated their timeframe and are moving in completely over the next month and have decided to move additional programming to the facility. Therefore, the College is requesting Council consider providing the remaining funding commitment at this time. Economic Development Staff recommend supporting this request for reasons outlined below.

The focus of this incubator centre will be on advanced manufacturing as well as the ever growing field of cyber security. This focus is unique and will set the centre beyond other “incubator centres” in Ontario. Industry will be able to come to the incubator centre with issues they are trying to address and be paired with professionals. Academics, both college professors and students alike, will be available for direct collaboration with the industrial sector in an effort to develop creative, innovative and unique solutions for industry.

This direct, hands-on approach will assist the City greatly in retaining and expanding the local business community. In addition, companies will be created within the centre and when these companies are ready to evolve, the goal will be to retain the business and the talent in the City and the Region. This is a unique opportunity that has city wide benefits.

Given the challenges of the City’s budget, it was and continues to be recommended that funding be provided from the Industrial Development Reserve (IDR) account to minimize the effect on the general tax base. It is also recommended that the Industrial Development Reserve (IDR) account be replenished with the increased property taxes attributed to the Gaslight District project (both the redevelopment of former Tiger Brand facility at 96 Grand Avenue South as well as the former Southworks Mall site) as recommended in the report recommendations.

Conestoga’s accelerated plans include the following:

1. Three key areas of development for Conestoga’s Applied Research Hub include: a. Advanced Recycling – Waste Electrical and Electronics Lab b. Cyber Security Zone c. Centre for Smart Manufacturing

41

2. In addition, the College has decided to move Conestoga’s Applied Research and Innovation office – their core office for applied research, into Grand Innovations. As well, each research area will have a team of faculty and students of varying numbers.

3. Conestoga College has secured several operating grants that enable them to start working on projects immediately in all three areas of focus. These grants (both federal and provincial) involve several million dollars for research operations, but restrict investment in infrastructure. Over the next couple of months the College will open their doors at Grand Innovations with about 15 to 20 active research projects, all with secured industry partners. The grants will be announced at their official opening in the Spring.

4. The College’s initial costs of renovations are about $600,000 (up from the original first year plan of $200,000). In addition, the College will be moving equipment from the main campus into the research hub. They plan to apply for additional federal funding with the intention of investing in significantly more infrastructure over the next two years. The capital investment for an advanced manufacturing incubator is very high.

As one can see, this is a major and long term decision on behalf of the College to make these moves/investments. The College is committed to working with the City of Cambridge and the Economic Development Division to help develop advanced manufacturing and technology industries.

The College greatly appreciates the contribution of $500,000 from the City of Cambridge. They request that the City accelerate the payment schedule.

Financial Impact: Impact to the City - It is recommended that the City release the additional $400,000 at this time. As part of HIP Developments’ due diligence, the service of a professional accounting firm was retained and the information has been shared with the City.

In summary, the economic impacts are as follows:

• $125 Million+ construction value • 600+ new residents in the Galt Core • 450+ potential permanent and student jobs in the Galt Core • $2,000,000 in annual taxes upon completion in 2020 (City/Region/Education)

42

o 2016 taxes [pre development] – $184,000 • $615,000 in annual City taxes upon completion o 2016 taxes [pre-development] – City portion of $45,000 • $6,150,000 in potential City taxes over 10 years • Spin off benefits of new jobs and research in the core

As a direct result of this development, the City will receive an additional $570,000 in property taxes. It is respectfully recommended that such taxes be used to replenish the Industrial Development Reserve.

Public Input: N/A

Internal/External Consultation: N/A

CONCLUSION

Conestoga College has had tremendous success in obtaining Provincial funding for research projects and continue to make application for additional funds. With that success, the College has accelerated their timeframe and are moving in to 96 Grand Avenue South over the next month and have decided to move additional programming to the facility. Therefore, the College is requesting Council consider providing the remaining funding commitment at this time. Staff recommends supporting this request.

SIGNATURE

Prepared by:

Name: James Goodram Title: Director of Economic Development

43

Departmental Approval:

Name: Title:

Acting City Manager Approval:

Name: Hardy Bromberg Title: Deputy City Manager – Community Development

ATTACHMENTS

N/A

44 ITEM #4

To: GENERAL COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 03/06/2018

Subject: Enhanced BRP Funding – 60 Main Report No: Street (former Right House) 18-006(OCM)

From: James Goodram, Director of File No: Economic Development

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT Council approve a Building Revitalization Program (BRP) grant of $111,426 from the BRP Reserve Fund and interest-free loan of $206,935 from the Industrial Reserve Fund with a three (3) year term based on a total fundable amount of $318,361 to partially cover the cost of exterior renovations to the former Right House building located at 60 Main Street;

AND THAT this enhanced funding be available upon Council approval;

AND FURTHER THAT the work approved under this enhanced incentive be completed by December 31, 2019.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose To request Council to authorize enhanced Building Revitalization Plan (BRP) funding for the redevelopment of the former Right House building located at 60 Main Street in Downtown Cambridge.

Financial Implications The Building Revitalization Program (BRP) grant of $111,426 will be taken from the BRP Reserve Fund and the interest-free loan portion of $206,935 will be taken from the Industrial Reserve Fund with a three (3) year term. The total fundable amount of this request is $318,361. If the funds are not used, they will still be available in both accounts for possible future projects.

45

BACKGROUND

In 2017, Milestones purchased the former Right House building located at 60 Main Street (North West corner of Main Street @ Ainslie Street). The current owners of the property plan extensive renovations to the entire building. In addition, the owners have been working diligently with Economic Development staff over the past several months as their plans evolved for this property.

Given the state of the existing building, the owner will be conducting extensive works and have submitted a Building Revitalization Program (BRP) application. Given the location and importance of this structure to the Downtown Cambridge core area, Staff is recommending enhanced BRP funding.

ANALYSIS Strategic Alignment: PROSPERITY: To support and encourage the growth of a highly competitive local economy where there is opportunity for everyone to contribute and succeed.

Goal #6 - Economic Development and Tourism

Objective 6.3 Identify local economic strengths and leverage opportunities through collaboration with our partners.

The BRP program leverages both public and private dollars to improve the public realm and create a pedestrian friendly and interesting core area.

Comments The previous owner allowed the building to remain vacant for several years and fall into a state of disrepair. Surrounding property owners, businesses and the Galt Business Improvement Area have been concerned with the state of the property and have expressed such over the past several years to City staff. The condition of the building and its prominent location was a problem in the downtown and the City’s renewal efforts.

Over the past several months, Economic Development Staff has been working with the owners of Milestones Integrated in an effort to facilitate the acquisition of what is known locally as the former Right House building. Late 2017 witnessed the purchase of the existing building by the proponent.

Milestones Integrated (an established Cambridge marketing company providing such services as web design, branding, digital advertising, etc) has already retained the services of a construction company and plans major renovations to the building to

46

house not only their growing/expanding business, but additional commercial space on the ground floor. The plans for renovation will visually enhance this corner and breathe new life into a building that has been vacant for many years (in excess of 10). This type of use and the professional staff it brings with it, matches the City’s goal of having more people (residents, employees and tourists) in the downtown and the spill-over effects in terms of support to the surrounding business community.

Such considerations require additional capital to make the structure compatible with the Main Street developments. A similar arrangement was made with the World Gym building (89 Main Street) that ensured good urban design.

Given the high profile and importance of the location of this building to Downtown Cambridge and the magnitude of renovations being made, Staff respectfully recommends that Cambridge Council approve the enhanced BRP funding.

Existing Policy/By-Law: As the property is located in one of the core areas in Cambridge, the applicant is eligible for the Building Revitalization Program (BRP) which provides matching funding for certain improvements to the buildings. The City can provide interest-free and partially forgivable (up to 35%) loan funding for up to 50% of eligible costs. This is in effect, a grant of 17% of the cost of the work, up to a maximum, usually $20,000. However, the Community Improvement Plan also permits the increase of the maximum amount with the permission of the Deputy City Manager of Community Development. Given the magnitude of the proposal and its prominence within the downtown, staff decided to draft a report for Council’s consideration.

Financial Impact: The Building Revitalization Program (BRP) grant of $111,426 will be funded from the BRP Reserve Fund and the interest-free loan portion of $206,935 will be funded from the Industrial Reserve Fund with a three (3) year term. The total fundable amount of this request is $318,361.

Public Input: n/a

Internal/External Consultation: Community Development Department – Planning Services Division was consulted in the development of this request for increased funding.

47

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, given the building’s prominence in the downtown and the plans for renovation that will visually enhance this corner and breathe new life into a vacant building. Staff recommends that Cambridge Council approve the enhanced BRP funding as discussed within the body of the report.

SIGNATURE

Prepared by:

Name: James Goodram Title: Director of Economic Development

Departmental Approval: Name: Title:

Acting City Manager Approval:

Name: Hardy Bromberg Title: Deputy City Manager-Community Development

ATTACHMENTS n/a

48 ITEM #5

To: GENERAL COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 03/06/18

Subject: True North Conference Sponsorship Report No: 18-008 (OCM)

From: James Goodram, Director of File No: Economic Development

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT Report No 18-008 (OCM), re True North Conference Sponsorship;

AND THAT the City provides funding support of $15,000 to be funded from the Industrial Development Reserve.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Communitech is holding a conference known as True North May 29th to 31st. True North is three-day conversation about the intersection of humans and technology. It’s an opportunity to imagine and re-imagine the impact of technology — the good and the bad. To examine the values that guide technology innovation. And to redefine tech as a force for good. This report recommends that the City of Cambridge sponsor this conference with an investment of $15,000.

BACKGROUND

True North is three-day conversation about the intersection of humans and technology. It’s an opportunity to imagine and re-imagine the impact of technology — the good and the bad. To examine the values that guide technology innovation. And to redefine tech as a force for good. The True North conference and workshop events will take place at LOT42 in the City of Kitchener on May 29th to the 31st.

49

ANALYSIS

Strategic Alignment: PROSPERITY: To support and encourage the growth of a highly competitive local economy where there is opportunity for everyone to contribute and succeed.

Goal #6 - Economic Development and Tourism

Objective 6.3 Identify local economic strengths and leverage opportunities through collaboration with our partners.

The True North conference provides the City with the ability to leverage both public and private partners in the Region to showcase our economic strength in the Tech sector.

Comments The following is a summary of the conference as articulated by Communitech.

Every innovator wants to change the world. It’s no wonder. Technology has made an immeasurable impact on humanity, and given us tools that are transforming the way we live at an ever-quickening pace. Innovators do change the world. But is that change always for the better? Recent news coverage suggests the answer, increasingly, is no, not always. And that’s why we built True North Waterloo.

What’s True North?

True North, hosted by Communitech in Waterloo Region, is a ground breaking conference that will focus on how to reaffirm tech as a unifying force for good at a time when divisions based on gender, race, nationality and economic opportunity appear to be widening. By engaging around some of the world’s most pressing challenges in one of its most dynamic tech communities – alongside cutting-edge art, lively music and unforgettable food – the innovators, entrepreneurs, academics and policymakers who attend True North will return to work with a renewed commitment to change the world for the better.

Who’s our Audience?

True North will bring together 2,000+ visionaries, leading influencers, hackers and hustlers to take part in an honest and critical conversation. It’s for emerging start-ups, fast moving scale-ups, ground-breaking creatives, innovative big brands, and those that can affect change: decision-makers in government, industry, academia and research.

50

The Program

With high-profile speakers like Ed Catmull, Sarah Lacy and Rana El Kaliouby, Hillary Hartley, Linda Hasenfratz to name a few, attendees will hear how world-leading thinkers are working to: • Help companies tackle discrimination and tap into the power of gender, racial and socioeconomic diversity • Build a better-informed public by curbing the spread of “fake news” • Revamp government services to make them truly “for the people” • Apply artificial intelligence for real human benefit • Ensure an open and accessible internet

Attendees will have an opportunity to meet Canadian start-up CEO’s and growing companies through our “We Built This” exhibit and on-site closed door investor meetings.

The Guest List

50% Tech: • Founders and board members from all stages of tech companies • Venture capitalists and influencers • CEO and Board members of accelerators/ innovation hubs

30% Business and industry: • C-suite, board members and thought leaders, innovation leaders • Business leaders, entrepreneurs, influencers

10% Government/policy: • Provincial/state, national and international policy experts and political leaders • Elected officials from municipal governments in top Start-up centres

10% Higher learning/academia: • University Presidents • Deans of Business/Entrepreneurship/Science/Engineering • Directors of university-based incubators, research institutes and centres of entrepreneurship 50% International Guests, 50% Local (in Year One)

51

The Cities of Waterloo and Kitchener along with the Region and the Waterloo Economic Development Corporation are sponsoring the conference as well. Sponsoring the conference provides the City of Cambridge with the opportunity to leverage both public and private dollars to showcase our strength in the Tech sector to over 2,000 participants from around the world.

Existing Policy/By-Law: N/A

Financial Impact: Staff recommends sponsoring the conference in the order of $15,000. Funding would be provided from the Industrial Development Reserve and therefore does not have an effect on the tax levy.

Public Input: N/A

Internal/External Consultation: Economic Development consulted with staff in Economic Development at the Region, the cities of Waterloo and Kitchener as well as the Waterloo Economic Development Corporation.

CONCLUSION

Sponsoring the conference provides the City of Cambridge with the opportunity to leverage both public and private dollars to showcase our strength in the Tech sector to over 2,000 participants from around the world. Staff recommends sponsoring the conference in the order of $15,000 from the Industrial Development Reserve.

52

SIGNATURE

Prepared by:

Name: James Goodram Title: Director of Economic Development

Departmental Approval:

Name: Title:

Acting City Manager Approval:

Name: Hardy Bromberg Title: Deputy City Manager – Community Development

ATTACHMENTS

N/A

53 54 ITEM #6

To: GENERAL COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 03/06/2018

Subject: Riverside Dam Class Report No: 18-016 (CD) Environmental Assessment – Study Completion

From: Scott MacDonald, Project Engineer File No: T-04-060-RI

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT Report 18-016 (CD), regarding the Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment, be received;

AND THAT Council authorizes Staff to finalize the Class Environmental Assessment Project File including authorization for staff to post the Notice of Study Completion for the 30-day review period; AND FURTHER THAT Council approve of initiating the Detailed Design of the Preferred Alternative in 2018, if there are no requests for a Part II review received by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose • Inform Council that the Project Team has completed the additional work required to finish the Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for Riverside Dam as outlined in Report 17-075 D&I. • Provide information to Council on the recent findings from this additional work. • Present the preferred alternative, which is to Naturalize the Speed River, to Council. • Request Council’s authorization to finalize the Project File and post the Notice of Study Completion for the 30-day review period.

Key Findings • A Municipal Class EA to study the Riverside Dam and determine a

55 management alternative has been completed • Additional work completed in 2017 included Stakeholder Workshops, Structural Inspection, Indigenous Community Consultation, and a fourth Public Information Centre • An initial long-list of eight alternatives was short-listed to four alternatives, two of which were most preferred; Rebuild the Dam or Naturalize the Speed River • Through the Class EA evaluation process Naturalize the Speed River has been selected as the preferred alternative • Upon completion of the study, the Notice of Study Completion will be posted and the Project File will be available for review for 30 days • As part of implementing the preferred alternative for this project, the City will continue to consult with stakeholders and the public

Financial Implications • There is no direct financial impact if Council authorizes staff to finalize the Class EA Study and approves starting the detailed design. Existing capital accounts are in place to implement the preferred alternative.

BACKGROUND

On June 27, 2017 Report 17-075 D&I was received at General Committee which outlined additional work required to complete the Riverside Dam Class EA study. This current report is to inform Council that the additional work has been completed and to provide new information obtained from this additional work. A preferred alternative has been selected by the Project Team and is presented in this report. This section provides a review of the Riverside Dam Class EA study. More details can be found in the Executive Summary of the Environmental Study Report (ESR), prepared by the City’s Consultant (Amec Foster Wheeler), attached as Appendix A.

Initiation of the Riverside Dam Class EA • Riverside Dam is structurally in poor condition and in need of management • In 2008-09, in the absence of any other willing party, the City assumed responsibility for making needed repairs to the dam • In 2011 the City initiated the Riverside Dam Class EA, as a condition of a permit issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources in 2008 to complete the emergency repairs, to determine an ultimate management alternative for the Dam • AMEC (now Amec Foster Wheeler) was retained in 2011 to complete the Class EA within the Preston study area (Figures ES-1.1 & 1.2, Appendix A) to assess management alternatives and determine a preferred alternative for the dam through technical studies in consultation with public and agency stakeholders

56 Problem & Opportunity Statement

The Riverside Dam is well over 100 years old and well beyond its design life. Structural assessments (2009, 2014, 2017) have determined that various components of the dam are in poor condition with potential for failure in the short-term. Given the age of the structure, its location in a natural watercourse, adjacency to Riverside Park, and its popularity with the public, the future management of the Riverside Dam must consider several constraints and opportunities related to safety, riverine processes, flooding, cultural heritage, natural habitat, public uses and aesthetics.

The Preferred Alternative must address the Problem while balancing study area constraints and opportunities, in order to best meet the needs of the various stakeholder groups invested in the Riverside Dam.

Summary of Consultation

• Notice of Project Commencement was posted on April 3, 2012 • Four Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) meetings and four Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings were held • Four Public Information Centres (PICs) were held • Consultation with agencies was an ongoing part of the Study • Indigenous Communities were consulted

Alternative Assessment and Comparison • Through consultation, the initial long-list of eight alternatives was screened down to a short-list of alternatives which included; rebuild riverside dam, naturalize the Speed River, construct in-stream rock structures, offline dam/naturalize hybrid option along with a do nothing alternative • The short-listed alternatives were compared against each other using selected criteria related to impacts and opportunities generated by the alternatives within four (4) environments: Functional Environment, Natural Environment, Social Environment, and Economic Environment • The two most preferred alternatives were to rebuild the dam and naturalize the Speed River • In general, the naturalize the Speed River alternative was preferred from the functional, natural and economic environment perspectives • Rebuild the dam was preferred from a social environment perspective

Review of Recent Activities a) Stakeholder Workshops - May & June 2017: • Two workshops were conducted to provide Stakeholders some clarity around the selection of alternatives and the evaluation process and an opportunity for Stakeholders to provide input on the alternatives, criteria and ranking

57 • The high-level outcomes from the workshops include:  GRCA, Region and MNRF did not participate in the ranking exercise  Good consensus for most criteria  Some mixed opinions on boating, fishing , liability and tourism  Overall ranking was to naturalize the Speed River  Overall ranking with tourism as an evaluation criteria was to rebuild the dam but without tourism was to naturalize the Speed River • The Project Team’s discussion around the merits of including tourism was not able to reach a clear understanding on how tourism could be quantified and measured and in the end tourism was not used as an evaluation criteria

b) Structural Inspection – August 2017: • A structural inspection of the dam determined:  There was further deterioration since the last inspection in 2014  The control structures in particular were in a worsening condition  Debris build up needs to be addressed.  Failure remains imminent  Recommended that inspections should be completed every six months

c) Indigenous Communities Consultation – September 2017: • Meetings took place with Six Nations of the Grand River (SNGR) and with Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (MNCFN) • The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) was contacted for a meeting but a meeting was not convened • SNGR and MNCFN provided verbal support for the naturalize alternative

d) Public Information Centre #4 – November 29, 2017: • A formal presentation of the recommended preferred solution was delivered by the City’s Consultant followed by questions from the floor answered by the Project Team • In general the majority of attendees at the PIC were in favour of rebuilding the dam, however comments received from the public after the PIC were split between those favouring rebuilding the dam (14) and those favouring the naturalize alternative (9) • A summary of the consultation for PIC #4 including the consultant’s FAQs, questions and answers during the PIC and subsequent comments received is attached in Appendix B.

Stakeholder Perspectives The participating TAC agencies and SAC stakeholders were asked to provide their perspective on the short-listed alternatives. Table 1 summarizes the perspectives received by the Project Team.

58 Table 1 – Stakeholder Perspectives Stakeholder and Stakeholder Comments Preferred Alternative

N – Naturalize R – Rebuild the Dam * - Neutral

MNRF N Supports decommissioning of the dam from a natural environment and public safety perspective

GRCA N Is supportive of the alternative to naturalize the Speed River as this addresses the Class EA problem statement

CEAC N Strongly supports naturalization of the Speed River

SNGR N Six Nations of the Grand River (SNGR) provided verbal support of the Naturalization alternative

MNCFN N Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (MNCFN) provided verbal support of the Naturalization alternative

Save the R Believe Riverside Park Dam and Mill Pond are a municipal Dam heritage asset with economic, social and recreational benefit to the entire community and are worthy of restoration and development for future generations

Preston R Passionate about their stand on the Mill Pond being retained; Town the EA report indicated the dam can’t be repaired therefore Centre BIA Preston Town Centre want the dam to be replaced

Region of * Has no fundamental disagreement with naturalizing the Waterloo Speed River. It is noted that the removal of the dam and the naturalization of the upstream portion of the river with riffle areas would provide natural aeration of the water

MHAC * Noted that all options require removal of the existing dam structure

Ancient * Supports relocating the Riverside Dam upstream which Mariners partially satisfies a lot of the Stakeholder’s desired criteria, Canoe Club but as users of the river, Naturalization is a perfectly acceptable choice as well

Note: Other Stakeholders that were involved in the meetings and/or workshops did not provide their perspective to the Project Team.

59 Preferred Alternative

Based on the information obtained throughout the Study and the alternative evaluation process, the Project Team is recommending Naturalize the Speed River (Naturalize) as the preferred alternative for the following reasons:

• Stakeholder Workshop engagement established the Naturalize alternative as the first or second choice amongst those participating, resulting in it having the highest ranking • All agencies, including GRCA, MNRF, and Region of Waterloo, supported the Naturalize alternative • City’s Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) also expressed strong support for the Naturalize alternative • Indigenous Communities of Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation both preferred Naturalize over other alternatives • The Naturalize alternative was ranked consistently higher than all other under the Natural / Functional Environments • The life cycle cost associated with the Naturalize alternative is significantly lower than the rebuild alternative • Naturalize significantly reduces the City’s short and long-term liability • The Naturalize alternative aligns closely with the City’s Strategic Plan as it applies to the environment, rivers and infrastructure

Regardless of preferred alternative, additional public consultation opportunities exist:

• To honour and respect the role of the Riverside Dam in the formation of Preston and the surrounding community through various means • To strategically repurpose the additional nearshore riparian lands in Riverside Park for community and overall system enhancements

ANALYSIS Strategic Alignment: PLACE: To take care of, celebrate and share the great features in Cambridge that we love and mean the most to us.

Goal #4 - Environment and Rivers

Objective 4.1 Ensure that sustainability principles are a part of city decision- making processes.

The preferred alternative to Naturalize the Speed River aligns closely with many of the Strategic Plan’s goals and objectives. In particular the preferred alternative is very closely aligned with the goal of celebrating the City’s rivers and the objective of using sustainability principles in City decision making. Naturalizing the river celebrates the

60 beauty and natural diversity that rivers provide throughout the City. A naturalized river is the most sustainable alternative from an economic and environmental perspective as there are no on-going economic or environmental costs.

The preferred alternative aligns with other objectives, including:

• Objective 4.2 Encouraging innovative approaches to address environmental challenges • Objective 4.3 Working with our partners to educate the public and help make changes to improve and protect our natural heritage features • Objective 4.4 Manage city resources in a responsible and sustainable manner, considering future needs and resiliency and community adaptation, and • Objective 5.2 Increasing community participation in the ongoing care of our parks, natural spaces and environmental areas

The Riverside Dam Class EA is a comprehensive and thorough study that provides the information needed to understand the constraints and opportunities associated with the future of Riverside Dam. Technical studies, consultation with stakeholders, regulators and the public, and in-depth evaluations of various management alternatives has led to a preferred alternative being put forward that addresses the Problem and Opportunity Statement and aligns with many of the goals and objectives of the City’s Strategic Plan.

Comments: The Class EA process is required for proposed municipal infrastructure projects to consider the different environments that a project will impact. The Riverside Dam Class EA Study has considered the natural, physical, social and economic environments that will be affected by the management alternative selected to address the problem statement. The preferred alternative to naturalize the Speed River has been selected after extensive consultation with stakeholders, the public and agencies, and the completion of a number of technical studies. The Project Team has used the information obtained to complete an evaluation on the impact the short-listed alternatives have on the four environments, and naturalizing the river has the most benefits.

Benefits of naturalizing the Speed River include:

• Reduced flooding of park, particularly in spring • Improved stream stability, no need to manually manipulate sediment build-up • Continuous fish passage and improved aquatic health and fisheries diversity • Reduced water temperature and better water quality • Eliminated need for portage by boaters

61 Benefits (continued):

• Improved public safety and reduced municipal liability • Lower Capital and Operations and Maintenance costs • Opportunity to repurpose the additional nearshore lands for community and overall system enhancement; requires additional consultation with the public

Mitigation for impacts to social environment:

• The alternative to naturalize the Speed River has the largest impact on the existing social environment, particularly cultural heritage • Opportunities exist to honour and respect the role of Riverside Dam in the formation of Preston; requires additional consultation with the public • Measures identified that can reasonably mitigate the impact include:  Restore elements of the dam (i.e. dam control structure) in place  Reconstruct elements in Riverside Park  Install commemorative signage and/or plaques

Next Steps

• With Council authorization the Notice of Study Completion can be posted starting the 30-day review period when the full Environmental Study Report (ESR) will be available for review • Members of the public who have unresolved concerns can request that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) ask the City to prepare an Individual Environmental Assessment (EA), known as a “Part II Order” • In the event of a Part II Order request, MOECC staff will review the Class EA and the Minister will make a final decision on whether an Individual EA is required • If there are no Part II Order requests the City can proceed with implementing the Preferred Alternative, tentatively as follows:  2018 through 2019, project planning and detailed design  2019 into 2020, approvals and permitting  2020, construction

Further Public Consultation During Implementation

The purpose and focus of the Class EA Study has been to identify a preferred management alternative. Some conceptual design has been completed, however the design phases will determine the details of what the preferred alternative will ultimately look like. An important part of that work will be further consultation with the public and stakeholders. This consultation will help to address questions around park and heritage features and how these will be incorporated in the design and with each other.

Options Available for Council

62 A preferred alternative has been selected by the Project Team and staff recommends:

• Council authorizes staff to finalize the Class Environmental Assessment Project File including authorization for staff to post the Notice of Study Completion for the 30-day review period • In addition, Council can approve of the recommendation to proceed with design after the 30-day review period if no Part II order requests are received

Alternately, the options available to Council include:

• Council can decide to not approve the recommendations and ask staff to complete further work which could include completing preliminary design of the preferred alternative before finalizing and posting the Project File • Council can decide to not file the Class EA Study, leaving Riverside Dam “as is” and the City potentially liable if the dam fails

It should be noted that during the 30-day review period there is an opportunity for the proponent (City) and the party considering a Part II Order request to have further discussions to resolve any outstanding issues before a Part II Order request is submitted. This approach is strongly encouraged by the MOECC.

Existing Policy/By-Law: The study of alternatives for the future of Riverside Dam has been carried out in accordance with the current Municipal Class EA process and the Environmental Assessment Act. As part of this process, the City has consulted with project stakeholders, government agencies (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, and Grand River Conservation Authority), Indigenous Communities and the public.

Financial Impact: There is no direct financial impact if Council authorizes staff to finalize the Class EA Study and approves of starting the detailed design. Existing capital accounts are in place to implement the preferred alternative.

Public Input: Public consultation is required as part of the Municipal Class EA Process. The study was carried out as a Schedule ‘B’ Class EA, however significantly more public consultation has been completed than is required using a Schedule ‘B’ process. Table 2 is a summary of the Public Information Centres (PICs) that were held. Appendix B contains a summary of the Public Consultation that was completed at PIC #4.

Table 2 – Public Information Centres Summary

63 PIC Date Attendees Comments (approx.) #1 3-Apr-12 80 people • Numerous comments provided

#2 18-Jun-13 140 people • Analysis of four options presented • Numerous comments received as part of a “Post-it Note Exercise” at work stations • Also written comment sheets and emails received

#3 27-Jun-16 50 people • Presentation reviewed the background, studies and alternatives • Included a moderated open-mic question period • Questions and answers, along with other comments received, were summarized

#4 29-Nov-17 130 people • Presented recommended preferred alternative • Presentation followed by a question period • Questions and answers, along with other comments received, were summarized

Internal/External Consultation: The Study followed a Class EA Schedule B undertaking, however much more public consultation was completed than the basic requirements of a Schedule B. The Project Team recommends that this community participation is encouraged to continue into the implementation phase of this project. Throughout the Class EA Study consultation with internal City committees, stakeholders and external agencies was completed. Given the wide range of technical, environmental (natural), social and economic considerations required for the assessment of the baseline inventory and the management alternatives, and to facilitate consultation, the Project Team formed Technical and Stakeholder Advisory Committees at the beginning of the study. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) included the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and Region of Waterloo. Four TAC meetings were held and minutes were prepared for these meetings. The TAC members provided comments and their agency’s perspective on the various alternatives. The Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) included Save the Dam, Preston Town Centre Business Improvement Area, P&H Milling, Waterloo Wellington Canoe Club, Ancient Mariners Canoe Club, K-W Bassmasters, Preston Heights Community Group, Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC), and Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC). Four SAC meetings were held and minutes were

64 prepared for these meetings. The SAC members provided comments and their group’s perspective on the various alternatives. TAC and SAC members also participated in the Stakeholder Workshops held in 2017. Also as indicated in the Background section, consultation with Indigenous Communities took place during the study. These Communities included Six Nations of the Grand River, Mississaugas of the New Credit, and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute. The consultation completed satisfies provincial and municipal protocol for Indigenous Communities Consultation.

CONCLUSION

Riverside Dam is structurally in poor condition and failure remains imminent. There is a critical need for a management alternative to be implemented. The City assumed responsibility of the dam and has completed a Class EA Study as part of that responsibility. This Study was needed to understand the constraints and opportunities associated with the future of Riverside Dam, with the purpose of determining a preferred management alternative.

After completing a comprehensive study that included extensive consultation and numerous reports, a preferred alternative has been selected to naturalize the Speed River through Riverside Park. The Project Team has used the information obtained to understand the constraints and opportunities associated with the future of Riverside Dam, and completed an analysis and evaluation of the various alternatives. When the four environments (natural, physical, social and economic) that were investigated as part of the Study are considered, naturalizing the river has the greatest all around benefit and aligns closely with many of the City’s Strategic Plan goals and objectives.

This report highlights many benefits of naturalizing the Speed River through Riverside Park. By completing the Class EA Study and filing it for the 30-day review period, the City can move into the next phases of the project (if a Part II Order request is not received) and ultimately implement the preferred management alternative. By not completing and/or filing the Class EA Study, approvals for other alternatives in the future will likely be denied by the approval agencies as they look to the Municipal Class EA process to see how a preferred alternative was determined. Also by not completing and/or filing the Class EA Study, implementation of the management alternative will be further delayed leaving the City potentially liable due to high risk of existing dam failure. SIGNATURE

Prepared by:

65 Name: Scott MacDonald Title: Project Engineer

Departmental Approval:

Name: Title: Acting City Manager Approval:

Name: Hardy Bromberg Title: Acting City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A – Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment, Executive Summary

Appendix B – Riverside Dam Class EA PIC #4 Consultation Summary

66 APPENDIX A

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Executive Summary

67

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Executive Summary City of Cambridge

Prepared for:

City of Cambridge

Prepared by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure 3450 Harvester Road Burlington, ON L7N 3W5 (905) 335-2353

Febraury 13, 2018

Project No. TP111118

68

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Executive Summary City of Cambridge

Submitted to: City of Cambridge

Submitted by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure 3450 Harvester Road, Suite 100 Burlington, ON L7N 3W5 Tel: (905) 335-2353

February 13, 2018

TP111118

69 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Purpose Amec Foster Wheeler has been retained by the City of Cambridge to undertake the Riverside Dam, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA). The study purpose has been to assess various management alternatives to address the concerns related to the deteriorating Riverside Dam, under the guiding principles of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process [ref. MEA Class EA, October 2000 (as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015)]. This study has defined the current environment (physical, social and natural) as a baseline condition and from this established a long-list of management approaches and related alternative solutions. This study has systematically (in accordance with MEA Class EA principles) conducted an evaluation of each alternative using appropriate criteria leading to a short-list of alternatives. Further technical analyses have been completed for the short-listed alternatives, including generation of conceptual designs which have taken into consideration public and agency input. Following public and agency consultation, a Preferred Alternative has been advanced and recommended for implementation by the City.

Study Team The City of Cambridge has been the proponent and overall Project Manager for the Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment. The Consulting Team has been comprised of the following:

► Amec Foster Wheeler – Project Management & Engineering ► Matrix Solutions Inc – Stream Geomorphology & Ecology ► Brook McIlroy – Landscape Architects & Public Consultation ► Unterman McPhail Associates – Cultural Heritage ► LURA Consulting – Public Consultation and Facilitation

Background The Riverside Dam and associated mill race were constructed between 1860 and 1880 to support the partial diversion of the Speed River and provide hydraulic power to the Erb saw and flour mills (now P&H Milling). The mill became an economic hub in the Waterloo/Wellington region and the community of Cambridge Mills developed around it as a result. Today, this community is locally known as Preston and forms a part of the City of Cambridge.

At some point in the mill’s history, the mill race was no longer relied upon as a source of water and hydraulic power, at which time the Riverside Dam ceased to provide a commercial function and served only social functions (i.e., recreation, culture, aesthetics). It is evident that regular maintenance decreased or ceased once the dam and mill race no longer had economic utility and, combined with the overall age of the structure, their condition began to decline. The Riverside Dam and mill race have since exceeded their intended design life and have continued to deteriorate. Due to concerns related to quality control for their current operations, P&H

TP111118 Page 1

70 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Milling completed works to replace the leaky stoplogs in the mill race with a concrete wall in order to stop the flow through the mill property. Specifically, in 2015 / 2016 P&H Milling worked with the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) on approvals and permitting for works to permanently close off the mill race. These works were formally constructed in 2016.

Given the deteriorating dam condition, the City of Cambridge assumed a level of responsibility for the dam and mill race inlet structures in May 2008, in the interest of public safety and initiated a structural evaluation of the respective structures (Sanchez, 2009). The inspection determined the dam was in poor condition with numerous cracks, spalling and surface pitting. The Sanchez Study triggered an emergency repair of the south control structure in December 2008 which included the placement of large riprap stone downstream of the dam proximate to the south control structure to support the abutment. This was recognized to be a short-term temporary solution by the City and as part of the emergency permit, the Ministry of Natural Resources at that time, as a condition of its approval, required that the City complete a Class Environmental Assessment and implement a permanent long-term solution.

Description of the Study Area The Riverside Dam and the associated mill race control structure and headpond are located immediately upstream of the King Street crossing of the Speed River, in the community of Preston, in Cambridge Ontario (ref. Figure ES-1.1). The Speed River discharges to the Grand River some 1.8 km downstream of King Street (ref. Figure ES-1.2).

N

Figure ES-1.1: Local Study Area

TP111118 Page 2

71 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

N

Figure ES-1.2: Study Area Context to Grand River

The Riverside Dam is well over 100 years old and pre-dates Provincial legislation for dams in Ontario [Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) 1990]. The structure is a concrete gravity dam approximately 1.5 m (+/-) high and 67 m (+/-) long and spans the Speed River (ref. Figure ES-1.3 for dam plan and cross-section). There are two stone and concrete control structures near the northern and southern limits of the dam which contained stop-logs; these were historically used for water level control associated with the operation of the mill. Water levels are no longer controlled and the dam does not provide any formal flood control or function to augment base flows. In its current state, the dam’s only function is creating the upstream headpond which is considered an aesthetic and recreational feature of the neighbouring Riverside Park.

The inlet structure at the north limit of the dam (ref. Figure ES-1.3) historically diverted flow to the mill race and through the existing P&H Milling property. The inlet was a concrete structure which controlled water levels by stoplogs. The mill race historically conveyed flow under the Canadian Pacific (CP) Railway, King Street, and industrial buildings on the P&H Milling property, before rejoining the Speed River downstream. As noted, the stoplogs have been replaced with a concrete wall to permanently stop flow within the mill race.

TP111118 Page 3

72 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

ES-13

Figure ES-1.3 Dam Plan and Cross-Section

TP111118 Page 4

73 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

The CP Railway follows the southeast bank of the headpond and turns west to cross the Speed River between Riverside Dam and King Street East. Bathymetric survey and sediment sampling within the headpond has confirmed significant historical accumulation of sediment. There is no information suggesting the headpond has ever been dredged; water levels in the headpond average little more than 1.0 m (+/-).

Riverside Park is the largest park in the City of Cambridge covering approximately 102 hectares (+/-). It is also one of the most popular, drawing visitors beyond the immediate community. The park offers visitors an interface with the Speed River, as well as other natural areas, active park programming, passive leisure, extensive trail/road networks and built heritage features, including Riverside Dam. Rogers Drive and Leisure Lodge Road offer vehicular access throughout the park and connect to King Street at the western limit and Speedsville Road at the eastern limit. Sulphur Creek, which as noted, diverges from the Speed River and flows through Riverside Park, has two municipally operated control structures within the park: one at its source at the Speed River, which controls flow into the creek from the Speed River, and one at Rogers Drive, which controls the elevation of the small online pond.

The Speed River through the study area is classified as a warmwater fishery supporting mixed water fish habitat. Nearly two (2) dozen fish species have been recorded downstream of Guelph; further, the habitat below the dam supports several species-at-risk (SAR) fish and mussel species, including the Wavy-rayed lampmussel. In terms of terrestrial habitat and resources, the study area has been largely culturally impacted, however many of the adjacent features are designated as significant natural heritage features.

The Speed River has a drainage area of approximately 780 km2 to the Riverside Dam and joins the Grand River approximately 1.8 km downstream of the dam (ref. Figure ES-1.2). The Regulatory (Regional Storm) floodplain is approximately 500 m (+/-) wide through the study area and includes the Riverside Dam, Riverside Park, significant lengths of King Street and the CP Railway, as well as private commercial/industrial and residential property. Land use in the study area is highly mixed, including recreation, infrastructure, industrial/employment, medium/high density residential and commercial.

The headwaters of the Speed River include several municipalities including the City of Guelph and a number of smaller communities, however the watershed maintains a significant forest cover relative to other subwatersheds of the Grand River. The Riverside Dam is one of several control structures on the river. Given the size of the Speed River, it supports a wide range of fish and aquatic species, while the near shore riparian area supports considerable wildlife and birds. The river also provides for recreational activities through the study area and beyond, including fishing and boating.

Dam Ownership The formal legal ownership of the Riverside Dam is unclear. It is possible it is tied to one of the earlier mill operations, however it is uncertain as to whether this extends to the current Mill

TP111118

74 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018 operator. Furthermore, the Crown is acknowledged as the owner of the bed and bank of the river.

As noted in 2008, the City, concerned about public safety, initiated the study of the dam’s structural condition (ref. Sanchez, 2009). A condition of the emergency repair of the south abutment was the execution of a Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study (this project). On this basis, the City of Cambridge has assumed the role as proponent of the study to determine the future of the Riverside Dam. Once the preferred solution is established, the City of Cambridge will seek legal guidance specific to defining the formal owner of the Riverside Dam.

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process This study has followed the process outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA), Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, October 2000 (as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015). The Municipal Class EA process defines mandatory principles, details of project consultation and technical requirements. A Municipal Class EA is considered a legal document which outlines project recommendations and next steps, based on a technical assessment, public input and further consultation with technical practitioners, agencies and Indigenous Communities.

Each Municipal Class EA undertaking, depending on the scope of work and the range of predicted environmental impacts, is classified using Schedules. The various Schedule depends on the scope of the recommended works. Generally, management alternatives for dam structures include rehabilitation, modification, replacement or removal of the existing dam, all of which would require undertaking a “Schedule B” process or lower (i.e., Schedule A or A+) in the MEA document (ref. Figure ES-1.4). The various Phases of the Class EA process have been conducted by this study based on the Schedule (i.e., Schedule B: Phases 1 and 2), while Phase 5 will be conducted based on the recommendations herein being continued through to detail design and subsequently construction and monitoring (ref. Municipal Engineers Association (MEA), Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, October 2000 (as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015).

As part of the Class EA process the following key principles are considered:

► Establish a Problem and Opportunity Statement; ► Consult with affected parties early in and throughout the process, such that the planning process is a cooperative venture; ► Consider a reasonable range of alternatives, both functionally different “alternatives” and “alternative methods” of implementing the solution; ► Systematic evaluation of alternatives in terms of their advantages and disadvantages, to determine their net environmental effects; and, ► Provision of clear and complete documentation of the planning process followed, to allow “traceability” of decision-making with respect to the project.

TP111118

75 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Figure ES-1.4: Municipal Engineers Association (MEA), Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, October 2000 (as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015)

ES 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONSULTATION

Project Committees Given the wide range of technical, environmental (natural), social and economic considerations required for the assessment of the baseline inventory and the management alternatives, the City of Cambridge has formed Technical and Stakeholder Committees to help guide the Class Environmental study process.

The Technical Committee has been comprised of representatives from various City departments, stakeholder agencies, and the Consulting Team. The Technical Committee provides project guidance on technical and regulatory matters.

The Stakeholder Committee’s members represent municipal committees and local businesses, as well as user and interest groups with a specific tie to Riverside Park and the Riverside Dam.

TP111118

76 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Over the course of the project, four (4) Stakeholder and four (4) Technical Committee meetings were held.

Communications and Consultation Program Overview For the current study, the City of Cambridge has conducted a consultation program as required by the Municipal Class EA process. Considering the level of public interest in the study, the City has conducted additional public consultation beyond the basic or minimum requirements of a “Schedule B” project. The Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment has included the following stakeholder consultation:

i. Riverside Dam Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Notice of Study Commencement (issued November 2011) ii. Public Information Centre #1 held April 3rd, 2012 iii. City of Cambridge Council presentation held March 4th, 2013 iv. Public Information Centre #2 held June 18th, 2013 v. City of Cambridge Council presentation October 15th, 2013 vi. Meeting hosted to provide the Save the Dam group an opportunity to discuss the project with MNRF and the Project Team on February 26th, 2014 vii. Public Information Centre #3 held June 27th, 2016 viii. Consultation with Indigenous Communities ix. Technical and Stakeholder Committee meetings [four (4) each] x. Stakeholder Workshops (May 24th and June 27th, 2017) xi. Public Information Centre #4 held November 29, 2017 xii. Notice of Completion and circulation of Final Class EA Report for 30 day public review to be issued following completion of the EA study (pending)

ES 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW

For this project, considerable background data have been collected for the various technical and social disciplines involved in this study (i.e., engineering, cultural heritage, natural systems, park use, water quality and stream morphology) from the City of Cambridge and other agencies including GRCA, Region of Waterloo, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF).

ES 4.0 BASELINE INVENTORY

A comprehensive baseline inventory of existing conditions, consisting of desktop review of background information, physical survey and technical investigations, and field inventories was conducted for the range of social, cultural, natural, and physical environmental elements potentially affected by the alternative solutions under investigation. As summarized in the ESR document, and presented in greater detail in the ESR Appendices, baseline inventories were conducted for the following:

► Topographic Survey ► Hydrology and Hydraulics

TP111118

77 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

► Stream Morphology ► Aquatic Resources ► Terrestrial Resources ► Water Quality and Sediment Quantity / Quality ► Park Use and Inventory ► Cultural Heritage ► Structural Investigations

ES 5.0 PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT

The Riverside Dam is well over 100 years old and well beyond its design life. Structural assessments (2009, 2014) have determined that various components of the dam are in poor condition with potential for failure in the short-term. Given the age of the structure, its location in a natural watercourse, adjacency to Riverside Park, and its popularity with the public, the future management of the Riverside Dam must consider several constraints and opportunities related to safety, riverine processes, flooding, cultural heritage, natural habitat, public uses and aesthetics.

The Preferred Alternative must address the Problem while balancing study area constraints and opportunities, in order to best meet the needs of the various stakeholder groups invested in the Riverside Dam.

ES 6.0 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND LONG-LIST SCREENING

Eight (8) alternatives have been considered as part of the Long-List to address the future management of the Riverside Dam and local environs:

A. Do Nothing B. Repair Riverside Dam C. Rebuild Riverside Dam D. Lower Dam Crest E. Naturalize Speed River (Remove Dam) F. Construct In-stream Rock Structures (Remove Dam) G. Build Offline Dam and Naturalize Speed River (Hybrid) H. Incremental Decommissioning of Dam

Summary of Long-List Screening Based on the assessment and long-list screening the following alternatives have been screened from the long-list.

Alternative ‘B’: Repair Riverside Dam – SCREENED: Repairing the dam has not been considered to offer any benefit over Alternative ‘C’: Rebuild Riverside Dam. Alternative ‘C’ offers the ability to maintain the historic dimensions and aesthetics of the dam at a lower cost.

TP111118

78 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Further, there is an intrinsic engineering and design life improvement with a new versus a repaired structure.

Alternative ‘D’: Lower Dam Crest – SCREENED: Lowering the dam offers the positive effect of minor reductions in upstream flood elevations, however this is not considered sufficient to balance the negative effect to the historic dimensions and aesthetics of the dam, and the reduction in headpond area are not considered. Further, small adjustments to the dam crest could be considered as an implementation option for Alternative ‘C’: Rebuild Riverside Dam, if advanced.

Alternative ‘H’: Incremental Decommissioning of Dam – SCREENED: Ultimately mimics Naturalize alternative, however with more risk of adverse impacts.

The remaining alternatives were considered to offer a greater number of positive effects overall, or provide certain key positive effects along with acceptable negative effects and have been short-listed for further consideration by the Project Team, agencies and the public.

The following alternatives have been “short-listed” and advanced for evaluation:

Alternative ‘A’: Do Nothing Alternative ‘C’: Rebuild Riverside Dam [see Figure ES-3.1] Alternative ‘E’: Naturalize Speed River (Remove Dam) [see Figure ES-3.2] Alternative ‘F’: Construct Instream Rock Structure [see Figure ES-3.3 Alternative ‘G’: Build Offline Dam and Naturalize (see Figure ES-3.4

Alternative ‘A’: Do Nothing, despite being considered infeasible from a regulatory and practical perspective, has been included in the short-list evaluation to provide a fulsome comparison to the baseline condition.

The following section describes the selection of appropriate technical, natural, social and economic criteria, and the evaluation of each of the short-listed alternatives with respect to these criteria.

TP111118

79 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Figure ES-3.1: Visualization of Alternative ‘C’ Rebuild Dam

TP111118 Page 11

80 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Figure ES-3.2: Visualization of Alternative ‘E’ Naturalize Speed River (Remove Dam)

TP111118 Page 12

81 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Figure ES-3.3: Visualization of Alternative ‘F’ Construct In-Stream Rock Structures (Remove Dam)

TP111118 Page 13

82 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Figure ES-3.4: Visualization of Alternative ‘I’ Build Offline Dam and Naturalize

TP111118 Page 14

83 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

ES 7.0 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION (SHORT-LIST) The short-listed alternatives described in the previous section have been assessed on the basis of evaluation criteria established specifically for the current study. As required by the Municipal Environmental Assessment process, the selected criteria relate to impacts and opportunities generated by the alternatives within four (4) environments:

(i) Functional - Considers the ability of the alternative to address the Environment problem statement and how it may impact existing physical systems. It also includes regulatory considerations.

(ii) Natural - Impacts or opportunities that an alternative may have Environment related to the natural environment (i.e., fisheries, wildlife, water quality, etc.).

(iii) Social - Impacts or opportunities created by the alternative as they Environment relate to the people and their current or historic relationship with the study area.

(iv) Economic - Capital, operation and maintenance costs associated with Environment an alternative, both in the short-term and long-term. For the current study, risk and liability has been included in the economic environment.

Within each environment, relevant and representative criteria have been considered for the evaluation. Each evaluation criterion has been assessed to ensure it is quantifiable and results in a meaningful comparison between the short-listed alternatives. The criteria selected for evaluation have been assigned a significance weighting based on consultation with the public, agencies and other stakeholders, and each alternative has been assigned a score for each evaluation criterion. The evaluation criteria are summarized by environment as follows:

Table ES-4.1 provides a summary of the assessment based on the established evaluation factors.

TP111118

84 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Table ES-4.1 Alternative Evaluation

TP111118 Page 16

85 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

The matrix intentionally uses qualitative evaluation weighting and ratings, however applying a numerical basis to the assessment can be used to more definitely compare alternatives. The Project Team initially applied the following weighting and ratings to the short-listed assessment:

Weighting Very High 5 High 3 Medium 2 Low 1

And, Rating Negative -2 Negative-neutral -1 Neutral 0 Positive-neutral 1 Positive 2

Stakeholder Workshops In an effort to improve transparency of the Alternative Assessment process, the City of Cambridge hosted Stakeholder Workshops over 2017, so as to solicit input from a broad cross-section of stakeholders, agencies and Indigenous Communities.

The core objective of these Stakeholder Workshops was to provide selected Stakeholders with a direct role in offering input to the Alternative Assessment process and allow them, and some members of Council, to actively participate in the review/assessment process.

The following questions were asked of the attending Stakeholders:

1. Do you agree with the selected short-listed alternatives? Alternative ‘C’: Rebuild Riverside Dam Alternative ‘E’: Naturalize Speed River (Remove Dam) Alternative ‘F’: Construct In-stream Rock Structures (Remove Dam) Alternative ‘G’: Offline Dam and Naturalization 2. Should the Project Team have considered other Alternatives? 3. Do you agree with the Evaluation Criteria (ref. Table ES-4.2) advanced by the Project Team 4. Are there any others that should have been included?

Table ES-4.2 Evaluation Criteria Functional/ Natural Social Economic Physical

TP111118

86 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Table ES-4.2 Evaluation Criteria Functional/ Natural Social Economic Physical Life Cycle Cost Flooding Fish Passage Cultural Heritage (capital and O&M)

Stream Stability/ Aquatic Habitat/Health Boating Liability Sediment Transport Water Quality and Fishing Temperature Natural Heritage Park Vistas

Public Safety

The other main objective of Stakeholder Workshops was to “step-through” an example of the Alternative Assessment process using the Smart Spreadsheet prepared by the Project Team. As part of Stakeholder Workshop No.1, Stakeholder Organizations were asked to complete the Alternative Assessment Smart Spreadsheet for the short-listed alternatives, including: Alternative ‘C’: Rebuild Dam, Alternative ‘E’: Naturalize Speed River, Alternative ‘F’: In-stream Rock Structures, and Alternative ‘G’: Off-line Dam/Naturalize River.

Some stakeholders suggested that Tourism be added as an Evaluation Criteria, hence for the initial assessment Tourism was added. However, as evident from Table ES-4.3, Tourism was ranked quite differently amongst the Project Team versus the stakeholders.

Table ES-4.3 Evaluation Criteria Ranking

Evaluation Stakeholder Environment Project Team Criteria Majority

1 Functional/Physical (a) Flooding Low Low (b) Stream Stability/ Medium Medium Sediment Transport 2 Natural (a) Fish Passage High High (b) Aquatic Habitat/Health High High (c ) Water Quality and Medium Medium Temperature (d) Natural Heritage Low Low 3 Social (a) Cultural Heritage Very High Very High

(b) Boating Medium Medium (c ) Fishing Medium Medium

TP111118

87 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Table ES-4.3 Evaluation Criteria Ranking

Evaluation Stakeholder Environment Project Team Criteria Majority

(d) Park Vistas Very High Very High (e) Pubic Safety High High 4 Economic (a) Life Cycle Cost Medium Medium (capital and O&M) (b) Liability Medium Medium (c ) Tourism Low High

The Project Team then undertook a comparison of the ratings provided by the Stakeholder Representatives for each of the Short-listed Alternatives. From this, it became clear that there was general consistency between the application of the Evaluation Criteria for most alternatives, however there were also inconsistencies in others. Table ES-4.4 indicates which Evaluation Criteria were, in the opinion of the Project Team, applied consistently and those that were inconsistently applied. Inconsistency was evident when there was a wide spread of ratings and outliers.

Table ES-4.4 Summary of Application of Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Alternative ‘C’: Alternative ‘E’: Alternative ‘F’: Alternative ‘G’: Environment Criteria Rebuild Naturalize In-Stream Off-Line

1 Functional/ (a) Flooding Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Physical (b) Stream Stability/ Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Sediment Transport

2 Natural (a) Fish Passage Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent (b) Aquatic Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Habitat/Health (c ) Water Quality Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent and Temperature (d) Natural Heritage Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent

3 Social (a) Cultural Heritage Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent

(b) Boating Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent

(c ) Fishing Consistent Inconsistent Consistent Consistent (d) Park Vistas Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent

TP111118

88 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Table ES-4.4 Summary of Application of Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Alternative ‘C’: Alternative ‘E’: Alternative ‘F’: Alternative ‘G’: Environment Criteria Rebuild Naturalize In-Stream Off-Line

(e) Pubic Safety Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent 4 Economic (a) Life Cycle Cost Consistent Consistent Inconsistent Consistent (capital and O&M)

(b) Liability Inconsistent Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent (c ) Tourism Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent

Inconsistent Application of Evaluation Criteria The following Evaluation Criteria were inconsistently applied in the ratings by the respective Stakeholder Representatives:

► Cultural Heritage ► Boating ► Liability ► Tourism

Overall Ranking The Project Team compared the Overall Ranking (1 through 4) of the Short-Listed Alternatives by the Stakeholders (ref. Table ES-4.5).

Table ES-4.5 Overall Ranking of Alternatives

Alternative ‘C’: Alternative ‘E’: Alternative ‘F’: Alternative ‘G’: Respondent Rebuild Naturalize Instream Offline Value Ranking Value Ranking Value Ranking Value Ranking 1 -6 4 108 2 158 1 12 3 2 4 4 33 2 13 3 35 1 3 45 4 124 1 78 3 86 2 4 71 1 -67 2 -111 4 -68 3 5 71 1 -67 2 -111 4 -68 3 6 17 1 2 3 -5 4 4 2 7 21 1 -1 2 -13 3 -13 3 8 -2 4 52 1 22 2 20 3 9 12 2 22 1 -5 4 2 3 Net Rating 2.4 1.8 3.1 2.6

TP111118

89 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Project Team 8 3 14 1 3 4 10 2

The intent of this summary is to illustrate if there was a consensus amongst the Stakeholders in their ranking of alternatives and to identify if there were any differences between the Stakeholder rankings. The information in Table ES-4.5 suggests that most Stakeholders considered Alternative ‘E’: Naturalize as either their first or second choice, which results in it becoming the consensus alternative selection on the basis of the ranking comparison. In terms of Alternative ‘C’: Rebuild, the rankings are much more polarized, with respondents generally either ranking this alternative as the most preferred or least preferred. The other two (2) alternatives, Instream Structures (Rocky Ramps) or Offline Dam are consistently ranked lower than the other two (2) by the vast majority of Stakeholders.

A further assessment was done by the Project Team to establish the rankings using the Majority Ratings, as developed by the Stakeholders. For this assessment, two (2) approaches were considered; the first applied all of the information as received, whereas the second removed the Tourism criterion due to the issues and concerns cited earlier. On this basis, the results of the alternative rankings are listed in Table ES-4.6.

Table ES-4.6 Overall Ranking Applying Majority Ratings With and Without Tourism

Alternative ‘C’: Alternative ‘E’: Alternative ‘F’: Alternative ‘G’: Respondent Rebuild Naturalize Instream Offline Value Ranking Value Ranking Value Ranking Value Ranking Stakeholder 13 1 12 2 -3 4 0 3 Majority Stakeholder 10 2 15 1 0 4 3 3 Majority (without Tourism)

As evident in Table ES-4.6, using all criteria results in a slight preference for Alternative ‘C’: Rebuild, however if the Tourism criteria is screened, Alternative ‘E’: Naturalize becomes preferred.

Regulatory Agencies’ Perspectives The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), and the Region of Waterloo were also invited to attend and participate in the Stakeholder Workshops. Including the regulatory agencies in the discussion of the Alternative Assessment was intended to allow the other Stakeholder representatives to gain a better understanding of the agencies’ point of view and areas of concern related to their mandate. None of these organizations submitted an Alternative Assessment Smart Spreadsheet. The following however provides a summary of the respective agencies’ Regulatory Position, based on the most recent correspondence received from the agency.

TP111118

90 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF): Correspondence dated May 31, 2017 provides direction that from a natural environment and a public safety perspective, the MNRF supports an alternative that would include decommissioning of the Riverside Dam for the following reasons:

► This alternative would contribute to the recovery of provincial species-at-risk fish and mussels (Silver Shiner and Wavy-rayed lampmussel) that are known for this stretch of the Speed River. ► This alternative would enhance the native fish communities as outlined in the Grand River Fisheries Management Plan. A healthy fishery provides multiple benefits to the watershed. ► Decommissioning the dam would also eliminate the potential hazard that would be associated with the infrastructure over the long-term.

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA): GRCA provided comments on October 18, 2016 which included the detailed assessment of alternatives and stated that the GRCA continues to be supportive of the alternative to naturalize the Speed River (Alternative ‘E’), as the preferred alternative to address the problem statement of this Class EA.

Region of Waterloo: The Region of Waterloo provided comments on May 13, 2013 and additional comments on May 25, 2016 indicating that the Region has no fundamental disagreement with the preferred alternative identified at the time (Naturalize Speed River). It is noted that the removal of the dam and the naturalization of the upstream portion of the river with riffle areas would provide natural aeration of the water.

Indigenous Communities Consultation with Indigenous Communities is an important component of the Class EA process. The following communities have been contacted during the Class EA process:

► Six Nations of the Grand River ► Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation ► Haudenosaunee Development Institute

These First Nation communities were not invited to participate in the Stakeholder Workshops, however the City has separately consulted with the Indigenous Communities outside of the Stakeholder Workshops.

Area Indigenous Communities were notified of the project at start-up, and also of the Public Information Centres (PICs) over the course of the project. Furthermore, the City and its Consultant Team met face to face with the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation in September, 2017 (the Haudenosaunee Development Institute was also contacted, however no meeting was arranged). Verbal support for the Naturalize Speed River alternative was provided from those Indigenous Communities consulted.

TP111118

91 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

ES 8.0 PREFERRED SOLUTION The objective of the current study has been to develop a long-list of alternative solutions to manage the future of the deteriorating Riverside Dam. The long-list of alternatives has been reduced to the short-list through a preliminary screening process based on technical and regulatory feasibility. The short-list has then been evaluated using a broad range of criteria representing the technical, natural, social and economic environments surrounding the Riverside Dam, including engagement with Stakeholders, Technical Agencies and Indigenous Communities, eventually leading to a Preferred Alternative that balances the priorities of the various stakeholder groups.

Based on the Alternative Evaluation, Alternative ‘E’: Naturalize Speed River provides a management solution that addresses the Problem Statement, best capitalizes on opportunities related to the technical and natural environments, and provides the most economic solution in the short and long-term. Although Alternative ‘E’ has the largest impact on the social environment, most importantly cultural heritage, various measures have been identified that can be incorporated into the implementation of Alternative ‘E’ which can reasonably mitigate the impact (it is noted that there is no legislative constraint in this regard related to the Ontario Heritage Act). Therefore, with all factors considered, Alternative ‘E’: Naturalize Speed River has been advanced as the Preliminary Preferred Alternative.

The Project Team has identified the alternative to Naturalize Speed River and remove the dam as being the preferred solution for the following reasons:

► Stakeholder Workshop engagement essentially established the Naturalize alternative as the first or second choice amongst those participating, resulting in it having the highest ranking. ► All agencies, including:  GRCA  MNRF  Region of Waterloo Supported the Naturalize alternative. Furthermore, the City’s Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) also expressed strong support for the Naturalize alternative. ► The Indigenous Communities of Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations both preferred naturalization over other alternatives. ► The Naturalize alternative was ranked consistently higher than all other under the Natural / Physical Environments. ► The Life Cycle Cost associated with the Naturalize alternative is significantly lower than the Rebuild alternative. ► The Short and Long-term Liability to the City is significantly reduced if it naturalizes the Speed River. ► The Naturalize alternative aligns closely with the City of Cambridge’s Corporate Strategic Plan (2016), specific to many of the plan’s goals and objectives as they apply to the environment, rivers and infrastructure.

TP111118

92 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

► Opportunities exist to honour and respect the role of the Riverside Dam in the formation of Preston and the surrounding community through various means; this will require additional consultation with the public. ► Opportunities exist to strategically repurpose the additional nearshore riparian lands for community and overall system enhancements; this will require additional consultation with the public.

The following secondary elements are also recommended to be implemented with the Preferred Alternative:

► Incorporate cultural heritage elements associated with the Riverside Dam in the following order of preference: restore elements (i.e., dam control structures) in place, restore and relocate elements in Riverside Park, reconstruct elements in Riverside Park, install commemorative signage and/or plaques; ► Consideration of inclusion of nearshore wetlands (or similar) to maintain/enhance riparian habitat for turtle and waterfowl species and potentially offer informal water quality treatment for local storm sewer outfalls; and, ► Incorporation of interpretive/educational elements to improve interaction of park patrons with the Speed River, while limiting the damage caused to riparian habitat by trampling (i.e., provision for designated trails, barrier landscaping, river viewing areas, etc.).

The following additional analysis/study should be completed in association with the next stages of design:

► Borehole drilling of the existing dam structure to the depth of the foundation to generate more accurate detail on the make-up and depth of the core of the structure; ► Detailed core drilling of the headpond area, including additional sediment sampling to establish detailed information on the depth, extent and quality of the sediment; ► Generation of a sediment management plan that meets provincial regulations with a goal of maximizing the amount of sediment managed on-site to minimize the economic impact; ► Detailed hydraulic modelling of the study area with consideration for two-dimensional analyses including an update to the Regulatory floodplain and associated 2-zone policy area; ► Assessment of the existing Sulphur Creek inlet structure and redesign of the inlet structure or incorporation of features within the Speed River to maintain existing inflow; and, ► Full recording and documentation of the existing dam and its associated cultural heritage landscape, including the stoplog sluiceway structure, the Cambridge Mills site, and Riverside Park in the area of the dam prior to its removal and any modifications to its surroundings.

TP111118

93 City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Environment & Infrastructure Executive Summary February 13, 2018

In terms of the Implementation process, subject to the Project successfully clearing the Public Review period (i.e.,no Part II Orders) and receiving Council funding, the next steps will be as follows:

► Preliminary Design / Project Planning ► Public Consultation on matters of public interest, including cultural heritage and riparian space planning ► Initial Detailed Design ► Further review with Technical Agencies, public stakeholders and Indigenous Communities ► Finalize Detailed Design ► Permitting / Approvals, including:

► Tendering ► Construction ► Monitoring As noted under the Environmental Assessment Act, the Municipal Class Environmental process includes a provision whereby:

Any member of the public who has unresolved concerns with a proposed project can request that the Minister require the proponent (of the project) to prepare an Individual Environmental Assessment – Part II (Bump-up)

In the event of a Part II Order(s), Ministry staff review issues and concerns. The Minister may also enlist input from other ministries and technical agencies. Pending input and review, Minister will make a final decision whether or not to require an individual Environmental Assessment be prepared by the City.

TP111118

94 APPENDIX B

Riverside Dam Class EA

PIC #4 Consultation Summary

95

B1 – Summary of PIC Question, Answer & Comment Session

Jim Faught from LURA Consulting served as Moderator for the question and answer period. The following is a summary of the Question and Answer portion of the PIC:

Q1: Concern over the cost of the dam, both the consultant costs and proposed construction costs. The individual referred to the Elora Drimmie Dam and its comparatively lower construction costs, and questioned if Riverside Dam could use the same construction company to achieve similar costs. A1: Direct cost comparison does not take into account the unique problems being addressed, nor the varied design and construction complexities, nor the costs associated with impact mitigation. The Drimmie Dam is owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and received provincial funding. The costs stated for rebuild of the Riverside Dam include life-cycle costs, and the substantial costs for management of the contaminated sediment.

Q2: When will the dam fail? A2: It is difficult to predict exactly when a century old structure will fail. An inspection is recommended every 6 months to monitor the physical state of the dam.

Q3: Concern expressed over the two-week period to submit comment forms. A3: Requested that comment forms be submitted within the two-week period. If an extension is required, please contact a member of the Project Team.

Q4: Individual expressed concern over the low flow rate of the Speed River within the river reach, citing flow rate values retrieved from the GRCA website for the summer. If the dam is removed, is there a risk the river will become stagnant at this location? A4: Flow rates fluctuate significantly depending on the time of year, and the flow rates of the Speed River in late November are more representative of the base flow rate. Stream health is evaluated by looking at the surrounding context, up and downstream, and the examination of both demonstrates stagnant flow is not a risk as the Speed River does not dry up.

Q5: If ownership of the dam has not been established, why has the City invested so much money? Is the City liable for the dam if they rebuild it? A5: The City recognized the need for addressing the deteriorating dam, and stepped forward to address the issue. The Riverside dam is currently a public safety hazard, and the City is responsible for the safety of its citizens. When the City undertook emergency repairs in 2008, as part of approval to proceed the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) imposed a condition that the City complete an Environmental Assessment to address the deteriorating structural condition of the dam. It has also been confirmed that the City will be liable for the dam if it rebuilds it.

96

Q6: What will be the overall impact on sediment transport by removing this individual dam? Will the sediment not just gather at the next dam in Galt? Why remove this dam? A6: Each environmental assessment is an individual project and assessed on an individual basis, based on the problem to be addressed, the alternative solutions, and the evaluation criteria developed by the Project Team in consultation with the public. Removing the dam will improve sediment transport within this river reach which in of itself is part of an important ecosystem.

Q7: If flooding in Preston is relieved, will the flooding be redirected to Galt? Galt experienced bad floods this Spring, would flooding become worse in other areas? A7: The flooding that occurred in the Spring resulted from heavy rainfall in the headwaters of the Grand River, with the Speed River largely unaffected. The Riverside dam has no reservoir storage for flood control, and operates on a water in water out basis.

Q8: How much was spent to maintain the dam historically? A8: An exact value is difficult to determine; however, it is significantly more expensive to maintain a dam currently than in the past to comply with Provincial regulations, for environmental protection and public health and safety.

Q9: Concern over Species at Risk (SAR) that may be threatened due to construction. There are many SAR in the area, removing the dam will destroy their current habitat. A9: SAR analysis has been undertaken and the preferred solution improves SAR habitat.

Q10: How was the alternative criteria weighting assigned? A10: The alternative criteria were defined and given weighting through extensive stakeholder workshops.

Q11: Why was P&H Milling selected as a stakeholder? A11: Stakeholder management seeks to involve the largest number of parties and those most affected. P&H Milling is a direct neighbour therefore should be consulted.

Q12: What influence did the LRT have on this project? A12: The LRT has had no influence on this project. Each Environmental Assessment is undertaken on an individual basis.

Q13: Why was tourism removed as a criterion in the alternatives assessment? A13: The stakeholder groups were unable to agree on a common definition for tourism. Furthermore, it was difficult to distinguish between the tourism attraction of Riverside Park in total and the dam and headpond alone.

Q14: Attendee requested stakeholder committee meeting minutes be provided. A14: The stakeholder meeting minutes will be provided with the Environmental Project File.

97

Q15: Both the Parkhill Dam and the Drimmie Dam projects include power generation. Why is power generation not being considered for the Riverside Dam? A15: The Riverside Dam does not have sufficient head to support a power system based on a previous study. A power plant requires a business case, and the Speed River is smaller in size with a smaller hydraulic head.

Q16: What would be the effect of dredging the dam and creating one large pond? A16: The dredged pond would fill in overtime with sediment and revert back to a river flow condition.

Q17: How will removing the dam reduce the water temperature? Attendee cited temperature readings from earlier that day posted on the GRCA website that demonstrated higher temperature levels at Bridgeport, which is not in close proximity to a dam. A17: Late fall is a low stress time on stream health, therefore the current temperature is not indicative of overall stream health. As indicated in the Environmental Assessment findings, there is evidence of adverse effects from rising temperatures in the head pond in the summer.

Q18: If the dam is removed, how much lower will the water level be? A18: The water level will have the same elevation at the intake to Sulphur Creek, with a maximum elevation reduction of 1.6 m at the dam.

Q19: The project has been ongoing for 8 years, why has the City decided to do a title search now? A19: The City is proceeding through the Class EA process, evaluating alternatives, and once it has been decided how the City is to proceed, a title search and land survey will be conducted at the detail design stage when the physical extent of the project is known.

Q20: The preliminary preferred solution mentions the potential for recognizing the dam through rebuilding the iconic control structure and signage. Previously, there has not existed a space to display cultural heritage monuments. Are you committing to providing this space? A20: Providing a cultural heritage monument to the dam currently remains a suggestion for implementation. This will need to be determined at a later date by the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) and the public, as will the details around the salvage and temporary storage of materials from the existing dam.

Q21: Regarding the permit process, would repairing the dam be easier than rebuilding the dam? A21: No, the same rules and regulations apply to rebuilding and repairing the dam.

98

Q22: Concern regarding the current width of the dam compared to the future width of the dam. If the same volume exists, the Venturi effect will apply, resulting in an increased stream velocity, which may flood the CP Rail line that serves the Toyota Plant. A22: Removal of the dam will not result in flooding that will adversely affect the CP rail line. A wide range of different parameters within the system have been analyzed in terms of river design, including pools/ riffles/ long profile and cross-sections. The removal of the dam will result in the system functioning more naturally both up and downstream.

Further to the above, various comments were provided, summarized as follows:

C1: Individual requested a visualization of the naturalized solution. C2: The heritage value is the body of water, not the concrete under the water. C3: Concern expressed that the Province should be paying for sediment transport related issues as they are the established owners of the bed and banks of the river, not the Cambridge tax payers.

C4: Attendee expressed the thought that the intent was to select a preferred solution at the PIC, but it is felt that the decision had already been made.

C5: Attendee requested the GRCA provide input regarding the Riverside Dam’s role in the Grand Strategy.

C6: Attendee believes removing the dam is a public safety risk as it will result in less ice cover. Expressed belief it will destroy the wetland and species present. Recommends the dam be rebuilt.

C7: [Addressing attendees] Council makes the decision regarding the future of the dam. It is important to come to the Council meeting in February to demonstrate to Council the importance of rebuilding the dam.

C8: The dam has created a unique ecosystem, removing the dam will destroy it. C9: Attendee has a view of the pond from their house, and sees geese taxi over house to the dam. This is a tourism feature that could be threatened.

C10: P&H Milling should pay for a portion of the Riverside Dam. C11: Fischer Hill dam was removed and the area become a mud pond. Attendee worried this will occur at Riverside Dam.

C12: Following the tragedy at the Parkhill Dam, the sluice gates at both the Parkhill Dam and Riverside Dam were closed and this is preventing the flow of sediment.

C13: the dam breaks up large ice flows preventing ice jams and flooding. C14: If you remove the dam Sulphur Creek will be wiped out.

99

B2 – Written Comments Received from the Public after PIC4

A comment form was provided at the PIC and was posted to the City’s website. The following is a summary of the comments received on the forms:

Comment 1 Plain and simple. Save the dam.

Comment 2 Stop. - Takes away the beauty of the park. - Fix the dam and keep the park the same. - It’s a great attraction- canoe/ fish/ picnic. Needs to be repaired/ redone.

Comment 3 As an avid paddler and member of the Waterloo Wellington Canoe and Kayak Club I have paddled the entire Grand, Speed and Eramosa rivers, except this one section! The dam is an impediment and the water quality is very poor. In consulting with other members, it is not a safe place to portage around his dam. It is better for the river, water quality and paddling to remove the dam.

Comment 4 I want the dam, why do we hire these people that come to meetings and push to take the dam out. Council better listen to the people. They were chosen [illegible] by the people and we will fight to remove them if the dam is removed and not replaced. The money spent on that striped wall bridge could have been put towards the dam. Another Craig project. Listen to the people for once Craig and his followers.

Comment 5 Save the dam and engineer it so that it functions properly to control silt and deposits and yet promotes a healthy environment for the fish. It’s the gem of Preston.

Comment 6 I thought that you were going to present a view both for and against. Instead it was all towards removal. Comment about eliminating canoe portage is incorrect. You cannot paddle a small canoe up 1.7m it’s such a short space. P&H should not have been a stakeholder unless they owned the dam.

Comment 7 Save the dam. My children want it saved as I do.

100

Comment 8 Check the Elora Dam in the Township of Centre Wellington for information on how to complete a dam rehabilitation properly and economically. A dam was removed just north of the intersection of Highways 6 & 7 in Guelph and the result was a weed overgrown mud hole.

Comment 9 My preferred choice is to rebuild the dam. 1) Preferred choice = Rebuilding the dam - The water flow is even across the width of the dam. This results in no uneven increase in velocity acting on the railway support beams. 2) Naturalizing the river with “riffle-pool” sequences has similar effect on flow across the 30m wide channel, but does not give long term stability of the dam. The rocks would be constantly shifting resulting in ongoing continuous maintenance (and unwanted species migration up river.) 3) Instream rock structures with a narrower opening would create a “venturi effect” causing an increased river velocity concentrating in the middle, and increase river bed erosion at the railway supports; causing eventual collapse as occurred a few years ago in Calgary (especially during flooding caused by heavy rainfalls). 4) “Current Dam Structure” gives a safer low flow-rate shoreline for visitors and children who play and use the park for boating and fishing. (see attached sketch)

101

Email comments received regarding PIC4. The following is a consolidation of the email comments received:

------I will be unable to attend the meeting on Nov 29 in regards to the Riverside Park Dam so I wanted to send a note with my comments. My wife and I are life long Cambridge (40+ years in Preston) people.

Replacing the dam would be a giant waste of money. The dam is a relic of a bygone time, it serves absolutely no purpose. Anyone who demands it be replaced on the ground of heritage is grasping at straws. Where were the complaints when the mill itself went electric or the mill race was filled in with stone? That part of the heritage of the dam didn't matter? Just because something is no longer, it doesn't erase it from our memory or history books.

All over North America these old dams are being removed in favour of letting rivers run naturally. Some comments seem to imply that removing the dam and pond will make the area ugly. Is the river up or downstream from the dam ugly? Our city is criss-crossed by trails that follow the rivers, wonderful scenery from each vantage point.

Please naturalize this river.

John & Carlie Schmiedendorf 1026 Winterhalt Ave Cambridge ON

------

102

Hello Scott,

Please rebuild the dam - NOT TEAR IT DOWN.

Riverside Park is the perfect place to spend a few hours, or an afternoon relaxing beside or in the the water. I've looked for crayfish, fished and boated many times, by myself & with friends over the years.

NATURALIZTION isn't the answer - take a look at CHILIGO POND, in north Cambridge. I used to skate on that pond- now you can't, as there is only a TRICKLE OF WATER GOING THRU...

Please reconsider,

Thanks, Mary Guttin

------

103

I have followed this with interest.

I lived the first 18 years of my life in a town with a low head dam similar to the one in Riverside Park, this dam incorporated sluice gates and "salmon boxes" to assist fish heading upstream. Originally constructed to provide a collection point for water to be pumped from the river and treated as drinking water for the town. It also served a secondary recreation purpose: people walked along the banks, fished and children played at the side of the water.

Sometime during the seventies this use stopped and the centre of the dam was removed by explosive charges in the 1980s and debris was removed returning the river to is natural state.

Water quality and fishing improved, upstream flooding stopped, people still walk along the river banks and children still play along the banks.

People also said removing the dam would spoil the area - it didn't.

Removing the obsolete and crumbling dam from the Speed river will be different for a while until it becomes the new normal, it will not destroy the park. Please return the river to its natural state. After all we should not be building dams across rivers for sentimental and/or recreational purposes. regards

Nigel

------

104

Hi Scott,

As a resident of Cambridge I would like to see the Riverside Park Dam Replaced.

Regards,

Brian Schopf

1385 Concession Rd

Cambridge, Ontario

N3H 4L8

------

105

I would like to submit for consideration my comments for the Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment. The file attached contains my comments.

Regards,

Sean Clarkson

Riverside Dam Comments

I strongly support the Naturalization of the Speed River at Riverside Park option for this project.

When finalizing the preference for this project I believe we should be placing much higher weighting on the fiscal, environmental, public safety criteria not the social and heritage criteria. The facts and results of the Environmental Assessment should be more important than the emotions and past history of the dam and its historic vista.

Naturalization is the best option for this Riverside Dam project. I believe the Environment, especially the Water resources of the Speed River should be protected as best as we possibly can. Naturalization will achieve this by improving water quality and natural habitats for both flora and fauna.

From a fiscal point of view I also believe that naturalization is the preferred solution as it just plain costs less money. I, as a tax payer, do not wish to pay more for a dam that serves no purpose other than create an environmental issue as well as increased liability and debt. It is not worth 3.4 million dollars to me to validate emotions and sentiments of a minority of very vocal citizens.

Naturalization may not create the same vista as a dam and resulting pond but it will still be a beautiful vista none the less. I don't think that anyone who looks at the Speed River where there is no current dam would say it is not a great vista. It would be different not worse as far as many are concerned to naturalize this stretch instead of rebuild a dam.

Naturalization has been the preferred option for years now. There are great reasons for that. It is time for Council to recognize this as the preferred and final option instead of continually putting it off to appease a vocal minority who declares themselves the majority. There is an entire city that this decision must be made for not just some of the people who live near the dam. I encourage that facts and scientific study be used when making this decision, not emotion and and the memory of the past.

Regards, Sean Clarkson

60 Greenbrier Road Cambridge, ON N1R 6N1 ------

106

Why won't the Council listen to their people? We have been fighting for years to save the Heart of Preston. Hespeler had their dam fixed. If it was Galt they would have it fixed. But this is my heritage that means nothing to the powers that be. For shame!! You can spend millions on an old stone building for Galt, but Preston’s identity will be ripped out of our hearts. People from cities far and wide come to Riverside Park. It is a revered Preston Monument that needs to be kept for all. We implore you to please, repair the dam. Replace the dam for the generations to enjoy to come. To "naturalize" the dam would make our founders turn in their graves.

Barb Kirk ------

107

Scott,

We feel that the dam should be rebuilt. After all the dam has lasted for 150 years so we feel a new dam should last just as long or longer with newer material, etc. Also when and if a new dam is built or another solution is found, the logs and garbage should be cleaned out on a regular basis.

Gary & Betty

------

108

Hello Scott and hello Ron,

I'm writing because I missed attending the Public Information Centre #4 November 29, 2017 unfortunately. I checked out the City of Cambridge webpage regarding this and I understand that the Preliminary Preferred Solution for Riverside Dam is to Naturalize the Speed River and return it to what nature had intended it to be and I applaud you for that.

I compare river dams to bound feet... it's not natural and very wrong!! The Riverside Dam is no exception. Plus it serves no purpose any longer, so why keep it?

My opinion is: let the Speed River flow and do away with the dam. We will all benefit in the end.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email and all the best with this important issue.

Regards,

Inez Kochius

------

109

My concern with the proposal to naturalize the site is what happens to all the wetlands that been created over the lengthy duration of the dam. At present there are wonderful walkways through this area & wildlife in all forms abounds. I cannot see how the wetlands could possibly continue to exist if the dam is removed & the river 'naturalized'.

My vote is to rebuild the dam & keep our wetlands.

Sandra Poulton

1195 King St E,

Cambridge

------

110

I attended the recent meeting at the Preston Legion and was very impressed with the presentation although it did leave me feeling the naturalization of the river was a done deal.

There was a definite majority of people who want the dam to be rebuilt and I'm one of them. Many of us have seen what happened when dams in surrounding communities were removed. In spite of beautiful artists conceptions, these communities seem to be left with something that has more relationship to a mud hole or a swamp than the beautiful river that was promised. Many of us are afraid that is what is going to happen to our river.

It looks to me very apparent that the desires of the community don't matter a whole lot, after all it is less expensive to remove the dam than replace it.

I want to be among those who have presented their objections and hope these objections are given consideration. I don't what the statistics are, but I do know for everyone who presents an objection there are many others who feel the same way but don't write, mostly because they feel their objections don't matter.

Thanks you,

Alice Dietrich

314-205 Eagle St. N.,

Cambridge, ON

N3H 1B9

------

111

Hi Scott and Ron,

I did enjoy the presentation that was given at the Riverside Park PIC. I agree completely with the preliminary recommendation that the dam should be removed and the river naturalized. I am quite a bit surprised that in this day & age with environmentalism at the forefront and all the rage that we are even looking at an option for replacing an ornamental dam on a river. Quite frankly, it boggles the mind. Anyone that truly considers themselves to be an environmentalist would never even consider this. If we were looking at constructing a new ornamental dam in this location, the protests would be large and loud. However, the only opposition shown at the meeting was for not replacing an ornamental dam. Due to this, i have come to the realization that there are no true environmentalists in this area, we only have people that are resistant to any change and will wrap themselves in whatsoever flag necessary to stop the change. Hopefully, you can get this EA competed and the river restored to a natural channel.

Regards,

Andrew Janes

------

112

I wish to make some comments about Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre No. 4.

Having been a resident all my life, which is the better of 70 some years, I wish to add my name to the residents that want to keep our Riverside Park Dam. Please understand that we are very proud of our park along with the lake and river as it now stands. This park brings many fishermen and families to the area each and every year. On any given weekday and weekend in the spring, summer and fall, many families come and enjoy sitting by the river, having picnics, fishing and just relaxing. It is the heritage of our town.

The Dam needs to be replaced or rebuilt, but never taken away. If you naturalize it, you loose it.

Thank you.

Kenneth Moyes

------

113

Dear Mr. Scott,

I understand that there are many differing opinions about how to proceed with the dam at Riverside Park and I would like to add my voice to the conversation. This is the present situation as I understand it.

The pond is 90 to 100 meters wide.

The river above and below the dam is 30 meters wide.

The dam is 67 meters wide.

I would propose that we restore the dam to its original glory, using the sloughs to maintain levels would be helpful (can they be computer operated?).

Narrow the pond from its present width to 70 meters maximum through its entirety to increase water flow in summer. (Using the same interlocking blocks used on King Street from Eagle to Dover would be attractive and functional). The bulk of the pond narrowing could be taken from the Eagle Street side to allow more land for possible use behind the Surplus Store.

I would be in favour of placing large stones in the water to cause the water to both swirl – to remove sediment – and to aid cooling if the water is converted to droplets as in a water cooling tower.

I know that the LRT is also a consideration for future development, and the reclaimed land could be used as a rail bed if the approved route is going to be in this area.

Thank you for your time and your invitation to join the conversation.

Graham Jones

------

114

I am letting you know that I would prefer to have Riverside Park dam replaced and rebuilt. I feel it would spoil the appearance of the park to naturalize the site.

Regards,

Debbie Ballantyne

775 Riverside Dr.

Cambridge

------

115

The problem with those meetings it’s always the same thing we need to keep the damn.

Thomas Keogh ------

116

Thanks for the update Scott. I understand it's a busy time and appreciate your ongoing work.

I'm just looking for the Stakeholder minutes.

Ultimately, I want to see if there is a way we can keep the dam and mill pond (repair or rebuild) that the City, developers and LRT can live with. So much of Preston is being sacrificed for these 3; surely, they can compromise a little for the good of constituents and community.

Looking forward to hearing more about what we can do to move forward as a community.

Christine Rier

------

117

A Compromise Solution:

Remove old dam

Dredge to suitable depth

Construct a new dam, but LOWER by 12 to 18 inches

Incorporate a power generation unit and a fish ladder

Benefits:

Less flood plain

Easier and cheaper to incorporate power generation when building new rather than retrofitting

The dam becomes “ UTILE “

Less impact on current ecosystem

Modest reclaimed riverbank

The “ ION “ could than feasibly bypass Eagle St. by using the old rail bed due to the lower flood plain

Regards

Harold Miller

------

118

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments on the Riverside Dam project. I would like to have the opportunity to have further conversations with you on this topic.

My contact information is:

Joyce Chapman

519.621.7648

I understand how important Riverside Park is to our city. It has been the gateway for millions to come a play, fish and enjoy the vista. That will not change if the Speed River is naturalized as strongly recommended by the consulting firm. Allowing the river to flow will ensure that natural environment will flourish for generations to come.

The further opportunities that could be developed are endless, when the park is not flooded and closed for many weeks in the spring due to the dam. Bike/pedestrian paths separate from the roadway, board walks over the wetlands, nature centres, educational sign boards that local schools could use, etc.

I believe in the future and leaving the environment place better for my Grandchildren and their Grandchildren. The decision should be made on science based facts presented by the engineering firm along with the cost of rebuilding the dam, not on nostalgia or on ‘how it looks’ or vote getting by our elected officials.

Joyce

City of Cambridge Strategic Plan

Environment and Rivers Goal 4: Be good stewards of the rivers, waterways and natural environment that this community enjoys. Objectives:

4.1 Ensure that sustainability principles are a part of city decision- making processes. · A Naturalized River is sustainable · Rebuild Dam, public infrastructure which needs to be maintained in perpetuity by City

119

4.2 Encourage innovative approaches to address environmental challenges.

Naturalize River Rebuild Dam · Natural process reinstated · Dam blocks natural sediment · Aligns with objectives of GRCA movement flow Fisheries Management Plan and · Fish passage impaired Provincial Endangered Species Act · Wavy Ray Lamp Mussel · Improved water quality negatively affected · Lower downstream temperature · Lower water quality in headpond · Natural aeration · Higher temperature · Significant opportunity for riparian zone rehabilitation

4.3 Work with other partners to educate the public and help make changes to improve and protect our natural heritage features.

· Removes barrier to movement · Creates a barrier to movement · Preferred by white water · Provides an area for flatwater enthusiasts boating · Restores fishing to a more · Reduces diversity and numbers diverse and natural population and prevents seasonal migration

4.4 Manage city resources in a responsible and sustainable manner, considering future needs for resiliency and community adaptation.

· $5.1 million · $8.5 Million

Cambridge Times April 5, 2017 “Every major river city in the world has pedestrian bridges. This is part of what we must do in terms of emphasizing the kind of community we are and what we believe in,” said Mayor Doug Craig, ahead of the recorded 8-1 vote during Tuesday’s (April 4) special council meeting. “We believe in public access. We believe in our rivers. We believe in the … amplification of all the very best of what this city can be.” ------

120

Dan Waswik sent email with the comment form attached.

Comments: Basic mistrust of naturalization process. Concerned about loss of habitat for geese, ducks and water life.

Infill of existing pond area which will occur concerns over appearance and maintenance of created wetland areas.

Dan Waswik 301 – 100 Eagle St N Cambridge N3H 5T8 519-277-1028 ------

121

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment. I am in support of the City staff preliminary preferred alternative of ‘Naturalize Speed River (remove dam) as presented at the PIC on Wednesday November 29th, 2017. Some of these reasons are outlined below:

 The dam has no purpose as it does not provide any flood attenuation.  The removal of the dam will reduce the amount of flood in Riverside Park especially during the spring season – it will allow for Riverside Park to be usable earlier in the season.  Naturalization of the river bank and allowing the river to flow will provide better habitat and water quality for aquatic species.  The removal of the dam will allow the Speed River to return to its natural state as a river.  Key regulatory agencies including the MNRF, GRCA, and the Region are all in favour of the Naturalize Speed River alternative.

The other key consideration is the financial implications associated with the Rebuild Alternative. The life cycle cost difference of approximately 3.4 million between the two options is significant and should not be ignored. Also, it does not make sense to construct, operate, and maintain another piece of infrastructure (that has no purpose) when the City is unable to meet the current demand of its’s existing infrastructure. The assessment provided by the consultants is logical, based on science and provided a balance assessment including consideration of public input. The preliminary preferred alternative also aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan which states the City of Cambridge needs to ensure that sustainability principles are part of city decision making processes – a naturalized river is sustainable.

There has been a lot of concern raised that the removal of the dam will change the feel of Riverside Park but I am of the belief that Naturalizing will only provide the City for opportunities to enhance the park. A Naturalize River provides many opportunities for enhancement including such things as boardwalks, educational opportunities, improved access to the river, and improvements to the parks such as trails.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments and hopefully provide support to the City’s preliminary preferred alternative. Can you please add me to the contact list for the Class Environmental Assessment and notify of any additional information public consultation activities?

Sincerely,

Heather Dearlove [email protected] ------

122

Good afternoon, I would like to submit comments to be included as part of the Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre No.4 from November 29 2017.

I live in Cambridge, although not in Preston. I work for a regional organization. I spend my time throughout the city - utilizing all that Cambridge has to offer - all of our parks, trails, waterways. I live work and play throughout the city as a whole.

I was at the Public Information Centre that evening, and was impressed with the information presented, the manner in which the information was presented, and the clear, concise and definitive details provided. I was equally impressed with the presentation – thank you for walking through the history of the dam, the history of the project and setting the fact based determinations within the larger context of the park, the river and the manufacturing heritage of the area.

There appears to be no question that the right solution is to naturalize the river. In fact, let me word that a little stronger – the only solution to the problem of the failing dam is to naturalize the river.

The professionals that have examined the problem – both within the City of Cambridge, and from Amec Foster Wheeler – have examined the problem from every angle, using every professional lens, utilizing their years of experience, scientific knowledge and expertise. They have determined that naturalizing the river is the solution to the failing dam. This is why professionals are hired – they can examine all aspects of the problem, the understand the systems (natural systems, political systems, and regulatory bodies), and they can look towards the future with a clear vision towards what is best for our planet.

I acknowledge the effort that was put into gathering an understanding of the emotional reactions to the dam and the resulting millpond. I acknowledge the effort put into explaining how the park vista would change, explaining how it will look when naturalized – and explaining how this will be good for the park, the view, and will still (and probably more completely) honour our manufacturing heritage.

This is a simple decision. On all scientific, fact based, logic based factors naturalizing the river is the solution.

This is a simple decision. Using only an economic factor naturalizing the river is the solution.

Thank you for making that so clear.

This is also a simple decision when you overlap the science based, fact based, logic based factors you provided at the PIC with the established and approved Strategic Plan for the City of Cambridge.

123

The Strategic Plan states that the City of Cambridge needs to ensure that sustainability principles are part of city decision making processes (4.1 within Goal 4 of the Strategic Plan). A naturalized rives is sustainable. A rebuilt dam is part of the public infrastructure which will need to be maintained in perpetuity by the City.

The Strategic Plan encourages innovative approaches to address environmental challenges (4.2 within Goal 4 of the Strategic Plan). Naturalizing the river is an innovative environmental approach. We are no longer trying to dictate where the water will flow – a natural flow will be reinstated. Naturalizing the river meets all environmental objectives and legislation (the GRCA, Provincial Endangered Species Act etc). Flooding would be reduced, the water quality would improve, sediment would not accumulate, fish and other aquatic life would be better off, as would any number of land based creatures.

We could showcase our natural heritage by removing the barrier to the river, through boardwalks, and outdoor classrooms – which is another element within our Strategic Plan (4.3 within Goal 4 of the Strategic Plan).

Finally, the City of Cambridge within the Strategic Plan (4.4 within Goal 4) and by virtue of being a recipient of tax dollars -has a responsibility to manage city resources in a responsible and sustainable manner – considering future needs for resiliency and community adaptation. Naturalizing the river is estimated to cost the City of Cambridge $5.1 million. Rebuilding the dam is estimated to cost $8.5 million dollars. If science, and doing the right thing on all environment standards doesn’t matter to some - then the simple math should.

Cambridge is a city that has been shaped by our rivers. Rivers flow, rivers change, what we know about rivers has evolved. This problem – the dam is failing – is a fact based problem which requires an expert, professional, fact based solution. The reasoned solution is also the most economical solution. The river will still be there to meet our emotional needs and will be a healthy legacy for our children to enjoy and become nostalgic about in their time.

I hope these comments – however electronically – help. Not everyone in attendance on November 29 2017 wanted to rebuild the dam.

If you have any questions or concerns I can be reached at [email protected] or 519.222.3546.

Thank you. Kristine Dearlove ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

124

Attached please find my comments for the Riverside Dam Class EA, Public Information Centre #4

Carol Thorman 374 Rose St., Cambridge, ON N3H 5B9

Attached Comments: Comment Form

Riverside Dam

Class Environmental Asessment

Public Information Centre No. 4

Mr. Scott MacDonald, P. Eng. Mr. Ron Scheckenberger, M Eng., P Eng

Project Engineer Project Manager

City of Cambridge Amec Foster Wheeler [email protected] [email protected]

Comments:

Rebuilding the dam has been the option most preferred by the majority of the public that has been involved in the process since first learning that plans were being made to naturalize the river. Despite being told (erroneously) at the second public meeting that rebuilding/repairing the dam would be prohibited, they have remained steadfast and vocal that their preferred option remains rebuilding.

The stakeholder groups evaluated the options presented, which included tourism and the effects to the local economy, and scored rebuilding as the preferred option. Not nearly enough emphasis was put on the benefits of rebuilding, versus naturalization from a heritage, economic, and recreation point of view and to remove that option when it was part of the evaluation process is unfair. No groups were representative of the people who enjoy the type of fish currently caught in the head pond, nor those who enjoy still water boating.

125

No information was presented to justify the proposed costs for upkeep including silt management and more than 100 years of existence, costs to date have been minimal. Even factoring in more stringent current regulations, the projected costs seem high.

Also not factored in were possible improvements in design that would help with fish migrating upstream, harm to the present habitat that has been "natural" to the flora and fauna there now for over a hundred years. Who decides which species is more important and how did humans not count? No discussion was had regarding the fact that dams could also impede the progression of invasive species that are already present in the Great Lakes from infiltrating the river.

At every opportunity, the public has been adamant about their wish to rebuild the dam.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

126

Brad Hamilton sent email with the comment form attached.

Comments: I stongly support the preliminary preferred solution to remove the dam and naturalize the river. This solution will reduce flooding, minimize public risk/liability and significantly improve the natural terrestrial/aquatic environment. This solution also has significantly lower capital, operating and future maintenance costs and as such is the most sustainable solution. Given the debt financing proposed, this solution will minimize impact on current and future taxpayers within the City. I certainly don’t consider the dam/pond to be an entrance feature to the City or heritage assests worthy of restoration that benefit the entire community.

Brad Hamilton 226 Glenvalley Drive Cambridge, ON N1T 1R3 519-622-0088 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

127

December 2, 2017 e-mail from Christine Rier with questions arising from the PIC.

Thank you James, and for your work at the recent PIC. I noticed the edits to the presentation and appreciate that you're working to include more information on the City web site.

Stakeholder group - please send me the minutes or post them on the web site - thank you.

MHAC role - yes, Laura did reply, but omitted any information regarding MHAC's input at the Stakeholder group and did not provide any minutes. I will follow up further with her too.

Mitigation - I'm concerned that the presentation presents very specific mitigation measures when I'm not aware of any facilities or resources currently available to support such measures. I'm not aware of any previous inclusion of architectural artifacts in City projects. Let me know if this has changed, because that would be exciting news.

Ownership and Maintenance - if earlier ownership was attributed to P&H Milling, why did the City assume ownership status in this project? And why does P&H Milling continue to have stakeholder status i.e. a say, and yet no apparent responsibility? I appreciate that the City is monitoring the ongoing deterioration of the dam. What program of maintenance is currently being done to prevent further deterioration?

Mill Race - I still don't understand how the Mill Race was removed without MHAC consultation when the Dam is listed and the Mill is designated. And given the GRCA's responsibility for the Grand Strategy, wouldn't some consideration of the Mill Race's cultural heritage value have been appropriate?

Repair and Tourism - I listened carefully at the PIC to the explanations offered re: removal of Repair and Tourism. Repair is based on costs, which include long-term maintenance cost projections for which no relevant data was presented. Tourism was removed because there wasn't enough clarity/consensus? And yet, it provided enough clarity to change the outcome of the exercise, ranking 'rebuild' first. This simply doesn't make sense. Surely, given the City's concern for economic development, of which Tourism plays a role, and given the City's work on a future plan for Riverside Park, Tourism must be factored in.

Culture and Heritage - Thank you for arranging the presence of a heritage consultant, although the project heritage consultant was not available. Similarly, there was only a brief reference to the Cultural Heritage Plan for the Park - how does naturalization impact this or is it on hold? And there was no reference in your reply or in the presentation of how this project integrates with proposed LRT and nearby development - please elaborate.

128

Naturalization - the presentation presented Naturalization outcomes as definitive and yet I understand that no detailed studies will be undertaken e.g. sediment, until a preferred option has been confirmed, meaning we simply don't have the data to say with absolute certainty what naturalization will look like. And as naturalization projects in Galt and Hespeler have shown, what is presented can be very different from actual outcomes. What would the City do differently on this project to avoid the unfortunate outcomes of the previous naturalization projects?

Finally, I appreciated you being open to residents submitting comments after December 11. As you are probably aware, Preston residents are being asked to participate in multiple meetings for LRT, the Dam and the East Side Lands. This is an extraordinary level of commitment within a very short timeframe and at a very busy time of year. I've attended meetings for all three issues and it has been heartbreaking to see how upset and stressed residents are at both the nature of the process and what's being recommended in each case.

I remain hopeful that the City will take the opportunity on all three issues to not only inform/update residents, but to work with them to create preferred options and zoning plans that address the City's and Region's strategic development and transportation goals AND respect the heritage, environment, neighbourhood, and homes of Cambridge families. Other communities successfully do this. Why can't we?

Thank you,

Christine

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

129

January 1, 2018 e-mail from Christine Rier with feedback and input on the material presented at PIC#4.

Happy New Year, James,

Thank you for your email of Dec. 21 in response to mine of Dec. 2. I was awaiting your reply before providing my feedback to the most recent PIC, included herein, and received your reply just before the Holidays.

I think it is worth noting that the PIC regarding the Dam is one of FOUR public meetings hosted in the final weeks of 2017 regarding development issues effecting Preston – LRT, East Side Lands 1, East Side Lands 2, and the Dam. Each has had deadlines for public comment. I suggest that such a schedule, particularly at this time of year, is arduous for the general public and therefore not in the best interest of the most fruitful public engagement. I hope that in the future the City and Region will give consideration to more coordination to ensure more reasonable public engagement timelines.

Feedback to your notes and attachments:

I note the establishment of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee by invitation only and the related confidentiality agreement.

The minutes (June 2016) show that the Planner – Heritage indicated an “HIA will be required if the proposed work is to impact the Preston Dam”. Has or will an HIA be done?

In the absence of such an HIA, the role of MHAC, as now clarified, has been to participate on the SAC, but only providing comments, with any 'opinions' given being regarded as 'personal'. I'm not sure how you separate 'comments' from 'opinions', particularly when The purpose of the MHAC is to advise Council on the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the community and to guide the City of Cambridge in the conservation of its cultural heritage through planning, education, and stewardship.

It's important to have MHAC involved throughout and in future, clarity at the outset will provide more support for their role. Similarly, MHAC might benefit from more detailed updates on the activities and opinions of members participating on consultative bodies such as SAC. When I attended the November MHAC meeting, only brief mention of a SAC meeting was made with no update given regarding the opinions or comments made at that meeting by MHAC members.

I have shared with the Planner-Heritage the suggestion of a Architectural Salvage Program, such as they have in Aurora, that will provide the City, property owners, and consultants with more clear and viable mitigation options, thus avoiding the unfortunate

130 experience with Cherry House, where no architectural elements were salvaged by or donated to the City for adaptive reuse in future public projects.

It's unfortunate that attention was not paid to ownership sooner. I hope that in future the City is more proactive in tracking ownership of listed heritage structures and, as much as possible, enforcing property standards to avoid any risk of demolition by dereliction.

I appreciate the City's willingness to take ownership of the project, its willingness to work on 'the transfer of the ownership of the dam', and its continued inspections. I hope this also includes any ongoing necessary maintenance to avoid the 'imminent failure after 2013' predicted by the initial engineering report.

While the City was not an approving agency for the mill race, it did reverse its stated intention to designate Cherry House and approved the demolition of the house. P & H Milling supported demolition of Cherry House as part of its plans to fill in the mill race and enlarge its parking area.

I also believe that the mill race, like Cherry House (and the mill, Riverside Park, and the waterway), is part of a Cultural Heritage Landscape in this area, and would like the City to consider this as part of its plan for Riverside park.

The explanation regarding the removal of tourism as a criteria remains problematic for me because a) this is not detailed in the minutes, b) it was removed only after the results were produced, and c) does not follow logic e.g. one can argue that there are many elements at the park that people do not come to see specifically and yet which contribute to the tourism value of the park. In this instance, tourists come to use the mill pond, which would not be there without the dam. I believe that Tourism is an important criteria and would like to see it included.

I agree there is a lot of detailed work to be completed. What we do know at this point is the previous two naturalization projects undertaken in Cambridge have not had the desired outcomes for residents and do not look as they were intended. We also know (as acknowledged at the meeting in June, 2016) that the public does not support naturalization. Meanwhile, by virtue of the existing dam, we do have a much better knowledge of the outcomes of the continued presence of a dam, repaired or rebuilt.

George Elliot noted in the initial SAC (2012), 'LRT has potentially identified use of rail in this area.' I agree this is noteworthy; it is important that the public be aware of how your project relates to any surrounding development plans, be those of P&H Milling, the LRT, Preston Springs, etc. People should know what the larger vision is for their community so they can better appreciate the context of the consultation and the issue before them.

131

Input:

If we have missed the opportunity to preserve/repair the dam, then it is still worth rebuilding for its significant cultural heritage value to the park and community. To quote Valerie Spring's opinion recorded in 2012 regarding this project, “The City cannot keep on losing heritage systems of value”.

Until we have compelling evidence regarding outcomes and appearance, I do not support naturalization.

Thank you for your ongoing work in this matter. I appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to the project final report.

Regards,

Christine

132 ITEM #7

To: GENERAL COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 3/6/2018

Subject: Potential Sale of Community Report No: 18-032(CD) CarShare to a For-Profit Corporation

From: Lisa Chominiec, Transportation File No: Demand Management

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT report 18-032(CD) regarding the Potential Sale of Community CarShare to a For-Profit Corporation be receieved;

AND THAT Council authorize staff to negotiate with VRTUCAR to continue a carsharing service in the City of Cambridge in order to encourage a carsharing culture in the City of Cambridge; AND FURTHER THAT the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the negotiated agreements, subject to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, the Manager of Transportation, and subject to available funding from the Transit Supportive Strategy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose  To inform Council of the potential sale of Community CarShare, to a for-profit corporation, CommunAuto/VRTUCAR.  To gain Council approval to negotiate agreements with the new carshare operator, VRTUCAR, to keep a carsharing service in the City of Cambridge. Key Findings  Community CarShare, a not-for-profit cooperative, is selling their assets and debts to CommunAuto/VRTUCAR, a for-profit enterprise.  Community CarShare has operated in the City of Cambridge for nearly two years, and in the Region of Waterloo for a decade. There are two carshare

133 vehicles stationed in Cambridge, with 48 public memberships and 18 corporate City Staff memberships.  The City currently provides Community CarShare with 6 in-kind parking spaces across 6 City owned lots, and has two vehicles stationed at City Hall. Financial Implications

 N/A

BACKGROUND

Community CarShare is a non-profit co-operative which provides its members access to vehicles on a self-serve, pay-per-use basis. Their mission is to deliver a carsharing service which empowers people to make affordable and sustainable transportation choices, which supports the City’s Strategic Plan – Goal 7: Create and maintain a highly effective, sustainable and coordinated local infrastructure and transportation network. Community CarShare has provided a sustainable transportation alternative to personal vehicle ownership for nearly two years in the City of Cambridge, and a decade in the Region of Waterloo. To assist with start up and fleet expansion, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, through the Cambridge Transit Supportive Strategy, approved $20,000 per year, for two years, to cover the costs of stationing two CarShare vehicles in downtown Cambridge. After two years (April 30, 2018), this obligation ends and the vehicles will remain stationed only as long as demand for the service remains.

Community CarShare currently has existing partnerships with the following agencies:

 City of Cambridge  Region of Waterloo;  Neighbouring municipalities including Kitchener, Waterloo, Guelph and Hamilton;  TravelWise, the Region’s Transportation Management Association;  Several large employers within the Region

Financial Viability of Community CarShare and Possible Sale to VRTUCAR

In Fall 2017, Community CarShare announced that they can no longer operate in their current business model. On November 22, 2017, members of Community CarShare voted to dissolve the cooperative. This decision was reached after receiving a letter of intent from VRTUCAR (a subsidiary of Communauto Inc. of Montreal) to purchase Community CarShare. The sale, should it come to fruition, would be an asset sale in which VRTUCAR would acquire substantially all of Community CarShare assets and debts. The closing date for the sale of Community Carshare is March 9, 2018.

134

Communauto was originally founded in 1994 in Montreal and merged with VRTUCAR in 2016. They currently operate in Montreal, Quebec City, Sherbrooke, Gatineau, Ottawa, Kingston, Halifax, and Paris, France. On December 4, 2017, VRTUCAR issued a letter (Appendix A) to City staff requesting that the City honour the current Parking Location Agreement. Community CarShare has also requested the City to prepare a letter confirming a positive working relationship, and that the City is interested in working with VRTUCAR moving forward.

Existing Parking Location Agreement with Community CarShare

Community CarShare entered into an open-ended Parking Location Agreement with the City of Cambridge dated 01 May, 2016, for the provision of six parking spaces at no cost to Community CarShare, in consideration of their support of sustainable transportation options.

The City currently provides spaces to Community CarShare at the following sites:

 Civic Square Lot, 50 Dickson St.  Beverly St. Lot, 15 Beverly St.  Queen St. Lot, 13 Queen St. W  Preston Heights Lot #4, 485 Parkview Cres.  Hespeler Memorial Arena, 640 Ellis Rd.  Preston Memorial Arena, 1458 Hamilton St.

It should be noted that there are only two carshare vehicles in the City of Cambridge, which are located at Civic Square Lot and Beverly St. Lot. These lots are also the only lots out of the six listed above that have a parking space value. The other remaining spaces have reserved CarShare signage, but no vehicles parked. The additional parking spaces are reserved in hopes that members of the public would be encouraged to investigate and become members, therefore growing the co-op. This classic model has worked successfully for Community CarShare throughout its existence.

Should Community CarShare be sold to VRTUCAR, a for profit organization, the City would no longer be able to provide VRTUCAR no charge parking spaces due to the bonusing provisions of the Municipal Act. Section 106 of the Municipal Act provides that a municipality cannot provide a bonus to a commercial enterprise by making municipal property available to the enterprise at below market value. Accordingly, arrangements may be negotiated with VRTUCAR whereby VRTUCAR pays the City a market value rental rate for these spaces or provides an alternative arrangement which recognizes that it cannot take advantage of municipal assets. VRTUCAR confirmed that they would only be seeking the two parking spaces that currently have vehicles.

135

ANALYSIS

Strategic Alignment: PEOPLE To actively engage, inform and create opportunities for people to participate in community building – making Cambridge a better place to live, work, play and learn for all.

Goal #7 - Transportation and Infrastructure

Objective 7.1 Find new ways to help people move within and beyond the city without using a car (walking, cycling and transit).

Car sharing services empower people to make affordable and sustainable transportation choices. Having access to a carsharing service provides people with an alternative to vehicle ownership and adds to the transportation options available in the City of Cambridge. Comments In order to maintain the availability of an established, publically accessible, car sharing service in the City of Cambridge, staff recommends negotiating further agreements with VRTUCAR to encourage a carsharing culture in the municipality. Staff recommends this approach as it furthers the interests of the City to provide transportation choices, and offers an alternative to car ownership. These negotiations would commence with VRTUCAR once the sale is completed on March 9, 2018.

There are currently 48 CarShare members in the City of Cambridge (not including City staff). In 2017, these members took 233 trips, totaling 19,761km. The provision of car share vehicles at City Hall has supported City employees as well that currently access vehicles for work-related travel. The City’s corporate membership currently has 18 employees registered. In 2017, a total of 1125 trips were taken, totaling 2,557km driven in a CarShare vehicle by City staff. This has provided a great benefit to employees who use alternative modes of travel such as walking, cycling, carpooling or transit, and has also provided cost savings in some cases. Existing Policy/By-Law: Partnering with a car share operator supports a number of City Strategic Directions and Policy Documents such as the City’s Strategic Plan, Cambridge Connected – Our Voice, Our Vision and supports city-wide Transportation Demand Management. Financial Impact: Any funds needed for the agreements negotiated as a result of this Report would be requested through the Transit Supportive Strategy, pending Regional Council approval.

136

Corporate membership is paid through an existing Community Development, Engineering & Transportation Services Division budget, and Staff mileage is paid for by each department. Public Input: Community CarShare held several public meetings to inform their members of the status of the co-op. On November 22, 2017, Community CarShare members voted to dissolve the cooperative as a solution to concerns over the non-profit’s financial difficulties. This decision was reached after receiving a letter of intent from VRTUCAR (a subsidiary of Communauto Inc. of Montreal) to purchase Community CarShare. It was decided by members that they do not want to lose a car sharing service in the Region. Internal/External Consultation: Legal Services were consulted in the development of this report. Staff also consulted with staff from the area municipalities, and has reached a consensus to minimize any loss of car sharing service to the community. City staff along with staff from Kitchener, Waterloo and the Region of Waterloo met with a representative of CarShare in early December. At this meeting, each of the municipalities and the Region were asked to provide a letter to the CarSare stating they would be agreeable to working out an agreement with VRTUCAR going forward and to provide parking.

Staff from the City of Waterloo presented a Staff Report to their Finance and Strategic Planning Committee on January 22, 2018. Council approved the recommendation for staff to move forward with negotiations with VRTUCAR on a new agreement, to honour the existing term for the line of credit, and to provide parking spaces at fair market value. Staff from the Region of Waterloo presented a Staff Report to their Planning and Works Committee on January 30, 2018. Regional Council approved the recommendation for the assignment and amendment of the Region’s existing Parking Licence Agreement and assignment of the Line of Credit to be negotiated and completed to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor. The City of Kitchener will be presenting a report to their Standing Committee tentatively scheduled on March 5, 2018.

CONCLUSION

In order to maintain the availability of an established, publically accessible, car sharing service in the City of Cambridge, staff recommend negotiating contracts with VRTUCAR. Staff recommends this approach as it furthers the interests of the City to provide transportation choices, and offers an alternative to car ownership.

137

SIGNATURE

Prepared by:

Name: Lisa Chominiec Title: Transportation Demand Management Coordinator

Departmental Approval:

Name: Title:

Acting City Manager Approval:

Name: Hardy Bromberg Title: Acting City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A: Letter from VRTUCAR, December 04, 2017

138

Appendix A: Letter from VRTUCAR, December 04, 2017

139 140 ITEM #8

To: GENERAL COMMITTEE Meeting Date: 03/06/18

Subject: Build a Better Neighbourhood Report No: 18-019(CD) Program

From: Lisa Chominiec, Transportation File No: N/A Demand Management Coordinator

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT Report 18-019(CD) regarding the Build a Better Neighbourhood Program be received; AND THAT Council approve the implementation of the Build a Better Neighbourhood Program as outlined in Report 18-019(CD);

AND FURTHER THAT Council approve the implementation of a Neighbourhood Matching Grant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose The objective of this report is to gain council approval for the creation of a resident-led traffic calming program, entitled Build a Better Neighbourhood Program. The main objectives of the program are: 1. to slow traffic by bringing attention to the pedestrian environment; 2. to foster community and identity within neighbourhoods; and 3. to enhance the overall look and feel of neighbourhood streets. This program would benefit streets where 1) the minimum measurable criteria is not met for any traffic calming, or where speeding is a perceived issue; and 2) streets where traffic calming is warranted, but given the lengthy process of implementation would still allow residents to create interim solutions.

141

There is no initial cost to implement the program, and no operating costs other than staff time needed to run the program. Residents are to pay for their own projects by raising money, donations, or in-kind contributions and are responsible for the maintenance. To help with projects, staff are also requesting council approve the creation of a Neighbourhood Matching Grant. These funds would come out of the existing operating budget within the Transportation Division, and amounts would vary based on the number of applications to a maximum of $5,000.

BACKGROUND

Formal Policies on Traffic Management in the City of Cambridge Residents living in the City of Cambridge are able to express their traffic concerns by contacting the Transportation Division. From these concerns, a Traffic Investigation (TI) is prompted to identify a resolution to the traffic issue. Since 2006, the City has received 174 complaints per year on average, with 11.5% of those complaints categorized under Speeding or Traffic Calming. Table 1 shows the TI’s from 2006-2017.

Table 1: Traffic Investigations (TI’s) from 2006-2017 # of TI’s related to % of TI’s related to Year # of TI’s Speed/Traffic Calming Speed/Traffic Calming 2017 197 23 11.7 % 2016 207 34 16.4 % 2015 224 31 13.8 % 2014 323 17 5.3 % 2013 142 15 10.6 % 2012 197 14 7.1 % 2011 117 14 12 % 2010 145 17 11.7 % 2009 157 20 12.7 % 2008 156 17 10.9 % 2007 125 19 15.2 % 2006 94 15 16 % TOTAL 2084 236 n/a AVG 173.7 20 11.5 % The City has a Traffic Calming Policy which has clearly defined criteria and uses a point rating system to determine the need or eligibility of a neighbourhood/street for traffic calming. It should be noted that the City’s Traffic Calming Policy is currently being reviewed under the Transportation Master Plan.

For speeding concerns, a 24-hr automatic traffic recorder (ATR) is placed in the area to measure the speed and vehicle classification of each passing vehicle, while also recording the volume of traffic. The 85th percentile speed represents the speed at which 85% of drivers are travelling at or below. Speeding is considered to be atypical when

142

the 85th percentile speed exceeds 10km/h over the posted speed limit. If speeding is confirmed, the street gets referred to the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP), for increased police enforcement.

Although the City’s formal policy provides a fair and consistent approach, it does not fully address the concerns highlighted by residents.

How a Resident-led Traffic Calming Program Can Complement the Formal Review Process

Providing a wide range of ways that people can become involved in city decision making is essential in addressing concerns raised by residents. A neighbourhood is best known by its residents, and if they feel there is a traffic safety concern, and the issue is in fact a perceived concern, residents will become frustrated with the City’s response. A perceived concern is when the speeding results are unfounded based on the industry standard of the 85th percentile threshold.

By developing a resident-led traffic calming program, residents are able to take action on:

1) streets where the minimum measurable criteria is not met for any traffic calming, or where speeding is a perceived issue; and 2) streets where traffic calming is warranted, but given the lengthy process of implementation, this program would allow residents to create interim solutions.

The Build a Better Neighbourhood Program would allow residents to lead projects that temporarily or permanently change the street to:

1) slow traffic by bringing attention to the pedestrian environment; 2) foster community and identity within neighbourhoods; and 3) enhance the overall look and feel of neighbourhood streets.

The implementation of traffic calming by residents can be applied inexpensively and flexibly. Residents work together from plan to implementation to come up with creative projects unique to their neighbourhood. Residents are encouraged come up with their own ideas, but examples of common projects are shown in Appendix A.

At the local level, the City of Kitchener has piloted pavement paintings in the past, resulting in the 85th percentile speeds being reduced by 5km/h. At the intersection of Lancaster Street and Chapel Street, a decorative crosswalk called “Walking on Sunshine” reduced speeds from 49km/h to 44km/h on Lancaster Street. Another intersection mural at Ahrens Street and Wilhelm Street saw traffic speeds reduced from 48km/h to 43km/h on Ahrens Street. It is worth noting that traffic calming was requested by residents on both of these streets, but neither met the minimum

143

qualifications for a formal review. This program allowed residents to come together and develop a creative solution to their concerns, regardless if their concerns were just a perceived problem or not.

The City of Cambridge has participated in some pavement painting projects in the past (on sidewalks), but no formal program or policy has been created. ANALYSIS Strategic Alignment: PEOPLE To actively engage, inform and create opportunities for people to participate in community building – making Cambridge a better place to live, work, play and learn for all.

Goal #2 - Governance and Leadership

Objective 2.1 Provide a wide range of ways that people can become involved in city decision making.

Goal # 1 – Community Wellbeing

Objective 1.4 Promote, facilitate and participate in the development of affordable, welcoming and vibrant neighbourhoods.

Allowing residents to put forth their solutions and creative ideas, encourages residents to be a part of the decision making process and make changes that are unique to their neighbourhoods. This demonstrates a strong governance structure and creates opportunities for residents to participate in fostering welcoming and vibrant neighbourhoods. Comments: A Holistic Approach to Traffic Calming and Community Wellbeing Bringing attention to a street through art, signs, or gardens makes drivers aware that they have entered a lived-in neighbourhood, where residents could be out chatting, playing or gardening at any time, causing drivers to be more cautious and observant. Other benefits to the program are:

 Bring awareness to traffic safety in a neighbourhood  Bring awareness to the pedestrian environment  Potential reductions in vehicle speeds  Enhancements to the overall look and feel of the streetscape  Add creativity to your neighbourhood  Bring residents together to work on something that benefits the community

144

Project designs will need to follow set guidelines that comply with safety, accessibility and any existing by-laws. Examples of such guidelines:

 Designs cannot use any words that relate to any type of traffic control such as “Slow”, “Yield” or “Stop”  Designs cannot be designed in ways that attract users onto the roadway  Designs cannot interfere with the visibility of an official traffic control device  Designs must not compromise right of way maintenance

The Build a Better Neighbourhood program would be operated and reviewed through the Transportation Division, with the central contact being the Transportation Demand Management Coordinator.

Neighbourhood consultation will be vital to the success of the Build a Better Neighbourhood program. Applicants will be required to inform 100% of all residents within the project limits (project limits will be identified by staff), and will require neighbourhood support.

Staff recommends that the City adopt the City of Kitchener’s Resident-led Traffic Calming program requirements:

 100% of all neighbours within the project limits must be notified (letter, brochure, flyer with relevant details)  60% of neighbours living within the project limits AND 75% of neighbours who live directly adjacent to the proposed installation locations must sign a Project Support Form in support of the project and design  The project limits will typically extend one block in all directions (to a maximum distance of 100m) from the proposed project.  Projects will not be able to proceed without meeting program requirements.

Staff intends to collect before and after traffic data to measure success. In addition, residents within the project limits will be surveyed to determine overall satisfaction of the program and where we can improve.

Painting Programs

Painting programs and other similar projects are prevalent across North America. Although the goals and impacts of the projects may vary from building community, beautifying a street, or slowing down traffic—the underlying objective is always the same: to bring awareness to the pedestrian environment. Any visual cues (painted pavement, benches, gardens etc.) on or along a street, let people passing through know that it is a lived-in neighbourhood where residents may be outside chatting, playing or gardening at any time—so drivers are more observant and cautious. Appendix A lists the success of some recent resident-led traffic calming initiatives reported in the media.

145 Working Together and Neighbourhood Matching Grants

Table 2 outlines the roles and responsibilities of City staff and residents. Neighbourhood matching grants are also prevalent in many cities to help residents implement projects that benefit the community. These grants often match the equivalent contribution the neighbourhood community group makes up through a combination of any of the following: volunteer time, donated services, donated materials and supplies, and other funds raised. Appendix A lists a number of local municipalities with neighbourhood matching grants. Staff recommend that funding amounts be evaluated every year. Staff recommended that the City of Cambridge fund up to $2,500 per project, with a minimum of two projects per year.

Table 2: Roles and Responsibilities of City Staff and Residents

City’s Role Resident’s Role Any traffic counts and surveys Traffic counts will be conducted by city staff. - City staff will arrange for any road Residents will provide the city with Road closures and signage. the details of their launch day closures/signage event. Public The city will clarify which neighbours Residents are responsible for Notification to need to be contacted. notifying neighbours and Residents gathering support. City staff will make the application Residents will need to follow the Administration available and help guide residents proper application process. through the program. The City will make residents aware Residents must determine how Costs of any grant funding opportunities. they will pay for the project. The city will notify the project lead if Residents are responsible for Maintenance any maintenance is required. any maintenance. The applicant must provide Insurance - general liability coverage. The city can provide contacts of Residents are to purchase Supplies approved equipment or supplies approved supplies and hire any approved contractors. Residents are responsible for Volunteers - recruiting volunteers to install their idea. *Note: Bolded roles identifies primary responsibility (City or Resident)

146

Existing Policy/By-Law: City of Cambridge Traffic Calming Policy. In 1999, Council adopted the City of Cambridge Traffic Calming Guidelines, and in 2005 a new Traffic Calming Point rating system was integrated into the policy. It should be noted that the Traffic Calming Policy is currently under review through the Transportation Master Plan. Financial Impact: There is no initial cost to implement the program, and no operating costs other than staff time needed to run the program. Residents are to pay for their own projects by raising money, donations, or in-kind contributions and are responsible for the maintenance as well. Each project will be evaluated on a case by case basis. The Neighbourhood Matching Grant would come out of an existing operating transportation budget, and amounts would vary based on the number of applications, and yearly budget allocations. Staff recommends that in the program’s first year of operation $5,000 be put towards this grant from the existing Transportation Division operating budget. Any fees associated are the full responsibility of the applicant. Costs associated with road closures and permits on the day of install will be funded by the City of Cambridge. Residents are encouraged to apply for funding through the City’s Neighbourhood Matching Grant. Public Input: The City of Cambridge public has not been consulted on the creation of this program. However, through the City of Kitchener’s Neighbourhood Strategy, a Resident-Led Traffic Calming Program was created. A comprehensive communtiy engagement process for the Neighbourhood Strategy was completed, involving 5,651 residents who contributed 3,942 hours of conversation. A common theme heard throughout the engagement process for the Neighbourhood Strategy was the desire to have more traffic calming tools that residents can lead, in order to bring more awareness to pedestrian safety, foster creativity and create a sense of place. Staff predict a similar desire from City of Cambridge residents. It is also the intent that Staff will survey residents within the project limits, and as a requirment, 100% notification must be provided to residents within the project limits. Internal/External Consultation: The City of Cambridge has communicated with the City of Kitchener on their Resident- led Traffic Calming Program, and has used their program as inspiration. In addition, Staff also consulted with the applicant of an intersection painting project at Wilson Ave Public School in Kitchener, for lessons learned and recommendations.

147

CONCLUSION

Staff recommend the Build a Better Neighbourhood Program be implemented to address traffic safety concerns residents may have on their local streets. This program presents a great opportunity to support residents in becoming involved in city decision making, and the opportunity for residents to come up with creative solutions to their neighbourhood traffic problems.

It should be noted that the City’s formal review process should not be replaced, but rather that the Build a Better Neighbourhood program be built in as another layer, for a more holistic approach to traffic calming. Through such a program, it is anticipated that the program’s objectives would be met: 1) slow traffic by bringing attention to the pedestrian environment; 2) foster community and identity within neighbourhoods; and 3) enhance the overall look and feel of neighbourhood streets.

The City of Cambridge has already received a request for an intersection painting project from Glenview Public School. If the Build a Better Neighbourhood program is approved, staff would direct Glenview Public School to apply through the program. This would be the first project to go through the program. Not proceeding with the Build a Better Neighbourhood program would likely not allow this project to continue. SIGNATURE

Prepared by:

Name: Lisa Chominiec Title: Transportation Demand Management Coordinator

Departmental Approval: Name: Title:

Acting City Manager Approval:

Name: Hardy Bromberg Title: Deputy City Manager – Community Development

148

APPENDIX A: Out of town Traffic Calming Examples

Unique Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Projects

PAINTED CROSSWALKS INTERSECTION MURALS

BOULEVARD GARDENS CREATIVE LAWN SIGNS

149

Success of Resident-led painting projects in the media. News Title City Link “Art as traffic calming: Town of Paradise, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland- Kids painting school Newfoundland labrador/paradise-painting-murals-school- zones in Paradise” traffic-1.3644946 “Frustrated communities Calgary, Alberta http://calgaryherald.com/news/local- try to slow down news/frustrated-communities-try-to-slow-down- speeding drivers speeding-drivers-themselves themselves” “Kitchener gives Kitchener, Ontario https://www.therecord.com/news- neighbourhoods more story/7341425-kitchener-gives- ways to slow traffic” neighbourhoods-more-ways-to-slow-traffic/ “Sunny Kitchener mural Kitchener, Ontario http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener- shines a light on fast waterloo/kitchener-lancaster-crosswalk- drivers at Lancaster and 1.3776302 Chapel streets” “Colourful crossings Kitchener, Ontario https://www.kitchenerpost.ca/news- created outside Wilson story/7661344-colourful-crossings-created- public school” outside-wilson-public-school/

Municipal Neighbourhood Matching Grants CITY NAME POLICY DESCRIPTION FUNDING AVAILABLE City of Neighbourhood Neighbourhood A one-time grant that provides Up to $15,000 per Kitchener Matching Grant Strategy support to people that want to project make a positive change in their neighbourhoods. City of Neighbourhood N/A Initiative with the City and United Up to $5000 per Waterloo Matching Grant Way Waterloo Region project Communities. City of SPARKS! Strengthening Supports residents to propose Up to $5000 per London Neighbourhood Neighbourhoods ideas for how to spend a portion project Matching Fund Strategy 2017- of the municipal budget in their 2020 neighbourhoods. City of Neighbourhood N/A Created to inspire residents to Up to $5000 per Burlington Community actively champion small projects project Matching Fund in their community to improve, build and strengthen Burlington and enhance the quality of life for everyone. City of Neighbourhood Neighbourhood This program provides one-time Up to $1,000 per Hamilton Engagement Action Strategy matching funds to support project Matching Grant neighbourhood and place-based Program grassroots initiatives across all (NEMGP). neighbourhoods in the City. City of Neighbourhood Toronto Strong Small grants of $1,000 to Up to $1000 per Toronto Micro Grant Neighbourhood resident-led groups to help project Community Strategy 2020 them inspire their Projects and neighbourhoods with events held Events Grant between August and December. Program

150