05 14 2003 COW Agenda
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING AGENDA
DATE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
ROBINSON ROOM
.
************************************************************************************************
1. NOTICE OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
.
2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT"
4. RECEIPT OF ACCOUNTS:
a) Statement of Accounts for the month of April, 2003.
5. DEPUTATIONS:
a) 9:10 a.m.
Mr. Ross Cotton, re: Building Permit, 1445 Ridge Road.
b) 9:20 a.m.
Mr. Jack Haggerty, Past-President, Horseshoe Valley Property Owners
Association, re: Ian A. Beard Community Complex.
6. CORRESPONDENCE:
a) Barrie Public Library Board, minutes of February 27,2003 meeting.
b) Barrie Public Library Board, minutes of March 27, 2003 meeting.
c) Mr. Doug French, District Manager, Northeast, Union Gas Limited, correspondence
, dated April 16, 2003, re: Change in Union Gas Charges Effective May 1, 2003.
d) Mr. George MacDonald, Warden, The Corporation of the County of Simcoe, invitation,
May 27'h 2003, re: dedication in the memory of the Late Ian Beard.
e) Ms. Irena (Versha) Szczebior, correspondence dated May 4,2003 re: Noise By-law
Amendment.
~
f) Mr. Walter Dickie, Treasurer, Coldwater & District Curling Club, correspondence dated
May 5, 2003 re: Annual Report on Status and Activities and June 30, 2002 Financial
Statements.
g) Mr. Ellwood McLaughlin, Corresponding Secretary, Oro-Medonte Horticultural Society,
correspondence dated May 5, 2003, re: Request for Tree Planting at Oro Veterans
Memorial Park.
h) Mr. Phil Whitton, Executive Director/Secretary, Oro Minor Hockey Association,
correspondence received May 1, 2003 re: Oro Minor Hockey Concerns.
i) Ms. Gayle Wood, CAO/Secretary-Treasurer, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority, correspondence dated April 28, 2003, re: GTA Task Force Report on OMB
Reform.
.
7. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND FIRE:
a) Report No. FD 2003-05, Paul Eenhoorn, Fire Chief, re: Monthly Report (March).
b) Paul Gravelle, Treasurer, re: Overview of 2003 Tax Rates and Analysis of Tax Impact
(material to be distributed at the meeting).
c) Deputy Mayor Dickie, report re: Organization of Small Urban Municipalities 50'h Annual
Conference, May 1-2, 2003, Picton.
d) Mayor Craig, re: Final Report of Advisory Committee on Watershed-Based Source
Protection Planning, "Protecting Ontario's Drinking Water: Toward A Watershed-Based
Source Protection Planning Framework", April 2003. (Council copies distributed
separately) [copies available for the public in the Clerk's office].
e) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, discussion re: Roads Tour, Water Department, Fire and
Emergency Services Department.
8. PUBLIC WORKS:
a) Report No. PW 2003-02, Jerry Ball, Public Works Superintendent, re: Electronic
Pedestrian Crossings.
9. ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES:
a) Report No. EES 2003-31, Keith Mathieson, Director of Engineering and Environmental
Services, re: 2008628 Ontario Ltd. - Pre-Servicing Agreement.
10.BUILDING, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT:
a) Report No. BD 2003-08, Ron Kolbe, Director of Building and Planning, re: Building
Report, April-May, 2003.
2
11.IN-CAMERA:
a) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Legal Update.
b) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Personnel Matter.
c) Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO, re: Personnel Matter.
12.ADJOURNMENT:
.
3
Page ] of]
r-'
jO~
Subject: FW: Deputation to committee of the whole
-----Original Message---n
From: Ross or June Cotton [mailto:ridgenet@rogers.comj
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 8:11 PM
To: clerk@township.oro-medonte.on.ca
Cc: paul.marshall@oro-medonte.ca
Subject: Deputation to committee of the whole
.
Marilyn
Further to our discussion today.
Please schedule my (5 minute) deputation for Wed. May 14/03.
Deputation - in regards to a building permit to construct a deck on my house @ 1445 Rd. Road
West. Side yard interior setbacks have changed from 15 ft. to 26.2 ft. for no reasonable or apparent
reason.
Please get back to me with the time slot that I have been allotted.
Ross Cotton (705 - 722-3876)
.
.
<;/Onnrn
"
\~~~ \()~\~{'\..- ~C.\d \-\.o-,\\4~03
-,
(\^i~'C; c:
Cb)
C 'r'
HORSESHOE V ALLEY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIA nON
DEPUTATION TO COMMITTEE OF TIlE WHOLE RE A
RECREATION FACILITY AT THE IAN ARTHUR BEARD COMMUNITY COMPLEX
WEDNESDAY,MAY 14, 2003
MAYOR CRAIG, DEPUTY MAYOR DICKIE, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.....AND LET ME
ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THE COMPETENT AND DEDICATED STAFF MEMBERS WHO
ARE HERE TODAY.
I AM SPEAKING TO YOU AS PAST PRESIDENT OF THE HORSESHOE VALLEY
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO PRESENT THE VIEWS OF OUR BOARD
REGARDING THE NEED FOR A RECREATION FACILITY IN OUR COMMUNITY.
I AM PLEASED TO NOTE THAT ALL OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS WHO COULD BE
HERE ARE PRESENT TODAY. NORMALLY OUR PRESIDENT...WHO THIS YEAR IS
DON SMITH.... WOULD HANDLE A PRESENTATION SUCH AS THIS, BUT WE AGREED
THAT 1 SHOULD DO SO, IN VIEW OF MY LONG HISTORY WITH THIS TOPIC.
AND IT HAS BEEN A RATHER LONG HISTORY
-IN SEPTEMBER OF 1999 I WAS VICE PRESIDENT OF OUR ASSOCIATION AND
APPEARED BEFORE A PARKS AND RECREATION TASK FORCE AND TIlEIR
CONSULTANT TO FIRST OUTLINE THE NEED FOR A PLAYGROUND AND
RECREATION FIELD IN OUR COMMUNITY.
-IN APRIL OF 2002 I APPEARED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AS PRESIDENT OF
OUR ASSOCIATION TO ONCE AGAIN EXPRESS THE GROWING NEED FOR A
PLAYGROUND AND RECREATION FACILITY THAT WOULD BE CENTRALLY
LOCATED AND SERVE THE NEEDS OF ALL OF HORSESHOE V ALLEy..... AND
PERHAPS PEOPLE BEYOND HORSESHOE VALLEY.
YOU WILL ALL RECALL THAT THE SUBJECT OF THAT DAY WAS (DARE I
SAY IT?) THE LITTLE POD'S LANE PLAYGROUND, AND MY MAIN POINT WAS
THAT A LARGER, CENTRAL FACILITY SHOULD BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED,
EITIlER IN ADDITION TO OR PREFERABLY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO POD'S LANE.
WELL, TIME GOES ON AND I UNDERSTAND FROM CHRIS CARTER THAT POD'S
LANE IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN, AND WHILE I AM SURE THAT IT WILL BE OF VALUE
TO RESIDENTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, HERE I AM AGAIN....HERE WE ARE
AGAIN.... TO TALK ABOUT THE REAL NEEDS OF OUR WHOLE COMMUNITY.
,
2
HISTORY, CONT'D
SO WHILE MY STORY IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS IN THE PAST SOMETHING
VERY IMPORTANT HAS CHANGED. PREVIOUSLY WE TALKED ABOUT THE FOURTH
LINE PARK, OR THE FIRE HALL P ARK...BUT TODAY I AM PLEASED TO REFER TO
OUR NEEDS AND THE IAN ARTHUR BEARD COMMUNITY COMPLEX.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS SITE (AND OUR VISION FOR IT)
FIRST OF ALL, I SHOULD MENTION THAT THE LOCATION OF THE SITE IS ABOUT
AS GOOD AS ONE CAN GET IN HORSESHOE V ALLEY. IT IS NOT PERFECTLY
CONVENIENT TO ANY OF OUR FOUR NEIGHBOURHOODS , BUT IT IS REASONABLY
ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.
ACCORDING TO MY INFORMATION THE LAND IN QUESTION COMPRISES
APPROXIMATELY 6.6 HECTARES OR 14 ACRES....LESS THE LAND USED BY THE
FIRE HALL, POLICE STATION AND MEMORIAL.
IT IS NOT VERY PRETTY THESE DA YS....HA VE YOU ALL SEEN IT?
THE LEVEL LAND BESIDE THE FIRE HALL FALLS A WAY TO THE FLOOR OF AN
OLD GRAVEL (OR SAND) PIT, WHICH NOW CONTAINS SOME SCRUB BUSHES.
THERE HAS BEEN DEBRIS DUMPED DOWN THE SLOPES OVER THE YEARS,
INCLUDING ALL THE UNWANTED SOIL AND TREE ROOTS FROM THE
PREPARATION OF THE POLICE STATION PROPERTY.
THE LAND AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE OLD PIT IS WOODED, BUT I AM NOT
SURE HOW FAR THE WOODED PROPERTY EXTENDS, AND WHAT ITS POTENTIAL
USES MIGHT BE.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THE LEVEL AREA UP TOP COULD EASILY BECOME A
PARKING LOT AND MORE GOOD NEWS IS THAT TIlE BOTTOM OF THE OLD PIT
COULD BE GRADED, LEVELED AND SEEDED WITH GRASS TO FORM A LARGE
OPEN SP ACE....BIG ENOUGH FOR AT LEAST A PLAYGROUND, A SOFTBALL FIELD,
AND A SOCCER FIELD.
THE SLOPING SIDES OF THE PIT AREA COULD BE SHAPED AND GRADED TO
ACHIEVE A NATURAL AMPITHEA TRE EFFECT...A PLACE TO RELAX OR WATCH
CHILDREN PLAY.
THE WOODED AREA AROUND THE TWO SIDES AT THE REAR IS A NATURAL FOR
PICNIC TABLES, AND WALKING OR BIKING TRAILS.
3
THE SITE, CONT'D
LOOKING EVEN FURTHER AHEAD I THINK THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH LAND LEFT
TO ALLOW FOR A TOWNSHIP MEETING PLACE SOMEDA Y....PERHAPS A COVERED
PAVILION, BARBECUE AND PICNIC AREA AND SO FORTH.
THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF BOTII POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES MUST BE
CONSIDERED A BONUS WHEN PLANNING FOR A PARK AND PLAYGROUND. THE
LATE MAYOR BEARD ONCE TOLD ME THAT IT MIGHT EVEN BE POSSIBLE TO
UTILIZE THE SEPTIC BED AT THE FIRE HALL TO SERVE TOILET FACILITIES AT THE
PARK.
I WILL RETURN TO TmS VISION LATER ON, BUT NOW LETS SPEND A FEW
MINUTES GETTING RE-ACQUAINTED WITH HORSESHOE VALLEY
OUR COMMUNITY IS COMPRISED OF FOUR NEIGHBOURHOODS...THE ORIGINAL
V ALLEY SETTLEMENT, THE NEWER CATHEDRAL PINES, AND THE MORE RECENT
ORO HILLS AND HIGHLANDS
AND SOON THERE WILL BE A FIFTH AREA, WHICH THIS COUNCIL APPROVED AS
THE 600 HOME HORSESHOE ADULT LIFESTYLE COMMUNITY, BUT WHICH IS NOW
KNOWN AS LAUREL VIEW HOMES' LANDSCAPES.
BY THE WAY, I HAVE TOLD THIS COUNCIL ON A PREVIOUS OCCASION THAT THE
ADULT LIFESTYLE LABEL IS A QUESTIONABLE PLANNING DESIGNATION AS
LANDSCAPES IS SELLING A RANGE OF THREE BEDROOM HOMES COSTING UP TO
$400,000 SO IT SEEMS LIKELY THERE WILL BE SOME COUPLES THERE WITH
CHILDREN.
THE FOUR EXISTING NEIGHBOURHOODS TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 470 HOMES,
AND THE FEW VACANT LOTS REMAINING IN THE HIGHLANDS ARE FILLING UP
FAST. THIS 470 NUMBER DOES NOT INCLUDE THE TIME SHARES.
LET'S TALK ABOUT CHILDREN. IN THE PAST IT MAY HAVE BEEN FAIR TO THINK
OF HORSESHOE V ALLEY AS A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY BUT THIS IS NO LONGER
THE CASE! TIlERE ARE PEOPLE WITII YOUNG FAMILIES ON EVERY STREET, AND
MORE ARRIVING ALL THE TIME. YOU HAVE HEARD ME SPEAK AT THIS
COMMITTEE ABOUT TRAFFIC, SCHOOL BUSES, THE NEED FOR SPEED LIMITS AND
SO ON, AND AS THE SONG SAYS "TIMES ARE A-CHANGING"!
4
HORSESHOE VALLEY, CONT'D
AS MY LAST BACKGROUND COMMENT I MUST REMIND YOU THAT THERE IS
NOWHERE IN THIS COMMUNITY OF 470 HOMES FOR CHILDREN TO PLAY OR
MEET, OTHER THAN IN THEIR yARDS....
-NO VACANT FIELD
-NO SCHOOL YARD
-NO SWINGS, NO SLIDES
-NO PLACE TO THROW OR KICK A BALL
-NO PLACE TO FLY A KITE
-NO TRAILS FOR AMOUNT AIN BIKE
-NO PLACE TO USE A SKATE BOARD
-NO TENNIS COURTS (OTHER THAN THE ONES YOU RENT AT HORSESHOE)
-NO NOTHNG
YES, WE WILL SOON HAVE A LITTLE PLAYGROUND IN ONE CORNER OF THE
HIGHLANDS, , BUT ITS LOCATION AND SIZE WILL NOT ALLOW IT TO MEET ANY
OF THE THESE NEEDS OF THE BROADER COMMUNITY.
AND KEEP IN MIND THAT AS THE NEW 600 HOME LANDSCAPES COMMUNITY
DEVELOPS THERE IS NO PARKLAND ASSOCIATED WITH IT. WE ARE TOLD THAT IT
WILL HAVE A COMMUNITY CENTRE, BUT USE WILL BE RESTRICTED TO PEOPLE
WHO BUY THERE.
SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THE TIME TO DO SOMETHING FOR OUR COMMUNITY IS
HERE. THE NEED WAS THERE IN ] 999, AND ITS AN EVEN GREATER NEED TODAY.
WE DO NOT WANT TO BE SEEN AS FOLKS WHO MOVE IN TO A RURAL
MUNICIPALITY AND THEN DEMAND ALL THE AMENITIES THAT BIG CITIES HAVE
TO OFFER, AND WE THINK OUR REQUEST IS REASONABLE....GIVEN THE SIZE OF
OUR COMMUNITY, LOT LEVIES, TAXES AND SO ON.
THE PARKLANDS SECONDARY STUDY WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN 2002 REFERS
SEVERAL TIMES TO THE NEED FOR FACILITIES NORTH OF HWY ] 1 AND IN
HORSESHOE V ALLEY SPECIFICALLY, AND TO THE NEED FOR "MULTI USE
OUTDOOR F ACILITIES"....THAT IS THE PHRASE USED BY THE AUTHOR OF THE
STUDY, NOT ME.
~
5
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?, CONT'D
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE POD'S LANE DEBATE LAST SUMMER THE MINUTES
OF THE COTW MEETING OF AUGUST 14TH DIRECTED THE RECREATION
COORDINATOR "TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE NEEDS OF
THE GREATER HORSESHOE VALLEY COMMUNITY".
WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY WORK HAVING BEEN DONE TO DATE, BUT EARLIER
THIS YEAR COUNCIL APPROVED $5000.00 FOR TillS PURPOSE.
CHRIS CARTER TELLS ME THAT HE WILL SOON BE PREPARING A PLAN AS TO
HOW BEST TO APPROACH THIS TASK, AND THE BOARD OF OUR ASSOCIATION
AND THE CITIZENS OF HORSESHOE V ALLEY STAND READY TO HELP IN ANY WAY
WE CAN.
IN CONVERSATIONS WITH CHRIS I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT illS TASK OF
DEALING WITII THE NEED FOR A FACILITY FOR HORSESHOE V ALLEY IS MADE
MORE DIFFICULT BY SUCH FACTORS AS....
- THE CHALLENGE OF DETERMINING HOW A PLAYGROUND AND
RECREATION FIELD AT THE BEARD MEMORIAL COMPLEX MIGHT FIT IN
WITH THE NEEDS OF OTHER COMMUNITIES FOR SUCH THINGS AS
SOFTBALL OR SOCCER
-THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER HORSESHOE COULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE
TO PLACES SUCH AS BURL'S CREEK FOR ORGANIZED LEAGUE PLAY FOR
THESE SPORTS.
WEIGHING ALL THE ALTERNATIVES MIGHT WELL BE A REQUIREMENT OF
CHRIS'S JOB BUT WE ASK THAT BOTH CHRIS AND COUNCIL KEEP TWO THINGS IN
MIND....
-WEARE NOT ASKING FOR A LARGE FACILITY. IN FACT THE USABLE LAND
AVAILABLE AT THE BEARD PARK IS NOT LARGE, AND WE DOUBT THAT
THE SITE COULD EVER BE SUITABLE AS A MAJOR FACILITY TO REPLACE
OR AUGMENT A BURL'S CREEK.
-WEARE NOT ASKING FOR A BIG PROJECT THAT WOULD PROVIDE ALL THE
POSSIBLE RECREATION NEEDS THAT I NOTED EARLIER, OR ADDRESS THE
LONG TERM POTENTIAL VISION THAT I OUTLINED FOR THE SITE.
.
6
SO WHAT DO WE RECOMMEND?
WE ASK COUNCIL TO AGREE THAT THERE IS A NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT
MUST BE ADDRESSED, AND THAT MEANINGFUL WORK SHOULD COMMENCE
IN 2003.
THE FIRST STEP (PHASE 1) WOULD BE AN "ON THE GROUND" ASSESSMENT BY A
QUALIFIED EXPERT IN THE RECREATION FIELD TO ASSESS BOTH THE
CAP ABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SITE, AND TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR ITS
UTILIZATION.
PHASE I WOULD ALSO INCLUDE WHATEVER "NEEDS ASSESSMENT" WORK THE
RECREATION COORDINATOR FEELS IS NECESSARY. AS I SAID EARLIER, THE
RESIDENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY WOULD BE PLEASE TO HELP IN SUCH A
PROCESS, SERVE ON AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHATEVER IS REQUIRED.
THE SECOND STEP (pHASE 2) WOULD BE GROUND CLEARING, GRADING,
SHAPING AND LEVELING OF THE LAND TO BE USED, FOLLOWED BY SEEDING.
ONE WONDERS IF TOWNSHIP PEOPLE AND EQUIPMENT COULD BE USED IN THIS
PHASE, AT LEAST IN PART?
PHASES ONE AND HOPEFULLY PHASE TWO WOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE SUMMER OF
2003.
PHASE THREE WOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE SPRING OF 2004 AND WOULD
INCLUDE...
-PARKING LOT
-PLAYGROUND (LARGER TIlAN POD'S LANE)
-BASIC EQUIPMENT FOR SOFTBALL AND SOCCER
-A FEW PICNIC TABLES
SUBSEQUENT PHASES WOULD OCCUR "DOWN THE ROAD" AS USAGE AND NEEDS
DICTATE, AND AS MONEY BECOMES AVAILABLE.
WHERE WOULD THE MONEY COME FROM FOR PHASES 1,2 AND 3?
WE REALIZE THAT ONLY $5000.00 IS BUDGETED FOR THIS YEAR, AND WE HAVE
NO IDEA HOW MUCH MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR 2004, BUT WE UNDERSTAND
THAT A PARKS AND REC RESERVE FUND EXISTS, AND THAT IT CONTAINS
APPROXIMA TEL Y $400,000.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS RATHER LARGE SUM IS, BUT
IS IT REASONABLE TO SUGGEST THAT IT MIGHT BE TAPPED TO GET THIS
PROJECT UNDERWAY?
"
-,
7
SUMMARY
WELL, THERE YOU HAVE IT.....
- WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE NEED
- WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE SITE
- WE HAVE GIVEN YOU A PROPOSAL FOR A PROJECT TO UNFOLD OVER
TIME IN SEVERAL PHASES AS NEED AND MONEY PERMITS,
-AND WE HAVE SUGGESTED A SOURCE OF "UP FRONT"FUNDING TO ALLOW
THE PROJECT TO GET STARTED.
WE HAVE ALSO STATED THAT WE SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT A
SIGNIFICANT AND VISIBLE START SHOULD BE MADE NOW, WITH WHAT WE
THINK ARE THE BARE MINIMUM OF FACILITIES IN PLACE BY THE SUMMER
OF 2004. WE STARTED THE PURSUIT OF OUR VISION IN 1999 AND WE DON'T THINK
WE CAN BE BRANDED AS IMPATIENT AND UNREALISTIC BY WANTING TO GET
THINGS GOING TillS SUMMER.
RIGHT ABOUT NOW I SUSPECT ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL IS ITCHING
TO ASK ME ABOUT WHAT THE RESIDENTS OF HORSESHOE V ALLEY ARE
PREPARED TO DO TO HELP OUT FINANCIALLY WITH TillS PROJECT.
ALL I CAN SAY FOR NOW IS THAT I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE PEOPLE WILL
SHARE OUR VISION FOR WHAT THE PARK CAN BE, AND HOW IT CAN ADD TO THE
QUALITY OF LIFE OF OUR COMMUNITY, AND IF COUNCIL HAS A POLICY THAT
REQUIRES LOCAL PARTICIPATION I AM SURE THE PEOPLE WILL DO THEIR PART,
BOTH THROUGH THEIR MONEY AND THEIR TIME.
IT MAY EVEN BE POSSIBLE THAT MONEY CAN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT
THIS CAN BE DETERMINED IN DUE COURSE.
MAYOR CRAIG, DEPUTY MAYOR DICKIE, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, AND MEMBERS
OF STAFF, I WOULD LIKE TO USE THE WORD VISION ONE MORE TIME.
WE ASK YOU TO VISUALIZE THE IAN ARTHUR BEARD MEMORIAL COMPLEX AS IT
CAN BE.....
-START WITH THE BOULEVARD AS YOU COME OFF HORSESHOE VALLEY
ROAD ONTO THE FOURTH LINE. IT IS NOW WEEDY GRASS AND NOT VERY
PRETTY. THE HORSESHOE V ALLEY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
LACKS THE MONEY TO FIX IT UP BUT WE NOW HAVE A PLEDGE FORM
HORSESHOE RESORT AND CARRIAGE HILLS TO PLANT THE WHOLE
BOULEVARD WITII SUITABLE FLOWERS AND SHRUBS, AND TO WATER AND
MAINTAIN IT. WORK IS TO START SHORTLY.
(ov\-\
3 RECfntf:n I
MINUTES "FOR BARRIE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD MEETING # 03-02 MAV 5 7003 "
OHU-IlllIaJUN fE
TOWNSHIP
DATE:
Thursday, February 27, 2003
TIME:
7:30 p.m.
.
LOCA TION: Consumer's Gas Board Room
.
PRESENT: LPlatt (Chair), W.PorteL L.McClean, C.Virgo, M.Sherman, W.Fraser, A.Eadie,
T.Blain, A.Davis, J.Ross (Recorder)
ABSENT:
V.DeCecco
] . Can to Order
The meeting was called to order at 8:] Opm. A presentation by AudioVision Canada was
made to the Board prior to the meeting.
2. Confinnation of AQenda
.
The agenda was confinned with the addition ofltem 5.2 Community Development
Committee Meeting Report.
3. Conflict of Interest
None.
4. Minutes of Meeting
4.1 Minutes of Board Meeting #03-01 dated Thursday, Januarv 23. 2003
It was noted that LPlatt did not attend the OLA Conference as stated in Item 9 "New
Business".
#03-06
PORTER - FR;\SER
THAT the minutes of Board Meeting #03-0} dated Thursday, January 23, 2003 be
adopted. CARRIED.
.
5.
5.]
Business Arising
Orientation Session
The Chair suggested that this be discussed at the next Community Development meeting
before discussion at the Board meeting in June.
4
~CA ~ ~
5.2 Community Development Committee Meeting Report
The Community Development Committee met immediately prior to this Board Meeting.
The Commit1ee Chair reported on the progress of the Dragon Boat Festival preparations.
The Commit1ee wi1l pursue sponsorship possibilities for some of the Dragon Boat events.
Further work to be done by this Commit1ee hinges on development of the Strategic Plan.
.
6. Report of the Chair
The Chair thanked Board Members for their at1endance at OLA Superconference.
Feedback from the Conference is already being channeled back through various
committees.
~
The kickoff for the Dragon Boat Festival was a success. The Chair has received a lot of
feedback from staff.
The Barrie Folk Society Perfonnance House held in February was a success and will be
moved to a larger area of the library next month.
7. Commit1ee Reports
7.1 Preliminary Financial Statements for December 2002
#03-07
PORTER -- FRASER
THA T the Preliminary Financial Statements for Deccmber 2002 be received.
CARRIED.
7.2 Financial Statements for January 2003
#03-08
VIRGO - PORTER
THAT the Financial Statements for January 2003 and the expenditures amounting
to $250,981.74 be approved. CARRIED.
7.3
Planning Committee Minutes #03-02 dated Thursday, February 20, 2003
.
The Chair reported on the Minutes. In the third line under Item 9 "Recommendation to
Council re Library Board Size and Makeup", the word "request" should be changed to
"recommend" .
.
#03-09
SHERMAN - BLAIN
THAT the Minutes of Planning Committee Mceting #03-02 dated Thursday,
February 20, 2003 be received. CARRIED.
5
I r
\.QC\-j
#03-10
BLAIN - VIRGO
THAT the Mayor and City Couneil be advised of the changes made to tbe Public
Libraries Act and our recommendations. CARRJED.
8. Director of Library Services Report for January 2003
Highlights of the Director's Report were discussed, including an update on Development
Charges.
9. New Business
9.1 Letter of Complaint
A letter from a customer was discussed. Staffhave developed procedures for dealing with
problem behaviour in the Library. These procedures should be ready for discusssion at the
next Personnel Committee Meeting.
9.2 Letter of Thanks
The Chair directed staff to send a letter thanking AudioVision Canada who made a
presentation prior to tonight's Board Meeting.
10. Other Business
None.
I I. Committee Meeting Dates
Personnel Meeting - Thursday, March 6, 2003 at 6:30pm
]2. Date of Next Board Meeting
Thursday, March 27, 2003 at 7:30pm in the Consumers Gas Board Room.
13.
w y'T.Blain
/
CHAIR
16
~(;\ - 4
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
March 27, 2003 for February, 2003
I PERSONNEL
1. February ]", the Director attended the Strategic Directions Council public meeting that
presented the CEOs of Large Public Libraries of Ontario (CELPLO) proposal for the
creation of a Federation of Ontario Public Libraries. The presentation was made to the
library community attending the Super Conference in Toronto and the proposed model
is based on the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. CELPLO's proposal was
made at the request of the Strategic Directions Council and was in response to the
Ontario Library Association's study Bui/ding Value Togelher
2. February 3", the Director attended the City of Barrie Cultural Policy Task Force
meeting as Co-Chair.
3. February 4'", the Director conducted an interview for the Manager. Electronic Services
and Development.
4. February 4'" , the Director attended a special Rotary Club of Barrie Program and
]nfonnation Committee meeting taking responsibility to bring two speakers to the
Club in July.
5. February 5'". the Director attended the Ferndale Woods Elementary School to
participate in judging a student public speaking eompetition.
6. February 27'", the Director and Development Officer. Ann Andrusyszyn, met with Ian
Pavlik of the Barrie Rotary Club to discuss a land based event partnership as part of
the Library's Dragon Boat Festival this summer.
7. February 2]", Jane Salmon successfully completed the Ontario Librar\' Association
online course, Kid Friendly lnlernel Siles. Jane's participation in the chat forum was
such that she was asked to provide all other course participants with her selected
Homework Help sites as we]] as her outlines for the Children's Internet Workshop and
the Your Child and Internet workshop.
8. Jane Salmon attended the Early Years Task Force committee meeting FebruaryJ9'" at
the Health Unit. Jane also participated in a task group on February 7'" to recommend
which Simcoe County proposals should be allotted Challenge Fund money from the
provincial government.
.
9. Jane Salmon was interviewed by Sharon Posius of the New VR for a special report on
Internet Safety. While actual footage of the interview was not used, Jane's message
expressing the ineffectiveness of filters was included.
17
\ /" 'h
'---'< '-^....-.-J
10. Jane was also interviewed in February by Rogers cable about the Infant Massage
program.
] 1. Cindy Pomeroy-White arranged with Laurie Moore, manager of Pizza Hut, to donate a
total of]4 large pizzas to two Teen focus groups working with the library to develop
programs. A total of26 teens have already signed up for the Teen Advisory Board. In
addition to programs, services and the coJlection, volunteer opportunities wiJl be
discussed.
] 2. Anne Dorsey visited St. Peter's Secondary Schoo] February 26'" to set up a library
display as part of the school's grade 8 orientation evening. There were about a dozen
community groups represented that evening.
13. Cathy Bodle, Dunja Comoy and Cathy Truax anended three days of health and safety
training in Peterborough to be certified Union representatives on the Health and Safety
Comminee.
]4. Joy Martin was invited by Mandy HiJlyard of the Coalition to End Homelessness to
anend a special "CoJlaborators" meeting to discuss homelessness issues in the City of
Barrie.
] 5. Shonna Froebel represented the library at three Chamber of Commerce events in
February: Business After 5, the Federal Budget Review and the Speaker Series.
16. Carol Prescon was hired to fiJl the contract part-time Library Assistant] position until
August 29, 2003. Carol will start work March 03, 2003.
17. Two of the library's volunteers. Raymond Mustard and Danny Suh, were
photographed for the front page of the Barrie Examiner. Their photographs will be
accompanied with an article about student volunteering.
II INFORMATION SERVICE
.
I. Anne Dorsey provided Young Adult Reader's Advisory session for all ]nfoffi1ation
Services staff at the departmental meeting February 25'h
2. The cassene and CD collection in the Junior Fiction area was rearranged to
accommodate new fOffi1ats, create more space for the Parenting collection as weJl as
increase the effectiveness of the Fairy tale coJlection display.
3. February 6''', Jane Salmon took a library display to Ferndale Woods Elementary
School for the Literacy Night.
18
G. C\ - \.0
4. Brenda Jarvis established contact with other community organizations such as Early
Years Centre, Simcoe County District Health Unit, Barrie YMCA, Barrie Parks and
Recreation as we]] as a local massage therapist to present infant care related topics for
the new Baby Goose program running from March 26'h to May 28th at the library.
5. Nancy Woods perfonned a story time at the Early Years Centre for 10 children and 6
adults on February 2] ".
.
6. Nancy Woods prepared] 0 book blocks of 30 books each for the Barrie Municipal Non
Profit Housing. These blocks wi]] be rotated every 6 weeks and used for the Reading
Circles program.
7. Yvonne Wilson conducted a tour for the Kids Nursery School Group and Yvonne and
Brenda conducted story times and tours for two Sparks groups.
8. Winterfest was celebrated with a Story Time on Saturday, February ]" and simple
crafts aH day on Saturday and Sunday. Forty-five people attended the Story Time with
a total of 2] 9 children.
9. MicheHe Dick, a registered Massage Therapist. assisted the library to deliver a very
successful Infant Massage program.
] O. The Winter session of registered Preschool Story Times ended with aH staff receiving
glowing evaluation forms from parents with the usual comments of wanting more
programs each week. Staff and space limitations prevent the offering of more
programs. February witnessed 9] 7 chiJdren and parents attending the various Story
Time programs. The drop-in Story Times on Fridays and Saturday averaged 47 in
attendance at each program.
1 l. The Library Radical Readers Reading Circle continues to grow. Testimonials from
volunteers and parents wi]] appear in the library newsletter.
12. Shonna Froebel is continuing to provide library staff with individual and group
training for business Electronic Resources. Shonna has drafted a plan for the future
Business Services and met with three of the four survey winners to commence doing
research for them.
.
] 3. Janet Graham attended a presentation made to the Barrie Public Library Board by
Audio Vision Canada. Janet spoke briefly to the presenters afterwards and submitted a
brief report. While Janet feels descriptive A V material may be useful in the library,
she would like more information, a catalogue and for Southern Ontario Library
Service to explore a consortia strategy.
19
~G\ ~l
]4. Patricia Roebuck developed a language profile for the 2003-2004 year for submission
to the Southern Ontario Multilingua] Pool (SOMP) by the beginning of March. To
date, the borrowing rates for Chinese, Polish, Vietnamese and Spanish are the highest.
Since there is a flat annual fee for SOMP, Patricia requested and received approval for
another video rack for the multi]ingual collections for the 2003-2004 year. Japanese
was added to the list of requested materials due to the increasing number of
immigrants and Honda employees and families living in Barrie.
IS. Mary McAlpine added two lists to Recommended Reading on IPAC: Humorous
Women's Fiction and Recent Canadian Fiction.
16. Information Barrie produced 5 specialized custom lists in February.
] 7. Robyn luck gave a demonstration of the online archives of the Globe and Mail and
Toronto Star to 2 library staff from Georgian ColJege.
] 8. Robyn luck assisted the Ontario Genealogical Society executive to plan a genealogy
workshop for May.
19. Cathy Bodle received a request from Dawn McAlpine of the City of Barrie requesting
to link to our Events Calendar on our Web Site. It was noted that the City did not
think it necessary to duplicate information already available at the library.
20. Cathy Bodle attended a meeting of the Information Providers Coalition of Simcoe
County in Collingwood.
2 I. Cathy Bodle attended a meeting to do the "first proof read" of the Seniors Information
Directory at City HaIJ.
22. February saw]4 programs delivered in Information Services to adults with 5] people
attending. Robyn luck presented 2 E-mail workshops, Janet Graham held the
Wednesday Book Club and a video afternoon. Janet also conducted the seniors
Internet 2-part beginner program. Shonna Froebel conducted a tour for the Job
Finding Club and delivered the Drop-in Catalogue workshop as weIJ as, with Patricia
Roebuck's assistance, initiated the first business Internet workshop by the library: Ger
the Edge on the Competition. Sue Gifford helped Shonna deliver a Drop-in Internet
workshop.
23. Robyn luck has revised the public access screen to improve access to Electronic
Resources as the number of titles available has increased substantially.
24. Cindy Madden created and mounted a Freedom to Read display in the foyer display
case as well as maintained the displays for readers.
25. Janet Graham completed a profile of the visiting library service (VLS). The 30'"
anniversary is this October.
20
\.Q~=1
26. Arrangements have been made to move the "stand alone" computer from the Boutique
to the ]nfonnation Services Department. This is in response to demand.
27. Ayla Demiray has gained a free DVD player from the National Film board's DVD
player campaign. The number of dollars the library spent on National Film Board
films detennined this award.
.
]nfonnation Statistics: (February)
2002
2003
IncreasenDecrease
]n person
Remote (telephone/web)
TOTAL
3846
1202
5048
4468
] ]59
5627
16 %
-4 %
]2 %
III CIRCULATION SERVICES
]. February 1 ", the 3 renewal limit was implemented.
2. February 27'", Kelly, the Library's computer phone system, started calling patrons to
advise them of their overdue material.
Circulation Statistics: (February)
2002
2003
Increase/Decrease
Checkouts
Self Checkouts
120,824
9,347
] 13,351
] 0,460
-7%
12%
.
IV TECHNICAL SERVICES
]. Dunja Comoy, Freida Lund and Laurie Wright completed training on the VDX
software for Interlibrary Loan.
2. The Hub supporting the Library's local area network was re-organized to free up
additional ports. Software patches installed by the City to the Library's Telecirc
server resulted in two periods of downtime in February.
21
I . r--
\Qv,
-0
)
3. Software upgrades to the ]pac server prior to the implementation oflpac2
to support fu]] functionality of the library's computer system have been
investigated and a strategy developed.
4. Dunja Conroy has requested an estimate from Dynix and Commonwealth Imaging
to digitize our microfonn collections, Barrie Newspapers and Births, Marriages
and Deaths. The new Dynix software module is capable of "neatly" accessing
such a database using the ]pac software.
V COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
]. Our Development Officer, Ann Andrusyszyn, met with the Dragon Boat Festival
Organizational Comminee. This committee will meet every two weeks.
2. Merchandise with the Dragon Boat Festival logo is in preparation and two public
infonnation nights describing the festival and the library's role in bringing Dragon
Boat Racing to Barrie were held.
3. Ann met with a number of community groups and possible sponsors regarding
Festival involvement including Base Borden and two Rotary clubs.
4. Performance House hosted an open stage event with the Barrie Folk Society on
Saturday, February 8th in community partnership with the Library. This event will
take place on the second Saturday each month.
5. Ann attended the monthly Planned Giving Counsel of Simcoe County meeting, the
Association of Fundraising Professionals on "How to Build a Highly Successful
Monthly Giving Program".
6. Ann was invited to anend the marketing meeting and sessions with the
development and marketing staff from 20 other Ontario public libraries.
The meeting was held at the Mississauga Public Library.
7. Ann met with the artistic director of "Talk is Free Theatre" to discuss a possible
presentation for the library.
22
~c\ - \ 0
VI VOLUNTEER PROGRAM
1. Julie Ross attended another session in the series of Volunteer Screening workshops
cal1ed Hiring Your Volunteers presented by the United Way Leadership
Development Program and Volunteer Barrie.
2. Arrangements have been made to sell discarded magazines in the Boutique.
3. The Sudbury PubJic Library contacted Julie for infonnation on estabJishing
a coffee shop in their Jibrary.
4. JuJie met with a teacher from the Life Skil1s program at a local high school as wel1
as the Employment Options Program of Barrie and District Association for People
with Special Needs to discuss two potential work placements.
5. Two new volunteers were hired for the boutigue in February and three to help with
shelf reading.
6. Volunteers were provided to help with Winterfest and to keep the coffee shop open
Saturday evening for the Barrie Fo]k Society Perfonnance House.
Volunteer Statistics: (February)
Cafe
Boutique
Col1ection (shelving)
Hours
]79.5
145
]49.5
VIII BUILDING
]. The Air Conditioning Contractor continues to monitor the musty and moldy smel1s
throughout the building.
2. Accounts are now ful1y set up with the City and al1 payables are being processed
through the city system. Revenues are sti11 not being coded at this time.
3. BDO Dunwoody auditors have completed the in-house work statements and the
final statement should be received soon.
4. The Record of Employees 2002 salaries and benefits for the PubJic Sector Salary
Disclosure Act has been completed.
PREPARED BY
A. Davis
DATE March 27. 2003
23 ~~~\}.
ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE MONTH FEBRUARY, 2003
SAME MTH CURR PREY CURR
PREV YR MTH %+/- YTD YTD %+1-
1. CtRCULATION
ADULT
a) Print 54,281 48,342 -10.94% 113,659 105,464 -7.21%
b) Non-print 19,187 21,610 12.63% 40,158 46,614 16.08%
CHILDREN
a) Print 36,468 32,492 -10.90% 75,913 74,092 -2.40%
b) Non-print 10,931 10,907 -0.22% 21,952 20,762 -5.42%
TOTAL CIRCULATION 120,867 113,351 -6.22% 251,682 246,932 -1.89%
2. INTERLIBRARY LOAN
LENT 5 239 4680.00% 6 580 9566.67%
BORROWED 197 229 16.24% 465 458 -1.51%
3. MEMBERSHtP 743 785 5.65% 1,702 1,702 0.00%
TOTAL MEMBERSHIP 74,633 82,104 10.01% 74,633 82,104 10.01%
4. INFORMATION REQUESTS
a) Information Desk 1 2,975 3,302 10.99% 6,841 6,999 2.31%
b) Information Desk 2 1,392 1.620 16.38% 3,389 3,587 5.84%
c) Information Barrie 685 705 2.92% 1,530 1,443 -5.69%
TOTAL INFORMATION REQUESTS 5,052 5,627 11.38% 11,760 12,029 2.29%
5 COMMUNITY SERVICES
Programs & Tours
a) Adult 12 2 -83.33% 18 3 -83.33%
b) Children 46 51 10.87% 88 96 9.09%
TOTAL PROGRAMS 58 53 -8.62% 106 99 -6.60%
Attendance
a) Adult 129 17 -86.82% 177 32 -81.92%
b) Children 1,421 1,386 -2.46% 2,394 2,644 10.44%
TOTAL ATTENDANCE 1.550 1,403 -9.48% 2,571 2,676 4.08%
6. PATRON COUNT 62,596 61,042 -2.48% 121.325 127,515 5.10%
7. WEBPACIDIALPAC 4,662 0 -100.00% 10,283 0 -100.00%
8. LIBRARY WEB PAGE USE 285,427 203,588 -28.67% 422,987 309 ,482 -26.83%
9. TECHNICAL SERVICES
New catalogued items
a) Adult print 1,177 1,240 5.35% 1,677 2,509 49.61%
b) Children print 1,090 1,289 18.26% 1,265 2,978 135.42%
c) Adult non-print 200 325 62.50% 339 800 135.99%
d) Children non-print 1,100 319 -71.00% 1,178 615 -47.79%
Collection size 210,760 222,599 5.62% 210,760 222,599 5.62%
"
MINUTES FOR BARRIE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD MEETING # 03-03
lYb-1
DATE:
Thursday, March 27, 2003
TIME:
7:30 p.m.
LOCAT]ON: Consumer's Gas Board Room
PRESENT: l.P]att (Chair), W.Porter, V.DeCecco, L.McClean, T.Blain. W.Fraser, C.Virgo,
ADavis, J.Ross (Recorder)
ABSENT: AEadie, M.Sherman
]. CaJl to Order
The meeting was caJled to order at 7:32pm.
2. Confirmation of Aj:!enda
The agenda was confirmed with the addition of item 5.1 OLBA Teleconference under
Business Arising.
3. Conflict oflnterest
None.
4. Minutes of Meetinj:!
4. I Minutes of Board Meetin>! #03-02 dated Thursdav. Februarv 27. 2003
". ~ -
#03-11
BLAIN - VIRGO
THAT the Minutes of Board Meeting #03-02 dated Thursday, February 27, 2003 be
adopted. CARR]ED.
5. Business Arising
5.] Ontario Library Board Association (OLBA) Teleconference
A teleconference caJled "Redefining Library Boards for Dynamic Communities" with
Ken Haycock is being offered by OLA Three parts are being held in April, May and
October from 6-7pm. The cost is $44 per location per session. Staff was asked to register
the Board for the April 16'" session. After evaluation, it wiJl be decided if we want to
register for the remaining two sessions.
6. Report of the Chair
The 2003 budget has been passed by the City.
4
-.
7.
7.]
Committee Reports
Financial Statements for February 2003
lYb --~
#03- 12
PORTER -- DECECCO
THAT the Financial Statements for February 2003 and the expenditures
amounting to $381,547.07 be approved. CARRlED,
7.2 In-Camera Personnel Committee Minutes #03-03 dated Thursdav. March 6, 2003
This portion of the meeting was held In-Camera.
7.3 Community Development Minutes #03-0] dated Thursday, February 27, 2003
#03-13
VIRGO - BLAIN
THAT the Minutes of Community Development Meeting #03-01 dated
Thursday, February 27, 2003 be received. CARRlED.
8. Director of Library Services Report for February 2003
Highlights of the report were discussed.
9. New Business
None.
10. Other Business
None.
1 ]. Committee Meeting Dates
Community Development Committee - Tuesday, April 15 at 7pm.
Planning Committee - Wednesday, April ]6 at 7:] Spm.
]2. Date of Next Board Meeting
Thursday, April 24, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the Consumers Gas Board Room
13.
Adjournment /1
A m~ion to ~.'~ynG~ eeti~& at 8:35pm was made by v.DeC~,~~.
. J I
- i // '
1/ ,
CHAIR
/
I
!
S
.'
24
lY\:J-3
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
April 24, 2003 for March, 2003
I PERSONNEL
]. March 7'", the Director participated in a special Stra1egic Directions Council (SDC)
Task Force of the Ontario Library Association (aLA) to start work on a business
plan to create the Ontario Federation of Public Libraries as proposed by the CEOs
of Large Public Libraries of Ontario (CELPLO).
2. March 8'", the Director, as part of Rotary, entertained two Eastern Generals visiting
Base Borden.
3. March ]0'", the Director interviewed again for the Manager, Electronic Resources
position.
4. March ]2'", the library held the dedication ceremony of the stained glass piece in
memory of Fran Cook arranged by Anne Dorsey with the support of Ann
Andrusyszyn and Jane Salmon. The memorial will hang in the children's picture
book area.
5. March 28'" a delegation of Board and staff from the Peterborough Public Library
visited the library. Director and staff provided a tour and a presentation of "best
practices."
6. March 3] ", the Director accompanied Board Chair, Ian Platt, to make a
presentation to City Council in response to the new Public Libraries Act and Board
Composition.
7. Cathy Bodle attended a meeting of the Information Providers Coalition of Simcoe
County in Barrie and another meeting of the Simcoe County Database managers in
Collingwood.
II INFORMATION SERVICE
J. Shonna Froebel, Business Librarian, added a new set of Investment links to the
Business Links page and revamped the main page as well as created a new page
for programmes and seminars.
2. Shonna also met with Michelle Jones of the City's Career Development Centre to
review the library's partnership and to provide material to support the "Change
Management" topic being provided to Career Development Centre staff.
'.
25
lvb -~..
3. Shonna has created a partnership agreement with the Small Business Networking
Association (SBNA) to provide a room for their weekly meeting in return for
membership in the organization.
4. Sharma has arranged for the Ontario Securities Commission to speak at the library
as part oflnvestor Education Month.
S. Cindy Madden evaluated all the Adult Internet links in Health, Home and Garden,
Science and Technology, Telephone and Postal Code Directories as well as
Universities and Colleges to ensure that the library's site is up-to-date in helping
clients find needed information over the Internet.
6. Patricia Roebuck attended the annual general meeting of Southern Ontario
Multilingual Pool. Patricia demonstrated the ranking system she developed to
determine language priorities using Excel and the 2001 census on language
statistics.
7. Mary McA]pine added more Genre websites to the Readers' Couch area.
8, Janet Graham provided materials for 8 Nursing Homes this month.
9. Cindy Madden maintained a "Dreams of Spring @ Your Library" display for the
month.
] O. Information Barrie produced 3 customized lists this month as well as a special list
of cultural and multicultural organizations for the Barrie Task Force for a
Multicultural Policy. This task force has been created in response to a request
from the City of Barrie through the Barrie and District Arts Council.
] ]. Cathy Bodle, Information Barrie, attended three more proofreading meetings for
the Seniors Information Directory at City Hall in March as well as a regular
weekly Drop-In at the Elizabeth Fry Society to make everyone aware of library
and Information Barrie services.
12. Janet Graham contacted the Legion and the City to explore the possibility of the
library offering a programme to enhance youth awareness of the contribution made
by Canada's soldiers as part of Remembrance Day in Barrie. Plans are not made
until late August or early September and involve the City. Janet will contact the
Legion again in September.
13. Janet Graham, as part of programming for seniors, has also arranged with the
Ontario Securities Commission and Barb Carter of Volunteer Toronto to present
"The ABCs of Fraud" at the library.
.'
26
G~-5
Information Statistics: (March)
2002
2003
IncrcasenDecrease
]n person
Remote (telephone/web)
TOTAL
4]56
]278
5434
5720
]062
6782
]3 %
-17 %
24 %
] 4. Information Services offered] 3 adult programs this month with 90 citizens
attending, These included Drop-in Internet and a lob Finding Club tour by Shonna
FroebeL and a tour for a large group of newcomers from YMCA by Ayla Demiray
and Anne Dorsey. Anne also offered two Health Issues Online workshops: Robyn
Zuek presented a Pathfinder Tour, an Introduction to Emai] and Beyond Basics
Email workshop, Mary McAlpine provided a two-part "Seniors on the Internet"'
Workshop.
] 5. Cindy Madden has started work on a new departmental booking calendar.
] 6. Nancy Woods and lane Salmon attended the Library Service Centre Children's
Material Display Day in Mississauga. This is an opportunity to review children's
materia] and talk to publishers about the needs of libraries.
] 7. The Children's CD ROM stations are proving to be well used. This month 23
educational games and 5 French CD ROMS were accessed a total of2855 times.
] 8. Anne Dorsey updated several Young Adult Readers Advisory handouts and
developed a bibliography of Young Adult poetry. This may be used for an article
that will appear in the Barrie Advance about "Poetry Month."
] 9. Because of her involvement with Battle of Books. lane Salmon was invited to
Steele Street School for a book launch by a local author, Mary lane Martin.
20. The Gryphon Theatre has sent the entries from their annual poster contest to be
displayed on the Children's floor.
2]. Nancy Woods did a story time on March 20'" for children from the YMCA
Immigrant Services.
22. lane Salmon visited three schools and Brenda Jarvis another for the Battle of the
Books Bingo.
23. lane Salmon conducted a story time for five behaviourally challenged students
from a local group home. Jane received an expression of appreciation from the
teacher who remarked how well the children interacted with lane after the story.
'.
27
\s; D -\0
24. Eleven programmes were offered during March break with the theme of
celebrating Barrie's Sesquicentennial year and in highlighting community helpers.
Attendance increased to 600 this year. Events included:
. Big kickoff event was the "Birthday Bash" on Monday, March] O'h with the
Mayor reading a story, the Town Crier proclaiming the event and Kempenfelt
Kelly greeting the children. The crowd was estimated to be at least 200
people. Everyone enjoyed making birthday hats, singing Happy Birthday to
Barrie and eating cake.
. On Saturday, March 8'h at 2 p.m. ]2 participants created a mural of "Barrie, Past
and Present" in the "Mural Magic" programme.
. Tuesday, March] ]'" and Friday, March ]4'h Brenda Jarvis and Yvonne Wilson
presented 3 puppet shows with Kempenfelt Kelly as the main character. One
of these perfonnances was for 28 children from the Barrie Native Friendship
Centre. A total of] 38 children and adults anended the two other perfoffilances
on Tuesday and Friday of that week.
. On Wednesday, March] 2'" at ] 0:30 a.m, Barrie firefighter Rob Cook read a
story and demonstrated his equipment to 98 delighted children and parents.
. On Wednesday, March 12'" at 2 p.m. Brenda Jarvis led 32 participants in
creating pages for a Barrie Library Sesquicentennial Scrapbook. This
programme will be continued though the year with different library "groups"
such as Battle of the Books participants, the Reading Circle. the Summer
Reading programme and perhaps seniors.
. Kym McOuat and a local Health worker led a "We Read to be Healthy"
story time on Thursday, March 13'" for 20 children.
. Nancy Woods prepared and held a Barrie Bingo on Thursday, March 13'" that
highlighted Barrie's people, buildings and historical events. Although the
anendance of ] 3 children and 3 adults was sma]], staff can use the Bingo cards
created again and again in the future.
. On Friday afternoon, Jane welcomed a Barrie police officer. Constable Wendy
Fleming, who read to 25 children and then talked about her job and equipment.
Once girl of about] 2 years old was so inspired that she now wants to be a
police officer.
.'
28
G~ -l
III CIRCULATION SERVICES
], Cathy Truax developed a calendar to reside on the computer network to manage the
community display case bookings.
2. While memberships have increased (6%), circulation is down ]%, This is attributed to
renewals being limited to three, The limit was imposed to increase the amount of
material available for browsing in the library by other patrons, Three renewals still
enables a customer to keep materia] for up to ] 2 weeks.
Circulation Statistics: (March)
2002
2003
Increase/Decrease
Total Checkouts
(Self Checkouts)
Renewals
134,0]8
] ],466
47,703
] 33,255
] ],869
33,645
-!%
4%
-30%
IV TECHNICAL SERVICES
], All technical service staff perform a "walkabout" through the public areas of the
library in afternoon to support the library's efforts to manage problem patron
behaviour.
2. The library's interlibrary loan system, VDX, has been extremely slow and SOLS
has been asked to drop Barrie to the library of "last resort" for interlibrary loan
until the problem can be addressed.
3. Dunja Conroy continues to work on scheduling upgrades to Ipac2 and Horizon 7.2.
V COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The library was a host venue for "Ta]k is Free Theatre" and four performances
were presented to between 25 and 40 people at each performance. Ann
Andrusyszyn, our Development Officer will follow up the possibility of being the
host for "Why Love Shakespeare?" for the Moore Packaging reading Garden this
summer.
2. The spring edition of the Library's newsletter has been published.
3. The Dragon Boat Festival organizational committee is now meeting every two
weeks and more people are being added to the committee as the time for the event
draws nearer.
'.
29
l0D~
4. The "Unp]ugged Saturday Night," fonnerly "Perfonnance House", a
LibrarylBarrie F o]k Society partnership, was held in March in very bad weather.
Still, 50 people were in attendance,
5. Ann also attended the Planned Giving Counsel of Simcoe County as the Chamber
of Commerce BAS event.
6. Ann met with the Alumni Department of Georgian CoJlege to prepare for an article
on herself and the Dragon Boat Festival for the CoJlege Alumni magazine.
VI VOLUNTEER PROGRAM
]. Julie Ross attended the final two sessions in the series of Volunteer Screening
Workshops presented by United Way Leadership Development Program and
Volunteer Barrie.
2. Julie applied for a bursary to cover the registration cost of a Professional
Administrators of Volunteer Resources (P A VR-O) conference ($325) and was
successful.
3, ]] volunteers were provided to help with the March Break programmes at the
library and to manage the cafe during the "Unplugged Saturday Night" event.
4. One new volunteer was hired for the Boutique and two for shelf reading.
5. One of the library's volunteers has been nominatcd for the Barrie Association of
Volunteers Administrators (BA V A) "Volunteer of the Year" award.
Volunteer Statistics: (March)
Cafe
Boutique
CoJlection (shelving)
Hours
212.5
158
2""
~o
VIII BUILDING
]. Revenues are still not being coded by the city at this time.
PREPARED BY
A. Davis
DATE April 24, 2003
.'
30 \yYJ -~
ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE MONTH MARCH 2003
SAME MTH CURR PREY CURR
PREY YR MTH %+1- YTD YTD %+1-
1. CIRCULATION
ADULT
a) Print 61,259 54,469 -11.08% 174,918 159,933 -8.57%
b) Non-print 20,758 24,045 15.83% 60,916 70,659 15.99%
CHILDREN
a) Print 40,047 41.223 2.94% 115.960 115,315 -0.56%
b) Non-print 11,993 13,515 12.69% 33,945 34,277 0.98%
TOTAL CIRCULATION 134,057 133,252 -0.60% 385,739 380,184 -1.44%
2 INTERLIBRARY LOAN
LENT 4 287 7075.00% 10 867 857000%
BORROWED 197 234 18.78% 662 692 4.53%
3. MEMBERSHIP 801 852 6.37% 2,503 2,554 204%
TOTAL MEMBERSHIP 75,386 82,996 10.09% 75,386 82,996 10.09%
4. INFORMATION REQUESTS
a) I nformation Desk 1 3,220 3,898 21.06% 10,061 10,897 8.31%
b) Information Desk 2 1,469 2,222 51.26% 4,858 5,809 19.58%
c) Information Barrie 745 662 -11.14% 2,275 2,105 -7.47%
TOTAL INFORMATION REQUESTS 5,434 6,782 24.81% 17,194 18,811 9.40%
,. COMMUNITY SERVICES
Programs & Tours
a) Adult 5 3 -40.00% 23 6 -73.91%
b) Children 33 47 42.42% 121 143 18.18%
TOTAL PROGRAMS 38 50 31.58% 144 149 3.47%
Attendance
a) Adult 46 48 4.35% 223 80 -64.13%
b) Children 1,116 1,626 45.70% 3,510 4,270 21.65%
TOTAL ATTENDANCE 1,162 1,674 44.06% 3,733 4,350 16.53%
6. PATRON COUNT 67,985 76,377 12.34% 189,310 203,892 7.70%
7. WEBPACIDIALPAC 5.740 0 -100.00% 16,023 0 -100.00%
8. LIBRARY WEB PAGE USE 278,845 115,961 -58.41% 701,832 425,443 -39.38%
9. TECHNICAL SERVICES
New catalogued items
a) Adult print 1,160 858 -26.03% 2,837 3,367 18.68%
b) Children print 301 865 187.38% 1.566 3,843 145.40%
c) Adult non-print 324 184 -43.21 % 663 984 48.42%
d) Children non-print 95 194 104.21% 1,273 809 -36.45%
Collection size 208,768 222,647 6.65% 208,768 222,647 6.65%
unon
I
lDc
A Duke Energy Comp8.n~
Mayor J. Neil Craig
Township ofOro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Oro, ON
LoL 2XO
REC~/tJ~D '
MAY 6 2003
Vl1v..,.."
'I'."IM ""'UIV it:
. "'811'p
April 16, 2003
Dear Mayor Craig:
I would like to update you about an upcoming change in rates Union Gas charges its
residential customers effective May 1, 2003.
The sustained and unusually cold weather in much of North America during the past
winter caused natural gas demand to soar, supplies to tighten and storage leve]s to
decIine significantly. As a result, natural gas prices have risen and energy experts predict
prices will remain high well into the coming months as North American supplies and
storage levels recover.
The Ontario Energy Board has approved these changes,
For Union Gas system gas customers, the gas commodity rate has increased by
approximately 3,4 cents per cubie metre to 26.7 cents. Of this increase, 2.5 cents per
cubic metre reflects higher gas prices and 0.94 cents per cubic metre is a temporary
surcharge that will be collected from May 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003 to offset the
high cost of gas purchased this past winter.
For most residential customers, the gas commodity increase will amount to about $85 a
year, depending on the amount of natural gas used, About one-quarter of this increase is
the temporary surcharge amount and "ill be collected during the eight-month period
between May 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003
To maintain reliable natura] gas service to alI homes during 2003, we incurred additional
costs to ensure that there was sufficient natura] gas in the system for all customers at alI
times. As a result, customers will see a temporary transportation rate increase of about 3
cents per cubic metre that "ill be colIected from May 1,2003 to December 31,2003, This
"ill apply to alI Union Gas customers incIuding those served by gas marketers and will
amount to approximately $40 per customer over the period, depending upon the amount
of natural gas used.
36 Charles Street East, North Bay, ON, P1B 8K7 tel. 7054748483 wvvw.uniongas.com
Union Gas Limited
/"\
\..0 C - d--
I would like to emphasize that Union Gas does not earn any extra income on these rates.
These increases are strictly related to the higher price of natural gas on the North
American energy market,
Sincerely,
UNION GAS LIMITED
~~
Doug French
District Manager
Northeast
'"
The Corpora/ion of the
County of
Simcoe
lvd
(705) 726-9300 Fax. (705) 725-1285
Midland Area: 526-2261
Collll1gwood Area.' 428-3143
Bee/on Area: 729-2294
Orillia Area: 326-7397
Oifiee of/he Warden
Telephone Extension 226
Administration Centre
1110 Highway 26
Midhurs/, On/aria LOL 1XO
Apri] 30, 2003
Mayor Neil Craig
and Members of Council,
Township ofOro-Medonte,
P.O. Box 100,
Oro, ON LOL 2XO
Dear Mayor Craig and Members of Council:
1 am pleased to invite you, your members of council and staff to the May 27th, 2003
mceting of Simcoe County Council for the dedication ceremony of a clock in memory of
our friend and colleague, Ian Beard, The ceremony will be held at 9:00 a.m. in the
Simcoe County Council Chambers, 1110 Highway 26, Midhurst.
The dedication of the clock is a tribute to Ian for his valuable contribution to this
Corporation and for his.guidance, support, encouragement and commitment to his
colleagues, staff and those he served,
] look forward to seeing you on May 27th
Yours truly,
~/7/~7.
George J. MacDona]d,
Warden,
c Jennifer Zieleniewski, CAO
Mari]yn Pennycook, Clerk
@
Page 1 of]
Marilyn Pennycook
From: Versha [vjjohn@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Sunday, May 04,2003 10:34 AM
To: building@oro-medonte.ca
Cc: neil.craig@oro-medonte.ca; walter.dickie@oro-medonte.ca; clerk@oro-medonte.ca;
ha rry. hughes@oro-medonte.ca
Subject: Noise By-Law Amendment
~~
~------~--
------
What if any discussion/progress has been made regarding amending the current noise
bylaw which has no teeth...other than for barking dogs, or loud music. I have made
numerous suggestions to amend this bylaw to regulate industries/commerce with specific
hours in mind, as well as fines/enforcement policies for violation.
An effective noise bylaw is necessary to protect citizens and to allow for peaceful
enjoyment of one's life, as well as one's psychological and physical well-being. Perhaps if
Council is not cognizant of the impacts of noise on individuals or environments, I could
send Council a multitude of literature or studies on the effects of noise.
Please respond to this as soon as possible.
Irena (Versha) Szczebior
5/9/2003
~ & 7)idPUa
CurJing Club
! (
\ 1"\'\
,~;
9 Michael Anne Dr., Box 226, Cold water, Ontario LOK I EO
(705) 686-3946
Mayor and Council
Township of Severn
P.O. Box 159
Orillia, Ont.ario
L3v 6J3
May 5, 2003
Coldwater Curling Recreation Centre
The Coldwater & District Curling Club which operates and
manages the facility is pleased to present our annual report on
the Status and Activities of the Coldwater Curling Recreation
Centre. I would briefly like to highlight some of the
achievements that have been accomplished and perhaps this can
best be done by referencing the "Aims. Goals & obiectives" as
outlined in our Charter (copy enclosed),
Registration continues to grow. Fees remain the lowest in the
area, yet we continue to be financially strong. Times are set
aside for pay-as-you-play and group rentals on Saturday evenings
& on Sundays.
Free curling time complete with instruction from certified
coaches is available to all area schools 3 mornings and 2
afternoons per week. Coldwater, Victoria Harbour, East Oro, and
Reagent Park elementary schools and Patrick Fogarty, O.D.C,V.I.,
and Park Street Collegiate High Schools took advantage of this
opportunity this past year.
A "Junior Rock" curling program is in its third year of
operation on Monday evenings. The program is at no cost to the
participants. This year there were 40 youngsters under 12 years
of age and 32 bantam age curlers.
Not to be left out, two afternoons are set aside for seniors to
curl at reduced rates.
The economic benefit to the community has been evident by the
support of out-of-towners attending bonspiels especially the High
School Championship last year and the Noika "Zone Finals" this
year. This coupled with the recognition created by two World
Class Curling Teams representing the community would indicate
your support has been a good investment.
:
1_ r- ^
\SJ\ "- ~
(2)
Enclosed is a Financial Statement (Notice to Reader) prepared
by an independent chartered accountant for the fiscal year ending
June 30 2002. The Club is debt free. A Capital Reserve Fund has
been established for the repair/replacement of the Building or
refrigeration equipment. Our goal is that it be a minimum of 10%
of the value of the facility.
Repairs, Renovations, Maintenance for 2003
II The flat roof of the "Old Public Works Garage" continues to
leak after many repairs. It is anticipated that new felt and
tar will be required over the entire surface this summer.
2) The interior block walls of the curling facility will be
painted.
3) A filter will be installed on the refrigeration system.
These yearly reports are intended to keep the Township aware
of the financial status and activities of the Coldwater Curling
Recreation Centre as per the Municipal Capital Facility
Agreement.
Should you have any questions or concerns please contact us
directly.
S~~
walter G. Dickie
Treasurer
v c. c. Township of Oro-Medonte
I r n
'-.0+ - )
Coldwater Curling Building Fundraising Association
Our aim is to provide a facility and conduct activities, programs
and events which are available to local residents at reasonable cost.
Our objective in building and operating the Curling/Recreation
Centre is to ensure that all individuals in the Community and
surrounding area are given ample opportunity to participate in a
broad range of community and recreation related activities
accommodated within the centre.
Our goal is to ensure that the building will be self-sufficient
and remain viable and beneficial to the community into the long
term.
There will be programs which are integrated so that people of
varying degrees of ability can participate and hours of operation
which do not restrict participation. There will be policies which
allow people of lower incomes to participate.
There will be opportunity for youth programs provided at
nominal or no cost to the participants.
April 2, 2001 - Adopted and carried at the annual meeting
of the Coldwater & District CurJing Club.
I r W
v\ -;
1
JAMES W. McCREADY
Chartered Accountant
288 King Street
Midland, Ontario
L4R 4K8
705-526-5418
NOTICE TO READER
To the Directors
Coldwater & District Curling Club
I have compiled the balance sheet of Coldwater & District Curling Club as at June 30, 2002 and the
statements of income and accumulated surplus for the year then ended from information provided by
management. I have not audited, reviewed or otherwise attempted to verify the accuracy or
completeness of such information. Readers are cautioned that these statements may not be appropriate
for their purposes. d-' d * ~
Midland, Ontario / /:
March 12, 2003 C~ CHARTERED ACCOU:::T
1
r A Mr=<: w Md~R F.ArJY. Chartered Accountant
COLDWATER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB
(Incorporated under the laws of Ontario)
BALANCE SHEET
AS AT JUNE 30, 2002
(Unaudited)
2002 2001
ASSETS
CURRENT
Bank - operating account $ 12,945 $ 13,944
Bank - gene rat account 4,252 1.376
17,197 15,320
Guaranteed investments (Note 4) 122,749 90,348
Accounts Receivable 10,204
Due from Coldwater Curling Building Fundraising Assoc. 669
Inventory 406
141.021 115,872
CAPITAL ASSETS (Note 5) 792,566 816.364
$ 933,587 $ 932.236
LIABILITIES
CURRENT
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 5,124 $ 2,514
Deferred advertising revenue (Note 6) 29,795 35.795
34,919 38,309
ACCUMULATED SURPLUS
Balance, beginning of year 893,928 441,773
Net income for the year,per statement 4.740 452.154
Balance, end of year 898,668 893,927
$ 933,587 $ 932.236
APPROVED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD:
~ ".-1. #"..-.1-
v ~~ Director
~ ~~Djreclor
SUBJECT TO NOTICE TO READER REPORT DATED MARCH 12, 2003
2
J ^ tA.", W M~rRFAnY Chartered Accountant
COLDWATER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB
r
\i~'""'" _\.,[)
STATEMENT OF INCOME
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2002
(Unaudited)
2002 2001
(restated)
REVENUE
Advertising Income $ 20,230 $ 16,900
Bar revenue 27,102 22,234
Bonspiel revenue 9,445 11 ,940
Curling registration 37,794 30,836
Donations 985 5,036
Ice rental 5.730 4,427
Fundraising revenue 18,728 10,252
Youth services 1,355 9,128
Gore Mutual event income 8,867 770
Other 6.106 6.358
136,342 117.881
EXPENSES
Advertising and promotion 549 2,582
Bar expense 13,803 11,612
Bank charges 461 299
Bonspiel expense 1,663 4,372
Caretaking 3,468 6,707
Curiing supplies 2,336 1,233
Fundraising expense 10,110 5,586
Ice making expense 12,760 10,697
General and administrative 1,190 873
Insurance 5,958 6,212
Management fees 6,000 3,986
Membership fees 2,360 3,714
Miscellaneous 2,828 3,200
Professional fees 2,800 285
Repairs and maintenance 9,838 462
Training expenses 2,535 171
Utilities 17,426 21.559
Gore Mutual event expenses 5,775
Youth services program 210
102,070 83.550
NET income prior to amortization and other income(expenses) 34,272 34,331
Less - amortization of club facilities (Note 5) 44,032 42.967
NET LOSS FROM CURLING CLUB OPERATIONS (9,760) (8,636)
Add(deduct) other income (expenses):
Contribution from Coldwater Curling Building Fundraising Assoc, 14,500 460.790
NET INCOME FOR THE YEAR $ 4,740 $ 452,154
SUBJECT TO NOTICE TO READER REPORT DATED MARCH 12, 2003
3
1 ^ 'A'''' \1/ ,,~rl1l" AnY r.hartp.rRd Accountant
COLDWATER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB
I
\i
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2002
(Unaudited)
2002 2001
(restated)
CASH FLOWS RELATING TO OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income for the year $ 4,740 $ 452,154
Add: transactions not affecting cash
Amortization 44,032 42,967
48,772 495,121
Changes in non-cash working capital components
Accounts receivable 9,535 (10,204)
Inventory (406)
Accounts payable and deferred revenue (3,391) 38,307
54.510 523.224
CASH FLOWS RELATING TO INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Increase in guaranteed investment certificates (32,400) (90,348)
Expenditures on recreation facility and equipment (20,233) (468.517)
(52,633) (558.865)
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH FLOWS, for the year 1,877 (35.641 )
CASH, beginning of year 15,320 50.961
CASH, end of year $ 17,197 $ 15.320
SUBJECT TO NOTICE TO READER REPORT DATED MARCH 12, 2003
4
.. . ... ...,....... ", .. A_f'Dt:' A nv ""h!JrlOTQrl..d,..,.nllnf~nf
COLDWATER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB
'""
- "'A
\.J
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
JUNE 3D, 2002
1. INCORPORATION
The Coldwater & District Curling Club (CDCC) was incorporated March
14, 1985 under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.
Under supplementary letters of patent dated November 26, 1994 the
incorporation document was amended so that upon dissolution of the
corporation and after payment of all debts and liabitities, the remaining
property shall be distributed or disposed of to charitable organizations
or to organizations the objects of which are beneficial to the community,
2. MUNICIPAl CAPITAl FACILITY AGREEMENT
Under an agreement dated December 9, 1999 between Coldwater &
District Curling Club(CDCC) and the Corporation of the Township of
Severn the Township conveyed certain properties to CDCC to be used
for the express purposes of a curling rink, public recreation facility and
community policing office. It was agreed that no municipal or school
taxes would be levied on the property and the CDCC is to pay 5% of the
costs incurred with regard to the maintenance of storm water
management pond. Under the agreement the land and buildings rever!
to the Township May 1, 2019.
3. LEASE AGREEMENT
Under a lease agreement entered into with the Coldwater Curling
Building Fundraising Association (CCBFA). The organization has
leased its property to the CCBF A at a nominal rental rate, but subject
to the provision of the "Municipal Facility Agreement" dated December
9, 1999 between the Coldwater & District Curling Club and the
Corporation of the Township of Severn.
4. GUARANTEED INVESTMENT CERTIFICATES
The guaranteed investment certificates have been designated for the
following purposes:
Prepaid Advertising $ 29,795
Operating Reserve 8,647
Capital Reserve 84.307
$ 122,749
5
~ . . .~.... ~~. ,,~ r......1'" 4. "'J 1'"'1-....,.4",....,., ^"ror./lnt!:Jnt
COLDWATER & DISTRICT CURLING CLUB
~r r:
m _'_J,
, I
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
JUNE 30, 2002
5. RECREATION FACILITY
Funds raised by the CCBFA through projects, donations, and grants
have been utilized in the construction of a curling rink facility operated
by Coldwater & District Curling Club and in the promotion of curling by
young people in the area,
The facility is recorded at known cost less GST rebates:
2002 2001
Clubroom $ 110,757 $ 102,412
Curling Building 509,453 509,453
Curling Rocks 32,874 32,874
Ice Making Supplies 8,264 8,264
Kitchen 16,736 4,848
Outside Services 26,378 26,378
Professional Fees 38,885 38,885
Refrigeration Plant 92,377 92,377
Supervision 10,208 10,208
Township of Sevem 33.632 33.632
879,564 859,331
Less-accumulated amortization (86.999) (42.967)
$ 792.565 $ 816,364
Under the terms of the Municipal Capital Facility Agreement, the facility
reverts to the Township of Severn in May, 2019. The facility is therefore
being amortized on a straight line basis at the rate of 5% per annum.
6. DEFERRED ADVERTISING REVENUE
As part of the fund raising activities, advertising within the new facility
was sold on the basis of a five year programme payable in advance.
The estimated value of advertising revenue relating to future years has
been deferred in the accounts and funded by guaranteed investment
certificates.
7. RESTATEMENT OF PRIOR YEAR'S AMOUNTS
Certain numbers in the 2001 accounts have been restated to
conform with the 2002 presentation.
6
TAU"" ill M~rR"AnV r.h"rtp.rP.rlAccountant
R.R.#l Orillia
/ 1"'" ..'tiCn !
I MAY 8 lOlJ3
i Ol1u-/IIIWuNTf
"-TQ~,p
G:,
1
May 5 2003
Mayor Neil Craig
Oro-Medonte Township Council
Some visitors of Oro Veterans Memorial Park expressed a interest
in having a little more shade in the future.
The local Horticultural Society has discussed this and on the
advise of Allister Crawford that trees could be planted for the
future use of this park.
T~e land is quite light and the selection of suitable trees is
limited,however Red Oak and Sugar Maple we think could be planted.
Allister has his eye on some of these trees and with your per-
mission we could in this fall arrange to plant them.
This in no way would detract from the use of this park.
Ellwood McLaughlin
Cor.Sec.Oro-Medonte Hort.Soc.
- .-.'
~_ ~:/" ~ _i L__/ /,)--~
.~<:;, . 1"-"/ y/ / - . . /~ /h
0a/~t""". ///.. "'- cu:.<; /i-.oU ri
705-326-2836
705-487-3289 Allister #
Oro Medonte Township Office
Administration Office
]48 Line 7 South
Oro, ON
LOL 2XO
I
r "'~~:c.uol\'T!
- '. ~~HIP
c10)1
I ~~
RECflVEO - .
MAY 1 2rlO3 I
I
Jrl~rl"
Office of the Mayor
Dear Sir
As you are well aware Ora Medonte Township has been expcriencing a significant
increase in population over the past few years, and future predictions indicate that the
population of our Township will continue to grow,
As with other infTastructure pressures facing Town Council, Oro Minor Hockey
Association is also feeling the pressures of an increased population on the governing and
operations of organized hockey within Oro Medonte Township.
For the first time in the history of this organization we had 24 hockey teams playing
during the 2002-2003 season. The ice time required to schedule games and practices was
at its maximum allowable limit considering all the other ice rental commitments the
township has with other organizations.
For the 2003-2004 hockey season we will be forced to cap the number of teams allowed
to play within our organization, Unfortunately the end result of this decision could
ultimate]y see children being turned away rrom playing hockey in the community that
they reside.
We have also felt the pressures of both Barrie and Orillia Minor Hockey Associations,
and have turned away severa] request rrom children in both these communities to play
hockey in Oro Medonte.
As an organization we feel these pressures and issues are only going to increase as the
populations within our communities increase.
Oro has a rich history of hockey and our association is well respected within both the
local and provincia] hockey circles, which reflects on the community at large.
Our executive members have discussed at length these issues that our currently facing our
organization and those of other hockey organizations.
This requires a concerted and combined effort by all levels of government and we look
forward to meeting with you and your council to address these issues.
Yours Truly
Phi] Whitton
Executive Director/Secretary
Oro Minor Hockey Association
""'.."'......._ Philip \Vhitton
_.'. . RR#2
~=:~~ ~~:fe;~dne ON LOL 1 TO
I: 905,895,1281
1.800.465.0437
<: 905'853'5881
..tail: info@1srca.on.ca
~b: www.lsrca.on.ca
o Bayview Parkway
~:x 282
~et, Ontario
Y4X1
Leaders in
Watershed
Health
IjJlt~Go!"V' \
((U
C .0 \ ~ '
Apri] 28'h, 2003
Q~~~j
MAY 1 2003
~TQWHStl;lE J
Ms. Mari]yn Pennycook
Clerk
Township of Oro-Medonte
Box ] 00
Oro, ON LOL 2XO
Dear Ms. Pennycook,
Re:
eTA Task Force Report on OMB Reform
On Friday, April 25'", 2003, the Authority's Board of Directors, at their Meeting
No. BOD-04-03 held at the Town of Aurora Municipal Offices, passed the
fol1owing resolution:
BOD-64-03 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 25-03-BOD
regarding the report of the eTA Task Force on the
OMB Reform be received for information; and
FURTHER THAT the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority endorse the recommendation of
the eTA Task Force on OMB Reform; and
FURTHER THAT the Authority's resolution of support
be circulated to watershed municipalities and eTA
Conservation Authorities.
Attached is a copy of Staff Report No. 25-03-BOD for your information.
D. Ga Ie Wood
Chief dministrative Officer/
S ecretarx(' reasurer
~\-\
(
~'\~~
Staff Report No.
Page No.
File No.
Agenda Item No.
25-03-BOD
1 of 3
1 O(c) - BOD-04-03
TO
Board of Directors
FROM:
Reinie Vos
Director, Watershed Management
DATE
April 14, 2003
SUBJECT:
Report of the GT A Task force on OMB Reform
March 7, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 25-03-BOD regarding
the report of the GT A Task Force on the OMB
Reform be received for information; and
FURTHER THAT the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority endorse the
recommendation of the GTA Task Force on
OMB Reform.
Purpose of Staff Report:
The Authority is in receipt of a request from the Chair of the GT A Task Force on OMB
Reform to endorse the recommendations of the task force. Staff Report No, 25-03-BOD
will update the Board of Directors on the findings of the GT A Task Force on OMB Reform.
Backqround:
On September 16, 2002, a group of GT A and Hamilton elected officials met at Durham
Regional Council to see if they could formulate and agree on recommendations for reform
of the OMB appeal process. During December of 2002 and January of 2003, the group
consulted with sixteen stakeholder groups and knowledgeable individuals who presented
their recommendations for change.
;
Staff Report No.
Page No.
File No.
Agenda Item No.
25-03-BOD
20f3
\y.\ -)
10(c) - BOD-04-03
Issues:
As a result of their consultation and research, a number of key issues relating to the
following topics were identified:
· Role and Jurisdiction of the Board.
· Procedural Complaints.
· Barriers to Public Participation.
· Cost of Municipal/Agency Participation.
· Credibility /Impartiality of OMB.
· Strength of the Planning Policy Framework.
· Value Added by the OMS Process.
Through an analysis of the above-mentioned key issues brought to the task force's
attention by the stakeholder groups, the task force established the following two principles:
· Planning decisions of democratically elected Municipal Councils should not be
replaced by the decisions of a provincially appointed body unless there is
demonstrable evidence of error or impropriety on the part of Council.
· Property rights are important and aggrieved parties should be entitled to some relief
and remedy when a Municipal Council acts improperly, arbitrarily or outside of its
jurisdiction.
The task force formulated the following recommendations to reform the current system:
1, Update the role of the Ontario Municipal Board.
2, Enable timely municipal decisions based on complete information.
3, Support citizen participation through intervenor funding.
4. Promote an independent and fair tribunal.
Staff Report No.
Page No.
File No.
Agenda Item No.
25-03-BOD
3 of 3
GI-Y
10{c) - BOD-04-03
Impact on Authoritv:
It is not anticipated that these recommendations will have an adverse impact on the
Authority if they are implemented.
Impact on Authority Finances:
There are no known financial impacts although a streamlining of the OMB process will
assist the Authority with business efficiency and planning decisions,
Summary & Recommendations:
Staff are of the opinion that the recommendations of the GT A T ask Force on OMB Reform
will assist in addressing some of the issues that have been raised with respect to the
effectiveness of the OMB in dealing with planning appeals. It is therefore recommended
that the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority endorse the recommendations of the
GTA Task Force on OMB Reform,
)
'",. /'
. 'f."-.,
Prepared by:
Reinie Vos, Director
Watershed Management
Recommended by.
D. Gayle ood
Chief Administrative Officer!
Secretary- T re as u re r
Attachments:
1) Report of the GTA Task Force On OMB Reform, March 7, 2003
H:\GCFiJes\BOD Staff Reports 2003\25-03-BOD OTA Task Force_OMB Reform.""'Pd
\J\-5
Report of the
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
Recommendations for
Reforming the Ontario Municipal Board and
Ontario's Planning Appeal Process
March 7, 2003
.'
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
SUBJECT:
Recommendations for Reforming the Ontario Municipal Board and
Ontario's Planning Appeal Process
lD i -\,0
REPORT:
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to recommend reforms to the Ontario Municipal Board
(OMB) and the related land use planning appeal process, and to seek endorsement of
these recommendations by the local and regional governments within the Greater
Toronto Area. The Task Force will then forward the endorsed recommendations to the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General and others who may
be in a position to implement or influence those reforms. -
BACKGROUND
Originally created as the Office of the Provincial Municipal Auditor in 1897 to supervise
account keeping by municipalities, the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board was formed
in 1906 with an added responsibility for railways. Renamed the Ontario Municipal
Board in 1932, its powers have expanded greatly over time and the Board now obtains
its jurisdiction from more than 100 statutes. This report is concerned with its
jurisdiction under the Planning Act.
The Board was created to arbitrate municipal issues in a predominantly rural society
where municipal government was small and unsophisticated. After World War II,
Ontario's population became increasingly urban, planning departments began to
emerge in Ontario cities and towns} and land use planning legislation began to be
enacted provincially. At the dawn of the 21st century, Southern Ontario, in particular,
is primarily an urban culture with rapid development in and around its major cities.
Municipalities now possess considerable planning expertise. Since 1995, the Province
has downloaded most land use planning responsibilities to the municipal level of
government. The new Municipal Act;. 2001 recognizes municipalities as an order of
government.
While the OMB has undergone some administrative changes over the years af)d recent
procedural improvements, its role and mandate have not been significantly altered in
response to the increasing maturity of the municipal planning role and process.
1
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM
~\-1
,
FORMATION OF TASK FORCE
Many Ontario municipalities have expressed growing frustration with the planning
appeal process administered by the Ontario Municipal Soard (OMS). They feel it
undermines their planning authority and is a drain on their financial and staff resources,
In June 2002, Durham Regional Council discussed and endorsed a City of Mississauga
resolution citing difficulties experienced by municipalities in relation to the OMS.
Durham Council further directed the Regional Chair, Roger Anderson, to convene a
meeting of Greater Toronto area (GTA) officials to see if, jointly, such a group could
formulate and agree upon recommendations for reform of the OMB appeal process.
On September 16, 2002, a group comprising GTA and Hamilton elected officials and
municipal staff met at the Region of Durham Council Chamber. A possible course of
action to stimulate meaningful reform of the OMB appeal process was discussed and
the group agreed to work as a Task Force to pursue this objective. Attachment 1 lists
the Task Force Members. The Terms of Reference adopted by the Task Force are
provided as Attachment 2. The objective was to prepare a report to the Attorney
General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing recommending reforms that
would address the key issues that municipalities face in the planning appeal process.
Task Force members saw it as essential to engage stakeholders in their review process,
to look at the appeal mechanisms used in other jurisdictions and, with a Provincial
election approaching, to hear the position of each provincial party with respect to the
OMS mandate and function. The Task Force invited a variety of stakeholders in the
planning process to present their views. Representatives of each of the three provincial
political parties were invited to present their party's perspective. The Ontario Municipal
Board was also invited to provide information about the appeal process and any
planned changes. The Task Force also hoped to generate some media interest in the
process so that the broader community would become aware of the issues and the
work underway.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
Based on suggestions from members of the Task Force, sixteen stakeholder groups and
knowledgeable individuals including academics, ratepayer groups, government agencies
and the development industry were invited to appear before the Task Force to present
their recommendations for changes to the OMS appeal process. Three consultation
dates were offered during December 2002 and January 2003. Nine representatives
appeared before the Task Force (see Attachment 3). Of the groups invited, only 2 did
not respond. Some stakeholders were unable to attend as they were involved with
cases before the Board or because their schedule did not allow it. The Ontario
Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) felt that their February 2002 paper fully explained
their position. '
2
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
19\ -~
In addition to the stakeholder groups, representatives of the Liberal Party and the New
Democratic Party spoke to the Task Force on Feb. 3, 2003, to explain the kinds of
changes they envisioned making to the OMB or the planning process, if elected.
The Chair of the OMB made a presentation on changes and improvements to the appeal
process that had been made, were underway or were being considered by the OMB
itself. He provided copies of their Code of Conduct, recently revised forms and some
caseload statistics.
Each group or individual that appeared before the Task Force was asked to make a
short presentation and then respond to questions from Task Force Members. This was
an extremely informative process and covered a full spectrum of views on the OMB,
from those who felt that very little or no change to the appeal process was needed, to
those who felt it was beyond fixing and should be abolished.
Various municipal resolutions calling for reform of the OMS had been passed on to the
Task Force by its members and by the Durham RegionaJ Clerk's Office. Several reports
on the OMS from municipalities, planning professional groups and academics were also
brought to the attention of the Task Force. These also represented quite a broad range
of perspectives. Some focussed on procedural adjustments while others advocated
radical reforms.
The Task Force reviewed the notes and materials from all the presentations, the
municipal motions and the various reports and extracted, grouped and summarized the
recommendations' contained in them. See Attachment 4, Summary of Consultation and
Submission Recommendations.
PLANNING APPEAL PRACTICES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Task Force research showed that the nature of appeal boards, both provincial and local,
and the extent of their authority on land use planning appeals vary significantly from
province to province. Each province has taken a different approach to planning appeals
based upon what was decided, who made the decision, and how the decision was
made.
All provinces, with the exception of British Columbia and Quebec, have provincial
boards that have jurisdiction to hear appeals of land use planning decisions made (or
not made) by municipal councils, local or regional planning authorities, committees or
boards. Generally, the range of planning instruments over which provincial boards have
jurisdiction is limited. No provincial board in Canada has jurisdiction over planning-
related matters as extensive as that of the Ontario Municipal Board.
3
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
~\- ~
In most provinces, provincial boards do not have appellate jurisdiction over official
plans. The appellate jurisdiction of provincial boards with respect to other planning
approvals varies from province to province. Generally, zoning by-laws cannot be
appealed to provincial boards, but planning controls that affect the details of
development proposals (for example, development permits and minor variances) can be
appealed.
Some provinces have local boards that hear appeals. However, to the extent that they
have appellate jurisdiction, these local boards typically only review decisions of
administrative officials.
Every province has statutorily codified processes that provide for property owners and
other interested parties to have a full and fair opportunity to present their views to the
original decision-maker and/or an appeal board on planning-related matters. Where
the provinces differ is in their views as to whether appeals to a provincial board and/or
a local board are necessary to ensure that the rules of natural justice or procedural
fairness are respected in the decision-making process. In provinces where appeals of
certain municipal decisions are not allowed (for example, official plans and zoning
bylaws in British Columbia and Alberta), the legislation sets out stringent procedural
requirements. In these situations, a hearing before an appeal board is not seen as
required to ensure that the process is fair.
For those limited matters in respect of which provincial boards have appellate
jurisdiction, the legislation typically provides for de novo hearings1.
ISSUES IDENTIFICATION
The following key issues were identified as a result of the consultation and research:
Role and Jurisdiction of the Board
. The OMB :
. can overrule or support decisions of elected councils
. is not accountable to the electorate
. often makes decisions that undermine local Official Plans created through
considerable public consultation
. deals with much more than Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issues and
approval of Official Plans '
1 "de novo" hearing: According to the Guide to the Ontario Municipal Board, p.9, a hearing before the
OMB is "usually a new presentation of the issues. This means that the Member(s) look at each
application or appeal from the beginning as if no decision had ever been made by a previous tribunal
such as a municipal council, a committee of adjustment, land division committee or the Assessment
Review Board (therefore you must prove your case again). The Board can make any decisions that the
earlier tribunal could have made and the decision may be different",
4
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
~\-\D
. No other Canadian jurisdiction has an appeal body with a similar scope of
planning appeal powers
. Guidelines & limits on the OMS mandate are unclear.
Procedural Complaints
. 90 day appeal period is perceived as an unrealistic processing timeframe for
municipalities
. Hearing is not a true appeal or review, but a de novo hearing
. Pre-hearing process and mediation often are not used.
Barriers to Public Participation
. OMS procedures are complex, legalistic and are perceived as a barrier to public
pa rtici pation
. 90 day appeal provision can circumvent local planning process and may limit
opportunity for public input
. Citizen input is given less weight as evidence than professional opinion
. Cost, time requirements are a barrier to public participation
Cost of Municipal/ Agency Participation
. Deters municipal participation
. Potential of costly OMS hearing affects local planning decisions
. Diverts scarce municipal/agency resources from other planning needs and local
expenditure priorities
. Municipalities are forced to spend large sums if they are to defend local planning
decisions
Credibility/Impartiality of OMB
. Appointment process, length of tenure could be revised to enhance the Soard's
independence
. There is no transparent process for evaluating the performance of the OMS or its
members
Strength of the Planning Policy Framework'
. Planning Act could give the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) more weight
. Provincial Policy Statements are vague in some respects
. Local planning process/ Official Plans could be given more weight
Value Added by the OMB Process
. No evidence to demonstrate that decisions of the Soard are better planning
decisions than those made at the municipal level
. OMS perceived as being less open to innovative planning than it is to more
traditional planning
. Lillie evidence to show that the OMS is successful in taking into account
cumulative impacts of discrete planning decisions.
5
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
\y\ -- \ I
ANALYSIS
Two basic principles seemed to be at the heart of the issues discussed by stakeholders
and form the basis for the Task Force's recommendations:
.
Planning decisions of democratically elected Municipal Councils should not be
replaced by the decision of a Provincially appointed body unless there is
demonstrable evidence of error or impropriety on the part of the Council.
.
Property rights are important and aggrieved parties should be entitled to some
relief and remedy when a Municipal Council acts improperly, arbitrarily or outside
of its jurisdiction.
In balancing these two guiding principles, the Task Force rejected the option of
advocating the abolition of the Ontario Municipal Board. While abolition would clearly
recognize the authority of elected Municipal Councils, it may not adequately provide for
the rights and remedies of aggrieved parties. While the courts could play this role, the
Task Force felt that the Ontario Municipal Board does possess helpful qualifications and
experience with respect to municipal planning matters. These could not be easily
duplicated and replaced by the Courts. Some stakeholders viewed the courts as a
potentially more expensive and less inclusive mechanism for appeal.
The Task Force believes that the current system of OMB planning appeals does not give
adequate deference to the process that municipalities go through in developing their
Official Plans. Changes should be made to the planning system that support and
validate the plans and decisions generated through the municipal planning process.
Therefore, in formulating its recommendations, the Task Force focused on what they
felt were the primary flaws of the present system and the reforms that would most
effectively address the issues identified in the research and consultation process. The
Task Force anticipates that its recommendations would work best in conjunction with a
stronger, clearer Provincial Policy Statement that should result from the PPS review
currently underway.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Task Force recommendations focus on four key areas of improvement:
1. Update the role of the Ontario Municipal Board
2. Enable timely municipal decisions based on complete information
3. Support citizen participation through intervenor funding
4. Promote an independent and fair tribunal.
6
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
'U\-I~
The Task Force believes that these improvements are achievable with the changes
proposed.
1. Update the Role of the OMS
Municipalities have grown and matured since the OMB was created. Provincial planning
legislation and policy have also matured and support a rigorous public process for the
development of municipal planning instruments such as Official Plans. The new
Municipal Act recognizes municipalities as an order of government. The Province has
delegated approvals of local Official Plans to single and upper tier municipalities. The
role and mandate of the OMB should be updated to recognize and respond to these
changes. The Board should provide a true appeal or review mechanism as a last
resort for dealing with faulty decisions, rather than substituting themselves as the
planning decision-maker.
Provincial legislation gives the primary responsibility for land use planning within a
community to the municipal government. The Planning Act sets out a detailed
procedure that municipalities are expected to follow in discharging that responsibility. A
municipality is, and should be, required to go through a full, complete and open public
process to establish or amend its Official Plan, zoning regulations and other planning
instruments. Having gone through that mandated processl the municipality/s
decisions should be final and binding unless it can be demonstrated that a
significant error or impropriety has taken place. The onus of demonstrating
the error or impropriety should be placed on the complaining party.
However, under the present system, appeals result in hearings de novo that effectively
void the municipal planning process and decision, and allow the Board to substitute its
own process and decision: The Task Force believes that an applicant's rights of appeal
should arise only where a Municipal Council makes a clearly improper or unreasonable
decision or deprives the parties of their rights to natural justice.
Recommendation:
The Task Force strongly recommends that the OMB process should be a review or true
appeal of the municipal planning decision and not an automatic hearing de novo. To
achieve thisl the Task Force recommends that a two stage process be adopted.
At the first stage, the Board would review the planning process and the
complaint and determine whether leave to appeal should be granted. Leave
to appeal would be granted only if the objecting party establishes to the
Board's satisfaction that the Council has acted unreasonably. To make this
determination, the Task Force suggests that Board could apply a test such as
the following:
7
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
~\ -\3
That no reasonable Counci~ applying sound planning principles and
acting in good faith could have made the same decision or have failed
to make a decision.
Only if the Board finds that the Municipal Council demonstrably failed to act
reasonably could an appeal proceed to the second stage, a hearing de novo.
This screening process should greatly reduce the number of appeals by granting proper
deference to the municipal planning process and requiring an appellant to demonstrate
a substantial error as the basis for appeal. A de novo hearing should become an
exception, reducing costs to all parties and providing for a more timely resolution of
planning matters.
2. Enable Timelv Municipal Decisions Based on Complete Information
Most submissions to the Task Force highlighted difficulties related to the 90 day appeal
provision in the Planning Act, This provision allows an applicant to launch an OMB
appeal 90 days after submitting an application, if the municipality has not yet rendered
a decision. Stakeholders cited numerous cases where the studies to support a proper
planning decision could not possibly be completed in 90 days (e.g. a four-season
environmental impact study) or where an applicant provided required studies only a few
days before the 90 day deadline. These situations made it impossible for the
municipalities or other commenting agencies to review the information before the
deadline. Resources have to be diverted from normal business to hastily review last
minute submissions. Only the Urban Development Institute and the Greater Toronto
Homebuilders were satisfied with the present 90 day rule and felt that abuse of the rule
was rare.
If a duly elected Council has the primary responsibility and authority to render well-
considered planning decisions for its community, that Council must have sufficient time
and reliable information to make such decisions. Based on the consultations, the Task
Force believes that the 90 day appeal provision presents a major problem in this regard.
A fundamental problem is the present definition of a "complete" application in the
Planning Act and regulations. Currently, an applicant need only submit a planning
application form and cheque for the application fee to "start the 90 day clock ticking".
This definition of "completeness" fails to recognize that an applicant should provide
necessary studies and information related to their application in a timely way, to permit
municipalities to render an informed planning decision.
Before removing the municipality from the decision-making process and substituting the
Board, the municipality should be given a reasonable opportunity to make an informed
decision. Based on statistics presented by David Johnson, Chair of the OMB, 75% of
appeals are not referred in any case until 150 days after municipal receipt of the
8
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
. ~ i -\L-\,
application. The Task Force believes it is sensible that an appeal period should not
commence until a truly complete application is in the hands of the municipality.
Where an application is submitted with all the information needed to make a decision, .
municipalities would be able to render a properly considered planning decision within
150 days on most applications. StraighHorward applications may be dealt with more
quickly. There will also be complex applications that require a municipal review period
of more than 150 days due to the need for extensive public consultation, multi-season
studies or peer review of studies.
The Province has seen fit to vest municipalities with land use planning responsibilities.
Thus, the starting assumption for the planning appeal system should be that elected
Municipal Councils can be trusted to properly fulfill legislative requirements, to act in
good faith and to make timely, well-considered planning decisions.
Recommendations:
Therefore the Task Force recommends the following:
. Amend the Planning Act to create a definition of "complete application" that
includes information and documentation required by a municipality to
properly process the application and make an informed decision. The
information required to constitute a complete application will include
1) any requirements of general application contained in municipal
planning documents (e.g. Official Plan) and
2) any other information reasonably required to make a sound planning
decision on that specific application.
A municipality could reject an incomplete application.
. Amend the Planning Act to mandate pre-consultation between the
municipality and the applicant on all Official Plan amendment applications.
Municipalities should provide written confirmation of the information
requirements to the applicant within a specified time after the pre-
consultation.
. Amend the Planning Act to provide that a dispute, in regard to the
information required in order to constitute a complete application, could be
brought to the Board or arbitrated at any time.
. Give the OMB the jurisdiction and direction to stay any appeal process,
including a request for leave to appeal, if it determines that any information
required to make a decision has not been made available to the
municipality or that th€O municipality has not had sufficient time to consider
such necessary information.
9
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
\v\ - \ 5
. Establish a time period of 150 days from receipt of a complete application
for municipal review and processing of an application. only after 150 days
could leave to appeal a lack of decision be obtained by convincing the
Soard that the lack of decision is unreasonable (see the test for
"reasonableness" proposed on page 8).
3. Support Citizen Participation - Intervenor FundinQ
All of the stakeholders who presented to the Task Force commented on the obstacles
faced by ordinary citizens in participating in the OMS process. Expense, time
commitment and legal complexity were repeatedly cited as barriers to citizen
participation in the OMS process. Citizen groups often cannot effectively present and
defend a public interest at an OMS hearing without legal representation and expert
evidence.
The 90 day appeal provision was seen as a means for developers to circumvent public
participation. The frequent shift of a hearing into a negotiation of settlement was also
noted as sometimes eliminating the public voice from the proceedings.
The Task Force feels that public and third party participation in the OMS hearing
process, especially on complex Official Plan and zoning matters, is no longer possible
without expert assistance. Creating an intervenor funding mechanism may be the only
way to ensure that citizens groups are able to participate on a level playing field with
other parties in a de novo hearing.
However the Task Force believes the best way to support public participation in
planning matters is to make full use of the municipal planning process. That process
includes both informal and structured opportunities fqr public involvement and is geared
toward gathering citizen input into such things as Official Plans, secondary plans and
zoning changes. Participation is inexpensive for citizens and does not require special
expertise. This aspect of the planning process should be made as effective as possible
to ensure that balanced plans and good decisions are made at the local level. Public
participation should be supported and validated by an OMB process that affords an
appropriate respect and deference to the plans developed and decisions made utilizing
this public input.
If municipal planning decisions are shown greater deference in the OMS appeal process,
as suggested in the previous recommendations, and de novo hearings become the
exception instead of the rule, the need for intervenor funding as a means to ensure
public participation should be significantly reduced.
10
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
~ \ -\ to
Recommendation:
The Task Force recommends that the Province establish a program to fund 3rd party
public participation in OMS de novo hearings with clear criteria defining eligibility. To
qualify for funding a citizen's group should:
. be incorporated or appropriately organized to take on the rights and
responsibilities of participating in an OMB proceeding
. have participated in the local planning process
. have the ability to raise a portion of the funds required for the appeal
process.
In addition, to qualify for funding, the case in which the group wishes to participate
should involve issues of broad public or provincial interest (e.g. protection of
environment, affordable housing or farmland). The province should allocate an amount
annually to support intervenor funding, possibly supplemented with a small surcharge
on development applications, and set a cap on the amount available to a single group.
The government may wish to specify how funding could be used (e.g. to retain legal
counsel).
4. Promote an Independent and Fair Tribunal
The Task Force feels that generally the OMB members are well qualified and discharge
their duty effectively. While statistics presented to the Task Force do not support the
notion that the OMB is "a captured agency" in terms of its decisions, there is definitely a
public perception that the Board and the appeal process, as currently structured, favour
developers.
Recommendation:
The Task Force believes that several changes could be made to enhance both the
reality and the perception of the Board as an impartial and fair arbiter. It is therefore
recommended that:
. The term of appointment be increased to 6 years
. A job description, outlining the qualifications and expertise required of Board
Members, be developed and used in the selection process
. An open process be adopted for soliciting qualified applicants
. A non-partisan, multi-stakeholder screening committee be created to
interview and recommend to Cabinet candidates for appointment or
reappointment
. A more open performance evaluation process for Board Members be
implemented.
11
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM
~\ -\1-
If the all the Task Force recommendations are implemented, the Province may find that
fewer Board members are needed as the incidence of appeals and hearings should be
significantly reduced.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the Task Force feels that if implemented, the recommendations above will
substantially address the criticism of the current planning appeal process that was
documented in our consultations.
By updating the role of the OMB to make it primarily a review body, with a specific
standard of review to guide it, the number of hearings should be significantly reduced,
lowering the costs for all parties. The continued availability of a de novo hearing in the
case of egregious error offers an incentive for municipalities to make sure they conduct
themselves properly in planning matters. It also offers applicants and appellants
recourse if a serious mistake occurs.
However, the starting assumption must be that Municipal Councils properly fulfill their
legislated duty and responsibility to make good planning decisions for their
communities. Official Plans and zoning bylaws are a result of the community input
process mandated in the Planning Act The OMB must not intervene to assume
decision-making authority unless such intervention is demonstrably justifiable. This is
essential to build citizen confidence in the process and will provide greater certainty for
the development industry. If every planning decision of a Municipal Council can be
challenged, then that confidence and certainty does not exist. The planning process
loses credibility and the Municipal Council is considered ineffectual on planning matters.
Municipal Councils must also live up to their plans in order to provide this certainty.
Without the palpable threat of a full OMB hearing hovering over each planning decision,
a Council's resolve to stand by their plan should be enhanced. With the system
proposed, where a mistake is the basis for an appeal, municipalities will have added
incentive to make sure their process is solid, that public input is widely sought and well
reflected in their reports and decisions. This public input will be acquired in a setting
which is much more informal and accessible than an OMB hearing.
The "justified appeal" process recommended by the Task Force gives greater weight to
both the local planning process and the public input that are part of that process.
Documentation of both would be examined during the review stage of the two step
process the Task Force has proposed. By reducing the incidence of appeals, costs
should be reduced for all parties. Providing intervenor funding for exceptional cases
that do warrant the full hearing de novo, due to some grave error, would ensure that.
effective participation by citizens in the more complex process can occur.
12
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
~\ - \ 1> .
While the OMB may never enjoy public popularity, its credibility as an impartial arbiter
on important issues rests in part on a public perception of fairness and independence.
The current 3 year terms for Board members, the political appointment process, a real
or imagined association with a business-oriented government and the barriers to citizen
participation have somewhat tarnished the public reputation of the Board. Revisions to
the selection, appointment and tenure of Board members, as well as regular
performance evaluation, would help considerably in achieving both the factual and
perceptual independence critical for a quasi-judicial body.
Various stakeholders expressed the desire for greater clarity and direction from the
Province within planning legislation and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The
Task Force agreed that the vagueness of the current PPS and the "have regard for"
. provision of the Planning Adare problematic. A key theme of John Chipman's study2 of
the OMB is that the Board developed and applied its own planning policy in the absence
of clear provincial policy diri=ction. Clearer provincial policy should strongly support
municipal Official Plans and the municipal role in delivering land use planning at the
local level. Since a review of the Provincial Policy Statement is currently underway and
municipalities have been active participants in that process, the Task Force decided to
confine its recommendations to the planning appeal process. However the Task Force
encourages the Province to expeditiously resolve these broader planning framework
issues through the PPS review process.
The GTA Task Force on OMS Reform has developed these recommendations with the
objectives of resolving some specific issues and improving the planning appeal process
for all involved. We hope our municipal colleagues will see fit to endorse these
recommendations and that the Province will act upon them.
2 Chipman, John G, 2002. A Law Unto Itself Toronto:The Institute of Public Administration of Canada,
University of Toronto Press,
13
~\ - \ q
ATTACHMENT 1
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
Membership list
Chair:
Roger Anderson
Chair, Region of Durham
Members:
Andrew Allison
Senior Solicitor
Region of Durham
William F. Bell
Mayor
Town of Richmond Hill
Frank D'Amico
Councilior
City of Hamilton
Kevin Daniel Flynn
Regional Councillor
Ward 1 - Oakville
Region of Halton
Alex Georgieff
Commissioner of Planning
Region of Durham
Mark Holland
City/Regional Councillor
City of Pickering
Paul Mallard
Manager, Development Planning
Planning & Development Department
City of Hamilton
Howard Moscoe
Councillor
City of Toronto
Gary Muller
Senior Planner
Planning & Development
T own of Ajax
Ann Mulvale
Mayor
Town of Oakville (alternate)
Patrick O'Connor
Director of Legal Services
Region of Peel
Steve Parish
Mayor
Town of Ajax
Arvin Prasad
Director of Planning Policy and Research
Planning Department
Region of Peel
Don Sinclair
Director, Development Law
. Corporate & Legal Services Department
Region of York
Nancy L. Smith
Assistant Corporate Counsel
City of Hamilton
14
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
. ~'\ - ~ CJ
Staff Technical Support:
Debi Bently
Deputy Clerk
Clerk's Department
Region of Durham
Stan Floras
Assistant Corporate Counsel
Legal Services
Region of Halton
Jody Wellings
Manager of Current Planning
Planning & Transportation Services
Region of Halton
Christine Drimmie
Policy & Research Advisor
Regional Chair & CAO's Office
Region of Durham
Lino Trombino
Planner
Planning Department
Region of Durham
Kai Yew
Manager, Plan Implementation
Planning Department
Region of Durham
15
GTA. TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
\Y\-~I
ATTACHMENT 2
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM
Terms of Reference
(Revised @20020916)
In response to a motion from the City of Mississauga, the Region of Durham Council instructed
Chair Roger Anderson to invite GTA municipalities to form a task force on the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB).
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of the task force is to review the mandate, purpose and function of the OMB, the
OMB appeal process and related matters and make recommendations for its reform to the local
and regional governments within the 905/705/416 areas and Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing and the Attorney General.
DELIVERABLE
Report on Recommendations for Reform of the Ontario Municipal Board, endorsed by GTA
Municipal Councils.
RESOURCE COMMITMENT
Time of Councillors and staff to attend several meetings; to research, read, review materials,
prepare comments and suggestions; undertake tasks as assigned including consultations with
invited stakeholders, research or writing; Council review of the resulting report.
OPERATING PRINCIPLES FOR TASK FORCE
. Members of the Task Force are asked to participate as equals, based on their expertise with
OMB issues, not as representatives of their municipality.
. Decision-making will be based on consensus.
. Task Force minutes will be recorded and distributed by staff of the Clerk's Department,
Region of Durham.
. Meetings to be open to public.
REPORTING
Members of the Task Force will be responsible for making information on the activities of the
Task Force available to their respective Councils.
ApPROVAL PROCESS & DISTRIBUTION
Final report will be sent to Councils in the GTA for their endorsement. Councils are asked to
send notice of their endorsement to the Task Force. The Task Force will then submit the
endorsed report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General, the
Opposition parties and AMO, Copies of the report could also be sent to the Red Tape
Commission and the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel.
EVALUA TION OF PROGRESS AND IMPACT OF FINAL PRODUCT
. Check at the end of each meeting that the tasks are on target.
. Monitor changes to OMB legislqtion, Planning Act etc. that reflect the suggestions of the
Task Force. Follow up with Ministers.
16
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM
. ~\ -J~.
ATTACHMENT 3
Stakeholders and Sources consulted by the Task Force in the
preparation of this report:
MUNICIPAL RESOLUTIONS AND REPORTS RECEIVED BY TASK FORCE
Aurora -- Sept. 24, 2002
Burlington -- Mar. 18.2002
Caiedon -- Sept. 21, 2001
Durham Region -- June 19, 2002
Halton Hills -- Oct. 2001
Halton Region -- June 19,2002
Mississauga -- May 8, 2002
Oakville -- April 2, 2002
Oshawa -- Sept. 9, 2002
Ottawa -- June 26, 2002
Peel Region -- Aug, 8,2002
Pickering -- Feb.. 4, 2002
Toronto - May 23, 2002
Whitchurch-Stouffville -- Oct.15, 2002
STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS ToGTA TASK FORCE:
Dr, John Chipman -- Jan. 20, 2003
Greater Toronto Homebuilders Association -- Jan. 20, 2003
Joshua Creek Ratepayers Association Inc. -- Jan. 13, 2003
New Democratic Party (Ontario), Michael Prue - Feb. 3, 2003
Oakvillegreen -- Jan.13, 2003
Ontario Liberal Party, David Caplan - Feb. 3, 2003
Ontario Municipal Board, Chair, David Johnson -- Feb. 3, 2003
Pickering East Shore Community Association -- Jan. 20, 2003
John Sewell -- Jan, 13, 2003
Toronto Region Conservation Authority - Jan, 20, 2003
Urban Development Institute (Ontario and Peel Chapter) - Jan. 20, 2003
OTHER REPORTS CONSUL TED:
. Greater Toronto Services Board, Countryside and Environment Working Group -- Oct.5,
2001
Ontario Association of Chief Planning Officials (OACPO) -- 1999 report to OMB
Ontario Professional Planners Institute Report and Recommendations -- Feb. 25, 2002
Chipman, John G. 2002, A Law Unto Itself Toronto: The Institute of Public
Administration of Canada, University of Toronto Press
Joint Recommendations - Ontario Municipal Board Process and Procedures -
AMO,OPPI, Toronto Board ofTrade, GTHBA, UDI., Feb. 20, 2003
Ontario Municipal Board Annual Report 1998-2000
OMB -- Your Guide to the Ontario Municipal Board -- Dec.2000
17
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION AND SUBMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
ATTACHMENT 4
ISSUES IDENTIFED . RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY WHOM
Role and Jurisdiction of OMB . . .
. Mandate/Scope of Board Disband/abolish OMB Sewell, Pickering, Joshua
. Nature of Appeals heard Creek
. Nature of Hearings held Use divisional court for appeals on egregious errors Sewell
.
Eliminate OMB planning appeal role and strengthen municipal Chipman, TRCA
planning process to cover anv outstandinq quasi-judicial needs.
Create a local appeal mechanism within planning process Toronto, Ottawa, Sewell,
Chipman, Liberals
. .
Put Cabinet back as an appeal body. Joshua Creek
Province should review OMB role and function and include GTSB, Halton Hills,
consultation with public and municipalities Mississauga, Aurora,
Caledon, Burlington,
Halton, Durham, Oshawa,
Liberals, NDP
. .
Province should review Planning Act, OMB Act re: appeal process Wh i tchurch - Stouffville,
and role of OMB Sewell, Toronto
AMO should apply pressure on behalf of Ontario municipalities to Burlington, Caledon,
dissolve or radically alter the OMB's role Halton, Halton Hills,
Retain OMB with current mandate and role OPPI, UDI, GTBHA
Retain board but drastiCally overhaul it Liberals
Change/ reduce OMB role to an inter-municipal dispute resolulion Chipman, PESCA
body only
Change /reduce mandate of OMB to eliminate "minor"issues Liberals, NDP
c;-
-'
J
<0
(Y-
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM
ISSUES IDENTIFED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY WHOM .
. Screening Mechanism/Gatekeeper Eliminate appeals of approved Official Plans, policy decisions on Caledon, Mississauga,
growth, land use Durham, Oakville, Oshawa
Developer should not be allowed to appeal an urban boundary Joshua Creek
.
Restrict OMB role in review of municipal policy decisions to a Caledon, Oakville
review of the quality of the planning process
. .
Limit role of OMS to planning issues that have broad public Liberals
interest
.
Set strict, narrow grounds for appeal PESCA, Joshua Creek,
Chipman, NDP
Need clear jurisdictional guidelines for OMS Liberals
. .
Have a subcommittee that screens cases requesting appeal and
make appeals the exception rather than the rule PESCA
. ..
. Burden of Proof Increase burden of proof required of appellants before hearing Sewell, OACPO
qranted
Where no clear provincial interest is defined, should have less Toronto, Ottawa
costly, local alternative forum for dispute resolution
.
Process Abuses/Complaints . .
..
. 90 day appeal period is an Change appeal period to 90 days from receipt of all required Liberals, TRCA
unrealistic processing timeframe information .
for municipalities
Change to a 180 day process with all municipal documentation NDP
requirements to be met within 1st 90 days or applicant must
reapply.
Amend Planning Act to allow for more realistic timeframes based Toronto, Oakvillegreen,
on application type TRCA
G
.-
19
I
Q....)
.,J:.. ,
ISSUES IDENTIfED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY WHOM .
Amet\d plannlt\g Act to enable mun'lcipaHty to detail it\formation OACpO,TRCA
required for their review to cot\stitute a complete applicatiot\
.
If plant\ing Act changed (previOUS recommendation), ottawa
mo","P'"'''' ","'d d,"" . romp"" .""",,0'" ,,, Off",.1 Pl."
or their aoplication procedures -
01'113 should change procedure to not deal with 90 day appeals Toronto, ottawa, OACI'O,
where information required for mut\icipal rev'lew has t\ot beet\ 01'1'1
"".d,d " ,""'V w,y "d ,pplV "" m. ""m"" led""o"
.
. 90 day provlslot\ used to oot\'t allow piggy-back appeals WCA
circumVet\t oubHc it\out .
. Appeal process can be used either 01'113 needs to further improve administrative practices and 01'1'1, \-Ia\tot\, Joshua
to delay or speed up plannit\g procedures Creek, PESCA. GTHBA,
process Whitchurch-Stouft,J\\le
.
oot\'t ailow site-specific "strategic" appeals by developers seeklt\9 TRCA
to have a future proposal considered under existing rules 1\1 a
municipality where a plat\t\i\19 policY review Is about to begin,
.
ImproVe pre-hearing process, reduce appeal times and costs by 01'1'1, Toronto, TRCA,
using mediation and dispute resolution OACPO, Wnitcnurch-
stouffvi\\e
.
Plio' 0" of p".,,,,,o, lo '9'" 10 'of"m.~~""" OMB
agree to tlme\ines
M"d.lo~ m"J;otlo" ,,,,old '" ""o,,,d '0< "rt.,o typ" 0' 01'1'1
aopllcations .
. \-Iearlng process Increase routine use of pre-nearing mediation UOl, GT\-IBA, Toronto,
- . OApCO . .
DeveloP mediation orotoCOI . OMB
Hearings should be trUe revieW, not "de nOvo" process PESCA
. .
\ ."
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
c
-"
20
\
Q.)
0'1
G"f'"A TASK fORC' oN OM8 REFORM _-=:~-~
,. --- ~
"CO~~'.O""O~D' . ,,,,, . \ Qtt'~" Wn'''"''''.
J.>5"" ,o,.n"O o~. ,noOId ,,,,,,, ,~ "'''.p,,"''<'' ", ":':"'->___.-1~~---
cost of ~\lnicip31, p.genc'i
partici ation ' .
. Deters public and munIcIpal
participatiOn
. 1hreat ~costs
affects municipal plannl\'1g
deciSions
.~ bV ,,,,,""0' ,''''0'",,"'' P'''''~
U01, (;1\,\\3'" 'Toronto,
\RC"
PESCP-
\,,\aKe ap?ealS the e)(ceptlon, not the rule
~= ..__,C""--_._-~Jo';;~'
_~"Q",OO" ~~9 .It' 0."''''1. .--=
. ' 'alltleS ~S\3, \"\IS5Issauga,
\0'",,, ,,,00" of ,,,, t" ,,,,,,,bOO ,",'" bV ,,00'0' op"';'" 0<;".'
and commenting age\'1c1eS
~p"" ,,,,,,,'00 ",,'" ,,,,,,, pe<'M doc' "
started
, . genc" lor costs
. a ellant to i\'1demnl\'y commenting a!
~~~~:d,?~?ec\aIIY in tight tlme\Ine situation.
.,,"', "'" bV ",,"W ""It\o' ~,,' ," b' ,p""",
..---
IRCP-, GIS\3, \"\ISslSSaUga,
Durham, osha\Na
. DivertS scarce municipal and
commenting agencY resources
wom other ?Ianning needs a\'1d
local e)(?endlture prioritieS
\RCP-
-----
Caledon, oaKvllle,
PIcKering, p-urora
I ~sts to municipalitieS :"st
for plaool09 process \NIth publIC
loput theO to de\eod ?la\'1 at 0\,,\\3.
, "de \'1ovo"
.",,,,,, co" ", ""p",,bOO ",~"9 ,",'" ,,\h~ """
nearl\'1g
osha~?ma\'1
c
.......
)
q..:
E
2~
-
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
ISSUES IDENTIFED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY WHOM
Barriers to Public ParticiDatiol1
. Legalistic nature of process Create a separate more informal part of OMB hearing process to UDI, GTHBA, OPPI
obtain greater citizen input
Review prehearing practices to create greater involvement by all OPPI, UDI
stakeholders in an appeal
Assign case officer to assist citizen groups in understanding the Joshua Creek
process
.
Clearer citizen's guidebook to OMB procedures is needed OPP], OACPO, OMB
.
. Timing of hearings Hold some hearings in evenings Joshua Creek,
Oakvillegreen, PESCA
. . .
. Notification process Increase notification time, geographic area and modes of Oakvillegreen
communication .
Allow audio/video recordings of hearings Oakvillegreen, Joshua
.. . Creek
. 90 Day appeal reduces public Increase pre-hearing notification to public Joshua Creek
input opportunities
. .
OMB should exercise its right to dismiss appeals where grounds TRCA
for appeal are weak, where local public process being avoided
.
. Intervenor funding Provide intervenor funding to citizen 3'd parties, participants PESCA, Oakvillegreen,
NDP
Finance intervenor funding from hearing costs paid by developers Joshua Creek, TRCA
.
. De novo hearing ignores any Make hearing a true review, not "de novo" process PESCA, TRCA
previous public inDut .
. 3'd Parties stiqmatized bv Board Citizen opinion and written ~itizen statements should be oiven Oakvilleqreen.
c
-
I
9)
22
ISSUES IDENTIFED . RECOMMENDATIONS MADE . BY WHOM
more weight by board Joshua Creek
I .
CredibilltV/ImDartiafitV of OMB . - . .
. Method and duration of OMB Request Attorney General to review OMB appointment OPPI, GTHBA, UDI,
appointments is flawed; need to procedures Sewel1, Whitchurch
enhance the Board's Establish professional qualifications for Board members StouffviileHalton,
independence Increase tenure of appointment (5 to 10 years) Burlington, Oakville,
Increase remuneration to attract qualified candidate, to ref\ect Oshawa, Oakvi\\egreen,
scope of responsibilities Joshua Creek, liberals,
Create transparent, impartial selection/appointment process NOP
(most groupS listed mentioned mu/tiple aspects of the
dDDointment orocess) .
Have AMO comment on/vet OMB member selection NOP
.. .
. Competence, expertise, Increase training for Board members Toronto
impartiality of Board members
questioned .
Institute performance reviews by impartial panel Whitchurch- Stouffvill e,
Oakviilegreen
.
Create multi-stakeholder panel to annually review OMB member liberals
performance against specific parameters and publicly report
Create stronger integrity/conflict guidelines for members Plckering
.
Plannina policv Framework
. Strength of provincial legislation Provide dearer provincial planning legislation and policy Sewell, TRCA
and policy framework statements as framework for planning decisions
. .
Provincial Policy Statements should give clear direction on issues liberals, NOP
like environment. transit. affordable housina farmland .
Amend Planning Act to require "consistency with PPS" rather Liberals, NDP
than "recard for"
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM
.
b
.--
I
~
23
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM
ISSUES IDENTIFED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE . BY WHOM .
. Weight of official plans in OMS Province should provide clearer guidelines on interpretation, Toronto, Sewell, TRCA
appeal process implementation of Provincial interest provisions
Increase Board's deference to Official Plans and municipal Oakville, Mississauga.
planning process and decisions Durham, Pickering,
Oshawa, PESCA, Aurora,
Burling/on, Oakvillegreen,
.. . . <. Liberals, NDP .
Value Added of OMB Appeal .
PrOcess . '. . .
. No "performance measurement" Detailed Review/assessment of OMS roie, process' and results Sewell
of OMS, no evaluation that shows. should be conducted every 10 years
OMS improves planning outcomes .
Role of OMS should be reviewed as part of the review of the Caledon, Oakville, Halton
Provincial Policy Statement Hills
Determine whether OMB decisions are significantly better than Halton Hills, Caledon
planning decisions made by Councils
. . . . .
. No other Province or State has an Abolish OMB or eliminate planning appeal function Sewell, Chipman
OMB type appeal body
.
Review of OMS should consider process used in other Canadian Oshawa
jurisdictions . .
. Credibility of planning process and Increase Board's deference to Official Plans, municipal planning Oakville, Mississauga,
Official Plans undermined process and decisions. Durham, Pickering,
Oshawa, PESCA. Aurora,
Burlington, Oakvillegreen,
liberals, NDP
.
. Difficult to promote or protect OMS needs flexibility to incorporate new ideas (i.e. Smart Oakvillegreen
innovative planning at the OMS Growth) into their decisions.
-
c-
.---'
24
u
..$)
.,
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
ISSUES IDENTlFED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY WHOM
. Hearing Focus is very site-specific; Need stronger policy statements at the Provincial level to require TRCA
broader issues, cumulative greater attention to cumulative impacts on environment.
impacts often not considered .
OTHER ISSUES . .
. Developer influence in political Amend municipal election legislation to eliminate developer Joshua Creek
process Funding of political candidates.
. . . .. ..
. Some OMS decisions display "US OMS should have more regard to applicable laws, Provincial Joshua Creek
style" of regard to private property policy.
rights which has little basis in
Canadian law. . . ..
Municipalities that requested or supported creation of a municipal committee or task force to make recommendations on
reform of the OMS by Council resolution:
Burlington
Caledon
Durham
Halton
Halton Hitls
Oakville
Oshawa
OttawiJ
Peel
Pickering
Toronto
Acronyms used in chart:
AMO=Association of Municipalities of Ontario
GTSHA= Greater !oronto Home Builders Association
GTSB= Greater Toronto Services Soard
NDP=New Democratic Party (Ontario)
OACPO= Ontario Association of Chief Planning Officials
OMB=Onfario Municipal Board
OPPI= Ontario Professional Planners Institute
PESCA= Pickering East Shore Community Association
. TRCA=Toronto Region Conservation Authority
UDI -- Urban Development Institute
G""
...;;.- ~
I
~
o
25
G-
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. FD-2003-5 To: Prepared By:
Members of Council Paul Eenhoorn, Fire Chief
Subject: Department:
Council
Monthly Report (March) Fire and Emergency
C.ofW. Services
Date: April 28, 2003
Motion #
R.M. File No.
Date:
DATE
STATION
TIME
TYPE
LOCATION
DAMAGE
Station #3 Medical Assist 1316 Old Barrie
March 1, 2003 Horseshoe 09: 34:03 Call Road West
Station #5 Carbon Monoxide 113 Sideroad 2
March 1, 2003 Wanminster 17:19:38 Call
Station #2 Vehicle Fire Line 7 South @ $ 10,000.00 L
March 2, 2003 Hawkestone 08: 14:28 (olck-uo truck) Lakeshore Road .OOS
Station #4 Medical Assist 58 Tamarack Drive
March 2, 2003 Ruobv 17:56:58 Call
Station #1 Trailer Fire Hitch House,
March 2, 2003 Shantv Bav 18: 10:40 (nothina found) HiQhwav 11 SIB
Station #1 Flooded 113 Brambel Road
March 3, 2003 Shantv Bav 17: 11: 16 Basement
Station #2 Smell of Gas, 2313 Lakeshore Road
March 3, 2003 Hawkestone 14:46:36 Fireolace Gas Leak East
Station #3 Carbon 5 Maplecrest Crt,
March 3, 2003 Horseshoe 10:25:00 Monoxide Call
Station #2 Motor Vehicle Highway 11 NIB,
March 4, 2003 Hawkestone 15:57:58 Roll Over , @'Memorial Ave.
Station #4 Medical Assist 59 Tamarack Drive
March 4, 2003 Ruobv 12:59:03 Call
Station #1 Medical Assist 969 Highway 93
March 4, 2003 Shantv Bav 10: 34:45 Call
~,
\0 ~
FD Report 2003 - 05 Con't ".2
DATE
ST A TlON
TIME
TYPE
LOCATION
DAMAGE
Station #2 Medical Assist Highway 11 SIB,
March 6, 2003 Hawkestone 18:03:45 Call between Line 11 7 12
Station #4 Carbon Monoxide 815 Line 11 North
March 8, 2003 RUCjby 19:44:55 Call
Station i#3 Alarm - No Fire, Moonstone Ski,
March 8, 2003 Moonstone 16:53: 10 Malfunction 24 Mt. St. Louis Rd. W.
Station i#3 Motor Vehicle Highway 400 SIB,
March 9, 2003 Moonstone 10:46:01 Accident @-Line 5
Station #2 Motor Vehicle Highway 11 NIB,
March 9, 2003 Hawkestone 02: 05:45 Accident @-Line 9
Station #2 Medical Assist 1177 Woodland Drive
March 10, 2003 Hawkestone 19:26; 32 Call
Station #4 Structure Fire --T20 Beach Road $ 50,000.00 L
March 11, 2003 RUQbv 02:37:04 $ 75,000.00 S
Station #2 Medical Assist 165 Springhome
March 11, 2003 Hawkestone 03: 54: 10 Call Road
Station #5 Flood on 9288 Highway 12
March 11, 2003 Warminster 15: 14;57 Upper Floor
Station #3 Motor Vehicle 3347 Li ne 6 North $ 3,000.00 l
March 12, 2003 Horseshoe 21: 34: 31 Fire .00 S
Station #2 Motor Vehicle Highway 11 SIB,
March 14, 2003 Hawkestone 07: 02: 00 Roll Over N. of Line 12
Station #1 Smell of Smoke, 326 Shanty Bay
March 14,2003 Shanty Bav 19:24:27 No Fire Road
Station #2 Fish Hut 259 Shoreline Drive,
March 15, 2003 Hawkestone 18: 22: 21 Overheat On The Lake
Station #3 Multi Motor Old Barrie Road,
March 17, 2003 Horseshoe 07:42:24 Vehicle Accident @ Line 5
Station #3 Multi Motor Line 3 and 15/16 S.R.
March 17, 2003 Horseshoe 08:51:34 Vehicle Accident
Station #3 Multi Motor Highway 93 and
March 17, 2003 Horseshoe 07:50: 11 Vehicle Accident Forbes Road
Station #4 Medical Assist 12 Claremont Cres.
March 18, 2003 RUQbV 12:25:40 Call
Station #1 Small Brush Fire 295 Highway 93
March 20, 2003 Shanty Bav 18:51:37
Station #5 Medicat Assist 10087 Highway 12
March 22, 2003 Warminster 08:54:02 Call
Station #5 Medical Assist, 4007 Line 13 North
March 23, 2003 Warminster 11: 53: 30 Lift Call
Station #3 Medical Assist 402 Old Barrie Road
March 24, 2003 Horseshoe 10:36:04 Call West
Station #3 Medical Assist 3370 Highway 93
March 26, 2003 Horseshoe 20:42:32 Call
Station #4 Carbon Monoxide 9 Orr Drive
March 26, 2003 RUQbv 05:45:30 Call
Station #2 Medical Assist 160 Line 9 South
March 27,2003 Hawkestone 19:40:03 Call
Station #1 Burning 42 Red Oak
March 28, 2003 Shanty Bav 21: 14: 12 Complaint
0-
/""'~
J
FD Report 2003 -- 05 Con't ...3
DATE
STATION
TIME
TYPE
LOCA nON
DAMAGE
Station #2 Multi Motor Highway 11 SIB,
March 29, 2003 Hawkestone 06:25:58 Vehicle Accident S. of Line 15
Station #1 Multi Motor Highway 11 SIB,
March 31, 2003 Shanty Bay 10:05:48 Vehicle Accident N. of HiQhway 93
Station #1 Motor Vehicle Highway 11 SIB,
March 31, 2003 Shanty Bay 09:50:51 Roll Over @-Line 1 North
Station #1 Motor Vehicle Highway 11 SIB,
March 31, 2003 Shanty Bav 10:00:00 Accident N, of Line 1
Station #6 Motor Vehicle County Road 19,
March 31, 2003 Moonstone 09: 11:25 Accident bet. Line 4 & 5
Station #6 Carbon Monoxide 4882 Line 8
March 31, 2003 Moonstone 22: 13:47 Call North
Station #5 111: 05: 56 Carbon Monoxide 7 Sunset Cres.
- March 31, 2003 Wanminster Call
I
Structure and Vehicle Fire
Dollar Value Lost
Dollar Value Saved
$ 63,000,00
$ 75,000,00
.
~,
101 -~
Monthlv Fire Report for March, 2003
Training Sessions
Station #1
Station #2
Station #5
Shanty Bay
Hawkestone
Warminster
2
2
2
Station #3
Station #4
Station #6
Horseshoe
Rugby
Moonstone
2
2
2
Inspection Record for the Month (including Fire Prevention I Public Education)
Commercial
1
Residential/Bed & Breakfast
1
Industrial
Schools / Assembly / Church
Woodstove
2
Daycare I Camps / Hall Tours
Comments or Recommendations bv Fire Chief and/or Deputy Fire Chief
Extra training I Seminars and Events Attended
Chiefs Meeting
Trainer Facilitators Meeting
Meeting with Desmond (County) for Mapping
TAPP-C Meeting
Emergency Measures of Ontario Educational Seminar
Health and Safety Meeting
Master Plan Meeting
Respectfully submitted,
1
/c~~/ C;eH~
Paul Eenhoorn, Fire Chief
C.A.O. COMMENTS:
DATE:
C.A.O.
DEPT. HEAD
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COMPARISON OF TAX RATES
2003 ACTUAL TO 2002 ACTUAL
2003 2002 % 2003 2002 % 2003 2002 % 2003 2002 %
TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP CHANGE COUNTY COUNTY CHANGE EDUCATION EDUCATION CHANGE TOTAL TOTAL CHANGE
RESIDENTIAL 0.00376611 0.00426253 -11,65% 0.00314006 0.00341234 -7.98% 0.00335000 0.00373000 -10.19% 0.01025617 0.01140487 -10.07%
MULTI-RESIDENTIAL 0.00732923 0,00916401 -20.02% 0.00611087 0.00733619 -16.70% 0.00335000 0.00373000 -10,19% 0.01679010 0.02023020 -17,00%
FARMLAND 0.00094153 0.00106563 -11.65% 0.00078501 0.00085309 -7.98% 0.00083750 0.00093250 -10.19% 0.00256404 0.00285122 -10.07%
MANAGED FOREST 0.00094153 0.00106563 -11.65% 0.00078501 0.00085309 -7.98% 0,00083750 0.00093250 -10.19% 0,00256404 0.00285122 -10.07%
PIPELINES 0.00431747 0.00488656 -11.65% 0.00359976 0.00391191 -7.98% 0.01818230 0.01992737 -8.76% 0.02609953 0,02872584 -9.14%
COMMERCIAL - OCCUPIED 0.00447301 0.00506261 -11.65% 0.00372945 0.00405284 -7.98% 0.01 950711 0.02109397 -7.52% 0.02770957 0.03020942 -8.28%
COMMERCIAL - VACANT 0.00313111 0,00354382 -11.65% 0.00261064 0.00283699 -7,98% 0.01365497 0.01476578 -7.52% 0.01939672 0.02114659 -8.27%
INDUSTRIAL - OCCUPIED 0.00676657 0.00820878 -17.57% 0.00564174 0.00657148 -14.15% 0,03009579 0,03426344 -12.16% 0.04250410 0.04904370 -13.33%
INDUSTRIAL - VACANT 0.00439827 0,00533571 -17.57% 0.00366727 0.00427146 -14,14% 0.01 956226 0.02227124 -12.16% 0.02762780 0.03187841 -13,33%
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COMPARISON OF TAX RATES
2003 ACTUAL TO 2002 NOTIONAL
2003 2002 % 2003 2002 % 2003 2002 % 2003 2002 %
TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP CHANGE COUNTY COUNTY CHANGE EDUCATION EDUCATION CHANGE TOTAL TOTAL CHANGE
NOTIONAL NOTIONAL NOTIONAL NOTIONAL
RESIDENTIAL 0,00376611 0.00367677 2.43% 0.00314006 0.00294342 6,68% 0.00335000 0.00321691 4.14% 0.01025617 0,00983710 4.26%
MULTI-RESIDENTIAL 0.00732923 0,00715536 2.43% 0.00611087 0.00572819 6.68% 0.00335000 0.00321691 4,14% 0.01679010 0.01610046 4.26%
FARMLAND 0.00094153 0.00091919 2.43% 0.00078501 0,00073586 6.68% 0.00083750 0.00080423 4.14% 0.00256404 0.00245928 4.26%
MANAGED FOREST 0.00094153 O,OO091919 2.43% 0.00078501 0.00073586 6.68% 0.00083750 0.00080423 4.14% 0.00256404 0.00245928 4,26%
PIPELINES 0,00431747 0,00421505 2.43% 0.00359976 0.00337434 6.68% 0.01818230 0,01820457 -0,12% 0.02609953 0.02579396 1.18%
COMMERCIAL - OCCUPIED 0.00447301 0.0043669 2.43% 0,00372945 0,00349590 6,68% 0.01950711 0.01922068 1.49% 0.02770957 0,02708348 2.31%
COMMERCIAL - VACANT 0.00313111 0.00305683 2.43% 0.00261064 0.00244713 6.68% O,01365497 0.01345448 1.49% 0.01939672 0.01895844 2.31%
INDUSTRIAL - OCCUPIED 0.00676657 0.00660605 2.43% 0.00564174 0.00528844 6.68% 0.03009579 0.02430652 23.82% 0.04250410 0.03620101 17.41%
INDUSTRIAL - VACANT 0.00439827 0.00429393 2.43% 0.00366727 0.00343749 6.68% 0,01956226 0.01579924 23.82% 0.02762780 0.02353066 17.41%
% OF COUNTY LEVY
2002 2003 % CHANGE
TOWN OF BRADFORD-WEST GWILLlMBURY 7.877 7.682 -2.48%
TOWN OF COLLINGWOOD 7.187 7.586 5.55%
TOWN OF INNISFIL 11.769 11.723 -0.39%
TOWN OF MIDLAND 5.279 5.087 -3,64%
TOWN OF NEW TECUMSETH 11.100 10.588 -4.61%
TOWN OF PENETANGUISHENE 2,394 2,352 -1.75%
TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH 6.251 6.457 3.30%
TOWNSHIP OF ADJALA-TOSORONTIO 4,026 4.086 1.49%
TOWNSHIP OF CLEARVIEW 4.651 4.823 3,70%
TOWNSHIP OF ESSA 5.160 4,928 -4,50%
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE 8.494 8.799 3.59%
TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA 4.746 4.643 -2.17%
TOWNSHIP OF SEVERN 5.240 5.344 1.98%
TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGWATER 5.812 5,837 0.43%
TOWNSHIP OF TAY 2,852 2.735 -4,10%
TOWNSHIP OF TINY 7.162 7.330 2,35%
100.000 100,000
10\NNSr\IP Of ORO_ME.OON1E.
ANALYSIS Of 20031AX IMPAC1
2002 2003 DOLLAR %
,MES ,MES INCREASE INCREASE
2002 ASSE.SSME.N1 $~50,000
2003 ASSE.SSME.N1 $173,897
ASSE.SSME.N1 INCRE.ASE. ~5.9%
10\NNSr\IP 639.36 654.9~ ~5.55 2.43%
COUN1Y 5~ ~ .85 546.05 34.20 6.68%
E.OUCA 1\ON 559.50 582.55 23.05 4.~4%
101 AL ~ ,7~0.7~ ~ ,783.5~ 72.8Q. 4.26%
~
2003 Frequency Distribution Report
page 1 ot 1
2003 Frequency Distribution Report
OPTA
Horne
.
Wamlng
Oro/Medonte Tp
ResidentiaVFarm
Proper~ies with Increases Properties with Decreases
Doltar Number of %of Average Total Doltar Doltar Number of %of Average Total Doltar
Increase Properties Total Change Increase Decrease Properties Totat Change Decrease
0- 100 4246 66,50 50 214,157 0- tOO 1917 77.27 33 62,918
100- 200 t469 23.01 137 201,612 100 - 200 283 11.41 145 40,983
200 - 300 300 4,70 239 71,578 200- 300 143 5.76 243 34,808
300 - 500 127 1.99 383 48,646 300 - 500 72 2.90 383 27,590
500 - 700 119 1.86 614 73,061 500 - 700 27 1.09 575 15,538
700 - t ,000 42 0.66 820 34,429 700 - 1,000 15 0.60 851 12,758
t ,000 - t ,500 19 0.30 1,235 23,462 I,@OO - 1,500 7 0,28 1,151 8,054
t,500 - 2,000 9 0.14 1,704 15,334 1,500 - 2,000 3 0,12 1,568 4,704
2,000 - 3,000 0.23 2,387 35,812 2,000 - 3,000 4 0.t6 2,37t 9,485
3,000 - Over 6,023 234,889 3,000- Over 10 0.40 8,939 89,395
Total 149 952,980 Totat 2481 100 123 306,233
~. Dollar Distribution
C Percent Change Distribution
1~~sidentiaI/FarrTllI
To see a report for another municipality, select a municipality and click OK.
101M d t T It
~~r?~"~...."on.e.p~"_.. 'm
~ J998-2003 Q1Le~n's Printer (Q.fDntario
This information is provided as a public service, but we cannot guarantee that the
information is current or accurate. Readers should verify the information before acting on it.
hUp:/ / opta.reamined,on.cal scri ptS/ opta. dll/FreqDistReport?USER = 3 D63083 8
05/05/03
. LoIJV;) rrt;ljUt;m;y 1.JlollJUUllUII r;,t;pUn
rage t or 1
2003 Frequency Distribution Report
EXit
Oro/Medonte Tp
Residential/Farm
Propertie~ with Increases
0/0 Increase Number of 0/0 of Average
Properties Total Change
0,00 - 3,00 1655 25.92 52
3.00 - 6.00 2290 35.87 82
6.00 - 10.00 1666 26.09 117
10.00- t5.00 467 7,31 201
15.00 - 20.00 100 1.57 335
20,00- 30.00 58 0.91 530
30.00- 50.00 51 0.80 1,037
50.00- 80.00 57 0.89 3,073
80.00 - 100.00 II 0.17 2,681
tOO,OO- Over 30 0.47 2,265
OPTA
.. .
Properties wit~_ Decreases
Total
Dollar
Increase
86,862 0.00 - 3.00
188,348 3.00 - 6.00
194,298 6.00 - 10.00
93,730 10.00 - 15,00
33,538 15.00 - 20.00
30,733 20.00 - 30.00
52,877 30.00 - 50.00
175,164 50.00 - 80.00
29,493 80,00 - tOO,OO
67,938 100.00 - Over
Number of % of
Properties Total
Average Total Dollar
Change Decrease
0/0 Decrease
890 35.87 25 22,019
8t7 32.93 86 70,660
267 10,76 181 48,391
392 15.80 318 124,648
66 2.66 241 15,925
33 1.33 320 10,568
9 0.36 744 6,696
6 0.24 788 4,730
t 0.04 2,594 2,594
0 0.00 0
2481 100 123 306,233
Total
100
952,980 Total
6385
C Dollar Distribution
@"; Percent Change Distribution
I Residential/Farm II
149
To see a report for another municipality, select a municipality and click OK.
12~?/tI1edonteTp I
@ ]998.2003 QJJ~~n',~,PIi.nt~IJQIJ1!11;;tI!.Q
This information is provided as a public service, but we cannot guarantee that the
information is current or accurate. Readers should verifY the information before acting on it.
http://opta.reamined, on. ca/ scripts/ opta, dll/FreqDistReport
05/05/03
'2003 Frequency Distribution Report
page 1 ot 1
2003 Frequency Distribution Report
OPTA
Help
Home
.
.
Oro/Medonte Tp
Farmlands
_,_~_w Properties_with Increa!,.es Properties with Decreases
Dollar Number of 0/0 of Average Total Dollar Dollar Number of 0/0 of Average Total Dollar
Increase Properties Totat Change Increase Decrease Properties Total Change Decrease
0- 100 554 97.88 14 7,774 0- 100 224 98.25 14 3,048
100 - 200 4 0.7t 115 458 100- 200 3 1.32 t45 436
200 - 300 5 0.88 240 1,199 200 - 300 I 0.44 267 267
300 - 500 2 0.35 417 833 300 - 500 0 0.00 0
500 - 700 I 0.18 688 688 500 - 700 0 0.00 0
700 - 1,000 0 0.00 0 700 - 1,000 0 0.00 0
1,000 - 1,500 0 0.00 0 1,000- 1,500 0 0.00 0
1,500 - 2,000 0 0.00 o 1,500 - 2,000 0 0.00 0
2,000 - 3,000 0 0.00 o 2,000 - 3,000 0 0.00 0
3,000- Over 0 0.00 o 3,000- Over 0 0.00 0
Total 566 tOO t9 10,952 Total 228 100 16 3,752
@ Dollar Distribution
o Percent Change Distribution
To see a report for another municipality, select a municipality and click OK.
<<) 1998-2003 Ouecn',uLi.!Jter il)f Ontario
This infonnation is provided as a public service, but we cannot guarantee that the
infomlation is current or accurate. Readers should verify the infonnation before acting on it.
http://opta,reamined, on, ca/ scripts/ opta,dll/F reqDistReport
05/05/03
. 2003 Frequency Distribution Report
Page 1 ot 1
2003 Frequency Distribution Report
OPTA
Home
.
.
Oro/Medonte Tp
Farmlands
Prop<:rties with Increases Properties with Decreases
Number of 0/0 of Average Total Number of 0/0 of Average Total Dollar
0/0 Increase Dollar 0/0 Decrease
Properties Total Change Increase Properties Total Change Decrease
0.00- 3.00 179 31.63 21 3,804 0.00 - 3.00 115 50.44 4 484
3.00- 6.00 179 31.63 12 2,134 3.00 - 6,00 68 29.82 16 1,082
6.00 - 10.00 114 20.14 18 2,039 6.00- 10.00 22 9.65 30 671
10.00 - 15.00 56 9.89 29 1,651 10.00 - t5.00 12 5.26 34 403
15.00- 20.00 16 2.83 23 367 15.00- 20.00 6 2.63 126 755
20.00- 30.00 9 1.59 48 428 20.00 - 30.00 3 1.32 66 198
30.00 - 50.00 10 1.77 37 369 30.00 - 50.00 2 0.88 79 159
50.00 - 80.00 2 0.35 30 59 50,00- 80.00 0 0,00 0
80.00 - 100,00 0 0.00 0 80.00 - 100.00 0 0.00 0
100.00- Over I 0.18 101 tOI 100.00- Over 0 0,00 0
Total 566 tOO 19 to,952 Totat 228 100 16 3,752
C Dollar Distribution
@ Percent Change Distribution
To see a report for another municipality, select a municipality and click OK.
101M d t T I
...L?~..~on.e p *%
ChJ 1998-2003 Q\,I~t:I1',~)?ri111!;'LJm:Dn\;)Ii.()
This infonnation is provided as a public service, but we cannot guarantee that the
infonnation is current or accurate. Readers should verify the infonnation before acting on iL
http://opta,reamined. on, ca/ scripts/ opta.d]l/FreqDistReport
05/05/03
. LUUj l'requency UlstnbutIOn Keport
Home
2003 Frequency Distribution Report
OPTA Community
page I ot I
OPTA
Feedback
What's New
EXit
Oro/Medonte Tp
Com. Occupied
with Increases
Dollar Number of 0/0 of Average
Increase Properties Total Change
0- 300 27 36.49 113
300 - 500 4 5.4t 408
500 - 1,000 14 t8.92 679
1,000- 2,000 11 14.86 1,373
2,000 - 3,000 6 8,11 2,517
3,000 - 5,000 5 6.76 3,908
5,000 - 7,000 4 5.41 5,784
7,000 - 10,000 1 1.35 8,112
10,000 - 15,000 1 1.35 10,724
15,000 - Over 1 1.35 19,096
Total
74
1689
100
co:; Dollar Distribution
C Percent Change Distribution
ICorn'<2ccupied I
Properties wit~ Decreases
Total
Dollar
Increase
Dollar
Decrease
Number of
Properties
3,063 0 - 300
1,632 300 - 500
9,513 500- 1,000
15,102 1,000 - 2,000
15,101 2,000 - 3,000
19,540 3,000 - 5,000
23,135 5,000 - 7,000
8,112 7,000 - 10,000
10,724 10,000 - t5,000
19,096 15,000 - Over
125,018 Total
To see a report for another municipality, select a municipality and click OK.
l<2r?(~:cJ()n~:_!~ ....
11
k<.
'~'.h.
ChJ 1998-2003 QJ,)~~n~;;J~dn1\'<I.JmJ),nqjTi_Q
% of Average Total Dollar
Total Change Decrease
t46 78,92 76 11,148
17 9.19 392 6,664
8 4.32 778 6,22t
8 4,32 1,370 10,960
1 0.54 2,569 2,569
3 1.62 3,505 1O,5t5
0 0.00 0
1 0.54 7,613 7,613
0 0.00 0
t 054 28,279 28,279
185 100 454 83,968
This information is provided as a public service, but we cannot guarantee that the
information is current or accurate. Readers should verifY the information before acting on it.
http://opta.reamined, on, ca/scripts/ opta, dll/F reqDistReport
05/05/03
. 2003 Frequency DlstnbutlOn Report
page 1 01 1
2003 Frequency Distribution Report
OPTA
Help
Home
..
- .
Oro/Medonte Tp
Com. Occupied
Properties with Increases Properties with Decreases
Number of 0/0 of Average Total N umber of 0/0 of Average Total Dollar
0/0 Increase Dollar 0/0 Decrease
Properties Total Change Increase Properties Total Change Decrease
0.00- 3.00 4 5.41 22 90 0.00- 3.00 92 49,73 73 6,713
3.00 - 6.00 S 10,81 124 994 3.00 - 6.00 15 8.11 85 t,274
6.00 - 10.00 14 18.92 2,127 29,774 6,00 - 10.00 59 31.89 541 3t,919
10,00 - 15.00 9 12.16 363 3,264 10.00 - t5.00 18 9.73 2,388 42,990
15.00 - 20,00 6 8.t! 821 4,925 15,00 - 20.00 0 0.00 0
20.00- 30.00 12 16,22 1,209 14,506 20.00 - 30.00 1 0.54 1,071 1,071
30.00- 50.00 8 10.81 2,101 16,806 30.00 - 50.00 0 0.00 0
50,00- 80.00 8 10.81 2,885 23,077 50,00- 80.00 0 0,00 0
80.00 - t 00.00 2 2.70 5,485 10,969 80.00 - 100.00 0 0.00 0
100.00 - Over 3 4.05 6,871 20,613 100.00- Over 0 0,00 0
Totat 74 100 1689 125,Ot8 Total 185 100 454 83,968
C Dollar Distribution
<!; Percent Change Distribution
To see a report for another municipality, select a municipality and click OK.
Igr~/l;1e9~~te!E II
rD ]998~2003 QJt~s;n'$J~rjJ]l~IJQr:.Qntm:iQ
This information is provided as a public service, but we cannot guarantee that the
information is current or accurate. Readers should verify the information before acting on il.
http://opta,reamined,on. cal scripts/ opta,dll/F reqDistReport
05/05/03
. 2003 Frequency Distribution Report
page 1 ot 1
2003 Frequency Distribution Report
OPTA
Home
.
Oro/Medonte Tp
Ind. Occupied
Properties with Inc~eases .. Properties with Decreases
Donar Number of %of Average Total Donar Number of %of Average Total Donar
Donar
Increase Properties Total Change Increase Decrease Properties Total Change Decrease
0- 300 8 24,24 t94 1,552 0- 300 15 44.12 133 1,996
300 - 500 5 15.15 368 1,839 300 - 500 6 t7.65 384 2,304
500- 1,000 3 9.09 730 2,189 500 - 1,000 10 29.41 680 6,805
1,000- 2,000 1 3.03 1,183 1,183 1,000 - 2,000 2 5.88 1,303 2,606
2,000 - 3,000 3 9.09 2,368 7,105 2,000 - 3,000 1 2.94 2,104 2,t04
3,000 - 5,000 7 21.21 3,813 26,693 3,000- 5,000 0 0.00 0
5,000 - 7,000 3 9.09 5,898 17,694 5,000- 7,000 0 0,00 0
7,000 - 10,000 1 3.03 9,933 9,933 7,000 - 10,000 0 0.00 0
10,000 - 15,000 1 3.03 12,042 12,042 tO,OOO - 15,000 0 0.00 0
15,000 - Over t 3,03 39,235 39,235 t5,000- Over 0 0.00 0
Total 33 100 3620 119,465 Total 34 100 465 15,815
(i' Dollar Distribution
C Percent Change Distribution
To see a report for another municipality, select a municipality and click OK.
<<J ] 998-2003 Q\!~~IJ'sJJrin:t~LfQrDntgrjq
This infonnation is provided as a public service, but we cannot guarantee that the
information is current or accurate. Readers should verify the information before acting on it.
http://opta,reamined.on ,Ca/ scripts/ opta, dllfF reqDistReport
05/05/03
2003 Frequency DistnbutlOn Report
Home
2003 Frequency Distribution Report
Oro/Medonte Tp
Ind. Occupied
---" Prope~ties with Increases
0/0 Increase Number of 0/0 of Average
Properties Total Change
0.00 - 3.00 2 6.06 294
3.00- 6.00 2 6.06 284
6.00- 10.00 4 t2.t2 t,051
10.00- t5,OO t 3.03 4,383
15.00 - 20,00 5 15.t5 2,508
20.00 - 30.00 6 18.18 2,815
30.00 - 50.00 9 27.27 6,969
50.00 - 80.00 4 12.12 4,395
80.00 - 100.00 0 0.00
100.00- Over 0 0.00
Properties with Decreases
Total
33
100
3620
C Dollar Distribution
(OJ Percent Change Distribution
Ilnd Occupied 1
0/0 Decrease
Total
Dollar
Increase
588 0.00 - 3.00
567 3.00 - 6.00
4,203 6.00 - 10.00
4,383 10.00 - 15.00
12,538 15.00 - 20.00
16,891 20.00 - 30.00
62,717 30.00 - 50.00
17,578 50.00 - 80,00
o 80.00 - 100.00
0100.00 - Over
119,465 Total
Page I 01 I
OPTA
Number of % of
Properties Total
To see a report for another municipality, select a municipality and click OK.
l()ro/~e?onteTp. .... .1
(Q 1998-2003 Q\1~J:;JJ'~PrjJJJ~LfQLQ!}tm:ip
2 5,88
4 11.76
3 8.82
20 58.82
3 8.82
2 5.88
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
34 100
This information is provided as a public service, but we cannot guarantee that the
information is current or accurate, Readers should verify the information before acting on it.
http://opta.reamined.on, Ca/ scriptS/ opta, dll/F reqDistReport
Average Total Dollar
Change Decrease
58
154
272
581
292
881
117
614
817
It ,627
877
1,763
o
o
o
o
15,815
465
05/05/03
---c
IL-
Report from Deputy Mayor Dickie
ORGANIZATION OF SMALL URBAN MUNICIPALITIES
50th Annual Conference
May 1 & ~
Picton ontario
The OSUM Conference was hosted by Prince Edward County, the
smallest County in ontario (Area & Population...approx 30,0001
Marketed as "The County" it has done a superb job of
distinguishing itself as a tourist destination. Prince Edward
County has develop a successful agri-tourism industry (wine). It
has the greatest number of B&B's per capita than any place in
North America. Lake Country and our Chamber of Commerce could
learn a great deal from the success of this area.
Session 1
"An examination of ontario's Safe Drinking Water Strategy &
who will be held accountable"
Speakers: Brian Nixon
Peter Krause
Director of Water Quality MOE
Chair of Conservation ontario
Highlights: Two of Justice O'Connor's recommendations to be
implemented are watershed planning and source protection.
Conservation Authorities which currently assist in watershed
planning are the natural body to assist in source protection.
It is essential that an agency capable of providing scientific
data be a partner with the municipality.
Costs per user for Water Systems reported by the MOE ranged
from a low of $420 to high of $2500. MOE indicated a economical
threshold at approx. 100 users.
Some municipalities have disbanded uneconomical water systems,
but approval must first be given by MOE.
~
c~~
Session 2
Wind As An Alternative Energy Source
Speakers: Paul Graham City Manager City of Sudbury
Steve Gilchrist commissioner of Alternative
Energy, Ministry of Energy
Highlights: City of Sudbury is committing $50 million to
develop energy from wind.
- Sudbury will form a partnership with the manufacturer of
windmills..REPower from Germany to manufacturer In
Sudbury for all of North America.
- The second partner will be northland power for
distribution.
- Laurentian University will be a third partner, for
technology.
- Site of the Wind Farm may be outside their political
boundary i.e. Manitoulin Island
-Locating Wind Farms has become a political "Hot Potato"
In the host municipality of Prince Edward County.
-Transplanted NIMBY's from Toronto have appealed a County
zoning by-law to the OMB preventing local farmers from
leasing their land for windmills even though farmers have
been using windmills for centuries.
- Minister Gilchrist was highly critical of the OMB and lS
introducing legislation to allow the erection of
windmills "as a right"
- The ideal location lS In the great lakes or near the
shore line.
- The Warden of Bruce County indicated that cottagers In
the Bruce peninsula are opposed to Wind Farms.
l~-)
Session 3
" The new Building Code ... An Overview of Bill 124
Speakers: Ali Arlani Director of Building Records. Ministry of
Municipal Affairs & Housing
Vito Spatafora AMO Task Force Chair BRAGG
The concerns that Ron Kolbfhas been bringing to our attention
were emphasised to all delegates;
- Fees can not exceed costs
- Municipalities must identify all costs
- Taxes will go up were fees went into general revenue.
- Builders do not have to be knowledgable of building code
- Lack of insurance requirement could have municipalities
having greater liability exposure.
Session 4
"Is a smoking By-Law a Municipal responsibility or a Provincial
Health issue"
Speakers: Dr. Sarsfield M.O.H North Western Health Unit
Kenora
Michael Galloway Councillor. City of Kitchner
-Counties of Grey and Bruce passed no smoking by-laws
..taking the responsibility from the lower tier
municipalities.
-Although Prince Edward County sole industry is tourism.
they opted not to pass a no smoking by-law even though
their large neighbour, Belleville went no smoking!
-A delegate from Norfolk County (Tobacco Belt) felt that
it was both a Provo & Fed. responsibility as these levels
of gov't should be looking at alternate crops because of
eventual loss of jobs and farmland.
((-4
Ministerts Forum
steve Gilchrist,
cTerry Oulette
Norm Sterling
Brian Coburn
Ernie Hardeman
Ministry of Energy
Ministry of Natural Resources
Attorney General
Ministrv of Tourism & Recreation
Ministry of Municipal Affairs (rural)
OSTAR Funding RED Program $200 Million to build Rural
Economic Development Infrastructure
...designated for areas outside the GTA, includes sports
and tourism.
Gov't looking at increasing funding to Conservation
Authorities to help "Water Source Protection"
.
.
,
': .
,
, "
tel
! C,'RC).f\,fJE,i10,-NTE I
~Y(jUVNSH!P 1'1 ,
! MOTION?J:.~~~~.
j . I
1 MAY 1 4 2003 I
I !
, ,
PROTECTING ONT ARIO,~MEETE'JG;~O~~J~J.L~!
DRINKING WATER:
TOWARD A WATERSHED-
BASED SOURCE PROTECTION
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
April 2003
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
~,
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
Message from Advisory Committee Members
page
i
xix
xx
~
. .
.
1) Introduction
Context
Advisory Committee Mandate
What is Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning?
A Multi-Barrier Approach to Protection of Drinking Water
2) Framework Fundamentals
Responsibility and Accountability
Goal of Source Protection Plans
Scope of the Framework regarding the Great Lakes
Principles Guiding Source Protection Planning
Legislative Basis for Source Protection Planning
Gaps in the Current System
New Powers for Municipalities
New Responsibilities for Conservation Authorities
First Nations
Interim Risk Management
Financing Initial Source Protection Plans
3) The Planning Process
Planning Areas
Source Protection Planning Committee (SPPC)
Technical Expertise
Planning Area Consultation Process
Content of the Initial Source Protection Plan
Approval Process for Source Protection Plan
Toward Implementation
Review and Updating of Source Protection Plans
Reporting Roles
Appeals
Public Consultation and Education
1
1
1
2
3
5
5
6
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
16
17
19
19
20
23
23
24
26
27
30
31
32
33
..
..
~
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
.
4) Risk Management
Threat Assessment
Risk Management Strategies
Additional Standards for Surface Water
5) Information Management
Monitoring and Information Management
Roles and Responsibilities Related to Information
Outcome Measures and Evaluation
Research Related to Source Water Protection
6) Conclusion
35
35
37
40
43
43
44
46
48
49
Glossary 51
Appendix A: Justice O'Connor's Recommendations related to Source 57
Protection - Excerpted from the Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry
Appendix B: List of Advisory Committee Members 61
Appendix C: Map of Proposed Planning Areas 63
Appendix D: List of Advisory Committee Recommendations 65
..
Ontarians have made it clear that clean and safe drinking water is one of the most significant public
priorities facing our province today,
As Justice O'Connor stated in his Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry, protecting and
enhancing natural systems is one of the most effective and efficient means of protecting the safety
of Ontario's drinking water. In his Part Two Report, Justice O'Connor made 22 recommendations
related to source protection planning, which have served as the starting point for developing the
made-in-Ontario watershed-based source protection planning framework set out in this report,
~
~
~
.
The Advisory Committee on Watershed-based Source Protection Planning was established by the
Minister of the Environment (MOE) on November 15, 2002, Advisory Committee members were
asked to provide advice to the government on a framework for watershed-based source protection
planning. Together, this report and its recommendations fulfil that mandate,
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT STRUCTURE
This report is organized into six sections:
. 1) Introduction -- provides an overview of drinking water source protection planning and key
concepts,
. 2) Framework Fundamentals - contains the underlying principles needed to support source
protection planning,
. 3) The Planning Process - describes a 'generic' process for the development of watershed-
based source protection plans,
. 4) Risk Management - identifies key considerations in managing risks and threats to drinking
water sources,
. 5) Information Management - outlines an information management framework to support
source protection planning,
. 6) Conclusion -- presents the Advisory Committee's final conclusions on its source protection
planning framework.
Each section is briefly discussed below, along with the full text of the recommendations embedded
in each section,
~
-"
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
1) INTRODUCTION
Planning to protect drinking water sources must happen on a watershed-basis because it allows an
entire water resource system to be considered as a whole - water does not stop at county lines or
municipal boundaries,
Protecting Ontario's drinking water at its source is the first line of defence in what experts refer to
as the 'multi-barrier approach' to ensuring the safety of drinking water. Each barrier in the system
works together to prevent or reduce the risk of contaminants reaching your tap,
.
Source protection is recognized as playing a critical role in drinking water safety as the first barrier
in this system, The primary objective of source protection, like the other barriers, is the protection
of human health,
RECOMMENDATION 1: The government require the watershed-based
source protection framework described in the Advisory Committee's
report and recommendations to be used in all watersheds in Ontario,
2) FRAMEWORK FUNDAMENTALS
The framework for source protection planning starts with key principles that, when applied
consistently, will help ensure a consistent approach to the development and implementation of
source protection plans across Ontario, These principles include: sustain ability,
comprehensiveness, shared responsibility and stewardship, public participation and transparency,
cost effectiveness and fairness and continuous improvement.
To reinforce its importance, the Advisory Committee recommends that the framework be enshrined
in new watershed-based source protection legislation. This legislation must make very clear when
source protection legislation takes precedence over other pieces of legislation: namely, when
human health is a concern,
In addition, new powers are needed by municipalities to ensure they can carry out their key role in
planning and in implementing source protection planning, Additional responsibilities will be
assumed by other important players in source protection planning, such as conservation
authorities; as a result, their mandates and resources will also need to be enhanced,
The involvement of First Nations in the planning and implementation of source protection is critical.
. Their existing capacity must be utilized and supplemented if the goal of safe and reliable drinking
water is to be met throughout Ontario, both on and off First Nations' land,
Recognizing that it takes time to develop and implement source protection plans across Ontario,
the Advisory Committee identifies ways to manage the risks to drinking water sources that need to
be addressed today, before we have reached the objective of province-wide source protection.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Mining Act, etc., be amended where necessary to be consistent with the
source protection legislation,
RECOMMENDATION 10: Source protection legislation and regulations
should include, among other requirements:
. a schedule for completion of initial plans that reflects a phased
approach that recognizes the capacity of participants and the
existing level of risk (watersheds at a higher risk should be required
to develop and implement plans more quickly; watersheds with
high quality water should be protected from potential contamination;
the province should consult with stakeholders when establishing
the schedule);
· all planning areas must initiate the planning process within two
years of the effective date of the legislation in accordance with the
legislated schedule and each plan, once started, should generally
be completed within three years (source protection plans must be in
place across Ontario by the end of the fifth year);
. the power for the Minister of the Environment to identify the
planning areas to which a specific source protection plan is to apply
and to designate the organization with lead responsibility for co-
ordinating plan development for the planning area;
· the roles and responsibilities of the key parties involved in source
protection planning (see also 3) THE PLANNING PROCESS},
· the minimum content of source protection plans (refer also to
Advisory Committee Recommendation 31);
. the process requirements for the source protection plan
development, including local consultation, as well as clear public
reporting requirements (these requirements would also include
those related to the approval process); and
. grounds for appeal related to the content or process used in
developing source water protection plans, the entity or body which
is responsible for hearing these appeals, associated timelines and
other procedures and requirements (refer also to Advisory
Committee Recommendations 39 and 40),
New Powers for Municipalities
RECOMMENDATION 11: The province work with municipalities and
other stakeholders to identify the appropriate types and scope of new
municipal powers that should be made available for the purposes of
source water protection, including dealing with funding issues, Then, the
province should take steps to ensure that the agreed-upon list of new
municipal powers is provided to municipalities so that they may use
them to better protect source water and implement watershed-based
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
.
-
.
source protection plans (refer also to Advisory Committee
Recommendations 33 and 34),
New Responsibilities for Conservation Authorities
RECOMMENDATION 12: Conservation authorities be the organization
given responsibility for co-ordinating the development of watershed-
based source protection plans wherever possible,
RECOMMENDATION 13: The resourcing of conservation authorities
recognize their new role in source protection planning and provide for
new sources of funding in specific instances related to source protection
planning (refer also to Advisory Committee Recommendations 33 and
34).
RECOMMENDATION 14: The province requires all municipalities and
local services boards to participate in source protection planning,
First Nations
RECOMMENDATION 15: Recognizing current agreements and
relationships with conservation authorities, provincial ministries and
other jurisdictions, First Nations (and their technical designates) and the
Ministry of the Environment establish a working relationship with respect
to source protection planning as soon as possible,
RECOMMENDATION 16: The province pursue a strategy with the
federal government and First Nations that would support the ability of
First Nations (and their technical designates) to be full participants in
source water protection planning and implementation, This would
include ensuring their involvement in the development of the plan,
including participation on the source protection planning committee and
in the consultation process, and in the implementation of watershed-
based source protection planning through agreements,
Interim Risk Management
RECOMMENDATION 17: The province, municipalities and conservation
authorities use their available powers to manage potential threats to
human heath and protect sources of drinking water by taking action with
respect to high-risk activities and land uses until source protection plans
are approved and implemented,
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
RECOMMENDATION 18: Conservation Ontario and the province
provide a model source protection plan, based on existing source
protection plans, that will be used as a guide in the interim by those
without source protection plans. This model would establish a common
platform that would be informed by details particular to each area,
Financing Initial Source Plans
RECOMMENDATION 19: The province substantially funds development
of all initial watershed-based source protection plans.
RECOMMENDATION 20: Contributions from sources in addition to the
provincial government, consistent with Justice O'Connor's report, be
negotiated to support ongoing source protection planning (refer also to
Advisory Committee Recommendations 33 and 34),
3) THE PLANNING PROCESS
This section describes a generic process, as recommended by the Advisory Committee, for the
development of a watershed-based source protection plan, outlining the roles and responsibilities
of participants,
The first requirement is the creation of a Source Protection Planning Committee (SPPC) in each
planning area, Each SPPC will steer the planning process, ensuring it meets the requirements of
the provincial planning framework and the priorities of the planning area, The SPPC will report to
the board of directors of a conservation authority (or the Ministry of the Environment where there is
no conservation authority),
Appropriate representation and involvement of affected parties is critical to obtaining 'buy-in' from
the community, As a result, there will be minimum requirements for all SPPCs across the province
related to membership: one-third municipal representatives; one-third provincial, First Nations and
federal representatives; one third local public health and other stakeholders, Variations to deal
with Northern Ontario's unique characteristics will be made as appropriate,
One key responsibility of each SPPC is to forge consensus on what sufficient municipal support will
mean for the source protection plan in the area, That is, it must identify how sufficient municipal
support is to be defined within the planning area and how it will be ascertained before the plan is
sent for provincial approval. Another very important responsibility of the SPPC is to establish and
co-ordinate a transparent local consultation process to ensure broad consultation among affected ;
parties in the local planning area,
All source protection plans will adhere to a consistent provincial standard but the content
requirements are flexible enough to accommodate local conditions that will, of course, vary from
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning.
watershed to watershed, The Ministry of the Environment will provide final approval of all source
protection plans,
Given the ongoing nature of source protection planning and implementation, the Advisory
Committee provides some high level direction on determining how to fund source protection on a
permanent basis. Like Justice O'Connor, the Advisory Committee strongly believes that a
permanent funding framework needs to draw on a number of funding sources and that those who
impact sources of drinking water and those who benefit from it should be among those making
financial contributions,
Because of the importance of source protection to Ontarians present and future, the Advisory
Committee believes that the government should engage in broad public consultation on the
recommendations made in the Advisory Committee's report as soon as possible.
Planning Areas
RECOMMENDATION 21: For the purposes of developing source
protection plans, there should be approximately 16 planning areas in
southern Ontario and approximately 8 in Northern Ontario. This
recognizes that the grouping of watersheds into planning areas may
enable more effective and efficient sharing of resources.
Source Protection Planning Committee (SPPC)
RECOMMENDATION 22: Consistent with Justice O'Connor, the plan
development process is co-ordinated by a conservation authority, or the
Ministry of the Environment (or designate) in areas where there is no
conservation authority. Where a conservation authority is in an area
adjacent to large areas of Crown land, the conservation authority should
playa co-ordinating role alongside the Ministry of the Environment.
RECOMMENDATION 23: The SPPC will act as an advisory committee
to the board of directors of the conservation authority, It is the board(s)
of directors that submits the recommended draft plan to the Ministry of
the Environment for approval. A parallel process will be established for
areas that do not have a conservation authority.
'....
RECOMMENDATION 24: The chair of the SPPC will be appointed by
the Minister based on a recommendation from the board(s) of directors
of the conservation authorities, The chair may be a full-time position in
some areas,
RECOMMENDATION 25: Membership on the SPPC be distributed as
follows: one-third municipal representatives; one-third provincial, First
Nations and federal representatives, and; one-third local public health
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
and other stakeholders, At a maximum, SPPCs will be made up of 18
individuals plus the chair. Note, that each stakeholder or group of
stakeholders would select its own representative(s) to the SPPC, In
addition, the SPPC may establish working groups as necessary,
providing another opportunity for direct involvement of others in the plan
development process.
RECOMMENDATION 26: SPPCs must define in their terms of reference
what constitutes sufficient municipal support for the draft source
protection plan to be recommended for approval to the Ministry of the
Environment. This must be agreed to by the board of directors of the
conservation authority (or authorities) and forwarded for approval by the
MOE as one of the first steps in the plan development process.
RECOMMENDATION 27: Each planning area will, as part of their
responsibilities, constitute an expert panel made up of individuals that
would, at key milestones, assess the appropriateness and validity of the
approach, science and operational/management practices, and its
advice will be used to inform the planning process,
Technical Expertise
RECOMMENDATION 28: Planning areas must have access to the
necessary technical expertise to support the development,
implementation and ongoing enhancement of source protection,
Planning Area Consultation Process
RECOMMENDATION 29: The minimum requirements for a transparent
local consultation process in a planning area will include having:
. meetings of the Source Protection Planning Committee that are
advertised and open to public attendance;
. draft plans and proposals published widely;
. adequate time and information to ensure a range of views are fully
canvassed and considered;
. invitations for public comment in writing;
. documentation of responses to public input, as appropriate; and
. involvement of other affected local parties, including municipalities,
local services boards, elected officials, land users, water system
operators, First Nations, off-reserve Aboriginal communities, local
public health officials, and the public, in its important role of drinking
water consumer.
RECOMMENDATION 30: All Source Protection Planning Committees
define in their terms of reference a plan for local consultation that meets
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
.
;
minimum requirements and this must be agreed to by the board(s) of
directors of the conservation authority early in the planning process,
.
Content of the Initial Source Protection Plan
RECOMMENDATION 31: The components to be included in a source
protection plan integrating Justice O'Connor's list of "key ingredients" are
as follows:
. objectives and targets of the Source Protection Plan.
. technical information including:
c a water budget, including future water needs;
c a fate of contaminants model, including assessment of future
pollutant loadings and cumulative impacts;
c maps, based on provincially prescribed definitions and
methodology, that identify areas of high, medium and low
vulnerability areas and sensitive water resources (refer to 4) Risk
Management section);
c a baseline map to establish the state of the watershed at the
outset of the planning process and an overlay map of existing
and potential land uses;
c identification and delineation of natural features such as various
types of wetlands, woodlands and riparian zones that contribute
to the protection of drinking water sources;
D identification of areas where a significant direct threat exists to
the safety of the drinking water supply;
c maximum contaminant loads to meet water quality objectives;
c inventory of major point and non-point sources of contaminants
and high-risk land uses; and
c maps of all significant water takings and areas experiencing
stress due to water takings,
. identification of where source protection issues exist, such as:
c where a significant direct threat exists to the safety of the
drinking water source;
c potential water allocation problems;
o need for special operational limits to water taking;
o areas where the plan might need to influence or govern
municipal land use and zoning;
c areas where farm water protection plans are needed;
c areas where biosolids and septage spreading need special
consideration;
c contaminated site issues that need priority action;
c priority areas for identifying and properly decommissioning
unused or abandoned wells;
c priority areas for ending the misuse of abandoned pits and
quarries or for their rehabilitation; and
.
REPORT OF THE ADVtSORY COMMITTEE:
o identification of knowledge gaps and research needs for the
watershed,
. an implementation plan* to manage the identified source protection
issues, including roles and responsibilities, accountability, process,
schedule and outputs.
. a monitoring and reporting plan*, including roles and
responsibilities, accountability, process, schedule and outputs,
. a description of how the plan will be reviewed and updated,
including roles and responsibilities, accountability, process,
schedule and outputs.
. a description of outstanding or unresolved issues and how they will
be dealt with* (these may be addressed through additional data
collection, more detailed study and approved analytical tools),
'These may be supplemented by more detailed technical or other support
guidelines to be developed by the province.
Approval Process for Source Protection Plan
RECOMMENDATION 32: The province define in legislation the criteria
and process through which it will review and approve source protection
plans based on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and
the results of the expert working group (refer also to Advisory Committee
Recommendation 31 regarding the content of source protection plans),
Toward Implementation
RECOMMENDATION 33: Consultation on implementation and ongoing
planning, including how to pay for them, be undertaken with different
stakeholder groups immediately following receipt of this source
protection planning framework, This consultation should start from the
list of potential roles and responsibilities presented by the Advisory
Committee in its report.
RECOMMENDATION 34: The model for the sharing of costs to align
funding mechanisms with the appropriate responsible body should be
negotiated with stakeholders while the initial source protection plans are
being developed, Furthermore, all those in a planning area, particularly
those who impact sources of drinking water and those who benefit from
it, should contribute, to some degree, to the costs of source protection,
RECOMMENDATION 35: Incentive programs and payments for
environmental benefits should be considered, especially in sensitive
areas and well capture zones, as one way to encourage implementation
of source protection measures and provide for long-term sustainability,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
.
Review and Updating of Source Protection Plans
RECOMMENDATION 36: Groups involved in initial plan development
and any newly identified participants should be convened periodically to
review and revise the plan as necessary,
RECOMMENDA nON 37: Proposed roles for those responsible for
keeping plans up-to-date are as follows:
. Conservation Authorities will be responsible for:
D keeping the source protection plan up-to-date and for keeping
other partners and interest groups informed of any changes;
D revising the local consultation process and work plan, if required,
to fill in the information gaps in the source protection plan on an
ongoing basis; and
D issuing implementation status reports,
. Municipalities will be responsible for:
D participating in source protection planning as a member of the
conservation authority;
D identifying new issues related to source protection and bringing
them to the attention of the conservation authority; and
D issuing implementation status reports,
. First Nations will be responsible for:
D working with the conservation authority on source protection
planning;
D identifying new issues related to source protection and bringing
them to the attention of the conservation authority; and
D issuing implementation status reports,
. The Province will be responsible for:
D defining the updating process, including public consultation, by
working with affected groups (e,g" to establish the formal source
protection planning cycle)
D mandating when a new or updated plan is required;
o reviewing and updating standards; and
o issuing implementation status reports,
Reporting Roles
RECOMMENDA nON 38: Consistent with Justice O'Connor, the
government must report publicly on the status and progress of source
water protection, Public reporting must be required from the Ministry of
the Environment and each lead organization on watershed-based source
protection plans and planning activities,
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Appeals
RECOMMENDATION 39: Consistent with Justice O'Connor, appeals
should provide for limited rights of appeal to challenge source protection
plans and decisions of provincial and municipal governments that are
inconsistent with those plans, These appeals may be heard by the
Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) or another appropriately
designated appeals body.
RECOMMENDATION 40: Amendments to existing appeal processes
(e,g., under the Planning Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act) be
developed, where necessary, to provide appropriate grounds of appeal
related to source protection planning, The details of appeal processes
related to source protection must be developed as part of
implementation planning,
Public Consultation and Education
RECOMMENDATION 41: The province must undertake broader public
consultation on the recommendations made in the Advisory Committee's
report to ensure that all stakeholders and Ontarians have an opportunity
to contribute to the development of the source protection planning
framework prior to legislation being introduced
RECOMMENDATION 42: The province, conservation authorities,
municipalities and other stakeholders ensure that public education and
dissemination of information is undertaken to ensure that Ontarians fully
embrace the importance of protecting our drinking water sources,
4) RISK MANAGEMENT
The Advisory Committee believes that Ontario should promote the development of state-of-the-art
risk management, by committing to continuous improvement and using the best available science
to evaluate the potential impact of specific threats to drinking water sources.
Threats to drinking water sources exist in virtually all watersheds, The manner in which such
threats are managed will be defined on a site-specific basis according to the level of risk presented
by the threat to the water source, The Advisory Committee is aware that inventories of threats are
underway in many watersheds in Ontario as part of provincially-funded groundwater studies, These
activities will contribute valuable information to the source protection planning process, ,
Since all potential threats do not pose the same level of risk to all drinking-water sources, actions
taken will vary across watersheds, The extent of the threat will also vary due to the physical
characteristics of the land and the uses to which it has been put. In all cases, the Advisory
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Committee recommends that a more prescriptive approach to managing threats be taken in the
most vulnerable areas,
The Advisory Committee limits itself to identifying the broad issues which must be considered, The
report considers a number of risk management strategies that apply to both ground and surface
waters and examines:
1. New uses in the most vulnerable areas
2. New uses in less vulnerable areas
3, Existing uses in the most vulnerable areas
4. Existing uses in less vulnerable areas
5, Water quantity
6. Wells (domestic, municipal, communal, etc.)
7. Septic systems and underground fuel storage tanks
8, Landscape restoration
Because so many of the issues related to threat assessment and related risk management
strategies are highly technical, the Advisory Committee recommends that the province immediately
establish a team of experts to develop an Ontario-based threat assessment process within six
months of the receipt of this report,
Risk Management Strategies
RECOMMENDATION 43: The province establish the definitions of
threats and their relative risks to water sources that will be inventoried in
all watersheds, To this end, the province should immediately establish a
working group of experts to agree on an Ontario-based threat
assessment process within six months of the receipt of the Advisory
Committee's report and present its finding to the province for approval.
This working group must also develop the initial definition of "vulnerable
area" and "sensitive water resource" to be used in all planning areas,
RECOMMENDATION 44: Any working definition of "vulnerable area" or
"sensitive water resource" used in the initial planning stages and
legislation be reviewed on an ongoing basis to make it appropriate for
source water protection and consistent with definitions in other pieces of
legislation and programs.
RECOMMENDATION 45: The approach to threat assessment, risk
management and sustainable supply for both ground and surface water
sources in Ontario be consistent with the considerations identified in the
Advisory Committee's report in the sub-sections: Threat Assessment
and Risk Management Strategies (section 4) Risk Management),
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
RECOMMENDATION 46: The risk analysis process must be premised
on the best available science, While it is recognized that more qualitative
classifications of threat, vulnerability and sensitivity will be necessary
initially, the risk analysis process must evolve toward more accurate
quantitative methodologies and technologies as our knowledge base
grows and improves over time with advances in research.
Additional Standards for Surface Water
RECOMMENDA nON 47: All Ontario surface water bodies should
continue to be required to meet the Provincial Water Quality Objectives
(PWQO) since meeting them consistently would be an important step
towards meeting the goal of source protection planning, These
standards should be not used as a substitute for more detailed and site-
specific source protection strategies, nor should they be interpreted as
allowing high quality water to be degraded to meet a minimum standard,
.
RECOMMENDATION 48: The PWQOs should be peer reviewed so that
they meet the highest international standards, The PWQOs should be
reviewed specifically from the perspective of source water protection and
new PWQOs should be added as necessary.
5) INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Source protection planning is a complex activity, requiring significant data inputs and data analysis
capability. Successful implementation of source protection will depend on timely access to the best
available data, information and models by provincial ministries and the planning participants, Of
particular concern to the Advisory Committee is the lack of information related to First Nations'
water resources,
In this section of the report, the Advisory Committee looks at the roles, requirements and needs for
monitoring and reporting, and at the recommended information management framework to support
source protection plans,
While there is a need to enhance Ontario's capacity to gather, manage and use information in
support of source protection planning, the effective use of existing systems must be maximized and
any overlap or inefficiencies minimized before any new investments in expensive information
systems are made,
Source protection planning will require the province, municipalities and conservation authorities to
manage information on a co-operative basis and to ensure open access to consistent and reliable
information, The province is the lead data management organization, recognizing that other
stakeholders will play an important role in the collection of information and maintenance of local
monitoring programs,
;
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Only by having detailed and comparable data available over time will Ontario be able to ascertain
the impact of source protection planning on human health, water quality and quantity, and on other
environmental objectives,
The scientific basis on which source protection planning is based is continually evolving,
Therefore, the Advisory Committee wants to emphasize that research will play an important role in
its development. In this respect, the Committee assumes that Justice O'Connor's
recommendations on drinking water research in his Part Two Report of/he Wa/kerton Inquiry are
understood to include source protection, Specifically, the Advisory Committee asks the government
to ensure that a sustainable level of funding for ongoing research into the sciences related to
source water protection, most particularly those related to human health, is provided,
Monitoring and Information Management
RECOMMENDATION 49: The province undertake an assessment of the
capacity of current and planned monitoring networks to support the
needs of source protection planning, Any additional investment in
information systems must clearly enhance current capacity, rather than
duplicate it.
Roles and Responsibilities Related to Information
RECOMMENDATION 50: The province is the lead data management
organization, recognizing that other stakeholders will play an important
role in the collection of information and maintenance of local monitoring
programs,
RECOMMENDATION 51: The following activities, related to information,
need to be carried out or co-ordinated at the provincial level:
. centralized compilation, collection and improvement of data sets,
(this includes the work being done by Land Information Ontario to
develop mapping and georeferencing standards that will ensure
source protection plans fit together);
. provision of provincial data to SPPCs to support the development of
initial source protection plans;
. development of data standards with the involvement of
stakeholders, including a mechanism to ensure that all participants
are working with the same or compatible data;
. a central repository and conduit for provincial data access and
sharing with planning participants, to complement the sharing of
data and information amongst planning areas, conservation
authorities and municipalities;
. provision of advice, training and expertise to planning participants;
. development of, and input into, the selection of specific modelling
tools; and
II
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
· aggregation of source protection plans and reporting at a provincial
level that ensures consistency of mapping,
RECOMMENDATION 52: Conservation authorities and municipalities
would be responsible for managing and collecting information relevant to
source protection that is not already being collected by the province or
another body. Their roles would include:
· co-ordination of the local compilation, collection and improvement
of data sets;
. sharing data and information with other planning areas,
conservation authorities and municipalities;
. integration of local data with provincial data sets;
· aggregation and reporting of data and information into a central
repository;
. analysis of the integrated information sets to create source
protection plan products;
· development of appropriate specific models for watershed planning
purposes; and
· provision of local information support through the development of
the source protection plan.
RECOMMENDATION 53: To the extent possible, data should be as
available to all those involved, including the dissemination of data and
information to the public (e,g" non-proprietary information).
Outcome Measures and Evaluation
RECOMMENDATION 54: The province working with stakeholders
identify the lead indicators by which progress toward the achievement of
desired outcomes can be assessed and measured at the provincial and
local levels. These indicators should be developed with six months of the
beginning of the planning process,
Research Related to Source Water Protection
RECOMMENDATION 55: The government ensure that a sustainable
level of funding for ongoing research into the sciences that support
source protection and, in particular, those disciplines that increase our
understanding of the impact on human health, Furthermore,that the
government ensure that Justice O'Connor's recommendations on
drinking-water research and those of the Advisory Committee are
implemented in an integrated manner, ensuring timely dissemination of
relevant research findings to those involved at all levels, from academia
to those in charge of day-to-day activities,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
6) CONCLUSION
Water is fundamental to many aspects of life in Ontario -- our health, our economy, our social and
community life, our recreation and our natural heritage,
The Advisory Committee Report contains 55 recommendations on a provincial framework for
watershed-based source protection planning, The Committee's recommendations focus primarily
on the process of developing and approving a source protection plan, The report also includes
high-level recommendations regarding next steps and source protection plan implementation, and
highlights the need for additional consultation to develop technical and implementation details,
Consistent with its mandate, the Advisory Committee provided advice on 21 of 22
recommendations related to source protection in Justice O'Connor's Part Two Report of the
Walkerton Inquiry.
The Advisory Committee believes that its source protection planning framework can be an effective
guide for making decisions on historical, existing and new land and water uses in ways that protect
human health, However, it also recognizes that in some cases its recommendations will need to be
fleshed out in more detail as the planning process moves forward,
Protection of drinking water at its source is just the first barrier in a multi-barrier system that helps
to ensure a long-term supply of safe, clean drinking water.
Ontario needs to protect its drinking water sources. The Advisory Committee believes its source
protection planning framework is strong enough to meet the challenges ahead, It is forward-
thinking, It protects human health while taking into account ecological and economic interests.
The important thing is to begin source protection planning now. The Advisory Committee
encourages the province to move forward on the recommendations contained in this report as soon
as possible.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
The Advisory Committee was assisted in its work by a team of technical experts co-chaired by the
Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources, Other members of the team
included representatives of Conservation Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture and additional ministries, including the Ministries of Agriculture
and Food, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Smart Growth Secretariat and SuperBuild.
Each member of the Technical Working Group possessed broad experience and significant
expertise in a major area related to watershed-based source protection planning. Together, they
served as a valuable resource for the Advisory Committee, They worked directly with the Advisory
Committee, drafting materials and undertaking research to support the Committee's work,
The Advisory Committee would like to thank all those involved in the Technical Working Group.
Their combined efforts contributed greatly to the operations of the Advisory Committee as it
prepared this report.
The Advisory Committee would also like to thank Robb Ogilvie for his facilitation skills, which
enabled the Advisory Committee to fulfil its mandate in a timely fashion,
"
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
The members of the Advisory Committee were appointed by the Minister of the Environment to
provide advice on the development of a watershed-based source protection framework consistent
with Justice O'Connor's recommendations in the Pari Two Repori of the Walkerion Inquiry,
Each member of the Advisory Committee brought significant insight and an informed perspective to
. source water protection issues and contributed his or her knowledge as an expert, rather than as
spokesperson for a particular sector or organization. The open dialogue that occurred throughout
the Advisory Committee's meetings confirmed that this was a productive approach to discussing
the issues and a practical way to reach consensus recommendations.
As the Advisory Committee's report and recommendations finds a larger audience, additional
issues may arise as various organizations and sectors, as well as the public, offer additional input
and comment. The participation of individuals on this Advisory Committee does not bind their home
organizations to the statements or recommendations contained in this report.
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Context
Ontarians have made it clear that clean and safe drinking water is one of the most significant public
priorities in our province today, The extensive public hearings that occurred as part of the
Walkerton Inquiry confirmed that Ontarians' confidence in their drinking water requires that the
systems that deliver, govern and protect our water-from source to tap-meet the highest
standards, Protecting human health is paramount.
In addition, as Justice O'Connor made very clear, a provincial legislated framework for watershed-
based source protection planning is required to put in place measures that will help ensure the
safety of Ontario's drinking water and protect public health, Of the 93 recommendations in his Parf
Two Report of the Walkerfon Inquiry, Justice O'Connor made 22 recommendations related to
source protection planning (a full listing of Justice O'Connor's source protection planning
recommendations is provided in Appendix A). His recommendations are the starting point for the
development of a draft watershed-based source protection planning framework that will apply
province-wide,
Soon, this planning activity will become a permanent part of Ontario's strategy for protecting its
drinking water, While the framework proposed in this report speaks mainly to the initial planning
exercise, it recognizes that source protection will be an ongoing and evolving undertaking,
informed by experience, based on better science and assisted by new technologies, The protection
of human health deserves no less,
Advisory Committee Mandate
The Advisory Committee on Watershed-based Source Protection Planning was established by the
Minister of the Environment on November 15, 2002, Its terms of reference directed the members to
provide advice to the government on a framework for watershed-based source protection planning,
consistent with Justice O'Connor's 22 recommendations on source protection planning, The
recommendations contained in this report fulfil this mandate.
The 18 members of the Advisory Committee represented a wide range of interests and
backgrounds related to watershed-based source protection planning (see Appendix B for a list of
Advisory Committee members), Bill Calvert, who served as Chief Administrative Officer for the
District Municipality of Muskoka for two decades, chaired the Advisory Committee,
The Advisory Committee met over four months to build consensus among its participants on the
appropriate framework for the development of source protection plans in Ontario, The Advisory
Committee believes that its recommendations, taken together, provide strong direction to the
government, awarding source protection a status commensurate with its ability to help safeguard
human health,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
While focused primarily on planning, the report also deals with certain implementation issues, The
Advisory Committee recognizes that significant additional work is needed to develop the details of
the source protection framework, and to produce and then execute the source protection plans.
The Advisory Committee emphasizes that detailed implementation planning, involving the
government and stakeholders, must be one of the next steps in this overall process.
What is Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning?
A watershed consists of all the lands that drain into a particular body of water, which may be large
(e,g., Grand River) or small (e,g., Petticoat Creek), Watersheds are considered to be the most
ecologically practical unit for managing water since impacts are felt at the watershed level, rather
than at the level of political boundaries, such as municipalities,
Watershed-based source protection acknowledges that the quality and quantity of ground and
surface water are influenced by the ecological integrity of the watershed, By maintaining, improving
or restoring the health, diversity and function of key natural features that perform a hydrologic
function (e,g" wetlands, forested lands and riparian corridors), water resources within a watershed
can be protected or enhanced, The Advisory Committee agrees with Justice O'Connor that
protecting and enhancing natural systems is one of the most effective and efficient means of
protecting the safety of our drinking water.
Planning for watershed-based source protection identifies areas where threats to drinking water
sources exist, and then creates strategies for operational controls and land use designations that
are appropriate for these areas, Operating at the watershed level allows for a whole water resource
system to be considered when threats are being assessed and decisions made,
Though watershed-based source protection planning is a broad-based activity, it actually forms just
one part of an even larger concept-watershed management. Watershed management plans
usually take a comprehensive ecosystem approach to water, dealing with all water-related natural
features, terrestrial resources, fisheries, water linkages and green space planning, While the
Advisory Committee restricts itself to the topic of protecting drinking water sources at the
watershed level, it also supports Justice O'Connor's expressed desire that Ontario commit to
broader watershed management plans, The Advisory Committee is pleased that some
conservation authorities and municipalities are already involved in watershed management. Of
course, where the two initiatives are undertaken-watershed management and source protection-
they should be consistent.
II
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
A Multi.Barrier Approach to Protection of Drinking Water
The Advisory Committee, as well as Justice O'Connor, agrees with the experts who say that the
best way to ensure the safety of drinking water is through the use of a multi-barrier approach that
starts with source protection planning, The key elements of a multi-barrier approach are, starting
with the focus of this report, source protection, followed by water treatment and, at the end of the
pipe, water distribution. As stated by Justice O'Connor:
The multiple barrier approach is well-entrenched in the water industry,
for good reasons. Putting in place a series of measures, each
independently acting as a barrier to passing water-borne contaminants
through the system to consumers, achieves a greater overall level of
protection than does relying exclusive]y on a single barrier (e.g.,
treatment alone or source protection alone). A failure in any given
barrier will not cause a failure of the entire system. The challenge is to
ensure that each of the barriers is functioning properly, so that together
they constitute the highest level of protection that is reasonably and
practically availab]e.
(Part Two R€port ofth€ Walkaton Inquiry; p.6)
The Advisory Committee also agrees with Justice O'Connor on the strengths of a source protection
program which, along with clear benefits to human health, also provide many environmental and
ecological benefits:
A strong source protection program offers a wide variety of benefits. It
lowers risk cost-effectively: keeping contaminants out of drinking
water sources is an efficient way of keeping them out of drinking water.
This is particularly so because some contaminants are not effectively
removed by using standard treatment methods, As a result, protecting
drinking water sources can in some instances be less expensive than
treating contaminated water. Moreover, protecting sources is the only
type of protection available to some consumers -- at present, many rural
residents drink untreated groundwater from wells. The protection of
those groundwater sources is the only barrier in their drinking water
systems.
(Part Two R€port of the Walkerton Inquiry; p.89)
;
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Clearly, no single component in the drinking water management cycle-from source protection to
treatment to distribution-can guarantee the safety of Ontario's drinking water. Each piece of the
system needs to work together to prevent or reduce the risk of drinking water contamination,
Source protection needs to be part of a holistic, multi-barrier approach to drinking water safety and
it is in this light that the Advisory Committee offers its recommendations,
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Watersheds are experiencing daily pressures that stem from historical and current land uses, both
within and outside the watershed, as well as pressures that come from new land uses, However,
every watershed has limits to the stress that can be accommodated before it is degraded and more
difficult and expensive to rehabilitate.
This section sets out the fundamentals of the framework that should guide source protection
planning in Ontario, recognizing its important position as the first in the series of barriers that help
ensure a safe and sustainable supply of drinking water.
Responsibility and Accountability
Ultimately, the Advisory Committee believes the framework described in this report will lead to
success by, among other benefits, creating a sense of co-ownership among the many stakeholders
involved in source protection.
Consistent with Justice O'Connor, the Advisory Committee places the ultimate responsibility for
ensuring source water protection with the province, specifically, the Ministry of the Environment
(MOE). However, also in reference to Justice O'Connor's stated position, the Advisory Committee
also agrees that the MOE cannot be solely responsible,
Within the provincial government, led by the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministries of Health
and Long-Term Care, Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Agriculture and Food
will need to be significantly involved in source water protection, Municipalities will playa very large
role in source protection with significant responsibilities and a commensurate level of
accountability, First Nations as well as other governments such as the federal government, must
be involved and accountable for their part, Also, land owners and users, source water users and
the public must be involved and responsible for making their own contributions, Finally, the role of
conservation authorities, as envisioned by Justice O'Connor (and this report), will be expanded to
give them additional responsibilities, recognizing the range of decisions for which they will be
accountable,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Goal of Source Protection Plans
Ontarians are strongly in favour of source protection as a key component of overall drinking water
management. While source protection is closely allied with water resources' other ecological and
recreational values, the critical public health goal of maintaining and sustaining secure drinking
water supplies must take precedence in these plans,
The Advisory Committee takes a comprehensive approach that recognizes that the twin goals of
protecting human health and source protection can be achieved at by preventing, identifying,
managing and evaluating risks through decision-making processes embedded in the source
protection planning process.
Scope of the Framework Regarding the Great Lakes
As many Ontarians know, the Great Lakes are the receiving body for most of the watersheds in
Ontario. Because a majority of the province's population receives drinking water from the Great
Lakes, the Advisory Committee deliberated on whether to include the Great Lakes in the scope of
its work, (For purposes of this report, the Great Lakes are defined from the low water mark of each
water body,) As a source of drinking water, the Advisory Committee recognized that there is an
important linkage between inland source protection efforts and Great Lakes water quantity and
quality management. However, the Advisory Committee agreed that the focus of this framework
should apply to the development of source water protection plans for inland waters, including the
rivers that are the connecting channels between the Great Lakes,
One of the primary reasons for this decision is that the Great Lakes are international waters shared
with the U,S, federal government and the eight Great Lakes states, There are numerous pieces of
legislation, treaties and agreements that govern how the many stakeholders address water quality
and quantity impacts, as well as many established forums and partnerships to deal with Great
Lakes issues,
Regardless, the Advisory Committee strongly believes that communities that obtain their drinking
water from the Great Lakes share in the responsibility to protect and enhance Great Lakes drinking
water, as well as inland water sources. One of the expected outcomes of this source protection
framework is that, when implemented, source protection plans will complement and contribute to
the protection and improvement of Great Lakes water quality and quantity,
.
R E P 0 R T 0 F THE A D V t s 0 Rye 0 M M IT TEE:
Principles Guiding Source Protection Planning
In this section, the Advisory Committee identifies the principles that should guide all source
protection planning, Putting these principles into practice will help ensure a consistent approach to
the development and implementation of source protection plans across Ontario,
How these principles are defined in law is critical. The Advisory Committee describes some terms
in the Glossary to this report; these are not intended as legal definitions, but to provide clarification
for readers of this report, The Advisory Committee asks that the lawmakers be extremely
conscious of testing definitions against the principles listed below, as well as against the meaning
of important concepts (e,g., precautionary principle) as set forth in the Glossary,
--
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Legislative Basis for Source Protection Planning
The Advisory Committee recommends that the framework be enshrined in new watershed-based
source protection legislation, Having a one window approach would help promote a clear
understanding of what source protection means and what it is intended to achieve, This would
benefit the public, as well as stakeholders who may have new obligations, The overriding need for
clarity in identifying the circumstances in which source protection takes pfecedence over other
considerations must be recognized by those drafting new legislation and amending existing
legislation, The Advisory Committee also notes that existing powers are not being used to their
fullest extent, and recommends that any new legislative provisions should focus on gaps in the
current framework.
Consolidating source water protection provisions in one piece of legislation would also help to
prevent difficulties sometimes associated with having multiple pieces of legislation, This may be
complemented by creating a consolidated set of regulations under the source water protection
legislation,
The Advisory Committee is conscious that this recommendation differs to some degree from
Justice O'Connor who proposed that source protection should be implemented through
amendments to the Environmental Protection Act. However, it is consistent with Justice O'Connor's
recommendations, in recognizing that source protection should be separate from drinking water
.
REPORT OF THE ADVtSORY COMMITTEE:
treatment and distribution for the purpose of legislation. Justice O'Connor also highlights the need
to reduce duplication among pieces of legislation by consolidating them in one place. In this too,
the Advisory Committee is consistent with his recommendations, Through recommending a stand-
alone piece of source protection legislation, the Advisory Committee believes it is consistent with
the intent of the Part Two Report of the Wa/kerton Inquiry in all fundamental respects,
Two of the most important decision-making principles articulated by Justice O'Connor relate to
determining when source protection supersedes other legislation and when it should only inform
the decision at hand, These are:
Recommendation 4: Provincia] govemment decisions that affect the
quality of drinking water sources must be consistent with approved
source protection plans.
Recommendation 5: Where the potential exists for a significant direct
threat to drinking water sources, municipal official plans and decisions
must be consistent with the applicable source protection plan.
Otherwise, municipal official plans and decisions should have regard to
the source protection plan. The plans should designate areas where
consistency is required.
(Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry; p.89)
These decision-making principles are wholly supported by the Advisory Committee and must be
given the force of law to ensure they are respected by municipal and provincial decision-makers.
Where human health is a concern, it seems clear that source protection legislation will supersede
other legislation, Over time, official plans must be amended to be in keeping with approved source
protection plans, Where the potential exists for a significant direct threat to drinking water sources,
municipal official plans and decisions must be consistent with the applicable source protection
plan, In areas with a lesser degree of threat, municipal official plans and decisions should have
regard to the source protection plan, Similarly, provincially-issued permits to take water (PTTW)
and certificates of approval (CsofA) must be consistent with approved source protection plans.
It will take several years to make source protection a reality in all Ontario watersheds, and the
Advisory Committee believes that initial source protection plans must be done as quickly as
possible, To ensure that source plans are undertaken as quickly as ispracticable, the Advisory
Committee believes it is necessary to include a schedule of initial plans in the legislation.
Finally, given the complexity of source protection planning, the Advisory Committee also
recognizes that, in addition to the legislation and regulations, more guidance on certain subjects
will be needed, The government must update existing technical guidelines or develop new ones, as
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
required, to assist planning participants to understand, interpret and implement source water
protection plans.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Gaps in the Current System
In its deliberations, the Advisory Committee considered where gaps in the current system should
be addressed through awarding new powers, Some of these new powers will, no doubt, be given to
municipalities because of the key role they play in source protection-related matters. In fact, many
of these gaps have been identified by Ontario municipalities that are already engaged in source
water protection, However, given that power should flow to the accountable body, the Advisory
Committee recognizes that, once further implementation details are worked out, including funding,
items on the following list may be better assigned to an entity other than municipal government.
With these cautions, the Advisory Committee believes that some of the gaps that need to be
addressed include new powers to:
.
require routine disclosure of chemicals used or stored on-site, with appropriate confidentiality
requirements;
require measures for the containment of chemicals, including plans for addressing leaks and
spills;
require monitoring, including the installation of monitoring wells in specific high risk
circumstances;
enter into agreements with property owners and to attach relevant water protection conditions
(e,g" secondary containment for chemical storage, monitoring requirements, etc,) on
development applications; .
control the drilling of new private wells and to require the proper plugging and sealing of
unused wells in vulnerable areas where municipal drinking water supplies are potentially
affected;
require regular maintenance and repairs and enable periodic inspection of septic systems;
require the effective decommissioning of septic systems prior to redevelopment;
.
.
.
.
.
.
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
.
require appropriate notification of contaminants associated with historic activities, as they are
discovered through re-development;
require or promote conservation initiatives; and
deal effectively with non-compliance (e.g" adding a charge to the associated property tax bill
for work done by the municipality as a way to deal with non-compliance).
.
.
New Powers for Municipalities
Municipalities will be key players in the development and implementation of watershed-based
source protection plans, not only through their representation on conservation authorities, but also
through their critical role in implementation in terms of controlling and influencing land uses and
land use planning,
Currently, some municipalities have noted that their ability to protect drinking water sources from
contamination is constrained in some respects,
Municipalities can influence the location of new high risk land uses, but only prior to their
establishment. They can also restrict the establishment of new uses where they would present a
threat to surface or groundwater through their official plan, and can impose conditions before
issuing approvals for some new developments through the planning process, However, it must be
recognized that the Planning Act applies primarily during that limited period of time when a
proposed development is proceeding through the approvals process and during initial construction,
These existing mechanisms do not provide for long-term monitoring and enforcement.
Municipal ability to regulate existing land uses is even more limited, Some municipalities have
made progress working with landowners and industry on a voluntary basis to protect drinking water
sources, However, municipalities cannot make this type of co-operation mandatory.
The Advisory Committee strongly recommends that the province commit to working with
municipalities to develop appropriate new powers and supporting tools to prevent contamination of
drinking water sources and supplement existing powers (see Interim. Risk Management section
below for more information on existing municipal powers), Appropriate powers and supporting tools
will enable municipalities to implement source protection plans as they relate to existing, future and
new activities, so that high-risk activities can be appropriately managed in the short and long-term.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
New Responsibilities for Conservation Authorities
There are 36 conservation authorities in Ontario: 31 covering southern Ontario and 5 in Northern
Ontario centred around the major population centres (Le" Sudbury, North Bay, Thunder Bay, Sault
Ste. Marie and Timmins). Considerable land in Northern Ontario is not covered by a conservation
authority.
Under the Conservation Authorities Act:
The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake, in the area
over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the
conservation, restoration, development and management of natura]
resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals.
Conservation authorities have powers to undertake studies for the purpose of managing natural
resources and many conservation authorities have taken a leadership role in watershed
management planning with the support of local municipalities, In terms of water management,
conservation authorities can regulate the use of water from surface waters in their areas, and they
have specific regulatory responsibilities for floodplains and related water hazards,
Consistent with Justice O'Connor, the Advisory Committee recommends that, wherever possible,
conservation authorities be the organization given responsibility for co-ordinating the development
of watershed-based source protection plans:
"Conservation authorities are well positioned to manage the
development of draft watershed-based source protection plans. They
have the mandate and, in many cases, the experience and the respect
of affected local groups that will be required to coordinate the
development of the p]ans."
(Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry; p.1 00)
Conservation authorities currently receive provincial funding for flood control, and can collect
voluntary levies from municipalities for doing agreed-upon work, For the most part, this means that
conservation authorities are not resourced in a way that is sufficient or appropriate for their new
and important role in leading the development of watershed-based source protection plans,
Since source protection planning will be mandatory, the Advisory Committee believes that
conservation authorities will need to have additional funding to offset certain direct costs related to
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
source protection, This could include, among other potential.sources, a charge being added as a
line item to the municipal tax bill or funding received directly from the provincial government.
There are other issues, in addition to funding, that need to be resolved. There are conservation
authorities in watersheds that contain over 90% of Ontario's population and municipal
representation is built into their governance, However, some municipalities choose not to
participate, The Advisory Committee believes that this situation cannot be allowed to continue and
that all municipalities in watersheds with a conservation authority must participate in some
capacity, This participation should be mandatory,
First Nations
The Advisory Committee wants to underline the importance of First Nations' participation in source
protection planning and the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government. It acknowledges that
the responsibility for drinking water programs on First Nations is shared among First Nations,
Health Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Environment Canada, The work being
done by the federal government on First Nations initiatives on water I wastewater and the
environment should be co-ordinated with source protection planning and implementation,
First Nations also have technical capabilities that can be utilized in the development and
implementation of source protection planning, A good example is the Ontario First Nations
Technical Services Corporation (OFNTSC) which is mandated to provide professional technical
and advisory services to First Nations communities, The OFNTSC has been active in promoting
the use of best practices in order to improve standards used in water systems found in First
Nations by, for example, using the Ontario Drinking Water Standards as benchmarks,
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Regardless of the complexity of the legal and fiscal relationships that exist, the Advisory Committee
strongly believes that the goal of safe and reliable drinking water must be met throughout Ontario,
both on and off First Nations land, As stated by Justice O'Connor:
There is no justification for pennitting lower public health standards for
some residents of Ontario than those enjoyed by others, Members of
First Nations are also residents of Ontario. There can be no justification
for acquiescing in the application of a lesser public health standard on
certain residents of Ontario than that enjoyed by others in the province.
This is especially true when there is ample evidence that the water
provided in First Nations communities falls well short ofthe standards
of safety and adequacy that are considered acceptable in other parts of
the province.
(Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry; pA87)
The Advisory Committee further suggests that the processes undertaken in developing existing
watershed management plans may be useful as a model for the involvement of First Nations in the
development and implementation of watershed-based source protection plans,
Finally, the recommendations of the Advisory Committee are not intended to affect .any Aboriginal
or treaty right recognized or affirmed by the Constitution Acf. The Advisory Committee fully expects
that the government will consult with First Nations about source protection decisions that may
affect the use of Crown land and resources that are subject to Aboriginal and treaty rights.
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Interim Risk Management
The Advisory Committee is well aware of the gap that lies between the acceptance of this
framework and the completion, approval, and implementation of source protection plans, At issue
are the steps that need to be taken today to protect drinking water sources from existing and future
impacts, In particular, the reduction of potential threats to human health and the protection of
vulnerable areas are immediate priorities,
Existing powers to assist in this transition period include those under the Planning Act and
Director's orders, Since planning controls can only deal with new land uses and cannot affect
existing land uses, their power is somewhat limited. On the other hand, the power of the Director
(an employee of the Ministry of the Environment) to designate interim drinking water source areas
and to prohibit certain land uses and development within such areas could be strategically used to
manage risks in key locations. Because this power can only be exercised on the basis of
reasonable and probable grounds, the Advisory Committee believes that it may be one of the more
important tools that can be used to protect Ontarians' health while we wait for source protection
plans to be developed, approved and implemented.
The Advisory Committee wishes to praise those municiPi'lities and conservation authorities that
have already taken a leadership role in source protection and been recognized internationally for
their expertise. This recommendation is not intended to slow their progress, In fact, the Advisory
Committee recommends that their expertise be used to develop a model plan that could be used to
assist others who are starting up the source water protection learning curve: Such a model plan
should be developed as soon as possible so that those new to source protection can begin to
understand its principles and start to incorporate its considerations into their decision-making
processes, The Advisory Committee asks that consideration be given to inviting Conservation
Ontario (the organization that represents the common interests of Ontario's 36 conservation
authorities at the provincial and federal level) to help co-ordinate this activity.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Financing Initial Source Protection Plans
The Advisory Committee has examined the issue of how initial source protection plan development
is to be funded, Justice O'Connor favoured a combination of funding mechanisms for source
protection planning, indicating that the province take the lead role, with contributions from other
sources, such as municipal water rates and user fees, Note, that the issue of funding of source
protection planning and implementation on an ongoing basis is discussed later in this report (see
3) THE PLANNING PROCESS: Toward Implementation),
Since this is the fjrst instance of mandatory province-wide source protection planning, there is a
high level of uncertainty in estimating its costs. As a result, the Advisory Committee recommends
that the province substantially fund the development of all initial source protection plans, primarily
to ensure the earliest possible start for source protection planning, This approach will also give
those involved more time to fully analyze the cost implications prior to developing a formal funding
strategy. Over time, based on experience and with better cost estimates available, the participation
of other potential funders in the support of ongoing planning can be negotiated.
Once planning is underway and Ontario is closer to implementing approved source protection
plans, more detailed cost estimates for implementation will be needed, The Advisory Committee
recommends that the government consult with stakeholders on the financing issues related to
implementation at this later date,
--
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
-..,- --
J~}l"~iPLANNING
;:;,.i'...'.... ....'V...;;
PROCESS
This section describes a generic process for the development of a watershed-based source
protection plan, outlining the roles and responsibilities of the participants in the process. This
section also sets out a high level overview of the process, from the initial establishment of the
source protection planning committee through to plan development and approval.
Planning Areas
In establishing planning areas, the Advisory Committee suggests that the following factors be
considered:
. environmental factors, including: natural watershed boundaries, complexity of water issues,
intensity of land use, geological conditions, and existence of regional aquifers;
. socio-economic factors, including: population density, and economic sectors;
. administrative factors, including: municipal boundaries, First Nations boundaries, conservation
authority boundaries, and health unit boundaries; and
. the ability to access the necessary expertise: experience with source protection planning, the
legislated phased-in planning schedule, and the availability of experts.
Depending on the location and its unique circumstances, one criteria may outweigh the others, In
particular, the differences between southern and Northern Ontario in terms of population, land use
and land ownership (e,g" private vs, Crown) may require a different weighting of criteria.
In southern Ontario, in the opinion of the Advisory Committee, planning areas should generally be
based on tertiary level watersheds, In Northern Ontario, it is more appropriate, in most cases, that
planning areas be based on secondary level watersheds, While the land mass in Northern Ontario
is very large, fewer planning areas would suffice given the lower intensity of land use. Conservation
authorities in Northern Ontario should be invited to co-ordinate planning within their current
watershed jurisdiction, as well as the entire secondary level watersheds in which they are situated,
In all cases, the planning areas should also be based on the current distribution of conservation
authorities in the province, In watershed-based source protection planning areas with more than
one conservation authority, the organization with the most experience and technical expertise in
watershed management will take the lead, The designation of planning areas could also consider
the pairing of a conservation authority that has source protection experience with one that does not
have that level of expertise,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
The Advisory Committee also proposes that, in some instances, watersheds can be grouped into
larger planning areas to achieve efficiencies in the planning process, For example, in the case of a
small watershed adjacent to a larger one, or several neighbouring small watersheds, it may be
useful to consider joining them to form a single planning area. This approach would result in
approximately 16 planning areas in southern Ontario and approximately 8 in Northern Ontario, A
map in Appendix C provides an example of how planning areas could potentially be distributed
across Ontario,
Source Protection Planning Committee (SPPC)
The first requirement is that a Source Protection Planning Committee (SPPC) be established in
each planning area designated by the Minister. The chair of the SPPC will also be designated by
the Minister. Each SPPC will steer the planning process, ensuring it meets the requirements of the
provincial framework and the priorities of the planning area,
Organizationally, the SPPC will function as an advisory committee of the board of directors to a
conservation authority and its membership will be broadly representative of the diverse interests in
source protection,
The minimum requirements related to the composition of the SPPC will be consistent across the
province, It is mandatory for each SPPC to include appropriate representation of affected
municipalities, conservation authorities, First Nations, public health, agriculture, industry,
environmental groups, provincial ministries and federal departments. Additional members may be
determined by the chair of the SPPC in consultation with the board of the conservation authority,
It is the responsibility of the lead conservation authority to ensure proper representation on the
SPPC, For example, where the planning area is highly urbanized, representatives from the
development industry should be invited to participate, In more rural areas, greater representation
from the agricultural community may be required, Regardless, the Advisory Committee wishes to
emphasize that appropriate representation and involvement of affected parties will be very
important to obtaining successful 'buy-in' within the community,
,
The size and composition of the SPPC should be flexible enough to accommodate source
protection planning in both complex watersheds with many municipalities (exhibiting a wide range
of issues and interests) and less complex watersheds with few municipalities and a smaller set of
II
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
issues and interests, There may also need to be variations to accommodate the unique
characteristics of Northern Ontario, However, no SPPC should be so large as to be unwieldy. The
Advisory Committee recommends that membership of the SPPC be limited to a maximum of 18
people, plus the chair. This assumes the existence of numerous other opportunities for involvement
in working groups, for example, as well as through participation in broad public consultations.
In terms of its functions, the SPPC in each planning area will:
. incorporate the principles set out in the provincial framework and ensure that the source
protection plan satisfies the goals and objectives of the framework;
. develop its operating terms of reference, including transparent decision-making and dispute
resolution processes, as well as a work plan (the terms of reference must also define what
constitutes sufficient municipal support for the draft source protection plan to be .
recommended to the Ministry of the Environment; this must be agreed to by the board of
directors of the conservation authority and forwarded for approval by the MOE as one of the
first steps in the plan development process; (refer also to Advisory Committee
Recommendation 26);
. provide direction for the development of the draft source protection plan, including the
establishment of any working groups, as required;
. establish an independent expert panel that would, in the initial planning stages, review the
science, assumptions and preliminary conclusions drawn, and provide advice to inform the
planning process;
. co-ordinate the collection and analysis of data to support the source protection plan and
ensure the best available science is used;
. establish and co-ordinate a transparent local consultation process to ensure broad
consultation among affected parties (refer also to sub-section Planning Area Consultation
Process below, under section 3) The Planning Process);
. develop the draft of the source protection plan; and
. submit the draft plan to the board of directors of the conservation authority for consideration,
Following consideration of the draft and the preparation of a recommended draft, the board of
directors of the conservation authority will submit the recommended draft to the Minister of the
Environment for approval. As stated above, the SPPC's terms of reference must also define what
constitutes sufficient municipal support for the recommended draft source protection plan, This
must have been agreed to by the board of directors of the conservation authority and forwarded for
approval by the MOE as one of the first steps in the plan development process,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
II
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Technical Expertise
The source protection planning process will also require technical support, Required expertise
includes: land use planning, project co-ordination, expertise in water quality and water quantity,
hydrogeology, geographic information systems and information management, and education and
consultation.
Specialists are needed to manage technical studies and evaluations, facilitate collaborative
planning efforts, and support the work of any working groups. To maximize efficiencies with regard
to the availability and costs of acquiring such specialized skills, expertise may be shared between
more than one watershed or source protection planning area, depending on watershed size, .
population, complexity, and issues.
The Advisory Committee is aware that there are a limited number of people with the expertise to
support source protection planning, As a result, it recommends that the province ensure that
planning areas have access to the specialists that they need,
Planning Area Consultation Process
The objective of mandating a consultation process is to provide meaningful and substantial
opportunities for input among the communities and stakeholders that fall within the boundaries of
the planning area.
SPPCs must define in their terms of reference a plan for a consultation process that meets the
minimum requirements that are recommended by the Advisory Committee (see Advisory
Committee Recommendations 29 and 30), This must be agreed to by the board of directors of the
conservation authority early in the planning process, One of the approval criteria that will be used
by the MOE when reviewing the recommended draft plan is whether affected individuals and
groups were consulted, in accordance with the terms of reference, and whether all minimum
requirements for consultation were met.
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning.
....
Content of the Initial Source Protection Plan
The Advisory Committee feels that there should be some consistent component parts in a source
protection plan and that these would be set out as a provincial standard. This content must be
flexible enough to deal with local conditions, and it is understood that the relative emphasis of the
individual components may vary from watershed to watershed,
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning.
. Province:
D Approve source protection plans,
o Develop new tools for use in effectively implementing source protection planning.
D Set legal framework for decision-making which applies to land uses and development
impacting drinking water sources,
o Determine how existing legislation (e.g., Municipal Act, Planning Act, Environmental
Protection Act) continues to apply in areas covered by source protection plans and
when any new source protection requirements override existing requirements.
o Set policy for provincial approvals and licenses and issues them to ensure consistency
with source protection plans.
o Develop, in consultation with municipalities and conservation authorities, a range of
tools to assist in the identification, calculation and management of non-point sources
other than those addressed through the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) and, in
vulnerable areas, may address issues in the NMA.
o Require in legislation that existing and future provincial approvals of direct discharges
and water takings must be consistent with the requirements of the source protection
plan.
o Apply clear, consistent and universally applicable criteria to establishing discharge
limits for municipal wastewater discharges,
o Support education and stewardship initiatives, as well as incentive programs,
Financing
The Advisory Committee examined at a high level the issue of how to fund source protection
planning and implementation on an ongoing basis. It was guided by the words of Justice O'Connor
on this subject:
I favour a combination of funding mechanisms to pay for the source
protection planning process....There is a strong argument in favour of
provincia] funding, on the basis of fairness.. .. On the other hand, the
proposition that source protection planning should be paid for
exc1usive!y out of provincia] coffers runs contrary to the user-pay
concept. It therefore seems reasonable that at least some component of
the funding for source water protection should come from municipal
water rates... [and) 1 recommend that some portion of the necessary
funding come from user fees,1n addition, some portion of the cost
shou!d be raised by those to whom Certificates of Approva] are issued
for discharging poJlutants.
(Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry; p.1 ] 6-] 17)
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
-
Like Justice O'Connor, the Advisory Committee believes that permanent funding mechanisms need
to be in place to ensure that funding for source protection is available on a sustainable and ongoing
basis. It is necessary, the Advisory Committee believes, that those who impact sources of drinking
water and those who benefit from it should contribute to funding source protection, It is also
important that users of a planning area should contribute financially to source protection, However,
the ability to pay also needs to be a factor, which may mean some top-up funding for certain
planning areas is required,
When examining options related to possible sources of funding for implementation, the Advisory
Committee feels strongly that the funding mechanisms used should be linked to the body
responsible for the activity that the funds will support. For example, a portion of municipal water
rates and other charges would contribute to offsetting the cost of source protection activities for
which the municipality is responsible, not those for which the province is responsible,
The Advisory Committee believes that there is great value in looking at incentive programs as a
way to support source water protection, especially given the number of successful examples in
other jurisdictions, New York City's approach, for instance, provides the agricultural community and
the municipality with a long-term ability to enjoy financial advantages from the environmental
benefits generated by the protection of source waters from contamination. Other ways to obtain
participation in source protection activities include environmental farm plans, co-operative
agreements, best management practices, public education and outreach, technical support, land
stewardship and volunteer / community action initiatives.
More detailed cost estimates for implementation and ongoing planning will be needed, The
Advisory Committee recommends that the government consult with different stakeholder groups on
the financing issues related to implementation roles and responsibilities following receipt of this
source protection planning framework, The Advisory Committee further recommends that the
government negotiate a model for funding with stakeholders during the period of initial source
protection plan development.
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Review and Updating of Source Protection Plans
Given that source protection planning is committed to continuous improvement, a plan, even when
approved, must continue to be reviewed and updated in order to take advantage of increases in
our information base and available technologies. To provide certainty, the regulations should
specify when plans should be formally updated. The groups involved in initial plan development
and any newly identified participants should be convened periodically to review and revise the plan
as necessary.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Reporting Roles
There is a need to clearly define reporting roles in order to support source protection planning, For
the provincial government, the following core reporting elements should be contained in its public
annual report:
. the status of source protection plans and monitoring efforts across the province;
. provincial activities undertaken in support of source protection planning;
. status of water resources, including some identification and analysis of trends;
. a summary of watershed level information; and
. evaluation and recommendations for improvements and reporting on same,
The lead conservation authorities will be required to report to the province at pre-determined
stages during the development of the source protection plan, Reports will be required on the
progress of the draft plan's development, the consultation process and budgeting.
The lead conservation authorities will also produce annual reports (also provided to the province)
that cover the following topics:
. progress reports on the status of plan development;
. distribution and availability of the draft plan, recommended draft plan and approved plan, as
appropriate;
. state of the watershed's water in terms of quality and quantity;
. trend analyses;
. water budget development and revision; and
· implementation status,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Appeals
Consistent with Justice O'Connor, the Advisory Committee is recommending the provision of
limited rights of appeal that are restricted to parties within the planning area that are directly
affected, including residents and landowners, The right of appeal needs to be limited to reduce the
likelihood that the appeals process becomes the main forum for settling planning and land use
issues, While limited, it is expected that the right of appeal would apply to provincial decisions and
municipal decisions.
II
R E P 0 R T 0 F THE A D V ISO Rye 0 M M I T TE E :
Public Consultation and Education
Given the potential significance of source protection planning for Ontarians present and future, it is
important to get it right. The Advisory Committee recommends that Ontarians should be provided
with an opportunity to review the framework and provide input in the short-term.
Over the longer term, the Advisory Committee encourages all stakeholders to recognize that only
an informed Ontario public will fully understand and participate in the protection of this valuable
resource, Public education is a very important part of any successful source protection framework,
w at e r 5 h e d - B a 5 e d Sou r c e P rot e c t ion P I an n i n 9 .
The Advisory Committee believes that Ontario should promote the development of state-of-the-art
risk management. This methodology should be based on a continuous improvement process,
including peer review, using the best available science to evaluate the potential impact of specific
threats to drinking water sources,
This seclion describes the factors that the Advisory Committee has identified as the key
considerations in risk management for ground and surface water. It also proposes a preferred
process for assessing threats to the quality and quantity of sources,
The issue of information gathering - for plan development and risk management - is discussed
separately in the next section,
Threat Assessment
Threats to drinking water sources exist in virtually all watersheds, Such threats may be natural or
brought about by human activity, derive from a point or non-point source, be intentional or
unintentional, etc,
The manner in which threats are managed will be defined on a site-specific basis according to the
level of risk to the water source that is presented by the threat, and may be guided by the need to
meet the Ontario Drinking Water Standards. The level of risk will be dependent on many factors
including the characteristics of the threat (e.g" chemical toxicity) and the characteristics of the
water source (e,g" its vulnerability), The vulnerability of the water source establishes the nature of
the interaction between the water source and the threat, reflecting that not all water sources will
react in the same manner to any particular threat.
Source protection planning should begin with an initial assessment. The objective of the
assessment phase is to have all threats to water resources identified and categorized based on the
relative risk they represent. This allows risk management decisions to be made on both a site-
specific and watershed basis, The Advisory Committee is aware that inventories of threats are
underway in many watersheds in Ontario as part of provincially-funded groundwater studies, These
activities will contribute valuable information to the source protection planning process.
Since all potential threats do not pose the same level of risk to all drinking water sources, actions
taken will vary across watersheds, The extent of the threat will also vary due to the physical
characteristics of the land and the uses to which it has been put. In all cases, the Advisory
Committee recommends that a more prescriptive approach to managing threats be taken in the
most vulnerable areas, Based on the precautionary approach, the Advisory Committee proposes
that vulnerable areas be identified as quickly as possible to remove uncertainty, (For an indication
of how a "vulnerable area" may be defined, refer to the Glossary,) However, the Advisory
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Committee cautions that as source protection evolves, this definition may need to be revisited to
ensure that it is-and remains-appropriate for source protection.
The Advisory Committee recommends that the development of a provincially-mandated threat
assessment process result in:
. a single reference list of potential threats to drinking water sources to ensure consistency
among watersheds in the identification and categorization of threats;
. a mechanism that will be used to prioritize responses to threats (the primary consideration in
the ranking of potential threats should be the protection of human health);
. similar threats being dealt with the same way in all watersheds;
. a provincial guideline to aid in the assessment of cumulative impacts and assimilative
capacities within and among watersheds; and
. assumptions that are able to deal with the range of watershed characteristics in Ontario so that
the process may be used with a reasonable degree of consistency from one watershed to the
next.
The Advisory Committee believes that the provincial threat assessment process will be sufficiently
rigorous if it can, at a minimum, achieve the following results:
. Threat identification that distinguishes:
c point source and non-point source threats;
c transient and stationary threats;
c water quality and water quantity threats;
c surface water and groundwater threats;
c direct and indirect threats; and
c emerging threats,
. Assessments of source water vulnerability and sensitivity, including a choice of methodology,
that ensure:
c the assessments are undertaken at the appropriate scale;
c proper identification of areas where the water resource is vulnerable to impact; and
c technically sound and defensible collection of information,
. Assessments of the water resource's vulnerability that consider factors such as:
c physical barriers (aquitards, slope of land, hydraulic gradients, vegetation, etc.);
c reliability and sufficiency of data;
c areas of groundwater recharge;
c surface water - groundwater relationships; and
c well heads and surface water intakes,
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
.
Assessments of the sensitivity of water sources associated with:
c the nature of the threat and associated risk;
c the physical character of the aquifer or surface water feature;
c relationships between surface water and groundwater;
c proximity to supply intakes;
c the presence, features and functions of natural systems, such as wetlands, woodlands and
riparian zones; and
c existing water quality and water quantity concerns,
.
Assessments of cumulative impacts and assimilative capacity, which are important for making
long-term decisions regarding watershed development.
Risk Management Strategies
Many of the issues related to threat assessment and related risk management strategies are highly
technical. In these matters, the Advisory Committee limits itself to identifying the broad issues
which it believes must be considered.
The risk management strategies listed below apply to both ground and surface waters, except
where indicated,
1, New Uses in the Most Vulnerable Areas
. Use of all available tools (existing and any new powers awarded) to ensure prohibition,
redirection of the activity or stringent requirements, as appropriate, for:
. intensive and high-risk land uses, as well as uses associated with high risk factors;
. waste management or disposal activities;
. application of biosolids, septage and manure; and
. directing development away from vulnerable areas as part of the development
process.
2, New Uses in Less Vulnerable Areas
. High risk uses or uses associated with high risk factors in less vulnerable areas should be
appropriately managed through use of all available tools (existing and any new powers
awarded), as appropriate,
3, Existinq Uses in the Most Vulnerable Areas
. The management of existing high risk activities must be done in a way that reduces risks in
the most vulnerable areas.
. Use of all available tools (existing and any new powers awarded) to ensure management,
possible redirection of the activity or stringent requirements, as appropriate, for:
D intensive and high risk land uses, as well as uses associated with high risk factors
and including expansion of high risk uses;
c waste management or disposal activities;
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning.
c application of biosolids, septage and manure;
c remediation of the effects of development in vulnerable areas; and
c property owners in the most vulnerable areas be required to improve chemical
storage and handling and undertake monitoring and reporting,
4, Existinq Uses in Less Vulnerable Areas
. Land uses and activities further from vulnerable areas should be addressed through an
increased emphasis on education, voluntary measures and incentive-based instruments.
5. Water Quantitv
. Ground and Surface Water
o Since water takings may result in local and downstream impacts, the province should
establish clear, firm and public rules to ensure sound and defensible water takings are
approved in a consistent manner and that unsound water takings are consistently
rejected,
c The province should recognize the role performed by natural features on the
landscape, such as wetlands and woodlands, in protecting water quantity and quality,
. Groundwater
c Where practical, groundwater takings should be evaluated in the context of the water
budget on a watershed basis, However, the province should consider that aquifers
may extend beyond current watershed boundaries, and that large scale water takings
(both those permitted and those not requiring permits, including large livestock
watering) have the potential to influence groundwater flow patterns in existing
watersheds.
c Since large groundwater takings can alter the orientation of municipal well head
protection areas, new or amended permits should only be issued when municipalities
and landowners can ensure changes can be made locally to protect the new well head
protection zone,
. Surface Water
At a minimum, surface water takings should only be permitted in the context of the
appropriate water budget. Approval should consider the impact of the taking on the
assimilative capacity of the water body, the impact on the water body for other uses and
users, and the water quality objectives of the source protection plan,
In addition to the foregoing, there are a few cases-wells and septic systems / underground fuel
storage tanks-for which the Advisory Committee has additional, specific comments.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
6, Wells (Domestic, Municipal, Communal. Monitorinq, Construction, Unused and Abandoned,
etc,)
. The risks to public health posed to groundwater by both dug and drilled wells can be
significant where there are well construction inadequacies or wells that have not been
properly plugged and sealed, Information on the location of wells should be collected and
private landowners should be required to provide the necessary information,
. A mechanism needs to be designed to determine the status and options for dealing with
wells that pose an actual or potential threat to a drinking water source,
. The siting and integrity of wells need to be a first priority in assessing and managing
threats to drinking water.
. An inventory of unused and abandoned wells is needed so that they can be correctly
decommissioned.
. The siting of new wells should be done carefully to draw on the best quality water sources.
. In addition, private water supplies should be the subject of an information and outreach
strategy, supported at the provincial level and focused on preventing local contamination of
the supply.
7. Septic Systems and Underoround Fuel Storaoe Tanks
. Existing rules related to septic storage tanks, septic systems and underground fuel
storage tanks must be enforced and, where needed, new approaches and tools should be
developed and implemented. The ability for periodic re-inspections should be clarified to
ensure a mechanism is available (e,g" expiry dates on certificates of approval).
. At a minimum, the province should require that all septic systems be inspected at pOint of
sale as a condition of sale of property and when application is made for development or
redevelopment (including decommissioning), Septic tanks should also be pumped out on a
regular basis (e.g., every five years), Note that this recommendation of the Advisory
Committee goes further than Justice O'Connor who recommended only that septic
systems be inspected at point of sale (See Appendix A: Justice O'Connor's
Recommendation 9),
8, Landscape Restoration
. Many threats and the risk they represent to drinking water sources can be managed on a
site-specific basis through restoration of the landscape (e,g" riparian buffers consisting of
natural vegetation, strategically-placed wetlands) for enhanced source protection,
. An approach that seeks to reduce threats to drinking water sources by (re)designing the
most essential of source area landscapes should be pursued, where appropriate,
. Landscape management adjustments can, for example, be effective in dealing with surtace
water issues before contaminants reach groundwater recharge areas or drinking water
intake pipes
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Additional Standards for Surface Water
In general, surface waters are more susceptible to contamination than groundwater from
contaminant sources such as:
. industrial and municipal wastewater;
. urban and rural non-point sources, such as storm water;
. other rural, non-point sources such as agricultural run-off;
. naturally occurring contamination, including that generated by wildlife and companion animals;
. contaminants deposited from airbome sources,
.
REPORT OF THE ADVtSORY COMMITTEE:
Source protection plans should be required to identify local contaminants of concern, the existing
levels of those contaminants found within the source water, and the relative contributions from
specific point and non-point sources,
In the opinion of the Advisory Committee, the most appropriate benchmarks related to surface
water are those found in the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO), PWQOs are ambient
water quality criteria. They represent a desirable level of water quality to be maintained in the
surface waters of Ontario, PWQOs are set at a level of water quality which is protective of all forms
of aquatic life, A number of other PWQO objectives are based on public health and aesthetic
considerations. Source protection plans should be required to identify management strategies for:
. protecting the source water from degradation beyond the appropriate Provincial Water Quality
Objectives (PWQO) for the specific identified contaminants;
. protecting pristine water sources from degradation where their quality is better than the
PWQOs;
. where degradation already exists beyond the PWQO, strategies for remediation; and
. timelines for achievement of desired results,
At the provincial level, the Advisory Committee recommends that the province apply clear,
consistent, and universally applicable criteria to establishing discharge limits for municipal
wastewater discharges. Furthermore, the province should develop, in consultation with .
municipalities and conservation authorities, a range of tools that would assist in the identification,
calculation, and, ultimately, management of non-point sources other than those addressed through
the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) and, in vulnerable areas, those that are addressed through
the NMA.
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Source protection planning is a complex activity, requiring significant data inputs and data analysis
capability, Only with the right kind of data, will we know that our mutual actions on source
protection are bringing about the desired outcomes,
In this section, the Advisory Committee looks at the roles, requirements and needs for monitoring
and reporting, and at the recommended information management framework to support source
protection plans. It acknowledges that some up-front investment will be required to support the first
wave of source protection plan development. Of particular concem to the Advisory Committee is
the lack of information related to First Nations' water resources. Nonetheless, this should be
viewed as a strategic investment in creating effective monitoring, information management and
data systems to support source protection over the long-term,
Monitoring and Information Management
The Advisory Committee believes Ontario needs to have an effective monitoring network and
information management system, There is little doubt that successful implementation of source
protection will depend on timely access to the best available data, information and models by
provincial ministries and the planning participants.
The Advisory Committee has identified the most important capabilities that should be built into the
monitoring and reporting program to support source protection planning, The preferred system
would be able to:
.
assess background quality and quantity;
determine changing conditions;
capture extreme conditions (e.g., floods, droughts);
identify existing and emerging problems;
recognize the value, features and function of wetlands, woodlands and riparian areas in
protecting drinking water sources;
provide information to support resource management decisions;
provide for reporting networks at the provincial and local levels with robust system back-ups;
provide a basis to develop water protection and management policies;
evaluate the effectiveness of land and water management practices and programs;
improve understanding of the natural and human-induced factors affecting water
quality/quantity; and
provide early indications of success and failures of source protection activities (e.g., through
lead indicators),
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A system with these capabilities would provide the data and information required for the
development, implementation and maintenance of local source protection plans, It would also
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning.
provide a scientific basis for source protection and a firm foundation for reporting on the 'health' of
our source waters.
In order to maximize both efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the Advisory Committee recommends
that the province build on current provincial information management, monitoring and reporting
initiatives and programs such as:
. the Water Resources Information Project (WRIP);
. Land Information Ontario (LiO);
. the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network; and
. the Surface Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Networks.
While there is a need to enhance Ontario's capacity to gather, manage and use information in
support of source protection planning, the effective use of existing systems should be maximized
and any overlap or inefficiencies minimized before any new investments in expensive information
systems are made.
Roles and Responsibilities Related to information
Source protection planning will require the province, municipalities and conservation authorities to
manage information on a co-operative basis and to ensure open access to consistent and reliable
information, The province is the lead data management organization, recognizing that other
stakeholders will play an important role in the collection of information and maintenance of local
monitoring programs, Because the source planning process needs to be as transparent as
possible, it will be very important to ensure public access to data and information at all levels of
source protection planning.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning II
Outcome Measures and Evaluation
Performance and monitoring measures will be used at the provincial and watershed levels to track
our progress towards the desired outcome of source protection planning, which is:
To ensure that Ontario's drinking water systems de]iver water with a
level of risk so negligible that a reasonable and informed person would
fee] safe drinking the water.
(Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry; p.5)
The primary purpose of source protection is the protection of human health, However, measuring
human health impacts is even more complex than measuring impacts on water quantity and
quality, While clearly recognizing their importance, the Advisory Committee is not proposing any
specific human health outcomes or indicators at this time, Instead, it passes this challenge on to
those who will take the framework forward and recommends that this task be incorporated into the
research mandate (refer to Advisory Committee Recommendation 55),
Aside from human health impacts, source protection planning will also result in cost avoidance for
water treatment, improved ecological integrity, and a safe environment for future generations,
Some of these benefits can be measured, Outcomes that could be measured to ascertain the
progress of source water contamination prevention efforts are described below.
PlanninG Process Indicators
Process outcomes at the provincial level will be needed, especially in the early stages of planning,
These include:
. the number of completed source protection plans;
. the proportion of the province protected by approved watershed-based source protection
plans, as measured geographically and by population;
. the number of municipalities that have well head protection plans;
. the availability of data to the public, academia and public interest groups;
. the level of public reporting and evidence that Ontarians are aware of the effort being made to
protect water resources for present and future generations; and
. increased industry and public participation in water preservation and conservation activities.
Water Qualitv and Quantity Indicators
It is important to note that improved water quality and sustainable water quantity are long-term
outcomes. By implementing source protection planning, we should be able to demonstrate that
clean water is kept clean and degraded water is improving,
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMtTTEE:
Indicators for the success of source protection planning will need to be tailored at the watershed
level to focus on land use pressures present in the watershed (e,g., types of pollutants present)
and the characteristics of the local ecosystem (e,g" cold water species depletion).
Progress at the watershed level will be measured by:
. Improving water quality through the protection of existing surface and groundwater from
degradation, and the improvement and restoration of water quality where degraded;
. Assessing water quantity to enable us to ensure the availability of an adequate and affordable
supply of water; and
. Protecting ecosystems and restoring altered systems to a naturally functioning condition.
Examples of indicators include:
o reduced occurrences of pathogens and viruses in water;
o better source water quality after wet weather events, as measured by turbidity, total
coliform, E. coli (e,g" reduced number of beach closures);
o reduced levels of inorganic chemicals, nitrates, phosphorous, pesticides and fecal
contaminants in surface waters, especially streams, and groundwater where applicable;
o better health of biota in surface waters, including wetlands, disclosing less stress and
adverse impacts from contaminants;
o increased number and lengths (kilometers) of surface waters meeting all provincial water
quality objectives set by the province;
o improvement in fish tissue concentration for key contaminants;
o change in multi-year average stream base flow volumes and groundwater levels;
o number of municipalities managing within water budget; and
o change in total hectarage or percentage of landscape comprised of wetlands, riparian
zones and forested lands that perform a significant hydrological function within the
headwater, recharge and discharge zones of a watershed or subwatershed,
Developing outcome and performance measures is an iterative process and it will likely require
several rounds to find measures that provide adequate information, particularly in the case of long-
term human health effects,
Selection of Monitorinq Locations
The location of monitoring sites for the quality and quantity of water should recognize the benefits
of various management strategies, such as vegetative buffers, wetlands, etc. (e,g" locations would
be selected so that samples would be taken after the vegetated buffer strips have had the
opportunity to capture and utilize excess nitrate in root-zone water from overland water flowing
from fields to surface water bodies, not before),
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Research Related to Source Water Protection
While existing knowledge and methodologies may be limited in some respects, the Advisory
Committee wants to make it clear that this should not limit the scope of source protection planning,
Given its commitment to embedding the precautionary approach throughout its source protection
framework, the Advisory Committee believes that it is critical to take action despite any gaps in
science and information,
Because the scientific basis on which source protection planning is based is continually evolving,
the Advisory Committee wants to emphasize that research will play an important role in its
development. In this respect, the Committee assumes that Justice O'Connor's recommendations
on drinking water research in his Part Two Report of the Wa/kerton Inquiry are understood to
include source protection.
As part of its duty to provide direction to the government on source protection, the Advisory
Committee recommends that drinking water research be adequately resourced and shared so that
each component of the source-to-tap protection system is continually improved, Specifically, it asks
the government to ensure that a sustainable level of funding for ongoing research into the sciences
related to source water protection, and most particularly, those related to human health, is
provided,
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Water is fundamental to many aspects of life in Ontario - our health, our economy, our social and
community life, our recreation and our natural heritage.
The Advisory Committee believes that the source protection planning framework can be an
effective guide for making decisions on historical, eXisting and new land and water uses in ways
that protect human health. Making parts of the framework mandatory by grounding it in legislation
will give weight to many of these source protection priorities,
The Advisory Committee has provided advice on 21 of 22 recommendations made by Justice
O'Connor related to source protection, The Advisory Committee believes that its advice goes some
distance in realizing Justice O'Connor's vision for source water protection. However, it also
recognizes that, in some cases, its recommendations will need to be fleshed out in more detail as
the planning process moves forward,
The Advisory Committee considered Justice O'Connor's recommendation to establish and
adequately resource a watershed management branch within the Ministry of the Environment
(Justice O'Connor's Recommendation 70) to be outside the scope of the source protection
framework, However, the Advisory Committee encourages the province to move quickly upon
receipt of this report to establish the Watershed Management Branch,
With respect to agriculture (Justice O'Connor's Recommendations 11,12,13,14,15,16), the
Advisory Committee recommends that the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food continue to work closely on requirements under the Nutrient Management Act
(NMA). Just as Justice O'Connor recognizes that the NMA supports the achievement of a number
of source protection-related objectives, so does the Advisory Committee, Since the development of
farm water protection plans depends on source water protection plans, the Advisory Committee
emphasises that the development of a framework for farm water protection planning should follow
closely behind the overall source protection framework and be consistent with it.
As noted at the beginning of this report, source water protection is just the first barrier in a multi-
barrier system that ensures the delivery of safe clean drinking water to Ontarians, To be effective it
needs to be part of an effective source-to-tap policy. Theretore, the Advisory Committee wishes to
lend its support to Justice O'Connor's Recommendation 65:
The provincia] government should develop a comprehensive "source to
tap" drinking water policy covering all elements of the provision of
drinking water, from source protection to standards development,
treatment, distribution, and emergency response.
(Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry; p.399)
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
The Advisory Committee is aware of the other new initiatives under way in Ontario that focus on
drinking-water treatment and distribution systems, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act, As stated earlier, the Advisory Committee also
recognizes the contribution of the Nutrient Management Act to source protection objectives,
If Ontario is indeed to have a safe, reliable source-to-tap drinking water system, the province must
ensure that all the separate parts come together and create an integrated whole, The Advisory
Committee emphasizes that the fact that we are dealing with imperfect or incomplete data should
not be used to delay the implementation of watershed-based source protection planning, Ontario
must start with the best available information and, over time, move to more sophisticated and
comprehensive information systems.
Ontario needs to protect its drinking water sources, The Advisory Committee believes its source
protection planning framework is strong enough to meet the challenges ahead, It is forward-
thinking, It puts in place the first barrier in a multi-barrier system that can protect human health
from contaminants in drinking water. It protects human health while taking into account ecological
and economic interests, It provides consistency, where needed, while allowing for flexibility at the
local level. Acceptance by the government of the Advisory Committee's tramework for source
protection will have far-reaching and profound implications for generations to come,
The important thing is to begin source protection planning now, The Advisory Committee
encourages the province to move forward on the recommendations contained in this report as soon
as possible.
II
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
~
, ..,' "~. GLOSSARY
. -.
The purpose of this glossary is to provide clarification of some of the terms used in the report.
These definitions are not intended as legal definitions, Some definitions have been taken from
existing programs or provincial legislation, and references have been provided in such cases,
A
"Accountability" in this report generally means that those who make decisions about drinking water
safety are accountable for the consequences of those decisions,
"Aquifer" is a saturated permeable geologic unit that can transmit significant quantities of water
under ordinary hydraulic gradients, Aquifers can be a few hectares to thousands of square
kilometres in size,
"Aquitard" is any geologic material or unit that has a limited ability to transmit water, While
these units may be fully saturated, they do not yield water in usable volumes from a well,
Aquitards form the confining layer above and below confined aquifers,
"Assimilative capacity" refers to the limit of a water body or geological material to transform or
incorporate substances, such as contaminants, through physical, biological or chemical means, to
the point that water quality does not degrade below a predetermined level.
~
"Best management practices" (BMPs) are management procedures or structural practices
designed to reduce the quantity of pollutants (e,g" contaminants, nutrients, sediments, animal
wastes) washed by rain, snowmelt, etc" from residential or farm lands into receiving waters, such
as lakes, streams, rivers, and into groundwater (Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy "Blue
Book"),
~
"Conservation Ontario" Conservation Ontario is a non-governmental organization that
represents Ontario's 36 conservation authorities, The purpose of Conservation Ontario is
to represent the common interests of Conservation Authorities at a provincial and federal
level. Conservation Ontario is governed by a Council comprised of elected and appointed
municipal officials from CA Boards of Directors and CA staff,
"Cumulative impacts" means the resulting measurable impact on either water quality or
quantity due to multiple contaminant sources or activities and the interaction between
them,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning.
Q
"Decommissioning abandoned wells" means plugging an abandoned well with concrete or
other suitable material so as to preclude the vertical movement of water or gas in the well,
between aquifers or between an aquifer and the ground surface according to the
requirements of Ontario Regulation 903 under the Ontario Water Resources Act.
"Direct threat" means any activity that has the ability to immediately impact a water
resource in terms of water quality or quantity,
.E
"Fate of contaminants model" means a predictive conceptual, numerical or physical
representation that accounts for how contaminants will migrate and change (e,g" degrade)
within a natural hydrologic or hydrogeologic environment.
G
"Great Lakes" include the five Great Lakes: Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario, It refers to
that portion of the Great Lakes that starts at the low water mark of each water body,
"Groundwater recharge" means the replenishment of subsurface water, (a) resulting from natural
processes, such as the infiltration of rainfall and snowmelt and the seepage of surface water from
lakes, streams and wetlands, and (b) resulting from human intervention, such as the use of
stormwater management systems, (Ontario Regulation 140/02 under the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation AcQ.
H
"Hydrogeological study" means a systematic investigation of the geological and groundwater
characteristics (including the physical and chemical characteristics) of an area.
"Hydrological cycle" means the circulation of water from the atmosphere to the earth and back
through precipitation, runoff, infiltration, groundwater fiow and evapotranspiration, including the
occurrence, circulation, distribution, and chemical and physical properties of water on the surface
of the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere, and water's interaction with the
environment, including its relation to living things (Ontario Regulation 140/02 under the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Act),
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
!
"Indirect threat" means any activity which has the ability to impact a water resource in terms of
water quality or quantity through intermediate processes or steps,
"Inland waters" means, for the purposes of this report, all lakes (excluding the Great Lakes) rivers
and groundwater, The definition also includes boundary waters (Quebec/Ottawa/St. Lawrence and
Manitoba/Nelson) and connecting channels to the Great Lakes,
.b
"Lag indicators" are measures of accomplishments or measures of what outcomes achieved,
"Lead indicators" are the performance indicators that drive toward outcomes, but are not outcomes
in their own right. They are indicators that predict what outcomes will be achieved,
N
"Non-point source" is a pollution source originating over broad areas, such as areas of fertilizer and
pesticide application and leaking sewer systems, rather than from discrete points,
p.
"Permit to take water" means a permit which is issued under the authority of the Ontario Water
Resources Act (section 34) for the taking or removal of water from an aquifer or surface water
feature,
"Point source" is a stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged; any
single identifiable source of pollution (e,g" a pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, factory smokestack).
"Pollutant loading" means the total quantity of a pollutant released to the environment from a single
source or from multiple sources.
B
"Relative risk" means a qualitative expression of the risk associated with any activity based on a
comparison of the likely risk associated with other activities,
"Risk" means the likelihood of the occurrence and the magnitude of the consequences of a adverse
event; a measure of the probability of harm and the severity of impact caused by a hazard,
"Risk analysis" includes quantitative and qualitative evaluation of all relevant attributes of
environmental hazards, risks, adverse effects, events and conditions that lead to or modify adverse
effects, and populations or environments that influence or experience adverse effects,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
"Risk Management" is the process of evaluating and selecting alternative regulatory and non-
regulatory responses to risk, The selection process necessarily requires the consideration of legal,
economic, and behavioural factors. (United States Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command)
~
"Sensitivity" in the context of source protection means the likelihood of an adverse effect resulting
from the manner in which a water resource will react when exposed to any given threat. Water
resources with a higher sensitivity are more likely to be adversely impacted than a water resource
with a low sensitivity when exposed to any given threat.
I
"Threat" is any activity or material (hazard or stressor) that has the potential to negatively
impact or otherwise interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the use of any water resource as
a source for drinking water.
Y..
"Vulnerability" of a water source is considered to be an expression of the ease with which a
threatening or hazardous material can gain access to that resource (through environmental
pathways).
"Vulnerable area" means an area where a surface water body or aquifer is vulnerable to
contaminants originating on the land's surface,
w
"Wetlands" are lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, including lands
where the water table is close to or at the surface, The presence of abundant water causes the
formation of hydric soils and favours the dominance of either hydrophytic or water-tolerant plants,
The five major types of wetlands are marshes, swamps, bogs, fens and shallow open waters,
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
w
"Water budget' reflects the relationship between input and output of water through a region, Water
budgets provide clear and quantifiable information on water resources essential to effective
decision-making around water use and allocation, Key functions of water balance/water budgets
include:
. determining the availability and extent of water resources over time;
. determining the minimum requirement for water resource and ecosystem sustainability;
. determining the minimum requirement for protecting and maintaining a healthy water supply;
. ensuring requirements for competitive industry are identified and maintained;
. rationalizing the needs and related implications of multiple uses and competing uses; and
. assessing the impacts of proposed land use changes, climate change, and extreme events
(e.g., drought, flood),
"Wellhead protection area' means the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or
well field that supplies a public water system and through which contaminants are reasonably likely
to move so as eventually to reach the water well or well field (Ontario Regulation 140/02 under the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act).
"Well field' means a clustering of two or more groundwater production wells that supply water to
communal distribution system(s). The wells must be on a single property or directly adjacent
properties, and can be installed within a single or multi-aquifer system,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
~ .
">> '~"': APPENDIX A
Recommendation 1
Drinking water sources should be protected by developing watershed-based source
protection plans, Source protection plans should be re uired for all watersheds in Ontario,
Recommendation 2
The Ministry of the Environment should ensure that draft source protection plans are
prepared through an inclusive process of local consultation, Where appropriate, this
process should be mana ed b conservation authorities,
Recommendation 3
Draft source protection plans should be reviewed by the Ministry of the Environment and
sub'ect to minist approval.
Recommendation 4
Provincial government decisions that affect the quality of drinking water sources must be
consistent with a roved source rotection lans,
Recommendation 5
Where the potential exists for a significant direct threat to drinking water sources,
municipal official plans and decisions must be consistent with the applicable source
protection plan, Otherwise, municipal official plans and decisions should have regard to
the source protection plan, The plans should designate areas where consistency is
re uired,
Recommendation 6
The provincial government should provide for limited rights of appeal to challenge source
protection plans, and provincial and municipal decisions that are inconsistent with the
plans,
Recommendation 7
The provincial government should ensure that sufficient funds are available to complete
the lannin and ado tion of source rotection lans,
Recommendation 8
Conservation authorities (or, in their absence, the Ministry of the Environment) should be
responsible for implementing local initiatives to educate landowners, industry, and the
ubllc about the re uirements and im ortance of drinkin water source rotection,
Recommendation 9
Septic s stems should be inspected as a condition for the transfer of a deed,
Recommendation 10
The Ministry of the Environment should not issue Certificates of Approval for the spreading
of waste materials unless the are com atible with the a plicable source rotection lan,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Recommendation 11
The Ministry of the Environment should take the lead role in regulating the potential
impacts of farm activities on drinking water sources. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs should provide technical support to the Ministry of the Environment and
should continue to advise farmers about the protection of drinkin water sources.
Recommendation 12
Where necessary, the Ministry of the Environment should establish minimum regulatory
requirements for a ricultural activities that enerate impacts on drinkin water sources.
Recommendation 13
All large or intensive farms, and all farms in areas designated as sensitive or high-risk by
the applicable source protection plan, should be required to develop binding individual
water protection plans consistent with the source protection Ian.
Recommendation 14
Once a farm has in place an individual water protection plan that is consistent with the
applicable source protection plan, municipalities should not have the authority to require
that farm to meet a higher standard of protection of drinking water sources than that which
is laid out in the farm=s water protection plan,
Recommendation 15
The Ministry of the Environment should work with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs, agricultural groups, conservation authorities, municipalities, and other
interested groups to create a provincial framework for developing individual farm water
rotection lans,
Recommendation 16
The provincial government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs in
collaboration with the Ministry of the Environment, should establish a system of cost-share
incentives for water rotection pro'ects on farms,
Recommendation 17
The regulation of other industries by the provincial government and by municipalities must
be consistent with provincially approved source protection plans,
Iii. fj ~. :<i:. ~"
Recommendation 38
Sampling plans should provide for sampling under the conditions most challenging to the
s stem, such as after heav rainfalls or s rin floods.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Recommendation 65
The provincial government should develop a comprehensive source to tap drinking water
policy covering all elements of the provision of drinking water, from source protection to
standards development, treatment, distribution, and emer enc response,
Recommendation 68
The provincial government should amend the Environmental Protection Act to implement
the recommendations re ardin source protection,
Recommendation 70
The provincial government should create a Watershed Management Branch within the
Ministry of the Environment to be responsible for oversight of watershed-based source
protection plans, and, if implemented, watershed management plans.
~,,~'":i'i>"fu'P,<.,,!,-W' "<:""~%;~'ii't' , "-",
.s.' '.' a ~.!1{<He
Recommendation 88
Ontario First Nations should be invited to join in the watershed planning process outlined
in Chapter 4 of this report,
.
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
~ ~
.c '. ;..') APPENDIX B
-Organization -- Member
~ -- -
Chair Bill Calvert
Universitv of Toronto Carl Amrhein
Ducks Unlimited Canada Jim Anderson
Ontario Federation of Aoriculture Ron Bonnett
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Ken Boshcoff/Pat Vanini
Aqqreqate Producers Association of Ontario Jackie Fraser
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Mike Garrett
Conservation Ontario Dick Hunter
Chiefs of Ontario Derrick Kamanaa
Grand River Conservation Authoritv Peter Krause
Ontario Water Works Association Tim Lotimer
Ontario Farm Animal Council John Maaskant
Canadian Environmental Law Association Theresa McClenaghan
Association of Municioalities of Ontario David Oliphant
Upper Thames River Conservation Authoritv Don Pearson
Urban Development Institute Neil Rodqers
Ontario Medical Association Albert Schumacher
Ontario Chamber of Commerce Atul Sharma
Organization Provincial Representatives
(ex officio)
Dou Barnes
Paul Evans
Brian Gibson
Brad Graham
Edward Sa'ecki
Peter Wallace
Jim Wheeler
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
~ -
:"",:" APPENDIX C
Boundaries
1'"\/ Nor1:b4>rn I SOOIhem Oriltano D1-.i!;lo"
/"V OiJ1afio Omlil1>e
W Northern Coril!;(tIVii!lion ~holi\iM
WTl!>rtjafY V\"'Je~
. Seconds!}' Waten;heds
.
~
N
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
.
. - - ,
'0 ,::-'APPENDIX D
.~ ,;- ",,' - '" .,~UMMARVOFRECOMMENDATlONS
OF I'HE ADVlSORV COMMITTEE
INTRODUCTION
RECOMMENDATION 1: The government require the watershed-based
source protection framework described in the Advisory Committee's
report and recommendations to be used in all watersheds in Ontario.
FRAMEWORK FUNDAMENTALS
Responsibility and Accountability
RECOMMENDATION 2: Consistent with Justice O'Connor, the
provincial government, specifically, the Ministry of the Environment, has
the ultimate accountability for ensuring source water protection,
notwithstanding the shared responsibility of all governments and
stakeholders to contribute to our collective goal of ensuring a
sustainable supply of safe clean drinking water.
Goal of Source Protection Plans
RECOMMENDATION 3: The goal of watershed-based source protection
planning in Ontario is to protect human health through the protection of
current and future sources of drinking water, including inland lakes,
rivers and groundwater, from potential contamination and depletion
through locally-developed watershed-based source protection plans,
Scope of the Framework Regarding the Great Lakes
RECOMMENDATION 4: While the source protection planning
framework focuses on inland waters, all communities and water users
whose source of water is the Great Lakes share in the responsibility for
the protection and enhancement of the waters of the Great Lakes, as
well as inland water sources, Furthermore, the Ministry of the
Environment should require any entity that discharges waste water, rural
run-off or storm water to the Great Lakes to manage or improve the
quality of its discharges to a standard that meets the objectives of
source water protection,
RECOMMENDATION 5: As the province negotiates with its Great Lakes
partners, it should recognize the benefits of source protection and work
to have its principles incorporated into future agreements.
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
Principles Guiding Source Protection Planning
RECOMMENDATION 6: Decision-making that could have potential
impacts on human health and affect water quality or quantity be guided
by the following principles:
. Sustainability: Water is essential for our health and ecosystem
viability and must be valued as finite, Source protection plans
should consider historical, existing, new and future land uses when
considering how to ensure clean sources of drinking water now and
in the future,
. Comprehensiveness: All watershed-based source protection
plans must take a precautionary approach that uses the best
available science and is subject to continuous improvement as our
knowledge increases, The plan must be defensible and have the
flexibility to accommodate Ontario's diverse watersheds,
. Shared Responsibility and Stewardship: While the Ministry of
the Environment has ultimate accountability for ensuring source
water protection, responsibility for specific outcomes is shared
among all water managers, users and land owners,
. Public Participation and Transparency: There must be open
discussion and communication of the source protection planning
process and its results, from development to implementation,
Stakeholders and the public will have opportunities for meaningful
input.
. Cost Effectiveness and Fairness: The costs and impacts on
individuals, land owners, businesses, industries and governments
must be clear, fair and economically sustainable, Source protection
planning must access all information that is practical and
reasonable and use technologies and risk management practices to
maximize the protection of public health,
. Continuous Improvement: Source protection planning is built on a
commitment to continuous improvement, including peer review, that
requires ongoing support of all stakeholders to ensure successful
implementation based on assessment, monitoring, evaluation and
reporting, followed by appropriate modifications to the plan,
Legislative Basis for Source Protection Planning
RECOMMEND A nON 7: A stand-alone piece of legislation for source
water protection be developed that incorporates provisions related to
source protection from other legislation so that the legislation will be as
clear and comprehensive as possible.
II
REPORT OF THE ADVtSORY COMMITTEE:
RECOMMENDATION 8: Where risk to human health is the concern,
source protection legislation should supersede other legislative
provisions and other considerations, consistent with the hierarchy set out
by Justice O'Connor (refer to Appendix A: Justice O'Connor
Recommendations 4 and 5). This also that requires provincial decisions
affecting water quality and quantity, such as permits to take water, the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and certificates of approval,
etc" to be consistent with source protection legislation in the same way.
RECOMMENDATION 9: Other legislation, such as the Environmental
Protection Act, Municipal Act, Planning Act, Nutrient Management Act,
Drainage Act, the Brownfields Statute Law Amendment Act and the
Mining Act, etc" be amended where necessary to be consistent with the
source protection legislation.
RECOMMENDATION 10: Source protection legislation and regulations
should include, among other requirements:
. a schedule for completion of initial plans that reflects a phased
approach that recognizes the capacity of participants and the
existing level of risk (watersheds at a higher risk should be required
to develop and implement plans more quickly; watersheds with
high quality water should be protected from potential contamination;
the province should consult with stakeholders when establishing
the schedule);
. all planning areas must initiate the planning process within two
years of the effective date of the legislation in accordance with the
legislated schedule and each plan, once started, should generally
be completed within three years (source protection plans must be in
place across Ontario by the end of the fifth year);
. the power for the Minister of the Environment to identify the
planning areas to which a specific source protection plan is to apply
and to designate the organization with lead responsibility for co-
ordinating plan development for the planning area;
. the roles and responsibilities of the key parties involved in source
protection planning (see also 3) THE PLANNING PROCESS),
. the minimum content of source protection plans (refer also to
Advisory Committee Recommendation 31);
. the process requirements for the source protection plan
development, including local consultation, as well as clear public
reporting requirements (these requirements would also include
those related to the approval process); and
. grounds for appeal related to the content or process used in
developing source water protection plans, the entity or body which
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
is responsible for hearing these appeals, associated timelines and
other procedures and requirements (refer also to Advisory
Committee Recommendations 39 and 40),
New Powers for Municipalities
RECOMMENDATION 11: The province work with municipalities and
other stakeholders to identify the appropriate types and scope of new
municipal powers that should be made available for the purposes of
source water protection, including dealing with funding issues, Then, the
province should take steps to ensure that the agreed-upon list of new
municipal powers is provided to municipalities so that they may use
them to better protect source water and implement watershed-based
source protection plans (refer also to Advisory Committee
Recommendations 33 and 34),
New Responsibilities for Conservation Authorities
RECOMMENDATION 12: Conservation authorities be the organization
given responsibility for co-ordinating the development of watershed-
based source protection plans wherever possible.
RECOMMENDATION 13: The resourcing of conservation authorities
recognize their new role in source protection planning and provide for
new sources of funding in specific instances related to source protection
planning (refer also to Advisory Committee Recommendations 33 and
34).
RECOMMENDATION 14: The province requires all municipalities and
local services boards to participate in source protection planning.
First Nations
RECOMMENDATION 15: Recognizing current agreements and
relationships with conservation authorities, provincial ministries and
other jurisdictions, First Nations (and their technical designates) and the
Ministry of the Environment establish a working relationship with respect
to source protection planning as soon as possible,
RECOMMENDATION 16: The province pursue a strategy with the
federal government and First Nations that would support the ability of
First Nations (and their technical designates) to be full participants in
source water protection planning and implementation, This would
include ensuring their involvement in the development of the plan,
including participation on the source protection planning committee and
in the consultation process, and in the implementation of watershed-
based source protection planning through agreements,
II
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
.
.('
Interim Risk Management
RECOMMENDATION 17: The province, municipalities and conservation
authorities use their available powers to manage potential threats to
human heath and protect sources of drinking water by taking action with
respect to high-risk activities and land uses until source protection plans
are approved and implemented,
RECOMMENDATION 18: Conservation Ontario and the province
provide a model source protection plan, based on existing source
protection plans, that will be used as a guide in the interim by those
without source protection plans, This model would establish a common
platform that would be informed by details particular to each area,
Financing Initial Source Plans
RECOMMENDATION 19: The province substantially funds development
of all initial watershed-based source protection plans,
RECOMMENDATION 20: Contributions from sources in addition to the
provincial government, consistent with Justice O'Connor's report, be
negotiated to support ongoing source protection planning (refer also to
Advisory Committee Recommendations 33 and 34).
THE PLANNING PROCESS
Planning Areas
RECOMMENDATION 21: For the purposes of developing source
protection plans, there should be approximately 16 planning areas in
southern Ontario and approximately 8 in Northern Ontario. This
recognizes that the grouping of watersheds into planning areas may
enable more effective and efficient sharing of resources,
Source Protection Planning Committee (SPPC)
RECOMMENDATION 22: Consistent with Justice O'Connor, the plan
development process is co-ordinated by a conservation authority, or the
Ministry of the Environment (or designate) in areas where there is no
conservation authority. Where a conservation authority is in an area
adjacent to large areas of Crown land, the conservation authority should
playa co-ordinating role alongside the Ministry of the Environment.
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
RECOMMENDATION 23: The SPPC will act as an advisory committee
to the board of directors of the conservation authority. It is the board(s)
of directors that submits the recommended draft plan to the Ministry of
the Environment for approval. A parallel process will be established for
areas that do not have a conservation authority,
RECOMMENDATION 24: The chair of the SPPC will be appointed by
the Minister based on a recommendation from the board(s) of directors
of the conservation authorities. The chair may be a full-time position in
some areas.
.
RECOMMENDATION 25: Membership on the SPPC be distributed as
follows: one-third municipal representatives; one-third provincial, First
Nations and federal representatives, and; one-third local public health
and other stakeholders. At a maximum, SPPCs will be made up of 18
individuals plus the chair. Note, that each stakeholder or group of
stakeholders would select its own representative(s) to the SPPC, In
addition, the SPPC may establish working groups as necessary,
providing another opportunity for direct involvement of others in the plan
development process.
RECOMMENDATION 26: SPPCs must define in their terms of reference
what constitutes sufficient municipal support for the draft source
protection plan to be recommended for approval to the Ministry of the
Environment. This must be agreed to by the board of directors of the
conservation authority (or authorities) and forwarded for approval by the
MOE as one of the first steps in the plan development process,
RECOMMENDATION 27: Each planning area will, as part of their
responsibilities, constitute an expert panel made up of individuals that
would, at key milestones, assess the appropriateness and validity of the
approach, science and operational I management practices, and its
advice will be used to inform the planning process,
Technical Expertise
RECOMMENDATION 28: Planning areas must have access to the
necessary technical expertise to support the development,
implementation and ongoing enhancement of source protection,
"
.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Planning Area Consultation Process
RECOMMENDA nON 29: The minimum requirements for a transparent
local consultation process in a planning area will include having:
. meetings of the Source Protection Planning Committee that are
advertised and open to public attendance;
. draft plans and proposals published widely;
. adequate time and information to ensure a range of views are fully
canvassed and considered;
. invitations for public comment in writing;
. documentation of responses to public input, as appropriate; and
. involvement of other affected local parties, including municipalities,
local services boards, elected officials, land users, water system
operators, First Nations, off-reserve Aboriginal communities, local
public health officials, and the public, in its important role of drinking
water consumer.
RECOMMENDA nON 30: All Source Protection Planning Committees
define in their terms of reference a plan for local consultation that meets
minimum requirements and this must be agreed to by the board(s) of
directors of the conservation authority early in the planning process,
I .
Content of the Initial Source Protection Plan
RECOMMENDATION 31: The components to be included in a source
protection plan integrating Justice O'Connor's list of "key ingredients" are
as follows:
. objectives and targets of the Source Protection Plan,
. technical information including:
c a water budget, including future water needs;
c a fate of contaminants model, including assessment of future
pollutant loadings and cumulative impacts;
c maps, based on provincially prescribed definitions and
methodology, that identify areas of high, medium and low
vulnerability areas and sensitive water resources (refer to 4) Risk
Management section);
c a baseline map to establish the state of the watershed at the
outset of the planning process and an overlay map of existing
and potential land uses;
c identification and delineation of natural features such as various
types of wetlands, woodlands and riparian zones that contribute
to the protection of drinking water sources;
o identification of areas where a significant direct threat exists to
the safety of the drinking water supply;
c maximum contaminant loads to meet water quality objectives;
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
c inventory of major point and non-point sources of contaminants
and high-risk land uses; and
c maps of all significant water takings and areas experiencing
stress due to water takings.
. identification of where source protection issues exist, such as:
c where a significant direct threat exists to the safety of the
drinking water source;
c potential water allocation problems;
c need for special operational limits to water taking;
c areas where the plan might need to influence or govern
municipal land use and zoning;
c areas where farm water protection plans are needed;
c areas where biosolids and septage spreading need special
consideration;
c contaminated site issues that need priority action;
c priority areas for identifying and properly decommissioning
unused or abandoned wells;
c priority areas for ending the misuse of abandoned pits and
quarries or for their rehabilitation; and
c identification of knowledge gaps and research needs for the
watershed,
. an implementation plan' to manage the identified source protection
issues, including roles and responsibilities, accountability, process,
schedule and outputs,
. a monitoring and reporting plan', including roles and
responsibilities, accountability, process, schedule and outputs,
. a description of how the plan will be reviewed and updated,
including roles and responsibilities, accountability, process,
schedule and outputs,
. a description of outstanding or unresolved issues and how they will
be dealt with' (these may be addressed through additional data
collection, more detailed study and approved analytical tools),
'These may be supplemented by more detailed technical or other support
guidelines to be developed by the province,
Approval Process for Source Protection Plan
RECOMMENDATION 32: The province define in legislation the criteria
and process through which it will review and approve source protection
plans based on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and
the results of the expert working group (refer also to Advisory Committee
Recommendation 31 regarding the content of source protection plans),
II
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
..
Toward Implementation
RECOMMENDATION 33: Consultation on implementation and ongoing
planning, including how to pay for them, be undertaken with different
stakeholder groups immediately following receipt of this source
protection planning framework. This consultation should start from the
list of potential roles and responsibilities presented by the Advisory
Committee in its report,
RECOMMENDATION 34: The model for the sharing of costs to align
funding mechanisms with the appropriate responsible body should be
negotiated with stakeholders while the initial source protection plans are
being developed, Furthermore, all those in a planning area, particularly
those who impact sources of drinking water and those who benefit from
it, should contribute, to some degree, to the costs of source protection,
RECOMMENDATION 35: Incentive programs and payments for
environmental benefits should be considered, especially in sensitive
areas and well capture zones, as one way to encourage implementation
of source protection measures and provide for long-term sustainability,
Review and Updating of Source Protection Plans
RECOMMENDATION 36: Groups involved in initial plan development
and any newly identified participants should be convened periodically to
review and revise the plan as necessary,
, ,
RECOMMENDA nON 37: Proposed roles for those responsible for
keeping plans up-to-date are as follows:
. Conservation Authorities will be responsible for:
o keeping the source protection plan up-to-date and for keeping
other partners and interest groups informed of any changes;
o revising the local consultation process and work plan, if required,
to fill in the information gaps in the source protection plan on an
ongoing basis; and
o issuing implementation status reports,
. Municipalities will be responsible for:
o participating in source protection planning as a member of the
conservation authority;
o identifying new issues related to source protection and bringing
them to the attention of the conservation authority; and
o issuing implementation status reports,
. First Nations will be responsible for:
o working with the conservation authority on source protection
planning;
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
D identifying new issues related to source protection and bringing
them to the attention of the conservation authority; and
D issuing implementation status reports,
. The Province will be responsible for:
D defining the updating process, including public consultation, by
working with affected groups (e,g" to establish the formal source
protection planning cycle)
D mandating when a new or updated plan is required;
D reviewing and updating standards; and
D issuing implementation status reports,
,
Reporting Roles
RECOMMENDA nON 38: Consistent with Justice O'Connor, the
government must report publicly on the status and progress of source
water protection, Public reporting must be required from the Ministry of
the Environment and each lead organization on watershed-based source
protection plans and planning activities.
Appeals
RECOMMENDATION 39: Consistent with Justice O'Connor, appeals
should provide for limited rights of appeal to challenge source protection
plans and decisions of provincial and municipal governments that are
inconsistent with those plans, These appeals may be heard by the
Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) or another appropriately
designated appeals body.
RECOMMENDATION 40: Amendments to existing appeal processes
(e,g" under the Planning Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act) be
developed, where necessary, to provide appropriate grounds of appeal
related to source protection planning, The details of appeal processes
related to source protection must be developed as part of
implementation planning.
Public Consultation and Education
RECOMMENDA nON 41: The province must undertake broader public
consultation on the recommendations made in the Advisory Committee's
report to ensure that all stakeholders and Ontarians have an opportunity
to contribute to the development of the source protection planning
framework prior to legislation being introduced
..
RECOMMENDATION 42: The province, conservation authorities,
municipalities and other stakeholders ensure that public education and
dissemination of information is undertaken to ensure that Ontarians fully
embrace the importance of protecting our drinking water sources,
.
.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
RISK MANAGEMENT
Risk Management Strategies
RECOMMENDATION 43: The province establish the definitions of
threats and their relative risks to water sources that will be inventoried in
all watersheds. To this end, the province should immediately establish a
working group of experts to agree on an Ontario-based threat
assessment process within six months of the receipt of the Advisory
Committee's report and present its findings to the province for approval.
This working group must also develop the initial definition of "vulnerable
area" and "sensitive water resource" to be used in all planning areas,
RECOMMENDATION 44: Any working definition of "vulnerable area" or
"sensitive water resource" used in the initial planning stages and
legislation be reviewed on an ongoing basis to make it appropriate for
source water protection and consistent with definitions in other pieces of
legislation and programs,
RECOMMENDATION 45: The approach to threat assessment, risk
management and sustainable supply for both ground and surface water
sources in Ontario be consistent with the considerations identified in the
Advisory Committee's report in the sub-sections: Threat Assessment
and Risk Management Strategies (section 4) Risk Management).
RECOMMENDATION 46: The risk analysis process must be premised
on the best available science, While it is recognized that more qualitative
classifications of threat, vulnerability and sensitivity will be necessary
initially, the risk analysis process must evolve toward more accurate
quantitative methodologies and technologies as our knowledge base
grows and improves over time with advances in research,
.. .
Additional Standards for Surface Water
RECOMMENDATION 47: All Ontario surface water bodies should
continue to be required to meet the Provincial Water Quality Objectives
(PWQO) since meeting them consistently would be an important step
towards meeting the goal of source protection planning, These
standards should be not used as a substitute for more detailed and site-
specific source protection strategies, nor should they be interpreted as
allowing high quality water to be degraded to meet a minimum standard,
RECOMMENDATION 48: The PWQOs should be peer reviewed so that
they meet the highest international standards, The PWQOs should be
reviewed specifically from the perspective of source water protection and
new PWQOs should be added as necessary,
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Monitoring and Information Management
RECOMMENDA nON 49: The province undertake an assessment of the
capacity of current and planned monitoring networks to support the
needs of source protection planning. Any additional investment in
information systems must clearly enhance current capacity, rather than
duplicate il.
Roles and Responsibilities Related to Information
RECOMMENDATION 50: The province is the lead data management
organization, recognizing that other stakeholders will play an important
role in the collection of information and maintenance of local monitoring
programs.
RECOMMENDATION 51: The following activities, related to information,
need to be carried out or co-ordinated at the provincial level:
. centralized compilation, collection and improvement of data sets.
(this includes the work being done by Land Information Ontario to
develop mapping and georeferencing standards that will ensure
source protection plans fit together);
. provision of provincial data to SPPCs to support the development of
initial source protection plans;
. development of data standards with the involvement of
stakeholders, including a mechanism to ensure that all participants
are working with the same or compatible data;
. a central repository and conduit for provincial data access and
sharing with planning participants, to complement the sharing of
data and information amongst planning areas, conservation
authorities and municipalities;
. provision of advice, training and expertise to planning participants;
. development of, and input into, the selection of specific modelling
tools; and
. aggregation of source protection plans and reporting at a provincial
level that ensures consistency of mapping.
RECOMMENDATION 52: Conservation authorities and municipalities
would be responsible for managing and collecting information relevant to
source protection that is not already being collected by the province or
another body, Their roles would include:
. co-ordination of the local compilation, collection and improvement
of data sets;
.
REPORT OF THE ADVtSORY COMMITTEE:
,...
".,
. sharing data and information with other planning areas,
conservation authorities and municipalities;
· integration of local data with provincial data sets;
. aggregation and reporting of data and information into a central
repository;
. analysis of the integrated information sets to create source
protection plan products;
. development of appropriate specific models for watershed planning
purposes; and
. provision of local information support through the development of
the source protection plan,
RECOMMENDATION 53: To the extent possible, data should be as
available to all those involved, including the dissemination of data and
information to the public (e,g" non-proprietary information),
Outcome Measures and Evaluation
RECOMMENDATION 54: The province working with stakeholders
identify the lead indicators by which progress toward the achievement of
desired outcomes can be assessed and measured at the provincial and
local levels, These indicators should be developed with six months of the
beginning of the planning process,
Research Related to Source Water Protection
RECOMMENDA nON 55: The government ensure that a sustainable
level of funding for ongoing research into the sciences that support
source protection and, in particular, those disciplines that increase our
understanding of the impact on human health, Furthermore, that the
government ensure that Justice O'Connor's recommendations on
drinking-water research and those of the Advisory Committee are
implemented in an integrated manner, ensuring timely dissemination of
relevant research findings to those involved at all levels, from academia
to those in charge of day-to-day activities,.
. .
Watershed-Based Source Protection Planning
~)
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. ADM2003.32 To: Committee of the Whole Prepared By: J. Zieleniewski
Subject: Proposed 7th Line Department: Administration
Council Road Agreement formula -
202 hectares of unlicensed
land
C.ofW.
Date: May 13,2003
Motion #
R.M. File No.
Date:
II BACKGROUND:
I'
On May 13th, 2003 Keith Mathieson, Nick MacDonatd, Meridian Planning Inc. and the Township CAO met with Mr. Squire to
negotiate the terms for a proposed 7th Line Road Agreement, with respect to expenditures incurred during devetopment of the 7th, Line.
A review of past budgets detennined that the Township spent $ 370,702.00 dotlars and the City ofBame spent $ 100,000.00 dotlars
from Hwy I I to the North portion of the road teading to the City of Barrie's lagoons for the devetopment and surface treatment of the
7th, Line.
It is estimated that there are 202 hectares of designated, but unlicensed land on the 7th Line, Six parcels are affected. Mr. Squire's
license witl apply to 42 hectares, or 20,7 percent of the total.
To further determine an acceptable percentage that Council and stakeholders could consider reasonable for cost sharing purposes,
other users where identified such as homeowners residing on the 7th Line, other traffic traveling through the municipality and other
commercial traffic such as the sewage trucks and municipal vehicles. A 60 % municipal responsibility and a 40 % for the unlicensed
land is recommended.
Therefore it is recommended that the 370,702.00 municipal expenditure be divided by40 % which equals
$148,280.00 dotlars to be distributed to the remaining 202 hectares of unlicensed land. Representing a total of$734,OO dotlars per
unlicensed hectare ofland,
370,702.00 ,40% ~ $148,280,00 ,202 hectares ~ $ 734.00 per hectare
In the case ofMr. Squires' land it woutd represent $ 30,800.00 towards the road maintenance for the 7'h Line.
734,00 x 42 hectares = $ 30,800.00
Mr. Squire has reviewed the fonnula and finds it acceptable, providing that the funds are directed towards the maintenance of the 7th
Line.
II RECOMMENDATION (8):
1-
Therefore it is recommended to Council;
I. THAT this report be received and adopted,
2. THAT Council receives and approves the cost sharing fonnula for the 202 hectares of unlicensed aggregate lands, situate on
the 7th Line of Oro-Medonte,
3. THAT Council authorizes the funds to be directed towards the maintenance of the 7th Line.
4. THAT the owners of the 202 hectares of unlicensed aggregate lands be provided when completed a copy of the road
agreement
5. THAT the owners of the existing ticensed gravel pits be advised of Councils' decision
6. AND THAT the Township solicitor be requested to draft the road agreement for Council consideration.
Respectfully submitted
--"'" ,---..~. \' \',
\ "-"" . ._, . i j" I:" .... ',\ '
~f~~""" r: ' h"-.,--}_U~ v"----~
-<Jennifer Ziele~
CAO
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
CAO.
Dept. Head
2
"
7/)
~
TO W N SH JP 0 FOR 0 -M ED 0 N T E
TO: M ayorand M an be:rsofCounc:il.
FROM: Jennifer Zieleniewski
C!:.
DATE:M av13.2003
R M . FJLE NO.
SUBJECT: Status of Spec:Blproj=cts
Administrative outstanding Projects:
. Edgar Occupational Center -- County reviewing documentation, no provincia] activity
Confidential
. Negotiating Final agreement with County (va]ue of waste disposal site) Confidential
. Economic Strategy
. Sugar Bush -- facilitating severance of common land, initiating final draft survey, one
more open forum for public review, proceed to committee of adjustment and install
culverts and widening of roadway - PW
. Plan 709 - funds collected for the cost of the land (in trust) notice, by-law, preparation of
deeds and removal of caution
. Plan 1291 -- agreement reached with homeowners, schedule meeting with representatives,
notice, by-law, preparation of deeds and removal of restriction
. Plan 935 Lot 6 -- same 1291
. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority expansion meeting scheduled for June 13,
2003 @ 11 :00 a.m.
. Licensing by-law accomplished trailer camps and refreshment vehicles -- remaining taxis
cabs
. Prepare fees and charge by-law - 2006
. Hiring policy to meet the requirements of the new act - 2006
. By-law review to comply with new Municipa] Act - 2006
. Consolidate speed and stop sign by-laws - site work completed, drafting ofby-]aw - PW
. Review public access to Lake Simcoe -- PW
. Retention and Retrieva] System Laserfiche software application
. Newsletter
. Investigation with respect to land donation (re recreational purpose) Confidential
· Negotiation land acquisition (historical requirement) Confidential
. Reorganization of the Planning Department
. Va]dor Plan of Subdivision Confidential
. 2003 municipal election
Building and planning:
· Official Plan review underway -- Ora Moraine Policy and Aggregate Policy public
meeting scheduled for June 3, 2003 @ 7:00p.m. Council Chambers -General Official
Plan Review public meeting scheduled for June 24, 2003 @ 7:00p.m. Council Chambers
· Craighusrt Secondary Study
. Hawkestone Secondary Study
. Review and compliance with New Regu]ations
Recreation:
. 4th Line Needs analysis ( Ian Arthur Beard Community Complex)
· Playground Pod's Lane and A]pine Way -- site preparation, installation of equipment -
PW
. Promenade Plan 626 -- conceptual design stage - PW
· Memorial Park -- washrooms -- report for authorization to proceed -- PW
. 2003sununerprognnns
Fire Department
· Fire Emergency Master Plan -- scheduled public meeting May 21, 2003 @ 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
. Imp]ementation with respect to reconunendations
. Review and compliance with New fire regulations
History Committee:
· Oro African Church Dedication -- scheduled for June 15,2003 @ 3 :00 p.m. - PW
Public Works:
· Lead West Nile Virus Strategy - wiU be reporting to Council
Engineering and Environmental Services:
. Continuation of Water system up-grades
. New Water Regulations (0. Reg. 170/03 -- effective June 1,2003)
. Volume - Plans of subdivision (tota] estimate of ]3)
NOTE: not included 2003 Budget Capital Projects
Outstanding Lega] matters - Confidential
It is recommended that Council receives the Updated Special Projects Memorandum for
infonnation.
Respectfully submitted
~~~
Uennif~r\ie)dewski,
CAO
o
r-
,,)
-I
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
DEPT. REPORT NO.: TO: COMMITTEE OF THE PREPARED BY:
PW2003-02 WHOLE Jerry Ball
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT:
COUNCIL:
Electronic Pedestrian Public Works
C.OFW.: Crossings
DATE:
MOTION #: May 7, 2003
DATE: R. M. FILE NO.:
-
~BACKGROUND:
During the 2003 Budget deliberations, Council requested staff to consider the installation of electronic
lights for the four crosswalks at the following locations:
. Highway #12 at Warminster;
. County Road #19 at Moonstone; and
. County Road #20 at Shanty Bay (two crosswalks),
The above-noted locations are presently manned with crosswalk attendants prior to classes
commencing in the morning, during the lunch hour, and at the end of the school day, Monday through
Friday. The four attendants work between 20 to 35 hours bi-weekly, with an average salary of
$4,950,00 per year, which includes benefits,
As all of these locations are either on a Provincial Highway or a County road, discussions were held
with both agencies to determine the type of agreements that would possibly be required, Through the
proposed Highway #12 construction and upgrades, the Ministry of Transportation has advised that
local residents have requested consideration being given to the installation of traffic lights at the
intersection of Highway #12 and Warminster Sideroad. The information collected from this study has
indicated that traffic lights are not warranted at this location, but the Province is considering an
electronic crosswalk at this intersection as a compromise. Mr. Bill Brown, Engineer for the County of
Simcoe, has indicated that the other three crosswalks would require a written agreement between the
County of Simcoe and the Township of Oro-Medonte that would place all associated costs and
liabilities with the Township,
1-.., ~ '\
U,,--< -d
Approximate capital costs were received from the County of Simcoe and local consultants for the '
installation of two different types of electronic crosswalks.
The first type of crosswalk is a PXO system, which is a crosswalk that has an overhead pedestrian
crosswalk light and a symbol light, giving a signal to walk once the push button has been activated.
This type of crosswalk is less expensive for the capital purchase, but is not very efficient for young
school children to safely cross a busy street. This was explained through the operation of this light
system by a child approaching the intersection, pushing the crosswalk button and then proceeding
out into what would be considered "STOPPED TRAFFIC", instead of waiting until all vehicles are
stopped and then walking across the street. The City of Barrie has experienced numerous mishaps
with this type of crosswalk and has started a program to replace all PXO crosswalks with "Pedestrian-
Activated Signals".
The second type of crosswalk is called a "Pedestrian-Activated Signal", which consists of four heads
(each head has a red, amber and a green light) and a push button, which is activated by the
pedestrian, This system then works like a set of traffic lights, which would turn from green to amber
and then red to stop traffic and let pedestrians safely cross the intersection,
Approximate capital costs, including engineering, legal drawings and tender specifications, for the two
types of signals are as follows:
· PXO System = $10,000,00 per site
· Pedestrian-Activated System = $35,000.00 per site
These systems would also require annual maintenance, which would consist of the following:
· Re-Iamping and inspection:::;, $23.00 per head x 4 = $92.00
. Pedestrian light and inspection:::;, $10,00 per light x 2 = $20.00
· Controller cleaning and inspection, and monitor test = $100,00
· Electrician:::;, one hour minimum = $51,00
. Ladder Truck:::;, one hour = $10.00
. Mileage (estimate) = $50.00
· Monthly hydro (estimate) = $25,00
Therefore, the total annual maintenance costs for one system would be $348.00,
In an emergency situation, there would also be an additional charge of $350.00 per call out.
I ANALYSIS:
,
Using the above-noted estimates to compare with the existing practices for the four crosswalks, the
breakdown would be as follows:
ELECTRONIC CROSSINGS
~(),
r;
- '"
--.!
TYPE OF PRICE #OF TOTAL MAINTENANCE GRAND TOTAL
UNIT PER UNIT UNITS PRICE COSTS PER ANNUM COSTS
PXO System $10,000.00 3 $30,000.00 $1,044,00 $31,044.00
Pedestrian-
Activated $35,000.00 3 $105,000.00 $1,044,00 $106,044.00
System
CROSSWALK ATTENDANTS
The total amount of salaries paid in 2002 to the four crossing guards was $16,458.75.
In discussing these installations with the County of Simcoe and local consultants, both indicated the
concern that an electronic crossing, regardless of the type, presents the same problem with children
activating the crossing system and not waiting for the lights to change and stop traffic, before crossing
the street, thus causing an accident. This concern is greater when a crossing is located in rural areas
with light pedestrian and traffic usage, where motorists do not pay attention to a crossing that is
activated. In some cases, crossing guards are used along with an electronic control to ensure the
safety of young pedestrians and reduce traffic mishaps,
In comparing the capital costs for installation and annual maintenance for an electronic system to the
salaries for crossing guards, the projected costs would equal the crossing guard salaries paid in
approximately seven years, The main factor to consider is the safety and liability of pedestrians using
these systems, which both the County of Simcoe and local consultants have advised that electronic
pedestrian crosswalks are not a safe alternative, due to low pedestrian usage and being in a rural
area,
Therefore, it is recommended that due to safety concerns, electronic pedestrian crossing systems not
be installed at the above-noted locations and the existing crossing guards remain status quo.
,
I RECOMMENDA TION(S):
1, THAT this report be received and adopted.
2, THAT electronic pedestrian crossing systems not be installed at the four locations listed above.
3. THAT the existing crossing guards at these four locations remains status quo.
~f
~! ~ f:
IT" ~ ~jJY ~ ~
y~' lf~ {\u
~~
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Ball
~ -
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
DEPT. REPORT NO.: TO: COMMITTEE OF THE PREPARED BY:
EES2003-31 WHOLE Keith Mathieson
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT:
COUNCIL:
2008628 Ontario Ltd. -- Engineering and
Pre-Servicing Agreement Environmental Services
C.OFW.:
DATE:
MOTION #: May 6, 2003
DATE: R. M. FILE NO.:
L04-12653
-
, BACKGROUND:
2008628 Ontario Ltd. is the development known as Diamond Valley Estates located between Line 6
and Line 7 North,
,
I ANALYSIS:
Diamond Valley Estates is requesting to enter into a Pre-Servicing Agreement with the Township to
install municipal services for Phase I A of the development. Phase I A consists of twenty-nine (29)
Lots (1-15, 98, 99,118-128) on Diamond Valley Drive.
Access to this development will require the extension of the 6th Line at the south limit of the
Sugarbush development and the construction of an emergency access road to Line 7 North,
The Developer has supplied the Township with the required Letter of Credit.
,
I RECOMMENDA TION(S):
1. THAT this report be received and adopted.
2. THAT the Township of Oro-Medonte enters into a Pre-Servicing Agreement with 2008628 Ontario
Ltd. for Phase I A.
3. T ,e Clerk prepares a By-law for Council's consideration.
~~ \f~~\~
:) ,0fr
, ,
PRE-SERVICING AGREEMENT
. between -
2008628 ONTARIO LTD.
PHASE1A
- and-
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO - MEDONTE
DESCRIPTION OF LANDS
Part of Lot 3, Concession 7, Being Parts 1, 2 and 3, 51R-31839
Being all of PIN #58533-0214 (Lt]
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
April, 2003
By-Law No,
~C;-d
PRE-SERVICING AGREEMENT
c
\~ -j
THIS AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF ORO.MEDONTE
(hereinafter called the "Township")
- and -
2008628 ONTARIO LTD,
(hereinafter called the "Developer")
WHEREAS the Developer is the registered owner of the lands described in Schedule
"A" attached (the "Subdivision Lands-):
AND WHEREAS the Developer desires to commence installing municipal services with
the Subdivision Lands, prior to the registration of the Plan of Subdivision and the
execution of the Subdivision Agreement with the Township;
NOW THEREFORE THE PARTtES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. ASSUMPTION OF RISK BY DEVELOPER
1.1 The Developer agrees to assume all risk in commencing installation of Township
services on the Subdivision Lands, prior to the execution of a Subdivision
Agreement with the Township, and the registration of the Plan of Subdivision,
The Developer hereby releases the Township, its agents, servants and
employees from and against all actions, suits, claims and demands whatsoever,
which may arise either directly or indirectly as a result of the installation of
Township services by the Deveioper.
1.2 The Oeveloper acknowledges and agrees that, in the event that a Subdivision
Agreement with the Township is not finalized for any reason and the Plan of
Subdivision is not registered as a result, pre-servicing of the Subdivision Lands
shall cease immediately.
1.3 The Developer acknowledges and agrees that engineering design plans and
specification for the Township services to be installed by the Developer, as
submitted to the Township, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, may
require further amendment as a result of requirements imposed by the Township
under the terms of the Subdivision Agreement to be entered into for the
Subdivision Lands. The Developer covenants and agrees to assume all risk and
responsibility for the cost of required revisions to the engineering design
drawings and specifications for the Township services, together with the costs of
modifying, reconstructing, removing andlor replacing the Township services
installed by the Developer, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, in order to
satisfy the requirements finally imposed by the Township at the time that the
Subdivision Agreement is entered into.
1.4 The Developer acknowledges and agrees this approval relates only to the
installation of the following Township services:
1. Road Works and Granular
2. Watermains
3. Sewers and Drainage
4. Base Course of Asphalt
2
1.5 The Developer acknowledges and agrees that no work shall be carried out on
any existing Township right-of-way, and that there shall be no connection to
services on any Township right-of-way.
1,6 The Developer acknowledges and agrees that no work shall be carried out on
lands not owned by the Developer, without the written consent of the owner to be
filed with and approved by the Township.
1,7 The Developer acknowledges and agrees that all Servicing Plans must comply
with Federal, Provincial and Township provisions.
2, REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK
2,1 The Developer agrees to submit the following to the Township, in a form
satisfactory to the Township, prior to the commencement of the installation of
Township services on the Subdivision Lands:
a) A letter from a qualified Engineer experienced in the field of Township
services confirming:
1. Retainer - That their firm has been retained by the Developers to act as
Consulting Engineers for 2008628 Ontario ltd.
2. Terms of Retainer - The terms of their retainer with the Developer as
follows:
a) Plans and Specifications - Prepare plans and specifications for the
construction of Township services;
b) Cost Estimates - Prepare cost estimates for the Township services
10 be constructed from the drawings;
c) Approvals. Obtain all necessary approvals to construct;
d) Co-ordination - Co-ordinate the installation of Township services to
avoid conflicts with regards to telephone, cable T.V. and Township
services;
e) On-Site Inspections - Ensure that all on-site inspections of
Township service installations are conducted by the Developer's
Consulting Engineers at all times during construction:
f) As-Constructed Drawings - Submit certified "as-constructed"
drawings after acceptance of the Township services:
a) Change in Retainer -If at any time during the project:
;) The terms of their retainer are changed by the Developer, or;
ii) If they become aware that they will not be able to provide
"as-constructed" drawings, they will notify the Township
within twenty-four (24) hours;
b) Erosion and Siltation Control- Ensure all necessary precautions
are taken to prevent erosion and sedimentation of sewers,
ditches, culverts, slopes, etc., both within the subdivision and
downstream, prior to and during construction.
b) Confirmation letters are to be filed with the Township Clerk, confirming the
following:
1) The Township Engineer has no objection to the pre-servicing;
2) The Planning Department has no objection to the pre-servicing;
3) The Township Solicitors have no legal objections to the pre-servicing.
3
c) Payment of cash or certified cheque required to cover the cost of the
Township's lawyer and Planner for all costs involved in processing the Pre-
Servicing Agreement, and for all the Township's Engineers for checking of
plans, specifications and inspection on behalf of the Township for the sum of
Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000,00). As accounts are received from the
Township Planner, lawyer, and Engineer, they will be paid by the Township
and then submitted to the Developer for reimbursement within thirty (30) days.
In the event that the deposit is drawn down to a level of Five Thousand
Dollars ($5,000.00) or less, and the Developer does not pay the accounts
within thirty (30) days, it is hereby understood and agreed that the Developer
is in default of this Agreement and all work must cease;
(1 .:)
d) A Letter of Credit, as per Schedule "C", in the amount set out in Schedule "B",
attached, as security to ensure the due completion of the Township services
to be constructed by the Developer, and as security to be held by the
Township for the warranty periods to be more particularly described in the
Subdivision Agreement for the Subdivision Lands, The said Letter of Credit
shall provide that if in the sole opinion of the Township, default under the
terms of this Agreement has taken place, the said Letter of Credit may
thereupon be drawn upon in whole or in part;
e) A certified copy of an insurance policy, or a certificate of insurance, confirming
comprehensive general liability in the amount of Five Million Dollars,
($5,000,000.00), naming the Township as co-insured, and containing the
following additional provisions or endorsements:
1) ProductslCompleted Operations provisions;
2) Cross-liability clause;
3) Blasting included, only if done by an independent contractor;
4) Notice of Cancellation - a provision that the insurance company agrees
to notify the Township within fifteen (15) days, in advance, of any
cancellation or expiry of the said insurance policy.
f) All servicing plans shall be submitted to and accepted by the Township
Engineer;
g) The Ministry of the Environment and Energy has given technical approval
to the servicing plans.
3. INSPECTION BY THE TOWNSHtP
3.1 The Developer agrees to permit unrestricted access to the Subdivision Lands to
the Township and its agents for the purpose of inspection of the Township
services to be installed by the Developer. Notwithstanding that inspections may
be conducted by the Township or its agents, the Developer shall bear sole
responsibility for the soundness of the engineering design of the Township
services, and for ensuring that the Township services to be installed will function,
as intended, and will be compatible with the final Plan of Subdivision when and if
such Plan of Subdivision is approved.
3.2 If, in the opinion of the Township, there is an emergency situation as a result of
any work undertaken by the Developer or its servants, or agents, which requires
immediate attention to avoid damage to private or public property or services
owned by the Township or to eliminate a potential hazard to persons, such work
may be done immediately by the Township at the expense of the Developer, but
notice shall be given to the Developer at the earliest possible time.
4
4.
APPLICATION OF SECURITY
'"
C \ r
4.1 In the event of default by the Developer under the terms of this Agreement, or if
the Township is required to enter onto the Subdivision Lands or the abutting
Township lands to conduct any work on the Township services or the connection
of the Township services to facilities due to an emergency, the Township shall be
entitled to draw upon the security posted by the Developer pursuant to the terms
of this Agreement, in whole or in part, to cover the costs incurred by the
Township in remedying the default on the part of the Developer, or in addressing
the emergency situation.
5. NO REDUCTION OF SECURITY
5,1 The Developer acknowledges and agrees that no reduction in the amount of
security Wed by the Developer with the Township, in accordance with the terms
of this Agreement, shall be permitted until such time as the Developer has
entered into the Subdivision Agreement for the Subdivision Lands with the
Township. Thereafter, any reductions in the security posted by the Developer
shall be completed in accordance with the terms of the said Subdivision
Agreement.
6, NO ASSUMPTION OF TOWNSHIP SERVICES
6.1 The Developer acknowledges and agrees that the Township shall not be required
to assume the Township services to be constructed by the Developer, pursuant
to the terms of this Agreement, until such time as the Developer has entered into
a Subdivision Agreement with the Township for the Subdivision Lands, and the
Township services have been completed, inspected, and approved.
7, NOTICE
7,1 Any notice required to be given pursuant to this Agreement may be given by
prepaid registered post to the Developer at the following address:
2008628 Ontario Ltd.
45 Casmir Court, Unit #1
CONCORD, Ontario
L4K 4H5
and such notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the third
day after mailing.
8. NO ASSIGNMENT
8.1 The Developer shall not assign or otherwise transfer the benefit of this
Agreement without the written consent of the Township, which may be
unreasonably withheld.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Developer has hereunto set its hands and seals this
d., ""day of II ftZ I L ,2003,
~ 'fi;;.
Per: A/j~; ~;;; J .,.0
2008628 ntario td.
Ernie Sottero
Has the Authority to Bind the Corporation
tN WITNESS WHEREOF the Township has hereunto sets its hands and seals this
day of , 2003.
THE CORPORATtON OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Per:
J. Neil Craig, Mayor
Per:
Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk
SCHEDULE "A"
~o - I
DESCRIPTION OF LANDS:
Part of Lot 3, Concession 7, being Parts 1,2 and 3, 51R-31839, being all of PIN
#58533-0214 (Lt).
SCHEDULE "8"
CASH DEPOSITS TO BE FILED WITH THE TOWNSHIP:
1. Ensure erosion and siltation control and any works
that may be required by Township forces as a result
of work performed within the subdivision.
TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TOWNSHIP
SECURITY TO BE DEPOSITED WITH THE TOWNSHtP
7
$ 20,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 20,00000
"-.,r)
-'"0
J "5cotiabank w
.J' Banque Scotia~
PJI.GE: 1
SL(' NSTDISLC
JNTAPIO INTL TRADE
SERVICES,
61 FRONT STREET WEST, ATH FLOOR,
TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA M5H lHl TEL. NO.: 416-866-6/17
qq-~
DATE OF ISSUE: ARRIL 28, 2003
IRREVOCJlBLE STANDBY LETTER Of CREDIT
NC': S18-:.72.119145?
AMOUNT: NOT EXCEEDING CAD 20,000.00
DATE OF EXPIRY: ARRIL 27, 2004
TO:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF
ORO-MEDONTE
P.O. BOX ]00, ORO, ONTARIO,
L OL 2 X 0
APPLICANT: ~
2008628 ONTI'.RIO L TO (011'>........0 '1<0,.,-,,; G:s,,~/
]85 I'.DESSO DR,
CONCORD, ONTARIO,
CA.NA.DA. L4K 3C4
DEAR SIR(S)
WE HEREBY AUTHORIZE YOU TO DRAW ON THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, ONTARIO
INTERNATIONAL TRADE SERVICES, 6] FRONT STREET WEST, 4TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ONTARIO,
CANADA M5H lHl FOR THE ACCOUNT OF 2008628 ONTARIO LTD., UR TO AN AGGREGATE
AMOUNT OF TWENTY THOUSAND CANADIAN DOLLARS (CAD20,000.00) WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON
DEMAND,
PURSUANT 10 THE REQUEST OF OUR SAID CUSTOMER, 2008628 ONTARIO L~D_, ~E, THE
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL TRADE SERVICES, 61 FRONT STREET WEST,
4TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA M5H lHl HEREBY ESTABLISH AND GIVE TO YOU AN
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT IN YOUR FAVOUR, IN THE ABOVE AMOUNT, WHICH MAY BE
DRAWN ON BY YOU AT ANY TIME AND FROM TIME TO TIME, UPON WRITTEN DEMAND FOR
PAYMENT MADE UPON US BY YOU WHICH DEMAND WE SHALL HONOUR WITHOUT ENQUIRING
WHETHER. YOU HAVE THE RIGH1 AS BETWEEN YOU~SELF A.ND ('UR. '0,11,10 CUST('MER 10 MAXE
SUCH DEMAND AND WITHOU1 RECOGNIZING ANY CLAIM OF OUR SAID CUSTOMER OR OBJECTION
BY THEM TO RAYMENT BY US.
. DEMAND SHALL BE BY WAY OF A LETTER. SIGNED BY AN AU1HORIZED SIGNING OFFICER OF
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDON1E. THE ORIGINAL LETTER OF CREDIT
MUST BE RRESENTED TO US AT : THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL
TRADE SERVICES, 61 FRONT STREET WES1, 4TH FLOOR, TORON10, ONTARIO, CANADA M5H
'IHl. THE LETTER OF CREDI1 WE UNDERSTAND, RELATES TO A SUBDIVISION AGPEEMENT
BETWEEN OWR SAID CUSTOMER AND THE COPPORA1ION OF THE 10WNSHIP OF OPO-MEDONTE,
WITH 850892 ON1ARIO LIMITED, AS A THIRD RARTY, REGARDING PRE-SERVICING AGREEMENT
RE - PART OF LOT 3, CONCESSION 7, BEING PARTS I, 2 AND 3, 51R-31839 - BEING ALL
OF PIN' 58533-0214 ILF).
/
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE/51GNATAtAE AUTORISE
~~OOO".i__,"
~.
1443 (7/99) THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA/LA BANQUE DE NOUVELLE*ECOSSE
ORIGINAL 3 . ADVISING BANKlBANQUE NOTIFICATRICE
CUSTOMER/CLIENT 4 - BRANCH/SUCCURSALE
(ISSUING BANK NOTE: RETAIN IF ISSUED BY BRIEF CABLE/FUll CABLE/SWIFT)
(NOTE A LA BANOUE EMETTRICE : A CONSERVER 51 AVIS BAEF/COMPLET EMIS PAR CABlElSWIFT)
'.. Trademark of The Bank of Nova St:oIi<I "" Marque de commerce de L!I Santi"" de NouvaIIe.~CO!>Se.
i""Scotiabank ~
$ Banque Scotia ~
PJl.GE.: 2
THE AMOUNT OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT MAY BE REDUCED FROM TIME TO TIME, AS
.DVISED BY NOTICE IN WPITING, GIVEN TO US BY AN AUTHORIZED SIGNING OFFICER OF
HE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE.
PARTIAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE PERMITTED. WE HEREBY AGREE THAT PARTIAL DRAWINGS
'NDER THIS LETTER OF CREDIT WILL BE DULY HONOURED UPON DEMAND.
THIS LETTER OF CREDIT WILL CONTINUE IN FORCE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, BUT
;HALL BE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION HEREINAFTEP SET FORTH. IT IS A CONDITION OF
'HIS LETTER OF CREDIT THAT IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED
IITHOUT AMENDMENT FROM YEAR TO YEAR, FROM THE RRESENT OR ANY FUTURE EXPIRATION
lATE HEREOF, UNLESS AT LEAST THIRTY 1301 DAYS PPIOR TO THE PRESENT, OR ANY
'UTURE EXRIRATION DATE, WE NOTIFY YOU IN WRITING BY REGISTEPED MAIL THAT WE
:lECT NOT TO CONSIDER THIS LETTER OF CPEDIT TO BE RENEWABLE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL
}ERIOD.
EXCEPT SO FAR AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY STATED THIS LETTEP OF CREDIT IS SUBJECT T0
THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOP DOCUMENTARY CREDITS (1993 REVISION),
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PUBLICATION NO. 500.
YOURS VERY TRULY,
).
Q-f0AA G-~I ecf<-L-
AUTHORIZED 51 E AUTQRISE
.---=
~")
J/l
i?/J
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE/SI
144 THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA/LA BANQUE DE NOUVELLE-ECOSSE:
ORIGINAL 3 - ADVISING BANK/BANQUE NOTIFICATRICE
...,,"".,.........r:O/I"'IICMT A _ QD^Nf'I-I/C;:;III"':("'IIR~lU ~
{!SSUING BANK NOTE: RETAIN IF ISSUED BY BRIEF CABLE/FULL CABLE/SWIm
(NOTE A LA 8ANQUE EMETTRIGE : A CONSERVER 51 AVIS BREF/COMPlET EMIS PAR CABLE/SWIFT)
Th< TraOamat1< o! The Bank a/Nova Sco1i!I. ""'MalQU\lde COfTI/TWroe de La Banq(ffideNowel~.
Ir"\
\\-J - i
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. BD2003-08 To: Council
Subject: Department:
Council
Building Report -- Building Department
C.ofW.
April -- May 2003 Date: May 2, 2003
Motion #
R.M. File No.
Date:
Buildinq Permit Update
March/ April Year To Date
Number of Permits 102 139
Number of Permits Previous Year 120 165
Construction Value $7,142,310,00 $9,756,545,00
Construction Value Previous Year $6,831,789.00 $9,406,989.00
Permit Fees $74,935,00 $96,172.00
Permit Fees Previous Year $57,273,00 $80,489.70
Part 8 Permit Fees $24,510.00 $30,660.00
Comments
<")
>- Building permits fees are up 20% over last year
>- 48 single family dwellings to-date compared to 32 last year
!
\
RECOMMENDATION (S):
II
1. THAT this report be received and adopted.
Respectfully submitted
;f~ /1P
Ronald M. Kolbe, CBCO, AscT, MAATO
Director of Building/Planning Development
C.A.O. Comments:
Date:
C.A.O.
Dept. Head
2
--' \()G, /:
, )
Permit Summary Township of Oro-Medonte
Totals
I J: ~""'l
COllstruction Type Outstanding Complete Deficient Canceled Permits Value Fees
ACCADD 2 0 0 0 2 $] 8,000,00 $0.00
ACCBLDG 6 7 0 J4 $207,675.00 $0.00
ACCREN 0 0 2 $],000.00 $0.00
ADDJTJON 0 0 0 $]50,000.00 $0.00
AGR 2 2 0 5 $40,000.00 $0.00
AGRADD 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
ChangeDse 6 0 0 0 6 $0.00 $0.00
COMREN 0 0 0 $20,000.00 $0.00
DECK 5 3 0 0 8 $4,225,00 $0.00
MJSC 0 0 2 $0.00 $0.00
POOL 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
PUB 0 0 0 $] ,500,000.00 $0.00
PDBADD 0 0 2 $] .255,000.00 $0.00
SEPTJC 3] 3 0 35 $0.00 $0,00
SFD 9 t5 0 25 $3,509,089.00 $0.00
SFDADD 4 2 0 0 6 $103,300,00 $0.00
SFDDEM 0 0 2 $0.00 $0.00
SFDREN 5 0 0 6 $23,500,00 $0.00
M e TY ] ^ ,
78 23 ]9 0 t20 $6,83],789.00 $0.00
Frido)', Mny OJ, 2003
For Period from friday, March 01, 2002 to Wednesday, May 01, 2002
Page 1 of1
..- \OG,-L\
Permit Summary Township of Oro-Medonte
Totals
COllstructioll Type Outstalldillg Complete Deficiellt Callceled Permits Value Fees
ACCADD 2 0 0 3 $ t 8,000.00 $0.00
ACCBLDG 8 ]0 0 ]9 $298,675,00 $0.00
ACCDEM 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
ACCREN 2 0 0 3 $]5,000.00 $0,00
ADDITJON 0 0 0 $150,000.00 $0.00
AGR 2 4 0 7 $40,000.00 $0,00
AGRADD 2 0 0 0 2 $40,000.00 $0.00
ChangeDse 9 2 0 0 11 $0.00 $0.00
COM 0 0 0 $350,000.00 $0.00
COMREN 2 0 0 0 2 $26,800.00 $0.00
DECK 6 4 0 0 10 $4,225,00 $0,00
M]SC 3 0 0 4 $3,500.00 $0.00
MRES 0 0 0 $850,000.00 $0.00
POOL 0 0 2 $0.00 $0.00
PUB 0 0 0 $1,500,000.00 $0.00
PUB ADD 0 0 2 $] ,255,000.00 $0.00
SEPTIC 40 3 0 44 $0,00 $0.00
SFD 10 2] 0 32 $4,693,989.00 $0.00
SFDADD 4 2 0 0 6 $103,300.00 $0,00
SFDDEM 2 0 4 $0,00 $0,00
SFDREN 7 2 0 0 9 $58,500.00 $0.00
103 34 27 ]65 $9,406,989.00 $0.00
Friday, May 02, 2003
For Period from Tuesday, January 01, 2002 to Wednesday, May 01, 2002
Page 1 afl
\00-5
Build;n!:! Definitions
ACCADD
ACCBLDG
ACCDEM
AGR
AGRADD
AGRREN
ChangeUse
COM
COMADD
COMDEM
COMREN
DECK
DEMOLITiON
FIREPLACE
GARAGE
INDADD
MISC
MRES
POOL
PORCHCOV Covered Porch
PUB Public Building
SEPTIC New Septic System
SFD Single Family Dwelling
SFDADD Single Family Dwelling Addition
SFDDEM Single Family Dwelling Demolition
SFDREN Single Family Dwelling Renovation
SHED
SIGNS
SUNROOM
Accessory Building Addition
Accessory Building
Accessory Building Demolition
Agricultural Building
Agricultural Building Addition
Agricultural Building Renovation
Septic - Change of Use
Commercial Building
Commercial Building Addition
Commercial Building Demolition
Commercial Building Renovation
Industrial Addition
Miscellaneous
Multi-Residential
.
8
SUMMARY, CONT'D
-NOW DRIVE ALONG TO THE FIRE HALL, THEN THE BEARD MEMORIAL
AND THEN THE NEW POLICE STATION WITH ITS PUBLIC MEETING ROOM.
-PULL INTO A NEW P ARKlNG LOT BESIDE THE FIRE HALL, GET OUT OF
YOUR CAR AND LOOK AT THE SITE.....GREEN GRASS FALLING A WAY TO
THE FLAT LAND OF THE NEW PLAYING FIELD, CHILDREN PLAYING, A FEW
PARENTS WATCHING FROM PICNIC TABLES.
JUST PICTURE IT...THIS IS A VISION IN WHICH WE CAN ALL SHARE AND IT IS A
VISION THAT IAN ARTHUR BEARD....THE MAN..... AND THE COMPLEX THAT IS
NAMED AFTER HIM..... DESERVES.
ONLY YOU CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN, AND WE ASK THAT YOU COMMIT TO DO SO AT
THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
JACK HAGGERTY,
PAST PRESIDENT,
HORSESHOE V ALLEY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.