Economic Development Advisory Committee

This document can be made available in other accessible formats or with communication support as soon as practicable and upon request Economic Development Advisory Committee

Chair: Councillor Shirley Keaveney Committee: Paul Bishop Marilyn Morris Marissa Dolotallas Paul Osborn David Glass Dan White Liz Harris

Agenda Date: Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2016 Time: 6:30 PM . Location: Meaford Firehall (81 Stewart St)

1. Call to Order

2. Moment of Reflection

3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

4. Items for Consideration

4.1 Introductions and Welcome of New Members

4.2 Presentation from Cheryl Brine, Agriculture & Rural Economic Development Advisor (Ministry of Agriculture & Food, Ministry of Rural Affairs)

4.3 Economic Community Improvement Plan (Rob Armstrong, Director of Development & Environmental Services) CIP Presentation for Council August 8

4.4 Terms of Reference and Vacancies 52-2016 Economic Development Advisory Committee - Terms of Reference

Page 1 of 183

5. Round Table Discussion

6. Approval of Minutes

6.1 Approval of Minutes from May 3, 2016

Recommendation: That the Minutes of the May 3, 2016 meeting of the Economic Development Advisory Committee be approved as presented. 03 - May 3, 2016

7. Sub-Group Updates  Beautification/Streetscaping  Branding  Building  Signage

8. Staff Updates

8.1 Economic Development Officer Update

8.2 Economic Development Service Delivery Review SDR-16 Economic Development

8.3 Building Report Building Report - August 2016 Building Report - July 2016

8.4 Real Estate Activity Memo - Real Estate Market Summary - August 2016 Memo - Real Estate Market Summary - July 2016

9. Next Meeting Date November 16, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. (Fire Hall)

10. Adjournment

Economic Development Advisory Committee - September 21, 2016 Page 2 of 183 Community Improvement Plans Julia Sjaarda, Summer Planning Student August 8, 2016 Page 3 of 183

Municipality of Meaford 1 August 8, 2016 What is a Community Improvement Plan (CIP)? Tool under Section 28 of the Planning Act that allows a municipality to direct funds and implement policy initiatives towards a defined project area ◦ Grants and loans to pay for all or part of eligible costs ◦ Eligible costs include those “related to environmental site assessment, environmental remediation, development, redevelopment, construction and reconstruction of lands and buildings for rehabilitation purposes or for the provision of energy efficient uses, buildings, structures, works, improvements or facilities” (Section 28(7.1)). Municipality of Meaford Downtown Community Improvement Plan ◦ Project area: primarily Downtown Core Commercial, Downtown Core Transitional Areas, Urban Living Area, and Harbour Open Space Area

Page 4 of 183 ◦ Purpose: promote investment in the historical and commercial areas of the Municipality

Municipality of Meaford 2 August 8, 2016 Downtown CIP Action Plan Page 5 of 183

Municipality of Meaford 3 August 8, 2016 Downtown CIP Project Area Page 6 of 183

Municipality of Meaford 4 August 8, 2016 2016 Project Funds for Summer Planning Student in 2016 budget to compile Economic CIP background and draft document/programs Discussion focused around areas outside of Downtown CIPA to include both urban and rural highway commercial areas, rural settlements, and rural/agricultural lands and uses Draft programs developed in light of Council’s Strategic Priorities with a focus on: ◦ Promoting investment and business including agricultural/on-farm diversification ◦ Protecting historic assets and encouraging their restoration ◦ Enhancing energy conservation and renewable sources Identified energy conservation program would benefit all new and existing CIP areas, plan can

Page 7 of 183 be structured accordingly

Municipality of Meaford 5 August 8, 2015 Economic CIP Policy review and best practices review completed in June Survey conducted early July Financial Incentive Programs 1. Buildings and Lands Improvement Grant/Loan 2. Energy Efficiency Improvement Grant/Loan 3. Study and Business Plan Grant 4. Development Charges and Municipal Fees Grant 5. Tax Increment Equivalent Grant Page 8 of 183

Municipality of Meaford 6 August 8, 2016 Buildings and Lands Improvement Grant/Loan Purpose – encourage rehabilitation, repair and/or improvement of buildings and lands for commercial, industrial, agricultural, or value-added agricultural uses. Non-residential buildings with significant heritage value will also be eligible. Area of Application – entire Municipality, excluding Downtown CIPA Eligibility – priority for structures identified as agricultural or value-added agricultural uses. Residential buildings and lands do not qualify for this program, except where a historical non- residential structure has been converted to for residential use. Funding depends on scope of proposed project: Grant – 50% of eligible project costs, to a maximum of $7,500 per project/property

Page 9 of 183 Loan - $10,000 - $50,000, 0% interest, amortized 10 years

7 Municipality of Meaford August 8, 2016 Energy Efficiency Improvement Grant/Loan Purpose – encourage property owners to improve energy efficiency of existing commercial, mixed-use, agricultural and industrial buildings, and to facilitate the installation of renewable energy systems Area of Application – entire Municipality, including Downtown CIPA Eligibility – only commercial buildings, mixed-use buildings, agricultural buildings, and industrial buildings shall be eligible for this grant. Residential buildings are not eligible for this grant. Grant – 50% of eligible project costs, to a maximum of $7,500 per project/property Loan - $10,000 - $50,000, 0% interest, amortized 10 years Page 10 of 183

8 Municipality of Meaford August 8, 2016 Study and Business Plan Grant Purpose –assist property owners with financing the cost of undertaking studies, such as studies that determine if agricultural/rural lands and structures can be converted or adapted to on-farm commercial, industrial, and value-added uses, and to prepare business plans for such new or expanding ventures. Area of Application – entire Municipality, excluding Downtown CIPA Eligibility – not eligible for residential properties Grant – 50% of eligible project costs, to a maximum of $7,500 per project/property, up to $15,000 for environmental studies Page 11 of 183

Municipality of Meaford 9 August 8, 2016 DCs and Municipal Fees Grant Purpose – assist property owners with financing the cost of development or redevelopment by providing a fee-equivalent grant to offset the amount of the applicable fees, including: -Development Charges -Building Permit Application Fee -Planning Application Fees -Parkland Dedication Fees Area of Application – entire Municipality, excluding Downtown CIPA Eligibility – not eligible for residential development Page 12 of 183 Grant – up to 100% reduction in both Development Charges and Municipal Fees

Municipality of Meaford 10 August 8, 2016 Tax Increment Equivalent Grant Purpose – provide economic incentive for rehabilitation and redevelopment of commercial/industrial, agricultural, and value-added agricultural properties Area of Application – entire Municipality, excluding Downtown CIPA Eligibility Registered property owners/assessed owners Improvements to building/property must be sufficient size and cost to result in a re-assessment of the property Not eligible for residential properties

Page 13 of 183 Grant – paid over a ten year period, with the first year representing 100%, then on a declining basis over the 10 year period

11 Municipality of Meaford August 8, 2016 Process / Next Steps Final draft background / CIP document to be completed August 2016 Public consultation and approval process per Planning Act – Fall 2016 Consideration through 2017 budget process with potential to launch incentive programs in Spring 2017 Page 14 of 183

Municipality of Meaford 12 August 8, 2016 Questions?

Contact Info Julia Sjaarda [email protected] 1-519-538-1060 x1138 Page 15 of 183

Municipality of Meaford 13 August 8, 2016 Page 16 of 183

The Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford By-law Number 52 – 2016

Being a by-law to establish through Terms of Reference the Economic Development Advisory Committee for the Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford

Whereas, Section 5(3) of The Municipal Act S.O. 2001, C.25 as amended provides that powers of every Council are to be exercised through by-law unless specifically authorized to do otherwise; and

Whereas, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford deems it expedient and necessary to establish the Economic Development Advisory Committee;

The Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford enacts as follows:

1. That the Economic Development Advisory Committee is hereby constituted.

2. That the Terms of Reference, attached as Schedule “A” and forming part of this by-law, are adopted.

3. That By-law 03-2015 is hereby repealed.

4. That this by-law shall come into force and take effect upon being passed by Council.

Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 8th day of August, 2016.

Barb Clumpus, Mayor

Robert Tremblay, Clerk

By-law 52-2016 Page 1 of 5

Page 17 of 183

Schedule “A” to By-law 52-2016

Terms of Reference

Economic Development Advisory Committee

1. Mandate

The Meaford Economic Development Advisory Committee will provide a collaborative forum for discussion of economic development ideas, opportunities, and matters of common interest in the Municipality of Meaford.

2. Focus

The Economic Development Advisory Committee will assist the Municipality of Meaford to identify, and recommend opportunities for effective local and regional economic development initiatives, foster a positive community wide investment image, promote the enhanced quality of life the Municipality of Meaford offers, and enhance the profile of Meaford as an attractive business environment for existing and prospective businesses.

The Advisory Committee will undertake its work in support of the overall goals and objectives of the Meaford Economic Development Strategy (MEDS).

The Advisory Committee will be advisory in nature and assist the Economic Development Officer (EDO).

3. Term

The Economic Development Advisory Committee will be appointed by Council of the Municipality of Meaford consistent with the Council approved Appointment Policy. The term of appointment will correspond to the term of Council and is four (4) years. Vacancies will be filled on an as-needed basis.

4. Composition

The Advisory Committee will be comprised of representatives of the business community, strategic partners, and municipal officials.

Up to 11 volunteer representatives, in addition to the Mayor as Ex Officio, shall be appointed as described below.

By-law 52-2016 Page 2 of 5

Page 18 of 183

Representatives from each of the following:

• Municipality of Meaford Council (1) • Business Improvement Area Board of Management (1) • Meaford Chamber of Commerce (1)

Up to six (6) volunteers representing business, including the following sectors:

• accommodation • agribusiness, including farming • commercial • development • festivals and special events • home based and online business • hospitality/food and beverage • industrial • manufacturing • real estate • retail • services • tourism

Up to two (2) volunteers representing strategic partners, including the following areas:

• associations • community groups and events • education/post-secondary/training • health sector • military and government • not for profits • resident/ratepayer • service clubs

Non-voting participants:

• Economic Development Officer • Chief Administrative Officer • Grey-Bruce regional tourism and economic development related organizations

By-law 52-2016 Page 3 of 5

Page 19 of 183

The advisory committee is committed to acting in an ethical manner with the avoidance of conflict of interest as a body and as individuals, while meeting legislative requirements. Appointed members are subject to the provisions of the Advisory Committee & Volunteer Code of Conduct and Appointment Policy, as amended from time to time.

5. Compensation

No compensation shall be made to members of the Economic Development Advisory Committee for their participation.

6. Attendance and Procedures

Members shall advise the Recording Secretary of any absences to ensure quorum can be achieved for each meeting.

A member of Council, as approved by Council, will serve as Chair. A quorum comprised of more than 50 per cent of appointed members will be required to hold a meeting. The Ex Officio Member only counts toward quorum when present.

In order to maintain a strong level of commitment, members who are absent for three consecutive meetings (without good cause) will be deemed to have resigned.

The advisory committee will work in a collaborative manner seeking consensus. Recommendations shall be formulated for the information of Council and municipal staff.

The advisory committee can create sub-working groups comprised of appointment members and others from the community and business sector.

7. Location of Work

All meetings of the advisory committee shall be open to the public and held in a municipal facility.

8. Meetings

Meeting agendas shall be posted to the municipal website one week in advance. Minutes shall be posted once approved at the next meeting.

Minutes will be included on the Council Agenda for information.

Up to six (6) formal meetings per year will be held with meetings generally held every other month.

By-law 52-2016 Page 4 of 5

Page 20 of 183

9. Staff Support

The Office of the CAO, including the Economic Development Officer will provide staff support to the advisory committee. The Legislative & Protective Services Department will provide a Recording Secretary.

By-law 52-2016 Page 5 of 5

Page 21 of 183 Page 22 of 183 This document can be made available in other accessible formats or with communication supports as soon as practicable and upon request.

Minutes

An Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting of the Municipality of Meaford was held at 6:30 PM at the Meaford Fire Hall on May 3, 2016.

Present: Councillor Shirley Keaveney (Chair) Ivan Alderdice Paul Bishop Marissa Dolotallas (arrived at 6:40 p.m.) David Glass Liz Harris (absent) David Long (absent) James D. McIntosh (absent) Dan White Mayor Barb Clumpus (ex officio) Staff: Stephen Murray, Economic Development Officer Denyse Morrissey, CAO Hailey Thomson, Executive Assistant/Communications Coordinator Robert Tremblay, Clerk/Director, Legislative & Protective Services

1. Call to Order Councillor Keaveney called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance for the presentation including members of the Branding Sub-Group and Councillor Calvert.

2. Moment of Reflection The advisory committee paused for a moment of reflection.

3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof None disclosed.

4. Approval of Minutes 4.1 Approval of Minutes from March 9, 2016

Page 23 of 183 Moved by: I. Alderdice Seconded by: D. White That the Minutes of the March 9, 2016 meeting of the Economic Development Advisory Committee be approved as presented. Carried

5. Presentation

5.1 Mary-Jo Osborn & John Belbeck, Branding Initiative presented the work of the group with discussion on next steps including a presentation to Council in June 2016. Members generally supported proceeding with the initiative.

6. Items for Consideration

6.1 Service Delivery Review

Mayor Clumpus and CAO Morrissey reviewed the process and upcoming public consultation meetings.

6.2 Advisory Committee & Volunteer Code of Conduct

Clerk Tremblay reviewed the code of conduct and feedback received through a focus group. Members are required to sign the acknowledgement.

6.3 Meaford Job Fair

Councillor Keaveney reported that it was held on April 21, 2016 with 18 employers present. More than 60 people attended with 13 signed on to the YMCA's employment services program. Plans are underway to host another event next year.

7. Sub-Group Updates

7.1 Branding Sub-Group

The meeting scheduled for May 4 is postponed.

7.2 Building Sub-Group

Discussion occurred on half load restrictions and the ability to apply for exemptions. With regard to the new rental residential development, 10 of 12 units are now leased.

8. Staff Updates

Economic Development Advisory Committee Minutes - May 3, 2016

Page 24 of 183

8.1 ReNew Meaford

Paul Bishop was elected President. The next meeting will occur at the end of May. The board will look at potential expansion. Two locations are currently empty with many others recently filled.

8.2 Grey County Economic Development

EDO Murray noted the following on-going activities: tourism and destination action plan, local food strategy, way finding signage, 5-year review of the County Official Plan, Ag. 4.0 initiative, and tourism conference.

9. Round Table Discussion • CAO Morrissey reported on upcoming events, including the Urban Slide, Canada Day, MIFF 10th anniversary, Meaford Hall & Cultural Foundation AGM, Meaford Hall 10th anniversary celebration in November, Apple Pie Trail, and Scarecrow Invasion Festival. • Mayor Clumpus noted the Governor General will be visiting on May 20, 2016. • EDO Murray suggested each member representing different sectors could provide an update at the next meeting. • Councillor Keaveney suggested adding two additional sub-groups to deal with signage and streetscaping/beautification. • EDO Murray also reported on the Big Red Chair Tour and community guides targeted to military families and health sector workers.

10. Next Meeting Date July 13, 2016

11. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.

Shirley Keaveney, Chair

Robert H. A. Tremblay, Recording Secretary

Economic Development Advisory Committee Minutes - May 3, 2016

Page 25 of 183 Page 26 of 183 Date Monday, September 12, 2016

From Denyse Morrissey, Chief Administrative Officer

Subject Service Delivery Review – Economic Development. Report No. SDR-16 Roll No. N/A

Recommendation

That Committee of the Whole recommend Council of the Municipality of Meaford:

1. Approve that the direct delivery of economic development services by the Municipality of Meaford be continued and this service area be renamed economic development and tourism; 2. Direct staff to explore shared service opportunities, including the Municipality of Meaford providing economic development and tourism services on a fee for service or contract services model to other municipalities in Grey County that do not currently have dedicated economic development and tourism staff; and 3. Refer up to $35,000 to the 2017 budget process for the recommended branding strategy as presented on June 20, 2016 by the sub working team of the Economic Development Advisory Committee.

Service Summary

Service Economic Development Department Chief Administrative Officer Summary Economic Development supports the development and implementation of programs to attract and sustain business and tourism in support Council’s Strategic Priorities 2014-2018 and the Meaford Economic Development Strategy. Our economic development activities are based on the approach that economic development creates the environment for businesses to succeed, expand, create jobs, and pay taxes. Economic development and tourism initiatives will also raise

Report SDR-16 Page 1 of 21

Page 27 of 183 the profile of the community (locally, regionally and provincially) as a great place to live, visit and do business.

Mandatory No Legislation Planning Act, Development Charges, By-laws NA Fees/Charges NA

2016 Budget Summary

2016 Gross Budget: $204,850

2016 Gross Revenues: $Nil

2016 Internal Transfers: $10,075.00

Net Budget: $214,925.00

% of 2016 Corporate Operating % of 2016 Office of The CAO Budget assigned to Office of The Budget assigned to Economic CAO Development

Office of The CAO Budget $669K Corporate Budget $11.89M Economic Development $215K (32.1%) Office of The CAO Budget $669K (5.6%)

Staffing

Positions Hours Worked per year Full Time Staffing 1 1820 Part Time/Seasonal/ 1 600 Student Full Time Equivalent 1.3

Contracted Services: None

Report SDR-16 Page 2 of 21

Page 28 of 183 Organizational Chart

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

ECONOMIC EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT/ OFFICER COMMUNICATIONS

SUMMER STUDENT (1)

OPP POLICING HUMAN RESOURCES CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES

DIRECTOR OF DIRECTOR OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, DIRECTOR OF FINANICAL SERVICES DEVELOPMENT & RECREATION & LEGISLATIVE & & INFRASTRUCTURE ENVRIONMENTAL CULTURE PROTECTIVE SERVICES MANAGEMENT SERVICES Service Background

The 2010 budget included the approval for the first economic development position for the Municipality of Meaford. The new member of staff was hired in November 2010. This new position was included within the Planning and Building Services department reporting to the department director.

Prior to the establishment of a new full time position in 2010, a contract fee was paid to the Meaford Chamber of Commerce for economic development services.

An organizational re-alignment was completed in 2013 and the position of economic development officer was moved to the office of the CAO, reporting to the CAO. Our current EDO joined the staff team in early May 2014. Key municipal departments that the EDO works with are planning and building services (within Development and Environmental Services) and Parks, Recreation & Culture. In 2014 the first economic development liaison group which was later renamed to the economic development committee was also established and members were appointed in August 2014. Members are appointed by Council for a 4 year term to this committee based on the recommendations of the Nominating Committee. The economic development advisory committee is chaired by a member of Council.

The following is a snap shot of other local municipalities with dedicated economic development (and tourism) staff:

Report SDR-16 Page 3 of 21

Page 29 of 183

Grey County Manager of Tourism (new and posting closed August 26, 2016)

Manager of Economic Development

Economic Development Officer

Tourism Specialist (2)

Town of Hanover Economic Development & Communications Coordinator City of Owen Sound Manager of Economic Development & Tourism

Township of Southgate Economic Development Officer Town of the Blue Mountains Communication & Economic Development Coordinator Municipality of Meaford Economic Development Officer Bruce County Economic Development Officer

Web Content Developer (tourism)

Business Investment Specialist (Partnership Bruce Power)

Manager of Corporate Policy

Information Officer

Project Coordinator Huron-Kinloss Business & Economic Officer Simcoe County Manager of Economic Development

Economic Development Officer (5)

Tourism Manager

Marketing & Communications Coordinator

Tourism Development Coordinator

Report SDR-16 Page 4 of 21

Page 30 of 183 Bradford West Gwillimbury Manager of Economic Development Collingwood Director of Marketing & Business Development Innisfil Economic & Community Development Officer Clearview Culture, Recreation and Tourism Coordinator Springwater Community Development Officer Ramara Community Development Coordinator Economic Development Corporation Shared Economic Development of North Simcoe Officer (Midland, Penetanguishene, Tiny, Tay)

In Ontario, some communities utilize not for profit Economic Development Corporations with staff sizes ranging from 9 - 19. Some of these staff are dedicated to tourism. These communities include:

• Kingston Economic Development Corporation • London Economic Development Corporation • WindsorEssex Economic Development Corporation • Sault Ste. Marie Economic Development Corporation • Burlington Economic Development Corporation • Peterborough Economic Development Corporation

Based on the approach that economic development is an essential strategy for the Municipality of Meaford to enhance tax revenue through business and industry development, our general economic development activities include:

• Site selection and location assistance • Business retention and expansion • RENEW Meaford program • Community profile: sector specific information and statics. • Downtown revitalization and beautification (through Parks, Recreation & Culture) • Residential, commercial, service and agricultural development and growth • Tourism promotion, development and expansion • Promotions, development and alliances for destination special events and festivals • Grants and community improvement incentive funding (ie CIPs). • Free business registry coordination

Report SDR-16 Page 5 of 21

Page 31 of 183 • Waterfront development strategy implementation, including brownfield funding through FCM. • Accommodations expansion and development: boutique hotel or mid- sized hotel, and range of other visitor accommodations.

Tourism is a significant economic generator in small and rural communities across Ontario. For the Municipality of Meaford, tourism is considered to be a central component of our economic development strategies.

However, the role of tourism may not be recognized as a large part of economic development activities if economic development is too narrowly defined or believed to be limited to investment attraction, land development and ‘getting industry here’.

Given the important focus of tourism as one of our priority objectives and to address any understanding gaps that may exist it is recommended the service area within our corporate structure be revised to Economic Development and Tourism. This change will better reflect the tourism action items included in Council’s Strategic Priorities within Growing Our Economy. Council’s Strategic Priorities is available as Appendix 1.

Partnerships and alliances are also critical to all we do in economic development and tourism. Some of our key partners include (and are not limited to):

• Economic Development Advisory Committee • Georgian Triangle Tourist Association • Meaford Chamber of Commerce • Meaford Business Improvement Area • Local real estate firms and agents • Developers and home/commercial builders • Meaford Hall Cultural Foundation • Georgian College Owen Sound Campus • Henry Bernick Entrepreneurship Centre • Four County Labour Market Planning Board • Regional Economic Development Officers • Beautiful Joe Heritage Society • Grey County • Simcoe County • Blue Mountain Village & Apple Pie Trail • YMCAs • Scarecrow Invasion and Family Festival • Georgian Bay Secondary School • Regional Tourism Organization 7 • Business Enterprise Centre- Owen Sound & Collingwood

Report SDR-16 Page 6 of 21

Page 32 of 183 • Community Futures Organizations • Local Services Clubs • Land Forces Central Area Training Centre • Healthcare Sector • Education Sector • Other Municipal Departments – Planning & Building Services; Parks, Recreation & Culture • Meaford Public Library

The Municipality of Meaford is also a member of the following organizations: • Festivals and Events Ontario (FEO) • Economic Developers Council of Ontario (EDCO) • Meaford Chamber of Commerce • Apple Pie Trail • Georgian Triangle Tourism Association • Owen Sound Chamber of Commerce

The following is a breakdown of the major functions completed by the Economic Development Officer (EDO) on an annual basis:

Business Retention and Expansion Activities Responds to information request from investors, developers, Total FTE entrepreneurs, realtors and the business community. Implemented Calculation and maintains Invest website, Renew Meaford, Community Profile, and lure brochures. Plans, co-ordinates and delivers economic development related events including seminars, economic forums, and conferences. Provides local tours to developers and pursues business leads, conducts company prospect research, organizes business tours and promotes the Municipality of Meaford as a community that is open for business.

Estimated Annual Hours - 700 0.38 Tourism Initiatives Supports and creates new or complimentary tourism partnerships Total FTE and projects. Calculation

Estimated Annual Hours - 400 0.22

Report SDR-16 Page 7 of 21

Page 33 of 183 Advertising and Marketing Prepares and delivers both economic development themed Total FTE advertisements and tourism themed advertisement in print, radio and Calculation online.

Estimated Annual Hours - 385 0.21

Networking and Partnership Development Establish and maintains external internal and external partnerships Total FTE with the other municipal departments, real estate community, Calculation business leaders, investors, representatives of senior levels of government, institutions, community groups, local bodies, municipal committee, not for profit organizations, economic development professionals and area tourism organizations.

Estimated Annual Hours - 300 0.17

Grant Proposals and Research Researches and prepares applications for grants, partnership Total FTE funding and in kind support for municipal initiatives. Calculation

Estimated Annual Hours - 35 0.02

What has our EDO Been Doing?

1. Business Retention and Expansion “Open for Business”

 First point of contact responding locally to business retention, expansion and relocation efforts.  Maintained and Created 3 new Municipality of Meaford Community Profiles - Municipal-wide, Healthcare professionals, and military families. Each has averaged one download a day. Please see Appendix 2,3 & 4

Report SDR-16 Page 8 of 21

Page 34 of 183

 Implemented Renew Meaford Program in 2016  New Business Certificate “Welcomes”  Coordinate Business tours – examples include AM Wood Skateboard Company, 365 Sports and Third Line Homes.  Shop Local campaign and Let’s Eat brochure (see Appendix 5)

 Assisted in the Meaford Job Fair and Youth Entrepreneurship week  Keynote Speaker at the Meaford Chamber of Commerce 2016 Annual General Meeting  Maintains the Municipal Business Directory which has nearly 500 active businesses listed  Presented overview of Meaford Economic Development initiatives to the Realtors Association of Grey Bruce Owen Sound and the Municipality of Meaford/Town of Blue Mountains Business Expo event.  Tracks local real estate data  Created and maintains Economic Development Invest section of the municipal website. Assists in Tourism section of the website.  Partnered with Grey County to bring Ag. 4.0 The Next Big Thing, a 2 day technology in agriculture themed conference to Meaford Hall in November 2016.

Report SDR-16 Page 9 of 21

Page 35 of 183 2. Tourism

Promotions and marketing through video includes:

Videos made by staff:

• Meaford in Bloom video (New): https://youtu.be/2TjyhF7s-QA • Meaford Hall 10th Anniversary video (New): https://youtu.be/MFXZe6BSDBk • Places of Meaford video: 100 Youtube views, 10,000+ Facebook views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyzuxy1L1LE • Big Red Chair video: 100 Youtube views, 1,400+ Facebook views https://www.facebook.com/stephen.murray.3551380/videos/1015725 9191595294/ • Scarecrow Invasion video: 1,200+ Facebook views https://www.facebook.com/stephen.murray.3551380/videos/1015474 5181085294/ • Tricks for Joe Campaign video: 100+ Facebook views https://www.facebook.com/stephen.murray.3551380/videos/1015695 7163640294/

Other Videos:

• 30th Anniversary Celebration of One Magic Christmas: 4,200 Youtube views and 22,000 Facebook views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52xHanr4hj8 • A Night out in Meaford video RTO7: 10,000+ Facebook views https://vimeo.com/122487598 • Municipality of Meaford Cycling video RTO7: new https://youtu.be/J959i7O8Qqo • The Urban Slide in Meaford video – 365 Sports: 100,000+ Facebook Views https://www.facebook.com/TheUrbanSlideCanada/videos

Other Activities

• EDO is Board member of the Georgian Triangle Tourist Association • EDAC Branding initiative working with the sub-working team of the economic development advisory committee. • Created the Tourism initiative “Big Red Chair Tour” which now includes 10 chairs across the Municipality. • Partnership with the Beautiful Joe Heritage society created the Tricks for Joe social media campaign and Friends of Joe poster campaign (featuring 20 local pawed wonders). Continue to promote Meaford as dog friendly community to live in and visit; and expand corporate partnerships.

Report SDR-16 Page 10 of 21

Page 36 of 183

• Celebrated the 30th anniversary of Disney’s One Magic Christmas with the creation of a 15 minute documentary and celebration event at Meaford Hall featuring some of those involved in the filming of the project, capturing local history. • Continue advertising and marketing efforts in print, radio and online. • Attracted the Bruce Grey Simcoe Tourism Conference and the Agriculture and Culinary Association Field to Fork event to Meaford Hall. • Replaced outdated tourism information panels in downtown Meaford • Preparing Gateway signage recommendations working with the sub- working team of the economic development advisory committee. • In partnership with Georgian College Barrie Campus, currently conducting an Economic Impact Study on the 2016 Meaford International Film Festival through surveys collected at Meaford Hall throughout the event. The Intern with Georgian College will be presenting the findings to Council in November or December 2017. See Appendix 6 for a copy of the survey.

Strong Activity in Meaford: Real Estate Sales and Building Activity

Council is provided with regular updates on our building statistics as well as regional real estate sales. Based on the comparative data that the real estate sector shares with us, the average home sale price in Meaford remains very affordable in comparison with other prices regionally. Outlined below are the average home prices as of August 2016 provided by Southern Georgian Bay Association of REALTORS® - WESTERN REGION.

• Clearview $464,436 • Collingwood $417,399 • Essa $400,838 • Grey Highlands $447,524 • Municipality of Meaford $329,978 • Mulmur $699,167

Report SDR-16 Page 11 of 21

Page 37 of 183 • Springwater $342,560 • The Blue Mountains $610,440 • Wasaga Beach $330,724

On July 18th, 2016 Council received the building statistics as of June 2016 which included that 175 building permits were issued with a building value exceeding $12.4 million. In comparison, as of June 2015 there were 126 permits with a value of just over $9 million.

Analysis

Options:

1. Discontinue the delivery of economic development services by the Municipality of Meaford. 2. The direct delivery of economic development services by the Municipality of Meaford be continued and this service area be renamed economic development and tourism 3. Issue an RFP to contract the economic development responsibilities to a third party or another organization (including not-for-profit, or private sector for profit).

Improving In-House Process and Performance

In 2017, using an internal in house approach, develop a tourism strategy for the Municipality of Meaford, working with partners and alliances, as part of “Growing our Economy”. In many municipalities a tourism strategy is developed working with a consulting firm hired via RFP which can range in cost from $10,000 to $60,000.

Continued and expanded in-house development of videos, and electronic resources that profile Meaford.

Adjusting Service Levels

There is a diversity of initiatives within the Economic Development budget for special projects, advertising and promotion, and partnership alliances that if reduced or eliminated would be approximately up to $25,000. One special project that has been very successful was the Big Red Chairs initiative, and video production funded through RT07 and the Economic Impact study of MIFF in 2016. No adjustments to services levels are recommended for 2017. This will be reevaluated in 2018.

Report SDR-16 Page 12 of 21

Page 38 of 183 Cost Avoidance: Operating Costs and Capital Investments

The capital costs included in the economic development budget annually are generally zero. However, a wide range of operating and capital costs (flowers and handing baskets, benches, signs, recycling/waste units, gardens associated with the beautification of downtown are included in the budget for Parks, Recreation and Culture. Allocating these capital and operating costs to the economic development budget through an internal expense transfer is under review.

Enhancing and Expanding Service Levels

On June 20th, 2016 the Branding Team of the Economic Development Advisory Committee presented their recommended branding strategy to Council. Their review also incorporated the input from the on line public survey that received 210 responses. The visualization below is a collective weighted reflection of what respondents indicated they “love about Meaford”.

Based on this input, the Branding Team recommended the branding concept focus on “Beauty and Heart”, with the suggested tagline “I love it Here”.

Report SDR-16 Page 13 of 21

Page 39 of 183

Their recommended plan is summarized:

Develop and Produce Creative Video assets: $10,500

• Full length BEAUTY AND HEART video (2 to 3 minutes) • :60, :30 :15 second TV commercials • Social Media Video Assets (10 to 15 videos, 15 seconds in length for IG and Twitter and other social media sites) • Includes Concept and Script Outline, Crew (Camera, Gaffer, Audio, Cam Assist), Equipment (camera package with lens pkg, lighting, sound), Producer / Director, Production Coord.,Transport and Gas, Hard Drives and Data Transfer, Hair and Makeup, Shoot Insurance

Adding a second day of shooting (recommended) + $5,000

Video Post Production: $7,500

• Data ingest and edit fees, Music Fees (stock),Post Audio Mix, Coordinator, Commercials

Print and Digital: $5,000

• Key Art • Print ads (including headline and copy) in various sizes (1/4 page, 1/3 page, ½ page and full page) for standard and tabloid size publications • Digitals ads for online application (banners, big box, etc..).

Report SDR-16 Page 14 of 21

Page 40 of 183 Microsite: $2,500

• Landing site for digital ads that reflects the campaign and links to the Municipality of Meaford site • designed to add user generated curated content to keep the site active with fresh content season over season $2,500

Digital Media Buy: $10,000.

• 2 month campaign in the GTA

It is recommended that up to $35,000 be referred to the 2017 budget for the consideration of Council to consider the recommended branding strategy as presented on June 20, 2016 by the sub working team of the economic development advisory committee. This estimated cost is not included in the draft 2017 budget framework which is based on an overall increase of 2.5% and was presented on September 12, 2016. These costs would be an enhancement over the 2.5%.

New Revenues

The Municipality of Meaford provides a free business listing registry which has approximately 500 business listings. In some municipalities there is a fee for the business listing. If $10 per listing was charged the potential revenues based on 500 listings would be $5,000. A listing fee might also result in a business choosing to not participate.

Business Licensing is also a source of revenues in other municipalities. Owen Sound, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach charge for business licenses. (Ranging from $25-$600 per year depending on business type.) Georgian Bluffs, Hanover, West Grey utilize bizpal.ca to assist in licensing requirements through upper levels of government.

If a business licensing fee of $20 to $25 was implemented in Meaford it is estimated that new revenues of about $7,000 to $12,500 could be achieved.

Paid parking is required in the downtown shopping districts of many communities and this is often during regular business hours, Monday to Friday, with evenings after 6 pm and weekends being free. There are also significant costs to administer a paid parking system including the capital costs associated with parking meters.

The following are the downtown parking costs in some local communities:

Town of Collingwood: Parking on Hurontario Street is currently $0.75 per hour (maximum of 3 hours). Metered street and municipal lot parking is

Report SDR-16 Page 15 of 21

Page 41 of 183 currently $0.50 per hour (no maximum). Monthly municipal lot parking passes may be purchased at the municipal office (97 Hurontario Street, Collingwood, ON) at a rate of $45.00 a month.

City Owen Sound: Metered street parking: $1 per hour with a 2 hour time limit Long term parking: available in the lots at .75¢ per hour or $5 per day (9 hours). Free parking Saturdays, Sundays and holidays on streets for up to 2 hours. Free parking on main street (2nd Avenue East between 7th Street and 11th Street East) for up to 2 hours.

Wasaga Beach: Municipal Parking Lots $2 per hour (HST included), $10 for the day (HST included)

The Municipality of Meaford provides free two-hour parking in our downtown. We currently have 322 spots. At $.50/hour for 8 hours per day, (9 am to 6 pm) 5 days a week for 52 weeks per year, and if used at 100%, would generate $334,800. However it is estimated income rates could be as follows:

5% utilization per year $16,744/year 10% utilization per year $33,480/year 15% utilization per year $50,232/year 20% utilization per year $66,976/year

As was outlined in SDR report Parking and Control Fees, presented to Council on August 8th, 2016, on-street paid parking would require investment in parking meters or centralized payment machines. It is estimated that one payment machine would cost in excess of $10,000.

Planning staff are conducting a parking study to determine if sufficient parking exists to support future development.

Without completing a comprehensive review of potential parking revenues and the associated capital and administration costs to implement a system, we are not able to provide an accurate estimate of potential new revenues that could be achieved.

In summary, while new revenues could be generated, staff do not recommend that we implement any of the following at this time: paid business directory listing, business license fees, or an hourly parking fee in the downtown.

We will continue to review all grant and funding opportunities as they become available to support economic and development tourism initiatives. In the past we have received funding from RT07 and if reinstated by the province will apply for REDs funding.

Report SDR-16 Page 16 of 21

Page 42 of 183 Alternative Service Delivery Including Shared Services or Contracting Out

Contract Services to an economic development corporation (not yet established) and provide the necessary funding for the operation. A 2012 research paper completed a comprehensive analysis on the two major models that deliver economic development in Southern Ontario municipalities.

The extract below is from “Comparing economic development corporation and internal department models: Service delivery in Southern Ontario”, produced in 2012. The link to the fill report is available at http://pced.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/pced/article/view/29/21 or as Appendix 7.

The field of economic development is growing. With more communities investing in formal organizations, the debate over where the economic development effort should be housed continues. The purpose of this study is to undertake a systematic investigation of alternative models of economic development service delivery. Two main models are studied: a department or committee within a municipality (“internal municipal department model”) and an agency or corporation with a separate board (“external corporation model”).

5. Conclusions

Does the service delivery model matter?

Most of the study participants have experience with various organizations in both models, as well as business and other government organizations. All participants believe that the service delivery model makes a difference in some areas of operation, but there are contradictory views on which areas are affected and which model is superior in each of the areas. Analysis of the functions and financial resources shows substantial overlap between internal and external organizations. Key findings are reported for each topic below:

• Organizational Scope: There is variety in the mandate and functional program areas of the organizations interviewed. Three functions are identified as most likely to affect operational areas such as budget: tourism, small business and entrepreneurship, and innovation and knowledge economy programs. Organizations in both models provide these functions. • Finances: The average total budget per capita was nearly equal between internal and external organizations while internal organizations had higher average operational budget per capita. External organizations had a greater proportion of their total budget funded by non-municipal “outside” sources and identified a greater variety of funding sources. • Partnerships: Respondents from both types of organizations stated that the service delivery model affected partnerships and that both types of organizations had many partnerships. Overall, municipal departments identified more partnership types than external corporations. The most cited difference between the internal and external model was relationships between the economic development office and other municipal departments.

Report SDR-16 Page 17 of 21

Page 43 of 183 • Governance: Three governance models were identified in the study – council only and council with advisory committee for internal departments and board of directors for external corporations. Private sector involvement was demonstrated in both models, but financial and decision-making authority ultimately lies with council in the municipal model. • Organizational Structure: There were no notable differences between staffing resources or levels of hierarchy between the models. However, external corporation staff are reported to have greater decision-making authority than municipal staff. • Decision-making: The study attempted to empirically measure average decision-making timelines in each model, but this was not possible. The general opinion was that external corporations have faster and more flexible processes and timelines. There were contrasting views on the speed of the municipal model due to strong internal relationships, access to decision- makers, and faster than perceived informal processes. • Accountability: Respondents indicated that there is tension between speed of decision making and accountability. There was agreement that municipalities are highly accountable given their formal processes. Corporations have taken steps to demonstrate accountability through performance measurement and public reporting.

Another option could be to assign the Municipality of Meaford’s current budget in whole or part to Grey County or another municipality in Grey County to directly manage the Economic Development needs for the Municipality of Meaford.

This report has recommended that the Municipality of Meaford explore shared service opportunities, including the Municipality of Meaford providing economic development and tourism services on a fee for service or contract services model to other municipalities in Grey County that do not currently have dedicated economic development and tourism staff.

It is noted that a shared service for economic development could also be accomplished through the amalgamation of some lower tier municipalities within Grey County or fully achieved if there was only a single tier government.

Service Structure and Staffing Realignment

As was outlined in the SDR for Corporate Communications, the current Economic Development student provides significant support for communications and marketing. This is estimated to be 60% or more of the position. The position will continue to work closely with economic development but will be centralized in communication services with a chargeback to economic development in 2017.

This report has identified the opportunity to explore shared services, including the Municipality of Meaford providing economic development and tourism services on a fee for service or contract services model to other

Report SDR-16 Page 18 of 21

Page 44 of 183 municipalities in Grey County that do not currently have dedicated economic development and tourism staff.

Discontinuing the Service (Where applicable)

Municipality of Meaford could eliminate all economic development and tourism related services. In this scenario we would rely exclusively on the activities and initiatives of Grey County to provide economic development and related profile of the Municipality of Meaford as part of their current services.

Financial Impact

Financial impacts and implications associated with:

Improving In-House Process and Performance

No new costs are recommended and in house staff delivery of resources inducing a tourism strategy and video production in 2017 will not require an RFP be issued for consulting services in these areas.

Adjusting Service Levels

No change recommended.

Cost Avoidance: Operating Costs and Capital Investments

The capital costs included in the economic development budget are generally zero. However, a wide range of operating and capital costs (flowers and handing baskets, benches, recycling/waste units, gardens associated with the beautification of downtown) are included in the budget for Parks, Recreation and Culture. Reallocating these costs to the economic development budget is under review.

Enhancing and Expanding Service Levels

This report recommends referring up to $35,000 to the 2017 budget process for the recommended branding strategy as presented on June 20, 2016 by the sub working team of the economic development advisory committee.

New Revenues

This report outlines areas where new revenues could be generated. Staff do not recommend that we implement any of the following at this time: paid business directory listing, business license fees, or an hourly parking fee in the downtown.

Report SDR-16 Page 19 of 21

Page 45 of 183 The management and oversight of the economic development needs of other municipalities in Grey County by the Municipality of Meaford would be on a cost recovery plus a fee for service model. It is estimated this would generate about $2,000 in fee for services per year.

Alternative Service Delivery Including Shared Services or Contracting Out

There is potential to reduce the overall budget in whole or part depending on the model taken. An RFP would be issued for the provision of third party services.

Service Structure and Staffing Realignment

The realignment of the summer student staff from Economic Development to communications services is cost neutral.

Discontinuing the Service

The budget would be reduced by up to $214,925.

Implications

The direct delivery of Economic Development Services was approved in the 2010 budget. Since this time, Economic Development has supported the development and implementation of programs to attract and sustain business and tourism. Council’s Strategic Priorities 2014-2018 have outlined the importance of services in this area.

Our current economic development activities are based on the approach that economic development creates the environment for businesses to succeed, expand, create jobs, and pay taxes. Economic development and tourism initiatives will also raise the profile of the community (locally, regionally and provincially) as a great place to live, visit and do business.

As this report has outlined, we recommend the direct delivery of economic development services by the Municipality of Meaford be continued and this service area be renamed economic development and tourism.

Report SDR-16 Page 20 of 21

Page 46 of 183 Supporting Documentation

Appendix 1 – Strategic Priorities Appendix 2 – Community Profile Appendix 3 – Healthcare Community Profile Appendix 4 – Military Community Profile Appendix 5 – Let’s Eat Dining Guide Appendix 6 – MIFF 2016 Economic Impact Survey Appendix 7 – Comparing economic development corporation and internal department models: Service delivery in Southern Ontario.

Respectfully Submitted:

______Prepared and reviewed by: Denyse Morrissey, CAO

______Prepared by: Stephen Murray, Economic Development Officer

Report SDR-16 Page 21 of 21

Page 47 of 183 Strategic Priorities

Focus Area: Growing Our Economy Objective: Become Business Ready

A. Promote the Municipality of Meaford as a community that is “Open for Business” B. Ensure taxes, development charges and building permit fees are responsive and support the development community. C. Market Municipality of Meaford for hotel development and a range of other visitor accommodations. D. Develop strategies and opportunities that support the development of housing and rentals geared to local affordability. E. Continue to assess the funding required to implement the waterfront strategy on an annual basis. F. Manage and update the Community Profile on a regular basis and continue to profile the Municipality of Meaford as a community that offers an excellent quality of life to attract businesses and a talented workforce. G. Enhance the attractability of the community and invest in beautification initiatives in the downtown business core and throughout the Municipality. H. Expand and improve our free web-based Business Registry. I. Continue to support and review opportunities for the expansion of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) throughout the Municipality. J. Support the implementation of high-speed internet through the SWIFT project and other initiatives.

Focus Area: Growing Our Economy Objective: Establish Meaford as a Tourism Destination

A. Profile and market the wide range of visitor attractions across the Municipality of Meaford both regionally and provincially. B. Promote the Municipality of Meaford as a four-season destination using a place-based marketing approach with particular emphasis on our natural environment, culture and heritage, leisure experiences and authenticity of place. C. Evaluate how to strategically expand existing events (such as MIFF and the Scarecrow Invasion) offered in the Municipality as well as developing new events as attractors to the area. D. Implement and work towards the MEDS strategy as updated in July 2014.

Focus Area: Growing Our Economy Objective: Enhance Strategic Partnerships

Page 48 of 183

A. Work in partnership with Grey County to support and align with their economic development and tourism strategies. B. Work with a range of community partners not limited to service clubs, not-for-profit organizations, healthcare providers and agencies, education providers, private businesses and tourism operators. C. Ensure that resourcing and funding is maximized through applications for relevant grants from foundations and other levels of government. D. Work with agency and public sector partners not limited to the Meaford Chamber of Commerce, Meaford Business Improvement Association, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Georgian Triangle Tourism Association, the Apple Pie Trail, Regional Tourism Ontario 7, the Four County Labour Market Planning Board, and provincial and federal funding departments. E. Enhance collaborative marketing initiatives in partnership with other local attractions and businesses.

Page 49 of 183 COMMUNITY PROFILE

Page 50 of 183 Set Your Sights on Meaford

Welcome to the Municipality of Meaford, on the southern shore of Georgian Bay. The Municipality of Meaford is a fascinating, four-season destination that has it all: fresh local food, unique shopping, nature at your doorstep, a beautiful waterfront, and hundreds of local charms and amenities awaiting your discovery. Our charming, historic downtown district features Meaford Hall – a restored 300-seat theatre, concert and cinema venue, plus distinctive boutiques, eclectic eateries and services of all kinds.

Just a few minutes away, you’ll find acres of rolling countryside, charming historic villages, sandy beaches and unspoiled natural areas.

Page 51 of 183 table of contents

Reasons To Invest...... 4-5 Location...... 6 County of Grey ...... 7-8 Municipality of Meaford...... 9 Population Trend...... 10 Affordability...... 11 Real Estate Activity ...... 12 What Makes Meaford Unique ...... 13 Lifestyle - Premier Parks...... 14 Lifestyle - Trails...... 15 Lifestyle - Recreation ...... 16 Arts & Culture ...... 17 Library...... 18 Tourism ...... 19 Harbour / Marina ...... 20 Health Services ...... 21 Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan ...... 22-23 Agribusiness ...... 24 Education ...... 25 Municipal Incentives ...... 26-27 Business Organizations ...... 28 Service Clubs...... 29 Development Lands for Sale ...... 30 Development Charges ...... 31 Proposed Downtown Development ...... 32-33

Page 52 of 183 MUNICIPALITY OF MEAFORD

Reasons to Invest

 Location: Meaford is located within the popular tourism region, the Georgian Triangle, and is only a short two hours to the Greater Toronto area. Meaford is closely connected to Ontario’s major 400 series highway system with a connection in Barrie. Highway 26, which travels through downtown Meaford, has millions of commuters annually. The Community of Rockford’s business areas primarily serve the nearby market of Owen Sound.

 Affordability: Meaford is an affordable place to live in comparison to many communities in southern Ontario. Meaford is quickly becoming a destination of choice amongst those looking to retire from the urban centres of southern Ontario and is an attractive place for young families because of the unmatched amenities offered locally and within the region.

 Lifestyle: The Municipality of Meaford offers a balance between work and pleasure in an awe-inspiring natural environment. For decades, people have been drawn by the natural beauty of the landscape, the water, and charming authenticity of its urban centre with a rural community feel. Meaford’s lifestyle offers more leisure time to enjoy a variety of recreational opportunities.

 Arts & Culture: Meaford is the cultural destination within Grey County with the Meaford Hall Arts and Cultural Centre operating as the main attraction. Home to outstanding live performances, rotating art displays, and enriching lifelong learning classes. The Meaford region is rich with cultural history including being the resting place of Canadian icon, artist Tom Thomson. Meaford is also home to the canine hero Beautiful Joe, who inspired the bestselling novel “Beautiful Joe”, which contributed to worldwide awareness of animal cruelty, written by Margaret Saunders in 1893.

Page 53 of 183 MUNICIPALITY OF MEAFORD

 Tourism: Meaford has a vibrant tourism economy with numerous outdoor activities and award winning festivals and events. Meaford is well known for outstanding agri-tourism due to its unique growing opportunities and the beautiful trail systems attract visitors from all over the world.

 Waterfront: The redevelopment of the waterfront is expected to be a key element of future investments. Through the Meaford Waterfront Master Plan, a multi-million dollar redevelopment is planned for the urban waterfront that will support revitalization of the downtown commercial core, bring new commercial developments to the harbour area, and sought-after residential condominium developments.

 Education: The Municipality of Meaford hosts high quality education facilities and programs for all ages. This includes lifelong learning opportunities within the Municipality and a regional college campus located in nearby Owen Sound. Meaford hosts a federal training facility for the Canadian Forces and a provincial fire training facility for firefighters, both of which host hundreds of trainees annually.

 Healthcare: Meaford is proud to have a local hospital that offers a wide range of specialty services, including 20 inpatient beds. A new modern medical clinic opened in the fall of 2014 and offers local residents access to new equipment and has assisted in the recruitment of new doctors to the Municipality. For services not available in Meaford, the Grey Bruce Health Services Owen Sound Hospital is located 5 minutes outside of the Municipality of Meaford. Meaford has quality options for those seeking long term care facilities.

 Agribusiness: Meaford’s geography and micro-climate allow it to produce a wide variety of agricultural products. These include apples, garlic, hops, herbs, honey and maple syrup. Recent growth has occurred in organic farming, local wineries, breweries and cideries. The Farmers’ Market in Meaford has allowed local producers to showcase their products and is a hub for collaboration and business exchange for producers.

Page 54 of 183 LOCATION

Meaford is conveniently located between the City of Owen Sound and the Town of Blue Mountains. Urban Meaford is located along Provincial Highway 26, which sees over 7 million commuters annually travel into our harbour-side downtown. Highway 26 also provides an easy connection to Ontario’s major 400 series highway system in nearby Barrie. Within a one-hour distance of Meaford is a marketplace of more than 100,000 people and within a two-hour drive is a market of millions. Five minutes east of the City of Owen Sound along highway 26, located in the Municipality of Meaford, is the Owen Sound Billy Bishop Regional Airport serving Grey and Bruce Counties.

DISTANCE TO MARKETS Blue Mountains...... 15km Owen Sound...... 30km Collingwood...... 34km Barrie...... 89km Orangeville...... 102km Brampton...... 138km Toronto...... 180km Guelph...... 134km Kitchener...... 148km Niagara Falls...... 265km

Page 55 of 183 COUNTY OF GREY

The Municipality of Meaford is located within the County of Grey. Grey County is a family of nine distinct rural municipalities that values its heritage, natural beauty, clean and healthy environment, and a relaxed and family-oriented rural lifestyle. As the fourth largest county in Ontario, Grey County covers an area of 4,513.21 square kilometers and is home to 92,568 residents. Grey County today is as diverse as it is expansive, encompassing: • Rich and productive farmland with almost 2,250 farms and over 200,000 hectares of farmed land. Grey is the number one producer of apples, sheep, barley & mixed grains in Ontario. • Leading edge agri-businesses; • Manufacturing, engineering, printing and business service firms of national and international stature; • An active Great Lakes shipping port; • A strong regional and rural health care system, • Exceptional cultural industries and renowned community celebrations; • Blue Mountain, Ontario’s largest four-season resort; • World-class, year-round recreation opportunities; and • An emerging creative rural economy.

Page 56 of 183 COUNTY OF GREY COUNTY OF GREY

The municipalities Thewithin municipalities Grey County are withinframed Grey by Countythe breath- are framedtaking by landscapes the breath of- Lake takingHuron landscapes and Georgian of Bay, Lake Huron and Georgianverdant riverBay, verdantvalleys and riverthe renownedvalleys and wondersthe of renownedthe Niagarawonders Escarpment. of the Niagara Escarpment.Grey County offers the sophistication and Greyconvenience County offers of urban the sophisticationliving and the and timeless convenience of urban livingcharm and of the small timeless town charmand rural of small Ontario, town all andlinked rural by Ontario, an excellent all linkedroad system,by an excellent two road system, two regionalregional airports, airports, and and an anexpanding expanding high high speed speedinternet internet network network available availablein all urban in all centres urban centresand most and rural most areas.rural areas. More demographicMore demographic and and economiceconomic information information isis available available at at www. www.investingrey.cainvestingrey.ca DRAFT 7

Page 57 of 183 MUNICIPALITY OF MEAFORD

The Municipality of Meaford is a collection of a number of villages and communities including Woodford, Bognor, Rockford, Annan and Leith. As indicated on the map below, a large area of the Municipality is home to the Land Force Central Training Area for the Canadian Forces which has over 600 soldiers in training on any given week. The urban centre of Meaford is primed for new growth and presently has capacity in both water and wastewater systems to service the current and future developments based on current projections. In fact, the wastewater facility still has room for the equivalent of 1210 units of capacity. The community of Rockford, located along highway 6 and 10, primarily serves the City of Owen Sound marketplace and has room for growth.

Meaford has a population of 11,100 permanent residents.

Page 58 of 183 POPULATION TREND

POPULPOPULATIONATIONMunicipality TREN ofD Meaford TREND 2500

2000 Municipality of Meaford

2500 1500 2006 2000 1000 2011

1500 Number of People 500 2006

1000 2011 0 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 75+

Number of People 500 Age Range

0 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 6060-74-69 75+ Age Range

Population 11500 11000 10500 Population 1150010000 110009500 105009000 10000 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 9500 Population

9000Source of Statistics Canada 2011 Census on this page. 1991 1996 10 2001 2006 2011 DRAFT 9 Population

Page 59 of 183 DRAFT 9 AFFORDABILITY

Meaford has outstanding new housing developments to choose from in both the urban and rural areas. You can find beautifully maintained older homes in charming, historic neighbourhoods. These choices are available at a fraction of the cost of homes in a major urban centre, and most choices in the urban area are within walking distance of downtown, beautiful parks, and the waterfront. The rural areas offer waterfront properties and panoramic countryside views that simply cannot be matched. Whether it’s a weekend retreat, summer home, condominium living, retirement living or a new beginning, the Municipality of Meaford is a buyers market budding with potential. The Municipality of Meaford’s tax rates are comparable to other area municipalities and the strong average residential assessment reflects the attraction people have to this region as well as the high quality of housing options.

Average MPAC Assessment Rates Grey County – 2013

Meaford $221,620 Owen Sound $194,989 Georgian Bluffs $215,692 Chatsworth $166,530 West Grey $170,518 Southgate $168,444 Grey Highlands $211,016 Hanover $183,079 Town of Blue Mountains $397,893

Page 60 of 183 Real Estate Activity

Percentage change in number of sales over previous year: (2014 and 2015 Data)

April May June July August September October November December January February

Municipality of Meaford 35.7% 8.7% 28.3% 16.4% 20.0% 12.2% 14.0% 9.6% 9.1% 166.7% 40.0% REAL ESTATE ACTIVITYCollingwood -32.4% -20.9% -15.6% 2.9% 10.9% 5.7% 2.7% 5.0% 3.9% 50.0% 44.0% Grey Highlands 29.6% 24.3% 17.0% 7.0% -2.4% -3.8% -3.4% -5.0% -4.9% 50.0% 20.0% Clearview -36.7% -28.6% -9.6% -12.6% 8.4% -9.5% 6.6% 5.4% 10.3% -50.0% -11.1% Market Summary Results 2013 vs. 2014Town of Blue Mountains -7.0% -6.7% 0.0% -0.9% 1.7% 3.8% 7.4% 6.8% 10.8% 10.0% 40.0% Wasaga Beach Percentage Increase in Number of Sales -11.2% -6.0% -1.9% 1.5% 5.1% 4.4% 2.0% 4.0% 7.2% 63.6% 53.8%

April May June Municipality of Meaford 35.7% 8.7% 28.3% The Municipality of Meaford’s real estate market is hot! The notable increase in Collingwood -32.4% -20.9% -15.6% sales compared to other local municipalities reflects its continued affordability and Grey Highlands 29.6% 24.3% 17.0% desirability within the Georgian Triangle. Recognized as one of Canada’s premier Clearview -36.7% -28.6% -9.6% four-season recreational playgrounds, Meaford is inspiring purchases of cottages, Town Blue Mountains -7.0% -6.7% 0.0% second homes and retirement dreams, and subsequent business investment. Wasaga Beach -11.2% -6.0% -1.9%

The Municipality of Meaford’s real estate market is hot! The notable increase in sales compared to other local municipalities reflects its continuedAverage affordability sales and price: (2014 and 2015 Data) desirability within the Georgian Triangle. Recognized as one of Canada’s premier four season recreational playgrounds, Meaford is inspiring purchases of cottages, secondApril May June July August September October November December January February homes and retirement dreams, and subsequent business investment.Municipality of Meaford $279,137 $274,393 $269,063 $274,820 $286,290 $283,440 $289,921 $292,722 $297,904 $293,721 $286,663

Collingwood $321,396 $335,537 $335,925 $335,338 $339,343 $345,232 $354,731 $348,095 $349,879 $351,977 $356,629

Grey Highlands $320,005 $328,996 $332,013 $342,038 $342,040 $375,373 $399,677 $410,562 $409,536 $407,950 $472,006

Clearview $336,618 $335,647 $336,492 $339,628 $315,444 $334,750 $346,283 $353,098 $361,473 $364,514 $368,903

Market Summary Results 2013 vs. 2014 Town of Blue Mountains $336,618 $335,647 $336,492 $339,628 $315,444 $334,750 $346,283 $353,098 $361,473 $364,514 $368,903

12 Month Average Price Wasaga Beach $280,502 $281,711 $285,065 $286,276 $283,945 $284,703 $284,474 $283,630 $286,424 $287,398 $288,923 April May June Municipality of Meaford $ 279,137 $ 274,393 $ 269,063 Collingwood $ 321,396 $ 335,537 $ 335,925 12 Grey Highlands $ 320,005 $ 328,996 $ 332,013 Clearview $ 336,618 $ 335,647 $ 336,492 Town Blue Mountains $ 551,664 $ 540,049 $ 549,129 Wasaga Beach $ 280,502 $ 281,711 $ 285,065 Page 61 of 183

DRAFT 11 LIFESTYLE

Percentage change in number of sales over previous year: (2014 and 2015 Data) what makes April May June July August September October November December January February Meaford unique: 35.7% 8.7% 28.3% 16.4% 20.0% 12.2% 14.0% 9.6% 9.1% 166.7% 40.0% -32.4% -20.9% -15.6% 2.9% 10.9% 5.7% 2.7% 5.0% 3.9% 50.0% 44.0% Meaford’s distinctive geography and climate support this 29.6% 24.3% 17.0% 7.0% -2.4% -3.8% -3.4% -5.0% -4.9% 50.0% 20.0% area being a major apple producer or about 24% of Ontario’s -36.7% -28.6% -9.6% -12.6% 8.4% -9.5% 6.6% 5.4% 10.3% -50.0% -11.1% apples. -7.0% -6.7% 0.0% -0.9% 1.7% 3.8% 7.4% 6.8% 10.8% 10.0% 40.0% Meaford is a dog, friendly community rich in canine culture. -11.2% -6.0% -1.9% 1.5% 5.1% 4.4% 2.0% 4.0% 7.2% 63.6% 53.8% Meaford’s historical connection to dogs is rooted in the book Beautiful Joe that highlighted the plight of domestic animals everywhere. Written by Margaret Marshall Saunders, it was the first Canadian children’s book to sell over seven million copies by the late 1930s. Meaford is proud of its culture of recycling. Meaford won the award in 2011 as Ontario’s top recycling community and placed in the top four in 2010 and 2012. The community of Leith in

April May June July August September October November December January February the Municipality of Meaford was the home of renowned $279,137 $274,393 $269,063 $274,820 $286,290 $283,440 $289,921 $292,722 $297,904 $293,721 $286,663 Canadian artist Tom Thomson for 15 years of his $321,396 $335,537 $335,925 $335,338 $339,343 $345,232 $354,731 $348,095 $349,879 $351,977 $356,629 early life and is now his final resting place near the

$320,005 $328,996 $332,013 $342,038 $342,040 $375,373 $399,677 $410,562 $409,536 $407,950 $472,006 historic Leith Church. Another famous Canadian artist, Carl Ahrens spent summers in Leith and was $336,618 $335,647 $336,492 $339,628 $315,444 $334,750 $346,283 $353,098 $361,473 $364,514 $368,903 inspired by the beauty of this area. $336,618 $335,647 $336,492 $339,628 $315,444 $334,750 $346,283 $353,098 $361,473 $364,514 $368,903

$280,502 $281,711 $285,065 $286,276 $283,945 $284,703 $284,474 $283,630 $286,424 $287,398 $288,923

Page 62 of 183 LIFESTYLE - Premier Parks

McCarroll Park and Fred Raper Park, located Beautiful Joe Park is a memorial to the dog fea- along the Meaford harbour front, offer hours tured in the internationally acclaimed true Mea- of entertainment for families with various ford story Beautiful Joe written by Margaret Mar- playground equipment, a splash pad, picnic shall Saunders who championed both women’s areas, sandy beach, free parking and clean and animal rights in Canada. The park is a beau- washrooms. tiful, shady sanctuary encompassed by the Big Head River and just a short walk from downtown Meaford.

One of Ontario’s few waterfront campgrounds, Memorial Park offers a public beach, camping, mini golf, picnic shelters, public washrooms, Beautiful Joe Off Leash fenced-in Dog Park re- trails and recreational facilities. It is a popular inforces the local love for canines as it offers a spot summer attraction and includes a section of for dogs owners to socialize and allow their ca- beach that is dog friendly. nine friends some recreational time.

Page 63 of 183 LIFESTYLE - Trails

Among Meaford’s amazing geography is a network of scenic trails. The Georgian Trail which follows the old Northern Rail Line from Meaford to Collingwood is a wonderful, accessible trail for cycling or hiking. It seems no matter what road you take, you’ll come upon access to sections of the famous Bruce Trail as it winds and doubles back through the beautiful Niagara Escarpment. Bognor Marsh offers almost 12km of hiking trails. Then there’s the wonderful Trout Hollow Trail along the Bighead River, and the rugged trail through Bayview Escarpment Nature Reserve. The newest addition to the local trail network, the Tom Thomson Trail winds its way from the west edge of the Meaford waterfront, near the resting place of Tom Thomson in Leith, ending at the Bayshore Community Centre in Owen Sound.

Page 64 of 183 LIFESTYLE - Recreation

Meaford is bursting with opportunities to keep busy, learn new skills and stay active. Meaford boasts groups that feature everything from competitive and recreational sporting activities to cultural activities. This includes multiple picturesque and challenging golf courses, tennis courts, baseball diamonds, soccer pitches, a running track, an outdoor swimming pool, skate park, and lawn bowling.

Indoor facilities include a curling rink, an ice rink that hosts the local Meaford Knights tier two Junior A hockey team, and well equipped community centres offering various recreational programming for all ages. Some of our most popular programs include: Dance and fitness programs, yoga, an indoor walking club and skating clubs. Meaford also offers classes in the culinary arts, quilting and painting classes for the art enthusiasts.

Page 65 of 183 ARTS & CULTURE

delights all those who visit to learn about it. At the Meaford Museum, you will learn about people including the Man with the Iron Hands (Andrew Gawley), John Muir, Margaret Marshall Saunders, local soldiers and much more. The Nautical room holds model ships made by Meaford’s own local retired ship captain Bruce Shepperd, along with the history of the Meaford Harbour. Meaford Hall Arts & Culture Centre is located in the historic downtown of The museum also happens to be a stop Meaford. It is a beautifully restored on the award-winning Apple Pie Trail. century, old landmark. You can pick up some apple products and learn about the rich culture of As a four-season venue, Meaford apple growing in the region. Hall plays host to a variety of events including live theatre, music, films, dance, and entertainment for community, corporate and social events. The theatre has seating for 300. Approximately 55,000 people come through the Hall in a year. Meaford has a robust and unique history that transcends its borders and

Page 66 of 183 LIBRARY SERVICES

The Municipality of Meaford is serviced by two area Libraries. The residents in the western area of the Municipality are served by the Owen Sound & North Grey Union Public Library in nearby Owen Sound and the rest of the Municipality is serviced by the Meaford Public Library located in urban Meaford.

Meaford Public Library is a busy full-service library that serves the bustling community of Meaford with programming, services and resources for all ages.

The library is open Tuesday to Saturday and offers a wide variety of programs and services as well as a large The library’s friendly, knowledgeable staff can collection of books, DVDs, audiobooks, e-books, assist with any of the following: magazines, music CDs and more. Library cards are • Computers free of charge. • Wi-Fi Internet access • E-reader drop-in and Teen Tech sessions • Free access to genealogy websites and specialized databases through the library’s website • Fax, scanning, and photocopying • Book delivery services • Amazing programs and events for people of all ages • Story Time every Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. • Adult, Teen, and Junior book clubs • Free tech workshops on Computer Basics, Facebook, iPad, Pinterest, Twitter and more • Author events for adults including the annual Koffee House Reads series • Children and teen book authors and illustrators come to the Junior Library • Georgian Bay Reads - an annual battle of the books every October • Knitting, crochet, chess, and Scrabble groups

Learn more at the library’s website: www.meafordlibrary.on.ca

Page 67 of 183 TOURISM

Meaford enjoys a healthy tourism economy, highlighted by places such as Meaford Hall, Memorial Park Campground, Meaford Museum, Beautiful Joe Park, Meaford Harbour and local sports facilities. Meaford’s tourism economy operates year- round, and remains strongest through summer and into late autumn. Meaford is a participant in the Apple Pie Trail, a culinary trail that travels throughout Grey County which includes stops within Meaford. The annual Scarecrow Invasion and Family Festival fills Meaford with a whimsical celebration of the harvest season, from mid-September to-mid October thousands of themed scarecrows invade the community. Following the Scarecrow Invasion, for more than a quarter of a century, craft lovers have flocked to Meaford during harvest season to take in the huge assortment of quality Other popular events include the weekly handcrafted goods at the annual, two day car show, the vibrant Meaford Farmers’ Apple Harvest Craft Show, considered one Market, Meaford International Film of Ontario’s best. Festival and the Leith Summer Festival, to name only a few.

Page 68 of 183 HARBOUR / MARINA

The Meaford Harbour is considered to be one of the finest marinas in the area and is operated by the Municipality of Meaford. Boat launch facilities as well as a pump-out station are available. The harbour is located just steps from downtown Meaford with plenty of parking for boats, vehicles and recreational vehicles. Along with our many boat slips, the Meaford Harbour features an administration office with a boaters’ lounge that includes a relaxing sitting area, showers, washroom facilities, and a patio with a barbeque. The Meaford Rotary pavilion located at the Meaford Harbour hosts numerous events and activities throughout the year. The Bighead river is a relatively small stream flowing through mostly forested areas until it dumps its waters into Nottawasaga Bay at Meaford, ON. The river is inhabited by brook and brown trout in its upper reaches. The lower section around Meaford is renowned for its incredible salmon and steelhead fishery.

Page 69 of 183 HEALTH SERVICES

The Municipality of Meaford boasts a wide range of highly acclaimed healthcare and nursing facilities. HOSPITALS Grey Bruce Health Services - Meaford Hospital Of all GBHS rural hospitals, Meaford offers the widest range of specialty clinics and services to the community. The 20-inpatient beds provide quick access to hospitalization when needed.

Grey Bruce Health Services - Owen Sound Hospital This regional hospital, just five minutes outside of the Municipality of Meaford, offers a full range of specialty services for residents across the area, including complex surgeries, total joint replacements, cancer surgeries, MRI and CT scan services, and many more. NURSING HOMES Meaford Long Term Care Centre This home consists of 77 beds licensed by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. It is located conveniently at 135 William Street.

Errinrung Residence This facility is a 60-bed long term care centre with 70 retirement suites. This long term care residence is licensed and inspected by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care and the retirement residence is Member of the Ontario Retirement Communities Association.

HEALTH CENTRES Don Bumstead & Family Medical Centre This new facility opened in the fall of 2014 and includes space for four new physicians and a physiotherapy clinic.

Page 70 of 183 MEAFORD WATERFRONT STRATEGY AND MASTER PLAN

In June 2014, the Municipality approved the Meaford Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan and development of the Harbour Village. The Harbour Village concepts will accommodate a broad range of users and economic development that ensures year-round tourism activity. The identified enhancements such as enhanced pedestrian access through new boardwalks and a pedestrian bridge, road, sidewalk, and landscape improvements are estimated at $4.6 million.

Harbour Village Concept

The full Meaford Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan is available at www.meaford.ca

Page 71 of 183 MEAFORD WATERFRONT STRATEGY AND MASTER PLAN

The Meaford Waterfront is already a celebrated public space. Our Waterfront Strategy will foster projects to augment the character of our waterfront with amenities bringing tourism activity, economic development and new businesses supporting and linking our downtown core.

Page 72 of 183 AGRIBUSINESS

Agribusiness in the Municipality of Meaford has a strong tradition primarily based on apples and livestock. This tradition grew out of the opportunities afforded by the unique growing conditions and soils in the area. More recently, Meaford has experienced growth in new agrifood sectors: organic farm foods, wineries, breweries and cideries.

Meaford hosts a seasonal farmers’ market that has begun to cultivate and develop an agrifood cluster in and around Meaford. Not only does the market cater to local consumers and visitors, it also acts as a place for local producers to foster collaboration and business exchange. The future of agriculture in Meaford is strongly positioned to service the growing demands for fresh Ontario products and the growing markets in the Greater Toronto Area seeking ethnically and culturally traditional foods.

Page 73 of 183 EDUCATION

Meaford Hall Arts & Cultural Centre Catholic School students must attend: Offers a variety of lifelong learning St. Basil’s JK-3 opportunities for those in pursuit Notre Dame 4-8 of knowledge for either personal or St. Mary’s High School professional reasons. Georgian College: The campus is situated minutes from the Meaford Community School JK-8 Municipality of Meaford in the City of St. Vincent - Euphrasia School JK-5 Owen Sound. Meaford’s two elementary schools offer The Meaford Regional Firefighting both French and English classes. Training Centre: Georgian Bay Secondary School Offers accredited courses to volunteer Known throughout the area as having the and full-time fire departments and other premier music program and a modern emergency service organizations. More communications program. than 400 firefighters utilize this centre every year. Students living in close proximity to the Land Forces Central Training Centre City of Owen Sound must attend the Meaford following schools: A training facility for Regular and Reserve Alexandra Public School JK-8 soldiers in Ontario but also a variety of Bayview Public School JK-8 other countries’ military units and non- Sydenham Community School JK-8 military agencies. Over 600 soldiers in Owen Sound Collegiate and training on any given week. Vocational Institute

Page 74 of 183 MUNICIPAL INCENTIVES MUNICIPAL INCENTIVES Façade Grant Program The Municipality Faof MeafordÇad wille provideGra ant one –Ptimero grantg rof aupm to $15,000 to assist property owners or tenants in improving exterior appearance and/or structural quality of their building. The grant is intended to apply to constructionThe Municipality costs associated of Meaford with will these provide improvements a one–time grantto help of upour to $15,000 downtownto assist glow property with the ownerspride of or this tenants fine community. in improving exterior appearance and/or structural quality of their building. The grant is intended to apply to The areaconstruction outlined in costsred below associated indicates with the these eligible improvements properties forto ahelp our municipaldowntown façade glowgrant. with the pride of this fine community. The area outlined in red below indicates the properties eligible for a municipal façade grant.

DRAFT 23

Page 75 of 183 MUNICIPAL INCENTIVES MUNICIPAL INCENTIVES

Improvements include, but are not limited to

 Structural/safety replacement and repair of exterior façade;  Repair/replacement of windows, doors, storefronts, awnings, canopies, cornices, eaves, parapets and other architectural features;  Installation or repair of exterior lighting;  Cleaning/painting of fa�ades visible from adjacent streets and public walkways;  Entrance modifications, including the installation of ramps for accessibility purposes;  Repair of fa�ades visible from adjacent streets and public walkways;  “Hard” landscaping such as walkways and planters, but not including driveways or parking areas;  Landscaping including plant materials/pavers;  Exterior fire safety upgrades to code;  Water/flood/weather proofing;  Structural repairs to walls, floors and foundations; and  Other improvements as approved by the Municipality.

Page 76 of 183 BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS

Bruce Community Futures Development Corporation 233 Broadway Street Kincardine, ON 1-888-832-2232

Business Enterprise Centre – Owen Sound & Area 519-371-3232

Centre for Business and Economic Development 105 Hurontario Street Collingwood, ON 1-877-876-7908

Meaford Business Improvement Area 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, ON [email protected]

Meaford Chamber of Commerce 16 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, ON 1-888-632-3673

Owen Sound & District Chamber of Commerce 704 6th Street East Owen Sound, ON, 519-376-5647

YMCA Employment Services – Owen Sound & Area 1450 1st Avenue West, Suite 4A Owen Sound, ON 519-371-9222

Page 77 of 183 SERVICE CLUBS

Kinettes of Meaford 519-538-1389

Kinsmen Club of Meaford 519-538-3260

Kiwanis Club of Meaford 519-538-2203

Lions Club of Meaford 519-538-3256

Optimists Club of Meaford 519-538-4284

Optimist Club of Sydenham 519-376-5929

Rotary Club of Meaford 519-538-1802

The Municipality of Meaford includes the following service clubs which are voluntary non-profit organizations. These service clubs work hard to improve our community, members meet regularly to perform charitable works either by direct hands-on efforts or by raising money for other organizations.

Page 78 of 183 DEVELOPMENTDevelopment LA LandsNDS ForFOR Sale SALE

A lgonquin Dr ¯ Lakeshore Rd S ¯ Georgian Bay Sideroad 8 St Vincent-Sydenham Townline

Sideroad 30 Grey Road 112 1 Albery Crt Sykes St N Georgian Bay Helen St Sideroad 27 Highway 26 3

Stewart St Meadow Lane 2 Ridge Creek Dr Sideroad 24 Ridge Rd

Township of Georgian Bluffs

Sydenham-LakeshoreSideroad Drive 22

12th Line Muir St Susan St Highway 26 11th Line 7th Line Grey Road 7

Grey Road 12 City of 3rd Line Owen Sound William St 10th Concession South Municipality of Meaford 1st Concession Albert St

Highway 6 & 10 Thompson St Grey Road 29 4 Cook St 8 Sideroad St Andrews Dr Albert St Grey Road 18 Sideroad 6 4 Sideroad

Sideroad 3 Pearson St

Municipality of Grey Highlands Noble St Collingwood St W Township of Chatsworth Nelson St W

Georgian Bay Parker St W Georgian Bay Sykes St N Cook St 5 ¯ ¯

Collingwood St W Fuller St

Bridge St 8 Nelson St W 7

Trowbridge St Berry St Boucher St E

Owen St

Berry St 6 Boucher St W Marshall St E 10 Highway 26

Legion Rd Henry St Old Highway 26 Denmark St Margaret St Sykes St S

Marshall St W St Vincent St Miller St

Edwin St W Eliza St

Parkview Ave Paul St Edwin St E James Cres

Peter's Rd Lorne St Lorne Aiken St

Louisa St Holmes Hill Dr

3rd Line Farrar St Burton St

Gray Ave Union St Union

Centre St Blake St Blake Ivan St

Grace Ave 9 Montgomery St Augusta St Augusta St

Map Location Zone Size (Ac) Price Number 1 Plan 541 Lot 4; Highway 26 C4 1.276 $295,000 2 67 Helen Street M2-167 1.114 $94,000 3 506 Sykes Street North C2 0.77 $288,000 4 278 Cook Street M1-3-A 6.765 $3.50/sqft 5 74 Bayfield Street C1 & RM-141 0.95 $719,000 6 1 Legion Road RM-190(H5) 1.11 $325,000 7 12 Bayfield Street EP 0.33 $439,000 8 226 Boucher Street East D-2 & EP 5.56 $5,000,000 9 337 Sykes Street South C2 1.95 $999,000 10 206709 Highway 26 C4-5 3.49 $895,000

The information shown is compiled from numerous sources and may not be complete or accurate. The Municipality of Meaford is not responsible for any errors, omissions or deficiencies. This document is for reference only. No part of this supplied data may be reproduced or transmitted to others in any way without the written permission of The Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford. (KSR 2015) 30

Page 79 of 183 DEVELOPMENTDevelopment CHA RChargesGES

Single/Semi Apartment/Townhouse Non-Industrial Industrial

Rural $4,684.58 $3,747.67 $15.17 $6.23

Service Area 1 $11,812.16 $9,450.53 $79.73 $32.03

Service Area 2 $14,783.17 $11,826.93 $98.94 $39.76

Service Area 3 $14,793.30 $11,835.04 $99.13 $39.84

The development of all lands within the Municipality of Meaford are subject to The developmentthe terms of of By all- lawlands No. within 84- 2010.the Municipality Development of Meaford Charges are subjectare levied to the according terms of to By-lawthe No. service 84-2010. area Development in which the Charges development are levied is according located. to The the amountservice area of the in which the chargesdevelopment vary isby located. service The area. amount Services of the chargeswhich relates varies byto servicethe Development area. Services whichCharges relate to By the-law Development are: Library, Charges Roads, By-law Public are: Works, Library, Parks Roads, and Public Recreation, Works, Parks Sewer, Water, Fire Emergency Services and Administration (studies). and Recreation, Sewer, Water, Fire EmergencyDRAFT Services and Administration (studies). 27 31

Page 80 of 183 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Proposed Downtown Meaford Redevelopment

This proposed two-phase development located in Urban Meaford includes the construction of a total of 97 condominium apartments, linked with underground parking for 126 vehicles and 18 aboveground parking spots. Commercial space will be constructed at street level on Nelson Street and Sykes Street. This new development is located less than a block from the harbourfront and will be required to meet the standards of the Municipal Heritage District.

Page 81 of 183 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Proposed Downtown Meaford Redevelopment

Current

Proposed

Page 82 of 183 Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge St. West Meaford, On N4L 1A1

Economic Development Officer Stephen Murray 519-538-1060 Ext 1110 [email protected]

www.meaford.ca

Page 83 of 183 MEAFORDO n t a r i o Welcome to your new home.

Page 84 of 183 Contact Us Get in touch for more information on the many services available to you in Meaford.

Municipality of Meaford 519-538-1060 www.meaford.ca www.grey.ca/ Grey County (519) 376-2205 www.services.gov.on.ca/ Service Ontario – Meaford 519-538-4439 Bluewater District School (519) 363-2014 www.bwdsb.on.ca/ Board Chamber of Commerce (519) 538-1640 www.meafordchamber.ca/

Recreation Programs 519-538-1060 ext 1200 www.meaford.ca/play Memorial Park 519-538-1060 ext 1402 www.meaford.ca/memorialpark

Meaford Harbour 519-538-1060 ext 1401 www.meaford.ca/harbour Blue Dolphin Pool 519-538-1060 ext 1406 www.meaford.ca/pool Meaford Hall 519-538-0463 www.meafordhall.ca Meaford Museum 519-538-5974 www.meaford.ca/museum Meaford Public Library 519-538-3500 www.meafordlibrary.on.ca Sail Georgian Bay (226) 668 2944 www.sailgeorgianbay.ca/ Scarecrow Invasion www.scarecrowinvasion.com/ Meaford Hospital 519-538-1311 www.gbhs.on.ca Don Bumstead & Family 226-662-1011 http://greyhealthclinics.ca/ Medical Centre

Page 85 of 183 taryHealthcare Meaford Location Housing Parks & Trails Recreation Downtown Meaford Meaford Countryside Arts and Culture Festivals and Events Meaford Library Education Healthcare As Mayor of the Municipality of Meaford, I am pleased to welcome you to our community.

I am proud of all that we have to offer, from friendly people to all the amenities you need for everyday life. Once you experience our award-winning festivals and events, breathtaking natural vistas, a ordable housing prices, and endless recreation opportunities, I’m sure you’ll see why we call the Municipality of Meaford home. - Barb Clumpus, Mayor

Page 86 of 183 Healthcare A wide range of healthcare services are right outside your door in the Municipality of Meaford.

Grey Bruce Health Services (GBHS) Meaford Hospital - Of all GBHS rural hospitals, Meaford offers the widest range of specialty clinics and services to the community. The inpatient beds provide quick access to hospitalization when needed for the resident of the Municipalities of Meaford, the Town of the Blue Mountains, Grey Highlands and surrounding rural areas. Owen Sound Hospital - This regional hospital, just five minutes outside of the Municipality of Meaford, offers a full range specialty services for residents across the area including complex surgeries, total joint replacements, cancer surgeries, MRI and CT scan services, and many more. Don Bumstead & Family Medical Centre Opened in September, 2014, the Meaford Medical Centre has office practice space for four family physicians including eight examination rooms, physician and staff offices, and state-of-the-art equipment and computer systems. The building also houses Georgian Bay Physiotherapy which provides a wide range of physiotherapy and massage therapy services.

Page 87 of 183 Healthcare A wide range of services are right outside your door in the Municipality of Meaford.

Pharmacies The Municipality of Meaford is home to two pharmacies. Muxlows Pharmasave is located in downtown Meaford and has been in operation for over a century. An IDA pharmacy is located at 334 Sykes Street and is open 7 days a week to serve your needs.

Georgian Bay Physiotherapy All physiotherapists at Georgian Bay Physiotherapy Inc are movement specialists, who are university educated and registered with the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario. After a comprehensive one-on-one assessment, your Physiotherapist will design a personalized treatment plan that is focused on achieving your goals of returning to your work, sports and activities of daily living. Audiologist & Optometrist The Municipality of Meaford has two audiologist to choose from, at Hear Well Be Well and The Ear Clinic. Dr. Maureen O. Oriahi is our local Optometrist who takes great pride in looking after your eyesight. Dentist There are four dentist in Meaford for all your dental needs providing modern dental care in a friendly and professional environment.

Page 88 of 183 Location The Municipality of Meaford is a collection of a number of villages and communities including Woodford, Bognor, Rockford, Annan and Leith.

By living in the Municipality of Meaford, you can enjoy a work/life balance that gives you more time to do whatever you love in life. Meaford is a fascinating, four-season destination that has it all: great live theatre and concerts, fresh local food, unique shopping, nature at your doorstep, a beautiful waterfront, and hundreds of local charms and amenities awaiting your discovery. Just a few minutes away, you’ll find acres of rolling countryside, charming historic villages, sandy beaches and unspoiled natural areas, with nearby access to major shopping centres.

Blue Mountain 15km Owen Sound 30km Collingwood 34km Barrie 89km Orangeville 102km Brampton 138km Toronto 180km

Page 89 of 183 Housing Century homes, new developments, urban, rural, scenic views and waterfront properties - Meaford has a variety of lifestyle options.

Meaford has outstanding housing developments to choose from in both urban and rural settings. These choices are available at a fraction of the cost of homes in a major urban centre, and most choices in the urban area are within walking distance of downtown, beautiful parks, and the waterfront. The rural area offers waterfront properties and panoramic countryside views that simply cannot be matched.

Find your perfect home in meaford: http://www.terracewood.ca/ http://gatesofkent.com/ https://locationsnorth.com/meaford-homes-for-sale/ http://www.remax.ca/on/meaford-real-estate http://www.mcintee.ca/

Page 90 of 183 Parks Come enjoy the great ourdoors at one of the many public parks in Meaford.

McCarroll Park and Fred Raper Park along the Meaford harbour front offer hours of entertainment for kids, with playground equipment, a splash pad, picnic areas, sandy beach, free parking and clean washrooms.

One of Ontario’s few waterfront campgrounds, Memorial Park offers a public beach, camping, mini golf, picnic shelters, public washrooms, trails and recreational facilities. It is a popular summer attraction and includes dog friendly beach section.

Beautiful Joe Park is a memorial to the dog featured in the internationally acclaimed true Meaford story “Beautiful Joe”. The park is a beautiful shady sanctuary along the Big Head River just a short walk from downtown Meaford. Beautiful Joe Off Leash fenced-in Dog Park reinforces the local love for canines as it offers a spot for dogs owners to socialize and allow their furry friends some recreational time.

Page 91 of 183 Trails Among Meaford’s amazing geography is a network of unbelievable trails.

The Georgian Trail which follows the old Northern Rail Line from Meaford to Collingwood is a wonderful accessible trail for cycling or hiking. It seems no matter what road you take, you’ll come upon access to sections of the famous Bruce Trail as it winds and doubles back through the beautiful Niagara Escarpment. Then there’s the wonderful Trout Hollow Trail along the Bighead River, and the rugged trail through the Bayview Escarpment Nature Reserve. The Bognor Marsh offers almost 12km of hiking trails, an education shelter and interpretive signs along the boardwalk. The Tom Thomson Trail winds its way from the west edge of the Meaford waterfront, near the resting place of Tom Thomson at Leith, ending at the Bayshore Community Centre in Owen Sound. Page 92 of 183 Recreation Meaford has a variety of recreation activities for individuals and families.

Whether it’s free yoga classes for youth, baseball and soccer camps, firefighter camp, swim lessons, art workshops or cooking classes with mom and dad, there’s lots going on to keep you busy. Learn to sail, stand up paddle boarding and kayak lessons are also very popular. The winter months offer public skating, themed activities at Meaford Hall, and after school programming at the Meaford Library. Be sure not to miss Story Book Park, a local favourite for young families since 1975, or check out the local bowling alley, or Carl Jolley’s Riding Toy Museum!

Page 93 of 183 Recreation Meaford has a variety of recreation activities for individuals and families.

Recreation you can access whenever you desire, with no fees. Whether your family enjoys water sports activities such as kayaking, stand up paddle boarding, swimming or playing on the beach, the Municipality of Meaford has several launch locations.

In the winter time, enjoy our local trails for snowshoeing, cross country skiing or some of the best snowmobiling trails in Ontario. Grab your sled and head over to the hill at Beautiful Joe Park for some downhill adventure.

Our recreational hub includes outdoor tennis courts, a skateboard park, basketball courts, and baseball diamonds. Fishing is a popular activity in Meaford as the Big Head river and Georgian Bay offer various types of fish for catch and release or a tasty treat.

Page 94 of 183 Downtown Meaford You’ll find everything you need in the heart of downtown Meaford

Just a short walk from the breathtaking Meaford waterfront, you’ll find a charming downtown area with a variety of goods and services to meet your needs. Food & Restaurants From casual cafes to fine dining, you will satisfy your tastebuds in downtown meaford. Homestyle cooking and local ingredients are a staple of many of our downtown eateries. Try out one of our local bakeries for fresh breads, muffins, and pies. Or head to the edges of town where farm stands and market shelves fill with local produce, preserves, and more! Through the summer months, you’ll find the Meaford Farmer’s Market at the harbour pavilion every Friday afternoon for a real field to fork experience. Breakfast, lunch, or dinner - you’ll find what you’re looking for in downtown Meaford.

Page 95 of 183 Downtown Meaford You’ll find everything you need in the heart of downtown Meaford

Services and Amenities A variety of boutique stores and professional offices line the streets of downtown Meaford. You can find: Clothing, Accessories, and Gifts Car Dealerships Groceries Pet Supplies and Grooming 24 Hour Convenience Lawyers Fast Food Accountants Hairstylists Real Estate Agents Banks Optometrist Gas Stations Massage Therapy Insurance Agents IT Services

And more! Meaford downtown is growing, so stop by anytime and see what’s new!

Page 96 of 183 Meaford Countryside Get away from it all and relax at the many attractions across the Meaford Countryside

Rural Meaford is home to some of the most scenic views in the area. Head up Grey Road 112 to find Irish Mountain Lookout where you can sit in a Big Red Chair and enjoy the breathtaking view. You can also visit Coffin Ridge Winery for a taste of local wine and cheese, or stop in at Kilannan Brewing Co. to pick up local craft beer The Bognor Marsh Conservation Area and Hibou Conservation Area allow you to get back in touch with nature. Or stop by a local farm to pick your own produce, shop at a Country Market, or try your hand at Horseback Riding. Keep an eye out for events at our Community Halls - dinners and social events are often taking place in Bognor, Woodford, Annan and Leith Hike, bike, drive or snowmobile - Be sure to find your way to beautful rural Meaford.

Page 97 of 183 Arts and Culture Meaford has a robust and unique history that transcends it's borders and delights all those who visit to learn about it.

As a four season venue, Meaford Hall plays host to a variety of events including live theatre, music, films, dance, and entertainment for community, corporate and social events. The premier arts and Cultural Centre in the area, the theatre has seating for 300 people, along with meeting rooms and banquet halls for your special event.

The Meaford Museum is always a surprise, with rotating displays and activities, including military, maritime, and agricultural exhibits. Come learn about famous local people including the Man with the Iron Hands (Andrew Gawley), John Muir, Margaret Marshall Saunders, and Tom Thomson. Visit our Apple Pie Trail room to learn about the history of the apple industry in Meaford, and pick up some local Meaford souvenirs to commemorate the trip.

Page 98 of 183 Festivals and Events There’s always something happening in Meaford, no matter the season!

Meaford boasts award winning activities for all ages, such as the year round Apple Pie Trail, a culinary trail that travels throughout Grey County which includes stops within Meaford, and the annual Scarecrow Invasion which fills Meaford with a celebration of Harvest season mid September through mid October. The Apple Harvest Craft show, the areas premier craft show follows the award winning Scarecrow Invasion. Other popular events include the weekly car show, our vibrant Farmers’ Market, Meaford International Film Festival, the 1000 foot Urban Slide, the Big Red Chairs Tour, and the Leith Summer Music Festival, to name only a few.

Page 99 of 183 Meaford Library The Meaford Public Library is the hub for knowledge and forward thinking, where everyone feels welcome and community pride.

The Meaford Public Library is more than just fantastic books. The library is a community meeting place, which offers DVDs, free wifi access, audiobooks, e-books, magazines, music CDs, video games and even fishing gear. There is always a program or event happening at the library. These include Weekday Tech Help, Story Time, adult book clubs, afterschool activities, lego, chess, crafts, games and even knitting.

The Meaford Public Library also has partnerships with community groups: Scarecrow Invasion, Meaford Farmers’ Market, Meaford Hall, Meaford Museum and employment workshops and services through the YMCA.

Page 100 of 183 Education Live and learn here in Meaford - from Junior Kindergarten to post-secondary, you’ll find what you need nearby.

Ecole St. Vincent – Euphrasia Elementary School (SVE): Our local school for JK to grade 3. SVE is has an outstanding French Immersion program. The school also offers an after school program until 6pm. Georgian Bay Secondary School (GBSS): GBSS is home to grades 4-12 and is known throughout the area as having the premier music program and a modern communications program. The Province of Ontario announced in May of 2016 that they would invest 24 million dollars into a new modern JK to Grade 12 school in the near future. Georgian College: The campus is situated minutes from the Municipality of Meaford in the City of Owen Sound, and also has a campus in nearby Collingwood.

Page 101 of 183 Page 102 of 183 THE Place to be in Southern Georgian Bay

Page 103 of 183 MEAFORDO n t a r i o Welcome to your new home.

Page 104 of 183 Contact Us Get in touch for more information on the many services available to you in Meaford.

4th Division Training 519-538-1371 www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/ Centre Military Family Resource (519) 538-1371 Ext 6509 www.familyforce.ca/ Centre Municipality of Meaford 519-538-1060 www.meaford.ca Grey County (519) 376-2205 www.grey.ca/ Service Ontario – Meaford 519-538-4439 www.services.gov.on.ca/ Bluewater District School (519) 363-2014 www.bwdsb.on.ca/ Board Chamber of Commerce (519) 538-1640 www.meafordchamber.ca/

Recreation Programs 519-538-1060 ext 1200 www.meaford.ca/play Memorial Park 519-538-1060 ext 1402 www.meaford.ca/memorialpark

Page 105 of 183 Military Meaford Location Housing Parks & Trails Recreation Downtown Meaford Meaford Countryside Arts and Culture Festivals and Events Meaford Library Education Healthcare As Mayor of the Municipality of Meaford, I am pleased to welcome you to our community. I am immensly proud of all we have to o er, from freindly people to all the amenities you need for everyday life. Once you experience our award-winning festivals and events, breathtaking natural vistas, a ordable housing prices, and endless recreation opportunities, I’m sure you’ll see why we call the Municipality of Meaford home. - Barb Clumpus, Mayor

Page 106 of 183 Military Meaford A brief History of the 4th Canadian Division Training Centre In 1942, the Department of National Defence purchased 800 km2 (200,000 acres) of private lands along Georgian Bay in the St. Vincent Township. The southern edge of this property is 5 km northwest of the town of Meaford. The Meaford Military Camp was intended for tank warfare and artillery gunnery training. Its landscape included limestone cliffs, dense forest, rolling open agricultural land, and swamps. All based on a topography of heavy clay broken up by a vast distribution of rock, it also included Mountain Lake and 22 km of shoreline. The integration of the modern-day Canadian Forces saw the transfer of the Combat Arms School from CFB Borden to CFB Gagetown in 1969–1970, dramatically reducing the requirement for Camp Meaford. In 1970, it was decided to mothball the entire facility.

Page 107 of 183 Military Meaford A brief History of the 4th Canadian Division Training Centre A mid-1990s reorganization of the Canadian Forces saw the creation of the Land Force Central Area Training Centre Meaford (LFCATC Meaford). The training centre conducts year-round courses for regular force personnel, while expanding dramatically during the summer months to accommodate courses for reserve personnel. During the period of September–June, LFCATC Meaford serves as the primary weekend training location for reserve unit exercises for locations across Southern Ontario. LFCATC Meaford currently holds basic qualification courses as well as infantry and artillery training. It is visited by various outside units including multiple police forces and other nations. It also provides simulators and training for urban environments. In 2013 the LFCATC was renamed the 4th Canadian Division Training Centre when Land Force Central Area became the 4th Canadian Division.

Page 108 of 183 Location The Municipality of Meaford is a collection of a number of villages and communities including Woodford, Bognor, Rockford, Annan and Leith.

By locating in the Municipality of Meaford, you’ll be reducing your daily commute time to the base, leaving you more time to spend on the things you love in life. Meaford is a fascinating, four-season destination that has it all: great live theatre and concerts, fresh local food, boutique shopping, nature at your doorstep, a beautiful waterfront, and hundreds of local charms and amenities awaiting your discovery. Just a few minutes away, you’ll find acres of rolling countryside, charming historic villages, sandy beaches and unspoiled natural areas.

Blue Mountain 15km Owen Sound 30km Collingwood 34km Barrie 89km Orangeville 102km Brampton 138km Toronto 180km

Page 109 of 183 Housing Century homes, new developments, urban, rural, and waterfront properties - Something for every family in the Municipality of Meaford

Meaford has outstanding housing developments to choose from in both urban and rural settings. These choices are available at a fraction of the cost of homes in a major urban centre, and most choices in the urban area are within walking distance of downtown shops, grocery stores, restaurants, beautiful parks, and the breathtaking waterfront. The rural area offers waterfront properties and panoramic countryside views that simply cannot be matched.

Page 110 of 183 Parks Come enjoy the great ourdoors at one of the many public parks in Meaford.

McCarroll Park and Fred Raper Park along the Meaford harbour front offer hours of entertainment for kids with playground equipment, a splash pad, picnic areas, sandy beach, free parking and clean washrooms.

Beautiful Joe Park is a memorial to the heroic dog featured in the internationally acclaimed true Meaford story “Beautiful Joe”. The park is a shady sanctuary along the Big Head River, just a short walk from downtown Meaford. Beautiful Joe Off Leash fenced-in Dog Park reinforces our local love for canines as it offers a spot for dog owners to socialize and allow their furry friends some recreational time.

Page 111 of 183 Trails Among Meaford’s amazing geography is a network of unbelievable trails.

The Georgian Trail, which follows the old Northern Rail Line from Meaford to Collingwood, is a wonderful accessible trail for cycling or hiking. It seems no matter what road you take, you’ll come upon access to sections of the famous Bruce Trail as it winds and doubles back through the beautiful Niagara Escarpment. Then there’s the historic Trout Hollow Trail along the Bighead River, and the rugged trail through the Bayview Escarpment Nature Reserve. The Bognor Marsh also offers almost 12km of hiking trails. The newest addition to the local trail network, the Tom Thomson Trail, winds its way from the west edge of the Meaford waterfront, past the resting place of Tom Thomson in Leith, ending at the Bayshore Community Centre in Owen Sound.

Page 112 of 183 Recreation Meaford has a variety of recreation activities for individuals and families.

Whether it’s free yoga classes for youth, baseball and soccer camps, firefighter camp, swim lessons, art workshops or cooking classes with mom and dad, there’s lots going on to keep kids busy. Learning to sail, stand up paddle board, and kayak are also very popular at the Meaford Harbourfront.. The winter months offer public skating, themed activities at Meaford Hall, and after school programming at the Meaford Library. Be sure not to miss Story Book Park, a local favourite for young families since 1975, or check out the local bowling alley, or Carl Jolley’s Riding Toy Museum!

Page 113 of 183 Recreation Meaford has a variety of recreation activities for individuals and families.

Whether your family enjoys water sports like kayaking, stand up paddle boarding, swimming or playing on the beach, the Municipality of Meaford has several launch locations along our waterfront, within easy walking distance to the downtown core.

Our recreational facilities include outdoor tennis courts, a skateboard park, basketball courts, and baseball diamonds. Fishing is also popular in Meaford along the Big Head River or the shores of Georgian Bay. We are also home to 2 Golf Courses, with many more nearby.

Page 114 of 183 Downtown Meaford You’ll find everything you need in the heart of downtown Meaford

Just a short walk from the breathtaking Meaford waterfront, you’ll find a charming downtown area with a variety of goods and services to meet your needs. Food & Restaurants From casual cafes and fast food to fine dining, you will satisfy your tastebuds in downtown meaford. Homestyle cooking and local ingredients are a staple of many of our downtown eateries. Try out one of our local bakeries for fresh breads, muffins, and pies. Or head to the edges of town where farm stands and market shelves fill with local produce, preserves, and more! Through the summer months, you’ll find the Meaford Farmer’s Market at the harbour pavilion every Friday afternoon for a real field to fork experience. Breakfast, lunch, or dinner - you’ll find what you’re looking for in downtown Meaford.

Page 115 of 183 Downtown Meaford You’ll find everything you need in the heart of downtown Meaford

And more! Meaford downtown is growing, so stop by anytime and see what’s new!

Page 116 of 183 Meaford Countryside Get away from it all and relax at the many attractions across the Meaford Countryside

Rural Meaford is home to some of the most scenic views in the area. Head up Grey Road 112 to find Irish Mountain Lookout where you can sit in a Big Red Chair and enjoy the breathtaking view. You can also visit Coffin Ridge Winery for a taste of local wine and cheese, or stop in at Kilannan Brewing Co. to pick up local craft beer The Bognor Marsh Conservation Area and Hibou Conservation Area allow you to get back in touch with nature. Or stop by a local farm to pick your own produce, shop at a Country Market, or try your hand at Horseback Riding. Keep an eye out for events at our Community Halls - dinners and social events are often taking place in Bognor, Woodford, Riverside, Annan and Leith Hike, bike, drive or snowmobile - Be sure to find your way to beautiful rural Meaford.

Page 117 of 183 Arts and Culture Meaford has a robust and unique history that transcends it's borders and delights all those who visit to learn about it.

The Meaford Museum has something for everyone including military, maritime, fashion, and agricultural exhibits. Come learn about famous local people including the Man with the Iron Hands (Andrew Gawley), John Muir, Margaret Marshall Saunders, and Tom Thomson. Visit our Apple Pie Trail room to learn about the history of the apple industry in Meaford, and pick up some local Meaford souvenirs to commemorate your trip.

Page 118 of 183 Festivals and Events There’s always something happening in Meaford, no matter the season!

Meaford boasts award winning activities for all ages, such as the year round Apple Pie Trail, a culinary trail that travels throughout Grey County featuring signature apple dishes made with local fruit, and the annual Scarecrow Invasion which fills Meaford with a celebration of Harvest season in September and October. The Apple Harvest Craft show, the area's premier craft show, comes to town every year on the weekend before thanksgiving. Other popular events include the weekly car show, our vibrant farmers’ market, the Meaford International Film Festival, the 1000 foot Urban Slide, the Big Red Chairs Tour, and the Leith Summer Music Festival, to name only a few.

Page 119 of 183 Meaford Library The Meaford Public Library is the hub for knowledge and forward thinking, where everyone feels welcome and community pride.

The Meaford Public Library is more than just fantastic books. The library is a community meeting place which offers DVDs, free wifi access, audiobooks, e-books, magazines, music CDs and even video games. There is always a program or event happening at the library. These include Weekday Tech Help, Story Time, adult book clubs, Afterschool activities, lego, chess, crafts, games and even knitting.

Page 120 of 183 Education Live and learn here in Meaford - from Junior Kindergarten to post-secondary, you’ll find what you need nearby.

Ecole St. Vincent – Euphrasia Elementary School (SVE): Our local school for JK to grade 3. SVE has an outstanding French immersion program and is expected to build two new classrooms to accommodate an influx of new students. The school also offers after school programs until 6pm. Georgian Bay Secondary School (GBSS): GBSS is home to grades 4-12, and is known throughout the area as having a premier music program and a modern communications program. With an influx of new students, the school will soon be going through renewal. Students living in close proximity to the City of Owen Sound, or wishing to attend Catholic School can be bussed to neighbouring communities. Georgian College: The campus is situated minutes from the Municipality of Meaford in the City of Owen Sound, and also has a campus in nearby Collingwood.

Page 121 of 183 Healthcare A wide range of services are right outside your door in the Municipality of Meaford.

Grey Bruce Health Service Meaford Hospital - The Meaford Hospital offers a wide range of specialty clinics and services to the Meaford community. The 20 inpatient beds provide quick access to hospitalization when needed. Owen Sound Hospital - This regional hospital, just five minutes outside of the Municipality of Meaford, offers a full range specialty services for residents across the area including complex surgeries, total joint replacements, cancer surgeries, MRI and CT scan services, and many more. Don Bumstead & Family Medical Centre Opened in September 2014, this Medical centre has office practice space for four Family Physicians including eight examination rooms, physician and staff offices, and state-of-the-art equipment and computer systems. The building also houses Georgian Bay Physiotherapy which provides a wide range of physiotherapy and massage therapy services. You can also find optometrists, massage therapists, physiotherapists, and chiropractors in downtown Meaford.

Page 122 of 183 THE Place to be in Southern Georgian Bay

Page 123 of 183 Let’s Eat! The Municipality of Meaford Dining Guide - 2016 -

Page 124 of 183 We have no shortage of Our location along the Niagara amazing restaurants in the Escarpment and beside the Municipality of Meaford – Georgian Bay creates a unique from elegant fine dining, to microclimate that produces unique destination restaurants, exceptionally bountiful harvests, to home-style cafés and giving our chefs access to quality, bakeries you’re certain to find local ingredients for their dishes. something delicious to eat. You’ll taste the difference in just one bite.

Page 125 of 183 Join me in experiencing all the unforgettable culinary experiences Meaford has to offer – You won’t be disappointed. Barb Clumpus, Mayor

Page 126 of 183 Cafés, Bakeries & Bistros

Page 127 of 183 Crusty’s Homestyle Bakery 43 Sykes St. N - 519-538-3331 Homestyle baking just the way you like it! Enjoy all the treats you would like in addition to fresh soups, sandwiches, and coffee. Take-out and dine-in available.

McGinty’s Café 45 Sykes St. N - 519-538-0092 Located in the heart of downtown Meaford this is the perfect place to stop for a refreshment after a day of shopping or cycling. McQuinty’s Café offers a wide variety of home baking, fresh sandwhiches, salads, wraps, flatbread and a large selection of coffee, tea, and unique hot and cold berverages.

Page 128 of 183 Sheila’s Sugar Sticky Sweet Stuff 24 Trowbridge St W. 519-538-2222 Gourmet sweets available in the heart of Meaford. Custom and hand-made cakes, pies, chocolates and cupcakes are available for purchase. Wholesale avalible.

ENJOY A COFFEE AND A TREAT WHILE EXPLORING THE BEAUTIFUL GEORGIAN BAY.

Earth Harvest Café and Organic Market 100 Sykes St. N 519-377-3386 Independent organic café in Meaford’s Downtown Heritage District that specializes in fair trade, vegan, and gluten free options. All of the offerings at Earth Harvest Café are made from scratch in- house.

Page 129 of 183 Eggcitement Bistro Tilly’s Cafe & Bakery 16 Nelson St. W. Billy Bishop Regional Airport, 519-538-1968 Owen Sound - 519-372-1313 A bright and sunny bistro Enjoy a delicious meal while servicing all day breakfast and watching the planes fly in and brunch. House made sausages, out of the airport. Homestyle pancakes from scratch, and breakfast made all day long, a a variety of egg dishes are variety of lunch options, and fresh available. Located in the heart of baked goods are waiting for you Meaford’s heritage district and at Tilly’s Café & Bakery. a short walk from the harbour. Patio and indoor dining available.

The Kitchen by Christine Collins 86 Sykes St. N. - 519-538-1208 A cozy spot to relax with a coffee or to enjoy a enjoy a delicious bowl of soup and artisan sandwiches in downtown Meaford. Espresso, coffee, specialty teas, pastries and baked goods are available for order. Wraps, quiche as well as frozen and fresh foods to take home. We serve the best butter tarts in town!

Page 130 of 183 Casual & Fine Dining

Page 131 of 183 The Leeky Canoe Pub and Eatery 94 Sykes St. N. - 519-538-1377 A pub and eatery with steaks, ribs, chicken, and pasta. Special events such as live music and open mics occur throughout the week.

Andrew’s Roots 168 Sykes St. N. - 519-538-9000 Experience the culinary talent of local chef Andrew Barber at Andrew’s Roots. Enjoy a casual fine dining experience that’s inspired by fresh local ingredients grown in the beautiful Meaford area. Located in the heart of Meaford’s Downtown Heritage District right across from Meaford Hall.

Sizzlin’ 337 Sykes Street S. - 226-662-6000 Stylish and contemporary restaurant conveniently located on highway 26 in Meaford. Perfect for a family looking for a great place to eat out with many delicious options to try. Check out our incredible heritage photos of Meaford on the walls. Wheelchair accessible.

Page 132 of 183 Captain’s Corner Fish and Chips 108 Sykes St. N. - 519-538-0202 Quaint atmosphere with incredible fish and chips, both take-out and dine in options are available to suit your schedule. Located minutes from the Harbour at the beginning of Meaford’s Downtown Heritage District. Patio seating avaliable for warmer days. The Bears Den Restaurant & Pub 12 Bayfield St. - 519-538-9889 Grab a seat Enjoy a casual, home-style meal with a beautiful view of the Georgian Bay and on a patio the Bighead River. Conveniently located minutes from the Meaford Harbour. and enjoy Outdoor seating is avaliable. the amazing Georgian Bay Café and views Motel meaford 108 Sykes St. N. - 519-538-0202 A fully licenced family restaurant that has to offer specializes in delicious home cooking, serving breakfast, lunch and an early dinner. Our menu changes every week, so call ahead to see what we’re serving today. Meaford Motel and Restaurant 126 Sykes St N. - 519-538-5799 The newly renovated Meaford Motel and Restaurant is located minutes away from the Bay. Chef Jordan Fraser has created a menu that features a variety of new and unique items which are made in-house with local Meaford ingredients.

Page 133 of 183 Ted’s Range Road Diner Valour Road, RR 1, Meaford - 519-538 1788 A well-known destination restaurant offering a variety of good, homestyle cooking at very reasonable prices. Housed in a rustic Quonset hut featuring unique and unusual fare including alligator, emu, buffalo, venison and fresh caught fish. Join the Music Jam on Wednesday nights. No matter what you’re craving, You’ll find it in Meaford. QQ’s Sushi and Amici Pizza Chinese Food 34 Sykes St S. 206497 Hwy 6 519-538-6805 519-538-0732 Conveniently located on highway Enjoy delicious sushi and 26 in Meaford. Offering excellent Chinese food right in Meaford. Italian inspired pizza, pasta, and Over 150 menu items are wing dishes the whole family will available for all you can eat enjoy. Local craft cider from Coffin dining. Take out options are Ridge is available on tap. also available.

Page 134 of 183 Suzie’s Place 31 Sykes St. S. - 519-538-0732 Family dining for breakfast & lunch. Open 5:30 am to 2 pm. Cash only. At Suzie’s, you may not have room for dessert. Perogie Palace 36 Sykes St. S. - 519-538-9811 Delicious and authentic home-cooked perogies and polish food made with love. Both take out and dine-in options are available.

Oriental Restaurant 30 Sykes St. N. - 519-538-3880 A fully licenced restaurant offering the best in Chinese and Canada food. Luncheon specials take place during the week. Take out options available.

Kettles Restaurant Hwy. 6/10 (north of Chatsworth) 519-794-0330 Warm hospitality and great old- fashioned cooking are easy to find at Kettles. Enjoy a great home-cooked meal at Kettles before heading off to see the sights on Georgian Bay.

Rockford Restaurant 317757 Hwy. 6/10 - 519-371-6588 Specializing in delicious schnitzel with a variety of toppings. Fully licenced, and offering local Killanan craft beer.

Page 135 of 183

OUR FOOD Food TRUCKS BRING THE GRUB TO YOU, SO YOU DON’T Trucks HAVE TO LEAVE THE WATER.

Harbour Fries & Meaford Top Dogs Cones Fred Raper Park at Sykes Entrance to Meaford St. N and Bayfield Drive Harbour 519-538-1568 The perfect place to stop for A seasonal family run business. lunch on the Georgian Bay. We are located at the end of Meaford Top Dog’s is a great the Georgian Trail, beside the place to grab a bite to eat before harbour bridge, Meaford Harbour going back to play on the water. Fries & Cones is great place to Enjoy a variety of fresh toppings stop and enjoy a bite to eat or to customize your meal. cool off with some refreshing ice cream.

Page 136 of 183 Food in a Flash FOR YOUR FRANCHISE FAVOURITES, WE HAVE A VARIETY OF OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM.

Dairy Queen 264 Sykes St N. - 519-538-1091

McDonald’s 334 Sykes St. S. - 519-538-2905

Subway 365 Sykes St. S. - 519-538-9627

Tim Horton’s 291 Sykes St. S.- 519-538-1689 New Orleans Pizza 365 Sykes St S. - 519-538-5300

Page 137 of 183 Catering Candlelight Catering 112 Trowbridge St W. - 519-538-9047 Candlelight Catering offers a professional dining experience like no other. Chef Doug Handbury bakes all deserts, cookies, buns and focaccia bread from stretch, and uses his own homemade stock recipes. Christine Collins Catering 86 Sykes St. N. - 519-538-1208 Known for her unforgettable pastry, Christine Collins is an expert in catering for both small and large parties, weddings, and events. Call to discuss menu options. Creative Choices 103015 Grey Rd 18, Rockford Plaza 519- 470-4040 Catering company offering vegan, gluten- free, dairy-friend and diabetic-friendly food options – We cater to everyone. Tilly’s Cafe & Bakery Billy Bishop Regional Airport, Owen Sound - 519-372-1313 Catering for all your needs, from weddings, to business events, to card nights. Call for menu options. OUR INCREDIBLE CATERERS MAKE IT EASY TO HOST AN EVENT IN MEAFORD.

Page 138 of 183 Page 139 of 183

Dear Participant,

This survey is being conducted by a Research Analyst Intern from Georgian College, who is working with Municipality of Meaford to estimate the Meaford International Film Festival’s (MIFF) economic impact on Meaford. We would like to know about your visit to MIFF as this will help us in laying the foundation for our research. The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your responses will be kept completely anonymous and confidential.

If you have any questions, please email us: [email protected] or [email protected]

We really appreciate your input!

1. Did you purchase a ticket to attend MIFF? Yes No

2. Is this your first ever visit to MIFF? Yes No

3. Do you attend other film festivals in Ontario? Yes; please specify______No

4. Select the days which you will be attending or have attended MIFF.

Thursday (1-Sept) Friday (2-Sept) Saturday (3-Sept) Sunday (4-Sept)

5. Please estimate the approximate amount of money you will spend during your entire visit OUTSIDE the event. We understand that this is a difficult question, but please do your best because your responses are very important to our objective. Please respond to all that apply to you. Amount A. Accommodation Expenses ______B. Entertainment, Lounges & Bars (restaurants, drinks, etc.) ______C. Food & Beverages (concessions, grocery stores, etc.) ______D. Private Auto Expenses (gas, parking fees, etc.) ______E. Retail Shopping (clothing, gifts, etc.) ______F. Any Other Expenses ______

Page 140 of 183 6. How satisfied are you with the event?

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

7. How important do you think these types of events are to contribute to enriching the quality of life in the local community?

Very Important Important Moderately Important Slightly Important Not Important 8. Did you come to attend MIFF from out of town?

Yes No

9. If Yes, how important was MIFF in your decision to come to Meaford today?

It was the only reason Very Important Moderately important Slightly important It was not a factor at all

10. Please tell us the postal code of your home address.

______

If you are not a resident of Meaford, please answer questions 11 and 12 below:

11. Will you be staying in Meaford or the nearby area overnight or subsequent nights?

Yes; please specify number of nights ______No

11a. If Yes, which area?

Meaford Other; please specify ______

12. Have you attended or are planning to attend any event or activity in Meaford before the end of year?

Yes No

12a. If Yes, please specify an approximate amount spent or willing to spend on this event or activity.

$ ______

13. Do you have any other comments which you would like to share?

______

THANK YOU for Your Time and Co-operation!

Page 141 of 183

Comparing economic development corporation and internal department models: Service delivery in Southern Ontario1

Paul Parker, Evonne Donaher

An increasing number of communities are investing in formal economic development departments or organizations, leading to debate over where the effort should be housed. The purpose of this study is to undertake a systematic investigation of two models of economic development service delivery: internal municipal department model and external corporation model. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are used, including in-depth interviews with economic development practitioners and empirical analysis.

The findings show that senior economic development professionals generally believe that the service delivery model matters, but there is disagreement on what operational areas are affected and how. Empirical analysis of the program areas and financial and staffing resources shows substantial overlap between internal and external organizations. However, comparing experiences in partnerships, governance, decision-making, and accountability indicates that there are differences between the two models.

The research also indicates that there are factors beyond the model that may be more influential: the size of the organization or where the decision-making power lies for the given situation may influence the speed of decision-making more than the model. Participants also identified the important role of leadership and people in creating a successful economic development organization.

Key words: Economic development organizations, corporations, departments, service delivery models

1. Introduction

1 Based on the report: Economic development organizations and service delivery models, by Paul Parker and Evonne Donaher, School of Environment, Enterprise & Development, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON. 2012.

Page 142 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 2

The objectives of the study are to perform an empirical analysis comparing the case study organizations using various indicators and to understand differences between the two models based on the experience of senior economic development professionals. This research draws from the case study area of southern Ontario, where a range of organizations in the two models is available for comparison. The study uses both qualitative and quantitative methods, employing in-depth interviews with economic development practitioners and analysis of organization websites, budgets, and reports.

The findings provide insight to the question of which service delivery model may be most appropriate for an economic development organization. The study explores key issues of organizational design and examines the views of senior economic development practitioners in the context of empirical indicators and past research on the subject of service delivery models.

2. Literature Review

The economic development profession has grown to include a variety of functions and services, requiring delivery models that provide strong connections to the municipal council and administration as well as other levels of government, institutions and the business community (Thompson, 2010; UBCM, 2010). With the numerous networks and relationships required of the profession, there is often debate over where the economic development effort should be housed (Bowen et al., 1991; Rubin, 1988). This literature review is divided into two sections. The first explores the general types of economic development organizations while the second highlights issues related to service delivery models in Canada.

2.1 A typology of economic development organizations

In their book, Planning Local Economic Development, Blakely and Leigh (2009) present a typology of development organizations that includes three models:

1. Economic development as units of local government (“internal” municipal department) 2. Economic development corporations (“external” corporation) 3. Independent private development agencies

The first and second models are most prevalent in Southern Ontario and are, therefore, the focus of this study (Thompson, 2010; Blais and Redden, 2009). It is recognized that “these organizational approaches are seldom observed in their pure form” (Blakely & Leigh, 2009, p. 405). While many organizations exist in “hybrid” forms, there is value in examining the types of service delivery models as “archetypes” to explore the main differences, advantages and disadvantages.

The internal economic development department as a business unit of local government, sometimes referred to as the “in-house model”, exists in different forms, depending the size of

Page 143 of 183

the community, the municipal status (upper, single or lower tier), historical context, and other factors. In some communities, economic development is a sub-department or division within a larger planning, community services, or similar department. In smaller (particularly rural) communities, there may be a single person who manages the municipality’s economic development activities (Douglas & Chadwick, 2003; UBCM, 2010). In all cases, the internal economic development department reports, sometimes through a chain of command, to the Chief Administrative Officer and is formally governed by the elected Council and Mayor. There are also instances of “less formal [in-house] delivery mechanisms, such as the use of voluntary committees, the services of a planning department or other related department, and/or the use of a staff member with primary responsibilities other than economic development” (UBCM, 2010, p. 15).

The advantages of this model can include internal alignment with council and closer communication, collaboration and coordination with other municipal departments; integration of administration with municipality; potential for more sustainable wages and benefits; and less expectation for sourcing additional funding (Thompson, 2010; Myhal, 1994; Blakely & Leigh, 2009). There is a perception of greater accountability and less opportunity for decisions that primarily benefit certain businesses as they might with a board of directors (Myhal, 1994; Bowen et al., 1991; Rubin, 1988). The municipal role in economic development also includes the important and undervalued contribution of core service delivery such as infrastructure and community planning, which can be facilitated by an internal economic development department (UBCM, 2010).

The economic development corporation, sometimes referred to as not-for-profit or “joint power” organizations or public-private partnerships, is another common service delivery model (Blakely & Leigh, 2009; Rubin, 1986; Thompson, 2010). Given the numerous rationales for and criticisms against corporations, agencies, boards and commissions, Siegel (1994) suggests that there are four situations for which the use of these types of organizations is appropriate: 1) the service area is multi-jurisdictional, 2) the issue is intergovernmental, 3) flexibility in service delivery or organizational structure is required, or 4) the function benefits from arm’s length delivery.

Multi-jurisdictional agencies may be established when the optimal service delivery area for a function crosses several municipal boundaries. Given the increasing emphasis on regional cooperation and collaboration for economic development, this rationale may be increasingly used for separate corporations that span several municipalities.

The intergovernmental policy rationale refers to issues that require the involvement of several levels of government. Given the use of multiple tiers in Ontario, this argument may apply to economic development organizations and would likely be used in similar situations as the multi- jurisdictional service area rationale.

Page 144 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 4

Flexibility is an issue because the large, complex structure of government has lead to great emphasis on procedural accountability, and “made it difficult for governments to be innovative and to respond quickly to opportunities and threats” (Siegel, 1994, p. 90). While the optimal response is to remove the inflexibility within government, external agencies are sometimes created to allow for greater flexibility. There is, however, a risk that external agencies become so driven by alternate goals that they forget their service is ultimately provided for the benefits of the community as a whole.

The need for arm’s length decision making is a rationale used when there is a need to separate decision-making from the political process. Examples include the avoiding the exercise of a state’s coercive powers, or regulatory decisions that may demonstrate favouritism or abuse of power if there is political involvement (Siegel 1994).

Elements of each of these four criteria (multi-jurisdictional, intergovernmental, flexible and arm’s length) can be considered when deciding whether economic development services should be provided internally or externally.

2.2 Economic development service delivery models

Thompson (2010) presents the most relevant research on the subject of service delivery models for local economic development in Ontario, focusing on single and lower-tier municipalities with over 15,000 in population. His study includes a comparison of the advantages of internal and external models, informed by a survey of economic development practitioners throughout Ontario, and an analysis of the adoption of each model by economic development organizations over time. The key findings from Thompson’s research are as follows:

 Instances of the corporate model in Ontario declined from nine in 1999 to eight in 2009. Only six of these organizations consistently operated externally; others changed to or from the internal municipal model. In contrast, 52 internal economic development municipal departments (lower and single tier) existed in 1999, increasing to 65 in 2009.  Advantages to each model are identified. Both models have the potential for business community engagement through advisory committees; roles and responsibilities in the decision-making process must be defined through clear terms of reference.  A key factor in identifying the optimal model is the governance and decision-making process. Should the municipality be directly involved or would a board of directors be more appropriate? Accountability is a key consideration, particularly with the corporation model.  Neither model was determined to be superior as the importance of context and community characteristics and priorities is recognized.

Blais and Redden (2009) present the results of a study by Millier Dickinson Blais on Ontario upper-tier municipalities with 50,000+ population that contrast with Thompson’s results. In

Page 145 of 183

2008, service delivery models in these larger communities were evenly split, with 13 internal, 12 external, and three “combined” organizations, suggesting that external organizations are more common and perhaps better suited to larger communities. Blais and Redden also suggest, “the decision to go internal or external is really a local one” (2009, p. 20).

The emphasis on local context is echoed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM, 2010), which released a comprehensive report on economic development with a large focus on service delivery models. This research included a survey of 124 local governments in British Columbia (ranging from less than 5,000 population to greater than 50,000) on method of economic development service delivery, staffing resources, and perceived effectiveness of chosen delivery model, among other topics. There are a number of notable findings from the UBCM (2010) report:

 The majority of local governments with an economic development function operate an “in-house” model, with some combination of a formal department and less formal mechanisms. There is a move to more blended models demonstrating elements of both the in-house and arms-length models.

 The survey asked respondents to identify how effective local governments felt their service delivery model to be. In-house models were generally considered more effective than arms-length models, but lack of response from corporations makes comparison a challenge. Only 21% of all respondents felt their model is “highly effective,” suggesting improvements can be made across the field. Eight criteria influencing the effectiveness of delivery models were:

o Amount of staff o Quality of staff o Financial commitment o Contact with stakeholders o Support of council o Support of community o Evidence of partnerships o Presence of a regional approach

 The report identifies six main factors for consideration when determining which service delivery model may be most suitable and offers a comparison based on these factors:

o Operational costs and access to external funding o Relationship with business community o Relationship with local government o Administration and regulation o Co-location with other agencies

Page 146 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 6

o “Deal-making” and the provision of incentives

2.2.1 Form Follows Function

Like much of the research on the topic, the UBCM (2010) concludes that one size does not fit all. There is acknowledgement by the Economic Developers Association of Canada (as cited in Redden, 2010, p. 37) that “there is no one right way to organize a local economic development program. One community’s model of practice may not work elsewhere.” The literature review reveals that identifying the optimal delivery model should depend, in large part, on understanding the goals and priorities of an organization, potential partnerships, and community characteristics (Blais & Redden, 2009; Blakely & Leigh, 2009; Thompson, 2010; UBCM, 2010). As Richmond and Siegel (1994, p. 112) summarize, “The key to good organizational design is to fit the organizational structure to the needs of the particular situation at hand. Too often, organizational design decisions are made on the basis of over-reaction, rhetoric, historical precedent, or fad.”

3. Methodology

This study uses both qualitative and quantitative methods. In-depth interviews were conducted with economic development practitioners from the case study organizations. These semi- structured interviews aimed to gain insights into the organizations’ mandates, structures, governance, funding, and processes as well as the practitioners’ experiences with perceptions of alternative service delivery models. The interviews were followed with short emailed surveys on performance indicators. In addition, organization websites, budgets, and reports were analyzed. The research was conducted from January to June 2012. All research instruments used in this study were reviewed and approved by the University of Waterloo’s Office of Research Ethics.

The selected economic development organizations were located in the province of Ontario to reduce the number of factors beyond the service delivery model, such as differing national or provincial regulations, that might influence the comparison. Of the 12 organizations invited to participate, six internal municipal departments and four external corporations were interviewed (Table 1). One of the external corporations was in the process of transitioning to an internal business unit, so the interview was based on their external corporation experience rather than speculating about future experience under the internal model. Another economic development office had been external until a few years ago, but the recent internal municipal experience (2009-2012) was used as the basis for their responses.

The individuals interviewed in both models have a range of previous experience in economic development organizations as well as the private sector and other levels of government (Table 2). These backgrounds provide a wealth of knowledge and experience for their input to the study.

Page 147 of 183

Table 1: Participating economic development organizations, service delivery model represented, municipal status of jurisdiction(s), population served, and population density

Organization Model Municipal Status Population 2011 Density Pop/sq km I1 Internal Single Tier 103,671 42 I2 Internal Single Tier 73,214 24 I3 Internal Upper Tier 73,000 25 I4 Internal Single Tier 63,175 39 I5 Internal Upper Tier 37,571 34 I6 Internal Lower Tier 18,424 151 E1 External Multiple Tiers 431,346 233 E2 External Multiple Tiers 134,933 35 E3 External Multiple Tiers 126,199 42 E4 External Multiple Tiers 388,782 210 Source: Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2011.

Table 2: Number of participants by model with previous experience in other organizations

Type of Prior Experience Internal Municipal External Corporation Department 6 in total 4 in total Internal Municipal Department 3 3 External Economic Development 4 1 Corporation Business 5 2 Government 2 1 Source: Participant interviews; personal communications.

4. Findings 4.1 Organizational mandate & scope

There is a wide variety in the mandate and functional program areas of the organizations interviewed. The range of functions and projects undertaken is important when considering aspects of the organization like budget, structure, and partnerships. When asked to identify their organization’s main programs, participants identified the following functions and program areas:

 Agriculture & local food  Marketing  Business retention and expansion  Newcomer attraction  Community capacity  Sector & cluster development

Page 148 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 8

 Heritage and culture  Small business and entrepreneurship  Human capital  Tourism  Innovation and knowledge economy  Workforce development  Investment attraction

All of these programs represent varying degrees of staffing requirements, investment, partnership, and stakeholder engagement. There are, however, three functions that appear to be significant distinctions between the scope, size, and resources of the participating organizations: tourism, business development/entrepreneurship, and innovation functions.

Tourism services are often, but not always, affiliated with economic development organizations. Six of the 10 participating organizations have a significant tourism program as a key pillar of their organizational mandate. Most of these programs revolve around tourism marketing efforts, some of which are delivered through regional partnerships involving shared costs. There are also instances of visitor information centres managed by the economic development office, requiring an additional set of staff and resources.

All of the participating organizations provide business development support with varying degrees of formality. Of the 10 organizations interviewed, five offer formal business advisory services in the form of a Small Business Enterprise Centre (SBEC), in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation (MEDI). Included in these five organizations are three of the external corporations and two of the single tier internal departments.

In the case of the external corporation in the ED + SBC + Tourism category, a significant research-innovation-commercialization centre function provides additional opportunities for funding and increases demand on organizational resources. This corporation appears as an outlier in many of the figures in section 0 and, given the small sample size, influences the average value calculations. One municipal department also provides “innovation” services through a dedicated staff member, but does not appear to have a significantly altered budget as a result.

Table 3: Scope of main activities and programs of participating organizations

Economic Tourism* Small Business Development Centre† Internal municipal ✔ departments ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Page 149 of 183

✔ ✔ ✔ External ✔ ✔ corporations ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ * Some include visitor information centres or pavilions that involve weekend staffing. † These organizations have MEDI-affiliated small business centres. All organizations interviewed have some form of business services, whether formal or informal.

Source: Participant interviews

Four categories of organizational scope result:

 ED only = economic development services only  ED + SBC = economic development services and small business centre (also referred to as “business enterprise centre” or “business advisory centre”)  ED + Tourism = economic development services and some form of tourism program  ED + SBC + Tourism = full service organization including economic development and tourism services and a small business centre

4.2 Finances

Funding, budgets and other financial considerations are a major concern for all organizations. Finance-related issues were identified as advantages of both models. Nearly all respondents in both models specifically identified insufficient or limited resources as a challenge for their organization. Some indicated that even when they have resources it is not simply aligned with expectations, mandate, and strategic plan objectives.

The following analysis explores key elements of the participating economic development organizations’ finances. The following terminology is used:

 Core or operating budget refers to the base budget of the organization or department received from its main sources of funding on an annual basis.  Total budget refers to the overall budget of the organization in a given year including its core budget and any additional project budgets. This amount varies year over year.  Municipal funding refers to funding received by the organization or department from the municipalities in its service delivery area.  Non-municipal, “external” or “outside” funding refers to funding received by the organization or department from any source beyond municipal funding, including other levels of government, the private sector, and various other organizations.

Page 150 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 10

4.2.1 Budgets

Participants were asked to identify their organization or department’s core and total budgets for a recent sample year. The annual core operating budgets identified by the participating organizations ranged from $155,000 to $2.2 million. The total budgets ranged from $200,000 to $4.4 million. Given variation in the population size served by the participating organizations, an analysis of the budget per capita was completed. The average core budget per capita for internal organizations was $13 and $8 for external organizations. The average total budget per capita was $15 for internal organizations and $14 for external organizations. However, the sample size is too small to draw any firm conclusions on the effect of service delivery model on budgets. Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. suggest that the scope of the organization’s mandate may be a stronger indicator of budget per capita than the organizational model. There is no clear pattern of one service delivery model generating a larger budget. Instead, the larger per capita budgets were found in organizations that included both economic development and tourism mandates.

Figure 1: Annual core operating budget per capita by organizational scope

Internal Municipal Department External Corporation $30

$25

$20

$15

$10 capita $5

$- ED only ED + SBC ED + Tourism ED + SBC + Tourism Annual perBudget Operating Annual Organizational Scope

Sources: Participant interviews; Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2011 [Custom tabulations].

Page 151 of 183

Figure 2: Total budget per capita by organizational scope

Internal Municipal Department External Corporation

$35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5

Total Budget perBudget capita Total $- ED only ED + SBC ED + Tourism ED + SBC + Tourism Organizational Scope

Sources: Participant interviews; Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2011 [Custom tabulations].

4.2.2 Sources of Funding

A variety of funding sources are accessed by the organizations interviewed. Sources include all levels of government, the private sector, one case of CFDC funding and one case of funding from universities, colleges and other institutions. Table 4 shows the number of organizations of each service delivery model that identified the funding source listed during the interview or in a budget or other report. For example, three municipal departments and four corporations indicated they have received funding from the federal government.

Table 4: Number of organizations by service delivery model identifying funding sources.

Funding Source Internal Municipal External Department Corporation 6 in total 4 in total Municipal government 6 4 Provincial government Operational (small business centre) 2 3 Special projects – one-time funding 4 4 Federal government - special projects 3 4 Private sector Grants, special projects, and leveraged funds 2 1 Partnership program 1 - Sponsorship - 1 Fee for service - 2

Page 152 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 12

Universities, colleges & other institutions - 1 Community Futures Development Corporation 1 - Note: This table does not claim to be an exhaustive and complete list. Sources: Participant interviews; budgets, strategies and annual reports of organizations

On average, external corporations accessed funds from a wider range of sources than internal departments (5.0 vs. 3.2 sources). Funding sources also varied with the mandate and size of organization. Of particular interest in service delivery model discussion is the potential for corporations to have greater access to external non-municipal funding sources. Therefore, an analysis is made of the participating organizations and their municipal and non-municipal funding.

Funding from municipal government forms the largest source of most economic development organization budgets. As shown in Error! Reference source not found., internal municipal departments received on average 83% of their total budget from municipal funding. The average for external corporations is 69%, which increases to 80% when the outlying external organization in the ED + SBC + Tourism category is removed from the analysis.

Figure 3: Percent of total annual budget received from municipal sources

Internal Municipal Department External Corporation 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% municipal sources municipal ED only ED + SBC ED + Tourism ED + SBC + Tourism % of total annual budget from from budget of total annual % Organizational Scope

Sources: Participant interviews; budgets, strategies and annual reports of organizations

To compare the amount of municipal funding dollars received by participating organizations, the analysis was completed per capita to take the service delivery area population into account (Figure 4). The average municipal funding dollars per capita received by municipal departments is $13. On average, external corporations receive $8 municipal dollars per capita. When the outlying municipal department receiving over $25 per capita is removed from the analysis, the

Page 153 of 183

average municipal dollars received by internal departments is $10 per capita. Most organizations received municipal funding in the range of $4-15 per capita.

Figure 4: Annual municipal funding dollars per capita by organizational scope

Internal Municipal Department External Corporation $30 $25 $20 $15

$10

capita $5 $- ED only ED + SBC ED + Tourism ED + SBC + Tourism

Annual funding per $ municipal Annual Organizational Scope

Sources: Participant interviews; budgets, strategies and annual reports of organizations; Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2011 [Custom tabulations].

As shown in Table 4, funding for economic development organizations comes from a variety of sources beyond municipal government. Project budgets, which vary year to year, typically have greater non-municipal funds than core budget items. This makes it a challenge to measure non- municipal funding, as there is wide variation in project budgets. Many non-municipal funding opportunities are tied to expansion of scope and mandate. Thus, while additional external funds are an attractive proposition, they may come with additional expectations of and responsibilities for the organization. This is not necessarily a negative consequence if the expanded scope or responsibilities fit within the organization’s goals. For example, one corporation received external funding dollars in exchange for their role in coordinating a community sustainability plan.

The same analysis of percentage of total budget and amount per capita was completed for non- municipal funding. In the analyses in Figure 5 and Figure 6, the impact of an extreme outlier on the small sample size is very evident, as it was in Error! Reference source not found.. The external corporation in the ED + SBC + Tourism category receives significant non-municipal funds through its research-innovation-commercialization centre function, producing the anomaly in the data and demonstrating the expanded operational scope often associated with additional funds.

Page 154 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 14

Figure 5 presents the other side of the equation of what was shown in Error! Reference source not found.. Internal municipal departments received on average 17% of their total budget through non-municipal sources. The average for external corporations is 31%. When the outlying external organization in the ED + SBC + Tourism category is removed from the analysis, this external average falls to 20%.

Figure 5: Percent of total annual budget received from non-municipal sources

Internal Municipal Department External Corporation 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

municipal sources municipal 10% - 0% non ED only ED + SBC ED + Tourism ED + SBC + % total annual budget from from budget total annual % Tourism Organizational Scope

Sources: Participant interviews; budgets, strategies and annual reports of organizations.

On average, municipal departments receive $1.9 per capita from non-municipal funding sources, as shown in Figure 6. The average for all external corporations is $6.2, which falls to $1.6 when the outlying external corporation in the ED + SBC + Tourism category is removed.

Most of the organizations, including internal and external, indicated they have received some form of one-time funding from the provincial government such as the Rural Economic Development grant program. Five of the 10 organizations–-two internal and three external–are also in receipt of operational funding for the Small Business Enterprise Centres.

The federal government was identified as a source of funding by three external agencies and two internal departments for special projects such as a foreign direct investment strategy or an export program. This suggests that corporations may have greater access to federal funding, a concept re-iterated by several participants, but there are opportunities for municipalities as well.

Both external and internal organizations are in receipt of private sector funding through a variety of means. One external organization receives approximately 4% of its annual budget through sponsorships. Another corporation mentioned cost-shared programs and projects with industry.

Page 155 of 183

The two other external agencies both expressed interest in increasing the share of funding received from the private sector. Arguably, the most formal private sector funding arrangement comes from an internal municipal department, which receives 11% of its total annual budget from local businesses that are members of a partnership program and pay an annual fee for services such as marketing.

Funding from universities and colleges was identified by the outlying external corporation in reference to its research-innovation-commercialization centre function. One internal department identified a Community Futures Development Corporation as a source of funding.

Figure 6: Annual non-municipal funding per capita by organizational scope

Internal Municipal Department External Corporation $21 $18 $15

$12 $9 $6 municipal funding municipalfunding - $3 $ per capita $ $- ED only ED + SBC ED + Tourism ED + SBC + Tourism

Annual non Annual Organizational Scope

Sources: Participant interviews; budgets, strategies and annual reports of organizations; Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2011 [Custom tabulations].

4.2.3 Finances & Service Delivery Models

When asked whether they believe funding sources or the distribution of funding would change with an alternative model of service delivery, respondents expressed contradictory views. A range of strengths and weaknesses were stated for both models on budgets and other financial issues.

Page 156 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 16

Figure 7: Responses by service delivery model to the question “Would you expect your funding sources or the distribution to change if your organization were a different model?” Internal Internal Municipal Departments

YES YES 2 4 Corporations

NO NO 2

External 2

“If we were a municipal department we couldn’t apply for special funding programs that municipalities wouldn’t necessarily qualify for” (EDP 1).

The notion that non-profit corporations have greater access to external funding is recurring in the literature. All non-profit corporations interviewed identified this as a benefit to their structure while one municipal respondent identified it as a hindrance. Some of the corporations have been able to expand the scope of their work given this access to additional funding, as previously discussed. One municipal department mentioned this limitation but indicated they overcome the challenge by partnering with local non-profit organizations on projects involving this type of external funding. Municipal respondents also expressed concern that there is instability and an administrative cost to seeking external funds, such as time taken to prepare proposals and reports, and that the organization’s original mandate and goals can be lost in an effort to please funders.

“We’ve always operated under the model that there’s no free money out there and that we really have to be in charge of our own destinies. If you constantly keep looking for the funding, you’re going to spend a lot of time looking and not a lot of finding” (EDP 2).

Turning to municipal sources, there were two main views on the stability of funding for service delivery models. While it was suggested that external corporations suffer from annual variation in budgets, two corporations that indicated they have multi-year funding agreements with their partner municipalities challenge this view. These agreements provide those corporations with financial stability over a longer planning period as opposed to annual budget cycles. Municipal officials suggested that their department transitioning to an external agency would likely result in a decrease in municipal funding as the move could be seen as a cost savings measure or Council would be unwilling to cede significant financial control.

Page 157 of 183

“This municipality has a philosophy that they’ve got to have some sort of say in what happens. They’re not going to hand over that kind of money like that” (EDP 3).

Additional functions related to the distribution of finances were identified as a benefit of the external corporation. One participant indicated that their status as a not-for-profit corporation allows them to provide support to certain funding programs that would not be possible in a municipality. For example, the corporation acts as the third party validator for an Ontario Works employment program that provides funds to companies for hiring.

“We provide third party support. Our structure allows us to be a flow-through agency for special projects because we are autonomous” (EDP 4).

There were opposing views as to how operational costs might differ between internal and external organizations. One participant suggested external agencies have higher costs: “If we were a separate corporation we might have to pay rent, or for computers, or for IT services, or for banking and audit fees” (EDP 5). However, it was suggested by two participants (as fact by an external participant and as perception by a municipal participant) that a corporation can be structured to run on a more cost competitive basis than a municipal organization.

4.3 Partnerships & collaboration

“Communication and working together are critical to the success of the majority of economic development endeavours” (EDP 6).

There was general agreement by respondents in the study that the types of partnerships and relationships formed by organizations differ between service delivery models. One municipal participant disagreed: “Having worked in a couple of different models, I would have to say that they wouldn’t differ significantly” (EDP 7).

When asked to identify some key partnerships, respondents identified a wide variety of organizations and groups (Table 5). Municipal departments were more likely to identify some form of regional collaboration such as involvement in regional sector-based initiatives (e.g., the Ontario’s South Coast tourism brand) or membership in regional economic development organizations (e.g., South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corporation, Southwest Economic Alliance, Regional Tourism Organizations). It is worth noting, however, that the multi-jurisdictional nature of all four external corporations implies that these organizations are, themselves, a form of regional collaboration among partner single, upper, and/or lower tier municipalities.

Page 158 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 18

Figure 8: Responses by service delivery model to the question “Would any of your key partnerships differ if your organization followed a different model of service delivery?” Internal Internal Municipal Departments

YES YES 4 4

Corporations NO 1 External No answer 1

Table 5: Sample of key partnerships identified

Types of Partners Internal External Municipal Corporation Department 6 in total 4 in total BIAs and Chambers of Commerce 4 1 Sector-based associations and initiatives 4 4 Businesses 1 2 Regional projects and initiatives (e.g., south coast tourism) 3 1 Regional organizations (e.g., SCOR, SWEA, RTOs) 3 - Educational institutions 1 2 Community Futures Development Corporations 4 - Workforce, immigration, and similar boards 1 2 Provincial government (e.g., OMAFRA, MEDI) 3 - Federal government (e.g., FedDev, Parks, consulate offices) 3 - Note: This table is not an exhaustive and complete list of partners affiliated with the participating organizations. Source: Participant interviews.

Other levels of government and Community Futures Development Corporations (CFDCs) were identified as key partners only by municipal departments. Corporations did not list these organizations as key partners, although other levels of government were identified with regards to other topics such as funding.

All organizations identified private sector relationships as key partnerships. More municipal departments listed business associations, but fewer identified businesses in general and

Page 159 of 183

workforce or immigration boards. All corporations noted partnerships with sector-based associations and initiatives while four of the six municipalities identified such relationships.

“We work as close as we can with the BIAs and Chambers so that we can keep the pulse of the business community… It’s like having an extra ec dev officer without having to pay for it” (EDP 8).

While some differences are observed in the list of partnerships named by the organizations, the most frequent difference identified between the internal and external model is municipal relationships. This refers to both relationships between the economic development office and (other) municipal departments as well as collaboration among several municipalities in a region.

“You may not have the same rapport…the ability to just have those informal conversations that sometimes solve the problems and get things moving ahead. I think that would be more limited [in a separate agency], for sure” (EDP 9).

Four of the six municipal departments indicated that their relationships with other departments in the municipality would suffer if they became a separate external corporation. The placement of these economic development departments as internal offices of the municipality has several advantages. These offices benefit from improved informal relationships and familiarity with the other departments and key decision-makers. Their existence within the same chain of command can lead to more cohesive planning and duplication. They are better equipped to be a "one stop shop" for businesses to access all municipal services.

Questions were raised by one municipal official about whether these strong internal relationships are necessary for the goals of the economic development office. None of the external corporations identified their relationships (or lack thereof) with partner municipalities as a hindrance and some indicated their access to key municipal actors is quite straightforward. One respondent identified an absence of cooperation between the municipalities and the corporation in the past. This organization has since taken a proactive role in working with the municipality:

“We’ve now begun quarterly meetings and dialogue to open up communications and share issues, challenges, and opportunities. That’s further extended itself into us having a role and added funds to assist in [a specific project]. That’s an example of growing partnership and practicality. They’ve increased the budget, given us a role, and have an expectation for us to deliver” (EDP 10).

Finally, it was noted that relationships with and between multiple municipalities in a region can be strengthened through a multi-jurisdictional corporation that encourages communication and collaboration as opposed to individual municipal economic development departments.

Page 160 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 20

4.4 Organizational structure & governance

4.4.1 Governance structure

One of the key differences between internal municipal departments and external corporations is their governance structure. Three types of structures were identified in this study. Municipal departments each report to a single municipal council and are sometimes supported by an Advisory Board or Committee. All of the external corporations in this study are governed by a Board of Directors.

Figure 9: Governance structures of interviewed organizations Internal Municipcal Departments Board of Council & Advisory

Directors 4 Board/Com mittee 3

External Corporations External Council only

Council Only

“These people know their communities… they’re well connected…[but] they aren’t experts in economic development… decisions are more politically based, maybe, than industry informed” (EDP 11).

Three of the municipal departments interviewed have only municipal council in place as a governing body. In one case, there is an Economic Development Committee of Council that meets with the economic development practitioner on a more frequent basis than full council meetings. The benefits of council as the governing body approach include the network access provided by the well-connected councillors and the broader (regional or county-wide) understanding of economic development gained by the councillors. Weaknesses in this structure include a potentially weaker connection to industry.

Council and Advisory Board / Committee

“It’s very important to have them in place because we use them as a barometer – someone to bounce ideas off of to make sure that we’re still going in the right direction” (EDP 12).

Page 161 of 183

Three of the municipal departments interviewed have, in addition to municipal councils, advisory committee(s) generally comprising private sector representatives with council liaison members. These committees do not have any formal financial or decision-making responsibility. However, they play essential roles in policy change, advocacy, strategizing, and providing connections to industry and advice based on on-the-ground experience. This structure is challenged, however, by the potential for conflict between the views of the Committee and Council. This additional layer of governance can also create an extra administrative burden to the department, taking time from other priorities.

Board of Directors

“The Board of Directors exists as the face of the organization…it includes a mix of individuals that present different thought processes and provide an interactive decision-making environment” (EDP 13).

The Boards of Directors of the external corporations interviewed vary in composition. Members include large and small business owners in various sectors, industry association representatives, and education, labour, and municipal partners. The corporations interviewed frequently identified their strong, dedicated, volunteer board as a key factor of success for their organizations. Several also noted that forming a board with good representation from different parts of the region, sectors, gender, ethnicities, and between urban and rural areas can be an onerous task.

4.4.2 Governance Challenges

A frequent argument for the use of corporations over municipal departments is increased private sector alignment. The internal departments with advisory committees demonstrate that business involvement in municipal economic development practice is also possible. One of these departments also hosts annual focus groups and symposiums to engage additional private sector partners in networking, idea generation, and providing direction to move forward. Private sector influence in the internal model is structurally limited however, as the ultimate financial and decision-making authority lies with council.

“…it’s important to keep the politics out of the business side of the organization… It’s important for people running economic development offices to make sure that their board is truly focused on strategy and fiduciary responsibility and not engaged in the day-to-day running of the operation because that’s where a lot gets in trouble”(EDP 14).

A challenge raised by several participants in both models is the involvement (or “meddling”) of governing bodies in the operations and management of the organization. This appears to be an issue with councils, advisory committees, and boards regardless of the governance structure. In the case of council, it is much easier for councillors to engage in the operational matters of an in-

Page 162 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 22 house municipal department than an arm’s length organization; thus, an external agency can provide a buffer from political “meddling” in the office’s operations. An arm’s length corporation, however, can also face the challenge of a board learning how to govern rather than manage. Participants indicated that this issue could be resolved through clarification of roles, responsibilities and expectations.

One external corporation representative identified political representation on the board as a hindrance to the organization. All of the municipal advisory committees have elected official liaison members that act as a link to council. Of the four boards of directors, three have elected official representation from their municipal funding bodies. The fourth board had elected official members replaced with the CAOs of the municipalities when other board members felt the political participation “diluted focus from pure economic development to [politics]” (EDP 15).

4.4.3 Confidentiality Issues

When asked whether confidentiality problems arise within their current governance structure, only two of the 10 organizations–both internal municipal departments–identified such challenges, with one organization indicating it is a major problem. Most respondents suggested that there is often much interest and pressure from stakeholders, such as the mayor and council, to be “in the know.” However, participants in both models indicated that they are able to manage sensitive information and explain to stakeholders why certain information must remain confidential. It would appear that confidentiality issues are not related to service delivery models. There were contradictory opinions on how confidentiality issues would change when going from an internal municipal model to an external model. One participant from a municipality suggested that the bureaucracy of the municipality leads to the premature involvement of council and other departments in any given project, thus creating confidentiality issues that would otherwise not exist. Another municipal participant suggested that creating an external corporation would lead to confidentiality issues “because then you would have a separate group that’s reporting to another authority [like a Board of Directors], having to interact with a group that’s reporting to this authority [council]” (EDP 16). This interaction of two groups existing under separate lines of command has the potential to create confidentiality problems as well as other communication challenges. However, in practice, confidentiality issues seem to be well managed and rarely reported as a problem.

4.4.4 Organizational Resources & Structure

Staffing

Two approaches were taken to determine the staffing resources of the municipalities. The first considers only permanent employees within the economic development department, from the department director or manager down to permanent staff level. The second approach includes staff within the economic development department as well as senior municipal management

Page 163 of 183

(such as Chief Administrative Officers and General Managers) engaged in economic development activities and linking the department to council. For external corporations, the number of permanent employees from CEO or President down to officer-level staff was considered. These figures do not include any contract or seasonal staff due to the variation in temporary staffing needs over time. For some organizations, particularly those engaged in tourism and running visitor information centres, contract and seasonal employees can figure largely into their overall staffing plans.

Table 6: Minimum, average, and maximum number of permanent employees by model

Number of permanent Average employees population Minimum Average Maximum 2011 Internal Municipal Department 1 5 10 61,509 Internal Municipal Department & Senior 2 6.5 12 61,509 Municipal Management External Corporation 11 14 17 270,315 Source: Participant interviews; organization websites and reports

There are notable differences between the staffing resources available to organizations of each model in the study. These differences are likely the result of variation in service area size and are not necessarily attributable to the model type. The external corporations in the study cover significantly larger service areas. Additional analysis was completed to compare the number of employees to population size (Figure 9). This figure shows that there is no clear pattern of one service delivery model having access to more staffing resources. Perhaps not surprisingly, the similarity between this figure and Error! Reference source not found. showing annual core operating budget is striking.

Page 164 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 24

Figure 9: Number of permanent staff per 10,000 population by service delivery model and organizational scope.

3.00 2.50 Internal Municipal

Department 2.00

1.50 Internal Municipal 1.00 Department + Senior population Management

staff per 10,000 10,000 per staff 0.50 External Corporation Number of permanent permanent of Number - ED only ED + SBC ED + Tourism ED + SBC + Tourism Organizational Scope Source: Participant interviews; organization websites and reports; Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2011 [Custom tabulations].

Four municipal respondents and two external respondents identified, unprompted, that their professional, dedicated, and committed staff are one of the key factors behind their organizations’ successes.

Hierarchy

The organizational structure was also analyzed from the perspective of hierarchical layers. In examining the number of levels in the organizational structure from the governing body (i.e., Board of Directors or Council) down to the staff, there does not appear to be any significant difference between municipal departments and external corporations (Table 7).

Table 7: Minimum, average, and maximum number of levels in organizational hierarchy from governing body to staff.

Number of levels in hierarchy Minimum Average Maximum Internal Municipal Departments 3 4.3 6 External Corporations 3 4.3 5 Source: Participant interviews; organization websites and reports.

There may be differences, however, in the decision-making authority at the different hierarchical levels in the two models. Two municipal departments expressed concerns that their municipal departments are at the lower level of the overall municipal organizational chart. One recognized that there are “layers of authority” in the organization and the formal structure does not always apply in practice. The lack of perceived authority was also raised as an issue:

Page 165 of 183

“The other clear thing I find missing–because I’ve worked in both–is the perceived authority. When I was at [a corporation], I would make decisions and the organization would stand behind those decisions. I had the authority to do it and I would do it. That impresses clients. They’re dealing with a decision-maker. What they’re dealing with here in our organization is somebody who can’t make decisions. Council has to make all decisions in a municipality…that’s a significant problem in dealing with potential investors” (EDP 17).

Additional discussion of decision-making authority can be found in the next section.

4.5 Process, decision-making & accountability

Internal Municipal Departments: Contrasting Views

“Our council procedures require written reports; all reports must be finalized 10 days before the council meeting; no items can be added to the agenda within 10 days prior to the meeting” (EDP 18). Respondents from both models indicated that internal municipal departments are more bureaucratic and have more formal procedures and layers, resulting in slower processes and longer timelines. The high number of requirements in the process and timelines is most evident for any decision to be made by council. Challenges also arise from reporting through senior management who may not have a strong understanding of economic development.

“Decision making is pretty fast on daily issues. I would need approval for large expenditures, controversial issues, and major projects. Otherwise I make the decision (perhaps with my CAO) right at the time of the request” (EDP 1).

These “cumbersome” internal checks and balances are a particular concern if “everything has to go to council,” as suggested by one respondent from a corporation. There were, however, contrasting views on the level of decision-making authority in municipal departments. Some municipal respondents indicated that there are decisions that can be made without requiring a high level of approval and are, therefore, dependent on the individuals involved and not on formal processes. The detailed types of decisions that fall into different levels of decision- making authority, their frequency and consequent impact on program goals were not discussed due to time constraints. The two municipal respondents who report directly to the CAO identified the benefits of this structure, such as having a seat at the decision-making table and approaching other departments on a peer-to-peer basis.

“Moving at the speed of business, business doesn't have time. There is a process and that's the perception…and then there’s the reality. My access to council has been reasonable, I would say. I’ve never waited” (EDP 20).

Page 166 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 26

Considering decisions that require a high level of decision-making authority, respondents indicated that individuals could respectfully bypass formal municipal procedures and expedite the process, particularly when critical decisions are involved. In some cases, this may require an individual to go directly to the mayor and council. The perception is that many formal procedures and regulations that may hinder decision-making exist in a municipal environment. In practice, informal processes can lead to faster decisions. One municipal official with experience in both models suggests the municipal model has faster timelines overall given the stronger internal relationships and seamless access to key decision-makers and lead senior staff.

External Corporations: Speed and Flexibility

“We’re definitely more nimble and quicker and less restricted than the local government. It has a positive impact on timelines” (EDP 21).

All participants from external corporations stated that their model of service delivery allows for faster, more creative, proactive, and nimble decision-making when compared to the more bureaucratic and structured municipalities.

“If we did need to pull together our Board for a decision, they’re pretty responsive and we can do it either by email or a quick meeting” (EDP 22).

One explanation for the improved timelines is greater flexibility in the decision-making process. With less stringent requirements and procedures to adhere to, such as specified timelines of when and how agendas must be submitted and meetings scheduled, faster decisions can be made in the external model.

“In terms of responding to projects, we just do it. We don’t need to take projects to the Board for review unless we were trying to put a major incentive package on the table or something that required some special consideration” (EDP 23).

Participants suggested that processes are faster in external corporations due to different levels of decision-making authority. Respondents indicated that more decisions are made by corporation staff instead of moving up to the Board of Directors. With “people on the front line with the authority to make the decision,” as one municipal official describes, fewer decision-makers need to be involved, less communication is required, and timelines are shorter.

Factors Beyond the Model

While discussion around the speed and flexibility of processes is highly tied to the service delivery model, participants highlighted several factors affecting decision-making that exist outside of the model and structure.

Page 167 of 183

The size of the organization is a major factor in how quickly processes and decisions can be executed. Smaller organizations are likely to have fewer levels of hierarchy and fewer procedures, resulting in faster decision-making. One municipal official with experience in one large and one small municipality suggests that while they are both internal departments, the organizations and their functioning are very different primarily due to the difference in size and volume of activity.

It was also suggested that municipal status plays a role in how economic development services are delivered. The status of the municipality or municipalities included in the organization’s service delivery area influences the functions and responsibilities of the organization and the types of decisions that need to be made. For example, an upper tier municipality supporting lower tier municipalities that provide their own on-the-ground economic development services is more likely to be a facilitator and networker and thus less likely to require large decisions to be made through council.

The issue of decision-making authority is most relevant in determining how and how quickly decisions can be made and has been discussed in relation to both models. It is worth noting, however, that where the decision-making power lies may negate any processes internal to economic development organizations. There are some decisions, such as re-zoning or grant applications, that ultimately lie with council, other levels of government, or external agencies. Economic development organizations in both models are subject to the same timelines.

Accountability versus speed

“Accountability is the single biggest issue facing economic and community development agencies, whatever form they are” (EDP 25).

Several participants in both service delivery models identified accountability as an essential consideration in the practice of economic development. There are differences by service delivery model in how this issue is perceived.

The issue of accountability was primarily raised relative to speed of decision-making with participants suggesting that speed and flexibility may be counter to accountability and transparency.

Page 168 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 28

Speed & Flexibility

“The arm’s length model “The reason that council allows [our corporation] to be meetings are consistently nimble and to operate on the same day is so that independent of the grind of a they’re accessible and municipal organization. If open to the public…so this privilege is abused, it that they can speak to becomes a problem” (EDP issues” (EDP 27). 26).

Accountability & Transparency

Municipalities are generally seen as more accountable than separate corporations. The perception of increased accountability in the municipal model is cited as “a big factor in [one corporation’s] transition to [an] internal department” (EDP 28). Three of the six municipal departments indicated that transitioning to the external model would decrease the organization’s accountability, although opinions were mixed on whether this would be an overall positive or negative change. In the words of one municipal official,

“The [external model] is unregulated. It wouldn’t be driven by the Municipal Act. There are certain things you would be able to do that would give you more flexibility, for sure. But maybe sometimes you need somebody looking over your shoulder – just a little reminder to keep it between the lines. There's got to be respect out there for the profession. If all it is is who can strike the most crooked deal to get the job done, is that right? I guess there are pros and cons” (EDP 29).

This sentiment that accountability is necessary to earn the respect, trust, and support of stakeholders was echoed by others.

Performance Measurement

Participants from external corporations also recognize the need to address accountability issues. Notably, two respondents emphasized the connection between accountability and performance measurement and reporting. They also suggested that performance measurement needs and issues should not differ between internal and external models; thus, they did not see any major difference in how organizations of both models would demonstrate accountability. One participant describes the challenge:

Page 169 of 183

“It’s fine to say that we’re accountable and to do reports but if your stakeholders are trying to measure you on different things, that becomes a challenge. That’s where it’s different than corporate. You’re talking about helping to create community capacity. We know what it means but how do you measure that? How do you measure relationships with the university? How do you measure the impact of regional collaboration [or] marketing your region? And that’s the same everywhere. It’s why so many people leave this industry every year” (EDP 30).

This study attempted to measure differences in performance between the two models but encountered two problems. The first is attribution. There are flaws in attributing progress in a local economy to a particular organization, let alone to its service delivery model. The second is inconsistency in the use of indicators. In the field of economic development, there are no universal standards for key performance indicators or data sources although professional associations such as the Economic Developers Association of Canada and Economic Development Council of Ontario are encouraging the use of these indicators. Responses from participants in this study indicated that external corporations had performance indicators more readily available.

Openness and Transparency

Given the nature of accountability, measurement is a challenge. One approach to assessing accountability is evaluating the openness of an organization and its willingness to share information. An analysis of information freely available and accessible on the participating organizations’ websites was completed and is summarized in Table 8.

All organizations are open about finance-related documents, although some of the budgets shared on corporation websites are not the most current. Municipalities provide up-to-date finance information, since budgets are prepared annually, and council meeting minutes were found on all municipal websites. While available, this information is less accessible given that the economic development office is just one department within the municipality. For example, budget information is typically buried on the finance office webpage and may not be easily accessible from the economic development office webpage.

The area where corporations are strong is the provision of formal annual reports. No municipal department had annual reports available, although three issue regular quarterly newsletters that provide similar information (recent activities, budget and staffing updates). It is also possible that similar information is provided for municipal departments through larger documents covering the entire municipality or in council meetings as documented in meeting minutes. Nevertheless, a formal annual summary is easier to access on external corporation websites. Thus, while municipalities have accountability “built in” to their regulated processes, corporations take additional steps to demonstrate their accountability through actions such as annual reporting.

Page 170 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 30

Table 8: Information available on organization websites by model.

Information Types Internal External Municipal Corporation Department 6 in total 4 in total Financial statements and/or budgets 6 4 Meeting minutes (for council, committee, or board) 6 1 Strategy or strategic plan 4 3 Formal annual report 0 3 Regular newsletter (updated within last 6 months) 3 2 Social media updates, blog, links to news stories 6 4 Source: Participant interviews; organization websites and reports

5. Conclusions

Does the service delivery model matter?

 Organizational Scope: There is variety in the mandate and functional program areas of the organizations interviewed. Three functions are identified as most likely to affect operational areas such as budget: tourism, small business and entrepreneurship, and innovation and knowledge economy programs. Organizations in both models provide these functions.

 Finances: The average total budget per capita was nearly equal between internal and external organizations while internal organizations had higher average operational budget per capita. External organizations had a greater proportion of their total budget funded by non-municipal “outside” sources and identified a greater variety of funding sources.

 Partnerships: Respondents from both types of organizations stated that the service delivery model affected partnerships and that both types of organizations had many partnerships. Overall, municipal departments identified more partnership types than external corporations. The most cited difference between the internal and external model was relationships between the economic development office and other municipal departments.

Page 171 of 183

 Governance: Three governance models were identified in the study – council only and council with advisory committee for internal departments and board of directors for external corporations. Private sector involvement was demonstrated in both models, but financial and decision-making authority ultimately lies with council in the municipal model.

 Organizational Structure: There were no notable differences between staffing resources or levels of hierarchy between the models. However, external corporation staff are reported to have greater decision-making authority than municipal staff.

 Decision-making: The study attempted to empirically measure average decision-making timelines in each model, but this was not possible. The general opinion was that external corporations have faster and more flexible processes and timelines. There were contrasting views on the speed of the municipal model due to strong internal relationships, access to decision-makers, and faster than perceived informal processes.

 Accountability: Respondents indicated that there is tension between speed of decision- making and accountability. There was agreement that municipalities are highly accountable given their formal processes. Corporations have taken steps to demonstrate accountability through performance measurement and public reporting.

Are other factors more influential than the model?

When discussing decision-making timelines, participants indicated there are other factors beyond the model that influence speed such as the size of the organization or where the decision-making power lies for the given situation. Speaking more generally, one participant suggested that both the internal and external model can function well depending on the leadership and skills of the organization’s staff:

“It’s really a management and communications issue. It depends on the capability of who is leading the economic development organization, the capabilities and understanding of the mayor and council. There are well run successful public-private partnerships and there are well run municipal operations. A lot depends on history and who the actors are” (EDP 32).

Another participant indicated that the effort and dedication of individuals can have a greater influence on the organization and its community’s economic future than the organizational model: “Flipping the switch and going to a different model isn’t going to change the economic reality inside of our community. Hard work changes that, not models” (EDP 33). In short, leadership and people matter.

Service delivery models: “it needs to reflect the community”

Page 172 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 32

Participants suggested that the debate about service delivery models is ongoing:

“Even in areas that look like they’re doing really well, there’s always going to be those on council that will ask if we should be doing it another way…Either one can work, but the reality is it’s always going to be a question as to which is the better model” (EDP 34).

Several respondents said that the issue has been discussed in their communities on several occasions.

The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the internal municipal and external corporation models of service delivery. While there are many opinions about differences between the models, some of those opinions are contradictory. Analysis suggests that differences exist, but in practice, the range of financial and staffing resources and functions found in the organizations overlap. Neither model is identified as superior. The two structures differ and each community should consider which model fits its people and partners best.

For economic development organizations considering a new model, the words of one participant emphasize the importance of taking context into account and choosing a model that is appropriate for the situation and circumstances:

“It really needs to reflect the community, the aspirations of the community, the culture… the key is to stay connected so that you are delivering a service that they need and in a way that they want it. I think both the stand-alone and the department can work equally well in other scenarios. It’s about how you’re engaged with the stakeholders in the community” (EDP 35).

About the Authors

Paul Parker is the Director of the Economic Development Program and a professor at the University of Waterloo. His research focuses on building sustainable communities by creating win-win opportunities for the environment and economy. He is particularly concerned with how local economic development strategies can achieve a sustainable future. Sustainable energy systems are an essential starting point, so he looks first at conservation and improving energy efficiency, then at renewable energy sources and smart grid networks as integral parts of community energy plans. Paul combines his strong research background with direct experience engaging local representatives from communities across Canada and overseas to envision and build local capacity, vitality and sustainability.

Evonne Donaher is Energy Services Coordinator at REEP Green Solutions, an environmental non-profit organization. Prior to this, she was a Commercialization Analyst at the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, a Community Economic Development Research Advisor at the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and a Program

Page 173 of 183

Assistant in the Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division of Natural Resources Canada. She holds a Master’s of Applied Environmental Studies (MAES) in Local Economic Development (LED) from the University of Waterloo. She has completed research related to economic development service delivery, local food systems, and green building.

References

Blais, P., & Redden, A. (2009, February). Investing in economic development: Important key indicators municipalities should assess. Municipal World, 19-21.

Blakely, E., & Leigh, N. G. (2009). Planning local economic development: Theory and practice (4, illustrated ed.) Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Bowen, W. M., Rubin, H. J., & Hill, E. W. (1991). Management of economic development. In Managing local government: Public administration in practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Douglas, D. J. A., & Chadwick, S. J. (2003). Toward more effective rural economic development in Ontario. Guelph: School of Environmental Design and Rural Development.

Myhal, N. (1994). Existing Rationales for Agencies, Boards and Commissions. In D. Richmond & D. Siegel (Eds.), Agencies, boards, and commissions in Canadian local government (pp. 37- 48). Toronto, ON: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada.

Redden, A. (2010). Is there a best practice? A better understanding of local economic development in rural Ontario. Papers in Canadian Economic Development, 12, 30-57.

Richmond, D. & Siegel, D. (1994). Conclusion and a look to the future. In D. Richmond & D. Siegel (Eds.), Agencies, boards, and commissions in Canadian local government (pp. 111-116). Toronto, ON: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada.

Rubin, H. J. (1986). Local economic development organizations and the activities of small cities in encouraging economic growth. Policy Studies Journal, 14(3), 363-388.

Rubin, H. J. (1988). Shoot anything that flies; claim anything that falls: Conversations with economic development practitioners. Economic Development Quarterly, 2(3), 236-251. doi:10.1177/089124248800200304

Siegel, D. (1994). The appropriate use of agencies, boards, and commissions. In D. Richmond & D. Siegel (Eds.), Agencies, boards, and commissions in Canadian local government (pp. 83- 110). Toronto, ON: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada.

Page 174 of 183 PCED Vol 13 | Comparing economic development models 34

Thompson, S. (2010). Delivery models of local economic development: An analysis of internal and external models in Ontario. Papers in Canadian Economic Development, 12, 86-110.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM). (2010). Evaluating the economic development role of BC local governments: A snapshot of community effort and opportunity. Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

Page 175 of 183 Page 176 of 183 Protective Inspections Monthly Report August, 2016

The following permits were issued: August 2016 Class Type # of permits issued Construction Values Year To Date Totals 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Residential New Homes 4 3 2,000,000.00 1,160,000.00 17 23 7,990,000.00 10,227,000.00 Reno/Additions 5 3 569,000.00 50,000.00 34 32 2,651,300.00 1,565,000.00 Multi Res 0 9 0.00 2,615,000.00 Sewage System 5 9 75,000.00 112,000.00 25 33 415,000.00 479,000.00 Other 5 8 194,000.00 147,500.00 44 43 978,100.00 1,110,000.00 Institutional New Buildings 0 0 0.00 0.00 Additions 0 0 0.00 0.00 Renovations 0 1 0.00 240,000.00 Industrial Agricultural 2 2 15,000.00 50,000.00 14 17 1,386,000.00 2,968,000.00 New Buildings 0 0 0.00 0.00 Additions 0 0 0.00 0.00 Renovations 0 0 0.00 0.00 Commercial New Buildings 0 0 0.00 0.00 Additions 1 1 200,000.00 100,000.00 Renovations 4 7 230,000.00 198,000.00 Other 1 1 45,000.00 5,000.00 Monthly Building Totals 21 25 $2,853,000.00 $1,519,500.00 140 167 $13,895,400.00 $19,507,000.00 Accessory Apartments 0 0 Plumbing Permits 7 3 36 58 New Sewer Connections 1 1 2 23 Demolition Permits 1 1 8 6 Change in Use, Tents, Etc. 2 5 14 11 Total # of Permits issued 32 35 200 265

Estimated End of Year Construction Values: Respectfully Submitted By: ______-2014 $12,195,650.00 Page 177 of 183 -2015 $20,515,400.00 Richard A. Carefoot, CBCO *multi residential units created May 2016 = 8 Chief Building Official *multi residential units created June 2016 = 2 *multi residential units created July 2016 = 6 *multi residential units created year to date = 16 Page 178 of 183 Protective Inspections Monthly Report July, 2016

The following permits were issued: July 2016 Class Type # of permits issued Construction Values Year To Date Totals 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Residential New Homes 2 6 800,000.00 2,627,000.00 13 20 5,990,000.00 9,067,000.00 Reno/Additions 4 5 365,000.00 271,000.00 29 29 2,082,300.00 1,515,000.00 Multi Res 6 1,115,000.00 0 9 0.00 2,615,000.00 Sewage System 4 3 100,000.00 42,000.00 20 24 340,000.00 367,000.00 Other 12 4 189,000.00 92,500.00 39 35 784,100.00 962,500.00 Institutional New Buildings 0 0 0.00 0.00 Additions 0 0 0.00 0.00 Renovations 0 1 0.00 240,000.00 Industrial Agricultural 6 4 346,000.00 1,278,000.00 12 15 1,371,000.00 2,918,000.00 New Buildings 0 0 0.00 0.00 Additions 0 0 0.00 0.00 Renovations 0 0 0.00 0.00 Commercial New Buildings 0 0 0.00 0.00 Additions 1 100,000.00 1 1 200,000.00 100,000.00 Renovations 2 160,000.00 4 7 230,000.00 198,000.00 Other 1 1 45,000.00 5,000.00 Monthly Building Totals 30 29 $1,960,000.00 $5,525,500.00 119 142 $11,042,400.00 $17,987,500.00 Accessory Apartments 0 0 Plumbing Permits 6 15 29 55 New Sewer Connections 9 1 22 Demolition Permits 3 2 7 5 Change in Use, Tents, Etc. 3 12 6 Total # of Permits issued 42 55 168 230

Estimated End of Year Construction Values: Respectfully Submitted By: ______-2014 $12,195,650.00 -2015 $20,515,400.00 Richard A. Carefoot, CBCO *multi residential units created May 2016 = 8 Chief Building Official

Page 179 of 183 *multi residential units created June 2016 = 2 *multi residential units created July 2016 = 6 *multi residential units created year to date = 16 Page 180 of 183

Memorandum

TO: Mayor and Members of Council

FROM: Stephen Murray, Economic Development Officer

DATE: September 6th, 2016

SUBJECT: Real Estate Market Summary – August 2016

This summary is provided for Council’s information, and highlights real estate sales for the area in August, 2016.

This public information will be provided on a monthly basis.

Southern Georgian Bay Association of Realtors (Western District) Market Summary Results 2015 vs 2016

Total Area Summary August 2016 YTD August 2015 YTD %+/- Listings (Units) 3,025 3,240 -6.6% Expired Listings (Units) 680 1,038 -34.5% Sales (Units) 1,946 1,602 21.5% Sales ($) $718,153,769 $545,256,798 31.7% Sales $1 to $199,999 (Units) 377 355 6.2% Sales $200K to $349,999 (Units) 775 689 12.5% Sales $350K to $499,999K (Units) 446 328 36.0% Sales $500K to $799,999K (Units) 250 164 52.4% Sales $800K to $999,999K (Units) 54 36 50.0% Sales $1.0 Million + 44 31 41.9% Average Residential Price $369,040 $340,360 8.4% Res. (single-family) Activity By Area August 2016 YTD August 2015 YTD %+/- Clearview (Units) 149 104 43.3% 12 Month Average Price $464,436 $359,348 29.2% Collingwood (Units) 275 240 14.6% 12 Month Average Price $417,399 $366,537 13.9% Grey Highlands (Units) 48 40 20.0% 12 Month Average Price $447,524 $420,356 6.5% Municipality Meaford (Units) 114 105 8.6% 12 Month Average Price $329,978 $307,085 7.5% Springwater (Units) 14 17 -17.6% 12 Month Average Price $342,560 $303.754 12.8% Town Blue Mountains (Units) 143 133 7.5% 12 Month Average Price $610,440 $603,538 1.1% Wasaga Beach (Units) 486 377 28.9% 12 Month Average Price $330,724 $308,105 7.3%

Page 181 of 183 Page 182 of 183

Memorandum

TO: Mayor and Members of Council

FROM: Stephen Murray, Economic Development Officer

DATE: August 3rd, 2016

SUBJECT: Real Estate Market Summary – July 2016

This summary is provided for Council’s information, and highlights real estate sales for the area in July, 2016.

This public information will be provided on a monthly basis.

Southern Georgian Bay Association of Realtors (Western District) Market Summary Results 2015 vs 2016

Total Area Summary July 2016 YTD July 2015 YTD %+/- Listings (Units) 2,714 2,893 -6.2% Expired Listings (Units) 604 925 -34.7% Sales (Units) 1,645 1,392 18.2% Sales ($) $599,462,510 $469,488,633 27.7% Sales $1 to $199,999 (Units) 317 316 0.3% Sales $200K to $349,999 (Units) 667 598 11.5% Sales $350K to $499,999K (Units) 389 286 36.0% Sales $500K to $799,999K (Units) 217 135 60.7% Sales $800K to $999,999K (Units) 45 33 36.4% Sales $1.0 Million + 30 24 25.0% Average Residential Price $364,414 $337,276 8.1% Res. (single-family) Activity By Area July 2016 YTD July 2015 YTD %+/- Clearview (Units) 132 87 51.7% 12 Month Average Price $444,447 $352.546 26.1% Collingwood (Units) 230 209 10.0% 12 Month Average Price $408,904 $366,634 11.5% Grey Highlands (Units) 40 36 11.1% 12 Month Average Price $459,847 $443,757 3.6% Municipality Meaford (Units) 88 94 -6.4% 12 Month Average Price $317,605 $310,859 2.2% Springwater (Units) 12 12 0.0% 12 Month Average Price $327,039 $294,347 11.1% Town Blue Mountains (Units) 114 117 -2.6% 12 Month Average Price $619,169 $600,314 3.1% Wasaga Beach (Units) 422 333 26.7% 12 Month Average Price $327,803 $303,251 8.1%

Page 183 of 183