Loading...
09 19 2007 COW AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 TIME: 9:00 a.m. 1. NOTICE OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT" 4. DEPUTATIONS: a) 9:00 a.m. Mika Jantunen, re: Building Code Commission Ruling No. 07 -24 -1153, Application No. 2007 -13, Permit # 244 -06 — 5745 Line 3 North [from Sept. 12, 2007 meeting]. b) 9:05 a.m. Andy Paterson, Manager of Communications, Canada Post, re: Canada Post Rural Mail Delivery. 5. CORRESPONDENCE: a) Keith Sherman, Co- ordinator, Severn Sound Environmental Association, correspondence dated September 4, 2007 re: Tree Distribution Project — Potential Municipal Participation in 2007/2008. b) Ron Crane, Chair, Board of Trustees, Huronia District Hospital and John Barrett - Hamilton, Chair, Board of Directors, Penetanguishene General Hospital, correspondence dated September 7, 2007 re: Request for Participation on the Provincial Agencies Liaison Group. c) Kimberley Pickett, Technical Compliance Supervisor, County of Simcoe, correspondence dated September 5, 2007 re: Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Equipment Collection. d) Susan and Matthew Cillis, correspondence dated August 30, 2007 re: Request to Install "Children Playing" Signs, Howard Drive. e) County of Simcoe Library Co- operative, correspondence received September 6, 2007 re: 2006 Annual Report. f) The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, correspondence re: 2007 Conference, Counties, Regions, Single Tier Municipalities & District Social Services Administration Boards, October 21 -24, 2007, Cornwall, Ontario. g) Roy & Freda Poirier, correspondence received September 6, 2007 re: Request to Purchase, Pt Monk Street, Plan 1, Oro Between Colborne Street and O'Brien Street. h) Bill Duffy, Mayor, Township of Ramara, correspondence dated September 5, 2007 re: Casino Rama Revenues [additional information available in the Clerk's office]. i) Uli Surmann, correspondence dated August 30, 2007 re: Final Occupancy — 46 Tanglewood Crescent, Shanty Bay. j) Bob Bowles, Kids for Turtles Environmental Education, correspondence dated September 11, 12, 13 and August 22, 2007 re: Request to Install Signs in Township of Oro - Medonte [deferred from September 12, 2007 meeting]. k) Wayne Wilson, CAO /Secretary- Treasurer, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, correspondence dated September 10, 2007 re: Source Water Protection Stewardship Funding, Letter of Support. 6. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION: a) Raymond Simpson, Partner, Hemson Consulting Ltd. re: Presentation of Directions Report [scheduled for 10:00 a.m.]. b) Report No. TR 2007 -19, Paul Gravelle, Treasurer, re: Audit Services. c) Report No. TR 2007 -20, Paul Gravelle, Treasurer, re: Statement of Accounts, August, 2007. d) Report No. ADM 2007 -24, Doug Irwin, Clerk, re: Request for Exemption — Warminster Annual Remembrance Day Parade. e) Report No. ADM 2007 -25, Paul Gravelle, Acting CAO/Treasurer, re: One Foot Reserve — Booth Street. f) Doug Irwin, Clerk, re: Draft By -Law No. 2007 -100, A By -law to Establish a Technical Support Group entitled Oro - Medonte Environmental Group Advisors (OMEGA). g) Paul Gravelle, Acting CAO/Treasurer, Verbal Update re: Integrity Commissioner. 7. PUBLIC WORKS: 8. ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: a) Report No. EES 2007 -29, Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering and Environmental Services re: Laurel View Homes (Landscapes) Development — Horseshoe Valley. E 9. BUILDING, PLANNING AND BY -LAW ENFORCEMENT: a) Report No. BP 2007 -36, Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services re: Martin and Jacqueline VandenHeuvel, Request for Two Dwellings, Part of Lot 24, Concession 9 (Oro), Township of Oro- Medonte, 504 Line 9 South. 10. EMERGENCY SERVICES: 11. RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES: a) Report No. RC 2007 -19, Shawn Binns, Manager of Recreation and Community Services re: Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association, Request for Fundraising Account. 12.IN- CAMERA: a) Paul Gravelle, Acting CAO, re: Legal Matter. 13.ADJOURNMENT: 3 ADDENDUM f- COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7. PUBLIC WORKS: a) Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent, Verbal Update re: Michael and Janet Coley, Off Road Vehicles, Blueberry Marsh Road (from July 18, 2007 meeting). 9. BUILDING, PLANNING AND BY -LAW ENFORCEMENT: b) Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services, memo correspondence dated September 18, 2007, re: Hillway Citizens Liaison Committee. 10. EMERGENCY SERVICES: a) Report No. FD 2007 -07, Scott Cowden, Director of fire and Emergency Services and Mike Diver, Chief Building Official re: Request from Lake Simcoe Regional Airport re: Occupancy of Jetport Hangar 2 [JP2]. 12.IN- CAMERA: b) Councillor Dwight Evans, re: Property Matter. c) Paul Gravelie, Acting CAO, re: Personnel Matter. d) Paul Gravelle, Acting CAO, re: Legal Matter. d]HSNMOI �31N003W-OUO coat c t snv Q3nf3038 ^�u K14 v Ate/ . 'iN% —SwP 'fa -�t� PJY•tt -01 J L�' fAMR�,sSt aJ�i 04-- 2,,.,a /. r1 �� •� 6 u- OVA Q�nc� - -(�C�. G'�iO csac�5��� • _"S��r�; =F��2 1�- ,'� �5 ��J Q^'"1 _,,4 VIY` ©SSG • '� Kj CANADA POSTES POST CANADA From anywhere... to anyone s POS1 E5 p05� From any'hele "anyone The nature of many of Canada's rural and suburban areas is changing. Population growth, leading to increased traffic, is making delivery of mail to many rural mailboxes potentially hazardous for Canada Post mail carriers and other drivers. Today, there are about 843,000 rural mailboxes which represents about six percent of Canada Post's 14 million delivery points. Given the company's responsibility to provide a safe working environment, Canada Post has taken steps to increase the visibility of the vehicles driven by its Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers (RSMQ equipping each with rooftop signs and flashing amber lights. But enhanced visibility does not address all situations where Canada Post employees, customers and the motoring public are at risk. Canada Post responsibilities and obligations Canada Post is committed to delivering the highest standards of service possible to all Canadians. But as an employer and corporate citizen, Canada Post, like all Canadian companies, is also bound by both the Criminal Code and the Labour Code to ensure that its operations do not put its employees or members of the public at undue risk. By law, employees who feel their duties expose them to undue risk can refuse to carry out those duties. As a result, Canada Post is obligated to address increasing concerns about the safety of delivering to rural and suburban mailboxes. The panel of safety experts Canada Post engaged the services of an expert panel to develop a tool that would determine the extent of any safety hazards on RSMC delivery routes. The three panel members are: I -TRANS Consulting, a North American professional engineering consulting firm serving clients across Canada, the United States and internationally in the areas of transportation planning, transportation systems, and transportation safety. Specific areas of practice include transportation master plans, traffic engineering studies, community traffic planning, traffic safety and expert testimony. Human Factors North. a Canadian consulting firm providing ergonomics expertise to design work and workplaces based on human characteristics. HFN brings expertise in traffic safety, interface design and occupational ergonomics. Roger Cotton of Cotton Law a legal specialist and advisor in the area of occupational health, safety and the environment. n, M 0) rD 3 n n 'O rD � m � rD O D D V) Qj to rD V r-r 10 N 3 N rD rD rD n Ln r+ rD sv' Developing the criteria Developing the traffic safety assessment criteria required research and expertise in the areas of traffic safety, road design, and driver behaviour. The result of the combined work of the multi - disciplinary team identified previously is a traffic safety assessment tool that can be applied to individual rural and suburban mail boxes. The traffic safety assessment criteria is accompanied by documentation that guides an assessor as to the road and traffic parameters which require measurement at a mail box. The information gathered enables the assessor to make the decision to modify a mail box, or allow it to remain. The approach The approach adopted was a driver behaviour approach. This approach assesses the driving tasks of an RSMC, and their requirements, as well as the driving tasks of other drivers who encounter a stopped or merging mail carrier vehicle in typical traffic and road conditions. The approach determines whether there is sufficient time for drivers to carry out their driving tasks safely. The road conditions considered in the traffic safety assessment tool include two and four -lane roads, with and without shoulder width sufficient for stopping the mail carrier's vehicle, at the mail box, completely off, or in, the path of another vehicle travelling in the same direction as the mail carrier. What the tool assesses The tool assesses whether there is sufficient sight distance for other drivers, travelling at typical speeds on the particular road, to decide to slow down, change lanes, or stop when they encounter a mail carrier's vehicle that is stopped on the road or merging back into traffic. "Decision sight distance" provides drivers with time to perceive the situation ahead, take a decision on how to react to it, and start and complete the action selected. "Passing sight distance" provides the distance required to pass safely. The tool also assesses the ability of the mail carrier to merge safely back into traffic. Mail carriers need to see far enough behind so that they can select a safe gap between passing vehicles to merge back into traffic. The number of safe gaps depends on the number of vehicles (cars and trucks) using the road, and the number of lanes. Research has found that when drivers need to wait for long periods of time to get a gap to merge back into traffic, they tend to accept shorter and less safe gaps. M T N 3 n m v il m Ln I+ rD D D aa) 717 rD rD rD o- vii r- `C .O 3 rD rD -' (D � n O D Ln r-r rD a) Also considered is whether the vehicle can get completely off the road. If it can, a higher traffic volume is acceptable from a safety perspective. If any part of the vehicle is on the road, a much lower volume of traffic is considered acceptable. Traffic volume measurements are taken between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., the time an RSMC is usually on the road delivering, which also takes rush hours out of the equation. Finally, the tool assesses whether the location of the mail box meets the present legal restrictions, such as its distance from an intersection. A final word To conclude, the traffic safety assessment tool is applied to an individual rural or suburban mail box in order to make a scientifically -based decision on whether or not the mail box can remain where it is or needs to be modified. This decision is based on a number of factors including: • an assessment of legal restrictions that apply to the location • the number of lanes • the number of vehicles • the position of the stopped mail carrier's vehicle • the presence of double yellow centerline markings • the sight distances for approaching drivers to the stopped mail carrier's vehicle • the sight distances for the mail carrier to merge in traffic • the waiting time for a safe gap to merge back into traffic M X v a, v, rD O D Cu rD rD ,O 3 tLn ii N rD C= rD L/) �. r+ Ln O n Ln Ln rD I m x sv 3 0 m cu 0 rD Lo m un What is Canada Post doing? Canada Post is assessing the safety of delivering mail to rural mailboxes. Why is Canada Post doing this? Canada Post is committed to and responsible for providing a workplace free of unreasonable risk for its employees, the motoring public, and customers. Like all Canadian companies, Canada Post has a legal responsibility to ensure its operations do not place its employees or the public at risk. If an employee identifies a concern about the safety of their working conditions, Canada Post must address the concern. Why is Canada Post doing this now? The nature of many of Canada's rural and suburban areas is changing. Population growth, leading to increased traffic, is making delivery of mail to many rural mailboxes potentially hazardous for Canada Post mail carriers and other drivers. Canada Post has already equipped its Rural and Suburban Mail Carrier (RSMC) vehicles with signs and flashing lights, but increased visibility does not address all situations where there is a potential risk. Canada Post is responsible for ensuring employee and public safety under both the Criminal Code and Labour Code. I thought the people delivering mail to my rural mailbox were contractors? Canada Post has a legal responsibility to ensure a safe working environment - for employees and contractors alike. RSMC's are employees of Canada Post. How does the safety assessment work? Canada Post applies a set of scientific criteria developed by an independent panel of traffic safety experts. The assessment can be applied to any rural mailbox, and considers factors such as volume, type (trucks and cars) and speed of traffic, sight lines and stopping distance, and the RSMC's vehicle position on the road. When and where are the safety assessments being done? Canada Post is conducting safety assessments whenever and wherever a potentially hazardous rural mailbox location is identified. Canada Post is committed to keeping customers and community officials in affected areas fully informed. How do customers know their rural mailbox is being assessed? Canada Post will contact any customer whose rural mailbox has been identified as potentially hazardous before it is assessed, and then inform them of the findings of the safety assessment. T rD C rD r+ D 77 rD 0- ON C= rD V) O D Ln What happens when a rural mailbox is found to pose a risk? Canada Post will inform the customer in person and advise them if their rural mailbox location can be made to conform to current safety criteria, or if their method of local mail delivery will have to change. Canada Post's priority is to maintain rural mailbox delivery. Can customers move their rural mailboxes to make them safer? In some cases, rural mailboxes can be moved or clustered in groups to make delivery safer. Will customers lose local service if their rural mailbox is unsafe? No. Canada Post is committed to maintaining local delivery service at all times for all customers affected by the assessment. Service will be provided via one of Canada Post's safe and proven centralized mail delivery systems, such as a Community Mailbox or a box at a local post office (a service provided at no charge). Does centralized delivery simply shift risk to customers? No, centralized delivery systems such as Community Mailboxes are always placed in a safe location close to the customers they serve, and are maintained year round by Canada Post. Will converting customers to centralized delivery save Canada Post money? No Switching customers' method of delivery is a costly undertaking for Canada Post. This initiative is in response to serious questions of safety to which Canada Post is legally obliged to respond. When you talk about safety, how many accidents have occurred? In the last half of 2006, there have been 13 serious traffic accidents related to rural mailbox mail delivery. How many mailboxes will be assessed? All rural mailboxes will, over time, be assessed from a safety perspective. Today, there are about 843,000 rural mailboxes which represent six percent of Canada Post's over 14 million delivery points. How long will it take to assess all the rural mailboxes in Canada? Three to four years. TI rD c- rD r-F D rD CZ r_O C 0 V) If my mailbox has to be moved, who moves it and who pays for any costs incurred? Canada Post will indicate to the customer where the mailbox needs to be moved in order to make it safe. Moving the mailbox and any costs incurred are the customer's responsibility. Once I've been notified that my mailbox has to move, how long do I have to move it? Canada Post is asking that customers move their mailboxes within 15 days of being notified. If there is another community mailbox site that is more convenient than the one you have provided, can I switch? Yes, provided there is space at the more convenient community mailbox location. Why does my community newspaper continue to deliver to my mailbox if it is unsafe? The legal responsibility to provide a safe working environment applies to all Canadian companies. For Canada Post, the safety of its employees and customers is a priority. c rD D (D Q r40 C rD V) o� V) The nature of many of Canada's rural and suburban areas is changing. Population growth and increased traffic are making delivery of mail to many rural mailboxes potentially hazardous for Canada Post mail carriers and other drivers. Today, there are about 843,000 rural mailboxes which represent about six percent of Canada Post's 14 million delivery points. Given the company's responsibility to provide a safe working environment, Canada Post has taken steps to increase the visibility of the vehicles driven by its Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers (RSMC), equipping each with rooftop signs and flashing amber lights. But enhanced visibility does not address all situations where Canada Post employees, customers and other drivers are at risk. Canada post responsibilities and obligations Canada Post is committed to delivering the highest standards of service possible to all Canadians. However, as an employer and corporate citizen, Canada Post, like all Canadian companies, is also bound by both the Criminal Code and the Labour Code to ensure that its operations do not put its employees or members of the public at undue risk. As a result, Canada Post is obligated to address increasing concerns about the safety of delivering to rural and suburban mailboxes. The panel of safety experts Canada Post engaged the services of an expert panel to develop a tool that would assess the traffic on RSMC delivery routes. The three panelists are from: i -TRANS Consulting, a North American professional engineering consulting firm serving clients across Canada, the United States and internationally in the areas of transportation planning, transportation systems, and transportation safety. Human Factors North, a Canadian consulting firm providing ergonomics expertise to design work and workplaces based on human characteristics. HFN brings expertise in traffic safety, interface design and occupational ergonomics. Cotton Law, a legal specialist and advisor in the area of occupational health, safety and the environment. Developing the criteria Developing the traffic safety assessment criteria required research and expertise in the areas of traffic safety, road design, driver behaviour and the law. The result of the combined work of the multi - disciplinary team identified above is a traffic safety assessment tool, or TSAT, that can be applied to individual rural and suburban mail boxes. The traffic safety assessment criteria are accompanied by documentation that guides an assessor as to the road and traffic parameters which require measurement at a mailbox. The information gathered enables the assessor to make the decision to modify a mailbox or allow it to remain. The approach The approach adopted was a driver behaviour approach. This approach assesses the driving tasks of a RSMC and their requirements, as well as the driving tasks of other drivers who encounter a stopped or merging mail carrier vehicle in typical traffic and road conditions. The approach determines whether time available for drivers to carry out their driving tasks encompasses the needs of the majority of drivers. The road conditions considered in the traffic safety assessment tool include two and four -lane roads, with and without shoulder width sufficient for stopping the mail carrier's vehicle, at the mailbox, whether completely off or partly in the path of another vehicle traveling in the same direction as the mail carrier. What the to ®l assesses The tool assesses whether there is sufficient "decision sight distance" for other drivers, traveling at typical speeds on the particular road, to respond appropriately to a stopped RSMC vehicle. Drivers need time to perceive the situation ahead, make a decision on how to react to it, and start and complete the action chosen. The tool also assesses the ability of the mail carrier to merge safely back into traffic. Mail carriers need to see far enough behind so that they can select a reasonable gap between passing vehicles to merge back into traffic. The assessment also includes the number of vehicles using the road for two- and four -lane roads, when the RSMC vehicle is stopper on or off the road. Research has found that the drivers need to wait for long periods of time due to high volumes to get a gap to merge back into traffic, they tend to accept shorter and less safe gaps. Traffic volume measurements are taken between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. or as close as possible to actual delivery times an RSMC is usually on the road delivering, which also takes rush hours out of the equation. in addition, the tool assesses whether the location of the mail box meets the present legal restrictions, such as its distance from an intersection or no stopping zones. final word To conclude, the traffic safety assessment tool is applied to an individual rural or suburban mailbox in order to make a legally and scientifically -based decision on whether or not the mail box can remain where it is or needs to be modified. This decision is based a number of factors including: • an assessment of legal restrictions that apply to the location • the number of lanes • the number of vehicles • the position of the stopped mail carrier's vehicle • the presence of double yellow centerline markings • the sight distances for approaching drivers to the stopped mail carrier's vehicle • the sight distances for the mail carrier to merge in traffic • the waiting time for a safe gap to merge back into traffic 4E i�� P u �'$ The nature of many of Canada's rural and suburban areas Is changing. Population growth, leading to increased traffic, is making delivery of mall to many rural mailboxes potentially hazardous for Canada Post mall carriers and other drivers. Canada Post has taken steps to Increase the visibility of vehicles driven by its Rural and Suburban Mall Carriers, equipping each with rooftop signs and flashing amber lights. But enhanced visibility alone does not address all situations where Canada Post employees, customers and the motoring public are at risk. Canada Post asked an Independent panel of traffic safety experts to develop a sclentlfic set of criteria for determining if a rural mailbox poses an unreasonable risk or hazard. This standardized test considers factors such as sight Imes and stopping distance, volume of traffic, type and speed of traffic, among many others. It can be applied o any rural mailbox in Canada. 11", If If a mailbox Is Identified as a potential hazard, Canada Post will contact the customer to explain the process Canada Post will apply the traffic safety test to determine if delivering to the rural mailbox In question Is too hazardous. r r 's ��; .,,, k. a..> r 11, r AI ivt`:ti Canada Posts priority Is to maintain rural mailbox delivery. However when a rural mailbox has been determined to pose a risk, Canada Post will advise the resident In person if and how their mailbox can be relocated for safe delivery. 0 If conditions do not allow for re- positioning a rural mailbox for safe delivery, Canada Post offers a number of options for local mall delivery. These include Community Mailbox service -a proven alternative that is safely sited close to the customers it serves, is maintained year round, and allows customers to receive and send mall from secure locked compartments. Also where available Is free lockbox service at a local post office - -this is not a free service under any other circumstances. .. s. As a responsible employer and corporate citizen, Canada Post is committed to ensuring the safety of its employees, other drivers and customers- Canada Post will keep residents and community leaders In affected areas personally and fully informed of all issues, 'findings and actions related to rural mailboxes in advance and throughout the process. And will cons ue to pro, de local mail delivery to all customers without c uo'ior Severn Sound Environmental Association 67 Fourth Street Midland Ontario L4R3S9 Tel: 705 -527 -5166 Fax: 705 -527 -5167 Email: kshennan(atown.midland . on.ca Web -site: www.severnsomm.ca September 4, 2007 Ruth Coursey, CAO /Clerk, Corporation of the Township of Tiny Simone Latham, CAO, Corporation of the Township of Tay Ted Walker, CAO, Corporation of the Town of Midland Eleanor Rath, CAO, Corporation of the Town of Penetanguisbene Paul Gravelle, A /CAO, Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte Eric Peterson, CAO, Corporation of the Township of Severn RE: TREE DISTRIBUTION PROTECT — POTENTIAL MUNICIPAL PARTICIPATION IN 200712008 In spring 2007, Severn Sound Environmental Association (SSEA), the North Simcoe Private Land Stewardship Network, and the Townships of Tay and Tiny partnered together to provide residents with reasonably priced, native tree seedlings for planting. The project was an experiment to assess public interest in tree planting, and to promote additional tree planting in the Severn Sound area, thereby improving environmental health. The pilot project confirmed that there is a large demand by local residents for a native tree distribution program. A final report on the 2007 tree distribution program (attached for your information) recommended that the program be expanded to include other municipalities. The North Simcoe Private Land Stewardship Network has already committed both funding ($2,000) and volunteer support to assist with the project in 2007/8. Accordingly, we are approaching the Townships of Tay, Tiny, Oro - Medonte, Severn, the Towns of Midland and Penetanguisbene for the 2008 project. We are asking for three things from each participating municipality to accomplish a successful tree distribution project in the spring of 2008. 1. Commit $2,000 (2008 pre- budget approval) to the tree distribution project, payable to SSEA, so that SSEA can administer the program (e.g. receive orders and payments and arrange tree order from the nursery) and cover the deposit on the trees. 2. Provide residents with information on the project that must go out in the fall of 2007, via tax bills or other suitable mailings from municipal offices. SSEA would provide copies of promotional materials to the municipalities. :, 3. Provide a suitable facility (e.g. roads garage) and staff support for picking up, sorting, and distributing tree orders in late April or early May 2008. Please advise SSEA as soon as possible of the interest your municipality has in participating in this project. We must submit a preliminary seedling order to the nursery by the end of September. Please contact me or Michelle Hudolin at the SSEA Office. Yours Truly, Keith Sherman, Coordinator Severn Sound Environmental Association CC: D. Parks A. Winter Background Tay /Tiny Tree Distribution Pilot Project SSEA Final Report — June 2007 Severn Sound Environmental Association (SSEA), the North Simcoe Private Land Stewardship Network (NSPLSN), and the Townships of Tay and Tiny partnered together to provide local residents of the two townships with reasonably priced, native tree seedlings for planting in the spring of 2007. The project was an experiment to assess public interest in the service, and to promote additional tree planting in the Severn Sound area. Results Response to the project by residents was very good, and trees were sold out quite quickly. In the Township of Tay, 136 participants purchased 8,965 trees; in the Township of Tiny, 64 participants purchased 5,985 trees. In addition, SSEA purchased a few extra trees of many species (450 trees in total), to offset slight variances in individual landowner orders on sorting day. In total, 15,400 trees and shrubs of 12 different species were distributed as part of the 2007 Tree Distribution Pilot Project (Table 1). Table 1: Trees Distributed for the Tree Distribution Pilot Project (May 2007) Tree /Shrub Species Quantity Distributed Common Name Scientific Name Ta Tiny Total Red Pine Pinus resinosa 600 450 1,050 White Pine Pinus strobes 1,675 1,275 2,950 White Spruce Picea lauca 1,840 980 2,820 White Cedar Thu'a occidentalis 1,780 1,710 3,490 Silver Maple Acersaccharinum 470 190 660 Black Cherry Prunus serwina 140 10 150 Red -osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera 570 200 770 Black Walnut Ju lans ni ra 300 150 1 450 Red Oak Ouereus rubra 390 230 1 620 White Birch Betula papyrifera 430 540 970 Hi hbush Cranberry Viburnum trilobum 770 400 1,170 Narmyberry Viburnu 220 80 300 TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES 9,185 1 6,215 15,400 Generally, larger orders of 100 trees or more were primarily composed of conifer species (pine, spruce and cedar), which are likely being used for reforestation efforts. Smaller orders usually contained a larger proportion of hardwood trees and shrubs, which the landowner may be using for ornamental and /or wildlife habitat enhancement purposes. r, The prices charged to residents for seedling trees varied according to species, but were very reasonable (Appendix A). In future, it should not be necessary to dramatically increase the cost of the trees to landowners compared to the nursery prices, provided there is funding available to the primary organizing agency to offset the costs of administering the program. A handout was provided to project participants when they picked up their tree orders. The handout included instructions for handling trees, as well as tree planting tips, and species - specific information (Appendix B). Expenses Compared to Revenue The main expenses SSEA incurred for the 2007 project were staff time, mileage /vehicle costs, and printing expenses; sources of revenue included NSPLSN funding and the proceeds from tree sales (Table 2). Additional materials for the project (e.g. tree bags and tags for labeling trees) were purchased by the NSPLSN. Table )-Tree Distribution Proiect— Exnenses Compared to Revenue (2007) SSEA Expenses Staff time $6,209.34 Mileage/Vehicles $320.00 Printing costs $214.92 Trees (from nursery, incl. extra/contingency trees ) $10,207.84 Materials (e. . ba s, tags, etc. - supplied by NSPLSN ) $0.00 Accounting expense* $90.00 Total SSEA Expenses $17,042.10 SSEA Revenue NSPLSN funding $2,000.00 Tree sales $12,097.97 Total SSEA Revenue $14,097.97 REVENUE MINUS EXPENSES ($2,944.13 Note. GST is not included in the above expenses or revenues * estimate of accounting expense from the Town of Midland In 2007, the revenue generated from tree orders was sufficient to cover the cost of trees as well as some of the project expenses, but not all of the expenses were covered strictly through tree sales and NSPLSN funding. The project was quite labour - intensive for SSEA staff in 2007, largely because of the short time -frame available to organize, promote and implement the program. SSEA staff spent close to 300 person -hours on the project between the beginning of January and the middle of May. The most time - consuming tasks included: fielding phone calls, receiving /compiling orders and providing advice on species selection; processing payments and issuing receipts; and picking up, sorting and distributing tree orders. In future, the amount of time required to implement the program would be drastically reduced through careful planning, longer timelines, and more involvement by municipal partners. Conclusions and Recommendations The pilot project confirmed that there is a large demand by local residents for a native tree distribution program. In 2007, demand for seedlings continued for weeks after they were sold out, and many participants expressed an interest in purchasing trees again in 2008. In addition, SSEA received inquiries about the program from landowners in other municipalities. Consequently, it is recommended that the program be offered in Tay and Tiny again, as well as being expanded to other municipalities. It is anticipated a tree distribution program would be well received if it were offered in Oro- Medome, Penetanguishene, Midland, and Orillia. Since the Townships of Severn and Georgian Bay are relatively well treed, the program may be less popular in these areas, but there would undoubtedly be some landowners interested in participating. Consideration should also be given to including the Township of Springwater in a North Simcoe tree distribution program, if residents do not already have access to a similar program through the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. Including up to nine municipalities in a North Simcoe Tree Distribution Program would be a large expansion of the pilot project. The expansion could be undertaken in phases (adding a few municipalities each year over several years), and /or the municipalities could either be responsible for managing the majority of the tasks for the project, or contribute funds to SSEA to cover the costs of coordinating the program on their behalf. Establishing a minimum quantity for tree orders could be advantageous, since it is relatively costly to process small orders compared to larger orders. Establishing a 50 or 100 tree minimum would ensure a comparatively high return on investment for the time required to receive and process orders. However, more urbanized municipalities (i.e. Midland, Penetanguishene and Orillia) would not generally have landowners purchasing large numbers of trees; people in these situations could potentially work together with friends /neighbours to combine their orders to meet the minimum size requirement. Alternatively, the municipality may choose not to establish a minimum size for tree orders in urban areas. Information on the program should be sent to landowners via their tax bill or another appropriate municipal mailing, rather than in a newsletter format. Utilizing a municipal mailing allows the price list and/or order form to be included in the material that residents receive, which is not possible when using a newsletter for distributing the information. Although the pilot project incurred expenses that were greater than the revenue generated, many lessons were learned on how to improve and successfully implement such a program. Continuing the program and it expanding it to other municipalities in North Simcoe would be a very worthwhile endeavor. With careful planning, longer timelines for implementation, and more involvement by municipal partners, the program's expenses would be reduced, making this a very cost - effective manner of encouraging private landowners to become involved in tree planting. A North Simcoe Tree Distribution Program could conceivably sell 50,000 trees or more on an annual basis, improving environmental health at the local scale and beyond. t Recommendation #1: Continue the tree distribution program, expanding it to other municipalities in North Simcoe. Recommendation #2: Follow the suggested schedule of activities and responsibilities outlined in Appendix C. Appendix A - 2007 Price Lists for the Tree -�'C>;n So C'00 1. i" Township of Tiny Tree Distribution Program The Township of Tiny, Severn Sound Environmental Association and the North Simcoe Private Land Stewardship Network are working together to provide native tree seedlings to the residents in the Township of Tiny. Seedling species, prices and quantities are listed below for landowners who are interested in purchasing and planting tree seedlings in the spring of 2007. Seedlings range from 15cm — 60 cm in height and are 2 — 3 year old nursery stock. Tree orders will be available for pickup at your local municipal office in early May. Tree Species Trees per Bundle Price per Bundle* Red Pine 25 $19.50 White Pine 25 $9.75 White Spruce 10 $5.75 White Cedar 10 $6.75 Silver Maple 10 $8.00 Black Walnut 10 $17.00 Red Oak 10 $13.50 Black Cherry 10 $18.00 White Birch 10 $18.00 Red Osier Dogwood 10 $14.50 Nannyberry 10 $23.75 American Highbush Cranberry 10 $12.00 To place a tree order or for more information regarding species selection or the distribution program please contact: Jenn Lavigne Severn Sound Environmental Association (705) 725 -7545 Email: ilavigne0town.midland.on.ca www.severnsound.ca Mailing Address: 2284 Nursery Road, Midhurst ON LOL 1X0 *Prices include all taxes a Township of Tay Tree Distribution Program The Township of Tay, Severn Sound Environmental Association and the North Simcoe Private Land Stewardship Network are working together to provide native tree seedlings to the residents of the Township of Tay. Seedling species, prices and quantities are listed below for landowners who are interested in purchasing and planting tree seedlings in the spring of 2007. Seedlings range from 15cm — 60 cm in height and are 2 — 3 year old nursery stock. Tree orders will be available for pickup at your local municipal office in early May. Tree Species Trees per Bundle Price per Bundle* Red Pine 25 $19.50 White Pine 25 $9.75 White Spruce 10 $5.75 White Cedar 10 $6.75 Silver Maple 10 $8.00 Black Walnut 10 $17.00 Red Oak 10 $13.50 Black Cherry 10 $18.00 White Birch 10 $18.00 Red Osier Dogwood 10 $14.50 Nannyberry 10 $23.75 American Highbush Cranberry 10 $12.00 To place a tree order or for more information regarding species selection or the distribution program please contact: Jenn Lavigne Severn Sound Environmental Association (705) 725 -7545 Email: ilavigne @town.midland.on.ca www.severnsound.ca * Prices include all taxes Appendix B -Tree Planting Information Handout Tree Distribution Project - Tree Planting Tips • Handle trees with care, and plant as soon as possible, keeping roots moist until planted. • Handle seedlings by the base of the stem, taking care not to bruise the bark. • Plant the tree in a hole large enough to accommodate the roots spread out in a natural position. • Do not bunch, spiral, double -over or bend roots. • Do not bury live branches or foliage, or leave any roots exposed to air. • Cover with soil and tamp soil firmly to remove air pockets. • Spacing: trees should generally be planted 2 -3 m (6 -10 feet) apart. ✓ Prune at the time of planting only to remove broken or damaged branches or roots. • For the first year or two, after a week of hot or dry weather, water the trees well and slowly if possible. • Keep the area around the tree free from grass or weeds that compete for moisture. ✓ Fertilizer is not needed for the newly planted trees. Native Snecies Site Suitabilitv and Characteristics Species Site Suitabiii[ S ecies Characteristics /Uses n Trees - easier to establish and maintain'. e Fresh to moist, well- drained sands or Used primarily for reforestation. Will tolerate obes) clay /loam soils. Avoid extremely dry or some shade. exposed sites. F Fresh, deep well - drained sands or sandy Used for reforestation. Requires full sunlight. nosa foams. Avoid oori drained soils. uce Fresh to moist sands, sandy loams, clay loams Used for reforestation, shelterbelts and uca) or well- drained clay soils. Avoid very dry or windbreaks. Will tolerate some shade. very wet sites. White Cedar Will tolerate a wide range of soils. Used for windbreaks. Will tolerate some (Thnga occideniahs) Moderately dry to very moist conditions. shade. Avoid very dry sites. Deciduous Trees - re' one more protection in seedling stages from extreme weather & animals farce, rabbits & deer)->.. le Most deep soils including silts or clays found Used for restoration projects along harimnn) along watercourses. watercourses. Fast growing. Will tolerate some shade. Do not plant near or on septic beds. nut VRedOak Deep, fertile, moist loam soils. Requires full sunlight. Usually planted with i others ecies (White Pine in alternate rows. Rich, well drained sandy foams and foams. Requires full sunlight. bra Avoid lantin in heav cle s or on wet sites. y Rich, well drained sandy foams and loams. Requires full sunlight. (Prunus serotina White Birch Fresh to moist sands, sandy foams and Requires full sunlight. Fast growing. (Benda a Sri era) moderately drained soils. Shrubs Red -osier Dogwood Moist to very moist soils. Often grows near Fast growing shrub. Commonly planted to (Cornus siolonifera ) wetland areas or along roadside ditches. attract birds and other wildlife. Nannyberry Moist to very moist soils, often grows near A shrub commonly planted to attract birds and (Viburnum lentago) wetland areas. other wildlife. Will tolerate some shade conditions. American Highbush Will tolerate a wide range of soils but grows A shrub commonly planted to attract birds and Cranberry best on moist sandy loam to clay loam soils. other wildlife. Will tolerate some shade but (Viburnum trilobum ) best in full sunk ht. CONTENTS EXTREMELY PERISHABLE DO NOT Open Bag Until Required Keep 2 - 3 inch in pail while 1. Plant Immediately If Possible Remove only as many trees as will fit loosely into planting pails. Reseal plastic liner and return bag to storage. 1 br,N� xnN` If roots are dry when bag is opened, remove trees and soak roots in water for not more than ten minutes. Drain excess water and return trees into polyilned bag, or to planting pail. Reseal polyliner and return trees to storage. ;'AA - ft ( Holding Tub contains 4 to 6 PLANTING inches of water _ = _�.�_ _A Plant 1-'-. I citing a'. time of water WEDGE PLANTING METHOD 2. Bags can be stored in a COOL SHADED PLACE for NO LONGER THAN 2 DAYS — DO NOT OPEN BAGS UNTIL READY TO PLANT 3. For longer storage, Heel trees in a trench. (As below) "HEELING IN" Separate Individual Bundles TREES 1 Of Trees _41"1 Dip Roots in Wate Before Heeling In V - Trench — Cover Roots Only With Soil And Firm With Foot NOTE: Neel in all Hardwoods if not planted immediately! WATER "HEELED IN" TREES AS REQUIRED ,r Appendix C— Suggested Schedule of Activities & Responsibilities for 2008 Tree Distribution Project Task /Activity Time Frame Responsible Partner(s) Determine municipalities /partners to participate in project, and formalize responsibilities and financial contributions of each Jul 2007 SSEA, NSPLSN, municipality Establish distribution location(s) Jul 2007 municipality Select tree /shrub species to be offered & determine prices of seedlings Jul 2007 SSEA Produce species selection guide for landowners (modify 2007 guide) Jul /Aug 2007 SSEA Develop promotional materials (electronic and hard -copy formats) Jul/Aug 2007 SSEA Produce spreadsheet for receiving orders Jul /Aug 2007 SSEA Print promotional materials & deliver to municipal offices Aug 2007 SSEA Promote program (web- sites, municipal offices, mailings, media, etc.) Aug to Nov 2007 SSEA, NSPLSN, municipality Submit preliminary order to nursery (estimated number of trees) Aug 2007 SSEA Receive and compile tree orders from landowners Sep to Nov 2007 To be determined Process payment for tree orders Sep to Dec 2007 municipality Finalize order with nursery (based on total from orders plus extras) Dec 2007 /Jan 2008 SSEA Finalize distribution date (ideally late Apr or early May) Feb 2008 SSEA, NSPLSN, municipality Generate receipts for tree orders for landowners Feb /Mar 2008 To be determined Mail receipts and pick -up instructions to landowners Mar 2008 municipality Solicit & coordinate volunteers for sorting and distribution days Mar 2008 SSEA, NSPLSN, municipality Produce `tree planting tips' sheet for landowners (modify 2007 guide) Mar 2008 SSEA Purchase supplies for sorting /distribution (e.g. tree bags /heavy plastic bags, tree species tags, moss, etc.) Mar /Apr 2008 NSPLSN Coordinate pick -up or delivery date(s) and times for trees Mar /Apr 2008 To be determined Generate and print tree order labels and master spreadsheet Apr 2008 Agency receiving tree orders Prepare sorting /distribution facilities (i.e. space, tables) Apr 2008 municipality Pick -up tree order from nursery & sort /package individual landowner orders Apr /early May 2008 SSEA, NSPLSN, municipality, Distribute tree orders at distribution location(s) Apr /early May 2008 SSEA, NSPLSN, municipality, volunteers Follow -up on unclaimed tree orders Apr /early May 2008 municipality Produce a report on the results of the project May 2008 SSEA NORTH SIMCOE HOSPITAL ALLIANCE ALLIANCE DES HOPITAU% DE SIMCOE NORD September 7, 2007 Mr. Harry Hughes, Mayor, Oro - Medonte, Box 100, 148 Line 7 South, Oro, Ontario. LOL 2X0 Dear Harry: f3: SEP , ^ "031 op,C)_hF DVNii_ As you know, the boards of Huronia District Hospital and Penetanguishene General Hospital decided to implement two Task Force Groups; one with representation from internal staff, and the second from the community at large; as well as a political liasion group, to search out avenues for the continued success of healthcare in our community and make recommendations to the boards with viable options for governance. The boards would like to invite your participation on the Provincial Agencies Liaison Group. We have attached a copy of the Terms of Reference for the group for your review and information. Please contact either of us with any questions you may have. We look forward to your participation, and will advise you once the first meeting date has been set. Yours truly, Ron Crane John Barrett- Hamilton Chair Chair Board of Trustees Board of Directors Huronia District Hospital Penetanguishene General Hospital vwvrw.nsha.en.ca The Panetanguishene General Hospital Inc. Hopital genera'- de Penetanguishene inc. 25 lesfery Street Penetanguishene, Ontario, L9M 1K6 Tel: (705) 549 -7432, Fax: l705) 549 -4035 Huronia District Hospital Hopital du district de la Hurome 1122 St. Andrew's Drive, P.O. Box 760 Itlidland, Ontario, L4R 4P4 Tel: (7O5) 526 -2300, Fax: (705) 526 -2007 Terms of Reference Provincial Agencies Liaison Group The Huronia District Hospital ( "HDH ") and the Penetanguishene General Hospital ( "PGH ") are public hospitals operating pursuant to the Public Hospitals Act (Ontario) and the regulations thereunder; In 1992 HDH and PGH have entered into an alliance agreement "to develop a mechanism by which the two institutions will be able to collaboratively plan to maximize the use of existing and new health care resources "; HDH and PGH exist as separate independent corporations but have been operating also as the "North Simcoe Hospital Alliance" (the "Alliance "); To date substantial cooperation and collaboration has occurred between HDH and PGH in governance, employees, operations and finances through the Alliance; The operations and joint initiatives undertaken by the Alliance have not been contractualized; The Governance Committees of each of HDH and PGH (the "Governance Committees ") were given the task of assessing the status quo of the Alliance with an eye to the current and future goals of the Alliance; The Governance Committees have determined key principles and researched and reviewed the pros and cons of structural options for the Alliance (the "Restructuring') considering all facts including patient care, service, financial, legal and strategic implications; The Governance Committees have made certain recommendations to the Boards of Directors of HDH and PGH (the "Boards ") in relation to the Restructuring; On June 15, 2007 the HDH Board passed a motion to recommend to the corporate membership that HDH and PGH become a single catholic hospital and whereas this resolution has since been withdrawn to facilitate ongoing community and stakeholder consultation; The Boards wish to proceed with the community and stakeholder consultation through the establishment of committees; to provide advice and report back to the Boards with recommendations. This 23rd day of August, 2007 a Provincial Agencies Liaison Group ( "PALG ") is created with the following Terms of Reference: A. Membership 1. The PALG sball consist of 14 members comprised as follows: (a) Member of Parliament (b) Member of Provincial Parliament Error! Unknown document property name. C. D. -2— �✓ s° (c) The Mayor of Midland; (d) The Mayor of Penetanguishene; (e) The Mayor of Tiny Township (f) The Mayor of Tay Township (g) The Mayor of Springwater Township (h) The Mayor of Georgian Bay Township (i) The Mayor of Oro - Medonte Township 0) Beausoleil First Nation (k) The Chair of the Board of Directors of HDH; (1) The Chair of the Board of Directors of PGH; (m) The Chief Executive Officer of HDH; and (n) The Chief Executive Officer of PGH. Officers I . The Co- Chairs of the PALG shall be the Chairs of the HDH and PGH Boards. 2. The PALG may elect other officers as needed from time to time. Education The Governance Committees shall prior to the conduct of any business by the PALG, provide a formal briefing session wherein representatives of the Governance Committees shall inform the PALG of the process observed by the Governance Committees in their assessment of the Restructuring and matters and strategic options considered up to the commencement of the Term of the PALG. Objectives and Responsibilities I. The PALG shall exist to provide an information forum to keep elected officials updated on the governance structure review process for HDH and PGH. 2. The PALG shall meet as required to receive updates from the work of the Internal Stakeholders Committee and the Community Committee. Error! Unknown document property name. -3- 3. Consultation ,i (a) The PALG shall communicate and liase with the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care, the Local Health Integration Network and other provincial agencies as appropriate, in relation to the above noted matters. (b) The PALG may at its discretion consult groups or individuals, in addition to the named Information Liaisons and the provincial agencies referred to in (a) above. E. Term and Termination The term of the PALG shall commence as at the date hereof and shall continue until October 31, 2007, or such reasonable later date as the committee may require, at which time the PALL shall be dissolved (the "Term "). F. General 1. Electronic Meetings (a) If all persons who are members of the PALG, consent thereto generally or in respect of a particular meeting and each has adequate access, such persons may participate in a meeting of the committee by means of such conference telephone or other communications facilities as permit all persons participating in the meeting to hear each other, and a person participating in such a meeting by such means is deemed to be present at the meeting. Provided that at the outset of each such meeting, and whenever votes are required, the chair of the meeting shall call roll to establish quonzm, and shall, whenever not satisfied that the proceedings of the meeting may proceed with adequate security and confidentiality adjourn the meeting to a predetermined date, time and place. Error! Unknown document property name. The Corporation of the County of Simeoe CORPORATE SER VICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION (705) 735 -6901 Fax: (705) 726 -9832 Beeton Area: 729 -2294 Toll Free 1 -800- 263 -3199 Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7S Box 100 Oro, Ontario ty, LOL 2X0r °� Attention: Doug Irwin 0 September 5, 2007— Dear Mr. Irwin: Administration Centre 1110 Hwy. 26 Midhurst, Ontario LOL IXO Re: Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Equipment Collection Further to your correspondence received August 28, 2007, County staff are please to provide you with information regarding our recently approved pilot programs for expanded diversion of limited Household Hazardous Wastes and Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment. The following outlines the program expansions that were approved by County Council in June. • Accepting common low risk Household Hazardous Waste materials at the Nottawasaga Landfill (Site 10) and the North Simcoe Transfer Station (Site 24) on a five days per week basis (Tuesday through Saturday) • Acceptable materials to include items such as paints motor oil, antifreeze, propane tanks, fire extinguishers, fluorescent and compact fluorescent bulbs, lead acid batteries, dry cell batteries, etc. (but not to include higher risk items such as pesticides, herbicides, chemicals or unknown materials) • Accepting the material for Household Hazardous Waste at the regular garbage tipping fee charged at the facility therefore not requiring additional scale movements for combined loads • Accepting Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment at Site 10 and Site 24 during all times those facilities are open (currently 6 days per week, Monday through Saturday) • Acceptable materials to include items such as televisions, computers, computer monitors, game consoles, fax machines, cell phones, drills, irons, electric can openers, etc. ')_ • Accepting the materials as Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment at the regular garbage tipping fee charged at the facility therefore not requiring additional scale movements for combined loads The pilot program for Household Hazardous Waste and Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment has been approved to begin in 2008. A copy of the Council report outlining the details of the program expansions has been enclosed for your information. With anticipated successes of the pilot program staff intends to roll out parts or whole programs to other programs to other facilities and, the Oro Landfill (Site 11), being one of the major County facilities, will be the first site considered for expansion of these services It is noted that currently residents or Oro- Medonte, Severn and Ramara can utilize the City of Orillia facility. If you require further information please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours t Kimberley Pickett Technical Compliance Supervisor cc. Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering and Environmental Services COUNTY OF SIMCOE c . ITEM FOR: CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE SECTION: Environmental ITEM NO. CS 07 -123 MEETING DATE: June 13, 2007 SUBJECT: Implementation of Facility Diversion Programs RECOMMENDATION: THAT pilot programs be implemented for the expanded diversion of limited Household Hazardous Waste and Diversion of Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment as outlined in Item CS 07 -123; AND THAT the pilot program for collection of agricultural bale wrap, as outlined in Item CS 07- 123 be discontinued and the Federation of Agriculture be so advised; AND THAT the financial strategy outlined in Item CS 07 -123 be approved. BACKGROUND: Further to discussion at the May I" Waste Management Workshop and Report WMS 07 -007, staff has been working to increase diversion at County waste management facilities. Recently implemented programs for diversion of wood waste, drywall and asphalt shingles at the many of the larger waste management facilities are estimated to divert 13,000 tonnes of material from landfill annually. Staff will continue to expand these programs to other sites where reasonable. Staff has also been investigating additional diversion programs for Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) and Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) from landfill. Staff anticipates that expansion of these programs could result in an additional 500 tonnes of material being diverted from landfill. It is noted that although the potential diversion tonnages from these programs are not as impressive as those which have recently been implemented, diversion of these materials would provide significant environmental and social benefits. Household Hazardous Waste Program: The current County Household Hazardous Waste Program is focused on three permanent depots which each operate five times annually. Additionally, County residents can utilize the City of Barrie facility and residents of Oro- Medonte, Severn and Ramara can utilize the City of Orillia facility. Waste Diversion Ontario has designated some Household Hazardous Waste as material which a product stewardship program is being developed. Due to the potential environmental impacts of these materials and the potential for diversion it is prudent to consider expanding this program in order to divert as much as possible from landfill. Staff has been working with the County Household Hazardous Waste contractor, Brendar Environmental, with respect to the feasibility of expanding to include a daily program which would be County staffed. This proposal, which would be implemented as a pilot program at two facilities initially, would enable the County to expand the current program dramatically while managing risks and keeping costs low. Further expansion of the program (to other sites) would require applications for Certificates June 13, 2007 Corporate Services Committee CS 07 -123 1 Page 2 of Approval. The recommended pilot program for limited Household Hazardous Waste materials involves the following: • Accepting common low risk Household Hazardous Waste materials at the sites noted on a 5 day per week basis (Tuesday through Saturday); • Acceptable materials to include items such as paints, motor oil, antifreeze, propane tanks, fire extinguishers, fluorescent and compact fluorescent bulbs, lead acid batteries, dry cell batteries, etc. (but not to include higher risk items such as pesticides, herbicides, chemicals or unknown materials); • Accepting the material for Household Hazardous Waste at the regular garbage tipping fee charged at the facility therefore not requiring additional scale movements for combined loads; and • Hiring one additional staff person per facility with responsibility for managing the Household Hazardous Waste program in addition to other duties as assigned with training and cross training for all staff at the facility who may be asked to cover for this position for breaks and or vacation periods. It is estimated that the Household Hazardous Waste duties of the new staff person should take approximately 25% of their time. The balance of which will be used for other required site duties such as observation of diversion drop - off areas to ensure the correct materials are being dropped off in the right locations. These materials noted above for diversion form the vast majority of the hazardous wastes handled at our events. If staff is trained to handle these low risk / high volume materials on a day to day basis Brendar Environmental could continue to operate the Hazardous Waste Depot days enabling them to focus more on the high risk but low volume materials (while also continuing to accept the lower risk materials), resulting in potential shorter lineups at the event days, and increased convenience for our residents. The recommended program would allow residents to dispose of these materials more conveniently. In addition staff would be provided the needed training for safe management, handling, and storage of the material and the necessary staffing levels would be achieved to appropriately manage the new program. Staff believes that the natural locations to pilot the expanded program are the North Simcoe Transfer Station Site #24 and the Nottawasaga Landfill Site #10 as they are staffed facilities and have all of the necessary Ministry approvals in place. Staff has received a proposal from Brendar Environmental, attached as Schedule 1, which provides more detail on the expanded program and costs for training, supply, and facilities. Staff recommends that this program be implemented utilizing a combination of option A and C for the facilities. Option A is to purchase a shipping container, for the Nottawasaga Site, which would provide flexibility in the future should the program be expanded in the South part of the County as the container could be made portable. A variation on Option C could be undertaken at the North Simcoe Transfer Station such that the additional fencing and equipment are provided and an additional $8,000 be allocated to retrofit the building to make it more weather proof. By using both options staff will be able to determine what facility type is most effective for the future expansion of the program to other sites. Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Progr, am: With respect to the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) program, the current program is managed in conjunction with the current Hazardous Waste program and is only available at the three County permanent hazardous waste depots on five dates per location. Waste Diversion Ontario has designated Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment as a material which June 13, 2007 Corporate Services Committee CS 07 -123 Page 3 a product stewardship program is being developed. With rapid changes in technology there are increasing amounts of Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment material in the waste stream and therefore it could be prudent to consider expanding this program to the larger waste management facilities in order to divert as much as possible from landfill. Staff is seeking Council approval to include a diversion area at the North Simcoe Transfer Station Site #24, and the Nottawasaga Landfill Site #10 initially for collection of Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment materials. Depending on the results of the initial program it could be rolled out to all of the major waste management facilities in 2008. The recommended pilot program for waste electronic and electrical equipment materials involves the following: • Accepting Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment at the sites noted during all times those facilities are open (currently 6 days per week (Mon. - Sat.); • Acceptable materials to include items such as televisions, computers, computer monitors, game consoles, fax machines, cell phones, drills, irons, electric can openers, etc.; • Accepting the material as Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment at the regular garbage tipping fee charged at the facility therefore not requiring additional scale movements for combined loads; and • Hiring one additional staff person per facility with responsibility for managing this program in addition to other duties as assigned with training and cross training for all staff at the facility who may be asked to cover for this position for breaks and or vacation periods. It is estimated that the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment duties of the new staff person should take approximately 10% of their time. The balance of which will be used for other required site duties such as observation of diversion drop -off areas to ensure the correct materials are being dropped off in the right locations. Staff is seeking approval for $40,000.00 to provide bins for collection of Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment materials at the two initial sites. Following this staff will develop a Request for Quotation to seek pricing from qualified recyclers. Staff notes that there are an increasing number of recyclers for this type of material however processors which handle all types of electronic and electrical equipment and those with handling systems in North America will be sought. This is to limit the risk of materials being sent overseas where environmental and labour standards are not as high as those here. The expansion of this program will also result in increased processing costs for this material. Last year 14 tonnes of waste electronic material only was collected at a cost of approximately $7,000.00. Staff expect that a fully expanded Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment program would generate approximately 400 tonnes of material, which would be diverted from landfill. Agricultural Bale Wrap: A pilot program for agricultural bale wrap was undertaken at the request of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and was conducted at two County Waste Management Facilities, Site #10 - Nottawasaga, and Site #11 - Oro. Bale wrap collected at the Adjala - Tosorontio Diversion Days events was transferred to participating County facilities for inclusion in the diversion program. The costs for this pilot were minimal due to the availability of two roll -off containers for collection of this material and the lack of a tipping fee and transportation costs at the processing facility — Think Plastics. However, Think Plastics requires a minimum quantity of 10,000 lbs. per load, a pad area of approximately 30' x 30' with a 4' push wall at the collection point. In addition Think Plastics require a signed contract, attached as Schedule 2, which dictates r, F June 13, 2007 Corporate Services Committee CS 07 -123 Page 4 exclusivity to the County's bale wrap material for a minimum of 10 years, automatically renewable for a further 10 years, and require that the County not charge any tipping fees for receipt of this material. Think Plastics agreed to allow the County to run a pilot project without signing the long term commitment but have now indicated that they are not willing to continue accepting County material without a signed contract. The pilot program was implemented during the summer of 2006 at two of the County landfill sites, located in farming areas, as a test to gauge the cooperation of the users to Think Plastics specifications, to determine potential diversion tonnages, costs, and otherwise determine the feasibility of the program. The program was advertised in the 2007 Collection Calendar and Environmental Services Department staff discussed the implementation of the pilot with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture local staff which also provided notice /advertising of the program to their members. No fees were charged for the material when received, signs were posted indicating the material specifications and that the program was operating as a pilot. The sites had mixed results with one site experiencing significant unacceptable materials along with the bale wrap. Over the 9 month period that the pilot program ran, only 7 tonnes of material were collected. Think Plastics was contacted in order to arrange collection of the material and some 6 weeks after notification was given, collection occurred. Staff does not recommend extension or continuation of the program at County facilities for the reasons outlined below: • Although Think Plastics has indicated that they will collect the material at no charge, there are still costs to the County for the program for staff time, bins, transportation to a suitable collection point, etc. • The volume of the material diverted by the program does not seem reasonable to take the amount of staff time and facility space required when other diversion programs have sufficiently greater potential for diversion. • The other proposed diversion programs outlined in this report have a greater potential to remove wastes contributing to landfill leachate contaminants. It is noted that plastic is relatively stable and is not a significant contributor to landfill leachate. • The sole source market for the bale wrap is a concern along with the length and type of servicing agreement required with Think Plastics. • The source of this bale wrap material is exclusively from a commercial enterprise, farming, as opposed to a residential generation. Due to the structure of the contract with Think Plastics, Staff views continuation of the program as funding commercial recovery which sets a precedence. Staff has been in contact with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture local office which has been very supportive of the program and hope that it will continue in the future. They feel that timing of the pilot was not conducive to high recovery. If it is Council's direction to continue with the bale wrap program, additional funds would be required for bins to collect the material. The current bins are needed for the recently implemented shingle and drywall diversion programs. Staff estimate that the cost for additional bins to continue the bale wrap program at the two current facilities would be $20,000.00. Ongoing costs include the cost to ship bins to a common collection point and staffing costs to monitor the program. June 13, 2007 Corporate Services Committee CS 07 -123 Page 5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: The following capital and ongoing operating costs are anticipated as a result of the recommendations contained in this Item: Costs for the expansion of the Household Hazardous Waste Program are estimated at a capital cost for upgrades to existing facilities and staff training of $30,000. Other costs for staffing and processing of additional collected materials are estimated at $125,000 annually. In future there is potential that these materials, since designated by the Waste Diversion Organization, could be partially or fully funded through stewardship programs similar to the current blue box program. Costs for the expansion of the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment program are estimated at a capital cost for bins and drop -off areas at $40,000. Other costs for staffing and processing of additional collected materials are estimated at $250,000 annually. In future there is potential that these materials, since designated by the Waste Diversion Organization, could be partially or fully funded through stewardship programs similar to the current blue box program. It is recommended that the costs for these programs be funded from any Environmental Department surplus or the Waste Management Reserve Account should it be required at year end. SCHEDULES: The following schedules are attached and form part of this Item. Schedule 1 - Household Hazardous Waste proposal from Brendar Environmental. Schedule 2 - Think Plastics Agreement. PREPARED BY: Willma Bureau, Contracts & Programs Monitor Rob McCullough, Manager Environmental Services APPROVALS: Date: Rick Newlove, General Manager of Corporate Services May 28, 2007 Thomas Evans, General Manager of Finance and June 5, 2007 Administration Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer June 5, 2007 Schedule 1 to CS Schedule 2 to CS 07 -123 07 -123 PREPARED BY: Willma Bureau, Contracts & Programs Monitor Rob McCullough, Manager Environmental Services APPROVALS: Date: Rick Newlove, General Manager of Corporate Services May 28, 2007 Thomas Evans, General Manager of Finance and June 5, 2007 Administration Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer June 5, 2007 Matt & Sue Cillis 4 Howard Drive, Oro Station, ON LOL 2E0 Friday August 30, 2007 Dear Mayor Hughes: We are writing to voice our concern over the safety of our children with respect to the speed of traffic on the stretch of road in front of our house. We have two young children ourselves and live near several families who also have school aged children. Cars typically drive down Howard quickly, round the corner and drive quickly to the stop sign on Howard and Shelswell. Similarly, cars turn the corner from Shelswell onto Howard Drive at a very quick pace. Coming around these two corners quickly does not provide enough time for drivers to see the children playing nearby. We fully understand it is our responsibility to closely supervise our children and do so to the best of our ability, however, this has been a constant concern since moving here three years ago. We are asking council to consider the possibility of installing "Children Playing' signs in this area to help protect the safety of the children in the community. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response. Sincerely, area of concern- A� -11* B 4 36 30 32 6 3B 28 28 40 24 22 20 18 B 16 20 r2 14 12 10 26 24 22 18 1p 28 26 16 33 31 29 25 36 34 32 30 44 35 2 38 37 1 14 39 40 qt 19 16 12 6 3 17 15 9 7 3 33 29 27 26 P3 19 6 29 5 5 22 11 42 43 6 44 11 7 13 11 9 t2 10 8 6 19 17 15 16 14 46 N 21 48 2A 22 20 ] g 26 11 9 50 9 5 36 1 2 13 1 15 42 1] 52 60 48 46 44 EL1- 25 29 21 19 68 84 82 8 54 60 56 56 52 31 29 27 94 92 86 54 9p t 56 112 104 96 96 102 100 63 81 60 61 156 154 52 150 158 162 175 173 iTt 65 163 161 159 157 169 187 47 118 108 106 89 B7 85 91 93 146 10 0 103 10 99 97 95 111 0 23 21 1 t1 it 1 133 153 46 48 50 72 e °t j I_ a ILI AK"""1nF 1, 1 SEP - 6 70V ORO- ME -DONTE TOWNSHIP COUNTY OY 1COE'y Table of Contents F LIBRARY CO- OPERATIVE LCO- 023 -001 PAGE 2 OF 17 Page No. Table of Contents 2 Performance Management Committee 3 Staff as of December 31,2006 4 Highlights 2006 5 County of Simcoe Library Co- operative 6 Statistical Summary 8 Circulation of County Library Materials 9 Circulation 2005 -2006 Graph 10 % Circulation of Materials 2006 Chart 11 Materials Borrowed Through Rotations 12 Collection Loaned /Circulated 2005 -2006 Graph 13 Electronic Database Usage 14 Electronic Database Usage 2005 -2006 Graph 15 Interlibrary-Loan Service 16 County of Simcoe Library Co- operative 17 - Audited Financial Statement 2006 LCO- 023 -001 PAGE 2 OF 17 F I] I n I H 7777�7� S I M (Zo�ftA S UURARY CO-OPERATIVE Councillor Anita Dubeau (Chair) — Town of Penetanguishee Councillor Phil Sled (Vice- Chair) — Township of Severn Councillor Peggy Breckenridge — Township of Tiny Councillor Chirs Carrier— Town of Collingwood Councillor Basil Clarke — Township of Ramara Councillor David Guergis — Township of Essa Councillor Harry Hughes — Township of Oro-Medonte Councillor Brian Jackson — Town of Innisfil Councillor Cal Patterson — Town of Wasaga Beach Councillor Scott Warnock — Township of Tay Councillor Dough White — Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Warden Tony Guergis — Township of Springwater Addition Representation For Museum, Archives and Library Purposes Only: David Walker (citizen appointee) Dave Snedden (citizen appointee) Jana Morby (Women's Institute) Chief Administrative Officer — Mark Aiken Warden — Tony Guergis General Manager of Health and Cultural Services — Jane Sinclair LCO 0-23-COI PAGE 3 OF 17 N SIMfC,"57YE(if" . *oov, REMO Gayle Hall — Chief Librarian Ardis Harris — Acquisitions Clerk Christine Maxwell — Processing Clerk Jim Small — Book Rotation Clerk Sue Wall — Circulation Clerk LIBRARY CO-OPERATIVE Lf LCO-023-COI PAGE 4 OF 17 1 1 SIMCOEgis IJ n CI' I Lii'f CO-OPERATIVE !1. The County of Simcoe Library Co- operative experienced a very busy and productive year in 2006. Many of the services offered by County Library showed dramatic increases in usage over 2005, including the number block rotations, the circulation of block material, and the usage of electronic databases. Some of the highlights are outlined below. Eighty two block rotations were completed with over 39,500 items circulated. Circulation of material increased by over 15,000. The usage of the electronic databases increased by 52% over the previous year. Electronic database training was conducted for thirty staff from member libraries. •: The Penetanguishene and the New Tecumseth Libraries joined the Horizon library consortium bringing the total number of participating libraries to six. The Library received a special grant of $10,500 from the Ministry of Culture to promote literacy and lifetime learning. 3 The Chief Librarian, was appointed to the Simcoe County Access Network (SCAN) Board of Directors. The County Library Co- operative became an associate member of the Federation of Public Libraries. The mission of the Library Co- operative is to supplement and enhance the library services provided by its members to the residents of the County of Simcoe. The Library Co- operative is committed to the provision of services that are relevant, cost- effective, and responsive to the needs of its members. Credit for its success is shared among many groups and individuals. Thanks go to Simcoe County Council and the Performance Management Committee for their continuing support; to Jane Sinclair, General Manager of Health and Cultural Services for her wise counsel; to the Chief Librarians' Committee for their helpful advise; and to the staff of the library for their dedication and hard work. LCO- 23-GQ1 PAGE 5 OF 17 (° LIBRARY CO-OPEPATIVE 4—. The County of Simcoe Library Co-operative is a unique organization in the Province of Ontario. It is the only public library co-operative in the province and its statutory obligations are set forth in the Public Libraries Act. The Co-operative is funded and operated by County of Simcoe, although the Library also receives a modest annual operating grant from the Ontario Ministry o|Culture. Membership in the Co-operative is restricted to public library boards in the County of SimcGe, with the exception of the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia. All municipalities in the County contribute to the support of the County Library Co-operative through the general County levy; therefore, all municipal public libraries in Simcoe County are eligible to use the services of the Co-operative. Currently, there are fourteen separate library boards comprising twenty-seven libraries and branches in Simcoe County. Participation in any program or service of the Co-operative |m strictly voluntary, Block Rotations of Special Collections The County Library selects and acquires material to circulate |n blocks to members oythe , At present, the County Library has nine special collections for block rotation: large print books, videos, DVDs, read- alongs, mum|ooummpantdisks.00~ROMs'ta}kingbooka.bnnkmontmpean0bumkuonuumpautdimka.Thowa materials are assembled into two or three different sizes of blocks for each material type. Blocks are rotated between two and four times a year, depending nn members' preferences. The County Library purchases annual subscriptions to a variety of online databases that can be accessed by via the Internet, Free access to these databases is provided to the library patrons of all member libraries. Currently, the County Co-operative has subscriptions to six different databases: Canadian Reference Centre, Health Source, Chilton's Automotive Repair, Novelist, CultureGrams and AccessScience. The County Library has a substantial reference and local history collection, Titles are available for limited loan to member libraries. LC8423-COI PACE 6OF`7 N� � is Leasina Plan � LIBRARY CO~OPE0ATIVE The County Library pays for e lease plan for each of its members. The plan allows libraries |o select a specified number of items, onan annual basis, twaugment their existing collections. A8 the end oy the lease term, the library has 'he option to purchase the leased material at a discounted rate, or return the material to the vendor- Library The County Library subscribes to twelve different library journals. These journals are routed to individual libraries based on members' preferences. The County Library is responsible for the acquisition, processing. maintenance and rotation schedules for the Large Print and the Video Pools. The Pools are owned and funded by those members of the Co-operative who have decided to join the Pools. At present, there are ten libraries or branches that belong to the Large Print Pool and nine that belong b> the Video Pool. ConsoqiuM Purchasing The County Library purchases library supplies, such as video and DVD cases, in bulk and sells them to member libraries at cost, The County Library also negotiates bulk purchasing of computer software, such as virus protection. The two County Library servers host the databases wf six member libraries —Cloan/iew. Tay, Severn, Eyao. Penetanguishene andNewTemunmmoth.asvmA|as{heComntyGv-opermtivedmtahmmo.Ubrarystaffadrninister the library software program, provide training to the staff of member libraries and troubleshoot any problems encountered with the software. The Library Co-operative has a current staff of five people — the Chief Librarian and four library clerks. The Chief Librarian administers the library, supervises the staff, selects material for purchase, administers the automation system and liaisons with staff from member libraries. The Acquisition Clerk orders and receives all material acquired by the Co-operative and performs clerical functions. The Cataloguing and Processing Clerk processes all new material, assembles the special collections into blocks and ensures that each item is correctly entered into the database, The Circulation Clerks schedule rotations, check block material into and out of the library. circulate reference material and pool items, repair large print books and audio/visual material, box material for rotation and operate the delivery van, LCk-023-CO, PAGE /Or17 ,7 7" . LReferenmlOversae t arae Print '• s it r€.! L 779 132 LCO- 023 -COl W ,m PAGE 8 OF 17 ' SIB RAW co- O ' LCO- 023 -COl W ,m PAGE 8 OF 17 ' f LIB CO-OPERATIVE ' CCO- 023-COl ___�_ PAGE 9 OF 17 BASE BORDEN 67 92 1,544 1,703 BRADFORD W. GWILLIMBURY 126 164 1,680 1,970 CLEARVIEW Creemore 57 1,390 1,308 2,755 Stayner 294 2,734 1,622 4,650 Sunnidale 119 876 913 1.908 COLDWATER 371 1,448 873 2,692 ESSAAngus 474 3,163 2,242 5,879 Thornton 140 751 1,428 2,319 INNISFIL 0 640 4,799 5,439 MIDLAND 2,250 0 2,889 5,139 NEW TECUMSETH Alliston 1,854 4,890 1,773 8,517 Beaton 1,201 4,397 3,341 8,939 Tottenham 181 1,684 2,286 4.151 PENETANGUISHENE 3,377 5,156 2,421 10,954 RAMARA Atherley 351 16 76 443 Brechin 262 22 40 324 SPRINGWATER Elmvale 364 780 1,800 2,944 Midhurst 56 386 1,701 2,143 Minesiling 190 275 1,060 1,525 TAY Port McNicoll 945 2,857 1,975 5,777 Victoria Harbour 1,269 4,086 2,575 7,930 Waubaushene 400 1,154 1,389 2,943 WASAGA BEACH 1,264 245 244 1,753 SOLS 14 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 65 83 797 945 ' CCO- 023-COl ___�_ PAGE 9 OF 17 COUNTY Or Ar .01"N I s MLoE 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 LIBRARY \011w44 CO-OPERATIVE �m ,00,� CIRCULATION . .......... . ..... - .............. . ... . ............... I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . 0 LARGE TYPE 2005 0 LARGE TYPE 2006 IM AU D 10 N� I 2005 NAUDI&VISUAL 2006 MEI-FCTRONIC DATABASES 2005 MELECTRONIC DATABASES 2006 ED TOTAL CIRCULATION 2005 TOTAL CIRCULATION 2006 .... . ... . .. ........... . . .. . ..... . .... .......... LCO-023-COl PAGE 1 0 OF 17 00 COUNTY 011 O E % CIRCULATION BY ITEM TYPE 17'V. UBP.ARY CO-OPERATIVE 43% % . .. . ..... ............ . .......... . ..... .... ...... ..... ....... ...... .......... . . . . . ..... .... I I.■LARGE TYPE DAUD10 iViSUAL ......... .......... ..... ..... ............................ . ...................... ................. ........... - ................. . ...... .... LC- 023 - C01 PAGE 11 OF 17 SIM'COEAk 0"XW r� , k� LIBRARY CO-OPERATIVE LCO-023-COI PAGE 120F17 I I T Y tv IMCOE 100000 '0000 80000 70000 w000 40000 30000 I 5t ,- 13- -.. LIBRARY COLLECTION LOANED ICIRCULATED 2005 -2006 1 �CtCOLLECTI4N 2005 LOAN ED 2fl05 @CIRGUWTED 2005 D ■COLLECTION 2006 5 LOAN EQ 2008 CIRCULATED 2006' .. .... ... ..... LCO-023-COl PAGE 13 OF 17 } i .t4 LIBRARY CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRONIC DATABASE USAGE 2006 D4T4 B4S ACCessscience 767 767 1534 Canadian Reference Centre 832 4321 5153 Chilton's Automotive 35 76 111 Reference 549 921 1470 Cultureqrams 2089 169 2256 Health Source Consumer Edition 160 559 719 Consumer Health Com fete 35 76 111 Novelist 1411 5196 6207 TOTAL. 5443 12009 17452 LC4- 023 -001 PAGE 14 OF 17 014V Y Of �. SIMCOE,,A ELECTRONIC DATABASE 200512006 LIBRARY CO-OPERATIVE SESSIONS SESSIONS SEARCHES SEARCHES TOTAL 2005 TOTAL 2 b 2005 2006 2005 2006 'AGE 15 OF 17 t 1 1 ! US LOAN SERVICE 2 1 ONE l o m y o y y E Y O O dam' V QS N i- "1� 'S O• y t3 O i- C a m ry O 0 m ~ LIBRARY m BASE BORDEN BRADFORD W. GWILLIMBURY CLEARVIEW Creemore Stayner Sunnidale COLDWATER 1 COLLINGWOOD ESSA An us 4 10 14 10 1 3 14 Thornton INNISFIL MIDLAND NEW TECUMSETH Aitiston 6 4 10 2 3 4 ? 10 Beaton 92. 92 91 1 92 Tottenham 5 5 1 2 1 1 _ 5_ PENETANGUISHENE RAMARA Atherley 8 - Brechin _ SPRINGWATEREimvale 4 4 1 3 4 NYtdhurst 1 1 1 1 Minesin TAY Port McNicoll Victoria Haroour 1 6 7 1 _ 1 5 7 Wau4aushene WASAGA BEACH 4 4 2 1 1 4 SOLS 4 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 880 42 61 983 1 65 94 703 10 1 14 5 7 7 45 991 4 TOWJLL 1008 48 75 1139 1 78 98 712 114 1 1 15 7 7 8 50 1131 LCO- 023 -061 PAGE 16 OF 17 C 1 J � KM LCO- 023 -COI PAGE 17 OF 17 CORPORATION OF' TIFF COUNINOF SIMCOE LIBRARY CO-OPERATIVE BOARD FINANCIAL STATENIENTS DECEMBER 31, 2006 F CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF SIAICOE LIBRARY CO- OPERATIVE BOARD SI'A,rj.,,M,,ENT OF FINANCIAL M711VITIF-S For The Year Ended Deember 31,2006 The accompanying nrAc 1s an nneguil part of this financial slatement j M Budget Actual Actual' X 2 " 2M6 2005 REVENUES (-Iraju,+ province ol Ontorn, 18-200 30,298 23.4 r22 Othe; N,oK siics and othcr Pecs 73f M 19,080 13,686 Mumcgpal Conmbutron ('0"m of Smicoc 399,000 3(13,')10 379559 Other mumcipab "Ics 380 TOTAL RFVVNUVS 443,078 4 1 EXPENINTURF-S' CURREN-l' Wanes 199,600 203,674 192,562 F�;nplovcc hcncfiic 62,3('X7 58222 51,947 Book, 98,100 112,835 1 (124,130 Database 29,507 2,6387 21,7)90 memhtTship-, 1,850 1,664 632 mflcagc 1 200 1.137 IX929 Admimmration 26,650 35.(;721 18,973 Vehwk cxfwnw� 4,800 3.599 2.152 1' CICAM)ne 00 488 175 TOTAL CURRENT EXPENDITURES 424.5("x) 443,078 391,990 CAPITAL - - TOTAL FXPENDITURES 424.5(0 4,43,074 417,047 NET RE VFNiUrS/(EXPFNDEEUR&S) OPENING FUND BALANCES CLOSING FUND BALANCES The accompanying nrAc 1s an nneguil part of this financial slatement j M AVDITORS' REPORT I'O THE; CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF TIDE LIBRARY CO. OPERATIVE BOARD. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, INHAIIITA'STS AND RATEPAYERS OF THE CORPORATION OFTHE COUNTY OF `sIMME We have audited the statement of financial actasanes of the Library Co-operatace Board of the Corporation of the County tit Smictle for the year ended Deceuatkr 31, 2(9)6. 'Tbas financial statement is the responsibilit,v of the Board's ananagemem, Our re%ponsthality is to express an opinion oa this f -ancia.i <Iaaenlenf h�awd on our audit, Ac conducted our audit tit acetan3unir with Canadian gvncraalb aucptccl audi4ing standards fhosc ,l andards requinr that we plan and Iterform an audit to Eshmn) rea%ontable assurunve whether the Inemcial statctuenis are free tu?' matena: enisstaicetc'nt, Au audit includes cxarssning„ on a lc4t ba is, evide tie stapporttmz the amounts and disclosures in the ftuanciaa< staternentn. An audit aiso Includes ,'w" hart± thc^ aces +u*umm, principles used and niullfi,:ant estianaics made by manaf;emem, a= "ell a+ evaluating the oweill ;urmcud +Wtevnent presentation. In our opinion, this Imancial %utement presents fairly, in all material respects, the fsrtanc4d paa>itiun of the Board as at December 31, 2006 snit the results of its opcoataot;< lot the ve;tr then ended in accordance isitfi Can elnut generally accepted acccoun €ing principles. C'h,.anerrd Accountants Liccnwd Public Accountants I.0 dNaN', Ontario March '10, 2007 a CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE LIBRARY CO-OPERATIVE BOA RD NOTETOTHE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For'l-be Year Ended Decenther 31,20106 SIGNIFICAN-r ACCOUNTING POLICIES This financial statement has been prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles for local lyovermurnas and their boards as recommended be the Public Sector Accounting Board (if the Canadian Instatite (st Chartered Accountants. Significant aspects of the acct urning tw lrcicsadofaed by [tic Board arc as follows: Fund Accounting 1-murs within the financed surjcrjsoa consist of current and capital funds. I masters 1"ween funds rue I ICO;dcd a, idjusimcius to the approisnatc morucipal fund ha4incc Thcre wav no acovit% or fund ' 1' dance in the capital and reserve funds. Baius, of Accounting Revenue and expenditures are reported on the accrual basis or accounting which recograzes revenues as 0rer beciere availshIc and oreasurable: expenchrurc% are recognized as they are incurred and "WaMn-AbIc a� a rcsu of rc- mt o a goud< or set viccs all" the creation gin feral oblifarthen to pay, Capital Assets Expenditures trunk, tin capital assets are reported aN capital expendinnicl, on the Statement of Financial, \,mvaiev in the perked incurred, Government Funding Government funding is recognized in the financial suntuncra as revenues in the period in which events giving rive to the funding occur, providing the funding is audismiled, any cligibiliny criteria have river met, and reavoramic emunarcs of the amounts can ne made Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with Canadian _generally accepted accounting princilarri requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the furimund %taltnotank, and the reported annount, of revenues and expenditures during the period. Actual results could doler from these esuratices 2 MUNICIPAL CONTRIBUTION FROM THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE The Board has no deficit at the and of the year as the Couray of Sureate fully funds any excess of cxriendnurcs over revenues to,- the veer. The municipal main is acre. therefore, there is nothing to rejos-t can a St=atement 01 Financed Position, RUDGFT FIGURES Budget figurcl, are not subject to audit, AMO 12007 CRST Municipalities and DSSABs Conference Counties, Regions, Single Tier Municipalities & District Social Services Administration Boards CONFERENCE 2007 21 - 24 October 2007 Hosted by the: United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry At the NAV CANADA Training Institute 1950 Montreal Rd, Cornwall, Ontario, K6H 61-2 Toll free: (877) 832 -6416 1 Fax: (613) 936 -5010 conference@ navcanada.ca Register Today! Highlights of this year's conference include: • Out trip: Putting Waste to Work: Lafleche Environmental's BioReactor • Integrated Community Services Planning • Emergency Medical Services: Overviews, Insights and What's New • Community Economic Development • Climate Change • Strategic Directions in Housing • OMERS • Federal Gas Tax update • And much more... We accept cheque or credit card (VISA or MasterCard). Please note: American Express selection is no longer available. Registrants are responsible for travel and accommodation costs. Conference rates are offered by a number of local hotels, please see Hotels /Maps on the left side bar for further details. Payment by cheque: Print off a copy of the registration form contained in the full registration package: Conference Registration Form Mail your registration with cheque made payable to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Payment must be received with registration. Payment by Credit Card: You have two options. Complete the paper registration form (as above) and mail or fax it in to 416 - 971 -6191. Or, use our secure online registration form. Click here to access online registration. Refunds Cancellation MUST be made in writing before September 21St , 2007. An administration charge of $74.20 ($70.00 plus $4.20 GST) will apply NO REFUNDS will be issued after September 21st, 2007. Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.amo.on.cal Content/ NavigationMenu lEventsICRSTMunicipalitiesandDS SAB sConference /200... 9/13/2007 AMO I CRST Page 1 of 1 Events - The Counties, Regions and Single Tier (CRST) Municipalities and District Social Service Administration Boards (DSSAB) Annual Conference is hosted by a different municipality each year. The conference is attended by senior elected and administrative officials from the upper tier municipal level across Ontario, as well as provincial representatives, speakers and other participants. The conference also includes an exhibitor hall. AMO and the hosting municipality welcome sponsorship at various levels for the conference events and functions. Please refer to the left side of this page and use the appropriate option to view details about a specific year's conference. If you require further information, please contact: Special Events and Business Development Co- ordinator 416- 971 -9856 ext. 330 http:// www. amo .on.calContentINavigationMenul Events ICRSTMunicipalitiesandDSSAB sConferenceldef... 9/13/2007 COUNTIES, REGIONS, SINGLE TIER MUNICIPALITIES, & DISTRICT SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BOARDS 2007 ANNUAL CONFERENCE Gateway to Ontario and New Municipal Challenges Hosted by - the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry REGISTRATION FORM - Please sent to 416 -971 -9372 for processing (please type or print) October 21 to 24, 2007 NAV CANADA Traininq;'Institute & K6H fiL2 Name Title Municipality Mailing Address Telephone Fax E -mail Payment MUST accompany registrations. FAX Credit Card Payments & Registration Form to AMO 416 - 971 -9372 r rEase urv.ca C ... ............. Fee does not include GST X .... ...__ .-_._. AMO MEMBERS Early Bird Before Sept 21 Regular After Sept 21 On Site Oct 21 - 24 Total Fees Full Registration 435.00 495.00 555.00 1 Da - Monday 200.00 200.00 200.00 1 Da -Tuesday 200.00 200.00 200.00 1 Da -Wednesday 100.00 100.00 100.00 Companion* 200.00 - 225 00 225.00 Extra Banquet Tickets 95.00 SUB -TOTAL ADD 6 %GST TOTAL Fee does not include GST X Non- Members, includin Government Early Bird Before Sept 21 '- Regular After Sept 21 On Site Oct 21 - 24 Total Fees Full Registration 520.00 590.00 655.00 1 Da - Monday 220.00 220.00 220.00 1 Da -Tuesday 220.00 220.00 220.00 1 Da -Wednesday 110.00 110.00 110.00 Com anion* 225.00 250.00 1 250.00 Extra Banquet Tickets 95.00 SUB -TOTAL ADD 6% GST TOTAL GST Registration# 8106732944 * For companion registration please complete Companion Selection Form - please note companion selection does not include a banquet ticket. it Method: ❑ Cheque D MasterCard ❑ Visa Card Number: Expiration Date: m y Cardholder's Name (exactly as on card): Signature: Please make cheques payable to: Association of Municipalities of Ontario 200 University Avenue, Suite 801, Toronto, ON, M5H 3C6 Refund Policy: Cancellation MUST be made in writ before October 10" 2007. An administration charge $74.20 ($70.00 plus $4.20 GST) will apply Registration Inquiries: Anita Surujdeo, A/R & Special Events Clerk asuruideo(d)amo.on.ca • 1 -877- 426 -6527 416 - 971 -9856 ext.344 Fax: 416 -971 -9372 Please note any special dietary requirements here: AMO collects, uses and discloses the information requested to promote the interests of the municipal sector. It may also be shared with Akltsselected third parties to generate operating revenues for AMO. Under the Federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) some of the information may constitute personal information. By filling out this form you agree that all personal information provided by you on the form may be collected, used and disclosed by AMO for all purposes described above. AsS ,Wi,m of AtuiaiprfW,, of eotaei.,, 06 Sep 07 07:06p Barrie Bobcat Roy & Freda Poirier 72 Woodcrest Road Barrie, Ontario UN 2V5 Dear Jennifer, 705 - 739 -9484 P.z March 8, 2007 We are writing this letter to inquire into purchasing land from the Oro - Medonte Township that is adjacent to property we currently own Our property roll # 4346 -010- 006- 06400 -0000 and has a municipal address of 360 Shanty Bay Road. The property we wish to purchase is described as PT Monk Street PL 1 ORO between Colborne Street and O'Brien Street. The pin creation date for this property was the 2P of May, 2000. We have attached documentation of this property retrieved from the land registry office along with documentation of our property and a survey indicating their locations. Could you please look into this matter for us? You can reach Roy at 705- 791 -4657 or 705 -721 -9444. Thank you in advance for your time. Sincerely, Roy & Freda Poirier 06 Sep 07 07:07p Barrie Bobcat 705 -739 -9484 p3 03/11/ 004 21 :55 17057340083 FAYSCOCOMRACTINGCM PAGE 01 t PLAN OF SUR4Y OF PART OF BLOCK A r REGISTERED PLAN N° ! rOWNSHIP OF ORO � QI 'a• V s J/ ^� C) %/ �w 'Cl- 0 \ v / Q CK �• < sJ► wry - .n...w� Q� � Nrd .5r:10'i✓ C . O A D R1DOE � / SUAVEYOR�S CERTJFJC4TE / nCWG b< <f kliFl •�ql �• 1 T/n5 59XVf r A.4O PLaN ARE COXgCC/ .40 1H 3 C.+.�iNOS 04FREON ANC A.'l RO NOM,C �F ACCOQ;> vCE w,Tn P-C SuRvfrs ACr aAV ?,.e atiC 40F 00RIVED FROr p95. ?qia TiONS R'FGiS JAY J:T qr D TIC A &J4AF /ayS MVOF ::N AOl1R�S, REFERRED r0 rnf McR/O mN s 7i+EXEvn'OFJ %ngOO, NJN C R OF A 7 MF SdRifr w.a5 COv ✓LE%FiJ ON r +fWT CONCESSION TWP OFORO Odf pF .tOVE�aBfA, /568 �/n /,o LUOO S4lV •lOf �/OJS' ..._ - 9' Get -7 Members of County Council'' The Corporation of the County of Simcoe Corporate Services Department 1110 Highway 26 Midhurst, ON LOL 1X0 ` Re: Casino Rama Revenues In 2005, the County of Simcoe and Township of Ramara undertook a study to determine the financial impact that Casino Rama had on both local governments. After all you cannot get to Casino Rama from a Provincial Highway without traveling on County or Township roads. When the Casino opened in 1996, Ramara Township was listed as the "host municipality ". When we requested funding, such as provided to Niagara Falls and Windsor, to help with our roads and adding a rescue vehicle to our emergency response fleet, the Provincial web site was quickly changed to indicate Rama Mnjikaning as the "host municipality'. When we pointed out the Reserve was not a municipality, again the website was changed to indicate "host community'. The attached study, prepared by BMA Management Consulting Inc. looked at the additional operating and capital costs related to the casino. Over the nine (9) years period reviewed, our taxpayers have spent between $3 -$3.8 million relating to the casino with $13 million in capital spending to come. Just to make it clear neither the County nor Township receives any type of funding from the Province for hosting Casino Rama and it is imperative that every Member of County Council lobby the Province at every opportunity to request funding. Casino Rama's last fiscal year ended on March 31, 2007. It grossed $525.5 million dollars. The Province of Ontario received 20% or $105 million dollars. Racinos and charity casinos pay a percentage of revenues to the "host municipality'. Why do we receive nothing for commercial casinos? Something is not fair. RO. Box 130, Brechin, Ontario LOK 130, (705) 484 -5374 Toll Free 1- 860 - 663 -4054 (for 689 exchange onw) Fax (705' 484 -0441 Email: ramara2town iF.ra nara.on.ca Web Site: wwu, township ramara on ca Proud Member of Lake Co antry The County and Township have a joint position to lobby for revenues. Would you please support us in this endeavour. Yours truly, Mayor Bill Duffy bd /cmw Encl. cc: Mark Dorfman BMA Management Consulting Inc. Impact Study on the Township of Ramara and the Cou imcoe Relating to Casino Rama Dev an ration to *kj 1 Impact Study Relating to M Casino Rama Development and operations Table of Contents Executive Summary Section 1 Background 1 Section 2 Report Introduction 1 Section 3 Assessment of Fairness and Equity 2 Revenue Sharing With Host Municipality 2 Summary of Gaming Revenues - 2003 3 Profile - Heron Charity Casino 5 Economic Benefit Have Not Materialized 6 Commercial Building Activity Has Been Disappointing 7 Declining Portion of Non - Residential Taxes 9 Residential Growth Has Not Materialized 10 Challenges of Being a Host Municipality 11 Section 4 Impact on Municipal Services 13 Roads 14 Fire 22 Ambulance 27 Identified Financial Impact 28 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations i E H I $M The Township and the County do not share in the slot revenues... this is a unique situation ' There are costs associated with being a host municipality to a ' casino, particularly in a municipality the size of Ramara I n L C Issues of fairness and equity exist with respect to the provisions made for revenue sharing with other host municipalities Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Section 1— Background In 1994, the Ontario Government announced that a new casino would be constructed on First Nations lands located within the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe. Casino Rama opened on July 31, 1996 on the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nations lands. Casino Rama is the only casino operating in Ontario that is located within a municipal boundary where the municipality is not a party to a revenue sharing agreement with the Province of Ontario. The Casino is located within the Township of Ramara and County of Simcoe boundaries (on First Nation lands), however, neither the Township nor the County receive any annual revenues associated with the Casino. The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe have incurred increased costs for such services as fire, police, ambulance and roads. In addition, the County and Municipality experienced new social challenges associated with the operation of a casino within its municipal boundaries, but has not received any compensation. In terms of fairness and equity, in relation to other municipalities hosting a casino, this places the municipality (Township and County) at a distinct disadvantage which will be shown in this report. Other municipalities have benefited from: The Township and County receive none of the above noted revenues. • Annual stream of revenues associated with casino operations • Building permit revenues resulting from the construction of the casino • Annual increases in property tax revenues associated with the casino operations Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 1 t BMA ' Several reports and letters have been prepared and submitted to various Provincial Ministries t outlining the problems and concerns of the ' Township and County U Il F This report summarizes the findings of an independent study undertaken on behalf of the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe to address casino related issues impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations On September 2001, a report was sent from the Corporation of the Township of Ramara to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation outlining the costs and issues associated with being the host municipality of Casino Rama. The report requested the Province provide a minimum annual compensation in the amount of $3 million to be shared between the County of Simcoe and the Township. This would be consistent with the 5% gross slot revenues that are shared with other municipalities with a casino operating in their boundaries. To date, no action has been taken by the Provincial Government in this matter. A letter was also sent to the Minister of Transportation requesting the Province reimburse the Township for the unfunded cost of relocating and reconstructing the intersection of Provincial Highway #12 and Simcoe County Road 44 in the amount of $223,000. The Township was seeking Provincial assistance given that the municipality receives no direct financial benefit from the Casino even though they are the host community. Section 2— Report Introduction While letters and a report have been submitted to the Province in the past, with no resolution, the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe jointly agreed to undertake an analysis of the situation and to better understand issues with respect to fairness and equity as well as to identify costs /benefit associated with hosting a casino within municipal boundaries, This report therefore fulfills two primary purposes: To identify whether there are any issues with respect to how the Province of Ontario has established its revenue sharing agreements with other municipalities compared with the situation of the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe. 2. To summarize where possible the costs /benefits that can be clearly linked to Casino Rama on the Township of Rama and the County of Simcoe. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 2 I- I C 0 BMA Municipalities that are able to share in the revenues of the casino operations, typically believe that on balance the benefits outweigh the costs. U 11 Il Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Section 3-Assessment of Fairness and Equity Traditionally Ontario municipalities have recognized that there are inherent social, financial and economic risks and costs associated with being the host municipality for a casino. However, municipalities that have agreed to be host to a casino do so with recognition that, on balance, the financial benefits to the host municipality through the sharing of gambling revenues and the increased property tax revenues associated with the casino outweigh the risks. In the absence of a revenue sharing formula and in the absence of property tax revenues from Casino Rama, as is the case for the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe, the costs and risks of allowing a casino to operate in the jurisdiction outweigh the benefits. Revenue Sharing With Host Municipality Municipalities across Ontario that are host to a casino are given 5% of the gross revenues as a form of compensation. This practice is not unique to the Province of Ontario. Revenue sharing is a common practice across Canada and the United States. It has been recognized in studies undertaken in the U.S. that there is an impact on the local community of casinos operated by First Nations within municipal boundaries. In these cases, an agreement is reached to create a mechanism to return a portion of the revenues back to the local communities. Through the review process, municipalities hosting a casino indicated that the annual revenues are more than sufficient to offset any increased costs incurred by the municipality for police, fire, roads maintenance, ambulance and other municipal services impacted by a casino operation. With the guarantee of ongoing revenue sharing, the cost/benefit analysis is relatively straighl forward. With the exception of Casino Rama, there were no examples identified within the Province of Ontario where a host municipality was not entitled to any share of the Casino revenues. The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe are in the unenviable position of having a casino that by all accounts is generating significant revenues for the First Nations and the Province of Ontario, with no revenue sharing at the municipal level. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 3 No other examples in Ontario were ' identified where the host municipality was not entitled to share in the casino t revenues U 11 Il Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Section 3-Assessment of Fairness and Equity Traditionally Ontario municipalities have recognized that there are inherent social, financial and economic risks and costs associated with being the host municipality for a casino. However, municipalities that have agreed to be host to a casino do so with recognition that, on balance, the financial benefits to the host municipality through the sharing of gambling revenues and the increased property tax revenues associated with the casino outweigh the risks. In the absence of a revenue sharing formula and in the absence of property tax revenues from Casino Rama, as is the case for the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe, the costs and risks of allowing a casino to operate in the jurisdiction outweigh the benefits. Revenue Sharing With Host Municipality Municipalities across Ontario that are host to a casino are given 5% of the gross revenues as a form of compensation. This practice is not unique to the Province of Ontario. Revenue sharing is a common practice across Canada and the United States. It has been recognized in studies undertaken in the U.S. that there is an impact on the local community of casinos operated by First Nations within municipal boundaries. In these cases, an agreement is reached to create a mechanism to return a portion of the revenues back to the local communities. Through the review process, municipalities hosting a casino indicated that the annual revenues are more than sufficient to offset any increased costs incurred by the municipality for police, fire, roads maintenance, ambulance and other municipal services impacted by a casino operation. With the guarantee of ongoing revenue sharing, the cost/benefit analysis is relatively straighl forward. With the exception of Casino Rama, there were no examples identified within the Province of Ontario where a host municipality was not entitled to any share of the Casino revenues. The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe are in the unenviable position of having a casino that by all accounts is generating significant revenues for the First Nations and the Province of Ontario, with no revenue sharing at the municipal level. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 3 1 BMA I S I I Il I E L l� FI Municipalities hosting casinos receive on average in excess of $3 million a year in gross revenues..... Ramara and Simcoe receive no annual revenues as the host municipalities Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Summary of Gaming Revenues -2003 The following table summarizes the gaming revenues for select host municipalities surveyed. Source: 2003 FIR Point Edward 2,101 an $ 2600000 3 182 22 Windsor 1 515 Ganano ue /1 000 Islands 14,236 Charity $ 2,882,502 202 Thunder Bay 111,710 Charity $ 2,671,336 $ 24 Brantford 90,673 Chatity $ 3,593,710 $ 40 scuciori 20,173 Charity $ 1,400,363 $ 69 Sault Ste. Marie 74.566 Charity 1 6.156.662 1 915 935 Ottawa 26 Nia ara Falls 82 734 Commercial $ 2600000 $ 31 Windsor Commercial N/A Ramara 7812 Commercial NIL NIL Milton 33,056 Slots /Racino $ 6,486,197 $ 196 Fort Erie 29,674 Slots /Racino $ 4,067,644 $ 137 Sarnia 73,930 Slots /Racino $ 2,247,519 $ 30 Hamilton 516 776 Slo /Racino 1 6.156.662 1 12 Ottawa 823.608 Slots /R 3.759.5621 "403,413,6631 5 Avera e As shown above, the average annual revenues allocated to the host municipality exceeded $3 million in 2003. The revenues per capita ranged from a high of $1,515 in Point Edward to a low of $5 in the City of Ottawa. These revenues can be used by each of the respective municipalities to reduce the extra municipal operating costs associated with a casino allowing them to be more competitive in attracting development. Municipalities weigh the long term costs and benefits of a casino on the total economy of the area, including non - gambling businesses, traditional gambling businesses, the labour force and charities. In addition, municipalities have relied on experiences of other jurisdictions to identify the projected revenues against the projected expenses as well as factoring in the social impact of a casino operation. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 4 R ' l J M, u d 0 0 d I U Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Profile —Blue Heron Charity Casino The Township of Scugog is located within the Regional Municipality of Durham and includes much of the Lake Scugog shoreline. The Blue Heron Charity Casino is located on an island First Nation territory, encircled by the Township of Scugog. The Regional Municipality of Durham owns and maintains the road which is the only access to the casino. As such, this situation is very similar to that of Ramara and the County of Simcoe. Unlike Ramara and Simcoe, however, Scugog and Durham receive significant revenue from the casino. In 2003, Scugog received $1.4 million in revenue from the Casino. While the details of the agreement between the First Nation's and Scugog are confidential, it is known that Scugog received annually a percentage of the First Nation's share of the net proceeds of the slot machines at the charity casino. This places the Township of Scugog in a financial position very similar to that which has been offered to those municipalities in Ontario which host race -track slot machine attractions. The Durham Region also receives a share, albeit about one -third of the Township's share, of the Casino's net proceeds. It is noteworthy that, according to Scugog officials, the original casino agreement providing annual revenues to the Durham Region was rooted in the fact that the Region owned and maintained the only access to the Casino and would therefore incur direct operating and capital costs due to Casino traffic. Also, according to Scugog officials, the fact a significant revenue stream has been directed to the Township is due to the recognition that the First Nation and the Township were entwined from the point of view both of local services and community activities, as well as the encouragement of the Province at the time the casino was being established. Having established the original cost - sharing arrangement, Scugog receives their annual portion of casino revenues directly from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 5 A similar situation exists in Scugog. ' Blue Heron Charity Casino is located on First Nation lands encircled by a ' municipality ( Scugog). Scugog ' and Durham, have revenue sharing. Ramara and Simcoe do not. u d 0 0 d I U Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Profile —Blue Heron Charity Casino The Township of Scugog is located within the Regional Municipality of Durham and includes much of the Lake Scugog shoreline. The Blue Heron Charity Casino is located on an island First Nation territory, encircled by the Township of Scugog. The Regional Municipality of Durham owns and maintains the road which is the only access to the casino. As such, this situation is very similar to that of Ramara and the County of Simcoe. Unlike Ramara and Simcoe, however, Scugog and Durham receive significant revenue from the casino. In 2003, Scugog received $1.4 million in revenue from the Casino. While the details of the agreement between the First Nation's and Scugog are confidential, it is known that Scugog received annually a percentage of the First Nation's share of the net proceeds of the slot machines at the charity casino. This places the Township of Scugog in a financial position very similar to that which has been offered to those municipalities in Ontario which host race -track slot machine attractions. The Durham Region also receives a share, albeit about one -third of the Township's share, of the Casino's net proceeds. It is noteworthy that, according to Scugog officials, the original casino agreement providing annual revenues to the Durham Region was rooted in the fact that the Region owned and maintained the only access to the Casino and would therefore incur direct operating and capital costs due to Casino traffic. Also, according to Scugog officials, the fact a significant revenue stream has been directed to the Township is due to the recognition that the First Nation and the Township were entwined from the point of view both of local services and community activities, as well as the encouragement of the Province at the time the casino was being established. Having established the original cost - sharing arrangement, Scugog receives their annual portion of casino revenues directly from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 5 BI ' Economic Benefits Have Not ' Materialized The Township supported a ' casino on the Rama Reserve as it was to act as a catalyst for economic development for ' Ramara and the surrounding areas. The Township accepted responsibility as the host and has incurred and expects to ' incur future costs as a result of the casino with limited economic benefit. While the expectation was that the casino would increase the municipality's assessment base, specifically non - residential assessment through the attraction of new businesses to the community, the Township's assessment composition remains unchanged since before the Casino was constructed in 1996. A comparison of the assessment composition by class indicated that the Township continues to have 96% of its assessment base as residential (residential, multi - residential and farm), with less than 4% non - residential assessment. In comparison to 66 other municipalities in 2004, the Township has well below average commercial and industrial assessment in comparison to the majority of other municipalities surveyed. Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Same 7 4 14 Brampton Branttord 767% 79.0% 3.4° 4.5Y 129% 11.6% 64 4.4% 01 0.3 7 4_ ° Camlxitle 76.1% 3.5 1 .6%1 73% 0.3 0.2% 0.0°A Chatha�K�nt Collin 83.2% 2.2% 109% 3.31. 0.2 0.2% 0.0% Fort Erie 851% 1.3% 9.8% 2.3% q Hft 872% 1.SY 5.7% 2.9% 0.2 2.5% 0.15 Hamilton 7 1 863% 0.2Y 6.7Y 3.6% 13]% 0.8% 1.3% 0.5 0.4 B.t% 0.4% 0.5%7>4% 0.0% EMid�d 7856 0.6Y 6.2% 2.9% 01% 00]4.0°A 3.9% WA 4. % 0 0.1% 0.0% 75.4% 1.7Y 11.8% 7.1% 0.94 2.9% 0.2% 4 11 QW N' ara Falls 68.5% 3.2Y 25.8% 1.5% .5 0.4% 0.0% k 4 7 7° N rm Ba 741% 6.0 OakWlle 83.2% 2.6° 9.8% 4mi O. 2 0.1° 0.0% 774°I 6A 11.t% 4 03 0sM 0.0 PBIe o, h 77 7.0% 1 .2% 2. 0.3 O.tY 0.0% Richmond Hill Samia 660% 759 1.5 5.1° 9.7% t .4° 12 3 0.1 07 1.5% OD% 0.0% Slra oN 787% 4.9 11.1% 4. 1 0.324 02 .0% 11 Th Id 769% 1.9 9.a% .7% 1,4 1.7' 0.0% Thunder Ba y 753% 4.1% 1485M 53 0.4 ..00%1 0.0% Toronto 70.9% 9. Y 17.9% 2.0% 0.1 0.0 0.0% Wasaga Beach 95.3% 04Y I Q%1 00%1 0.3 0.1 00% Waleri o 80.3% 4- 112%1 3.4% 0.2 Whi@ 65.1% 2 Q 7 ' 4 4° Averse 80.0% 3.0° 10.5% 2.8% 0.1% ° Maximum Ramara 91.1% OAq 3. 0. 7gi 21 0.1 17Q 5.0% ° 0.1% Source: BMA Management Consulting, Municipal Study 2004 Page 6 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations I C H BMAImpact MACasino �✓ ��** Study Relating to Rama Development and Operations Commercial Building Activity Has Been Disappointing Municipalities have generally recognized that, unlike residential development, commercial development typically contributes more to the coffers of the municipality than it requires in ongoing services. For this reason, municipalities seek to achieve a good balance of commerciallindustrial assessment and residential assessment. Indeed, the original economic impact studies preceding the establishment of the Casino led local municipalities to believe that Commercial they would benefit from new spin -off commercial development. development has been slow in the Township... the In its 2000 study entitled "Economic Impact of Casino Rama on its Casino has neighbours ", the consulting firm Pannell Kerr Forster cited only three generated very little projects constructed since the opening of the Casino, only one of in the way of new which was for a new commercial property: commercial . New Tim Hortons (Rama road and Atherley Road) development for . Redeveloped Petro-Canada Gas Station Ramara • Renovations to White House Inn This clearly indicates that the Casino has not been a catalyst to any significant development in Ramara. The following table summarizes the commercial activity between 1994 to 2003 in the Township of Ramara. There has been very few commercial capital projects in the Township. With Sq. Ft. Construction the exception of a hotel (Days Inn) that was Commercial 900 Value 53 801 constructed in 2002, there has been very limited 1994 spin off economic benefit to the community in 1995 1996 5.000 $ 140,000 terms of business growth. Conversely, the 1997 6 428 $ 1.972,380 Mnjikamng First Nations have experienced 1998 significant commercial activity. Between 1996 and 1999 6 911 175 745 1999, the First Nations experienced $62 million in 2000 4 887 $ 235,620 commercial construction compared to only $2 2001 8125 81850 million in the Township of Ramara. The First 2002 56 487 $ 4A93,0 78 Nations had 27 commercial capital projects 2003 z 746 $ 231 000 undertaken from 1996 to 1999, the majority of these were associated with the casino operations 91 484 $ 7383474 either directly or indirectly. With the exception of the Days Inn, very limited commercial development in Ramara can be linked to the presence of the Casino. Page 7 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations I _B Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations New Commercial Permits i Ramara's pattern of commercial activity •. 2 appears less remarkable however, when 1 1 3 compared with that of nearby municipalities. 1 q Its commercial development activity is 9 g typically less than its neighbouring 2 2 municipalities further removed from the 1 3 casino, such as Oro-Medonte. Furthermore, 6 q except for a couple of years around 1996, 3 6 commercial activity has been less a feature 1Q 1 9 of Ramara's building activity than in 6 9 neighbouring municipalities further from the s casino. 61 The table also shows that the same Ramara pattern of spikes in Commercial activity is true also for Oro - Medonte (particularly 1996 and 2002). Furthermore, the aforementioned Pannell Kerr Forster Economic Impact study in 2000 noted that the City of Orillia has received the Lion's share of new Casino - generated commercial development, While the Township has received some limited commercial activity that could be linked to the Casino, it has clearly not generated the degree of spin -off benefits of new commercial development as originally promised. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 8 A Non - residential taxation as a percentage of total taxation has been declining in Ramara Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Declining Proportion of Non - Residential Taxes The following table summarizes total taxation and the taxation generated from non - residential properties. It is interesting to note that 10 years after the creation of the Casino, the absolute dollar amount of non- residential, non -farm taxation received by the Township has only increased $46,000, which just about keeps up with inflation during that period but has not yielded the expected net benefit to the residents of Ramara. The graph below summarizes the percentage of non - residential taxes as a percentage of total taxation from 1994 to 2003. In 1994 non - residential taxation was 10.4% of the total compared with only 4.8% in 2003. This provides further evidence that the presence of a Casino has not attracted significant commercial development. As a proportion of the total, the Township's non - residential revenue is less than half as important now as Non - Residential Taxation as a Percentage of Total it was 10 years ago. Despite a Taxation limited benefit from casino - 12i supported commercial __ development, casino - related 10°� development has failed to improve 8 i - -- the financial picture of Ramara and in no way compensates for the 6i increased operating costs incurred by the County and the Township. 4%' 2% Casino opened July 31, 1996 Casino expanI 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 9 H E JI r While a small portion of employment at the Casino resulted in first time home purchases in Ramare, the vast majority elected to purchase in the City of Orillia Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Residential Growth Related to the Casino Has Not Been Material The Pannell Kerr Forster study in 2000 surveyed casino employees (30% response rate) to ascertain where casino employees lived. Of those responding, 9.4% lived in Ramara. Among that 9.4 %, 55 were Ramara Homeowners, of which half were first —time buyers in Ramara. By contrast half the employees lived in the City of Orillia. While local spending by Casino employees will certainly have helped Ramara businesses, the relatively small number of Ramara businesses combined with the small percentage of casino employees in Ramara, make it difficult to assert that other Ramara businesses owe their continued existence in any significant way to the Casino. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 10 The County and Township faces the same social, economic and financial challenges as other host municipalities without any source ofrevenue Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Challenges of Being a Host Municipality Despite the myriad of social problems that are well recognized in the gaming industry, decisions made by municipalities in favour of allowing a casino to operate within municipal boundaries are often undertaken without a detailed independent social impact assessment. Detailed assessments are not always undertaken due in part to the difficulty experienced in clearly identifying, quantifying and isolating the costs and implications associated with the operation of a casino in a community. In addition, with guaranteed revenues from slots, little emphasis is placed on qualitative studies beyond some basic information tracked on a few key social indicators. The following is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the impacts from Casino development on the County of Simcoe and the Township of Ramara. It is intended to provide a broad overview of the types of challenges facing the Township and County. Social Challenges Research across Canada and the United States has consistently indicated that there are social costs associated with operating a casino within a community. Research has shown that the social issues of casinos on a community can include but not be limited to the following: • Increase concern for public safety • Inconvenience — traffic congestion • Increased incidence of driving while impaired costs • Lost productivity from sick days for gambling and ex- tended lunch hours Increased crime rates increased unemployment as a result of losses in non - gambling businesses Increased in gambling addition Increased gambling amongst youths Page 11 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations BIM,,^ The County and Township faces the same social, economic and financial challenges as other host municipalities without any source ofrevenue Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Challenges of Being a Host Municipality Despite the myriad of social problems that are well recognized in the gaming industry, decisions made by municipalities in favour of allowing a casino to operate within municipal boundaries are often undertaken without a detailed independent social impact assessment. Detailed assessments are not always undertaken due in part to the difficulty experienced in clearly identifying, quantifying and isolating the costs and implications associated with the operation of a casino in a community. In addition, with guaranteed revenues from slots, little emphasis is placed on qualitative studies beyond some basic information tracked on a few key social indicators. The following is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the impacts from Casino development on the County of Simcoe and the Township of Ramara. It is intended to provide a broad overview of the types of challenges facing the Township and County. Social Challenges Research across Canada and the United States has consistently indicated that there are social costs associated with operating a casino within a community. Research has shown that the social issues of casinos on a community can include but not be limited to the following: • Increase concern for public safety • Inconvenience — traffic congestion • Increased incidence of driving while impaired costs • Lost productivity from sick days for gambling and ex- tended lunch hours Increased crime rates increased unemployment as a result of losses in non - gambling businesses Increased in gambling addition Increased gambling amongst youths Page 11 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations ' BMA i Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Economic Costs Casinos draw revenues from other businesses Casinos discourage the location of some new businesses Studies have found that there is often little boost to the local tourist industry in the form of hotel occupancy, retail sales or increased patronage at restaurants. Studies have also found it difficult for small local host communities to cope with the magnitude of a large casino, primarily in the areas of diminished quality of life due to tremendous increases in traffic along local and County roads, deteriorating infrastructure and increasing emergency services requirements. The type and concentration of traffic can be problematic. As development occurs and roads are improved and widened, associated maintenance responsibility increases accordingly. Gambling Behaviour Loss of gaming revenues not offset by grants Loss of spending flexibility Competitive fundraising pressures in the local community Earl Ginols, a University of Illinois economist writes, "analysis of data compiled from around the country suggests that opening a casino eventually costs a community at least 1.9 times more than it benefits." (Source, Casinos Costs Far Outweigh Their Economic Benefits, 2001) Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 12 BMA. I Municipalities have ' not been required to document their casino related costs n order to receive a share of slot revenues It is very difficult to clearly identify incremental costs associated with operating a Casino within a municipality Trends have been provided as well as benchmarking where appropriate to support areas where cost increases have been experienced Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Section 4— impact on Municipal Services Analyzing the Impact on Municipal Services While overall trends in crime rates, income levels, levels of unemployment and other economic and social factors can be tracked and documented over time, it is extremely difficult to directly link any changes either negatively or positively to the presence of a Casino. This is likely one of the reasons that the Province of Ontario does not require municipalities with casinos in their boundaries to document the costs /benefits and seek reimbursement; electing instead to provide the municipality with a percentage of the gross revenues of the casino. As such, the purpose of this report is not to document every cost incurred by the Township and County that relate to the presence of the Casino as this would be impossible. Instead, the approach is to provide the Province with some information to support the unique circumstance of the Casino Rama operation and request similar treatment of the Township and County as that provided to other host municipalities. Statistical records from different sources were examined and reported from 1994 to 2004, providing trends in the municipality both pre and post Casino presence. While this provides some meaningful longitudinal analysis, a number of other factors impact the trends, both from a cost and a volume of activity perspective. For example, responsibilities for land ambulance services were transferred to municipalities through "Local Service Realignment' after the casino was already in operation. Therefore, while it is evident in speaking with service providers that there is a significant increase in the volume and cost of ambulance services post casino, the impact (pre and post) cannot be quantified in the absence of empirical data from the former service provider. Benchmarking of costs to other jurisdictions has also been included where appropriate to substantiate the costs within the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe. The information provided in this section of the report provides a conservative approach to estimating actual increases in costs incurred. Page 13 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations ' Roads operations both at the local and County level have been significantly ' impacted by Casino Rama ' Upgrades were required to the roads accessing the ' Casino impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Roads There are several key issues with respect to the change in roads operations and costs within the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe since Casino Rama was planned, constructed and operational. These include: • Significant increase in road usage: • Inconvenience to local residents • Safety issues — increased # of accidents, reduced access for emergency services during peak periods ♦ Environmental issues due to congestion of roads (increased emissions) • Increased maintenance costs ♦ Reduced lifespan of roads • Increased demands for services that would otherwise not be needed (ie. Road lighting) • Increased roads standards required ♦ Movement from a class 3 road standard to a class 1 road standard increases costs of service The roads that were available prior to the development of the casino were insufficient and could not accommodate the significant increase in traffic experienced in the municipality. As such, capital costs were incurred to upgrade the infrastructure. In addition, the operating costs, on an annual basis, have increased on the main access roads (County Roads 44 and 45) as well as local roads that are also used when traffic is diverted. These increased costs are borne by the taxpayers in the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe. The overall useful life of the roads used to access the Casino are shorter than typical municipal roads in the area due to the high volume usage patterns. In addition, the cost of repair is higher on these roads as they have a higher classification due to traffic patterns. It is difficult to identify the incremental cost of being host to the Casino with respect to roads operations as project costs for capital and operating expenses are not always tracked for each segment of a road. Further, during this time changes have been made to the portfolio of roads of the Township and County. Page 14 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations 1 F F C C C L k FI CI Ci GI BMA County Road 44 and 45 are the main roads used to access the Casino Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Access To The Casino The First Nation's Reserve lies completely within the Township of Ramara. The Casino can only be accessed through the Township, using County or Township roads. The main roads used to access the Casino include: • County Road 44 • County Road 45 The following map reflects the main arterials used to access the Casino. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 15 ' BMA I Increased road standards on County Road 44 result in increased annual road operating costs. Capital costs incurred were not fully recovered, resulting in a capital cost to the taxpayers of $260,000 Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Review of Ma'or. Roads Used To Access Casino Rama County Road 44 County Road 44 (Rama Road), runs between Highway 12 in Atherley (on the edge of orillia) north to County Road 169 (Washago). The total length of the road is approximately 17 kilometres, of which approximately 6 kilometres is the distance from Highway 12 to the Casino entrance. This two-lane County road is in practice the only access to the Casino. As a result of the increased Casino related traffic, this road was reclassified from Class 3 to a Class 1 road. The County has installed two signalized intersections which would not have been needed except for the Casino. The cost of traffic operations has increased approximately 25% as a result of the reclassification to Class 1. Traffic operations are approximately $81 higher per lane- kilometre on a Class 1 road compared to a Class 3 road on an annual basis. The County of Simcoe experiences a 25% greater winter maintenance cost on a Class 1 road compared to Class 3. This equates to a cost increase of 460 per lane- kilometre for winter maintenance. (Note: This is a County -wide average cost difference. In practice, because of the volume of traffic and the type of traffic on the Rama Road, the County's costs are even higher than the average Class 1 road, and the increase would be even greater). The increase in traffic on the southerly 6 kilometres (Le. 12 lane - kilometres) of the Rama Road has increased the County's costs by approximately $541 ($460 + $81) per lane- kilometre. A conservative estimate for the 12 lane- kilometres, therefore, is an annual cost increase of $6,500, approximately $60,000 over the last 9 years. The Rama Road intersection relocation was to be paid for through a grant from the Province. However, the grant was $260,000 short of the actual cost. This costs has been borne by the residents of the municipality. (Source Development Charges Study, 2004) Page 16 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations ' BI M, While County roads ' are impacted on a daily basis, Township roads are also used frequently ' as traffic is often diverted impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations County Road 45 County Road 45 is a lower - volume, two-lane road running east-west from County Road 169 (former Highway 169) to County Road 44 (Rama Road), meeting the latter road about halfway from Atherley to the Casino. Due to the high volume of activity, these maintenance and capital expenditures for these roads has also increased since the Casino was constructed. The maintenance costs are conservatively estimated at approximately $40,000 over the past 9 years. Other Roads Impacted Traffic associated with the casino Township roads including: • Airport Road ♦ Fish Sideroad ♦ Mara -Rama Boundary Road Willison Side Road is often diverted to a number of Sideroad 25 — from Mara -Rama Boundary Rd to Highway 12 Sideroad 20 Concession 11 — from Sideroad 25 to Highway 12 All are necessary in the transportation plan and were reconstructed, widened and paved to provide an adequate link from the Provincial highway system to Casino Rama, both for the Casino bound vehicles and emergency vehicles. The estimated capital cost to complete the projects contemplated an amount up to $9.3 million. Other Road Related Capital Costs Attributed to the Casino In 2002, an additional plow truck was required by the Township to service these increased levels at a cost of approximately $195,000. Page 17 ' Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations impact Study Relating to MCasino Rama Development and Operations There was also damage to existing roads that occurred during the construction phase of the Casino, resulting in costs to the municipality of $100,000. Additional damage was caused during the Casino expansion in 2002, however, this has not been quantified. Traffic Statistics The County of Simcoe has maintained traffic data on road activity since 1994, before the opening of the Casino. The operation of the casino resulted in an immediate and sustained increase in traffic on County and Township roads County and Township roads, experienced an immediate and The County and Township have increased their service levels sustained increase substantially since the opening of Casino Rama to accommodate for in traffic volumes the significant increase in volume of activity within the community. County Road 44 Traffic volumes The data for the Rama Road (#44) clearly show the Casino's almost tripled on impact. In 1994, the annual average daily traffic (AADT) was 6, some roads used to the Casino... on the 6- kilometre Atherley- Casino portion. Between 1995 and access this results in 1996, traffic jumped to 12,000 vehicles per day (Casino significant increases Construction was completed in 1996). in the cost of maintenance By 1998, traffic was 17,500 vehicles per day, where it has remained until 2003. Traffic has nearly tripled, with the result that the County must now maintain these 6 kilometres of road at a Class 1 standard (equivalent to many Provincial highways) rather than its former Class 3 standard. Indeed, Rama 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 County Road 44 Road is one of the highest volume Class 1 roads in the County. This has led to a significant increase in cost of maintenance. 1994 1996 1998 2003 Prior to the Casino, that portion of the Rama Road north from the Casino to #169 carried 1,700 AADT. By 2002, traffic had doubled to 3,500 AADT. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page I ' BM A Traffic on County Road 45 has nearly doubled Increased traffic volumes results in increased delays and inconvenience for residents There are economic costs associated with traffic congestion There is a significant increase in the number of traffic accidents since the Casino was opened impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations County Road 45 Prior to the Casino, traffic on County Road 45 was 1,700 AADT, whereas by 2002 it had nearly doubled to 3,000 vehicles per day. Other Impacts of Increased Traffic Congestion Casinos generate traffic 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The presence of the Casino has significantly increased traffic within the Township. Due to the location and limited access to the Casino, traffic congestion is an issue for the citizens of the community. Traffic delays caused by casino traffic have a significant impact on the region's economy. Direct economic costs related to increased traffic includes the annual time loss of traffic circulating in the municipality which are bome by commuters, businesses and local citizens. Reduced accessibility is also an issue during accidents as there are limited alternate routes available. This is a recognized inconvenience to the community which would otherwise not be the situation had the Casino not been constructed. This results in a loss of employee productivity and business earnings caused by the reduced accessibility. The delays caused by the casino traffic have an impact on the County's economy. During traffic accidents, County Road 44 has been known to be completely blocked. Similarly, during times of high Casino visitorship (such as Summer long weekends) traffic on this two-lane road has been reduced to a standstill. As a result, traffic is often diverted to a number of Township roads including Airport Road, Fish Sideroad, Mara -Rama Boundary Road, Willison Side Road, Sideroad 25 — from Mara -Rama Boundary Rd to Highway 12, Sideroad 20, Concession 11 — from Sideroad 25 to Highway 12. This further creates problems for residents. Page 19 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations R t Maintenance costs have increased Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Increased Road Maintenance Costs Increasing traffic causes a definite long -term increase in road repair and reconstruction costs (capital costs). Increased costs from traffic are mainly associated with: Road platform maintenance (patching, sweeping, etc.) Roadside maintenance (mowing, brushing, etc.) Storm water management (ditching) • Structure maintenance (culvert cleaning, etc.) Winter maintenance The Township of Ramara has steadily increased its road maintenance spending from 1996 to 2003, in activities that are directly related to traffic volume and traffic safety. For example, the following table summarizes the cost increase for some of the key roads activities mainly as a result of Casino related trips. costs Costs Change in .., 2003 1 Structure Maintenance 21% Sweeping 127% Grading 42% Dust Control 38% Winter Control 111% Safet and Si nals 48o�a Total Costs 73% These substantial increases follow the same pattern as was evident for County Road 44, where winter control and signs /signals maintenance expenditures were substantially increased because of a large increase in traffic volume. While it is difficult to clearly isolate the increased costs in road maintenance attributed to the Casino operations, it is conservatively estimated that the municipality spends an additional $50,000 annually. Page 20 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations I BMA I I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and operations Summary of Unrecovered Roads Costs Since Opening The Casino The following table summarizes the roads related costs associated with opening the Casino over the past nine years and also capital costs required moving forward. Operating over last 9 vears County Roads 44 & 45 $ 100,000 Municipal Roads Maintenance $ 450,000 Capital Intersection Improvement (shortfall) $ 260,000 New Snow Plow $ 195,000 Road Damage Construction $ 100,000 Net Costs Incurred To Date For Roads $ 1,105,000 New Capital Rgauirements Projected Improvements Required (Capital) $ 9,300,000 As shown above, to date, there has been $1.1 million in unrecovered roads related expenditures in the County of Simcoe and the Township of Ramara. In addition, there are $9.3 million in projected capital related roads costs associated with the operation of the Casino. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 21 i l Motor vehicle accidents have increased 500% The construction of and subsequent expansion of the Casino resulted in a significant increase in the number of fire calls outs Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Fire Ramara's fire service consists entirely of volunteers, with a part-time Chief and Deputy Chief. It operates from stations in Brechin, Atherley and County Road 169 North. Like most rural services, the fire service provides 'first response" capability for a wide variety of local emergencies and incidents, including motor vehicle incidents, medical emergencies, backup to the OPP, etc. Fighting fires is in fact a minor part of their activities. In 1995, Ramara's fire service responded to 146 calls. In 2004, the service responded to 409 calls, a 180% increase in responses within eight years. Of these 409, the majority (69 %) were for medical assists and motor vehicle accidents which is clearly driven by the presence of Casino Rama and increased traffic patterns. Motor vehicle accident responses rose from 11 incidents to 69, an increase exceeding 500 %. Medical assists also increased dramatically, from 30 in 1995 to 212 in 2004. Using MPAC figures, the Ramara population grew from 7,614 in 1995 to 8,963 in 2003, an increase of 18 %. This information was used to calculate the number of incidents per 1,000 of population, to eliminate the change caused by population increases. The following graph reflects the number of motor vehicle accident and medical assist responses per 1,000 of population. As shown below, there has been a dramatic increase in responses from 5 per 1,000 of population in 1995 to 31 in 2004 (471 % increase). Number of Assist/Medical and Motor Vehicle Accidents per 1,000 of population 35 30 25 20 15 10 opened July 31, 1996 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Page 22 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations 1 ' BMA Total number of fire responses per 1,000 of population has increased While the total number of fire responses has dramatically increased, it is ' evident that this is driven by Casino related activity impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations The following graph reflects the total number of fire responses between 1995 and 2004. The total increase in responses per 1,000 of population increased 133% from 1995 to 2004. Total Number of Fire Responses per 1,000 of population 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2UU4 As shown below, if motor vehicle accident and medical assist responses are eliminated, the total number of responses remained relatively constant. The cost of fire services is largely driven by responses associated with the Casino operations. Total Number of Fire Responses (Excluding Medical Assist & Vehicle Accidents) per 1,000 of population 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Page 23 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations LM,,,, I The Township has ' increased its volunteer staff by 18 %, largely at the station serving the ■ Casino bound traffic Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations As shown below the percentage of fire responses that were for medical assists or in response to vehicle accidents has steadily grown. In 1995, these types of responses accounted for 28% of the response activity compared with 69% in 2004. Clearly, the presence of a Casino has had a significant impact on the level o Fire Department activity in the Township. This results in increased costs of operations. % of Total Fire Responses That Were For Medical Assist 8 Vehicle Accidents per 1,000 of population oarl - -� -Calls 700/6 600/ 500/6 40% Casino expansion 300/6 200/6 100/6 0"k Casino opened July 31, 1996 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 For example, the Township has increased its volunteer fire fighter staff complement by approximately 18 %. It is noteworthy that the majority of the additional firefighters have been added in the Atherley Hall, where the direct impact of Casino -bound traffic is most acute. The cost to outfit each firefighter is approximately $2,000. In 1997, two additional truck bays were added for a cost of $140,000, bringing the total truck bays to 10. In 1997 and 1999, one additional rescue vehicle in each year was introduced to the fleet to address the increase call volumes. These purchases were directly the result of the increased volumes attributed to the casino operations. The net cost to the Township for the rescue vehicles (which carries firefighters from the hall to accident sites and is fully outfitted with medical and communication needs for highway emergencies) was $80,000. As has been noted, despite the fact that the need arose as a result of the Casino, the Township has no ability to recover this cost from the Casino. Furthermore, the Township had not anticipated this need prior to the advent of the Casino. Page 24 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations ' BIM The annual fire costs related to the casino is in the range of $106,000 to $180,000 annually Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations As shown on the following table, which compares the 2003 Fire Municipal Performance Measurement Program, the operating costs for Fire services in Ramara are the second highest in the survey of surrounding municipalities that also have a volunteer workforce. If the costs in Ramara were equivalent to the survey average, this would reduce the operating costs by $106,000 annually. Municipality Township of Essa Operating Costs Services Assessment $ Fire per 000 0.30 Clearview Townshi p $ 0.36 S rin water Township $ 0.41 Township of Severn $ 0.53 Townshi o of Oro - Medonte $ 0.37 Township of Adiala- Tosorontio $ 0.33 ,Average $ 0.38 Tow $ 0.49 The costs on a per capita basis were also calculated using 2003 Financial Information Returns. As shown on the table below, the fire costs per capita in Ramara are highest in the survey. if the costs in Ramara were equivalent to the average in the survey of neighbouring municipalities, this would result in a decrease in net expenditures of more than $180,000 annually. Therefore, the annual costs related to Casino activity is likely in the range of $106,000 to $180,000 annually. ` Township Municipality of Essa N- Expenditures Per Capita 27 Township of Adiala- To sorontio $ 34 Township S rin water 40 Townshi o of Clearview $ 48 Towns hi of Severn $ 49 Townshi of Oro - Medonte $ 52 Average 42 ITownship of Ramara $ 65 Page 25 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations ' BMA - -- impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Summary of Unrecovered Fire Costs Since Opening The Casino The following table summarizes the fire related costs associated with opening the Casino over the past nine years. Operating over last 9 years Increased operating costs ranital 2 additional rescue vans Truck Bays Equipment Net Costs Incurred To Date For Fire Low High $ 954,000 $ 1,620,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 140,000 $ 140,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 1,188,000 $ 1,854,000 As shown above, the estimated costs to date range from $1.2 million to $1.8 million in additional costs associated with fire operations for the Casino. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 26 ' — MA impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Ambulance As shown on the following table, the ambulance expenditures per capita are second highest in the survey of over 20 municipalities, exceeding that of Orillia and Barrie. While the First Nation's has a contract with the County of Simcoe to provide ambulance service to the Reserve and the Casino, this contract does not compensate the County for its responses off- Reserve to traffic accidents generated by Casino traffic. As shown earlier, motor vehicle accidents have significantly increased since the Casino opened. This necessitated the purchase of an additional ambulance at a cost of $110,000. If the County were to experience costs on a per capita similar to the survey average, costs would reduce just within the Township of Ramara by approximately $80,000 annually. Source: 2003 FIR Summary of lnrecovered Ambulance Costs Since Opening The Casino As shown below, the unrecovered costs incurred to date are estimated at $830,000 for ambulance services. Operating over last 9 years $ 720,000 Increased operating costs Capital Additional Ambulance $ 110,000 Net Costs Incurred To Date For Ambulance $ 830,000 Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 27 ' B--- A I i Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Identified Financial Impact of The Casino The following table summarizes the unrecovered costs to the County of Simcoe and the township of Ramara associated with the Casino operations for Roads, Fire and Ambulance services. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations Page 28 ' impact Study Relating to RCasino Rama Development and Operations ' Executive Summary ' While the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe have incurred significant costs related to the operation of Casino Rama, they are the only municipal entities in the Province of Ontario that have a Casino within their boundaries that derive no casino revenues. Municipalities across Ontario that are host to a Casino, typically receive 5% of the gross ' revenues in recognition of the increased operating costs, social, financial and economic risks associated with a casino operation. These revenues can be used unilaterally by the respective municipalities to reduce increased municipal costs associated with casinos and enables them to be more competitive in attracting new development than what is available to the Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe. The County and Township agreed to host the Casino on the premise that they would ' derive economic spin -offs associated with new commercial development. A review of the assessment changes in the last ten years in fact show that non - residential development has not occurred in the County or Township as a result of the Casino. ' Orillia is a beneficiary of new development , however, it is a separated municipality and therefore the County does not benefit from these increases in assessment. A host municipality for a casino has many additional challenges. These include social ' challenges such as public safety, inconvenience, increased crime rates and gambling addiction; economic challenges, the risk of drawing revenues away from existing businesses as well as discouraging the location of some new businesses to the I municipality and higher infrastructure improvement and maintenance costs. Hence, the Province has consistently provided compensation for these host municipalities through a revenue sharing arrangement. The County of Simcoe and the Township of Ramara are in the unique situation of having to face these challenges with no compensating Irevenues. Municipal operating and capital costs especially in the areas of ambulance, fire and ' roads have increased Casino related activities. Since inception of the Casino, it is estimated that roads operating costs were $550,000 greater due to the extra traffic volumes of the Casino. Roads capital costs incurred to date are an additional $555,000 as well as a projected capital cost of $9.3 million to service increased traffic volumes on local roads. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations i BMA Impact Study Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations ' Since the opening of the Casino, fire responses related to traffic accidents and medical assists have increased dramatically. It is estimated that the net cost to the Township of Ramara for Fire operations is between $106,000 and $180,000 to service these ' increased Casino related activities. This amounts to an additional $1 million to $1.6 million over the past 9 years. Fire has also incurred increased capital costs related to rescue additional accommodate the vans equipment for additional firefighters. These costs amount to an additional ' $234,000. ' The ambulance service in the County has also been severely impacted by the increased traffic related incidents. It is estimated that the net cost of the Casino related volumes is $80,000 annually, equal to $720,000 over the past 9 years. The ambulance service was also required to increase the fleet to accommodate the increased volumes for a capital ' cost of $110,000. In summary, it is estimated that the Casino related costs to the County and Township over the past 9 years has cost taxpayers $3 -$3.8 million. There are also many intangible costs incurred by the residents that cannot be quantified, with no material benefits accruing to the County and Township. In order to continue to provide good services and sustainable growth to the area, compensation from the Province would be ' only fair and reasonable given the impacts and the practices across the Province. Impact Study on The Township of Ramara and the County of Simcoe Relating to Casino Rama Development and Operations - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Ulrich_Surmann To: Brian Bell Cc: Ward 1 Mel Coutanch_e Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:52 PM Subject: Final Occupancy: 46 Tanglewood Cres., Shanty Bay Hello Brian, I have picked -up your envelope - which contained attachments: Final Occupancy 001 through 005 - on Monday, Aug. 27, 07. I must say that I am appalled to see that this issue goes this far. This is a severe safety issue, if the clearances at our fireplace really turn out to be unsafe! When we met at our house for the first inspection regarding the final occupancy, you stated very clearly (i.e., not leaving any doubt) that all safety issues have been cleared, before we would be allowed to move into our house - or in general, before anyone will be allowed to occupy their house. I can clearly see now that this has not been the case. The inspection for the provisional occupancy simply makes a note that the fireplace has not been inspected. How can this be? There are several inspections during the construction of a house and one would think that the fireplace inspection should have been done during this time as a priority. In fact, the inspector should have made the contractor open -up the drywall again, to make a proper inspection possible. Its scary to think that we have been using this fireplace for three years and it might not be safe to do so. We will not be available during September but will expect a clear answer to my satisfaction before Thanksgiving. This issue is without any doubt the responsibility of the township and this must be reflected in your answer. Regards, Uli Surmann PS: Mel, please pass this mail to the appropriate person(s) in the township, thanks. Page I of 1 Irwin, Doug S From: Bob Bowles Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:03 PM To: Irwin, Doug Cc: Carolyn Pigeau Subject: RE: Turtle Sign Locations in Oro - Medonte - Clarification Required Hi Doug; Our request was similar to the signs that were installed last year. Kids For Turtles would supply the signs and mounting hardware and we were hoping that the township would provide and install the standard post that you use for all signs. This way the post will be standard and you order these in bulk plus by your road crew installing the signs they will be in the proper location not interfering will sight lines or maintenance vehicles. Thanks, Bob Bowles - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Irwin, Doug [mailto:dirwin @oro- medonte.ca] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:06 AM To: Bob Bowles Subject: Turtle Sign Locations in Oro - Medonte - Clarification Required Mr. Bowles, At the meeting of September 12, 2007, Council deferred your request, with respect to Turtle Sign Locations within the Township, to allow staff to obtain clarification. Your correspondence refers to tentative funding for the signs, pending the Township being willing to work with you on this project. In particular, the Township is seeking clarification with respect to the contribution that you are requesting from the Township. Are you requesting that the Township supply the posts to mount the signs or will Kids for Turtles be supplying the signs and posts? Are you requesting that Township staff install the signs at the requested locations? Your request, along with the clarification that you provide, will be brought forward for Council's further consideration on September 26, 2007. Regards, Doug Irvin, Clerk Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 E -mail: dirwin @oro - medonte.ca NOD32 2528 (20070913) Information This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com 9/13/2007 Irwin, Doug From: Bob Bowles Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 4:16 PM To: Irvin, Doug Cc: Cathie Patterson; Carolyn Pigeau Subject: Turtle Sign Locations in Oro - Medonte Hi Doug; I went out today and got the CPS readings for the signs in Oro - Medonte as you requested. 10/ Line 8 of Oro - Medonte at 17T 617453 49217310 and 17T 617447 4927315 11/ Line 8 (Hawkestone ?) at 17T 615729 4930105 and 17T 615068 4931132 12/ Line 15 of Oro- Medonte near where road crosses Lake Country Oro- Medonte Railtrail near # 252 at 17T o624342 4934727 +/- 7m. and near # 327 at 17T 0624522 4934453 +/- 6m. 13/ 5/6 Sideroad between Pentenguishene Road and Line 1 of Oro- Medonte at wetland just north of the City Of Barrie on north side just west of Line 1 at 17T 0609798 4918668 +/- 5m. and south side of 5/6 Sideroad at hydro pole east of Pentenguishene Road at 17T 0608682 4918790 +/- 4m. 14/ Line 15 Oro- Medonte just south of Old Barrie Road before Champlain Ready -Mix at 17T 0622334 4937874 +/- 5m. and by the Scout Valley parking lot near bottom of hill at 17T 0622705 4937300 +/- 7m. 15/ Line 15 Oro - Medonte near south end by Lake Simcoe on each side of wetland by the Rob Hazlett farm on one side and Chris Hazlett on the other side (# 638 & 643) at 17T 0625367 4933097 +/- 2m. and near gate at 17T 0625543 4932808 +/- 2m. 5/ Under Orillia is partly Oro- Medonte Bass Lake Sideroad by stream crossing between end of Old Scotia Place 17T 0621114 4940089 +/- 6m. and east of Hawthorn Place 17T 0621503 4940327 +/- 5m. Hope this is what you needed, Bob 1 1 KIDS FOR TURTLES Environmental Education www.kidsfoiturtles.com info a�Jridsforturtles.com August 22, 2007 Attn: J. Douglas Irwin �6® 5 ipp1 Township of Oro - Medonte pUG 1 148 Line 7 South Oro, ON LOL XO pPa�1SN p Dear Doug, Thank you for the Township of Oro- Medonte's support of Kids For Turtles Environmental Education in the past. Thanks to your endorsement, we have been able to install four turtle crossing signs in the areas of Horseshoe Valley Road and Woodland Drive in Oro - Medonte Township, helping us successfully complete our goal of installing a total of 12 turtle crossing signs across the region in 2006. The signs raise a reminder for motorists to slow down in areas where turtle deaths from automobiles are common. Our goal for 2007 is to purchase and install an additional 30 turtle crossing signs in locations where they are needed most. Of the 30, we would like to place two signs in Oro - Medonte Township at each of the following six locations, for a total of 12 signs: 1) Line 8 of Oro- Medonte at 17T 617453 49217310 and 17T 617447 4927315; 2) Line 8 at 17T 615729 4930105 and 17T 615068 4931132; 3) Line 15 near the road which crosses Lake Country Oro - Medonte Railtrail; 4) 5/6 Sideroad between Penetanguishene Road and Line 1 at wetland on north, and the south side of 5/6 Sideroad just north of the City of Barre; 5) Line 15 just south of Old Barrie Road and by the Scout Valley parking lot south of Champlain Ready Mix; and 6) Line 15 near the south end by Lake Simcoe on each side of wetland by the Rob Hazlett farm on one side and Chris Hazlett on the other side. We have tentative funding for these signs, pending documentation from Oro- Medonte Township stating that you are willing to work with us on this project. A simple letter stating that we have permission to install signs at the above locations in Oro- Medonte Township will allow us to confirm funding from at least two sources. The community is really on board with the goals of Kids For Turtles Environmental Education and has been instrumental in advising us of other places where they have seen turtles attempting to cross the road to lay their eggs. For further information about our group, you can visit our website at vvww.kidsforturtles.com or contact me directly at 325 -3149. We rely on and are much appreciative of your continuing support for this educational program. Sincerely, Bob Bowles Executive Director Kids For Turtles Environmental Education Page i of 1 Irwin, Doug From: Ball, Jerry Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:35 PM To: Irwin, Doug Subject: Turtle Crossing Signs Doug The cost to supply and install 10 posts for the proposed Turtle Crossing signs is approximately $700.00. The concern I have with these signs would be the maintenance of straightening or replacing after winter operations. Public Works has numerous traffic signs throughout our roads system and added signs will increase the maintenance. Jerry Ball, C.R.S.S Public Works Superintendent 9/12/2007 L1_! HOR'SESHOE VALLEY ROAD W HORSESHOE VALLEY ROACH E _I tr] Ui 04 71 ! I,I U ` •�' rr 1` -PIN z D - �••- BASS LAKE S14,1aAD WY -_, .. BASS LAKE' IDER A€ - _ w.,:.. 30/31 31 SIDEROAD U r: 't T- 8 T— W J r — J N a 4 OLD BARRIE ROAD} E '` / LLB 13ARRIE ROAD a E ROAD ...j.......� PLC B RRI ROAD .. _ T , µ � { FO - ' z 15/16 SIMR0 D E - 15/16 SIDEROAD W - c° LU .. w HIGHWAY 11 � ' � T- LIJ w co U} LLJ y c-- - - - - - - - —.2 . ..... L W w L L11 i z z z t� P-i" T1 w a Township o Oro- Medont F RIDGE � D RIDGE City of riiii 4/ F 6 Proposed SEP -14 -2007 09:33 FROM:NVCR 7054242115 TO:17054870133 P.1,2 September 10, 2007 Mayor Hughes and Council Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South Oro, On. LOL 2X0 —'i Via fax — original to follow Your Worship 8r Council: Member Municipalities Re: Source Water Protection Stewardship Funding, Letter of Support Adjata- Tosorontio The Clean Water Act received Royal Assent on October 19, 2006. On July 3rd, the Act Amaranth and five regulations came into effect. The intent of the legislation is to ensure communities are able to protect their municipal drinking water supplies through Barrie developing collaborative, locally driven, science -based protection plans. Municipalities, The Blue Mountains Conservation Authorities, property owners, farmers, industry, community groups and Bradford -West CvAlhmbury the public will all work together to meet common goals. Gearview The MOE recently announced $2 million is being made available for education and rollingwood outreach activities aimed at building public awareness of source protection, and public Fsse education to inform individuals about what they can do to help protect local sources of SprinRwater drinking water through best management practices. InrusBl water. The first round of eligible areas consists of the property owners located within Melancthon The NVCA in conjunction with LSRCA and the Severn Sound Environmental Mono Association have submitted a proposal to the MOE for this program and seek Mulmur partnership with your municipality. (The proposal is included). The program will be Counties funded 100% by the MOE with no expense to your municipality. The project timelines Nesv Tecumseth will be late September -early October to March 31, 2008. Oro-Meclonm Of benefit to your municipality, this program will provide comprehensive outreach and Grey Highlands education to communities serviced by municipal wells and intakes. Furthermore, the Shelburne project objectives are to raise awareness about municipal water supply systems and SprinRwater identify how the behaviors of property owners can impact on the quality of drinking water. The first round of eligible areas consists of the property owners located within Wasaga Beach 100m of the municipal production well and 1 km of municipal intakes. The focus of the outreach and education will be: private wells, septic systems, buffers, and commercial Watershed audits. NVCA will also be applying to the province for grants for implementing Source Counties Water Protection stewardship projects (the details which have yet to be announced), to be implemented in concert with the outreach and education program.) Simcoe Dufferin Croy cont'd... Member of W. Conserving our Healthy Waters —Y' NOTTAWASACA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY a Centre for Conservation Consemtlon John Hia Conservation Administration Centre a T'llm Cmnervation Area a 8195 8th Line 4 U ONTARIO Telephone: 705.424.1479 • Fax: 705,424.2115 a Web: w ,nvca.on.ca a Email: ndmiQn Onun_ca SEP -14 -2007 09:33 FROM:NVCP 7054242115 TO:17054B70133 The NVCA is seeking the opportunity to partner with your municipality in delivering this initiative. The proposed deliverables of the outreach and education program is comprised of three (3) main components: t, awareness —direct mail, signage, media releases, advertising; 2. education — workshops, print materials on best management practices (BMPs), website information; 3. engagement — personal contact, site visits. As a partner, we envision that your municipality would work with us to implement best management practice septic systems and associated stewardship activities. NVCA staff believes that the resulting benefit to the watershed municipalities would be of great value to you. In support of this, we are requesting a general letter of support from your Municipality for this initiative by September 25ib by either Senior Staff or by Council. More information regarding the grant can be found at: Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned for more information. Sincerely, 6L,6kP6(1cPN, Wayne Wilson, B.Sc. CAO Secretary- Treasurer C. John Crawford, Township of Oro - Medonte Sandy Agnew, Township of Oro- Medonte P.2�2 2 Consulting Ltd. 30 St. Patrick Street, Suite 1000, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MST 3A3 Facsimile (416) 595 -7144 Telephone (416) 593 -5090 e -mail: hemson@hemson.com August 28, 2007 Mr. Doug Irwin Clerk Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South Oro, ON LOL 2X0 Dear Mr. Irwin: Re: Presentation of Directions Report t ED 0R0- �,,A,ED0N 4 E As you are probably aware, the County of Simcoe and the municipalities of Orillia and Barrie are engaged in a process to bring various growth management and planning documents into compliance with the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The work is being carried out under the direction of the Steering Committee made up of elected officials from municipalities in the Simcoe County Area including Barrie and Orillia. Hemson Consulting Ltd. has been engaged to assist the Committee with this task. As the first step in this process, a Directions Report has recently been prepared. The Committee has instructed us to request the opportunity to present this work to each council or appropriate committee of council in the Simcoe County Area. We would like to request such an opportunity in upcoming weeks. Ideally, an hour is required for presentation and questions. We would request that Council instruct staff to contact either Mr. Antony Lorius at (416) 593 -5090 extension 34 or Elena Apanovitch at extension 10 to set up such an opportunity. Yours very truly, HEMSON Consulting Ltd. f i Raymond J. Simpson Partner Developing a Growth Management Strategy For the Slmcoe County Area Working Document for Review by the Growth Management Steering Committee j a 1 :1 k1VA Lie] L-1 I Con suItIng Ltd. August 2007 Note to draft: Attached is a copy of the Directions Report. The report provides information on key growth management issues in the S i mcoe County Area to the Growth Management Steering Committee. The report was discussed with the Committee at its meeting on July 31, 2007 and some minor changes have been made as a resultof thatdiscussion. In addition, information provided bythe local municipali- ties is subject to ongoing review. The revised document will be discussed at the Steering Committee meeting on September 5t", 2007. After such discussion, the intent is that the report be the focus of broader community consultation in the fall of 2007. HEMSON TABLE OF CONTENTS PROVINCE HAS TAKEN A MORE DIRECT ROLE IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN ONTARIO ........................... 1 A. Growth Plan Sets the Forecasts to Be Used for Long Range Planning ............. ............................... 3 B. Growth Plan Also Guides How Growth Should Be Accommodated .............. ............................... 4 C. Directions Report Provides a Basis for Implementing the Provincial Vision ........ ............................... 6 II SIMCOE COUNTY AREA IS ANTICIPATED TO ACCOMMODATE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GROWTH OVER THE NEXT 25 YEARS ................................................ ............................... 7 A. Over 100,00 New Housing Units Are Required ............................. ............................... 7 B. Nearly 1,500 Ha of Employment Land Will Also Be Required .................. ............................... 9 C. Distribution of Growth Is an Issue to Be Resolved .......................... ............................... 10 III AN INITIAL DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR DISCUSSION .. ............................... 12 A. Housing Unit Growth Is Distributed According to Market Shares ............... ............................... 12 B. Residential Supply Is Based on Local Municipal Information .................. ............................... 14 C. The South Simcoe Area Requires Additional Unit Supply ..................... ............................... 15 IV EFFORTS WILL BE DIRECTED TO A NUMBER OF KEY TASKS IN THE COMING MONTHS ............................. 17 1. Determine Community Structure for the Simcoe County Area ............. ............................... 17 2. Develop Policies For Lifestyle and Recreation -Based Housing ............. ............................... 18 3. Establish the Need, Location and Desired Characteristics of Employment Land ............................... 19 4. Identify Implications of Growth on Municipal Finance ................... ............................... 19 5. Resolve the Role of Separated Cities in Accommodating Growth ........... ............................... 19 6. Formulate a Stakeholder Involvement and Communications Strategy ........ ............................... 20 APPENDICES.............................................................. ............................... 21 HEMSON PROVINCE HAS TAKEN A MORE DIRECT ROLE IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN ONTARIO On June 16, 2006, the Province of Ontario adopted the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ( "the Growth Plan "). The Growth Plan sets out a vision for growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) to 2031, including the Simcoe County Area. The Simcoe County Area is made up of the County and the separated Cities of Barrie and Orillia, as illustrated on the following page. Municipalities in the GGH are required to bring their official plans into conformity with the Growth Plan, including the County of Simcoe. As part of its conformity exercise, the County is undertaking an area -wide growth management strategy, in addition to a transportation strategy, a natural heritage system update, and a review of resource conservation policies including groundwater protection. Growth management, by its very nature, is contentious. Growth management will be even more challenging in the Simcoe County Area because of the complex political and decision - making environment, and the wide range of interests that are involved. The County, the 16 local municipalities, the separated Cities of Barrie and Orillia, the First Nations and other agencies will all have an interest in decisions that are made. Further compounding these challenges is the delivery of water and wastewater services. There are a total of 24 wastewater and 89 water systems in the Simcoe County Area, in addition to a number of inter - municipal servicing agree- ments.) Water and wastewater services are managed locally despite the fact that all systems rely on shared regional water resources. This arrangement can make co- operation and decision - making contentious. Nevertheless, the Simcoe County Area has been instructed by the Province to develop a local solution to growth management! This report is the first step in developing an area -wide growth management strategy within the new Provincial policy context. The work is being carried out under the direction of a Steering Committee made up of elected officials from municipalities in the Simcoe County Area, including Barrie and Orillia. 'For additional detail, see Preliminary Findings of the Hard Services Sub - Committee: Delivery of Water and Wastewater Services, prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. in August 2006. 2 In early 2007, Minister Gerretsen and Minister Caplan discussed growth management and growth- related matters with members of the Simcoe County Council and the Mayors of Barrie and Orillia. One of the key themes was the need for the County to demonstrate leadership and co- operation. HEMSON SIMCOE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA Christian Island Penet guishene Washago Port Victoria Severn Mc icol H rbour Cumberland Ramara Beach Midland Coldwater Orillia Atherley- Tay U ptergrove Georgian Lagoon City Bay Tiny Horseshoe ® Elmvale Valley Wasaga Oro - wood Beach S rin water Medonte Lake Collin g p g Simcoe Midhurst Stayner Barrie Stroud Clearview Angus Alcona Thornto Creemore I nnisf it Essa Ad'1 ala- iCookstown Bradford - Tosorontio Everett Bradford West Gwillimbury Alliston New Tecroseth Beeton 4Tottenham Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. Settlement Areas as those shown in the Technical paper on a Proposed Methodology for Developing a Built Boundary for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Prepared by Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Fall 2006 3 A. GROWTH PLAN SETS THE FORECASTS TO BE USED FOR LONG RANGE PLANNING The Growth Plan contains a set of population and employ- ment allocations that municipalities in the GGH must use for long -range planning and managing growth. In total, the Growth Plan forecasts a total of approximately 11.5 million people and 5.6 million jobs for the GGH. As shown over, this represents growth of approximately 3.7 million people and 1.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2031. Under the Growth Plan, future growth is to be concentrated mainly in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton (GTAH) where most of the population and employment already exists. Approximately 25% of the total population growth and 20% of the employment growth has been allocated to the Outer Ring', which includes the Simcoe County Area. Within the Outer Ring, the Growth Plan has allocated to the Simcoe County Area approximately 30% of the total growth. This represents a significant amount of new population and employment over the planning period. Table 1 Shares of Growth Plan Population and Employment Growth GTAH, Outer Ring and Simcoe County Area, 2001 to 2031 Area Population Share Employment Share G rowth G rowth GTAH 218101000 76% 11380,000 79% Outer Ring 900,000 24% 3701000 21% Total GGH 317101000 100% 117501000 100% Simcoe* 275,000 31% 100,000 27% Rest of 6251000 69% 2701000 73% Outer Ring Outer Ring 9001000 100% 3701000 100% Total Sou rce: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, June 2006 *Note: Simcoe Refers to the Simcoe County Area, including the separated Cities of Barrie and Ori I I is For the current planning period, these are the legislated, in- force forecasts that must be used for growth management. The Province may revise the forecasts in five years, but this will not occur until after the deadline for bringing official plans into conformity with the Growth Plan (June 16, 2009) . The 2006 Census figures also indicate that growth in the 1 The Outer Rin g is defined in the Growth Plan as a GGH and Simcoe County Area is occurring almost exactly geographic area containing various cities, regions and counties beyond as anticipated. the Greenbelt. HEMSON 0 Table 2 Variation Between 2006 Census and Growth Plan Forecast Population 2006 Forecast 2006 Census Compared to Area Forecast Actual Census GTAH Total 611011000 61061,000 +411000 0.7% Outer Ring 210121000 21041,000 - 291000 Total* -1.5% 811131000 811021000 111000 Total G G H .01% Simcoe 4211000 4221200 -11200 -0.2% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., 2007 *Note: Statistics Canada figures are Census populations that do not include the Census undercoverage. Figures shown above are excluding the u ndercoverage. An issue that does need to be addressed, however, is the allocation of growth to the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia. The Growth Plan allocates growth to the separated Cities only to 2011. The remaining periods to 2021 and 2031 are shown as totals. The Province recognizes that a resolution of the separated cities population and employment disaggregations is important for growth management in the Simcoe County Area, and to this end is facilitating negotia- tions between the City of Barrie, the City of Orillia and the B. GROWTH PLAN ALSO GUIDES HOW GROWTH SHOULD BE ACCOMMODATED In addition to setting the overall forecasts and growth allocations to be used for growth management, the Growth Plan also provides guidance on how that growth should be accommodated. Generally, the Growth Plan seeks to strike a balance between the economy, the environment and the development of "complete communities "! More specifically, the Growth Plan states that: • Major growth be directed to settlement areas defined as existing areas and those designated for growth in official plans that offer full municipal servicing, • Development outside settlement areas generally be restricted, except for some resource -based or recre- ational activities and rural uses that cannot be located in settlement areas and in site- specific rural locations with existing approvals; and that • A set of specific intensification and density targets be achieved a minimum 40% of all residential develop- ment be accommodated within the built -up area after 2015 and new greenfield development achieve a density of 50 residents and jobs combined per ha. County with respect to Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan. 1 Defined generally as having an appropriate mix of jobs, local services and housing, community infrastructure and affordable housing, schools, recreation and open space and convenient access to public transportation. HEMSON 5 The Growth Plan also identifies a set of Urban Growth Centres that are intended to be a focus for investment, high - density major employment centres and major transit infrastructure. The Barrie area is the only community within the Simcoe County Area that has been identified as an Urban Growth Centre. Preserving employment land is another objective of the Growth Plan. There is a strong emphasis on providing an adequate supply of employment land to ensure the vitality of the GGH and Provincial economy. The Province is currently undertaking a GGH -wide study of employment land to assist municipalities in achieving this objective. All of these policy directions have implications for growth management in the Simcoe County Area, particularly those seeking to: achieve higher densities and urban intensification, promote transit - supportive development; and restrict growth in rural areas. For example: • The identification of the Barrie area as an Urban Grow- th Centre has implications for the distribution of future population and employment growth, • In order to achieve the Growth Plan objectives for a more urban -type of development, many communities within the Simcoe County Area will need to accommo- date greenfield development at higher densities than they have in the past. This will involve shifting housing preferences towards higher density unit forms and a greater level of intensification within existing areas. • The Growth Plan is also silent on the role of lifestyle and recreation -based housing, which has traditionally made an important contribution to growth in many parts of the County. By remaining silent on the issue and generally seeking to restrict growth outside of settle- ment areas, the Growth Plan has important implications for this type of development. Under the Growth Plan, however, the Minister may review and permit alternative intensification and density targets in the Outer Ring, recognizing that these objectives may not be appropriate for all communities. The Simcoe County Area will have an opportunity to determine whether or not it is content with the overall direction of the Growth Plan, if specific aspects should be challenged and if different parts of the County should be subject to different rules. The Simcoe County Area will also have an opportunity to define what role lifestyle and recreation -based housing should play in accommodating future growth. HEMSON I C. DIRECTIONS REPORT PROVIDES A BASIS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROVINCIAL VISION This Directions Report is the first step in the Steering Committee's efforts to provide the foundation for growth management in the Simcoe County Area. All municipalities will require this input for their official plans and compliance exercise for the Growth Plan. Under the Growth Plan the County of Simcoe is responsible for: • The allocation of growth forecasts to the lower -tier municipalities, and therefore determination of the long- term urban structure of the Simcoe County Area, • The identification of intensification and density targets for the local municipalities; and • Developing the policies that are required to implement the vision set out in the Growth Plan.' The purpose of this Directions Report is to provide the basic information that is required to carry out these tasks and to engage decision - makers, senior levels of government and other stakeholders in the study process. It is organized into three major sections: 1 The County is responsible for providing the broad policy framework to guide growth and development. Local land use control and the provision of water and sewer services currently remain the responsibility of the local municipalities. 1. Following this introduction, the first section describes the growth outlook for the Simcoe County Area, including a housing unit forecast and an estimate of employment land requirements, 2. The second section presents a initial distribution of population and housing growth, by municipality, including the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia. Housing demand is compared to the existing residential supply, and conclusions are provided on the need and location for any future land designations; and 3. In the third section, key issues that require further examination are identified. It is important to note that this is a working document for review by the County Growth Management Steering Committee and is subject to revision, particularly with respect to the employment and residential land supply information provided by local municipalities. It is also anticipated that the initial distribution of growth will be subject to revision. The final distribution of growth depends upon the resolution of several key issues, including the issue of growth in the separated cities, the Barrie— Innisfil discussions, Provincial directions on employment land and the role of lifestyle and recreation -based housing. HEMSON a II SIMCOE COUNTY AREA IS ANTICIPATED TO ACCOMMODATE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GROWTH OVER THE NEXT 25 YEARS The Growth Plan population allocation of 667,000 people for the Simcoe County Area translates into a total of approximately 260,000 units in 2031. This represents growth of 103,000 new housing units from 2006 to 2031. If current, age- specific household formation and occupancy patterns are maintained, future demand for housing units will be mainly ground - related in nature particularly single and semi- detached units. The 2031 allocation of 254,000 jobs translates into growth of nearly 80,000 jobs from the estimated 2006 level. A consider- able portion of this employment growth will need to be accommodated on employment land, or "employment areas ", which are defined in the Growth Plan as areas designated for clusters of business and economic activities. Nearly 1,500 ha of employment land will be required. The distribution of growth is the main issue to be resolved. As directed by the Province, municipalities in the Simcoe County Area will need to collectively decide what role each community will play in accommodating the Growth Plan allocations. A. OVER 100,00 NEW HOUSING UNITS ARE REQUIRED A long -term age structure and housing demand forecast has been prepared for the Simcoe County Area, using the models used to prepare the compact scenario for Simcoe County. This is the forecast for a total population of 667,000 in 2031 that is shown in the Growth Plan.' The population forecast is translated into a housing unit forecast according to age - structure. Age structure has a key influence on the rate of household formation as well as housing preference by unit type single - detached, semi - detached, rowhouse and apartment. As shown in the following table, the forecast age structure in the Simcoe County Area translates into a total housing demand for approximately 103,000 units from 2006 to 2031. This continues the historic pattern of significant unit production over the past 20 years 4,000 units per year or 20,000 units per 5-year Census period. 1 For additional detail on the Growth Plan forecast models and results, see The Growth Outlook for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. in 2005. HEMSON I Table 3 Simcoe County Historic and Forecast Housing Growth 1986 to 2031 300 250 200 Total Household Year Households Unit Growth 1986 821300 n/a 1991 1021300 201000 1996 1181700 161400 2001 1371100 181500 2006 1561700 191500 2011 1771200 201500 2016 2001000 221800 2021 2221400 221400 2026 2421300 201000 2031 2591600 171300 2006 -2031 n/a 1031000 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., 2007 based on reference forecast Compact Scenario distribution population figures shown in Schedule 3 to the Growth Plan. May not add. All figures are rounded. As can be seen from above, the Growth Plan allocation neither accelerates nor decelerates growth in the Simcoe County Area, but rather continues the significant level of development activity that has been occurring over the past 20 years. As shown in the figure below, if current age- specific housing occupancy patterns are maintained, future demand will be mainly for ground- related units, particularly single and semi - detached units. TOTAL HOUSING UNITS BY MAJOR TYPE Historic & Forecast Total By Census Year Thousands County of Simcoe 300 250 200 oSingle & Semi MRow oApartment 150 100 50 OL 0 - 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on Statistics Canada Data A key policy decision that will need to be made is the density at which these units are to be accommodated and how many should occur through intensification. Historically, residential development in the Simcoe County Area has been occurring on greenfield development land at densities generally lower than those envisioned in the Growth Plan. The role that lifestyle and recreation -based development will play in accommodating this future demand will also be an important consideration. Based on historic patterns of housing development in the Simcoe County Area, a portion of future demand would be expected to locate in rural areas on private services a pattern of development that the Growth Plan generally seeks to restrict. HEMSON A B. NEARLY 1,500 HA OF EMPLOYMENT LAND WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED The Growth Plan employment allocation of 254,000 jobs for the Simcoe County Area translates into growth of approxi- mately 80,000 jobs from 2006 to 2031. As shown below, this represents steady employment growth. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Historic & Forecast Total By Census Year Thousands County of Simcoe 300 250 200 150 100 50 — — 1 -7 — — 2006 Employment Estimate — — — 2031 Employment Allocation 2541000 0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Source:Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on Statistics Canada Data A considerable portion of this employment growth will need to be accommodated on employment land, or employment areas as defined in the Growth Plan. As shown in Table 4, an estimated 1,450 ha of employment land will be required to accommodate future growth. Table 4 Estimated Employment Land Requirement Simcoe County Area, 2001 to 2031 2006 Employment Estimate 1751000 2031 Employment Allocation 2541000 Total Growth 2006 to 2031 791000 Share of Employment on 55% Employment Land Employment Land Employment 43,450 Growth, 2006 to 2031 Net Density (jobs per ha) 37.5 Net Employment Land Area 11160 Net -to -Gross Factor (accounting for roads and servicing) 80% Gross (Developable) Employment Land Requirements (in ha) 11450 Source: Schedule 3 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, June 2006 and Hemson Consulting Ltd. Notes: 2006 employment estimated by applying the 2001 activity rate (41 %) to the 2006 Census population of 422,000. HEMSON Share of employment on employment land based on the 2001 Regional GTA share excluding the Cities of Toronto and Hamilton. Density based on the typical pattern of employment land near the edge of the GTAH. Net -to -gross adjustment is a standard factor used in employment land needs analysis. IKE According to information provided by local municipalities, there is a total supply of approximately 3,200 net ha of vacant employment land in the Simcoe County Area. Additional detail on the vacant employment land supply is provided in Appendix A to this report. While this supply may be somewhat overstated, it still represents a large potential.1 It is not clear, however, if the current supply and demand for employment land are well - matched by location. One of the key issues that will need to be addressed is the suitability of the current supply to accom- modate future growth in employment. How much employment land is required, and where it should be located, are key questions that will need to be answered in planning for employment growth. Certain communities in the Simcoe County Area also accommodate a significant component of their economy in tourism - related activities, such as the Towns of Wasaga Beach and Collingwood. The role of tourism and its implications for employment land planning also needs to be identified. C. DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH IS AN ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED While the Growth Plan allocates the overall growth targets for the Simcoe County Area, the distribution of growth to the local municipalities has yet to be determined. Several key issues need to be considered in determining the distribution of future growth. • The Simcoe County Area is under strong development pressure. There is a developed transportation network, accessibility from communities in Simcoe to employ- ment centres in the GTAH and a large potential supply of relatively inexpensive housing within an area that has many attractive natural features. • In response to this pressure, some local municipalities have become involved in processes to expand their settlement areas. In some cases, this has included the approval or commitment to increases in water and wastewater servicing capacity and investments in new plants and infrastructure. • Much of this activity, however, was initiated prior to recent amendments to the Planning Act, when munici- palities were obliged to respond to privately -led applica- tions for urban expansion.' 1 In our experience, the supply of employment land is 2 Recent amendments to the Planning Act (commonly frequently significantly overstated. This occurs for various reasons, referred to as Bill 5 1 ) have changed the process for urban expansion, including differences in measurement, definitions, the inclusion of such that expansions may now only be initiated by the municipality. marginal properties whose prospects for development are limited and The municipality is no longer required to respond to private failure to include an adjustment for long -term vacancy. applications for expansion. HEMSON • Under new Provincial policies, municipalities within the Simcoe County Area will have the opportunity to determine collectively the appropriate location of new settlement areas, should they be required. Existing commitments, including investments in servicing capacity, will need to be considered in determining the future distribution of growth. • One of the more common arguments made in support of settlement area expansion or servicing capacity in- creases is that growth is required to improve the commu- nity's financial position, or that it will otherwise provide a better quality of life for residents. The basis for this argument, however, is not clear. Through the growth management study process, munic- ipalities within the Simcoe County Area will have the opportunity to determine the extent, if any, to which growth provides benefits to the community's financial position, levels of community service, economic oppor- tunities for residents or any others. • Recent work undertaken as part of the IGAP study has also concluded that certain sub - watersheds in south Simcoe County are under stress as a result of older development and current agricultural practices. New analytical tools have been developed that can be used to test development patterns from an environmental perspective. • An assessment of water supply and wastewater treat- ment facilities has also been undertaken, which has identified the necessary works and investment required for approved development to proceed. Municipalities in the Simcoe County Area will now have the opportunity to examine the environmental impacts of alternative urban structures, should this be required. Under the new Provincial policy context, municipalities in the Simcoe County Area have a number of new powers and tools to manage growth. There will also be opportunities to test the environmental and fiscal impacts of alternative urban structures. As a starting point, the next chapter presents an initial distribution of growth, including growth in the separated Cities of Barrie and Orillia. HEMSON 12 III AN INITIAL DISTRIBUTION OF GROWTH HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR DISCUSSION This chapter presents an initial distribution of population growth for the purposes of discussion. It is recognized that a number of key issues regarding the distribution of growth remain unresolved, in particular the issue of growth in the Barrie — Innisfil area. An employment growth forecast has not been prepared at this time, because the future growth outlook depends on the amount and location of future employment land. This is an issue yet to be addressed, and one that will exert a strong influence on the type and location of future employment growth. The conclusions of the Provincial employment land review will provide a key input to resolving the issue. The distribution of future population growth is based on recent policy trends notably the designation of the Barrie area as Urban Growth Centre and current growth and settlement patterns. Servicing is not considered a constraint to the distribution of growth in this exercise. A. HOUSING UNIT GROWTH IS DISTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO MARKET SHARES The distribution of growth is prepared within the context of the Growth Plan allocation of 667,000 people by 2031. The forecast model has been updated to incorporate the 2006 Census population and household figures for Simcoe County and the local municipalities. For the purposes of analysis, the Simcoe County Area is divided into five growth management areas: Barrie, Orillia, the South, West and North ( the SGMAs) . The total housing unit forecast from Table 3 is distributed to the local munici- palities first to the SGMAs and then to the local area municipalities. The distribution is based on a consideration of the nature of the market area, long -term trends in the local housing market and more recent development activity in the 2001 to 2006 period. Once the housing units have been distributed, the population Overall, it appears that the supply of residential land is for each community is estimated by applying person per unit sufficient to accommodate future unit demand. When factors (ppu's), by housing unit type, which are forecast to compared by location, however, there are some shortages. decline gradually to 2031. The results are summarized in the Depending upon the outcome of current negotiations table on the following page. regarding the Barrie — Innisfil matter, the south Simcoe area requires additional unit supply. HEMSON 13 Table 5 Simcoe County Area Population Forecast Total Population, 2006 to 2031 Community 2006 2031 Population Population Adjala- Tosorontino 111100 141600 New Tecumseth 281800 381900 Bradford -West Gwillimbury 251000 361500 Innisfil 321400 471900 Essa 171600 191500 Clearview 141600 181200 Col I i ngwood 181000 241800 Wasaga Beach 151600 31,000 Spri ngwater 181100 241400 Barrie (Current Official Plan) 1331500 175,000 Oro - Medonte 201800 271000 Orillia 311400 411100 Ramara 91800 131200 Severn 121500 161400 Tay 101100 12,100 Tiny 111200 161700 Midland 161900 181400 Penetanguishene 91700 121300 First Nations* 11500 21500 Barrie —South Simcoe Unallocated n/a 761900 Simcoe County Area Total 4381700 6671400 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2007 *Note: First Nations include Christian Island 30 and 30a and Rama First Nation 32. Figures are total population includ- ing an estimated undercount of 3.77 %. Forecasts are based on current trends and standard methods. Any modifications or allocation of unallocated growth should be undertaken co- operatively through this process with municipal co- operation and considering regional trends, initiatives and needs. The distribution of population growth is similar to the forecast distribution originally prepared in the 2004 forecast update report'. However, there are some key differences that warrant attention. • Overall, the Growth Plan forecasts are lower than those that appear in the 2004 forecast update report. The reason is that the Growth Plan is a policy forecast that anticipates more growth shifting to priority emerging urban centres in Waterloo Region, Niagara Region, and Wellington and Brant Counties. • Although both forecasts are based essentially on a market shares approach, there is one key distinction. Whereas the 2004 forecast update report was based on shares of population growth, the 2007 forecast is based upon shares of housing construction by type. The 2007 forecast is therefore more sensitive to local housing market conditions and recent trends in devel- opment activity. The approach taken also means that communities that have historically accounted for a large share of the housing market have a strong influence on the shares of growth in other parts of the Simcoe County Area over the period. 1 For detail, see the report Population, Households and Employment Forecasts Update , prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. , in May 2004 for the County of Simcoe. HEMSON z B. RESIDENTIAL SUPPLY IS BASED ON LOCAL MUNICIPAL INFORMATION The residential supply is based upon information provided by the local municipalities, adjusted to mid -year 2006 to be consistent with the Census and the housing growth forecast. According to local municipal staff: • There are 41,000 units within registered and draft approved plans. These units have a high level of cer- tainty and do not typically change, except when subject to further applications. • There are 25,800 units that are proposed in plans of subdivision that have not yet been approved. Units in applications under review have a lesser but still high level of certainty attached to them. • There is still further potential supply on vacant desig- nated residential land with no plan (the greenfield supply). The unit potential of this supply is less certain, and depends on assumptions that are made regarding future residential density. • Based upon our application of the density targets set in the Growth Plan to the designated greenfield residential land area provided by local municipalities, there is an estimated capacity for 56,400 units on vacant desig- nated residential land with no plan. As shown in the table below, combining the various compo- nents of residential supply draft approved plans, registered plans, plans under review, and the estimated capacity of vacant designated greenfield land results in a total unit supply of almost 123,000 units. Table 6 Estimated Residential Unit Supply Simcoe County, Mid- Year 2006 Type Single & Row Apt Total Semi Registered & 301500 61000 41400 411000 Draft Approved Under Review 161000 61000 31900 251800 Total in Plans & 461500 121000 81300 661800 Under review Vacant Designated 561100 No Plan Total 1221900 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2007, based upon information provided by local municipal staff. Note: May not add. All figures rounded. Servicing is not considered in the determination of the residential supply. As with the distribution of growth, the supply analysis assumes that the necessary servicing can be provided. This is equivalent to an overall density of 18 to 24 units Additional detail on the residential supply is provided in per gross ha on greenfield development land, which is pp y p significantly higher than the current pattern in many Appendix B to this report. parts of the Simcoe County Area. HEMSON 15 On an area -wide basis, the supply of almost 123,000 units is sufficient in amount to meet the overall need for 103,000 housing units associated with the Growth Plan population allocation. In addition, even more potential exists through intensification and rural lots: • The supply estimates do not include an estimate for intensification, which occurs in the normal course of development in most urban communities as demand presents itself over the planning horizon. While we cannot specifically identify the location of these sites, we can account for such units. Typically, most urban communities will add between 10 and 20 per cent of the base housing supply through intensifica- tion over time. • The supply also does not include vacant rural lots of record, which could accommodate 3,000 units.' The Growth Plan directs municipalities to make land use plans not exceeding 20- years. Notwithstanding the time required for implementation of plans, there does not appear to be an immediate need to designate additional residential land in the overall Simcoe County Area. As shown in Appendix C to this report, the supply of units in registered and draft approved plans alone is sufficient to accommodate a population of over 530,000, or to about 2016. 1 For detail, see IGAP Existing Capacities Assessment, Rural Development Potential Report, May 2006, page 67. C. THE SOUTH SIMCOE AREA REQUIRES ADDITIONAL UNIT SUPPLY When the supply of residential units is compared to future demand by municipality, however, a somewhat different pattern emerges. In some communities, there is enough supply designated to accommodate growth beyond the 2031 horizon of the Growth Plan. Likewise, there are also some shortages in supply. In particular, based upon current trends there appears to be a shortage of residential unit supply in the Barre — south Simcoe area. The situation has arisen because the City of Barrie is land - constrained. The matter is currently under negotiation between the Province and the affected munici- palities. These negotiations are anticipated to resolve the issue. The unit shortfall is indicated on the following page as the "Barrie — South Simcoe Unallocated" area. It is important to note that residential unit potential shown on the following page does not include an estimate of units to be added through intensification. This will also be determined through future work. HEMSON In Table 7 Residential Unit Potential Versus Forecast Demand Simcoe County Area, 2006 to 2031 Community 2006 to 2031 Residential Unit Surplus or Growth In Occupied Potential (Shortfall) Housing Units Does Not Include Does Not Include Intensification Intensification Adjala- Tosorontio 11500 41000 21500 New Tecumseth 41900 81100 31200 Bradford -West Gwillimbury 41700 91000 41300 Innisfil 71200 91500 21300 Essa 11300 31600 21300 Clearview 11700 201100 181400 Col I i ngwood 31800 91100 51300 Wasaga Beach 71200 101500 31300 Spri ngwater 21700 31100 400 Barrie 18,200 81100 (101100) Oro- Medonte 31200 41600 11400 Ori I I is 51200 51200 0 Ramara 11800 81800 71000 Severn 21100 11000 (11100) Tay 11200 51300 41100 Tiny 21800 61100 31300 Midland 11400 41500 31100 Penetangu ishene 11300 21300 11000 First Nations 400 n/a n/a Barrie South Simcoe Unallocated 301300 0 (301300) Simcoe County Area Total 1021900 1221900 201000 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2007 Note: May not add. All figures rounded. Residential unit potential does not include intensification. The unit potential consists of: registered and draft approved plans; plans under review; and an estimated greenfield unit potential. Greenfield unit potential is estimated by Hemson Consulting Ltd, based on the area of vacant designated residential lands within settlement areas as provided by local municipalities (e.g. 50 ha) . This component of the residential supply is under review with the municipalities. HEMSON 17 IV EFFORTS WILL BE DIRECTED TO A NUMBER OF KEY TASKS IN THE COMING MONTHS During the fall of 2007, the efforts of the Steering Committee and its consultants will be directed towards six key tasks, the progress of which is vital to ensuring that the study process moves forward. They are summarized below. I. Determine the Community Structure for the Simcoe County Area, 2. Develop Policies For Lifestyle and Recreation -Based Housing, 3. Establish the Need, Location and Desired Characteris- tics of Employment land, 4. Identify the Implications of Growth on Municipal Finance, 5. Resolve Role of Separated Cities in Accommodating Growth, 6. Formulate a Stakeholder Involvement and Communica- tions Strategy Each of these tasks is described briefly in the following section. As several of them involve maj or effort, it may be appropriate to establish sub - committees to deal with some of the topics. The environment has not been identified as a key task at this stage in the study. The County of Simcoe has established a Greenlands system in the official plan, the fundamentals of which are appropriate for our current growth management purposes. The Greenlands system will be refined through the County official plan review, however, it is not anticipated that any major changes will be made. 1. Determine Community Structure for the Simcoe County Area The Growth Plan for the GGH provides a vision of how regions and communities should be developed. Part of the vision includes the development of growth allocations, identification of growth centres, establishment of density and intensification targets, and the goal of developing complete communities, among others. The Growth Plan also recognizes that in parts of the GGH outside the major urban areas, some aspects of the vision may not be appropriate. Specifically, it is acknowledged that the density and intensification targets may not be appropriate for all communities. The Growth Plan invites communities in the Outer Ring to enter in discussion with the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal if the suggested targets are not appropriate. HEMSON In • Additional technical works need to be undertaken to review the appropriateness of the intensification and density targets in the Simcoe County Area. Members of the Steering Committee have also indicated a desire to include healthy lifestyle considerations in the determination of future community structure. Additional work needs to be undertaken to determine how health and lifestyle considerations should be incorporated into the growth planning process. Appropriate documenta- tion will need to be prepared, should it be determined that the Minister will be approached to seek approval for alterna- tive density and intensification targets. 2. Develop Policies For Lifestyle and Recreation - Based Housing Many parts of the Simcoe County Area have a significant component of housing stock which would be classified as second homes or lifestyle and recreational housing. Commu- nities such as the Towns of Collingwood, Wasaga Beach and Innisfil and the Townships of Oro- Medonte, Ramara, Severn, Tay and Tiny have particularly high concentrations of these types of units. There is a stable demand for lifestyle and recreational housing, resulting from a strong provincial economy and an aging population. Since the traditional supply of lakeshore opportunities is not increasing, new opportunities for this type of development will be in the form of intensification of existing areas or development in new locations. The form of units is also changing with growing markets for multi -unit lifestyle and recreational developments. The distinction between permanent and non - permanent housing is also diminishing, as owners increasingly use their second homes throughout the year. Owners of second homes expect the full range of municipal services, including water and wastewater services. As a result, the implications of these units on the environment and municipal services are little different from permanent units. For some parts of the Simcoe County Area, the provision of services to the second home or recreation -based market is very important to the local economy and municipal corpora- tion. Some municipalities in Simcoe County have included specific policies in their official plan to encourage this type of development. HEMSON We The Growth Plan is silent on the issue of lifestyle and recreation -based housing and makes no allowance for these types of units in the forecast allocation. Policies that seek to generally restrict rural development will make the develop- ment of new lifestyle and recreation -based units difficult. A position needs to be taken on this important component of the Simcoe County Area economy and housing market. Discussions need to be held with the Province, and appropri- ate policies need to be developed 3. Establish the Need, Location and Desired Characteristics of Employment Land Simcoe municipalities would like to be able to provide more jobs and a better match of jobs between residents and employers. One of the key actions required to accomplish this task is to ensure that an adequate and appropriate supply of employment land exists. The Province has recognized the importance of employment land in the Growth Plan and is currently engaged in a review of employment land in the GGH. A similar review of employment land needs to be undertaken in the Simcoe County Area, within the context of the Provincial review, to determine the suitability of current employment land designations to accommodate growth. Tourism - related activities, and their implications for employment land need, also needs to be considered. 4. Identify Implications of Growth on Municipal Finance One of the topics that is frequently raised in community discussions of growth is the need for growth to alleviate fiscal pressure on municipalities. The following questions need to be addressed: • Is there a level of population or household growth that maintains the financial health of a community? • Is there an ideal ratio of industrial and commercial assessment that will result in less pressure on residential tax increases? • How does growth in one part of the Simcoe County Area result in changes to the fiscal health of others? A technical review will be undertaken to provide local decision - makers with the answers to these questions. 5. Resolve the Role of Separated Cities in Accommodating Growth A key component of developing a growth management strategy for the Simcoe County Area will be the resolution of two ongoing issues: • Firstly, the Province has committed to providing allocations of growth for each of the separated cities in Simcoe County Barrie and Orillia; and HEMSON 20 • Secondly, negotiations on the Barrie— Innisfil matter have yet to reach conclusion. Discussions are currently being held under the direction of the Office of the Provincial Facilitator. The committee needs to raise the profile of these issues and their importance to the completion of the area -wide growth management work. 6. Formulate a Stakeholder Involvement and Communications Strategy During the fall of 2007 opportunities for participation in the study process should be provided for the broader community. A community participation program consisting of the following key components should be developed: • Presentations of the Directions Report should be made to each municipal council in the Simcoe County Area, including the City of Barrie and Orillia, to engage them in the study process. • Opportunities should also be provided for input from organized interest groups, including: ratepayers, envi- ronmental groups, other community groups and mem- bers of the development community, • A series of public meetings should be held in various locations throughout the Simcoe County Area; and • In conjunction with County of Simcoe staff, a commu- nications strategy should be initiated to ensure a timely and fulsome sharing of information with the public. • The County website, newsletters, email, paid advertis- ing and other appropriate techniques should be used to communicate the results of the study. The County's goal is to update its official plan by June 2008, in order to assist local municipalities in meeting the Provinc- ial deadline of June 2009 for all official plans to come into conformity with the Growth Plan. In order to meet this target, the Growth Management Steering Committee will be proceeding with these tasks during the fall of 2007. Local municipalities, the public, and other interested stakeholders are encouraged to participate in the process. HEMSON 21 APPENDICES Employment Land Supply Residential Unit Supply Comparison of Local Official Plan and County Population Targets HEMSON APPENDIX A Employment Land Supply HEMSON August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities CURRENT ESTIMATED NET EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY BY MUNICIPALITY Serviced Unserviced Total Occupied Vacant Occupied Vacant Occupied Vacant Adjala- Tosorontio - 20 - - - 20 Barrie n/a 682 - - n/a 682 Bradford West Gwillumbury 106 202 - 64 106 266 Clearview 331 55 - - 331 55 Co I I i n gwood n/a 279 - - n/a 279 Essa - 35 44 138 44 173 Innisfil 199 180 - - 199 180 Midland 162 61 - 38 162 99 New Tecumseth 368 512 149 - 517 512 Ori I I is 480 2 - 219 480 221 Oro - Medonte n/a 37 - - n/a 37 Penetanguishene 33 26 - 31 33 57 Ramara 41 179 - - 41 179 Severn 125 99 - 76 125 175 Spri ngwater n/a 91 - - n/a 91 Tay 9 31 - 9 9 40 Tiny 45 56 - - 45 56 Wasaga Beach 2 26 - 18 2 44 Total 1,901 2,573 193 593 2,094 3,166 Source: Data supplied by municipal planning departments, with the exception of Barrie, Collingwood, Oro - Medonte and Springwater, which are based on the IGAP - Growth Potentials Assessment Report Note: For certain municipalities there exists significant differences between the supply provided by the municipalities and the vacant supply presented in other reports, particularly the IGAP report - Growth Potentials Assessment Report. Employment land supply will be reviewed further with local municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 APPENDIX B Residential Unit Supply HEMSON UNITS IN REGISTERED PLANS OF SUBDIVISION Single Semi Row Apartment Total Adjala- Tosorontio 36 - - - 36 Barrie 11421 73 491 908 2,893 Bradford West Gwillumbury 238 10 11 - 259 Clearview 221 - 11 - 232 Collingwood 491 - 726 182 1,399 Essa 509 366 284 - 1,159 Innisfil 991 66 236 143 1,436 Midland 184 6 15 218 423 New Tec u m seth - - 8 - 8 Ori I I is 99 59 135 53 346 Oro- Medonte 925 - - - 925 Penetangu ishene 118 6 20 - 144 Ramara 764 - - 9 773 Severn 362 - - - 362 Springwater 331 - - - 331 Tay 136 - 43 - 179 Tiny 31558 2 - - 3,560 Wasaga Beach 11075 - 180 - 1,255 Total 11,459 588 2,160 1,513 15,720 Source: All data supplied by local municipal planning departments, with the exception of Barrie which is based on IGAP data. Data is of mid -year (Census) 2006. Data has been adjusted using CMHC housing completion data. Note: Registered plans of subdivision includes all unbuilt units within recent registered plans of subdivision and all outsand i ng vacant lots. August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 UNITS IN DRAFT APPROVED PLANS OF SUBDIVISION Single Semi Row Apartment Total Adjala- Tosorontio 117 - - - 117 Barrie 21310 218 363 149 3,040 Bradford West Gwillumbury 21465 242 171 17 2,895 Clearview 207 - - 133 340 Col lingwood 1,185 - 365 339 1,889 Essa 637 306 169 - 1,112 Innisfil 11571 118 238 2 1,929 Midland 11031 - 704 283 2,018 New Tecumseth 31069 652 807 11051 5,579 Ori I I is 647 200 750 551 2,148 Oro- Medonte 11402 - 50 - 1,452 Penetanguishene 126 - 40 173 339 Ramara 43 - - - 43 Severn 47 - - - 47 Springwater 275 - 30 48 353 Tay 460 - - - 460 Tiny 119 - - - 119 Wasaga Beach 11051 - 151 190 1,392 Total 16,762 1,736 3,838 2,936 25,272 Source: All data supplied by local municipal planning departments, with the exception of Barrie which is based on IGAP data. Note: Includes all units under current draft approved plans of subdivision. August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 TOTAL UNITS IN REGISTERED AND DRAFT APPROVED PLANS Single Semi Row Apartment Total Adjala- Tosorontio 153 - - - 153 Barrie 31731 291 854 11057 5,933 Bradford West Gwillumbury 21703 252 182 17 3,154 Clearview 428 - 11 133 572 Col I i ngwood 11676 - 11091 521 3,288 Essa 11146 672 453 - 2,271 Innisfil 21562 184 474 145 3,365 Midland 11215 6 719 501 2,441 New Tecumseth 31069 652 815 11051 5,587 Ori I I is 746 259 885 604 2,494 Oro- Medonte 21327 - 50 - 2,377 Penetangu ishene 244 6 60 173 483 Ramara 807 - - 9 816 Severn 409 - - - 409 Spri ngwater 606 - 30 48 684 Tay 596 - 43 - 639 Tiny 31677 2 - - 3,679 Wasaga Beach 21126 - 331 190 2,647 Total 28,221 2,324 5,998 4,449 40,992 Source: All data supplied by local municipal planning departments, with the exception of Barrie which is based on IGAP data. August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Source: All data supplied by local municipal planning departments, with the exception of Barrie which is based on IGAP data. Note: Units in Plans under Review are all units currently under application for which no draft plan has been approved and which are located within a municipally designated settlement area. The specifc location of some plans under review were not provided and may be located outside of settlement area boundaries. Units by type were estimated for some plans under review, these estimations are subject to change. August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 UNITS IN PLANS UNDER REVIEW Single Semi Row Apartment Total Adjala- Tosorontio 797 180 117 170 1,264 Barrie 11345 130 667 - 2042 Bradford West Gwi I lumbury 11434 18 380 300 2,132 Clearview 41435 156 21247 329 7,167 Col I i ngwood 631 - 539 11063 2,233 Essa 355 154 135 - 644 Innisfi I 11063 72 457 102 1,694 Midland 245 - 218 360 823 New Tecumseth 231 - 16 - 247 Ori I I is 4 - 138 288 430 Oro- Medonte - - - - - Penetanguishene 125 2 35 96 258 Ramara 584 28 278 176 1,066 Severn 420 - 20 68 508 Springwater 11887 - 106 37 2,030 Tay 255 - 172 60 487 Tiny - - - - - Wasaga Beach 11375 44 443 806 2,668 Total 15,186 784 5,968 3,855 25,793 Source: All data supplied by local municipal planning departments, with the exception of Barrie which is based on IGAP data. Note: Units in Plans under Review are all units currently under application for which no draft plan has been approved and which are located within a municipally designated settlement area. The specifc location of some plans under review were not provided and may be located outside of settlement area boundaries. Units by type were estimated for some plans under review, these estimations are subject to change. August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities ESTIMATED UNIT CAPACITY OF VACANT DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL LAND WITH NO PLAN Prescribed Places to Grow Gross Vacant Potential Vacant Estimated 2021 Greenfield Required Unit Residential Land Residential Unit PPU Density Density Supply (ha) Capacity Ad j al a- Tosoronti o 2.79 50 17.9 144.6 2,591 Barrie 2.56 50 19.5 - - Bradford West Gwillumbury 2.83 50 17.7 212.7 3,758 Clearview 2.55 50 19.6 631.0 12,373 Collingwood 2.17 50 23.0 155.0 3,571 Essa 2.69 50 18.6 35.9 666 Innisfil 2.53 50 19.8 102.9 4,465 Midland 2.13 50 23.5 50.6 1,188 New Tecumseth 2.54 50 19.7 112.7 2,219 Ori I I is 2.22 50 22.5 100.1 2,253 Oro - Medonte 2.52 50 19.8 n/a 2,239 Penetanguishene 2.37 50 21.1 76.0 1,603 Ramara 2.33 50 21.5 321.8 6,906 Severn 2.39 50 20.9 n/a 106 Spri ngwater 2.69 50 18.6 22.0 409 Tay 2.33 50 21.5 194.4 4,171 Tiny 2.30 50 21.7 112.3 2,441 Wasaga Beach 2.24 50 22.3 231.0 5,156 Total 2.49 50 20.1 2,502.9 56,116 Source: Vacant residential land supply provided by local municipal planning departments. For Oro - Medonte and Severn the land area was not provided. Unit potential is based entirely on municipal recommendations For Innisfil, land areas for all vacant residential land within the municipality was not provided. Unit potential is based on both the calculation and municipal recommendations Note: Estimated 2021 Population Per Unit (PPU) is based on Hemson forecast population and occupied units for each municipality. Prescribed Places To Grow Greenfield Density is 50 people /jobs per gross hectare. For the purpose of this calculation it is assumed that no jobs will be located on any of the vacant residential land. Required Unit Denisty, is the number of units required per gross hectare to achive the prescribed Places to Grow greenfield Density. Gross Vacant Residential Land Supply is the total supply of residentially designated greenfield land located within municipal settlement areas. The specifc location of some vacant land areas was not provided and may be located outside of settlement area boundaries. Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Adjala - Tosorontio - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Everett - Adjala- Tosorantio AT -T -0103 Everett Draft Approved 51 0 0 0 51 Rural - Adjala - Tosorantio AT -T -0501 Tioga Draft Approved 22 0 0 0 22 AT -T -95004 Loretto Draft Approved 27 0 0 0 27 AT -T -01002 Glencairn Draft Approved 17 0 0 0 17 Subtotal - Units Under Application 117 0 0 0 117 B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Everett - Adjala- Tosorantio AT -T -0502 Everett Proposed /Pending 261 180 0 0 441 Rural - Adjala- Tosorantio AT -T -0601 Colgan - Waylan Farms Proposed /Pending 315 0 0 0 315 AT- T -07 -01 Manors of Colgan Proposed /Pending 221 117 170 508 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 797 180 117 170 1,264 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density Potential Unit Potential Unit Non Gross (all unit types) Yield Yield (Places Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Total Designated Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) ** Everett - Adjala- Tosorantio Everett 106.6 0 86.6 10 66 1,910 Rural - Adjala- Tosorantio Colgan 4 0 4 8 32 72 Lisle 7 0 7 5 35 125 Loretto Heights 18 0 18 5 90 323 Hockley 9 0 9 3 27 161 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 144.6 0 124.6 6.2 250 2,591 D. Total Unit Capacity (not including intensification) 3,972 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Barrie - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Barrie -IGAP (Water Service Capacity) Registered Draft Approved 1,932 2,310 105 218 602 363 920 149 3,559 3,040 Subtotal - Units Under Application 4,242 323 965 1,069 6,599 B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Barrie -IGAP (Water Service Capacity) Pending 1,345 130 667 - 2,142 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 1,345 130 667 - 2,142 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Community Location Total Designated Area Non Developable Land Area Gross Developable Land Area Gross Density (all unit types) (Municipal Estimate) Potential Unit Yield (Municipal Estimate) Potential Unit Yield (Places to Grow Density)* IBarrie-IGAP (Water Service Capacity) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 D. Total Unit Capacity 8,741 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposec, Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Bradford -West Gwillumbury - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Bradford - Bradford -West Gwillumbury 51 M -875 Brookfield Phase 1 Registered 99 10 0 0 109 51 M -827 Charter - Countryside Ph 2. Stg 2 Registered 11 0 0 0 11 51 M -770 Charter - Countryside Ph 2. Stg 1 Registered 2 0 0 0 2 51 M -755 Mod -Aire - Southfield Ph 2 Registered 8 0 0 0 8 51 M -708 Charter - Countryside Ph.1 Registered 4 0 0 0 4 51 M0610 Noble Drive Extension Registered 2 0 0 0 2 51 m -571 Wilbak Registered 1 0 0 0 1 51 M -301 Hulst /Gres Registered 3 0 0 0 3 Bradview Homes Registered 0 0 11 0 11 SP -03 -06 Ferragine Draft Approved 0 0 0 17 17 S -04 -02 Brookfield Draft Approved 799 12 0 0 811 S -05 -01 FNB Draft Approved 377 0 171 0 548 S -05 -03 Christina Homes Draft Approved 26 40 0 0 66 S -05 -07 Countryside Ph 3 Draft Approved 8 0 0 0 8 S -06 -01 Southfield Ph 4 Draft Approved 56 0 0 0 56 S -06 -04 Great Gulf Draft Approved 985 190 0 0 1,175 Rural - Bradford -West Gwillumbury 51 M -649 Viewpoint Estates Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51 M -576 Golfview Phase 2 Registered 10 0 0 0 10 51 M0515 Polaris Restorations Ph 1 Registered 4 0 0 0 4 51 M -460 Arthur Evans Registered 1 0 0 0 1 51 M -423 Golfview Phase 1 Registered 6 0 0 0 6 51 M -337 Grandview Estates Registered 3 0 0 0 3 S -03 -01 Polaris Restorations Ph 2 Draft Approved 6 0 0 0 6 BWG -T -93015 Marlucor Draft Approved 28 0 0 0 28 BWG -T -90002 Prime Bond Head Draft Approved 117 0 0 0 117 BWG -T -90001 Reda Draft Approved 63 0 0 0 63 Subtotal - Units Under Application 2,619 252 182 17 3,070 Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Cont'd Bradford -West Gwillumbury - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Bradford - Bradford -West Gwillumbury BWG -T -0201 Bronze Court Extension Proposed 17 0 0 0 17 BWG -T -0001 Northgate Heights Proposed 0 0 178 300 478 Taucar Proposed 0 0 30 0 30 S -03 -02 Dykie Proposed 246 0 0 0 246 S -0505 Clute /Stell Proposed 271 18 73 0 362 S -06 -02 Southglen Holdings Proposed 8 0 99 0 107 S -06 -03 Bea rsfield /Triple -R -Ranch Proposed 765 0 0 0 765 S -06 -05 National Homes Proposed 127 0 0 0 127 Rural - Bradford -West Gwillumbury Subtotal - Proposed Developments 1,434 18 380 300 2,132 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density Potential Unit Potential Unit Non Gross (all unit types) Yield Yield (Places Total Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) ** Bradford - Bradford -West Gwillumbury CPA 1 Bradford 64 64 4.3 275 1,131 CPA 2 Bradford 0 0 0 - - CPA 3 Bradford 3.4 3.4 10.9 37 60 CPA 4 Bradford 13.9 13.9 19.7 274 246 CPA 5 Bradford 17.4 17.4 5.4 94 307 Rural - Bradford -West Gwillumbury Bond Head Bond Head 114 114 9.8 1,117 2,014 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 213 - 213 1,797 3,758 D. Total Unit Capacity 8,960 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Clearview - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipalities A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved; Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Creemore - Clearview Creemore Mary Street Registered 5 0 0 0 5 Creemore Maclntosh Draft Approved 0 0 0 72 72 Stayner - Clearview Stayner Zancor Registered 35 0 0 0 35 Stayner Sage /Atkinson Registered 38 0 0 0 38 Stayner Tetamex Registered 0 0 11 0 11 Stayner Donato Registered 13 0 0 0 13 Stayner Sidell Registered 12 0 0 0 12 Stayner Emarald Creek Draft Approved 103 0 0 61 164 Stayner Roucco Draft Approved 27 0 0 0 27 New Lowell New Lowell Clearview River Registered 2 0 0 0 2 New Lowell Rice Group Draft Approved 47 0 0 0 47 Brentwood Brentwood Capucitti Draft Approved 30 0 0 0 30 Rural - Clearview Coll ingwoodlands Registered 10 0 0 0 10 Kuchar Registered 3 0 0 0 3 Windrose Registered 43 0 0 0 43 North Ten Registered 10 0 0 0 10 Subtotal - Units Under Application 378 0 11 133 522 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Cont'd Clearview - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipalities B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Creemore - Clearview Alliance Proposed 155 14 88 241 498 Stayner - Clearview Regina -North Stayner Proposed 55 0 0 0 55 Centre St. Proposed 42 0 0 0 42 Margaret Street Proposed 104 0 0 0 104 Storey Proposed 32 0 0 0 32 Dancor Proposed 294 142 554 66 1,056 Nottawa Nottawa DelZotto ** Proposed 1,838 788 2,625 Nottawa School House Proposed 0 0 0 22 22 New Lowell New Lowell DelZotto ** Proposed 1,348 578 1,925 Old Sunnindale Old Sunnindale Windatt Proposed 8 0 0 0 8 Rural - Clearview Osler Recreation District ** Proposed 560 240 800 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 4,435 156 2,247 329 7,167 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density Potential Unit Potential Unit Non Gross (all unit types) Yield Yield (Places Total Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) * ** Creemore - Clearview Creemore 76 0 76 18 1,368 1,490 Stayner- Clearview Stayner 278 0 278 18 5,004 5,451 Nottawa Nottawa 102 0 102 18 1,836 2,000 New Lowell New Lowell 175 0 175 18 3,150 3,431 Rural - Clearview Other (Settlement) 84 0 84 18 1,764 - Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 715 0 715 90 13,122 12,373 D. Total Unit Capacity 20,062 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Assumed a unit split of 70% singles and 30% Rows. * ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities ollingwood - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality E A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Collingwood 593 Hurontario St Registered 0 0 0 12 12 Georgian Green Registered 0 0 174 0 174 Georgian Meadows Ph4 Registered 47 0 0 0 47 Findlay Community Registered 141 0 0 0 141 Riverside Registered 127 0 340 0 467 The Shipyards Registered 0 0 0 0 0 Raglan Village Registered 0 0 0 170 170 Blue Shores Registered 26 0 0 0 26 Georgian Meadows Ph3 Registered 20 0 0 0 20 Brandy Lane Homes Registered 0 0 136 0 136 Mair Mills Estates Registered 7 0 12 0 19 Cranberry* Draft Approved 0 0 107 321 428 Charis Developments Draft Approved 24 0 0 0 24 Todcoe Draft Approved 109 0 80 0 189 Black Ash Meadows Draft Approved 200 0 64 0 264 Denbok Draft Approved 84 0 0 0 84 Tepco Holdings Draft Approved 374 0 0 0 374 Pretty River Estates Draft Approved 217 0 0 0 217 Sunvista Homes Draft Approved 72 0 0 0 72 Georgian Meadows Draft Approved 105 0 0 0 105 Tanglewood Draft Approved 0 0 89 18 107 Georgian Meadows Draft Approved 0 0 25 0 25 Subtotal - Units Under Application 1,553 - 1,027 521 3,101 Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Cont'd Collingwood - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Collingwood Consulate Development Proposed 39 0 144 206 389 Anchorage Developments Proposed 0 0 28 0 28 Mair mills Proposed 124 0 82 0 206 Helen Court Proposed 63 0 78 111 252 Eden Oak Proposed 336 0 0 0 336 The Victoria Annex Proposed 10 0 0 9 19 St.Paul Street Proposed 0 0 0 36 36 The Shipyards ** Proposed 0 0 172 525 697 Mair Mills Estates Proposed 59 0 0 0 59 Georgian Traditions Proposed 0 0 0 36 36 Admiral Collingwood Place Proposed 0 0 0 140 140 Balsam Street Proposed 0 0 3 0 3 Cranberry Marsh Proposed 0 0 32 0 32 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 631 0 539 1063 2,233 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density Potential Unit Potential Unit Non Gross (all unit types) Yield Yield (Places Total Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) * ** Collingwood Spread 155 0 155 3,571 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 155 0 155 3,571 D. Total Unit Capacity 8,905 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Estimated unit split of 75% apartments and 25% Rows * ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Essa - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Thornton - Essa ET- 87074/ET -0402 Thornton Hills Registered 17 0 0 0 17 ET -0202 Thornton Meadows Registered 24 0 0 0 24 ET -0502 Sunset Estates Draft Approved 17 0 0 0 17 Angus - Essa 43T -89023 Angus Terrace Registered 81 0 0 0 81 43T -91011 Stonemount Registered 258 366 257 0 881 Angus Meadows Registered 30 0 0 0 30 Et -96006 Riverview Draft Approved 175 118 76 0 369 ET -0401 Brownley Meadows Draft Approved 201 118 54 0 373 ET -0503 Queensgate Draft Approved 163 0 0 0 163 43T -94007 Victoria Village Draft Approved 68 70 39 0 177 Rural - Essa 43T -99015 Utopia Village Registered 20 0 0 0 20 ET -0201 Guergis- Baxter Draft Approved 13 0 0 0 13 ET -0301 Ridgehill Estates Registered 20 0 0 0 20 Subtotal - Units Under Application 1,087 672 426 0 2,185 Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Cont'd Essa - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Thornton - Essa Angus - Essa ET -0603 Aramis Proposed 0 0 95 0 95 ET -0701 Essa Developments Proposed 95 114 40 0 249 Maple Lane Proposed 0 40 0 0 40 ET -0601 Alset Developments Proposed 60 0 0 0 60 Rural - Essa ET -0702 Egbert Estates ** Proposed 20 0 0 0 20 ET -0702 Baxter Estates Proposed 200 0 0 0 200 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 375 154 135 0 664 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density (all Potential Unit unit types) Potential Unit Yield (Places Total Designated Non Developable Gross Developable (Municipal Yield (Municipal to Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) * ** Thornton - Essa Angus - Essa Mcmaster 23.71 3.56 20.15 15 302 441 308487 Ontario 12.14 3.64 8.5 30 254 226 Rural - Essa Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 35.85 7.2 28.65 45 556 666 D. Total Unit Capacity 3,515 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Proposed, outside of designated settlement area. Not included in tables within main report or summary Appendix B tables. * ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Innisfil - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)' Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Cookstown - Innisfil 43T -T -98005 Belpark Construction Draft Approved 88 0 0 0 88 Letzia Homes Draft Approved 24 0 0 0 24 Mondolo Draft Approved 37 0 0 0 37 Cooks Town Estates Draft Approved 85 0 0 0 85 Vacant Lots Registered 6 0 0 0 6 Stroud - Innisfill Vacant Lots Registered 5 0 0 0 5 Robertson Draft Approved 50 0 0 0 50 Alcona - Innisfil 51 M -660 Letizia Homes Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51 M -643 Skivereen Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51 M -866 Woodland Park Registered 200 0 84 0 284 51M -605 Maple Lane Phl Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51 M -701 Maple Lane Ph2 Registered 66 0 0 0 66 51 M -854 Maple Lane Ph3 Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51M- 712,753,713,852 Previn Court Ph 1 &2 Registered 196 0 93 143 432 51M763 Innisbrook Phl Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51M786 Green Acres Phl Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51 M -836 Tepco /Monarch Registered 120 0 0 0 120 43T -96004 Beacon Ridge Homes Draft Approved 10 0 0 0 10 43T -90014 CPM Developments Innisfil by the Lake Draft Approved 11 0 0 0 11 I -T -0003 Previn Court Ph 1&2 Draft Approved 195 96 22 2 315 D12 -38 I -T -03003 Pratt Alcona North Draft Approved 197 22 76 0 295 I -T -96005 Pratt Alcona East Draft Approved 57 0 48 0 105 I -T -0401 Alcona South Draft Approved 204 0 20 0 224 I -T -91049 Alcona Downs Ph.1 Draft Approved 155 0 26 0 181 51 M -854 & 879 Maple Lanes /Wallace Registered 22 0 38 0 60 51M -876 Green Acres Ph2 Registered 92 64 21 0 177 I -T -02003 Innisbrook Ph2 Draft Approved 86 0 0 0 86 I -T -87046 Orsi /M.Konczewski Draft Approved 308 0 46 0 354 Vacant Lots Registered 22 0 0 0 22 Gilford I -t -88050 Inisgreen Estates Draft Approved 50 0 0 0 50 Rural - Innisfil Vacant Lots Registered 106 0 0 0 106 IT -0402 Neilly Draft Approved 14 0 0 0 14 Subtotal - Units Under Application 2,406 182 474 145 3,207 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Cont'd Innisfil - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Cookstown - Innisfil VSDI Proposed 53 0 0 0 53 Stroud - Innisfill Alcona - Innisfil D12 -12 & 32 Alcona Downs Ph. 2 &3 Proposed 204 72 151 0 427 D12 -23 Estates of Alcona Proposed 75 0 0 0 75 D12 -36 Sandy Trail Proposed 34 0 0 0 34 Rural - Innisfil Sandy Cove Mika Developments ** Proposed 611 0 306 102 1,019 Belle Ewart (I -T- 94002) Kirsh Alfred Street Proposed 18 0 0 0 18 Innisfil Heights Vacant Lots (under recent application) * ** Proposed 32 0 0 0 32 Kempenfelt Bay Shoreline Vacant Lots (under recent application) * ** Proposed 61 0 0 0 61 Chruchill Vacant Lots (under recent application) Proposed 18 0 0 0 18 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 1,106 72 457 102 1,737 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Applicatior Potential Gross Density Unit Yield Gross (all unit types) Potential Unit (Places to Total Designated Non Developable Developable (Municipal Yield (Municipal Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) * * ** Cookstown - Innisfil Stroud - Innisfill Stroud 22.41 15.68 2.21 35 443 Alcona - Innisfil Alcona (no Application) 763 763 Vacant Greenfield 3.06 2.14 25 54 60 Rural - Innisfil Estate Kempenfelt Bay Shoreline 6.1 4.27 2.21 9 - Estate Gilford Estate 11.18 7.83 2.21 17 221 Shoreline North (Sandycove) 34.69 24.28 16.5 401 686 Shoreline North (Sandycove) 118 118 Lefroy 1,550 1,550 Belle Ewart 5.45 3.81 16.5 63 108 Belle Ewart 6.47 4.53 11 50 128 Churchill 19.65 13.76 2.21 30 388 Kempenfelt Bay Shoreline 7.67 5.37 2.21 12 - Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 116.68 81.67 80.05 3,101 4,465 D. Total Unit Capacity 9,409 ® i nere are smaii aiscrepencies in the numaer of units in registerea plans Detween tnese aetaiiea taDies ana tnose containea in the main report ana the summary Hppenaix is tames. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. * *Estimated unit split of 60% singles, 30% Rows and 10% apartments * ** Proposed, outside of designated settlement area. Not included in tables within main report or summary Appendix B tables. * * ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Midland - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Midland - Midland Aberdeen Bldv. Midland Shores Inc. Draft Approved 145 - - - 145 Aberdeen Bldv. Midland Shores Inc. Draft Approved 61 - - 104 165 Aberdeen Bldv. Tiffiin By the Lake Draft Approved 47 - - - 47 Aberdeen Bldv. Tiffiin By the Lake Registered - - - 218 218 William Street /Bayshore Dr. Mundy's Harbour Registered - - 12 - 12 South Side Little Lake Hanson Lands ** Draft Approved 570 - 556 - 1,126 Shewfelt Cres. Little Lake Village Draft Approved - - 38 - 38 Shewfelt Cres. J.Stollar Registered 31 - - - 31 Cornell West J.Stollar Draft Approved 69 - - - 69 Whitney Cres. J.Stollar Registered 12 - - - 12 Fuller Ave. Christian Midprop Draft Approved 79 - 22 - 101 Marina Park Ave. Marina Park Resort Draft Approved - - - 55 55 Marina Park Ave. Marina Park Resort ** Draft Approved 60 - 88 124 272 Rural - Midland Subtotal - Units Under Application 1,074 - 716 501 2,291 B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Midland - Midland Sunnyside Drive Bayport Proposed 60 0 177 330 567 Birchwood Drive Raymond Niccolini Proposed 0 0 0 30 30 William Street Georgian Bay Landing II Proposed 0 0 41 0 41 Pratt Avenue Pratt Developments Proposed 185 0 0 0 185 Rural - Midland Subtotal - Proposed Developments 245 0 218 360 823 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density Potential Potential Unit Non Gross (all unit types) Unit Yield Yield (Places Total Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Designated Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) * ** Midland - Midland Midland 50.6 0 50.6 15 759 1,188 Rural - Midland Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 50.6 0 50.6 15 759 1,188 D. Total Unit Capacity 4,302 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Estimated unit split of 70% singles and 30% rows * ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities New Tecumseth - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Tottenham - New Tecumseth 43T -95011 Six Nights Draft Approved 294 72 85 108 559 43T -95012 Nordstar Draft Approved 200 234 60 110 604 43T -95017 Mod - Aire /Interphase Draft Approved 224 224 41 143 632 Beeton - New Tecumseth 43T -97012 Dipoce Draft Approved 104 - - - 104 Alliston - New Tecumseth 43T NT -T -97010 Schickendanz Draft Approved 173 - 62 - 235 43T -97009 Mattamy Draft Approved 367 - 59 - 426 43T Nt -T -99013 Rivers Edge P2 Draft Approved 363 - 15 - 378 43T NT -T -99012 Rizzardo Draft Approved 309 - 51 411 771 Nt -T -00004 Town Lands' Draft Approved 134 - 26 75 235 NT -T- 030001 Alliston Horizons Draft Approved 21 - - - 21 NT -T- 030006 Rizzardo (east) Draft Approved 133 122 100 - 355 NT -T -03004 Beamish Draft Approved 60 - - - 60 Registered - 8 - 8 Rural - New Tecumseth 43T -95030 Briar Hill Draft Approved 177 - - 204 381 43T (NT -T- 990009 Briar Hill West Draft Approved 510 - 308 - 818 Subtotal - Units Under Application 3,069 652 815 1,051 5,587 Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Cont'd New Tecumseth - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Tottenham - New Tecumseth Beeton - New Tecumseth Alliston - New Tecumseth NT -T -04001 Mattamy Ltd Proposed 35 - - - 35 Nt -T -05002 Lottco II Ltd Proposed 196 - 16 - 212 Rural - New Tecumseth Nt -T -03002 Belterra ** Proposed 1,252 358 338 - 1,948 NT -T -03003 Hawthorne Glen ** Proposed 310 197 48 90 645 NT -T -05001 Vienneau ** Proposed 11 - - - 11 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 1,804 555 402 90 2,851 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density Potential Potential Unit Non Gross (all unit types) Unit Yield Yield (Places Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Total Designated Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) * ** Tottenham - New Tecumseth Beeton - New Tecumseth 39.7 23 16.7 781 Alliston - New Tecumseth Rural - New Tecumseth Briar Hill 73 73 1,437 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 112.7 23 89.7 0 0 2,219 D. Total Unit Capacity 10,657 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Proposed, outside of designated settlement area. Not included in tables within main report or summary Appendix B tables. * ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Orillia - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Orillia Stone Ridge - Hwy 11 Ph.1 Registered 31 57 130 0 218 338 -356 Hilda Street Registered 16 0 0 0 16 478 Regent Street Registered 0 0 0 0 0 4501 Uhthoff Line Draft Approved 125 46 0 0 171 530 -540 Gill Street /Victoria Draft Approved 0 0 14 0 14 10 Invermara Ct Draft Approved 0 0 41 0 41 19 Orchard Park Draft Approved 0 0 22 0 22 Stone Ridge - Hwy 11 Draft Approved 522 154 673 551 1,900 Subtotal - Units Under Application 694 257 880 551 2,382 B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Orillia 32 -42 Bond Street Proposed 4 0 0 0 4 456 Forest Ave Proposed 0 0 0 24 24 591 Sundial Drive Proposed 0 0 32 0 32 85 Fittons Rd. W. Proposed 0 0 7 60 67 80 Orchard Pt. 63 Clifford Proposed 0 0 0 106 106 151 Cedar Island Proposed 0 0 10 0 10 21A james St. E Proposed 0 0 70 0 70 9 Westmount Proposed 0 0 19 0 19 354 Atherley Road Proposed 0 0 0 98 98 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 4 0 138 288 430 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density Potential Unit Potential Unit Non Gross (all unit types) Yield Yield (Places Total Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) ** Orillia 827 Memorial 1.05 1.05 80 84 24 50 Woodland Dr 1.2 1.2 80 96 27 845 Memorial 15.8 15.8 25 395 356 Remainder Stone Ridge 82 0 82 18 1,500 1,847 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 100.1 0 100.1 2,075 2,253 D. Total Unit Capacity 5,065 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Oro - Medonte - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Horseshoe Valley - Oro - Medonte Vacant Lots Regsitered 186 186 Valdor Draft Approved 137 137 Sabiston Draft Approved 83 83 Buffalo Springs Draft Approved 230 230 HRC ** Draft Approved 480 50 530 Timberidge Draft Approved 250 250 Rural - Oro - Medonte Vacant Lots - Hamlets Registered 132 132 Homire - Hamlet Draft Approved 28 28 Smith - Hamlet Draft Approved 55 55 Johnson - Hamlet Draft Approved 30 30 Bachly - Hamlet Draft Approved 41 41 Thatcher - Hamlet Draft Approved 21 21 Vacant Lots - Shoreline Registered 276 276 Estate Residential- Vacant Lots Registered 69 69 Houben Draft Approved 26 26 Kovacs Draft Approved 21 21 Rural Vacant Lots Registered 200 200 Subtotal - Units Under Application 2,265 - 50 - 2,315 Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Cont'd Oro - Medonte - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Horseshoe Valley - Oro - Medonte Rural - Oro - Medonte UCCI - Shoreline Proposed 40 40 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 40 0 0 0 40 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Potential Gross Density Potential Unit Unit Yield Total Non Gross (all unit types) Yield (Places to Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) * * ** Horseshoe Valley -Oro- Medonte Village 1,000 N/A S.W. Corner 140 N/A Rural - Oro - Medonte Warmister 108 N/A Moonstone 60 N/A East Oro 22 N/A Oro Station 9 N/A Craighurst 600 N/A Hawkeston 300 N/A Moonpoint * ** 14 N/A Cooke * ** 3 N/A Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 0.0 0 0.0 2,256 D. Total Unit Capacity 4,594 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Estimated unit split is 90% singles and 10% rows ** *Vacant residential land outside of designated settlement areas. Not included in tables within main report or summary Appendix B tables. * * ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on municipal estimates of unit yield as land area was not provided. Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Penetanguishene - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Penetanguishene (as of year end 2006) Plan 1536 Brule Heights Registered 1 0 0 0 1 Plan 1681 Brule Heights Ph.2 Registered 5 0 0 0 5 Plan 51 M -113 Rolling Sands Estates Registered 2 0 0 0 2 51 M -213 Scave Investments Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51 M -226 Tannery Cove Registered 6 0 0 0 6 51 M -328 Martin Marchildon Registered 10 0 0 0 10 51 M -356 Bridlewood Meadows Registered 4 0 0 0 4 51 M -376 Golbert Robillard Registered 3 0 0 0 3 51 M -424 Cosher Properties Registered 3 0 0 0 3 51 M -543 LSD /Church St. Meadows Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51 M -616 Southgate Hills Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51 M -387 Odd Jobbers Registered 3 0 0 0 3 51 M -392 Forestdale Registered 9 0 0 0 9 51 M -441 Gilwood Registered 9 0 0 0 9 51 M -653 John Fink Registered 5 0 0 0 5 51 M -697 Southgate South Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51 M -715 Southgate South Registered 0 0 0 0 0 51 M -740 Southgate South Registered 9 0 0 0 9 51 R -27538 Registered 4 0 0 0 4 PT -T -0002 Donald Charlebois Draft Approved 17 0 0 0 17 43T -91048 Sherco Properties Draft Approved 73 0 0 0 73 43T -92012 Champlain Woods Draft Approved 36 0 0 173 209 White Water Holdings Draft Approved 0 0 40 0 40 43 -CD -98001 Summerhaven PH1,2,3,4 Registered 16 0 20 0 36 Subtotal - Units Under Application 215 0 60 173 448 B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Penetanguishene Parkbridge Communities Proposed 125 0 0 0 125 Manel Investments Proposed 0 2 15 0 17 Desrochers Development Ltd. Proposed 0 0 0 16 16 Georgian Manor Redevelopment Proposed 0 0 20 80 100 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 125 2 35 96 258 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Potential Gross Density Potential Unit Unit Yield Non Gross (all unit types) Yield (Places to Total Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) ** Penetanguishene 76.0 76.0 1,603 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 76.0 0 76.0 0 1,603 D. Total Unit Capacity 2,309 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based onP /aces to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Ramara - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved) Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Washago - Ramara Washago Registered 104 104 Atherley - Uptergrove - Ramara Atherley-U pterg rove Registered 130 130 Raseta Registered 8 8 Lagoon City - Ramara Lagoon City Registered 380 380 Concord Woods Registered 32 32 Brechin - Ramara Brechin Registered 20 20 Brechin Draft Approved 43 43 Longford Mills - Ramara Longford Mills Registered 4 4 Rural - Ramara Cooper's Falls Registered 3 3 Sebright Registered 8 8 Udney Registered 1 1 Gamebridge Registered 3 3 Orr Subdivision Registered 9 9 Subtotal - Units Under Application 737 0 0 8 745 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Cont'd Ramara - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Washago - Ramara Atherley - Uptergrove - Ramara Uptergrove Estates Pending 300 300 Highland Mills Proposed 52 52 Hendricks Proposed 98 98 Lagoon City - Ramara Concord Woods proposed 5 201 44 250 Harrington proposed 109 28 137 Lagoon City Holdings proposed 0 77 132 209 Veltri proposed 20 20 Rural - Ramara Subtotal - Proposed Developments 584 28 278 176 1,066 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density Potential Potential Unit Non Gross (all unit types) Unit Yield Yield (Places Total Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) * ** Washago - Ramara Washago 21.3 21.3 457 Atherley- Uptergrove - Ramara Atherpey-U pterg rove 152 152 3,262 Lagoon City - Ramara Brechin - Ramara Brechin 75 75 1,609 Longford Mills - Ramara Longford Mills 40 40 858 Rural - Ramara Coopers Fall's 4.3 4.3 92 Seabright 18.2 18.2 391 Udney ** 4.3 4.3 - Camebridge 11 11 236 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 326.1 0 326.1 0 0 6,906 D. Total Unit Capacity 8,717 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. * *Vacant residential land outside of designated settlement areas. Not included in tables within main report or summary Appendix B tables. * ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Severn - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Coldwater - Severn Reg. Plan M -370 Walters Subd. Registered 1 0 0 0 1 Reg.Plan M -432 Walters Subd. Registered 4 0 0 0 4 John St. Sheppards Bush Phase 3 Draft Approved 8 0 0 0 8 Caswell Creek Registered 8 0 0 0 8 Hawkins Corners - Cumberland Beach - Severn PT. Lot 4, Con.9 ND Timberline Phase 2 Registered 10 0 0 0 10 Rural - Severn Pt. Lot 7 Con 11 Morden Subd. Registered 22 0 0 0 22 Pt. Lot 6, Con. 11 Whidden Subd. Registered 17 0 0 0 17 Pt.Lot 19, Con. 14 Russell Subd. Registered 4 0 0 0 4 Reg. Plan M -62 Gloucester Est. Medonte Registered 5 0 0 0 5 Reg.Plan M -204 Heffner Subd. Registered 4 0 0 0 4 Pt. 2.Con. 1 ND Lloyd Subd. M -483 Registered 0 0 0 0 0 Pt. Lot 2 0 Con. 6 Napier Subd. M -407 Registered 2 0 0 0 2 PT. Lot 9, Con. 16 ND Watson Subd. M -509 Registered 6 0 0 0 6 Pt. Lot 9, Con. 16 ND Riverdale Drive Registered 1 0 0 0 1 Lot 11&12, Con.15 ND Robson Subd. Registered 0 0 0 0 0 Pt. Lot 2, Con. 8 ND mcGregor Marine Registered 1 0 0 0 1 Pt. Lot 1 &2, Con.1 SD Kitchen /Birkshire Woods Registered 2 0 0 0 2 Plan M -218, M -276 Heathwood Estates Registered 3 0 0 0 3 Pt.Lot 3,4, Con.4 SD Orsi Golf Course M -489 Registered 3 0 0 0 3 Pt.Lot 2, Con 1 SD Key Investments Draft Approved 39 0 0 0 39 Pt.Lot 1 &2, Con.7 SD Stoutt /Groom Subd. Registered 1 0 0 0 1 Lot 14 &15, Con.14 ND Doner Developments M -55z Registered 3 0 0 0 3 Pt. Lot 2, Con.1 North River Registered 4 0 0 0 4 Pt.1 &2, Con.6 Sd Silver Creek Estates Registered 0 0 0 0 0 Pt.LOt2 &3, Con.2 North Ridge Registered 91 0 0 0 91 Pt. 2 Con 1 ND Basaraba Registered 20 0 0 0 20 Pt Lot 1, Con 1 SD Tri -J Registered 26 0 0 0 26 Pt. Lot 2 Lewis Registered 3 0 0 0 3 Plan M -242 Southside Estates Registered 9 0 0 0 9 Pt Lot 11&12 Con 15 Pine Cone Trail Registered 26 0 0 0 26 Subtotal - Units Under Application 323 0 0 0 323 Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Cont'd Severn - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Coldwater - Severn Shaw St Shaw Street Proposed 16 0 20 0 36 Railway Lands Brandon Townhouses Proposed 15 0 0 0 15 Hawkins Corners - Cumberland Beach - Severn Pt 6, Con 11 ND Simcoe Estates Proposed 160 0 0 0 160 Blk C Plan 1233 Van Amelsvoort Proposed 22 0 0 0 22 Blk B Plan 1233 Van Amelsvoort Proposed 8 0 0 0 8 West Shore - Severn Blk B Plan 820 (outside of Ardtrea) Woodlee Proposed 26 0 0 0 26 Pt. Lot 2, Con 9 (outside of Ardtrea) Simcoe Estates Proposed 152 0 0 68 220 Rural - Severn PT Lot 2, Con. 1 ND (Marchmont) Royal Heights Proposed 21 0 0 0 21 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 420 0 20 68 508 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Potential Gross Density Potential Unit Unit Yield Non Gross (all unit types) Yield (Places to Total Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) ** Westshore Area N/A N/A 106 N/A Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 0 0 0 0 106 106 D. Total Unit Capacity 937 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on municipal estimates of unit yield as land area was not provided. Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Springwater - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved) Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Midhurst - Springwater Carson Ridge Estates Draft Approved 51 51 Elmvale - Springwater Elmvale Meadows Ph2 Registered 134 134 Stone /Coughlin Draft Approved 18 18 Woods /Beacock Draft Approved 12 12 Woods /Beacock Draft Approved 48 48 Wye River Estates Draft Approved 43 43 Wye River Estates Draft Approved 28 28 Gallo Draft Approved 78 78 Rural - Springwater Minesing Meadow Registered 32 32 Ravines of Matheson Registered 35 35 Shamrock Meadows Registered 38 38 Scarlett Line Draft Approved 15 15 Tenac Ridge Estates Draft Approved 15 15 Royal Oaks Draft Approved 45 45 Subtotal - Units Under Application 514 0 30 48 592 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Cont'd Springwater - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Midhurst - Springwater Midhurst East Group Proposed 0 Midhurst Northeast Group Proposed 559 559 Innisbrook Gardens Proposed 5 5 Semeniuk Proposed 8 8 Carson Road Pending 378 378 Carson Road Estates Pending 33 33 Elmvale - Springwater Elmvale North Proposed 0 50 50 Gallo P2 Proposed 75 75 Heritage Village Condo Proposed 0 50 14 64 Estates of Elmvale Glen Proposed 75 75 Kerr St. Apartments Proposed 0 6 6 Train Avenue Proposed 0 0 23 23 Rural - Springwater Estates of Anten Mills Proposed 110 110 Fergusonvale Fergusonvale Estates ** Proposed 12 12 Rural 619108 Ontario ** Proposed 9 9 Rural Kay -Ci Farms ** Proposed 11 11 Fergusonvale Maple Ridge Subdividion ** Proposed 20 20 Heritage Village of Hillsdale Proposed 348 348 Rural Spring Lakes ALC ** Proposed 306 118 96 280 800 Centra Vespra Proposed 246 246 Snow Valley Seadon Road Extension Proposed 10 10 Snow Valley Highlands Proposed 7 7 Snow Valley Community Lands Proposed 8 8 Anten mills Lumsden Pending 25 25 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 2,245 118 202 317 2,882 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density Potential Unit Potential Unit Total Non Gross (all unit types) Yield Yield (Places Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) Midhurst - Springwater 16 12 4 297 Elmvale - Springwater 2 1 1 37 Rural - Springwater Hillsdale 4 0 4 74 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 22 0 9 0 0 409 E. Total Unit Capacity 3,883 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. * Proposed, located outside of designated settlement area. Not included in tables within main report or summary Appendix B tables. * ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Tay - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)' Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Port McNicol - Tay Skyline Port McNicoll Draft Approved 52 0 0 0 52 Victoria Harbour - Tay Huron Bay Registered 23 0 0 0 23 Wycliffe Georgian Landing Registered 0 0 40 0 40 Riverdale Registered 4 0 0 0 4 Huron Bay Draft Approved 36 0 0 0 36 Heights of Victoria Harbour Draft Approved 118 0 0 0 118 Riverdale Draft Approved 17 0 0 0 17 Victoria Glen Draft Approved 80 0 0 0 80 Victoria Woods Draft Approved 108 0 0 0 108 Waubaushen - Tay Rural - Tay Windemere Registered 43 0 0 0 43 Waverley Waverley Heights Draft Approved 31 0 0 0 31 Waverley Waverley Estates Draft Approved 18 0 0 0 18 Subtotal - Units Under Application 530 0 40 0 570 B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Port McNicol - Tay Skyline Port McNicoll Proposed 0 0 45 60 105 Victoria Harbour - Tay Sterling Rose Proposed 69 0 0 0 69 Verandas Golf Course Proposed 186 0 127 0 313 Waubaushen - Tay Rural - Tay Subtotal - Proposed Developments 255 0 172 60 487 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Applicatior Gross Density Potential Unit Potential Unit Non Gross (all unit types) Yield Yield (Places Total Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) ** Victoria Harbour - Tay 25.38 4.1 21.28 10 -37 210 -790 545 Port McNicol - Tay 133.15 35.08 98.07 10 -37 980 -3,630 2,857 Waubaushen - Tay 14.86 0 14.86 10 -37 150 -550 319 Rural - Tay 21 0.75 20.25 10 -37 200 -750 451 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Applicatior 194.39 39.93 154.46 0 1,540 -5,720 4,171 D. Total Unit Capacity 5,228 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Tiny - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved)* Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Rural - Tiny Vacant Lots Registered 3,470 3,470 Montebello Beach Draft Approved 66 - - - 66 Westridge Draft Approved 15 - - - 15 Downer, Sharon & Sokol, Ernie Draft Approved 8 - - - 8 Ontario Potato District Draft Approved 15 - - - 15 Limo Investments Draft Approved 15 - - - 15 Subtotal - Units Under Application 3,589 - - - 3,589 B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Rural - Tiny 807828 Ontario ** Proposed 22 0 0 0 22 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 22 0 0 0 22 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Gross Density Potential Potential Unit Non Gross (all unit types) Unit Yield Yield (Places Total Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal to Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) * * ** Rural -Tiny Shoreline Designation * ** 695.6 695.6 677 - Country Residential * ** 38.1 38.1 45 - Toanche 46.5 46.5 162 1,011 Lafontaine 34.9 34.9 396 759 Perkinsfield 17.8 17.8 88 387 Wyevale 13.1 13.1 65 285 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 846.0 0 846.0 1433 2,441 D. Total Unit Capacity 6,052 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Proposed, located outside of a designated settlement area. Not included in tables within main report or summary Appendix B tables. ** *Vacant residential land outside of designated settlement areas. Not included in tables within main report or summary Appendix B tables. * ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Wasaga Beach - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality A. Units Under Application (Registered & Draft Approved) Application # Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Wasaga Beach 51M-192 Sunward Estates Registered 44 0 0 0 44 51 M -352 Blueberry Trails Phl Registered 5 0 0 0 5 51 M- 399/400 Blueberry Trails Phl Registered 5 0 0 0 5 51 M -385 County Club Estates Registered 12 0 0 0 12 51 M -250 Wasaga Sands Ph 1 Registered 7 0 0 0 7 51 M -299 Wasaga Sands Ph 2 Registered 27 0 0 0 27 51 M -398 Wasaga Sands Ph 3 Registered 5 0 0 0 5 51 m -496 McIntyre Creek Registered 80 0 0 0 80 51 m -440 Riverdale Woods Registered 3 0 0 0 3 51 M -442 Across Golf Course Registered 10 0 0 0 10 51 M -636 Coral Sunrise Registered 59 0 0 0 59 51 M -659 Trillium Forest Registered 17 0 0 0 17 51 M -761 Ann Arbour Registered 6 0 0 0 6 51 M -795 Pine Valley Registered 5 0 0 0 5 51 M -796 Marl Lake Registered 86 0 0 0 86 51 M -830 Donato Registered 10 0 0 0 10 51 M -847 Pine Valley West Registered 4 0 0 0 4 Park Place Ph 5 Registered 138 0 0 0 138 51 M -851 Wesley Avenue Registered 3 0 0 0 3 WA -CD -0401 Blue Water Canoe Club Registered 115 0 0 0 115 Wasaga Country Life Registered 32 0 0 0 32 Treetop Condos Registered 0 0 0 0 0 Beaver Run Estates Registered 0 0 50 0 50 51 M -798 Blueberry Village Phl Registered 0 0 41 0 41 51 R -31608 Wasaga Meadows Registered 0 0 24 0 24 Skydale Condos Registered 0 0 22 0 22 43T -90039 Christie Drive Draft Approved 49 0 0 0 49 WA -T -0101 Pine Valley Ph 5 Draft Approved 30 0 0 0 30 WA -T -0201 Baywood- Gateway Draft Approved 486 0 0 0 486 lantorno- Bell's Park Draft Approved 12 0 0 0 12 Donato Ramblewood Draft Approved 26 0 0 0 26 Regency Homes Draft Approved 56 0 0 0 56 Westbury Sub Draft Approved 193 0 0 0 193 Marocco Ramblewood Draft Approved 163 0 0 0 163 Ansley Grove Draft Approved 22 0 0 0 22 WA -T -0501 Stonebridge Draft Approved 14 0 118 118 250 Marlwood Condos Draft Approved 0 0 0 72 72 Blueberry Village Draft Approved 0 0 17 0 17 Sergautis Draft Approved 0 0 16 0 16 Subtotal - Units Under Application 1,724 - 288 190 2,202 August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 Cont'd Wasaga Beach - Residential Land Supply for Review by Local Municipality B. Proposed Developments Location Development Name Status Single Semi Row Apartment Total Wasaga Beach WA -T -0302 Donato Proposed 39 0 0 0 39 Train Sub Proposed 128 0 0 0 128 Optima Homes Proposed 45 0 0 0 45 Golfview Homes Proposed 122 0 0 0 122 Morgan Road Proposed 349 0 23 0 372 Sunnidale Trails Proposed 386 44 36 47 513 Devlin Proposed 17 0 36 0 53 Trillium Forest North Proposed 126 0 105 0 231 Arnill Pit - Marocco Proposed 40 0 0 40 80 Wasaga Country Life Proposed 123 0 0 0 123 Pier 24 Proposed 0 0 10 0 10 West Wasaga Dev. Proposed 0 0 94 239 333 Allistonia Dev. Proposed 0 0 27 0 27 Marocco Sunnidale Proposed 0 0 0 392 392 Beach House Resort Proposed 0 0 8 0 8 New England Village Proposed 0 0 96 0 96 Aqua Beach Residence Proposed 0 0 0 36 36 Vacca Proposed 0 0 8 0 8 Mollela 37th St. Proposed 0 0 0 52 52 Subtotal - Proposed Developments 1,375 44 443 806 2,668 C. Units on Designated Lands with No Application Potential Gross Density Potential Unit Unit Yield Non Gross (all unit types) Yield (Places to Total Designated Developable Developable (Municipal (Municipal Grow Community Location Area Land Area Land Area Estimate) Estimate) Density) Wasaga Beach Sunnidale Trails 194.8 91.2 0.0 2,142 4,348 Mosley Street West 36.2 36.2 808 Subtotal - Units on Designated Lands with No Application 231.0 0 127.4 2,142 5,156 D. Total Unit Capacity 10,026 * There are small discrepencies in the number of units in registered plans between these detailed tables and those contained in the main report and the summary Appendix B tables. The difference is the result of the need to provide supply estimates for the May 2006 Census date. ** Potential units on designated lands with no application are based on Places to Grow Density, municipal estimates of density and unit yield are provided only for comparative purposes August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipalities Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 APPENDIX C Comparison of Local Official Plan and County Population Targets HEMSON August 21, 2007 Subject To Review By Municipality PLANNED POPULATION POTENTIAL COMPARED TO SIMCOE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL PLAN ALLOCATIONS BY MUNICIPALITY Potential Population in Simcoe County Existing Total Registered Registered and Planned Official Plan Municipal Official Population and Draft 2006 Total Draft Approved Population Population Plan Population (2006) Approved Units PPUs Units Potential Allocations (2016) Forecats Adjala- Tosorontio 101695 153 3.0 462 11,157 131700 131700 (2016) Bradford West Gwillumbury 24,039 31154 3.0 91557 33,596 341400 471800 (2026) Clearview 141088 572 2.8 11607 15,695 16,700 181794 (2021) Collingwood 171290 31288 2.4 71760 25,050 181900 251935 (2021) Essa 161901 21271 3.0 61745 23,646 181400 221000 (NA) Innisfil 311175 31365 2.7 91186 40,361 401800 45,200 (201 1) Midland 161300 21441 2.4 51761 22,061 181985 n/a New Tecumseth 271701 51587 2.8 151420 43,121 321300 421400 (2021) Oro- Medonte 201031 21377 2.7 61513 26,544 251000 251000 (2016) Penetangu ishene 91354 483 2.7 11294 10,648 101640 101439 (2021) Ramara 91427 816 2.5 21032 11,459 121400 141900 (2026) Severn 121030 409 2.6 11063 13,093 151500 191400 (2026) Springwater 171456 684 2.9 21011 19,467 221600 n/a Tay 91748 639 2.5 11623 11,371 111175 111257 (2021) Tiny 101784 31679 2.5 91161 19,945 131100 321633 (2021) Wasaga Beach 151029 21647 2.4 61379 21,408 141400 351000 (NA) Barrie 128,430 51933 2.8 16,375 144,805 168,800 (Barrie & 175,000 Ori I I is 30,259 21494 2.5 6,160 36,419 Ori I I is combined) n/a Total 420,737 40,992 2.7 110,268 531,005 487,800 - Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., municipal planning departments and Statistics Canada Note: Existing Population is 2006 Census population, not including undercount. 2006 Total PPUs is the Population Per Unit based on 2006 Census population and total occupied units. The PPU is likely slightly overstated as there is a small component of the 2006 population that does not live in a household. Potential Population in Registered and Draft Approved Units is estimated by multiplying the total registered and draft approved units by the 2006 PPU. Planned population potential is the addition of the existing 2006 population and the potential population in registered and draft approved units Simcoe County Official Plan Population Allocations are prescribed for each muncipality within the County's most recent Official Plan, all for the year 2016. Municipal Official Plan Population Forecasts are stated by each municipality within their most recent Official Plans for various years. Official Plans for the City of Orillia, the Town of Midland and the Township of Springwater do not state future population capacities. Hemson Consulting Ltd. August 2007 DEVELOPING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE SIMCOE COUNTY AREA Township of Oro - Medonte September 19, 2007 Hemson Consulting Ltd. TODAY WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS I. Purpose of the Directions Report II. Key Conclusions Ill., Next Steps I. DIRECTIONS REPORT IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROCESS ■ Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe sets out a vision for growth to 2031 ■ Directions Report is the first step in developing an area -wide growth management strategy within the new Provincial policy context ■ The work is being carried out under direction of a Steering Committee of elected officials, including Cities of Barrie and Orillia I. NEW PROVINCIAL POLICIES HAVE MAJOR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SIMCOE AREA ■ Growth Plan sets out the forecasts to be used for long -range planning ■ Growth Plan also provides direction on how growth should be accommodated ■ Directions Report describes the implications of new Provincial policies and the key tasks to be undertaken as part of a Growth Management Strategy II., DISTRIBUTION OF FUTURE HOUSING GROWTH IS AN ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED ■ Area -wide, total supply of 123,000 residential units is sufficient to accommodate growth ■ When compared by municipality, however, there is a shortage of unit supply in the Barrie - South Simcoe Area ■ Some municipalities have become involved in processes for urban expansion, initiated prior to Growth Plan adoption II., RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND INTENSIFICATION TARGETS WILL NEED TO BE SET Single- Detached, Milton 2000s Net Density: 37 uph Estimated Growth Plan Density • ........... ........... ........... Semi - Detached, Markham 2000s Net Density: 48 uph Estimated Growth Plan Density Rowhouse, Oakville 1990s (with laneway) Net Density: 63 uph Estimated Growth Plan Density Rowhouse, Markham 2000s Net Density: 92 uph Estimated Growth Plan Density ' J� Jim uu g LC II., LOCATION OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT LAND NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED ■ An estimated 3,200 net ha of vacant employment land is designated ■ Supply and demand, however, may not be well matched by location ■ How much, what type and where employment land should be provided are key questions to be answered II., OTHER KEY POLICY ISSUES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED ■ Role of lifestyle and seasonal housing ■ Implications of growth on municipal finance ■ Role of the separated cities in accommodating growth II., SIX KEY TASKS NEED TO BE COMPLETED 1. Determine community structure for Simcoe County Area 2. Develop policies for lifestyle and recreation - based housing 3. Identify employment land needs 4. Identify implications of growth on municipal finance 5. Resolve role of separated cities 6. Formulate stakeholder involvement strategy III. SUB - COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN APPROVED TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES 1. Health and Lifestyles 2. Municipal Finance 3. Community Structure 4. Employment Land 5. Seasonal, Recreational and Institutional Housing III. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED ■ Presentation of Directions Report to municipal councils ■ Developer and organized interest forums ■ Public meetings ■ Working sessions with staff and senior management ■ Communication strategy has also been approved by County Council III. AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE TO BE FOLLOWED TO MEET GROWTH PLAN DEADLINE ■ Sub - committees need to reach conclusions by December 2007 ■ Draft Growth Management Strategy needs to be completed by March 2008 for review and consultation ■ Final report needs to be completed prior to June 2008 III. WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR VIEWS ON MOVING FORWARD ■ Province has instructed the Simcoe County Area to develop a local solution to growth management ■ A small number of key political decisions need to be made regarding future growth ■ Opportunity exists to demonstrate leadership and co- operation TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE ag :4 1 UYJ Dept. Report No. TR2007 -19 To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: Paul Gravelle Council C. of W. Motion # Date: Subject: Audit Services Department: Treasury Date: September 10, 2007 R.M. File #: Roll #: BACKGROUND: S. 296 of the Municipal Act states that a municipality shall appoint an auditor licenced under the Public Accounting Act, 2004 who is responsible for, a) Annually auditing the accounts and transactions of the municipality and its local boards and expressing an opinion on the financial statements of those bodies based on the audit b) Performing duties designated by the Minister c) Performing duties required by the municipality or local board, which do not conflict with the duties designated by the Minister The auditor of a municipality shall not be appointed for a term exceeding five years. The Township of Oro - Medonte has adopted a policy of appointing an auditor for the term of Council. In 2004, request for proposals were invited from audit firms performing municipal audits for County of Simcoe municipalities. The proposal of Gaviller & Company was accepted and they were appointed as auditors for the term of Council. Audit fees were $16,000, $16,800 and $17,600 for the fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively. There was also a $3,000 fee in 2004 relating to costs associated with familiarization with the municipality's accounting systems and procedures. Fees quoted by the other auditing firms that submitted proposals ranged from $21,500 to $23,000 for the three -year period. Please note that fees billed for the 2003 audit, performed by BDO Dunwoody, were $22,000. ANALYSIS: Gaviller and Company has indicated that they anticipate audit fees to continue to increase I _ incrementally. It should be noted that the role of the auditor would expand as a result of changes in accounting for tangible capital assets (see Report TR2007 -18). The auditor will have to review the capitalization of the municipality's tangible capital assets, the policies such as capitalization threshold to determine if assets excluded from capitalization due to the threshold level result in a material misstatement of the municipality's financial position and the accuracy of the historical cost assigned to the capitalized tangible capital assets. It is safe to assume that audit fees will increase in correlation to this expanded role, especially in 2009, when the new accounting rules take effect. Audit firms are presently unable to forecast accurately the impact on audit fees. Any fees quoted would be exclusive of any additional audit work required as a result of the changes in accounting rules. A change in auditors would include staff time in the first year to assist in familiarizing the new auditors with the municipality's accounting systems and distribution of duties within the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department will be already burdened with the time consuming task of compiling and costing the inventory of the municipality's tangible capital assets. For all of the above reasons, we respectfully recommend re- appointing Gaviller & Company as the municipality's auditor for the term of Council. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT Report No. TR2007 -19 be received and adopted. 2. THAT Gaviller & Company be appointed the municipality's auditors for the fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009 & 2010. 3. THAT the appropriate by -law be brought forward for Council's consideration. Respectfully submitted, Paul Gravelle Treasurer IWA ' R p3 ORQ'4 I� E?� TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE VEKITT Dept. Report No. TR2007 -18 To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: Paul Gravelle Council C. of W. ✓ Motion # Date: fie, �o'l Subject: Accounting for Tangible Capital Assets Department: Treasury Date: August 22, 2007 R.M. File #: Roll #: The Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) Handbook states that tangible capital assets: a) are held for use in the production or supply of goods and services, for rental to others, for administrative purposes or for the development, construction, maintenance or repair of other tangible capital assets b) have useful economic lives extending beyond an accounting period c) are to be used on a continuing basis d) are not for sale in the ordinary course of operations Tangible capital assets include but are not limited to such items as roads, bridges, buildings, vehicles, equipment, land, improvements to land, water systems, computer hardware and software, wharfs, etc. Currently, municipalities account for the acquisition or construction of tangible capital assets as an expenditure. Approved revisions to section 3150 of the PSAB Handbook relating to the accounting for and reporting of tangible capital assets will require municipalities to inventory all tangible capital assets and depreciate these assets over their useful life. This is essentially the same accounting treatment used by the private sector. What is the rationale for the change in accounting for tangible capital assets? The benefits in having better information in regard to the stock of infrastructure are: - Provides a proper context and inventory against which maintenance, renewals, replacement, financing and rate setting decisions can be debated Establishes a common basis of measurement, allowing for enhanced comparability Provides a useful starting point and basis for evaluating the condition of infrastructure on a regular basis and for highlighting changes in its condition over time Is useful in identifying the local government's flexibility in responding to a community's changing service demands Helps decision makers assess the long term sustainability of existing debt loads, current program costs, and the need for future infrastructure replacement or improvements Contributes to the evaluation of contingencies related to infrastructure by understanding the type of infrastructure a local government has and, thus, identifying types of unexpected events that could arise from those systems Municipal Councils and managers would be better able to: - Understand service costs - Choose among various service delivery methods - Assist in cost reduction initiatives - Establish full cost fees and charges - Establish budgets and analyze variances - Benchmark activities and assess performance - Improve accountability for allocation and use of resources These changes have been described as being the most significant change in municipal financial reporting in decades. The changes are effective January 1, 2009. The municipality must compile an inventory of all of its tangible capital assets and record these assets at their historical cost. Each asset's useful life must be established in order to amortize its historical cost over its useful life. The municipality currently has information relating to its tangible capital assets in various sources but no single comprehensive database exists. For many assets, historical cost is not recorded. The task of compiling an inventory, determining historical cost and establishing a database thereof will require many hours of staff time from all departments. The municipalities that partook in the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative's pilot projects have stated that the project involved from 2100 to 3400 hours of staff time. We will report at a later date in regards to staff resources required for this project once we can better assess the resources needed. The purpose of this report is review policies related to the capitalization of assets. Although the accounting changes do not take effect until January 1, 2009, the 2008 comparable figures will have to be presented in the revised format. it would facilitate conversion of 2008 figures if the 2008 budget were prepared on a basis consistent with the policies related to the capitalization of assets. These policies are discussed below. Other changes that should be implemented immediately are - Ensuring that tender documents detail costs of specific assets rather than costs of the project - Modifying subdivision agreements to include a clause that the developer will provide the historical cost of assets being transferred to the municipality IPA j CAPITALIZATION THRESHOLD: The capitalization threshold defines the minimum dollar level a municipality will use to determine which expenditures will be capitalized as assets and amortized and which expenditures will be treated as current year expenses. Expenditures that are above the threshold amount and otherwise meet the definition of a tangible capital asset are capitalized. Those that fall below the threshold are expensed in the year incurred. Employing a capitalization threshold in an organization's capital asset accounting policy will significantly reduce the number of assets the organization must track and record. It is not feasible to record all assets and amortize over its useful life. For instance, a $100 calculator would not be amortized over its useful life of five years. If the capitalization threshold level is set too high, the cost of services may swing radically from year to year as major expenditures will be expensed as repairs in the year incurred. If the capitalization threshold level is set too low, the effort required to set up and maintain the tangible capital asset accounting system could be too costly. The right capitalization threshold is a balance between the accurate presentation of information for decision- making and the cost of acquiring and maintaining such information. After reviewing various accounting bodies guidelines for thresholds and the thresholds used by the six municipalities that partook in the pilot projects, we respectfully recommend that the following thresholds would be the most appropriate for the Township of Oro- Medonte: Land — capitalize all All other tangible capital assets - $5,000 GROUPING OR POOLING OF ASSETS: Another decision to make in establishing tangible capital asset inventories involves the level of aggregation (i.e. grouping or pooling). Assets may be grouped for a number of reasons: - Individually, certain assets may not meet a municipality's capitalization threshold level yet collectively, they are substantial. - Assets with associated attachments form a natural "set ". They are purchased at the same time, put into service at the same time, and their life and utility coincide. - The municipality may believe that future expenditures on the assets in question best fit within the definition of capital and not operating. Examples of such assets are stacking chairs, streetlights, computers and fire fighting equipment. We respectfully recommend a capitalization threshold of $20,000 for pooled assets. 0 f 4 3 t. SINGLE ASSET OR COMPONENT APPROACH: The simplest form of recording assets is the single or whole asset approach. This approach to recording assets views the whole asset as one unit, despite the fact that it may be composed of numerous, significant components. A second common concept of asset division involves components. This concept provides for recording significant parts of the whole asset as discrete assets unto themselves. For example, a building may be viewed as a composition of several distinct assets: frame, windows, roof, heating system and so on. A road may be viewed as two separate assets: the road surface and the road subsurface (base). The approach used will affect how an expenditure is classified. For example, if a building were accounted for as a single asset, replacement of the roof would be classified as an expenditure as the useful life of the single asset has not been improved. If the roof were recorded as a separate asset, the expenditure would be classified as capital. If a road were classified as a single asset, resurfacing thereof would be classified as maintenance rather than capital. We respectfully recommend the following approach: Buildings — The actual physical structure, including roof, windows, etc. would be accounted for as a single asset. Other attached or related components such as furnace, well, septic system or in the case of the arena, special lighting and the chiller, would be accounted for as separate assets. Roads - Roads would be accounted for as three components being land, road base and road surface. Water systems — They would be accounted for by component such as pumps, pipes, etc. LINEAR ASSETS Linear assets such as roads and water pipes would be accounted for in segments. In discussions with Keith Mathieson & Gerry Ball, the most appropriate method of segmentation would be intersection to intersection as this is generally how the asset would be replaced of renewed. BETTERMENT OR MAINTENANCE Betterments are expenditures that increase service potential, extend useful life and decrease service costs. Maintenance sustains the service potential for the given useful life of the asset. Betterments are added to the cost base of the asset and amortized over its useful life while maintenance is expensed in the year. At this time, we respectfully suggest that an assessment of an expenditure as to being a betterment or maintenance be made on a case by case basis rather than attempting to establish definitions of betterments. AMORTIZATION METHOD There are various methods of amortization: - Straight line method - Units of output or service - Declining balance -4- We recommend that the straight -line method be used. It is the most practical approach and simplest to administer. Assets depreciate at a constant rate over their lifetime. Most assets provide service at a constant level over their useful life. This method provides a constant expense over time and provides a level expenditure amount. RECOMMENDA' 1. THAT Report No. TR2007 -18 be received and adopted. 2. THAT capitalization of the municipality's assets be in accordance with the policies recommended herein. Respectfully submitted, r y Paul Gravelle Treasurer -5- c It • • • • Report No. To: Prepared By: :Dept. 007 -20 Committee of the Whole Bonnie McPhee AQ00351 Subject: Department: Council August 15, 2007 Treasury AC00449 Statement of Accounts 646,829.84 Date: C. of W. 329,595.21 September 06, 2007 Motion # August R.M. File #: Date: August 04, 2007 $ 101,571.64 Roll #: Following is the statement of accounts for the month of August. Batch No. Date Amount Cheque Resisters: AQ00349 August 02, 2007 $ 36,100.00 AC00447 August 08, 2007 373,584.77 AQ00351 August 10, 2007 4,024.28 AC00448 August 15, 2007 153,301.67 AC00449 August 22, 2007 646,829.84 AC00450 August 29, 2007 329,595.21 $ 1,543,435.77 Payroll: PR00237 August 04, 2007 $ 101,571.64 PR00240 August 18, 2007 106,660.86 208,232.50 Credit Card Registers: AE0063 August 10, 2007 575.33 See AQ00351 AE0064 August 10, 2007 3,448.95 August 10, 2007 Total $ 1,751,668.27 t c�. RECOMMENDATIONS : 1. THAT Report No. TR2007 -20 is received. 2. The accounts for the month of August, 2007 totaling $ 1,751,668.27 are received. Respectfully submitted, z� -z Bonnie McPhee Accounting Clerk -2- TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE .0. Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: ADM 2007 -24 Committe:of e Whole Doug Irwin Subject: Department: Council Clerk's Department Request for Exemption — Date: September 19, 2007 C. of W. Warminster Annual Remembrance Day Parade Motion # R.M. File #: M02 -02390 v -3 Roll #: Date: By -law No. 2006 -38 regulates the holding of parades or processions /events in the municipality. Section 8 of the above mentioned by -law permits that in a situation where a parade or procession /event will last for less than 24 hours, Council may dispense with any or all of the requirements of the by -law. The Royal Canadian Legion of Branch 619, Warminster plan to hold a Remembrance Day Parade on Sunday, November 4, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. ANALYSIS: Gladys Daly, President and Poppy Chair Lady, Royal Canadian Legion, Cahiague Branch (Ontario #619), has supplied information regarding insurance coverage for this event, and has indicated that police have been assigned to direct traffic (Attachment #1). This parade is a yearly event and the Legion has received Council permission to hold the parade in the past and waive the conditions of By -law 2006 -38. The parade route begins at 1:30 p.m. in the Village forming up on Demont Drive, marches along the Hwy. 12 to the Legion Cenotaph where the Remembrance Day Ceremonies will commence. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That Report No. ADM 2007 -24 be received and adopted. 2. That an exemption to By -law No. 2006 -38 be granted to The Royal Canadian Legion of Branch 619, Warminster to hold a Remembrance Day Parade on November 4, 2007 commencing at 1:30 p.m. 3. And Further That the applicant be notified of Council's decision. Respectfully submitted, C.A.O. Comments: C.A.O. Date: a. '-.. -2- THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION CAHIAGUE BRANCH (ONTARIO #619) GENERAL DELIVERY,WARMINSTER ONTARIO,CANADA LOK -2GO September 3,2007 Mr.Douglas Irwin, Township Clerk, Township of Oro- Medonte, Oro, Ontario. Dear Mr.Douglas Irwin; k Please be informed that Branch 619 of the Royal Canadian Legion, Warminster, will be holding their annual Remembrance Day Ceremonies on Sunday November 4th. Kindly consider this letter a request for exemption from By -law #2006 -038, so that we may also have our usual Parade. The parade will start at 1:30 p.m. in the Village. It will form up on Demont Drive, then march along Highway 12 to the Legion Cenotaph, were the Ceremonies will commence. Our Insurance Agent is Programmed Insurance Brokers, Lindsay,Ont. We are fully covered for any mishaps. We will also have 2 O.P.P. officers directing Traffic. If you are in need of any further information, please call me at 321 -5931. Yours truly, G.Daly, President, Poppy Chair Lady. SP91 2007 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. ADM2007- 025 To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: Paul Gravelle Council C. of W. Motion # Date: Subject: One foot reserve — Booth Street Department: Administration Date: September 12, 2007 R.M. File #: Roll #: BACKGROUND: Upon registration of Plan 1441 in 1963, The Township was deeded Booth Street as a public highway and one foot reserves at each end of Booth Street. In 1976, the municipality entered into an agreement with the owner of the property abutting Booth Street to the east granting a right of way over the one foot reserve. The abutting properties are now for sale. A potential purchaser has requested that the one foot reserve be removed and the parcel of land be deemed part of the public highway. There concern is that access from Highway 11 may be removed and access to the subject properties would only be from Booth Street. While the right of way presently exists, there is a clause that the right of way can be terminated by either party at any time. ANALYSIS: When the one foot reserve was created in 1963, this was the method used by the municipality to control development of lands abutting the public highway. Currently, the municipality's official plan and site plan control by -law provides the desired control over development. As such, the use of one -foot reserves for such purposes is likely not necessary. Please note that the potential purchasers have had discussions with the Planning Department relating to a draft site plan. As such, we respectfully recommend that the one foot reserve at the northeasterly limit of Booth Street and the southwesterly limit of Booth Street be removed and the parcels of land be deemed as Public Highways. _Q - z - RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT Report No. ADM2007 -025 be received and adopted. 2. THAT the Clerk bring forward the appropriate by -laws to remove the one foot reserves abutting Booth Street and to have the said parcels of land deemed to be public highway. Respectfully submitted, Paul Gravelle Treasurer -2- THIS AGREEMENT made in duplicate this 5khday of Apri' 1976 °03r, -Is 8 E T W E E N: jJ THE MJNICIPAL COUNCIL If the Tcwnship of Oro, H ere I raf ter _18� Too the Part' OF THE FIRST PART: and DANBURY FOOD MARKET LIMITED, nere4r.after called the PartV OF THE SECOND PART: WHEREAS the Part,, z7T -he I ;r-T Part --na r gi stzren I,�'er tie trF F2-t rE__e a is atot .- a I7a �­ re�erve at the nsrTh edT' 5--ree I'ai' is a, T regletered in -he Req_Ttr, '_T' '21 - he Ca.:. ty of 5imiE, I, the _-_ C7Z. AND WHEREAS the Part, C the SE-Cnp par-, the regiI'ErEO cs e- If Dart of -he FDrFK _e>t I c r er C� _zt To,rTshin, ii..edlatelV it the 4'ia Tie fact reserve. -r5lderatz the5e NOW THIS 114DENTURE WIT%ESSETr that C_ cn If preml sea and Other gc-C and va ac.e ant the a-m I' ONE DOLLAR, the party of the First Part heTet, grants td- the party Of the Second Part its, heirs, executors, adminjstrs-Drs­ su—cessors and assigns a might-of-wev for 311 the usual prDLre5 c ingress ano egress in, over and nOD, Dili and singular that zertail Parcel Or tract of land and promises Situate. 111'9 ano being in the OF Or-, in the County of S�mnce, and D-ing com5c-ea IF the DIE f It reserve at the ncrthepsterly limit of Booth Street, according 1C Plan ',M✓Cr 1441. IT IS FURTHER AGREED that the said Is terminable by either pat ?., apcn notice in �r�t� - . � ng given by either party at their place Of business. IT IS FURTHER AGREED between the parties thot the party of the second part would be responsible for any removal Of trees and Debris on the said one foot reserve and further to maintain t' a said one foot reserve to a standard as may be required from time to time by the Party of the First Part. TN UTTnP5q Wmereof the P-rtia, have hereto exeCited the shove mentioned Agreement having affixed their corporate seals duly attested by the oro;:er officers in that bEha' f, this 20th doy of April 1576. TOWNSHIP OF ORO BA%S R FOOD MARFT LIMITED MPERTY OF T REGISTRY 76 APR 23 P 3 : 3 o 19 DATED: APRIL 14th 197E MUNICIPAL COUNCIL or THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO mm OANSURY FOOD MARAC LIMITED A G R E E M E ,, I MICHENER, BarristerFi 9 Sulicita ti, 31 Peter St, N, Orill1n, 0,taric. Ul ------------------------------ -_ - - -- - - - - - - - ----- - -. - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - – PLAN 1571.7i (flI726-11) ,/PIE ONE FX7 RESERVE BOOTH STREET 0115 ONE rOOr RESERVE ONE FOOT RESERVE 0#4 • ki I i A \ ONE F0_7 RESEP✓E REG PLAN 1141 ul FLA' OW/ ow 00a3 0084 0035 0086 ow 0068 1 0039. 08 0079 pfrabA,4 M DO R H -60orm {yi LL tftf"� MM #F"IF I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MA P SHEET 3 C- 11 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE rC BY -LAW NO. 2007 -100 (�w DR A By -law to Establish a Technical Support Group entitled Oro - Medonte Environmental Group Advisors (OMEGA) WHEREAS Section 224 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, provides that the role of Council is to ensure that the administrative practices are in place to implement the decisions of Council; AND WHEREAS Council deems it expedient to establish a Technical Support Group entitled Oro - Medonte Environmental Group Advisors (OMEGA); NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte hereby enacts as follows: That the mandate of the Oro - Medonte Environmental Group Advisors shall be: Educate, Advise and Assist Council by: • Identifying issues and opportunities for Council's consideration; • Acting as a "sounding board" for Council initiatives; • Researching and providing information requested by Council; • Volunteer work to carry out established environmental strategies within the framework approved by Council; and • Fulfilling the role of ambassador in regards to the "bigger picture ". In carrying out its mandate, OMEGA shall be governed by the following principles: • Collective and Individual Stewardship • Balanced Perspective • Sustainability All recommendations shall be forwarded to Council for consideration. 2. That a minimum of eight (8) members of the public shall be appointed as members of the Oro - Medonte Environmental Group Advisors. 2.1 Public members of OMEGA shall be either appointed for the term of the Council that appointed them or for a specific initiative. 21.1 If a public member is appointed for the term of the Council that appointed them, the member shall continue to sit for the term or until their successors are appointed. Where a member ceases to be a member before the expiration of his or her term, Council may appoint another eligible person for the unexpired portion of the term. 2.1.2 If a public member is appointed for a specific initiative, the member shall sit for the duration of the initiative. 3. That two (2) members of Council shall be non - voting members of the Oro - Medonte Environmental Group Advisors. In accordance with the Township of Oro- Medonte's Procedural By -law, Council shall appoint one (1) of the two (2) members of Council as Chairperson for OMEGA. The Mayor shall be ex- officio. 4. That Council may establish Working Groups for specific initiatives. If a Working Group is established, Council shall appoint any number of public members, which Council deems necessary, to the Working Group. �J�_ 5. That public members appointed to the Oro - Medonte Environmental Group Advisors shall serve on a volunteer basis, with no remuneration. 6. That the Township of Oro - Medonte's Procedural By -law shall govern the proceedings and activities of OMEGA. 7. That the Terms of Reference attached hereto as Schedule "A" shall form part of this by -law. 8. This by -law shall take effect on the final passing thereof BY -LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2007. BY -LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF 2007. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE Mayor, H.S. Hughe Clerk, J. Douglas Irwin Schedule "A" CAFT D no n to By -law No. 2007 -100 for The Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte Oro - Medonte Environmental Group Advisors (OMEGA) Terms of Reference It is recognized that: • The Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte is committed to lead by example to serve as a model in fulfilling environmental responsibilities. • Tapping into the expertise of volunteers has the potential to assist Council in working in concert with residents to fulfil its role. • It is essential that OMEGA work in harmony with existing structures and functions in a manner that avoids duplications. DEFINITIONS a) Collective and Individual Stewardship A responsibility to learn, convey and apply Environmental Protection Principles, as individuals and as a municipality. - b) Balanced Perspective Recognition that decisions taken in the present must consider present and future generations and that considering input from all stakeholders can enhance balanced decisions pertaining to development. c) Sustainability Use of land or a resource without having a negative impact on ecosystem integrity and with regard for future generations. 2. Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte shall guide and define the activities of OMEGA. Such activities shall include: research, education, and report recommendations. 3. OMEGA shall formally report to Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte through the minutes of meetings, an annual report, or as requested by Council. 4. In conjunction with the Township of Oro - Medonte's budget deliberations, a budget for OMEGA shall be considered on an annual basis. All expenditures shall require approval of the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte. 5. COMPOSITION a) Council Council representation shall be shared and shall rotate through all members of Council, dependent on subject matter. The Mayor shall be ex- officio. b) Staff The Staff component of OMEGA shall be as a resource, according to topics, and issues. OMEGA activities may encompass a broad range of topics which will not be specific to any particular department. The County of Simcoe shall be asked to participate as required. c) Public Members To achieve balance and diversity within the membership, consideration may include backgrounds in: • Agriculture • Business / Chamber of Commerce • Conservancy connection • Education system • Ecology • Health and wellness • Hydro TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE REPORT Dept. Report No. To: COMMITTEE OF THE Prepared By: WHOLE EES2007 -29 Keith Mathieson Subject: Department: Council Laurel View Homes Engineering and (Landscapes) Development— Environmental Services Date: C. of W. Horseshoe Valley September 13, 2007 R.M. File #: Motion # D12 -12660 v -003 Roll #: Date: BACKGROUND: In January, 2003, the Township of Oro - Medonte entered into a Subdivision Agreement with Laurel View Homes (HV) Inc. to construct Phase I of the development, consisting of 66 lots. Building permits have been issued for 58 lots and the Township has issued the Certificate of Substantial Completion and Acceptance (Municipal Underground Services). The Township is also holding securities in the amount of $495,000.00 to ensure completion of municipal services. ANALYSIS: At the September 5, 2007 Committee of the Whole meeting, correspondence was received from Councillor Coutanche outlining concerns of residents in the Laurel View development. The Developer is in the process of having the work completed for inspection of the Underground Works and once completed and accepted by the Township, a By -law will be passed to assume the underground works (water, storm and sanitary sewers). The two (2) year maintenance period for the Aboveground Works does not start until the final course of asphalt is placed on the roads. The Developer has not indicated when he plans to place the final course of asphalt, but it is not uncommon for this to be completed only after construction of almost or all of the lots. On'September 11, 2007, an on -site meeting was held with Mr. Greg Gemmell, P.Eng., of Richardson Foster Ltd. (Developer's Engineers), Mr. Al Lees of TSH (Township's Engineers) and Mr. Keith Mathieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services, to discuss issues with the ditches, erosion, streetlights and street signs. From this meeting, the Developer has agreed to rectify the concerns with the ditches, install the signs and have the streetlights looked at. Design work for the ditches is to be submitted to the Township for approval prior to the end of September, with construction to be mid to late October. Mr. Gemmell's correspondence has been attached for Council's perusal. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT Report No. EES2007 -29 be received for information. Re pectfully ubmitted, 4 Keith Mathieson Director of Engineering and Environmental Services -2- Page I of I Mathieson, Keith =' From: Greg Gemmell Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:22 PM To: Mathieson, Keith Cc: Jerry Lieberman; Bryan Richardson; All Lees Subject: RFL File NO: 0425 -ES / Landscapes of Horseshoe Valley / Project Schedule for Deficiencies Hi Keith; Further to my meeting with Al Lees and yourself on Tuesday Sept. 11, 2007, we confirm that we concur that remedial works are required to resolve outstanding Township concerns as follows: 1) Ditch front and back slopes along sections of Tanglewood and Oakmount Crescent exceed the approved engineering plans. 2) Ongoing erosion was agreed that curb would be installed along the steep sections of roadway. We agreed that to rectify these issues, that the following works would be satisfactory; 1) Fill in ditches where sloping is unsatisfactory, install / extend culverts and install CB' Tee's to collect lot grading run -offs. This will also include connecting spillways to the culvert system to ensure road drainage has a outlet location. 2) Install curb along edge of payment along steep sections of Tangle wood and Oakmont Crescent The Developer as agreed to the above works with us and instructed us to complete drawings illustrating the proposed works and receive Township approval. RFL will commence survey early next week and design submission should be completed by prior to the end of September. We will meet with TSH to review the plans and grant acceptance of same during the this period. We will seek tender / quotations during early October with an aim for construction to mid to late October. We also note that the Developer has received the street name and "Road Not Assumed" signs and we will coordinate to have them installed next week. We have also contacted Aecon about review of the street light deficnicies and they will review the lights and take actions to correct the lights that remain on and the ones that do not turn on. Thanks Respectfully Submitted; Greg Gemmell, P.Eng Richardson Foster Ltd. 9/13/2007 Sept 4, 2007 Council, CAD, Keith, Jerry, Doug Below * * * * * ** are a few notes referring OAO- MEDONTE SHIP MOTION #!� SEP - 5 2007 STING: COUNCIL'v:I ME i C. OF W.+ U0--an issue in Laurlelview /La the SE corner of the Line 3 N and Highland Drive). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ndscapes (at There is an issue heating up in Landscapes (Laurelview) with many of the residents being frustrated by the Developer disappearing - with work still undone and the Subdivision still "unassumed" by the Township. I have been contacted by Ted Onyschuk and the HVPOA several times about this and there are many E -mails (with photographs, etc.) which describe the physical issues which include safety, maintenance and aesthetics. Ted has been trying to get us (the Township) to take action on some steep ditches and also on some erosion (gravel shoulders), streetlights, among other things. NOTE: Virtually all of the problems are on Township property (road allowance, easements, roads, etc.) NOTE 2: This subdivision is approximately 5 years old. Approximately 45 of the 66 Phase 1 lots have homes built on them. Ted is "mad" and twice told me that he could come and "fill the Council Chamber" with residents on this. In my opinion, we need to deal with the Developer quickly to force the completion of this subdivision ASAP. And if we can't get the developer to perform, then the Township should go ahead and do all of the necessary work (in keeping with Township standards). Hopefully, we have enough of the "developer's" money on deposit that we can proceed without incurring any net cost to the Township. If we don't act then the residents will probably take action at another level. I believe that Keith is also frustrated by this and has been trying to meet with the "developer" for many many months. Mel Coutanche 1. TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE 114091M 10" .. Dept. Report No. BP 2007 -036 To: Council Prepared By: Bruce Hoppe Subject: Martin and Department: Jacqueline VandenHeuvel, Building /Planning request for two dwellings, Part of Lot 24, Concession 9 (Oro), Township of Oro - Medonte, 504 Line 9 South Council C. of W. Date: September 19, 2007 Motion # R.M. File #: Date: Roll #: 010 009 088 BACKGROUND: The subject property is approximately 22.9 acres (9.3 ha), and is located on the southwest corner of Line 9 South and Ridge Road. There is an existing dwelling on the property, which was constructed in 1943. The applicant is proposing construction of a new dwelling, and is requesting Council's permission to temporarily reside in the existing dwelling, which will be demolished after completion of the new home. The Township's Comprehensive Zoning By -law 97 -95 only permits one dwelling per property, therefore permission is required in order to permit the new permit to be issued prior to demolition of the existing dwelling. DISCUSSION: The Township has historically considered these situations on a case -by -case basis, and allowed owners to temporarily reside in existing dwellings or trailers and allow for a building permit to be issued for a new dwelling. Council's permission is required due to the fact that the Township's Zoning By -law only allows one dwelling per property and prohibits human habitation of a trailer (outside of licensed trailer parks). Council has historically required that the owner enter into an agreement stipulating the terms of the approval will be required with the registered owners, which ensures compliance after the new dwelling is complete. A twelve month timeframe has been granted in the past in these cases, and a financial deposit is required to ensure compliance. The applicant's request is appended to this report. A $20,000 security deposit is required by the Township prior to issuance of a building permit for the new dwelling. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT Report No. BP 2007 -036 be received and adopted. 2. That Council authorizes the request of Martin and Jacqueline VandenHeuvel to temporarily reside in their existing dwelling for a maximum twelve month period while the new dwelling is being constructed. 3. That the Clerk bring forward to appropriate by -law authorizing the attached agreement to this effect. Ispectfully submitted, B ruce Ho e, M d,P P Director of Building and Planning Services C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. Dept. Head -2- 07/19/2007 15:53 705 -467 -6455 HAWKESTONE STORE PAGE 01 01-410- -40/x 7 4 Rte,l w , b�- U AGREEMENT /AFFIDAVIT In consideration of receiving a building permit from the Township of Oro-Medonte, I, Jacqueline VandenHeuvel, of the Township of Oro - Medonte (formerly Township of Oro) in the County of Simone, covenant and agree as follows: 1. That I am the registered owner of Part of Lot 24 Con 9 being more particularly described as 504 Line 9 South Oro - Medonte. 2. That I have applied to the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte for permission to temporarily reside in our existing dwelling on the above - mentioned lands, at the same time as a new dwelling is under construction on those same lands, wherein such procedure is not provided for under the provisions of the Township of Oro-Medonte's Zoning By -law as amended. 3. That I hereby acknowledge that permission has been given by the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte subject to the following provisions: a) That such permission is granted for the twelve month period from permit issuance or until completion of the proposed new dwelling, whichever is the lesser period of time; and b) That on completion of the new dwelling, as evidenced by a Provisional Occupancy Certificate, the existing trailer is to be removed within one month to the satisfaction of the Township's Chief Building Official; and C) That application to the Township of Oro - Medonte for a temporary use permit will be made forthwith (Fee $100.00). 4. That a Letter of Credit in the amount of $20,000.00 be retained by the Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte until the above- mentioned conditions are fulfilled to the sole satisfaction of the Township. a) Failure to comply with the aforementioned conditions will result in the Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte redeeming the Letter of Credit at its sole discretion. 5. That I hereby agree to the terms and conditions set out above. 6. It is understood that failure to comply with the terms and conditions as set out herein, shall release and save harmless the Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte from pursuing such litigation, as may be necessary to secure compliance or conformity with any applicable Municipal By -law or provincial Regulation as may be provided for. 7. I hereby covenant and agree to indemnify and save harmless the Township of Oro - Medonte from all costs, claims, liability and actions which may result or arise from the issuance of the building permit or the entering into of this agreement. Date Owner Witness Mayor, H. S. Hughes Clerk, J. Douglas Irwin 0 } S TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of Council cc: From: Bruce Hoppe, MCIP, RPP R.M. File #: Date: September 18, 2007 Roll #: Subject: Hillway Citizens Liaison Committee As some of Council may recall, as part of the Ontario Municipal Board decision relating to the land use approvals for this pit, the Board in its decision dated May 18, 2004, required a condition relating to the establishment of a Citizens Liaison Committee. The Committee is to include a representative of Big Cedar, Rugby and one resident at- large. The Board also indicated that the meetings are to be held quarterly or on short notice to be agreed upon if warranted in an emergency. It is staff's understanding that this Committee is not a Committee of Council; rather the intention is that this group be formed to monitor the pit operations and report any issues to the attention of the Ministry of Natural Resources who are the administrators of the Pit License. Copies of the minutes of each meeting will be received by Council. Since the issuance of the pit license in 2006 and subsequent commencement of pit operations, Council considered correspondence from the owner's consultant (Mr. Gary Bell of Skelton Brumwell) on September 20, 2006, which encouraged Mr. Bell to work with the Ministry of Natural Resources with respect to the terms of reference for this Liaison Group. Further, appointment of two members (one from Rugby and one at- large) was to be considered by the 2006 -2010 Township Council. An organizational meeting and review of draft terms of reference was held on September 17, 2007 with Mr. Glen Stewart, Mr. Bell, representatives of Big Cedar, Mayor Hughes, Deputy Mayor Hough, Ward 5 Councillor Evans and Township staff to discuss this matter. During this meeting, it was recommended that Mr. Brian English (Rugby) and Dr. Don Munro (at- large) be named to the Committee. Mrs. Geraldine Abraham has been selected as the member representing Big Cedar. A date for the first meeting was scheduled for October 11, 2007 to be held at Big Cedar with a tour of the site to be conducted. Mr. Craig Laing from the MNR is to be invited to the first meeting. It is also recommended that Adam Kozlowski be included on the Committee as staff liaison member. Regards, I September 29, 2006 Mr. Glen Stewart Hiliway Equipment Ltd. 1118 Brodie Drive Orillia, ON L3V 61­14 t? THE CORPORATION Or THE 111111111111 11,1111monnuiliMI 148 Line 7 5.. Box 100 �� Oro, Ontario LOL Zk0 1 Phone (705) 487 -2171 Fix i7051487-0133 i.� --OF Ww ,.oro- tnedonte.ca In— Re: Citizen Liaison Committee on Hiliway Equipment Ltd., 12tt Line Pit Dear Mr. Stewart: Correspondence dated September 15, 2006 from Gary Bell, Skelton Brumwell & Associates Inc., with respect to the above -noted matter, was formally received by the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte at the regular Council meeting of September 20, 2006 with the following motion: "Be it resolved that the correspondence dated September 15, 2006 from Gary Bell, Skelton Brumwell & Associates Inc. re: Citizen Liaison Committee on Hillway Equipment Ltd., 12t" Line Pit be received; and that the 2006 -2010 Township of Oro - Medonte Council recommend two public members to represent Council on this Citizen Liaison Group; and that Hiliway Equipment Ltd.'s consultant be encouraged to work with the Ministry of Natural Resources with respect to the terms of reference of this Liaison Group." The Township would appreciate it if the Ministry of Natural Resources would ensure the undersigned is kept apprised of the progression on this matter. Yours truly, �ennifer Zlelenlewski Chief Administrative Officer cc: Craig Laing, Ministry of Natural Resources Chris Williams, Aird & Berlis LLP Ian Rowe, Burger Rowe LLP Donna Middleton, President, Big Cedar Association Mayor and Members of Council Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services & assoclarES l;ac. September 15, 2006 Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South P.O. Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 Dear Mayor Craig and Council: Re: Citizen Liaison Committee on Hillway Equipment Ltd. 12 th Line Pit 9? BEH FARNi ROAD SUITE 107 BARRIE ON [ -AR10 L4 Y. iGI TELFPHO�E-: "U5 7 26 . 1141 FAX: CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS On behalf of Hillway Equipment Ltd. we write to confirm that Glen Stewart of Hillway Equipment Ltd. was and is willing to participate in the establishment and operation of a Citizen Liaison Committee as required by the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB Decision of May 18, 2004 indicated that the .. Citizens Committee is to include a representative of Big Cedar, Rugby and one resident at large. Meetings with Hillway are to be quarterly in the year or on short notice to be agreed upon if warranted in an emergency. " Ina letter to Big Cedar solicitor Rod Northey May 27,2004 Ian Rowe indicated that Hillway Equipment Ltd wished to commence establishment of the Citizens Liaison Committee and requested advice on who would be nominated from Big Cedar. Mr. Northey replied August 12, 2004 that Big Cedar supports the condition and would appoint a representative. A copy of both letters went to Chris Williams for Township reference. The appointment of a representative from Rugby and a resident at large is also necessary. This is not something that Hillway Equipment can undertake. No meetings of a Citizen Liaison Committee have occurred. Since the May 2004 request Mr. Stewart advises that the only contact on the matter has been from Mr. Bill Soles from Big Cedar. Mr. Soles called Glen in July 2006 to enquire on the construction and timing of the berms. Glen Stewart advised that he read the notes on the Site Plan to Mr. Soles and offered that if there were any other questions Bill should call Glen at any time. A copy of this letter is sent to the Big Cedar Association to request a nominee and to facilitate establishment of the Citizens Liaison Committee. 511 Township of Oro - Medonte September 15, 2006 Page 2 � r Glen Stewart and I had a telephone conference on September 6, 2006 with Craig Laing, the Aggregate Resource Officer of the Ministry of Natural Resources responsible for the Licence. Craig advised that the Citizens Liaison Committee was not made a condition or note of the Licence but the intent of such a Committee is a good idea which he supports. There have been no enquiries or complaints about the operation of the pit to date. The Township Planning Consultant Nick McDonald called to ask about the Citizen Liaison Committee. Results from the Committee may be sent to Craig for MNR reference and/or attention as may be appropriate. We ask the Township and Big Cedar Association for direction on the establishment and operation of the Citizen Liaison Committee. The three citizen representatives need to be appointed. Please contact Glen Stewart directly to expedite this. If you have any questions please contact Glen Stewart or myself. Yours truly Skelton Bramwell and Associates Gary Bell, RPP Principal GKB /slc C-06 -375 cc: Hillway Equipment Ltd: Glen Stewart Ian Rowe MNR- Craig Laing Big Cedar Association Nick McDonald Chris Williams TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE .,. Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By: FD2007 -07 Committee of the Whole Scott Cowden, Director\ Mike Diver, CBO Council Subject: Request from Lake Simcoe Department: Buildings and Planning Fire and Emergency Services Date: September 18, 2007 C. of W. t ° Regional Airport re: Occupancy of Jetport Hangar Motion # �ci 2 [JP2] R.M. File #: Date: P ' Roll #: BACKGROUND: An August 20, 2007 letter from Len Leach, President, Lake Simcoe Regional Airport requested that the Township permit the occupancy of a new, unfinished building being erected on the site at 224 Line 7 South prior to the activation of its' Life Safety Systems, namely the Automatic Fire Protection Sprinklers. ANALYSIS: A developer is building a new, 11,000 sq. ft hangar on Lot No. 2 at the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport [LSRA]. The building is slated for completion late in 2007. The buildings design requires that it be equipped with an Automatic Fire Suppression Sprinkler System to provide the requisite level of safety to the proposed inhabitants. Concurrently, LSRA is constructing a fire protection water system to provide much - needed protection for the entire site. The projected completion of the project is March, 2008. This system will contain the minimum 600,000 litre water supply required to protect the buildings at the airport and will be the required pressurized source for the sprinkler system in the new hangar. The August 20`h letter requested the Township permit the occupation of the JP2 building during the interim period between its' physical completion and the final installation and commissioning of the Airports' water system. The reasoning behind this request was based upon the occupation of the new building not creating any additional `risk'. In consultation with Mike Diver, Chief Building Official for Oro - Medonte it was agreed that there is in fact additional risk. All new buildings in Ontario are constructed under the governance the Ontario Building Code. The current amended version in force is OBC 1997. The Ontario Building Code does contain provisions for the Occupancy of Unfinished Buildings in Part 1.3.3 Under this Section, the Chief Building Official may grant occupancy of an unfinished building provided that the conditions specified in 1.3.3.1 (2) have been met. There are 17 provisions, titled a through q. [Att]. Item `m' stipulates: `Required standpipe, sprinkler and fire alarm systems are complete and operational up to and including all storeys to be occupied, together with required pumper connections for such standpipes and sprinklers.' The plan, as proposed by LSRA, would have the new building occupied without the fire suppression sprinkler system in an operational state for whatever period occurs between the date provisional occupancy is granted and the full commissioning of LSRA Fire Protection Water system. The current building has no sprinkler system installed. It was erected over a decade ago, was constructed under a different version of the Building Code and was intended for a different use from the newly constructed one and is therefore treated differently under the OBC. If the current hangar were constructed today, it would require the same sprinkler system required in JP2. While the Building Code accepts older buildings lower levels of life safety systems, it does not allow new construction to be done to old Codes. In short, the owner cannot simply, `Transfer,' the risk from one building to another. With no measure to activate and supply the Automatic Fire Suppression Sprinkler system, a Provisional Occupancy of the new JP2 building under the conditions requested by LSRA would contravene the Ontario Building Code and cannot be considered. Granting conditional occupancy knowing that the requirements for occupancy have not been met would place the Township at risk should any event occur at the site. RECOMMENDATIONS : 1. THAT Report No. FD2007 -07 be received. Respectfully submitted, Scott Cowden Director, Fire and Emergency Services ki Mike Di er, CBO 411 c� 2 0 E 11 • �J CJ ® Ontario 2006 Building Code 1.3.3.1. 1.3.2.2. Documentation on Site 10c>,I (1) The person in charge of the construction of the building shall keep and maintain on the site of the construction (a) at least one copy of drawings and specifications certified by the chief building official or a person designated by the chief building official to be a copy of those submitted with the application for the permit to construct the building, together with changes that are authorized by the chief building official or a person designated by the chief building official, and (b) authorization or facsimiles of it received from the Building Materials Evaluation Commission, including specified terms and conditions. 1.3.3. Occupancy of Unfinished Building 1.3.3.1. Occupancy Permit (1) Except as permitted in Sentence 1.3.3.2.(1), a person may occupy or permit to be occupied any building or part of it that has not been fully completed at the date of occupation where the chief building official or a person designated by the chief building official has issued a permit authorizing occupation of the building or part of it prior to its completion in accordance with Sentence (2). (2) The chief building official or a person designated by the chief building official shall issue a permit authorizing occupation of a building, where (a) the structure of the building or part of it is completed to the roof, (b) the enclosing walls of the building or part of it are completed to the roof, (c) the walls enclosing the space to be occupied are completed, including balcony guards, (d) all required fire separations and closures are completed on all storeys to be occupied, (e) all required exits are completed and fire separated including all doors, door hardware, self - closing devices, balustrades and handrails from the uppermost floor to be occupied down to grade level and below if an exit connects with lower storeys, (f) all shafts including closures are completed to the floor- ceiling assembly above the storey to be occupied and have a temporary fire separation at such assembly, (g) measures have been taken to prevent access to parts of the building and site that are incomplete or still under construction, (h) floors, halls, lobbies and required means of egress are kept free of loose materials and other hazards, (i) if service rooms should be in operation, required fire separations are completed and all closures installed, 0) all building drains, building sewers, water systems, drainage systems and venting systems are complete and tested as operational for the storeys to be occupied, (k) required lighting, heating and electrical supply are provided for the suites, rooms and common areas to be occupied, (1) required lighting in corridors, stairways and exits is completed and operational up to and including all storeys to be occupied, (m) required standpipe, sprinkler and fire alarm systems are complete and operational up to and including all storeys to be occupied, together with required pumper connections for such standpipes and sprinklers, (n) required fire extinguishers have been installed on all storeys to be occupied, (o) main garbage rooms, chutes and ancillary services thereto are completed to storeys to be occupied, (p) required fire fighting access routes have been provided and are accessible, and (q) the sewage system has been completed and is operational. (3) Where a registered code agency has been appointed to perform the functions described in clause 4.1(4)(b) or (c) of the Act in respect of the construction of the building, the chief building official or a person designated by the chief building official shall issue the permit referred to in Sentence (2) after receipt of a certificate for the occupancy of a building not fully completed issued by the registered code agency in respect of the building. Division C - Part 1 11 TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE .,. Dept. Report No. To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: RC2007 -19 Shawn Binns Subject: Department: Council Horseshoe Valley Property Parks and Recreation Owners Association Request C. of W. for Fundraising Account Date: September 13, 2007 R.M. File #: Motion # Date: Roll #: BACKGROUND: The Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association has made several requests to Council to develop the parkland at the 4th line in Horseshoe Valley. Council authorized staff to work with the Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association to investigate the development of the 4th line parkland. The Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association is requesting that an account be set through the Township to issue charitable donation receipts to enable the association to commence fundraising (Attachment #1). ANALYSIS: It is the Township's policy to work in partnership with communities in the development of parklands, which includes a 50/50 cost share policy. The Township has not yet approved a development plan and additional funding for parkland development at the lands known as the "4th line park ". The creation of charitable account would enable the association to begin fundraising for the parklands, however no commitments for the type development for which the donations will be used should be made until a formal development plan, and budget has been approved by Council. Staff is currently working with the Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association to prepare a conceptual plan to be reviewed in 2008 budget deliberations. It is recommended that Council give favourable consideration to authorizing the development of a fundraising account for the 4th line parklands to enable the Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association to commence fundraising efforts. It is also recommended that when initiating fundraising efforts that the H.V.P.O.A communicate that the donations collected will be held in a fund with the Township and the use of the said funds for the 4th line park will be determined through community consultation with the approval of the Municipality. rF'RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. That Report No. RC2007 -19 be received 2. That a Township account be set up and tax receipts be issued for donations towards the 4'h line Park. 3. And further that the Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association be notified of Council's decision. Respectfully submitted, Shawn Binns Manager of Recreation and Community Services C.A.O. Comments: Date: C.A.O. '/ Dept. Head WM t V %'�J horseshoe valieroperty owns September 13, 2007 Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7S, Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 ATTN: Shawn Binns Dear Shawn, 9rs association 1101 horseshoe valley road, compartment 51, rr #1, barrie, on., L4M 4Y8 Please accept this correspondence as a request for the Township to set up a account for the HVPOA to begin fundraising for the 4th line park. Thanking you,