Loading...
03 22 2006 COW Agenda TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS DATE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2006 TIME: 9:00 a.m. 1. NOTICE OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT" 4. DEPUTATIONS: a) 9:00 a.m. Rick Dory, President and Mel Coutanche, Vice-President, Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce, re: Budget and Regional Economic Development. 5. CORRESPONDENCE: a) Township of Essa, re: Resolution No. C34-2006, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Municipal Representation [deferred from March 8, 2006]. b) Wayne Wilson, CAO/Secretary-Treasurer, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, correspondence dated March 13, 2006 re: Appointment of Members to the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. c) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, correspondence dated February 21, 2006 re: 2006 Central Ontario Municipal Conference, April 27, 2006, Sheraton Parkway Toronto North Hotel [additional program information available in the Clerk's office]. d) Carol Benedetti, Co-ordinator, Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce, correspondence dated March 9, 2006 re: Annual Business Achievement Awards Dinner Invitation, April 3, 2006, Heights of Horseshoe. e) Glen Knox, County Clerk, The Corporation of the County of Simcoe, correspondence dated March 8, 2006 re: County of Simcoe Deliberations on Development Charges [full package previously distributed]. 6. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION: a) Report No. TR 2006-07, Paul Gravelle, Treasurer, Treasurer's Statement of Remuneration. b) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, discussion re: Hill Billy Hack Camp. 7. a) Jerry bring re: Gravel Road Upgrades [Please March 15, 2006 meeting]. 8. ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: a) Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering and Environmental Services, re: Annual Summary Reports - Water Supply and Treatment - 2005. Report No. EES 2006-10, Canterbury Report No. EES 2006-11, Cedarbrook Report No. EES 2006-12, Craighurst Report No. EES 2006-13, Harbourwood Report No. EES 2006-14, Horseshoe Highlands Report No. EES 2006-15, Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Report No. EES 2006-16, Maplewood Report No. EES 2006-17, Medonte Hills Report No. EES 2006-18, Robincrest Report No. EES 2006-19, Shanty Bay Report No. EES 2006-20, Sugarbush Report No. EES 2006-21, Warminster 9. BUILDING, PLANNING AND BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT: a) Committee of Adjustment minutes, meeting held on March 16, 2006. 10.EMERGENCY SERVICES: a) Report No. FD 2006-06, Scott Cowden, Director of Emergency Services, re: Monthly Fire Report, January, 2006. 11. RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES: None. 12.IN-CAMERA: a) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Personnel Matter. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 2 ADDENDUM 1,.(, I!, '01'\ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5. CORRESPONDENCE: f) Robert Burk, Past President, Coldwater & District Agricultural Society, correspondence dated March 10, 2006 re: Contribution Request. 8. ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: b) Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering and Environmental Services, memorandum dated March 17, 2006 rei Municipal Water System Rates. 9. BUILDING, PLANNING AND BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT: b) Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services, memorandum dated March 21, 2006 rei Proposed Watershed Development Policies, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. 11. RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES: a) Councillor Marshall, re: Evergreen Grant with respect to Gowan Station Park Project. ~ _,1. ((;, HGf-I.d ~ ~/~, , Oro-Medonte c~i/?trto~m~~ 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Ora, ON LOL 2XO Phone 705-487-7337 Fax 705-487-0133 March 2 I, 2006 \ rvlaYl)r Craig & Members OfCOllllcil Tl}\Vllship ofOro-Mcdolltc Box 100, Orn, ON. LOL 2XO Re: ("humber ol"COlllllH::TCC ::006 budget subrnissioll DcaI' MayP!' Craig and Memhers ofCollllcil ^ttachcd please fInd the budget submission from the Oro-Mcdontc Chamber nf C'Ollllllcrcc for ::::006. \\'.c have had a very sllccessful year and look -ronvard 10 the \)PPOrlllllil) to continlle our efforts to promote local businesses and assist in the establishment of Ile\\ husinesses in Ollr area. During.lhc past year. Ollr membership has increased significantl,)' and \\c have undertaken a !lumber or sLlccessful ventures to represent the Township ill this arcn or CCllllOlllic dcvell)plllcnt. /\ significant ac(olllplishmcllt in 2005 was the eomplctiiJI1 and of the Orn-l\1edonte map. 1'0 dale. over 14JlOO of these maps. which idenli ry several local bu~inesses. have hecn distributed throughout the Towllship and hc)'ond. 'rhe Illap has received mueh positive feed hack and an "ddition,,116,OOO will be distributed over the next two years. The Chamber \vas also pleased to \\e!come Carol Benedetti a~ Ollr nc\\ Administrative Coordinator. This ehangt.: in stalling has aJl()\ved the Chamber to significantly reduce iwentll c:\pCllses by allocating more responsibility to the volunteer Board Illemhers and starring the olTice on a part-timc basis. ^s such. we were able to direclmore orollr funds to\\'ards activities :limed at promoting the 100.:al eCOlh)IllY. Other significant developments include upgrading of our web site \vhich lists ll11mCnH1S events taking phl(e in and arnllnd Oro-Medollll' and the establishment ora sl..?"ril..?"s of--bu:-.incss alkr flveh gatherings for local businesses. We also ran another successful Awards B;l1lquC'L held Member Appreciation Nights. upgraded our IlC\VslcttcL nllcnded severalmcetings on n:giJ.)llal economic development. and hosted a golf tournament. Many i)fthesc initiatives would not have been possible without the generolls support or the Township ofOrn-Ml'donte. III 2006 we look fonvard to continuing this mutual relationship and respectful!) rL'i.jucsl that To\vnship (\)uncil consider our request for $20,000 in order to e\palld our initiatives. This year \ve will continue to recruit n('\\/ members. introduce additional activities stich as a trade sho\v in September. and of course be hosting the all candidate's meetings during the municipal election. Vv'e will also be making a separate presentatioll regarding Regional Lconomic !)eveh)pmcnt ()pportunitics \ve respectfull.y request and appreciate Council's cOllsideratii)fl oflhis matter as \\-dL Iryou require any additional infonllation please do not hesitate to contact me. \' ours sincerely, Rick Dor.y. President Item (INCOME & EXPENSE) 2005 2005 06 Budqet Budqet Actual Income (Net for events) Awards banquet 1800 4892.54 3000 Bank Interest 13 3.8 0 Fundralslng EventlTrade SI10W 1500 469.85 1000 I Group Insurance rebate 630 928.57 1200 GUide map 2200 .104249 0 Member dues 11900 12300.56 13175 Newsletter/Webslte Advertising 200 Tota/lncome 18043 17552.83 18575 Expenses (net for events) Advertising 500 37041 2500 Newsietter 0 0 1000 Webslte maintenance/design 1560 705 1700 Webslte Hosting 0 180 180 Computer Svs/Software/Equlpmt 580 334.64 650 Donatlons/R ecog n Itlon s 75 25 300 Dues & Subscrrptlons 750 675 1500 Expense/Board Events/Mileage 300 721.64 2000 Marketing & Promotion 550 210.5 700 Meetlngs/BA5/Volunteer recogn 750 330 1100 Office, equipment & supplies 375 332.38 330 Banking/Service Charges 0 70.29 100 Ora Farr 75 60 0 Payroll remittance 2340 1826.05 1500 Professional Development 300 0 300 Telephone 1200 1566.15 2000 Wages 32728 2437615 21000 Drrector/General liability Ins. 0 0 2200 Tota/ Expenses 42083 31783.21 39060 Shortage = 24040 15505.94 20485 O.M contnbutlon 18000 18000 20000 Shortage after O.M contnbutlon 6040 .249406 485 Economic Development Funding 0 0 10000 Deputation to O-M COTW re O-M Chamber 2006+ Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 09:00 Carol & I are here today on behalf of the Board of Directors and the Members of the Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce. Our President, Rick Dory could not be here today. He is participating in the National Biathlon Championships in Quebec – as a driver for his teenage son! Thank you again for your continued support and liaison efforts during the past several years. In requesting and anticipating your continued support we would like to highlight: The PAST: 1996 (formation of the O-M Chamber of Commerce) ? Strategic Plan developed in 2002 ? Key Points from the Strategic Plan: ? 1.Mission - Page 9 2.Long term growth and viability of the Chamber – Page 3 3.Chamber plays a critical role in the Economic Development of the Municipality - Page 3 4.The Chamber should establish measurable goals each year, toward achieving the 5 year goals – Page 4 5.Chamber efforts must be consistent with the OP which includes “protect the Township’s rural character”. – Page 6 6.The Chamber is “to play a strong role in promoting O-M” – Page 18 Office set up at Township ? Beginnings of being the Ec-Dev arm of O-M ? The Present (2005): Growth in 2005 from 125 to 165 members – a 25% increase! ? Annual Awards Dinner becomes special event ? Significant change in staffing – with Carol Benedetti ? The O-M Guide Map completed and distributed (15000 out of 30,000) ? Website developed (www.oromedontecc.com) ? Barrie Bay Cats Night (approximately 50 members) ? Significant contact (10+) with neighbor Chambers and Municipalities (e.g. ? Orillia Chamber, Ramara Chamber, Lake Country and the Regional Economic Development partners). Business After 5 initiated (three in 2005 and continuing in 2006) ? The FUTURE: Newsletter – bimonthly to members for primary communication ? Liaise with the Orillia and Area Community Development Corporation to ? provide businesses in O-M with comprehensive guide to owning and operating a business in O-M. Rick Dory and Bruce Chappell are Board members. Increase advertising (North Simcoe News) ? Attraction of “arts community” members ? Trade Show at Oro World’s Fair (September) ? Work more closely with the CFDC (Community Futures Development ? Corporation) which works with Industry Canada and provides small business consulting services. Focus more on the Chamber’s economic development role ? Participate in the Lake Country Regional Economic Development Project ? 1 2006 Budget and Key Points: 2006 Budget details, highlighting differences from 2006 – Carol Benedetti Note: Carol will provide the detail for the budgeted “line items” of the O-M Chamber in 2006. Then she will ask Mel to highlight the need for additional funds, in order that the O-M Chamber participate in the Regional Economic Development Project – with the Lake Country partners. Regional Economic Development Initiative – Mel Coutanche Note: GPA is Greater Peterborough Area Note: AIH is Alberta’s Industrial Heartland 1. Regional economic development - partnering, sharing, learning and doing. 2. The Lake Country Region is one of the few regions in Ontario without a formal regional economical development approach. An excellent nearby example, to the southeast of us, the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation, has enhanced funding for business and economic development that is not available in Lake Country. We could and should partner with the EODC. 3. Proactively, you decide what you want and what you don’t want; when you want it and where you want it. This is “targeted” development, not “pro” development. 4. Measurable Goals are set for investment by sector, complete with dollar targets, time-lines, strategies, action lists and responsibilities. Examples of key performance indicators: Businesses established, Dollars invested, Business Retention Initiatives, Grants obtained ($), Jobs Created, etc. 5. Regional economic development is very effective. GPA - 2000 jobs since 1999 ? GPA - 1000+ business start-ups since 1999 ? AIH doubled targeted investment (10B to 20B+) since 1999 ? Municipal cooperation is enhanced ? AIH led to a Complementary Area Structure Plan (4 municipalities northeast ? of Edmonton) 6. Ramara Township’s Economic Development Committee has initiated Phase 1. The Chamber of Commerce is the project leader. Phase 1 is focused on data collection and analysis for the Lake Country Region. Survey of current businesses ? Research possibilities of business expansion ? Identification of factors supporting and limiting growth ? Liaison with local municipalities re Official Plans ? Liaison with Simcoe County re current/future plans ? Liaison with Provincial and Federal authorities re: relevant policy issues ? Identification of sources of support and competition ? Facilitate Focus Groups (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) ? 2 7. Other Lake Country partners are joining. Rama Mnjikaning First Nations hosted the first (exploratory) dinner meeting. ? Severn is supportive. ? The City of Orillia is showing support. We are meeting with the Mayor and ? the Economic Development Officer at 10:00 today. The City of Barrie will be included in the O-M analysis. ? We (the O-M Chamber) are proceeding based on agreement in principle. ? 8. Phase 2, 3 & 4 will deliver the Strategic Economic Development Plans for all of the partners. It’s not too late to participate. Phase 2 (Overall Strategic Plan, Identify obstacles, Key future developments ? by sector) Phase 3 (Business Retention and Attraction Plans and Actions) ? Phase 4 / Evaluation (Review and Recommend) ? 9. Government funding is available: Provincial already in ? Federal (Industry Canada) for “regional” projects ? After provincial and federal funding is applied, the “local” contribution will ? account for only 20 - 25 percent of the total costs. 10. Regional Steering Committee approach will provide control for all Stakeholders Senior municipal representation (Planner) ? Chamber of Commerce representation ? Economic Development Officers (where available) ? Elected Officials ? Meet approximately once every 2 months ? Next meeting is April 12, 2006 ? 11. Other key points Include Barrie (most important for O-M) ? Investment not expense ? 3 C. The consultant team (Sims Latham & Associates) Paul Rexe (from the GPA – objective and professional): Queen’s University Professor ? Chartered Director of the GPAEDC ? City of Peterborough Councillor ? Consulting Group which has prepared over 150 strategic plans ? Many Directorships and volunteer efforts ? Michael Raggett (experience and process strengths): Has led many projects for Industry Canada and HRSDC ? Participated in Provincial government projects ? Pat Latham (experience in data analysis and authoring reports) Authored many reports for the Federal Government ? Responsible for data analysis from many surveys ? Julie Scott (Project management and local contacts) Mel Coutanche (experience and O-M representation) Interim (original) Executive Director of AIH (1998 – 2001) ? Investment attraction consultant to Alberta Government (Economic ? Development Dept.) for 1998 – 2001 Director, Government Affairs, Dow Chemical Western Canada 1993 – ? 1995 Many volunteer Boards – especially in the Environmental and ? Sustainable Development areas. 4 . . . Lib ~ " . '" "~ Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce Strategic and Business Plan 2002-2007 Prepared by: Precision Management Jean Sinden January 31, 2002 ~--- , ! i '~.:;'~;-.'-":.-...,...- t ::'",1'"'.', c / +-~--/ -...,."" ~- , f -~ I i , i f"r.E! -' .r.. '"' f 'c, ~'" ;;;,.". ; iv;r:r:-,. j ..-"'-li!\fG; , """""'~""~ =..""-O,,,-__,~--:: __ l!:~ -1/ . Forward 3-4 Executive Sumary History and Current Situation 6-7 Strategic Theme . Mission & Goals Strategic Intentions . Membership . Programs Events and Services . Delivery . Governance and Succession . Communication 10-14 15-18 19-20 21-22 23 Appendix- Budget 24-25 . 5 8 9 2 . . The purpose of this report is to proYide a strategic plan for the Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce to ensure its long term growth and viability. In order to ensure that the strategic plan gets carried forward the secondary function of this plan is to develop a business plan with specific actions and initiatives to implement the core issues of the strategic plan. A third focus is to ensure the continuity of the strategic and business plans over at least a five year period by providing for the succession of the executive and committees. It is important to emphasize that this plan is for the Chamber of Commerce and not for The Township of Oro-Medonte. Accordingly the plan was completed on the basis of the Chamber working within the existing Strategic Plan of The Township, It is also important to recognize the need for a Chamber of Commerce in Oro- Medonte and its importance to the viability and growth of business to enable capitalizing on the unique feature of the region. It is also important to recognize that a Chamber of Commerce plays a critical role to the economic development of the municipality considering that the vast majority of industrial and commercial growth in rural Ontario comes from the expansion of business already located in municipalities. It is important to note the successes of the Chamber that have resulted solely through the efforts of Community Volunteers and the need for support from the Municipality to evolve beyond its present stage. This is especially noteworthy considering that the majority of members represent small home-based industries that often experience "round the clock demands" to operate their own businesses. The significant advances that have resulted since the Chamber acquired funding for a temporary Managing Director, attests to the potential of the Chamber to evolve given the necessary resources. 3 . . The strategic plan was prepared based on individual interviews with members of the Board of Directors, members of the Chamber at large, and non member businesses in Oro-Medonte. In addition a planning day was held with members of the Board of Directors. This specific information was incorporated with information derived from interviews with other Chamber of Commerce managers and executives. The outcome of these interviews was that a strategic plan was developed with key strategic themes identified. The themes were broken down into strategic intentions that were identified for organizational purposes as membership, programs and services, delivery, governance and succession and communication. In each of these areas a five year goal as to how the Chamber should develop was established and this goal is stated at the beginning of each relative section. The business plan portion of the report is limited to a one year goal and suggestions as to how these goals are to be attained through a series of steps have been made. The business plan offers only suggestions but should be used as a framework by those Chamber executive officers, directors and committees who are charged with overseeing the goals and implementing their plans. This plan is only useful over the five year period if it is used as a rolling plan. The Board of Directors and the comrnittees should establish measurable goals each year toward achieving the five year goal. Each year they should review the previous year's goal and set new ones for the year. 4 . . The Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce, without a Managing Director, does not appear to be sustainable as an organization. This state of affairs existed because its membership was too small to be financially viable or to be viewed as an organization with a voice in and for the community of Oro-Medonte Township. In fact non member businesses in Oro-Medonte were only vaguely aware that there was a Chamber of Commerce and had little idea as to what it did and why it would be a benefit to them to be a member. A result of the active membership of the Chamber being small is that it is difficult to get people involved in committees and the Board of Directors because of the time commitment involved. Prior to temporary HRDC funding, the current Board of Directors, by necessity, has been charged not only with establishing policy for the Chamber but also in running its day to day operations and organizing all its events. The solution is to attract more members and interest them in serving on committees which will handle manageable and finite portions of the Chamber's business and events. Committee members will eventually feed into the Board of Directors. While this is easier said then done, the Chamber has been presented, through the encouragement and support of the Corporation of The Township of Oro- Medonte the opportunity to evolve. This evolution will be focused on: the hiring of a permanent Managing Director; the establishment of a distinct home for the Chamber and a renewed emphasis on holding events that will attract the business community. These events will better attract members by focusing on issues that effect them directly and offering networking opportunities for businesses in Oro-Medonte to do business with other local businesses and individuals. To build on the visibility, the Chamber needs to better refine its professional image. The events have to be well publicized and run. The quality of the Chamber's premises and the opportunity it offers to present a professional image is significant. The Chamber needs the resources to upgrade and keep current its web site and published material to serve and entice membership. Attracting new and enthusiastic members will ensure new ideas to build on initiatives presented in this report and ensure the long term success of the Oro- Medonte Chamber of Commerce. 5 . . ~~STlU"mIO The Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce was started in 1996. Its original purpose was to promote business and industry in Oro-Medonte. In fact, as expressed by a founding member of the Chamber, one of the original purposes was to attract a "Honda or Toyota" to establish a manufacturing facility in the township. Whether this goal was realistic at the time or not, in the intervening years the population of the township has changed and/or become more vocal in its opposition to "big" industry establishing itself in Oro-Medonte. This attitude has manifested itself in the strategic and official plans of Oro-Medonte Township which has as one of its "Pillars" (#3),"To Protect the Township's Rural Character". In keeping with this Pillar the economic development plan of the township limits commercial and industrial development to the Highway 11 Corridor, including the airport. Otherwise the plan encourages new agricultural uses, including agri- tourism, and home-based businesses. In keeping with this plan and the concems of its citizens, there has to be a heightened awareness of the outstanding recreational opportunities within the Township... "hills and shores, near city doors" This and other factors, have combined to cause the Chamber not to be able to develop the momentum to reach a membership level that would establish it as a visible, active and dynamic organization to the community in general and the business community in particular. Other factors that have limited the growth of the Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce as expressed by members and non-members interviewed are: . Some didn't know there was a Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce. . Some were aware of it but didn't know what it did or what services it offered. . Some knew of it because it operated the tourist booth on the highway but they weren't in the tourism business so it offered little to them. . Some didn't know where it was or how to contact it. . Some phoned to get information but no one phoned back or sent them any information. . Some belong to several organizations. 6 . . The result is that membership is at approximately 100 members and the active membership, those who volunteer for committees and attend meetings, are a much smaller group. Membership includes businesses located outside of Oro- Medonte, who provide services within the municipality. Although active in the community, they are less likely to attend functions or become members of the executive. The limited financial and personnel resources resulting from a relatively small membership and relying upon volunteers with the demands of their own small businesses has restricted the Chamber's ability to put in place staff or systems to achieve business operations at the professional level necessary. 7 . . ~'i'(at~jcl;'~liemerryiSIDm .' The strategic theme and the emphasis for the Chamber over the next year, and throughout the next five years, has to be increased visibility and professionalism. If it follows these themes its membership will grow. The Chamber's Mission and Goals, as stated in its current material and reiterated below, are consistent with the strategic intentions identified in this report. However it is clear from interviews and observations that increased communication is essential to some businesses and individuals. The Chamber must be more visible as the organization: . that represents business in the community and has a voice in the issues that affect the business community in the township and with other levels of govemment. . that sponsors business and social events as well as tradeshows that brings member businesses together to their mutual benefit in the exchange of ideas as well as products and services. . that organizes events which promote education and networking. . that promotes member businesses in Oro-Medonte to the citizens and other businesses in Oro-Medonte. . that encourages people and businesses from outside the township to stop and shop in Oro-Medonte. A secondary meaning of visibility dovetails with the economic development of Oro-Medonte Township is that it has to be visible as distinct and separate from its two big neighbours Barrie and Orillia. The Chamber has to be seen as highly professional: . in that the events it runs are well attended and operate smoothly. . meetings, both open to the public and involving members of the chamber and even the board of directors should be conducted according to common rules of order. . in that it responds to inquiries promptly. . that its material, both printed and web based, present a professional image. 8 . . Mission of the Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce The Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce is an association of members providing goods and services within the township. The Chamber shall be a cohesive force with its purpose to support and encourage residents to purchase from these members, to increase public awareness of these members and their contribution to the general public. It will represent the members to all levels of government, community interest groups and businesses. The Chamber will provide business directories and buying guides, trade shows to showcase business, member networking opportunities, and other member benefits to enhance these goals. Goals: 1. Become a political lobbying group in a non confrontational, interdependent manner, particularly at the local level. 2. Offer networking opportunities for members that stress an opportunity to do business with other members and to leam from each other. 3. To playa strong role in promoting Oro-Medonte, by working in conjunction with other associations, departments and bureaus within The Township. 4. To act as a catalyst with the providers of education and training to ensure a quality workforce. 9 . . Five Year Goal: To increase paid, active, Oro-Medonte based, membership to 200 members. One Year Goal: To increase paid, active, Oro-Medonte based, membership to 100 from the current number of approximately 70. Steps: Year 1 1. Membership committee to review and approve targeted groups, artisans and tradespeople. 2. Committee to ensure representation through recruitment of at least a member of each group to sit on the committee. 3. In consultation with representative establish a publicity campaign tailored to the target group. Example "townhall meetings" which would be open to the general public but sponsored by the Chamber. 4. In consultation with representatives establish a benefits of membership package tailored to target group. Examples, for members only, listing in the business directory which would include a specific section for artisans including a map to their location. Another benefit could be a Chamber sponsored arts and crafts fair in conjunction with the fall Studio Tour or the Oro World's Fair. 5. Establish a follow up program for the executive director or members of the committee to follow up. Background and Current Situation: It is estimated, based on discussions with township and chamber officials, that the number of businesses domiciled in Oro-Medonte is approximately 600 to 800. Information provided by Statistics Canada Census (1996) through the Township reveals that there are 845 people in Oro-Medonte who list their jobs as being located in the home. Included in this number are some people who work for large organizations but who work from home and accordingly would not be considered in business for themselves. The majority however would be self employed and almost all would be working in operations with fewer than two employees. 10 . . The largest group of people who work from home list their occupation as farmer (280). There are also large groups in construction (120), retail (85), health and social services (45), manufacturing (50) and business services (30). Based on the most recent business directory (2000-2001) the Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce had approximately 119 members of which 70 are actually based in Oro-Medonte with the balance mainly being located in Orillia and Barrie. This latter group is listed primarily because they consider Oro-Medonte as part of their market area and joined the chamber as part of their marketing efforts in the area. One way of categorizing the businesses that are members of the chamber and located in Oro-Medonte is that there are: 1) 8 tourism destination businesses. These are described as businesses such as ski and golf facilities which attract substantial numbers of people from well outside the township. 2) 8 agri-tourism, businesses. In this group are businesses such as pick your own produce operations and farm tour operations. These businesses attract the majority of their business from outside the township but closer at hand then the first group (mostly Barrie and Orillia) 3) 5 bed and breakfasts who bring their own clientele but also benefit from the first two categories. 4) 5 gasoline and auto repair services who rely at least in part on the traffic generated by the first three categories and others who travel through the township on their way to other destinations. 5) 12 construction services businesses which are based in the township and do substantial amount of their business in Oro-Medonte and the surrounding area and are not directly tied to the tourism trade. 6) 19 business and personal services organizations such as accountants, veterinary and medical operations and consultants. 7) 13 miscellaneous businesses 9 are located in Oro-Medonte but could be located elsewhere Le manufacturers and transportation businesses. Based on these two sets of statistics it would appear that currently the Oro- Medonte Chamber of Commerce represents, at best, only approximately 12% (70/600) of the businesses in Oro-Medonte and that its membership does not represent proportionately the business community in Oro-Medonte. II . . A check with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce indicates that in a community the size of Oro-Medonte a membership of 25% to 35% of the businesses is considered the average. In part the low number and lack of representative membership is a result of some of the groups, such as farmers, being represented by other groups and not yet seeing themselves as traditional businesses, the natural constituency of the Chambers of Commerce movement. The planning session conducted with the Chamber Executive acknowledged the lack of representation of some groups and also identified some groups that should be targeted as possible members of the chamber. In the planning meeting, the following groups were identified: . Equine . Aviation . Retail . Artisans . Agri-tourism . Tradespeople . Hobbyists/crafts . Hi-tech business . Manufacturing . Farming Community - Farm Gate Sales . Communications . Commission Sales-Real Estate . Private Education . Health services . Home Care Professionals . Recreation . Financiallnstitutions . Investments/securities . Marketing/ Promotion . Mini Storage . Accommodation . Specialty Farms . Transportation/Freight . Tow Trucks . Professionals - LawyersNets A second review identified the following groups as having significant enough numbers and possible interest to be targeted as chamber members. . Artisans . Tradespeople . Hightech business/communications . Commission Sales/Real Estate . Professionals . Recreation . Specialty Farms . Accommodation Each of these groups would have a different reason for joining the Chamber and the strategy for attracting each would be slightly different. The planning session identified the artisans as the largest group and accordingly a sample strategy is outlined for them, a similar plan could be put in place for the other groups. 12 . . Artisans: Recruitment Strategies In view of the lack of specific statistics but based on subjective observation it was suggested that the largest of these groups would be the artisans. This group would include the potters, painters and other craftspeople in the community. Depending on the focus and extent of their work this group may have defined themselves as being in the manufacturing, retail, wholesale or other services sectors of home occupations. In order to attract this group the services offered by the Chamber have to be tailored to meet their needs. A recurring theme is that a criteria for increasing membership in any organization is based on fulfilling a need for the prospective member. Any member joining an organization wants the question answered.... "What's in it for me?". Before addressing what the benefit of joining the Chamber is for this group, among others, a perceived risk of joining must be addressed. This group is hesitant to join the chamber because they are afraid that identifying themselves as a business will lead to tax implications both at the federal and township levels. There is a perception that residential properties will be reclassified for taxation purposes to commercial or industrial ratings, and accordingly property taxes will rise, if it is identified that a business is being operated. This might also trigger inspections by health and safety officials and result in capital improvements being required. This issue could be turned from a weaknesses, in that it stops people from joining the chamber, to a strength. Elsewhere in this report it is suggested that the chamber needs to be identified with issues and one way would be to take up the cause of the home based business. (Bearing in mind that the Chamber represents legitimate businesses and not those who seek to operate without paying taxes or who seek to avoid necessary environmental, health and safety legislation.) The best way to do this would be to sponsor a series of "town hall" meetings to explain current legislation and to gather information on the experiences of home based businesses. The Chamber could then lobby local government for policies perceived to be more receptive to the establishing and prospering of home based and cottage industries. These "town hall meetings" would be clearly sponsored by the Chamber and the Chamber would have in place a way of tracking attendees and have material printed outlining the services of the Chamber. Respecting benefits to this group in joining the chamber some suggested positive benefits of this group joining the chamber would be: 13 . . While it is standard that any business joining the Chamber would be listed in the business directory it is a common problem in Oro-Medonte that the listed address does little in actually routing potential customers to the business. It was suggested that a map of the township be included with the location of these businesses specifically marked. This artisans' section of the directory could also be printed separately as a supplement to be handed out to visitors who would not be interested in some of the other advertisers. Also a rotating sampling of the crafts available in Oro.Medonte could be shown at the Chamber office if one is located in a location of high visibility. Events specifically for artisans, who are Chamber members, could also be sponsored by the Chamber. Examples of these events could be a Christmas craft show in conjunction with a Chamber Christmas function or a Chamber show in conjunction with the fall Studio Tour. These events would have to be carefully organized as it would not be the intention of the Chamber to be viewed as being in competition with private businesses or other community events that rely on the sale of crafts for their existence. 14 . . Five Year Goal: Provide a full slate of information, networking and social events which meet the needs of the entire spectrum of Chamber members. One Year Goal: Present three "town hall" meetings on issues of relevance to the business community, hold three successful events of a social nature, hold two trade shows featuring paid up members of the Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce. In all cases these should be clearly identified as being sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. Steps: 1) Form a committee to identify and schedule events to be held in the next year. 2) Form subcommittees and recruit members to assist in the organization of the events. 3) Identify partners in the community to co-sponsor events Services: In the planning meeting held in conjunction with preparing this report the following services were identified as already being provided by the Chamber or being potential services that could be offered. . Directory . Web-business links . Data Base . Resource Centre - Information . First stop for economic development-services available . Liaison between business and township . Tourist information . Provide office services, meeting place for businesses . Business start up kit - residence . Welcome committee . Link to township and government . Business communication, newsletter, speakers . Provide opportunities for networking, social, tradeshows, meetings . Promote area as a whole, place to live, work and play . Insurance ]5 . . Business Events: While it is true that people join chambers because of what it can do for them. This is sometimes not captured by way of services but rather as issues and business growth opportunities. The Chamber in its role as a lobbying group as defined by its mission and goals should identify issues that are crucial to the economic and business climate in Oro-Medonte. In interviews with individuals and during the planning day some issues that came forward frequently were: . future plans for Highway 11, . future development plans in Oro-Medonte, . zoning and assessment issues for home based and cottage industries . de-regulation of hydro . changing responsibility for inspection of septic systems . the possibility of part or all of the township being annexed/amalgamated with either of the adjoining urban areas Orillia and/or Barrie. These are issues that the business community should have an interest in and should position itself through advocacy and public meetings as the group that speaks for the business community on these issues. If the chamber does not feel it can rally enough support for meetings on these issues then it should do so in conjunction with other organizations within the township. The Lions Club was mentioned as a natural partner for the chamber. These meetings would not only put forward these issues but would also give the Chamber visibility and exposure and would answer the question what is a the chamber doing for me. Note: In conjunction with the proposal of increased co-sponsorship of events with other community groups and The Township itself it is imperative that the Board define, in writing, the nature of its role and the amount of participation in these events at the outset. Necessary in being able to represent the chamber is having in place a structure to poll business as to their interest in a subject. 16 . . f Social Events Not withstanding that the chamber should focus on issues that are important to chamber members it was acknowledged that the chamber should also fill a social need for its members. Many members feel isolated in the community because they work from home or in small businesses or in parts of the township that are separated from other businesses. In short as there is no Main Street in Oro- Medonte it is hard to socialize with other business owners. In part the opportunity to socialize and network is presented at the end of regular meetings but it was also discussed that the chamber should host purely social events. In the strategic planning session a list and preliminary schedule of events was proposed that the Chamber could present. January Awards Banquet/Silent Auction February Valentine Dance March Ski day, Sleigh Ride, Skating April Speaker/Pub Night May Boat Cruise/Fire Works June Road Rally/BBQ July Golf Tournament August Corn Roast September Trade Show October Costume Party November Casino Night December While this list is rather long and it is not suggested that these events all be staged and that the list of dates are firm. In that the year has started perhaps only one summer and one late fall event of a social nature has to be planned. A committee to organize social events could be formed and then subcommittees could concentrate and recruit other members to organize specific events. One way to bring in people and involve them in the chamber is to get them interested in small jobs, someone who may not want to be involved in lots but is a golfer 17 . . would in all likelihood volunteer to be on a committee to organize a golf tournament. Economic Development: While the Chamber is not directly responsible for economic development in the Township it does have as its mission and goals "to playa strong role in promoting Oro-Medonte". The Chamber could fulfill this mandate in three ways. . Firstly it can promote the township and its businesses to people who have been attracted to the township by other organizations or events. . Secondly it can assist in attracting people to the township and keep them for more than a rest stop or to fill up with gas. Oro-Medonte is fortunate to have two major highways routed through it. While the 400 has limited access Highway 11 is a known and traditional stopping point for travelers to Muskoka, Casino Rama and beyond. If there is a role for the chamber in promoting the virtues of the township to the existing traveler then a location on Highway 11 is a natural location for an office. The office, in and of itself, would not cause travellers to stop so whatever its location there has to be another draw. This could be an existing service station, restaurant, rest stop or shop. The draw would create traffic for the Chamber office and a referral to other businesses. Note that as the Chamber by itself is not charged to promote tourism. There are several other local groups and umbrella groups who deal outside Oro-Medonte such as the Lake Country and Huronia Tourist Associations. The Chamber could partner with these groups to assist with additional staffing and incremental costs. It is important that there be partners as the Chamber is moving to broaden its membership. . Thirdly the Chamber could assist in bringing businesses and visitors to the Township by attending trade shows. Discussions with other local economic development agencies indicated that if these shows were selected to attract businesses then the shows have to be targeted to the type of business the area is trying to attract. Many small communities and economic areas try to attract call centres by having booths at telecommunication shows. If recreation is the focus of economic development then cottage and vacation shows also have to be targeted. In either of these cases more sophisticated promotional material would have to be developed. It was suggested that rather than the Chamber attending shows it should partner to develop a CD Rom which would advertise Oro-Medonte as a place to live, work and play. This could be given to people who are already in Oro-Medonte to play or are travelling. 18 . . Five Year Goal: To be a self sustaining Chamber of Commerce with a Board of Directors overseeing governance issues, full time staff that handles day to day operations autonomously, a home that seen as a source of information and committees planning and organizing a series of events. One Year Goal: To confirm a full time employee, to establish a distinct home for the chamber and to diversify membership and responsibility sufficiently to be able to organize events without relying solely on existing members of the board of directors or full time staff. Some events particularly at the outset may be too much for the chamber to deliver on its own. Partnerships should be developed with such organizations that represent other parts of the business community. Staffing: Currently there is one staff member who is on a wage subsidy through HRDC. In order for the Chamber to be able to present itself professionally it is important that permanent staff be in place to coordinate events and ensure that the Chamber is responsive. The Board of Directors should review available job descriptions and adopt one that outlines the duties of the managing director. The managing director would be aware of their role and performance can be reviewed regularly. Premises: A theme of this report is that the Chamber has to be visible. A permanent, distinctive Chamber Office would make it visible. However there is an issue as to visible to whom. If the Chamber's only role is to promote business to business within Oro-Medonte and lobby government it does not have to be visible to people visiting or passing through. Businesses in Oro Medonte would find it. Visibility would be built through sponsorship of events as outlined earlier in this report. If however a major part of the Chambers membership and focus is recreation related the premises have to be visible to traffic and secondly be easy to get to from other parts of the township. In view of the lack of available sights on the 400 extension within the township it appears the most appropriate site would be on Highway 11. A Chamber office/ tourist information centre in Oro-Medonte would not, by itself, be enough of a draw to cause people to stop for information. Wherever it is located has to be adjacent to an existing large draw such as a service station, restaurant or historical/heritage site in Oro-Medonte. It was also suggested that a draw could be created by establishing a farmers market along the highway and reducing independent farm stands scattered along the highway. ]9 . . Funding: Based in part on discussions surrounding this plan a proposal has been submitted to the Corporation of The Township of Oro-Medonte seeking funding to establish premises and cover operating costs in excess of revenues for the Chamber for this year (2002). The township in its turn has indicated that it will make application under programs such as OSTAR, if applicable, to recapture some of these costs. A copy of the proposed 2002 budget for the Chamber is appended to this report. The required funding is for the normal operations of a Chamber office. If the premises are located so as to be accessible to tourists and the office is seen as an information centre for tourists additional funding will be required for staffing outside of normal office hours. This would include evenings and weekends during parts of the year. Discussions with other Chambers has indicated some funding is available for tourism through Provincial Ministries. The Chamber could partner with groups more directly associated with tourism such as the Huronia Tourism Association, the Lake Country Tourism Association, Bed and Breakfasts, and Casino Rama to cover the off hours. Other sources of funding from the planning day were: . Office Services . Rental of meeting rooms . Co-op farmers market and consignment goods . Fundraisers, including Nevada tickets. 20 . . ~c~sticcesS~io Five Year Plan: That there is sufficient interest in the Chamber and the Board of Directors that elections need to be held. That the Board is made up of members that represent all segments of the Oro-Medonte business community. These segments would include the factors of geography and industry. Board meetings would consist of policy making and focus on results of the Chamber activities and initiatives. One Year Plan: Have regularly scheduled board meetings, at a set time and place, once a month which are attended by a quorum of the board of directors. The meetings are to be preceded by a timed agenda and last no more than two hours. Define events and meetings to be held each year at the beginning of the year and establish terms of reference for the committees to be running these events. Steps: 1. Hold a planning session for the Board of Directors to determine and define its obligations and duties. 2. Determine the roles and responsibilities of the individual board members. 3. Review existing by-laws to ensure they are being implemented. 4. Review criteria for effective meetings. 5. Establish a consistent time and place for meetings so that board members can schedule well in advance. 6. Establish a manageable number of committees that have definite purpose and give them a mandate to meet that purpose. Current Situation: In view of the existing small membership and lack of full time staff the current board is relatively static with the majority of members being the same from year to year. In addition because of the lack of staff it has fallen to the board members to be primarily responsible for the day to day operations of the Chamber. This has led to all functions of the Chamber being managed by the board. Accordingly the board has had to meet often and their time has been taken up with projects and issues that should be dealt with by smaller committees or by the staff. The result is that some meetings are poorly attended and new members are reluctant to get involved. It is acknowledged that it has been difficult to get board members and so some actions have been taken for expediency sake. One of the first actions of the Board of Directors has to be to review its own constitution and by-laws to ensure that the Board is being operate properly and that there is transparency to others looking at the Chamber of Commerce.. 2J . . In order to attract new members and ensure proper succession planning the committees have to be active in recruiting members for specific events. Beyond recruiting the Board has to define the role of the committee, adopt a budget, define the role and time commitment of the executive director and then leave the committee to organize the event. The nominating committee has to identify people throughout the year who are active in the business community. These people should reflect the diversity of Oro-Medonte as to the different businesses as well as the geographic area. 22 " . . ~6mrrlh"cafo , Five Year Plan: Have the technology to be able to communicate with all members of the Chamber of Commerce in Oro-Medonte and have them actively involved in functions, events and decision making. One Year Plan: Develop and have printed professional looking membership brochures outlining benefits of membership in the Chamber. Assemble a membership package to be mailed to all new members welcoming them to the Chamber and advising them of committees and asking them to join. Put in place clear operating procedures and guidelines in writing. Full time staff will ensure that the Chamber's partnership with other groups is defined in writing. This will ensure that each partner's roles and responsibilities are clearly established at the outset of planning. Steps: Recognizing that this is a plan for the Chamber material and systems to be developed and improved relate only to the Chamber. Materials and Systems suggested to improve communication are: . Develop and print a brochure outlining the services of the Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce. . Develop and print a new member package to include the directory, a list of committees, a calendar of events and other items new members would appreciate. . Update the Web site . Develop methods to poll members on issues of importance to them. . Develop a system to advertise upcoming meetings and events, this could include posters in member establishments. . Develop a CD Rom on the business community as well as other attractions in Oro-Medonte. Background and Current Situation: The monthly Chamber newsletter is now integrated into the North Simcoe Community News and will be distributed to 6000 businesses and households in Oro-Medonte. A web site exists and is linked to the official Township site as well as to the Provincial Government's site. Chamber material outlining some of its goals and objectives and services consist of black and white printed sheets. 23 . Appendix IncomelExpense Ordinary Income Membership (100 x $85) Awards Banquet Directory Local Trade Show (Oro Fair) Insurance revenue Net Ordinary Income Potential Income Member events - fundraiser Artisans' tour Farmers markeUconsignment Net Potential Income Net Total Income Expense Staffing full-time (including benefits) Total Staffing full-time Capital Costs - facility Temporary trailer (20 x 55) Moving (permil & escort) Telephone Hook-up (2 line roll-over) Hydro - hook-up Site preparation Foundation - support & leveling - steps and ramp fa<;ade Furnishings and fixtures Total Capital Costs Fixed Office Costs Computer & printer Fax Total Fixed Office Costs 8,500.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 15,500.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 4,000.00 19,500.00 . Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce Budget Projections Fiscal year Beginning April 1, 2002 35,000.00 35,000.00 20,000.00 5,000.00 350.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 3,000.00 5,000.00 36,350.00 2,500.00 800.00 3,300.00 24 . . Operating Cost Telephone & internet Hydro Rent Office supplies Postage Technical support Property maintenance (snow/garbage) Dues & subscriptions Gifts & honorariums Professional development Meetings Travel/mileage Insurance Professional feeslaudit Advertising Marketing/Signage Total Operating Costs Total Expenses Net Income -88,450.00 Additional expenses (as requested) Consumer Trade shows @ 2500/per show Partnering with exisIing associaIions CD-ROM promos June meeting/theme . Oro-Medonte Chamber of Commerce Budget Projections Fiscal year Beginning April 1, 2002 3,000.00 3,000.00 6,000.00 2,400.00 300.00 600.00 3,500.00 2,000.00 200.00 300.00 500.00 1,000.00 2,500.00 1,500.00 4,000.00 2,500.00 33,300.00 107,950.00 ? ? ? ? 25 Innovative Perspectives (7051 325-0572 p.2 ~ qa.- tI/u~!t0 CAe U~~ -ft, THE CORPORATION OF THE ~1:uM ~ C~CL( TO\VNSIDP OF RAMARA .. ~. Proud History - Progressive Future l s Feb 13 06 01:24p November 28, 2005 Mr. Roger Selman, Chair, Ramara Economic Development Committee C/o Ramara Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 152 Brechin, ON LOK 1 BO Municipal Council of the Township of Ramara recognizes the importance of strategic planning in the economic deyelopment of this community and in participating in a regional approach to any such planning. For these reasons Ramara Township is fully supportjye of the Ramara Chamber of Commerce which, in its remit to foster economic development in the area, has established an Economic Development Committee and will be preparing an economic strategic plan for Ramara and its location within the surrounding area known as Lake Country. As a measure of its support, Council has committed funds to the newly formed Economic Development Committee. We understand that the Chamber of Commerce will be seeking additional funds from other leyels of govemment to augment this local funding and we support you in your effort. We further understand that the first phase of this project will be to procure and analyze existing relevant data and to collect new data for this initiative. We will be pleased to support such efforts by providing access to relevant documentation, such as the Official Plan and any existing studies etc. Should you require further information or clarification please do not hesitate to call me. lr7,,1-rc Richard P. Bates. BAS, CET CAO/Clerk RPB/clw c.c. Alex Caffary, Chamber President P.O. Box 130, Brechin, Ontario LOK lBO, (705) 484-5374 Fax 484-0441 EmaiI: rnmar:all2ltov..nshin.ramara.on.ca Web Site: www.townshlp.ramara.oaca Proud Member of Lake Country Feb 13 06 01:241' Innovative Perspectives (705J 325-0572 1'.3 Mail Address Community Development Corporation Box 2525. 6 West St North Grillia. ON L3V 7 A3 /' - ONTA'Rlo'S "a~fCountry .. for all seasons JIlJIlAIlIR-18IllJA. 6RD-IElBlIf.IAI1I1A. IIIED , Tel 705-325-4903 Fax 705-325-6817 Email sbeati6@encode.com or oacdC@csolve.net November 28, 2005 Roger Selman Chair - Rarnara Economic Development Committee c/o Rarnara Chamber of Commerce Box 152 Brechin, ON LOK 180 Dear Mr. Selman: It is our understanding that the Ramara Chamber of Commerce though its Economic Development Committee will be preparing a strategic plan for the Township ofRamara. The pUlpose of this plan is to provide a clear picture ofRamara Township within the Lake Country region and set goals pertaining to economic development. As an organization with the primary focus of promoting tourism within the territory defined as Lake Country, we recognize the importance of strategic planning and regional cooperation. We are pleased that the Chamber is employing a regional approach to their initiative. We have found that this strategy to have been very effective when working with our tourism owners and in marketing our communities ' On behalf of the Board of Directors of Ontario's Lake Country, we wish you success with your proj ecl. Sincerely, -&$(5 Calvin Stone Co-Chair Ontario's Lake Country ~ Kathryn Stephenson Co-Chair Ontario's Lake Country F..b 13 06 01:24p Innovative Perspectives (705) 325-0572 p.4 , ~ ~ Ontario Constituency Offices:: o 14 Coldwater Road West P.O. Box 2320 Orillia. Ontario L3V 652 Tel. (705) 326-3246 1'8()(}304-7341 Fax (705) 326-9579 o 4B2 gii.beth Street Midland, Ontano L4R 128 Tel. (705) 526.8671 Fax (705) 526.8600 LEGlSlAl1VEASSEMBIY GARFIELD DUNLOP, M.P.P. Simcoe North November 25, 2005 Mr. Roger Selman, Chair Ramara Economic Development Committee c/o Ramara Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 152 Brechin, ON, LOK lBO Strateeic Economic Development Plan for Lake Country I am writing to you in support of this important local project. I understand from Julie Scott that the Ramara Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee is commissioning a major economic survey and planning exercise for Ramara and the local region known as Lake Country. In undertaking this project they will identify current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and accomplish their ultimate goal of retaining and expanding business within the area. As you may know, this area, which consists of the City ofOrillia and the surrounding townships ofRamara, Oro-Medonte and Severn, as well as Mnjikaning First Nation, is also part of the greater Golden Horseshoe - a proposed growth area under the province's Places to Grow Act 2005. Therefore, the fact that you are proposing to take a regional approach to this planning exercise is a wise strategy. I believe this project is timely and essential to the economic development of the area and I am very pleased to support this project and any applications fDr funding from the province and other levels of government that the Economic Development Committee may access to ensure its completion. Yours Sincerely, I \ Garfield Dunlop, M.P.P. Simcoe North GD/mr o MAIliNG ADDRESS: Garfield Dunlop, M.P.P' Room 445, l.egislallve Building' Tororno ON M7A lA8' Tel. (416) 325-3855' Fax (416) 325-9035 E-mail: garfield dUnJOD@onlIa.ola.o~ Website: www.garfleJddunlopmpp.(Offi . ir,Q()IKf:'n0v'NTE TOWNSH1PI I \.J! ''-'' ,,,,..;.,1 ! ,-., r'~ Ji. ~ 10 ! I)IJ1t \ "\ . - 8 2006 TOWNSHIP OF ESSA ING COUNC1LO C. OF W. February 1. 2006 Council Meetinq Conservation Authority Municipal Representation Resolution No: C34-2006 Moved by: Dowdall, Seconded by: Henderson WHEREAS the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is comprised of 18 different municipalities within the Nottawasaga Watershed; and WHEREAS each member municipality has the authority to appoint representatives to act on their behalf and in their best interest; and WHEREAS the elected officials of a municipality, that is members of Municipal Council, are best able to understand the effects of budgetary increases to their municipality; and WHEREAS non-elected municipal representatives who sit on the Conservation Authority may not have a firm understanding of how their budgetary decisions affect municipalities, and therefore the tax payers of each municipality, through the decisions of the Conservation Authority; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED THA T the municipal representatives who sit on the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority should be limited to elected officials, whose role is to maintain the financial integrity of each municipality and who are responsible to their constituents for sound financial decisions; and THA T this Resolution be circulated to all member municipalities of the NVCA seeking their support. Carried Member Municipalities Watershed Counties ~ ~ Conservation ONTARIO -\ March 13, 2006 The Township of Oro-Medonte Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO 148 Line 7 South Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO Attention: Mayor & Council Dear Ms, Zieleniewdki, Re: Appointment of Members to the Nottawasaga Valle v Conservation Authoritv As directed by the NVCA Board of Directors on March 10/06, I am forwarding, for your information Section 14, Subsections (1-5) of the Conservation Authorities Act which describes the appointment of members to the Authority by the municipality. Please note that section 14(1) indicates that it is the responsibility of each Council to appoint its own representative to the Authority. The appointed member may be a member of Councilor a citizen appointee as noted in Section 14(1&3). The number of members appointed are described in section 2(2) enclosed. As per Section 14(3) it is noted that "Every member of an authority shall be resident in a participating municipality in which the authority has jurisdiction." Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, 0~ fJJv~ Wayne R, Wilson CAO/Secretary Treasurer Copy: F, Nix, NVCA Chair our NOTTAVIiASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Centre for Conservation John Hix Conservation Administration Centre Tiffin Conservation Area 8195 8th Line Utopia, On LOtv11TD Telephone: 705.424.1479 Fax: 705.424.2115 Web: w\V\v.nvca.on.ca Email: aclminK/'IWCd.on.ca 8 Authority continued by s. 5, 6 or7 Members of authority Idem Qualification Term Where part only of municipality under an authority Meetings Chap, C.2? CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES Sec.lart. 13, I (6) (a) the Minister. receives a. resolution requesting the dissolution passed by at least two. thirds of the members of the authority present and entitled to vote at a meeting held under this section and at which a quorum was present; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that acceptable provision has been made for future flood control and watershed interests and for the disposition of all assets and liabilities of the authority. (7) If an authority continued by section 5, 6 or 7 is dissolved under subsection (6), the Lieutenant Governor may, by proclamation, repeal that section on a day named in the proc- lamation, 1996. c, 1, Sched, M, s. 4 L 14. (1) Members of an authority shall be appointed by the respective councils of the participating municipalities in the numbers prescribed by subsection 2 (2) for the appoint- ment of representatives, and each member shall hold office until the first meeting of the authority after the term for which he or she was appointed has expired. R.S.Q. 1990. c. C.27, s. 14 (1), (2) Where the total number of members that may be appointed under subsection (1) is less than four, the participating municipalities may increase the total number of members that may be appointed and determine the number of members that a participating mu- nicipality may appoint. R.S,Q, 1990, c. C.27, s, 14 (2); 1998, c, 18, Sched, I, s, 6. (3) Every member of an authority shall be resident in a participating municipality in which the authority has jurisdiction, (4) No member of an authority shall be ap- pointed to hold office for more than three years at anyone time. (5) Where part only of a municipality is situated in an area over which an authority has jurisdiction, the number of members ap- pointed for the municipality shall be based on the population of that part only of the munici- pality, and the population shall be deemed to be the same proportion of the total population of the whole municipality as the area of that part of the municipality is of the total area of the municipality, R.S,Q, 1990, c, C,27, s, 14 (3-5), (6) REPEALED: 1996. c, 1. Sched. M, s, 42. 15. (1) The first meeting of an authority shall be held at such time and place as may be a) d'une part, Ie ministre re,oit une reso- lution demandant la dissolution, adop- tee lors d'nne assemblee tenue confor- mement au present article en presence d'un quorum par au moins les deux tiers des membres de l' office presents et ayant Ie droit de voter; b) d'aulre part, Ie ministre est convaincu que des dispositions acceptables ont ete prises pour Ie contrOle des inondations dans l' avenir et les interets ayant trait aux bassins hydrographiques et pour la disposition de I'actif et du passif de I'office. (7) Si un office maintenu par I'article 5, 6 ou 7 est dissous en vertu du paragraphe (6), Ie lieutenant-gouverneur peut. par proclamation, abroger cet article a la date qu'il fixe dans la proclamation, 1996, chap. I. annexe M, art, 41. 14. (1) Le conseil de chaque municipalite participante delegue aupres de l' office un nombre de membres selon la proportion eta- blie par Ie paragraphe 2 (2) relativement aux representants. Les membres sont en fonction jusqu'a Ia premiere assemblee de I'office qui suit l' expiration de leur mandat, L.R,Q, 1990, chap, C.27, par, 14 (1), (2) Lorsque Ie nombre total de membres qui peuvent etre nommes aux tennes du para- graphe (I) est inferieur a quatre, les municipa- lites participantes peuvent accroitre ce nombre et fixer Ie nombre de membres que chacune d'elles peut nommer, L.R,Q, 1990. chap, C,27, par. 14 (2); 1998, chap. 18, annexe 1. art. 6, (3) Les membres de I'office resident dans la municipalite participante ou l' office exerce sa competence. (4) Le mandat des membres de I'office ne doit pas exceder trois ans par periode, (5) Lorsqu'une partie seulement d'une mu- nicipalite est situee dans une zone sur laquelle l' office exerce sa competence, Ie nombre de membres que peut nommer la municipalite est fonde sur la population de cette seule partie, Cette population est reputee representer, en regard de Ia population totale de toute Ia mu- nicipalite, la meme proportion que celIe repre- sentee par cette partie de la municipalite en regard de la municipalite dans son entier. L.R,Q, 1990, chap, C.27, par. 14 (3) a (5), (6) ABROGE : 1996, chap, I, annexe M, art. 42, 15. (I) La premiere assemblee de l' office se tient a la date, a l'heure et au lieu fixes par Office maintenu parl'art. 5, 60u 7 Membres de I'office Idem Qualite requise Mandat Partie de municipalite Assemblees 2 Calling of meellng Representa- tives at meeting Authority of representa- tIves Quorum Es!ablish- mentof authority Chap. C.27 CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES c, I, Sched. M, s, 40; 1998, c. 18, Sched, I, s. 1. 2. (1) Where the councils of any two or more municipalities situate either wholly or partly within a watershed by resolution request the Minister to call a meeting for the estab- lishment of an authority for the watershed or any defined part thereof, the Minister shall fix a time and place for such a meeting and shall forthwith notify the council of every munici. pality either wholly or partly within the water. shed or part thereof, (2) Tbe council of each municipality may appoint representatives to attend the meeting in the following numbers: 1. Where the population is 250,000 or more, five representatives. 2. Where the population is 100.000 or more but less than 250,000, four repre- sentatives. 3. Where the population is 50,000 or more but less than 100,000, three representa- tives. 4. Where the population is 10,000 or more but less than 50.000, two representa- tives. 5, Where the population is less than 10,000, one representative. (3) The representatives so appointed have authority to vote and generally act on behalf of their respective municipalities at the meet- ing, (4) At any meeting called under this sec- tion, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities notified are entitled to appoInt, but, where not fewer than three representatives are present at a meeting or adjourned meeting, they may ad- journ the meeting or adjourned meeting from time to time. R.S,O, 1990. c, C,27, s. 2. 3. (1) Upon receipt by the Minister of a resolution passed at a meeting or adjourned meeting held under section 2 and at which a quorum was present by not less than two- thirds of the representatives present thereat requesting the establishment of an authority, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may es- tablish a conservation authority and designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities and the area over which the authority has jurisdiction. <{projet>> Ouvrage .qu' entreprend un office en vue d'assurer la poursllite.. de sa. mission. (<<project>>) L.R.O. 1990, chap. C,27, art. I; 1996, chap, I, annexe M, art. 40; 1998, chap. 18, annexe I, art. 1. 2. (1) Lorsque les conseils d'au moins deux municipalites situees, en totalite au en partie, dans les limites d'un bassin hydrogra- phique demandent au ministre, par vaie de resolution, de convoquer une assemblee afin de creer un office relativement au bassin hydrographique ou a une partie definie de celui-ci, Ie ministre en fixe la date, l'heure et Ie lieu. II en avise sans delai Ie conseil des municipalites situees, en totalite au en partie, dans les limites du bassin hydrographique ou d'une partie de celui.ci, (2) Le conseil de chaque municipalite peut nommer a I' assemblee : 1. Cinq representants si la population at- teint 250 000 habitants ou plus. 2, Quatre representants si la population se situe entre 100 000 habitants et moins de 250 000 habitants, 3. Trois representants si la population se situe entre 50000 habitants et moins de 100 000 habitants. 4. Deux representants si la population se situe entre 10000 habitants et mains de 50 000 habitants. 5. Un representant si la population est in- f"rieure a 10000 habitants, (3) Les representants sont investis du droit de vote et du pouvoir general d'agir au nom de leur municipalit" lors de l' assemb16e, (4) Lars d'une assembIee convoquee en vertu du present article, Ie quorum est consti- tue des deux tiers des representants que les municipalites avisees ant Ie droit de nommer. Toutefois, lorsque trois representants au mains assistent a une assemblee au a la reprise d'une assemblee ayant ete ajaurnee, ils peuvent l'ajourner au l'ajourner de nouveau. L.R.O, 1990, chap, C.27, art. 2. 3. (1) Sur reception par Ie ministre, a Ia suite d'une assembIee au de la reprise d'une assemblee ayant ete ajournee et tenue confor- mement a I' article 2 en presence d' un quorum, d'une resolution adoptee par au mains les deux tiers des representants presents de- mandant la creation d'un office, Ie lieutenant- gouverneur en conseil peut creer un office de protection de Ia nature et designer les munici- palites participantes et la zone sur Iaquelle I' office exerce sa competence. Sec./art. I Convocation d'uneassem. blee Represen- tants a l'assemblee P.ouvoirsdes representant:; Quorum Creation d'unoffice ~ \ 06.1540 February 21, 2006 On behalf oithe MinisleroiMunicipal Affairs and Housing, I am delighted to invileyou to the 2006 Cenll'al Qntarlo MUllicipalConference. TheminisuywiIlbe hosting this year's conference in Richmond Hill on Apri127. The therne is, "Building the Foundation for Strong Communities." The one"day conference is packed with six informativesessiolls designed 10 help you, your council members and your staff become even more adepl at wielding the lools that the McGuinlygovernm\lnl is creating for slrOng and prosperouS communities across Ontario. Our keynote speaker this year isa figurefarniliar to many of you. Mr. Fred Dean is a former municipal solicitor who is one of our province's cxperts on the intricacies involved in municipal decision-making. In addition, we hope to conflfm shortly that Minister Gerrelsen will be our luncheon speaker. The enclosed conference brochures are for distribution to council and slaff in your municipalily. Additional infonnationcan be found al www.lI1llh.gov.on.calonramp-c. This year's conference promises to be a "can't miss" event for the professional development of elected and non-elected municipal officials alike. My staff and I are looking forward to participating in the 2006 conference with you. Y oUTS truJ1, ,< /'"'\ " i /'/' / /j /' // ;, k" /// /,/\ . -'- ~.::-;--, ~~~ , ... John S. Burke Deputy Minister Enclosure l:::JU~'5fSl @ Ontario 2006 Central Ontario Municipal Conference "Building the Foundation for Strong Communities" Thursday April 27, 2006 8:00am-3:30pm Sheraton Parkway Toronto North Hotel, Suites and Conference Centre Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 8:00am 9:00am 9:15am 10: 15am 10:30am i) ii) iii) 12:00pm 12:30pm 1:15pm 2:00pm i) ii) iii) 3:30pm Registration and Continental Breakfast Introduction! Greetings Keynote Address Fred Dean, Barrister and Solicitor Break Morning Breakout Sessions: For A Few Dollars More: Making Brownfields Work for You Absolute Power: "A, B, Cs of conduct - Easy as 1,2,3" Fistful of Dollars: Asset Management for Treasurers Trade Show & Cash Bar Lunch Address by the Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Long Standing Service Awards Recognition Afternoon Breakout Sessions: The Good The Bad and The Ugly: Lessons Learned and Challenges to Meet - Municipal Election 2006 A Perfect World: Municipal Planning Mystic River: An Introduction to the Clean Water Act Adjournment - I Om-Medonte Chamber of Commerce 148 Line 7 ",'outh, Box 1 00 Om, LOL 2XO Phone 705-487-7337 705-487-0133 March <j!h 2006 Mayor and Council Township of Oro-Medontc 148 Line 7 South Oro. ON. 1.01. 2XO E"t<.,rcDcc:-"'llflual Bll~iness Achievement A wards Dinner Dear Mayor Craig and Members orCouneil: The Oro-!\!ledonll' Chamber or Commerce will be hosting the Annual Business Achievement Awards Dinner and Silent Auction on April 3rd. 200(, at the heights or llorseshoc, (inl(lrmation attached) We would like to extend a special invitation to your Worship and all members or Council. This is an important Of port unity to recognize our local business community and we look I(lrward to your participation, Please RSVP by March JO'h 200(, Sincerely. Carol Bcnedetti Coordinator. ()ro-Medonte Chamber orCommeree, ORO- MEDONTE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Invites~outo atteniL Oro- Me()onteJs Best N etworkino Event of tbe Year! Annual Dinner Business Acbievement Awar()s & silent Auction Mon()a~ April 31 2.006 At tbe Heiobts of Horsesboe II06 Horsesboe va{{e~ Ri). cocktails - 5:30 pm Dinner - 7:00 pm. 1JelicioJlS cuisine /rom our finest local establisVmcnls MJlSical Entertainment Groat Silent AHction Items! Members ani) Non-members welcomel Tickets onl~ $40.00 To ori)er Tickets ca{{ 487-7337 or e-mail info@oromei)ontecc.com Deai)line for reservations March 30th 2006 Nominate chamber Members for Business Achievement Awari)s Nomination forms ani) Guii)elines available on our website www.oromebontecc.com ea.y.rq. The Corporation of the County of Simcoe (705) 726-9300 Fax: (705) 726-3991 Beeton Area (905) 729.2294 CLERK'S OFFICE Telephone Extension 1246 Administration Centre 1110 Highway 26 Midhurst, Ontario LOL 1XO RECEIVED r--' I ':)C MAR 0 9 2006 ORO-MEDONTE TOWNSHIP March 8, 2006 To Member Municipal Clerks As you may be aware County Council is considering implementing development charges for County purposes. In order to assist Council with its deliberations the attached Overview and Executive Summary of Findings was prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd, the County's consultants on this project. Council, on February 28th, 2006, requested that the Summary of Findings be circulated to the member municipalities for information. I have enclosed three copies of the report and it would be appreciated if you would circulate the document to the appropriate officials in your municipality. I would also advise that the required public meeting will be held by County Council on March 28th, 2006 commencing at 11 :00 a.m, in the Count~ Council Chambers and that the formal Background study will be available on March 10 h, 2006. Should you have any questions regarding this initiative please contact Mr. Ian Bender, Director of Planning at 726-9300 Ext. 1371. Yours truly, A<l~ Glen R. ;~ - County Clerk. c,c. Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer Rick Newlove, General Manager of Corporate Services Ian Bender, Director of Planning hw\('h '~~\o5 ~ l,\ 1..0 tJ.. \ ' rs~~ ~V\~. ~\C~ . ~\) \OV"", d\c;:\. 0~3 ~Cf' ) BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND The Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCAJand its associated regulation (O.Reg. 82/98) provide rhe basis for municipalities to recover growth-related capital costs from new development. The authority of the Act is used by the vast majority of municipalities in the Province to pass by-laws governing the application of development charges to new development. The County of Simcoe is under significant growth pressure and the local municipalities have committed to accommodating a significant amount of population growth over the next 20 years. In addition, and in some respects related to, the residential growth pressures, Simcoe County is an increasingly attractive location for a wide-variety of new non-residential development. The anticipated residential and non-residential growth will place a significant increased demand on municipal services. In response to the growth pressures, all of the County's area municipalities currently levy development charges on new development to recover the growth- related capital cost associated with the services provided by the local municipalities. The County of Simcoe does not currently levy development charges on new development. However, the anticipated residential and non-residential growth in the County will generate the need for municipal services; in particular roads and related infrastructure. Development Charges are a critical tool available to the County to fund growth-related capital projects and to ensure development can continue in the County in a fiscally viable manner. B. INTRODUCTION The County of Simcoe is in the process of completing its first Development Charges Background Study. The Study is to be presented as part of a process to lead to tlapproval of a development charge by-law in compliance with the Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA). The DCA and Ontario Regulation 82/98 (0. Reg. 82/98) require that a development charge background study be prepared in which development charges are determined with reference to: . A forecast of the amount, type and location of housing units, population and non-residential development anticipated in the County; . The average capital service levels provided in the County over the ten year period immediately preceding the preparation of the background study; . A review of future capital projects, including an analysis of gross expenditures, funding sources, and net expenditures incurred or to be incurred by the County to provide for the The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 7 expected development, including the detetmination of the growth and non-growth-telated components of the capital projects; and . An examination of the long tetm capital and opetating costs for the capital infrastructure required for each service to which the development charges by-laws would relate. The study will fully present the results of the review which determines the growth. related net capital costs which are attributable to development that is forecast to occur in the community. These growth-related net capital costs are then apportioned among various types of development (residential; non-residential) in a manner that reflects the increase in the need for each service attributable to each type of development. The study arrives, therefore, at calculated and defensible development charges for various types of development. The DCA provides for a period of public review and comment on the proposed development charges. Following the complerion of this process and Council's review of this srudy and the comments it receives regarding this study or other information brought to its attention about the proposed charges, ir is presumed that Council will pass a development charges by-law for the County. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 2 OVERVIEW & SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (i) DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY & BY-LA W . The County of Simcoe is nearing the completion of a Development Charges Background Study as part of a process to lead to the approval of a development charge by-law in compliance with the Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA), that providesfor the County's calculated development charge rates and policies. . The comprehensive Development Charge Background Study and related process will be completed by the end of February with the formal Public Meeting scheduled for March 28, 2006. It is anticipated that a development charges by-law will be brought before Council in April, following full consideration of submissions and comments received in response to the Background Study and public process. (ii) THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE IS PROJECTED TO EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANT LEVELS OF GROWTH OVER THE NEXT 10 AND 20 YEARS . The County of Simcoe is under significant growth pressure and the local municipalities have committed to accommodating a significant amount of population growth over the next 20 years, the following is a summary of the projected growth for the County: Existing 2006-2015 2006-2025 Psi'/. Fcrecast Psat Forecast Psat Md- Year 2005 Oleme Md-Year2015 I"mmA Md- Year 2025 Population in Existing Units 262,004 (20,013) 242,591 (39.279) 223,325 Housing Units 96,455 22,365 118,820 44,405 140,860 Forecast Population in New Units 64.749 64,749 128.555 128,555 Total Population 262,004 44.736 307,340 89.276 351.860 Existing 2006-2015 2006-2025 Psi'/. Fcrecast Psat Forecast Psat Md-Year 2005 0'\arQe Md-Year2015 I"mmA Md-Year2025 NoI>-Residenlial Building Space (sq.rn) 1,178.200 1,925.700 ErrpIoyrrent 98.762 19.138 117.900 29.924 128.686 Based Ofl fcrecasts prepared by Hemson ConsLiting Ud, endoresed by County ci SiITCOe and released in Mly 2004 The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 3 . Meeting the servicing needs of this new development will require the County to expand the capacity of municipal infrastructure. aii) ALL ELIGIBLE SERVICES WITH GROWTH-RELATED COSTS INCLUDED IN THE ANAL YSIS . The following County services have been included in the development charge analysis: . general government · child care services . library services . social housing . public works (buildings, fleets & equipment) . roads & related · paramedic services . long term care . The County has existing infrastructure for the provision of these services and the following is a summary of the County's historic service levels: Historic Average Service Service Level LIBRARY BOARD $15.93 per capita - Buildings 0.01 sq.ft./capita - Land 0.00 ha/10,000 pop - Furniture and Equipment $0,20 per capita - Materials $13.68 per capita - Vehicles $0.17 per capita PARAMEDIC SERVICES (S.YEAR) $50.19 per capita - Buildings 0.11 sq. ft.lcapita - Land 0.17 ha/10,QOO pop - Furniture and Equipment $0.36 per capita - Vehicles $13.98 per capita LONG TERM CARE SERVICES $323.90 per capita - Buildings 1.71 sq. ft./capita - Land 0.35 ha/10,QOO pop - Furniture and Equipment $9.30 per capita - Vehicles $2.61 per capita CHILD CARE SERVICES (4-YEAR) $8.91 per capita SOCIAL HOUSING (S.YEAR) $907.20 per capita ~ Buildings $870.72 per capita - Land 1.04 ha/10,QOO PUBLIC WORKS $129.02 per capita - Buildings 0.38 sq. ft./capita - Land 0,98 ha'/10,OOO pop - Furniture and Equipment $0.47 per capita - Fleet and Small Equipment $42.95 per capita ROADS AND RELATED $1,672.07 per capita The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 4 (iv) THE COUNTY HAS AN EXTENSIVE GROWTH-RELA TED CAPIT At PROGRAM fOR THE PROVISION Of ELIGIBLE SERVICES Genera! Services 2006 - 2015 . The County's 2006-2015 growth-related capital program for general services is approximately $34.4 million providing for a wide-range of facility and infrastructure expansions: Cao;tal_ Development Charge Gross Subsidies! Cap;tal Recov"""". Cost Recoveries I;:' ~.2015 $eMce ' 1$000' 1$000' $000\ 1,00 TOTPL M UBRARY SERVICES $7125 $0.0 $712.5 $641.3 1.1 Provision fcr A::lditiooal f'.krt:erias Based on Historic Service Levels $7125 $0,0 $7125 2.00 TOTAL M PARAMEDIC SERVICES $3.394.2 $0.0 $3._2 $2,021.0 2.1 BuilcirYJ5, Land & Furnishings $2.906,3 $0,0 $2.906.3 22 Vehcles $487.9 $0.0 $487,9 3.00 TOTAl- LONG TERM CARE $24,783.1 $0.0 $24,783.1 $12.266.6 3.1 Buildrys, Land & Fumistings $22.567,1 $0.0 $22.567.1 3.2 Vehdes $216.0 $0.0 $216,0 3.3 aher Gro,>.Ah-reIaled Expanciture $2.000,0 $0,0 $2.000,0 4.00 TOTAL- CHLD CPRESERVlCES $100.0 $0.0 $100.0 $90.0 4.1 PrOlision for g:uMh-related captal w:rl<s $100.0 $0,0 $100.0 5.00 TOTAL - SOCIAL HOUStNG $1,000.0 $0.0 $1,000.0 $900.0 5.1 PJlowan::e fa sttrles arK! ninor caPtal sperrlir'g $1.000.0 $0,0 $1.000,0 6.00TOTAL-PUBUCWJRKS $3,303.0 $0.0 $~303.0 $2,9727 6.1 Land & Buildrg $1.827.0 $0,0 $1.827.0 6.2 Root & &nail Equipnent $1,476.0 $0.0 $1.476.0 7.00 TOTAl- GENERAL GOVERNMENT $1,105.0 $0.0 $1,105.0 $99-<5 7.1 QO'hth-Relaled Stooies $1,105.0 $0,0 $1,105.0 TOTM.. -10 YEAR COUNTY-WOE GENERAl SERVICES $34,397.8 $0.0 $34,397.8 $19,886.0 . Of the $34.4 million, for general services, approximately $20 million has been identified and calculated as recoverable from development charges. . Appendix A provides additional details on the growth-related capital program for the general services. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 5 Roads & Related 2006 - 2025 . In addition to the general service capital program, the County has an extensive growth- related capital program for the Roads and Related service. . As permitted under the DCA, the roads program covers a long.term planning horizon of twenty years, 2006 - 2025 and totals $ 203 million. . The program provides for the expansion of the capacity of the road network, new and expanded intersections and a variety of structure improvements. . After allowances for benefit to existing development and post-period benefit, $149 million of the roads and related growth-related capital budget has been identified as eligible for recovery from development charges over the period 2006-2025. Growth-Related Cacital Forecast Net Cost TolaI Growth- TolaI Mer Prior Related (Net of Grants' Replacerrent Growth & Post 2025 Net Capital Subsidies) Share Replacerrent Growth Costs ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) Roa:ls $ 187.268 $ 31,362.Ell $ 155.005,50 $ 17,058.44 $ 138,837.00 BridglslSln.cttres $ 15.883 $ 5.444 $ 10.439 $ . $ 10.439.00 lOTAL COUNTY-WIlE RQADSAND ReAlE) SER\llCES $2Cll.151.0 $36.800.5 $100.344.5 $17.058.4 $149.276.1 . Appendix B provides details of the Roads and Related growth-related capital program. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 6 (v) CALCULATED FULL RECOVERY COUNTY OF SIMCOE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RA TES . Based on the County of Simcoe's growth forecast, historic services and the growth- related capital programs outlined above, the following development charge rates have been calculated: RESlIJENllAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SERVICES Singles & Rows & ($Isq.m) Serris Other Multiples ,<Ipartrrenls UBRARY SERVICES $30.00 $24.00 $21,00 $0.00 PARAMEDIC SERVICES $70.50 $56.40 $49.35 $0.54 LONG TERM CARE $658.50 $526.80 $480.95 $0.00 CHILD CARE SERVICES $3.00 $2.40 $2.10 $0.03 SOCIAL HOUSING $42.00 $33,60 $29,40 $0.00 PUBUC \MlRKS $10200 $81.60 $71.40 $0.87 GENERAL GOVERNMENT $36.00 $28.80 $25.20 $0.28 SUB- TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES $942,00 $753.60 $859.40 $1.72 ROADS & RB.ATED $2.745.00 $2,195,00 $1,921.50 $19,32 SUB-TOTAL ENGINEERED SERVICES $2.745.00 $2,195,00 $1,921.50 $19,32 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL CHARGE PER UNIT $3,687.00 $2,949.60 $2,580.90 $21.04 . The rates have been established under the parameters and limitations of the DCA, and as such are defensible under the Act. . The County's Development Charge Background Study will provide the full rationale and basis for the calculated rates. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 7 (vi) TOTAL POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PAYABLE IN THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE AREA MUNICIPALITIES . Development Charges implemented by the County will be levied in addition to development charges already levied by the area municipalities. . In addition to the municipal development charges identified below, the Simcoe County School Boards also levy a residential development charge of$812 per dwelling unit and a non-residential development charge of $2.04 per square metre. . The following is a summary of the charges that would be applicable for a fully-serviced (water and sewer) single detached home: Municipality Lower Tier Max. Calculated Rate Total Countv of Simcoe Township of Adjala~Tosorontio $2.641 $3.687 $6.328 Township of Ora-Medonte $4.056 $3.687 $7.743 Township of Tiny $4,310 $3.687 $7.997 Town of W 85aga Beach $7.583 $3.687 $11.270 Township of T ay $8.532 $3.687 $12.219 Township of Severn $9.043 $3.687 $12.730 Town of Penetanguishene $9.535 $3.687 $13.222 Town of Midland $10.186 $3.687 $13.873 Town of Collingwood $10.421 $3.687 $14.108 Township of Ramara $10,443 $3.687 $14.130 Town of Innistil $12.880 $3.687 $16.567 Township of Springwater $14.532 $3,687 $18.219 Township of Clearview $16.806 $3.687 $20.493 Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury $16,820 $3.687 $20.507 Township of Essa $18.536 $3.687 $22.223 Town of New Tecumseth $19.751 $3.687 $23.438 City of Barrie (Separated) $15.249 - $15.249 City of Crillia (Separated) $11.720 - $11.720 Notes: 1. Above rates are for fully serviced single detached units. 2. Township of Severn charges are for Westshore. Other areas have different charges. 3. Township of Ramara rate is for Lagoon City only. 4. Town of Innisfil: Akona and Lefroy Rate. Different rates for 4 other areas. 5. Township of Springwater has various areas-specific charges for water and/or sewer, e.g, Elmvale also adds $5,738 for sewer in addition to above rates. Other areas have different charges. 6. Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury: the above rate only applies until March 6, 2006. New rate will be implemented as of March 7, 2006. 7. Township of Essa rate is for Angus and other areas are subject to different rates. 8. Education development charges are currently levied by the School Boards in the County of Simcoe at the rate of $812/ dwelling unit ($622 and $190 for S.C.D.S.B. and S.M.C.D.S.B respectively). This charge is independent of the above rates. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 8 . The following is a summary of the charges that would be applicable for a fully-serviced non. residential development: Comrercial Industrial M.micipality Lower Tier Max. Calculated TOTAL Lower lier Max. Calculated TOTAL ($ISq. M) Cou::.~rrcoe ($ISq. M) ($ISq. M) Cou::, ~m:oe ($ISq. M) TO'M1 of Wasa;ia Beach . $21.04 $21.04 . $21.04 $21.04 T O'MlShip of CJro-r.Iedonte . $21.04 $21.04 - $21,04 $21.04 TO'MlShip of Tay - $21.04 $21.04 - $21.04 $21.04 T O'MlShip of liny $18.04 $21.04 $39.08 $18.04 $21.04 $39,08 T O'MlShip of Springwater $20.30 $21.04 $41.34 $20.30 $21.04 $41.34 TO'MlShipof Adjala-Tosorontio $21.64 $21.04 $4268 $21.64 $21.04 $42.68 T 0'M1 of CoIlingMJOd $29.17 $21.04 $50.21 $29.17 $21.04 $50.21 TO'MlShip of Qearview $30,14 $21,04 $51.18 $30.14 $21,04 $51.18 TO'M1 of Penetanguisher1e $35.99 $21.04 $57.03 . $21.04 $21,04 TO'MlShip of Essa $4227 $21.04 $63.31 $42,27 $21.04 $63,31 T O'MlShip of Rarrara $45.41 $21.04 $68.45 $22.81 $21.04 $43.85 T 0'M1 of Mdiand $45,85 $21.04 $68.69 $45.85 $21.04 $68.69 T 0'M1 of Bradford W€!& GMilirrbury $48.20 $21.04 $69.24 $48.20 $21,04 $69.24 TO'M1 of Innislil $71.35 $21.04 $9239 $28.54 $21.04 $49.58 TO'MlShip of Severn $79.70 $21.04 $100.74 $79.70 $21.04 $100.74 TO'M1 of New T ecum;eth $127,11 $21.04 $148.15 $15.96 $21.04 $37,00 Oty of Barrie (Separated) $11259 . $112.59 $43.06 - $43,06 aty of aiilia (Separated) $87.79 - $87.79 $31.84 . $31.84 Notes: 1. Above rates are for fully serviced areas. 2, T O'MlShip of Springwater has various areas-specific charges for water and/or SfJoNSr, e.g. BrTMlle aiso adds $5.738 for SfJoNSr in addition to above rates. Other areas have different charges. 3. T O'MlShip of Essa rates are for Mgus and other areas are subject to different rates. 4. T O'MlShip of Ramara rate is for Lagoon Oty only, 5, T 0'M1 of Bradford W€!& GMilirrbury: The above rates only apply until March 6. 2006. New rates \Mil be implerrented as of March 7. 2006. I'Jso rote that non-residential rates are oong phased in and do rot represent the ftJly implerrented rates. 6. TO'M1 of Innislil's non-corrrrercial rates are oong phased in. 7. T O'MlShip d. Severn charges are for VVestshare and other areas have different charges. 8. Education developrrent charges are currently ievied by the Schcd Boards in the County of Sim::oe at the rate of $2.04/ Sq.M ($1.61 and $0,43 for S.C.D.S.B. and S.MC.D.S.B. respeciively). This charge is independent fronl the above rates. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 9 (vii) COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL TOTAL COUNTY OF SIMCOE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (MUNICIPAL) WITH EXISTING CHARGES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS . The following is a comparison of residential development charges applicable in other jurisdictions for a fully serviced single detached home: Municipality Region Residential ($/50. M) City of Kawartha Lakes Single-Tier $7,711 Town of Bracebridge Muskoka $8,520 Town of Huntsville Muskoka $9,160 Township of Muskoka Lakes M uskoka $9,183 Township of Lakes of Bays Muskoka $9,621 Town of Gravenhurst Muskoka $9,823 Township of Georgian Bay Muskoka $10,741 Town of Orangeville Dufferin $17,166 Town of Caledon Peel $19,238 Town of Newmarket York $22,491 Town of Markham York $23,240 City of Vaughan York $24,157 Twp. Of King York $27,365 County of Simcoe Lowest $6,328 Highest $23,438 Notes: 1. Above residential rates are for fully serviced single detached units 2. Township of King: rates are for King City only. Nobleton has different rates 3. Town of Caiedon: different rates for Bolton South Hill The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 10 . The following is a comparison of non-residential development charges applicable in other jurisdictions for a fully serviced development: Municipality Region Commercial Industrial I$/Sn. Ml ($ISn. M\ Township of Lakes of Bays Muskoka $12,66 $12.66 City of Kawartha Lakes Single-Tier $13.98 $13,98 Township of Georgian Bay Muskoka $16.00 $16.00 Township of Muskoka Lakes Muskoka $16.75 $16.75 Town of Huntsville Muskoka $21.38 $10.62 Town of Gravenhurst Muskoka $21.81 $21.81 Town of Calecton Peel $69.15 $48.06 Town of Markham York $82.86 $42.92 Town of Newmarket York $89.67 $49.73 Town of Orangeville Dufferin $89.92 $89.92 City of Vau9han York $95.04 $55.10 Twp. Of King York $126.48 $86.54 County of Simcoe Lowest $21,04 $21,04 Highest $148,15 $100.74 Notes: 1. Above residential rates are for fully serviced single detached units. 2. Town of Markham has additional charge of $71,214/hectare for all areas as well as various area specific charges. 3. Township of King: rates are for King City only. Nobleton has different rates. 4. Town of Caladon: different rates for Bolton South Hill. Commercial rates are only for retail units. 5. Town of Bracebridge: no development charges for non-residential units. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 11 NEXT STEPS The County is in the final stages of completing its Development Charge Background Study. It is anticipated that the study will be completed by the end of February. The formal Public Meeting is scheduled for March 28, 2006. Notice of the Public will be provided in early March and the Background Study and proposed Development Charges By-law will be available at least two-weeks prior to the Public Meeting. It is anticipated that a development charges by-law will be brought before Council in April, following full consideration of submissions and comments received in response to the Background Study and public process. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study Overview & Executive Summary of Findings Page 72 APPENDIX A GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM: GENERAL SERVICES HEMSON COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE: $712,508 Total Less Total Replacement Growth-Related Costs -.- 2006-2015Dlsco.mted Service ProJect Descrlptlon Timing Project Grants Municipal and Benefit Prior 21}{)6. Post Growth-Related Cost ISubsidies Cost To Existing Growth 2015 2015 Total Net Capital Costs 1,00 LIBRARY SERVICES 1,1 Provision lor Addllional Materials Based on Historic Service Leve Is various $ 712,508 $ $ 712,508 $ $ $ 712,508 , 712,508 90% $ 641,257 TOTAL LIBRARY SERVICES , 712,stl6 . , 112,506 $ , . 712,506 , , 112,S1}6 90% $ 641.251 ~. ~~. Resldentlal Development Charge Calculation Residential Share of 2006-2015 Discounted Growth-Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth in Population in New Units Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capila ($) 100% $641,257 64,749 $9,91} Non-Residential Development Charge Calculation Non-Residential Share of 2006-2015 Discounted Growlh-Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth in Square Meters Unadjusted Development Charge Per Sq,M {$) 0%$ 1,178,200 $I}.I}O !:JJMSQIS No~Ct1argeabte Growth-Relaled Net Capital Cosl 71,251 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY GROWTH.RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM PARAMEDIC SERVICES MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE: $2,245,507 Total less Total Replacement Growth-Related Costs 2006-2015 Discol.lnted Service Project Description Timing Project Grants Municipal and Beneflt Prior 2006- Post Growth-Related Cost ISl.Ib$ldies Cost To Existing Growth 2015 2015 Total Net Canital Costs 2.00 PARAMEDIC SERVICES 2.1 BuHdings, Land & Furnishings 2.1.1 ReplacementolOrilliaStation Building- 6.000sqfl 2006 $ 1,117,490 $ $ 1,117.490 $ 838,118 $ $ 279,373 $ $ 2.79,373 90% $ 25(435 land- 0.5Ha 2006 $ 69,707 $ $ 69.707 $ 52,280 $ $ 17.427 $ $ 17.427 90% $ 15,684 FurniShings 2006 $ 29.136 $ $ 29.136 $ 21.852 $ $ 7,284 $ $ 7,284 90% $ 6,556 2.1.2 Coverspacelorlheadd'nalambutances BuildinglLand- 1750sqJt/0.1 Ha per ambulance 2006 $ 338,000 $ $ 338,000 $ $ $ 338,000 $ $ 338.000 90% $ 304,200 1751 sqJtlO,1 Haperambulance 2008 $ 338.000 $ $ 338,000 $ $ $ 338,000 $ $ 338.000 90% $ 304,200 1752sqJt10,1 Haperambutance 2010 $ 338.000 $ $ 338,000 $ $ $ 338,000 $ $ 338,000 90% $ 304,200 1753sq,ftI0.1 Haperambutance 2012 $ 338,000 $ $ 338,000 $ $ $ 338,000 $ $ 338,000 90% $ 304,200 1754sq.ftI0.1 Haperambulance 2014 ~,,338,OOO L--.~_ L--",338,000 $ ~~-- ~_.:..- L.. ,199,106 L_, 138,894 L~9QQ 90% ~179195 Sub-Iolal Buildings, Land & Furnishings $ 2.906,334 $ $ 2,906,334 $ 912,250 $ $ 1,855.189 $ 138,894 $ 1.994,083 $ 1.669,671 2.2 Vehicles 2.2.1 Ambutance 2006 $ 97,579 $ $ 97,579 $ $ $ 97.579 $ $ 97,579 90% $ 87,821 Ambulance 2008 $ 97,579 $ $ 97,579 $ $ $ 97,579 $ $ 97,579 90% $ 87,821 Ambulance 2010 $ 97,579 $ $ 97,579 $ $ $ 97,579 $ $ 97,579 90% $ 87,821 Ambulance 2012 $ 97,579 $ $ 97.579 $ $ $ 97,579 $ $ 97,579 90% $ 87,821 Ambulance 2014 $ 97,579 $ $ 97579 $ $ $ $ 97,579 $ 97,579 90% $ Sub-tolalVehides $ 487,896 $ $ 487.896 $ $ $ 390.317 $ 97.579 $ 487,896 $ 3S1,285 TOTAL PARAMEDIC SERVICES $ 3,394,230 $ . 3,394,230 $ 912,2Sll $ . 2,24S,Sll6 $ 236,473 . 2,481,979 90% $ 2,020,956 Residential Development Charge Calculation Residenljal Share of 2006-2015 Discounted Growth"Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth in Population in New Units Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capita ($) 70% $1,414,669 64.749 $21.65 Non-Residential Development Charge Calculation Non.Residentiaf Share 01 2006-2015 Discounted Growth-Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth in Square Meiers Unadjusted Development Charge Per Sq,M ($) 30% $ 606,287 1,178,200 $0.51 H~~SO~ Non-Chargeable Growth-Related Net Capital Cost: $ 224,551 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY GROWTH~RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM LONG TERM CARE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE: $14,490,055 Total Less Total Replacement Growth_Related Costs 2006-2015 Discounted Service Project Descnption Timing Project Grants MunicIpal and Benefit Prior 2006- Post Growth_Related Cost ISubsldles Cost To Ell:;sting Growth 2015 2015 Total Net Capital Costs 3.UO LONG TERM CARE 3.1 Buildings, Land & Furnishings 3.1.1 Georgian Manor _ Redevelopment/Replacemenl Bl1ilding-(150beds"20retirementunits) 2006 $ 21.707,055 $ $ 21,707,055 $ 10,853,528 $ $ 10,853.528 $ $ 10,853,528 90% $ 9,768,175 Land- 2006 $ 600,000 $ $ 600,000 $ 300,000 $ $ 300,000 . $ 300,000 90% $ 270,000 FurnishlnglEquipment- 2007 L-260,000 ~ ~OOO$ ~ L- 260000 L---.:...- L_260,000 90% L-234000 Sub-total Buildings, Limd& Fumishings $ 22,567,055 $ $ 22,567,055 $ 11,153,528 $ . 11,413,528 $ $ 11,413,528 $ 10,272.175 3.2 Vehicles ~ 3.2.1 Bus(2units) 2007 $ 144,000 $ 144,000 $ $ $ 144,000 $ $ 144,000 90% $ 129,600 3.2.2 Bl1s(1 unit) 2008 $ 72,000 $ 7?"000 1--..............-- .L-------= $ 72,000 $ -L. 72,000 90% L-.. 64,800 Sub-tolalVehicJes . 216,000 $ . 216,000 . . $ 216,000 . . 216,000 , 194,400 3.3 Other Growth_related Ell:penditure 3.3.1 Allowanceforacquislionof9rowth-relatedlmprovemenls&.FIE various , 2,000,000 $ $ 2,000,000 $ . , 2,000,000 $ I 2,000,000 90% $ 1,800,000 TOTAL LONG TERM CARE I 24,783,055 , , 24,783,055 , 11,153,528 , , 13,629,528 , , 13,629,528 90%1$ 12,266,575 . Non-Chargeable Growth-Related Net Capital Cost 1,362,953 Resld,mtlal Development Charge Calculation Residential Share 012006-2015 Discounted Gmwth.Related Capital Program 10 Year Gmwth in Population in New Units Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capita ($) 100% $12,26M75 64,749 $189.45 Non.Rasldentlal Development Charge Calculation 'Non-Residential Share of 2006-2015 Discounted Growth-Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth iriSquare Meters Unadjusted Development Charge Per Sq.M ($) 0% $ 1,178,200 $0.00 HEl\1ill.N COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY GROWTH.RELA TED CAPITAL PROGRAM CHILD CARE SERVICES MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE: $341,954 Total less Total Replacement Growth_Related Costs 2006-2015 DIscounted ServIce ProJect Description Timing Project Grants Munlclpal and Benefll Prior 2006- Post Growth_Related Cost ISubsldles Cost To Exlstln Growth 2015 2015 Total Net Capital Costs 4.00 CHilD CARE SERVICES 4.1 Provision for growlh_related capltal works , various I 100,000 $ I 100,000 I I I 100,000 I I 100,000 90% $ 90.000 TOTAL CHilD CARE SERVICES I 100,000 , , 100,000 $ , , 100,000 $ $ 100,000 90% $ 90,000 on nn~ Non-Chargeanle Growth.Refaled Net Capital Cost ResldenUal Development Charge CalculatIon Residential Sham of 2006-2015 Discounted Growth.Relaled Capital Program 10 Year Growth In Population in New Units Unadjusted Developmenl Charge Per Capita ($) 70% $63,000 64,749 $0.97 Non_Residential Development Charge Calculatlon Non-Residential Share of 2006.2015 Discounted Growth-Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth In Square Meters Unadjusted Development Charge Per Sq.M ($) 30% $ 27,000 1,176,200 $0.02 10.000 Notes: 1 The County anticipates to receive funding from the upper levels of government for the provision of new child care spaces. The County capital spending allowance provided for herein is the growth-related share of other capital needs; I.e. studies, office equipment and supplies, and olher minor equlpmenls. Depending on the level of funding received on the demand for the service, the County will monitor service and may amend the DC as necessary HEMSON COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM SOCIAL HOUSING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE: $40,584,810 Total less Totat Replacement Growth-Related Costs 2006-2015 Discounted Service ProJect Oescr!ptlon Tlmtng Project Grants Muntcipal and Benefit Prior 2006- Post N:~~t~~t~~~~:~s Cost ISubsldies Cost To Eltlstlng Growth 2015 2015 Total 5,00 SOCIAL HOUSING 5,1 Allowance for studies and minor capllal spending' various $ i,OOO,OOO $ $ 1,000,000 $ $ $ 1,000,000 $ . i,OOO,OOO 90% $ 900,000 TOTAL SOCIAL HOUSING $ 1,000,000 , , 1,000,000 , . , 1,000,000 . $ 1,000,000 90% S 900,000 ._~ U~ Non-Chargeable Growth"Related Nat Capital Cost' 100,000 ResldenUalDevelopmcmtChargeCafculation Residential Share of 2006-2015 Discounted Growth-Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth in Population in New Units Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capila ($) 100% $900,000 64,749 $13.90 Non-Residential Developmenl Charge Calculation Non_ReSidential Sham of 2006-2015 Discounted Growth-Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth in Square Meters Unadjusled Development Charge Per $q,M ($) 0%' 1,178,200 $0.00 Notes 1. The Counly anlicipates to receive upper level government tunding for the provision 01 addiHonal housing units. The Counly's current capital spending on social housing largely relates to the maintenance 01 the existing housing stock. The capital provision made herein is for studies, growth"relaled office capital needs. and the growth share of olher capital expenditures, In the future, the Cout'lty may invest direct doilars into expanding social housing slock and at such fime, DC catculations will liE<\cIJiON COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM PUBLIC WORKS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE: $5,771,865 Total Leu Tolal Replacement Growth-ReleteaCosts 2006-2015 Discounted Service Project Descrlpllon Timing Project Grants Municipal and Benem Prior 2/1/16- Post Growth_Related Cost ISubsldles Cost To Exlstln Growth 2015 2015 Total Net Capllal Costs 1I.1l0 PUBLIC WORKS 11,1 Land & Building 6.1.1 B.etonE.pansion:Growlh-Share(E.pans1on)Onty Land- Iwm3.64 ha to 4_047 ha """ $ 16594 $ $ 16.594 $ , , 16,594 $ , 16,59~ 00% $ 14,934 Bullding- Garage_add'n4000sq.ft 200S $ 260,000 $ . 260,000 $ $ $ 260,000 $ , 260.000 SO% $ 234,000 Officaarea_add'n1250sq_ft 200S $ 156,250 $ , 156,250 $ , , 156,250 $ , 156,250 90% $ 140.625 Slorage_add'n 6325 sq. ft 2009 , 416,250 $ , 416,250 $ '---- , 416,250 $ , 416,250 00% , 374,625 SublotaIBeeIOl,Expansion:Growth-Sh"'" (exp""skJ,,) Only . 849,094 . . 849,094 $ . . 849,084 . . 840,094 . 764,184 6.1.2 Cr""mo,eE.pansiononExlslinoLand:Growlh-Sha,eO,,1y IL~: Buiidfng- Garage-add'n 4320 sq_ft '"00 . 280,800 , 280,800 $ 280,600 $ 260,800 00% $ 252,720 Other-1250sq_fl 2005 , 156,250 $ 156 250 ~ 156250 $ 156250 90% $. 140625 Sublolai CreemoTtl Expa"sion OIl Existing Land: Growih-Sha", Only . 437,050 $ . 437,050 $ $ , 4,'J7,05fJ $ , 437,050 . 393,345 6_1_3 New PerkinsfFekl: Gmwth_Share (Expansion) Only Build;ng- Garage-arld'n640sq.1t 2011 , 41,600 $ , 41,6M $. $ . 41,600 $ 41,600 00% $ 37,440 Other. add'n 500 sq. fI 2011 . 52,500 S , 62,500 $. $ , 62,500 - , 62,500 90% $. 56.250 Slo,,,ge-add'o 3650 sq. II 2011 , 182,500 $ _ 1_._ 182,Soo L.._ '---- $ 182,500 $ 182S00 00% $ 164,250 Subloi,,1 NewPe'kinsfield; Growth-Sh"'" (Expansion) Only . 286,600 $ . 286,BOO $ - , , 286,600 $ . 286,600 . 257,940 6.1.4 Ram",a E.pan.lon: Growth_Share (Expansion) Only Building- Garage_add'n 3800 sq. fl 2011 $ 247,000 $. $ 247,000 S , $ 247,000 $. - $ 247,000 90% $. 222,300 Office area. add'n 900 2011 $ 1,025 $ , 1,025 $. -.: $ 1,025 $. - $ 1,025 90% S '" Sloraga_add'n6150sq,f\ 2011 L-5200 ~_=S 6200 , 6200 ~ !!.~ 90% S 5580 sub/or,,1 Ram"", Expansion: Growth-Sha,-e (ExpansiOlt) Only . 254,225 $ . 254,225 '" . 254,225 $ . 254,225 . 228,803 6,2 Fh...l 6_2.1Ilackhoelloader '00" , 86.000 $. $ 86,000 S- $ , 86,000 $ $ 85,000 90% S 770400 6_2.2 Plowc..ornbinallonunit '00' , 172,000 $ . 172,000 S , $ 172,000 $ $ 172,000 90% $ 154,800 5_2.3Piokuplruck 2007 $ 30,000 $. , W,OOO $ , , 30,000 $. , 30,000 00% , 7.7,000 6.2.4 Piowcornbinallonunit 2007 , 172,000 $ , 172,000 $ , . 172,000 $ $ 172,000 90% $ 154,800 6.2.5 Piowcornbinationunit '00' , 172,000 $ , 172,000 $ , , In.OOO $. , 172,000 90% $ 154,800 6.2.& Plowcornbillationu"il 2009 , 172,000 S $ 172,000 $. , $ 172,000 S , 172,000 90% $. 154,800 6,2.7 Plowcombillationu"it 2010 $ 172,000 $ $ 172,000 S , $ 172,000 $ . 172,000 90% $ 154,800 6,2.8 Other growth-relaled vehiclas 2011 , iOO,OOO $. . 100,000 $ , , 100,000 $ $ 100,000 90% $ 90,000 6_2_90thergrowth_relate<lvehides 2012 , lao,OOO $ , 100,000 $. , $ 100,000 $ . 100,000 90% $ W,OOO 6_2.10 Olher growth-related vehicles 2013 . 100,000 $ , 100,Oao S $ , 100,000 $ , lao,OOO 90% S 90,Oao 6_2.110Ihn<9mwth-relatedvehicles 2014 $ 100,000 $ , 100,000 $ , , 100,000 $ , 100,000 SO% $ 90,000 6.2.120thn<growth-relaledvehiclas 2015 $ 100000 $. . , 100,000 S , L 100,000 '------ , 100000 90% $ SO 000 , 1,476,000 $ $ 1,476,000 $ - , , 1,476,000 $. . 1,476,000 , 1,328,400 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS $ 3,302,989 $ $ 3,302,969 $ $ , 3,302,969 $ , 3,302,969 90% $ 2,972,1172 Resld.ntlal Oev..l"pm..ntCharge Calculation Resldenlial Sha'euI20Q6-2015 OiscounledGrowth-Relsted Capita' Pro gram 10 Year Growlh ;nPopulatiQn In New Un~s Unadjusled Devalopment Charge Per Capita ($) 70% $2,080,670 64..,49 $32_14 Non.Resldentlal Oeveloprnenl Charge Calculation Non_ResidenHalShafll oI20m;-2015 Discounled Growth.Relaled Capll "I Program 10YearG,owthinSq,mraMelars Unadju"led Developmenl Charge Per Sq_M ($) 30% $ 891,802 1,178,200 $0,76 HEMSON Non_Chargeable Growth.Relaled Nel Capital Cost- 330,2S7 Total Less Total Replacement Growth-Related Costs 200&.2015 Discounted Service PrajectDescriptfan Timing Project Grants Munlcfpal and Benefit Prior 2006_ Post Growth-Related Cast ISubsldles Cast TaExlstlng Grawth 2015 2015 Total Net Capital Costs 7,00 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 7,1 Growth-RelatedStud;es 7.1.1 DevelopmentCharyesStudy 2006 $ 30,000 $ $ 30,000 $ $ $ 30,000 $ $ 30,000 90% $ 27,000 7,1.2 Development Charges Study 2011 $ 30,000 $ $ 30,000 $ $ $ 30,000 $ $ 30,000 90% $ 27,000 7.1.3 HousingStrategySludy 2006 $ 50,000 , $ 50,000 , $ $ 50,000 , $ 50,000 90% $ 45,000 7.1A GeorgianManorRedesignandRelacateStudy 2000 $ 25,000 $ $ 25,000 $ $ $ 25,000 $ $ 25,000 90% $ 22,500 7.1.5 IGAP 2006 $ 505,000 $ $ 505,000 $ $ $ 505,000 $ , 505,000 90% $ 454,500 7,1.6 LandAmbulanceStalionSludy 2006 $ 10,000 $ $ 10,000 $ $ , 10,000 $ $ 10,000 90% $ 9,000 7.1.7 CountyGrowthPJanStudy 2006 I 10,000 $ $ 10,000 $ $ $ 10,000 $ $ tO,OOO 90% $ 9,000 7.1,8 Buildfng Assessment Sludy for Ambulance Stations 2006 $ 35,000 $ $ 35,000 $ $ $ 35,000 $ $ 35,000 90% $ 31,500 7.1.9 GrOwlhManagementStudy 2006 $ 80,000 $ , 80,000 $ $ , ao,ooo , $ 60,000 on. $ 72,000 7,1.10 Preparation ofOP policies (eg. Peer review} 2006 , 30,000 $ I 30,000 $ I $ 30,000 $ $ 30,000 90% $ 27,000 7.1.110PReview 20tl $ 100,000 , $ 100,000 $ $ , 100,000 $ $ 100,000 90% $ 90,000 7.1.12 Allowance far Other Gmwth-RelatO(! Studies 2013 $ 100,000 $ , 100,000 $ , $ 100,000 $ $ 100,000 90% $ 90,000 7.1.13 Allowance for Other Growth-Related Studies 2014 $ 100.000 $ ~100,000$ $ $ 100,000 $ , 100000 90% $ 90000 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 1,105,000 $ $ 1,105,000 $ $ I 1,105,000 I I 1,105,000 $ 994,500 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM GENERAL GOVERNMENT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE, N/A Non-Chargeable Growth-Relaled Net Capital Cost. Residential Development Charge Cafculation Residential Share of 2006-2015 Discounted Gmwth-Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth in Populalion In New Unils Unadjusted Developmenl Charge Per Capila ($) 70% $696,150 64,749 $10.75 NOll-Residential Devetopmellt Charge Calculation Non-Residential Share of 2006-2015 Discounted Growth-Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth in Square Meters Unadjusted Development Charae Per Sq.M ($) 30% $ 298,350 1,178,200 $0.25 !::!fMSQ!',j 110,500 APPENDIX B GROWTH-REALTED CAPITAL PROGRAM: ROADS & RELATED HEMSON COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY GROWTH-RELATED ROADS AND RELATED PROGRAM Pglof2 TOUlI Total Less Total Replacement Grow1Il-RelatedCosts Service Project Description L7:,9th TIming Project Grants! MunIcipal and Benefit Prior 2006- Post Km) Cost Subsidies Cost To E~lsting' Grow11l 2025 2025 Total ,. Roads , Counly Road 88 Transportalion Sludy 2006 $ 50,000 $ $ 50,000 $ $ , $ SO,OOO $ $ 50,000 2 County Road 4:Cily of Barrie 15 km Soulll (shouldering) 2006 $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ $ $ 250,000 $ $ 250,000 , Road 50-Class EA and Design 2006 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 $ $ $ 150,000 $ $ 150,000 , Road 50 & Road 1 InlersecHon Design & Improvement , 2006 $ 1,648,000 $ $ 1,648,000 $ 250,000 $ $ 1,398,000 $ $ 1,398,000 , Road 90 - Class EA & Design "'" $ 300,000 $ $ 300.000 $ $ $ 300,000 $ $ 300,000 6 CR 29 & 92 _ Intersection Improvement , 2006 $ 1.400,000 $ - $ 1.400,000 $ 250,000 $ $ 1,150,000 $ $ 1,lSO,000 2 Counly Road 4 Transportalion Sludy 2007 $ 50,000 $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ 50,000 6 Counly Road 50: Hwy 9 north to 10th Side Rd ',5 2007 $ 3,000,000 $ $ 3,000,000 $ 1,125,000 $ $ 1,875,000 $ $ 1,875,000 9 Road21-TransportationSludy 2007 $ 50,000 $ $ 50,000 $ $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ 50,000 >0 County Road 54110thlnterseclion Implovement , 2007 $ 1,200,000 $ , $ 1,200,000 $ 250,000 $ $ 950,000 $ $ 950,000 " Counly Road 88 Hwy 400 to Bradford Class EA & Design 6 2008 $ 400,000 $ $ 400,000 $ $ 5 400,000 $ $ 400,000 12 County Road 10. Hwy 89 to Industrial (2.k) New Road , 2008 $ 6,750,000 $ - $ 6,750,000 $ $ , 6,750,000 $ . 6.750,000 " County Road 50114 Intersection Improvement and related rnadsout h , 2008 . 6,000,000 $ - $ 6,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ . 5,000,000 $ $ 5,000,000 14 CR21 &39-lntersectionlmprovemenl , 2006 . 1.200,000 . $ 1,200,000 $ 250,000 $ $ 950,000 $ $ 950,000 " CR39& 71h Line-Intersectionlmprovements , 2008 $ 900,000 $ . 900,000 $ 250,000 $ $ 650,000 $ $ 650.000 " County Road 4 Class EA and Design 2009 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 1,000,000 $ $ - $ 1,000,000 $ $ 1,000,000 " County Road 50 widening: 20th Side Rd 10 Hwy 89 3' 2009 $ 3,000,000 $ $ 3,000,000 $ 875,000 $ $ 2,125,000 $ $ 2,125,000 " County Road 90 widening: City 01 Barrie 10 Cnty Rd 28 , 2009 $ 4,000,000 $ $ 4,000,000 $ 750,000 $ $ 3,250,000 . $ 3,2SO,000 " Counly Road 21 Ctass EA and Design 2009 $ 500,000 $ , $ 500,000 $ - $ . 500,000 $ $ 500,000 26 Counly Road 11 at Hwy 71h Line' 21109 $ 1,000,000 . - $ 1,000,000 $ 750,000 $ . 250,000 $ , $ 250,000 " County Road 11 at 13lhLine' 2009 , 1,000,000 $ , 1,000,000 $ 750.000 $ , $ 250,000 $ $ 250,000 22 County Road 90 widenlng: Cnty Rd 28 10 Cnly Rd 56 5 2010 . 6,500,000 $ - , 6,SOO,000 $ 1,250,000 $ $ 5,250,000 $ - $ 5,250,000 22 County Road 27 _ Environ. Assess. & Engineering Design 2011 $ 500,000 $ - , 500,000 $ $ , 500,000 $ . 500,000 " County Road90 _ 7.5 km. widening CP Bridge 10 Angus 7.5 2012 $ 10,650,000 $ , 10,&50,000 $ 1,875,000 $ $ 8,775,000 $ $ 8,775,000 25 CountyRoad25_SignalsinPerkinsfietd 2012 $ 50,000 $ . 50,000 $ $ , 50,000 $ - $ SO,OOO " County Road 30-Environ. Assess. & Engineering Design 2013 $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000 $ , - $ 400,000 $ , $ 400,000 27 County Road 10 _ Hwy 910 Tottenham EA& Design 2013 $ 400,000 $ $ 400,000 $ - . - . 400,000 $ $ 400,000 " Counly Road 4-widening Barrie 10 Stroud 25 2013 $ 4,500,000 $ $ 4,500,000 $ 625,000 $ $ 3,875,000 $ $ 3,875,000 29 County Road 21, wmening Hwy 400 to Cnty Rd 4 5 2013 $ 7,750,000 $ $ 7,750,000 $ 1,250,000 . $ 6,500,000 $ $ 6,500,000 36 Counly Road 88 wmening Hwy 400 10 Bradford 2.' 2011 $ 3,250,000 $ - $ 3,250,000 $ 525,000 $ $ 2,725.000 $ - 5 2,725,000 31 County Road 16g1441nterseclion tmprovemenl 075 2013 . 700,000 $ . 700,000 $ 187,500 $ - $ 512,500 $ . 512,500 32 County Road 4 widening Bradlord to BWG 101h Une 25 2014 . 3,900,000 $ . 3,900,000 $ 625,000 $ . 3,275,000 $ $ 3,275,000 29 County Road 21, widening Cnty Rd 4 to Cnly Rd 39 3 2014 $ 4,650,000 $ $ 4,650,000 $ 750,000 $ $ 3,900,000 $ - $ 3,900,000 " County Road 54-Envi,on. Assess. & Engineering Design 2015 $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ 400,000 $ $ 400,000 25 COllnly Road 27 widening Cnty Rd 90 to 3km south 3 2015 $ 4,000,000 $ $ 4,000,000 $ 750,000 , $ 3,250,000 $ $ 3,250,000 25 CounlyRoad4 widening: 10th to 12th 2J 2015 , 4,500,000 $ $ 4,500,000 $ 675.000 $ , 3,825,000 $ . 3,825,000 32 Counly Road 21 widening Hwy 400 to Cnty Rd 27 , 2015 $ 4,650,000 . - $ 4,650,000 $ 750,000 $ - $ 3,900,000 $ $ 3,900,000 38 County Road 30 widening Cnly Rd 27 to Barrie City limits 22 2015 , 3,875,000 $ , 3,875,000 $ 550,000 $ , 3,325,000 $ - $ 3,325.000 39 County Road 93 _ Barrie to Hwy 11 EA & Design 2016 , 400,000 $ $ 400,000 $ $ . 400,000 $ $ 400,000 " County Road 40 - Barrie 10 Femdate EA & Design 2016 . 300,000 $ , 300,000 $ $ . 300,000 $ $ 300,000 " County Road 27 widening 10 Cnty Rd 30 35 2016 $ 5,425,000 $ $ 5,425,000 $ 875,000 $ , $ 4,550,000 $ $ 4,550,000 " County Road 4 widening 121h 10 Hwy 89 '.5 2016 $ 6,500,000 $ $ 6,500,000 $ 1,125,000 . - $ 5,375,000 $ . 5,375,000 " County Road 10 widening Hwy 9 to Tollenham '.5 2016 $ 5,425,000 $ - $ 5.425,000 . 875,000 . $ 4,550,000 . $ 4,550,000 " Counly Road 27 _ Hwy 26 to CR 22 EA & Design 2017 $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000 . $ $ 400,000 $ $ 400,000 " Counly Road 88 widening Hwy 400 to Cnty Rd 27 3.5 2017 $ 5,810,000 $ - $ 5,810,000 $ 875,000 $ . 4,935,000 $ , $ 4,935,000 " Counly Road 54 widening Cnly Rd 21 north to Barrie , 2017 , 6,200,000 $ $ 6,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 5,200,000 $ $ 5,200,000 " Counly Road 4 widening Hwy 21 to Church 55 2017 , 7,810,000 $ , 7.810,000 $ 1,375,000 $ . 6,435,000 $ . 6.435,000 " Counly Road 89 _ CR 39 to Hwy 40 EA & Design 2018 , 400,000 . - . 400,000 $ - $ $ 400,000 $ . 400,000 " County Road 27 widening Thorton 10 Cnly Rd 30 3 2018 , 4,650,000 . . 4,650,000 $ 750,000 . $ 3,900,000 $ . 3.900,000 " County Road 4 widening Hwy 89 to Church ',2 2018 . 6,000,000 $ . 6,000,000 $ 1,050,000 . - $ 4,081,556 . 868,444 $ 4,950,000 51 County Road 93 widening Barrie 10 Hwy 11 2 2019 . 3,100,000 . $ 3,100,000 $ 500,000 . - $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 2,600,000 52 County Road 40 widening Barrie 10 Ferndale , 2019 . 1.550,000 $ $ 1,550,000 $ 250,000 . - $ 650,000 . 650,000 $ 1,300,000 53 County Road 27 - widening Hwy 26 to CR 22 2.5 2020 $ 10,875,000 $ , $ 10,875,000 $ 1,875,000 . $ 4,500,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 9,000,000 5l County Road 89 widening Cnly Rd 39 to Hwy 40 , 2021 . 12,400,000 $ $ 12400,000 $ 2,000,000 $ , 5,200,000 $ 5,200,000 $ 10,400000 t:iEMillN. COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY GROWTH-RELATED ROADS AND RELATED PROGRAM Pg2of2 Total Total Less Total Replacement Growth-Related Costs Service Project Description Length TIming Project Grants! Municipal and Benefit Prior 2006- Post (K;' Cost Subsidies Cost To Exlstlng' Growth 2025 2025 Total 1. Roads " Otherlnterseclion lmprovemenls 2016 to 2025' 1 2016 $ 1,550,000 $ $ i,550.000 $ 250,000 $ , 1,300.000 $ $ i,300,000 56 Other IntersecHon lmprovemenls 2016 to 2025' , 2017 , 1,550,000 $ , i.550.000 I 250.000 $ - $ 1.300.000 I $ 1,300,000 57 Other Interseclion Improvemenls 2016 to 2025' 1 2018 , 1,550,000 $ - I 1,550,000 I 250.000 $ $ 1,300,000 $ I 1,300,000 56 Olher Interseclion Improvemenls 2016 to 2025' , 2019 $ 1,550,000 $ I 1,550,000 I 250,000 $ - $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 1,300,000 59 Other Inlerseclion Improvements 2016 to 2025' 1 2020 I 1,550,000 $ I 1,550,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 1,300,000 60 Olherlntersectionlmprovements20i6t02025' 1 2021 $ 1,550,000 $ - $ 1,550,000 $ 250,000 $ $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 1,300,000 61 Olherlnlerseclionimprovements2016to2025' , 2022 $ i,550,OOO $ $ 1,550,000 $ 250,000 $ $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 1,300,000 " Otherlnlersectionlmprovements2016t02025' , 2023 $ 1,550,000 $ $ 1,550,000 $ 250,000 $ , 650,000 , 650,000 $ 1,300,000 63 Other Intersection Improvements 2016 102025' , 2024 $ 1,550,000 $ - $ 1,550,000 $ 250,000 $ - , 650,000 I 650,000 $ 1,300,000 64 OtherlnlersectionlmprovementS2016t02025' , 2025 $ 1,550,000 $ -- L 1,550000 L-.-250000 L~$ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 1300,000 SubtolalRoads 122.5 , 187,268,000 , , 187,268,000 , 31,362,500 , , 138,837,056 , 17,068,444 , 155,9GS,SGG 2. Brldges 1 County Road 56_0rysdale 2006 , 100,000 $ $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ , 50,000 $ I 50,000 2 County Road 56_0rysdale and widening 2007 $ 2,000,000 , ' , 2,000,000 $ 1,000,000 , - $ 1,000,000 $ I 1,000,000 3 Powers Brklge Phase 1 2000 $ 1,8%,500 I , 1,896,500 $ 948,250 $ - , 946,250 $ , $ 946,l50 4 Powers Bridge Phase 2 2007 , 1,8%,500 $ - I 1,696,500 $ 948,250 :$ - $ 948,250 :$ $ 948,250 5 Bear Creek Culvert: CntyRd 90 '009 , 90,000 $ - I 90,000 $ 22,500 , - $ 67,500 :$ $ 67,500 6 CounlyRoadBB #88036 Replace and widen 2013 $ 400,000 $ , 400,000 $ tOO,oon $ $ 300,000 $ $ 300,000 7 CounlyRoad21 and widen 2013 $ 400.000 $ $ 400,000 $ tOO,OOO $ $ 300,000 $ , 300,000 8 Counly Road 90. CPR Overhead - Transportalion Study 4 Lanes 2011 $ 3,000,000 $ $ 3,000,000 $ 750,000 $ , 2,250,000 $ - $ 2,250,000 9 ElliotlBridge-4lane5CnlyRd90 2011 , 3,500,000 :$ $ 3,500,000 $ 875,000 $ , l,625,000 $ , , l,625,000 10 Bear Creek Culverl al Hwy 90 widening 2010 $ 200,000 $ $ 200,000 $ 50,000 $ , I 150,000 $ $ 150,000 11 CounlyRoad88 culvert replace and widen 2013 , 400,000 , I 400,000 $ 100,000 $ - , 300,000 $ $ 300,000 " CountyRoad4 culvert replace and widen 2014 $ 400,000 $ , 400,000 :> 100,000 I $ 300,000 $ - , 300,000 13 CountyRoad4:culvertreplaceandwiden 2018 $ 400,000 $ $ 400,000 $ 100.000 $ $ 300,000 $ - $ 300,000 14 County Road 88 culvert replace and widen 20\7 $ 400,000 $ I 400,000 $ 100,000 $ $ 300,000 $ , 300,000 " County Road 50 culvert replace and widen 2008 , 400,000 $ $ 400,000 $ 100,000 $ $ 300,000 , - $ 300,000 16 County Road 50 culvert replace and widen 2009 $ 400000 $ , 400,000 $ 100000 $ , 300,000 , - , 300000 Subtotal Bridges , 15,883,00G , , 15,883,IHlO , 5,444,00G , , 10,439,000 $ , 10,439,000 TOTAL ROADS & RELATED 122.5 , 203,151,000 S . , 203,151,000 S 36,806,50G , - , 149,216,056 $ 17,068,444 $ 166,344,500 Noles (1) The non-growth shares is based on off-set maintenance capital expendHuros that the Counly would have incurred In the event of no new development Cost Is based on the 25 year expenditure of: This cost is based on lhe Counly's current road maintenance cost and P ractices $250,000 Ikm (l) lnlersecljoo Improvements l016 lo 2025 (av6fage of $500.000 each) Tola1Co$!2016 102025 Average AMual E.pendilure2015 102025 AnllclpatedtocallonsareasfoUows: County Road 27_25Ih_lntersection improvements CountyRoad54_9thl,Lockharl_tntersectionimprovements County Road 54_Lockharl_lntersection improvemenls CountyRoad88_5th_lnlersectionimprovemenls County Road 89 _ CR39/10th. Inlersection improvements County Road 89. 10th _Interseclionimprovemenls County Road 50 - CR14 _Intersection improvements County Road SO_S!h_lntersectlon improvemenls $15.500,000 51.550,000 County Road 4 - BWG 12th - Intersection Improvements County Road 4 - 8WG 13th. Inlersection improvements County Road 4 - BWG 14th - Intersection improvements Counly Road 4 _INNtS 91h - Intersection improvements County Road 4 .INNlS 7th - Inlersection improvements County Road 4.INNlS 6th. Intersection improvements County Road 4 -INNIS 5th -Interseclion improvements County Road 4 -tNNIS 4th -Intersection improvements County Road 50 _ CR30th -Intersection improvemenls County Road 4 _INNtS 3rd - Intersection improvements County Road 10 _ CR1/141h .lnlerseclion lmprovemenls County Road 4 -INNIS 2nd - Intersection improvemenls County Road 10 _ CR14th _ Inlersection improvements County Road 21 and 51h -Intersection improvemenls County Road 30 _ Salem _Intersection improvements Counly Road 21 andlOlh _Intersection improvements County Road 4 _ BWG 9th _Intersection improvements County Road 44 in Washago - Intersection improvements County Road 4 _ BWG iOth -Intersection improvemenls County Road 27 - 9lh -Intersection improvements County Road 4 _ BWG 1 tlh _ Intersection improvements County Road 27 - 10th -Intersection improvements County Road 27 - Salem _Intersection improvemenls (3) County anticipates receiving direcl contributions for these works an dthedevelopmentchargeeljgibteshareshavebeenreducedaccordingly. tl~ COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES CALCULATION COUNTY ROADS AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE - GROWTH RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM 2006.2025 2006 - 2025 Population in New Units 2006 _ 2025 Growth in Square Meters 128,555 1,925,700 Growth-Related Capital Forecast Total Growth- Net Cost Total Growth- Related Total After Prior Related Service Net Capital (Net of Grantsl Prior Replacement Growth & Post-2025 Net Capital Discount Costs After Residential Non-Residential Subsidies) Growth Share Replacement Growth Costs Renuired Discount Share Share ($000) ($000) ($OOO) ($000) ($000) ($000) % $000 ($000) % $000 % $000 COUNTY ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE Roads & Related Infrastructure Improvements $203,151 $ $36,807 $166,345 $17,068 $149,276 0% $ $149,27675% $111,957 25% $37,319 TOTAL COUNTY ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE $203,151 $ $36,807 $166,345 $17,068 $149,276 $ $149,276 $111,957 $37,319 Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capita ($) $871 Unadjusted Development Charge Per Sq. M. ($) $19.38 HEMSOIl COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY CASHFLOW AND DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE: RESIDENTIAL CHARGE ROADS AND RELATED ROAD AND RELATED: RESIDENTIAL OPENING CASH BALANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 OPENING CASH BALANCE ($000) 1,992.0 4,589.4 (48.8) 148.2 2,365.3 2,416.1 1,880.0 (2,171.5) (1,767.2) (8,310.1) 2006-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ROAD AND RELATED: REStDENTIAL - constant ($OOO) $3,222.2 $3,654.9 $10,537.5 $5,806.9 $4,050.0 $6,075.0 $6,618.8 $9,440.6 $5,606.3 $11,025.0 $12,356.3 ROAD AND RELATED: RESIDENTIAL + current ($000) $3,222.2 $3,746.3 $11,071.0 $6,253.4 $4,470.4 $6,873,3 $7,675.7 $11,221.9 $6,830.7 $13,768.7 $15,817.0 POPULATION GROWTH '-Population in NewUnils 5,630 6,543 6,543 6,543 6,543 6,543 6,601 6,601 6,601 6,601 6,601 REVENUE. current ($000) Rate for 2006 -Dev. Charge Receipts $915 Infiation: 2.5% 5,151,5 6,136.5 6,289.9 6,447.2 6,608.4 6,773.6 7,004.4 7,179,6 7,359.0 7,543.0 7,731.6 -Intereston Opening Balance Rate: 6.5% 0,0 129.5 298.3 (3.2) 9,6 153.7 157.0 122.2 (141.2) (114.9) (540.2) -!ntereston In-year Transactions (excl.int.) Rate: 6.5% 62.7 77.7 (155.4) 63 69.5 (3.2) (21.8) (131.4) 17.2 (202.3) {262.8} TOTAL REVENUE 5,214.2 6,343.7 6,432.8 6,450.3 6,687.5 6,924.1 7,139.6 7.170.4 7,235.0 7,225.8 6,928.7 CLOStNG CASH BALANCE 64.1 1,992,0 4,589.4 (48.8) 148.2 2,365.3 2,416.1 1,880.0 (2,171.5) (1,767.2) (8,310.1) (17,198.5) Per Capita Total Roads and Related Charge Per Capita $915 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL OPEN!NG CASH BALANCE ($OOO) (17,198.5) (29,145.8) (33,195.9) (29,683.4) (28,591.0) (28,137.2) (22,025.0) (15,317.0) (7,969,5) 2006.2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQU!REMENTS ROAD AND RELATED: RESIDENTIAL- constant ($000) $13,927.5 $7,486.2 $1.950,0 $3,862.5 $4,387.5 $487.5 $487,5 $487.5 $487.5 $111,957.0 ROAD AND RELATED: RESIDENTIAL - current ($000) $18,274.1 $10,068.1 $2,688.1 $5.457.6 $6,354.4 $723.7 $741.8 $760.3 $779.3 $136,798,1 POPULA TlON GROWTH . Population in New Units 6,485 6,485 6,485 6,485 6,485 6,195 6,195 6,195 6,195 128,555 REVENUE. current ($000) Rate for 2006 -Dev. Charge Receipts $915 Inflation: 2.5% 7,785.6 7,980.3 8,179.8 8,384.3 8.593.9 8,414.8 8,625.2 8,840.8 9,061.8 150,091.2 -lnlereston Opening Balance Rate: 6.5% (1,117.9) (1,894.5) (2,157.7) (1,929.4) (1,858.4) (1,828.9) (1,431.6) (995.6) (518.0) (13,661.0) -Intereston In-year Transaclions (excl.inLj Rate: 6.5% (340.9) (67.9) 178.5 95.1 72.8 250.0 256.2 262.6 269.2 432,0 TOTAL REVENUE 6,326.8 6,018.0 6,200.6 6,550.0 6,808.3 6,835.8 7,449.8 8,107.8 8,813.0 136,862.2 CLOSING CASH BALANCE 64.1 (29,145.8) (33,195.9) {29,683.4) (28,591.0) (28,137.2) (22,025.0) (15,317.0) (7,969.5) 64.1 Per Capita Total Roads and Related Charge Per Capita $915 ~ COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY CASHFLOW AND DETERMINA liON OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE: NON-RESIDENTIAL CHARGE ROADS AND RELATED ROAD AND RELATED: NON-RESIDENTIAL OPENING CASH BALANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES 2006 2001 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 OPENING CASH BALANCE ($000) 1,444.4 2,872.2 1,937.5 2,667.3 4,127.1 5,166.9 5,162.8 3,995.5 4,322.7 2,343.6 2006-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUiREMENTS ROAD AND RELATED: NON-RESIDENTIAL- constant ($000) $1,074.1 $1,218.3 $3,512.5 $1,935.6 $1,350.0 $2,025.0 $2,206.3 $3,146.9 $1,868.8 $3,675.0 $4,118.8 ROAD AND RELATED: NON-RESIDENTIAL- current ($000) $1,074.1 $1,248.8 $3,690.3 $2,084.5 $1.490.1 $2,291.1 $2,558.6 $3,740.6 $2,276.9 $4,589,6 $5,272.3 NON-RESIDENTIAL GROWTH - New Building GFA - square metres 128,000 128,300 128,300 128,300 128,300 139,000 99,500 99,500 99,500 99,500 99,500 REVENUE - current ($000) Raie for 2006 -Dev.Charge Receipts $19.32 Inflation: 2.5% 2,473.0 2,540.7 2,604.2 2,669.3 2,736.1 3,038.4 2,229.3 2,285.1 2,342.2 2,400.7 2,460.8 -lnlerest on Opening Balance Rate: 6.5% 0,0 93.9 186.7 125.9 17304 268.3 335.9 335.6 259.7 281.0 152.3 -Interest on In-year Transac~ons (excl.int.) Rale: 6.5% 45.5 42_0 (35.3) 19.0 40.5 24.3 (10.7) (47.3) 21 (71.1) (91.4) TOTAL REVENUE 2,518.5 2,676_6 2,755.6 2,814.2 2,950.0 3,330.9 2.55404 2.573.4 2,604.0 2,610.5 2,521.8 CLOSING CASH BALANCE 21.0 1,444.4 2,872.2 1,937.5 2.667.3 4.127.1 5,166.9 5,162.8 3,995.5 4,322.7 2,343.6 (406.9}i Per Sq.M. ofGFA Total Roads and Related Charge Pet Sq. Metre $19.32 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL OPENING CASH BALANCE ($OOO) (406.9) (4,670.7) (6,336.1) (5.517.3) (5,544.4) (5,826.8} (4,559.4) (3,168.4) (1,644.8) 2006-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ROAD AND RELATED: NON-RESIDENTIAL- constant ($000) $4,642.5 $2,495.4 $650.0 $1,287.5 $1,462.5 $162.5 $162.5 $162.5 $162.5 $37,319.0 ROAD AND RELATED: NON.RESIDENTIAl - current ($OOO) $6,091.4 $3,356.0 $896.0 $.,819.2 $2,118.1 $241.2 $247.3 $253.4 $259.8 $45,599.4 POPULATION GROWTH '- Population in New Units 78,400 78.400 78,400 78,400 78,400 64.000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1,925,700 REVENUE - current ($000) Rate for 2006 -Dev. Charge Receipts $19.32 Inflation: 2.5% 1,987.4 2,037.1 2,088.0 2,140.2 2,193.7 1,835.6 1,881.5 1,928.5 1,976.7 45,848.5 -Interest on Opening Balance Rate: 6.5% (26.5) (303.6) (411.8) (358.6) (36004) (378.7) (296.4) (205.9) (106.9) {236.3)' . Interest on In-year Transactions (exci.int.) Rate: 6.5% (133.4) (42.9) 38.7 10.4 2,' 51.8 53.1 54.4 55.8 8,1 TOTAL REVENUE 1,827.6 1,690.6 1,714.9 1,792,0 1,835.8 1,508.7 1,638.3 1,777.0 1,925.6 45,620.3 CLOSING CASH BALANCE 21.0 (4,670.7) (6,336.1) (5,517.3) (5,544.4) (5,826.8) (4,559.4) (3,168.4) (H44.8) 21.0 Per Sq.M of GFA Total Roads and Related Charge Pet Sq.M of GFA $19.32 ~ COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ROAD AND RELATED: RESIDENTIAL Unadjusted Calculated Charge Charge Bv Unit TVDe 1\ Charge After CashflDw Singles & Rows & Per CaDita Per Capita Semis Other Multiples Apartments ROADS & RELATED $871 $915 $2,745 $2,196 $1,922 TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES $871 $915 $2,745 $2,196 $1,922 (1) Based on Persons Per Unit Of: 3.00 2.40 2.10 ROAD AND RELATED: NON-RESIDENTIAL Unadjusted Calculated Charge Charge After Cashflow Service Per Sq.M Per Sq.M ROADS & RELATED $19.38 $19.32 TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES $19.38 $19.32 HEMSON , The Corporation of the County of Simcoe (705) 726-9300 Fax: (705) 726-3991 Beeton Area (905) 729-2294 CLERK'S OFFICE Telephone Extension 1246 Administration Centre 1110 Highway 26 Midhurst, Ontario LOL IXO March 10, 2006 To Member Municipal Clerks Further to my letter of March 8th, 2006 regarding the County's deliberations on Development Charges I am pleased to enclose herewith an electronic version of the formal Background Study required under the provisions of the Development Charges Act. The draft by-law is included within the Background Study as Appendix E. It would be appreciated if you would circulate this document to the appropriate officials of your municipality. As noted in my previous letter County Council will be holding a public meeting on this matter on March 28th, 2006 at 11 :00 a.m. in the County Council Chambers. Should you have any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Ian Bender, Director of Planning at 726-9300 Ext 1371. Yours truly, ~.t.~ Glen R. Knox, County Clerk. c.c. Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer Rick Newlove, General Manager of Corporate Services Thomas Evans, General Manager of Finance and Administration Ian Bender, Director of Planning DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY County of Simcoe HEMSON Consulting Ltd March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION. ............................................... . .. 10 II THE METHODOLOGY USES A COUNTY-WIDE APPROACH TO ALIGN GROWTH-RELATED COSTS AND BENEFITS .............................. 13 A. COUNTY-WIDE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ARE PROPOSED ........... 13 B. KEY STEPS WHEN DETERMINING DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR FUTURE GROWTH-RELATED PROJECTS ....................... 14 III THE GROWTH FORECAST .......................................... . . 18 A. SIMCOE COUNTY'S RESIDENTIAL FORECAST IS FOR GROWTH OF 44,736 PERSONS AND 22,365 HOUSEHOlDS BETWEEN 2006 AND 2015 .............................................. 18 B. SIMCOE COUNTY'S NON-RESIDENTIAL FORECAST IS FOR EMPLOYMENT GROWTH OF 19,138 PERSONS AND 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FEET GFA BETWEEN 2006 AND 2015 . . . . . 19 IV SUMMARY OF HISTORIC CAPITAL SERVICE LEVELS ....................... 21 V THE GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL FORECAST ............................ 23 A. A GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL FORECAST IS PROVIDED FOR COUNCIL'S APPROVAL .................................... 23 B. THE GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL FORECAST FOR GENERAL SERVICES ........................................... 23 C. THE GROWTH.RELATED CAPITAL FORECAST FOR ENGINEERED SERVICES - ROADS AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. . . . . . . , , . , , . . . . 25 VI PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ARE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DCA ..................................... 27 A. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 B. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PAYABLE IN THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE AREA MUNICIPALITIES UNDER RECOMMENDED RATES ., . . . . . . . . . 34 C. COMPARISON OF RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IN COUNTY OF SIMCOE WITH CHARGES IN SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS ......................................... , , 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) Page VII LONG TERM CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS .......................... 39 A. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR THE COUNTY'S SERVICES TO INCREASE OVER THE FORECAST PERIOD BY $10.2 MILLION . . . . . . . . 39 B. LONG TERM CAPITAL FINANCING FROM NON-DEVELOPMENT CHARGE SOURCES TOTALS $35.8 MILLION. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 VIII DEVElOPMENT CHARGE ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL SERVICE DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 A. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ADMINISTRATION. ... ... . .... ... ... ... ..42 B. RESERVE FUNDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 C. LOCAL SERVICE DEFINITIONS ..............................,.... 44 APPENDICES LIST OF APPENDICES A. Growth Forecast B. General Services Technical Appendix C. Engineered Infrastructure Roads and Related Technical Appendix D. Long Term Capital and Operating Cost Impacts E. Proposed Development Charges By-Law The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study List of Appendices HfMSON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (i) BACKGROUND . The Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA), and its associated regulation (0. Reg. 82/98), allow municipalities in Ontario to recover growth. related capital costs from new development. . The County of Simcoe is expetiencing significant population growth and its area municipalities have committed to accommodating this growth. The County is also an increasingly attractive location for a variety of non-residential development. . The anticipated growth in Simcoe will increase the demand on municipal services. All of rhe County's area municipalities levy development charges on new development to recover the growth-related capital costs associated with meeting this demand. . The County of Simcoe does not currently levy development charges. However, growth pressures will generate an increased need for services the County provides; especially for County roads and related infrastructure. . The County wishes to implement development charges to fund capital projects related to growth in Simcoe so that development continues to be serviced in a fiscally responsible manner. (ii) INTRODUCTION . The DCA and O. Reg. 82/98 require that a development charge background study be prepared in which development charges are determined with reference to: . A forecast of the amount, type and location of housing units, population and non-residential development anticipated in the County; . The average capital service levels provided in the County over the ten year period immediately preceding the preparation of the background study; The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study HEMSON 1 . A review of future capital projects, including an analysis of gross expenditures, funding sources, and net expenditures incurred or to be incurred by the County to provide for the expected development, including the determination of the growth and non-growth-related components of the capital projects; and . An examination of the long term capital and operating costs for the capital infrastructure requited for each service to which the development charges by-laws would relate. . This study identifies the growth-related net capital costs which are attributable to development that is forecast to occur in the County. These costs are apportioned to types of development (residential; non-residential) in a manner that reflects the increase in the need for each service attributable to each type of development. The study therefore calculates development charges for each type of development. (iii) GROWTH FORECAST . The County of Simcoe is expected to experience significant growth and its area municipalities have committed to accommodating this growth. Meeting the servicing demands of this new development will require the County to expand the capacity of municipal infrastructure. . The following is a summaty of the projected growth for the County: Existin 2006-2015 2006-2025 As AI Forecast As at Forecast Asal Mid~ Year 2005 Chanoa Mid-Year 2015 Chanoe Mid. Vear 2025 Population in Existing Units 262,604 (20,013) 242,591 (39,279) 223,325 Housing Units 96,455 22,365 118,820 44,405 140,860 Forecast Population in New Units 64,749 64.749 128,555 128,555 Total Population 262,604 44,736 307,340 89,276 351,880 Existina 2006-2015 2006-2025 As AI Forecast Asa' Forecast As al Mid-Year 2005 Cha noe Mid-Year 2015 Chanoe Mid.Year 2025 Non-Residential Building Space (sq.m) 1,178,200 1,925,700 Employment 98,762 19,138 117,900 29,924 128,686 Based on forecasts prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd., endorsed by County of Simcoe and released in May 2004 The County of Simcoe Development Charge, Study HfMSON 2 (iv) ALL ELIGIBLE SERVICES ARE INCLUDED IN THE ANAL YSIS . The following County services have been included in rhe development charge analysis: . General Government . Library Services . Paramedic Services . Long Term Care . Child Care Services . Social Housing . Public Works (buildings, fleet & equipment) . Roads & Related Infrastructure . The County has existing infrastructure for the provision of these services. The historic service levels for each of the services are shown in Section IV. (v) THE COUNTY HAS AN EXTENSIVE GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM fOR THE PROVISION Of ELIGIBLE SERVICES General Services 2006 - 2015 . The capital infrastructure plans for general services are based on the ten year planning period of 2006 to 2015. . The County's growth-related capital program for general services amounts to $34.4 million and provides for a wide range of infrastructure expansions. . Of the $34.4 million growth-related capital program, approximately $20 million has been identified as eligible for recovery through development charges. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study HfMSON 3 . The following is a summary of the growth-related capital progtam for the general services: . I Forecast """"""'" CIwge Groos Subsicie:sl Capital _. Cost """"""'" Cost 2006.2015 - 1$000\ 1$000\ 1$000\ 1$000\ 1.00 TOT,6L.. UBRARY56MCfS $712.5 $0.0 $712.5 $641.3 1.1 PrcMsioo for J>d::itk:n3/ ~eriaIs Basa::l 00 Hstoic Sav\ce l.tM:lls $7125 $0.0 $712.5 2.00 TOTAL. PARMEDIC SERVICES $3,""'2 $0.0 $3,394.2 $2,021.0 21 Blildings, Lard & Furnishirgs $2,1::00.3 $0,0 $2,9)).3 2.2 Vehicles $487.. $0.0 $487.. 3.00 TOTAl- LCN3 TERM CPRE ~783.1 $0.0 $24,783.1 $12,266.6 3.1 BUIcirgs, lard & FI.ll'llishirgs $22,567.1 $0,0 $22,567.1 3.2 Vehic:I&.; $216.0 $0,0 $216.0 3.3 c:xte-C?roMh-n:iatedExperrlttre $2,0010 $0,0 $2,(0).0 4.00 TOTAL- CHLDCAAESEFMCES $100.0 $0.0 $100.0 $00.0 4,1 PrtNisicnfcrgoMh-relatedcaptalw:xks $100.0 $0,0 $100.0 5.00 TOTAl-SClCW..HOUSING $1,00110 $0.0 $1,000.0 $000.0 5.1 A1kMa1oef(Y stlrles <n:i rrio:r caPtal sperdng $1,(00,0 $0,0 $1,f.XXW 6.00 TOTAl. P\B..JC If.I;:R<S $3,:>>3.0 $0.0 $3,303.0 $2,972.7 6.1 Larrl&BUldrg $1,827.0 $0,0 $1,827.0 6.2 Reel & SrmII Eq,Jiprre1l $1.476.0 $0.0 $1,476.0 7.00 TOTAl. GeeW.. GOVEJNv'ENT $1,105.0 $0.0 $1.105.0 -'5 7.1 GwMh-RelatedStu:::lies $1,105.0 $0,0 $1,105.0 TOTALwiD YEARCOl.NTY-\NlDE GemAL SERVICES $34,397.8 $0.0 $34,397.8 $19,886.0 Roads & Related Infrastructure 2006 - 2025 . As permitted under the DCA, the roads and related infrastructure program covers a long- term planning horizon of twenty years, 2006 - 2025, and amounts to $203 million. . The program provides for the expansion of the capaciry of the road network, new and expanded intersections, and a variety of other infrastructure improvements in Simcoe. . After subtracting those portions of the roads program that will benefit the existing population and development beyond 2025, the remaining $149 million of the roads capital budget related to growth has been identified as eligible for recovery through development charges over rhe period 2006-2025. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study HEMSON 4 . The following is a summary of the growth-related capital program for County roads and related infrastructure: GtoIMt>ReI_ 0lIJitaI Fonlcasl Net Cost TolaIGltMth- Total Mer Prier Rel_ (Net of GrantsI RspIacerrert _& Post 202S Net Capital 5U>si_) Share RlIpIacooneri - Costs ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) - $ 187,268 $ 31.362.fj) $ 155.sa;.50 $ 17,rea44 $ 138.837,00 Elri<l;J<;ISln.dues $ 15,883 $ 5.444 $ 10,439 $ . $ 10.439,00 TOTAL COUNrY-WOE ROADS NO RElATED 5ERInCES $203.151.0 $36,flE,5 $166.344,5 $17,008.4 $149.271> 1 vi) DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RA TES CALCULA TED WITH FULL REFERENCE TO THE DCA . Development charge rates have been esrablished under the parameters and limitations of the DCA, and as such are defensible under rhe Act. This study provides the rationale and basis for the calculated rates. . Based on the County of Simcoe's growth forecast, historic service levels, and growth- related capital programs, the following development charge rates have been calculated: RESlOENI1Al. NQN.RE5IDENllAL SElMCES Singles & Rows & Semis 0Iher t.Uti1lles ($Isq.m) UBRARY SfRVICES $30,00 $24.00 $21.00 $1,00 PARM1EDlC SfRVICES $70,00 $56.40 $49,35 $0.54 LONG TERM CARE $658.00 $526,80 $400.95 $0,00 CHLD CARE SElMCES $3.00 $2.40 $210 $0.03 SOCIAL HOUSING $42.00 $33,60 $29.40 $0.00 PUBUC VIORKS $1{)2,OO $81,60 $71.40 $0,87 GENERAL GOVERNMENr $36.00 $28,80 $25.20 $1.28 SUB- TOTAL GENERAL SElMCES $942,00 $753,60 $658.40 $1.72 ROADS & RElATED $2.745,00 $2.196,00 $1.921.00 $19,32 SUB- TOTAL e>lGlNEERfD SfRVICES $2.745,00 $2.196.00 $1.921,00 $19,32 TOTAL RESlllEN11AL CHARGE pt;R UNT $3,687.00 $2,949.60 $2,580.90 $21.04 The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study HEMSON 5 (vii) TOTAL POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PA YABLE IN THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE AREA MUNICIPALITIES . Development Charges implemented by the County will be levied over and above development charges already levied by the area municipalities. . In addition to the area municipal and County development charges, the Simcoe County School Boards levy a residential development charge of $812 per dwelling unit and a non- residential development charge of $2.04 per square metre. . The total development charge that would be payable on a fully-serviced (water and sewer) single detached home in each area municipality is summarized below: Municipality Lower Tier Max. Calculated Rate Total Countv of Simcoe Township of Adjala-Tosorontio $2.641 $3.667 $6.326 Township of Ora-Madonte $4.D56 $3,667 $7.743 Township of Tiny $4.310 $3.667 $7.997 Town of Wasaga Beach $7.563 $3.667 $11.270 Township of T ay $6.532 $3.667 $12.219 Township of Severn $9.043 $3.667 $12,730 Town of Penetanguishene $9.535 $3.667 $13.222 Town of Midland $10.186 $3.667 $13.673 Town of Collingwood $10.421 $3.667 $14,106 Township of Ramara $10.443 $3.667 $14,130 Town of Innism $12.660 $3.667 $16.567 Township of Springwater $14.532 $3.667 $16.219 Township of Clearview $16.606 $3.667 $20.493 Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury $16.820 $3.667 $20.507 Township of Essa $18.536 $3.667 $22.223 Town of New Tecumseth $19.751 $3.667 $23.436 City of Barrie (Separated) $15.249 $15.249 City of Orima (Separated) $11.720 $11.720 Notes: 1. Above rates are fOf fully serviced single detached units. 2. Township of Severn charges are for Westshore. Other areas have different charges. 3. Township of Ramara rate is for Lagoon City only. 4. Town of lnnisfil: Alcona and Lefroy Rate. Different rates for 4 other areas. 5. Township of Springwater has various areas~specific charges for water and/or sewer, e.g. Elmvale also adds $5,738 for sewer in addition to above rates. Other areas have different charges. 6. Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury: the above rate only applies until March 6, 2006. New rate will be implemented as of March 7, 2006. 7, Township of Essa rate is for Angus and other areas are subject to different rates. B. Education development charges are currently levied by the School Boards in the County of Simcoe at the rate of $812/ dwelling unit ($622 and $190 for S.C.D.S.B. and S.M.C.D.S.B respectively). This charge is independent of the above rates. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study HEMSON 6 · The total development charge that would be payable on a fully-serviced non.residential development in each area municipality is summarized below: Commercial Industrial Municipality Lower Tier Max. Calculated TOTAL Lower Tier Max. Calculated TOTAL ($/sq.m) County of Simcoe ($/sq.m) ($/sq.m) County of Simcoe ($/sq.m) IS/sn.m! IS/sn.m! Town of Wasaga Beach - $21,04 $21.04 . $21.04 $21.04 Township of Ora-Medonte $21.04 $21.04 - $21.04 $21.04 Township of lay . $21.04 $21.04 . $21.04 $21,04 Township of Tiny $18.04 $21.04 $39.08 $18.04 $21.04 $39.08 Township of Springwater $20.30 $21.04 $41.34 $20.30 $21.04 $41,34 Township of Adjala-Tosorontio $21.84 $21.04 $42.88 $21.84 $21.04 $42,88 Town of Collingwood $29.17 $21,04 $50.21 $29.17 $21.04 $50.21 Township of Clearview $30.14 $21.04 $51.18 $30.14 $21.04 $51,18 Town of Penetanguishene $35.99 $21.04 $57.03 . $21.04 $21.04 Township of Essa $42.27 $21.04 $63.31 $42.27 $21.04 $63.31 Township of Ramara $45.41 $21.04 $66.45 $22.81 $21.04 $43.85 Town of Midland $45.65 $21.04 $66.69 $45.65 $21.04 $66.69 Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury $48.20 $21.04 $69.24 $48.20 $21.04 $69.24 Town of Innistil $71.35 $21.04 $92.39 $28.54 $21,04 $49.58 Township of Severn $79.70 $21.04 $100.74 $79.70 $21.04 $100,74 Town of New Tecumseth $127,11 $21.04 $148.15 $15,96 $21.04 $37.00 City of Barrie (Separated) $112.59 - $112.59 $43.06 - $43,06 City of Orillia (Separated) $87.79 . $87.79 $31.84 . $31.84 Notes: 1. Above rates are for fully serviced areas. 2. Township of Springwater has various areas~specific charges for water and/or sewer, e,g. Elmvale also adds $5,738 for sewer in addition to above rates. Other areas have different charges. 3. Township of Essa rates are for Angus and other areas are subject to different rates. 4. Township of Ramara rate is for Lagoon City only. 5. Town of Bradford West Gwiltimbury: The above rates only apply until March 6, 2006, New rates will be implemented as of March 7, 2006. Also note that non-residential rates are being phased in and do not represent the fully implemented rates. 6. Town of Innisfil's non-commercial rates are being phased in. 7. Township of Severn charges are for Wests hare and other areas have different charges. B. Education development charges are currently levied by the School Boards in the County of Simcoe at the rate of $2.04/ sq.m. ($1.61 and $0.43 for S.C.D.S.B. and S.M.C.D.S.B. respectively). This charge is independent from the above rates. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study HEMSON 7 (viii) COMPARISON OF SIMCOE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WITH CHARGES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS . The following is a comparison of residential development charges in force in other jurisdictions for a fully serviced single detached home: Municipality Region Residential f$/unitl City of Kawartha Lakes Single-Tier $7,711 Town of Bracebridge Muskoka $8,520 Town of Huntsville Muskoka $9,160 Township of Muskoka Lakes Muskoka $9,183 Township of Lake of Bays Muskoka $9,621 Town of Gravenhurst Muskoka $9,823 Township of Georgian Bay Muskoka $10.741 Town of Orangeville Duffenn $17,166 Town of Caledon Peel $19,238 Town of Newmarket York $22,491 Town of Markham York $23,240 City of Vaughan York $24,157 Twp. Of King York $27,365 County of Simcoe (Max. Calculated) Lowest $6,328 Highest $23,438 Notes: 1. Above residential rates are for fully serviced single detached units 2. Township of King: rates are for King City only. Nobleton has different rates 3. Town of Caledon: different rates for Bolton South Hill The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study HfMSON 8 . The following is a comparison of non-residential development charges applicable in other jurisdictions for a fully serviced development: Municipality Region Commercial Industrial 1$/sa.ml 1$/so.m\ Township of Lakes of Bays Muskoka $12.66 $12.66 City of Kawartha Lakes Single-Tier $13.98 $13.98 Township of Georgian Bay Muskoka $16.00 $16.00 Township of Muskoka Lakes Muskoka $16.75 $16.75 Town of Huntsville Muskoka $21.38 $10.62 Town of Gravenhurst Muskoka $21.81 $21.81 Town of Caledon Peel $69.15 $48.06 Town of Markham York $82.86 $42.92 Town of Newmarket York $89.67 $49.73 Town of Orangeville Duffenn $89.92 $89.92 City of Vaughan York $95.04 $55.10 Twp. Of King York $126.48 $86.54 County of Simcoe (Max. Calculated) Lowest $21.04 $21.04 Highest $148.15 $100.74 Notes: 1. Above residential rates are for fully serviced single detached units. 2. Town of Markham has additional charge of $71,214/hectare for all areas as well as various area specific charges. 3. Township of King: rates are for King City only. Nobleton has different rates. 4. Town of Caledon: different rales for Bolton South Hill. Commercial rates are only for retail units. 5. Town of Bracebridge: no development charges for non-residential units. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Study HfMSON 9 I INTRODUCTION The Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA), and its associated Ontario Regulation 82198 (0. Reg. 82/98), allow municipalities in Ontario to recover growth-related capital costs from new development. This County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study is presented as part of a process to establish development charge by-laws that comply with this legislation. The County of Simcoe is experiencing significant population growth and its area municipalities have committed to accommodating this growth. The County is also an increasingly attractive location for a vatiety of non-residential development. The anticipated growth in Simcoe will increase the demand on municipal services. All of the County's area municipalities levy development charges on new development to recover the growth-related capital costs associated with meeting this demand. The County of Simcoe does not currently levy development charges. However, growth pressures will generate an increased need for services the County provides; this is especially true for County roads and related infrastructure. The County wishes to implement development charges to fund capital projects related to growth in Simcoe so that development continues to be serviced in a fiscally responsible manner. The DCA and O. Reg. 82/98 require that a development charges background study be prepared in which development charges are determined with reference to: . A forecast of the amount, type and location of housing units, population and non-residential development anticipated in the County; . The average capital service levels provided in the County over the ten year period immediately preceding the preparation of the background study; . A review of future capital projects, including an analysis of gross expenditures, funding sources, and net expenditures incurred or to be incurred by rhe County or its local boards to provide for the expected development, including the determination of the growth and non-growth-related components of the capital projects; and The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 10 . An examination of the long term capital and operating costs for the capiral infrastructure required for each service to which the development charges by-laws would telate. This study identifies the growth-related net capital costs which are attributable to development that is forecast to occur in the County. The costs are then apportioned to types of development (residential and non-residential) in a manner that reflects the increase in the need for each service attributable to each type of development. The study arrives, therefore, at proposed development charges for each type of development. The DCA provides for a period of public review and comment regarding the proposed development charges. Following completion of this process, in accordance with the DCA and Council's review of this study and the comments it receives regarding this srudy or other information brought to its attention about the proposed charges, it is intended that Council will pass the first development charge by-laws for the County. The remainder of this study sets out the information and analysis upon which the proposed development charges are based. Section 11 designates the services for which the development charges are proposed and the areas within the County to which the development charges will apply. It also briefly reviews the methodologies that have been used in this background study. Section 111 presents a summary of the forecast residential and non-residential development which is expected to occur within the County over the 2006-2015 period and to ultimate development in 2025. Section IV summarizes the historic ten year average capital service levels that have been attained in the County which form the basis for the development charge calculations. In Section V, the growth-related capital forecast rhat has been developed by various County departments is reviewed. Section VI summarizes the calculation of applicable development charges and the resulting proposed development charges by class and type of development. This section also provides a comparison of proposed total development charge rates for the municipalities in the County as well as comparison with rates currently being levied in similar and surrounding jurisdictions. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HEMSON 11 Section VII provides an examination of the long term capital and operating costs for each service included in the development charge calculation. Section VIII provides a review of development charges administrative matters such as collection method and timing of payments, exemptions, credits for services-in-lieu, front-end financing, ete. In addition, this section provides an overview of the County's definitions for "local service" under 5.59 of the DCA. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 12 II THE METHODOLOGY USES A COUNTY.WIDE APPROACH TO ALIGN GROWTH.RELATED COSTS AND BENEfITS Several key steps are required when calculating any development charge. However, specific circumstances arise in each county which must be reflected in the calculation. In this study, therefore, we have tailored our approach to the County of Simcoe's unique circumstances. The approach to the proposed development charges is focussed on providing a reasonable alignment of growth-related costs with the development that necessitates them. This study lIses a County-wide approach for all services which the County provides. A. COUNTY-WIDE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ARE PROPOSED Simcoe provides a wide range of services to the community it serves and has a sizeable inventory of facilities, land, infrastructure, vehicles and equipment. The DCA provides the County with flexibility when defining services that will be included in the development charge by-laws, provided that the other provisions of the Act and Regulations are met. The DCA also permits the County to designate, in its by-laws, the areas within which the development charges shall be imposed. The charges may apply to all lands in the County or to other designated development areas as specified in the by-laws. For all of the development charge eligible services that the County provides, the full range of capital facilities, land, equipment and infrastructure is available throughout the County. All County residents therefore have access to all facilities. A widely accepted method for sharing the growth-related capital costs for such services is to apportion them over all new growth anticipated in the County. The following services are included in the County-wide development charge calculation: Library Services Paramedic Services Long Term Care Child Care Services Social Housing Public Works - Buildings, Fleet and Equipment The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 13 General Government Engineered Services - Roads and Related These services form a reasonable basis on which to plan and administer the County-wide development charges. It is noted thar the analysis of each of these services examines the individual capital facilities and equipment that make them up. For example, the paramedic services category includes the ambulance building and associated land, vehicles, furniture and equipment. The resulting development charge for all of the above services would be imposed uniformly againsr all new development everywhere in rhe County. B. KEY STEPS WHEN DETERMINING DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR FUTURE GROWTH-RELATED PROJECTS Several key steps are required when calculating development charges for future growth-related projects. They are summarized below. 1. Growth Forecast The first step in the methodology requires a development forecast to be prepared for the ten year study period, 2006-2015, for the general services, and longer planning time frame, as permitted under the DCA, of twenty years (2006 to 2025) for roads and related infrastructure. The forecast of the future residential and non-residential development by location used in this study was prepared in conjunction with the Counry's senior staff. For the residential portion of the forecast, both the net population growth as well as the new population that will result from the addition of new housing units is estimated. Net population growth refers to the population in new housing units reduced by the decl ine in the population in the existing base anticipated over the ten year period and to build- out (due to a reduction in household size as the community ages). The net population determines the need for additional facilities and provides the foundation for development of the growth-related capital forecast. Using the net growth figures ensures that facility and infrastructure requirements are not overstated. When calculating the development charge, however, the growth-related net capital costs are spread over the total additional population growth resulting from the addition of new housing units. This is the population over which residential development charges will be collected. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HEMSON 14 The non-residential portion of the forecast estimates building space to be developed in the County over the ten year period, 2006-2015, and the longer planning period of 2006 to 2025. The forecast is based on the forecasted increases in employment levels and the anticipated amount of new building space required to accommodate them. 2. Service Categories and Historic Service levels The DCA states that the increase in the need for service attributable to anticipated development: n. must not include an increase that would result in the level of service exceeding the average level of that service provided in the municipality over the 10.year period immediately preceding the preparation of the background study...(s. 5. (1) 4.) Historic ten year average service levels thus form the basis for the development charge calculation. A review of the County's capital service levels for buildings, land, vehicles, and so on has therefore been prepared as a reference for the calculation so that the portion of future capital projects that may be included in the development charge can be determined. The historic service levels used in this study have been calculated based on the period 1996-2005. For the "hard" services of roads and related infrastructure, historic service levels have been calculated, but are less applicable as new infrastructure is required to meet engineering standards. 3. Growth-Related Capital Forecast and Analysis of Net Capital Costs to be Included in the Development Charges A growth-related capital forecast has been prepared by the County's departments and as part of the study. The forecast identifies growth-related projects and their gross and net costs, after allowing for capital grants, subsidies or other contributions as required by the DCA s.5 .(2). The capital forecast provides another cornerstone upon which development charges are based. The DCA requires that the increase in the need for service attributable to the anticipated development may include an increase: ... only if the council of the municipality has indicated that it intends to ensure that such an increase in need will be met. (5, 5. n) 3.) In conjunction with the DCA, s. 5. (1) 4. referenced above, these sections have the effect of requiring that the development charge be calculated on the lesser of the historic ten year average service levels or the service levels embodied in future plans of the County. The growth-related capital forecast prepared for this study ensures that development charges are only imposed to help pay for projects that have been or are intended to be purchased or built in order to accommodate future anticipated The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HEMSON 15 development. It is not sufficient in the calculation of development charges merely to have had the service in the past. There must also be a demonstrated commitment ro continue ro emplace facilities or infrastructure in the future. In this regard, Ontario Regulation 82/98, s. 3 states that: For the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection 5 (1) of the Act, the council of a municipality has indicated that it intends to ensure that an increase in the need for service will be met if the increase in service forms part of an official plan, capital forecast or similar expression of the intention of the council and the plan, forecast or similar expression of the intention of the council has been approved by the council. For some projects in the growth-related capital forecast, a portion of the project may confer benefits to existing residents. As required by the DCA, s. 5. (1) 6., these portions of projects and their associated net costs are the funding responsibility of the County from non-development charges sources. The amount of financing for such non-growth shares of projects is also identified as part of the preparation of the growth-related capital forecast. There is also a requirement in the DCA to reduce the applicable development charge by the amount of any "uncommitted excess capacity" that is available for a service. Such capacity is available to partially meet the future servicing requirements. Adjustments are made in the analysis to meet this requirement of the Act. Finally, when calculating development charges, the growth-related net capital costs must be reduced by ten per cent for all services except roads and related (DCA, s. 5. (1) 8). The ten per cent discount is applied to the other services, e.g. paramedic services and long term care, and the resulting financing responsibility from non-development charge sources is identified. 4. Attribution to Types of Development The next step in the determination of development charges is the allocation of the growth-related net capital costs between the residential and the non-residential sectors. In the County of Simcoe the allocation is based on the expected demand for, and use of, the service by each sector (e.g. roads apportioned based on shares of population and employment growth) and consideration of other factors affecting the demand for specific county services. Finally, the residential component of the development charge is applied to different housing types on the basis of average occupancy factors. The non-residential component is applied on the basis of gross floor area of building space in square metres. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 16 5. Final Adjustment The final determination of the development charge results from adjustments made to growth-related net capital costs for each service and sector resulting from a cashflow analysis that takes account of the timing of projects and receipt of development charges. Interest earnings or borrowing costs are rherefore accounted for in the calculation as allowed under the DCA. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HEMSON 17 III THE GROWTH FORECAST The following section provides a summary of the growth forecasts that have been used as input to the development charges calculation for Simcoe County. A more detailed discussion of the growth forecasts, including detailed tables illustrating historic trends and forecast results, is provided in Appendix A. The forecasts of population, household and employment used in the calculation of the development charge rates for Simcoe are based upon forecasts that were prepared for the County as part of irs ongoing growth management initiatives. The fotecasts were prepared by Hemson Consulting, endorsed by the Counry and released in May of2004. The County forecasts include all of the local municipalities with the exception of the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia. A. SIMCOE COUNTY'S RESIDENTIAL FORECAST IS FOR GROWTH OF 44,736 PERSONS AND 22,365 HOUSEHOLDS BETWEEN 2006 AND 2015 The population forecast is based upon a standard cohort-survival model that takes into consideration the most recent fertility, mortality and migration data. Net-migration has been the single most important vatiable in Simcoe's growth. The County has averaged net-migration of about 8,000 people annually for the past 10 years. It is anticipated that the level of migration will rise marginally in the current 2001 to 2006 period to 8,600 annually, a level that was maintained ovet the course of the forecast. Forecasts of population growth that result from new housing units is the sole input to the development charge calculation. Future estimates of population growth that occur only in new housing is based upon a historic time series of population growth in housing by period of construction. The data shows the difference in household sizes in new households created in the most recent available 10 year period (1991-2001) versus the household size for all units. The average household size in new units is often much higher than the average household size for all units. It is expected that Simcoe's population in new residential units will increase by 65,000 people berween 2006 and 2015, relative to overall population growth of 45,000 in the same period. The difference between the two is attributable to decreases in the existing population base of the County that arises due to factors such as an aging of the existing population base. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HEMSON 18 The forecast of households for Simcoe County is prepared by applying age specific headship rates to the forecast population. The headship rate is the rate at which the population within a given age cohort is a primary household maintainer. For example, 51 per cent of people age 30-34 were head of a household in Simcoe in 2001. The 2001 headship rates were maintained over the course of the forecast. The population and household forecast results for the 2006 - 2025 period are summarized in the following table: Residential Growth Forecast Population Households Population Net Net in New Total Change Total Change Households 2005 262,604 - 96,455 - - 2006 267,200 4,596 98,400 1,945 5,630 2007 271,660 4,460 100,660 2,260 6,543 2008 276,120 4,460 102,920 2,260 6,543 2009 280,580 4,460 105,180 2,260 6,543 2010 285,040 4,460 107,440 2,260 6,543 2011 289,500 4,460 109,700 2,260 6,543 2012 293,960 4,460 111,980 2,280 6,601 2013 298,420 4,460 114,260 2,280 6,601 2014 302,880 4,460 116,540 2,280 6.601 2015 307,340 4,460 118,820 2,280 6,601 TOTAL (2006 - 2015 - 44,736 - 22,365 64,749 TOTAL (2006 - 2025) - 128,555 - 44,405 128,555 . Note: Totals may not add due to rounding B, SIMCOE COUNTY'S NON-RESIDENTIAL FORECAST IS FOR EMPLOYMENT GROWTH OF 19,138 AND 1.18 MilLION SQUARE FEET GFA BETWEEN 2006 AND 2015 The non-residential growth forecast consists of two components: employment and gross floor area. The employment forecast is produced by applying age-specific participation rates to the population forecast to determine an employed labour force forecast. An unemployment rate and an estimate of out-commuting to areas beyond Simcoe is applied to the forecast to determine the level of employment that will occur within the County. The employment level is expected to grow by 19,200 overthe next ten years, which will bring the total to 118,000 for the year 2015. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 19 The forecast of non-residential gross floor area (GFA) is calculated using aforementioned employment level forecast. For every 60 sq. m. of non-residential floor space constructed, an employment is anticipated to be added to an area. Thus additional 19 ,200 employments for the ten years should be preceded with construction of approximately 1.18 million sq. m. of gross floor area between 2006 to 2015. The following table summarizes the forecast for employment and gross floor area for the period of 2006 to 2025: Non-Residential Growth Forecast Employment Annual Growth of Gross Floor Area Total Net Chanae {sa.ml 2005 98,762 - - 2006 101,090 2,328 128,000 2007 103,228 2,138 128,300 2008 105,366 2,138 128,300 2009 107,504 2,138 128,300 2010 109,642 2,138 128,300 2011 111,780 2,138 139,000 2012 113,310 1,530 99,500 2013 114,640 1,530 99,500 2014 116,370 1,530 99,500 2015 117,900 1,530 99,500 TOTAL 12006 - 20151 - 19,138 1 ,178,200 TOTAL (2006 - 2025) - 29,924 1,925,700 * Note: Totals may not add due to rounding The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 20 IV SUMMARY OF HISTORIC CAPITAL SERVICE LEVELS The DCA and O. Reg. 82/98 require that the development charges be set at a level no higher than the average service level provided in the County over the ten year period immediately preceding the prepararion of the background study, on a service by service basis. For non-engineered services (library services, paramedic services, etc.) the legislative requirement is met by documenting service levels for the preceding ten years: in this case, for the petiod 1996 - 2005. Typically, service levels for non-engineered services are measured as a ratio of inpurs per capita. With engineered services such as roads, engineeting standatds are used in lieu of inputs per capita. O. Reg. 82/98 requires that when defining and determining historic setvice levels borh the quantity and quality of service be taken into consideration. In most cases, the service levels are initially established in quantitative terms. For example, setvice levels for buildings are presented in terms of square feet per unit. The qualitative aspect is introduced by the consideration of the monetary value of the facility or service. In the case of buildings, for example, the cost would be shown in terms of dollars per square foot to replace or construct a facility of the same quality. This approach helps to ensure that the growth-related capital facilities that are to be charged to new growth reflect not only the quantity (number and size) but also the quality (value or cost) of service provided by the County in the past. Both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of service levels used in the current analysis are based on information provided by County staff. This information is generally based on historical records and the County's and surrounding municipalities' experience with costs to acquire or construct similar facilities, equipment and infrastructure. Table 1 summarizes service levels for all general services included in the County-wide development charge calculation. Appendix B provides detailed historical inventory data upon which the calculation of service levels is based. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 21 TABLE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 10-YEAR HISTORIC AVERAGE SERVICE LEVELS 1996 - 2005 Historic Average Service Service Level LIBRARY SERVICES $15.93 per capita - Buildings 0.01 sq.ft.!capita . Land 0.00 ha/10,000 pop - Furniture and Equipmenl $0.20 per capita - Materials $13.68 per capita - Vehicles $0.17 per capita PARAMEDIC SERVICES (5-YEAR) $50.19 per capita - Buildings 0.11 sq. ft.!capita - land 0.17 hall0,000 pop - Furniture and Equipment $0.36 per capita - Vehicles $13.98 per capita LONG TERM CARE $323.90 per capita - Buildings 1.71 sq. ft.!capita - land 0.35 ha/1 0,000 pop - Furniture and Equipment $9.30 per capita - Vehicles $2.61 per capita CHILD CARE SERVICES (4-YEAR) $8.91 per capita SOCIAL HOUSING (5-YEAR) $907.20 per capita - Buildings $870.72 per capita - Land 1.04 ha/10,000 pop PUBLIC WORKS $129.02 per capita - Buildings 0.38 sq, ft.!capita . Land 0.98 ha.!1 0,000 pop - Furniture and Equipment $0.47 per capita - Fleet and Small Equipment $42.95 per capita ROADS AND RELATED $1,672.07 per capita HEMSON 22 V THE GROWTH-RELATED CAPIl AL FORECAST The DCA requires the Council of a county to express its intent to provide future capital facilities at the level incorporated in the development charges calculation. As noted above in Section II, Ontario Regulation 82/98, s. 3 states that: For the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection 5 (1) of the Act, the council of a municipality has indicated that it intends to ensure that an increase in the need for service will be met if the increase in service forms part of an official plan, capital forecast or similar expression of the intention of the council and the plan, forecast or similar expression of the intention of the council has been approved by the council. A. A GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL FORECAST IS PROVIDED FOR COUNCIL'S APPROVAL Based on the growth forecasts summarized in Section III and detailed in Appendix A, staff of the County, in collaboration with the consultant, have developed a growth-related capital forecast which sets out those projects that are required to service anticipated growth. For all general services the capital plan covers the ten year period from 2006 - 2015, whereas, roads and related capital program is extended to covet next twenty years, 2006 . 2025. One of the recommendations contained in this background study is for Council to adopt the growth-related capital forecast developed for the purposes of the development charges calculation. It is assumed that future capital budgets and forecasts will continue to bring forward the capital projects presented here as they will be needed to service the anticipated ~rowth in the County. It is however acknowledged that changes to the forecast presented here may occur throu~h the County's normal capital budget process. B. THE GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL FORECAST FOR GENERAL SERVICES A summary of the growth-related capital forecast for general services is presented in Table 2. The table shows that the gross cost of the County's capital forecast is estimated to be $34.4 million. No grants or subsidies have been identified. Therefore, the net cost of the growth-related capital program remains $34.4 million. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 23 TABLE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE GROWTH.RELATED CAPITAL FORECAST SUMMARY OF COUNTY_WIDE GENERAL SERVlCES 2006_2015 C ltalFOAcut Total Nat ClIpltal Fo",cllSt Gron 5ubllldlflsJ Capltlll ;:Ori, R~$OO:r1U C~, "... SlIM/IClI '000 ZOO, "" ZOO, ".. 2010 2011 2012 20" 2011 2015 1.00 TOTAL. LIBRARY SERVICES $712,5 $0.0 $112.5 $71.3 $11,3 $11.3 $11.3 $11.3 $11.3 $11.3 511.3 $11.3 $71.3 1,1 Provision fmA<Id!tiooBI Materials Based on Hislol1c SeNlce L!I1Ials $712,5 "'. $112,5 571,3 S71,3 $71.3 57t.:l $71-3 $71-3 $71,3 $71,3 S71-3 $71.3 2.00 TOTAL. PARAME01C SERVICES $3,3iU SM 13,394.2 $1,651.t $0,0 $.135.6 $0.0 $(35.6 "'.. $<435.6 $0.0 $435.6 ".. 2,1 Bulkllngs.LBnd&Fumishings $2.9063 SO_O $2,906.3 $1,554.3 "'. S338_0 $0_0 $33l:l0 $0_0 $33iLO $0.0 $33l:l.0 $0.0 2,2 Ve!licl<ls 5481,9 SO,O 5467.9 $97,6 $0,0 $97_6 $0_0 $97_6 "'. $91_6 $0.0 $97.6 "'. 3.00 TOTAL _ LONG TERM CARE $24,1&3.1 ".. $24,783.1 $22,507.1 $6G4.11 $2nll $2011,0 S2OO.' $200.0 5200.0 $200.0 $200.0 $200.0 3,1 Buiidi"ll's.Land&Fumishings $22,561.1 $0,0 $22.567.1 $22,307,1 $260_0 "'.. "'.. "'. "'.. $0,0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 3.2 Vehidos $216.0 "'. $216.0 "'. $14.4.0 572.0 "'. SO., SO, "'.. SO, $0_0 $0.0 3.3 Othe, Gmwth.llllated &pondltura $2,000.0 $00 $2,000.0 $200,0 $200_0 $200.a S200.0 5200,0 5200,0 $200,0 $200_0 $200,0 5200.0 4.00 TOTAL - CHILD CAAE SERVICES $100.0 50.0 $100.0 $10.0 $10.0 510.0 $10.0 $10.11 $111.11 510.0 $10.11 $10.0 $10.0 4_ 1 Pl1Wisiorl for growth-related capa81 works $100,0 SO, $100.0 $10,0 510,0 $10,0 $10,0 $100 $10_0 $10.0 S10_0 $10,0 $10_0 5.011 TOTAL - SOCIAL HOUSING $1,000.0 $0,0 $1,000.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 5.1 Allowancefolsludiesafldmlnorcapitalspe"d~ nooo_o $0,0 $UlOD-O $100,0 $100.0 $100,0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100,0 $100_0 6.00 TOTAL _ PU8LIC WORKS $3,303.0 $UI $3,303.0 $711.6 $202.0 $172.0 $1,004.5 51nO ...... $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 6_1 Land&Buik:jlng $1,&27.0 $0.0 $1.&21,0 $453.6 "'. SO.O $832.5 $00 5540_8 $00 SO., SO.O $0.1) 6_2 Fleal& Small Equipment $1,476.0 "'. $1.476.0 $256.0 $202,0 $112,0 $172.0 $172,0 $100_0 $100.0 $100_0 $100.0 $100,0 7.00 TOTAL_GENERAl GOveRNMENT $1,105.0 SO., 51,105.0 $175.0 $0.0 $0.0 ".. SO., $130.0 "'.. $100.0 $100.0 ".. 1.1 Growltl.RelatedSludles $1,105_0 SO, $1,105,0 $115_0 SO, "'. $0.0 "'.. $130-0 SO, 5100.0 $100,0 "'. TOTAL. 1 (I YEAR COUNTY_WI GENERAL SERVICES $34,391.8 $0.0 34,397.8 $25,826.9 $987.3 $1,060.8 1,35.8 598U 1,152.1 916.8 $581.3 .. ,. '" .,. HEMS~ Of this $34.4 million net capital cost, approximately $22.6 million (66 per cent) has been allocated for the redevelopment or replacement of the long-term care facility of Georgian Manor in 2006. Another $3.4 million (10 per cent) is required to fund replacement of Orillia station and the purchase of ambulance vehicles and cover spaces. An additional $3.3 million (10 per cent) is related to capital works for public works, including the expansion of four facilities and the addition of fleet vehicles and small equipment. $713,000 oflibrary services capital works has also been identified (2 per cent) along with $100,000 (0.3 per cent) and $1.0 million (3 per cent) of child care services and social housing capital works respectively. The portion of the County's program which relates to the provision of growth-related studies is referred to as General Government. It amounts to $ 1. 11 million, or just over 3 per cent of the totaL This capital forecast incorporates those projects identified to be related to growth anticipated in the next ten years. It is not implied that all of these costs are to be recovered from new development by way of development charges (see the following Section VI fot the method and determination of net capital costs attributable to growth). Portions of this capital forecast may relate to replacement of existing capital facilities, to shares of projects that benefit the existing community, or to growth anticipated to occur beyond the 2006-2015 planning period. In addition, the amounts shown on Table 3 have not been reduced by ten per cent for various "soft" services as required by s. 5 (1) 8 of the DCA After these reductions the remaining growth-related capital costs are brought forward to the development charge calculation. Further details on the capital plans for each individual service category are available in Appendix B. C. THE GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL fORECAST FOR ENGINEERED SERVICES - ROADS AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE Table 3 presents a summary of the growth-related capital program for the County's roads and related engineered infrastructure over the period 2006 to 2025. It shows that the total gross cost of the program is estimated to be $203.2 million, of which $36.8 million is considered to be a replacement share and $17.1 million is deemed to benefit growth beyond 2025. Thus, the net cost of the growth-related capital program for roads and related infrastructure which is recoverable under the DCA is $149.3 million. Further derails on the development charges calculation for roads are available in Appendix C The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 25 TABLE 3 COUNTY OF SIMCOE GROWTH.RELA TEO CAPITAL FORECAST SUMMARY OF COUNTY.WIOE ROADS AND RELATED SERVICES Growth~Related Gross Grants & Replacement & Net Cost Subsidies Benefit to Existing Cost 2006 . 2025 Post~2025 ($OOOl ($0001 '$000\ ($OOol ($OOol ($oOOl ROAOS & RELATED Roads $187,268.0 $0.0 $31,362.5 $155,905.5 $138,837.1 $17,068.4 Structures/Bridges $15,883.0 $0.0 $5,444.0 $10,439.0 $10,439.0 $0.0 TOTAL. 20 YEAR COUNTY.WlDE ROADS AND RELATED SERVICES $203,151.0 $0.0 $36,806.5 $166,344.5 $149,276.1 $17,068.4 N 0> ttEMSON VI PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ARE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DCA This section summarizes the calculation of development charges for each service category and the resulting total development charge by type of development. For all services, the calculation of the "unadjusted" per capita (residential) and per square metre (non-reSidential) charges is reviewed. Adjustments to these amounts resulting from a cashflow analysis that accounts for interest earnings and borrowing costs are also discussed. For residential development, an adjusted total per capita amount is rhen converted to a variable charge by housing unit type using various unit occupancy factors. For non-residential development the proposed development charge rates are based on gross floor area (GFA) of building space. It is noted that the calculation of the development charges does not include any provision for exemptions required under the DCA, for example, the exemption for enlargements of up to fifty per cent on existing industrial buildings. Such legislated exemptions, or other exemptions which Council may choose to provide, will result in loss of development charge revenue for the affected types of development. Any such revenue loss may not be offset, however, by increasing other portions of the calculated charge. A. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION 1. Unadjusted Residential and Non-Residential Development Charge Rates A summary of the "unadjusted" residential and non-residential development charges for the general services is presented in Table 4. Further details of the calculation for each individual general service category are available in Appendix B. The capital forecast for the general ,ervices incorporates those projects identified to be related to growth anticipated in the next ten years. It is not implied that all of these capital costs are to be tecovered from new development by way of development charges. Table 4 shows that part of this capital forecast relates to replacement of existing capital facilities or for shares of projects that provide benefit to the existing community ($ 12. 1 million). Another share of the forecast, $236,500, is attributable to growth beyond the 2015 period and can therefore only be recovered under futute development charge The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study lifMSON 27 TABLE 4. PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE SUMMARY OF UNADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR 10 YEAR COUNTY.WlDE GENERAL SERVICES 10 Year G'owlh in Population in New Unils 10 YearGl'Owlh in Square Melres 64.749 1.176,200 Growth-Related ClI Ital Forecast Total Growth- NetCO$t Total Gn:lwth- Related Total AfterPrlol' Related SeMU Net Capital (NlltofGrant51 Replacement Growth & Post 2015 NetCapltal Discount Costs After Residential Non_Residential SUt~sl~~) Share PrlorG~ Replacement G_ Co~~~ R""'u1red Discount Share Share '00' ($000) (SO" -(SOOO) (SOOOI ($000 % '000 (SOOO) % '00. % '00. 1.00 LIBRARY SERVICES $712.5 SO.O $0.0 $712,5 $0,0 $712.5 10% $71.3 $641.3 '00% $641.3 .% $0_0 Ul13djusted Developmoot Charge Per Capita ($) $9.90 Unadjusted Development Charge Per SQ.M. (S) $0.00 2.00 PARAMEDIC SERVICES $3,394.2 $912,3 $0.0 $2,482.0 $236.5 $2,245.5 10% $224.6 $2,021.0 70% $1,414.7 30% $606.3 Unadjusted Developme!1t Charge Per Capita (S) $21.85 Unadiusted DevelopmBl1tCl1arge Pe'Sq.M, ($,\ -lill,51 3.00 LONG TERM CARE $24,783.1 $11,153.5 $0,0 $13,629_5 $0_0 $13,629.5 10% $1,363.0 $12,266.6 '00% $12,266.6 0% $0,0 Unadjusled Developmenl Charge Per Capita ($) $189.45 Unadjusted Davelopment Charge Per Sq.M. ($) $0.00 4.00 CHILO CARE SERVICES $100.0 $0.0 $0.0 $100.0 $0,0 $100.0 10% $10.0 $90.0 70% $63.0 30% $27.0 UfladjlJsled Development Charge Per ~ta $0,97 Ul'1adjusled Development Charge Per Sq_M_ ($) $0.02 5.00 SOCIAL HOUSING $1,000.0 SO, $0.0 $1.000.0 $0.0 $1,000.0 10% $100.0 $900.0 '00% $900.0 .% $0.0 Unadjusted Davelopm9fll Charge Per Capita ($) $13.90 Unadjusted Development Charge Par Sq,M, ($) $0,00 "-' CO HEMSON TABLE 4. PAGE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE SUMMARY OF UNADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL AND NON.RESIDENTlAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR 10 YEAR COUNTY-WIDE GENERAL SERVICES 10 Year Growth in Population In New Units 10 Year Grow\h in Square Meters 64,749 1,118.200 Growth-Related Ca lIal Forecast TolalGrowth- Net Cost lotalGrowth- Relalitd Tolll AfterPrtor Related Sarvtee NetClplt.1 (Net of Grantsl Replacement Growtll& Post201S Net Capital Dlseount Costs After Residential Non.Resldentlal Sut.llsldles) Share Prior Growth Replacement Growth Cosb R_ulred Discount Share Share ($00'1 (...., ($000} ($000) ($GOO) ($000) % .... ($000) % $00' % $00, 6.00 PUBUC WORKS $3,303.0 SO, $0.0 $3,303.0 $0.0 $3,303,0 10% $330,3 $2,972.7 70% $2,080.9 30% $891.8 Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capita ($) $32.14 Unadjusted Development Charge Per Sq.M. (S) $0.76 7.00 GENERAL GOVERNMENT $1,105,0 ". $0_0 $1.105.0 $0.0 $1,105,0 10% $110.5 $994.5 70% $696.2 30% $298.4 Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capita ($) $10.75 Unadjusted Development Charge Per Sq.M, ($) $0.25 TOTAL. 10 YEAR COUNTY-WIDE GENERAL SERVICES $34.397.8 512,065,8 $0.0 $22.332.0 $236.5 $22,095.5 $2,209.6 $19.886.0 $18.062.5 $1,823.4 Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capita jS) $278.96 Unadjusted Development Charge Per Sq.M. (S) $154 N <.0 t!EM->m< studies. In addition, the capital costs shown on Table 4 are reduced by the legislated ten per cent discount, or $2.21 million, for various "soft" services as mandated by s. 5 (1) 8. of the DCA The total net growth related capital costs eligible for recovery for the genetal services results in unadjusted development charges for these services of $278.96 per capita for residential development ($18.1 million of costsj64,749 persons in new units) and $1.54 per square metre of new gross floor area (GFA) for non-residential development ($1.8 million of costs/! .I 8 million sq. m. GF A growth). These unadjusted development charges are displayed at the bottom of Table 4. Table 5 presents the "unadjusted" residential and non-residential development charges for roads and related infrastructure. It shows that of the total net cost of the capital program, estimated to be $203.2 million, $36.8 million is considered to replace existing infrastructure or to benefit the existing population, and $17.1 million is deemed to benefit growth beyond 2025. The remaining $166.3 million is carried forward to the development charge calculation and yields unadjusted charges of $871 per capita for residential developments and $19.38 per sq. m for non-residential developments. Further details of the calculation for roads and related infrastructure are available in Appendix C 2. Adjusted Residential and Non-Residential Development Charge Rates Final adjustments to the "unadjusted" development charge rates are made through a cashflow analysis. The analysis, details of which are included in Appendices Band C, considers the borrowing cost and interest earnings associated with the timing of expenditures and development charge receipts for each service category. Table 6 summarizes the results of the adjustment for the residential component of the development charge rate. As shown, the adjusted per capita rate for general services increases by $35 from $279 per capita to $314 per capita after the cashflow analysis. The roads service charge increases by approximately $44 from $871 to $915. The table also provides the calculated rates by tesidential unit type with the total charge per unit amounting to $3,687 for single and semi-detached units, $2,950 for rows and other multiple units, and $2,581 for apartments. The calculated unadjusted and adjusted non-residential development charge rates are presented in Table 7. The calculated adjusted rate for new non-residential development is $21.04 per square metre, which is an increase of $0.12 over the unadjusted rate of $20.92 per square metre. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study !;ffMSON 30 TABLE 5 COUNTY OF SIMCOE SUMMARY OF UNADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR 20 YEAR COUNTY-WIDE ROADS AND RELATED SERVICES 20 Year Growth in Population in New Units 20 Year Growlh in Square Meiers 128,555 1,925.700 Growth-Related Ca ltal FOfeC8st Total Growth- NetCosl Tollll Growth- Related Totlll Arter Prior Relllted Service NelClIplta' (Net of GrantsJ Replacement Growth & Post 2025 NetCapltlll DIscount Cost. Aft.r Resldentlm Non.Reslderltlal SUbsl~~:S) Prior Growth Sh~~ RIJ~:te;;;lJnt ~::' ~.I: Required D~~~~:t Share ....~ ''''. ISOGO} (SOOO '00. ".. % .... $000 % '00. % "'0 TOTAL ROADS AND RELATED SERVICES $203.151.0 $0.0 $36,606.5 $166,344.5 $17.068.4 $149.276.1 0% $0.00 $149,276_1 75% $111.951.0 25% $37,319_0 Unadjusted DeveloprTlf!nl Charge Per Capita ($) $B71 Unadjusted Development Charge Per Sq, M. 1$) $19.38 w ~ HEMSON TABLE 6 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY UNIT TYPE Unadjusted Calculated Charge Charae Bv Unit Tvne 1 \ Charge After Cashflaw Singles & Rows & Per Caolta Per CaDita Semis Other Multinles Anartments LIBRARY SERVICES $9.90 $10.00 $30.00 $24.00 $21.00 PARAMEDIC SERVICES $21.85 $23.50 $70.50 $56AO $49.35 LONG TERM CARE $189A5 $219.50 $658.50 $526.80 $460.95 CHILD CARE SERVICES $0.97 $1.00 $3.00 $2.40 $2.10 SOCIAL HOUSING $13.90 $14.00 $42.00 $33.80 $29AO PUBLIC WORKS $32.14 $34.00 $102.00 $81.60 $71AO GENERAL GOVERNMENT $10.75 $12.00 $36.00 $28.80 $25.20 SUB-TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES $278.96 $314.00 $942.00 $753.60 $659 AO ROADS & RELATED $870.89 $915.00 $2,745.00 $2,196.00 $1,921.50 SUB-TOTAL ENGINEERED SERVICES $870.89 $915.00 $2,745.00 $2,196.00 $1,921.50 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL CHARGE PER UNIT $1,149.85 $1,229.00 $3,687.00 $2,949.60 $2,580.90 W N (1) Based on Persons Per Unit Of: 3.00 2AO 2.10 I-/!MS-QN TABLE 7 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PER SO.M Unadjusted Calculated Charge Charge After Cashflow Per SO.M Per Sa.M LIBRARY SERVICES $0.00 $0.00 PARAMEDIC SERVICES $0.51 $0.54 LONG TERM CARE $0.00 $0.00 CHILD CARE SERVICES $0.02 $0.03 SOCIAL HOUSING $0.00 $0.00 PUBLIC WORKS $0.76 $0.87 GENERAL GOVERNMENT $0.25 $0.28 SUB-TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES $1.54 $1.72 ROADS & RELATED $19.38 $19.32 SUB-TOTAL ENGINEERED SERVICES $19.38 $19.32 TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL CHARGE PER SO.M $20.92 $21.04 w w HEMSQN B. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PAYABLE IN THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE AREA MUNICIPALITIES UNDER RECOMMENDED RATES The County of Simcoe does not currently levy development charges. However, all of its sixteen area municipalities have imposed development charges on all residential development and most non-residential development in their respective jurisdictions. When and if the development charge rates calculated under this study are adopted by the County, they will be levied over and above development charges already levied by the area municipalities. The total development charge that would be payable on a fully-serviced (water and sewer) single detached home in each area municipality is presented in Table 8. Table 9 provides the corresponding development charges for non-residential development. It should be noted that, in addition to the municipal development charges identified in Tables 8 and 9, the Simcoe County School Board; also levy a residential development charge of $812 per dwelling unit and a non-residential development charge of $2.04 per square metre. C. COMPARISON OF RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IN COUNTY OF SIMCOE WITH CHARGES IN SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS Tables 10 and 11 present comparisons of th" maximum permissible development charges for the municipalities in the County of Simcoe with the charges applicable in surrounding jurisdictions. Table 10 illustrates that the calculated total residential charge for the municipalities in Simcoe County would be comparable to charges of surrounding jurisdictions. Table 11 indicates that the non-residential charges would be comparable to the mid to upper range of charges of the same jurisdiction identified in Table 10. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 34 TABLE 8 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY AREA MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RATES Municipality Lower Tier Max. Calcu lated Rate Total Countv of Simcoe Township of Adjala-Tosorontio $2,641 $3,687 $6.328 Township of Oro-Medonte $4,056 $3,687 $7.743 Township of Tiny $4,310 $3,687 $7,997 Town of Wasaga Beach $7,583 $3,687 $11,270 Township of Tay $8,532 $3,687 $12.219 Township of Severn $9,043 $3,687 $12,730 Town of Penetanguishene $9,535 $3,687 $13,222 Town of Midland $10.186 $3.687 $13.873 Town of Collingwood $10,421 $3,687 $14,108 Township of Ramara $10,443 $3,687 $14,130 Town of Innisfil $12.880 $3,687 $16,567 Township of Springwater $14,532 $3,687 $18,219 Township of Clearview $16,806 $3,687 $20,493 Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury $16.820 $3,687 $20,507 Township of Essa $18,536 $3.687 $22.223 Town of New Tecumseth $19.751 $3,687 $23,438 City of Barrie (Separated) $15,249 - $15,249 City of Orillia (Separated) $11,720 - $11.720 Notes: 1. Above rates are for fully serviced single detached units. 2. Township of Severn charges are for Westshore. Other areas have different charges. 3. Township of Ramara rate is for Lagoon City only. 4. Town of Innisfil: Alcona and Lefroy Rate. Different rates for 4 other areas. 5. Township of Springwater has various areas-specific charges for water and/or sewer, e.g. Elmvale also adds $5,738 for sewer in addition to above rates. Other areas have different charges. 6. Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury: the above rate only applies until March 6, 2006. New rate will be implemented as of March 7, 2006. 7. Township of Essa rate is for Angus and other areas are subject to different rates. 8. Education development charges are currently levied by the School Boards in the County of Simcoe at the rate of $812/ dwelling unit ($622 and $190 for S.C.D.S.B. and S.M.C.O.S.B respectively). This charge is independent of the above rates. HEMSON 35 TABLE 9 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY AREA MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATED NON.RESIDENTlAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RATES Commercial Industrial Municipality Lower Tier Max. Calculated TOTAL Lower Tier Max. Calculated TOTAL ($/sq.m) COUn/~Y of S~~coe ($/sq.m) ($/sq.m) COU~~y of ~i;nCoe ($/sq.m) $/sn.m $/sn.m Town of Wasaga Beach . $21.04 $21.04 - $21.04 $21.04 Township of Oro-Medonte . $21.04 $21.04 - $21.04 $21.04 Township of Tay $21.04 $21.04 - $21.04 $21.04 Township of Tiny $18.04 121.04 $39.08 $18.04 $21.04 $39.08 Township of Springwater $20.30 121.04 $41.34 $20.30 $21.04 $41.34 Township of Adjala- T 050rootlo $21.64 121.04 $42.68 $21.64 $21.04 $42.68 Town of Collingwood $29.17 '121.04 $50.21 $29.17 $21.04 $50.21 Township of Clearview $30.14 121.04 $51.18 $30.14 $21.04 $51.18 Town of Penetanguishene $35.99 121.04 $57.03 - $21.04 $21.04 Township of Essa $42.27 121.04 $63.31 $42.27 $21.04 $63.31 Township of Ramara $45.41 121.04 $66.45 $22.81 $21.04 $43.85 Town of Midland $45.65 $21.04 $66.69 $45.65 $21.04 $66.69 Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury $48.20 $21.04 $69.24 $48.20 $21.04 $69.24 Town of Innlsfil $71.35 ,,21.04 $92.39 $28.54 $21.04 $49.58 Township of Severn $79.70 $21.04 $100.74 $79.70 $21.04 $100.74 Town of New Tecumseth $127.11 $21.04 $148.15 $15.96 $21.04 $37.00 City of Barrie (Separated) $112.59 - $112.59 $43.06 - $43.06 Citv of Orillia (Separated) $87.79 - $87.79 $31.84 - $31.84 Notes: 1. Above rates are for fully serviced areas. 2. Township of Springwater has various areas-specific charges for water and/or sewer, e.g. Elmvale also adds $5,738 for sewer in addition to above rates. Other areas have different charges. 3. Township of Essa rates are for Angus and other areas are subject to different rates. 4. Township of Ramara fate is for Lagoon City only. 5. Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury: The above rates only apply until March 6. 2006. New rates will be implemented as of March 7, 2006. Also note that non-residential rates are being phased in and do not represent the fully implemented rates. 6. Town of Innisfil's non-commercial rates are being phased in. 7. Township of Sevem charges are for Westshore and other areas have different charges. 8. Education development charges are currently levied by the School Boards in the County of Simcoe at the rate of $2,04 I sq.m. ($1.61 and $0.43 for S.C,D.S.B. and S,M.C.D.S.B. respectively), This charge is independent from the above rates. HI:MSON 36 TABLE 10 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES MUNICIPALITIES SURROUNDING COUNTY OF SIMCOE RESIDENTIAL RATES Municipality Region Residential (S/unit) City of Kawartha lakes Single-Tier $7,711 Town of Bracebridge Muskoka $8,520 Town of Huntsville Muskoka $9,160 Township of Muskoka lakes Muskoka $9,183 Township of lake of Bays Muskoka $9,621 Town of Gravenhurst Muskoka $9,823 Township of Georgian Bay Muskoka $10,741 Town of Orangeville Dufferin $17,166 Town of Caledon Peel $19,238 Town of Newmarket York $22,491 Town of Markham York $23,240 City of Vaughan York $24,157 Twp. Of King York $27,365 County of Simcoe (Max. Calculated) lowest $6,328 Highest $23,438 Notes: 1. Above residential rates are for fully serviced single detached units 2. Township of King: rates are for Kin$) City only" Nobleton has different rates 3. Town of Caledon: different rates for 80lton South Hill HEMSON 37 TABLE 11 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES MUNICIPALITIES SURROUNDING COUNTY OF SIMCOE NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES Municipality Region Commercial Industrial I$/sa.ml {$/sa.ml Township of Lakes of Bays M uskoka $12.66 $12.66 City of Kawartha Lakes Single-Tier $13.98 $13.98 Township of Georgian Bay Muskoka $16.00 $16.00 Township of Muskoka Lakes Muskoka $16.75 $16.75 Town of Huntsville Muskoka $21.38 $10.62 Town of Gravenhurst Muskoka $21.81 $21.81 Town of Caledon Peel $69.15 $48.06 Town of Markham York $82.86 $42.92 Town of Newmarket York $89.67 $49.73 Town of Orangeville Dufferin $89.92 $89.92 City of Vaughan York $95.04 $55.10 Twp. Of King York $126.48 $86.54 County of Simcoe (Max. Calculated) Lowest $21.04 $21.04 Highest $148.15 $100.74 Notes: 1. Above residential rates are for fully serviced single detached units. 2. Town of Markham has additional charge of $71 ,214/hectare for all areas as well as various area specific charges. 3. Township of King: rates are for King City only. Nobleton has different rates. 4. Town of Caledon: different rates for Bolton South Hill. Commercial rates are only for retail units. 5. Town of Bracebridge: no development charges for non-residential units. HEMSON 38 VII LONG TERM CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS This section examines the long term capital and operating costs for the capital facilities and infrastructure to be included in the development charges by-law. This examination is required by rhe DCA Addirional details are included in Appendix D. A. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR THE COUNTY'S SERVICES TO INCREASE OVER THE FORECAST PERIOD BY $10.2 MILUON Table 12 summarizes the estimated increase in net operating costs that the County will experience for additions associated with the planned capital program. The estimated changes in net operating costs are based on the County's 2004 consolidated financial statement, financial information return, and other financial documents. As shown in Table 12, by 2015 the County'.; net annual operating costs are estimated to increase by approximately $10.2 million. The most ,ignificant portion of this increase relate to roads and related maintenance, which accounts for more than 90% of the increase. The remaining portion of the increased operating costs results from the enhancement of the Orillia Station for paramedic services, additions to the library collections and expansions to various public works facilities. B. LONG TERM CAPITAL FINANCING FROM NON-DEVELOPMENT CHARGE SOURCES TOTALS $35.8 MILLION Table 12 also summarizes the components of the growth-related capital forecast that will require funding from non-development charge sources as discussed above in Section VI. Of the $144 million net capital forecast, about $35.8 million will need to be financed from non- development charge sources over the next ten years. This includes approximately $2.2 million in respect of the mandatory ten per cent discount required by the DCA for "soft" services and approximately $33.6 million for shares of projects related to capital replacement and for non-growth shares of projects that provide benefit to the existing community. A significant portion of the non-growth and benefit to existing shares relate to projects in the long term care and roads and related infrastructure capital programs. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 39 In addition, approximately $236,500 in interim financing may be required for projects related to general service level increases and to growth in the post-20I5 period. It is likely that most of these monies could be recovered from future development charges as the by-laws are revisited at least every five years. However, given the time-frames involved, the interim financing for this amount could be required over an extended period. Council is made aware of these factors so that they understand the financial implications of the quantum and timing of the projects included in the growth-related capital forecast as set out in this study. The County oi Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HEMSON 40 TABLE 12 COUNTY OF SIMCOE SUMMARY OF LONG TERM CAPITAL AND OPERATlNG COST IMPACTS ($000) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL NET OPERATING COST (1) Library Services $11 $21 $32 $43 $53 $64 $75 $86 $96 $107 - Paramedic Services $175 $175 $350 $350 $525 $525 $700 $700 $875 $875 - Long Term Care $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - Child Care Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - Social Housing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - Public Works $71 $91 $109 $209 $226 $290 $300 $310 $320 $330 - General Government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - Roads & Related $778 $1,682 $2,586 $3,490 $4,394 $5,298 $6.210 $7,122 $8,034 $8,946 - NET OPERATING IMPACT $1,035 $1,970 $3,076 $4,092 $5,198 $6,177 $7.285 $8,218 $9.325 $10,258 LONG-TERM CAPITAL COST (1) Total Net Cost $31,621 $9,184 $16,711 $12.376 $7,689 $11,402 $11,617 $15.531 $9.967 $17,906 $144,004 Net Cost From Development Charges $16,681 $5,762 $15,005 $8,990 $6.290 $9,137 $9,650 $13,111 $8,177 $15,133 $107,935 Portion for Post 2015 Growth $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $236 $0 $236 Funding From Non.OC Sources - Discount Portion $1,376 $99 $106 $139 $99 $115 $92 $58 $78 $46 $2,210 - Replacement Portion $13,564 $3,323 $1,600 $3,248 $1,300 $2,150 $1,875 $2,363 $1,475 $2,725 $33.622 NET CAPITAL IMPACT $14.940 $3.422 $1.706 $3,386 $1.399 $2,265 $1,987 $2.421 $1,553 $2,773 $35,832 TOTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL AND OPERATING IMPACTS $15,975 $5,392 $4,783 $7,478 $6,597 $8,442 $9,252 $10,638 $10,878 $13,031 $92,466 (1) See Appandix "'" ~ HEMSON V 1/1 DEVElOPMENT CHARGE ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL SERVICE DEFINITIONS A. DEVElOPMENT CHARGE ADMINISTRATION The DCA identifies a number of administrative requirements with respect to the implementation, collection and administration of development charges. As part of the development charge public process the County has circulated a draft of proposed development charges by-law that sets out the County's proposed development charges policies. The following outlines a number of the critical proposed by-law provisions: . As required under the DCA, the County should codify any rules regarding application of the by-laws and any exemptions within the development charges by-laws proposed for adoption; . It is recommended that the County develops reporting policies consistent with the requirements of the DCA; . It is recommended that the by-laws permit the payment of a development charge in cash or through services-in-lieu agreements. The municipality is not obligated to enter into services~in~lieu agreements; . It is recommended that the by-laws provide for annual inflation indexing of the development charges rates on July 1 of each year; . It is recommended that the default colJection point for development charges be at the issuance of the building permit. . It is also recommended that the by. laws provide for the option of colJecting charges at other points under agreement between the land owner and the municipality. . It is recommended that Council adopt the growth-related capital forecast included in this background study, subject to annual review through the County's normal capital budget process. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HEMSON 42 · It is recommended that limited exemptions, other than those required in the DCA be formally adopted in the by-laws. In this regard Council should give consideration to the following non-statutory exemprions: · exemptions for places of worship, public hospitals and farm buildings. B. RESERVE FUNDS Section 33 of the DCA requires that a municipality establish a separate reserve fund for each service to which a development charge relates. Section 43 of the Act requires that the treasurer of a municipality produce an annual financial statement with respect to the activity of these development charge reserve fund(s). Section 43 states: · The treasurer must provide the financial statement to Council each year on or before such date as the Council may direct; . The financial statement must contain "statements of the opening and closing balances of the reserve funds and of the transactions relating to the funds"; . Section 12(2) of 0 . Reg. 82/98 (regulation to the DCA) provides additional particulars as to what must be included in the annual financial statement: . description of the service for which the fund was established; · identification of any credits in relarion to the service or service categoty, including the amount outstanding at th,= beginning of the previous year, given in the year, used in the year and outstanding at the end of the year, broken down by individual credit holder; · details on any borrowing from the reserve fund; · amount of interest accrued to the fund; and . details on the repayment of any funds borrowed from the reserve. . Section 12(3) of O. Reg 82/98 stipulates that when a project is financed in whole or in part by development charges the annual financial statement must include: · details on the monies used from the reserve fund(s); . details on the amount and source of any other money that is spent on the project (if the project is being oversized for future growth be sure to quantifY the 'excess' The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study flfMSON 43 capacity as committed against future growth to ensure it is eligible for inclusion in futute development charge calculations}; and · the treasurer must provide a copy of the financial statement to the Minister of Municipal Affairs within 60 days after giving the statement to CounciL C. LOCAL SERVICE DEFINITIONS The following provides the definition of "local service", under the DCA, for the roads and related service provided by the County of Simcoe. The reason for establishing this definition is to determine the capital costs eligible for inclusion in the development charge calculation for the County. The functions or services deemed to be local in nature are not to be included in the determination of the development charge rates. The provision oflocal services is considered to be a direct developer responsibility under s. 59 of the DCA and will (or may) be recovered under other agreement(s) with the land owner or developer. The definition of a "local service" with respect to County roads is as follows: County Roads . All improvements to a County road to facilitate development are considered local services to be paid by the developer unless they fall into one of the following categories: . The improvement is designated as required for traffic flow improvement for a greater area than the development, is defined as a road improvement required by the County, and is identified through the Class Environmental Assessment process or the County Transportation Study. Such an improvement would be listed in the development charges study; . The improvement is designated as required by County of Simcoe staff to serve a greater area than the development and is identified in the capital works forecast or similar County financial documents, and is listed in the development charges study. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study HfMSON 44 APPENDIX A GROWTH FORECAST HEMSON 45 APPENDIX A GROWTH FORECAST, GROWTH RELATED CAPIl AL FORECAST AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION This appendix provides the details of the growth forecast that was used in the pteparation of the Development Charges Background Study for the County of Simcoe. The forecast methodology and rhe key inputs and assumptions are discussed and the results are provided in a series of tables. Forecasts of population, households, and employment were prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. These forecasts are based upon ongoing growth management work by the County of Simcoe. As part of this growth management work, a report entitled Population, Households and Employment Forecasts Update was released in May 2004. These forecasts have been endorsed by the County and have, therefore, been used as the basis for the County's Development Charges Background Study. The forecasts take into consideration: dara from the 2001 Census; historical building permit and completions data; and approved and pending planning applications in each of the local municipalities. A. FORECAST METHOD & DATA SOURCES The forecasts presented in this appendix are based upon a "top-down" forecast model that has been prepared for the County of Simcoe. The model begins by forecasting population, housing and employment for Simcoe County. As part of the County's growth management work, the forecast is in turn distributed to the local municipalities based upon historical growth shares. However, for the purposes of the County's Development Charges Study, only the total County results are presented, excluding the separated Cities of Barrie and Orillia. The following discusses this approach and the key data sources that were used. Unless otherwise noted, all data sources are from Statistics Canada. 1. Simcoe County Forecast Hemson Consulting was retained by Simcoe County in the spring of 2003 to undertake an update of the Official Plan population, housing and employment forecasts originally prepared by Hemson in 1995 and subsequently updated in 1998. The May 2004 final report incorporates all of the results from the 2001 Census and extensive consultation with the planning staff at each of the 18 local municipalities to determine potential housing and land supply constraints and issues related to servicing capacities. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendix A 46 . The population forecast is based upon a standatd cohort survival model. Age specific fertility and mortality rates are applied to the population to determine changes in natural increase. The rates are based upon the most recent five year averages. Migration by age and sex is then added to determine total population growth. In the 1996 to 2001 period Simcoe experienced net migration of 40,000. Based upon growth levels to date in the current period net-migratlOn is estimated to rise to 43,000 for the 2001 to 2006 period. This level has been maintained over the forecast period. . The household forecast is prepared by applying age specific headship rates to the forecast population. Housing units by type are determined by applying age specific occupancy patterns. 2001 headship rates and occupancy patterns have been held constant over the forecast timeframe. . Age specific participation rates are applied to the population forecast to determine the resident labour force. Except for minor adjustments to the older female cohorts, which have been made to correspond with tecent trends of increased participation among these age groups, participation rates have been held constant over the forecast timeframe. An unemployment rate is applied to the total resident labour force to determine the total employed resident labour fDrce. The current level Df about 5.5 per cent is maintained throughout the forecast. The level of out-commuting from Simcoe to elsewhere in Ontario, primarily the GT A, is set based on the average of 30,000 over the past 15 years. Maintaining this level of out- commuting will result in a declining share of Simcoe residents commuting out of Simcoe for work. The difference between the level of out-commuting and the forecast employed resident labour force forms the employment forecast. Historic population, households, and employment for Simcoe County from 1991 to 2004 are provided in Table AI. Average household sizes and activity rates are also provided. In addition to the overall population forecast, population growth that occurs only in new housing is provided. This forecast is based upon a long historic time series of population growth in housing by period of construction. This data was obtained ftom a special Census data tabulation by Statistics Canada and is provided in Table AL The County or Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendix A 47 B. FORECAST RESULTS Based upon the methodology, inputs and assumptions discussed in Section A, forecasts of population, housing, employment and non-residential floor space were prepared for Simcoe County. The forecast results are presented in a series of four tables and are summarized in the following: · Table 8.1: Provides the overall population, household, and employment forecast results annually from 2006 to 2025; . Table 8.2: Illustrates the forecast of population and households over the period 2006 to 2025. Growth over the ten year period 2006 to 2015 is applicable to the recovery of growth related costs for general sen'ices. Growth over the longer planning period of 2006 to 2025 is applicable to the recovery of roads and related infrastructure. This table also provides the growth in new housing units versus the growth in total household units over the same periods. · Table 8.3: Shows the net change in population between growth in new households versus existing households. The persons per household for new units is based on the data shown in Table A2. · Table 8.4: Displays the forecast of employment growth over the applicable periods. The table also provides the estimated increase in non-residential gross floor area (GF A) in square metres, that will be constructed to accommodate the forecast new employment. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendix A 48 SIMCOE COUNTY 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY TABLE A.1 Historic Population, Househofds & Employment Popu1;1Uon G<OW<h Households HHGrowth HHSIz:. Employmenl Emp.Growth ActlvltyRate 1991 199,651 70,312 2.8< 52,270 26.2% 1992 204,286 4,635 12.389 2,077 2_62 55,802 3.532 27.3% 1993 208,922 4,635 74,466 2.077 2.81 59.334 3,532 28.4% 1994 213,557 4,635 76,544 2,077 2.79 62,866 3,532 29,4% 1995 218.193 4,635 78,621 2,077 2]8 66,398 3.532 30.4% ,,9< 222,828 4,635 80,698 2,On 2.76 69,930 3,532 31."% 1997 227.106 4,278 62,294 1,596 2.76 73,834 3,904 32.5% 1998 231,384 4,278 83,890 1,596 2.76 77,738 3,904 33.6% 1999 235,663 4,278 85.485 1,596 2.76 81,642 3.904 34.6% 2000 239,941 4,278 87,081 1,596 2.76 85,546 3,904 35,7% 2001 244,219 4,278 88,577 1,596 2.75 89,450 J,9O.f 36.6% 2002 248,815 4,596 90,622 1,945 2.75 91,178 2,328 36.9% 2003 253,411 4.596 92,566 1,945 2.74 94,106 2,328 37.1% 2004 258.008 4.596 94,511 1,945 2.73 96,434 2.328 37.4% SouIt:fJ: Sial/sUes Canada, Cansus of Canada TABLE A.2 Household Size by Unit Type by Period of Construction Period of Construction P11l1946 19*1960 1961-1970 1911.1980 1981.1985 1986-1990 1991.1995 ,....., Pre 1991 1991.01 Total Singles Household Population 31,795 20,395 22,960 40.315 15.520 34,995 20,920 23,755 165.980 44,675 210,655 Households 11,890 8,240 8,785 14,400 5,300 11,150 6,840 8,130 59,765 14,970 74,735 Household Size 2_67 2.48 2.61 2.80 2,93 3.14 3.06 2.92 va 2.98 2.82 SemIs Household Population 1,185 1.845 1,065 2,160 575 74' 71' 63' 7,595 1,350 8.945 Households 445 560 375 675 200 285 295 255 2,540 550 3,090 HotJsehold Size 2.66 3.29 2.69 3.20 2.88 2.61 2.42 2.49 2_99 2.45 2.89 Rows Household Population 50 260 240 1,085 470 1.160 1.350 850 3,285 2,200 5,485 Households 20 110 95 385 205 545 540 370 1,360 910 2,270 Household Size 2.50 2.55 2.53 2,82 2_29 2.13 2.50 2.30 2.42 2.42 2.42 Apartments Household Population 3,675 1,710 2,510 3,520 1,190 1,665 1,285 715 14,270 2,000 16,270 Households 1,815 900 1,245 2,105 630 635 610 340 7.530 950 8,480 Household Size 2.02 1.90 2.02 1.67 1.89 1,99 2,11 2,10 1,90 2.11 1.92 All Units Household Population 36,705 24,230 26.795 47,080 17.755 38,565 24,270 25,955 191,130 50,225 241,355 Households 14.170 9,810 10,500 17,565 6,335 12,815 8.285 9.095 71,195 17.380 88,575 Household Size 2.59 2.47 2.55 2.68 2.80 3.01 2.93 2.85 2.68 2,89 2,72 .j:> Source: Stlltistir;$ C.mtd., 2001 Census SpeC/III Run CD REMSON TABLE B.1 TABLE B.2 Population, Household & Employment Foreessl Summary Forecast Population & Household Growth Summary Pop'nln Population Households Employment PPH ActlvltyRate Pop'n Growth TotalPop'n HH Growth Total HHs New Units. 2005 262,604 96,455 98,762 2.72 37,6% 2006 4,596 267,200 1,945 98,400 5,630 200. 267,200 98,400 101,090 2.72 37.8% 2007 4,460 271,660 2,260 100,660 6,543 2007 271,660 100,660 103,228 2.70 38.0% 2008 4,460 276,120 2,260 102,920 6,543 2008 276,120 102,920 105,366 2.68 38.2% 2009 4,480 280,580 2,260 105,180 6,543 2009 280,580 105,180 107.504 2,67 38.3% 2010 4,460 285,040 2,260 107,440 6,543 2010 285,040 107,440 109.642 2.65 38.5% 2011 4,460 289,500 2,260 109,700 6,543 2011 289,500 109,700 111,780 2.64 38.6% 2012 4,460 293,960 2,280 111,980 6,601 2012 293,960 111,980 113,310 2.63 38.5% 2013 4,460 298,420 2,280 114,260 6,601 2013 298,420 114,260 114,840 2.61 38.5% 2014 4,460 302,880 2,280 116,540 6,601 2014 302,880 116,540 116,370 2.60 38.4% 2015 4,460 307,340 2,280 118,820 6,601 2015 307,340 118,820 117,900 2.59 38.4% 2006--2015 44,736 307,340 22,365 118,820 64,748 2016 311,800 121,100 119,430 2.57 38.3% 2016-2025 44,540 351,880 22,040 140,860 63,808 2017 316,280 123,340 120,550 2.56 38,1% 2005-2025 89,276 351,880 44,405 140,860 128,556 2018 320,760 125,580 121,670 2.55 37.9% 2019 325,240 127,820 122,790 2.54 37.8% 'Source: See Table A.4 2020 329,720 130,060 123,910 2.54 37.6% 2021 334,200 132,300 125,030 2.53 37.4% 2022 338,620 134,440 125,944 2.52 37.2% 2023 343,040 136,580 126,858 2.51 37.0% 2024 347,460 138,720 127,772 2.50 36.8% 2025 351,880 140,860 128,686 2.50 36.6% TABLE B.3 TABLE B.4 Forecast Population & Household Growth Summary Forecast Employment Growth IPoPulatlon per Household in New Units. 2.901 NewHH Pop'nln Pop'nln Employment Total Non.Res. G~wth New HHs Exl$t1ngHHs Existing HH. ExllltlngBase Grtlwlh Employment GfA(m2} 2005 262,604 96,455 2.72 2005 2,328 98,762 2006 1,945 5,630 2006 2,328 101,090 128,000 2007 2,260 6,543 2007 2,138 103,228 128,300 2008 2,260 6,543 2008 2,138 105,366 128,300 2009 2,260 6,543 2009 2,138 107,504 128,300 2010 2,260 6,543 2010 2,138 109,642 128,300 2011 2,260 6,543 2011 2,138 111,780 139,000 2012 2,280 6,601 2012 1,530 113,310 99,500 2013 2,280 6,601 2013 1,530 114,840 99,500 2014 2,280 6,601 2014 1,530 116,370 99,500 2015 2,280 6,601 2015 1,530 117,900 99,500 2006-2015 22,365 64,748 242,592 96,455 2.52 2006-2015 19,138 117,900 1,178,200 2016-2025 22,040 128,556 223,324 96,455 2.32 2016-2025 10,786 128,686 747,500 2006-2025 44.405 128,556 223,324 96,455 2.32 2006-2025 29,924 128,686 1,925,700 CJ1 .Source; See Table A.4 0 HEMSON APPENDIX B GENERAL SERVICES TECHNICAL APPENDIX HEMSON 51 APPENDIX B GENERAL SERVICE TECHNICAL APPENDIX INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW This appendix provides the detailed analysis undertaken to establish the development charge rates for each of the general services in rhe County of Simcoe. The appendix is divided into five sub-sections, with one section for each of the general services: 8.1 Libraty Services B.2 Paramedic Services B.3 Long Term Care B.4 Child Care Services B.5 Social Housing B.6 Public Works - Buildings, Fleet & Equipment 8. 7 General Government Every sub-section, with the exception of General Government, contains a set of three tables. The tables provide the background data and analysis undertaken to arrive at the calculated development charge rates for that particular service. An overview of the content and purpose of each of the rabies is given below. TABLE 1 HISTORIC SERVICE LEVElS Table I presents the data used to determine the ten year historic service level. The DCA and Ontario Regulation 82/98 require that development charges be set at a level no higher than the average service level provided in the County over the ten year period immediately preceding the preparation of the background study, on a service by service basis. For the purpose of this study, the historic inventory period has been defined as 1996 to 2005. O. Reg. 82/98 requires that when defining and determining historic service levels both the quantity and quality of service be taken into consideration. In most cases, the service levels are initially established in quantitative terms. For example, service levels for buildings are presented in terms of square feet per unit. The qualitative aspect is introduced by considering the monetary value of the facility or service. In the case of buildings, for example, the cost would be shown in terms of dollars per square foot to replace or construct a faciliry of the same quality. This approach helps to ensure that the growth-related capital facilities that are to be charged to new growth reflect not only the quantity (number and size) but also the quality (value or cost) of service provided by the municipality in the past. Both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of service levels used in the current analysis are based on information provided by County staff. This information is generally The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendi5! based on historical records and experience with costs to acquire or construct similar facilities, equipment and infrastructure. The final page of Table I shows the calculation of the maximum allowable, net of uncommitted excess capacity. The "maximum allowable" is defined as the ten year historic service level (expressed as $/capita) multiplied by the forecast increase in population over the planning period. The resulting figure is the value of capital infrastructure that must be constructed for that particular service in order to maintain the ten year historic service leveL There is also a requirement in the DCA to consider "excess capacity" within the county's existing infrastructure that may be available to partially meet the future servicing requirements. If Council has expressed its intent, before or at the time the capacity was created, to recoup the cost of providing the capacity from new development, it is considered "committed excess capacity" under the DCA and the associated capital is eligible for recovery. Should uncommitted excess capacity exisr it will be determined whether or not this capacity will be available to service new development and, if so, appropriate adjustments will be made to the calculations. TABLE 2 2006 - 2015 PROVISIONAL GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL BUDGET AND CALCULATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE The DCA requires the council of a county to express its intent to provide future capital facilities at the level incorporated in the development charges calculation. Based on the growth forecasts provided in Appendix A, staff of the County, in collaboration with the consultant, have developed a growth-related capital forecast which sets out those projects that are required to service anticipated growth for the ten year period from 2006 to 2015. To determine the growth-related share of the program, the project costs are reduced by any "prior growth" and "replacement" shares. A prior growth share relates to a portion of a facility that is being constructed to alleviate an existing deficiency and to service growth that has already occurred. A replacement share occurs when a new facility will in part service a facility that is demolished, redeployed or will otherwise not be available to serve its former function. The replacement share of the capital program is not deemed to be growth-related and is therefore removed from the development charge calculation. The capital program less any prior growth and replacement shares yields the net growth-related program. Although deemed growth-related, not all of the net growth-related capital program may The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendi/!jtl be recoverable from development charges in the period 2006 to 2015. For some of the services a portion of the capital program will service growth that will not occur unril after 2015. This portion of the capital program is deemed "pre_built" service capacity and is to be considered as committed excess capacity to be recovered under future developmenr charges. The capital costs associated with pre-built service capacity are removed from the capital program to produce the growth-related capital program for the period 2006 to 2015. In all cases, as required, this amounr is equal to or less than the maximum allowable as calculated on the final page ofT able L Finally, when calculating development charges, the growth-related net capital costs musr be reduced by ten per cent for all services except fire services and all of the engineered services (DCA, s. S. (1) 8.). The ten per cent discounr is therefore applied to all the other services (e.g. library and public works). The result is the discounted growth-related net capital costs that are eligible for recovety against growth over the period 2006 to 2015. Calculation of the unadjusted development charge rates The section below the capital program displays the calculation of the unadjusted developmenr charge rates. The term "unadjusted" developmenr charge is used to distinguish the charge that is calcu lated prior to cash flow financing considerations. The cash flow analysis is shown on Table 3. The first step when determining the unadjusted developmenr charges rate is to allocate the growth- related net capital costs between the residential and the non-residential sectors. For all services except library, long term care and social housing, the growth-related costs have been determined to be 70 per cent residential and 30 per cent non-residential. This ratio is based on projected changes in population and employment over the planning period and other considerations. The growth-related costs associated with library, long term care and social housing have been allocated 100 per cenr to residenrial services because the need for these services is driven by residential development. The residential growth-related costs are then divided by the forecast population growth in new housing units. This gives the unadjusted residential development charge per capita. The non- residential growth-related costs are divided by the forecast increase in non-residential gross floor area (GFA). This yields a charge per square metre of new non-residential GFA TABLE 3 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study AppendiS4 A cashflow analysis is also undertaken to account for rhe timing of projects and receipt of development charges. Interest earnings or borrowing costs are, therefore, accounted for in the calculation as allowed under the DCA. Based on the growth forecast, the analysis calculates the development charge rate that is required to finance the net growth-related capital spending plan including provisions for any borrowing costs or interest earnings on the reserve funds. The County currently does not currently levy development charges and has no existing reserve fund, therefore, the opening balance for all services is set at zero. The cashflow analysis is designed so that the closing cash balance at the end of the planning period is as close to nil as possible, but positive. In order to determine appropriate development charge rates reflecting borrowing and earnings necessary to support the net growth-related funding requitement, assumptions are used for the inflation rate and interest rate. An inflation rate of 2.5 per cent is used for the funding requirements and an interest rate of 6.5 per cent is used for borrowing/earnings on the funds, yielding an effective real discount rate of 4.0 per cent. Table 3 displays the results of the cashflow analysis and provides the adjusted or final per capita residential and per square metre (ofGFA) non-residential development charges. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendi(!JfJ B.1 LIBRARY SERVICES The County of Simcoe Library Co-operative offers a variety of large print books, periodicals, multimedia and other electronic resource materials for the libraries of the local municipalities. The materials are rotated among the local municipal libraries two to four times a year depending on their demands. Table 1 Historic Service Levels Table 1 (page l) displays the library services' ten year historic inventory for building, land, furniture and equipment, materials, and vehicles. The library is located in the County's Administration Centre currently occupying 1,272 sq. ft. of building area valued at $318,000. It is situated on approximately 0.04 hectares of land worth $15,000 and contains furniture and equipments valued at $66,000. The library also uses a $40,000 cargo van to circulate materials, amongst its members. The value of all library materials is $894,000. The ten year average historic service level is calculated at $15.93 per capita (page 2). This, multiplied by the anticipated net population growth in the municipality, yields a ten year maximum allowable expenditure of $712,508 for library services. Table 2 2006 - 2015 Provisional Growth-related Capital Budget & Calculation of the Development Charge The 2006 - 2015 growth-related capital program for the public library includes a provision for additional materials spread across rhe ten year period. Allocation of $712,508 over the next ten years will allow the library to purchase additional materials to accommodate the increasing demand for library services developed through population growth. These capital costs, which can be recoveted through development charges, are reduced by ten per cent ($71,251) as required by the legislation. The remaining discounted growth-related net capital cost, $641,257, is carried forward to the development charge calculation. As shown in Table 2, the full growth-related cost for library services is allocated against new residential development in County of Simcoe. This results in an unadj usted development charge of $9.90 per capita. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendi5tJ Table 3 Cash Flow Analysis After cash flow consideration the calculated charge is increased to $10.00 per capita. This is a reflection of the timing of the capital projects and of development charge revenues. 10-year Hist Service level $/capita LIBRARY SERVICES 2006 - 2015 Unadjusted Growth-Related Capital Program Development Charge Total Net IX Recoverable $/capita $/sq.m Adjusted Development Charge $/capita $/sq.m $15.93 $712,508 $641,257 $9.90 $0.00 $10.00 $0.00 The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendi51 APPENDIX B.1 TABLE 1 . PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS LIBRARY SERVICES 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 UNIT COST .............It~..... " .... tl!sq.nl Librarv 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,272 1,272 $250 I I Total/sft.ft. 1,850 1,850 1.850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1850 1,850 1,272 1,272 Total 1$000\ $462.5 $462.5 $<462.5 $462.5 $462.5 $462.5 $462.5 $462.5 $318.0 $318.0 UNIT COST n.... ..........'.." l;Jm81 Librarv 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 $375,000 I I Total thaI 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 Total {$000l $18.8 $18.8 $18.8 $18.8 $18.8 $18.8 $18,8 $18.8 $15.0 $15.0 I ......,~,. .......... ..........r......",' ~ library $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $66,000 $66,000 Totall$OOD' $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $66.0 $66.0 M^IC."I~",,;oI;alJ Allmalerials $3,538,000 $3,593,000 $3,693,000 $4,207,000 $4,184,000 $4,074.000 $3.830.000 $3.417,000 $1,267,000 $894,000 Total ($000) $3,538.0 $3,593.0 $3,693.0 $4,207.0 $4,184.0 $4,074.0 $3,830.0 $3,417.0 $1,267.0 $894.0 UNIT COST Vt:t1Il,,;Ll:~ " ..,.."',........ Caroovan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $40,000 l I Total t#\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total SODa $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40,0 $40.0 01 CO HEMSQN APPENDIX 8.1 TABLE 1 . PAGE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS LIBRARY SERVICES Historic Population 1996 222.828 1997 227,106 1998 231.384 1999 235,663 2000 239,941 2001 244,219 2002 248,815 2003 253,411 20.. 258,006 2005 262.604 .,............., ......"m'~'~' .vv.. Buildin!:! $462,5 $462.5 $462.5 $462.5 $462.5 $462.5 $462.5 $462.5 $318.0 $318.0 land $16.8 $18.8 $18.8 $18.8 $18.8 $18.8 $18.8 $18.8 $15,0 $15.0 Fumlture & EQuloment $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45,0 $66.0 $66.0 Materials $3,538.0 $3,593.0 $3,693.0 $4,207,0 $4,184.0 $4,074.0 $3,830.0 53,-417.0 $1,267.0 $894.0 Vehicles $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 Total 1$0001 $4,104.3 $4,159.3 $4,259.3 <<,773.3 $4.750.3 $4,&.40.3 $4,396.3 $3983.3 $1,706.0 $1,333,0 Avaraga SeNlca "0:""''''0: 1.0:"0:1. """" lll:ll I...".' Buildin $~.Utl $2.04 $2.00 $1.96 $1.93 $1.89 $1.86 $1.83 $1.23 $1.21 $1.80 land $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0,08 50.07 $0.06 50.06 $0.07 Furniture & EQUIPmenl $0.20 $0.20 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.18 $0.18 $0.18 $0.26 $0.25 $0.20 Materials $15.88 $15,82 $15.96 $17.85 $17.44 $16.68 $15.39 $13.48 $4.91 $3.40 $13.68 Vehicles $0.18 $0.18 $0.17 $0.17 $0.17 $0.1& $0.16 $0.16 $0.16 $0.15 $0.17 TotallSlcaclta\ $18.42 $18.31 $18.41 $20,25 $19.80 $19.00 $17.67 $15.72 $6.61 $5.08 $15,93 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LIBRARY SERVICES 10 Year Average Service Level (1996-2005) $15.93 per capita 2005 Population Nel PopulaUon Growth 200&. 2015 Nel PopulaUon Growth 2006 . 2025 262,604 44,736 89,276 Average Servlca Level Mulmum Allowable 10 Years 2025 ($OOO) Excess Calculation ($000) Ualng New Max.lmum 2005 Average Excess Allowable Inventory Service level Capacity 10 Years 2025 I $1,333.0 I S4,18?5 [ $0.0 I $712.51 $1,421.9-j CJ1 CD ITot.1 Llbr.ry Services I ~15.~3m~rcapjla_ 1 $712.51 $1,421.91 HEMSON APPENDIX B.1 TASLE2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY GROWTH~ELATEDCAPrrAlPROGRAM ''''' Less Total RllJllleemllnt GrowIh_R.lated Costs 2006-2015 Olseounted ServlCl! Project De.crlptlon TIming projaet Grants Municipal at'ldBet'laflt Prior ..... Poet Growth-Related Coet ISubllldl.. Coet To Exlatlng Gro'" 2015 2015 Total NetCa ltalCoate 1.00 UBRARY SERVICES 1.1 Prcvi$k:l" lor Additional Materials Based 00 Hislone Service Levels various . 712,500 $ , 712.508 $ . . 712.506 , 712.508 00% . 641,257 TOTAL LIBRARY SERVICES . 712,508 $ . 712,508 $ . . 712,508 , . 112,508 00% , 641,257 Non-Chargeable Growlh-Related Net Capital Cost 11.251 Reeldefltlal DeVltIOpnlant Charge Calculatlon Residential Share of 2006-2015 OisrolJnted Growth-Related Capital Program 10 YearGrowlh in pOpUtation In New Units Unadjusted Development Cha'ge Per Capita {$} 100% $641.257 64.749 $9.90 Non-Rllldentlal Dilvelopment Charge Calculation Non-Residential Sll3re of 2006-2015 Discounted Growth.Related Capital Program 10 YearGrowtl1in Square Meters Unadiusted DIlve!npmenl Charoo Per So_M ($) .., 1.178.200 "'.. Ol o ~ APPENDIX B.1 TABLE 3 COUNTY Of SIMCOE CASHfLOW AND DETERMINATION Of DEVELOPMENT CHARGE LIBRARY SERVICES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ,... LIBRARY SERVICES OPENING CASH BALANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES 200. 2007 2008 2009 21)10 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL IoPENING CASH BALANCE ($000) 0.' (6.1) (7.2) (B.3) (5,2) (4.1) (2.6) (0,7) I., 4.' 2006-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS LIBRARY SERVICES. constant {$OOO} $64.13 $64.13 $64.13 $64.13 $64.13 $64.13 $64,13 $64.13 $64.13 $64.13 $641.26 LIBRARY SERVICES. curreri! ($000) $64.13 $65.73 $67.37 $69,06 $70.78 $72.55 $74,37 $76.23 $78.13 $80.08 $118.43 iPOPULA TION GROWTH - Popu!a~on ;n New Units 5.630 6,543 6,543 6,543 6,543 6,543 6.601 6,601 6.601 6.601 64.749 REVENUE - currenl ($OOO) Rale for 2006 . Da....Charge Recelpts $10,00 Innallon: 2.5% 56.3 67.1 68.7 70.5 72.2 14.0 76.6 78.5 80.4 82.4 $726.10 -lnterestonOpenlngBalanee Rate: 6.5% 0.0 (0.5) CO.5) (0.4) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) (0-0) .., '.3 ($1.87) -lnte'eslonln-yearTrnnsactions(exd.inl.) Rate: 6.5% (0_3) ... .. '.0 ... 0.' ., '.1 01 .., $0.27 TOTAL REVENUE 56.0 00. 68_3 10.1 71.9 73.8 16.5 78.5 00.' 82.7 $725.10 CLOSING CASH BALANCE '7 (S.1) {1.21 (6.3) (5.2) (4.1) (2.8) (0.7) ,., 4.' .., LIBRARY PER CAPITA CHARGE $10.00 0> ~ HEMSON 8.2 PARAMEDIC SERVICES The County of Simcoe took on the responsibility for the provision of land ambulance services from the province as of January I, 2001. Currently, fourteen stations are operated and managed by a contractor assigned by the County to service its sixteen lower-tier Towns and Townships along with the Cities of Barrie and Orillia. However, the County's development charges will only be levied against the development in its constituent municipaliries and not the separated Ciries. Only the County's share, net of the Cities of Barrie and Orillia, is rherefore used in the calculation of the development charges. The allocation of the value of the infrastructure between the County and the separated Cities is based on the cost-sharing agreement currently in force. Table 1 Historic Service Levels Paramedic Services in rhe County uses 53,288 sq. ft. of floor space with a replacement value exceeding $14.7 million. The County's share, net of Cities of Barrie and Orillia, of this replacement value is calculated at $9.9 mlllion with the corresponding land value of $1.9 million. The value of associated furniture and equipment totals $115,900, and there exists additional $4.0 million worth of paramedic vehicles. The 2005 inventory of paramedic services capital assets amounts to $15.9 million and the five year historic average service level is $50.19 per capita. The historic service level, multiplied by the ten year population growth forecast, tesults in a ten year maximum allowable of approximately $2.2 million. The County's obligation to meet adequate tesponse times and quality of service level together with the recent growth in population has necessitated recent enhancements to ambulance srations in Barrie North, Coldwater and Elmvale. This has resulted in a notional excess capacity of service. However, as the excess capacity was created to meet the demands of other legislation i.e. Ambulance Act of Ontario Regulation 257/00, its value is not removed from the calculation of the maximum allowable. The ten year maximum allowable is calculated to be $2.2 million, and is then carried forward to determine the development charge rates. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study AppendiS1! Table 2 2006 - 2015 Provisional Growth-related Capital Budget & Calculation of the Development Charge The County of Simcoe's share of the 2006-2015 growth-related capital program for paramedic services amounts to $3.39 million (67.3% of total), which is committed to the replacement of the Orillia station, the purchasing of ambulances and construction of cover spaces mandated by legislation for each of the vehicles. The Orillia station will not be expanding its gross floor area. However, to facilitate the increasing growth occurring in the West of Hwy. 11, the station is required to relocate to meet the service requirements of Ambulance Act of Ontario. The Orillia station is estimated to cost the County total of $1.2 million of which $304,000 is identified as a growth-related and the remainder - $912,000 - is deemed to benefit the existing population. The County's portion of the cost of construction of additional ambulance cover spaces (5 at $338,000 each) as well as five bi-annual purchases of ambulance vehicles (total of $487,900) are the major components of the capital program, of which $236,500 is identified to benefit the growth beyond 2015. The 2006-2015 growth-related net capital cost of $2.25 million is then reduced by the legislated ten per cent and the balance, $2.02 million is carried forward to the development charge calculation. The cost is allocated against 70% residential and 30% non-residential developments. This yields unadjusted development charge rates of $21.85 per capita and $0.51 per Sq. m. Table 3 Cash Flow Analysis After cash flow consideration, the residential charge is increased to $23.50 per capita and the non-residential increased to $0.54 per sq. m. 5-year His!. Service Level $/capita PARAMEDIC SERVlUS 2006 - 2015 Unadj usted Growth-Related Capital Program Development Charge Total Net OC Recoverable $/capita $/sq.m Adjusted Development Charge $/capita $/sq.m $50.19 $3,394,230 $2,020,956 $21.85 $0.51 $23.50 $0.54 The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendi58 APPENDIX B.2 TABL.E 1. PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF C4PITAL ASSETS PARAMEDIC SERVICES ,.., 1991 1998 '909 20.. 200' 2002 200' 200' 200. UNIT COST DUlLU'""''' .n. 0 ." Anous Ambulance Station 4,000 '.000 $215 - AlllslonAmbulanceStallon 3.000 3.000 '.000 '.000 '.000 $215 Barrie Ambulance Station 5,893 5.893 5,893 $275 Bame North Ambulance Stalion 5,200 $215 Bradford Ambulance Station 3,120 3120 3,120 3,120 3,120 $215 COldwaler Ambulance Station 1,900 $215 COlijn AmbulaneeStation 3.026 3,026 3,026 '02Jl 3,026 5215 Cra hurslAmbulaneeStatlan '.000 '.000 '.000 '.000 '.000 $215 Elmvale Ambulance Statkln 1,900 $215 Midland Ambulance Station 5.316 5,316 5,316 5,316 5.316 $215 Qrilia Ambulance Station 1.420 7.420 1,420 7420 1.420 $215 S1roud Ambularn::e Slation 2.115 2:,115 2,115 $215 Wa a 8&ach Ambulance StatiOl'l 2.100 2,100 2.100 2.100 2,700 $215 Washa 0 Ambulam:e Slalion 3,000 3.000 '.000 '.000 3.000 $215 St Paul AmbuJanoe Station 2.200 2.200 2,200 $275 AdministralionCentre -_. 007 1,(}98 $275 Towle .fI. . . , . , 32,782 32,182 41.390 43991 S3~" Tolal SOOO .... ..., .... $0.0 $O~ $9,015.1 $9,015.1 $11,382.3 $12,099.2 $14654-.2 Coun of Simcoe Sh.... 1 sooo SO., "'.. .... .... ".0 $6067.1 $6,061.1 $7,660.3 $8142.7 $9,862.3 UNIT COST LAND/hectares\ ~". "" $ Ambulance Station 0.2:5 0.25 $560,000 AlrtSl(m Ambulance StaliOl'l 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 $370,000 Bania Ambulance Station 0.55 055 '.55 $345,000 Barrie North Ambulence StaUon 0.22 $175,000 Bradford Ambulance Station 0,45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 $420,000 CoIdwaler Ambulance Station 1.16 $365.000 Colli oed Ambulance Station 0,15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 $350,000 Crar;;t:,..:r..l Ambulance Station 2.57 2.57 2.51 2.57 2,51 $365.000 Elmvale Ambulance Slation 0,12 $45,000 Midand Ambulance Station 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 $415,000 Oriliia Ambulance StaUon 0.36 '.36 0.36 0.36 '.36 $2G5 000 Stroud Ambulance Stalion 0.61 0.6t 0.61 $85,000 WaMa Beach Ambul8ncEl Stallon 0.11 0.11 0.f1 0.11 0.11 $80,000 Washa oAmbulallOOStation 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 $365.000 Sl PauJAmbulance Station NJA NfA NfA NfA AdminsualionCenlra 0.05 0.05 $375000 Totalha '.00 '.00 '.00 '.00 .... .... ,... UO 6.90 '.00 _}ota! $000 $0.0 $0.0 SIl.O SOJ) $0.0 $2,013.7 S2013.1 $2,255.3 $2,414.1 $2881.4 Coun of Simcoe Share , $000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 .... ,0.0 $1,355.2 $1,355.2 $1,511.8 $1,624.1 $1,939.1 en ~ HEMSON APPENDtX 8.2 TABLE 1. PAGE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS PARAMEDIC SERVICES 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 fURNITURE & EQUIPMENT Anaus Ambulance Station $6.900 $8.900 Alliston Ambulance Station $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 $11,400 Banie Ambulance Station $43300 $43,296 $43.296 Banie North Ambulance Station $0 Bradford Ambulance Station $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 Coldwater Ambulance Station $1,000 Collinowood Ambulance Station $9,900 $9,900 $9,900 $9,900 $9.900 Crainhursl Ambulance Station $9,800 $9,800 $9,800 $9,800 $9,600 Elmvale Ambulance Station $1,000 Midland Ambulance Station $13,200 $13.200 $13,200 $13,200 $13.200 Orillla Ambulance Station $19,500 $19,500 $19,500 $19,500 $19,500 Stroud Ambulance Station $15.400 $15,400 $15,400 Wasoa Beach .Ambulance Station $8,5OD $8,500 $6,500 $8,SOO $8,500 Washaoo Ambulance Statlon $10,300 $10,300 $10.300 $10,300 $10,300 SI Paul Ambulance Station $4,000 $4,000 54,000 Adminstratlon Centre $12,000 $12,000 Total/$I SO '0 '0 SO '0 $94,600 $94,600 $153300 $170,196 $172,196 Total $000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 SO.O SO.O $94.6 $94.6 $153.3 $170,2 $172,2 County of Simcoe Share 1 /sOOO $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 SO.O $0.0 $63.7 $63.7 $103,2 $114,5 $115.9 UNIT COST Vt:.Mll,;l.t:.:::i ...v........... Ambulance 29 30 34 3' 3' $145000 Erne anc res onse vehicle ERV 5 . . 5 . $60,000 Emeroencv suooort unit /ESU\ 1 1 1 1 1 $106,000 Mobile command centre 1 $106,000 Director vehiCle 1 1 1 $35,000 SUDoort vehicle 1 1 1 2 2 $35,000 ATV 1 2 2 1 $10,000 ATV trailer 1 1 1 1 $2,000 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 3. 40 46 46 49 Total $0001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4,646,0 $4,863.0 $5,488.0 $5,463.0 $5909.0 County of Simcoe Share I /$000\ $0,0 $0.0 $0,0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,126,8 $3.272.8 $3,693.4 $3,676.6 $3,976.8 ,.4.pounty of Simcoe currently manages and operates the paramedic services for Its towns and townships as well as the separated cities (Barrie & Orlllla). Cities of Barrie and Orlltla have a cost-sharing agreement with the (jfpunty, and their shares ani based on weighted assessment values of 26.34% and 6.35% respectively. HEMSON APPENDIX 8.2 TABLE 1. PAGE 3 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATION OF SERVICE LEVELS PARAMEDIC SERVICES Historic Population 1996 222,828 1997 227,106 1998 231,384 1999 235,663 2000 239,941 2001 244,219 2002 248,815 2003 253,411 2004 258.008 2005 262,604 '''VC:'''V"'l >:IU"''''''AKl ~uuu, -Buildings $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 SO.O $6,067.1 $6,067.1 $7,660.3 $8,142.7 $9,862.3 -land $0.0 $0.0 SO.O $0,0 SO.O $1.355.2 $1,355.2 S1,517.8 $1,624.7 $1,939,1 . Furniture & Eouloment $0.0 $0.0 SO.O $0.0 $0.0 $63.7 $63] $103.2 $114.5 $115,9 -Vehicles $0.0 $0.0 $0,0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,126.8 $3,212.8 $3,693.4 $3,676.6 $3,976.8 Total ($0001 $0.0 SO., $0.0 $0,0 $0,0 $10.612.8 $10,758.8 $12,974,7 $13558.5 $15,8904.1 Average Service ~~....~..............~ ........ '... Level .RlJiff1lnQ8 $.0.00 $0.00 SO"" $""" $0.00 $24.84 $24.38 $30,23 $31.56 $37.56 $29.11 ".~ -land $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0,00 $5,55 $5.45 $5.99 $6.30 $7.38 $6.13 . Furniture & EQuipment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.26 $0.26 $0.41 $0.44 $0.44 $0,36 . Vehicles $0.00 $0,0(} $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12.80 $13.15 $14.57 $14.25 $15.14 $13.98 TotallS/caDlta\ 50.00 $0.00 SO.OO $0.00 $(Urn $-4-3.46 $432' $51.20 $52.55 $60.52 $50.19 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PARAMEDIC SERVICES (County of Simcoe Share) 5 Year Average Sarvice Level (2001-2005) $50.19 per capita 2005 Population Nel Population Growth 2006.2015 Nel Population Growth 2006 .2025 262,604 44.736 89,276 Average Service Level Maximum Allowable 10 Years 2025 ($OOOl 2005 Inventory Excess Calculation 1$000) Using Average SeMce level Excess Capacity New Maximum ~ 10 Years 2025 !TotalParamedlc Service. I $50.19 per caPfta I $2,245.5 I $4,481.21 I $15,894.1 I $13,181.21 N/A 1 $2,245.51 $4,481.21 m m HEMSON APPENDIX B.2 TABLE 2 COUNTY Of SIMCOE 200ti DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM T..., Len Total Replacement Grmr-th.RelaledCosls 2006.2015 Dfeeounted Servlce ProjectOncriptlon TimIng Prolect Grants Municipal lIndBenefll Prior 200~ Post Growth--Related C~, ISubsldles Cost To Exlalln G"",, 2015 "" T"" NetClIpltelCosls HIll PARAMEDIC SERVICES 2.1 BuUdlnlla, umd & FurnishIngs 2_1.1 Repta<:emenlofOrlllla$tation Build;ng- 6.000 sq. fI """ . 1,117.-490 $ . 1,117,490 , 838,118 $ . 279.373 $ . 279.313 00% . 251.435 land- 0,5Ha 2000 . 69.707 $ . 69.707 $ 52.280 $ , 17.-427 . . 11,421 00% , 15.68<\ Fu'nisllirl9s 2000 , 29.136 $ . 29.136 $ 21.852 $ , 7,28<1 $ . 7,284 00% , 6.556 2,1.2 CO\'erspacefOltheadlfnalambutances 8u'dlngILaIId- 1750sq.ftIO,1Haperambul3nce 2000 8 33S.000 $ . 338.000 $ . . 338.000 $ . 338.000 90% 8 30<\,200 1751sq.ft/0,1Haperamtrulance 2000 . 338.000 $ . 338.000 $ . . 338,000 $ . 338,000 00% . 30-4,200 1752sq,flIO.1Hape,ambulance 20" . 338.000 $ . 336,000 $ . . 338,000 S . 338,000 90% . 304,200 1153sq,I'lIO,1HaperBmbufance 2012 . 338,000 S . 3Ul.OOO S . . 338,000 $ . 338,000 90% . "".200 1754 sq_flIQ.1Haper aml:l\Jlance 201<\ . 3380@ '--- ~-~ ~~.. ~ L_J~~ L-19.?&21 $ 338,000 00% L-,.~ Svb-totaIBul1dings.Land&Fumishings $ 2.g()6,334 S $ 2.906,334 $ 912,250 $ $ 1,855.189 $ 138.894 $ 1.994,083 . 1.689,671 2.2 Vehicles 2,;.'_1 A.-ntu:lIi'1C;; ;20.;;,;:; . ;;'7.57;;' $ . ll'.~lll $ . . 97.579 . . 97.519 00% . 81.821 Ambulance 2008 . 91,579 . . 97.519 $ . . 97.579 8 . 97,519 00% . 81,921 Amllulaoce 2010 . 97,519 $ . 91.519 $ . . 91.579 , . 91.579 90% . 87.821 Amllulance 2012 , 97,579 $ . 91,579 $ ~ , 97,579 . . 91,579 00% . 81,821 Ambulance 2014 . 91,579 $ . 97579 $ , . 91.519 S 97.579 00% , SlJb.to'aIVlJtJie!es . 4B7.B96 $ $ 487.B96 S $ , 390.317 S 97,579 S 487,896 $ 351,285 TOTAL PARAMEDIC SERVICES . 3.394,230 $ . 3,31)4,230 . 912,250 $ 8 2,2-45,506 . 236,473 $ 2,4111.919 90%' 2,020,956 Non..chargeable Growth-Related Net Capital Cost: Residential Oevelopn'Mnt Charge Calculatlotl Resjdential Share of 2lJ06.-2015 Discounted Growth.Ralated Capital Prog'am 10 Year Growth in Population in New UF1ils Unadp;sted Development Charge Per Capita ($) 70% $1.414,669 6-4,7<\9 $.2:1.15 Non"Resldenl1at Development enarge Cak:u1atton Non-Residenlial Share of 2006-2015 Discounted GI()W\l\--Relaled Capital Program 10 VearGrowIh in S'luare MeIers Unadjusted Development Cha~e Per Sq.M ($) CIl -..J 30% $ 606.281 1,178.200 SO.!i1 I:llMillbI 224,551 APPENDIX 8.2 TABLE 3. PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CASHFLOW AND DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PARAMEDIC SERVICES RESIOENnAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 2.00 PARAMEDIC SERVICES OPENING CASH BALANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES '00' 200' '00' ,... 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL OPENING CASH BAlANCE (SOOO) ... (344.5) (204.2) (348.4) (200.1) (350,6) (193.7) (349.2) (181.5) (155.9) 2006-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS PARAMEDIC SERVICES - coos-tan! ($OOO) $465.99 $0.00 $274.41 $0.00 $214.41 $0.00 $214,41 "'.00 $125.44 $0.00 $1,.U4.67 PARAMEDIC SERVICES. o.lIranl ($OOO) $465.99 $0.00 $288.31 $0,00 $302.90 $0.00 $318.24 $0.00 $152.83 $0.00 $1,528.21 IPOPULATlON GROWfH . Population in Naw Unils 5.630 6,543 6.$43 6.543 6.543 6,543 6,601 6.601 6.601 6.601 64,149 :REVENUE. current ($000) Ra!efor2006 -Oev.ChargeReceipts $23.50 Inflation: 2_5% 132.3 151.6 161.5 165,6 169.7 174.0 179.9 184.4 189.0 193,7 $1,707,70 . Interes!onOpenln9Balanca Rale: 6.5% 0.0 (22.4) (13,3) (22.6) {13.0} (22,8) (12.6) (2U) (H.8) (10.1) ($151.33) -lnta!llstOl'lln.yearTransactiof'l5(a~djnl.} Rate: 6.5% (10.B) 5' (4.1) 54 (4.3) 5.' {4-5} 6.0 ,., 6.' $5.83 TOTAL REVENUE 121.5 140.3 144.1 148,3 152.4 156.9 162.8 167.7 178.4 189.9 $1,562.20 !CLOSING CASH BALANCE 33.9 {344_5} (204.2) (348.4) (2oo.1) (350.6) (193.7) (349.2) (181.5) (155.9) 33,9 FIRE PER CAPITA CHARGE $23.50 Ol CO HEMSON APPENDIX 8.2 TABl.E3-PAGE2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CASH FLOW AND oeTERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PARAMEDIC SERVICES NON-RESIDENTlAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 2.00 PARAMEDIC SERVICES OPENING CASH BALANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES 2008 2007 2008 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 "" TOTAL OPENING CASH BALANCE ($000) "'.00 ($134_85) ($10.31) ($127.29) (558.54) ($117.39) ($37.37) ($116.29) (557_81) ($61.63) 200&-2015 NON.RESIDENTlAl FUNDING REQUIREMENTS PARAMEDIC SERVICES - conslant ($000) $199.71 $0.00 $117,61 $0.00 $117,61 $0,00 $117.61 so 00 $53.76 "'.00 $606.29 PARAMEDIC SERVICES - current (SOOO) $199_71 "'00 $123,56 "'.00 $129,82 "'.00 $136,39 $0.00 S65.5O $0.00 $654.97 NON.RESlDENTIAl GROWTH - Sq, Metres if! New Buildlll9s 128.000 126,300 126.300 128.300 126.300 139.000 99.500 99.500 99.500 99,500 1,178,200 REVENUE. curmnt {$OOO} Rate ror 2006 -Dev.ChargeReceipts SO.54 In"a~on: 2,5% 69.1 71.0 12.8 14.6 16.5 84.9 62,3 63.9 65.5 61.1 $707_70 -Interest on Opening Balance Rale: 6,5% 0.0 (8.6) (4.6) (6.3) (3.6) (l.6) (2.4) (1.6) (3.8) (4.0) ($so.8o)1 . Interest on In-yaarTransactions (exd,illt.) Rate: 6.5% (4.2) 23 (1.6) 2.' (1.7) '.8 (2.4) ,., 0.0 ,., $1.71 TOTAL REVENUE 84.9 84.5 66' 68.8 71.0 60.0 57.5 58.4 61.7 65.3 $658.61 CLOSING CASH BALANCE 3.' (134.9) (70.3) (127.3) (58.5) (117.4) (37.4) (116.3) (51.9) (61.6) ,., FIRE PER 8Q.M $0.54 Ol <D HEMSQN B.3 LONG TERM CARE The County of Simcoe owns and operates four long term care facilities located in Beeton, Penetanguishene, Collingwood and Orillia. Ranging in size from 68,782 sq. ft to 137,270 sq. ft, these facilities provide various living arrangements, i.e. semi private and private rooms with private or communal bathrooms. Table 1 Historic service levels The facilities total approximately 430,000 sq. ft of floor area with a replacement value of $74.8 million. The four long term care faciliries occupy total of 8.46 hectares of land area valued at $2.8 million across four locations in the County of Simcoe. The largest home, Sunset Manor, is able to accommodate up ro 150 residents with total furniture and equipment valued at $498,000. The combined replacement value of all furniture and equipment rotals over $2.3 million. To maintain and operate the homes, three 12.passenger buses as well as three wheel chair vans are available. Each vehicle is valued at either $60,000 or $86,000 resulting in a total value of vehicles of $438,000. The combined value of capital assets for long term care is approximately $80.3 million for the year 2005. The ten year historic average service level is $323.90 per capita and rhis, multiplied by the ten year population growth forecast, the maximum allowable for ten years is calculated to be $14.5 million. Table 2 2006 - 2015 Provisional Growth-related Capital Budget & Calculation ofthe Development Charge The 2006-2015 $13.6 million growrh.related capital program includes the redevelopment and expansion of Georgian Manor, the purchase of vehicles, as well as an allowance for the acquisition of new furniture and equipment. Currently, Georgian Manor is the smallesr of the homes occupying 0.17 hectares of land. Due to aging popularion and demand for long term care beds, County has intenrions to redevelop the Georgian Manor. Purchase of new land and addition of 43 beds and 20 retirement units, the project is estimared at $22.6 million, of which, $11.2 million is calculated to benefit the existing residents and $1 1.4 million is identified as growth related. Three vehicles are identified to be purchased at $72,000 each. One will be used to accommodate the newly constructed Georgian Manor, the two other vehicles will facilitate rhe adult day program provided by the County. The remaining $2 million is allocated for any The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendi1ffJ future acquisition of growth-related improvements and furniture and equipments a typical long term care departments will face due to continuous growth in aging population. In summary, the growth-related capital costS, which can be recovered through development charges amounts to $13.6 million. These costs are reduced by ten per cent ($1.36 million) as required by legislation. The remaining discounted growth-related net capital cost, $12.3 million, is carried forward to the development charge calculation. The discounted net growth-related capital costs are allocated in full against residential development and this yields an unadjusted development charge rate of $189.45 per capita. Table 3 Cash Flow Analysis After cash flow consideration, the residential development charge is increased to $21950 per capita. 1 Q-year His!. Service level $/capita LONG TERM O\RE 2006 - 2015 Unadjusted Growth-Related Capital Program Development Charge Total Net IX Recoverable $/capita $/sq.m. Adjusted Development Charge $/capita $/sq.m $323.90 $24,783,055 $12,266,575 $189.45 $0.00 $219.50 $0.00 The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendiyf APPENDIX B.3 TABLE 1. PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS LONG TERM CARE 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 UNIT COST -_.__..~-- - .... ...- .... Simcoe Manor 121,746 121,746 121,746 121,746 121,746 121,746 121,746 121,746 121,746 121,746 $230 Sunsel Manor 68,644 137,270 137,270 137,270 137,270 137,270 137,270 137,270 137,270 137,270 $130 Georoian Manor 68.782 68,782 66,782 68,782 68,782 68,782 68,782 68,782 68,782 68,782 $200 Trillium Manor 30,782 101,206 101,206 101,206 101206 101,206 101,206 101,206 101,206 101,206 $15{) Totallso.ft. 289 954 429,004 429,004 429,004 429,004 429,004 429,004 429 004 429 004 429,004 Totall$OOO) $55 299,0 $74,784,0 $74.784.0 $74,784.0 $74,784.0 $74,784.0 $74784.0 $74784,0 $74,784.0 $74,784,0 UNIT COST IwAIUJ\ntl\;liIn,til ...,.. Simcoe Maner 3,17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 $370,000 Sunsel Manor 3.46 3.46 3.46 3,46 3.46 3.46 3,46 3.46 3,46 3.46 $270,000 Geomian Manor 0.17 0.17 0.17 0,17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 $170,000 Trillium Manor 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 $370,000 Totallhal 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 Total ($0(10) $2.750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750,2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2 750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1$\ Simcoe Manor 547,000 547,000 547,000 547,000 547,000 547,000 547,000 547.000 547 000 547,000 Sunset Manor 249,000 498,000 498,000 498,000 498,000 498,000 498,000 498,000 498,000 498,000 Geornian Manor 438,000 438,000 438,000 438,000 438,000 438,000 438,000 438,000 438,000 438,000 Trillium Manor 257,000 858000 858,000 858,000 858,000 858,000 858,000 858,000 858,000 858,000 Total f$O(lo' $1,491.0 $2.341.0 $2.341.0 $2,341.0 $2.341.0 $2,341.0 $2,341.0 $2,341.0 $2,341.0 $2.341.0 UNIT COST VEHICLES t#\ .'u.......... 12 x o~ssenaer bus 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 $86,000 wheel chair van 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 3 $60,000 Totall#l . 6 . . ,. ,. 10 . 9 6 Total 1$000\ $584.0 $584.0 $644.. $644.. $704,0 $704.0 $704.0 $644,0 $644.. $438.0 HEMSON APPENDIX B.3 TABLE 1 - PAGE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULA nON OF SERVICE LEVELS lONG TERN CARE Historic Population 1996 222,828 1997 227,106 1998 231,384 1999 235.663 2000 239,941 2001 244,219 2002 248,815 2003 253.411 2004 258,008 2005 262,604 InVlI;;:n I un; 'I iJUl'llmAn; f I~UUUI . BuHdinns $55.299.0 $74,784.0 $74,784.0 $74.784.0 $74,784.0 $74,784.0 $74,784.0 $74,784.0 $74,784.0 $74,784.0 -Land $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 $2,750.2 - Furniture & Eauioment $1.491.0 $2,341.0 $2,341.0 $2,341.0 $2.341.0 $2.341.0 $2.341.0 $2.34'.0 $2341.0 $2.34' .0 - Vehides $584.0 $584.0 $644.0 $644.0 $704.0 $704.0 $704.0 $644.0 $644.0 $438.0 Total 1$000\ $60,124.2 $80,459.2 $80,519.2 $80,519.2 $80,579.2 $80,579.2 $80,579.2 $80,519.2 $80,519.2 $80.313.2 Average Service SERVICE LEVEL I$/caDita\ ......... - Buildinas $248.17 $329.29 $323.20 $317.33 $311.68 $306.22 $300.56 $295.11 $289.85 $284.78 $300.62 . Land $12.34 $12.11 $11.89 $11.67 $11.46 $11.26 $11.05 $10.85 $10.66 $10.47 $11.38 . Fumiture & Enuinment $6.69 $10.31 $10.12 $9.93 $9.76 $9.59 $9.41 $9.24 $9.07 $6.91 $9.30 . Vehides $2.62 $2.57 $2.78 $2.73 $2.93 $2.88 $2.83 $2.54 $2.50 $1.67 $2.61 Totall$lcaDita $269.82 $354.28 $347.99 $341.67 $335.83 $329.95 $323.85 $317.74 $312.08 $305.83 $323.90 COUNTY OFSIMCOE CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE lONG TERM CARE 10 Year Average Service level (1996-2005) $323.90 per capita 2005 Population Nel Population Growth 2006.2015 Net Population Growlh 2006 . 2025 262.604 44,736 89,276 Average Service level Maximum Allowable 10 Years 2025 ($000) 2005 Inventory Excess Calculation {$OOOI Using Average Service Level Excess Capacity New Maximum Allowable 10 Years 2025 'otal L T Care Services $323.90 per caoila $14,490.1 $28.916.6 I $60.313.21 $65.057.4 I $0.0 I $14.490.1 I $28.916.6] HEMSON APPENDIX B.3 TABLE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 201l6 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY GROWfH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM Total Le.. Total R.plaetment Growth.ReI..tadColltl 2006-2015 DiICOIInted ServIce ProjlllCtDest;riptlon Timing Project Grants Munlt;:Ip.a1 lIndBeneflt Prior 2006- Post Growth.Related C~, ISubsldies Cosl ToE.JcI't1nCl Gro"'" 20" 2015 Tot..l NetC.. ItalCosts 3.00 LONG TERM CARE 3.1 Bullding',Land&Fumlshlngs 3.1,1 Georgian Manor" RedevelopmenllReplaeement Building-(150befJs+20reliremenlunils) "'" . 21.707.055 S , 21.707,055 $ 10,853,528 S . 10.853.526 S . 10.853,528 00% . 9,768,175 Land- "'" . 800,000 S , 600,000 S 300,000 S . 300.000 $ . 300,000 00% , 270.000 FumishinglEquipmenl- "" , 260,000 $ , 260000 S L--:-- $ 260,000 $ , 280000 90% L 234000 Sub-totat8uildings, Land & Fumishings , 22.567.055 S , 22.561.055 S 11,153,528 S , 11.413,528 S , 11.413,528 , 10,272,175 J,2....hlcln 3,2.1 BuS (2 units) 2007 , 144.000 . - . 144,000 $ . . 144,000 $ . 144,000 SO% , 129,600 3,2.2 Bus(I\1f1rt) 200' . 72000 . - , 72000 $ -~ , 72.000 $ . 72000 9<J% S "... Sub-lotalVehldes , 216,000 , . 216,000 . . , 216.000 S . 216,OQ(J , 194.400 3.3 Oth.rGrowth-reIatedExpendlture 3.3.1 Allowance fOf acq<.JIsti(ln of growltHelated Improwmenls I!; FIE various . 2.000.000 $ . 2,000.000 $ . . 2,000,000 S . 2.000.000 90% . 1.800,000 TOTAL LONG TERM CARE . 24,783,055 $ , 24,783,055 $ 11,153,528 $ , 13,&29,52lJ $ . 13,629,528 "",. 12,266,$1$ Non-CharJ;leable Growth-Related Net Capital Cost Re$ldentlSI Development Charge Calculation Residential Share of 2006-201S Oisoovnled Growth.Related Capital Program 10 Year Growth in Poputation in New Units UniKljusted Development Charge Per Capita ($) 100% $12.266.515 64.749 $189.45 Non-Resldenlia! Development Charge CllculallOl'l Non-Residential Share of 2006-201S Discounted GrOWll1.Relllted Capita! Pmgfllm 10YearGrowth in Square Meters Unadiuslec! Development Charge Per Sq,M ($) 0% . 1.178,200 SO.OO --l ./>. HEMS-Clli $ 1,362.953 APPENDIX B.3 TABLE 3 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CASHFLOW AND DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE LONG TERM CARE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 3.00 LONG TERM CARE OPENING CASH BALANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES ,... 2007 2008 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL IOPENING CASH BALANCE ($OOO) 0.0 {9,274.3} (B,932.5) (8,220.7) (7,358,3) (6,4W.9) (5.353.6) (4.182.4) (2,897,0) (1.486.9) 2006-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS LONG TERM CARE. constant (SOOO) $10,216,17 $543,60 $244.80 $160.00 $180.00 $180.00 $180,00 $180.00 $180.00 $180,00 $12,266.57 lONG TERM CARE. Q.Jmmt ($000) $10.218.17 $557.19 $257.19 $193.84 $198-69 $203.65 $208.74 $213.96 $219.31 $224.80 $12,495.55 POPULATION GROWTH - Population ill New Unilll '.630 6.543 6,543 6.543 6,543 6.543 6,601 6,601 6,601 6,601 &4,7-49 REVENUE. ctIfTelll ($OOO) Rale for 2008 . Dev. Charge Race!p!ll $219.50 Irrtlalion 2.5% 1.235.8 1A72.1 1,508.9 1.546.6 1,585.3 1,624.9 1,680.3 1,722,3 1,165.4 1,809.5 $15,'51.10 -lnterastonOpeningBalance Rate: 6.5% 0.0 (602,8) (580.6) (534.3) (478.3) (416.3) (348.0) (271.9) (188.3) (96,8) ($3,511.34)1 . IntereslOfl In.yearTransactions (excl.int) Rate: 6.5% (291.9) ,9.7 40.7 44.0 45.1 46.' 47.8 49,0 50.2 51.5 $112.31 iTOTAL REVENUE 943.9 699.0 969.0 1,056.2 1.152.1 1,254.8 1.380.1 1,499.5 1,627.3 1.764.2 $12,546.07 I IClOSING CASH BALANCE 50.' (9.274.3) (8.932.5) (6.220.7) (1.358.3) (6,404.9) (5,353.6) (4,162.4) (2,697,0) (1.468.9) 50.' POLICE PER CAPITA CHARGE $219.50 -.j (1J HEMSON B.4 CHILD CARE SERVICES Child Care Services is responsible for the provision and promoting of affordable child care services which enhances early childhood development in Simcoe area. The department provides services for municipalities within the County of Simcoe, as well as the Cities of Barrie and Orillia. For the purpose of this study, Barrie and Orillia's share of the service has been excluded from the development charges calculation. Table 1 Historic Service Levels The Child Care Services' inventory of capital assets is based on monthly full.day.equivalent (FOE) units of day care spaces subsidized by the county. An annual average FOE unir is calculated using the monthly record of day care spaces over the prior four year period; the number of spaces ranges from 333 to 407 FOE units. As mandated by Nursery Oay Care Acr, the childcare providers must allocare approximately 30 sq. ft of space for each child under their care. As a result, the values of rhe average annual space requirement are used to calculate the value of the inventory of capital assets. The total value of capital assets used to provide child care services ranges from $1.99 million in 2004 to $2.44 million in 2002. The 2005 value of Simcoe County's child care services capital assets exceeds $2.3 million. It has provided the County with a four year average service level of $8.81 per capita. This service level, when multiplied by the ten year growth in population in new units, results in a ten year maximum allowable expenditure of nearly $398,600. After the required subtraction of excess capacity, altogether about $56,600, the new maximum allowable is just under $342,000. Table 2 2006 - 2015 Provisional Growth-related Capital Budget & Calculation of the Development Charge The Counry anticipates to receive funding from the upper levels of government for the provision of new child care spaces. The County capital spending allowance provided for herein is the growth-related share of other capital needs: i.e. growth-related studies, office equipment and supplies, and orher minor equipment the Child Care Services' department will face due to population growth. An annual allocation of $10,000 is determined, which brings the total cosr to $100,000. After the legislated ten-percent discount of $10,000 is applied, the calculated discounted growth-related capital costs is $90,000. Note that as the amount of upper-level government funding may fluctuate over the next ten years, the County will monitor the level of child care service and may amend the development charges by-law to reflect these changes. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study AppendiJf8 As shown in Table 2, $63,000, or 70 per cent, of the growth-related cost for Child Care Services is allocated against new residential development in Simcoe County and $27,000, or 30 per cent, is allocated against new non-residential development. This results in unadjusted development charges of $0.97 per capita and $0.02 per sq. m respectively. Table 3 Cash Flow Analysis After cash flow analysis, the adjusted residential development charge is reduced to $ LOO per capita and the adjusted non-residential charge is reduced to $0.03 per sq. ffi. 4-year Hist Service Level $/capita CHILD CARE SERVlUS 2006 - 2015 Unadjusted Growth-Related Capital Program Development Charge Total Net DC Recoverable $/capita $/sq.ffi Adjusted Development Charge $/capita $/sq.m $8.91 $100,000 $90,000 $0.97 $0.02 $1.00 $0.03 The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study AppendiY1 APPENDIX 8.4 TABLE 1. PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS CHILD CARE SERVICES 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 . .... -- -'t...........~... ......~ .., .~"........I Jan 416 405 303 301 Feb 409 390 298 314 Mar 399 401 370 380 ADr 379 402 333 368 May 435 419 326 347 June 354 407 354 385 Julv 484 507 338 422 Au 462 450 396 489 Sept 375 356 323 374 Oct 408 351 308 388 Nov 408 308 321 420 Oec 351 303 328 441 Total 4,880 4,899 3,998 4,629 Monthly Average: 407 392 333 I 386 --J CO HEMSON APPENDIX 8.4 TABLE 1. PAGE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATION OF SERVICE LEVELS CHILD CARE SERVICES Historic Population ,... 222,828 1997 227,106 ,... 231,384 1999 235.663 2000 239,941 2001 244,219 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average 248,815 253.411 258,008 262,604 Service Level 30 I 30 I 30 I 30 ~9 12,200 11,748 9,995 11,573 200 200 $ 2,440,000 $ 2.275.750 Minimum Space Requirement (sQ,ftIFDEspace' Total Annual Space Requirement (sq,ft) Value of Space ($/SQ. ft' Total Value of Spaces IServi~e Level ($/capita) I! I I I I 1$ 9.81 1$ 9.271 $ 7.751 $ 8.81 1$ 8,911 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CHILD CARE SERVICES 4 Year Average Service Level (2002.2005) $8.91 per capita 2005 Population Net Population Growth 2006 - 2015 Net PopulatIon Growth 2006 . 2025 253,411 44,736 89,276 AYl/l",,~ Service Level Maximum A!lowable 10 Years 2025 ($OOO) 2005 Inventory Excess Calculation ($000) Using Average Service Level Excess Capacity New Maximum Allowable 10 Years 2025 ~l)~~fhlld Care Services I $ 8.91 per capita I $398.61 $795.41 I $2,31~$2,257.9T $5..61----s34io '-$73'-:81 -J <D HEMSON APPENDIX S.. TABLE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVElOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM ,..., leu Tob!1 R.plllcetll.nt Growth-RlllatadCo,ts 2CJ06.2015 D1KOunted Servlee Project Descrlptlon TIming PrOJect GrIlnts Munlclplll IIndB.neftt Prior "'~ P... Growth-R.lIlted Cost ISubaldlet Cost ToEK!,lIn G..... 2015 "" ,..., Net Cllpltlll COlts .4,00 CHILD CARE SERVICES 4.1Provlllonforgrowth-r.llt.dcapltalworb' vaflllUS . 100,000 $ . 100,000 $ . . 100.000 5 , 100,000 90% . 90.000 TOTAL CHILD CARE SERVICES , 100,000 $ . 100,000 $ . . 100,000 $ . 100,000 90% $ 90,000 Non.{;hargeable Growth--Relaled Net Capital Cost: Rll,ldeJltlal Devatopment Chll"Vll Calculation Residential ShaN:l of 2006-2015 Discounted Growltl_Relatad capital PlOgram 10YearGlOWthinPopulationin~Units Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capita IS) 10% $63.000 64,749 SO.i1 Non-Reskfentlal Deyelopment Charge Calculation NOl1+Resldenlial Share of 2O()6.2015 Diseounted Growth-Related capital Program 10 Year Growth in SQUI1l'e Meiers Unadjusted Development Clmrge Per Sq,M (5) 30% $ 27,000 1.178.200 $0_02 10,000 Noles: 1. The County antk:ijlates to r&;e;ve funding from !he upper levels of government for the provision of new ehild c:are spaces. The County e3pital spending allowanee provided fo, herein is the growth--relaied share of other c:apltal needs; ;,e, studIeS. office equlpmenl and sl.lj')p1ies. and other mil'lOf equipmat'lts Depending on the level of funding reeeived on the demand for the servioo. the County will monlto, Sll!VJce and may amend the DC as necessary co o l:!~ APPENDIX 8.4 TABLE3. PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CASHFLOW AND DETERMtNATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CHILO CARE SERViCeS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 4.00 CHILD CARE SERVICES OPENING CASH BAlANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES 200. 2007 ,.., 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL IOPENING CASH BALANCE (SOOO) 0.0 (0.7} (0.5) (0_3) (0.1) .., .5 ., ,., 1.7 2006-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS CHILD CARE SERVICES - constsnt ($000) 16.30 16.30 $6.30 $6.30 $6.30 $6.30 1630 $6.30 $6.30 $6.30 $63.00 CHILD CARE SERVICES - current ($OOO) 16.30 $6.46 $6.62 56.18 $6,95 $1.13 $7.31 $7.49 $7.66 57.67 $10.58 POPULATION GROWTH - Population in New Units 5,630 6.543 6,543 5,543 6,543 6,543 6,601 6.601 6,601 6,601 64,749 REVENUE. current {SOOO} Rate for 2006 -Dev.ChargeRecelpts $1,00 Inflation: 2.5% 5.' '7 .., 7.0 7' 7.4 7.7 7.' '.0 .., $72.50 -lntereslonOpening8alall'\09 Rate: 6.5% 0.0 (O.O) (0.0) (O.O} (O.O) 0.0 0.0 0.' 0.' 0.' $0.20 -lnlereslonln"yearTransacllons{e:<:cUnL) Rate' 6.5% (0.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 $0.06 TOTAL REVENUE 5.' '.7 .., 7.' 7' 7.4 7.7 7.' .., .., $12.16 'CLOSING CASH BALANCE " (O_l) (0.5) (0.3) (0.1) 0.' '.5 0.' .., 1.7 ,., INDOOR RECREATION PER CAPITA CHARGE $1.00 ex> ~ HEMSON APPENDIX B.4 TABLE 3. PAGE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CASH FLOW AND DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CHILD CARE SERVICES NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 4.00 CHILD CARE SERVICES OPENING CASH BALANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES '00' '00' '008 '00' 2010 "" 2012 2013 2014 2016 TOTAL OPENING CASH BALANCE ($000) $0.00 $1.14 $2.38 $3.73 $5.21 $6.81 sa.95 $9.91 $10,85 $11.88 2006-2015 NON--RESIDENnAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS CHILD CARE SERVICES - conslanl ($COO) $2.70 $2.70 $2.70 $2.70 $2.70 $2.70 $2.70 $2.70 $2.70 $2.70 $27_00 CHILD CARE SERVICES. current ($000) $2.70 $2.11 $2.84 $2.91 $2.98 $3.05 $3.13 $3.21 $3.29 $3,37 S30.25 NON--RESIOENTfAL GROWTH - Sq. Metres in New Buildings 128.000 128,300 128,300 128.300 128,300 139,000 99,500 99,500 99.500 99.500 1,178,200 REVENUE. currenl ($OOO) Rate for 2006 - Dev. Charge Rooeipls $0.03 InftatiQfl; 2.5% " ,.. 4.0 4.' 4' 4.7 3' 3.' 3.' " $39.00 -lnterestonOpeningBeienoo Rate: 6.5% 00 0.' '.2 0.2 0.' .. 0' 0.' 0.' '.8 $3.96 . Interest on In-year Transactions (excl.int) Rate: 6.5% 00 0.' '.0 00 0.0 0.' .0 0.0 00 00 $0.28 TOTAL REVENUE 3.8 4.' 4.' 4' 4.' '.2 4.' '.2 4.' 4.' $43.24 CLOSING CASH BALANCE 13.0 ,., 2' '.7 '2 '.8 8.9 ... 10.9 11,9 13.0 INDOOR RECREATION PER SQ.M $0.03 co N HEMSON B.5 SOCIAL HOUSING Since January 2001, the County of Simcoe owns and manages the Simcoe County Housing Corporation, and then added on the responsibility of managing of programs and subsidy administration of the non-profit and co-op housing programs in 2002. It is currently responsible for 4,127 houses within the County including the Cities of Barrie and Orillia. Table 1 Historic Service levels The Social Housing's capital assets include housing structures ranging from bachelor apartments to four bedroom detached units. More than 78 per cent of the total number of units (3,256 units) are identified as apartments. The remaining 22 per cent of units comprise town homes, semi-detached, detached or fourplexes. The replacement value of all residential units exceeds $344.4 million (page 1) and occupies 41 hectares of land valued at $14.4 million (page 2). The total inventory of capital assets for 2005 is valued at $358.9 million. Net of the housing stock in the Cities of Barrie and Orillia, the 5-year average historic service level for the remaining County's share is calculated to be $907.20 per capita. This, multiplied by the projected growth in population in new units over the next ten years results in maximum allowable of $40.6 million. Table 2 2006 - 2015 Provisional Growth-related Capital Budget & Calculation of the Development Charge The County anticipates receipts of upper level government funding for the provision of additional housing units. In addition, the current capital spending on social housing relates largely to thc maintenance of the existing housing stock. Therefore, the capital provision made under this study is for growth-related studies, growth-related office capital needs, and the growth share of other capital expenditures. In all, $100,000 has been allocated annually for ten years for a total of $1 million for growth-related capital spending. After the ten-percent discount of $100,000, $900,000 will remain to be recovered through development charges. In the future, the County may invest directly into expanding the social housing stock and, at such time, development charges calculations will be reviewed. As shown in Table 2, the $900,000 is allocated in full against residential development. This yields an unadjusted development charge rate of$13.90 per capita. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendi81l Table 3 Cash Flow Analysis After cash flow analysis, the adjusted residential development charge is increased to $14.00 per capita. 5-year His!. Service Level $/capita SOCIAl. HOUSING 2006 - 2015 Unadjusted Growth-Related Capital Program Developrrent O1arge T oral Net DC Recoverable $/capita $!sq.ffi Adjusted Development Charge $/capita $/sq.m $907.20 $1,000,000 $900,000 $13.90 $OJJO $14.00 $0.00 The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendi84 APPENDIX 8.5 TABLE 1 - PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS SOCIAL HOUSING 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 UNIT COST ..............................."'.... ($funlt) 'Apartments Bachelor 47 47 47 47 47 $55,000 1 Bd 1,528 1,528 1,528 1,528 1,528 $71,500 2 Bd 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,205 $88,000 3Bd 472 472 472 472 '72 $104.500 'Bd . . 4 4 4 $121,000 Townhomes 1 Bd 2Bd 131 131 131 131 131 $63,750 3Bd 23. 236 23. 236 23. $75,000 4Bd 33 33 33 33 33 $86,250 5Bd Semi Detached 1 Bd 12 12 12 12 12 $84 000 2Bd 121 121 121 121 121 $94.500 3Bd 30 30 30 30 30 $105,000 'Bd 4 . . 4 . $115500 5Bd 13 13 13 13 13 $126.000 Oetached 1 Bd 13 13 13 13 13 $84,000 2Bd 44 44 44 41 44 $94 ,500 3Bd 170 170 170 170 170 $105,000 4Bd 53 53 53 53 53 $115,500 Triplex 28d) 3 3 3 3 3 $126,000 Fourolex 1 Bd 4 . 4 . . $70.000 2 Bd 4 . . . 4 $85,000 Total 'In 0 0 0 0 0 4,127 4127 4127 4127 4,127 T olal $000 $0.0 $0,0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $344,494.5 $344 494.5 $344,494.5 $344,494.5 $344 494.5 (Xl CJ1 HEMSON APPENDIX B.5 TABLE 1 ~ PAGE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS SOCIAL HOUSING 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 UNIT COST .... .... l$Jhal ADartments Bachelor 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0,21 $350.000 1 Bd 8.86 8,86 8,86 8.86 8.86 $350,000 2Bd 8,56 8.56 8.56 8.56 8.56 $350,000 3Bd 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 $350,000 Townhomes 2 Bd 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 $350,000 3 Bd 4.39 4.39 4.39 4.39 4.39 $350,000 4 Bd 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 $350,000 Semi Oetached 1 Bd 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 $350,000 2Bd 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.81 $350 000 3 Bel 0,10 0,10 0.70 0.70 0.70 $350,000 4Bd 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 $350 000 Detached 1 Bd 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 $350,000 2 Bel 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 $350,000 3Bd 4.74 4.74 4.74 4.74 4,74 $350 000 4Bd 1,48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 $350,000 TrlDlex 2Bd) 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 $350,000 Fourplex 1 Bd 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 $350,000 2Bd 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 $350,000 Total # . . . . . 41 41 41 41 41 Total ($000) $0.0 $0.0 $0.. $0.0 $0.0 $14,434.0 $14,434.0 $14,434.0 $14,43<1.0 $14,434.0 co 0> HEMSON APPENDIX 8.5 TABLE 1 - PAGE 3 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATION OF SERVICE LEVELS SOCIAL HOUSING 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Historic Population (County wlo Orima & Barrie) 222,828 227,106 231,384 235,663 239,941 244,219 248,815 253.411 258,008 262,604 Historic Population (Orlllla & Barrie) 107,037 111,760 116,692 121,841 127,217 132,831 137,591 142,522 147,629 152,920 Historic Population (Total) 329,865 338,866 348,076 357,504 367,158 377,050 386,406 395,933 405,637 415,524 INVENTORY SUMMARY ($000 Buildln s $a $a $a $344,495 Land $a $a $a $14,434 Total ($OOO) $a $0 $0 $358,929 Average Servlce SERVICE LEVELS SIca Ita Level Buildin s $0.00 $870.08 $849.27 $829.06 $870.72 Land $0.00 $36.46 $35.58 $34.74 $36.48 Total ($Icaplta) $0.00 $906.54 $884.85 $863_80 $907,20 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOCIAL HOUSING (WITHOUT BARRIE & ORllLlA) 5 Year Average Service Level (2001-2005) $907.20 per capita 2005 Populatton Net Population Growth 2006 - 2015 Net Population Growth 2006 - 2025 262,604 44,736 89,276 Average Service level Maximum Allowable 10 Years 2025 ($000) 200. Inventory _ _ Excess Calculation ($000) Using Average Service level Excess Capacity New Maximum Allowable 10 Years 2025 [fotal$9clal Housing - I $907.20 per capita I $40,584,81 $80,991.61 1$226,836.61 $238,234.91 - ------S-O.O 1 $40,584,81$80,99U31 co -.J HEMSON APPENDIX 8.5 TASLE2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM Total Les. Total Replseement Growth.RelaledCosts 2006-2015Dlacounled Servlee ProJeClOescnptloo TIming Project GllInls Munklplll and Benefit Prior ..... Post Growth-R.elated C~, ISub.ldle. COlt To Elcl.lIn Grow1h "15 "15 Total NetClpltalCo.11 5.00 SOCIAL HOUSING 5.1 AlloWllnes forstudl.. and minor capitll spending , va'ioos . 1,000.000 $ . 1.000,000 $ . , 1.000.000 $ . 1,000.000 90% . 900.000 TOTAL SOCIAL HOUSING . 1,000,000 $ , 1,000,000 $ . . 1,000,000 $ . 1,000,000 _8 "'.'" Non-Chargeable Growth-Related Net Capital Cost: 100.000 Resldentlll DevelGpment Ch1roe Clh:ulatlon Residential Share of 2006-2015 DiSQ;lun\ed Growll1.Relateo Capital Prog,am 10 Year Growltl in Population in New Unila Unadjusted Developmenl Charga Per Capita ($) 100% $900,000 64.749 $13.90 0.029071659 Non-Relldlnllal Dsvelopmflnt Charge Caleullltlon Non--Resldenlial Share of2006-2015 Discounted Growth-Related Capital pmgram 10 Vear GrowIh In Square MeIers Unadjusted Development Charge Per Sq,M ($) " . 1,178,200 $0" Notes: 1 Tile Counl)/ anlidpales to re<:ewe upper levelgovemment fuMing forthejll'tlvision of additional hoosing units. The County's curretl! capital spending on social housing largely relates lo-lt1e ma;ntenanoe 01 the e~lsting housing stock- The eapaal provision made herein 1$ for studies. growth-relsled off..ee eapllal needs, and !he gmwth share of other capital expenditures_ In the future, the COunty may invest direct dollars into expanding $OOlal ho-using stock and at s<.lCh time, DC calculations will be review. ()) ()) tlJ,MS!lli APPENDIX 8.5 TABLE 3 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CASHFLOW AND DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE SOCIAL HOUSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 5.00 SOCIAL HOUSING OPENING CASH BAlANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES 2006 2007 ,..8 2... 2010 2011 2012 2013 201" 2015 TOTAL 'OPENING CASH BALANCE ($OOO) '.0 (It6) (10.6) (9.6) (8.5) (7.2) (5.9) {3.3} (O.5) 2.' 12006--2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS SOCIAL HOUSING. oot'Islant (SOOO) $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 S90,OO $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $900.00 SOCIAL HOUSING - current ($OOO) $90.00 $92.25 $94.56 $96.92 $99.34 $101.83 $104,37 $106.98 $109,66 $112.40 $1.00UO POPULATION GROWTH -PopulationinNIlWUnits 5.630 6,543 6,543 6,543 6,543 6.543 6.601 6,601 6,601 6,601 "',749 REVENUE - current (SOOO) Rate for 2006 . Dev. Charge Receipts $14.00 lnnation: 2.5% 78.8 93.9 90.2 98.8 101.1 103.6 107,2 109.9 112.6 115A $1,017.30 -lnterestonOpenillgBelance Rate: 6.5% O. (0.8) (0.7) (D.6) (0.6) (O.5) {D.4} (O.2) (M) 0.2 ($3.56)' -lnter8slon Ill-year Transactions (exd.illt.) Rate; 6.5% (OA) 0.' .., 0' 0' 0.' 0.' 0.' 0' 0.' $0.29 ITOTAl REVENUE 76.4 93.2 95.6 98.0 100.6 103.2 106.9 109.8 112.7 115,7 $1,014.03 iCLOSfNG CASH BALANCE 5.7 (11.6) (10.B) (9.B) (8.5) (7.2) (S.g) (3.3) (O.S) 25 5.7 PARK DEVELOPMENT & FACILmeS PER CAPITA CHARGE $14.00 co '" HEMSON B.6 PUBLIC WORKS - BUILDINGS, FLEET & EQUIPMENT This section deals with the County's public works' buildings, fleets and small equipments. Responsibility for maintaining these facilities falls to the Public Works Department. Table 1 Historic service levels Public Works operates almost 91,000 sq. ft. of building space, which are valued at more than $15.9 million. The 23.7 hectares of land associated with these buildings - located in Midhurst, Beeton, Moonstone, Creemore, Perkinsfield and Ramara -is valued at over $4.7 million. Furniture and equipment add another $113,000 to the value of the inventory (pagel). The current inventory of fleet and small equipment has a replacement value of $10.5 million (page 2). The total inventory of capital assets for the provision of public works services approaches $3 L3 million. Between 1996 and 2005 the average service level for public works in Simcoe County was $129.02 per capita. This average service level, multiplied by the ten year growth in population, yields a ten year maximum allowable of $5.8 million. Table 2 2006 - 2015 Provisional Growth-related Capital Budget & Calculation of the Development Charge The 2006 - 20 IS growth-related capital program for public works' land and building includes construction projects involving expansion of three facilities and merging of two facilities. The expansions involve the following locations: Creemore, Ramara and Beeton. Creemore and Ramara facilities' expansion of garage, storage and office area are estimated to cost approximately $437,000 and $254,000 respectively. Beeton, with the largest planned expansion, will also acquire land acquisition ($17,000) with a total project cost to $849,000. In 2011, the construction of merging of Moonstone and Perkinsfield facilities will commence. The new facilities will exceed the combined square footage of the two current facilities. This additional space is used to calculate the growth-related costs of $286,000 for this project. The capital program also identifies the project costs to purchase vehicles necessary to facilitate the increasing demand for services preceded by growth in population. Various vehicles are added annually as well as some provision for other growth-related vehicles the County will need to purchase for the latter parr of the forecasted period, 2011-2015. The fleet and small equipment costs total $ 1.5 million. The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study AppendiSt} The sum of growth-related costs for public works is over $33 million. This recoverable portion is subject to the required ten per cent reduction so that $2,973,000 is brought forward to the development charge calcularion. The growth-related net capital cost is allocated 70 per cent against residential development, or $2,080,870, and 30 per cent against non-residential development, or $891,802. This yields unadjusted development charge rates of$32.14 per capita and $0.76 per sq. m respectively. Table 3 Cash Flow Analysis After cash flow consideration, the residential charge is increased to $34.00 per capita and the non-residential charge is increased in $0.87 per sq. m. PUBLIC WORKS 10-year His!. Service Level $/capita 2006 - 2015 Growth-Related Capital Program T alai Net OC Recoverable Unadjusted Developrrent Charge $/capita $/sq.m. Adjusted Development Charge $/capita $/sq.m $129.G2 $3,302,969 $2,972,672 $32.14 $0.76 $34.00 $0.87 The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendigf APPENDIX 8.6 TABLE 1- PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS PUBLIC WORKS 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 200( 2005 UNIT COST ......'......n...... ... ($Isq.ftl MidhurstDislrict# 1 29,245 29,245 29,245 29,245 29,245 29,245 29,245 29,245 29,245 29,245 $175.00 Beeton District # 2 10,425 10,425 10,425 10,425 10,425 10,425 10.425 10,425 10,425 10,425 $175.00 Moonstone # 3 10,105 10,105 10,105 10,105 10,105 10.105 10105 10,105 10,105 10,105 $175,00 Creemore District #4 17,955 17,955 17,955 17 955 17,955 17,955 17,955 17,955 17,955 17,955 $175.00 Pefkmsfield District # 5 10,105 10,105 10,105 10,105 10,105 10,105 10,105 10,105 10,105 10,105 $175.00 Ramara District #6 13,150 13,150 13,150 13,150 13,150 13,150 13,150 13,150 13,150 13,150 $175.00 Total (sa.ftJ 90985 90985 90985 90,935 90985 90,985 90985 90.985 90.985 90985 Total {$COOl $15,922.4 $15922.4 $15,922.' $15922.4 $15,922.4 $15922.4 $15922.4 $15922.4 $15922.4 $15922.' UNIT COST ...........,'.. Sfh. Midhurst District # 1 3.21 2.2 ~ 00. 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 $148000 Beeton District # 2 364 364 3.64 3.64 3.64 3,64 3.64 364 3.64 3.64 $371,000 Moonstone # 3 '.00 '.00 4.00 4.00 '.00 4.00 4.00 '.00 '.00 '.00 $148,000 Creemore District # 4 4.10 4.10 4.10 4,10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 $185,000 Per1dnsfield Dlstricl#5 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.97 $148,000 Ramara District #6 4.80 '.00 4.80 '.00 4.80 4.80 4,80 4.80 4.80 '.00 $210,000 T otal1ha 23.72 23.12 23.72 23.12 23.12 23.72 23.72 23.72 23.72 23.72 Total ($000 $4 770.8 $4770.8 54 770.8 $4770.8 $4,710.8 $4 770.8 $4nO.8 $4770.8 $4,770.8 $',710.8 FURNITURE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT $ MidhurstDistricl# 1 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Beeton District # 2 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15000 $15,000 $15.000 $15,000 $15,000 Moonstone #I 3 $3,000 $3.000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3.000 $3,000 $3.000 Creemore District # 4 $22.000 $22,000 $22.000 $22.000 $22,000 $22,000 $22.000 $22,000 $22.000 $22,000 Perllinsfie!d District # 5 $10,500 $10,SOO $10.500 $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 Ramara District #6 $2,600 $2,600 $2,600 $2.600 $2,600 $2600 $2,600 $2,600 $2,500 $2,600 Total 1$000\ $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 <0 '" HEMSON APPENDIX B.6 TABLE 1 . PAGE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS PUBLIC WORKS 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 UNIT COST ...u......,,--...... <"..."'0:;' <II ........""'"' "'''lU,rMt:1II1 f$/unlt} Picku truck 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 12 $27000 V," 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $30,000 Crew cab 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 2 $35,000 1 TontnJck 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 $36,000 Suburban 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 $36,000 Cube van 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $37,000 Combination low truck 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 $186,000 Roadarader 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 $220,000 Loader 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 $220,000 A ricultural!ractor 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 $40000 Paint truck 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $150000 Backhoe 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 $80,000 Gradall 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $150,000 Trailer 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 $5,000 Wood chi 1 H_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $4,000 Sintrailer 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $4,000 Com essor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $4,000 Snow low renla! 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 7 5 5 $46,000 Total" .. 97 .. .. .. .. .. .3 .2 .3 Total $000 $10085.0 $10,271.0 $10421.0 $10421.0 $10421.0 $10607.0 $10,607.0 $10312.0 $10247.0 $10,466.0 <l:l W HEMSQN APPENDIX B.6 TABLE 1 . PAGE 3 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATION OF SERVICE LEVELS PUBUC WORKS Historic Population 1996 222,828 1997 227,106 1998 231,384 1999 235,663 2000 239,941 2001 244,219 2002 246,615 2003 253.411 20.. 258,006 2005 262,604 ,,~~.....'"'... ......~......"'. ........ . Bulldlnas $15922.4 $15922.4 $15922.4 $15,922.4 $15,922.4 $15,922.4 $15,922,4 $15.922.4 $15,922.4 $15,922.4 -Land $4,770.8 $4,770.8 $4,770.8 $4,770.8 $4,770.8 $4,770.8 $4.770.8 $4,770.8 $4,770.8 $4,770.8 . Furniture &. E uioment $113.1 $113,1 $113,1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 $113.1 . Munici al Fleet & Small E i menl $10,085,0 $10,271.0 $10,421.0 $10,421.0 $10,421,0 $10,607.0 $10,607.0 $10,312.0 $10,247.0 $10,466.0 Total ($000\ $30.891.3 $31,077.3 $31,227.3 $31,227.3 $31,227.3 $31,-413.3 $31.413.3 $31.118.3 $31,053.3 $31,272.3 Average Service ............................,........ "'''V.l .6ulldinas $71.46 $70.11 $68.81 $67.56 $66.36 $65.20 $63.99 $62.83 $61.71 $60.63 $65.87 -Land $2141 $21_01 $20,62 $20.24 $19.88 $19.54 $19.17 $18.83 $18.49 $18.11 $19.74 . Furniture & E ui ment $0.51 $0.50 $0.49 $0.48 $0.47 $0.46 $0.45 $0.45 $0.44 $0.43 $0.47 . Municipal Fleet & Small EQulpmenl $45.26 $45.23 $45.04 $44.22 $43.43 $43.43 $42.63 $40.69 $39.72 $39.65 $42.95 Totall$lcaDltal $138.63 $136.84 $134,96 $132.51 $130.15 $128,63 $126.25 $122.80 $120.36 $119.09 $129.02 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PUBLIC WORKS 10 Year Average Service level (199B-200S) $129_02 per capita 200SPoptJlalion Net Population Growth 2006 - 2015 Nel Population Growlh 2006. 2025 262,604 44.736 89,276 Average Service level Maximum Allowable 10 Years 2025 ($000) 2005 Inventory Excess Calculation ($000) Using Average Service Level Excess Capacity New Maximum ~ 10Yeara 2025 I $31,272.31 $33,881.1 I $0.01 $5,771.91 $11.518,4-1 ITotal Public Works I $129.02 per capita L _55,771.91 $11,518.41 'R HEMSON . 0, ~~ .. r~ , . ) ..f 8B8 I<!r- ;:H I" .- . , 1,;~ o:~ ! , ~... fg ;; " ~ , , . ~i ~2 ~.. u~:;t ... ii13~ ..u ..0 5~~ .,:l offi~ " ~. iil~ ~. ~ H. ;~-s c.l~ ~ ..I- . ~ ~i I-~IJ .. .-. :~~ . " iiti.. of! ,_u , U~1~ :;: &1;1' re ............ ___J_ _J_ __J. __J. ___________J. ~u]~. ;&l~ ~ ............ ___J_ _J. __J. __J_ .. '1' _.J. ~Ul~. &~J~ :;&l~ re ~ ~ ~ ............ ........ I I. 'I . J' ............... ...~... ............ ......... ~ 8 ~&t ~ ..,:..'d..' ~. - ~;!l; Ie ............... ~........<# a:~lll& ~ , .g~.1. "'CNN~ ~~~; ~' ............... .g.'1' In ON '" 8: ~g:R~ ~ N_" ... ............... -t ~ 0 '0 .............. H~J~. $ re~; i ............... m ~ ~~ g ~ggl!! ~ ... -.. .., ............... ~ , " ~."" 200 ",' , ii 1i ! l , " s. ;c:.~ ~ 2 ';~ a' ~ ~....~~~ ~ ",C515",.,lJJ w..,:...'oOO e ;.s~~,g '" 1I.l-g '1] <1 "';2; , e . '" <~' ,.; ~ 8 g. ~ E ~ IE 5 I:l ",g {go Iii ~ .i , i ~ aI", Ul . . , :E8'.1r 'i i: i ~ ~ <n 0lI/Xl...J1tl .. ~ ~ ~ .. - '" .. . . . . ~ ~ . , . o : ; " o g ! ~ 1; . ~ ~ <:,.".".... .5~ i.r n"~ ~ . - " W co, :s ,n, li 1::10 ~ ~ ~ . - Li j~ l5 u,il ~ , . ~lG ~ '" . NoH .. . ,- . ~"." . ::;$~ ~ --. ............ .. gg ". g.g ~"J~ .. ' "-, --- ""]. 0,0 ~~ ~. -- - --- ........... ~"I~. lilm ;:; "- . ......1... g. . "".<'f ~ ilfl i:; "- . UU ;'lili lE - " --- ............ .. ~~ ~&~ g ~ f , o ~ ~ 8' ~ ~." ~.i .~ :i"': .. i lio ~~ e: ~~ ~ ~ i ri~~ ~ ual C}Cl 0<1) J( j;i .!! i i ,. ~ ~E ~ :!.f: S " , ;;; ~ ~.J' " 0 " " -- - m 8~J~ 00 " .....~. ;t . " -- - Uj"" ~~"'~ ...... -... ~.J. " " o " ~..:"';t " " -- - ~~~ g o - :!. .1 po;i ,,8"'''-'@ ~~ i;;:; ~ ~,g..~..., ~~i~i HH~ i I ~ .n ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ - ; I n~~~~~~~nu ~;tr;i;t;t;tiggggg re: ~ ...~~~ ~ ........................................... #.;/.}jt'l1-#.;/.;/.;I'.~#;I'.#. a:ggggggggggg 8~nu~uuu g~gg~~g~~~~'~ ~ - .......................................... 8unU8nn]~. lll~!il~lH~~~~~~~ ~ - ........................................ ___________1 .......................................... 8UU8.8.&unl~. :g~!il~~~~88888 ~ - ----~..._--... ......................................... ____MOO_Moot uuuu.UU18 lllS!il~~~~S;~~~~ ~ - ..................................... ... 888888~;;~~:!~ "'NN"'N"'~"''''~li::''' ;:t:;: g:: ]lllu:<'J! ,_~___ ~f~i~ .~ ~~g~~~~;~ ~~ ~~il~i~~* 1.1!.H~~HH '!.s i 8B ..... hh~p~.!H~ lIln.o..ii:o..o..ifooooo --"''"'''':''1'''''':'''!'''!~::::!:! ~:J:;j;.'l:;j:;j~:;j'~~~~~ ~ ~ " - ~ . if .; . 3 . ~ . i .; i ~ ~ . , . ~ ~ ~ ~ u . , " ;! . " .. . ~ o ~ ~ ~ , z ~~~ ~..ll ~ ~ I W . ~ u ~ . . ~ " i Cl -; a l ~ ~ ~ 8:; ~ &.!!! .. 0- j ~ ~ ~ j,.loc:.l'! <!:h~~ !.~H i~~~ ~&1~ i~Cl!l ~~~i ~~~5 ~~~ m~. ... I ~ , . w . , Ii u I .. J ~0 -' i ~ € ~~ $ 1!'!! G!. ~~H e~::ou ! '5 ;;:: . , ' ~ ~11&g. _ <n.E., ~.~! !i~Cli J ~ ~.i ~~$~ 95 APPENDIX B.6 TABLE 3. PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CASHFLOW AND DETERMINATION Of DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PUBLIC WORKS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 6.00 PUBUC WORKS OPENING CASH BALANCE FROM APPUCABlE RESERVES 2006 2007 ,... 20" 2010 2011 2012 2013 201. 2015 TOTAL OPENING CASH BALANCE. (SOOO) 0.0 (265.3) (181.8) (69.9) (530.7) (435.1) (675.1) (525.6) (361.7) (162.0) 2006-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS PUBLIC WORKS - ool'lstant ($000) $44B.34 $121.26 $108.36 $632.114 $10B.36 $403.72 $63.00 $63.00 $63.00 $63.00 $2,080.87 PUBLIC WORKS - current ($000) $448.34 $130.44 $113.85 $681,49 $119.61 $456.71 S73.06 $74.89 $16.16 $78.66 $2,253.88 POPULATlON GROWTH -PopulalioninNawUnits 5,630 6,543 6,543 6,543 6,543 6.543 6,601 M01 6,601 6,601 64,149 REVENUE - eurrenl (SOOO) Rale for 2006 - Dev. Charge Receipis $34.00 lnllafion: 2.5% 191.4 228.0 233,7 239.6 245.6 25t,7 260.3 266,8 273.5 280.3 $2,470.90 -lntereslonOpeningBalanee Rate: 6.5% 0.0 (17.2) (11.8) (4.5) (34.5) (28,3) (43.9) (34.2) (23.5) (11.B} ($l09.16)i ~lnlereslonln-yearTranS3Clions(excUnt.) Rate: 6_5% (6,4) ,., 3.9 (14.4) '.1 {6.1} 6.1 6.' 6.' 6.' S7.0S ITOTAL REVENUE 183.0 213.9 225.8 220.7 215.2 216.6 222.5 238,9 256,4 275.0 52.2n.1' CLOSING CASH BALANCE 14.3 (255.3) (181.8) (69.9} (530.7) (435.1} (675.1) (525.5} (361.7) (182.0} 14.3 PUBLIC WORKS PER CAPITA CHARGE $3.4.110 <0 0) HEMSON APPENDIX 9.6 TABLE3-PAGE2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CASHFLOW AND DETERMINATlON OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PUBLIC WORKS NON-RESIDENT1AL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE '.00 PUBLIC WORKS OPENING CASH BALANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES 2006 '007 2008 '009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL OPENING CASH BALANCE {SOOO} SO.OO ($83.37) ($31.28) $31.54 ($152.15) ($100.:lil) ($184.19) ($139.08) ($91.84) ($42.36) 200&-2015 NON-RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS PUBLIC WORKS ~ oons13nl ($000) $192,14 $54.54 $46,44 $211.22 '46.44 $173.02 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $891.80 PUBLIC WORKS - ctJlTflnl ($000) $192,14 $55.90 $48.79 $292.07 $51.26 $19$.76 $31.31 $32,09 $32,90 $33.72 $965.95 NON.RESIDENTTAL GROWTH - Sq. Matr&S in New SuUdings 128.000 128,300 128,300 128.300 128.300 139,000 ".500 99,500 99.500 99.500 1,178,200 REVENUE.currern{$OOO) Rate for 2006 -Dev.ChargeRocaipls $0,87 InRatioo: 2.5% 111.4 111.6 111.6 111.6 111.6 120,9 66.6 66.' 86.6 66.' $1,025.10 -lmerestonOpeningBalal"Q'l Raw: 6.5% O. (5.-4) (2,0) ,.. (9.9) (6.5) (12.0) (9.0) (6.0) (2,8) ($51.59)1 -lnlerestonln-yearTrnnsac.lions(exd-intj Rate: 6.5% (2.6) ,.. ,.. (5,9) '.0 (2.4) '.8 ,. '.7 1.7 $1.92 TOTAL REVENUE 108.8 108.0 111.6 107.8 103.6 111.9 76.4 79.3 82,4 65.' $975.43 CLOSING CASH BALANCE ,., (83.4) (31.3) 31.5 (152.7) (100.4) (184.2) (139,1) (91,8) (42,4) ,., PUBUC WORKS PER sQ.M $O.A7 co -J HEMSON B.7 GENERAL GOVERNMENT When calculating development charges, the DCA allows for the inclusion of the costs of undertaking studies related to the provision of growth-related infrastructure, including development charges background studies. Table 1 provides a list of growth-related studies the County of Simcoe anticipates undertaking during the 2006-2015 period. As required by the DCA, development charges studies must be undertaken evety five years, thus rwo are included in the list. The total estimated cost of both these studies is $60,000 ($30,000 each). A study related to the expansion of the Georgian Manot to accommodate the increasing need fat long tetm care services is also identified at $25,000, as well as two studies for Patamedic (Land Ambulance) services at $45,000. Additional eight studies have also been identified, of which Inter-Governmental Action Plan (lGAP) is estimated to cost over $500,000. The growth-related capital program for general government totals $1,105,000. The net 2006-2015 growth-related capital cost is discounted by ten per cent as required by the DCA. This results in a cost of $994,500, which is brought forward to the development charge calculation. Of this cost, 70 percent is allocated against residential development and 30 percent is allocated against non-residential development. The calculated unadjusted charges that result are $10.75 per capita for new residential development and $0.25 per Sq. m for new non- residential development. The cash flow analysis is displayed in Table 2. It considers the timing of the studies against the timing of the development charge revenues to determine adjusted calculated rates. The residential cash flow (page 1) calculates a $12.00 per capita charge which is higher than the unadjusted charge previously calculated. The non-residential cash flow (page 2) results in a similarly higher chatge of $0.28 per sq. m. 2006 - 2015 Growth-Related Capital Program Total Net DC Recoverable GENERAL GOVERNMENT Unadjusted Development Charge $/capita $/sq.m. Adjusted Development Charge $/capita $/sq.m. $1,105,000 $994,500 $10.75 $0.25 $12.00 $0.28 The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendig8 APPENDIX 8,7 TABLE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM TDtlll Len T.... Replacement Growth-ReletedCosts 20OG-2015 Olscounted Service Projeeto.scrlptlon TimIng Pro;.et O~b Municipal and Benefit Prior 200~ POllt Growth-Relatad Cost ISubsldlell Cost To Exlstln Oro... 2015 2015 Total HatCapltalCosls 7.00 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 7,1 Growttl.RalatedStud_, 7_1_1 DevelopmentChargesSludy 2000 $ 30,000 $ $ 30.000 $ $ $ 30,000 $ $ 30.000 90% , 27,000 7.1.2 DevelopmentChargesSludy 2011 $ 30.000 $ , 30.000 $ $ , 30,000 $ $ 30,000 90% $ 27,000 7.1.3 HOl.IsingStralegyStudy 2006 $ 50.000 $ $ 50.000 $ $ $ 50.000 S $ 50,000 90% $ 45.000 7_1.4 Geo,glan Manor Redesign and Relocale Sludy 2000 $ 25,000 $ $ 25.000 $ $ $ 25,000 $ $ 25.000 90% $ 22.500 7,1.5 IGAP 2000 , 505.000 $ $ 505.000 $ $ $ 505.000 $ $ 505.000 00% 8 454.500 7,1.6 landAmbulanceSta1i()(lStudy 2000 $ 10.000 $ $ 10,000 $ , $ 10.000 $ $ 10,000 00% 8 9.000 7.1.7 CQUnlyGrowthPlanStudy 2008 $ 10.000 $ 8 10.000 $ $ 8 10,000 $ , 10.000 00% $ '.000 1.1.8 8\li1dill9 Assessment Study for Amll\llance Stations 2006 $ 3SJ)(l() $ 8 35,000 $ $ $ 35.000 S $ 35.1XXl 00% $ 31.500 7.1_9 GrowthManagementSIudy 2000 $ 60.000 $ $ 80.000 S $ $ 80.000 5 $ 8O.1XXl 00% , 72,000 7_1,10 Preparation of OP polk:ies (ell_ P!l(lfreviow) 2008 $ 30.000 $ $ 30.000 $ $ $ 30.000 S , 30,000 00%$ 27,000 7.1.110PReview 2011 $ 100.000 $ $ 100,000 $ $ $ 100,000 $ , 100.000 00%$ 00.000 7,1,12AlloWl!lnce forOthefGrowlh-Relaled Studies 20" $ 100.000 $ $ 100,000 $ $ , 100,000 $ $ 100.000 90% , 90.000 1,1,13 Allowance lor Other Gmwth"Related Studies 2014 $ 100000 $ $ 100000 $ ~$ 100000 $ $ 100000 90% $ 90,000 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 1,105,000 $ $ 1,105,000 $ . 8 1,105,000 , . 1,105,000 . ....... <0 <0 Non.Chargeable GrowIh-Related Nel Capital Cost: Resldenllal Devalopment Charge Calculallon Residential Share 012006-2015 Diseounted Growlt1-Related Capital progrem 10 Yea,Growth In Population in NewUnils Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capita ($) 70% $696,150 64,749 $10.15 Non-Residential o.valopment ChllllJI CIrculation Non-Residenlial Share 012006-2015 Discounted Growth-Related capital Prngrem 10 Year Growth in SqlJare Meters Unadjusted Development Charge Per SqM (5) 30% $ 298.350 1.118,200 $0.25 1:!.fMm~ 110.500 APPENDIX B.7 TABLE 2- PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CASHFLOW AND DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 7.00 GENERAl. GOVERNMENT OPENING CASH BAlANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES '00' '007 '00' '009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAl. !OPENING CASH BAlANCE {$OOO} 0.' (434.3) (379.4) (318,9) (252.3) (179.2) (194.8) (112.6) (100.0) (86.1) 12001).-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS GENERAL GOVERNMENT - constant (SOOO) $488,25 $0.00 $000 $0.00 $0_00 $81.90 $0.00 $63.00 $63,00 $0.00 $696.15 GENERAL GOVERNMENT" current ($000) $488.25 $0.00 "'.00 $0.00 $0.00 $92.66 $0.00 $74.89 $76.76 $0.00 $732.86 POPULATION GROWTH . Population in NcwUnits 5,630 6,543 6.5-43 6.543 6,543 6,543 6.601 6,601 6,601 6.601 64,749 IREVENUE . CUmlnt ($000) Rate for 2004 . Dev. Charge RecGipts $12.00 Inflation: 2.5% 67.6 50.' 82.5 84.' 58.7 58' 91.9 84.2 96.5 98.9 $872..20 . Interest on Opening Balance Rate: 6.5% 0.0 (28.2) (24.1) (20.7) (16.4) (H.B) (12.7) (7.3) (6-5) (5.S) ($133.74); . Interest on In.yaarTran$3Clions(exd.lnt.) Rate; 6.5% (13,7) 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.' (0.1) '.0 0.' ... ,., l4." TOTAL REVENUE 53.9 54.' 60.5 58.' 13.1 17.0 82.' 87.5 90.' 96.5 5142,99 CLOSING CASH BALANCE 10.4 (434.3) (379.4) (316.9) (252.3) (179.2) (194,8) (112.6) (100.0) (66.1) 10.4 GENERAL GOVERNMENT PER CAPITA CHARGE $12.00 -" o o HEMSON APPENtHX 8.1 TA8LE2:_PAGE2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CASHFLOW AND DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE GENERALOOVERNMENT NON.RESlDENTlAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 1.00 GENERAL GOVERNMENT iOPENING CASH BAlANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES '006 2007 '''8 2000 2:010 2011 2012 20" 2014 2015 TOTAL OPENING CASH BALANCE (SOOO) so 00 ($179.09) ($152.73) ($123.'73) ($91.B2) ($S6.BO) ($56.06) ($26.36) ($27.03) ($27.75) 2006-2015 NON.RESIDENTlAl FUNDING REQUIREMENTS GENERAL GOVERNMENT - conslal1t ($OOO) $209.25 SO.OO $000 $0.00 $0.00 $35,10 $0,00 $27.00 $27,00 $0.00 $298.35 GENERAL GOVERNMENT. curri!nt ($000) $209.25 $0.00 "'.00 $000 $0.00 $39.71 SO.OO $32.09 $32.90 $0.00 $313.95 NON-RESIDENTIAL GROWTH - Sq. Metres in New Buildings 128,000 128,300 128.300 128.300 128,300 139,000 99.500 99,500 99.500 99.500 1,118.200 REVENUE - c~nl ($000) Rale for 2004 -Oev.ChargeReceipll'l $0.28 Infl.alion: 2.5% 35.8 'M 37.7 ".7 39.1 44.0 32,3 33.1 33.9 34.8 $366.80 -lnlereslonOpeningBalance Rate: 6.5% 0.0 (11.6) (9.9) (B.O) (6.0) (3.7) (3.6) (1.1) (H) (1.8) 1$48.19)1 -lnleMSIOtlln.yearTransaClions(ex-cUnt.) Rate: 6.5% (5.6) U ,., " ,., 0.' '.0 0.' 00 ,., $U2 TOTAL REVENUE 30.2 26.4 29.0 31.9 35.0 40.4 29.7 31.4 32.2 34.' $320.33 CLOSING CASH BALANCE 6' (179.1) {152.1} (123.7) (91.s) (56.8) (56.1) (26.4) (21.0) {27.8} .. GENERAL GOVERNMENT PER SQ.M $Ua ~ o ~ HEMSON APPENDIX C ENGINEERED INFRASTRUCTURE ROADS AND RELA TED TECHNICAL APPENDIX HEMSON 102 APPENDIX C ENGINEERED INFRASTRUCTURE ROADS AND RELATED TECHNICAL APPENDIX The Transportation and Engineering Department delivers the operational, maintenance, and construction services required for the County's road and bridge system for the safe and efficient operation for the public, both at present and in the future. This is accomplished through the daily maintenance activities, an aggressive program of rehabilitation, and reconstruction of the road and bridge infrastructure, and through the application of effective rraffic operation and planning principles. The Department's goal is to ensure an acceptable level of service is maintained at all times. The Department also provides review and inspection services to facilitate new development and to maintain service standards to sustain the existing infrastructure. This appendix provides a brief outline of the municipal roads and related engineered services. These include the roads themselves as well as streetlights, intersection improvements, storm drainage, streetscaping, traffic signalization, level crossings and other related structures. The growth-related road and related infrastructure projects are required to service the demands of new development up to "residential build-out" of the County to approximately 352,000 persons. This forecast is discussed in more detail in Appendix A The following tables ser out the 2006 to build-out growth-related capital forecast and the calculation of the development charge for roads and related infrastructure. The cost, quantum and description of the projects included in the forecast have been developed by County staff with assistance from the consultants. Consistent with s. 5. (I )7. of the DCA, there is no percentage reduction in the eligible growth-related capital costs for the provision of the roads services. Tables I - 7 provide details of the projects included in the County- wide roads and related engineered infrastructure development charges calculation. The content of the tables is as follows: Table I Table 2 T able3 Roads and Related Historic Service Levels 1996 - 2005 Roads and Related Capital Program: 2006 - Build-Out Summary of Growth-Related Roads and Related Capital Program and Calculation of Unadjusted Development Charge Residential Cash Flow Analysis Non-Residential Cash Flow Analysis Table 4 Table 5 The County or Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendix (03 Table 1 identifies the County's existing road infrastructure having a value of over $400 million. The road infrastructure yields a ten-year historic service level of$1,672 per capita. Based on the projected build-out population growth (2006 _ 2025) a roads and related funding envelope of $1493 million is calculated. The total cost of the roads capital program is $203.2 million (Table 2, page 2) and provides for the undertaking of projects throughout the County. The entire $203.2 million growth- related capital program is not to be fully recovered from future development charges; approximately $36.8 million of the program has been identified as a non-growth share (or benefit to existing share) and a further $17.1 million has been identified as a post-period benefit and relates to potential development beyond 2025. The result is a growth-related and development charge recoverable share of the capital program of$1493 million (Table 3). The growth-related cost has been allocated 75%, or $112.0 million, to new residential development and 25%, $373 million, to new non- residential development. The allocation of costs is based on forecasted shares of population and employment growth over the 2006-2025 period. As identified on Table 3, the growth- related capital program and the forecasted growth yields unadjusted calculated roads and related development charges of $871 per capita for residential and $1938 per square metre for non-residential developments. The long term cash flow analysis (Table 4 and 5) takes into consideration expenditure timing and revenue projections. The effect of the analysis is to increase the development charge rates. The main reason for this increase in the rates is the "front-ending" of the roads capital program. This relationship, between the timing of the infrastructure emplacement preceding the development, is normal and expected as the roads and related network needs to be in place prior to full-development of the benefiting lands. Table 4 displays the residential cash flow analYSis and Table 6 provides the non-residential cash flows. The following is a summary of the Roads and Related calculated unadjusted and cash flow adjusted development charges rates. lD-year Hist Service level $Icapita RO\OS & RBAlID 2(U) - 2025 Uladjusted CmMh-Related Clpital Program ~q:xrent ~ T aal i'Et OC Rro:JveabIe $Icapita $Isqm A<jtNed ~Owge !WGIfita !Wsq.m $1,672.07 $203,151,(00 $149,276,056 $870.89 $1938 $915.00 $19.32 The County of Simcoe Development Charges Background Study Appendix t04 APPENDIX C TABLE 1 ~ PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS ROADS AND RELATED 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 UNIT COST .._n__ m.. f$/km} Loose To Gravel. 2 lane 17.90 17,90 17.90 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 $300,000 Hard To Low Class Bituminious 237.70 237.70 236.50 147.50 147.50 149.40 149.40 135.90 130.90 130.90 $450,000 Intermediate Class Bituminous 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 $475,000 HI h Class Bltumlnious 505.50 505.50 756.60 664 .50 664_50 663.40 663.40 676.90 682.10 682.10 $500.000 Total km 766.40 766....0 1,016.30 818.80 818.80 819.60 819.60 819.60 819.80 819.80 Total $OOO} $367 602.5 $367.602.5 $492612.5 $401,592.5 $401 592.5 $...01 897.5 $401 897.5 $402 512.5 $402 922.5 $402 922.5 -' o 01 HEMSON APPENDIX C TABLE 1 - PAGE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATION OF SERVICE LEVELS ROADS AND RELATED 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Historic Population 222,828 227,106 231,384 235,663 239,941 244,219 248,815 253,411 258,008 262,604 INVENTORY SUMMARY ($000 Roads $402 922.5 Total ($000) $402.922.5 , Average Service SERVICE LEVEL $lea Ita Level Roads $1,649.71 $1,672.07 Totall$lcaplta) $1,649.71 $1,672.07 COUNTY OF SIMCOE CALCULATlON OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ROADS AND RELATED 10 Year Average Service Level (1996-2005) $1,672.07 per capita 2005 PopUlation Net Population Growth 2006 - 2015 Net Population Growth 2006 - 2025 262,604 44,736 89,276 Average Service Level Maximum Allowable 10 Years 2025 (SOOO) 2005 Inventory Excess Calculation <SOOO) Using Average Service Level Capaelty Excess New Maximum Allowable 10 Years 2025 Total Roads $1,672.07 IcaPita $74,802.1 $149,276.1 r . S402,922.51 $439,091.91 $0.0 I $74.802._'1 $149.276.1 I ~ o CD HEMSON APPENDIXC TABLE2-PAGE1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY GR.OWTH-RELA TED ROADS AND RELATED PROGRAM Tolllll ".. L... ,-, R~lacem...1 Growlh-RellledCoeta Servk:e ProJeclOucripllon L~:.:" Tlmlll1l 'm"", "'...., Munklpal ...de....nl Prior "... Post Coat Sub'Jldles Cosl To!xlsUng' G_ 2025 "" TOllll Roed. , CounlYRoad88Tral\Sl'orta~0l1 5l\ldy "OS , 50.000 $ ~ , 50,000 $ ~ , , 50,000 $ .8 "'.", 2 Counly Road 4:CiIy 01 Barrie 15km So\llh (shouldeMnlll "" , 250.000 $ 8 250,000 $ , , 250.000 S 8 250,000 , ROIldSO.ClassEAandOlnign "OS , 150.000 $ , 150,000 $ ~ , ~ , 150.000 S ~ , 151).000 . RPlId SO S Road 1 Inlen1eetlon Design & Improvomenl , "OS , 1,646.000 $ ~ , 1,648.000 $ 2S0,000 $ ~ , 1.398.000 $ ~ , 1.398,000 , Road90-CtusEA& De~ign "'" , 300,000 S ~ , 300,000 $ . , , 300,000 $ ~ , 3tlO.ooo , CIl: 2ll & 92 _lntersect;on Improvemenl , "OS , 1.400,000 $ ~ , 1.400,000 $ 250.000 $ , 1,ISO,OOO S , 1.150.000 , Coonty ROad4 Transportalion Sludy ..., , 50,000 $ ~ , 50.000 $ ~ , ~ , 50.000 $ . , 50.000 8 County Road 50: Hwy 9 north to 10lh Side Rd .., ..., , 3.000.000 $ ~ , 3,000.000 $ 1.125,000 $ , 1.875.000 $ , 1.875.000 , ROlId21.Tran.portationStudy ..., , 50,000 $ ~ , 50,000 $ ~ , ~ , 50.000 $ . , 50.000 " CountyRoad54i1Qlhlnle1se<:tk>I1l"'ll""'emIlm , ..., , 1,200.000 $ ~ , 1,.200,000 $ 250,000 $ . , 950,000 $ , "'.'" " Coullty Road88 Hwy400 10 Bradford Class EA& Oesign . ...8 , 400.000 S . , 400,000 S ~ , ~ , 400,000 $ ~ , "'.000 " Cou..ty ROad 10. Hwy 89 10 Illdusb1al (2.k) New Road , 2008 , 6,150.000 $ ~ , 6,750.000 $ ~ , , 6,750.000 $ , 6.750,000 " County Road 50114 Int&rseclion ImplOYament ""d ralat&d rolld sooItl . 2008 , 6,000.000 S ~ , 6,000,000 $ 1.000.000 $ ~ , 5.000.000 $ , 5,000.000 " CR 21 & 39 - llllersecl;oo ImplOYemenl , 2008 , 1.200,000 S , 1,200,000 $ 250,000 S . , 950,000 S ~ , 950,000 " CR39&llhLlne.l1Iltn&etionlmprtnremonfs , 2008 , 900.000 S , 900,000 $ 250,000 $ ~ , 650.000 $ , 650.000 " CountyRolld4ClassEAarldOesign 200' , 1,000,000 $ ~ , 1,000.000 $ ~ , . , 1,000,000 S . , l,ooMoo " Couflly Ro&d50 wlden;ng: 2OlhSideRdloHwy89 " ..., , 3.000,000 $ ~ , 3.000,000 $ 875.000 $ . , 2,125.000 $ ~ , 2,125.000 " Coullly RO&dgOwld&ning: CityolSalrie 10 CnlyRd28 , 200' , 4,000,000 $ . , 4,000,000 $ 750.000 $ ~ , 3.2SO.000 $ ~ , 3,250,000 " Counly Road 21 Class EA and Oesign 200' , 500,000 $ , 500.000 $ . , ~ , 500,000 $ . , 500.000 " COUllty Road 11 at Hwy 7~ UI'\e' ~OO9 , ;.000,000 $ . , ;.000,000 $ 750.000 $ ~ , 250,000 $ . , 250.000 " CounIyAo&dl1atl3thLln&' '00' , 1.000.000 $ . , 1.000.000 $ 750,000 $ ~ , 250,000 $ . , lSO,ooo 22 Coullly ACllId90wldenlng: CntyRd28 toCnlyRd 5-6 , 2010 , 6.500.000 $ , 6.500,000 $ 1.250,000 $ , 5,250,000 $ .8 5,250,000 n Covnly Road 27. Enviroo, Assen. & E"Il'lneeMngOesign "" , 500,000 $ , 500.000 $ , , 500.000 $ ~ , 500,000 " Cou"IyRoodOO-7.5km_wicllmiIlgCPBridgetoAflgliS " 2012 , 10.650,000 $ ~ , 10,650,000 $ 1.875,000 S , 8.775.000 $ ~ , 8,175,000 " CoulltyRoad25_Signals;nPeflcfnsfield 2012 , 50.000 $ 8 50,000 $ ~ , , SO.OOCl $ ~ , 50,000 " Coo..tyRoedJO_EnV't1)n_Ass&S$.& Ellgln....MIlgDoslgn 20" , 400,000 $ ~ 8 400.000 $ ~ , , 400.000 $ ~ , 400.000 " COUllty Road 10 _ Hwy 9 to Tott&lIham EA 0\ Design 20" , 400,000 $ ~ , 400.000 $ . , . , 400,000 $ , 4tlO.OOO 28 Covnty Aoad4-wider>;ngBamelo Stroud " 20t3 , 4.500.000 $ ~ , 4.500,000 $ 625.000 $ ~ , 3.87S,000 $ . , 3,875,000 " Coullly Roa<l 21. wicIfI<1;ng H.Yy400 10 Cnty Ad 4 , "" , 7.150,000 $ , 1.150,000 $ 1,250.000 $ . , 6.500.000 S ~ , 6,500,000 30 Coullly Road 88 wldenill9 Hwy 400 10 Bradford " 2011 , 3.250.000 $ . , 3.250.000 $ 525.000 $ . , 2.125.000 $ ~ , 2.nS,000 " CounlyRoad1691Ulnlerse-clionlmprovemBl'lt 0.75 2013 , 700.000 $ ~ , 700.000 $ 181.500 S ~ , 512.500 S . , 512,500 " CountyRoad4widan;og8radlordIoBWG10IhUIUI " 2014 , 3,900,000 $ , 3.900.oo0 $ 625.000 $ ~ , 3,215,000 $ ~ , 3.275,000 n COUnty RoRd 21. widel'lll19 CnlyRd4 to CIIly Rd 39 , 2014 , 4,650.000 $ ~ , 4,650,000 $ 750.000 $ ~ , 3.900,000 $ ~ , 3.900,000 " Couoty Roa<l54-Envlron. Assess. & Englnoeling Design "" , 400.000 $ . , 400.000 S ~ , . , 400.000 $ ~ , 400,000 " CovntyRood21wid&ni..gCnlyR(j9{)lo3kmsouth , 2015 , 4,000.000 S . , 4,000.000 $ 150,000 S ~ , 3.250,000 $ . , 3.250.000 " County Road 4 wld&n1nll: 100h 10 121h " 2015 , 4,500.000 S . , 4,500,000 $ 675,000 $ ~ , 3,825,00-0 $ ~ , 3.825,000- " Cou1llyRoad 21 widBl'lI..gHwy4001o CntyRd27 , 2015 , 4,650.000 $ . , 4.650,000 $ 750,000 $ , 3,900,00-0 $ ~ , 3,900.000 " Coonty Road 3D widooll'lg Cnty Rd 27 to Bame Cly limil$ " 20t5 , 3,675.000 $ . , 3,875,000 S 550.000 $ ~ , 3,325.000 $ ~ , 3.325,000- " CounlyRo&d93-Banialol-M-yl1EA&~sign 20" , 400.000 $ . , 400.000 $ ~ , . , 400.000 S ~ , "".000 .. County Roed 40 _ Barr;" \D Fomdllle EA & Des;gn 20" , 300,000 $ . , 300,000 $ ~ , . , 300.00(1 $ . , "".000 " County Road 27 widening 10 Cnty Rd30 '.5 2016 , 5,425.000 $ . , 5.425.000 S 875,000 $ . , 4,550.000 S . , 4,550.000 " CounlyRoad4widen;ng12!t1lOttwy89 " 2016 , 6,500.000 S ~ , 6.500.000 S 1,125,000 $ . , 5,375.000 S . , 5,375,000 " CoontyRoadl0wldoolr\gH...-y9toTo11Orthllm " 2016 , 5.425.000 S ~ , 5,425,000 $ 815,000 $ ~ , 4,550.000 $ ~ , 4,55O,OOIl .. Coonly Roa<l 27 _Hwy 2$ 10 CR 22EA& Olnign "" , 400.000 $ ~ , 400.000 $ ~ , ~ , 400,000 $ . , 400,000 " Coun!y Road 88 widening Hwy 400 10 Cnly Rd 27 '5 2017 , 5,810.000 $ . , 5.610,000 $: 875,000 $ , 4.935,000 $ . , 4,935.000 .. County Road 54 widening Cnty Rd 21 north 10 Bam& . 2017 , 6,200.000 $ ~ , 6.200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ . , 5.200,000 $ ~ , 5,200.000 " CO\l!l~ Road 4 widllOing Hwy 21 In CIIu'ch 5.' 2017 , 7,810,000 $ ~ , 7.610,000 $ 1,375,000 $ , 6.4:.JS,000 S ~ , 6,435,000 .. Coullly Road 89 _ eR 3910 Hwy 40 EA & Dfl1lln 2018 , 400,000 $ ~ , 400.000 S , ~ , 400,000 $ ~ , 400.000 " Counly Road 27 w;dBlllng Thorton 10 Cnty A'-' 30 , 2018 , 4,6SO.OOO $ . , 4.650.000 $ 750,0011 $ ~ , 3.900,000 $ ~ , 3.900.000 " County Road 4 widening Hwy 89 to Chulch '.2 2018 , 6,000,000 $ , 6.000,000 S 1,050.000 $ ~ , 4.081.556 $ 868.44-4 $ 4.950.000 " CooFllyRoad93 wideniogSarriotoHwy II 2 2019 , 3,100.000 $ ~ , 3.100,000 $ 500,000 $ . , 1.300.000 $ 1,300.000 $ 2.800.000 " County Rnad 4(lwidtning Barritl 10 Femdal& , 20111 , 1,550,000 $ , 1,550,000 $ 250.000 $ ~ , 650,000 S 650,000 $ 1.300.000 " County Road 27 . wlden;ng Hwy 26 10 CR 22 '.5 2020 , 10,875.000 $ ~ , 10,815,000 $ 1,875.000 $ . , 4.500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 9.000.000 " County Road 89wlde<1ln9 Cnty Rd 3910 Hwy 40 8 2021 , 12,400.000 S . , 12400000 $ 2.000,000 $ ~ , 5,200000 $ 5:200,000 $ 10.400,000 ~ o ~ """"" . o~ x. .. z. .. .. ." .~ " >z o~ i". ~li1 ~6 ~~ w~:s 8~li! ~:~ ... :5c" ~J~ zo. .~o o.~ f~ o. ". ~!i _0 g~ !is H. o I ~ i e:i . CI~~ c -~'" "l < I!, j"tl:: iii~ ~ " u8.nuu81 0880000000 ::!~:::~~5~ .............................. '8888888 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ 8888888888 88S-gg:'iiggg1jl :~:.'" '" '" '" '" "'''' d < , .0 ~~g~~@gg~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ .1. ~l5 . 88.8.UU.U81 ~~.~.~~~~.~~~ .............................. " .....!! 5~j o. ~~...~~~~~~J ~li ".0 nunnnj ~~~~~~~~~~ ..: ~...:..:..:..: ':-''':- .............................. ~ E " ~~~~~~~~~~ .1., .2~l!: { < . ~ J . """"'tn'tn~...,..."''lr>''lr>''t,., ~~WHHHH1~~~ BBBBBSlSlBS.!2 "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ~-~------- ii.l~H1l':l ii.ll<i;;:Ri~ [i3 -S.l'Il.l..\!l.l'l.l'llll.l'l!li1 Ii; i i Iii i ii i ii co !!~!!1!!!! KH" KIlIK !:EE:EE_.E.EES: PHPU'i j}H,jHli EEEEE!EEEE '~~ ~ c Oi ., ., li; ~ ., < <<<<"'H, o 00005000 ! , ~ i::;:g:;;:fl ~:il;;; ~ &l;! & . " . ~ 88...88888888888 g~i~i~%~ ~ $~~ ~~~.~ ..: NN ................................................ ~ ;; " i 88..888888888888 g~~ ~ri%~~~.~ ~~~~~~ _" <-iN ................................................ . ~ 8.8....88.8.8888888.8 Sl8.~8 ~ ~ ~ ~~g~~ S2~ ~ . ~ 88888888888888881 . . ~~~~8~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ if ..................MMMMMMM_MM M M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I M li t ~ . 8lilili88888888li888j ~.. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ MMMMMMMMM_M_MMMM . M :g.... "'.... \!!'"'''' ~ ~ Q....... "'.... $!m ~~~~~~fafa~~~~&~~~ . ~ i z ~ . ! . ~ . . .. . i ,,,,,, r ~ ~ ~11f~jj II .. '7 ." 1! ",,,,] 'F1! J B S ...:: i...... " '" _'I :,,';i fl 81'" i ~~ .ecr::~"" -[.5'! ~$' a:a:~~~~lljl"~e H-.i~1~8fpd" ~6"~~i]l3!~ij~!1l~~ ,;,';'~ff""~';!'!J!,,,~a.;;"" * ~ 8. &(l * ~ m! 6'" ~.... * ~ ~ "..... .".g..,.." a: a: ..a:.:t: a: 0: i5a: a: a:o:lXlX ~~~ ~~~~~;~~ttt~f ~8l~~S8~ffi!888888 =~N"'''''~''''''''''m~=~~~~~ i . '. li 5 ! ~ ! - . . ~ ~ li ~. .; g 5 w . i : < 0 . ~ I ~ . ~ ~ ~ . 8. . ~ ! li .; . " . E , . 8 ~ ili~ ~ . ~ i! ~ . . E < < . ii . .- . IliH." .!.o'~dll E 1 g <>- ~ ~ ;s. ~ ~ ,~.S.2 0.<>-1 .- '0 .:: ~ II Eg,~ h~' g,..~ .,.lll:d)E;-Btll" "oS *.$ . il ~ $ '7 . Ii ~ g, ~!! oS 'E"E. . "".!ii' ;;:;;;;fj~~'75j i:z1!-g~~:=~ :!~~~~~~ 1\""'''''''''''' c2&&~~&&~ ~l:~l:l:l:l:t HB!B.l . .. ~i1!l~]Ii ~q!,!~ ,Il,.l., ~.5~g,~.t~ mnu i~I~~~Ii '7;' '7 '7 '7;' i:. ~;!f~~S!:: 555;;J1l~~ .., .<!I<!Illl i1l~~g~";'~ g8g!3~8 a: a: a: 0: a: a: a: tbbbbbb 8~~!S~~ ~ . [ . ~ ! o " i o " .. ~~ ;;;;; f g ~ . i ! . " . . ~ 11 ..u.... &&&c2&&&c2 ~ HHHH !. 8888t888 2 ~ . I j -" I ); , ] . , ! ! ~ f o lf~~D.l'l!l!li'l !II 'Il E ~ i i ~ ~ i ~ ~ E E E E ~ H.n!!< <>-<>-eall.i5..l5.l5. Ii ,!,; - € E E E E HHWi ...",P .::<:'.E.!.'J.'J..$i ~~~.1f~.r:~'7 ~~~8~~~;; ~~~i~~~~ ~o;~?f~~~~ ~........................ I . l , . " I b ~ I g ~ it ~~ .8 q ". " &is' >< - , n p . ~ :' i~ H ~l , , .. ~. 7>= !! !~ "" i ij fl ~ Ul Ii ~ El~!!~Ei!! '5 10 E ~ C K [' < ;; tiU'!! ! ~'h", '. 'Io~"o * il,H lp'l '" $Iii!' ec:i~ ~ ~!i~~#'7!r~ ~ e:;g'gi~~.s-,,:~ ~ ,e 2: '......<: - <i; ....- IC:(l'8,:~fi"S~~8a:u-. ~ "Nm ...."''"' ~ i7i ~~i~i~~$~~~ '0 1~"ll"H~ ~i.i.!&~~J1&&&&! ~ofI~~b~~f~~ ~L~H!.l.l8.l.l 108 APPENDIX C TABLE 3 COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES CALCUl.A nON COUNTY ROADS AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. GROWTH RELATED CAPlT AL PROGRAM 2006 - 2025 2006 - 2025 Populalion in New Units 2006 . 2025 Growth in Square Me1ers 128,555 1.925.100 Growth-Related Ca ltal Forecast Total Growth- NelCost Total Growth- Related Total After Prior Related Service NelCapital (Net of Granls! Prior Replacement Growth & Post.2025 NelCapital Discount Costs After Residential Non.Resldentlal Subsidies) Growth Share Replacement Growth Costs Required Discount Share Share ($000) ($000) I""') ($000) ($000) 1$000) .. $00. (SOOO) % $00. % $000 COUNTY ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE Roads & Related Infrastructure Improvements $203,151 . $36,807 $166.345 $17,068 $149,276 0% . $149,27675% $111,957 25% $37,319 TOTAL COUNTY ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE $203,151 . $36,807 $166,345 $17,068 $149,276 $ $149,276 $111,957 $37,319 Unadjusted Development Charge Per Capita (S) $871 Unadjusted DeV1!lopmen1 Charge Per Sq. M. (S) $19.38 ..... o to HEMSON APPENDIX C TABLE -4- COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY CASHFLOW AND DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE: RESIDENTIAL CHARGE ROADS AND RELATED ROAD AND RELATED: RESIDENTIAL OPENING CASH BALANCE fROM APPLICABLE RESERVES 2006 2001 2008 200' 2010 2011 2012 2013 201-4- 2015 2016 OPENING CASH BALANCE ($000) 1.992.0 4,569.4 (46.8) 148.2 2,365.3 2.416.1 1,880.0 (2,171.5) (1,767.2) (8,310,1 2006.2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ROAD AND RELATED: RESIOENTlAL - constant ($000) $3,222.2 $3,654,9 $10,537.5 $5,B06.9 $4.050.0 $6.075,0 $6.616.8 $9,440.6 $5,606.3 $11.025.0 $12,356.3 . ROAD AND RELATED: RESIDENTIAL. current (SOOO) $3,222.2 $3,746,3 $11,071.0 $6,253.4 $4,470.4 $6,673.3 $7,675.7 $11,221.9 $6,830,7 $13,166.7 $15,817.0 POPULATION GROWTH '. Population in New Units 5,630 6,543 6,543 6.543 6.543 6.543 6.601 6,601 6,601 6.601 6.601 REVENUE. current ($000) Rate fOf2006 .Oev.ChargeRecelpts $915 Inflation: 2.5% 5,151.5 6,136.5 6,269.9 6.447,2 6,606.4 6.773.6 7,004.4 7,179.6 7,359.0 7,543.0 7.731.6 -Interest on Opening Belence Rete: 6.5% 0.0 129,5 298.3 (3.2) ,., 153.7 157.0 122.2 (141.2) (114.9) {540.2' . Inleresl 00 In-)Ifl!lr Transactions (e~djl1t.) Rete: 6.5% 62.7 71.7 (155.4) ,., 69.5 (3.21 (21.8) (131.4) 17.2 (202,3) (262.8)1 ITOTAL REVENUE 5,214.2 6,343_7 6,432.8 6,450.3 6.687_5 6.924.1 1,139.6 7,170.4 7,235.0 7,225,8 6,928.7 ICLOSING CASH BALANCE 64.1 1,992.0 4,589,4 (48.8) 146.2 2.365.3 2,416.1 1,880.0 (2.171.5) (1,767.2) (6.310.1) (17,198.5 Per Capita Total Roads and Related Charge Per Capita $915 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL OPENING CASH BALANCE ($000) (17,198.5) {29,145,8} (33,195.9) (29.683.4) (28,591.0) (28,137.2) (22,025.0) (15.317.0) (7,OO9.5) 2006-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ROAD ANO RELATED: RESIDENTIAL - constant ($000) $13,927.5 $7,486.2 $1.950.0 $3,862.5 $4.387.5 $467,5 $487.5 $487.5 $487.5 $111,957.0 ROAD ANO RELATED: RESIDENTIAL. current ($000) $18.274.1 $10,066.1 $2,668.1 $5.457.6 $6,354.4 $723.7 $741.8 $760.3 $779.3 $136,798.1 POPULATION GROWTH '. Population In New Unjts 6,485 6,485 6,485 6,465 6.485 6,195 6,195 6,195 6,195 128,555 REVENUE. current ($000) Rete for 2006 _Dev_ChergeRece!pls $915 Inflation: 2,5% 7,785,6 7,980.3 6,179.8 8,$4.3 8,593.9 8,414.8 8,625.2 6,840Jl 9,061.8 150,091.2 .lnlerestonOpening8alance Rate: 6,5% (1,117.9) (1,894.5) (2.157.7) (1,929.41 (1.858,4) (1.826.9) {1,431.6} (995.5) (518.0) (13,881.0 . lnlerest on !n_yearTransactionll {exd.int.) Rele: 6.5% (340.9) (67.9) 178,5 95.1 72.8 250.0 256.2 262.6 269.2 432.0 !TOTAL REVENUE 6,326.6 6.018.0 6,200.6 6,550.0 6,808.3 6,835.8 7,449,8 8.107.8 8,813.0 136,862.2 CLOSING CASH BALANCE 641 (29.145.8) (33,195.9) (29,683.4) (28.591.0) (26,137.2) (22,025.0) (15,317.0) (1,969.5) 641 Per Capita ~ I Total Roads and Related Charge Per Captta $915 ~ 0 lIDIlllll! APPENOIX C TABLES COUNTY OF SIMCOE 2006 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY CASHFLOW AND DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE: NON-RESIDENTIAL CHARGE ROADS AND RELATED ROAD AND RELATED: NON-RESIDENTIAL OPENING CASH BALANCE FROM APPLICABLE RESERVES 2006 '007 2008 '000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 OPENING CASH BALANCE (SOOO) 1,4404.4 2,872.2 1,937.5 2,667.3 04.127.1 5,166.9 5.162.8 3,995.5 04,322.7 2,343.6 bOO6-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ROAD AND RELATED: NON-RESlDENTIAl_ CClrlstant {SOOO} $1,014.1 $1,218,3 $3,512.5 $1,935.6 $1,350.0 $2,025.0 $2,206.3 $3.146.9 $1.868.8 $3.675.0 $4,118.8 ROAD AND RELATED: NON-RESIDENTIAL - current (SOOO) $1.074.1 $1,248.8 $3,690.3 $2,084.5 $1.490.1 $2,291.1 $2,558.6 $3.740.6 $2,276.9 $4,589.6 $5,212.3 NON_RESIDENTIAL GROWTH - New Building GFA - square metres 128.000 128.300 128,300 128,300 128,300 139,000 99.500 99,500 99,500 99.500 99,500 REVENUE - current ($000) Ralefor2006 -Dev. Charge Receipts $19,32 Inflation: 2.5% 2,473.0 2,540.7 2,604.2 2,669.3 2,736,' 3,038,4 2,229.3 2,285.1 2,342.2 2.400.7 2,460.6 -ln1erest on Opening Balance Rate: 6.5% 0.0 93.9 186.7 125.9 173.4 268.3 335.9 335.6 259.1 281.0 152.3 . Interest on In-year Transaclions {sxcUnq Rate: 6.5% 45.5 42.0 (35.3) 19.0 40.5 24.3 (10.7) (47.3) 2.' (71.1) (91,4), TOTAL REVENUE 2,518.5 2,676.6 2,155.6 2,B14.2 2.950.0 3,330.9 2.554.4 2,573.4 2,604.0 2,610.5 2,521,8 CLOSING CASH BALANCE 21.0 1,444.4 2,672,2 1,937.5 2,667.3 4,121.1 5,166.9 5,162.6 3.995.5 4,322,7 2.343.6 (406,9)' PerSq.M.ofGFA Total Roads and Related Charge Per Sq. Metfll S19.32 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 "l2' 2025 TOTAl. OPENING CASH BALANCE ($000) (408.9) (4,670.7) (6.336.1) (5,511.3) (5.544.4) (5,626.8) (4,559.4) (3.168.4) (1,644.8) 2006-2015 RESIDENTIAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ROAD AND RELATED: NON.RESIDENTlAL - conslant ($OOO) $4,642.5 $2,495.4 $650.0 $1.287.5 $1.462.5 $162.5 $162.5 $162.5 $162.5 $37,319.0 ROAD AND RELATED: NON-RESIDENTIAL - current ($000) $6.091.4 $3,356.0 $896.0 $1,819.2 $2,116.1 $241.2 $247.3 $253.4 $259.8 $-45,599.4 POPULATION GROWTH '- Population in New Units 78.400 76,400 78.400 18,400 76,400 64,000 64.000 64.000 64,000 1,925,700 REVENUE. current (SOOO) Rate for 2006 . Dev, Charge Recelpl1; $19.32 Inllation: 2.5% 1,987.4 2,037,1 2,088.0 2,140.2 2,193_7 1.635.6 1,881.5 1,928.5 1,976.7 45,848.5 . tnterest on Opening Balance Rate: 6.5% (26.5) (303.6) (411.8) (356.6) (360.4) (378.7) (296.4) (205.9) (106.9) (236.3)1 -lnterastonln_yeerTransactions(excl.lnt) Rete: 6.5% (133.4) (42,9) 36.7 10.4 2. 51.8 53,1 54.' 55.8 .., TOTAL REVENUE 1,827,6 1.690.6 1,714.9 1,792,0 1,835.8 1.506.7 1,636,3 1.117.0 1,925.6 45,620.3 CLOSING CASH BALANCE 21.0 (4,670.7) (6,336.1) (5,517.3) (5544.4) (5,826.8) (4,5S9.4) (3,166.4) (1,644.6) 21,0 Per Sq.M of GFA ~ )Total Road, and Ret.ted Charge Per Sq.M of GFA $19.32 ~ ~ WiIlWlII APPENDIX D LONG TERM CAPITAL AND OPERA TlNG COST IMPACTS HEMSON 112 APPENDIX D TABLE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE ESTIMATED NET OPERATING COST OF THE PROPOSED GROWTH-RELATED CAPITAL PROGRAM (in constant 2006 dollars) Net Cost Estimated Operating Costs ($000) IIn "'IIUV~' "'v",v ..uv, .....v.. ..vu.. "V'V "VI' "..." ""... "",.. ...",.. LIBRARY SERVICES Provision for fowth-related caottal works $0.15 Der$1.00ofnew $10.7 $21.4 $32.1 $42.8 $53.4 $64.1 $74.8 $85.5 $96.2 $106.9 lnven!o added PARAMEDIC SERVICES Vehicles $175,000 rvehicleadded $175.0 $175.0 $350.0 $350.0 $525.0 $525.0 $700.0 $700.0 $875.0 $875.0 LONG TERM CARE Buildln , land, Furniture, E uioment & Fleet no new net ex ndlture 1m acts $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 CHILD CARE SERVICES Provision for rowth-related ca ital works no new nel ex enditure imoacts $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0,0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 SOCIAL HOUSING Provision for orowth.relaled ciiilital works no new net exoenditure 1m cis $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 PUBLIC WORKS Buildina, land & Fleet $0.10 er $1.00 of new $71.2 $91.4 $108.6 $209.0 $226.2 $290.3 $300.3 $310.3 $320.3 $330.3 lnven! added GENERAL GOVERNMENT Growlh Related Studies no new net eXDendtture imoacts $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0,0 $0.0 $0.0 ROADS & RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE Growth Related Roads and Related Infrastructure $400.00 oer new household $777.8 $1,681.8 $2.585.8 $3,489.8 $4,393.8 $5.297.8 $6.209.8 $7,121.8 $8,033.8 $8,945.8 TOTAL ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS $000 1,034.7 1,969.6 $3,076.5 $4,091.6 5,198.5 $6,177.3 7,285.0 $8,217.6 9,325.3 $10,258.0 ~ ~ W HEMSON APPENDIX 0 TABLE 2. PAGE 1 COUNTY OF SIMCOE SUMMARY OF TAX SUPPORTED FUNDING REQUIREMENTS Net Capital Cost of Growth Related ProftM:ts 2006 2007 2008 20.. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL ~-"... .-............"'.."''''''''.. .uu'" ,.u...... \.UVV/ \.UV1IJ ,.UUtlJ ,.,OOU/ .uuu1 {.UtlU} \.Juuu1 I.JUOU) I$UUU GENERAL GOVERNMENT T olal Net Cost (1) 775,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 130.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 1,105.0 Net Cost From Development Cha es 2 697.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 117.0 0.0 90.0 90.0 0.0 994.5 Net Cost From Non-DC Sources 77,5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13,0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 110.5 - Discount Portion 3 77,5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 110,5 . Prior Growth 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 -Re aeemenl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - For Post 2015 Growth 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LIBRARY SERVlCES Total Net Cost f1\ 71.3 71.3 71.3 71.3 71.3 71.3 71.3 71.3 71.3 71.3 712.5 Net Cost From Davelo ment Cha es 2 64.' 64.1 64.' 64.' 64.1 64.' 64.1 64.' 64.1 64.' 641.3 Net Cost From Non.oC Sources ,., 7.' 7.1 7.' 7.' 7.' 7.' 7.' 7.' 7.' 71.3 - Discount Portion 3 7.' 7.' 7.' 7.1 7.' 7.' ,., 7.' 7.' 7.' 71.3 - Prior Growth 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .Re laeemen! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . For Post 2015 Growth 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PARAMEDtC SERVICES Total Net Cost (1) 1,651.9 0.0 435.6 0.0 435.6 0.0 435.6 0.0 435.6 00 3.394.2 Net Cost From Develo men!. Char es 2 665.7 0.0 392.0 00 392.0 0.0 392.0 0.0 179.2 0.0 2,021,0 Net Cost From Non.DC Sources 986.2 0.0 43.6 0.0 43.6 0.0 43.6 0.0 256.4 0.0 1.373.3 -DlscountPor1ion 3 74,0 0.0 43.6 0.0 43.6 0.0 43.6 0.0 19.9 0.0 224.6 -Prior Growth 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Re laeement 912.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 912.3 . For Post 2015 Growth 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 236.5 0.0 235.5 LONG TERM CARE Total Nel Cost (1) . 22,507.1 604.0 272.0 200.0 200,0 200.0 200.0 200,0 200.0 200.0 24.783.1 Net Cost From Dave! ment Cha as 2 10,218.2 543_6 244.8 160,0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 12,266.6 Net Cost From Non-DC Sources 12288.9 60.4 27.2 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 12,516.5 . Discount Portion 3 1,135.4 60.4 27.2 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 1.363.0 -Prior Growth 4 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Re tacement 11,153.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.153,5 . For Post 2015 Growth 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 CHtLD CARE SERVlCES Tolal Net Cos1/1\ 10.0 10.0 10,0 10-0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10,0 10.0 10.0 100,0 Net Cosl From Develo menl Cha e6 2 9.0 9.0 90 9.0 9.0 '.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 90.0 Net Cost From Non-DC Sources '.0 LO 10 '.0 '.0 '.0 10 '.0 '.0 '.0 10.0 . Discount Portion 3 '.0 10 10 '.0 '.0 10 '.0 LO 10 '.0 10.0 - Prior Growth 4 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Replacement 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - For Post 2015 Growth 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ ~ .p. No/es'OJFmtollllgrowlhreblledeapitalforeca$t_Appendi<;t.sB-C. (2) Share cl Capital prog,am 10 be funded 110m devalopmant charges If calcutatlld mill'! BI1l fuUy implem..ntad (3)Mandall:>r'y1O%reduclionfmaWllcBbleseMOOll {4jPortl()llo!gI'OWlh-relBledea"talfmllCasl;denlifjltdllSpri<>l'grcwth (5) Posl2015 growth re1al&d net capital COSIS may ba eligible for development charges in fulul1l OC by-laW!;, b<.ll interim financing 01 this share may be re{lui<ed HEMSON APPENDIX D TABLE 2. PAGE 2 COUNTY OF SIMCOE SUMMARY OF TAX SUPPORTED FUNDING REQUIREMENTS Net Capital Cost of Growth Related Projects 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL ___.... "n'_... .............~... f'..."..., I~"'UO) f"'vuJ l)uuuJ fluuuJ 1$0001 fSOOO) lSOOO) (SOOO) lSOOO} tSOOO) SOCIAL HOUSING Total NelCosl (1) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1,000.0 Net Cost From Development Char es 2 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 900.0 Net Cost From Non-DC Sources 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 - Discount Portion 3 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 - Prior Growth 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ Replacement 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - For Posl2015 Growth (5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PUBLIC WORKS Total NetCostl11 711.6 202.0 172.0 1,004.5 172.0 640.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3,303.0 Net Cost From Develo ment Charnes 21 640,5 181.8 154,8 904.1 154.8 516.7 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 2,912.1 Net Cost From Non.DC SOllf'ces 71.2 20.2 17.2 100,5 17,2 64.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 330.3 ~ Discount Portion 3 71.2 20,2 17.2 100.5 17.2 64.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 330.3 ~ Prior Growth (4) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ Re lacemenl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - For Posl 2015 Growth (5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total County-Wide General Total Net Cost (1) 25,826.9 987.3 1,060.8 1,385.8 988.8 1,152.1 916.8 581.3 1,018.8 481.3 34,397.8 Net Cost From Development Charaes 2 12,385.0 888.5 954.7 1,247.2 889.9 1,036.9 825.1 523.1 702.3 433.1 19,886.0 Net Cost From Non~DC Sources 13,441.9 98.7 106.1 138.6 98.9 115.2 91.7 58.1 314.5 48.1 14,511.8 - Discount Portion 3 1,376.1 98.7 106.1 138.6 98.9 115.2 91.7 58.1 78.0 48.1 2.209.6 - Prior Growth 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Re lacement 12,065.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12,065.8 . For Post 2015 Growth (5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 236_5 0.0 236.5 County-Wide EngIneering Total Net Cost f1i 5,794.5 8,196.5 15,650.0 10.990.0 6,700.0 10,250.0 10,700.0 14,950.0 8,950.0 17,425.0 109,606.0 Net Cost From Development Charges {2 4,296.3 4,873.3 14,050.0 7,742.5 5,400.0 8.100.0 8,825.0 12,587.5 7,475.0 14,700.0 88,049.5 Net Cost From Non-DC Sources 1.498.3 3,323.3 1,600.0 3,247.5 1,300.0 2150.0 1,875.0 2,362.5 1,475.0 2,725.0 21,556.5 . Discount Portion 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Prior Growth 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Re lacement 1,498.3 3,323.3 1,600,0 3.241.5 1,300.0 2,150.0 1,875.0 2.362.5 1,415.0 2,725.0 21,556.5 . For Post 2025 Growth 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ ~ 01 NOles: (1) For total gmwlh related cap1181 forecast $ee Appendices e-.c, (2) Share of Capital program to be funded from devell>pmenl charges if ca~ulated rate$ are fully implemented (3) MaI'ldalory 10% roductionfofapplicablesarvlces (4)POltiOl'lofgrowlt1--relaledcapitalfomca$lidenllfl&dasprio,gmwltl (5) Post 2015 (for General Service) / 2025 (for Engineered Service) growth rlllated IlRI capital cosls may be eligible iordevelopmenl charges in future DC by-laws. bullnterim financlng Of this share may be required (6)Coonty-wideEngineenngprog'amcovel$penod2QQ6.2025:onIy10yearcosliss\l(lWnhllr(l,Asprojecls have l'IOlbeen eashflowedoosls are spread evenly over lhe perlod. HEMSON APPENDIX E PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LA W HEMSON 116 1 DRAFT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW SUBJECT TO CHANGES ARISING FROM THE PUBLIC PROCESS AND CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE BY-LAW NUMBER XXXX-2006 A by-law to establish development charges for the Corporation of the County of Simcoe WHEREAS subsection 2( 1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 c. 27 (hereinafter called "the Act") provides that the council of a municipality may pass By-laws for the imposition of development charges against land for increased capital costs required because of the need for services arising from development in the area to which the by-law applies; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the County of Simcoe ("County of Simcoe") has given Notice in accordance with Section 12 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, of its intention to pass a by-law under Section 2 of the said Act; AND WHEREAS the Council of the County of Simcoe has heard all persons who applied to be heard no matter whether in objection to, or in support of, the development charge proposal at a public meeting held on March 28, 2006; AND WHEREAS the Council of the County of Simcoe had before it a report entitled Development Charge Background Study dated March, 2006 prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd., wherein it is indicated that the development of any land within the County of Simcoe will increase the need for services as defined herein; AND WHEREAS the Council of the County of Simcoe on XXXXX ##, 2006 approved the applicable Development Charge Background Study, dated March, 2006. in which certain recommendations were made relating to the establishment of a development charge policy for the County of Simcoe pursuant to the Development Charges Act. 1997. By-Law XXXX-2006117 2 NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCil OF THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE ENACTS AS FOllOWS: DEFINITIONS 1. In this by-law, (1) "Act" means the Development Charges Act, 1997, c. 27; (2) "Administration Service" means any and all studies carried out by the municipality with respect to eligible services for which a development charge by-law may be imposed under the Development Charges Act, 1997. (3) "Agricultural use" means a bona fide farming operation; (4) "Apartment dwelling" means any dwelling unit within a building containing more than four dwelling units where the units are connected by an interior corridor; (5) "Bedroom" means a habitable room larger than seven square metres, including a den, study, or other similar area, but does not include a living room, dining room or kitchen; (6) "Board of education" means a board defined in s.s. 1(1) of the Education Act; (7) "Building Code Act" means the Building Code Act, R.S.O. 1992, as amended; (8) "Capital cost" means costs incurred or proposed to be incurred by the municipality or a local board thereof directly or by others on behalf of, and as authorized by, the municipality or local board, (a) to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest; (b) to improve land; (c) to acquire, lease, construct or improve buildings and structures; (d) to acquire, lease, construct or improve facilities including, By-Law XXXX-2006118 3 (i) rolling stock with an estimated useful life of seven years or more, (ii) furniture and equipment, other than computer equipment, and (iii) materials acquired for circulation, reference or information purposes by a library board as defined in the Public Libraries Act, 1984, S.O. 1984, c. 57, and (e) to undertake studies in connection with any of the matters referred to in clauses (a) to (d); (f) to complete the development charge background study under Section 10 of the Act; (g) as interest on money borrowed to pay for costs in (a) to (d); required for provision of services designated in this by-law within or outside the municipality. (9) "Council" means the Council of The Corporation of the County of Simcoe; (10) "Development" means any activity or proposed activity in respect of land that requires one or more of the actions referred to in section 7 of this by-law and including the redevelopment of land or the redevelopment, expansion, extension or alteration of a use, building or structure except interior alterations to an existing building or structure which do not change or intensify the use of land; (11) "Development charge" means a charge imposed pursuant to this By- law; (12) "Dwelling unit" means a room or suite of rooms used, or designed or intended for use by, one person or persons living together, in which culinary and sanitary facilities are provided for the exclusive use of such person or persons; (13) "Farm building" means a building or structure actually used as part of or in connection with a bona fide farming operation and includes barns, silos and other buildings or structures ancillary to a bona fide farming operation, but excluding a residential use; By-Law XXXX-2006119 4 (14) "Grade" means the average level of finished ground adjoining a building or structure at all exterior walls; (15) "Gross floor area" means the total floor area measured between the outside of exterior walls, or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls. (16) "Industrial Building" means a building used for or in connection with, (a) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something, (b) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or processing something, (c) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production, or processing takes place, (d) office or administrative purposes, if they are, (i) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distributing of something, and (i1) in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution. (17) "Local board" means a public utility commission, public library board, local board of health, or any other board, commission, committee or body or local authority established or exercising any power or authority under any general or special Act with respect to any of the affairs or purposes of the municipality or any part or parts thereof; (18) "Local services" means those services or facilities which are under the jurisdiction of the municipality and are related to a plan of subdivision or within the area to which the plan relates, required as a condition of approval under s.51 of the Planning Act, or as a condition of approval under s.53 of the Planning Act; (19) "Multiple dwelling" means all dwellings other than single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and apartment dwellings; (20) "Municipality" means The Corporation of the County of Simcoe; By-Law XXXX-200612o 5 (21) "Non-residential uses" means a building or structure used for other than a residential use; (22) "Official plan" means the Official Plan of the County of Simcoe and any amendments thereto; (23) "Owner" means the owner of land or a person who has made application for an approval for the development of land upon which a development charge is imposed; (24) "Planning Act" means the Planning Act, 1990, RS.O. 1990, c.1, as amended; (25) "Regulation" means any regulation made pursuant to the Act; (26) "Residential uses" means lands, buildings or structures or portions thereof used, or designed or intended for use as a home or residence of one or more individuals, and shall include a single detached dwelling, a semi-detached dwelling, a multiple dwelling, an apartment dwelling, and the residential portion of a mixed-use building or structure; (27) "Semi-detached dwelling" means a building divided vertically into two dwelling units each of which has a separate entrance and access to grade; (28) "Services" means services set out in Schedule "A" to this By-law; (29) "Single detached dwelling" means a completely detached building containing only one dwelling unit CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 2. (1) Subject to the provisions of this By-law, development charges against land in the municipality shall be imposed, calculated and collected in accordance with the base rates set out in Schedule "B", which relate to the services set out in Schedule "A". (2) The development charge with respect to the use of any land, buildings or structures shall be calculated as follows: (a) in the case of residential development or redevelopment, or a residential portion of a mixed-use development or By-Law XXXX-2006121 6 redevelopment, the sum of the product of the number of dwelling units of each type multiplied by the corresponding total amount for such dwelling unit type, as set out in Schedule "S"; (b) in the case of non-residential development or redevelopment, or a non-residential portion of a mixed-use development or redevelopment, the development charge shall be the gross floor area of such area multiplied by the corresponding total dollar amount per square metre of gross floor area, as set out in Schedule "S". (3) Council hereby determines that the development or redevelopment of land, buildings or structures for residential and non-residential uses will require the provision, enlargement or expansion of the services referenced in Schedule "A". PHASE-IN OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND TRANSITION PROVISIONS 3. (1) The development charges imposed pursuant to this by-law are not being phased in and are payable in full, subject to the exemptions herein, from the effective date of this by-law. APPLICABLE LANDS 4. (1) Subject to Sections 5 and 6, this by-law applies to all lands in the municipality, whether or not the land or use is exempt from taxation under Section 3 ofthe Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, cA31. (2) This by-law shall not apply to land that is owned by and used for the purposes of: (a) a board of education; (b) any municipality or local board thereof; (a) a place of worship exempt under s.3 of the Assessment Act; (b) a public hospital under the Public Hospitals Act. (c) farm buildings as defined herein; By-Law XXXX-2006122 7 RULES WITH RESPECT TO EXEMPTIONS FOR INTENSIFICATION OF EXISTING HOUSING 5. (1) Notwithstanding Section 4 above, no development charge shall be imposed with respect to developments or portions of developments as follows: (a) the enlargement of an existing residential dwelling unit; (b) the creation of one or two additional residential dwelling units in an existing single detached dwelling where the total gross floor area of each additional unit does not exceed the gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit; (c) the creation of one additional dwelling unit in any other existing residential building provided the gross floor area of the additional unit does not exceed the smallest existing dwelling unit already in the building. (2) Notwithstanding subsection 5(1)(b), development charges shall be calculated and collected in accordance with Schedule "B" where the total residential gross floor area of the additional one or two dwelling units is greater than the total gross floor area of the existing single detached dwelling unit. (3) Notwithstanding subsection 5(1)(c), development charges shall be calculated and collected in accordance with Schedule "B" where the additional dwelling unit has a residential gross floor area greater than, (a) in the case of semi-detached house or multiple dwelling, the gross floor area of the smallest existing dwelling unit, and (b) in the case of any other residential building, the residential gross floor area of the smallest existing dwelling unit. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IMPOSED 6. (1) Subject to subsection (2), development charges shall be calculated and collected in accordance with the provisions of this by-law and be imposed on land to be developed for residential and non-residential use, where, the development requires, By-Law XXXX-2006123 8 (i) the passing of a zoning by-law or an amendment thereto under Section 34 of the Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, c.P. 13; (ii) the approval of a minor variance under Section 45 of the Planning Act, RS.O.1990, c.P.13; (iii) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 49(7) of the Planning Act, R S.O. 1990, c.P.13 applies; (iv) the approval of a plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, c.P. 13; (v) a consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, c.P.13; (vi) the approval of a description under Section 50 of the Condominium Act, RS.O. 1980, c.84; or (vii) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, in relation to a building or structure. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in respect to (a) local services installed or paid for by the owner within a plan of subdivision or within the area to which the plan relates, as a condition of approval under Section 51 of the Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, c.P. 13; (b) local services installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 53 of the Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, c.P.13. LOCAL SERVICE INSTALLATION 7. Nothing in this by-law prevents Council from requiring, as a condition of an agreement under Section 51 or 53 of the Planning Act, that the owner, at his or her own expense, shall install or pay for such local services, within the Plan of Subdivision or within the area to which the plan relates, as Council may require. By-Law XXXX-2006124 9 MULTIPLE CHARGES 8. (1) Where two or more of the actions described in subsection 6(1) are required before land to which a development charge applies can be developed, only one development charge shall be calculated and collected in accordance with the provisions of this by-law. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), if two or more of the actions described in subsection 6(1) occur at different times, and if the subsequent action has the effect of increasing the need for municipal services as set out in Schedule "A", an additional development charge on the additional residential units and non-residential floor area, shall be calculated and collected in accordance with the provisions of this by- law. SERVICES IN LIEU 9. (1) Council may authorize an owner, through an agreement under Section 38 of the Act, to substitute such part of the development charge applicable to the owner's development as may be specified in the agreement, by the provision at the sole expense of the owner, of services in lieu. Such agreement shall further specify that where the owner provides services in lieu in accordance with the agreement, Council shall give to the owner a credit against the development charge in accordance with the agreement provisions and the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, equal to the reasonable cost to the owner of providing the services in lieu. In no case shall the agreement provide for a credit which exceeds the total development charge payable by an owner to the municipality in respect of the development to which the agreement relates. (2) In any agreement under subsection 9(1), Council may also give a further credit to the owner equal to the reasonable cost of providing services in addition to, or of a greater size or capacity, than would be required under this by-law. (3) The credit provided for in subsection (2) shall not be charged to any development charge reserve fund. By-Law XXXX-2006125 10 RULES WITH RESPECT TO RE-DEVELOPMENT 10. In the case of the demolition of all or part of a residential or non-residential building or structure: (1) a credit shall be allowed, provided that the land was improved by occupied structures within the five years prior to the issuance of the building permit, and the building permit has been issued for the development or redevelopment within five years from the date the demolition permit has been issued; and (2) if a development or redevelopment involves the demolition of and replacement of a building or structure, or the conversion from one principal use to another, a credit shall be allowed equivalent to: (a) the number of dwelling units demolishedlconverted multiplied by the applicable residential development charge in place at the time the development charge is payable, andlor (b) the gross floor area of the building demolishedlconverted multiplied by the current non-residential development charge in place at the time the development charge is payable. 11. A credit can, in no case, exceed the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable, and no credit is available if the existing land use is exempt under this by-law. TIMING OF CALCULATION AND PAYMENT 12. (1) Development charges shall be calculated and payable in full in money or by provision of services as may be agreed upon, or by credit granted and defined by various references in the Development Charges Act, on the date that the first building permit is issued in relation to a building or structure on land to which a development charge applies. (2) Where development charges apply to land in relation to which a building permit is required, the building permit shall not be issued until the development charge has been paid in full. By-Law XXXX-2006126 11 RESERVE FUNDS 13. (1) Monies received from payment of development charges under this by- law shall be maintained in separate reserve funds as per the service set out in Schedule "A". (2) Monies received for the payment of development charges shall be used only in accordance with the provisions of Section 35 of the Act. (3) Where any development charge, or part thereof, remains unpaid after the due date, the amount unpaid shall be added to the tax roll and shall be collected as taxes. (4) Where any unpaid development charges are collected as taxes under subsection (4), the monies so collected shall be credited to the development charge reserve funds referred to in subsection (1). (6) The Treasurer of the Municipality shall, in each year commencing in 2007 for the 2006 year, furnish to Council a statement in respect of the reserve funds established hereunder for the prior year, containing the information set out in Section 12 of O.Reg. 82/98. BY-LAW AMENDMENT OR APPEAL 14. (1) Where this by-law or any development charge prescribed thereunder is amended or repealed either by order of the Ontario Municipal Board or by resolution of the Municipal Council, the Municipal Treasurer shall calculate forthwith the amount of any overpayment to be refunded as a result of said amendment or repeal. (2) Refunds that are required to be paid under subsection (1) shall be paid with interest to be calculated as follows: (a) Interest shall be calculated from the date on which the overpayment was collected to the date on which the refund is paid; (b) The Bank of Canada interest rate in effect on the date of enactment of this by-law shall be used. (3) Refunds that are required to be paid under subsection (1) shall include the interest owed under this section. By-Law XXXX-2006127 12 BY-LAW INDEXING 15. The development charges set out in Schedule "B" to this by-law shall be adjusted annually as of July 1, without amendment to this by-law, in accordance with the most recent twelve month change in the Statistics Canada Quarterly, "Construction Price Statistics". SEVERABILITY 16. In the event any provision, or part thereof, of this by-law is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be ultra vires, such provision, or part thereof, shall be deemed to be severed, and the remaining portion of such provision and all other provisions of this by-law shall remain in full force and effect. HEADINGS FOR REFERENCE ONLY 17. The headings inserted in this by-law are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this by-law. BY-LAW REGISTRATION 18. A certified copy of this by-law may be registered on title to any land to which this by-law applies. BY-LAW ADMINISTRATION 19. This by-law shall be administered by the Municipal Treasurer. SCHEDULES TO THE BY-LAW 20. The following Schedules to this by-law form an integral part of this by-law: Schedule A Designated Municipal Services Under this By-Law Schedule B - Schedule of Development Charges DATE BY-LAW EFFECTIVE 21. This By-law shall come into force and effect on XXXXX #, 2006. By-Law XXXX-2006128 13 SHORT TITLE 24. This by-law may be cited as the "County of Simcoe Development Charge By- law, 2006." READ a first and second time this ##lh day of XXXXXX, 2006. READ a third time and finally passed in Open Council this ##lh day of XXXXX, 2006. Warden, County of Simcoe Clerk, County of Simcoe By-Law XXXX-200612g 14 SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW #XXXX-2006 DESIGNATED MUNICIPAL SERVICES UNDER THIS BY-LAW 1. Library Services 2. Paramedic Services 3. Long-Term Care 4. Child Care Services 5. Social Housing 6. Public Works 7. General Government 8. Roads & Related By-Law XXXX-2006130 15 COUNTY OF SIMCOE SCHEDULE "B" BY-LAW NO. XXXX-2006 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SERVICES Singles & Rows & ($/Sq.M) Semis Other Multiples Apartments LIBRARY SERVICES $30 $24 $21 $0.00 PARAMEDIC SERVICES $71 $56 $49 $0.54 LONG TERM CARE $659 $527 $461 $0,00 CHILD CARE SERVICES $3 $2 $2 $0.03 SOCIAL HOUSING $42 $34 $29 $0.00 PUBLIC WORKS $102 $82 $72 $0.87 GENERAL GOVERNMENT $36 $29 $25 $0.28 SUB-TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES $943 $754 $659 $1.72 ROADS & RELATED $2,745 $2.196 $1,922 $19,32 SUB-TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES $2,745 $2,196 $1,922 $19.32 TOTAL $3,688 $2,950 $2,581 $21.04 By-Law XXXX-2006131 '-"< Township of Oro-Medonte, 148 Line 7 South, ORO, Ontario. LOL 2XO S"t - I COLDWATER & DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL SOCIElY ?!dta~.d /5.93' ~ Box 339, Coldwater, Ontario LOK lEO Attention: Mayor Neil Craig & Councillors Dear Your Worship & Council: The "COLDWA TER & DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY" was established in 1894. It serves a large area of Simcoe County with cattle, sheep, goat and horse shows, rural life skills, needle work, home crafts, horticultural displays, youth and public school events, agricultural crops, large and small animal competitions, five major horses show categories. We also host a very large antique farm machinery display, tractor pull, ATV pull and demolition derby. With an attendance of over 6,500, our venue offers opportunity for the promotion of Agricultural ways of life and a strong sense of values for family friends and community. Last summer, our enclosed storage/large animal show barn was destroyed by fire which was set by vandals. We are going to build a new open pole barn show area and a separate new storaQe barn at a more secure area. The original barn was insured under the Township of Severn insurance policy with a $ 10,000 deductible which is to be shared equally by the Fair Board and the Township. The Fair Board is faced with the following expenses to replace equipment, upgrade an existing structure and build a new secure storage building. $ 9,800 $ (2,085) $ 7,715 $ 6,750 $ 18,500 $ 5.000 Replacement Costs of Lost Equipment Insurance Payment Upgrade to Existing Structure (Estimated) New Storage Building Fair Board Portion of Deductible ".'1 ~ Sub Total......... $ 37,965 Monies Raised to Date... Rodeo income Fund Raising Dance Private Donations Fair Board Savings Sub Total... .. . ... MONIES NEEDED......... $ (5,440) $ (3,465) $ ( 495) $ (6.750) $(16,140) $ 21,825 We are asking each ofthe neighbouring Townships to consider helping us rebuild our fair buildings and equipment needs. How much help am I asking for? I will be up front and ask for you to consider a contribution of $ 2,500 over the next two years. If each Township could help, the Fair Board feels we could raise the remaining funds of over $ 10,000 with three or four fund raising events. We thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 705- 835-6489. Sincerely, COLDWA TER & DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY // /.-, ~tr6 ~ E. Robert (Bob) Burk Past President R.R.# 1, 3778 Vasey Road, Waubaushene, Ontario. LOK 2CO ERB:sb ~u - \ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. TR2006-07 To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: Paul Gravelle Subject: Treasurer's Department: Treasury Statement of remuneration Council C.ofW. Date: March 13, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: Date: RolI#: II BACKGROUND: II S. 284 of the Municipal Act stipulates that the Treasurer shall in each year on or before March 31st provide to Council an itemized statement of remuneration and expenses paid in the previous year to each member of Council and each person, other than a member of Council, appointed by the municipality to serve as a member of any body, including a local board. II ANALYSIS: II Please find attached the Treasurer's statement of remuneration and expenses for the year 2005. II RECOMMENDATION(S): II 1. THAT Report No. TR2006-07 be received. Respectfully su~mitted/L' 1 /1 "\ ,,) - /" } " { , J i '+ f:J( /J(.~~ Paul Gravelle Treasurer TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE TREASURER'S STATEMENT OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR 2005 SALARY MEETING REGISTRATION ACCOMODATIONS MILEAGE TOTAL FEES FEES MEALS,ETC. COUNCIL Neil Craig 23,088,00 7,050,00 435.00 887,94 1,612.84 33,073.78 Harry Hughes 17,847,00 6,300,00 790.00 783.78 543,09 26,263.87 Daniel Buttineau 13,232.20 3,375.00 615.00 794.25 771,97 18,788.42 Ralph Hough 13,232.20 5,049.00 615.00 799.90 1,217.76 20,913.86 Paul Marshall 13,232.20 5,493.10 625.00 705.36 377.10 20,432.76 John Crawford 13,232.20 5,400.00 110.00 279.96 19,022.16 Ruth Fountain 13,232.20 5,100.00 540.00 490.72 432.25 19,795.17 107,096.00 37,767,10 3,730.00 4,461,95 5,234.97 158,290.02 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Lynda Aiken Michelle Lynch Gary Potter David Edwards Allan Johnson 2,700.00 2,625.00 2,625.00 2,850.00 2,850,00 13,650,00 95.00 95.00 114.82 302.80 105.79 183.55 332.03 1,038,99 95,00 285.00 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mel Coutanche Terry Allison Craig Drury Robert Barlow John Miller 525.00 525.00 300.00 600.00 600.00 2,550,00 91.59 116.82 13.08 106.54 85.23 413.26 prepared by Paul Gravelle, Treasurer March 13, 2006 2,909.82 3,022.80 2,730.79 3,033.55 3,277.03 14,973.99 616.59 641.82 313,08 706.54 685.23 2,963,26 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE TREASURER'S STATEMENT OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR 2005 SALARY MEETING REGISTRATION ACCOMODATIONS MILEAGE TOTAL FEES FEES MEALS,ETC. RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Lynette Mader Bob Gregory Ian Hunter 300.00 375,00 450,00 1,125.00 69.16 30.37 20,09 119,62 369,16 405,37 470.09 875.46 NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Ruth Fountain Ralph Hough 831.60 712,80 1,544.40 464.00 518.40 982.40 1,295.60 1,231.20 2,526.80 LAKE SIMCOE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Paul Marshall 678,70 580.02 1,258.72 LAKE SIMCOE REGIONAL AIRPORT John Crawford Ralph Hough Len Leach 1,979.20 1,583.36 1,979.20 5,541.76 1,979.20 1,583,36 1,979.20 5,541.76 prepared by Paul Gravelle, Treasurer March 13, 2006 BURNSIDE l Ch.. - \;'-\ 1Jv~ '-\- ~ ~ \ (2)\0 . \.~ 0\ \0 ""~~".. . ~\<-~. ~"\Co""'\\ c,\~. .L ....H\,.."_c. ~ \(\'\M;\ TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE MEMORANDUM II II To: Mayor & Members of Council cc: Jennifer Zieleniewski Paul Gravelle From: Jerry Ball R.M. File #: March 15, 2006 Roll #: Date: Subject: Gravel Road Upgrades A Road Needs study was commissioned in November 2005 to RJ Burnside Associates from Collingwood. The final report should be completed in late May 2006 for councils consideration. Prior to this study being completed Councilor Ralph Hough presented a request (copy attached) to consider hard topping all of the existing 200 plus km of gravel roads within the municipality during the 2006 budget deliberations. RJ Burnside and myself prepared an inventory (attached) complete with a cost and schedule to apply a double surface treatment to all gravel roads within the next 3 years for councils review and consideration. This item will be added to the Committee of the Whole agenda next Wednesday March 22 2006 for further discussion. Please bring your copy. Jerry Page I of2 ... . Jerry Ball From: Ralph Hough [ralph.hough@oro-medonte.ca] Sent: Sunday, September 25,20054:00 PM To: Neil Craig; Harry Hughes; Dan Buttineau; John Crawford; Paul Marshall; Ruth Fountain Cc: Jennifer Zieleniewski; Paul Gravelle; Jerry Ball Subject: 2006 Roads budget. Hello everyone. As department heads begin to think about the 2006 budget I would like you to consider the following: In 2006 we will receive in excess of$I,OOO,OOO from the CRF and a further $178.565 in gas tax refund money. As you are all aware, most of us receive more complaints about our roads than any other service we provide to our residents. Most of these complaints are from North of the Horseshoe Valley Road, where the bulk of the gravel roads are located. As I have pointed out in the past most of the capital projects on our roads are on roads south of the Horseshoe Valley Road. As I pointed out at our 2005 budget discussions, between 2004 and 2008 a total of 48 capital projects were planned. Of this total 14 were north ofH.V.R. and 34 were south of H.V.R. In terms ofa dollar value, $1,795, 480 worth of work is scheduled for North ofH.V.R. and $4,640,460 is scheduled south ofH.V.R. We are now considering an additional $3,000,000 worth of work on Line 3, all of which is south of Horseshoe Valley Road. $1,000,000 of this will need to be financed by all of the taxpayers in the township. If this project proceeds it will mean that between 2004 and 2008 $1,795,480 worth of work will have been done on our roads north of Horseshoe Valley Road and $7,640,460 on roads south ofH.V.R. This is not fair to the northern residents of our Township who pay the same tax rate. I would like to propose that all of the money we are slated to receive from the Province in the next few years be put into Tar and Chip on our gravel roads until they are all done. I am well aware that Jerry does not like tar and chip as it supposedly doesn't last. I know Ian Beard told me the 10th. in front of his house was done with tar and chip about 20 years ago and it was only supposed to be good for 5 to 10 years. It is still in reasonably good shape. Consider though, that since I was first elected to Council in 1997 we have spent approximately $2,000,000 on calcium and oil, which for the most part are useless. We also have six graders at a cost of approximately $300,000 each. Jerry has told us that if all the roads were hard top we could dispense with one grader. There is no question that if we did Tar and Chip these roads would eventually have to be properly hard topped but in my opinion this temporary, long term fix would satisfY most of our residents. The bulk of the money for this work would come from the Province, we would save $250,000 per year on calcium, plus we could dispose of one grader. There are also considerable savings on maintenance. According to our latest Performance Measures it costs us $477/km to maintain hard top roads versus $14011km for gravel roads. If these figures are correct we spend $1,431,000/year to maintain our hard top roads ($477 X 300 km.) and $4,203,000 to maintain our gravel roads. ($!401 X 300 km.) If these figures are correct we could save approximately $2.5 million/year on maintenance if all our roads were hard top. I presume these figures are arrived at by calculating the wages and benefits of our staff plus the capital and operating costs of equipment. According to Jerry it costs approximately $15,000/ km to tar and chip including the preparation work and the actual finish. Based on this figure we could do all of the 300 km. of gravel road in our Township in approximately 2 years. This is based on receiving on average $1,180,000 in CRF and gas tax, $250,000 savings on calcium/oil, $300,000 disposal of grader and greatly reduced maintenance 9/30/2005 . Page 2 of2 .~ .. . costslkm of road. I realize we are awaiting a Road Revue report but as we have not yet received this report and budget preparations are looming I feel this suggestion has a lot of merit. I look forward to further discussion on this issue as we approach our budget deliberations. Ralph Hough 9/30/2005 PavedlHardtop Roads that need Upgrades South Line9 - Ridge Rd to Lake ---------------- 1.3 km 8mi Point & McLean Crest.---------------4.0 km Line 10-Hwy II to Ridge Rd--------------1.3 km Line 9 - Hwy II to Barrie Rd -------------6.1 km Line 5 - Hwy II to 15/16 Sd Rd ----------3.2 km Ski Trails Rd Hwy 93 to Line3 -----------4.3 km Total 20.2 X 86000 = $1,737,200.00 North Line 3 Cty Rd 23 to Cty Rd 19 __________________________5.1 km Line 4 Cty Rd 19 to Peter St. ____________________________2.0 km Line 9 Cty Rd 23 to Peter St. ____________________________1.1 km Andersen Line Foxmead Rd to Hwy 12 ________________1.0 km Stage Coach Rd Hwy 12 to Andersen Line -------------1.5 km Line 7 Cty Rd 22 to Mill Pond Rd ________________________2.0 km Line 10 Cty Rd 22 to Warminster Sd Rd -----------------2.4 km Warminster Sd Rd Hwy 12 to Line 12 -------------------1.5 km Line 7 Mt Rd to Cty Rd 19 _________________________________2.5 km Total 19.1 km X $86000.00 = $ 1,642,600.00 Overall Total 39.3 km I I I (b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BURNSiDE Township of Oro.Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads 2007 to 2009 Prepared by R.J,Burnside & Associates Limited 3 Ronell Crescent Collingwood ON 19Y 4J6 Canada March 2006 File No: MCG 09599 The material in this report refletts best judgement in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or de cisionsmade based on it, are the responsibilities 01 such third parties. RJ.Burnside&AssociatesLimitedacceptsnoresponsibilityfordamageS,ifany,sufferedby any third party as a result of decisions made or ac!ions based on this report. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Township of Oro.Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads. 2007 to 2009 March 2006 Table of Contents 1.0 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 1 3.0 Hardtop Surfacing Program.......................................................................................................2 4.0 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 3 Appendices A Three Year Hardtop Surfacing Program B Three Year Hardtop Surfacing Plan C Four Year Reconstruction/Hardtop Resurfacing Program R.J.Burnside & Associates limited MCG 09599 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Township of Oro.Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads, 2007 to 2009 March 2006 1.0 Background The Township ofOro-Medonte retained RJ. Burnside & Associates Limited to complete a Road Needs Study, which would be based on a visual assessment of the condition of the existing Township roads; provide an inventory on existing surface material/width and traffic volume; and provide a ten-year Maintenance and Capital Works. The Township presently has approximately 614 km of roads within the Township road system. There is 228 kilometres of gravel surface roads. Burnside was directed by Township staff to review the costs associated with the hardtop surfacing of existing gravel roads. 2.0 Methodology The existing surface types (asphalt, concrete, surface treatment and gravel) for each Township road was provided to Burnside by Township staff Existing traffic counts (20 road sections), where available, were also provided, The rating criteria, which were used to develop a priority list of gravel roads to hardtop, can be found in Table 1. TABLE 1 Improvement Inprovement Description Priority Rating Criteria Code I GBA Gravel roads within built up areas (i.e. shoreline developments), 2 GRCOM Gravel roads, which Council has received petitions/delegations for a hardtop surface. 3 GPHCR Gravel roads that connect provincial highways to county roads, 4 GCRCR Gravel roads that connect to county roads. 5 GCBA Gravel roads that connect to built up areas. 6 GPRCR Gravel roads that connect to hardtop roads. 7 DEGR Gravel roads that have a dead-end, R.J.Burnside & Associates Limited MCG 09599 I I I I Township of Oro-Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads. 2007 to 2009 March 2006 2 The improvement cost for each road section was calculated by using the road section length and a benchmark cost for double surface treatment ($19,000 per kilometer), The benchmark cost was developed from similar projects completed in 2005 by the Township. I I 3.0 Hardtop Surfacing Program A Three Year Hardtop Surfacing Program was developed, which was based on the placement of double surface treatment on existing gravel roads without any base or drainage improvements, I I I I I I I I I The details of the proposed Three Year Hardtop Surfacing Program are included in Appendix A. The plans showing the improvement sections and year can be found in Appendix B. Table 2 provides a summary of the Three Year Hardtop Surfacing Program Table 2 YEAR ROAD lENGTH (km) COST 2007 80.4 $1,527,001 2008 71.5 $1,358,676 2009 76.9 $1,461,499 TOTAL 228.8 $4,347,177 As noted above, the Three Year Hardtop Surfacing Program is based on the placement of double surfacement treatment on the existing gravel road base. It has been the Township's practice to make improvements to the road's base and drainage system before placing a hardtop surface, These improvements would include tree removal, ditching, excavation of poor road base, sight line improvements, geotextile matt, 150 mm of Granular Band 150 mm of Granular A, I I I I The details of a Four Year Reconstruction Hardtop Resurfacing Program are included in Appendix C. The improvement cost for each road section was calculated by using the road section length and a benchmark cost for gravel reconstruction ($67,000 per kilometer). Table 3 provides a summary of this program. R.J.Burnside & Associates limited MCG 09599 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Township of Oro-Madonta Hardtop Surfacing Program lor Gravel Roads, 2007 to 2009 March 2006 3 Table 3 YEAR ROAO LENGTH (km) I COST i 2007 98.1 (R-G) $ 6,570,524 2008 70.6 (R-G) $ 6,532,544 95.0 (DST) 2009 60.2 (R-G) $ 5,430,416 73.6 (DST) 2010 60.2 (DST) $ 1,143,210 TOTAL $19,676,694 4.0 Summary The Township of Oro-Medonte has an existing road system with 229 km of gravel surface roads. The total cost to place double surface treatment on existing gravel roads without any base or drainage improvements is estimated to be in the order of 4.35 million dollars. The total cost to reconstruct the existiug gravel roads as per current Township practices and place double surface treatment is estimated to be in the order of 19.68 million dollars. Respectively Submitted, R.J. Burnside & Associates limited C~1 /~~~'-7 Cecil Gratrix, C.E.T., rcca CAG:sj Ene. F: \09599\DOCS\RPTS\03082006gra velhardtopprogram .doc R.J.Burnside & Associates limited MCG 09599 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (b BURNSiDE Appendix A Three Year Hardtop Surfacing Program - - ROAD 10 9470 9481 9492 5064 7856 5538 5593 5594 4399 -5823 9772 5046 10114 7803 7835 5083 5103 9201 9311 7902 9085 7802 7762 7809 7836 7867 7900 10063 10080 7804 97e8 9065 9086 9149 9240 9377 19120 9380 9406 9431 9440 8817 10688 7650 7720 - - - ROAD NAME !- --- BARBARA AVENUE BARBARA AVENUE ____ IBARBARAl-VENUE--- _ _JBARR AVEN_UE BASSARAB PLAcE BEACH ROAD BEACHROAD BEACH ROAD !BU"N_ET STREET ,COOK LANE CRAWFORD STREET DEVITT STREET FORR-ESTER ROA-O- FRANKO STREET FRANKO STREET ,GANTON ROAD" I GANT..ON ROAD- ___ _ IGRANDVIEW CRESCENT GRANDVIEW CR-ESCENT HL YNKA PLACE - INDIAN ROAD : KARPATIAN PLACE 'LEIGH ROAD - U_ LEIGH ROAD LEIGH ROAD jL[OIGHRO!\.D 'LEIGH ROAD LINE 3S 'LINE 3S MAZEPA PLACE -.IMCARTHUR STREET -- ~~~g~i~t g:~I~~~ 'MEMORIAL CRESCENT MITCHEITROAD ORILLiA ROAD- ORILLlA ROAD ORO ROAD [oR6ROAD-- 'ORO ROAD- I -- - -- ,ORO ROAD IpOptAR CRESCENT - 'RANGE ROAD- ROBINSON STREET SHEWCHENKO R-OAD - - ----- Township of Oro-Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Double Surface Treatment EXIST. SURFACE MATERIAL 1 ------------ ~----- GRAVEL ' GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL , GRA VEL---I GRAVEL - GRAVEL GRAVEL 1 GRAVEL ! - GRAVEL GRAVEL _(;RA VEL I _ GRAVEL ' GRAVEL GRAVEL 1 GRAVEL I ()RAVEL 1- .CJRA VEL L__ GRAVEL__1 GRAVEL_ : GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL 1 GRAVEL 1__ GRAVEL_ GRAVEL 1 I GRAVE~_ 1"50-199--1 GRAVEL' ' -GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL -GRAVEL - GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL AADT RANGE 1 IMPROVE CRITERIA CODE GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA -GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA _uGBA GBA GBA , GBA ! GBA r---GBA , GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA -GBA I - - - - IMPROVE PRIORITY RATING ROAD 1 IMPROVE LENGTH (m) TYPE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IMPROVE YEAR DST DST DST CST-- DST DST DST CST DST DST CST DST DST DST DST DST CST DST bST DST -,-- CST CST DST DST DST DST DST --,--- CST DST DST DST ----I- Dsf- 1 _ _ DST I DST bST DST DST DST DST DST DST DST DST DST ' _ __ _L_ DST 1 2007 , 2001.. !---- 2007 I 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 1_2007 , 2007 2007 2007 n: - 2007 ' 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 -2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 I 2007 - - I --- 2007 I T-- 2007 __ ! -. 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 , -2007 2007 -2007 2007 -.-- 2007 2007 - - APPENDIX A - 163 51 52 , -f23 _ 1 -149 I ....J35. 142 174 156 616 71 128 210 113 109 50 73 217 681 151 208 148 112 11E 55 60 82 411 51 165 66 83 325 TI5 i09 80 84 193 138 127 i 1~~1 1 436 ' 943 225 COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST $3,100' $966'1 $979 $2,346'--- $2,836'-- $1,613 $2,689 $3,304 - $2,967 $11,703: $1,35( $2,426. -u$3,ge1 ' $2,149 $2,077- .. $9561 $1,387 $4,1291 $12,938: $2,878 -$3,956 ; $2,804' - $2,135 $2,187. $1,038 - $1,~44i $1,551, $7,809, $969' $3,142: --$1,2-601:-- - $1,581 $6,183 -$2,177, ::- - $3,970 -$1,524 $1,588 $3,662 $2,629:- $iHi~:: _~1l,291 ' $17,917i $4,266 . F:09599/DOCS/RPTS/030620069ravelhardtopplan.xlsDouble Surface Treatment Date Printed:3/08/06 - -- ROAD ID 7769 9386 9494 9500 9511 9457 9465 9472 9438 9449 9459 8013 9413 11175 6976 4181 7054 7270 7735 7999 4064 4472 6033 5188 5521 10249 9853 11092 7512 6960 4111 ~ 4535 5296 6783 6810 6876 8838 9507 81e5 8222 ~7278 8767 904e 736i 4969 ------------ Township of Oro-Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Double Surface Treatment ROAD NAME SHEWCHENKO ROAD SIMCOE ROAD ISOPHIA AVENUE ~I~SOPHIA AVENUE SOPHIA iWENUE SlMNYSIDE AVENUE--- SUNNYSIDE AVENUE SUNNYSIDE AVENUE iSYMOND AVENUE j............................_______m___m_..............._____ ISYMOND AVENUE SYMOND AVENUE TARAS BOULEVARD TORONTO ROAD iTRAFALGAR DRIVE I BID\ivELL ROAD ____~_~~ IEADY STATION ROAD iLlNE2 N 'LINE 2 N ~L1NE 2 N L1NE5N LINE 5 N ,LINE 5 N .L1NE 7 N IW!'i'lMIN5TER ~1Q~R6AD IWARMINSTER SIDEROAD ,LINE 1 S 'LINE f5 ~L1NE 1 S LINE 10N LINE 10 N ILINE 12 N 'LINE 12 N LINE 12 N LINE 13 N 'L1NE13 N [LINE 13~N- - ILlNE6 S ,LINE 6 S ILlNE8 N 'L1NE8N _____._~___.__............._._m____ IL~NE 8 N ____ 120/21 SIDEROADW 120721 SIDEROAD W .30!;JTSIDEROADW 'INGRAM ROAD - - --' APPENDIX A IMPROVE TYPE IMPROVE YEAR EXIST, SURFACE MATERIAL , ~____~ _ 9RAVEL . ~-- __ I GBAVEL I GRAVEL GRAVEL ~I ~ GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL 1 GRAVEL I GRAVi:OL_ ~ 50-199_ GRAVEL 1 50-199 GRAVEL ; -50:199 GRA VEL ~-~ i 50- Hl9 GRAV!'L _I - 50-199 GRAVEL , 50-199 GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL ~ _ GRAVEL:..-I GRAVEL ' GRAVEL I GRAVEL GRAVEL , GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEI- , GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL -GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL I GRAVEL I GRAVEL j GRAVEL I AADT IMPROVE IMPROVE ROAD RANGE CRITERIA PRIORITY LENGTH (m) CODE RATING 50-199 COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST DST : 2007 ___ __ 1 ,",_______,',_w'.,,', DST ' 2007 DST 2007 DST 2007 DST - i 2007 DST ___J_ 2007 DST ' 2007 DST 2007- ~ i DST I --2007 f DST ~ ~-- - 2007 bST 2007 DST , 2007 DST ~ --; 2007 DST-20of ~ DST ---:~ 2007 i DST 2007 DST 2007 DST , 2007 DST __1_-2007 DST 2007 DaT 'I 2007 DST , 2007 DST -20[)7 1 DST 2007' DST _ J 2007 DST 2007 DST 2007 DST ~-. 2007 DST -~ --- 2007 b~I i 2007 DST ' 2007 DST 2007 D5f 2007 D5T I ~ 2007_ 1 DSTI 2007 i g~i-- - ~~ ~ ~~~; I DST , 2007 ' _______ f ____'m_____...._ DST 1 2007 DSt---- _~QQ7 ___ DST 2007 DST . --i667 DST . ~~007- , DST 2007 D5T ~ 2007 ~.~C--==-$:1,921I _$2,8161 $3,581 ' - $806: .$8651 _____........................L,..,..__ $2,689 i $784' $1.136 [~ . $2,498! $9081 $977 $4,873 . -$2,8821 .$4,7961 $19,3(38] $29,433 $20,5291 $19:434 $39,9921 .$60,480J $38,144[ ..~. $60.342 [ ..)39,~901 $30,305, . $24,3561 $39,682f- $27,085 $41,88F $58,56fT $58:474 ng:~9~1 $58,827 : -$58,754; .~ --$7,5641 $12,644 i .$1,920[= $5.4. ,1._.3...~.4....li~ $61,731 ..=)1,f37~L $61,033 $17,729 .~4Q~II $18,9401 $27,0211 F:09599/DOCSIRPTS/03062006gravelhardtopplan.xlsDouble Surface Treatment 2 Date Printed:3/08/06 ---------------- Township of Oro*Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Double Surface Treatment - - APPENDIX A - ROAD 10 ROAD NAME EXIST, AADT IMPROVE IMPROVE ROAD 1 IMPROVE IMPROVE COST IMPRVMNT SURFACE RANGE I CRITERIA PRIORITY LENGTH (mli TYPE YEAR YEAR TOTAL MATERIAL CODE RATING COST 5329 INGRAM ROAD GRAVEL GCRCR 4 1549 j--- DST 2007 $29,431 , 5872 ,INGRAM ROAD GRAVEL GCRCR i. 4 1567 DST 2007 $29,776 6761 INGRAM ROAD GRAVEL GCRCR' 4 5217 DST [ 2007 $99,127 6085 IINGRAM ROAD I .GRAVEL GCRCR . [____ 4- 1556-. I .__DST 2007 . $29,57Q+ ----- in ! SUB-TOTAL , ----- ------- i 8036il...._ - I $1,527,tJ.01 i _l__ ---- GCRCR- [ 1- DST -------T-- 7356 iLlNE 1 N , GRAVEL ____, 4-~":'1:"" __2046 2008 $38,871 7363 'LINE 1 N GRAVEL [ .-GCRCR -- 4 , 46 ' --bST ---$880. 7975 LINE 1 N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 2076 DST i 2008 $39,453. 8762 ._ ,LINE 1 N GRAVEL GCRCR .-- 4 2055__ [ DST 2008 $39,048 : . 9312 ILlNE 1N GCRCR_I 2008 $40,438 i GRAVEL 4 2128 I DST 6848 'LINE 5 N m GRAVEL GCRCR 4 _..- 3112 DST 2008 -- .$59,122' 7183 LINE 5N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 ' 3161 DST , 2008 $60,056: 6552 :L1NE e N GRAVEL ---GCRCR --:--. 4 _____1.___ ! . --2008 ! 3074 DST $58,j14i 6580 ILlNE.SN GRAVEL GCRCR I -4 246- DST 1 2008 $4,6701 6884 . LINE 8 N GRAVEL .GCRCR 4 2827 bST 1 -i008 $53,719' 3763 LINE 9 N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 657 DST 2008 $12,487 4026 LINE 9N GRAVEL GCRCR : .L 3~:r :- g~~ t ~~~~ $58,631 [ 4067 ------ __[LINE 9 N GRAVEL GCRCR $7,0851 6820 LINE 9 N GRAVEL ,__ __I GCRCI3 ....4: . 821 - r- DST -L 2008 $15,5[j11 6903 U_ 'LINE 1f N GRAVEL i 50-199 1 GCBA 5 1 3086 ' DST : 2008 $58,6.35, 8602 TINE 2 N GRAVEL GCBA 5 1 2064 DST 1 2008 $39,225: 9168 ,LINE 2 N -j---- GRAVEL GCBA. 5 958 DST I 2008 $18,208- 19086 'LINE 2 N GRAVEL ,---- GCBA 5 951 DST 2008 $18,Q.69 i 19087 LINE 2N ------ GRAVEL GCBA 5 199 DST 2008 $3,790 4602 ,LINE 4N GRAVEL GCBA 5 3118 DST 2008 $59,2351. 6051 L1NE4N GRAVEL GCBA 5 1888 DST 2008 $35,871 ~ 6056 .L1NE 4N GRAVEL GCBA 5 37 DST . 2008 $695 --- LINE 4N GRAVEL GCBA ..----- 5-. 3161 DST 2008 $60,066 8338 6579 ---- I BASS -CAKE SIDEROAD E GRAVEL GPRCR 6 . 1629 DST 2008 $30,943 BASS LAKE SIDEROAD E GRAVEL .--- GPRCR 6 1415 DST 2008 $26,886[ 6643 - ; BASsLAKESIDEI3C5AD W GRAVEL .GPRCR . 6 1520 DST 2008 $28,885 6777 I GRAVEL 6-. 1427 ___, DST 2008 $27,116 6847 1 BASS LAKE SIDEROA[)IN GPRCR , 6898 'SASS LAKE SIDEROAD W GRAVEL GPRCR - 6 1276 DST 1 2008 $24,248 U BASS LAKE SIDEROAD W GRAVEL -.- QPRCH_ T. 6 1348 DST , 2008 $25,606, . 7053 --- ~--- , 4894 - . BLUEBERRY MARSH ROt;D GRAVEL ' GPRCR 1 6 1024 DST 1 2008 . $19,4601 -5673 CRAIG SIDEROAD GRAVEL _ !GPRCR- [ 6 --- - 108S- . - DST --r 2008 $20,6651 DUNNS LINE ------- GRAVEL [ GPRCR ! 6 -- 2822 DST- I 2008 $53,6181 4002 HUr.XMINGBIRD HILCROAD GRAVEL .GPRCR -- I ---- ---- $19,843 4635 6 , 1044 ~~~ __I -- ~~~~ L1NE-fON -- GRAVEL- iOO-499 .--- GPRCR 6 -----OJ 1916 $36,396 6745 4182 ;LlNE 10 N r GRAVEL .--- GPRCR 6 . 1847 DST 1 2008 $35,086 n~__ i LINE 10 N --- GPRCR ,----- 6 1250 ' DST.- 1 2008- _ $2},746: 4343 1 _GRAVEL , - ----I ______ _ -i-- __-- . 31QL---l _ DST _~ -i008 4859 'LINE 10 N GRAVEL I (3PRCRu 1 6 $58,9231 5894 - . -. LINE 10 N -.-- GRAVEL I GPRCR 6 623 I DST 2008 .n $11 ,8451 F:09599/DOCS/RPTS/03062006gravelhardtopplan.xlsDouble Surface Treatment 3 Date Printed:3/08/06 - - ROAD 10 6373 4031 4241 SUB-TOTAL 4284 4619 5640 6992 7154 6428 6217 4407 4529 5309 4745 ---4169 -64e7 3985 4913 7105 7669 4e19 -5189 6150 4567 4659 4077 3825 4285 4063 -4151 4406 4916 5244 e639 4021 8622 3752 4402 - - - - ROAD NAME L1NE11N iLlNE 11 N ---1 LINE 11 N I .LINE 1 fN LINE 11 N- ,L1NE11N ILlNE 12 N _ 'LINE 12 S 'LINE 13 N ILlNE-14 N LINE 2 N -'LINE 2 N LINE 2N LINE 3 N ,LINE 4N ILlN_E 5 N 'LINE 6 N LINE 6N .L1NE 6 N .L1NE 6-N LINE 8 N LINES N i LINE 8 N - -- 'MOUNT SAINT LOU-IS ROAD -E- OLD COLDWATER ROAD -OLD COUNTY ROAD - PETER STREET Em ! PETER STREET \IV- PETER STREET W PETER STREET V,r I PETEH StREEj IN SCARLETT LINE :SCARLETTUNE '15116 SIDER-OAD W CA-HIAGUE ROAD ,DRURY MILL ROAD ..1......._______.......'....__._____......__________ ,DUNNS LINE I FAfR VALLEY CHURCH ROAO - ----- Township of Oro-Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Double Surface Treatment EXIST. SURFACE MATERIAL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL [ - ~-~~~~~~ , GRAVEL [ GRAVEL ! GRAVEL . GRAVEL GRAVEL J. GRAVEL ' , GRAVEL : ---GRAVEL- l- g~~ ~{E , GRAVEL GRAVEL -GRAVEL GRAVEL , GRAVEL 1-- -GR!oVEL , GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL ! GRAVEL GRAVEL -GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL AADT RANGE IMPROVE CRITERIA CODE -GPRCR ! GPRCR _ ---1---- -- I GPRCR I 200-499 GPRCR GPRC" , ,- ~:~g~-I --e:'-PRCR GPRCR - GPRCR - GPRCR - GPRCR ! G-PRCR -,- GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR- 1- GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR -GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR .--GPRCR- GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GI'RCR GPRCR, GPRCR ' GPRCR- GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR DEGR --OEGR OEGR , ~DEGR _-=1 DEGR 50-199 50-19~ . 200-499 200-499 4 IMPROVE PRIORITY RATING 6 6 6 ROAD I , LENGTH (m) 3680 .1_1704 -1-- 1625 71509 - - - - - -- APPENDIX A COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST 660 2471 3359 2170 -842 1860 2455 2040 895 878 3146 ---64 4358 1908 - 3153 3678 2732 1312 1228 3725 1653 1177 889 1467 1384 1348 1434 1493 78 986 108 428 695 537 1427 IMPROVE TYPE DST ! most '----DST DST DST DST DST DST DSt , ---- I ! DST , "ost--' DST DS'( T DST ' _.I DST 1 DST ! DST ost mOST DST DST[ DST I I DSTT [ DSt DST DST --.... ............... "j-- -DST OST----, DST DST ost DST OST -g~r+ ,DStl 100-- _._____________1 .1 DST _-1. I DST . IMPROVE YEAR 2008 , 2008 --1--2668 !-------- I" 2009 ' 2009 2009 2009 2009 2669 2009 2009 2009 2609 2669 2669 2009 2009 2009 2009 __. 2009 I 2009 ' 20091 2609 --, 2009 2669..- 2009 2009 2009 2009 i ~~~L[ 2009 2009 2609, __ j.669--=1 2009__1 2009 . 2669 $69,912 $32,373[ - _330,869 ,_ - $1 ,358,6J6 . $12,539 $46,9581 $63,8191 -.,.------------ ---...-----.-.----........! $41,239[ $16,0001 - $35,3351 $46,638 [ . $38)55 $17,0661 $16,6891 $59,7731 "$1,214] $82,7~I' $36,249 --....--------.........1-- $59,9071 $69,8851 $51,915- $24,937] $23,331 EO,7691 $31,415! -- $22,361' $16,8981 $27,8781 $26,2971 ~25,6031_ .._. $27,241, --~$i~:~~] -$18,731' -$2,045 -$8,141'- . .~m:~nl~= $27,111 ! F:09599/DOCS/RPTS/03062006gravelhardtopplan.xlsDouble Surface Treatment Date Printed:3/08/06 - - - - - ROAD 10 ROAD NAME - - - - - - - - - - - - -_. APPENDIX A Township of Oro~Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Double Surface Treatment EXIST. SURFACE MATERIAL IMPROVE PRIORITY RATING ROAD I IMPROVE LENGTH(m) TYPE COST IMPROVE YEAR AADT RANGE 5 F:09599IDOCS/RPTSI030620069ravelhardtopplan.xlsDouble Surface Treatment Date Printed:3/08106 IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST - - - ROAD 10 CRITERIA RATING - - - - ----- Township of Oro-Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Double Surface Treatment - - - - ROAD NAME EXIST. SURFACE MATERIAL IMPROVE PRIORITY RATING ROAD I IMPROVE LENGTH(m) TYPE IMPROVE YEAR IMPROVE CRITERIA CODE - -- APPENDIX A COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST 6 F:09599IDOCSIRPTSI03062006gravelhardtopplan.xlsDouble Surface Treatment Date Printed:3108106 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (b BURNSiDE Appendix B Three Year Hardtop Surfacing Plan cs .- if) ~ ~ = = .;:; ca - ... = fi) CI) cc =- Q - "Cl ... ca :: - = Q - (,) = ... - fi) = Q (,) CI) C,,) cc >C :;; "Cl CI) = > Q) ... =- = =- Q <C 1.1.. e e ca ... = Q ... Q,. ~------------------ - - - - - - - - lownShiPo~edo. - - - - - "EN~ - Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Reconstruction/Double Surface Treatment ROAD 10 9470 9481 9492 5064 7856 5538 5593- 5594 4399 5823 9772 5046 10114 7803 7835 5083 5103 9201 9311 7902 9085 7802 - -- 7762 7809 7836 7867 7900 10063 10080 7804 9788 9065 9086 9149 9240 9377 19120 9380 9406 9431 9440 e817 10688 ROAD NAME : BARBARA A VEr-JUE 'BARBARA AVENUE :BARBARA AVENUE 'BARR AVENUE ,BASSARAB PLACE IBEACHROAD - IBEACH ROAD [BEACH ROAD --,BURNET STREET JCOOK LANE ____ !CRAWFORD STREET ______00- ___ DEVITT STREET ,FORRESTER ROAD FRANKO STREET lFRANkb STREET :GANTON ROAD- --IGANTON ROAD 'GRANDVIEW CRESCENT ,GRANbVIEW CR-ESCENT L YNKA PLACE- DIAN ROAD KARPA TIAN PLACE AD -- AD , IGH ROAD - LEIGH ROAD LEIGH ROAD LINE 3S LINE 3S -- MAZErA PLACE . MCARTHUR STREET MEMORIAL CRES-cENT -lMEMORIAL CRESCENT , MEMORIAL-CRESCENT- MlfcHELLROAD - :ORILLIA-ROAD ORILUA ROAD -I~~g ~g~~ - ,ORO ROAD ORO ROAD __ -- ;POPLAR CRESCENT RANGE ROAD EXIST. SURFACE MATERIAL _ j GRAVEL 1 I GRAVEL I ----:1_ GRAVEL_ GRAVEL GRAVEL . -GRAVEL - GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL --------, GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL - GRAVEL - , GRAVEL : Gf<AVEL : GRAVEL 1 GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL -GRA VEL- ; GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL -e GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL , _ GRAVEL I -i-- I GRAVEL , GRAVEL ---!- GRAVEL : GRAVEL-- -- GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAV-EL I GRAVEL r -GRAVEL GRAVEL AADT i IMPROVE RANGE I CRITERIA CODE GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA 1- ___~~~- I GBA GBA GBA __ GBA : GBA J~:'- g~~ _ GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GElA-- GBA GBA GBA I ___mn_ I GBA i .n __~=Q_~-~~ ____L_ _,_ GBA GBA j _______u_ 1-- GBA GBA ..t I ! I r- I 1 nJ 1 I IMPROVE PRIORITY RATING , ROAD 1 LENGTH (m) 1 , IMPROVE TYPE IMPROVE YEAR COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST ~ $16,933 : $3,456 $3,452 [ - $8,274'--- -1~~:~~~i=~ $9,484 $11,656 - --$10,463:- $4{268 L $4,7651 $8,5551 $14,040 .$7,SZ8jm $7,3.231' $3,373 -- $4,8931 $14,560 $4i;,6241 $10,1491 $13,950' $9,8861 - $7,5281 $7,713 $3,661. $4,0341 - - - I $5,470 i -$27,538:-- -$3,418 $11,6791 $4,444' $5,576 --$21 ,804: $7,677'1 $13~99-8 $5:375' $5,598 : $12,9151 $9:270F $8,490, $5,504-- -$71,6851 -$29,2371 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 163 51 52 1 --- , 123 149 1__ 85 I I 142__ I 174 ' 156 616 71 128 210 -113 109 50 ,_ 73 --I 217 ' 681 ! - 151 208 148 112 115 55 60 82 411 --T 51 165 66 83 325 115 209 ! 80 I 84 193 , 138 --- -I --127------- , --82 -, ! 1061 -436 R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G _I, R-G R-G R-G ---,-- R-G R-G R:G R-G R-G R-G R-G , ~~g -:.r R-G R-G R-G R:G R--G R:G R-G R-G R:G R-G R-G R-G l...:~~~- I R-G -. R-G R:G- -j , 1------- ! 1 r 1 1 1 I -, 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L [, --- n__ ! I J_ , ! [- -1-:_:-..:..- F:09599/DOCS/RPTS/030620069ravelhardtopplan.xlsRural Construction (Gravel) Date Prlnted:3/08/06 - - ROAD ID 7650 7720 7769 9366 9494 9500 9511 9457 9465 9472 9438 9449 9459 8013 9413 11175 6976 4161 7054 7270 7735 7999 4064 4472 6033 5186 5521 10249 9853 11092 7512 6960 4111 4535 5296 6783 6810 6876 8838 9507 e185 8222 7278 - - - ROAD NAME : ROBIN-SON STREET SHEWCHENKO ROAD S-HEWCHENKO ROAD - -- SIMCOE ROAD SOPHIA AVENUE SOPHIA AVENUE 'SOPHIA AVENUE , SUNNYSIDE AVENUE ------- -- SUNNYSIDE AVENUE SUNNYSiDE AVENUE - :SYMOND AVENUE iSYMOND AVENUE 'SYMOND AVENUE , TARAS BOULEVARD - ITORONTO ROAD 'tRAFALGAR DRIV-E 'BIDWELL ROAD-- ,EADY STATION ROAD liNE' 2 N ,LINE 2 N LINE 2 N ~ LINE 5 N lINE5N .lINE 5 N ,LINE 7N WARMINSTER-SIDEROAD .WARMINSTERSiDEROAD LINE 1 S - LINE 1 S LINE 1 S .lINE 10N LINE 10 N LINE f2 N 'CINE 12 N- LINE 12 N :lINE13 N LINE 13 N :lINE 13 N J:LINE 6 S H LINE 6 S ;UNE 8 N LINE 8N lINES-f,j - - ----- Township of Oro-Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Reconstruction/Double Surface Treatment EXIST. SURFACE MATERIAL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAV-EL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL L , GRAVEL . GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL -. i GRAVEL , GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL i G-RAVEL i GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL , --uuT GRAVEL f GRAVEL : GRAVEL i ,- GRAVEL- GRAVEL-- GRAVEL GRAVEL -----t-- i GRAVEL i GRAVEL GRAVEL AADT RANGE 50-199 50-199 50-199 50-199 50-199 50-199 ------1 , 50-199 I 50-199 50-199 50-199 50-199 50-199 IMPROVE CRITERIA CODE GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GRCOM GRCOM J i GRCOM , I GRCOM GRCOM'- GRCOM ---GRCOM GRCOM GRCOM GRCOM GRCOM GPHCR GPHCR GPHCR GPHCR GPHCR GPHCR GPHCR , __ i ~:~g~ ~ GPHCR GPHCR GPHCR --GPHCR -- GPHCR GPHCR GPHCR IMPROVE PRIORITY RATING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 ___, 3 i 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ROAD LENGTH (m) I 943 225 206 148 188 42 46 142 41 60 131 48 51 256 152 ---r-n- 252 1020 1549 1080 1023 2105 , 3183 2008 3176 __L 2105 1595 1282 2089 1426 2204 3082 3078 2310 3088 3096 3092 398 665 101 -I~ 2849 3249 88 3212 - - - - _NO!! - IMPROVE TYPE IMPROVE YEAR COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R:G- 2007 R-G _ , 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 - R-G 2007 R-G 1___ 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G l 2007 R-G i 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G i 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 ~:~ -I ;~~; R-G 2007 R-G 2007 R-G 2007 ~:~:-I::' ;~~; R-G 2007 i - R-G r::: 2007 R-G , 2007 ,R-G 2007 ! R-G 2007 ________m_ _l_______m_""" =:g --I~ ~~~; , -----r-- ! $6:3,1s1. $15,042. $13:828 $9,930' $12,629 : $2,643 ! $3,049, $9,483 $2,765; $4,iJ07 i $8,8081 $3,201, $3,445 $17,184: $10,162T $16,9131 $68,368 :1;103,791 ' --. $72,392: $68,529T $141,025 ' $213,270 j ----- mN~~i :1;141,016' $106,866' $~~~::~~I . ..... $95)j_11 . $147,687' $206,506 i $206,199' $154,803 :1;206,916' $207,442 . --::>2.07,1861...l:::L.. $26,674, :1;44,585' ~6:771L $190,8931 -- -. $21!&82 $5,910 $215,221. J , I F:09599IDOCS/RPTS/03062006gravelhardlopplan.xlsRural Construction (Gravel) 2 Date Printed:3/08/06 - - ROAD ID 8767 9048 7362 4969 5329 5872 6085 6761 7356 7363 7975 8762 9312 6848 7183 6552 SUB-TOTAL 9470 9481 9492 5064 7856 5538 5593 5594 4399 5823 9772 5046 10114 7803 7835 50e3 5103 9201 9Y11 7902 9085 7802 1'762 7809 - - - ROAD NAME 20/21 SIDEROAD W ;20/21SIDEROAD W ;30/31 SfDEROAD Vi 'INGRA-M ROADu 'INGRAM ROAD ,INGRAM ROAD jlNGRAM ROAD _ ,INGRAM ROAD 'LINE 1 N ,LINE 1 N LINE 1 N ,LINE 1 N 'LINE 1 N LINE 5 N- LINE 5N :L1NE 81\1 , j : BARBARA AVENUE - -- . BARBARA- AVENUE BARBARA AVENUE- ,BARR AVENUE . BASSARAB PLACE BEACHROAD 'BEACH ROAD BEACH ROAD __ 'BURNET STREET ,COOK LANE 'CRAWFORD STREET . DEVITT STREET FORRESTER ROAD FRANKO STREET FRANKO STREET GANTON ROAD :GANTON ROAD GRANDVIEW CRESCENT 'GRANDVIEW CRESCENT 'HL YNKA PLACE _INDIAN ROAD ___ :K.JIRl'ATIAN PLA~ LEIGH ROAD LEIGH ROAD ------ Township of Oro~Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Reconstruction/Double Surface Treatment - EXIST, SURFACE MATERIAL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL j RAVEL -, GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL T GRAVEL ! GRAVEL GRAVEl-- - GRAVEL ,_ GRAVEL I GRAVEL I GRAVEL GRAVEL , , ------! - - - AADT RANGE IMPROVE ROAD I IMPROVE PRIORITY 'LENGTH (m) I TYPE RATING ! I 4 -, 933-+- 4 j 2118 4 [ 997 4 ! 1422 4 1549 4 1567 4 I 1556 4 , 5217 4 2046 4 46 4 2076 4 2055 4 2128 4 3112 4 3161 3074 IMPROVE YEAR IMPROVE CRITERIA 1 !ii!J . I GCRCR GCRCR GCRCR GCRCR GCRCR GCRCR L GCRCR GCRCR GCRCR GCRCR GCRCR GCRCR 2007 2007 2007 2007 ! __ 2007 2007 I 2007 2007 ! __2007 : --, ;~~; --I - __u_ 2007 - 2007 2007 2007 2007 R-G R-G R:G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G - R-G GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL -I: GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL , GRAVEL , GRAVEL 1--- _ GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL , --.-- ! GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL , GRA VEL- , GRA VEC-- , GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL __ i --GRAVEL i GRAVEL 1---------------- 98068 I L DST GBA 163 I 2008 GBA 51 DST 2008 GBA 52 DST 2008 GBA 123 DST 1_ 2008 GBA 149 DST -- 2008 GBA -------, 85 DST 2008 GBA 142 DST 200S GBA -- ----- 174 DST ' 2008 GBA 156 DST ' - :2008 GBA 616 DST 2008 GBA 71 Dsf 2008 GBA 128 DST 2008 GBA 210 DST 1--- 2008 GBA 113 DST I 2008 I GBA 109 DST 2008 GBA 50 1-- DST 2008 GBA -+ 73 DST 200S GBA 217 __u_DST I 2008 GBA 681 Dsf 200S-- GBA 151 DST 2008 GBA 208 DST 2008 , GBA ---______00- 148 DS1' 2008 GBA 112 DST 2008 GBA ____n___n_____n___. DST 115 2008 - - -- APPENDIX C COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST I , I ! ! $62,517 ; $141,93e' -$66,789 , -- -- $95,286 $103,783;- $105,001 : $104,2'74, $349,553: $137,0701 $3,1041 $139,1231 $137,694 $142,596 : ---.$....2..0..8.'48.4....1' $211,778 :&'205,985 $6~~jO,524 $3,100 $966 --$979 $2,346 $2,836 - --u~;:~~~l $3,304 - - $2,967' - -$11,703, $1.351 [ $2.421)' $3,981. $2,149 _ $2,0771 $956 --- $1,387 $4,129 $j2,938~ , $2,878 r-- I- __n__ iH~i 1 $2,187' I J ___L___ 3 F:09599/DOCS/RPTS/03062006gravelhardtopplan.xlsRural Construction (Gravel) Date Printed:3/08/06 - - - - - ROAD ID ROAD NAME 7836 LEIGH ROAD 7867 LEIGH ROAD-- _________m__ 7900 LEIGH ROAD 10063 UNE 3 S 10080 'UNE3S 7804 MAZEPA PLACE 9788 -- MCARTHUR STREET 9065 . MEMORIAL CRESCENT 9086 MEMORIAL CRESCENT 9149 MEMORIAL CRESCENT 9240 MITCHELL ROAD -----------------9377 . oR:iIT.:{i\-ROAb 19120 'ORILUA -ROAD 9380 ORO ROAD 9406 - 10RO ROAD 943T---- JORO ROAD 9440 'ORO ROAD 8817 POPLAR CRESCENT 10688 . RANGE ROAD _____________n_ 7650 ROBINSON STREET 7720 'SHEWCHENKO R-OAD - - 7769 SHEWCHENKO ROAD 9386 SIMCOE ROAD 9494 SOPHIA A VE-NUE 9500 SOPHIA AVENUE 9511 SOPHIA AVENUE 9457 ,SUNNYSIDE AVENUE 94-65-------- 'SUNNYSTDE--'\\iEN(n~-- 9472 ,SUNNYSIDE AVENUE 9438 :SYMOND AVENUE 9449 'SYMOND A-VENUE - 9459 SYMOND AVENUE 8013 TARAS BOULEVARD 9413 TORONTO ROAD 11175TRAFALGAR DRIVE 6976 ,BIDWELL ROAD 4181 'EADYSTATION ROAD 7054 :UNE 2N 7270 'UNE 2 N 7735 'UNE 2 N 7999 'UNE 5 N 4064- - ------I[.'INE 5 N 4472 JUNE5 N - ------ Township of Oro-Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Reconstruction/Double Surface Treatment IMPROVE CRITERIA CODE GBA GBA GBA GBA - ----------- GBA GBA GBA GBA -----1 GBA - L GBA GBA ---------- GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA GBA 50-199 GRCOM 50-199 GRCOM 50-199 GRCOM 50-199 GRCOM 50:199 -, GRCOM 50-199 , GRCOM- -- I GRCOM H I GRCOM AADT RANGE 50-199 - j- I 55 DST-------2008 $1,038. 60 DST200a-:_I__ _____ $1,144: 82 DST 2008 _ __ _____$,1 ,5511_ 411 ~~~ ~~~~ I $7$~~~ I 165 DST 2008 $3,142 66 DST 2008 -$1,260: 83 DST 2008 - - - $1,5811 325..__ _ DST 2008 $6,183 115 DST 2008 $2,177 209 DST 2008 -$3,970 --------SO OST 2008 $1,'5241 84 DST 2008 $1,588 193 DST 2008 $3,662 138 DST --- - 2008 $2,629 _____ 127 DST 2008 $2,408, 82 DST 200S $1,561 ' 1061 DST 2008 $20,159' 436 DST, 2008 -$8,291 943 DST _.[:":-2008 $17,917 225 DST: 2008 $4,266 206 DST 2008 - $3,921 --------- 148 DST 2008 $2,816 188 DST 2008 $3,Sel -42--- -- ,-- DST 2008 - $606 46---- ----nasI - 200e $865'----- OST 2008-------- ------- $2,689 i 2008 -- $784 2008 $1,136 --2008------- $2,498: 2008 - -- $9081 2008 $9771 2008 $4,8731 2008 $2,882, 2008 $4,796: 2008 $19,388__ _ ___ 2008 $29,433 - ---- 2008- $20,S29 2008 $19,434. 2008 $39,992 2008 $60,480 ___ 2008 $38,1441 2008 $60,342, IMPROVE PRIORITY RATING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -'------1 , ____1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - - - - -- APPENDIX C EXIST, SURFACE MATERIAL GRAVEL I GRAVEL -- -GRAVEL ____________00______ _ _____ ___:_ GRAVEL , GRAVEL ---- ___m_ ---- --r GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRA GRA GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL ' GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL - I GRAVEL i-- ------" GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL i GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL --1 GRAVEL GRAVEL - . - GRAVEL - , GRAVEL GRAVEL , GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL - , ROAD I IMPROVE IMPROVE i LENGTH (m) I TYPE YEAR COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST 41 60 131 48 51 256 152 , 25T--'-- --- ----------- 1020 1549 I 1080 1 1023 ___L 210S 3183 2008 3176 i , .1- I i DST DST DST DST DST DST DST- DST --- -----------" DST DST DST DS'( DST DST DS'(- F :09S99IDOCS/RPTS/03062006gravelhardtopplan.xlsRural Construction (Gravel) 4 Date Printed:3/08/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -' Township of Oro-Medonte APPENDIX C Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads ReconstructionlDouble Surface Treatment ROADID ROAD NAME EXIST. AADT IMPROVE IMPROVE ROAD IMPROVE IMPROVE COST I IMPRVMNT SURFACE , RANGE CRITERIA PRIORITY LENGTH (m) TYPE YEAR YEAR TOTAL , 1 -I-n MATERIAL , CODE RATING COST i _n_ --------- , --- ---.------ I I 6033 ILlNE7N. GRAVEL GRCOM 21 DST 2008 $39,990 ' 5188 IWARM'NSTER SIDEROAD ---___---__00___' GRAVEL GRCOM 2 1595 DST , 2008 $30,305 -- ---------- 1 5521 WARMINSTER SIDEROAD GRAVEL GRCOM 2 1282 DST 2008 $24,356 . I~:~H~ ------------~-- - ---------- 1 $39,682 ' 10249 GRAVEL i 50-199 GPHCR 3 2089 DST 2008 9853 gRAVEL , --;--- GPHCR ----------- 3 1426 DST 2008 $2f,oaSC ' , i , - ---------- I 541,881 ' 11092 LINE 1 S GRAVEL GPHCR 3 2204 DST 2008 7512 'LINE 10N GRAVEL 50.199 GPHCR 3 3082 DST 2008 $58,561 jLlNE 10N DST $58,474 6960 GRAVEL GPHCR 3 307 2008 4111 ,LINE 12 N GRAVEL GPHCR 3 2310 DST 2008 $43,899' ' ------ $58,678 4535 ILlNE 12 N GRAVEL GPHCR 3 3088 DST 2008 'LINE12N GRAVEL ---,--- 3 3096 DST 2008 $58,827 5296 GPHCR 6783 LINE 13 N GRAVEL GPHCR I 3 3092 DST 2008 $58,7541 6810 LINE 13 N GRAVEL GPHCR i 3 398 DST 2008 , $7,564 6876 ,LINE 13N GRAVEL GPHCR 3 665 DST 2008 , $12,6441. 8e38 LINE 6S GRAVEL 50.199 GPHCR 101 DST 2008 I $1,9201 9507 ,LINE 6S GRAVEL 50-199 i GPHCR 3 2849 DST 2008 $54,134 8185 'LINE 8 N GRAVEL 50-199 i ' GPHCR 3 3249 DST 2008 ----nor $61,731 8222 ILlNE 8 N GRAVEL' 50-199 GPHCR 3 88 2008 $1,676 _____un______ jLlNES N GRAVEL 7278 GPHCR 3 3212 DST 2008 $61,033 8767 "20/21 SIDE ROAD W GRAVEL GCRCR 4 933 DST 2008 $17,729 9048 20/21 SIDEROAD W GRAVEL GCRCR 4 2118 DST 2008 $40, 7362 30131 SIDEROAD W i GRAVEL GCRCR L 4 997 DST 2008 4969 INGRAM RDAD GRAVEL GCRCR , 4 1422 DST 2008 $27,021, 1_____ 5329 INGRAM ROAD GRAVEL GCRCR , 4 1549 DST 2008 $29,4311 INGRAM ROAD - ---- . , 5872 GRAVEL GCRCR I 4 1567 DST 2008 $29,7761 'INGRAM ROAD' GRAVEL i - -------- ost 6085 GCRCR 1556 2008 $29,570 I" ------------ 6761 INGRAM ROAD GRAVEL GCRCR --T-- 4 5217 DST 2008 $99,127 7356 LINE 1 N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 2046 DST 2008 $38,871, 7363 LINE 1 N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 46 DST 2008 $8801 7975 L1N'E 1 N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 , 2076 DST 2008 $39,453 8762 LINE 1 N GRAVE'L GCRCR 4 _u_ I 2055 DST 2008 $39,048 9312 LINE 1 N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 2128 DST 2008 $40,438 6848 LINE 5 N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 3112 DST L 2008 $,5,9,122 , 7183 5N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 3161 DST i 200e $60,056 6580 N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 246 R-G 2008 $16,4671 GRAVEl' __ _______n_____ ------------- $189,429 6884 N GCRCR 4 2827 R-G 2008 _I 3763 ,LINE 9N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 657 R-G 2008 , ___,$4.4,2:32' -. ILlt-jE:9N' GRAVEL -- 3086 m i-- R-G' 4026 GCRCR 4 200e $206,751, 4067 LINE 9 N GRAVEL GCRCR 4 373 I R-G 2008 n , $:14,~8:J. -------------- 6820 :L1NE 9 N GRAVEL I GCRCR 4 i 821 R-G 200e $54,979 6903 LINE 11 N GRAVEL I 50-199 GCBA 5 3086 R,G 2008 $i06,767 8602 ,LINE 2 N GRAVEL i GCBA 5 2064 R-(j- -,' 2008 $138,318 9168 'LINE 2 N GRAVEL ---------------- R,Gn ,-'" ______on ---- $64,207 : GCBA 5 958 2008 F:09599IDOCS/RPTSI03062006gravelhardtopplan.xlsRural Construction (Gravel) 5 Date Printed:3108106 - - ROAD ID 19086 19087 4602 6051 6056 8338 6579 6643 6777 6847 6898 7053 4894 5673 4002 4635 6745 4182 4343 4859 5894 6373 4031 4241 4284 4619 5640 6992 7154 6428 6217 4407 4529 SUB-TOTAL 6552 6580 68e4 3763 4026 4067 6820 - - - ROAD NAME IlINE2 N illNE 2 N lINE4N lINE4N lINE4N LINE 4 N _ __ ,BASS LAKE SIDEROAD E _H BAss LAKE SIDEROAD E BASS LAKE SIDEROAD Vi sAss LAKE SIDEROADW- i BASS LAKE SIDEROAD W BASS LAKE SIDEROAD W BLUEBERRY MARSH ROAD CRAIG SIDEROAD DljNNS lINE- - HUMMINGBIRD HILL ROAD LINE 10 N LINE 10 N --- LINE 10-N TINE 10 N- LINE 10 N ,lINE11N ~LINE 11 1'1- : LINE 11 N 'lINE-11 N LINE 11 N _lINE11 N CLINE 12 N 'LINE 12S LINE 13 N LINE 14 N- - : LINE 2 N LINE 2 N --I LINE 8 N LINE 8N ,LINE e N jllNE 9 N :lINE 9 N -liNE 9 N LINE 9N - - ----- Township of OroMMedonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads ReconstructionfDouble Surface Treatment EXIST, SURFACE MATERIAL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL - GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRA VE-C - , GRAVEL : GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVElc_1 GRAVEL ' GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL AADT RANGE 200-499 200-499 50-199 50-199 200-499 200-499 IMPROVE CRITERIA CODE GCBA GCBA- GCBA GCBA GCBA GCBA GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR ! GPRCR --,- GPRCR GPRCR ! GPRCR i _ GPRCR t--- GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR -- ,- GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR _L GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR --I GPRCR GPRCR 1- GCRCR GCRCR , GCRCR 1- GCRCR GCRCR GCRCR GCRCR IMPROVE' ROAD PRIORITY LENGTH (m) :A:NG__! 951 5 , 199 5 3118 5 1888 5 37 5 3161 6 1629 6 1415 6 1520 6 1427 6 1276 6 1348 6 1024 6 1088 6 2822 6 1044 6 1916 6 1847 6 1250 6 3101 6 623 6 3680 6 1704 6 1625 6 660 6 2471 6 3359 6 2170 6 842 6 1860 6 2455 6 2040 6 895 - - - IMPROVE 1 IMPROVE T~:E J __ ::~ R-G _I 2008 R-G I 2008 R-G 1 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 200S R-G 2008 R-G _1_ 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G ' 2008 R-G 1-- 2008 -R:-G 1-- 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G -- 1 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G I 2008 R-G 1 _ 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 R-G 2008 165555 _+_n_ i 3074 DST 2009 I 246 DST I 2009 2827 DST 2009 657 DST 2009 3086 DST 2009 373 DST --I 2009 821 DST I 2009 - - "'EN~ COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST $63,717, $13,366 $208,881 __ $126.493, $2.4521 $211,811 $109,114 $94,808 $101,857 - - $95,61~1' $85,506 $90,296. $68,623. _ $72,872, --- - - -1- $189,0731 $69,973' $128,344 $123,724 $83,738' $207,7811 $41,768 $246,531 - $114,1571 $108,8531 $44,21t; $165,587 - $2iS,047 ' $145.421 i $56,421 $124,602 $164.462' -$136,663-1 $59,970 _ $6,532,544 , $58.414-1 -$4,670 $53,?19 $12.4871 $t;8,631 ' $7,085 $15,591 F :09599IDOCSIRPTSI030620069ravelhardlopplan.xlsRural Construction (Gravel) 6 Date Printed:3/08106 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Township of Oro-Medonte APPENDIX C Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Reconstruction/Double Surface Treatment ROAD ID ROAD NAME EXIST. AADT IMPROVE ROAD IMPROVE IMPROVE COST IMPRVMNT SURFACE RANGE CRITERIA LENGTH (m) TYPE YEAR YEAR TOTAL MATERIAL CODE COST 6903 LINE 11 N GRAVEL 50-199 - GCBA 3086 DST $58,635 i 2009 8602 LINE 2 N GRAVEL GCBA 2064 - DST 2009 __:$39,225 j __ 9168 ,LINE 2 iT GRAVEL GCBA 958 DST 2009 $18,~081 19086 ,LINE 2 N GRAVEL --I GCBA 951 DSt 2009 $18,0691 19087 --rLiNE 2 N GRAVEL GCBA 199 DST 2009 -$3,790 I 4602 :L1NE-4 N GRAVEL j GCBA 3118 DST 2009 $59,235 6051 JLlNE 4N GRAVEL I GCBA 1888 DST 2009 $35$~;~ t~ 6056 - ILlN-E-4 N GRAVEL GCBA 37 DST 2009 8338 L1NE4N GRAVEL GCBA 5 3161 DST 2009 $60,0661 6579 BASS LAKESIDEROAD-E GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1629 DST 2009 $30,943. 6643 BASS LAKE SIDE ROAD E GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1415 DST 2009 $26,886 6777 i BASS LAKE SIDEROAD W GRAVEL , GPRCR 6 1520 DST 2009 $28,8851 , 6847 - [BASS LAKE SIDEROAD W GRAVEL -!- GPRCR 6 1427 DST 2009 $27,116[ 6898 BASS LAKE SIDEROAD W GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1276 DST 2009 $24,248 - ____m__ 1348 DST 1 $25,606 7053 ,BASS LAKE SIDE ROAD W GRAVEL GPRCR --~ 6 2009 4894 'BLUEBERRY MARSH ROAD GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1024 DST 2009 $19,460 5673 : CRAIG-SIDER2_AD GRAVEL 1- -GPRCR 6 1088 DST 2009 $20,665 4002 'DUNNS LINE GRAVEL ' n__ GPRCR 6 2822 DST 2009 $53,618 4635 HUMMINGBIRD HILL ROAD GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1044 DST 2009 $19,8431 GRAVE-C _____1._ GPRCR 6745 ILlNE 10 N 200-499 ! 6 1916 DST 2009 $36,3961 4182 L1NE10N GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1847 DST 2009 $35,086 4343 LINE fo N GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1250 DST ____I 2009 $23,746 4859 ,LINE iON GRAVEL GPRCR 6 3101 DST I 2009 $58,923 5894 ILINE iON GRAVEL r GPRCR 6 623 DST 2009 $11,8451 6373 'L1NE-1-j- N GRAVEL 200-499 GPRCR 6 3680 DST 2009 $69,912 4031 LINE 11 N GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1704 DST 2009 $32,373 4241 LINE 11 N GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1625 DST 2009 $30,869 4284 ,LINE 11 N GRAVEL L_ GPRCR 6 660 DST 2009 $12,539J 4619 --'-CINE 11 N GRAVEL 1 GPRCR 6 2471 DST 2009 -I $46,9581 5640 LINE 11 N GRAVEL GPRCR 6 -r--- 3359 , DST 2009 $63,819' L 6992 LINE 12 N GRAVEL 50-199 GPRCR 6 I 2170 DST 2009 $41,239 7154 'LINE 12 S GRAVEL 50-199 GPRCR 6 842 DST , 2009 $16,000 6428 LINE 13N GRAVEL 200-499 GPRCR i 6 1860 DST _1_ 2009 -- .----- $35,33-5, LINE 14 N -GRAVEL .-- !H DST -I $46,638 i 6217 200-499 GPRCR 6 2455 1--- 2009 GPRCR i - 2040 ----- - 1 4407 LINE 2 N GRAVEL 6 1----- 1 DST 2009 $38,755 4529 'LINE 2 N GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1 895 DST 2009 $17,006 5309 'L1NE2N GRAVEC- GPRCR 6 878 R-::G 2009 $58,852 4745 ;L1NE3j.J GRAVEL , GPRCR 1 6 3146 R-G 2009 ---- $210,778 --I , 64 4169 'L1NE~~ GRAVEL GPRCR , 6 R-G 2009 $4,2801_ 6487 L1N_E 5 N GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1----- 4358 , R-G 2009 , $291,9621 I 3985 LINE 6N GRAVEL GPRCR , 6 , , 1908 R-G I 2009 $127:825 4913 -I~:~~~~- GRAVEL GPRCR i------- 6 3153 ::~ -- 1 2009 $211,251 ' I 7105 GRAVEL GPRCR 6 3678 2009 $246,437 F:09599IDOCSIRPTSI030620069ravelhardtopplan.xlsRural Construction (Gravel) 7 Date Printed:3108106 - - ROAD ID 7669 4819 5189 6150 -------- 4567 4659 4077 3825 4285 4063 4151 4406 4916 5244 8639 4021 8622 3752 4402 6854 5947 6359 6409 6222 5e73 8807 17804 4367 4367 4253 5522 4345 456e 19188 10519 3993 SUB-TOTAL 5309 4745 4169 6487 - - - ROAD NAME - - I I GRA'I~L __1_ GRAVEL GRAVEL , GRAVEL , GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL ! GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEl, _, GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRA VEL_ GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL EXIST. SURFACE MATERIAL ,LINE 6 N -~L1NE 8 N LINE 8 N ,LINE 8N 'MOUNT SAINT LOUIS ROADE- OLD COLDWATER ROAD OLD COUNTY ROAD ___1____0000_ _____n________________M_ ,PETER STREET E f'ETER STR~ET_W PETER STREET W PETER STREET W 'PETER- STREET W 1 SCARLETT L1NE- SCARLETT LINE --71-5116 SIDEROAD W CAHlAGUE ROAD _[)RURY MILL ROAD _ ___ 1 DUNNS LINE FAIR VALLEY CHURCH ROAD i n____ ------- LINE 1 N LINE 12 N LINE 2 N LINE 2 N ,LINE 3r-J___ ILlNE 5 N ILlNi::6_t--J 'LINE 6 N ,LINE 6 N LINE 6 N LINE 7 N LINE 7 N LINE 8 N LINE 8 N LINE 9 N RANGE ROAD I StEEL~sLfNE I LINE 2 N ,LINE 3i'J__ 'LINE 4N LINE 5N GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL ----- Township of Oro-Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Reconstruction/Double Surface Treatment AADT RANGE IMPROVE CRITERIA 1 CODE I 1 ~~~g~ J GPRCR , ~~~g~ i ~ GPRCR GPRCR I GPRCR - T GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR i GPRCR GPRCR DEGR I DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR ' DEGR --I j- DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR DEGR I ---I-- I I I ,-- ____J i GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR GPRCR ! __L_____ 1 i IMPROVE PRIORITY RATING 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ROAD I LENGTH (m) , j- 2732 1312 1228 3725 1653 1177 889 ' ---I 1467 I 1384 1348 1434 1493 78 986 108 428 695 537 1427 837 830 2105 533 2137 148 1109 1305 160 269 2356 1399 1314 1393 1741 622 625 - - - IMPROVE YEAR 2009 2009-- 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 _I 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 -- ~~~i I 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 i __I ! -L DST -1- 2010 DST , 2010 DST --r 2010 DST I 2010 - - - APPENDIX C - 6 133806 878 3146 64 4358 I R-G R-G- R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G ~-G_ 1 ~:~=-l R-G R-G R-G --R-G- R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G R-G 1 I , -$183,069 : _____________ __ I $87,935 I $82,273 - $249,5551' $110,780 $78,85TI :~~j~~ I $92,733 $90~285 $96,061, $100,0041 _$5,218' $6~,050 $7,210, $28,7091 $46,5921 $35,963, $95,601 $56,064 $55,626 $141,021 $35,715 - $143,1541 $9,915[- $74,272, $87,468: $10.725 $18,003.- $157,874' $93,728 i $88,052 $93,307 ' $116,678 $41,666 $41,880_ COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST $5,430.416 $16,689 $59,773 ----$1,.214' $82.795 F :09599IDOCSIRPTSI030620069ravelhardtopplan.xlsRural Construction (Gravel) 8 Date Printed:3/08/06 - - - ----- Township of Oro-Medonte Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Reconstruction/Double Surface Treatment - - - - - - - ROAD ID ROAD NAME EXIST, AADT IMPROVE 1 IMPROVE ROAD IMPROVE IMPROVE SURFACE RANGE CRITERIA 1 PRIORITY LENGTH (m) , TYPE YEAR MATERIAL , CODE i RATING j n,L1NE 6'N _+-_n_ ------- 3985 GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1908 I DST , 4913 LINE 6N GRAVEL I GPRCR' 6 3153 I DST 2010 r--- DST -- ---+-- 2010 7105 ,LINE 6N GRAVEL GPRCR 6 3678 7669 jLlNE 6N GRAVEL GPRCR 6 2732 I DST 2010 4819 j LINE 8 N GRAVEL I GPRCR 6 1312 , DST 2016 5189 iLlNE8 N GRAVEL --GPRCR 6 , 1228 DST 2010 ----- --- j 6'150 __jLlNE 8 N_ __ n _ GRAVEL GPRCR 6 L_ 3725 ,---- DST 2010 4567 IMOUNT ~AINT LOU~S ROAD E GRAVEL GPRCR 6 I 1653 DST 2010 I -[- 4659 :OLD COLDWATEHBOAD GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1177 DST 2010 -- 4077 OLD COUNTY ROAD GRAVEL GPRCR 6 889 DST 2010 3825 PETER STREET E GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1467 DST 2010 4285 ,PETER STREET V'L GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1384 DST 2010 4063 : PETER STREET W GRAVEL GPRCR 6 1348 DST 2010 4151 ,PETER STREET W GRAVEL i- GPRCR 6 L 1434 ----- DST 2010 4406 PETER STREET W GRAVEL GPRCR 6 I 1493 DST 2010 4916 -SCARLETT LTNE GRAVEL GPRCR 6 78 DST 1- 2010 5244 n'SCARLETTTjNE _ GRAVEL GPRCR 6 986 DST 2010 8639 ,15/16 SIDEROADW GRAVEL I DEGR 7 108 DST 2010 4021 ;CAHIAGUE ROAD-- GRAVEL r---- DEGR 7 428 DST 2010 8622 iDRURYMILL ROAD GRAVEL DEGR 7 695 DST 2010 3752 -------- i DUNNS liNE DST GRAVEL DEGR 7 537 2010 4402 - 'FAIR VALLEY CHURCH ROAD GRAVEL DEGR 7 1427 DST 2010 6854 'LINE 1 N T GRAVEL DEGR 7 837 DST 2010 5947 LINE 12 N I GRAVEL DEGR - I 7 830 DST -r 2010 6359 LINE 2 N GRAVEL I DEGR 7 2105 DST 2010 6409 LiNE 2N GRAVEL --1 DEGR I 7 533 DST 2010 ----~--- 6222 LINE 3 N GRAVEL DEGR 7 2137 DST 2010 I 'LINE 5 N , , 100-- 5873 GRAVEL , DEGR 7 148 ! DST 2010 LINE 6 N --- e807 , GRAVEL DEGR 7 1109 DST 2010 17804 LINE 13 N ----+--- GRAVEL DEGR DST 1 2010 7 1305 4367 LINE 6 N GRAVEL DEGR 7 160 DST I 2010 4367 LINE 6 N GRAVEL DEGR 7 269 DST 2010 4253 _LINE 7 N GRAVEL DEGR 7 !--- 2356 DST , 2010 ----- 5522 ,LINE 7N GRAVEL , DEGR 7 __I 1399 t_ DST-- . - 2010 4345 LINE 8 N GRAVEL 1 DEGR 7 I 1314 DST 2016 4568 -JLlNE 8N i GRAVEL DEGR 7 1393 DST T=-~~~~ 19188 jLlNE 9N ______n___' GRAVEL DEGR 7 1741 DST 10519 1 RANGE-ROAD GRAVEL DEGR 7 622__='=- DST , 2010 ---- ------ n , STEELESTj-N-E ____non_nun. -------- DST 3993 GRAVEL DEGR 7 625 2010 SUB-TOTAL 60169 Total Cost - - -- APPENDIX C COST IMPRVMNT YEAR TOTAL COST $36,249 ~59,90i 1 $69,8851 . $51 ,9151- -- ,. $24,937 $23,331. $70,76-9 $31,415' $22,361 '..$16,898 $27,878 $26,297 $25,603' $ $28, $1,480 $18.731' $2,045, $8,1411' $13,213. $10,198, $27,111"- $15,899 -$15,775 $39,991 $.1..0,.12._.8,....1' $40,596 $2,8121 $21,062- $24,804; $3,041 $5,105: . $44,770: $26,580 $24;970 $26,460 i _n ~33,088 ~R[~~F=-- $19,676,694 $1,143,210 $19,676,694 F :09599/DOCS/RPTS/030620069ravelhardtopplan .xlsRural Construction (Gravel) 9 Date Printed:3/08/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Township of OroHMedonte APPENDIX C Hardtop Surfacing Program for Gravel Roads Reconstruction/Double; Surface Treatment ROAD ID ROAD NAME EXIST. AADT IMPROVE IMPROVE ROAD IMPROVE COST IMPRVMNT SURFACE RANGE CRITERIA PRIORITY LENGTH (m) YEAR YEAR TOTAL MATERIAL CODE RATING COST F:09599/DOCS/RPTS/03062006gravelhardtopplan.xlsRural Construction (Gravel) 10 Date Printed:3/08/06 ÚæÄðçëççÄÝßÜÄÙ×ÍÄÓ¿°Ä©±®µ·²¹Ä®»­«®º¿½·²¹Á°´¿²ÁØ¿©µ»­¬±²»ÁÑ®±ÁÛ¿­¬ò³¨¼ ÚæÄðçëççÄÝßÜÄÙ×ÍÄÓ¿°Ä©±®µ·²¹Ä®»­«®º¿½·²¹Á°´¿²Á´¿µ»Á­·³½±»Á¸±®­»­¸±»ò³¨¼ ÚæÄðçëççÄÝßÜÄÙ×ÍÄÓ¿°Ä©±®µ·²¹Ä®»­«®º¿½·²¹Á°´¿²Á¸±®­»­¸±»ª¿´´§®±¿¼Áª¿­»§ò³¨¼ ÚæÄðçëççÄÝßÜÄÙ×ÍÄÓ¿°Ä©±®µ·²¹Ä®»­«®º¿½·²¹Á°´¿²ÁØ¿©µ»­¬±²»ÁÑ®±ÁÉ»­¬ò³¨¼ I-OR THt:: RECORD ~ -7~ . J.{QA .:2:2!Ol, 4 I3L- ~ ctA~ ~;. .T~"...;G:'."'..'."7r~~~'~""~'M" -Th ~ f ~c.JL t.9$ The Road to Suburbanization There's nothing like a pothole to light up the phone lines at town hall. So coun- cillors in Caledon, just north of Toronto, were quick to believe Hans Muntz, their Director of Infra- structure, who told them that by using a new, low-cost technique, he could pave virtually all of Caledon's W kilo- meues of dirt roads, and thus save the municipal- ity big money. Munrz moved on before his experiment was complete. If it had proceeded, he would have saddled resi- dents with a huge financial burden and, some believe, have catapulted this still rural community further down the road to suburbanization. Councillor Richard Paterak supported the plan and con- tinues to be adamant that paved roads are better. "On my road," he says, "it's a whole lot safer. We don't have cars in the ditch anymore." He now recognizes that the savings Muntz promised aren't there, but, he asks, "What's the environmental Studies, says, "One of the misconceptions is that once you pave a road, you don't have to worry about mainte- nance anymore." He points out that spring breakup in our climate can de- stroy a paved road, especially one that hasn't been adequately constructed before the pave- ment was laid. And this is certainly Cale- don's experience. Craig Campbell inherited Muntz's job and his experiment. Campbell says, "My personal opinion is that we went too cheap on some of the earliest sections," adding, "The first spring breakup was okay, but in the second year we lost huge amounts [of pave- ment]." Muntz used Caledon to test his theory that a wafer thin layer of hot asphalt laid down with minimal road preparation would stand up sufficiently to keep residents happy He acknowledged he'd have some breakup, but be- lieved drivers wouldn't mind a few spring potholes as long as the road was fine for the remainder of the year. Campbell found out differ- ently. When asked how resi- dents responded to the potholes, he admitted, "Not cost of having to turn in your car two years earlier [because of damage caused by driving on dirt roads]l" Paterak has a point. Brian Anderson at the Ontario Good Roads Association says that it costs more to operate a car on dirt roads than on paved ones. Meanwhile, a U.S. organization calculated that it costs between 39 and 79 percent more to drive a car on an unpaved road. But this doesn't automatically mean hard -topping makes sense. Kevin Abbey, Director of Penn State University's Center for Dirt and Gravel Road """"~"~,,,,,,,c_,,,,c=;_,,,,,,_,,"-=,-,-,,,,,,",,;,,,,",,,,,_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_"C""",,,""''''''-~~'''''~"""",,,~,~,,,_,,~,__,~~' 40 HARROWSMITH COUNTRY LIFE well." Caledon's new policy is that roads must carry at least 400 aadt (average annual daily traffic) before they will be paved (Muntz used 200 aadt). Furthermore, the town now does base repairs before Laying down double the thickness of asphalt. The result is that Muntz's calculation that he could pave roads for $25,000 per kilometre has mush- roomed to $65,000. But cost and maintenance aren't the only issues. Kevin Abbey says, "There's no ques- tion that speeds are higher on paved roads. He adds, "Com- munities that are not pre~ pared to increase law enforcement and t:rafBc con~ trol need to look very care- fully at the decision to pave." Abbey's statement is backed up by the experience ofJohn Johnson, a Caledon resident who lives on a recently paved road. Commuters fly over the hill to the north of his drive- way so fast that it's dangerous to pull into traffic. One only has to attend a publlc meeting to realize that people who live on dirt roads otten have deep-rooted feel- ings about paving that seldom have much to do with cost, maintenance or speed. One Caledon resident who grew up on a farm in what has since become Mississauga hopes that councillors and commuters recognize mat hard-surfacing roads, in her experience, is one of the most imponant events in the process of suburbanization. Once a road is paved, the de- velopers can't be far behind. NICOLA ROSS Financial Analysis of 'Tar and Chip' proposal: To 'Tar and Chip' all 300 kIn of road at $15,000/ kIn = $4,500,000 Year One: (2006) Funding CRF $1,000,000 Gas tax $ 178,565 Calcium $ 125,000 Maintenance $ 138,600 Total: $1,442,165 - To 'Tar and Chip' 150 kIn, of gravel road (Savings) (Savings) Maintenance Savings: Current costs: Hard top - 300 Km @ $477/km = $143,100 Gravel - 300 Km@$1401/km = $420300 TOTAL - $563,400 If 150 kIn were done in first year: Hard Top - 450 kIn @ $477 = Gravel - 150 kIn @$1401 = TOTAL - $214,650 $210,150 $424,800 SAVINGS $563,400 $424,800 $138,600 To 'Tar and Chip' remaining 150 kIn of gravel roads: Year Two: (2007) Funding - CRF $1,000,000 Gas tax $ 238,060 Calcium $ 250,000 Maintenance $ 286.200 Grader $ 300,000 Total $2,074,260 Maintenance Savings: 600 kIn @ $477 = $277,200 Current Costs: $563,400 $563,400 $277,200 $286,200 SAVINGS: These calculations are based on information received that there are 600 kIn, of roads in our Township and half of them currently have hard top, If this figure includes private roads then the total cost will be reduced as the Township would not be responsible for applying Tar and Chip to these roads, ~ l TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-10 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Summary Report for Engineering and 2005 - Canterbury Water Environmental Services C.ofW. Supply and Treatment Date: March 14,2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05-26665 Date: RolI#: II BACKGROUND: II As per Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170/03, the Township of Oro-Medonte is required to prepare an annual written Report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Summary Report has been received, The Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31, 2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge. I ANALYSIS: II Attached is the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Canterbury Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170/03 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, and identifies any non-compliance issues identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Canterbury Water System. II RECOMMENDATION(S): ~C\-J II 1. THAT Report #EES2006-10 be received and adopted. 2. AND THAT Council receives the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Canterbury Water Supply System, Keith Mathieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services '''l "", ~ 'llab L-b 1-.... f\~~ \ \ - 2- THE CORPORATION OFTHE TOWN8tIIP r9~OFJI6eaivW 148Une 75., Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO Phone (705) 487-2171 Fax (705) 487-0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14, 2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Canterbury Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Canterbury Water System supplies 17 homes with water from two (2) ground water source wells, Permit to Take Water #92-P-3028, issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte, authorizes the withdrawal of water, expiring December 15, 2011. The volume of water withdrawn from Well #1 and Well #2 shall not exceed 104 m3 (104,544 Iitres) per day. The water treatment plant is to be operated to treat water at a rate not to exceed the maximum flow rate of 209 m3 per day. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the Canterbury system, and the average monthly flow. At no time during 2005 did the "maximum daily flow" exceed the Permit to Take Water or exceed the maximum flow rate of treated water to the distribution system, as per Section 1.3 of the Certificate of Approval. With the installation of the PLC in 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #'s 1 and 2. The allowable peak flow rates for Well #'s 1 and 2 is 1.53Us, which was not exceeded in 2005. The highest "daily flow" for the year from Well #1 occurred on August 2nd at 27.44 m3; Well #2 occurred on June th at 23,85 m3; and to the distribution system, it was 45.73 m3 on June tho The total annual flow for the Canterbury system was 4,920.98 m3, which was comparable to 2004 flows. . ../2 Page Two Letter to M.O.E. Re: Canterbury - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14. 2006 To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of the magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 26, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the wells, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and sixty (260) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and "fecal coliforms", and one hundred and four (104) tests for HPC in 2005. There were no detectable results in 2005. To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0.2 mg/L in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system. An average of 0.31 Udayof Sodium Hypochlorite was used in the Canterbury system in 2005. Four hundred and seventeen (417) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005, These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mg/L in the distribution system. A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. An On-Line ABB 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book. Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003. Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing, The chemical results did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005. .. ./3 Page Three Letter to M.O.E. Re: Canterbury - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14.2006 On April 18, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #8538-68YQ72 for the Canterbury Water Supply System. On August 5, 2004, the Ministry of the Environment issued Certificate of Approval #2993-62MPY J for the installation of the standby generator set. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" All required upgrades, as per Part 8,0 of the Certificate of Approval, were completed by the Township in 2003. The commissioning of the natural gas standby generator was completed in the Fall of 2004. PROVINCIAL OFFICER'S ORDER On September 6, 2005. the Ministry of the Environment inspected the Canterbury Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. From this inspection, no Provincial Officer's Orders were issued, "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" From the September 6th inspection. no non-compliances with the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Approval were issued. "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the September 6th inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of three (3) suggestions for the operation of the Canterbury Water System. Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Canterbury Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171. OF ORO-MEDONTE Kei 'eson, C.R.S.1. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KMlps Attachments ~ -\0 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-11 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Summary Report for Engineering and 2005 - Cedarbrook Water Environmental Services C.ofW. Supply and Treatment Date: March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05-26665 Date: RolI#: t BACKGROUND: II As per Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170103, the Township of Oro-Medonte is required to prepare an annual written Report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Summary Report has been received. The Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31, 2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge. I ANALYSIS: ~ Attached is the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Cedarbrook Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170103 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, and identifies any non-compliance issues identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Cedarbrook Water System, I RECOMMENDATION(S): ~G,-l , 1. THAT Report #EES2006-11 be received and adopted, 2. AND THAT Council receives the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Cedarbrook Water Supply System. Keith Mathieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services (l~ V @01\O'P '" L\ (\I~~. \' - 2- ~ THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN8IiIP r9mor7l6ec&vw 148Line7S., Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO Phone (705) 487-2171 Fax (7051487-0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14, 2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Cedarbrook Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Cedarbrook Water System supplies 24 homes with water from two (2) ground water source wells. Amended Permit to Take Water #4817-6HJPXP, issued to the Township of Oro- Medonte, authorizes the withdrawal of water, expiring October 31, 2015 for Well #1 and Well #2. The withdrawal of water is not to exceed 104 m3 per day, for each well. The water treatment plant is to be operated to treat water at a rate not to exceed the maximum flow rate of 2,27 LIs, WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the Cedarbrook system, and the average monthly flow. At no time during 2005 did the "maximum daily flow" exceed the Penmit to Take Water. With the installation of the PLC in 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #'s 1 and 2, The allowable peak flow rates for Well #'s 1 and 2 and the distribution system is 2.27 LIs. On two (2) occasions during 2005, the flow rates for Well #1 and the distribution were exceeded. On June 2ih, the flow rate was between 2.44 - 2.73 LIs for 27 minutes for flushing the water mains. On October 25lh, the flow rate was between 2,34 - 2.67 for 26 minutes for flushing the chlorine analyzer. Both exceedences were for maintance of the water system. .. ./2 Page Two Letter to M.O.E. Re: Cedarbrook - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14, 2006 The highest "daily flow" for the year from Well #1 occurred on August 24th at 27.59 m3; Well #2 occurred on July 20th at 38.91 m3; and to the distribution system, it was 50.52 m3 on June 27'h. The total annual flow for the Cedarbrook system was 5,931 m3, which is comparable to the past two years. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of the magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 26, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the wells, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and sixty-three (263) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and "fecal coliforms", and one hundred and four (104) tests for HPC in 2005, There was one (1) adverse water sample taken on July 18th, which had a count of 1.0 Total Coliform/100 ml. The system was flushed and resampled; the resample came back good. To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0,2 mg/L in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system. An average of 0.33 L1day was used in the Cedarbrook system in 2005. Four hundred and twenty (420) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005. These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system. A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. An On-Line ABB 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly on each well by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book, .. ./3 \ , Page Three Letter to M,O.E. Re: Cedarbrook - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14, 2006 Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003, Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing. The chemical results did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005. Samples obtained from the Cedarbrook distribution system were found to have Sodium results of 23.2 mglL, which is consistent with past year's results. Although the aesthetic objective of Sodium in drinking water is 200 mg/L, the Medical Officer of Health was notified of the Sodium results. On August 5, 2004, the Ministry of the Environment issued Certificate of Approval #6366-62MQCE for the installation of the standby power generator, and Amended Certificate of Approval #5391-645KPK dated August 24,2004, extending the time frame of the installation of the standby power unit for the Cedarbrook Water Supply System, "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Part 8, Upqradinq Requirements, the Certificate of Approval required the Township to have the standby natural gas generator set installed by September 30, 2004; this work was completed by Mazur Electrical prior to September 30th. All other required upgrades were completed in 2003. "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" On January 17, 2006, the Ministry of the Environment performed an inspection of the Cedarbrook Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. From this inspection, one (1) non-compliance issue and actions required were identified and are attached as Schedules I and II. "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the January 17th inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of three (3) suggestions for the operation of the Cedarbrook Water System. .. ./4 ~~ - \ \ Page Four Letter to M.O.E. Re: Cedarbrook - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14,2006 Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Cedarbrook Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171. Sincerely, (2"'P OF ORD-MEDONTE Keith Mathieson, C.R.S.1. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KMlps Attachments S u.e-ovl.L I CllWU.a A.'AAt.(. Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report allowed under the PTTW. on 2/1512006 Page 26 of 30 @ Ontario Cs.oA.u./Jo.)~ Sl.llSOutL II Ministry ofthe Environ Drinking Water System Inspection Re n__._.__.___"..,__..._____._'_____...._______.____.____..____.._____._________________._____.______.____.____._._______._._""_____n__ ACTIONS REQUIRED This section provides further detail regarding the non compliance items listed on the previous page, as well as actions required to address each issue. 1 The maximum water takings were not in accordance with those allowed under the PTTW, The Township failed to ensure that maximum water takings were in accordance with the requirements of Permit To Take Water #95-P-5036, dated November 24, 1995, However, the exceedance of the maximum water taking capacity, which occurred on June 27, 2005, occurred for an accepted reason, distribution system flushing. No further action required, 2 Summary Reports did not include the required information. The Township failed to ensure that the 2004 Summary Report included monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22-2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170103. The Township shall ensure that Summary Reports include monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22- 2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170/03. .. Report Generated for vreugdpe on 2/15/2006 Page 2 .. ~ - \Lt TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-12 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Compliance/Summary Engineering and Report for 2005 - Craighurst Environmental Services C.ofW. Water Supply and Treatment Date: March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05.26665 Date: RolI#: I BACKGROUND: I Section 4 of the Certificate of Approval issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte and Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170103, requires a written report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval to be completed annually, This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Compliance/Summary Report has been received, The Compliance/Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31,2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge. II ANALYSIS: I Attached is the Annual CompliancelSummary Report for 2005 for the Craighurst Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170103 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, and identifies any non-compliance issues identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Craighurst Water System, ~ RECOMMENDATION(S): ~C\ - \ l) ~ 1. THAT Report #EES2006-12 be received and adopted. 2. AND THAT Council receives the Annual Compliance/Summary Report for 2005 for the Craighurst Water Supply System. Keith athieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services '.' t.~ <. ".-i ~- {v ftJ/" ~. \('h \\ J ~~\_~~ - 2- THE CORPORATION OF THE -\\1> TOWN81IIP r!Jt~Of J~~ 148 Line 7 S., Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO Phone (705) 487-2171 Fax (705) 487-0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14,2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Craighurst Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Craighurst Water System supplies 51 homes with water from three (3) ground water source wells. Permit to Take Water Renewal #4624-6HKPJW for Well #'s 1, 2 and 3 was issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte on October 28, 2005, expiring December 15, 2011. The withdrawal of water is not to exceed 64 m3 for Well #1, 140 m3 for Well #2, and 229 m3 for Well #3, per day. The combined total of water taken from the three (3) wells is not to exceed 229 m3 per day, The water treatment plant is to be operated to treat water at a rate not to exceed the maximum flow of 458 m per day. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the Craighurst system, and the average monthly flow. At no time during 2005 did the "maximum daily flow" exceed the Permit to Take Water or exceed the maximum flow rate of treated water to the distribution system, as per Section 1.3 of the Certificate of Approval. With the installation of the PLC in 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #'s 1, 2 and 3 and the distribution system. The allowable peak flow rates for Well #1 is 0.75 LIs, Well #2 is 1,62 LIs, Well #3 is 3.38 LIs and the distribution is 5.30 LIs. During 2005, the peak flow rates for the Wells were not " ./2 1a \ - \ Page Two Letter to M.O.E. Re: Craighurst - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14. 2006 exceeded and the distribution system was exceeded seven (7) times between June 5th and July 3rd. The flow exceedence report has been attached. Due to the hot, dry summer, a water use restriction was imposed in July, after which no exceedences were reported, The highest "daily flow" for the year is as follows: . Well #1 was not used in 2005 . Well #2 occurred on June 2nd at 69.21 m3 . Well #3 occurred on August 14th at 122,15 m3, and . To the distribution system, it was 171.81 m3 on June 2nd . The total amount to the distribution system for 2005 was 16,438 m3, which is 12% higher than previous years. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of the magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 28, 2005, WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the wells, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and sixty-three (263) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and "fecal coliforms" and one hundred and four (104) tests for HPC in 2005. There was one (1) adverse sample for "total coliforms" during the year that was retested and came back good. To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system. An average of 0.66 Uday of Chlorine was used in the Craighurst system in 2005. Four hundred and twenty (420) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005. These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system, A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the township office via the wireless communication system. .. ./3 Page Three Letter to M,O.E. Re: Craighurst - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14, 2006 ~c\- An On-Line ASS 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book, Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170/03 dated June, 2003. Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing. The chemical results did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005. Samples obtained from the Craighurst distribution system were found to have a Sodium level above 20 mg/L; the concentration of Sodium was 33.6 mg/L. Although the aesthetic objective of Sodium in drinking water is 200 mg/L, the Medical Officer of Health was notified that the concentration exceeded 20 mg/L. On October 8, 2002, the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #7367-5E9RLK for the Craighurst Water Supply System. On August 5, 2004, the Ministry of the Environment issued Certificate of Approval #8826-62MNSS for the installation of the 25 Kw standby generator. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Section 5, UpQradinq Requirements, all physical improvements were completed in 2003. "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" On September 28, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment inspected the Craighurst Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. From this inspection, the Ministry issued one (1) non-compliance with regulatory requirements and actions required, which are attached as Schedules I and II. Confirmation was given to the M.O.E. that the standby power generator installed at Craighurst is rated at 25 kilowatts, as per the C. of A. prior to December 16, 2005. .. ./4 Page Four Letter to M.O.E. Re: Craighurst - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14,2006 1 "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the September 28, 2005 inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of nineteen (19) suggestions for the operation of the Craighurst Water System. From this list, the Township of Oro-Medonte has presently completed five (5) of these suggestions. Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Craighurst Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171. Sincerely, Keith Mathieson, C.R.S.!. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KMlps Attachments ~ . .~..antario ... . S~",o.L \ Ministry of the Environment c:.4oII.'4lo wu."I'" Drinking Water System Inspection Report _______--e-_____e______.____."._.___________.__._.______..______'_m'."______.m___..__ NON COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS . This section provides a summary of all non-eompliance with regulatory requirements Identified during the inspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found In the body of the Inspection report. . Back-up power was not available as required by Certificate of Approval or other direction. . . ..-----..---..-.--..------.--.--..-.-----------...-----------"---.----.- ........-.-....--------.-".-----. ",-.---....---..-..---.---..--.,.--.--...---- .....--.-...-...,.,-"-"---..---...... Report Generated for crumbija on 11/2/2005 Page 34 of 40 ~Ontario CAAllIoIl.loU-r S'.fol!ClO,", \l Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report _....____...________n.____________n__..__.__.____.__..__,.----.--.-,-.--.-.-,-.-.,-.----.--.-.-.--~---..--_.-.-----------.....-----.-..--. ....-. . ACTIONS REQUIRED This section provides further detail regarding the non compliance items listed on the previous page, as well as actions required to address each issue. 1 Summary Reports did not include the required information. Specificaily, the Owner failed to ensure that the 2004 Summary Report included monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22-2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170/03. Action(s) Required: The Owner shail ensure that the Summary Report includes monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22-2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170/03, Back-up power was available at the time of inspection, however the standby natural gas powered generator installed for these purposes was not installed in accordance with Certificate of Approval (Air) #8826-62MNSS issued August 5, 2004 or the Application for Approval (Air) dated April 14, 2004 which comprises the Approval. Specificaily, the standby natural gas generator installed at the time of imlpection possessed a nameplate indicating a rating of 20 kilowatts, whereas, the Application for Approval (Air) dated April 14, 2004, the Dispersion Modelling Report dated May 28, 2005 and subsequent Certificate of Approval (Air) #8826-62MNSS issued August 5, 2004 approved the instailation of one standby natural gas generator set having rating of 25 kilowatts. The unit proposed and approved for installation was a Generac Power Systems Generator Type SG0025, According to the nameplate, the unit instailed at the time of the inspection was a Generac Power Systems Generator Type SG0020 equipped with an upsized alternator, with a rating of 30 kilowatts. The Owner indicated the generator has been operated under full system load and is of sufficient capacity, however the discrepancy remains. Action(s) Required: By December 16, 2005 the owner shail install and implement works in accordance with Certificate of Approval (Air) #8826-62MNSS issued August 5, 2004; or by December 16, 2005, the Owner shail in consultation with, and under the direction of the Ministry's Approvals and Licensing Branch take ail necessary steps to ensure the Certificate(s) of Approval for the Craighurst water system accurately depict the existing works. A copy of any correspondence and or submissions shail also be supplied to the undersigned, on or before that same date. 2 . . .. .-----.-----........---....-----.--...--- ._.._._--,---_._.._-_._-_._--_._-,_.~-_.,----------_..-...-- .. .......__..m..__....__._ .....___...___.............___...___._..._...____.."__ _m_.___..____"._.__m..'_"__,.... Report Generated for crumbija on 1112/2005 Page 35 of 40 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-13 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Summary Report for Engineering and 2005 - Harbourwood Water Environmental Services C.ofW. Supply and Treatment Date: March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05.26665 Date: RolI#: II BACKGROUND: I As per Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170103, the Township of Oro-Medonte is required to prepare an annual written Report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Summary Report has been received. The Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31, 2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge, II ANALYSIS: I Attached is the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Harbourwood Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170103 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, and identifies any non-compliance issues identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Harbourwood Water System. ~ RECOMMENDATION(S): ~a-d I 1 , THAT Report #EES2006-13 be received and adopted. 2. AND THAT Council receives the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Harbourwood Water Supply System. Re;J' ,"bmitted, Keit athieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services r<l iYI.C'j ,_IT' < lOb d" \l~ lV\~V--- - 2- THE CORPORATION OF THE ~ TOWN8fIIP -&~oF7I6edvW 148 Line 7 S., Box 100 Ora, Ontario LOL ZXO Phone (705) 487-2171 fax (705) 487-0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14, 2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Harbourwood Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Harbourwood Water System supplies 131 homes with water from two (2) ground water source wells. (Well #1 has been abandoned, in accordance with Ontario Regulation #903). Permit to Take Water #2334-5VKS38 for Well #'s 2 and 3 was issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte on January 29, 2004, expiring January 31, 2014, permitting 921,6 m3 , per day, for Well #2 or 921.6 m3, per day, for Well #3, The water treatment plant is to be operated to treat water at a rate not to exceed the maximum flow rate of 921.8 m3, per day, in total. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the Harbourwood system, and the average monthly flow. At no time during 2005 did the "maximum daily flow" exceed the Permit to Take Water or exceed the maximum flow rate of treated water to the distribution system, With the installation of the PLC in 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #'s 2 and 3 and the distribution system, The allowable peak flow rates for Well #'s 2 and 3 and the distribution system is 10.6 LIs, From June 21st to December 5, 2005, Well #2 exceeded the peak flow rate three hundred and fifty-six (356) times, Well #3 exceeded the peak flow rate fifty-one (51) times during May 30th to October 20th, and the distribution exceeded the peak flow rate seven (7) times during 2005. Three (3) of these exceedences occurred on July 27th during maintance flushing of the system. Attached are records of the flow exceedences for 2005 for the Harbourwood system, .. ./2 Page Two Letter to M.O.E. Re: Harbourwood - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14, 2006 The Township applied to the M.O.E. on March 30, 2005 to have the Permit to Take Water amended to reflect the actual flow rates for Well #'s 2 and 3, which was received on February 17, 2006, With the changes made in the new Permit #8643-6HKK9K, there would have been no flow exceedences in Well #'s 2 and 3 during 2005, The highest "daily flow" for the year from Well #2 occurred on July 1zth at 296.54 m3; Well #3 occurred on June 5th at 295.39 m3; and to the distribution system, it was 406.10 m3 on June 5th. The total flow to the distribution system for 2005 was 38,888 m3, which is comparable to past years. New magnetic flow meters have been installed on Well #'s 2 and 3 to record flows from each well, and flow to the distribution system. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of actual rate of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of these magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 26, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the wells, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and sixty (260) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and "fecal coliforms" in 2005. There were no detectable results in 2005. To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system. An average of 1.79 L1day was used in the Harbourwood system in 2005. Four hundred and seventeen (417) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005. These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mg/L in the distribution system. A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. .. ./3 Page Three Letter to M.O.E. Re: Harbourwood - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14, 2006 o '1 An On-Line ABB 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book. Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003. Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing. The chemical analysis results did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005, On June 13, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #3327 -6CVPG9 for the Harbourwood Water Supply System. On September 8, 2004, the Ministry of the Environment issued Certificate of Approval #7934-64FRUD for the installation of the 100 Kw standby power unit. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Part 8. Upqradinq Requirements, the Certificate of Approval required the Township to have physical improvements completed, which were completed prior to the end of 2002. "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" On April 13, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment conducted an inspection of the Harbourwood Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. From this inspection, the Ministry identified two (2) non-compliance issues and actions required, which are attached as Schedules I and II. .. ./4 Page Four Letter to M.O.E. Re: Harbourwood - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14, 2006 "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the April 13, 2005 inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of three (3) suggestions for the operation of the Harbourwood Water System, Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Harbourwood Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171, Keith Mathieson, C.R.S.1. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KMlps Attachments CYU~)ut , UA..t.oon I .,.~~ 1"\ Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report NON COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS This section provides a summary of all non-compliance with regulatory requirements identified during the inspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found in the body of the inspection report. . The maximum water takings were not in accordance with those allowed under the PTTW. . There is no evidence that the annular space around the casing of each well was adequately filled with sealing material when the well was constructed. . . . Report Generated for vreugdpe on 7/18/2005 Page 26 of 30 , ' ~\I t\.a,.......twu.. ~ Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report . ACTIONS REQUIRED This section provides further detail regarding the non compliance items listed on the previous page, as well as actions required to address each issue. 1 There is no evidence that the annular space around the casing of each well was adequately filled with sealing material when the well was constructed. As a Water Well Record detailing the construction of Well #2 cannot be located, it is unknown if the annulus of Well #2 is sealed as required. The Township has ensured that the surface grade in the vicinity of the wellhead is such that water will not pond or collect. No further action required. 2 The instantaneous maximum flow rates were not in accordance with those allowed under the Pennit and the Certificate of Approval. The exceedances of the maximum allowable flow rate identified in the Pennit and the Certificate of Approval were for an accepted reason. The Township reports that the peak flow rate exceedances are typically less than two minutes in duration and are caused by pump start-up. The instantaneous flow rate exceedances are not expected to have an impact on treatment processes. The daily flow limits stated in the Pennit were not exceeded during the inspection review period. The Township's engineering consultant has made application to amend the Pennit to reflect the actual peak flow rates. No further action required. . . -------_.__._-------~-_.._-- Report Generated for vreugdpe on 7/1812005 Page 27 of 30 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-14 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Summary Report for Engineering and 2005 - Horseshoe Highlands Environmental Services C.ofW. Water Supply and Treatment Date: March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05-26665 Date: RolI#: II BACKGROUND: ~ As per Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170103, the Township of Oro-Medonte is required to prepare an annual written Report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Summary Report has been received. The Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31, 2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge, I ANALYSIS: II Attached is the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Horseshoe Highlands Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170103 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte. and identifies any non-compliance issues identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Horseshoe Highlands Water System. ~ RECOMMENDATION(S): lo,~3\ ~ 1, THAT Report #EES2006-14 be received and adopted. 2, AND THAT Council receives the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Horseshoe Highlands Water Supply System, Respec~mitted, Ke," &, Director of Engineering and Environmental Services /" "i ,G ( ;rV1! v~ yv~ yU , , 106 ~~\l\ , - 2- THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN8tIIP r!J~Of7#b~ 148 Line 7 S., Box 100 Ora, Ontario LOL 2XO Phone (705) 487~2171 Fax (705) 487~0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14,2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Horseshoe Highlands Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Horseshoe Highlands Water System supplies 535 units with water, which includes the residents of the Highlands and four phases of Carriage Hills, The Highlands Golf Course has been disconnected from this system. The water is supplied from two (2) ground water source wells, Permit to Take Water #0404-5UHQDN for Well #'s 1 and 2 was issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte on January 21,2004, expiring December 31,2013, permitting 3,371 m3 for Well #1 and 527 m3 for Well #2 of water taking, per day. The water treatment plant is to be operated to treat water at a rate not to exceed the maximum flow of 3,370 m3 per day. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the Horseshoe Highlands system, and the average monthly flow. At no time during 2005 did the "maximum daily flow" exceed the Permit to Take Water or exceed the maximum flow rate of treated water to the distribution system, as per Section 4.1 of the Certificate of Approval. With the installation of the PLC in 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #1 and the distribution system. The allowable peak flow rate for Well #1 and the distribution is 39 LIs. On September 6th, th, 10th and 11th, the allowable peak flow rates for Well #1 and the distribution system was exceeded as a result of a malfunction of the control valve in the pumping station. A flow exceedence report has been attached. .. ./2 Page Two Letter to M.O.E. Re: Horseshoe Highlands - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14. 2006 The highest "daily flow" for the year from Well #1 and to the distribution system occurred on July 11th at 1,555.20 m3. Well #2 was not in service during 2005. The total annual distribution flow for the Horseshoe system was 196,791,01 m3, which is a 15% increase over 2004; the population increase was approximately 7% within the Horseshoe system. On September 5, 2002, the irrigation system for the Highlands Golf Course was disconnected from the municipal water system. Flows dropped dramatically after this. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of these magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 28, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the wells, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and sixty (260) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and "fecal coliforms" in 2005. There were no detectable results in 2005, To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system. An average of 4.30 Uday of chlorine was used in the Horseshoe Highlands system in 2005. Four hundred and seventeen (417) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005, These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mg/L in the distribution system. A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. An On-Line ASB 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book. .. ./3 Page Three Letter to M.O.E. Re: Horseshoe Highlands - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14. 2006 C\ 1; Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003. Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing. The results of the treated samples did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005. On April 23, 2004, the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #3693-5YBP9A for the Horseshoe Highlands Water Supply System, for the installation of pipe work and valves for flow measurement of Well #2. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Section 5, Upqradinq Requirements, of the previous Certificate of Approval, the Township was required to have physical improvements, which were completed in 2003. "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" On May 17, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment inspected the Horseshoe Highlands Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. From this inspection, the Ministry did not identify any non-compliances with regulatory requirements or actions required. "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the May 17, 2005 inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of six (6) suggestions for the operation of the Horseshoe Highlands Water System. Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Horseshoe Highlands Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171. SHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE \ Mathieson, C.R.S.!. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KM/ps Attachments TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-15 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Summary Report for Engineering and 2005 - Lake Simcoe Regional Environmental Services C.ofW. Airport Water Supply and Date: Treatment March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05-26665 Date: RolI#: II BACKGROUND: ~ As per Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170/03, the Township of Oro-Medonte is required to prepare an annual written Report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Summary Report has been received, The Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31, 2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge. II ANALYSIS: ~ Attached is the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170103 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, on behalf of the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Commission. Lake Simcoe Regional Airport was not inspected by the Ministry of the Environment during 2005, as they feel it is not within their jurisdiction, II RECOMMENDATION(S): <t 0, - 31,,0 ~ 1, THAT Report #EES2006-15 be received and adopted. 2. AND THAT Council receives the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Water Supply System. Keith Mathieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services NO;)l\Ok? ~. ~~ i) ... . t:\.IQ' er - 2- THE CORPORATION OF THE 4Jc\ ~ , TOWN8tlIP r9~Of7#6~ 148 Line 7 5., Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO Phone (705)487-2171 fax (705) 487-0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14, 2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Lake Simcoe Regional Airport (L.S.R.A.) Water System supplies the Airport terminal building and two hangers with water from two (2) ground water source wells. Permit to Take Water #94-P-3027, issued to the Oro-Barrie-Orillia Regional Airport Commission, authorizes the withdrawal of water, expiring March 31, 2004 for Well #2 and Well #3. A new Permit to Take Water #7458-5VKLNL was issued on January 29, 2004, expiring January 31, 2014. The withdrawal of water is not to exceed a combined maximum of 36 m3 per day. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the L.S.R.A. system, and the average monthly flow, as per Section 4.1 of the Certificate of Approval. With the installation of the PLC in 2005, the Airport is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates for Well #'s 2 and 3 and the distribution system. The allowable peak flow rate for Well #2 is 2.93 LIs, Well #3 is 5.72 LIs and the distribution is 8,7 LIs. On December 22, 2005, the peak flow rate for Well #2 was exceeded as a result of flushing the distribution system. The exceedence report has been attached. " ./2 Page Two Letter to M.O,E. Re: Lake Simcoe Regional Airport - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14. 2006 1v ~ \ The highest "daily flow" for the year from Well #2 occurred on June 6th at 12.46 m3; Well #3 occurred on August 4th at 12.88 m3; and to the distribution system, it was 17.43 m3 on August 4th. The total flow to the Airport distribution system for 2005 was 1,235.13 m3. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of actual rate of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of these magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 26, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the wells, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and seventy-seven (277) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and ''fecal coliforms", and one hundred and eight (108) tests for HPC in 2005, There were three (3) detectable results in 2005. M.O.E. Spills Action Centre and Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit were notified, resamples were taken and came back negative. To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system. An average of 0.21 L1day of chlorine was used in the L.S.R.A. system in 2005. Four hundred and twenty-seven (427) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005. These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system. A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township of Oro- Medonte office via the wireless communication system. An On-Line ASS 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township of Oro-Medonte office via the wireless communication system. Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book. .. ./3 Page Three Letter to M.O,E, Re: Lake Simcoe Regional Airport - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14, 2006 Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003, Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing. The results of the treated samples did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005, On November 12, 2003, the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #0644-5T6RGB for the L.S.R.A. Water Supply System, On June 15, 2004, the Ministry of the Environment issued Certificate of Approval #4676- 5ZXKLS for the installation of the standby power unit. The Ministry of the Environment did not inspect the L.S.R.A. Water Supply System in 2005. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Section 5, Upqradinq Requirements, the Certificate of Approval required the Township to have physical improvements (a list of which may be received upon request) completed by December 31, 2002. The Tender for these upgrades was awarded to Midland Mechanical in August, 2002. All upgrades were completed prior to December 31,2002. "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" The L.S.R.A. Water Supply System was not inspected in 2005. Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171, Sincerely, HIP OF ORO-MEDONTE Ke athieson, C.R.S,1. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KMlps Attachments TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006.16 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Compliance/Summary Engineering and Report for 2005 - Maplewood Environmental Services C.ofW. Water Supply and Treatment Date: March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05-26665 Date: RolI#: I BACKGROUND: II Section 4 of the Certificate of Approval issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte and Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170103, requires a written report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval to be completed annually. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the CompliancelSummary Report has been received. The Compliance/Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31,2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge. ~ ANALYSIS: t Attached is the Annual Compliance/Summary Report for 2005 for the Maplewood Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170103 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, and identifies any non-compliance issues identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Maplewood Water System. I RECOMMENDATION(S): iC\ \ ~ 1 , THAT Report #EES2006-16 be received and adopted, 2. AND THAT Council receives the Annual Compliance/Summary Report for 2005 for the Maplewood Water Supply System. KeitFi athieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services . . , . , ' i'- ~ CcAO lOG / ~\~\\\ - 2- '1 THE CORPORATION Of THE TOWN8tlIP r9~of--:;t6ecdvW 148 Line 7 S., Box 100 Ora, Ontario LOL 2XO Phone (705) 487.2171 fax (705) 487~0133 www.Ofo-medonte.ca March 14, 2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Maplewood Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Maplewood Water System supplies 48 homes with water from one (1) ground water source well. Permit to Take Water #02-P-1314, issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte for Well #1, authorizes the withdrawal of water, expiring October 31,2012. The withdrawal of water is not to exceed 163 m3 per day. Certificate of Approval #1546-5E4L9F, Section 1.3, requires that the water treatment plant be operated to treat water at a rate not to exceed the maximum flow rate of 163.7 m3 per day. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the Maplewood system, and the average monthly flow, At no time during 2005 did the "maximum daily flow" exceed the Permit to Take Water or exceed the maximum flow rate of treated water to the distribution system. With the installation of the PLC in 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #1 and the distribution system. The allowable peak flow rates for Well #1 and the distribution system is 1.9 Us. The peak flow for the distribution system was exceeded three (3) times during 2005, being June 3'd and 5th and October tho June 3rd and October th were a result of flushing the distribution system. The exceedence report has been attached. , , ./2 Page Two Letter to M.O.E. Re: Maplewood - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14. 2006 The highest "daily flow" for the year from Well #1 occurred on June 5th at 86.38 m3. and to the distribution system, it was 97.30 m3 on August 17th. The total flow to the Maplewood distribution system for 2005 was 14,551 m3. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of these magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 26, 2005. The by-pass flow meter was calibrated by E-Metering Solutions on August 5, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the well, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and eight (208) samples were tested for "total colitorms" and "fecal coliforms" and one hundred and nine (109) tests for HPC in 2005. To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system, An average of 0.67 L1day of chlorine was used in the Maplewood system in 2005. Four hundred and seventeen (417) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005 These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system. A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. An On-Line ABS 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book. Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003, Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing. .. ./3 Page Three Letter to M.O.E, Re: Maplewood - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14, 2006 ~C\ The chemical analysis results did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005, On September 23, 2002, the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #1546-5E4L9F for the Maplewood Water Supply System. On August 5, 2004, the Ministry of the Environment issued Certificate of Approval #9306-62LPAJ for the installation of the standby power unit. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Section 5, Upqradinq Requirements, the Certificate of Approval required the Township to have physical improvements (a list of which may be received upon request) completed by June 30, 2003. The final improvement was completed on April 2, 2004 (all required upgrades have been completed), "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" On July 12, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment completed an inspection of the Maplewood Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. From this inspection, the Ministry of the Environment identified five (5) non-compliances with regulatory requirements and four (4) actions required and are attached as Schedules I and II. "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the July 12, 2005 inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of four (4) suggestions for the operation of the Maplewood Water System. Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Maplewood Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171, NSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE I Keith Mathieson, C.R.S,1. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KMlps Attachments @ Ontario MAOlZ.WOQI:l. sc..UI!:6....... l Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report . NON COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS This section provides a summary of all non-compliance with regulatory requirements identified during the inspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found in the body of the inspection report. . All physical/chemical water quality monitoring required by the legislation was not being conducted. . Written notices, warning notices and reports were not issued by the owner in a form provided by or approved by the Director. . Trihalomethane samples were not being taken as required from a location representing the longest residence time. . The exceedances of the maximum capacity identified in the Certificate of Approval were not for an accepted reason (Le, fire fighting demand, maintenance, etc.). . It appears that the owner was not maintaining the well in a manner sufficient to prevent entry of surface water and foreign materials, . . Report Generated for vreugdpe on 9/8/2005 Page 24 of 28 (i)Ontario MAO- e. .\U6.~ Srl.....c:x~I.. \\ C\ - (0 Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report This section provides further detail regarding the non compliance items listed on the previous page, as well as actions required to address each issue. 1 All physical/chemical water quality monitoring required by the legislation was not being conducted. The Township failed to monitor the treated water for nitrates and nitrites every three months as required by Schedule 13-7 of Ontario Regulation 170103. The Township shall ensure to monitor the treated water for nitrates and nitrites every three months as required by Schedule 13-7 of Ontario Regulation 170103, 2 Trihalomethane samples were not being taken as required from a location representing the longest residence time. The Township failed to monitor the distribution water for trihalomethanes every three months as required by Schedule 13-6 of Ontario Regulation 170103. The Township shall ensure to monitor the distribution water for trihalomethanes every three months as required by Schedule 13-6 of Ontario Regulation 170103, 3 The exceedances of the maximum instantaneous capacity identified in the Certificate of. Approval were not for an accepted reason (I.e, fire fighting demand, maintenance, etc,). The Township shall ensure that any exceedances of the maximum instantaneous capacity identified in the Certificate of Approval are for an accepted reason as required by Section 1.4 of Certificate of Approval #1546-5E4L9F, dated September 23, 2005, and Section 31(1)(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Written notices, waming notices and reports were not issued by the owner in a form provided by or approved by the Director. The Township failed to issue the 2004 Annual Report on a form approved by the Director as required by Section 14(1) of Ontario Regulation 170103. The Township shall ensure to issue all notices and reports on a form provided by or approved by the Director as required by Section 14(1) of Ontario Regulation 170103. . ACTIONS REQUIRED 4 . . Report Generated for vreugdpe on 9lS/2005 Page 25 of 28 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-17 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Summary Report for Engineering and 2005 - Medonte Hills Water Environmental Services C.ofW. Supply and Treatment Date: March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05-26665 Date: RolI#: II BACKGROUND: II As per Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170103, the Township of Oro-Medonte is required to prepare an annual written Report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Summary Report has been received. The Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31, 2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge. II ANALYSIS: I Attached is the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Medonte Hills Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170/03 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, and identifies any non-compliance issues identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Medonte Hills Water System, II RECOMMENDATION(S): 1>~-41 ~ 1. THAT Report#EES2006-17 be received and adopted. 2, AND THAT Council receives the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Medonte Hills Water Supply System. Keith hieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services ."..1.. .\'11 D \::; \VJ0- \ c~Q)~uY' (Di"- - 2 - THE CORPORA nON OF THE n DC\- TOWN8lIIP r!J~OF7%~ 148Line7S., Box 100 Ora. Ontario LOL 2XO Phone (705) 487-2171 Fax (705) 487-0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14,2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Medonte Hills Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Medonte Hills Water System supplies 136 homes with water from two (2) ground water source wells. Permit to Take Water #92-P-3029 was issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte authorizing the withdrawal of water, expiring December 15, 2011, for Well #1 and Well #2. The withdrawal of water is not to exceed 327 m3from Well #1 and 393 m3 from Well #2 per day. The water treatment plant is to be operated to treat water at a rate not to exceed the maximum flow rate of 393 m3, per day, as per Section 1.2 of the Certificate of Approval. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the Medonte Hills system, and the average monthly flow. At no time during 2005 did the "maximum daily flow" exceed the Penmit to Take Water or exceed the maximum flow rate of treated water to the distribution system. With the installation of the PLC in 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #'s 1 and 2 and the distribution system. The allowable peak flow rates for Well #1 is 3.78 LIs, and Well #2 and the distribution system is 4.55 LIs. At no time during 2005 were these peak flow rates exceeded for a period longer than 15 minutes. . . ./2 Page Two Letter to M.O.E. Re: Medonte Hills - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14. 2006 The highest "daily flow" for the year from Well #1 occurred on July 6th at 151.20 m3; Well #2 occurred on July 11 th at 170.37 m3; and to the distribution system, it was 207.74 m3 on July 11th. The total annual flow for the Medonte Hills system was 35,525.62 m3, which is a 10% increase in flow of past years. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of these magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 28, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the wells, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and sixty (260) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and "fecal coliforms" in 2005. There were no detectable results in 2005. To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system, An average of 0.86 Llday of chlorine was used in the Medonte Hills system in 2005. Four hundred and seventeen (417) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005. These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system. A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. An On-Line ASB 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book. Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003. Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing. .. ./3 Page Three Letter to M.O.E. Re: Medonte Hills - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14.2006 \ The chemical analysis results did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005. On October 23, 2002, the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #9463-5F5N9K for the Medonte Hills Water Supply System. On August 5, 2004, the Ministry of the Environment issued Certificate of Approval #7566-62MPJJ for the installation of the standby power unit. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Section 5, Upqradinq Requirements, the Certificate of Approval required the Township to have physical improvements completed, which were completed prior to the end of 2003. "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" On December 13, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment conducted an announced inspection of the Medonte Hills Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. From this inspection, no non-compliances with regulatory requirements were noted and one (1) action required was noted, which is attached as Schedule I. "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the December 13, 2005 inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of four (4) suggestions for the operation of the Medonte Hills Water System. Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Medonte Hills Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171. OF ORO-MEDONTE Keith hieson, C.R.S.1. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KMlps Attachments S~l @Qntal'io tI\~o...T'Iio \.l..l \ s Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report . ACTIONS REQUIRED This section provides further detail regarding the non compliance items listed on the previous page, as well as actions required to address each issue. 1 Summary Reports did not include the required information, The Township failed to ensure that the 2004 Summary Report included monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22-2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170/03, The Township shall ensure that Summary Reports include monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22- 2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170/03. . . ._.~__..__.,_~_.,___.____m.__'_'_"'_ ._m..___'_"__"_~_'__" ........--...-....-----,..--..--....-....-..- Page 26 of 29 Report Generated for vreugdpe on 113012006 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-18 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Summary Report for Engineering and 2005 - Robincrest Water Environmental Services C.ofW. Supply and Treatment Date: March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05-26665 Date: RolI#: I BACKGROUND: ~ As per Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170103, the Township of Oro-Medonte is required to prepare an annual written Report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Summary Report has been received. The Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31,2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge, ~ ANALYSIS: I Attached is the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Robincrest Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170/03 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, and identifies any non-compliance issues and actions required identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Robincrest Water System. 1>~-l5''i I . ~ RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. THAT Report #EES2006-18 be received and adopted. 2. AND THAT Council receives the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Robincrest Water Supply System, Keith ieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services .\ lJI....; (~VV Qf0.. \nG ~'\~"-- \ l " - 2- THE CORPORATION OF THE 148Line7S., Box tOO Ora, Ontario LOL ZXO TOWN8IIIP (!!)~Of7#6ecd:vW Phone (705) 487-2171 Fax (705) 487-0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14, 2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Robincrest Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Robincrest Water System supplies 148 homes and the Moonstone Public School with water from two (2) ground water source wells. Permit to Take Water Renewal #77-P-3033, issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte, authorizes the withdrawal of water from Well #1, expiring September 15, 2010. Permit to Take Water #98-P-1031, issued to Bachly Investments Inc., authorizes the withdrawal of water from Well #2, expiring March 31,2008. The withdrawal of water is not to exceed 576 m3, per day, for Well #1 and 850 m3, per day, for Well #2. Certificate of Approval #4086-6F4PCT, Part 4, requires that the water treatment plant is operated to treat water at a rate not to exceed the maximum flow rate of 847 m3 per day. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the Robincrest system, and the average monthly flow. At no time during 2005 did the "maximum daily flow" exceed the Permit to Take Water or exceed the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system. .. ./2 Page Two Letter to M.O.E. Re: Robincrest - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14,2006 With the installation of the PLC in 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #'s 1 and 2 and the distribution system. The allowable peak flow rates for Well #1 is 6.67 LIs, and Well #2 and the distribution system is 9.85 LIs. On October 25th, the peak flow rate for the distribution system was exceeded as a result of flowing water to waste in order to lower the reservoir level to repair equipment. The flow exceedence report has been attached. The highest "daily flow" for the year from Well #1 occurred on December 30th at 214.30 m3; Well #2 was July 11th at 459.50 m3 and to the distribution system, it was 450.60 m3 on June ih, Magnetic flow meters have been installed to record the flow from Well #'s 1 and 2 and through the distribution system. The total distribution flow for 2005 was 56,265.26 m3, which was slightly less than last year. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of the magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 28, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the wells, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and sixty-three (263) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and "fecal coliforms" in 2005, One (1) test result during the year had a reportable count of "total coliforms". M.O.E.E. Spills Action Centre and the Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit were notified, resamples were taken and returned negative. No further actions were required. To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system. An average of 1.00 Llday of chlorine was used in the Robincrest system in 2005. Four hundred and twenty (420) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005. These tests were performed to ensure the chlorine residual was above 0.2 mg/L in the distribution system. A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. An On-Line ABS 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. " ./3 Page Three Letter to M.O.E. Re: Robincrest - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14. 2006 Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book. Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003. Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing. The chemical analysis results did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005. On August 22. 2005. the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #4086-6F4PCT for the Robincrest Water Supply System. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Part 8, UpQradinQ Requirements, the Certificate of Approval required the Township to have physical improvements, which were completed at the end of 2002. "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" On October 25, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment inspected the Robincrest Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. One (1) non-compliance with regulatory requirements and two (2) actions required were identified and are attached as Schedules I and II. "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the October 25, 2005 inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of three (3) suggestions for the operation of the Robincrest Water System. Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Robincrest Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171. IP OF ORO-MEDONTE Keith Mathieson, C.R.S.1. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KM/ps Attachments Sc:..a..~EO.,1I2L I @ Ontario eo ...1.1 c..terr- Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report . NON COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS This section provides a summary of all non-compliance with regulatory requirements identified during the inspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found in the body of the inspection report. . Summary Reports were not completed on time and/or were not distributed in accordance with the regulatory requirements, . . Report Generated for vreugdpe on 12/8/2005 Page 28 of 32 @ Ontario ~11olC1S-r s~~ \\ Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report This section provides further detail regarding the non compliance items listed on the previous page, as well as actions required to address each issue. 1 Summary Reports did not include the required information. The Township failed to ensure that the 2004 Summary Report included monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22.2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170/03. The Township shall ensure that Summary Reports include monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22- 2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170103, 2 Summary Reports were not completed on time and/or were not distributed in accordance with the regulatory requirements. The Township failed to submit the 2004 Summary Report to the municipal council prior to March 31, 2005, as required by Schedule 22-2(1)(a) of Ontario Regulation 170/03, The Township shall ensure that Summary Reports are submitted to the municipal council prior to March 31 of the following calendar year, as required by Schedule 22- 2(1)(a) of Ontario Regulation 170103. . ACTIONS REQUIRED . . Report Generated for vreugdpe on 12/8/2005 Page 29 of 32 1 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-19 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Summary Report for Engineering and 2005 - Shanty Bay Water Environmental Services C.ofW. Supply and Treatment Date: March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05-26665 Date: RolI#: II BACKGROUND: ~ As per Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170103, the Township of Oro-Medonte is required to prepare an annual written Report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Summary Report has been received, The Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31,2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge. I ANALYSIS: ~ Attached is the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Shanty Bay Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170103 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, and identifies any non-compliance issues identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Shanty Bay Water System. II RECOMMENDATION(S): I 1. THAT Report #EES2006-19 be received and adopted. 2. AND THAT Council receives the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Shanty Bay Water Supply System. y submitted, Keith athieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services ~~ ~:\1\D 0 - 2 - THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN8IIIP {9;~OfJ#6~ 148 Line 7 S., Box tOO Oro, Onta.rio LOL 2XO Phone (705)487-2171 Fax (705) 487-0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14, 2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Shanty Bay Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Shanty Bay Water System supplies 163 homes and the Shanty Bay Public School with water from three (3) ground water source wells. Permit to Take Water #6151-6BPL7V was issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte on April 27 2005, expiring April 30, 2015, for Well #'s 1, 2 and 3, authorizing the withdrawal of water. The withdrawal of water is not to exceed 305 m3 for Well #'s 1 and 2, and 610 m3 for Well #3, per day. The water treatment plant is to be operated to treat water at a rate not to exceed the maximum flow rate of 1,220 m3 per day. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the Shanty Bay system, and the average monthly flow. On nine (9) occasions during 2005, the Permit to Take Water was exceeded for Well #1, being Mal 31st at 316.77 m3, June 1st at 370,05 m3, June 2nd at 434.75 m3, June 3rd at 351,12 m, June 4th at 340,83 m3, June 5th at 386.62 m3, June 6th at 327.88 m3, June ih at 425.42 m3 and December 20th at 356.60 m3; on June 3rd and December 20th, the water mains were being flushed. With the installation of the PLC in 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #'s 1, 2 and 3 and the distribution system. The allowable peak flow rates for Well #1 is 6.6 LIs, Well #2 is 7,17 LIs, Well #3 is 14.13 LIs and the distribution is 14.7 LIs. During 2005, the distribution system exceeded the peak flows five (5) times, which was due to flushing of the distribution system. An exceedence report has been attached. .. ./2 Page Two Letter to M.O.E. Re: Shanty Bay - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14.2006 The highest "daily flow" from Well #1 occurred on June 2nd at 434.75 m3; Well #2 occurred on January 23rd at 226 m3; and Well #3 on August 25th at 494,80 m3. The highest "daily flow" into the distribution system occurred on June 3rd at 673.90 m3. The total flow to the distribution system for 2005 was 56,963 m3, being an increase in flow of 26%, which is slightly higher than the percentage of growth for the year. New magnetic flow meters have been installed on Well #'s 1, 2 and 3 to record flows from each well and flow to the distribution system, as part of the upgrades to the pumphouse. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of actual rate of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of these magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 26, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the wells, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Three hundred and six (306) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and "fecal coliforms" in 2005. There were no results indicating any reportable counts in 2005. To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system. An average of 6.82 L1day was used in the Shanty Bay system in 2005. Four hundred and seventeen (417) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005, These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system. A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. An On-Line ABB 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. .. ./3 Page Three Letter to M.O.E. Re: Shanty Bay - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14, 2006 Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book. Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003. Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing. The chemical analysis results did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005. On April 18, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #7073-68UR9A to the Township of Oro-Medonte. On August 5, 2004, the Ministry of the Environment issued Certificate of Approval #2544-62MP7P for the installation of the standby power unit. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Part 8, UpQradinQ Requirements, the Certificate of Approval required the Township to have physical improvements, which were completed in 2003. "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" On November 22, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment conducted an announced inspection of the Shanty Bay Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. From this inspection, the Ministry issued one (1) non-compliance with regulatory requirements and actions required, attached as Schedules I and II. "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the November 22, 2005 inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of five (5) suggestions for the operation of the Shanty Bay Water System. Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Shanty Bay Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171. T P OF ORO-MEDONTE Keit ieson, C,R.S.1. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KM/ps ~.'.enu1L \ @ Ontario ~\.kWf'1 ~'l'" Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report . NON COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS This section provides a summary of all non-<:ompliance with regulatory requirements identified during the inspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found in the body of the inspection report. . The maximum water takings were not in a=rdance with those allowed under the PTTW. . . ___"._.,_..___.____~___.____.____.___..._._____________..._ ..__._..._,_.....__...,__.___.____....._...,.._.___~...___'______...._........._..__n_.......................__.___...__ ...___.___..__m_..._... _.'__..__ Report Generated for vreugdpe on 1/4/2006 Page 26 of 30 ,.,' ','-. . (i) Ontario Sc.ueouuo. \\ Ministry of the Environment Drinkin9 Water System Inspection Report S\.&AoloN-bAV ACTIONS REQUIRED This section provides further detail regarding the non compliance items listed on the previous page, as well as actions required to address each issue. 1 The maximum water takings were not in accordance with those allowed under the PTlW. The Township failed to ensure that water takings from Well #2 were in accordance with the limits of ScheduleAof Permit To Take Water #03-P-1050, dated June 9, 2003. The Township shall ensure that water takings are in accordance with the requirements of Table A of Permit To Take Water #6151-6BPL7V. dated April 27, 2005. 2 Summary Reports did not include the required information, The Township failed to ensure that the 2004 Summary Report included monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22-2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170103. The Township shall ensure that Summary Reports include monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22- 2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170103. . . . __.._"__...___"'__.____.__..___._"_._..~_______.._.____"___......___._____________m._____....___......._.___. on 1/4/2006 Page 27 of 30 Report Generated for vreugdpe TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-20 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Summary Report for Engineering and 2005 - Sugarbush Water Environmental Services C.ofW. Supply and Treatment Date: March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05-26665 Date: RolI#: II BACKGROUND: II As per Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170103, the Township of Oro-Medonte is required to prepare an annual written Report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Summary Report has been received, The Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31, 2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge. I ANALYSIS: ~ Attached is the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Sugarbush Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170/03 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, and identifies any non-compliance issues identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Sugarbush Water System. t RECOMMENDATION(S): ~ 1, THAT Report #EES2006-20 be received and adopted. 2, AND THAT Council receives the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Sugarbush Water Supply System, Keith' athieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services N\~-^J~(OP ~~ ~11Q) - 2- THE CORPORATION OFTHE TOWN8fIIP r!?JmorJl6edde 148Line7S., Box 100 Ora. Ontario LOL 2XO Phone (705) 487-2171 Fax (705) 487-0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14, 2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Sugarbush Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Sugarbush Water System supplies 335 homes with water from two (2) ground water source wells. Permit to Take Water #1483-5MYQ36 was issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte on June 27, 2003 for Sugarbush Well #'s 1, 2 and 3 (Diamond Valley/Forest Hill Developments). Well #'s 1 and 3 were not in service in 2005. Well #3 expires May 31, 2013, Sugarbush Well #1 is permitted 851 m3 per day, Well #2 is permitted 1,635 m3 per day, and Well #3 is permitted 1,635 m3 per day. The water treatment plant is to be operated to treat water at a rate not to exceed the maximum flow rate of 851 m3, per day, for Well #1 and 1,635 m3, per day, for Well #2. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system, as per Part 4 of the Certificate of Approval, for the Sugarbush system, and the average monthly flow. During 2005, Well #2 was the only Well in use, Upgrades to Well #1 were completed in the Spring of 2005, which will allow Well #1 to be put back in service. At no time during 2005 did the "maximum daily flow" exceed the Permit to Take Water for Well #2. With the installation of the PLC on January 27, 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #'s 1 and 2 and the distribution system. The allowable peak flow rates for Well #1 is 9.83 LIs, Well #2 is 18.9 LIs, and the distribution system is rated the same as each Well. At no time during 2005 were the peak flows exceeded. ., ./2 Page Two Letter to M.O,E, Re: Sugarbush - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14. 2006 The highest "daily flow" for Well #2 and the distribution system occurred on July 11th at 621.20 m3. The total annual distribution flow for the Sugarbush system in 2005 was 88,699 m3, which was slightly less than last year. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of these magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 28, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the wells, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and sixty-three (263) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and "fecal coliforms" in 2005. There were no detectable results in 2005. To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0,2 mglL in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system. An average of 2.09 L1day of chlorine was used in the Sugarbush system in 2005. Four hundred and seventeen (417) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005. These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system, A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system, An On-Line ASB 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. Raw water turbidity tests are perfonmed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book. Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003, Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing, .. ./3 Page Three Letter to M.O.E. Re: Sugarbush - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14.2006 \ The chemical analysis results did not reveal any health related reportable exceedences during 2005, On May 20, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #0724-6CBJ77 for the Sugarbush Water Supply System. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Part 8, Upqradinq Requirements, the Certificate of Approval required the Township to have physical improvements (a list of which may be received upon request) completed by July 1, 2003. The new C, of A. received in May, 2005 extended the deadline for some of the works to be completed by July 31, 2005, all of which were completed. "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" On August 9, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment inspected the Sugarbush Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. From this inspection, the Ministry of the Environment identified one (1) non- compliance with regulatory requirements and two (2) actions required, which are attached as Schedules I and II. "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the August 9th inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of four (4) suggestions for the operation of the Sugarbush Water System. Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Sugarbush Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171. Sincerely, . SHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE K' . Mathieson, C.R.S.1. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KM/ps Attachments S c..ueaUUE. I ~,.""'" " ~.Ql1lt~~ SuAA'U.U,," .... Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report -----.----.--------.--.----.--.---....----.---.-----------------.-----.-----.-------.------.--.---. NON COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS This section provides a summary of all non-compliance with regulatory requirements identified during the inspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found in the body of the inspection report. . There is no evidence that the annular space around the casing of each well was adequately filled with sealing material when the well was constructed. ._.._______.._.....____..._.._.___.....__....._.._.____...___._..__........______.__.______.____.__...__m..__.__._.__. Page 27 of 31 Report Generated for vreugdpe on 10/6/2005 . . . s c.ueou...o: \ , ~'O" . .'. lfJ' ntano Sw..AC.Clu..sw. Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report It ACTIONS REQUIRED This section provides further detail regarding the non compliance items listed on the previous page, as well as actions required to address each issue. 1 There is no evidence that the annular space around the casing of each well was adequately filled with sealing material when the well was constructed. As a Water Well Record detailing the construction of Well #2 cannot be located, it is unknown if the annulus of Well #2 is sealed as required, The Township has ensured that the surface grade in the vicinity of the wellhead is such that water will not pond or collect. No further action required. 2 Summary Reports did not include the required information. The Township failed to ensure that the 2004 Summary Report included monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22-2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170/03. The Township shall ensure that the Summary Report includes monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22-2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170/03. . . ReDort Generated for vreugdpe on 1016/2005 Page 28 0131 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2006-21 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Annual Summary Report for Engineering and 2005 - Warminster Water Environmental Services C.ofW. Supply and Treatment Date: March 14, 2006 Motion # R.M. File #: E05-26665 Date: RolI#: I BACKGROUND: ~ As per Schedule 22 of Ontario Regulation #170103, the Township of Oro-Medonte is required to prepare an annual written Report detailing compliance with all terms and conditions of the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. This Report is to be signed by a person designated by Council of the municipality that owns the works and a resolution is to be presented to Council that the Summary Report has been received, The Summary Report is due to be completed by March 31,2006, given to members of Council and made available for inspection by any member of the public without charge. II ANALYSIS: ~ Attached is the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Warminster Water Supply System, a copy of which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. This Report is being made available to Council for information and confirmation that Ontario Regulation #170/03 has been complied with by the Township of Oro-Medonte, and identifies any non-compliance issues and actions required identified during the annual inspection by the Ministry of the Environment of the Warminster Water System. ~ RECOMMENDATION(S): I 1. THAT Report #EES2006-21 be received and adopted. 2. AND THAT Council receives the Annual Summary Report for 2005 for the Warminster Water Supply System. Iy submitted, Keit thieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services C;v V" UJf\-- t}.0 . \Ub _ fV\C\A \1 . -2- THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN81IIP r!?~oF7#6~ 148Une?S., Box 100 Oro. Ontario LOL 2XO Phone (705) 487-2171 Fax (705) 487-0133 www.oro-medonte.ca March 14, 2006 Ministry of the Environment Barrie District Office 54 Cedar Pointe Drive Unit #1201 BARRIE, Ontario L4N 5R7 Re: Warminster Water Supply and Treatment System Annual Summary Report for 2005 Warminster Water System supplies 208 homes, the Warminster Public School and the Warminster Legion with water from one (1) ground water source well. Amended Permit to Take Water # 1267-6HKP8Q (Well #1), issued to the Township of Oro-Medonte on October 28, 2005, authorizes the withdrawal of water, expiring March 15,2012, The Permit to Take Water for Well #1 authorizes the withdrawal of water at a rate of 600 m3 per day. Well #2 was decommissioned and abandoned, in accordance with O. Reg. #903. Certificate of Approval #4895-6CBPWV, Section 4.1, states that the drinking water system shall not be operated to exceed the rated capacity for maximum daily volume of 982 m3 per day. WATER QUANTITY Schedules have been attached showing the "average daily flow" per month, the "maximum daily flow" per month, the maximum flow of treated water to the distribution system for the Warminster system, and the average monthly flow. At no time during 2005 did the "maximum daily flow" exceed the Permit to Take Water or exceed the maximum flow rate of treated water to the distribution system. .. ./2 Page Two Letter to M.O.E. . Re: Warminster - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14. 2006 q The highest "daily flow" for the year from Well #1 occurred on July 9th at 369.70 m3. The highest "daily flow" to the distribution system occurred on July 10th at 356.70 m3. The total annual distribution flow for the Warminster system was 58,549.76 m3, which is 33% less than last year. A new meter chamber and register were installed in the flow meter for Well #1 on December 9, 2002, New mag meters were installed at the Booster Station and Well #1 in March, 2003. With the installation of the PLC on February 1 th of 2005, the Township is now able to record the instantaneous peak flow rates of Well #1 and the distribution system. The allowable peak flow rates for Well #1 was amended from 11.37 LIs to 13.03 LIs in the new Permit to Take Water dated October 28, 2005. Every time the Well pump came on between February 1 th to October 28th, the peak flow of 11.37 LIs was exceeded. An exceedence report has been attached. From the issuance of the new Permit to Take Water on October 28th to the end of the year, the peak flow rate of 13.03 LIs was not exceeded. To ensure accuracy to within + or - 5% of flow within the range of 10% to 100% of the full scale reading of the magnetic flow meters, Summa Engineering Limited calibrated them on September 28, 2005. WATER QUALITY Bacteriological samples were taken weekly from the well, pumphouse and distribution system, by certified Operators employed by the Township and submitted to Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory in Orillia. Two hundred and eight (208) samples were tested for "total coliforms" and "fecal coliforms" in 2005. In 2005, there were no reportable results, To ensure that the chlorine residual was maintained above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system and a free chlorine residual was available in the distribution system, 12% Sodium Hypochlorite was pumped into the system. An average of 1.55 Llday of chlorine was used in the Warminster system in 2005. Four hundred and seventeen (417) daily tests for free chlorine in the distribution system were performed by certified Township Operators using a "Hack Pocket Colorimeter" during 2005. These tests were performed to ensure chlorine residual was above 0.2 mglL in the distribution system. .. ./3 Page Three Letter to M.O.E. Re: Warminster - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14,2006 A Prominent Dulcometer analyses the chlorine residual continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system. An On-Line ASS 4670 Series Turbidity Meter measures turbidity continuously after the 15 minute contact time and is recorded by the PLC and forwarded to the Township office via the wireless communication system, Raw water turbidity tests are performed monthly by Township staff using a "Hack Pocket Turbidity Meter" and recorded in the daily log book. Quarterly water quality analyses sampling was performed by Geospec Engineering Ltd. in order to satisfy testing parameters for treated water, as per Ontario Regulation #170103 dated June, 2003. Samples were taken by Geospec Engineering Ltd. and forwarded to Lakefield Research Limited for chemical testing. The chemical analysis results revealed Sodium results of 47.6 mglL, which is consistent with previous test results. Although the aesthetic objective of Sodium in drinking water is 200 mglL, the Medical Officer of Health was notified that the concentration exceeded 20 mg/L. On May 20, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment issued Amended Certificate of Approval #4895-6CSPWV for the Warminster Water Supply System. On August 5, 2004, the Ministry of the Environment issued Certificate of Approval #4535-62MQFS for the installation of the standby generator set. "COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" Under Part 8, Upqradinq Requirements, the Certificate of Approval required the Township to have physical improvements (a list of which may be received upon request) completed by July 31, 2004, These upgrades have been completed as part of the contract to Brookside Contracting, On September 27, 2005, the Ministry of the Environment inspected the Warminster Water System to confirm compliance with current Regulations and to review the Permit to Take Water and Certificate of Approval. ,. ./4 Page Four Letter to M.O.E. uRe:. Warrninster - Annual Summary Report for 2005 March 14, 2006 '1 ~ "NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL" From the September 27,2005 inspection, the Ministry, noted three (3) non-compliances with regulatory requirements and four (4) actions required and are attached as Schedules I and II. "BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS" From the September 27, 2005 inspection, the Ministry, in the interest of continuous improvement, provided the Township of Oro-Medonte with a list of three (3) suggestions for the operation of the Warminster Water System, Any further information required with respect to this Summary Report for the Warminster Water System should be directed to the undersigned at (705) 487-2171. IP OF ORO-MEDONTE Kei\j athieson, C.R.S.1. Director of Engineering and Environmental Services KMlps Attachments s~\ ~."Q..............~~~. \J!l: .:",_.__;.~f;"~",:]~ Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report LJ AC..n\hJ S 1GQ. NON COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS This section provides a summary of all non-compliance with regulatory requirements identified during the inspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found in the body of the inspection report. . The maximum water takings were not in accordance with those allowed under the PTTW. . Summary Reports were not completed on time and/or were not distributed in accordance with the regulatory requirements. . There is no evidenCe that the annular space around the casing of each well was adequately filled with sealing material when the well was constructed. Report Generated for vreugdpe on 111212005 Page 27 of 31 . . . ff) ..~.Ontario Sc.t..\6UL 1\ Ministry ofthe Environment Drinking Water System Inspection Report LJI\t_I..l'~ . ACTIONS REQUIRED This section provides further detail regarding the non compliance items listed on the previous page, as well as actions required to address each issue. 1 There is no evidence that the annular space around the casing of the well was adequately filled with sealing material when the well was constructed, The Township has ensured that the surface grade in the vicinity of the wellhead is such that water will not pond or collect. Furthermore, the Township has raised the well casing to at least 900 mm above the 100 year flood level. No further action required. 2 Summary Reports were not completed on time andlorwere not distributed in accordance with the regulatory requirements. The Township failed to submit the 2004 Summary Report to the municipal council prior to March 31, 2005, as required by Schedule 22-2(1)(a) of Ontario RegUlation 170/03, The Township shall ensure that Summary Reports are submitted to the municipal council prior to March 31 of the following calendar year, as required by Schedule 22- 2(1)(a) of Ontario Regulation 170/03. 3 Summary Reports did not include the required information. The Township failed to ensure that the 2004 Summary Report included monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22-2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170/03. The Township shall ensure that Summary Reports include monthly average flows in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 22- 2(3)(1) of Ontario Regulation 170/03. The maximum water takings were not in accordance with those allowed under the PTIW. The Township submitted documentation as part of this inspection which indicates that the maximum instantaneous flow rate (11.4 Us) specified in the PTIW was exceeded on multiple occasions during the review period. The Township's engineering consultant has made application to amend the Permit to reflect the actual peak flow rates. No further action required, 4 . . Report Generated for vreugdpe on 11/2/2005 Page 28 0131 .----- , :.j eoN '. tJG, i. .~,4. D ;"~ Ci L emorandum l',i--= 'i'-' ~) ,t't.. To: Council cc: Jennifer From: Keith Mathieson Date: 3/17/2006 Re: Municipal Water System Rates Council in the past has asked staff to validate the existing water rates now being charged to the users of the Municipal Water System. In order to accomplish this I have completed a Life Cycle Analysis of all the Municipal Water Systems. cise required a complete inventory of all the water systems, when they were constructed and e in the future they will need to be replaced and a replacement value. drawings a complete inventory of the water system infrastructure was compiled for i.e. size and length of water mains, number of valves, hydrants, tees, water services, equipment, wells, storage, water meters & etc. any new infrastructure is added to a municipal system the inventory will have to be update. STEP TWO: DATE OF CONSTRUCTION From the drawings, past Certificates of Approvals and Development files a year was attached to each part of the infrastructure indicating when it was constructed. In the smaller systems this was a fairly simple task as the infrastructure was constructed for the most part in one year, however for systems such as Sugarbush the infrastructure was installed over a period from 1974 to present. STEP THREE: LIFE CYCLE OF THE SYSTEM AND REPLACEMENT COST Each component of the system was identified with a proposed replacement life cycle and an estimated cost of replacement. For example the life expectancy of water mains, hydrants and valves is 80 years. wells 50 years, house hold water meters 10 years etc. From this information a dollar value was established as to what is required to be transferred to reserves annually for replacement of the water systems. Because material prices change and labor cost increase the estimated cost of replacement should be reviewed every five (5) years. 1 March 17, 2006 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: The total estimated replacement value of all the Townships Water Systems is $14,700,000. The estimated amount that should be transferred to reserves for replacement of the infrastructure per year is $228,027. The Water Reserve Fund at the end of 2005 was estimated to be $1,265,408. The estimated amount that should have been in the Reserve Fund at the end of 2005 was $2,980,200. leaving a deficit of$I,714,792. We are now recommending that the water rates be increased from $575/year to $600/year for Shanty Bay, Harbourwood, Maplewood, Craighurst, Horsehoe, Sugarbush, Warminster, Medonte Hills and Robincrest. Canterbury and Cedarbrook would remain at $600/year. This will allow the Township to transfer to reserves the amounts each year as outlined in the "Water Department Capital Forecast" through 2006-2010 and $400,0001 year after 2010. By 201 7 the Township's water reserve fund should have enough money to cover the estimated replacement value at that date. Keith Mathieson I 2 '\; g C'\) "'----' tr' ~ <r" <r r- \Jl ";l- .,.9 00 ~ \lO n< - l!l 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 ,J) ~ ~ (\'i C'6 <l f1\ C'5 <VI 0 ~ \~ ~ ~ cP ~ ~ ~ ('I). (>J ,.; ~- '" '" ..z -.z .., "" <)- '"' qJ ..9 ~ s::- -:" ..z )- j 't Q<l Jf., ':T "'-- t1l J <>I ,.. tn tf? ~ <<i -+ (j'"' '0 Vi 0 to (ft .0 I:J ~ rl :r- r- ... ~ 1:Jj l.n " , " <l 0 0 <$) In 0 >0 C \iJ ><t- O rtI s;) 6>, 2 0 V) C) \) :j 0 r- ~ lI) ~ <:t::i ('l (T -.:r - 0' \J) :r- cr ~ ~ CC \:T' ",- :r /'" r;( Q r r;; ~ r (;> g \I' ~ g) ~ >:r' () cr- ;s- o!) " rS - '--' ~ ~ '--' '-.;I '-' '-' Cl- '" -;1 J J j - 'r -"t' <1 N % E v ~ Q/ ..,.. ~ ~. ~ - ::1 ')- ~ il i ~ cD ~ a. ~ ~ <t "2 ~ E ~ 3 3 3 a: cC ~ l/) @ c.:\-~buQ. 'Y AWIA-../e ~ IgOM"" p~ L..:.!YYl ., 51'(\,,,,, fVL w/'ty'I. ~ :>>5 tv' 2llY' e o,s!ty\ C- ~!t(\ 3.',8),.S,- 1,~ ::q.- l'So/<. I9:;I"A..\ $0 "T tSc m "" ,,~e:, "',><,.G> 150M"" :70 ~CB 3 5 ~ 4,'B<) f::::o'fllS , ';< <5 7 f3:> 4 "1b 6'> r3'f ~ 7,1. - Ll'1Co,- ),f.,g, - SOM'Yi ~ l..o<..>. ~ c]<l3 <1'-1) . I So lV\M. P'-<.I.L . 1 -47, Y-l, 15'c lV\'" )( is M'" :Ilf~ .s'\-)<'l\1:, 19t W''''' w~ ~~ ,Srn-<\ Vl~ t 1"1 .d-. 195$'1 l(~, ll~, lQ.i7. ,,~_ ~OY9t ....~~~1 ~21'1".: . ~ ' . go 4.50 , q= ' . 30<:>,., 300K ~So T d- ),~ &{ $0 K 300 >< ll,cq. T ,p. 2.00:1 ~7es, (:,.00 ._~t' I ~= ~~f.>1t \, '88;!o 3= M'" W /'fY' f?Vc -4'1"" (.190.)", -3Q.>l"Y\"" ~"~.D 4 4<,,"') W E:t.L. -<t \ W& .. :;l. "( . \"t ~'\ ) ,,"t 85 <IC ~o7e.s 31" !:'. ..~~~ 3o)CC'D 3%bD 8 Mf t-\cwo€ 4,8"""" 'S("l'>\ - I~ ~~bS!m 1'18"1 '~'11!S 95'71.<:lC A-->M-1ZI'"\.c, ~uW' ~LoW m~S 0<C-t..L lEv IB-. ~ Pl<'- f'Y\\!>C.. E~ul P. .--...,- . .-' . .......... - 25'1(/J> ;;2cod. :2." Ol.)f' e 83S" 1.000 5',= IS,oob . 57,g s~ -- z'> Committee of Adiustment Minutes Thursdav March 16. 2006. 9:30 a.m. In Attendance: Chairperson Lynda Aiken, Member Dave Edwards, Member Allan Johnson, Member Michelle Lynch and Secretary-Treasurer Andy Karaiskakis Absent Member: Garry Potter 1. Communications and Correspondence Correspondence to be addressed at the time of the specific hearing. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest None declared 3. HearinQs: 9:30 Milton James Cook Conc. 10, South Part Lot 5 (Medonte) 3938 Line 10 North 2006-B-04 In Attendance: Milton Cook, applicant Motion No. CA060316-1 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2006-8-04 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with 3894 Line 10 North and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; Committee of Adjustment-March 16, 2006 Page 1 5. That no future driveway be allowed on the lands subject to the lot addition; 6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. .. ...Carried," Committee of Adjustment-March 16, 2006 Page 2 9:40 Estate of Norman A. Campbell Conc.4, East Part Lot 20 (Oro) 184 Line 4 North 2006.B-05 In Attendance: Morely Campbell, acting on behalf of applicant Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Joel Angel, Ministry of Transportation, dated March 8, 2006 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. Motion No. CA060316-2 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2006-8-05 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with 2037 Highway 11 and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to accurately reflect the land use; 6. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment~March 16. 2006 Page 3 9:50 Dallas & Alberta Slessor Cone. 4, East Part Lot 9 (Oro) 2104 Line 4 North 2006-B-06 In Attendance: Dallas & Alberta Slessor, applicants Motion No. CA060316-3 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2006-B-06 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the new lot, including the 1 square foot land noted in Condition 3, be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the Township receives a 1 square foot conveyance of land. free and clear of all and any encumbrances. from the property being enlarged at Concession 4, East Part Lot 9, former Township of Oro. The applicant shall pay all costs related to this condition, including any costs for surveying and/or any costs related to the preparation and/ or registration of any required municipal by-law related to the said conveyance; 4. That the retained agricultural lands be merged in title with the residential lot created in 1987 (Part 1, RP 51R-16648) and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 5. That the applicant's solicitor provide the Secretary-Treasurer with an undertaking that the retained lands and the previously created residential lot (Part 1, RP 51 R-16648) will merge in title; and. 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of this notice as noted below. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment~March 16, 2006 Page 4 10:00 Marcelo Pena Cone. 1, Plan 780, Lot 41 (Orillia) 83 Eight Mile Point ~c\ ~ 2006-A-02 111 Attendance: Marcelo Pena, applicant Motion No. CA060316-4 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance Application 2006-A-02 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the height of the detached garage not exceed 5.6 metres (18.4 feet); 2. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by verifying in writing that the garage be no higher than 5.6 metres (18.4 feet); 3. That the detached garage not be used for human habitation and comply with all other provisions contained in Zoning By-law 97-95; and, 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketches submitted dated February, 2006 and approved by the Committee. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-March 16,2006 Page 5 10:10 Sondra Passfield 2006-A-03 Plan 461, Part Block A, Part Block B, RP 51 R-23354 Parts 3, 4 79 Healey Beach Road (Orillia) In Attendance: Sondra & Stanley Passfield, applicants Motion No. CA060316-5 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance Application 2006-A-03 as revised for a 101 m2 (1,088 ft2) detached workshop/garage to a residential use subject to the following conditions: 1. That the size of the proposed detached workshop/garage be no larger than 101 m2 (1,088 ft2); 2. That the applicant verify that the sewage system meets the minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code to the satisfaction of the Building Department; 3. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act RS.O. 1990, c.P. 13; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application and on the sketches submitted with the application and approved by the Committee; 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; 6. That the applicant apply for and obtain approval for the combined application for Site Plan Control/Removal of the Holding Provision, as Healey Beach Road is an unassumed or private road; and, 7. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-March 16.2006 Page 6 10:20 Glenn & Darlene Avery Plan 940, Part Lot 16 (Orillia) 201 Moon Point Drive 2006-A-04 In Attendance: Glenn & Darlene Avery, applicants Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Jackie Burkart, Environmental Planner, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, dated March 11, 2006 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. Motion No. CA060316-6 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Dave Edwards, seconded by Michelle Lynch "That the Committee hereby Approve Minor Variance Application 2006-A-04 subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed attached porch shall be setback no closer than 13 metres (44 feet) from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 2. The proposed dwelling shall be setback no closer than 16 metres (52 feet) from the average high water mark of Lake Simcoe; 3. Any stairs accessing the proposed porch are permitted to encroach no more than 1 metre (3.2 feet) into the setback area of Lake Simcoe; 4. That the setbacks be in conformity with the dimensions as set out in the application, as submitted; 5. That the applicants verify that the sewage system meets the minimum required setbacks as per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the Building Department; 6. That an Ontario Land Surveyor provide verification to the Township of compliance with the Committee's decision by 1) pinning the footing and 2) verifying in writing prior to pouring of the foundation by way of survey/real property report that, and, 7. That the appropriate building permit be obtained from the Township's Chief Building Official only after the Committee's decision becomes final and binding, as provided for within the Planning Act RS.O. 1990, c.P. 13. .. ...Carried." Committee of Adjustment-March 16, 2006 Page 7 10:30 Isaac Benitah Plan 808, Lot B (Oro) 38 Juniper Lane 2006-B-07 In Attendance: Dale Eplett, surveyor, agent representing applicant Motion No. CA060316-7 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Allan Johnson, seconded by Dave Edwards "That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent regarding Application 2006-B-07 subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan for the subject land indicating the severed parcel be prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the severed lands be merged in title with Plan 808 Lots W7 & W8 & Lots U K L & Block Y Part Block Z, RP 51 R-26405 Parts 1, 2 & 3, shown as Part 3 on the applicants sketch, and that the provisions of Subsection 3 or 5 of Section 50 of The Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the subject lands; 4. That the applicants solicitor provide an undertaking that the severed lands and the lands to be enhanced will merge in title; 5. That all municipal taxes be paid to the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 6. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-March 16, 2006 Page 8 10:40 Gail Raikes Cone. 1, East Part Lot 1 (Oro) 9 Trafalgar Road 200S-B-54 In Attendance: Peter & Anita Raikes, representing applicant Secretary-Treasurer read letter from Jackie Burkart, Environmental Planner, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, dated March 9, 2006 verbatim to the Committee members and those present in the audience. Motion No. CA060316-8 BE IT RESOLVED that: Moved by Michelle Lynch, seconded by Allan Johnson "That the Committee hereby Grant Provisional Consent for application 2005-B- 54 for the creation of a new residential lot subject to the following conditions: 1. That three copies of a Reference Plan of the subject lands prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee Secretary- Treasurer; 2. That the applicant's solicitor prepare and submit a copy of the proposed conveyance for the parcel severed, for review by the Municipality; 3. That the applicant pay $ 2,000.00 for the lot created as cash-in-lieu of a parkland contribution; 4. That the applicant pay a Development Charges Fee in the amount of $4,055.78 (By-law 2004-082) to the Township; 5. That the applicant apply for and obtain a rezoning on the subject lands to reflect reduced lot frontage for both the severed and retained lots and the location of the proposed dwelling and accessory structures from slopes exceeding 3: 1; 6. That final comments supporting the proposed dwelling and accessory structures be received from the Township Engineer; and, 7. That the conditions of consent imposed by the Committee be fulfilled within one year from the date of the giving of the notice of decision. .....Carried." Committee of Adjustment-March 16. 2006 Page 9 5. Other Business i. Adoption of minutes for the February 16, 2006 Meeting Motion No. CA060316-9 Moved by Allan Johnson, Seconded by Dave Edwards "That the minutes for the February 16th 2006 Meeting be adopted as printed and circulated .. .Carried." 6. Adiournment Motion No. CA060316-10 Moved by Dave Edwards, Seconded by Allan Johnson "We do now adjoum at 11 :25 a.m." ... Carried." (NOTE: A digital copy of this meeting is available for review.) Chairperson, Lynda Aiken Secretary-Treasurer, Andy Karaiskakis, ACST(A) Committee of Adjustment-March 16. 2006 Page 10 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE II' ' "" ' "<",..,<'(C",:'-. : ',::,:'" .:, "'". " "<"",,",,""." M:EM.QRAN"D U M' 2'.:",.:,' ,"' Z""''':.;:":,::::':;::c:,';";Y:\"?'::,:.;:..'. iii;f);;2iiiih:8 , TO: Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO FROM: Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning DATE: March 21, 2006 SUBJECT: Proposed Watershed Development Policies Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Per your request, I have reviewed the proposed Development Policies and have the following comments: 1. The Conservation Authority is recommending stream setbacks as 15 metres for each warmwater stream (30 metre total), and 30 metres for each coldwater fishery (60 metre total). 2. The Township's Zoning By-law requires a 30 metre setback from an EP Zone boundary, as well as a 30 metre setback from any watercourse, therefore there may be a need to update the zoning to reflect these requirements. The Township would also need advice regarding whether the watercourses are warm or cold. 3. The draft policies include a statement to provide "timely" comments on planning applications, however that term is not defined. Clear guidelines in regard to commenting timelines should be set. 4. The proposed highwater mark setback is 15 metres whereas the Township's Zoning By-law requires 20 metres from Lake Simcoe. The intent of this policy is to provide for protection of the shoreline from impacts of development including slope stability, protection of vegetation and protection of water quality. This standard also is a shoreline character issue, therefore it is recommended that the existing 20 metre setback in the Township's Zoning By-law be maintained. 5. Section 2.2 regarding directing development away from certain features goes very much beyond the minimum standards sel out in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) - this type of policy should be dealt wilh in an Official Plan which goes through a public process. The PPS states that development "may be permitted" in some of these features. 6. There seems to a bit of mixing of the terms 'adverse' and 'negative' throughout Section 5.7 - the terms have very different meanings as per the PPS. 7. Section 7 is entitled Development Policies - Structures and Fill whereas there is no reference to fill within this section. 8. It should be confirmed whether the Development Agreement mentioned in Section 7.2 can be registered on title. 9. It is noted that the CA is proposing permits for ponds which have not historically needed. A definition of pond in terms of size in Section 12 is needed. 10. Section 13 requires the submission of an EIS for any development proposal is a non-PSW less than 0.5 ha in size. What is the legislative authority for 13.3 if only a building permit is applied for? 11. The conditions under which an EIS is required in Section 13.4 should be clarified as the wording is vague. 12. 14.2 should be a minimum setback. CONCLUSIONS The proposed policies are overall very stringent for the protection of ESA's and SWM design as well as development within floodplain areas, so from an environmental standpoint appear very protective. It should be confirmed with the CA that the proposed policies have sound statutory basis to ensure that any advice the Township receives in the future will be defensible. Staff commend the Conservation Authority efforts in establishment of such policies and will work with the agency in the refinement and implementation stages. It is recommended that these comments be forwarded to the Conservation Authority for their consideration. ~tfUIlY su milled, \ uce Ho pe, I, RPP Director of Building and Planning ~~Y\(' H, A ~ ~\ C~O I mV) .'11(0 l, 10 - I TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE Report Dept. Report No. TO: PREPARED BY: FD Reoort 2006-06 Committee of the Whole Lvnn Burness F.D. Secretarv SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: Council - Monthly Fire Report Fire and Emergency Services -- - C.ofW. For January, 2006 DATE: .. .,----- -----~~._~~ March 1, 2006 Motion # _._______m - ---- R.M. File #: Date _______m'" --------- RolI#: 12006/01/08 ] Shanty Bay ----------- j 15:07:19 1ZO:24:16 j 12:59:28 1 Time Type - -- 18~55:~4 J~erson Falnted~ Nausea --- 122:02:19 Heart Attack, CPR 118:16:53 Unauthorized Controlled _,.__ __________Burnin9.____________ Power Lines Down, An;ing__ Unauthorized Controlled Burning Co-detector Location Damage Date Station IZ006/0.1~~~[Hor~~sh~~ . 12006/01/03 Shanty Bay 1101 HORSESHOE VALLEY RD - --~--~-- -- 1973 RIDGE RD W ".m_____._______ _ 1~:01 /05 ~mHorsesh~e ~r:;;: ] 2006/0 1 /06, Rugby -1L1NE6N ..1 6:41:41 03406 PENETANGUISHENE R -1 HORSESHOE VALLEY RD 00061 LINE 15 Asphyxia, Respiratory Condition ,2006/01/091 Shanty Bay 117:25:52' Alarm Equipment- Malfunction '_~________m___ -----n--t--------- 12006/01/11, Shanty Bay 114:17:55 Vehicle Accident I""'."'" I W'W,"",", i "O;33U"'"i"~i::;Z;"''''''' 2006/.0_1/1_2_,_ Hawkestone 13:35:34 I Unauthorized Controlled _ _ Burl1in_9 j2006/01/13] Moonstone 119:39:23 i Co-detector 91015/16 SR W _____n___ ___ 02278 HIGHWAY 11 , -I I -111 HYN 08744 HIGHWAY 12 Highway 11 5158 LINE 6 N ----+-- ]2006/01/13 Hawkestone i 18:46:40 1 , - __.1 Human - Perceived ErnEJrg.€lncy i -111 HY S Date Station 2006/01/14 Shanty Bay 2006/01/15 Horseshoe :2006/01/15, Rugby ! ! : i 12006/01/16] Hawkestone 12006/01/171 Horseshoe Time Type Location Damage 8:54:14 Assistance to Other Fire 23 RICHELlEU TRAIL j ~-~---~--- Department 3:34:55 Unauthorized Controlled -1 HORSESHOE VALLEY, BurninQ RD : - 8:30:43 Overheat - Fireplace - 1 05266 HIGHWAY 11 Masonrv 1 9:19:01 Overheat - Vehicle - ! -111 HYS Electrical , 9:40:27 1 Vehicle Accident i 327 HORSESHOE VALLEY RD 1 2 1 , , , , , ' , , , , , ' 12006/01/171 Hawkestone 21:49:451 Heart Attack, CPR , ' , 714 LINE 11 N f-------~-- J 2006/01/171 Warminster 17:23:35 1 Power Lines Down, 10028 HIGHWAY 12 --~--- --~----~- Arcing 2006/01/181 Hawkestone 21 :29:26 : Vehicle Accident -111 HYN , i 2006/01/181 Horseshoe 16:37:01 l Co-detector 3312 LINE 6 N ~ -------------i------------ -- -~-- ---------- 2006/01/181 Shanty Bay , 21 :24:40 Heart Attack, CPR 16 BROOK ST ! , -~----- , - --~~-------- ~------~---- 2006/01/21 Hawkestone 0:55:40 Human - Perceived -111 HYN Em "",,,,j '"'""'''~;;;."''' ",3 MOUNT SAINT 'Condition LOUIS RD >-------- -,----------- ----- 12006/01/21 Moonstone i 9:32:09 Assistance to Other 5258 LINE 8 N ~0~~/~1122; ,,',. ~_oo;;stone j _14~47:58 ~- --Veh~~:~~~~ent ____ _~1 MOONSTONE RD W e- 106 ROBERT ST W -111 HYS ~::::::_::;:: j ~;;: t;;::~;~1 SOD ~:'~::,::O WE . i 2006/01/25 1 Shanty BaY!11 :34:45 i Vehicle Accident -1 11 HY S 2006/01/261 Shanty Bay 1 20:38:36 , - -1~_--1:"-"""" J 12006/01/26 Horseshoe 16:00:34 j 12006/01726~UgbY , 1529:24+ !2006/O1721 Warminster 1---------'--- 12006/01/251 Horseshoe 20()6/() 1/26 1 Hawkestone 1--------------+---------- 12006/01/271 Moonstone '--------------~---------- -I -i --I -------1 , i___ --1 65 CATHEDRAL PINES RD --------------- -111 HYN L- I i j 16:38:22 Alarm Equipment- Accidental ------------- --------~---- Vehicle Accident l 3:23:17 -111 HYS Vehicle Accident Co-detector 16 GREEN MOUNTAIN ._______ CT 00901 LINE 7 N ] 6:57:11 Overheat - Chimney - Masonry Vehicle Accident i -1 MOUNT SAINT LOUIS 1 , RD .-:J ---------.-- ------ , _________J__ 2 Date Station Time Type Location Damage 2006/01/27 Hawkestone 9:01:47 Assistance to Police -1 400 HY S OFF I DUNLOP 2006/01/27 Hawkestone ' 19:55:46 Fire - Automobile -111 HY N $15,000.00 L $0.00 S, 2006/01/27 Rugby 9:38:05 Fire - Detached Garage 140 LINE 15 N $25,000.00 LI -1400 HY S ::J $20,000.00 SI 2006/01/29 Moonstone 11:56:33 ! Vehicle Accident , -1 1 2006/01/29 Hawkestone 5:29:30 I Assistance to Other Fire o INNISFIL BEACH RD I Department , 2006/0 1 /29 Moonstone 15:08:53 1 Overheat - Central 5487 LINE 7 N --~ Heating/Cooling Unit - i 2006/01/29 Warminster 11:33:141 Vehicle Accident 9551 12 HY ~--- ~ 2006/01/30 Hawkestone 12:18:57 Incident Not Found i -111 HYS , ; ; 1 2006/01/30 Shanty Bay 10:31:05 i Co-detector i 2235 RIDGE RD W 1 L~_ --~-~--~-~~-- - 1 Structure and Vehicle Fire Dollar Value Lost $40,000.00 Dollar Value Saved $20,000.00 Medical Calls 2006 7 2005 9 3 ~ Monthlv Fire Report for Januarv. 2006 Trainino Sessions Station #1 Station #2 Station #5 Shanty Bay Hawkestone Warminster 2 2 2 Station #3 Station #4 Station #6 Horseshoe Rugby Moonstone 2 2 2 Inspection Record for the Month (includino Fire Prevention I Public Education) Commercial 1 Residential/ Bed & Breakfast Industrial/ Mercantile 2 Schools / Assembly / Church 3 Woodstove Daycare / Camps / Hall Tours 1 Comments / Recommendations bv Fire Chief. Deputv Fire Chief and/or Vicki Cvr Extra trainino / Seminars and Events Attended Office of the Fire Marshal meeting (FPO) Fire College Courses - Jan. 23-25/06 (FPO) Firefighters Association Meeting ;~~IIY,"~mw., . -~~h -#~~ rh' ~~~n,/ ~/ Director C.A.O. Comments: Date: Dept. Head C.A.O WAL*MART' ~ \\ '\ \ \ \ Community groups across Canada are actively working to transform degraded open spaces into healthy, dynamic natural areas. By planting native trees, shrubs and wildflowers, open spaces such as urban parks, valleylands and utility corridors are literally coming alive. Not only do these projects enhance local biodiversity and wildlife habitats, they reconnect people with nature, teaching them about their local natural heritage and improving the quality of life in their communities. ~s Biodiversity is derived from "bio" meaning "life" and diversity meaning "variety." Biodiversity is the variety of all life on earth. The variety within species and between species and ecological communities is necessary for the health and survival of certain ecosystems and organisms, including humans. The protection and conservation of the environment in the communities where it operates is a Wal-Mart Canada priority. To support local efforts to create greener, healthier communities, Wal-Mart Canada and Evergreen are pleased to announce Green Grants a new national program that helps fund community-based initiatives in urban and urbanizing areas. Providing tools and resources that both inspire and enable Canadians to bring nature back to their cities is the focus of Evergreen's Common Grounds program. Green Grants, 0 Canadian community greening program sponsored by Waf-Mort Canada and fed by Evergreen will provide funds of up to $10,000 to local groups working on urban naturalization projects focused on the restoration and stewardship of urban habitats such as woodlands, meadows, wetlands and ravines through the use of native plants. This grant also supports community gardening projects that involve native plants. Please note that the deadline for applications is Friday March 31, 2006. Vtiho Can The grant is open to all community groups working collaboratively with their local municipality or other institutional partners, government agencies, crown corporations or publicly funded institutions such as hospitals or universities. A letter of support from your institutional partner(s) is required. 2 Rece1VrC'C Community engagement and ongoing stewardship are core pillars of Green Grants and Evergreen's work. Therefore, proposed projects must be open to all and be iocated entirely on publicly accessible lands (i.e. lands owned by a government agency, non-profit organization or public institution). Groups that are not legally incorporated or have charitable status are welcome to apply. However if selected for an award, funds will be granted to the institutional partner to administer. Applications wit! also be accepted from local public agencies, such as municipal governments or conservation authorities, demonstrating an excellent track record of working in partnership with community~based organizations. . [-J;art U'c' (irAn:: Projects and lead groups that received a Wal.Mart - Evergreen Green Grant in 2005 will not be considered for funding this year. However, these groups may be eligible to apply for other Evergreen grants. Please visit www.evergreen.cajenjcgjcg-funding.html to find out more. Green Grants will fund projects that are underway by December 31,2006. To be eligible, projects must provide community members with ongoing hands-on opportunities to restore and care for local ecosystems including: planting native trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants;" stewardship activities such as invasive~species removal, mulching and site maintenance; trail/boardwalk construction; monitoring - such as plant survival rates, wildlife species observed; ongoing public education - site tours, installing interpretive signage, etc. * For a list of native plants in your province, visit Evergreen's native plant database at www.everareen.ca/nativeolants. Applicants are also encouraged to consult local ecologists to determine approp6ate native plant species for projects. Each year, Evergreen receives more eligible applications than we are able to fund. While we would like to support all eligible projects, please note that we may not have sufficient funds to do so. Funds from Green Grants can be used to cover costs including: native plant material (plants, trees, shrubs. wildflowers); gardening supplies (soil, compost, hand tools); professional consulting services (landscape design, group facilitation, etc.): construction supplies for built features (such as benches. bird boxes, boardwalks, shade shelters, etc.); 3 bio~erosion control materials such as brush bundles; transportation (car or truck rental. delivery of materials/supplies); educational and communications materials (such as signage, flyers, press releases); volunteer expenses (such as refreshments, awards etc.); health and safety supplies: and projects that received a Wal.Mart - Evergreen Green Grant in 2005. hit'" projects occurring on privately owned property projects that do not promote organic practices projects (or portions thereof) completed before the application is reviewed; construction and excavation contractor costs; wages and salaries; and technical or scientific reports and studies. NiJte on Pe-rmi15 ;u In some instances, a community greening project may require a permit or approval from the local municipality or other regulatory agency. For example, the removal of invasive tree species may be subject to local tree.cutting bylaws. Please consult with the relevant government agencies to determine which permits and approvals are required and to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met. Piease provide typed responses to the questions asked on the application form and be sure to include the items on the attachment checklist. Applications must be submitted by mail or courier (faxed and e.mailed applications will not be accepted). Send your application package to: Wal-Mart Evergreen Green Grants Evergreen 355 Adelaide Street West, 5th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5V 152 For more information, or to obtain an application form, please contact Mandy Pereira: phone: 416.596-1495 x249, (toll free outside Toronto: 1-888.426.3138 x249) fax: 416-596-1443 e~maH: mandy@evergreen.ca www.evergreen.ca ({F'xt A review committee consisting of Evergreen staff as well as external experts from conservation organizations and government agencies across the country will evaluate applications. Grant recipients will be notified in April, 2006. If your project is selected, you will be asked to: ~5 certify that you will obtain all necessary regulatory permits and approvals: submit 'before.and-after' photos, photos of community planting events, as well as copies of any news clippings and newsletters; submit a one. page progress report mid.way through the funding period: prepare a final narrative report upon project completion that addresses accomplishments, challenges and how they were overcome; agree to participate, if requested. in promotion of your project locally and/or nationally (e.g. press releases or press conference) submit photocopies of relevant receipts; and register your project with Evergreen's free on-line registry of community and school naturalization projects. Need For tips on writing effective applications, visit www.ev€rqreen.ca/en/resources/fund-tios.html. If you have any questions about this grant, please contact Evergreen. For information about planning and designing your project, be sure to check out the (ommon Grounds integrated Tool Shed of urban greening resources, and our on~line library of printed materials and organizations at www.evergreen.ca. About ',J,fa\wfV\an C-2n30; Established in 1994 and headquartered in Mississauga. Ontario, Wal~Mart Canada operates a network of approximately 250 outiets nationwide. The company employs approximately 70,000 Canadians nationwide and operates one of Canada's strongest community involvement programs. Wal~Mart Canada's establishment of the Green Grants program, in partnership with Evergreen, demonstrates its commitment to giving back to Canadian communities by helping local partners create greener, more sustainable communities. For more on Wal~Mart Canada visit www.walmartcanada.com Abnut "en Grounds Evergreen is a national non-profit environmental organization with a mandate to bring communities and nature together for the benefit of both. Our Common Grounds program helps communities conserve, restore and steward parks and natural areas in urban areas. Common Grounds is pleased to offer other community greening grants. Please visit www.everoreen.ca/en/ cg/cg-funding.html to find out more. 5 Common Grounds has built a "Tool Shed" of resources to help communities fund, plan and implement restoration and stewardship projects. Resources include: No Plot is Too Small: A Communitv's Guide to RestorinG Public Landscapes: a step-by.step guide through all stages of successful projects, including planning, design. outreach, goal setting, fund raising, and on-going stewardship; Ground Work: InvestiGatinG the Need for Nature in the City: a resource that helps groups develop the rationale for their restoration and stewardship projects; and Hands For Nature: A Volunteer Management Handbook: this booklet provides practical tips and ideas for working effectively with volunteers to create and sustain greening projects. Other TOG: To find out more about these and other resources, visit www.evergreen.CQlenl[a/c9~tool5hed.html. Evergreen's Learning Grounds program also provides funds and resources to transform barren school grounds into natural outdoor classrooms. (www.evergreen.ca/en/lg/la.html). Many other organizations have information and programs related to the restoration and stewardship of habitats. Some examples are: Canadian Wildlife Service (www.cws.scf.ec.gc.ca); Environment Canada (www.ec.gc.cajenvhome.html); Wildlife Habitat Canada (www.whc.org): Canadian Wildlife Federation (www.cwf.fcf.org); Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (www.eman-rese.ca); Stewardship Canada (www.stewardshipcanada.ca); and Ducks Unlimited Canada (www.ducks.ca). In addition, our web site (www.evergreen.ca) includes a list of other funders who support community-based projects. To find funders in your region, fotlow the links to our on~line library and search "Funders" on the organization database. www.evergreen.ca 355 Adelaide 51. West, 5th Floor. Toronto, ON M5V 152 Tel: 416.596-1495 Fax: 416.596.1443 #404.134 Abbott 5t.. Vancouver, Be V68 2K4 Tel: 604-689-0766 Fax: 604.669.6222 E~mail: info@evergreen.ca 1~888-426-3138 taU free in Canada - outside Toronto and Vancouver tvergreen ~dlieles to the Ethical hmdraising ~nd rin~n(ial Accountability Code of the C~n~dian (entre to! Phi[Jflthropy [)onations are t~x deductihle. Charitable Regist'~tiofl Number: 13181S763RROOOl @TOYOTA HGTV.ca ~~ itflS ll.~. '~~~~~ U~lW'" WAL*MART' [ar.l~t"."llf.U!.UI>." ZG National partner Media partners lead partners Major partners