Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 21, 2016 - CouncilTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MUNICIPAL OFFICE 9344 Plank Road, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m. – Committee of Adjustment - Murray 7:30 p.m. – Public Meeting – Planning/Zoning – 1162291 Ontario Ltd. (Vantyghem) – 1926662 Ontario Inc. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS 5. DELEGATIONS A. 7:05 p.m. – Jennifer Beauchamp, Museum Curator re Museum Activities 6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) A. Regular Meeting of Council held June 16, 2016 B. Special Meeting held July 7, 2016 7. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION 8. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8.1 Correspondence 8.1.1 Receive for Information 8.1.2 Requiring Action 8.2 Reports to Council 9. PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES 9.1 Correspondence 9.1.1 Receive for Information 9.1.2 Requiring Action 9.2 Reports to Council A. Report FR-03/16 by Randy White, Fire Chief/By-Law Officer re iPads 10. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION 10.1 Correspondence 2016 Council Agenda July 21, 2016 10.1.1 Receive for Information A. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Minor Variance (Murray) B. Notice of Removal of Holding Symbol (M. Szorenyi) C. Notice of Public Meeting re 1162291 Ontario Ltd. (Vantyghem) Zoning By-law amendment D. Notice of Public Meeting re 1926662 Ontario Inc. Zoning By-law amendment 10.1.2 Requiring Action 10.2 Reports to Council A. Report DS-30/16 by Bill Knifton, Chief Building Official, Drainage Superintendent re 2nd Quarter Report B. Report DS-29/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator re Consent Application E44/16 C. Report DS-31/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator re Subdivision Agreement and Rezoning to Remove Holding D. Report DS-32/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator re Rezoning Application – 1162291 Ontario Ltd. E. Report DS-33/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator re Rezoning Application – 1926662 Ontario Inc. 11. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION 11.1 Correspondence 11.1.1 Receive for Information A. Healthy Communities Partnership minutes of meeting held March 30, 2016 and June 21, 2016 B. Elgin County re Project Screening Report – Proposed Edison Drive Bridge Replacement, Vienna C. Petition to the Government of Canada re 150th Anniversary of Confederation D. Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration & International Trade, Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport re Ontario 150 Celebration Youth Partnership & Capital Grant Program Information Sessions E. Ministry of Infrastructure correspondence to Jeff Yurek, MPP re Bayham’s infrastructure needs and future funding program considerations F. Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Ministry of Housing re Proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 G. Township of Southwold correspondence to Medical Officer of Health re Rural Well Water Sample Drop off Locations 2016 Council Agenda July 21, 2016 H. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Re Changes to MPAC’s Notice Mailing Schedule I. Jeff Yurek, MPP, Elgin-Middlesex-London re Clean Water & Wastewater Fund J. Perth County resolution re Climate Change Action Plan K. City or Quinte West re Taxation – Impact on Campgrounds 11.1.2 Requiring Action A. Matthew Chapman re unopened road allowance between 7 Oak Street and 11 Oak Street B. Elgin County re Proposed Woodlands Clearing on Lot 13, Concession 4 C. Bayham Beachfest Notification of Special Event and Application for Outdoor Special Occasion Permit D. Peter Friesen request for street light E. Straffordville Giants request to use Straffordville Ball Park and Pavilion 11.2 Reports to Council A. Report TR-19/16 by Lorne James, Treasurer re 2016 Q2 Variance Report B. Report CAO-44/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Small Craft Harbours (SCH) – Harbour Lands Divestiture C. Report CAO-45/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Unopened Road Allowance – Harmony Acres Line D. Report CAO-46/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Sandytown Road E. Report CAO-47/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Ontario 150 Fund F. Report CAO-48/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Rates & Fees By-Law G. Report CAO-49/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re East Beach Design Consultation Results H. Report CAO-50/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Enabling Accessibility Fund I. Report CAO-51/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Museums Bayham – Edison Museum 12. BY-LAWS A. By-Law Z649-2016 Being a By-law to further amend Zoning By-law Z456-2003 (11622914 Ontario Ltd.) 2016 Council Agenda July 21, 2016 B. By-Law Z650-2016 Being a By-law to further amend Zoning By-law Z456-2003 (1926662 Ontario Inc.) C. By-Law Z651-2016 Being a By-law to further amend Zoning By-law Z456-2003 (Szorenyi) D. By-Law 2016-055 Being a By-law to adopt a Flag Protocol Policy E. By-Law 2016-056 Being a By-law to adopt a Proclamation – Declaration – Donation Policy F. By-Law 2016-057 Being a By-law to adopt Schedules ‘A’ – ‘H’ for the Management, Regulation & Control of Cemeteries G. By-Law 2016-058 Being a By-law to repeal The Corporation of The Municipality of Bayham By-law 2014-082 H. By-Law 2016-060 Being a By-law to assume and establish lands in the Municipality of Bayham as part of the open public highway system (Peters Court) I. By-Law 2016-064 Being a By-law to authorize the execution of a development agreement (Murray) J. By-Law 2016-065 Being a By-law to authorize the signing of a subdivision agreement (Szorenyi) K. By-Law 2016-066 Being a By-law to appoint BluMetric Environmental Inc. Risk Management Official and Risk Management Inspector 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. OTHER BUSINESS 14.1 Discussion A. East Beach Washrooms B. Straffordville Community Centre Basement Ceiling Finish Change Order 14.2 Committee of the Whole 14.2.1 In Camera A. Confidential item regarding proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board (Eden community Centre) B. Confidential item regarding proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board (31 Elizabeth Street) 2016 Council Agenda July 21, 2016 14.2.2 Out of Camera 15. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL A. By-Law 2016-067 Being a By-law to confirm all actions of Council 16. ADJOURNMENT Museums Bayham July 21 2016 Council Presentation •Good Evening Members of Council and guests. •My name is Jennifer Beauchamp and I have the privilege of being the curator for the summer at the Port Burwell Marine Museum and the Edison House in Vienna. •When I began in May, there were several key projects that had priority over the others. The first was to prepare an exhibit of Edison material in the Bayham’s Family Restaurant back room before the June 4th Edison Fest. The second was to update the entryway of the Marine Museum, which still advertised last season’s activities. The ongoing project was to bring a new look to the Marine Museum’s exhibits. Edison House •With the help of Bayham staff and the three summer students, the first two objectives were met. The back room, called “Edison and Bayham History on Display”, was transformed from an empty room to one filled with an assortment of gramophones, furniture, exhibit cases, and smaller artifacts. This became the exhibit space now enjoyed by visitors and restaurant patrons. Arrival of the artifacts Ready for set-up The exhibit is ready! •Visitor response has been very favourable. The visitor book, signed by only a percentage, shows over 100 signatures and contains many flattering comments about the exhibit. When I drop in to check how the exhibit is standing up to the attention, I have been able to speak to people in the room and they are all pleasantly surprised to learn about Edison’s connection to Vienna and to find a collection like this in a small town. •While this project was going on, the entryway panel of the Marine Museum was stripped, painted, and staged with a new theme, that of shipwrecks in the Long Point area. It has been well received. •Once the initial frenzy of activity was over -Edison Fest came and went, the focus was turned to the Marine Museum. With the entryway panel done, it was time to look more closely at the exhibits and determine how to inject a shot of adrenaline to these displays. •I met with the Museums Bayham Board to discuss what could be done and what ideas they might have. It was decided that change was the order of the day and so it began. •I had already begun to reorganize several areas to make them function better, but now I had a green light to make bigger changes. •To start with, the children’s area has been updated to include four hands-on activities with a marine theme. •The local history area is now in one location. •Shipbuilding artifacts have been clustered together. •On the wharf, the number of artifacts have been reduced so the wharf can be interpreted as a place where people arrived. •The area exhibiting shipwrecks continues to receive more of the shipwreck material that is scattered throughout the museum. This has been made possible because the shipbuilding material left. •The lighthouse keeper exhibit case now has some of the lighthouse artifacts beside it. •The Ojibwa information has been cleared away, opening that area for use as the current events board and special activity area. The radar artifacts are grouped together, clearing space around the Ashtabula. •And the Ashtabula. One of the most prominent exhibits in the building deserves to have a more complete story of its impact on the area. That is an ongoing project. •I am looking into several opportunities for the museums. One is to apply for an exhibit case at the Ontario Legislative Building when the next call for applicants comes out in Nov. These calls offer Ontario museums an opportunity to showcase their collection for three months in the public area of the building. •Another is to look at grant opportunities. One mentioned is through the Canadian Conservation Institute, offering conservation on an artifact. Another is an accessibility grant, which would allow the front entrance to be modified to become an enclosed handicap accessible entryway. •Finally, I would like to develop an educational program to offer to the local schools should we be able to entice them to the Marine Museum. •Thank you for your time this evening. Are there any questions about the museums and the work going on in them? NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM APPLICANT: 1162291 ONTARIO LTD. (VANTYGHEM) TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a Zoning By-law amendment. AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a public meeting on Thursday, July 21 , 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers in Straffordville to consider a proposed Zoning By-law amendment under Section 34 of the PLANNING ACT. THE PURPOSE of this By-law is to change the zoning for 0.64 hectare (1.5 acres) parcel of land, from Agricultural (A1-A) to Site-Specific Rural Residential (RR-##) with a reduced minimum lot frontage of 39 m instead of 50 m and change the zoning for retained farmland of 58.6 ha (145 acres) from Agricultural (A1-A) to Special Agricultural (A2) in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands are located in Part of Lot 8 and Part of Lot 9 Concession 8, on the south side of Eden Line east of Talbot Line and known municipally as 54819 Eden Line. THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to permit a surplus farm dwelling on a reduced lot frontage of 39 m (127 feet) and prohibiting the keeping of livestock and to prohibit new residential dwellings located on the retained farmland abutting the site. ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in support of or in opposition to the proposed amendment. IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham to the Ontario Municipal Board. IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so. IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment, you must make a written request to the undersigned. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained at the Municipal Office. Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 24th day of June 2016. Margaret Underhill Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator Municipality of Bayham P.O. Box 160, 9344 Plank Rd. Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0 T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222 F: 519-866-3884 E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca W: www.bayham.on.ca NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM APPLICANT: 1926662 ONTARIO INC. TAKE NOTICE that the Municipality of Bayham has received a complete application for a Zoning By-law amendment. AND TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham will hold a public meeting on Thursday July 21, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers in Straffordville to consider a proposed Zoning By-law amendment under Section 34 of the PLANNING ACT. THE PURPOSE of this By-law is to change the zoning on a 17.8 hectare (43.9 acre) parcel of land from a Rural Industrial (M2) Holding Zone to a combined Rural Industrial (M2) Holding and Temporary (T) Zone in Zoning By-law Z456-2003. The subject lands are located at 57475 Pressey Road, south side and west side Bayham Drive, Concession 11 Pt Lot 19. THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to permit the temporary outdoor storage of wind turbine blades not to exceed three years and retain the existing Rural Industrial (M2) Holding zone for future industrial development. ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make a written or verbal representation in support of or in opposition to the proposed amendment. IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham to the Ontario Municipal Board. IF A PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY does not make oral submissions at a public meeting, or make written submissions to the Municipality of Bayham before the by-law is passed, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so. IF YOU WISH to be notified of the adoption of the proposed amendment, you must make a written request to the undersigned. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed amendment may be obtained at the Municipal Office. Dated at the Municipality of Bayham this 29th day of June 2016. Margaret Underhill Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator Municipality of Bayham P.O. Box 160, 9344 Plank Rd. Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0 T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222 F: 519-866-3884 E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca W: www.bayham.on.ca Healthy Communities Partnership March 30th, 2016 from 9:00-11:00am Present: Dan McKillop, Dan McNeil, Linda Stevenson, Laura Crandall, Erica Arnett, Megan Pickersgill, Margret Underhill, Heather James, Rodd Tapp, Arthur Oslach, Mary Bodnar 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Additions to the Agenda 3. Review of the Minutes from January 26th, 2015  Changes to the minutes-Trudy from the Wayside is the Rotary Leader.  The Healthy Kids Community Challenge funding and work plan was approved in early February. 4. Business arising a. ESTPH representation-Laura  Laura’s last day before starting maternity leave will be May 20th. Jessica Lang will be filling her position and will be the new ESTPH representative on this committee.  Erica will continue to attend the next few meetings to ease the transition.  Jessica attended a Trillium Collective Impact workshop on March 30th  A meeting will be arranged with Dan McKillop, Dan McNeil, Jessica, and Laura prior to the next HCP meeting. b. Entegrus – Erica/Dan McNeil/Dan McKillop  Through communications with MMM, Erica received some information on possible options to investigate, one being Orland Conservation Authority. Their specialization is in different land ownership models and trust relationships. Erica has forwarded this option to Tomo.  Linda suggested County Council presentation may be beneficial  Dan McKillop would be willing to take the lead on this initiative as co-chair  Mary – municipality of West Elgin has purchased the land from Blacks Lane to Furnival Road  Dan will connect with all the council members from the applicable municipalities and ask the area conservation authority to see if they have a role to play in these conversations.  Dan will report back on progress at next meeting c. Community Leader’s Cabinet Update – Dan McNeil/Erica  At last week’s meeting a new website was launched: www.stthomaselginclc.com featuring the work of the CLC.  The Healthy Communities Partnership’s report was shared with the committee.  The report was circulated with this meeting’s agenda  Action: Linda asked what the funding priorities are from each of the groups represented around the table? What are the Ministry funding priorities that they are funded by? d. Quality of Life Scorecard-Erica  Possible indicators that should appear on the Quality of Life Scorecard o %Complete on the Cycling Master Plan o # of Physical Activity Infrastructure in our Community o Rates of physical activity o Rates of sedentary behaviour o Number of sport, recreation and leisure providers listed www.activeelgin.ca e. Healthy Kids Community Challenge update-Laura  Dan Patterson Ski Trail-Trail signs have been installed at the trail and a photo op was done on Feb 26th to announce the trail to the public however, the trail was not used this year. Everything is set up to have the trail open for the 2016/17 winter season.  Ice Rink Kits-The volunteer training was a great success. 16 volunteers were present from Sparta, Straffordville, Faith Baptist Church, Malahide, and Port Stanley Anglican Church. Due to weather only the Straffordille rink went up for 3 weeks with great success and community involvement. All volunteers are still eager to get started for the next season.  Physical Activity Challenge-The challenge ended on March 20th with 94 participants (online) I don’t have numbers yet from the library paper forms. The prizes will be announced March 29th. The majority of promotion was done using social media with a great response- 1434 additional visits were made to the active elgin website through this paid facebook promotion.  Cycling Safety Campaign-work is underway with Relsih Elgin. The Technical committee met on February 12 to guide the direction of the campaign. I have asked all technical committee members to let me know in which way their municipality can help promote the campaign. We will be working on launch the campaign in April and it will actively run until the end of June.  Active Elgin website-this is in the process of being transferred to a new website developer to ensure consistency with the new health unit website. The physical activity database has been completed and the GIS mapping of the trail map will be completed in the coming weeks. As part of the website. Relish Elgin has developed an Active Elgin Free and Low-Cost Print guide. This will highlight free and low-cost activities offered in Elgin-St. Thomas.  Phone surveys-due to cost the phone surveys were not completed. Funds allocated to the phone survey. The funds allocated to the phone surveys was redistributed to include initiatives within the schools that our school nurses are part of -Pause to Play, iWalk resources, physical literacy kits.  Budget – all Healthy Kids Community Challenge funds were spent by the March 31st deadline.  Financial breakdown attached.  Next theme of the Healthy Kids Community Challenge is Drink more Water-  Action: Linda recommended finalizing the Healthy Kids Community Challenge Report and sending it out to each of the municipalities.  Action: Laura to connect with Ross re Pinafore Park o Water Consumption ideas: 1. Education campaign around municipal water – Erica talked about working regionally to develop/promote the messages. Possibly something like the Blue W 2. Linda encouraged launch events at events like Day Out Thomas 3. Margret reminded us that not all communities have municipal water. So some of the message needs to be drink more water, have your well tested, drink your water 4. Campaign may need to be regional (i.e. some have municipal water, some are wells)  At the next meeting this group will discuss some criteria for using the funds for water bottle filling stations/drinking fountains f. Trillium Collective Impact planning-Laura  The application and notes from the June planning meeting were reviewed together.  Dan noted that we need to share with all the area municipalities need to hear about this new funding formula. Municipal staff and recreation master plan contacts need to be involved in the planning forum.  Focus of the next meeting needs to be a refresh on Collective Impact and that key staff (recreation, CAO as appropriate), what can we spend the money on, what are our specific plans. Action: Laura will look into having Tamarack come and facilitate a refresher on collective impact and how to effectively move forward with our plans. Action: Laura will send out the Build the Case Letter of Intent. 5. New Business a. Cycling master plan – request to add part of CASO line-Erica  Erica noted that she is on the ONTrack board. This is the Board that is working on the St Thomas Elevated Park. The Board is interested in adopting the Cycling Master Plan.  Support and adopt the recommendations within Cycling Master Plan as a Board. Then they can be named as an organization who has adopted the plan. Action: Erica will bring the above language to the ONTrack Board. b. HCP identity under Active Elgin-Laura  This a thought to brand the HCP under Active Elgin as we are using Active Elgin as the go to spot for not only sport and recreation information but active transportation, cycling safety etc. OR would the Partnership like to continue using each municipal logo as the identifier of the Partnership?  All the municipal logos should be on the active elgin website  Decision is to keep operating with all area municipalities/partners logos and post information for the public on the www.activeelgin.ca website. c. TOR review-Dan McNeil  The terms of reference were due to be reviewed in January.  Action: Laura to send out the terms of reference with the Minutes  Dan flagged that the funding has changed and he would like the Collective Impact and the focus on working together be included in the TOR. There should also be changes to the accountability.  Action: Please review the TOR and provide feedback to the Laura. Laura will collate the feedback and then there can be a discussion at the next meeting 6. Standing Items a. Citizens 4 Active Transportation Update – Laura  The committee completed a scan of where they would recommend having bike racks on Talbot Street. This information has been sent to Ric Radauskas at the City for consideration when planning the next phase of the streetscape project. This will also go to the Downtown Development Board.  The committee also completed a comprehensive scan of the side walk gaps within the City of St. Thomas. This information has been sent to the City via Erica in response to their sidewalk project. Action: Laura will circulate the Working in the Sun Workshop Information with the minutes. 7. Next Meeting-TBD Subject: Ontario150 Celebration, Youth Partnership & Capital Grant Programs - Local Information Sessions The Ontario150 program is a series of events and initiatives that will stretch to every corner of our province, showcasing Ontario’s innovative spirit, our culture and our community diversity. In addition to a number of signature events planned across the province, municipalities, community organizations and Indigenous groups will be able to access funding programs designed to bring people together, while laying the groundwork for a strong economic, social and cultural legacy for Ontario’s next 150 years. There are three application-based Ontario150 grant programs. They include: • The Community Celebration Program —a $7 million fund to help communities celebrate this historic year (application period opens July 6 and closes September 2, 2016). • The Partnership Program (Youth)— a $5 million program to support new partnerships and collaborations that engage, enable and empower youth as the next generation of Ontario leaders. Priority areas are: supporting young artists; promoting diversity and inclusion; environmental stewardship; supporting youth entrepreneurship; promoting active and healthy living; and, youth civic engagement. (application period opens July 6 and closes September 30, 2016). • The Community Capital Program — a $25 million fund to renovate, repair and retrofit existing community and cultural infrastructure to increase access, improve safety and maximize community use (application period opens July 18 and closes September 14, 2016) Please note the Ontario Trillium Foundation is the lead on the capital program so contact them for more information. To learn more about the programs and how to apply, visit ontario.ca/150. To register for a local information session to learn more about the Community Celebration and Youth Partnership Program, see dates and times below. Please note: • These sessions are intended for interested applicants from London, Middlesex County, St Thomas, Elgin County and the following 3 First Nations: Chippewas of the Thames, Munsee- Delaware and Oneida. If you are from outside of these areas, contact your local Regional Advisor for sessions in your area. Click here for a list of Regional Advisors. • Attendance at this information sessions are optional but are designed to help you to understand the program • If none of these dates/times work for you, feel free to contact me to discuss your project idea either by phone or to set-up an in-person meeting • If you would like me to come out to do an information session at a meeting or with a group, please let me know. • For the in-person sessions, the session for the Community Celebration will be immediately followed by the session for the Youth Partnership Program so you can attend both sessions in the same morning or afternoon. Please sign up for each session separately. • If you have any special requirements to accommodate your participation in these sessions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Ontario150 Community Celebration Grant Program Information Sessions (All in-person sessions will be held at the Provincial Government Building, 659 Exeter Road, London) • Tuesday, July 12, 9 to 10:30 a.m., In-Person. Click to register. • Thursday, July 14, 1 to 2:30 p.m., In-Person. Click to register. • Tuesday, July 19, 12 to 1:30 p.m., Teleconference. Click to register. • Monday, July 25, 1 to 2:30 p.m., In-Person. Click to register. • Wed., Aug 3, 1 to 2:30 p.m., Teleconference. Click to register. Ontario150 Partnership Grant Program (Youth) Information Sessions (All in-person sessions will be held at the Provincial Government Building, 659 Exeter Road, London) • Tuesday, July 12, 10:30 a.m. to noon, In-Person. Click to register • Thursday, July 14, 2:30 to 4:00 p.m., In-Person. Click to register. • Wed., Tuesday, July 20, 12 to 1:30 p.m., Teleconference. Click to register. • Monday, July 25, 2:30 to 4:00 p.m., In-Person. Click to register. • Thursday., Aug 4, 1 to 2:30 p.m., Teleconference. Click to register. As noted above, if none of these dates/times work for you, feel free to contact me to discuss your project idea either by phone or to set-up an in-person meeting I encourage you to share this information with other organizations in your community. Ontario150 is an opportunity to show the pride we share as Ontarians, to tell our story to the country and to the world, and help shape our province’s future. Jo-Ann Hutchison Regional Advisor, Regional Services Branch Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration & International Trade Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport 659 Exeter Road London, ON N6E 1L3 Ph: 519-873-4519 or 1-800-265-4730 Fax: 519-873-4061 Email: jo-ann.hutchison@ontario.ca www.citizenship.gov.on.ca. www.mtc.gov.on.ca www.grants.gov.on.ca 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, ON L1V 0C4 www.mpac.ca June 13, 2016 To: Municipal Heads of Council, Finance Officers and Clerks, Treasurers and Tax Collectors From: Carla Y. Nell Vice-President, Municipal and Stakeholder Relations Subject: Changes to MPAC’s Notice Mailing Schedule A potential strike by Canada Post employees may affect the delivery of Property Assessment Notices to residential property taxpayers in certain parts of Ontario. A strike deadline has been set for July 1, 2016. As a result, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) has decided to send in-year Notices earlier than planned to ensure delivery to Canada Post by July 1, 2016. This includes Advisory Notices of Adjustment, Post-Roll Amended Notices, Special Amended Notices and Tax Incentive Approval Results. Delivery of these Notices to property owners and related products to municipalities will now be delivered June 14-17, 2016. The June Property Assessment Change Notices data extract, which originally included Notices for six regions, Cornwall (01), Pembroke (04), Barrie (16), Niagara (18), Hamilton (19) and Haldimand, Brant, Norfolk (20), will now include two additional regions – Brockville (02) and Kingston (05) – to ensure affected municipalities are provided the products they need to conduct their business. A full list of revised dates is included below: 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, ON L1V 0C4 www.mpac.ca Changes to MPAC’s Notice Mailing Schedule June 13, 2016 Page 2 of 2 2016 Property Assessment Notices to Hamilton (19) and Brantford (20) are scheduled to be delivered to Canada Post by July 4; however, if there is a postal disruption delivery of these will be also be on hold. As you know, MPAC is also in negotiations with OPSEU, the union that represents approximately 1,300 of its 1,700 employees. The bargaining committees have met a number of times over the last few months and most recently, these meetings included a provincially appointed Conciliation Officer. While we have reached agreement on a number of items, some key items such as wages and benefits remain unresolved. A strike deadline has been set for June 17, 2016 at 12:01 a.m. Further meetings between the bargaining committees have been scheduled for June 15 and 16 and we are hopeful that we will achieve an agreement that is fair and equitable to our employees and reflective of the climate in the broader public sector. As good business practices would dictate, we are in the process of finalizing our contingency plan in the event that an agreement cannot be reached and a labour disruption is initiated. We will provide details of that contingency plan, in particular what services will be available and which will not, closer to the strike date. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 289-315-1287. Yours truly, Carla Y. Nell Vice-President, Municipal & Stakeholder Relations CITY OF QUINTE WEST Office of the Møyor Jim Hørrßon P.O. Box 490 Trenton, Ontario, KÙV 5R6 TEL: (613) 392-2841 FAX: (613) 392-5608 July 14, 2016 The Honourable Bardish Chagger MP Minister Department of Small Business and Tourism CD Howe Building 235 Queen Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H5 Dear Minister Chagger: RE: Taxation - lmpact on Camoorounds Please be advised that Council for the City of Quinte West, at its meeting on July 11, 2016 passed the following resolution; Whereas the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has decided that some campgrounds are too small to qualify for the small business tax deduction; And Whereas campgrounds in Ontario have begun receiving calls and letters from CRA warning them of reassessments in part because they are deemed not to qualify for the small business tax deduction since they employ fewer than five people; And Whereas the camping community provides a source of employment of 15,000 jobs across Ontario and supports economic activity by contributing $1 billion to Ontario's economy and generating $294 million in tax revenues; And Whereas Camping ln Ontario, which represents 440 privately-owned campgrounds in Ontario, is working with the Canadian Federation of lndependent Business to push the Department of Small Business and Tourism, Finance Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency to implement changes that ensure campgrounds are recognized as small businesses and pay the same taxes as other small businesses; 2 Now Therefore Be lt Resolved that the City of Quinte West recognizes the benefit and values all campgrounds throughout Ontario and in Canada and supports Camping ln Ontario's initiative that changes be implemented to ensure campgrounds are recognized as small businesses and pay the same taxes as other small businesses; And further that a copy of this resolution be fonryarded to the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, the local Member of Parliament and all Ontario municipalities for their support. Garried The City appreciates your consideration in this matter Yours tru ly, arnson, Mayor cc: -''' - Neil R. Ellis, MP Bay of Quinte All Ontario Municipalities 2016 2016 % Actuals Budget Consumed Revenues 05.10 General Taxation 1,802,727 3,878,151 46% 05.20 Other Revenues 540,409 1,138,400 47% 10.10 General Government 17,058 55,750 31%entry to be booked 10.20 Council - 20.10 Fire Services 33,268 13,000 256%- Donation 20.20 Police Services 2,097 70,000 3%- transfer from reserve 20.30 Conservation Authority - 20.40 Other Protective Services 78,636 52,000 151%-higher building permits 20.50 Bylaw Enforcement Services 17,272 28,000 62% 25.10 Roads 254,296 448,321 57%- timing of invoicing 25.20 Winter Control 871 12,000 7%-winter invoice in fall 25.40 Street Lights - 30.10 Water 256,468 590,746 43% 30.15 Richmond Water 26,645 53,779 50% 30.30 Waste Disposal 44,838 127,190 35%-timing of grants 30.20 Waste Water 363,009 871,119 42% 35.10 Health Services - 35.20 Cemeteries 1,757 - 40.10 General Assistance - 45.10 Parks & Recreation 1,100 2,600 42% 45.20 Straffordville Community Centre 17,888 - - Donations 45.30 Vienna Community Centre 7,560 9,000 84% Eden Community Centre - 45.40 Libraries 16,887 66,500 25%-2nd q rent in July 45.50 Museums 6,841 20,100 34%-timing of grants 50.10 Planning, Development & Tourism 28,201 27,000 104% 25.30 Business & Commerce Tourism & Marketing 1,362 5,500 25% 50.20 Environmental Services 11,969 0% Capital 94,526 2,501,300 4% Expenditures 05.10 General Taxation - - 05.20 Other Revenues - 10.10 General Government 631,880 1,157,912 55% 10.20 Council 38,630 76,254 51% 20.10 Fire Services 223,716 490,964 46% 20.20 Police Services 378,717 937,181 40%timing of billing 20.30 Conservation Authority 75,513 75,513 100%- 2016 Paid in Full 20.40 Other Protective Services 49,606 90,606 55% 20.50 Bylaw Enforcement Services 17,674 36,818 48% 25.10 Roads 679,180 1,672,413 41%-inventory adjustment to be booked 25.20 Winter Control 38,697 138,100 28% 25.40 Street Lights 17,295 45,000 38% 30.10 Water 175,076 590,746 30% 30.15 Richmond Water 19,101 53,779 36% 30.20 Waste Water 211,103 871,119 24% 30.30 Waste Disposal 198,348 479,224 41% 35.10 Health Services - 35.20 Cemeteries 5,465 18,000 30% 40.10 General Assistance 4,100 10,000 41% 45.10 Parks & Recreation 26,064 61,601 42% 45.20 Straffordville Community Centre 23,828 37,036 64% 45.30 Vienna Community Centre 32,856 58,286 56% 45.35 Eden Community Centre 4,365 4,690 93%-utilities paid by MoB 45.40 Libraries 10,885 66,500 16% 45.50 Museums 21,632 53,023 41% 50.10 Planning, Development & Tourism 44,934 91,585 49% 25.30 Business & Commerce - Tourism & Marketing 25,027 48,500 52% 50.20 Environmental Services 12,220 24,438 50% Capital 2,790,441 0%- refer to capital sheet -No Richmond Grant, yet to receive gas tax Municipality of Bayham Appendix A: 2016 Q2 Operating Revenue and Expense Variance Report Appendix 'A' 2016 2016 % Actuals Budget Consumed General Government - Liability Transfer 30,000$ 0%- yet to be booked - Election Reserve Transfer 10,000$ 0%- yet to be booked Fire - Standby Generator 14,241$ 20,000$ 71% - Extrication Hydraulics 33,129$ 50,000$ 66% Roads - Power Washer 13,447$ 15,000$ 90% - Maple Groove Line 45,718$ 100,000$ 46% - Stafford Road 46,741$ 155,000$ 30% - Libbey Street 20,000$ 0% - Turnarounds 10,640$ 80,000$ 13% - Schafer Road 19,260$ 25,507$ 76% - Sidewalks 56,959$ 50,000$ 114% - Storm Sewer EA 26,931$ 50,000$ 54% - Guard Rails 1,888$ 10,000$ 19% - B & C Inspection 10,000$ 0% - Road Signs 3,000$ 0% Water - Richmond Distribution 1,800,000$ 0%- on hold till grants Waster Water - Upper Discharge Piping 25,000$ 0% - Equipment Replacement 8,300$ 0% - Storage Building 31,941$ 32,000$ 100% - UV Upgrades 3,705$ 25,000$ 15% - Process Automation 8,014$ 25,000$ 32% - Manhole Rehabiliation 10,000$ 0% - Pump Equipment 8,558$ 41,667$ 21% Parks - Public Space Recycling 30,000$ 0% - Cornith Pavilion 21,071$ 20,000$ 105% - Transfer to Trail Reserve 10,000$ 0%- yet to be booked Library - PB Concrete Repairs 2,000$ 0% Museum - MM Envelope Repairs 4,050$ 5,000$ 81% Planning - Official Plan Review 16,000$ 0% Facility - Facility Transfer 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 100% Municipality of Bayham Appendix B: 2016 Q1 Capital Expense Variance Report Appendix 'B' REPORT CAO TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: July 21, 2016 REPORT: CAO-44/16 SUBJECT: SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS (SCH) – HARBOUR LANDS DIVESTITURE On June 16, 2016 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution: THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham direct staff to submit a request to the Port Burwell Provincial Park for a permanent easement over Part 1 and Part 2 of Plan 11R990, as required, to provide access to the West Pier Boardwalk; AND THAT staff be directed to post a historical overview report, and relevant studies, of the federal harbour divestiture process; AND THAT the staff report and relevant studies be posted on the Municipal Website under ‘Studies’ when prepared; AND THAT the historical overview report be within the July 21, 2016 Council Agenda for information purposes. On June 17, 2016 staff sent formal correspondence to the Port Burwell Provincial Park requesting consideration of an easement over the provincially owned lands providing access to the West Pier Boardwalk as an attempt to legally and formally provide access over the same. Further background pertaining to the historical access rights is included within this report. This report has been prepared in an attempt to provide a holistic assessment of available information pertaining to Small Craft Harbours (SCH) Divestiture discussions to date utilizing available information. The historical information also includes facts about assets surrounding and associated with the harbour lands. In 1995 the federal government made port and harbour divestiture an official policy. The Canada Marine Act received Royal Assent in 1998, and implemented the National Marine Policy, which introduced commercial principles for managing marine infrastructure to achieve greater efficiencies. The goal of divestiture was designed to improve the efficiency of Canadian marine transportation by rationalizing port systems and placing decision-making in the hands of users and local interests best placed to operate them. Since implementing the National Marine Policy, the federal government has attempted to strengthen the public port and harbour system by transferring management and operation of major ports to not-for-profit organizations. The Canada Marine Act allowed for divestiture of public port facilities to local interests, provincial or municipal governments, allowing communities to own and control local facilities and determine appropriate levels of service and maintenance. In the absence of any local interest in taking over public port facilities, the Canada Marine Act allowed the government to terminate its’ interests in these facilities. SMALL CRAFT HARBOUR DIVESTITURE PROGRAMME Fishing has historically been very important to the Canadian economy and culture. As such, the DFO-SCH programme operated and maintained >1000 harbours (comprising of 900 fishing and 135 recreational harbours) across Canada to provide commercial fishers and recreational users with safe and accessible facilities. Mandated in 1973, in accordance with the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, the DFO-SCH programme maintained harbours “critical to commercial fisheries at an acceptable standard”. Prior to the implementation of the National Marine Policy and Port Divestiture Programme (PDP), the federal government began transferring ownership of recreational and fishing harbours with minimal activity to community- based groups. The DFO-SCH programme retained only essential harbours to the commercial fishery and expanded private sector involvement in the management of core harbours. The DFO-SCH programme mandate is to maintain harbours open and in good repair, and is managed by five regions across Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador; Maritimes and Gulf; Quebec; Central and Arctic; and Pacific. Each year the Canadian government spends significant funds on harbour maintenance and upgrades, including sediment dredging to maintain navigable access. The current vision for DFO-SCH is to maintain only a network of essential harbours, and to transfer ownership of all non-essential harbours through divestiture: “Port divestiture improves the efficiency of Canadian marine transportation by rationalizing the port system and placing decision making and operations in the hands of users and local interests”1. CHRONOLOGICAL PORT BURWELL HARBOUR BACKGROUND The origin of Port Burwell is closely linked to harbour facilities and was established as a small fishing wharf in 1833. Lumber was harvested from the area and exported from the harbour to the United States during the 1900's. The 1900’s also saw major improvements to the wharf for coal shipping and the harbour was used largely as a commercial fishing and bulked goods (coal, potash and fuel oil) trans-shipment point 2. 1 Harbour Divestiture in Canada: Implications of Changing Governance – Journal of Marine Policy, Walker et al. August 2015 2 Staff Report D-03/99 - Municipality of Bayham, March 10, 1999 In 1906 the Ashtabula railroad car ferry was launched, providing daily service between Port Burwell and Ashtabula, Ohio. Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) tracks and related rail infrastructure were built to serve the ferry dock on the east side of the harbour, as seen on aerial imagery from 1956 shown on Appendix ‘A’3. The community of Port Burwell was part of Bayham Township as a Police Village until 1949 when the community was incorporated as a Village. This separation was the result of a referendum held in 1948 sparked by a desire for local autonomy and procurement of water and sewer services for the community. The Village flourished until the 1960's when the need for coal diminished as a result of the demand for natural gas, electricity and oil. By 1964 the coal shipping was transferred to Port Stanley4. In 1948 Graham Oil constructed two, 700,000 litre (600,000 imperial gallons) oil tanks off-site visible on aerial imagery from 1973 shown on Appendix ‘B’. The 1950’s see a fire within the area of an 8,000 ton (8,130 MT) coal pile 5. In 1958 the Ashtabula ferry sinks in Ashtabula Harbour, and the railcar ferry service is discontinued. Dredging of the harbour to 24 feet (7.3 metres) is discontinued sometime between 1962 and 1970. The turning basin begins to fill with sediment. In 1976 transfer of the Harbour Lands from Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWSGC)/Transport Canada (TC) to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Small Craft Harbours (SCH) is completed. Port Burwell was designated as a Commercial Harbour under the jurisdiction of TC until the transfer when SCH assumed authority and the designation was changed to a Recreational Harbour. The change in designation meant that TC no longer operated the harbour. The operation of the harbour was offered to the Village and the harbour was required to operate with monies generated from leases, user charges and levies. Dredging of the harbour by the Federal Government ceased to be carried out in 1973 6. On March 23, 1977 the Village of Port Burwell passed By-law No. 301 authorizing the construction of the East Beach Breakwall, built under the Shore Protection Works Program - 1800 & 600 Feet (1974 & 1978). As a result of local political pressure, in 1977, an agreement with the Federal Government was reached whereby the Federal Government purchased an $180,000 dredge in order to reduce the financial burden of harbour operations. In return for the equipment, the Village would be responsible for providing the expertise and labour for dredging activities. The dredge was burned beyond repair in 1983 and as a result dredging stopped until 1989. As part of the original provision of the dredging equipment, DFO indicated that a stipulation for the purchase of the equipment was that the Village would make no further requests for dredging funding to the Federal Government. Again, increased political pressure led to an annual cost sharing of dredging fees on a 50/50 basis to a maximum of $30,000 per year between DFO and the Village of Port Burwell. The dredging cost each year had exceeded $30,000. Donations from a few users, Federal grants and some licence fees and recreational marina operations assisted in covering the Village’s 3 Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan – Stantec Engineering. 2015 4 Staff Report D-03/99 - Municipality of Bayham, March 10, 1999. 5 Gartner Lee Limited, 1997 6 Staff Report D-03/99 - Municipality of Bayham, March 10, 1999 share of the costs, however, the majority of the Village’s funding came from the municipal tax base 7. The Village of Port Burwell first adopted an Official Plan in 1988 which contained strong acknowledgements of the need for an operational harbour and a long term solution to costly annual dredging activity by building an outer harbour facility. The Village of Port Burwell commissioned a Tourism and Recreation Study and Master Plan (Hanscombe Report) which was adopted in 1991. A background report was prepared in 1989 by Johnson Sustronk Weinstein & Associates (JSW) entitled ‘Port Burwell Outer Harbour Study’. The Port Burwell Outer Harbour Study recommended an Outer Harbour Facility at an estimated cost of $8,135,000 as the inner harbour was subject to continuous silting while the near shore is subject to an active littoral drift 8. A financial partnership between various levels of government was recommended. Prior to this development, the Village of Port Burwell had tried to sell dredged material to the United States Army Corps of Engineers to re-nourish the beaches along the south shore of Lake Erie, however due to environmental concerns, a sale could not be made. The JSW study included analysis for maritime development and provided a comprehensive review of recreational and commercial boating activity within the Lake Erie Basin and the economic benefits resulting from the construction and operation of a harbour facility. In 1991 at the peak of recession, Port Burwell attempted to attract a private developer for the Outer Harbour Development. This process consisted of requests for proposals of which only one was received. The developer was an architect who modified the project and proposed a complex $110,000,000 development consisting of hotels, condominiums, commercial buildings and a 300 berth marina…an agreement was immediately executed between the developer and the Village of Port Burwell. In 1992, the dream of a large Outer Harbour was tied to a bid to have Ontario's first gambling casino. The bid was apparently one of three seriously considered. However the licence was given to the City of Windsor. Financing of large projects had now become difficult and caused the project to be shelved permanently. Both the JSW and the Hanscombe Reports contemplated implementing their programs for improvements by obtaining Provincial and Federal grants. On May 22, 1991 the Village of Port Burwell executed Contract No. CO-023, with DFO, to build a Boardwalk on Federal Lands. This Boardwalk was authorized under Section 11 of an Operating Lease Agreement between the Village of Port Burwell and DFO (multiple, identical, yearly operating contracts existed. The final operating contract was authorized by Municipality of Bayham By-law No. 1999-077, which ended May 31, 2000 as a decision of DFO). Funding for construction of the Boardwalk was provided by DFO, Employment & Immigration Canada – Canadian Jobs Strategy and the Village of Port Burwell. The completion date of the Boardwalk project was July 26, 1991. Further, in relation to the West Bank Parking (Provincial Park Parking Lot), which provides access to the Boardwalk, there was discussions about a permanent granted use over the lands, however an agreement or easement was never finalized, confirmed or registered during closure of Chatham St. and during new Provincial Park 7 Staff Report D-03/99 - Municipality of Bayham, March 10, 1999 8 Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan – Stantec Engineering. 2015 entrance discussions. As such, access across the lands is at the leisure of the Province/Provincial Park. Additionally, the Village of Port Burwell also subleased land and items known as the Boat Launch, Black Docks and Finger Docks (Plan 11R-990 Parts 7,8,9 – Federal Lands), attached hereto as Appendix ‘C’, as a component of Agreement No. 0069. On April 23, 1993 The Village of Port Burwell acquired Parts 1, 2 and 3, Plan 11R-5136 and Parts 1 and 2, Plan 11R-5137 from SCH in the amount of $37,000. These acquisitions included the East Pier and lands indicated in Appendix ‘D’ attached hereto. In 1993 fog horns were removed from all ports in Lake Erie contrary to protests from municipalities. The Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for navigation aids and mariner information with respect to safe harbours and they had concerns with the Port Burwell Harbour. Canadian Coast Guard did not want boaters attracted to unsafe harbours because of the lack of depth and navigational markers. Various weather conditions can cause the Port Burwell Harbour to ‘fill in’ causing boats to run aground. There are several regulations regarding navigational aids and harbour conditions. These aids were historically continually being removed from the bodies of water or being 'downloaded’ to municipal governments to look after 9. From 1994-2000 the Municipality of Bayham was a partner in the Lower Big Otter Remedial Action Project which focused on tree planting, erosion mitigation and education in efforts to lessen the siltation issues within the Big Otter. ALUS has effectively taken over the initial concept of the Lower Big Otter Remedial Action Project. In 1994 and 1995, a ‘Tri-Party Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)’ had been prepared by the Canadian Coast Guard, but was never executed as the Village of Port Burwell did not satisfy the MOU requirements. The parties involved were DFO, Canadian Coast Guard, and the Village of Port Burwell. The MOU had been prepared in view of the limited safe access from Lake Erie to the harbour. The Coast Guard was willing to undertake the continued provision of its services only if the conditions allowed for safe navigation of small craft. DFO advised that they took back the lights and only obstruction lights existed which warn mariners of obstructions. In 1995, Pembina Resources Limited (Talisman Energy Inc.-Dundee Energy) purchased, from the Village, approximately four acres along the mouth of the Big Otter Creek at a price of $160,000 as a result of their concerns for access to the inner harbour and the central location of the community to its existing gas wells in Lake Erie. A visual of the land is attached hereto as Appendix ‘E’ (Part Lot 11, Concession 1, Part 3, RP 11R-5136). A draft Memorandum of Agreement between the Village and the gas company requiring the gas company to provide a minimum of $7,500 per year towards dredging activities existed but was never executed or formalized. It is assumed it was drafted in lieu of the property purchase. In an attempt to recover costs associated with harbour maintenance and operation, on June 24, 1996, the Council of the Village of Port Burwell gave first and second reading to a User Fee By- law which was subject to significant opposition from marina operators and commercial fishermen. As a result, the by-law did not receive a third reading and Council agreed to permit harbour users to instead make donations for maintenance. The total sum of funds received by 9 Staff Report D-03/99 - Municipality of Bayham, March 10, 1999 donations was $600 from the commercial fishermen. The defeat of the by-law and significant shortfall in donation revenue contributed to a Village of Port Burwell municipal year end deficit of $52,000 10. In 1996 an inspection of the harbour was conducted by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for SCH, which found the harbour to be considered in ‘fair condition'. Additionally in 1996 Aquafor Beech completes a study of the potential effects of plough dredging at Port Burwell (Aquafor Beech Limited, 1996), and determines that the methodology, as well as dredging and in-water disposal in general, is acceptable at the Port Burwell Harbour. Numerous techniques have been developed to dredge sediments from the bottom of a creek or a lake. The amount of resuspension associated with each method is variable and certain techniques tend to minimize the amount of resuspension while others are more disruptive. Prop washing is one of the most disruptive techniques currently used as the method is intended to hydraulically push the material away from the boat propeller (prop.) The method known as "Plow-dredging" is an experimental method of using a large plow attached to the stern of a tugboat. Due to the close proximity of the plough to the prop, a significant amount of material is re-suspended with this method. However, it was expected that less material would be re-suspended than solely using prop washing. In addition, the plough methodology provides better control of the accuracy of the depth of dredging. A combination of this method and prop washing was conducted on June 4-6, 1996 by Dan Minor & Sons. This experiment was met with initial objections from the Ministry of Environment and Energy who concurred only for this experiment. In a letter dated May 31, 1996, they cautioned that any future dredging using this technique will be evaluated at that time based on the monitoring results from this experiment. The Ministry of Natural Resources was cautious about the experimental technique and are not in agreement with prop washing in the inner harbour. They commented on behalf of the Lake Erie Management Unit and the Long Point Area Team (Aylmer District) on aspects of the monitoring study which dealt with the potential impacts on fish and the aquatic organisms and habitats on which they depend. For this method to proceed, the Village of Port Burwell was required to hire a consulting firm to monitor the process and its effectiveness. Aquafor Beech prepared a monitoring study at a cost of $22,000. The third and more traditional, but costly approach to dredging is referred to as ‘Dragline’ which is a method by which the silt is physically removed from the bed of the harbour. Testing of the sediment samples and approvals for disposal must be to the satisfaction of Long Point Region Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Environment. Maintenance dredging requires approval of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which relies on approval from the Ministry of Natural Resources since they manage the Federal Fisheries Act, Long Point Regional Conservation Authority, Canadian Coast Guard and the Ministry of Environment. The Long 10 Staff Report D-03/99 - Municipality of Bayham, March 10, 1999 Point Regional Conservation Authority is concerned with the flood plain management issues and The Ministry of Environment is concerned with respect to the disposal of the dredging material on land 11. Department of Fisheries and Oceans have concurred with information contained in a document prepared by the former Village of Port Burwell Clerk-Administrator that on average, depending on the type of vessel, commercial fishing boats require a depth of 6 feet. The single commercial harbour user, Talisman energy have several boats needed to access and service existing gas wells in Lake Erie. Their boats require a depth of 9 feet. The majority of recreational boats are power boats which require a depth of between 2 and 4 feet. Sail boats typically require a depth of 6 feet. Fixed keel sail boats have been discouraged by the Canadian Coast Guard from entering the harbour because of the fluctuations in depth of the inner harbour During 1997 Gartner Lee conducted a Phase I Property Transfer Assessment (Gartner Lee Limited, 1997) for DFO to support transfer of harbour lands to the Village of Port Burwell. The report concludes that there are no significant environmental issues with the Site, however Gartner Lee Limited recommend soil sampling to determine if the coal handling operations may have resulted in soil impacts. On December 29, 1997 the Village of Port Burwell passed By-law No. 1997-021, being a by-law to authorize an agreement in principle with DFO pertaining to the future ownership of the harbour lands. On March 5, 1998, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution voiding the potential agreement as an action out of line due to amalgamation: THAT the Fisheries and Oceans Canada Agreement in Principle endorsed by the former Corporation of the Village of Port Burwell dated December 29, 1997, be received In March, 1998, Council members and staff met with representatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Small Craft Harbours (SCH) to discuss the issues involving the proposed transfer of SCH holdings in Port Burwell to the Municipality. SCH provided the following information: Dwayne Blanchard of the DFO has confirmed that there is absolutely no federal funding available for dredging and that harbour fees are no longer specified because of de-regulation. Market rates must now be applied and they have no record of area rates. He noted that the Big Otter Marina can't be charged except for berthing rights in the harbour. Further, he noted that Port Burwell is a derelict fishing harbour and with the current water levels, the deeper the channel is dug, the faster it fills in with silt. He suggested following up with Ministry of Natural Resources about restrictions for disposing of removed silt and sand. He added that a 300-400 berth outer marina is the only long term solution, but would still require about $50,000 annually to dredge by the private sector. To dredge now with floating equipment would cost approximately $100,000 to $200,000 to maintain a 6- 10 foot depth. For a 20 foot depth, the cost would be about $300,000. 11 Aquafor Beech - Port Burwell Harbour Dredge Monitoring Study, dated July, 1996 Therefore, the federal government couldn't afford the dredging costs for commercial fishing vessels. Notwithstanding past practices and situations, this year has been unique with the speed of drop in depth. 1980 DFO CORRESPONDENCE TO MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE ‘A marina development should be able to ensure its viability without reliance upon continued maintenance dredging at public expense, especially at the exorbitant cost such as proposed in Port Burwell.’ Dwayne Blanchard stated that if the Municipality is no longer interested in leasing or acquiring the harbour, they would attempt to market it, however, they would be prepared to discuss the future ownership with other parties. They are anxious to receive a written response from the Municipality about intention of future ownership. On March 10, 1999 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham considered the following options: Option No. 1 - Municipal Ownership Supported by Municipal Levy This option would require the Municipality to accept ownership of the harbour and structures currently under the control of the Federal government and develop a long term plan for the operation and maintenance of the entire harbour to be funded by the municipal tax base. The Municipality would maintain control of the facility and set the service levels. However, the question of whether all ratepayers should be required to fund the costly dredging projects for a limited number of users must be considered. There is also the question of liability, long term maintenance of structures and administration which needs to be taken into consideration. Option No. 2 - Municipal Ownership Supported by User Charges and/or Donations This option does not warrant serious consideration given the recent discussions with the users of the harbour. There are a Iimited number who have indicated their level of business couldn't support this option and would force them to either relocate or close their business. When a scenario of seeking donations was undertaken in 1996, a total of only $600 was received. There is still the question of long term maintenance of the structures, liability and administration. Option No. 3 - Municipal Ownership - Abandonment of Harbour to Develop as a Natural Habitat This option would have the Municipality assume ownership of the harbour lands from the Federal government and cease dredging activities or attract boaters. The watercourse would be allowed to naturalize into a fish and wild life habitat. Option No. 4 - Municipal Ownership and Purchase of Dredging Equipment This option would have the Municipality assume ownership of the harbour lands from the Federal government and take on full responsibility for the costly dredging and long term maintenance of structures and liability. With the purchase of dredging equipment and hiring of expertise, the dredging could be continuous, but determination of how the acquisition would be funded, maintained and operated would need careful and detailed analysis before serious consideration. Option No. 5 - Municipal Ownership With Harbour Being Operated by a Committee This option would have the Municipality assume ownership of the harbour lands from the Federal government and appoint a committee or board to take on the responsibility of long term maintenance of structures and dredging activities. The Municipality would still have to address liability issues, a financing structure and would still be ultimately responsible for ensuring all issues are identified and addressed appropriately. Option No. 6 - Private Ownership This option would see the Department of Fisheries and Oceans transfer ownership to the private sector eliminating municipal involvement in all areas. While there would be the hope that there is a market for the private sector to assume ownership, they would also require the funds, resources and capabilities of returning the harbour to a viable port of entry for at least small commercial vessels and recreational boats. Option No. 7 - Establishment of a North Shore Lake Erie Harbour Authority On March 26, 1996, the Village of Port Burwell enacted a resolution to explore the option of establishing such an authority to address specific concerns with respect to maritime activities to various provincial and federal ministers toward cost effective and efficient solutions. The resolution requested that other Lake Erie North Shore communities consider the appointment of a political or administrative representative to an inter-municipal committee to address specific concerns. The resolution was circulated to the following and listed are their responses: a. Eastern Lake Erie Fishermen's Association i. Response was positive, they expressed an interest in learning more about the proposal. b. Township of Norfolk i. A resolution was passed in support. c. City of Port Co/borne i. A resolution was passed to endorse Port Burwell’s resolution. d. Village of Port Stanley i. A Councillor was appointed to attend and represent the Village at the initial meeting of an inter-municipal committee. Council ultimately passed the following resolution: THAT Staff be directed to research the approval process for dredging the harbour using the drag-line process; AND THAT Staff obtain three quotes from excavators for Council's consideration at the meeting scheduled for April 1, 1999, for work to be performed this spring; AND THAT Staff arrange a meeting with the businessmen having an interest in the Port Burwell Harbour. As previously stated the Federal Government leased the harbour to the Village and subsequently after amalgamation, the Municipality, which is restricted by Provincial legislation including the Municipal Act, Wharves and Harbours Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act, Territorial Division Act, Environmental Protection Act, etc. Federal legislation includes the Fisheries and Harbours Act, Great lakes Fisheries Convention Act, Harbour Commissions Act, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, Public Harbours and Port Facilities Act and the Public Works Act. As a note there is a common law right extending back to 1806 that no entity, whether private or public may fully obstruct waterways. This common law right has been abrogated in a number of ways recognizing modern society including damming creeks on farmland, diverting water for public hydro-electric utilities, etc. As a result, the federal government, as the Crown, has sought to codify navigable water rights through statute. The Municipality was also a silent party in a three party lease agreement for the Big Otter Marina. As per a Memorandum from LPRCA to Big Otter Marina, dated May 13, 1999, the Municipality of Bayham was released from the Big Otter Marina land lease agreement: IT IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED that the annual rental rate for the lease of the Port Burwell Conservation Area (Big Otter Marina & Campgrounds) property will be $3,750.00 for the period January 1, 1999 - December 31, 2003 inclusive, payable in two semi-annual installments of $1,875.00, due on July 15 and December 15, AND FURTHER that the Municipality of Bayham (formerly Village of Port Burwell) is hereby released from the lease agreements. In 2000 Dillon Consulting prepares the ‘Port Burwell Assessment and Management Strategy’ for the Municipality of Bayham (Dillon Consulting Limited, 2000), a planning document that recommends conditional transfer of SCH lands to the municipality assuming a partnership with SCH, and a commercial marina built outside of Big Otter Creek to avoid ongoing dredging expenses, in partnership with the Province of Ontario. In 2001 Environment Canada completes an assessment of Lake Erie tributaries, including sediment analyses from Port Burwell. Further in 2001 MacViro prepares an enhanced Phase I ESA. One surface soil sample finds metals concentrations below applicable Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) criteria. Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in excess of Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) interim sediment quality guidelines, as well as concentrations of metals, nutrients and pesticides in excess of MOE guidelines, are identified from six sediment samples collected. The study recommends further delineation of sediment impacts. A review of the Phase I ESA is completed by Murray Brooksbank at Environment Canada (Environment Canada, 2001) – Murray Brooksbank notes that sediment quality is relatively good at Port Burwell and comparable to background conditions within Lake Erie. On February 6, 2003 Council is presented with an offer from SCH to transfer ownership of all of their current holdings and facilities in the Port Burwell Harbour area, in return for a one-time capital contribution of $1,000,000. The offer is conditional on the Municipality maintaining the harbour at generally its current state for a minimum of five years. On February 21st, 2003 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution: THAT Council consider acceptance of the offer received from Mr. Dwayne Blanchard on behalf of Small Craft Harbours, conditional on the following: i. Establishment of an appropriate Reserve Fund for capital contribution, with requirements that interest revenue only be utilized for current maintenance/operations, and capital amount only for Harbourfront development supporting an outer harbour marina development; ii. Clarification, to the satisfaction of Council, of the level of maintenance required for the five-year requirement of DFO; iii. Confirmation of insurance ramifications; iv. Investigation of inclusion of hold harmless provisions in any transfer from Environmental Liability. On March 24, 2003 the Municipality received a legal review of a proposed transfer agreement which provided recommended language changes and the following comment pertaining to environmental liability: This writer would urge great caution in connection with the environmental aspects of this transaction. The Phase 1 investigation prepared by Public Works and Government Services Canada does indicate some areas of concern. It is recommended that this environmental site assessment be reviewed by an independent environmental testing company experienced in this type of work for their views. In addition, some form of indemnification from the transferor to the Municipality ought to be included in the Agreement relating to environmental contaminants that may be discovered on the subject property in the future. On March 28, 2003 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution: THAT Council advise Mr. Dwayne Blanchard of SCH that its position remains as previously outlined February 21, 2003, namely that Council will consider acceptance of the conditional offer received, conditional on the following: i. Establishment of an appropriate Reserve Fund for capital contribution, with requirements that interest revenue only be utilized for current maintenance/operations, and capital amount only for Harbourfront development supporting an outer harbour marina development ii. Clarification, to the satisfaction of Council, of the level of maintenance required for the five-year requirement of DFO. iii. Confirmation of insurance ramifications. iv. Investigation of inclusion of hold harmless provisions on any transfer from Environmental Liability. In 2008 SCH produced a letter report summarizing the impacts of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) on Port Burwell operations (SCH, 2008). SCH identifies two fish species that may be at risk, and outlines the habitat compensation requirements for future dredging work, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix ‘F’. In 2005 and again in 2010 the Municipality, in partnership with proponents conducted Ferry Feasibility Studies. The Municipality went so far as to sign a Memorandum of Cooperation with the Village of Grand River as authorized by By-law No. 2006-070. In both cases no tangible actions resulted from the studies. In 2010 a qualitative assessment of the sedimentation problem at Big Otter Creek is completed by Shoreplan Engineering (ShorePlan Engineering Ltd., 2010). The study concludes that regular dredging is likely the most cost-effective solution for maintaining the harbour. On December 8, 2010 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham was presented with a Port Burwell East Pier Report from CJDL Consulting Engineers estimated required East Pier repairs ranging in cost from $49,000-$256,000. On September 12, 2011, as a result of on-going discussions with SCH Council acted on the determination of the need for a peer review and analysis of environmental risks for the Port Burwell Harbour. In lieu of providing any firm transfer grant amounts, SCH determined it would fund a peer review up to approximately $20,000. Stantec Consulting Ltd. was awarded the project in the amount of $19,778 plus applicable taxes. The assessment concludes that data gaps must be filled with a new Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) as well as a Phase II ESA to support an eventual risk assessment for the Site. THAT Stantec Consulting Ltd be retained to conduct a peer review for the Port Burwell harbour area, as outlined in their proposal dated September 9, 2011, subject to confirmation of funding from Small Craft Harbours. On September 29, 2011, pertaining to East Pier repairs the Administrator advised Council as follows: The lowest reasonable construction cost of $318,420+HST is considerably over the budgeted amount of $252,000 and does not include engineer costs. He added that there is no advantage to delay the project to spring. Should the project proceed, it was recommended that the difference be financed over a 2 to 3 year term rather than use capital reserves for the shortfall. Delay in commencement of the work may limit the ability to complete this fall. On October 6, 2011 Council passed By-law No 2011-089 authorizing Agreement No. 0082 for East Pier repairs to be completed in the amount of $320,072.50+HST As a note, the actual costs of the 2011 East Pier works were not fully accounted for until 2016 when Council allocated funds in the amount of $81,673.44 for unfinanced East Pier repair work. In 2012 the Municipality of Bayham prepares the Official Plan (Municipality of Bayham, 2012). This includes a Specific Policy Area (No.2), Mapping of Hazard Lands and Zoning information is attached hereto as Appendix ‘G’. 3.3.2 Specific Policy Area No. 2 - Port Burwell Harbour In addition to the policies of Section 6.1, the lands within the "Hazard Lands" designation in Port Burwell which are generally situated south of Robinson Street, and east of the Big Otter Creek and extending into Lake Erie, are designated as "Specific Policy Area" on Schedule "D" to this plan and may be used to develop a marina and ancillary facilities. These lands will remain in a holding zone until such time as the conditions regarding development as outlined in Section 6.1 of this Plan can be accommodated to the satisfaction of the Municipality, in consultation with the Province and the Conservation Authority. In 2013 Terrapex conducted a Phase I/II ESA on behalf of DFO (Terrapex Environmental Ltd., 2013). The report defines three areas of potential environmental concern (APECs)) located both on and off-site. The Subject Lands are all associated with Terrapex's APEC 1. Three monitoring wells are installed and three sediment sampling locations are placed within the harbour lands, in addition to three additional background sediment sampling locations outside of the harbour lands. Analytical results for soil indicated the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) petroleum hydrocarbons fraction 2 (F2) in one sample and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in three samples that exceed the applicable Federal and/or Provincial guidelines. Groundwater in three locations exceeded the applicable guidelines for arsenic and iron. In sediment, PHC F3 and F4, PAHs and pesticides exceeded the applicable guidelines in up to five locations, including background sampling locations. An NCSCS score of 56.8 for the land lot portions of the Site (CS0001) categorizes the Site as ‘Class 2: Medium Priority for Action'. For the water lot portions (CS0002), the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) aquatic sites classification system (ASCS) is applied and a score of 79.4 is assigned, corresponding to 'Class 1: High Priority for Action'. The study recommends additional soil sampling, including vertical delineation, as well as a round of groundwater sampling from all monitoring wells, in support of a Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA) and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) for the land lot portions. For the water lot portions, supplemental surficial sediment sampling, toxicology assessment and benthic survey are recommended to support a risk assessment. In 2014 IBI Group prepares a waterfront master plan study for Port Burwell (IBI Group, 2014). The report focuses on the valued economic and tourism aspects of the area although may not be in line with the economic realities of the Municipality of Bayham or Port Burwell. In 2014-2015 SNC-Lavalin completes a soil and groundwater assessment of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) automation building (previously referred to as the PWGSC automation building by others) located on the west shore of Big Otter Creek (SNC Lavalin, 2015). PAHs, arsenic or selenium are observed in soil in excess of Federal and/or Provincial criteria in 4 of 7 sampling locations, while PAHs are observed in groundwater in excess of Federal and/or Provincial criteria in 3 of 3 monitoring wells. In 2015 SCH provided the Municipality with the following studies and corresponding summarized findings: i. Final Remedial Options Analysis & Remedial-Risk Management Action Plan - Sediments ii. Final Remedial Options Analysis & Remedial-Risk Management Action Plan - Soil & Groundwater iii. Site-Specific Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment of Sediment at Port Burwell iv. Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment & Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment of Soil & Groundwater at Port Burwell FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS & REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SEDIMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE MONITORING The risk management plan for the Site while under Federal ownership would consist of administrative monitoring of land use changes by internal DFO staff to ensure that the risk assessment exposure and receptor assumptions are maintained. The identified contaminants that exceed guideline values at the site are considered unlikely to trigger remediation or additional risk management measures in the future, given the Site's restricted land use potential. A change in land use triggered by a change in jurisdiction (i.e., federal to provincial transfer) has an uncertain outcome with respect to risk assessment results, and new or additional assessment, and remediation and/or risk management work may need to be completed under a new land use scenario. If the property is divested to the Municipality of Bayham, the land use is expected to remain the same, although the jurisdiction would change. As a result of the jurisdictional change, the risk assessment may need to be re-evaluated to screen in parameters that specifically exceed provincial criteria, which have not been considered in the SSRA. If risk was identified as a result of this re-evaluation, further investigation and/or development of remediation/risk management options may be warranted. The administrative and operational considerations involved in the transfer of an active port and associated facilities from SCH to the Municipality of Bayham are considered outside the scope of this Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan. PORT MAINTENANCE Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour is likely to continue providing dockage and marina services to recreational and commercial fishing vessels regardless of future ownership. Siltation of the harbour due to the accumulating sediment load from Big Otter Creek will require regular dredging in order to maintain small craft access. Past dredging works at the Site have used a direct in- water sediment disposal approach, as historically approved by the MOECC based on project-specific sediment analyses (Riggs Engineering Ltd., 2011). The results of the core sampling conducted as part of the SSRA indicate that concentrations of COPCs (i.e., PAHs and DDTs) vary with the depth of the sediment but at their maximum are not significantly different from the surface sediments. The results from the three cores do not indicate a consistent pattern with one showing a significant increase of COPC concentrations with depth; the other showing a decrease and the third showing no change. These apparent contradictions are likely the product of the heterogeneity associated with historical sediment deposition, making it difficult to predict the quality of the sediment at any particular location or depth; however, since the COPC concentrations at depth were not found to be greater than those assessed in surface sediments, if buried material was disturbed and brought to the surface during dredging activities, it is unlikely to represent a significant concern. Due to the limited number of cores collected and the observation that in one location the COPC concentrations increased with depth, dredging activities should be accompanied by monitoring of COPC concentrations in sediment in order to provide the information necessary to properly manage any material that contains significantly elevated concentrations (i.e., above the sediment quality standards). It is recommended that future dredging works for the purpose of maintaining port access should include the following elements to support the administrative monitoring approach and ensure that it remains protective of human health and the environment: i. Dredging design, sediment sampling/analysis plans and MOECC in- lake disposal approvals to be submitted to and reviewed by all site stakeholders. ii. Dredging works must maintain appropriate silt containment measures (e.g. silt curtains). iii. As-built dredging and disposal plans (including bathymetry of dredged channel and disposal area relative to IGLD 85) to be provided to all site stakeholders. FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS & REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL & GROUNDWATER RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN The risk management plan for the Site while under Federal ownership will consist of administrative monitoring of land use changes by internal DFO staff to ensure that the risk assessment exposure and receptor assumptions are maintained. The impacts above AGRC at the Site are considered unlikely to trigger remediation or additional risk management measures in the future given the Site's restricted land use potential within a flood zone. The administrative and operational considerations involved in the transfer of an active port and associated facilities from SCH to the Municipality of Bayham are considered outside the scope of this Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan. PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT & SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL & GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL RISK CHARACTERIZATION In surface soil, maximum concentrations of benzene, toluene, molybdenum and select PAHs (i.e., 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, total methylnaphthalene, naphthalene and phenanthrene) exceeded ecological guidelines protective of aquatic life. Additionally, in groundwater, maximum concentrations of arsenic, iron, manganese and select PAHs (i.e., anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, fluoranthene, phenanthracene and pyrene) exceeded guidelines protective of aquatic life. TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT None of the COPCs identified in surface soil were found at concentrations that exceeded guidelines protective of terrestrial life. This includes plants, soil invertebrates, birds and mammals. All of the exceedances noted during the COPC screening were of guidelines protective of aquatic receptors (i.e., protective of the soil to groundwater to surface water exposure pathway). More specifically, the maximum concentrations of benzene and toluene were less than the CCME soil contact guidelines for the protection of plants and invertebrates and were less than the MOECC component guidelines protective of terrestrial receptors (i.e., plants, soil organisms, mammals and birds). Similarly, maximum concentrations of molybdenum, naphthalene and phenanthrene were less than the MOECC soil guidelines protective of terrestrial receptors (i.e., plants, soil organisms, mammals and birds). For 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene and total methylnaphthalene, guidelines for the protection of terrestrial receptors were not available from the CCME or MOECC. However, the maximum concentration of all low molecular weight PAHs (3 aromatic rings) was 8.3 mg/kg which was less than the ecological guideline of 29 mg/kg from the USEPA (2007) , which is based on the lowest guideline for the protection of soil invertebrates and avian and mammalian wildlife. Therefore, it is not anticipated that benzene, toluene, molybdenum, 1 - methylnaphthalene, 2- methylnaphthalene, total methylnaphthalene, naphthalene or phenanthrene pose a significant risk to terrestrial receptors (i.e., birds, mammals, soil invertebrates, terrestrial plants) at the Site. This includes species of conservation concern. AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT Concentrations in soil of benzene, toluene, molybdenum and select PAHs (i.e., benzo(g,h,i)perylene, 1 -methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, total methylnaphthalene, naphthalene and phenanthrene) exceeded guidelines protective of aquatic life. However, given the long-term nature of Site activities, it is reasonable to assume that the soil and groundwater has reached a steady-state in which groundwater concentrations are representative of leaching from soil. As such, the assessment of potential risks to the aquatic environment at the Site focused on COPC concentrations in groundwater. Therefore, although concentrations of benzene, toluene and naphthalene in soil exceeded the CCME groundwater check values for protection of aquatic life, concentrations of these COPCs in groundwater were less than guidelines, indicating that these COPCs do not pose a risk to aquatic receptors. This also includes species of conservation concern at the Site. Similarly, although soil concentrations of molybdenum, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene and total methylnaphthalene exceeded MOECC guidelines protective of aquatic life, concentrations of these COPCs in groundwater were less than guidelines. Therefore, it is not anticipated that these COPCs pose a significant risk to aquatic receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. In groundwater, maximum concentrations of arsenic, iron, manganese, anthracene, benzo (a) anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, fluoranthene, phenanthracene and pyrene exceeded guidelines protective of aquatic receptors. However, for PAHs, all exceedances of CCME and MOECC groundwater guidelines were sampled in the vicinity of the vacant automation building, which is located greater than l00 m from the water’s edge. Given the distance from the aquatic environment and the small number of exceedances (i.e., 4 out of 13 samples), it is considered unlikely that PAHs in groundwater pose a significant risk to aquatic receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. For arsenic, the maximum concentration exceeded the CCME guideline, but all arsenic concentrations were below naturally occurring background concentrations in Ontario (i.e., 13 µg/L; Table l Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards). Therefore, arsenic is considered unlikely to pose a significant risk to aquatic receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. Although an essential element required by all living organisms, high iron concentrations in well- aerated aquatic environments can result in the formation of a precipitate that can smother benthic organisms (e.g., benthic plants, benthic invertebrates, fish eggs). All samples exceeded the guideline; however, observations made during field sampling of sediment and benthic invertebrates in support of the assessment of the aquatic environment (conducted by Stantec under separate cover), did not find any evidence of iron precipitate. Therefore, it is not anticipated that iron poses a significant risk to aquatic receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. For manganese, only one out of nine samples exceeded the freshwater chronic guideline for the protection of aquatic life from the BC MOE. Given that manganese is an essential nutrient required by all living organisms and is only slightly-to-moderately toxic to aquatic organisms (BC MOE, 2015), it is not anticipated that manganese poses a risk to aquatic receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. In summary, it is not anticipated that COPCs identified in soil or groundwater pose a significant risk to aquatic or terrestrial receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. SUMMARY The purpose of the human health preliminary quantitative risk assessment (PQRA) and screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) was to identify the presence or absence of impacts to soil and groundwater at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (the "Site") in Port Burwell, Ontario, to determine whether or not concentrations of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) pose unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors. The PQRA /SLERA was completed using soil and groundwater data collected by Terrapex in 201 2, SNC in 2014, and Stantec in 2015. For the human health preliminary quantitative risk assessment (PQRA), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes exceeded risk based guidelines for commercial land use, for direct contact with soil and were carried forward into the PQRA. Groundwater is non-potable and not used as a source of drinking water, therefore it was not carried forward for further risk assessment. The results of the PQRA suggest that there are no risks to any of the four human receptors (Toddler Site Visitor , Adult Site Visitor, Landscape Worker and Construction Worker) due to direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate); exposure to all identified non-carcinogenic COPCs from soil resulted in HQs less than 0.2. Additionally, for the Adult Site Visitor and Landscape Worker receptors, average daily ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation exposure to benzene in Site soils resulted in a cancer risk that was less than 1 in 10 million. These results indicate that, as per Health Canada and MOECC guidance, the cancer risk associated with exposure to benzene at the Site can be considered to be "essentially negligible". For the SLER A, benzene, toluene, molybdenum, 1 - methylnaphthalene, 2- methylnaphthalene , total methylnaphthalene , naphthalene and phenanthrene in soil, and arsenic, iron, manganese, anthracene , benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene , benzo(ghi)perylene , chrysene , fluoranthene , phenanthrene, and pyrene in groundwater, were carried through for risk assessment. However, the results suggest that there are no significant risks to aquatic or terrestrial receptors at the Site, including species of conservation concern. The results of the site-specific risk assessment (SSR A) of the aquatic environment (Stantec, 2015) determined that there were no human health risks to the selected human receptors due to applicable exposure pathways (i.e., inadvertent ingestion and dermal contact with Site surface water, and consumption of fish caught at the Site) for all non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic COPCs. Similarly, the results of the ecological risk assessment suggested that, based on a weight- of-evidence approach, which used surface water chemistry, sediment chemistry, fish tissue residues and benthic community analysis, the COPCs identified within the surface water and sediment did not appear to pose an unacceptable risk to the viability of the aquatic community within Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie. Overall, these results suggest that there are no risks to any of the four human receptors due to direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate), and no risks to ecological receptors due to COPCs identified in soil and groundwater at the Site. However, should potable drinking water wells be proposed in the future, the groundwater should be resampled and reassessed for potential human health risk, prior to consumption by any individuals. Should the land use of the Site change, or should any camping facilities or buildings be constructed on the Site, further environmental assessment may be required to confirm the absence of risks (i.e., to confirm acceptable soil and/or groundwater quality). SITE-SPECIFIC HUMAN HEALTH & ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SEDIMENT AT PORT BURWELL RISK CHARACTERIZATION UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION The risk characterization step in the risk assessment integrates the information from the Problem Formulation, the Exposure Assessment and the Toxicity assessment. As a result, it is subject to all of the uncertainties already discussed. However, the use of multiple lines of evidence to investigate a causal relationship between the sediment quality and indices of environmental quality rely on a number of assumptions which also contribute to the uncertainty. These assumptions include the following: i. The TRVs act as an accurate benchmark for the effects noted with the benthic indices. ii. The reference stations provide a suitable benchmark for evaluating the benthic characteristics quantified within the Site area. iii. The physical and chemical characteristics of the sediment were complete in representing the contributing factors to the state of the benthic community. iv. The COPCs do not interact, other than within their own chemical classes (i.e., the toxic potential of manganese does not contribute to that of the PAHs or DDT (and metabolites)). Additional samples would reduce the uncertainty with most of these assumptions, but the study area is relatively large and diverse with each sediment sampling station having its own dynamic. Effort was made to accommodate this during the field program and subsequent analysis but a number of factors including sediment type and time of the year influenced how representative the data was. In many respects, the sampling program provided only a "snapshot". However, the potential toxicity of sediments predicted to be of concern were identified based on the presence of chemical parameters that exceeded either the ISQGs or the PELs. As previously discussed, the uncertainty and inherent conservatism in both of these environmental quality values results in the possibility that toxicity will not be observed even when chemical concentrations are found above their respective benchmarks. The fact that there was no clear relationship between the predicted toxicity and any observed adverse effects to the benthic community structure in samples collected within the Port Burwell study area, suggests that the chemical quality of the sediment is of minor importance and the results reflect other causal factors (e.g., physical/nutrient conditions of the sediment). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of the ERA indicate that there are no unacceptable risks to semi- aquatic receptors from surface sediment and surface water at the Site. These results are also considered protective of terrestrial receptor exposure through the ingestion of surface water. Given that the results of the assessment of the terrestrial environment (provided by Stantec under separate cover) determined that there were no risks to terrestrial receptors from soil or groundwater at the Site, it is not anticipated that the Site poses unacceptable risks to terrestrial or semi-aquatic birds or mammals from soil, groundwater, sediment or surface water. The viability of the aquatic health community was assessed using a weight-of- evidence approach. Taking into consideration the results of the surface water chemistry, sediment chemistry and benthic community analysis, two of the three lines of evidence indicate that there are no significant effects on the aquatic life community. Based on a comparison of the sediment physical characteristics with the COPC toxic potential and benthic community indices, the strongest influence on potential adverse effects appears to be substrate composition, mainly the proportion of clay and silt, and the concentration of TOC. Consequently, the COPCs identified at the Site are not expected to pose unacceptable adverse effects to the viability of the aquatic community within Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie within the study area. SUMMARY The purpose of the site-specific human health and ecological risk assessment (SSRA) was to identify the presence or absence of impacts to sediment and surface water at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (the "Site") in Port Burwell, Ontario, to determine whether or not concentrations of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) pose unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors. The SSR A was completed using sediment, surface water, benthic invertebrate, and fish data collected by Terrapex in 2012, and Stantec in 2015. For the human health risk assessment (HHRA), thallium, zirconium, and benzo (a) pyrene exceeded the guidelines for inadvertent ingestion and dermal contact with surface water, and cobalt, iron, and uranium exceeded selected guidelines in fish tissue. In addition, acenaphthylene, and pyrene in sediment exceeded the selected sediment guideline for potential bioaccumulation in fish tissue. These COPCs were carried forward into the HHRA. The results of the HHRA suggest that there are no risks to the selected human receptors (Toddler Site Visitor, and Adult Site Visitor) due to inadvertent ingestion and dermal contact with Site surface water, and consumption of fish caught at the Site; exposure to all identified non- carcinogenic COPCs from soil resulted in HQs less than the target benchmark of 0.2. For the Adult Site Visitor, chronic inadvertent ingestion of surface water, chronic dermal contact with water, and ingestion of fish from the Site resulted in an estimated cancer risk greater than 1-in-100,000, the risk level considered to be "essentially negligible" by Health Canada. The fish consumption pathway was the primary exposure pathway for this estimated cancer risk. However, given the numerous conservative assumptions necessary in the exposure and risk estimation process, Stantec anticipates that actual on-Site risks posed by benzo(a)pyrene are negligible. Overall, the results suggest that there are likely no risks to human receptors due to exposure to sediment, surface water, or consumption of fish at the Site. For the ecological risk assessment (ERA), manganese, select PAHs and DDT (and metabolites) in sediment, and zinc in surface water were carried through for risk assessment. The results of the ERA indicate that there are no unacceptable risks to semi-aquatic receptors from surface sediment and surface water at the Site. This includes the potential for DDT and its metabolites to biomagnify in the food chain, thus resulting in a higher level of exposure for the top predators. Concentrations measured in fish tissue did not represent a concern to piscivorous birds and mammals. The results of the ERA are also considered protective of terrestrial receptor exposure through the ingestion of surface water. Given that the results of the assessment of the terrestrial environment (provided by Stantec under separate cover) determined that there were no risks to terrestrial receptors from soil or groundwater at the Site, it is not anticipated that the Site poses unacceptable risks to terrestrial or semi-aquatic birds or mammals from soil, groundwater, sediment or surface water. The viability of the aquatic health community was assessed using a weight-of- evidence approach. Taking into consideration the results of the surface water chemistry, sediment chemistry and benthic community analysis, two of the three lines of evidence indicate that there are no significant effects on the aquatic life community. The bioaccumulative potential of the COPCs was also assessed within fish but the results were more relevant to the assessment of birds and mammals than to the fish themselves as tissue-based toxicity limits were not available. Based on a comparison of the sediment physical characteristics with the COPC toxic potential and benthic community indices, the strongest influence on potential adverse effects appears to be substrate composition, mainly the proportion of clay and silt, and the concentration of TOC. Consequently, the COPCs identified at the Site are not expected to pose unacceptable adverse effects to the viability of the aquatic community within Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie within the study area. The results of the Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (PQRA/SLERA) of the terrestrial environment (Stantec, 2015) determined that there were no human health risks to the selected human receptors due to direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate) for all non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic COPCs. Similarly, the results of the SLERA suggested that there are no significant risks to aquatic or terrestrial receptors at the Site, including species of conservation concern, from soil or groundwater at the Site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Site poses unacceptable risks to terrestrial or semi-aquatic birds or mammals from soil, groundwater, sediment or surface water. Overall, these results suggest that there are no human health risks to any of the human receptors due to inadvertent ingestion and dermal contact with Site surface water, and consumption of fish caught at the Site, and no risks to ecological receptors due to COPCs identified in sediment and surface water at the Site. Based on the results of the SSRA and the current land use, no further work and no remedial actions are currently being proposed for the Site. However, should the land use of the Site change, further environmental assessment may be required to confirm the absence of risks (i.e., to confirm acceptable sediment and/or surface water quality). The below chart provides a description of previously identified APECs at the Site with respect to the land parcels described in the 1998 land survey of the Subject Lands and surrounding properties (Kim Husted Surveying Ltd., 1998). DISCUSSION FINANCIAL BACKGROUND As has been noted numerous times, including within the 2016-2026 Capital Budget Report, the Municipality utilizes a mix of reserves, grant funding and tax levy to fund operations and capital projects. The Capital Budget does not rely on debt financing due to the financial realities of the Municipality and the need to preserve debt capacity. The Treasurer has attempted to minimize the capital impact on the levy by creating a dynamic reserve funding scheme. This scheme suits the Municipal financial reality and provides the greatest opportunity to minimize the impact of levy increases, however it is not considered a risk adverse scheme, and unplanned capital requirements have the capability to cause complications and financial strain within the 2016- 2026 capital funding model. In plain language the Municipality incorporated OMPF reductions, OPP cost increases, Ojibwa debt payments and associated legal through two methods: 1) Internal staff operating efficiencies; 2) Significantly reducing the annual Capital Levy The current funding strategy, which is the staff recommended funding strategy, requires adherence to core infrastructure funding and a dedicated path to restore capital funding, which over time, when funding has obtained semi-sustainable levels, would mitigate the risk of the strategy as it is currently funded. The above is the same reason staff have recommended Council consideration of asset portfolio reductions as at current funding levels the Municipality cannot adequately fund all assets, which results in a growing spectrum of liability. The above strategy coupled with the fact that the Municipality of Bayham has not historically held a normalized and stable capital levy increase, results in staff recommendation for Council to avoid any ventures, where possible, which are not risk averse as the Municipality has limited financial resources to allocate. Capital Levy 2011-2016 2011 $762,465 2012 $973,302 2013 $801,000 2014 $825,000 2015 $597,851 2016 $289,141 In addition to the chart above and below, which demonstrates the annual underfunding of the Capital Levy, staff also attach additional charts hereto as Appendix ‘H’, which visualize the historic capital underfunding and sporadic nature in which asset categories have been historically funded as per Financial Information Return (FIR) data. Municipality of Bayham - Capital Levy Capital Tax Levy 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Average 2015 Levy $597,851 $615,787 $634,260 $653,288 $672,887 $693,073 $713,865 $735,281 $757,340 $780,060 $803,462 $705,930 2015 Levy - Corrected $933,180 $961,175 $990,011 $1,019,711 $1,050,302 $1,081,811 $1,114,266 $1,147,694 $1,182,125 $1,217,588 $1,254,116 $1,101,880 Five Year Historical Average $791,924 $815,682 $840,152 $865,357 $891,317 $918,057 $945,599 $973,967 $1,003,186 $1,033,281 $1,064,280 $935,088 2016-2025 Capital Budget $473,507 $1,780,594 $1,327,581 $1,107,024 $1,049,054 $1,039,535 $817,936 $1,018,541 $940,484 $1,190,000 $1,074,426 Deficit -$335,329 - $345,389 -$355,751 -$366,423 -$377,416 -$388,738 -$400,400 -$412,412 -$424,785 -$437,528 -$450,654 -$395,950 The Municipality is in deficit of funding in the amount of $395,950 annually on capital programs over the 10 year capital levy for an aggregate total of $3.95 million as noted above. The Municipality has several large life cycle asset replacements, betterments and rehabilitations over the next ten years both in linear assets, equipment and infrastructure which will be challenging to complete based on the current financial implications. Deferring the capital programs and replacements in the years projected only increases the funding deficit as the replacement or rehabilitation costs will inflate annually and make the capital deficit increase. In addition to funding capital programs as required, proper financial management requires the reserves to be replenished to be able to fund needs/events outside of the capital budget scope. The 2016-2018 years of the capital budget do not sustainably fund reserves for future years (i.e. unexpected asset failures) based on current projections and current asset conditions. The above is relevant in the context of harbour divestiture discussions and any asset acquisition discussions as historical capital funding, underfunding and Ojibwa and related liability requirements would dictate staff to strongly recommend Council not take on any additional liabilities unless said asset or venture has tangible benefits which outweigh the risks in the determination of Council. DIVESTITURE This report has been prepared, at the direction of Council, in an attempt to provide a holistic assessment of available information pertaining to Small Craft Harbours (SCH) Divestiture discussions to date. In assessing the historic actions, by the Municipality, pertaining to harbour divestiture and associated properties, it is evident that the process has been repetitive. The fact remains that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham has continually explored the concept of harbor divestiture, from SCH to the Municipality, largely predicated on the considerations of Council in 2003: THAT Council advise Mr. Dwayne Blanchard of SCH that its position remains as previously outlined February 21, 2003, namely that Council will consider acceptance of the conditional offer received, conditional on the following: v. Establishment of an appropriate Reserve Fund for capital contribution, with requirements that interest revenue only be utilized for current maintenance/operations, and capital amount only for Harbourfront development supporting an outer harbour marina development vi. Clarification, to the satisfaction of Council, of the level of maintenance required for the five-year requirement of DFO. vii. Confirmation of insurance ramifications. viii. Investigation of inclusion of hold harmless provisions on any transfer from Environmental Liability. Described in further detail those conditions include: 1) Environmental Liability a. The environmental studies conducted to date by SCH have been based on Federal environmental standards where the Municipality would be held to Ontario Provincial environmental standards. i. ‘The administrative and operational considerations involved in the transfer of an active port and associated facilities from SCH to the Municipality of Bayham are considered outside the scope of this Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan’ This condition is about risk avoidance. Proceeding without specific language and protections possesses too great of unknown financial and environmental liabilities and risks given the financial realities of the Municipality. PSAB 3260 Liability of Contaminated Sites, which requires environmental degradation of land to be reported and accounted for on financial statements, reinforces this position. 2) Public Use Provisions a. Clarification, to the satisfaction of Council, of the level of maintenance required for the five-year requirement of SCH. b. Detailed accounts of funds expended by SCH over the five years proceeding potential transfer. Given the limited capital resources of the Municipality and the potential financial and insurance implications of harbour activities detailed understanding of the above provisions is required. This fact is furthered given the natural sedimentation forces and historical evidence of the same, in Bayham. Scholarly research from the peer reviewed Journal of Marine Policy reinforces the careful consideration of the above conditions: Because many of these divested harbours have legacy contaminant issues, divestiture transfers a variety of potentially complex environmental liabilities to new custodians, who may lack specific risk assessment experience or financial resources to implement costly remediation or monitoring programmes. For many federally owned harbours undergoing divestiture, the choice of dredge disposal options is often limited, because sediment contaminants often exceed sediment quality guidelines (SQGs). For example, in Nova Scotia recent changes in provincial environmental regulations related to disposal of dredge material under Division IV-Section 10 (1) (c) of the Environment Act, now means that some traditional land- based disposal methods are no longer acceptable. Dredge disposal at licensed waste disposal containment cell facilities (on land) or conventional landfill sites are viable, but expensive options. Because of these issues, many third party owners are reluctant to assume ownership due to liability concerns related to environmental contamination 12. 3) Transfer Payment a. An amount which would fully maintain all infrastructure or improve all 12 Harbour Divestiture in Canada: Implications of Changing Governance – Journal of Marine Policy, Walker et al. August 2015 infrastructure for a specified period of time, as determined by a qualified consultant, so that no levy requirements are utilized on the harbour lands. Divestiture is a complex discussion and possibility with various associated opportunities, risks and expenses. Council is proceeding, as it has over the past years, with extreme caution and only down a path with clear, objective net benefits to the Municipality that does not add additional risks to the current municipal risk portfolio. Report CAO 44/16 re Small Craft Harbours – Harbour Lands Divestiture has been prepared, at the direction of Council, utilizing available information for public information purposes. RECOMMENDATION 1.THAT Report CAO-44/16 re Small Craft Harbours – Harbour Lands Divestiture be received for information. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO l egend TerreslriolSile Areo () Stantec E:SJ Aquatic S~e Area D Properly Boundary Noles 1. Cootdinote System: NAO 1983 UlMZone 17N 2. h'lage Source; Notional Air Photo library. 11956). Pott Burwel! Air Ptioto, September 25, 1956. I :10,000. A 1555 1. Pho to 18. O ttawa. ON: Deporlmenl of Energy. Mines and Re1ou1ces. 3. Properly Boundary: Kim Husted SUfveying Ud. (!998). Pion 11R·6760, Projecl97-45621. Reference HF 1. February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON . Ci ent/Projecl Deportment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Pion Port Burwell Small Croft Harbour. Ontario Fig1.1eNo . A.4 Tille Port Burwell in 1956 APPENDIX 'A' l e g e nd Appro.>lmote Terres trid Site Area ()stantec i;;::::sJ Appro:itirnote Aquatic Sil e Area ~ P1operly Boundary No l es \.Coordinate S~tem: NAO 1983 UTMZone 17N 2. :rnoge Source: National A~ Photo Library. [1973). Port Surwe~ Aii Photo. Mot 19.1973. 1:30,000. A:r.3285 . Photo 196. Ottawa, ON: Deportmen! of Ehe1gy, Mines and Resource1. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted SUfveying Ud. (1998). Pion l \R·6760. Project 97-45621, Referenc e HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tilli.onburg, ON . CGenl/Project Deportment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Pion Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour. Ontario FigueNo. A.5 Tille Port Burwell in 1973 APPENDIX 'B' APPENDIX 'C' AP P E N D I X ' D ' APPENDIX 'E' A P P E N D I X ' F ' Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham Revised 2012 Page 3-13 3.3.1 Specific Policy Area No. 1 – Elliott Road Notwithstanding the “Agriculture” policies of this Plan to the contrary, the lands comprising approximately 43 hectares in Part Lot 15, Concession 10 of the Municipality of Bayham and bounded by Green Line to the north, Provincial Highway 3 to the south, Elliott Road to the east and a wooded area to the west, and occupied by ten (10) existing non-farm residential dwellings may accommodate a total of twenty (20) non-farm dwellings in the area designated as “Specific Policy Area” on Schedule “A1” to this plan. 3.3.2 Specific Policy Area No. 2 – Port Burwell Harbour In addition to the policies of Section 6.1, the lands within the “Hazard Lands” designation in Port Burwell which are generally situated south of Robinson Street, and east of the Big Otter Creek and extending into Lake Erie, are designated as “Specific Policy Area” on Schedule “D” to this plan and may be used to develop a marina and ancillary facilities. These lands will remain in a holding zone until such time as the conditions regarding development as outlined in Section 6.1 of this Plan can be accommodated to the satisfaction of the Municipality, in consultation with the Province and the Conservation Authority. 3.3.3 Specific Policy Area No. 3 – Chateau Wyndemere The re-development of the former church retreat lands comprising 22.1 hectares of land located south of Nova Scotia Line in Part Lot 6, 7, 8, Concession 1, will require an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment prior to any development. The approval authority will identify the required studies, through pre-consultation, prior to any amendment to this Plan, which shall include, at a minimum, the following. a)Studies completed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Environment and the Municipality with respect to the proposed sewage and water services in accordance with Sections 3.1.3.2 and 5.1 of the Official Plan; b)Completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) in accordance with Section 2.2.3.3 of the Official Plan; c)Cultural and An archaeological assessments to be completed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture as per Section 2.6.3 of the Official Plan; d) An agricultural impact assessment, to be completed to the satisfaction of the approval authority. e)Adequate and appropriate access to a public road. f) A development agreement entered into between the developer and the Municipality, which shall address, but is not limited to, vehicular access to the lands APPENDIX 'G' Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham Revised 2012 Page 6-1 SECTION 6 NATURAL HAZARD LANDS 6.1 HAZARD LANDS DESIGNATION 6.1.1 General 6.1.1.1 The “Hazard Lands” designation applies to areas which exhibit or potentially exhibit a hazardous condition as a result of their susceptibility to flooding, erosion, dynamic beach hazards, subsidence, slumping, inundation or the presence of unstable soils, unstable bedrock, or steep slopes. 6.1.1.2 In the Municipality of Bayham the boundaries of the “Hazard Lands” designation have been generalized on Schedule “A2”, “B”, “C”, and “D” to follow the regulation limit determined by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority due to the absence of detailed engineered flood line mapping in the Municipality. These areas may be used for any of the uses permitted in the underlying land use designation found on the map. In all cases the location of buildings and structures for purposes other than flood or erosion control will be regulated through the provisions of the Zoning By-law after Municipal Council has consulted the Conservation Authority where applicable. 6.1.1.3 The “Hazard Lands” designation within Port Burwell, adjacent to Big Otter Creek was determined through the simulation of the 100-year hydraulic flood as established by the Conservation Authority. The lands within the “Hazard Lands” designation represent the engineered Flood plain for the Big Otter Creek. Bridges, culverts, hydro structures and boathouses without residential quarters, are permitted. 6.1.2 Buildings and Fill No buildings and structures shall be permitted in the “Hazard Lands” except where a permit or written clearance is obtained from the Conservation Authority or where such buildings, structures or fill are intended for flood or erosion control and are approved by the Municipal Council and/or the Conservation Authority. 6.1.3 Flood Control Work Whenever any flood control or other works are undertaken which result in changes in any area designated as “Hazard Lands”, such changes will be incorporated into the appropriate Land Use Plan, by an amendment to this Plan. 6.1.4 Land Dedication Under the Planning Act Where new development is proposed on a site, part of which is designated as “Hazard Lands” in the plan, then such lands shall not necessarily be acceptable as part of the dedication for park purposes as required under the Planning Act. All lands dedicated to the Municipality shall be conveyed in a physical condition satisfactory Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham Revised 2012 Page 6-2 to the Municipality. 6.1.5 Setbacks and Lotlines Building setbacks will be imposed from the margins of hazard lands in relation to the kind, extent and severity of the existing and potential hazards after consultation with the Conservation Authority. 6.1.6 Consideration of Amendments 6.1.6.1 Where any land designated as “Hazard Lands” is under private ownership, the Plan does not intend that this land will necessarily remain as hazard land indefinitely, nor shall it be construed as implying that such land is free and open to the general public or that the land will be purchased by the Municipality or any other public agency. Applications for the redesignation of “Hazard Lands” for other purposes may be considered by the Municipal Council after consultation with the Conservation Authority and various Ministries or agencies and after consideration of the following: a) The existing physical hazards; b) The potential impacts of these hazards; c)The proposed methods by which these impacts may be overcome in a manner consistent with accepted engineering techniques and resource management practices; and, d)The costs and benefits in monetary, social and biological value in terms of any engineering works and/or resource management practices needed to overcome these impacts. 6.1.6.2 There is no public obligation, however, either to redesignate or to purchase any area designated “Hazard Lands” particularly if there is an existing or potential hazard that would be difficult or costly to overcome, and furthermore, any studies or plans required by the Municipality or the Conservation Authority must be prepared by the applicant/landowner at his own expense. 6.1.7 Valley Walls and Top of Bank 6.1.7.1 Valley walls and banks adjacent to the actual flood plain or valleylands system in the “Hazard Lands” designation may be subject to erosion or instability due to soil and slope characteristics. In many cases, these lands also possess unique physical features, which further warrant their preservation. 6.1.7.2 Valley walls and the top of bank shall be considered to extend from the flood plain to a distance of 30 metres from the top of bank of all flood plain areas. Valley walls are the area of lands between Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham Revised 2012 Page 6-3 the watercourse and the top of bank. The top of bank is defined as the highest point of the valley walls as determined by a 3:1 (run:rise) elevation, which begins 15 metres back from the toe of bank of the watercourse. 6.1.7.3 Lands within the valley walls and top of bank areas are intended primarily for the preservation of the natural landscape. Such uses as agriculture, outdoor recreation, nursery gardening, forestry, public or private parks, or other outdoor recreation functions, may be permitted. 6.1.7.4 The erection of buildings, grading, or any other construction may be undertaken in this area provided that: a) Engineering reports are prepared at the cost of the owner/applicant to ensure that the proposed construction will not be endangered by possible erosion or land slippage and that adequate tableland exists to ensure proper sewage servicing. b) The development is compatible with the natural landscape and does not adversely alter the valley features or result in extensive clearing of wooded areas. c) Written permission is received from the Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources. 6.1.8 Lake Erie Shoreline 6.1.8.1 The Lake Erie shoreline area is a strip of land immediately adjacent to Lake Erie that is influenced by flooding, erosion, and dynamic beach hazards and may present a hazard to any structures within this area. For the purpose of the Official Plan the “Hazard Lands” will begin at the furthest landward limit of these three shoreline hazards. a) The flooding hazard limit will extend for a distance determined by the following formula: 100 yr. flood level + 15 metres (engineered flood allowance for wave uprush and other water related hazards) b) The erosion hazard limit will extend for a distance determined by the following formula: D = 3h + 100r (or) 30 metres (whichever is greater) Where D = Setback (metres) measured from toe of bluff h = Difference in elevation between top of bluff and toe of bluff which Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham Revised 2012 Page 6-4 may or may not be below or above lake level elevation Note: Lake level is elevation 173.85 metres ASL (GSC datum) (average for last ten (10) years during November to March period) 100 = Constant representing 100 years of protection r = Rate of erosion in metres per year at the point under consideration, as determined by the appropriate Conservation Authority. c) The dynamic beach hazard limit will extend for a distance determined by the following formula: flooding hazard limit as determined by subsection 6.1.8.1 a) + dynamic beach allowance of 30 metres 6.1.8.2 The policy of this Official Plan is to allow structures within this area only if the erosion at the building site in question has been decreased to zero by a stabilization project. Such stabilization project must be: a) Designed and supervised by a registered Professional Engineer; b) Approved by the appropriate Conservation Authority, Municipal Council and the Ministry of Natural Resources. 6.1.8.3 In some cases, buildings and structures may be erected closer to the waterline than the distance calculated through the application of the formula in subsection 6.1.8.1 a) of this Plan. Such buildings and structures may be associated with water-related uses such as marinas, docks and boathouses, and in all cases, the erection or expansion of all such buildings and structures shall be subject to the approval of the appropriate Conservation Authority. 6.1.8.4 For areas that are exposed to the 1:100 year lake level and wave uprush as defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources, new development, and additions to, or relocations of existing structures, shall incorporate floodproofing measures and shall be subject to the approval of the Municipal Council, Ministry of Natural Resources and the appropriate Conservation Authority. 6.1.9 Development Policies 6.1.9.1 The following policies will apply for any proposed development within the “Hazard Lands” designation: a) Development within the defined portion of a dynamic beach, or in areas which will initiate or increase existing flooding hazards, erosion rates, or dynamic beach Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham Revised 2012 Page 6-5 processes along areas of the Flood plain, valley walls and Lake Erie shoreline will not be permitted. b) On the Lake Erie shoreline, the approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources will also be secured before Council gives favourable consideration to any shoreline- related development. c) Vehicular and pedestrian mobility to and from sites within the “Hazard Lands” designation must be ensured during times of emergency (ie. flooding, erosion etc.). d) No new development of buildings or other structures will be permitted on the toe of slope if it is unstable and susceptible to erosion. Slope stabilization measures shall be undertaken in accordance with the advice of the appropriate Conservation Authority. e) No development involving institutional uses, essential emergency services, or involving the disposal, manufacture, treatment, or storage of hazardous substances will be permitted. 6.1.10 Docks and Waterfront Structures 6.1.10.1 Docks, waterfront and marina structures on property abutting water shall: a) Be subject to the approval of the appropriate Conservation Authority, and where title to the bed of the waterway is vested with the Crown, the Ministry of Natural Resources; b) Be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that contributes to the amenity of the Municipality; c) Be capable of withstanding damaging storms, ice and high water conditions, or alternatively be designed to be removed during winter months. Seasonal structures are to be removed prior to winter freeze-up; d) Not contain sanitary facilities unless connected to municipal sewers; e) Be located so as not to interfere with navigation or aids to navigation; f) Be constructed and placed so as to minimize the impact on natural vegetation and topography; g) Not contain any residential accommodations. Big O t t e r C r e e k CH A T H A M S T BA R B A R A A V E NO V A S C O T I A L I N E PITT S T ASHL E Y A V E ROBI N S O N S T VI C T O R I A S T B R I D G E S T ER I E U S S T AD D I S O N S T ST R A C H A N S T EL I Z A B E T H S T WELLINGTON ST WATERLOO ST LAKE S H O R E L I N E MI L T O N S T SH A K E S P E A R E S T NEWTON ST LIBBYE ST BROCK ST HU R L E Y S T COWPER ST PL A N K R D HOMER ST WILLIAM ST BURWELL ST TENNYSON ST G R A C E C R T RO B I N S O N S T HANNAH ST SOUTHEY ST MC C O R D L A N E Schedule 'D' forms part of Official Planof the Municipality of Bayham and must be read in conjunction with the written text. Lake Erie J: \ 3 4 0 4 \ 0 . 0 G e n e r a l \ C o p y o f 5 . 8 G I S U n d e r C o n s t r u c t i o n \ M a p s \ C u r r e n t \ R e v i s e d M a p s \ P M M _ S c h e d _ D _ A d o p t e d - 2 0 1 2 - 0 2 - 0 9 . m x d January 2012 OFFICIAL PLAN OF THEMUNICIPALITY of BAYHAM SCHEDULE 'D' PORT BURWELL:LAND USE and CONSTRAINTS 1:10,000 0 250 500125Metres C o n s t r a i n t s C o n s t r a i n t s Sewage Treatment Facilities Hazard Lands L a n d U s e L a n d U s e Residential Commercial Multi Unit ResidentialHarbour Residential / Commercial Open Space InstitutionalIndustrial Specific Policy AreasConservation Lands SPECIFIC POLICYAREA NO. 2 B a s e F e a t u r e s B a s e F e a t u r e s Local RoadsCounty Roads Existing Petroleum Wells 3.3 Holding Zones In any zone which is accompanied by the holding symbol “h”, the uses normally permitted by that zone for lands, buildings or structures may only be allowed when the holding symbol is removed by amendment to this By-law or any subsequent holding by- law. Permitted uses, when the holding symbol (h) is applied, are limited to those that existed on the date when the holding by-law was passed. The purpose of individual holding zones is as follows: a)h1 Purpose: To ensure public health and safety, an agreement with the Municipality, or the satisfying of conditions of severance, which address impacts of new development to the applicable proposed water supply system and/or sewage treatment and disposal system; and which may include issues relating to water capacity, water quantity, water quality, and financial costs will be required prior to the removal of the “h1” zone symbol. b)h2 Purpose: To ensure orderly development, a subdivision agreement with the Municipality, which addresses financial and servicing impacts of new development to the Municipality, will be required prior to the removal of the “h2” zone symbol. c)h3 Purpose: To ensure the mitigation of impacts to natural heritage features and their ecological functions, an Environmental Impact Study will be required prior to the removal of the “h3” zone symbol. d)h4 Purpose: To ensure parcels of land do not become landlocked, proof of access to a public right-of-way by the proponent will be required prior to the removal of the “h4” zone symbol. 3.4 Application of Regulations No person shall within any zone use any land or erect, build, construct, reconstruct, relocate, excavate for, alter, add to, enlarge, extend or use any building or structure, except in conformity with this By-law for the zone in which such land, building, structure or use is located. 3.5 Defined Areas All zones may be subdivided into one or more defined areas within which greater or lesser restrictions shall apply. These defined areas shall be designated by reference to the symbol of the zone within which each such defined area is located together with a number so as to differentiate different defined areas within a zone from each other and from other areas within the zone. 3.6 Exceptions for Defined Areas Within any zone there may apply exceptions with respect to a defined area and, in addition to such exceptions, all provisions of this By-law including the general use regulations and the special use regulations applicable to the zone within which the defined area is located shall apply to the defined areas; provided that, unless a contrary intention appears from the exceptions, the following shall apply: a)If the exceptions establish regulations different from the general provisions of this By-law, including the general use regulations and special use regulations applicable to the zone within which the defined area is located, the exceptions shall supersede and prevail over such corresponding regulations of this By-law. Z611-2012 3-3 b) If the exceptions establish one (1) or more specifically permitted uses of the defined area, such permitted use or uses shall be the only purpose or purposes for which land, buildings or structures within the defined area may be used; and c) If the exceptions specifically permit one (1) or more uses in addition to those otherwise permitted in the zone within which the defined area is located, any and all of the other exceptions applicable to the defined area shall also apply to the additional permitted use or uses and not only to the uses not otherwise permitted in the zone. 3.7 Multiple Zones Where a lot is subdivided into more than one zone, the regulations applicable to these zones shall apply to the respective areas so zoned, and the zone lines shall be deemed to be lot lines for the purposes of this By-law. 3.8 Interpretation of Zone Boundaries Where any uncertainty exists as to the location of the boundary of any of the said zones as shown on the zoning maps, the following shall apply: a) Unless otherwise shown, the boundary of the zones as shown on the zoning maps are the centre lines of the road allowance or lot lines and the projection thereof b) Where a zone boundary is indicated as approximately following lot lines, such lot lines shall be deemed to be the said zone boundary; c) Where a zone boundary is indicated as approximately parallel to the line of any road and the distance from such road is not indicated, such zone boundary shall be construed as being parallel to such road and the distance therefrom shall be determined by the use of the scale shown on the zoning maps; d) Unless otherwise indicated, a road, railway right-of-way, or watercourse included on the zoning maps is included within the zone of the adjoining lands on either side thereof; and where such road, right-of-way, or watercourse serves as a boundary between two or more different zones, a line midway in such road, street, lane, right- of-way, or watercourse and extending in the general direction of the long division thereof is considered the boundary between zones unless specifically indicated otherwise; e) In the event a road, street, lane or railway right-of-way shown on the zoning maps is closed, the land formerly in said road or right-of-way shall be included within the zone of the adjoining land on either side of the said closed road or right-of-way, and the zone boundary shall be the former centre line of the said closed road or right-of- way; f) Where any zone boundary is left uncertain after application of the preceding provisions, then the boundary line shall be determined according to the scale on the zoning maps in the office of the Municipality. 3.9 Conservation Authority Regulation Limit 3.9.1 Any zone which is accompanied by the hatch/shading symbol identified as “conservation authority regulation limit”, the uses normally permitted by that zone for lands, buildings or structures may only be allowed when written approval is obtained from the Conservation Authority. Permitted uses, when the “conservation authority regulation limit” symbol is applied, are limited to those that existed on the date when the holding by-law was passed. 3.9.2 The conservation authority regulation limit does not delimit the extent of all the areas regulated by the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 178/06). Mapping will be periodically updated by the Conservation Authority as more detailed information becomes available. The areas described in the text of the Regulation prevail over the delineated boundary or where a line is absent. 4-21 By-law shall apply to prevent the continued use of the lot as reduced as if no such acquisition had taken place, provided that: a)No further change is made in the dimensions, area or any other characteristics of the lot as reduced, subsequent to the date of such acquisition, that would increase the extent of the said non-conformity; and b)No building or structure or addition thereto is erected on the lot as reduced, subsequent to the date of such acquisition, except in accordance with all the provisions hereof for the zone in which such lot is located. 4.52.2 In the case of a road widening dedication, the land that has been or will be dedicated shall be included in any calculation for the purpose of determining lot area, coverage, height, parking, landscaped open space, floor area, floor area ratio, and the location of any permitted building or structure relative to the required side or rear yards, provided any building or structure is located wholly within the boundary of the land remaining after the dedication. 4.53 Ancillary Sale of Automobiles Sales of automobiles ancillary to a motor vehicle service station, public garage, or motor vehicle body shop shall be limited to maximum of six (6) automobiles being stored, kept or displayed for sale on the site at anytime. 4.54 Adult Entertainment Parlours 4.54.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law, an Adult Entertainment Parlour shall be prohibited in any zone or on any site or location that is situated less than 500 metres from an existing residential or institutional use. 4.54.2 An Adult Entertainment Parlour shall also be prohibited in any zone or on any site or location that is situated less than 500 metres from any zone that permits residential or institutional uses. 4.55 Minimum Distance Separation Formulae 4.55.1 The Minimum Distance Separation Formula I shall be applied to any proposed development in all zones, excluding any hamlet or village zones. 4.55.2 The Minimum Distance Separation Formula II shall be applied to any new or expanding livestock or poultry facility. 4.56 Conservation Authority Regulation Limit Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, where lands are located within the defined area labelled as “conservation authority regulation limit” on any schedule to this By-law, no development shall be permitted without written approval from the conservation authority. Development shall mean the construction, reconstruction, erection or placing of a building or structure of any kind; any change to a building or structure that would have the effect of altering the use or potential use of the building or structure; increasing the size of the building or structure or increasing the number of dwelling units in the building or structure; site grading; or the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere. 11-1 SECTION 11 VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL (R2) ZONE REGULATIONS 11.1 Permitted Uses No land shall be used and no buildings or structures shall be erected, used, or altered in the Village Residential (R2) Zone except for the following purposes: Double duplex dwelling; Multi-unit residential use; Triplex dwelling; Townhouse and rowhouse dwelling; Apartment building; Boarding house or rooming house; Senior citizen home; Group home; Home occupation; Accessory buildings and structures. 11.2 Permitted Buildings and Structures Buildings and structures for the permitted uses; Accessory buildings and structures for the permitted uses. 11.3 Minimum Lot Area Triplex, double duplex, townhouse, or rowhouse dwellings: Port Burwell, Vienna: 340 m2 per dwelling unit Straffordville: 400 m2 per dwelling unit Apartment buildings or multi-unit dwellings: 10 units or less: 325 m2 for each of the first four (4) dwelling units and 93 m2 for each additional dwelling unit thereafter More than 10 units: 340 m2 per dwelling unit Boarding or rooming house, senior citizens home, nursing home or group homes: 557 m2 for the first ten (10) rooms capable of being occupied and 46 m2 for each additional room thereafter. 11.4 Minimum Lot Frontage Triplex, double duplex, townhouse, or rowhouse dwellings: 25.0 metres All other dwellings: 10.0 metres. per dwelling unit or 40.0 metres., whichever is less 11.5 Maximum Building Coverage 50 % 11.6 Minimum Floor Area Triplex, double duplex dwelling units: 80.0 m2 Apartment building units: 50.0 m2 Boarding or rooming house, senior citizens/nursing home or group homes: 40.0 m2 11.7 Minimum Front Yard Depth 6.0 metres. 11.8 Minimum Side Yard Width Dwelling with an attached garage or carport: 1.2 metres plus 0.5 metres for each additional or partial storey above the first storey Dwelling without an attached garage or carport: 1.2 metres plus 0.5 metres for each additional or partial storey above the first storey for one side and 3.0 metres on the other side Dwelling situated on a corner lot: 4.5 metres on the side abutting a public street and a minimum of 1.5 metres on the other side 11.9 Minimum Rear Yard Depth 9.0 metres. or one-half the height, whichever is greater. 11.10 Regulations for Accessory Buildings Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.2, the following shall apply: a)Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph a), no accessory building shall be located within 6.0 metres of a public street. b)Maximum Height - 3.5 metres. c)Maximum Floor Area - 18.5 square metres. 11.11 Exceptions - Village Residential (R2) Zone 11.11.1 11.11.1.1 Defined Area R2-1 as shown on Schedule “H” to this By-law. 11.11.1.2 Permitted Uses Dwelling, Four-Unit Restaurant, drive-in or take-out, as an accessory use. 11.11.1.3 Permitted Buildings and Structures Existing buildings and structures for the permitted uses. 11.11.1.4 Minimum Floor Area 55.0 square metres per dwelling unit. Previous Section 11.11 a) removed by Z556-2008 19-1 SECTION 19 TOURIST COMMERCIAL (C3) ZONE REGULATIONS 19.1 Permitted Uses No land shall be used and no buildings or structures shall be erected, used, or altered in the Tourist Commercial (C3) Zone except for the following purposes: Bed and Breakfast Lodging or Tourist Home; Bus depot; Commercial fishing operations, excluding any commercial processing operations; Hotel, motel; Marina and accessory uses, including boat storage and repairs; Restaurant; Retail service shop; Tavern; Travel trailer camping park; Accessory use including one dwelling unit as an accessory use; 19.2 Minimum Lot Area Public sanitary sewage disposal service, but no public water supply: 900m² Public water and sanitary sewage disposal services are available: 555m² Tourist commercial uses providing lodging / accommodations: 555 m2 for the first ten (10) rooms capable of being occupied and 46 m2 for each additional room thereafter 19.3 Minimum Lot Frontage 15.0m 19.4 Maximum Lot Coverage 50% 19.5 Maximum Building Height 12.0m 19.6 Minimum Floor Area Commercial Use: 10m² Accessory dwelling units: In accordance with Section 4.45 Accessory single detached dwelling: 65m² 19.7 Minimum Front Yard Depth 6.0 metres 19.8 Minimum Side Yard Width 4.5m 19.9 Minimum Rear Yard Depth 10.0m 19.10 Buffer Strip Where a C3 Zone abuts a Residential, Institutional or Open Space Zone, a buffer strip shall be provided along the abutting lot lines having a minimum width of 2.0 metres. 19.11 Regulations for Travel Trailer Park Regulations related to the establishment and operation of a travel trailer park shall be as set down by the Tourism Act, and regulations thereto as amended from time to time. 19.12 Dwelling Units No commercial building wherein gasoline, petroleum products, paint or any other highly flammable, toxic or explosive products are handled in quantity shall have accessory dwelling units. Where such dwelling units exist and the use of the commercial building changes to a use involving the aforementioned products, the said dwelling units shall cease to be occupied as dwelling units. 19.13 Exceptions - Tourist Commercial (C3) Zone R1 I R1I-2 I R1 OS2 R1 R1 R2C2 R1-7 M4 MH I R1(h2)R1(h2) R2(h2) C3 OS2 OS1 OS1 R1(h2) C2C2 OS1 C3(h2) OS2 C2 R1 C3 C3(h2) R1(h2) OS2-5(h2) R1 R2(h2) OS2-9 OS2 R1 R1 R1 I SEE INSET MAP ASHLEYAVE CH A T H A M S T VI C T O R I A S T LIBBYE ST NO V A S C O T I A L I N E B R I D G E S T AD D I S O N S T ST R A C H A N S T R O B I N S O N S T SEE SCH EDULE A -MAP No.13 SEE SCHEDULE A -MAP No.14 MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAMSCHEDULE IPORT BURWELL 0 200 400100 Metres Legend LPRCA Regulation Limit R1-7 I I MH I R2 I C1 R2 II C1 R2 OS2 R2 R2 C2 C2 R1 MH C2 OS2 OS2-5(h2) R1-10 R1 R1 R1 R1 EL I Z A B E T H S T ER I E U S S T ST R A C H A N S T RO B I N S O N S T MI L T O N S T PITT S T WELLINGTON ST WATERLOO ST HANNAH ST VI C T O R I A S T INSET MAP 20 0 9 A n n u a l Am o r t i z a t i o n 20 0 9 C a p i t a l B u d g e t 20 0 9 C a p i t a l L e v y Pe r c e n t a g e ( % ) o f L e v y Fu n d i n g / A s s e t C l a s s 20 0 9 C l o s i n g Ne t B o o k V a l u e Percentage (%) of Net Book Value/Asset Class Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t $1 4 , 4 8 8 $4 0 , 6 5 0 $3 2 , 0 0 0 22 1 % $775,202 1.45% Pr o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s Fi r e $6 5 , 2 8 4 $3 3 0 , 6 7 5 $3 1 , 4 1 2 48 % $1,219,492 Pr o t e c t i v e i n s p e c t i o n a n d c o n t r o l $3 , 5 0 2 $0 $0 0% $21,149 Em e r g e n c y m e a s u r e s $0 $0 $0 0% $0 SU B T O T A L $6 8 , 7 8 6 $3 3 0 , 6 7 5 $3 1 , 4 1 2 46 % $1,240,641 2.33% Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s Ro a d s - P a v e d $6 5 4 , 1 1 2 $3 8 7 , 0 0 0 $4 7 , 8 6 9 7% $26,958,379 Ro a d s - U n p a v e d $3 6 , 7 4 8 $1 4 8 , 6 0 0 $1 9 , 2 2 0 52 % $648,121 Ro a d s - B r i d g e s a n d C u l v e r t s $2 0 , 0 8 5 $0 $0 0% $125,721 Ro a d w a y s - T r a f f i c O p e r a t i o n s & R o a d s i d e $1 9 , 3 3 4 $0 $0 0% $640,742 Wi n t e r C o n t r o l - E x c e p t s i d e w a l k s , P a r k i n g L o t s $1 , 7 3 1 $0 $0 0% $11,730 Pa r k i n g $5 1 0 $0 $0 0% $509 St r e e t l i g h t i n g $2 , 2 1 4 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 90 3 % $23,057 Ot h e r $1 1 1 , 7 9 6 $2 4 0 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 22 % $955,347 SU B T O T A L $8 4 6 , 5 3 0 $7 9 5 , 6 0 0 $1 1 2 , 0 8 9 13 % $29,363,606 55.04% En v i r o n m e n t a l s e r v i c e s Wa s t e w a t e r c o l l e c t i o n / c o n v e y a n c e $2 3 4 , 5 7 3 $6 2 5 , 6 0 5 $0 0% $15,106,601 Wa s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t & d i s p o s a l $7 2 , 4 5 6 $0 $0 0% $1,932,366 Ur b a n s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m $0 $0 $0 0% $0 Ru r a l s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m $0 $0 $0 0% $0 Wa t e r t r e a t m e n t $5 0 , 7 1 9 $0 $0 0% $1,938,050 Wa t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n / t r a n s m i s s i o n $2 4 , 2 1 6 $2 , 2 1 6 , 9 7 8 $0 0% $2,033,235 SU B T O T A L $3 8 1 , 9 6 4 $2 , 8 4 2 , 5 8 3 $0 0% $21,010,252 39.38% He a l t h s e r v i c e s Pu b l i c h e a l t h s e r v i c e s $2 5 7 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 38 9 1 % $3,352 Ce m e t e r i e s $0 $6 , 0 9 3 $6 , 0 9 3 NA $19,932 Ot h e r $0 $0 $0 0% $0 SU B T O T A L $2 5 7 $1 6 , 0 9 3 $1 6 , 0 9 3 62 6 2 % $23,284 0.04% Re c r e a t i o n a n d c u l t u r a l s e r v i c e s Pa r k s $1 4 , 0 2 9 $7 , 8 8 6 $7 , 8 8 6 56 % $494,878 Ha r b o u r / B e a c h $0 $1 3 , 9 7 2 $1 3 , 9 7 2 NA $0 Re c . F a c . $6 , 8 6 7 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 21 8 % $207,852 Li b r a r i e s $3 , 7 7 8 $0 $0 0% $51,348 Mu s e u m s / C u l t u r e $7 , 3 4 7 $2 1 , 6 6 2 $2 1 , 6 6 2 29 5 % $184,061 SU B T O T A L $3 2 , 0 2 1 $5 8 , 5 2 0 $5 8 , 5 2 0 18 3 % $938,139 1.76% TO T A L ( E x c l u d i n g W a t e r / W a s t e w a t e r ) $9 6 2 , 0 8 2 $1 , 2 4 1 , 5 3 8 $2 5 0 , 1 1 4 26 % $53,351,124 100% $1 , 3 4 4 , 0 4 6 $4 , 0 8 4 , 1 2 1 $2 5 0 , 1 1 4 $6 7 $53,351,124 $1 NO T E S Re l i e d H e a v i l y o n 2 0 0 8 Un e x p e n d e d C a p i t a l ($ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 + ) , t h u s b a s i c a l l y n o ca p i t a l l e v y i n 2 0 0 9 a n d t h a t wo u l d i n d i c a t e l i t t l e t o n o Ca p i t a l w a s c o m p l e t e d i n 2 0 0 8 APPENDIX 'H' 20 1 0 A n n u a l Am o r t i z a t i o n 20 1 0 C a p i t a l B u d g e t 2 0 1 0 C a p i t a l L e v y Pe r c e n t a g e ( % ) o f L e v y Fu n d i n g / A s s e t C l a s s 20 1 0 C l o s i n g Ne t B o o k V a l u e Percentage (%) of Net Book Value/Asset Class Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t $ 1 3 , 0 9 3 $ 2 5 , 5 0 0 $ 2 5 , 5 0 0 1 9 4 . 7 6 % $ 7 6 2 , 1 0 9 1 . 4 0 % Pr o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s Fi r e $6 9 , 5 5 2 $8 6 9 , 0 0 0 $1 7 0 , 5 0 0 24 5 . 1 4 % $1,314,135 Pr o t e c t i v e i n s p e c t i o n a n d c o n t r o l $2 , 2 9 9 $6 , 0 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 26 0 . 9 8 % $31,850 Em e r g e n c y m e a s u r e s $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $0 SU B T O T A L $7 1 , 8 5 1 $8 7 5 , 0 0 0 $1 7 6 , 5 0 0 24 5 . 6 5 % $1,345,985 2.47% Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s Ro a d s - P a v e d $5 4 4 , 1 8 7 $8 1 1 , 2 2 0 $3 0 9 , 9 0 0 56 . 9 5 % $26,590,776 Ro a d s - U n p a v e d $1 9 , 9 3 8 $9 2 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $628,183 Ro a d s - B r i d g e s a n d C u l v e r t s $3 , 8 3 7 $3 3 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $198,884 Ro a d w a y s - T r a f f i c O p e r a t i o n s & R o a d s i d e $1 2 , 6 8 2 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $647,014 Wi n t e r C o n t r o l - E x c e p t s i d e w a l k s , P a r k i n g L o t s $1 , 0 1 3 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $10,717 Pa r k i n g $7 6 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $433 St r e e t l i g h t i n g $1 , 6 7 8 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 29 7 . 9 7 % $21,379 Ot h e r $2 6 , 1 8 9 $3 1 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $984,911 SU B T O T A L $6 0 9 , 6 0 0 $1 , 2 6 2 , 2 2 0 $3 1 4 , 9 0 0 51 . 6 6 % $29,082,297 53.30% En v i r o n m e n t a l s e r v i c e s Wa s t e w a t e r c o l l e c t i o n / c o n v e y a n c e $2 0 4 , 8 0 6 $5 0 8 , 8 4 3 $0 0. 0 0 % $14,955,772 Wa s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t & d i s p o s a l $7 7 , 9 3 8 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $2,435,120 Ur b a n s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $0 Ru r a l s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $0 Wa t e r t r e a t m e n t $5 2 , 2 4 4 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $1,888,468 Wa t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n / t r a n s m i s s i o n $4 1 , 9 9 5 $1 , 2 4 9 , 1 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $2,972,000 SU B T O T A L $3 7 6 , 9 8 3 $1 , 7 5 7 , 9 4 3 $0 0. 0 0 % $22,251,360 40.78% He a l t h s e r v i c e s Pu b l i c h e a l t h s e r v i c e s $1 9 3 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $3,159 Ce m e t e r i e s $0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 NA $19,932 Ot h e r $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $0 SU B T O T A L $1 9 3 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 51 8 1 . 3 5 % $23,091 0.04% Re c r e a t i o n a n d c u l t u r a l s e r v i c e s Pa r k s $1 6 , 0 6 3 $9 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 12 4 . 5 1 % $668,452 Ha r b o u r / B e a c h $0 $8 8 , 9 0 0 $8 8 , 9 0 0 NA $0 Re c . F a c . $8 , 4 3 6 $1 9 3 , 0 0 0 $7 8 , 0 0 0 92 4 . 6 1 % $199,416 Li b r a r i e s $1 , 7 8 7 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 13 9 8 . 9 9 % $49,561 Mu s e u m s / C u l t u r e $4 , 2 3 1 $2 2 , 6 6 5 $2 2 , 6 6 5 53 5 . 6 9 % $179,830 SU B T O T A L $3 0 , 5 1 7 $4 1 9 , 5 6 5 $2 3 4 , 5 6 5 76 8 . 6 4 % $1,097,259 2.01% TO T A L ( E x c l u d i n g W a t e r / W a s t e w a t e r ) $7 2 5 , 2 5 4 $2 , 5 9 2 , 2 8 5 $7 6 1 , 4 6 5 10 4 . 9 9 % $54,562,101 100.00% $1 , 1 0 2 , 2 3 7 $4 , 3 5 0 , 2 2 8 $7 6 1 , 4 6 5 $6 4 $54,562,101 $1 NO T E S 20 1 1 A n n u a l Am o r t i z a t i o n 20 1 1 C a p i t a l B u d g e t 2 0 1 1 C a p i t a l L e v y Pe r c e n t a g e ( % ) o f Fu n d i n g / A s s e t C l a s s 20 1 1 C l o s i n g Ne t B o o k V a l u e Percentage (%) of Net Book Value/Asset Class Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t $ 1 1 , 7 1 3 $ 5 1 , 0 0 0 $ 5 1 , 0 0 0 4 3 5 . 4 1 % $ 7 6 3 , 1 2 7 1 . 4 1 % Pr o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s Fi r e $7 1 , 3 0 8 $1 , 0 8 9 , 3 0 0 $1 6 4 , 5 0 0 23 0 . 6 9 % $1,295,092 Pr o t e c t i v e i n s p e c t i o n a n d c o n t r o l $1 , 5 8 5 $6 , 0 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 37 8 . 5 5 % $12,355 Em e r g e n c y m e a s u r e s $2 , 1 8 0 0. 0 0 % $15,730 SU B T O T A L $7 5 , 0 7 3 $1 , 0 9 5 , 3 0 0 $1 7 0 , 5 0 0 22 7 . 1 1 % $1,323,177 2.44% Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s Ro a d s - P a v e d $6 8 2 , 4 0 2 $7 4 8 , 8 2 2 $2 4 5 , 0 0 0 35 . 9 0 % $25,908,374 Ro a d s - U n p a v e d $1 2 , 8 4 1 $4 1 , 5 6 3 $0 0. 0 0 % $615,342 Ro a d s - B r i d g e s a n d C u l v e r t s $4 , 1 2 8 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $544,198 Ro a d w a y s - T r a f f i c O p e r a t i o n s & R o a d s i d e $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $647,014 Wi n t e r C o n t r o l - E x c e p t s i d e w a l k s , P a r k i n g L o t s $1 , 0 1 3 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $9,704 Pa r k i n g $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $433 St r e e t l i g h t i n g $1 , 3 7 4 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $20,005 Ot h e r $0 $6 0 9 , 0 0 0 $0 NA $1,045,561 SU B T O T A L $7 0 1 , 7 5 8 $1 , 4 0 9 , 3 8 5 $2 4 5 , 0 0 0 34 . 9 1 % $28,790,631 53.20% En v i r o n m e n t a l s e r v i c e s Wa s t e w a t e r c o l l e c t i o n / c o n v e y a n c e $2 0 3 , 9 4 8 $3 0 4 , 7 4 3 $0 0. 0 0 % $14,751,379 Wa s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t & d i s p o s a l $8 0 , 5 4 6 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $2,354,574 Ur b a n s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $0 Ru r a l s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $0 Wa t e r t r e a t m e n t $5 3 , 0 7 5 $4 5 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $1,908,508 Wa t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n / t r a n s m i s s i o n $6 0 , 7 1 9 $0 0. 0 0 % $2,711,213 SU B T O T A L $3 9 8 , 2 8 8 $7 5 4 , 7 4 3 $0 0. 0 0 % $21,725,674 40.14% He a l t h s e r v i c e s Pu b l i c h e a l t h s e r v i c e s $1 9 3 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $2,966 Ce m e t e r i e s $0 $3 , 0 0 0 $3 , 0 0 0 NA $19,932 Ot h e r $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $0 SU B T O T A L $1 9 3 $3 , 0 0 0 $3 , 0 0 0 15 5 4 . 4 0 % $22,898 0.04% Re c r e a t i o n a n d c u l t u r a l s e r v i c e s Pa r k s $2 3 , 1 7 4 $1 0 7 , 9 2 5 $6 5 , 9 2 5 28 4 . 4 8 % $645,278 Ha r b o u r / B e a c h $5 , 8 6 7 $2 7 4 , 8 0 0 $1 3 1 , 9 0 0 22 4 8 . 1 7 % $419,822 Re c . F a c . $5 , 7 4 4 $1 7 4 , 0 0 0 $9 1 , 5 0 0 15 9 2 . 9 7 % $205,000 Li b r a r i e s $1 , 7 8 7 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $47,774 Mu s e u m s / C u l t u r e $2 , 7 0 4 $5 5 , 5 0 0 $5 5 , 5 0 0 20 5 2 . 5 1 % $177,126 SU B T O T A L $3 9 , 2 7 6 $6 5 2 , 2 2 5 $3 4 4 , 8 2 5 87 7 . 9 5 % $1,495,000 2.76% TO T A L ( E x c l u d i n g W a t e r / W a s t e w a t e r ) $8 2 8 , 0 1 3 $3 , 2 1 0 , 9 1 0 $8 1 4 , 3 2 5 98 . 3 5 % $54,120,507 100.00% $1 , 2 2 6 , 3 0 1 $3 , 9 6 5 , 6 5 3 $8 1 4 , 3 2 5 $3 1 $54,120,507 $1 NO T E S Re l i e d H e a v i l y o n 2 0 1 0 Un e x p e n d e d C a p i t a l ($ 1 7 0 , 0 0 0 + ) 20 1 2 A n n u a l Am o r t i z a t i o n 20 1 2 C a p i t a l B u d g e t 2 0 1 2 C a p i t a l L e v y Pe r c e n t a g e ( % ) o f Fu n d i n g / A s s e t C l a s s 20 1 2 C l o s i n g Ne t B o o k V a l u e Percentage (%) of Net Book Value/Asset Class Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t 1 7 , 2 2 6 6 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 7 2 . 8 4 % 7 5 1 , 0 6 2 1 . 3 8 % Pr o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s Fi r e 1 1 4 , 7 6 6 1 , 2 5 4 , 5 0 0 1 7 0 , 0 0 0 14 8 . 1 3 % 2,276,143 Pr o t e c t i v e i n s p e c t i o n a n d c o n t r o l 1 , 9 7 0 6 , 0 0 0 6 , 0 0 0 30 4 . 5 7 % 10,385 Em e r g e n c y m e a s u r e s 1 , 7 9 6 0 0 0. 0 0 % 13,934 SU B T O T A L 1 1 8 , 5 3 2 1 , 2 6 0 , 5 0 0 1 7 6 , 0 0 0 1 4 8 . 4 8 % 2 , 3 0 0 , 4 6 2 4 . 2 2 % Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s Ro a d s - P a v e d 6 8 9 , 4 9 5 4 0 6 , 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 25,218,879 Ro a d s - U n p a v e d 1 5 , 4 2 4 5 4 , 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 599,918 Ro a d s - B r i d g e s a n d C u l v e r t s 1 9 , 5 5 8 0 0 0. 0 0 % 524,640 Ro a d w a y s - T r a f f i c O p e r a t i o n s & R o a d s i d e 2 , 6 8 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 644,334 Wi n t e r C o n t r o l - E x c e p t s i d e w a l k s , P a r k i n g L o t s 1 , 7 3 6 0 0 0. 0 0 % 7,968 Pa r k i n g 3 5 7 0 0 0. 0 0 % 76 St r e e t l i g h t i n g 2 , 3 6 3 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 42 3 . 1 9 % 17,642 Ot h e r 9 3 , 8 1 8 5 7 4 , 0 0 0 2 7 0 , 0 0 0 28 7 . 7 9 % 1,198,661 SU B T O T A L 8 2 5 , 4 3 1 1 , 0 4 4 , 0 0 0 2 8 0 , 0 0 0 3 3 . 9 2 % 2 8 , 2 1 2 , 1 1 8 5 1 . 7 5 % En v i r o n m e n t a l s e r v i c e s Wa s t e w a t e r c o l l e c t i o n / c o n v e y a n c e 2 3 8 , 6 5 3 2 2 5 , 9 7 2 0 0. 0 0 % 14,512,726 Wa s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t & d i s p o s a l 9 6 , 8 9 1 0 0 0. 0 0 % 2,257,683 Ur b a n s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 0 Ru r a l s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 0 Wa t e r t r e a t m e n t 2 9 , 3 7 7 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 1,968,039 Wa t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n / t r a n s m i s s i o n 1 0 0 , 7 2 1 0 0 0. 0 0 % 2,780,362 SU B T O T A L 4 6 5 , 6 4 2 6 7 5 , 9 7 2 0 0 . 0 0 % 2 1 , 5 1 8 , 8 1 0 3 9 . 4 8 % He a l t h s e r v i c e s Pu b l i c h e a l t h s e r v i c e s 2 5 8 0 0 0. 0 0 % 2,708 Ce m e t e r i e s 0 1 2 , 5 0 0 1 1 , 5 0 0 NA 19,932 Ot h e r 00 0 0. 0 0 % 0 SU B T O T A L 2 5 8 1 2 , 5 0 0 1 1 , 5 0 0 4 4 5 7 . 3 6 % 2 2 , 6 4 0 0 . 0 4 % Re c r e a t i o n a n d c u l t u r a l s e r v i c e s Pa r k s 4 7 , 9 3 6 5 7 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 20 . 8 6 % 633,944 Ha r b o u r / B e a c h 0 1 6 2 , 4 0 0 3 2 , 4 0 0 NA 419,822 Re c . F a c . 9 , 8 2 7 1 3 6 , 5 0 0 7 5 , 0 0 0 76 3 . 2 0 % 318,698 Li b r a r i e s 3 , 7 8 9 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 164,387 Mu s e u m s / C u l t u r e 7 , 3 6 7 7 , 8 0 0 5 , 5 0 0 74 . 6 6 % 169,759 SU B T O T A L 6 8 , 9 1 9 4 6 3 , 7 0 0 1 2 2 , 9 0 0 1 7 8 . 3 3 % 1 , 7 0 6 , 6 1 0 3 . 1 3 % TO T A L ( E x c l u d i n g W a t e r / W a s t e w a t e r ) 1 , 0 3 0 , 3 6 6 2 , 8 4 6 , 7 0 0 6 3 7 , 4 0 0 6 1 . 8 6 % 5 4 , 5 1 1 , 7 0 2 1 0 0 . 0 0 % $1 , 4 9 6 , 0 0 8 $ 3 , 5 2 2 , 6 7 2 $ 6 3 7 , 4 0 0 $ 5 1 $ 5 4 , 5 1 1 , 7 0 2 $ 1 NO T E S Re l i e d o n 2 0 1 1 U n e x p e n d e d Ca p i t a l ( $ 8 0 , 0 0 0 ) 20 1 3 A n n u a l Am o r t i z a t i o n 20 1 3 C a p i t a l B u d g e t 2 0 1 3 C a p i t a l L e v y Pe r c e n t a g e ( % ) o f Fu n d i n g / A s s e t C l a s s 20 1 3 C l o s i n g Ne t B o o k V a l u e Percentage (%) of Net Book Value/Asset Class Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t 1 4 , 1 2 6 7 3 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 4 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 1 8 . 5 6 % 7 3 6 , 9 3 6 1 . 3 7 % Pr o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s Fi r e 13 1 , 3 1 7 19 8 , 5 0 0 18 3 , 5 0 0 13 9 . 7 4 % 2,144,826 Pr o t e c t i v e i n s p e c t i o n a n d c o n t r o l 1, 4 2 3 5, 0 0 0 5, 0 0 0 35 1 . 3 7 % 8,962 Em e r g e n c y m e a s u r e s 2, 1 8 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 11,754 SU B T O T A L 13 4 , 9 2 0 20 3 , 5 0 0 18 8 , 5 0 0 13 9 . 7 1 % 2,165,542 4.02% Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s Ro a d s - P a v e d 70 6 , 5 4 7 21 2 , 9 9 0 0 0. 0 0 % 24,574,401 Ro a d s - U n p a v e d 15 , 3 9 1 18 8 , 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 1,009,092 Ro a d s - B r i d g e s a n d C u l v e r t s 19 , 5 0 4 15 , 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 505,136 Ro a d w a y s - T r a f f i c O p e r a t i o n s & R o a d s i d e 2, 6 8 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 641,654 Wi n t e r C o n t r o l - E x c e p t s i d e w a l k s , P a r k i n g L o t s 1, 7 3 1 0 0 0. 0 0 % 6,237 Pa r k i n g 00 0. 0 0 % 76 St r e e t l i g h t i n g 1, 3 7 2 10 , 0 0 0 10 , 0 0 0 72 8 . 8 6 % 16,270 Ot h e r 52 , 4 9 1 94 5 , 0 0 0 32 0 , 0 0 0 60 9 . 6 3 % 1,259,909 SU B T O T A L 79 9 , 7 1 6 1, 3 7 0 , 9 9 0 33 0 , 0 0 0 41 . 2 6 % 28,012,775 52.02% En v i r o n m e n t a l s e r v i c e s Wa s t e w a t e r c o l l e c t i o n / c o n v e y a n c e 23 7 , 0 1 4 62 , 3 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 14,417,846 Wa s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t & d i s p o s a l 96 , 6 2 7 0 0 0. 0 0 % 2,161,056 Ur b a n s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m 00 0. 0 0 % 0 Ru r a l s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m 00 0. 0 0 % 0 Wa t e r t r e a t m e n t 6, 7 7 2 0 0 0. 0 0 % 1,961,267 Wa t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n / t r a n s m i s s i o n 12 7 , 3 7 2 18 , 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 2,735,552 SU B T O T A L 46 7 , 7 8 5 80 , 3 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 21,275,721 39.51% He a l t h s e r v i c e s Pu b l i c h e a l t h s e r v i c e s 25 7 0. 0 0 % 2,451 Ce m e t e r i e s 0. 0 0 % 25,584 Ot h e r 0. 0 0 % 0 SU B T O T A L 25 7 0 0 0. 0 0 % 28,035 0.05% Re c r e a t i o n a n d c u l t u r a l s e r v i c e s Pa r k s 49 , 5 6 2 36 , 0 0 0 24 , 0 0 0 48 . 4 2 % 584,382 Ha r b o u r / B e a c h 0 15 2 , 0 0 0 96 , 0 0 0 NA 419,822 Re c . F a c . 13 , 3 3 1 15 7 , 0 0 0 48 , 0 0 0 36 0 . 0 6 % 305,367 Li b r a r i e s 7, 2 1 9 30 , 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 % 157,168 Mu s e u m s / C u l t u r e 7, 3 4 8 6, 0 0 0 2, 5 0 0 34 . 0 2 % 162,411 SU B T O T A L 77 , 4 6 0 38 1 , 0 0 0 17 0 , 5 0 0 22 0 . 1 1 % 1,629,150 3.03% TO T A L ( E x c l u d i n g W a t e r / W a s t e w a t e r ) 1, 0 2 6 , 4 7 9 2, 0 2 8 , 9 9 0 73 4 , 0 0 0 71 . 5 1 % 53,848,159 100.00% $1 , 4 9 4 , 2 6 4 $2 , 1 0 9 , 2 9 0 $7 3 4 , 0 0 0 $7 $53,848,159 $1 NO T E S 20 1 4 A n n u a l Am o r t i z a t i o n 20 1 4 C a p i t a l B u d g e t 2 0 1 4 C a p i t a l L e v y Pe r c e n t a g e ( % ) o f Fu n d i n g / A s s e t C l a s s 20 1 4 C l o s i n g Ne t B o o k V a l u e Percentage (%) of Net Book Value/Asset Class Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t $ 1 1 , 7 8 3 $ 7 2 , 0 0 0 $ 1 7 , 0 0 0 1 4 4 . 2 8 % $ 7 5 4 , 1 1 9 1 . 4 1 % Pr o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s Fi r e $1 3 1 , 2 9 9 $4 1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 7 4 , 0 0 0 13 2 . 5 2 % $2,009,363 Pr o t e c t i v e i n s p e c t i o n a n d c o n t r o l $1 , 3 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 38 4 . 6 2 % $7,662 Em e r g e n c y m e a s u r e s $2 , 1 8 0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $9,574 SU B T O T A L $1 3 4 , 7 7 9 $4 1 5 , 0 0 0 $1 7 9 , 0 0 0 13 2 . 8 1 % $2,026,599 3.79% Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s Ro a d s - P a v e d $7 5 8 , 4 0 8 $2 3 0 , 0 0 0 $2 3 0 , 0 0 0 30 . 3 3 % $23,962,505 Ro a d s - U n p a v e d $2 5 , 5 8 8 $1 6 6 , 4 0 0 $1 6 6 , 4 0 0 65 0 . 3 0 % $983,504 Ro a d s - B r i d g e s a n d C u l v e r t s $1 9 , 5 0 4 $5 5 , 0 0 0 $5 5 , 0 0 0 28 1 . 9 9 % $537,517 Ro a d w a y s - T r a f f i c O p e r a t i o n s & R o a d s i d e $2 , 6 8 0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $638,974 Wi n t e r C o n t r o l - E x c e p t s i d e w a l k s , P a r k i n g L o t s $1 , 2 4 2 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $4,995 Pa r k i n g $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $76 St r e e t l i g h t i n g $1 , 3 7 2 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 72 8 . 8 6 % $14,898 Ot h e r $4 , 1 5 9 $8 2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 60 1 . 1 1 % $1,255,750 SU B T O T A L $8 1 2 , 9 5 3 $1 , 2 8 6 , 4 0 0 $4 8 6 , 4 0 0 59 . 8 3 % $27,398,219 51.24% En v i r o n m e n t a l s e r v i c e s Wa s t e w a t e r c o l l e c t i o n / c o n v e y a n c e $2 3 4 , 0 3 5 $6 3 , 3 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $14,196,850 Wa s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t & d i s p o s a l $9 7 , 8 6 6 $0 0. 0 0 % $2,063,190 Ur b a n s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $0 Ru r a l s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $0 Wa t e r t r e a t m e n t $5 , 7 7 2 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $2,626,069 Wa t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n / t r a n s m i s s i o n $1 2 9 , 7 6 4 $0 0. 0 0 % $2,822,162 SU B T O T A L $4 6 7 , 4 3 7 $7 3 , 3 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $21,708,271 40.60% He a l t h s e r v i c e s Pu b l i c h e a l t h s e r v i c e s $2 5 7 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $2,194 Ce m e t e r i e s $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $25,584 Ot h e r $0 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $0 SU B T O T A L $2 5 7 $0 $0 0. 0 0 % $27,778 0.05% Re c r e a t i o n a n d c u l t u r a l s e r v i c e s Pa r k s $4 9 , 2 4 0 $3 6 , 0 0 0 $2 4 , 0 0 0 48 . 7 4 % $535,142 Ha r b o u r / B e a c h $0 $1 2 0 , 0 0 0 $9 5 , 0 0 0 NA $419,822 Re c . F a c . $1 3 , 3 3 1 $1 6 0 , 0 0 0 $4 8 , 0 0 0 36 0 . 0 6 % $292,036 Li b r a r i e s $7 , 2 1 9 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % $149,949 Mu s e u m s / C u l t u r e $7 , 3 4 7 $6 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 27 . 2 2 % $155,064 SU B T O T A L $7 7 , 1 3 7 $3 5 2 , 0 0 0 $1 6 9 , 0 0 0 21 9 . 0 9 % $1,552,013 2.90% TO T A L ( E x c l u d i n g W a t e r / W a s t e w a t e r ) $1 , 0 3 6 , 9 0 9 $2 , 1 2 5 , 4 0 0 $8 5 1 , 4 0 0 82 . 1 1 % $53,466,999 $1 $1 , 5 0 4 , 3 4 6 $2 , 1 9 8 , 7 0 0 $8 5 1 , 4 0 0 $6 $53,466,999 $1 NO T E S REPORT CAO TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: July 21, 2016 REPORT: CAO-45/16 SUBJECT: UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCE – HARMONY ACRES LINE BACKGROUND The 2016 Capital Budget contained Capital Item PW -6 Turnarounds, which included turn arounds at the termination of Harmony Acres Line and Ottergate Line. During 2016 Public Works was also called to approve an entrance permit for a property at the termination of Ottergate Line DISCUSSION During the above noted projects the Unopened Road Allowance between Concession 8 and Concession North Gore, West of Little Jerry Creek, as outlined within Appendix ‘A’, was identified as an area which traverses land which is not conducive to road building. Further connecting Harmony Acres to Ottergate Line has not been identified as a road project to consider in any forward looking capital plans. The abutting property owners have expressed an interest in acquisition of the unopened road allowance. Should Council support the conveyance of the unopened road allowance to the abutting owners the process would be handled in accordance with the Sale & Disposition of Land Policy, By-law No. 2015-021, as follows: 1) Notice 2) Title Search 3) Survey of Lands 4) Appraisal 5) Legal Fees/Registration 6) Conveyance By-law All costs would be funded by the abutting owners and any proceeds from sale allocated at year end. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the LPRCA have no concerns with a potential closure and conveyance of the subject lands. RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report CAO-45/16 re Unopened Road Allowance - Harmony Acres Line be received for information; 2. AND THAT Council declare the unopened road allowance between Concession 8 and Concession North Gore, West of Little Jerry Creek, known as Harmony Acres Line, as shown on Appendix ‘A’, surplus to the needs of the Municipality. 3.AND THAT Staff be directed to convey portions of the unopened road allowance between Concession 8 and Concession North Gore, West of Little Jerry Creek, known as Harmony Acres Line, as shown on Appendix ‘A’, to abutting owners in accordance with the Municipality of Bayham Sale & Disposition of Land Policy as outlined within Report CAO 45/16. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. 0.7 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Kilometers0.7 Notes Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.340 1:13,317 Unopened Road Allowance Parcels Concessions Lot Lines Lagoons Local Arterial Highways World Street Map REPORT CAO TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: July 21, 2016 REPORT: CAO-46/16 SUBJECT: SANDYTOWN RD. BACKGROUND On April 5, 2012 Report PW 07/12 re Sandytown Rd. was presented to Council and outlined the condition of a segment of Sandytown Rd. as follows: Sandytown Road in the northerly section of Lot 16, Concession 8, has been identified as a concern for a number of years. The current road alignment leads to erosion of the banks thereby relating to some concerns for the future. The Municipality of Bayham had acquired some lands around January of 1996 with the intent of realigning this road in the future, but this had not been pursued as of yet. Currently however, staff do express some concerns with the condition and safety of this road. It is currently requiring some means of protection from the erosion and amount of water which flows through the area for on-going maintenance, and expected that in the near future, some significant investment should be undertaken to keep the road passable. The lands which were purchased allow for the best realignment possible in this situation, but the affects may not be what Council was hoping to gain in realigning the roadway. Even with the designed realignment, a 12% grade would remain. This is problematic for safety, particularly relating to winter months, and the maintenance on such a road would continue to be very expensive and ongoing. In addition, the cost to construct the realignment would be somewhat prohibitive, with an engineering estimate of $2.4 million dollars. As an alternative, staff suggests placing a cul-de-sac at the top of the hill at the southerly side of the ravine, and a cul-de-sac prior to the creek at the bottom of the hill on the northerly side, to allow traffic to turn around. The construction cost for these cul-de-sacs is estimated at $314,000. It is recognized that eliminating a through road would have an impact on the convenience of residents in the area, however continuing with the current or realigned road are financially difficult. Such a change would save on on-going maintenance, particularly on the hill area, as well as the culvert across the creek, in addition to the significantly reduced capital cost. Staff simply wishes to advise Council that this may be a project in the future which would require work and Council may wish to consider this project within the next 5 years for a Capital Project. Staff wishes to propose some financial means of dealing with a concern in the not too distant future so Council will have a better idea of what concerns may be addressed in the future. In speaking with the Fire Department Chief Gord Roesch has no concerns with the fact there may be two cul-de-sacs on the road instead of a through road. Council received the report for information and provided commentary as follows: That upgrades to Sandytown Road are cost prohibitive, however if the drainage issue isn't addressed the road may wash out. Staff are to look at this right away. DISCUSSION Maintenance, drainage and safety continue to be a concern at the subject location on Sandytown Rd as no permanent solution was/has ever been developed or implemented. The previously considered road realignment project, attached hereto as Appendix ‘A’, is cost prohibitive and not feasible, in the opinion of staff, for a road classification such as Sandytown Rd. Staff would again bring forward the option of constructing turnarounds in the approximate outlined locations on the mapping shown in Appendix ‘B’. This would close a portion of Sandytown Road and make it dead end at turnarounds from both directions. Staff are not in concurrence with the 2012 cost assessment of ‘cul-de-sacs’ and would be able to incorporate the turnaround expense into 2016 Capital Budget Item PW -6 Turnarounds, baring issue with LPRCA, as significant savings have occurred as a result of local land owner preference for ‘agreement turnarounds’. Should Council proceed with turnarounds and the permanent closing of a section of Sandytown Rd. the Municipality would be required to provide notice in the newspaper of the same, pursuant to Municipal Class Environmental Assessment procedures. Likewise staff would suggest posting the physical location for two weeks and posting notice on the website. RECOMMENDATION 1.THAT Report CAO-46/16 re Sandytown Rd. be received for information; 2.AND THAT Council provide staff direction. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. 0.3 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Kilometers0.3 Notes Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.170 1:6,659 Sandytown Rd Parcels Lagoons Local Arterial Highways World Street Map REPORT CAO TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: July 21, 2016 REPORT: CAO-47/16 SUBJECT: ONTARIO 150 FUND BACKGROUND As noted within Report CAO 41/16 re East Beach Design Consideration the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has launched the Ontario 150 Program. This is a repurposing of the Ontario Trillium Fund – Capital Component Program. This new program is a one-time $25 million program of the Government of Ontario that is administered by the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) and will award one-year grants that range from $5,000 to $500,000 to support local capital needs. More precisely, this program will strengthen communities by repairing, renovating and retrofitting existing infrastructure to better address the diverse needs of Ontario communities while fostering economic growth. The application deadline for the Ontario150 Community Capital Program is September 14, 2016 at 5 PM. There are three application-based Ontario150 grant programs. They include: • The Community Capital Program — a $25 million fund to renovate, repair and retrofit existing community and cultural infrastructure to increase access, improve safety and maximize community use (application period opens July 18 and closes September 14, 2016); • The Partnership Program — a $5 million program to support new partnerships and collaborations that engage, enable and empower youth as the next generation of Ontario leaders (application period opens July 6 and closes September 30, 2016); • And the Community Celebration Program —a $7 million fund to help communities celebrate this historic year (application period opens July 6 and closes September 2, 2016). DISCUSSION As noted above the Ontario 150 Community Capital Program aims to assist municipalities to improve existing infrastructure through repairs, renovations or retrofitting. The grant amounts range from $5,000 to $500,000 and projects must be completed by March 31, 2018. After eliminating projects based on grant program criteria the focus came to the following outline of projects, in no particular order: i.PR-6 – Accessible Viewing Platform – $20,000 ii.East Pier Section - $175,000 a.To be added within 2017 Capital Budget considerations iii.Vienna Memorial Park – Electrical/Misc. - $20,000 a.To be added within 2017 Capital Budget considerations iv.Port Burwell Ball Diamond Shed to Pavilion Conversion - $35,000 a.To be added within 2017 Capital Budget considerations v.Museums Bayham Capital Expenditures a.To be determined based on the outcome of Edison Museum discussions vi.Cenotaph Area Rehabilitation vii.Straffordville Library Elevator a.The County has requested the Municipality consider placement of an elevator in the facility as the facility is the second highest use library in Elgin County. Depending on what Council does with the East Beach Design Considerations this project may be a prime candidate for application to the current Enabling Accessibility Fund call for proposals. As a note, the above does not consider projects which the Municipality has made application for under other, current grant programs. RECOMMENDATION 1.THAT Report CAO-47/16 re Ontario 150 Fund be received for information; 2.AND THAT Council provide staff direction. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO REPORT CAO TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: July 21, 2016 REPORT: CAO-48/16 SUBJECT: RATES & FEES BY-LAW BACKGROUND On January 21, 2016, during Financial Assistance Application discussions, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed a resolution containing the following excerpt: AN D THAT all groups be advised in 2017 no fee waiver's will be granted and the fee by-law will be amended for reduced rates for `Service Clubs' as defined by the Municipality. DISCUSSION The review of the Rates & Fees by-law worked to incorporate fee reductions for ‘Community Partners’ a term utilized in place of the ‘Service Groups’ as outlined in the January 21, 2016 resolution. The revised Rates & Fees By-law aimed to simplify the rental process for users of facilities and also mitigate delays for ball diamond and parking lot usage by placing the requirements for use within the by-law, versus going to Council for each individual request. The Rates & Fees By-law did consider the rates submitted by the Straffordville Community Centre Group in January 2016, however ultimately utilized generally lesser rental values, for the fees to remain consistent and standardized between the two municipal halls. The changes to the Rates & Fees By-law included: 1)Removal of Large Item printing fees. A service the Municipality cannot provide. 2)Addition of previously established Over-Dimensional Load Permit Fees and Museums Bayham Fees. 3)Restructuring of Hall Fees The proposed Rates & Fees By-law is attached hereto as Appendix ‘A’. The previously utilized Vienna Community Centre and Straffordville Hall Fees are attached hereto as Appendix ‘B’ The fee proposal submitted by the Straffordville Hall Committee in January 2016 is attached hereto as Appendix ‘C’ RECOMMENDATION 1.THAT Report CAO-43/16 re Rates & Fees By-law be received for information; 2.AND THAT staff be directed to bring forward the Rates & Fees By-law for Council consideration. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW 2016-XXX BEING A BY-LAW OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM TO ESTABLISH AND REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF FEES FOR INFORMATION, SERVICES, ACTIVITIES AND USE OF MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AND TO REPEAL BY-LAW NUMBER 2014-125 AND ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS WHEREAS Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001,S.O. 2001, as amended, (the Act) provides for a municipality to pass by-laws imposing fees or charges on any persons for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it, for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any other municipality or local board, and for the use of its property including property under its control; AND WHEREAS Section 69 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 as amended provides that a municipality may establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made in respect of planning matters; AND WHEREAS Section 7 of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, as amended authorizes a municipal Council to pass by-laws concerning the issuance of permits and related matters; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS A BY-LAW AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 – General Provisions MUNICIPAL FACILITIES – COMMUNITY CENTRE 1.1 All persons using a municipal facility must provide two (2) weeks prior to event a certificate of insurance in the minimum amount of $2,000,000.00 naming the Municipality of Bayham as additional insured 1.2 Deposit for hall rental is due at time of booking/signing. Balance of rental fee is due a minimum of two (2) weeks prior to date of function 1.3 Failure to cancel in writing two (2) weeks prior to the booking will result in full charges being applied. 1.4 A Damage Deposit is charged for Main Hall or all day use Friday and Saturday which is refundable less applicable damages, if any. 1.5 Damage Deposit based on 50% of rental fee is charged for partial hall use on any day of the week which is refundable less applicable damages, if any. 1.6 “Community Partners” shall mean not-for-profit community organizations, or community organizations with a formal structure and mandate that provide funds or services on a volunteer basis for the good of the community. 1.6.1 Community Partners shall receive a $50 reduction on any Community Centre base rate each use. 1.6.2 Qualification as a ‘Community Partner’ shall be at the discretion of the Municipality. 1.6.3 At the time of passing of this By-law Community Partner shall include, but not be limited to: i.Bayham Historical Society ii.Eastern Star iii.Edisonfest Committee iv.Otter Valley Naturalists v.Photographers of the Otter Valley vi.St. Lukes Anglican Church Guild vii.Straffordville Community Committee viii.SERVE Parent’s Association / Straffordville Public School ix.Vienna Lioness x.Vienna Lions Club 1.7 Community Centre renters are responsible for all fire alarm response costs 1.8 Facility use may be revoked as a result of damage, or improperly disposed of refuse. Clean up fees shall be the responsibility of the user. BALL DIAMONDS 1.9 Ball Diamonds formally used by an organized league are subject to $10.00 fee per use, refundable $20.00 key deposit and provision of insurance certificate in minimum amount of $2,000,000.00 naming The Municipality of Bayham as an additional insured 1.10 Ball Diamonds formally used by community group or ball team are subject to $10.00 fee per use PARKING LOTS 1.11 Community Centre Parking Lot use is subject to provision of liability insurance certificate in minimum amount of $2,000,000.00 naming The Municipality of Bayham as an additional insured BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT 1.12 Activities performed pertaining to By-Law Enforcement Infractions are invoiced at full cost recovery plus 25% Administration Fee PLANNING SERVICES 1.13 Any legal or consulting fees over and above established rates will be added to all planning fees and charged per lot, where applicable; WATER/WASTEWATER SERVICES 1.14 Any water or sewer connection and frontage charges that exceed the minimum fee will have full cost recovery for Capital Construction applied (This will include road restoration and all other costs incurred to install services) 1.15 Water and Sewer connection and frontage charges will be indexed annually in January in accordance with the Statistics Canada Quarterly, Construction Price Statistics, catalogue No. 62- 007 1.16 Bulk Water cost is metered rate plus $250.00 Section 2 – Administration 2.1 Effective upon final passing of By-law 2016-059 the Schedule of Rates and Fees as set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this by-law is hereby adopted and shall remain in effect until amended or rescinded. 2.2 By-law 2014-125 and any and all amendments thereto enacted by the Municipality of Bayham, setting out any such rates and fees shall be and are hereby repealed. 2.3 This by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing. READ A FIRST AND SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED this XXst day of XXXX, 2016 ________________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S Fe e A DM I N I S T R A T I O N Pe r P a g e - G I S M a p s & P l a n s ( 1 1 x 1 7 ) Co p y o f Z o n i n g B y - l a w Co p y o f O f f i c i a l P l a n Pe r P a g e - B l a c k & W h i t e ( 1 1 x 1 7 ) Pe r P a g e - B l a c k & W h i t e ( 8 . 5 x 1 1 & 8 . 5 x 1 5 ) Pe r P a g e - C o l o u r e d ( 8 . 5 x 1 1 & 8 . 5 x 1 4 ) Pe r P a g e - C o l o u r e d ( 1 1 x 1 7 ) Cu l t u r e - T o u r i s m Co u n c i l s & H i s t o r i c H i g h l i g h t s - 5 % H S T Vi e n n a H i s t o r i c a l H i g h l i g h t s ( f r o m 1 8 5 3 - 2 0 0 3 ) - 5% H S T Ba y h a m M e m o r i e s & M i l e s t o n e s - 5 % H S T Fr e e d o m o f I n f o r m a t i o n Fr e e d o m o f I n f o r m a t i o n A p p l i c a t i o n ( e s t a b l i s h e d by P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t i o n ) Fa x Pe r P a g e - G I S M a p s & P l a n s ( 8 . 5 x 1 1 ) Ph o t o c o p y i n g IT E M $0 . 7 5 $2 5 . 0 0 $3 5 . 0 0 $3 . 0 0 $1 . 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $2 . 5 0 $1 . 0 0 $7 . 0 0 $1 1 . 0 0 Lo t t e r y L i c e n c e $1 0 . 0 0 $1 2 . 0 0 3% o f c a s h v a l u e o f a l l p r i z e s ($ 1 0 . 0 0 M i n i m u m F e e ) N/ A $5 . 0 0 $7 . 5 0 / 1 5 m i n s p l u s ph o t o c o p y i n g $ 0 . 2 0 / p a g e Mu n i c i p a l K e y F o b s Di s c o v e r B a y h a m M u g s $2 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 Fr e e d o m o f I n f o r m a t i o n A p p l i c a t i o n ( e s t a b l i s h e d by P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t i o n ) Lo t t e r y L i c e n c e Lo t t e r y L i c e n c e B i n g o SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S Fi r s t 1 5 p i n s f r e e , e a c h ad d i t i o n a l $ 1 . 0 0 ( m a x 2 5 p i n s un l e s s a p p r o v e d ) Co m m i s s i o n i n g o f A f f i d a v i t s a n d C e r t i f i c a t i o n o f Do c u m e n t s - T r a v e l L e t t e r Mi s c e l l a n e o u s F e e s AD M I N I S T R A T I O N c o n t ' d IT E M FE E Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e S e a r c h F e e ( R o u t i n e D i s c l o s u r e ) Al c o h o l a n d G a m i n g C o m m i s s i o n o f O n t a r i o Mu n i c i p a l I n f o r m a t i o n F o r m Pr e p a r a t i o n a n d R e g i s t r a t i o n o f A g r e e m e n t s On t a r i o P o w e r A u t h o r i t y - F e e - i n T a r r i f f S u p p o r t Re s o l u t i o n Bl u e B o x Co m p o s t e r $1 0 0 . 0 0 $2 5 0 . 0 0 $5 0 / h r Re h e r s a l F e e Me e t i n g I n v e s t i g a t o r F e e Li v e s t o c k V a l u e r Tr a i l e r P a r k L i c e n c e Ci v i l M a r r i a g e S o l e m n i z a t i o n S e r v i c e s Ci v i l M a r r i a g e C e r e m o n y i n M u n i c i p a l i t y Co u n t y M a p Mu n i c i p a l P i n s Lo c a l C h a r i t a b l e / N o t f o r P r o p f i t G r o u p re q u e s t s f o r g i v e a w a y s o r e x c h a n g e s e t c . o r pe r s o n a l u s e $2 0 . 0 0 $2 5 . 0 0 $2 5 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $1 0 . 0 0 $1 5 . 0 0 $3 . 0 0 $1 5 0 . 0 0 $7 5 . 0 0 SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S PL A N N I N G S E R V I C E S Zo n i n g B y - l a w A m e n d m e n t A p p l i c a t i o n $ 1 , 0 0 0 p l u s $ 1 , 0 0 0 d e p o s i t Te m p o r a r y U s e Z o n i n g B y - l a w $ 1 , 0 0 0 p l u s $ 1 , 0 0 0 d e p o s i t Te m p o r a r y U s e Z o n i n g B y - l a w R e n e w a l $ 5 0 0 p l u s $ 1 , 0 0 0 d e p o s i t IT E M F E E Of f i c i a l P l a n A m e n d m e n t A p p l i c a t i o n $ 1 , 0 0 0 p l u s $ 1 , 0 0 0 d e p o s i t Si t e P l a n A g r e e m e n t - p r o p e r t i e s w i t h ac c u m u l a t i v e c o m m e r c i a l / i n d u s t r i a l / i n s t i t u t i o n a l bu i l d i n g a r e a o f 1 5 0 m 2 o r l e s s $ 2 5 0 . 0 0 p l u s $ 2 5 0 . 0 0 d e p o s i t Si t e P l a n A g r e e m e n t A m e n d m e n t $ 2 5 0 . 0 0 p l u s $ 2 5 0 . 0 0 d e p o s i t De v e l o p m e n t A g r e e m e n t $ 1 , 0 0 0 p l u s $ 1 , 0 0 0 d e p o s i t Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t t o R e m o v e H o l d i n g $ 5 0 0 . 0 0 p l u s $ 1 , 0 0 0 d e p o s i t Mi n o r V a r i a n c e A p p l i c a t i o n $ 1 , 0 0 0 p l u s $ 1 , 0 0 0 d e p o s i t Si t e P l a n A p p l i c a t i o n / A g r e e m e n t $ 1 , 0 0 0 p l u s $ 1 , 0 0 0 d e p o s i t La n d D i v i s i o n C l e a r a n c e L e t t e r $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 Pl a n n i n g S i g n a g e - I n s t a l l a n d R e m o v e $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 Pl a n o f S u b d i v i s i o n A p p l i c a t i o n $ 1 , 0 0 0 p l u s $ 1 , 0 0 0 d e p o s i t De f e n s e o f O n t a r i o M u n i c i p a l B o a r d A p p e a l s $5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 d e p o s i t - f u l l c o s t to a p p l i c a n t Pl a n n i n g R e p o r t $ 8 0 0 . 0 0 SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S Ov e r D i m e n s i o n a l L o a d P e r m i t Si n g l e U s e $ 2 0 0 . 0 0 An n u a l $ 5 0 0 . 0 0 Ro a d A c c e s s P e r m i t Mu n i c i p a l C o n s e n t A p p l i c a t i o n F e e Bl a d e , P o s t , I n s t a l l a t i o n Re p l a c e m e n t B l a d e O n l y Re p l a c e m e n t P o s t O n l y FE E $1 6 0 . 0 0 $5 0 . 0 0 $9 5 . 0 0 $6 5 . 0 0 $3 0 . 0 0 PU B L I C W O R K S Ci v i c A d d r e s s i n g A p p l i c a t i o n IT E M $5 0 . 0 0 TR E A S U R Y NS F P a y m e n t F e e $ 3 0 . 0 0 Ta x S a l e R e g i s t r a t i o n P r o c e s s F u l l C o s t R e c o v e r y + $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 Zo n i n g C e r t i f i c a t e $ 5 0 . 0 0 Bu i l d i n g / D r a i n a g e W o r k O r d e r $ 5 0 . 0 0 By - l a w / F i r e S e r v i c e s O r d e r $ 5 0 . 0 0 IT E M F E E Ta x C e r t i f i c a t e By - l a w E x e m p t i o n R e q u e s t $5 0 . 0 0 SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S $7 5 . 0 0 $2 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t $1 0 . 0 0 p e r $ 1 , 0 0 0 c o n s t va l u e p l u s $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t p l u s $ 0 . 3 5 p e r s q ft $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t p l u s $ 0 . 2 5 p e r s q ft $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t p l u s $ 0 . 3 5 p e r s q ft $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t p l u s $ 0 . 2 5 p e r s q ft $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t p l u s $ 1 0 . 0 0 p e r $1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 c o n s t v a l u e $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t p l u s $ 1 0 . 0 0 p e r $1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 c o n s t v a l u e Ne w o r a d d i t i o n s u p t o 6 0 0 m 2 Ne w o r a d d i t i o n s o v e r 6 0 0 m 2 Re n o v a t i o n s o f b u i l d i n g s a n d a c c e s s o r y b u i l d i n g s Ot h e r s t r u c t u r e s s u c h a s s i l o s , g r a i n d r y e r s e t c ab o v e g r o u n d Ag r i c u l t u r a l B u i l d i n g s Ki l n s , c o r n c r i b s , e t c Re n o v a t i o n s t o F a r m B u i l d i n g s Fa r m b u i l d i n g s a n d a d d i t i o n s u p t o 6 0 0 m 2 Fa r m b u i l d i n g s a n d a d d i t i o n s o v e r 6 0 0 m 2 Co m m e r c i a l , I n d u s t r i a l , I n s t i t u t i o n a l De c k s , r a m p s , w o o d b u r n i n g a p p l i a n c e s Ac c e s s o r y b u i l d i n g u p t o 5 0 0 s q f t Re n o v a t i o n s o f a c c e s s o r y b u i l d i n g s & r e s i d e n c e s Sw i m m i n g p o o l s $0 . 5 0 p e r s q f t p l u s $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 fl a t $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t $1 0 . 0 0 p e r $ 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 c o n s t va l u e p l u s $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t IT E M Si n g l e F a m i l y D w e l l i n g s FE E mi n i m u m f e e $ 1 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 BU I L D I N G D E P A R T M E N T Ga r a g e s , c a r p o r t s , e t c . o v e r 5 0 0 s q f t SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S Te m p o r a r y M o b i l e H o m e s ( u s e d o n s i t e w h i l e re s i d e n c e i s u n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n ) Ex c e p t i o n s Ot h e r i n s p e c t i o n s Ch a n g e o f u s e $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t Ro o f M o u n t e d S o l a r P a n e l s $0 . 5 0 p e r s q f t $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t p l u s $ 0 . 5 0 p e r s q ft $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t $2 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t $2 0 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t Ad d i t i o n s t o t h e s e m o v e d - i n s t r u c t u r e s a t a n o t h e r ti m e Pe r m i t t r a n s f e r Te m p o r a r y s p e c i a l o c c a s i o n t e n t s $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t Mu n i c i p a l P r o p e r t y D a m a g e D e p o s i t FE E Te m p o r a r y M o b i l e H o m e s Ex i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s a n d h o u s e s m o v e d t o a n e w s i t e Ad d i t i o n s t o m o v e d - i n s t r u c t u r e s a t t h e t i m e o f mo v e $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t p l u s $ 0 . 5 0 p e r s q De m o l i t i o n P e r m i t s us e d f o r s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s a p p r o v e d b y Co u n c i l u p t o 3 y e a r s d u r a t i o n IT E M Mi s c e l l a n e o u s Mo b i l e H o m e s - a s a s e c o n d d w e l l i n g o n a f a r m & tr a i l e r p a r k Mo d u l a r H o m e s Te m p o r a r y M o b i l e H o m e s ( f o r s u p p l e m e n t a r y fa r m d w e l l i n g s ) BU I L D I N G D E P A R T M E N T c o n t ' d $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t p l u s $ 1 0 . 0 0 p e r $1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 c o n s t v a l u e $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t p l u s $ 0 . 5 0 p e r s q ft re v i s e d d u e t o z o n i n g am e n d m e n t $1 0 0 . 0 0 f l a t $1 0 0 . 0 0 r e n e w f e e SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S FE E ex e m p t $2 0 0 . 0 0 $2 0 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 $5 0 0 . 0 0 Cl a s s 5 Le a c h i n g B e d s Ab s o r p t i o n T r e n c h Cl a s s 2 Cl a s s 3 Cl a s s 4 $3 0 0 . 0 0 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $8 0 . 0 0 p l u s $ 1 0 . 0 0 p e r f i x t u r e $2 5 0 . 0 0 BU I L D I N G D E P A R T M E N T c o n t ' d Fi l t e r B e d s Re p a i r s Lo t A s s e s s m e n t s Pl u m b i n g P e r m i t s Dr a i n a g e R e a s s e s s m e n t IT E M Se p t i c S y s t e m Cl a s s 1 SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S 20 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 3 2 0 2 4 $4 6 . 4 1 $ 4 8 . 7 0 $ 5 0 . 9 6 $ 5 3 . 5 3 $ 5 6 . 0 6 $ 5 8 . 8 9 $ 6 2 . 0 1 $ 6 5 . 1 0 $ 6 8 . 4 7 $ 7 2 . 1 2 Se p t a g e R e c e i v i n g F a c i l i t y - D i s p o s a l F e e $ 1 3 . 5 0 / c u b i c m e t r e Ch a n g e o f O c c u p a n c y - N e w A c c o u n t C h a r g e $ 2 5 . 0 0 Ad d t o T a x R o l l $ 5 0 . 0 0 La t e P a y m e n t C h a r g e 5 % IT E M F E E Se w e r C o n n e c t i o n P e r m i t $ 2 0 0 . 0 0 Se w e C o n n e c t i o n I n s p e c t i o n $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 Po r t B u r w e l l $ 2 1 . 6 0 $ 5 , 1 4 2 . 8 6 St r a f f o r d v i l l e $ 3 4 . 4 0 $ 5 , 0 5 9 . 7 9 Vi e n n a $ 3 4 . 4 0 $ 5 , 0 5 9 . 7 9 Se w e r S u r c h a r g e R a t e s Mo n t h l y C h a r g e Se w e r C o n n e c t i o n & F r o n t a g e C h a r g e s 20 1 4 F r o n t a g e / F t C o n n e c t i o n Ed e n $ 3 4 . 4 0 $ 5 , 0 5 9 . 7 9 WA S T E W A T E R SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S 20 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 3 2 0 2 4 $1 1 . 9 6 $ 1 2 . 1 7 $ 1 2 . 4 2 $ 1 2 . 6 6 $ 1 2 . 9 2 $ 1 3 . 1 8 $ 1 3 . 4 4 $ 1 3 . 7 1 $ 1 3 . 9 8 $ 1 4 . 2 6 $2 . 9 9 $ 3 . 1 7 $ 3 . 3 6 $ 3 . 5 6 $ 3 . 7 8 $ 4 . 0 0 $ 4 . 2 4 $ 4 . 5 0 $ 4 . 7 7 $ 5 . 0 6 $7 9 . 8 0 $ 8 3 . 7 9 $ 8 7 . 9 8 $ 9 2 . 3 8 $ 9 7 . 0 0 $ 1 0 1 . 8 5 $ 1 0 6 . 9 4 $ 1 1 2 . 2 9 $ 1 1 7 . 9 0 $ 1 2 3 . 8 0 Ch a n g e o f O c c u p a n c y - N e w A c c o u n t C h a r g e $ 2 5 . 0 0 Ad d t o T a x R o l l $ 5 0 . 0 0 La t e P a y m e n t C h a r g e 5 % Wa t e r M e t e r N o n - R e s i d e n t i a l F u l l C o s t R e c o v e r y Du a l C h e c k V a l v e N o n - R e s i d e n t i a l F u l l C o s t R e c o v e r y Wa t e r M e t e r T e s t $ 3 0 0 . 0 0 Wa t e r S h u t o f f / o n $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 Wa t e r M e t e r - R e s i d e n t i a l ( i n c l u d i n g d u a l ch e c k v a l v e a n d i n s p e c t i o n ) $ 4 2 5 . 0 0 Wa t e r M e t e r R e g i s t e r $ 3 1 0 . 0 0 Wa t e r M e t e r R e g i s t e r f o r P i t A p p l i c a t i o n $ 3 5 0 . 0 0 Du a l C h e c k V a l v e $ 3 0 . 0 0 Wa t e r M e t e r B o t t o m P l a t e w i t h G a s k e t $ 2 0 . 0 0 Ri c h m o n d N / A $ 7 , 7 2 4 . 9 1 Vi e n n a $ 7 . 3 7 $ 2 , 0 1 6 . 8 7 Wa t e r C o n n e c t i o n P e r m i t $ 2 0 0 . 0 0 Wa t e r C o n n e c t i o n I n s p e c t i o n $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 Co n n e c t i o n & F r o n t a g e C h a r g e s 20 1 4 F r o n t a g e / f t C o n n e c t i o n Po r t B u r w e l l $ 7 . 2 0 $ 1 , 9 9 1 . 7 5 Ba s e M o n t h l y C h a r g e Vo l u m e C h a r g e p e r m 3 Un m e t e r e d W a t e r R a t e s ( R i c h m o n d - F i r e L i n e s ) Mo n t h l y C h a r g e WA T E R Me t e r e d W a t e r R a t e s ( P o r t B u r w e l l - V i e n n a ) SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S FE E H S T TO T A L Mo n - T h u r s & S u n $2 7 5 . 0 0 $ 3 5 . 7 5 $ 3 1 0 . 7 5 $3 3 0 . 0 0 $ 4 2 . 9 0 $ 3 7 2 . 9 0 $3 2 0 . 0 0 $ 3 2 0 . 0 0 $1 3 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 . 9 0 $ 1 4 6 . 9 0 $7 5 . 0 0 $ 9 . 7 5 $ 8 4 . 7 5 $7 5 . 0 0 $ 9 . 7 5 $ 8 4 . 7 5 FE E H S T TO T A L $2 7 5 . 0 0 $ 3 5 . 7 5 $ 3 1 0 . 7 5 $3 3 0 . 0 0 $ 4 2 . 9 0 $ 3 7 2 . 9 0 $3 2 0 . 0 0 $ 3 2 0 . 0 0 $1 4 0 . 0 0 $ 1 8 . 2 0 $ 1 5 8 . 2 0 $9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 1 . 7 0 $ 1 0 1 . 7 0 $2 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 6 . 0 0 $ 2 2 6 . 0 0 $1 3 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 . 9 0 $ 1 4 6 . 9 0 $7 5 . 0 0 $ 9 . 7 5 $ 8 4 . 7 5 FE E H S T TO T A L $4 0 . 0 0 $ 5 . 2 0 $ 4 5 . 2 0 Pa v i l l i o n s Fu n e r a l s Mo n - T h u r s & S u n Fr i & S a t Ba s e m e n t w i t h K i t c h e n Ba s e m e n t w i t h o u t K i t c h e n Up s t a i r s & B a r A r e a O n l y Up s t a i r s & B a r A r e a O n l y M e e t i n g s - u p t o 3 h o u r s + $ 3 0 . 0 0 f o r e a c h a d d i t i o n a l h o u r Fr i & S a t Ma i n H a l l M e e t i n g s U p t o 3 h r s + $ 3 0 . 0 0 e a c h ad d i t i o n a l h o u r Tr a c k l e s s L o u n g e u p t o 3 h o u r s + $ 3 0 . 0 0 f o r e a c h a ST R A F F O R D V I L L E C O M M U N I T Y C E N T R E Ma i n H a l l En t i r e F a c i l i t y w i t h K i t c h e n VI E N N A C O M M U N I T Y C E N T R E Da m a g e D e p o s i t Da m a g e D e p o s i t Fu n e r a l s SC H E D U L E O F R A T E S A N D F E E S IT E M F E E FI R E S E R V I C E S Ad u l t s ( 1 3 + ) Ad u l t s ( 1 3 + ) Fa m i l y Fa m i l y Fr e e $3 . 0 0 p e r p e r s o n o n e s i t e $5 . 0 0 p e r p e r s o n f o r b o t h M a r i n e M u s e u m & L i g h t h o u s e MA R I N E M U S E U M A N D L I G H T H O U S E E N T R A N C E F E E S $8 . 0 0 p e r f a m i l y o n e s i t e $1 2 . 0 0 p e r f a m i l y f o r b o t h M a i n e M u s e u m & L i g h t h o u s e Co s t R e c o v e r y - F o a m $250 per pail used Fi r e R e p o r t - P o s t F i r e $75.00 Fi r e I n s p e c t i o n - R e a l E s t a t e Fi r e R e s p o n s e F e e s ( I n d e m n i f i c a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y M u n i c i p a l Ac t . 2 0 0 1 3 9 1 ( 1 ) C u r r e n t M T O h o u r l y r a t e f o r r e q u i r e d a p p a r a t u s $150.00 Fi r e S a f e t y P l a n R e v i e w $100.00 Il l e g a l o r u n a u t h o r i z e d f i r e ( i n c l u d i n g a r s o n o r a n un a u t h o r i z e d b u r n p e r m i t ) Full Cost Recovery Ha z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s C l e a n - u p ( a s p e r E n v i r o n m e n t a l Pr o t e c t i o n A c t , R S O 1 9 9 0 ) Full Cost Recovery MV C R e s p o n s e ( N o n B a y h a m R e s i d e n t ) C u r r e n t M T O h o u r l y r a t e f o r p u m p e r , r e s u e t a n k e r Ot h e r R e s p o n s e ( N o n B a y h a m R e s i d e n t ) C u r r e n t M T O h o u r l y r a t e f o r r e q u i r e d a p p a r a t u s Bu r n P e r m i t $2 5 . 0 0 p e r c a l e n d a r y e a r Un d e r 1 2 y e a r s A DD I T I O N A L C O S T S - C O M M U N I T Y C E N T R E S Fe e Co s t R e c o v e r y $2 0 . 0 0 $5 0 . 0 0 / h o u r It e m Ad d i t i o n a l c l e a n i n g / o t h e r s e r v i c e s 50 % o f r e n t a l f e e Ke y F e e ( r e f u n d a b l e a f t e r f u n c t i o n ) Fa i l i n g t o v a c a t e b y 2 : 0 0 a . m . De p o s i t ( N o n R e f u n d a b l e ) Rental Rates Without Kitchen With Kitchen Main Hall S+Hrs Weekday 300 350 Weekend 400 450 (Friday-Sunday) Stag and Doe 500 550 {1000 Surety Deposit) Weddings 150 *Set up time -day before 3 hrs **Residents Save 15% off total bill if Stag and Doe and Wedding booked at same time Sunday Tenant 260 315 ( 1 year term ) {35% off) Hourly Weekday Weekend Kitchen Only Weekday Weekend Funerals and Memorial Services Non Resident Resident Upper Hall Room 60 80 75 100 100 50 Daily Rate 100 Hourly Rate 35 Fitness Groups 20 (2-3 hours) Trackless Vehicles Lounge Daily Rate Hourly Rate 70 25 Special Programming: Main Hall No Kitchen Fitness Groups 110 130 APPENDIX 'A' B (2-3 hours) Weekday Weekend 35 so Commercial Recreational Activity (2-4 hours) Weekday Weekend 85 150 Damage Deposit Notes: *Damage deposits are formulated at 50% of total rental **Stag and Doe rentals are required to provide $1000 deposit ***Deposits will be refunded less applicable damages, if any Renters are responsible for all fire alarm response costs Kitchen facilities are available with main hall area only, separate rental of kitchen is available Renters are expected to leave the facility in the condition it was rented Cleaning Fees may be deducted from deposit if facility is left unhygenic FEE HST TOTAL FEE HST TOTAL $275.00 $35.75 $310.75 $350.00 $45.50 $395.50 $330.00 $42.90 $372.90 $405.00 $52.65 $457.65 Mon - Thurs & Sun $220.00 $28.00 $248.60 $285.00 $37.05 $322.05 $275.00 $35.75 $310.75 $340.00 $44.20 $384.20 $320.00 $320.00 $320.00 $320.00 $130.00 $16.90 $146.90 $130.00 $16.90 $146.90 FEE HST TOTAL FEE HST TOTAL $275.00 $35.75 $310.75 $350.00 $45.50 $395.50 $330.00 $42.90 $372.90 $405.00 $52.65 $457.65 $320.00 $320.00 $320.00 $320.00 $140.00 $18.20 $158.20 $185.00 $24.05 $209.05 $90.00 $11.70 $101.70 $135.00 $17.55 $152.55 $200.00 $26.00 $226.00 $250.00 $32.50 $282.50 $130.00 $16.90 $146.90 $130.00 $16.90 $146.90 $55.00 $7.15 $62.15 $65.00 $8.45 $73.45 $75.00 $9.75 $84.75 $120.00 $15.60 $135.60 FEE HST TOTAL FEE HST TOTAL $40.00 $5.20 $45.20 $40.00 $5.20 $45.50 Funerals & Others (whole or main hall) Straffordville Park Pavillion Non-Residents VIENNA COMMUNITY CENTRE Residents Non-Residents Residents Main Hall (with servery) Additional cleaning/other services $50.00/hour 50% of rental fee 50% or rental fee Key Fee (refundable after function) Failing to vacate by 2:00 a.m. Deposit (Non Refundable) ADDITIONAL COSTS BOTH COMMUNITY CENTRES Residents Non-Residents Cost Recovery Cost Recovery $20.00 $20.00 $50.00/hour Funerals & Others (partial) Entire Facility with Kitchen Mon - Thurs & Sun Fri & Sat Basement with Kitchen Basement without Kitchen Upstairs & Bar Area Only Upstairs & Bar Area Only Meetings - up to 3 hours + $30.00 for each additional hour Kitchen Only - May service basement & entire hall only Fri & Sat Main Hall Meetings Up to 3 hrs + $30.00 each additional hour STRAFFORDVILLE COMMUNITY CENTRE Mon - Thurs & Sun Fri & Sat Main Hall (without servery) Damage Deposit Damage Deposit REPORT CAO TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: July 21, 2016 REPORT: CAO-49/16 SUBJECT: EAST BEACH DESIGN CONSULTATION RESULTS BACKGROUND On April 7, 2016 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution: THAT Harbourfront Committee proposal re Port Burwell East Beach Landscape Improvement be received for information; AN D THAT staff be directed to elevate and seed Part 'A' within the current confines of the drainage outlet; AN D THAT staff be directed to bring back detailed design considerations and East Beach plan with public consultation plan for Council consideration. On June 16, 2016 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution: THAT Report CAO-49/16 re East Beach Design Considerations be received for information; AND THAT Council direct staff to post an East Beach Consultation as contemplated within Report CAO 41/16 and report back to Council July 21, 2016; AND THAT a Public Information Session be held June 30, 2016 from 7:00 —8:00 p.m. at the Port Burwell Fire Hall. On June 30, 2016 the Public Information Session at the Port Burwell Fire Hall was well attended and featured significant discourse on the subject matter. DISCUSSION As per the direction of Council landscape improvements were conducted in the month of April 2016, with the assistance of the Harbourfront Committee and a local soil donor. Staff worked with the Municipal Engineer, Spriets, to develop the East Beach Design Considerations, attached hereto as Appendix ‘A’. The Consultation and Feedback information, which closed on July 15, 2016 at noon, pertaining to said design or possible design considerations is attached hereto as Appendix ‘B’. An excerpt of the ‘Costing-Funding’ commentary pertaining to Report CAO 41/16 and any Easy Beach Design Budgeting is as below: The costing of the project attached hereto is greater than the entire 2016 Capital Levy. To move forward with East Beach Improvements, once directed and approved by council, staff would propose the following options: 1)Conduct smaller line items (rope/posts, bury hydro service) towards year end if budget savings exist and with public works staff where possible. 2) Budget for components of the project in the 2017 and beyond budgets. 3)Report CAO 47/16 re Ontario 150 Fund and Report CAO 50/16 re Enabling Accessibility Fund incorporate possibilities to fund project components should Council determine proceeding immediately on any qualifying project component is considered prudent. The purpose of the East Beach Design Consultation, as outlined within Report CAO-49/16 re East Beach Design Considerations, was to obtain community input on the proposed design and possible alternatives and options. Further, following Council direction at the July 21, 2016 staff could incorporate direction into the 2017 Budgets for Council consideration during budget deliberation. RECOMMENDATION THAT Report CAO-49/16 re East Beach Design Consultation Results be received for information; AND THAT Council provide staff direction. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO architects - engineers SPRIET ASSOCIATES MAY 31 2016 PLAN PROPOSED CONCEPT PLANS PORT BURWELL EAST BEACH SCALE: 1 : 250 JOB 216117 KEY PLAN SCALE: NTS PORT BURWELL BEACH IMPROVEMENTS Comments Name I wish to comment on behalf of the PB/HARBOURFRONT Committee regarding an upcoming Public Meeting, to review some Design Proposals for the Port Burwell East beach...I had only read your report after the Council Meeting and thank you for putting together the proposed Considerations. From the Council discussion last evening, it has been proposed to hold a Public Meeting, on June 30th at the PB Fire Hall. I interpreted that this would be a standalone meeting with Drawings, Photos, etc. that would allow the Public to review and comment in written form, emails, etc. There would be no presentations by staff or others. I would assume from your Report that the "ideas" for the Beach area would be primarily from the Consultants' Harbour Master Plan. The Harbourfront, Accessible Stand Expansion, Up graded Parking, and further development of the Grass area adjacent to the East Pier, and the continued placing of Benches along the East Pier, and other Proposals. We concur that this is a good idea and would help in establishing a Beach Area Plan for the Future. Perhaps I misunderstood the timing allotted for such a meeting as to be confined for one hour only at 7:00 to 8: 00 pm. We would like to suggest that it be extended to at least a three hour span, i.e. 5:00 to 8:00 pm giving more people the flexibility to attend. The Harbourfront Committee would be pleased to assist in any way toward this important meeting, (i.e.: set up, pre meeting publicity, attendance during meeting, etc.) Earl Shea on behalf of the Harbourfront Committee Considering the situation in Bayham at present regarding the $6 Million anchored to the Submarine and the fact the East Beach is Wonderful as it is Why Change? I love the beach in its present form and am also impressed at the grooming done this year. I'm good with the status quo! Bob Drayson Gentlemen: The meeting in Bayham 1 tonight: A few things that I see needed: Very first thing needed is a four way stop top of Pitt street with a safe area for pedestrians to cross. This area here is a potential area for accidents when busy especially for pedestrians when busy. Area for offsite parking is next. A good example of type of parking would be the town of St Jacobs downtown. They have no downtown parking yet have an offsite parking area. Beach area needs washrooms open later in year as well. Possible dog beach since we have to pay for access to provincial park. Far east of beach would be perfect for this. People come from all over our area to walk dogs on west side boardwalk before access was closed. Possibly a dog park needed? Benches for downtown area. Posting board area for events. Recently had someone ask me when and where the Canada Day parade would be and what time. Area between schooners and old hardware store access down to sub. The flat areas beside sub have become park like setting now with picnic tables and areas for people to walk and eat and take their families. This area is key to center of town for pedestrian traffic to allow people to visit sub or wheel house or the flat area park. Perhaps an outdoor theater area. Outdoor movies went well at last beach fest. Parking/parking/and more parking. Something I forgot to mention. Please accommodate this group in design. They work hard They enjoy beach as well I know this group Trained my horse Doug Park I attended the meeting tonight. My feelings are that Pt. Burwell has a lot of potential with the beach being a great calling card for bringing in people from out of town they come in use our facilities enjoy the day but from a business point I don't feel that they contribute back to the municipality. On the other hand if a committee was formed similar to the "Straffordville Hall Committee" and done fund raisers to match Government grants the people that want the beach could have their beach without effecting the tax payer. The turnaround has worked fine all these years all they need is a sign saying "No Large Vehicles Beyond This Point" Pete Wiebe First - David and I wish to commend Council and Admin Staff. We have noticed, and applaud, an increase in this term of Council in a long- range, vision-based, community-wide approach to the management of the municipality's assets. Secondly, we wish to express our support for the suggestion developed by others at last night's public meeting - that Council create an ad hoc focus group to review and revise as necessary the excellent plan developed to date. A focus group of this nature, with a specific mandate and timeline, can be of great assistance to a Council - in more widely eliciting public response to and suggestions for the plan, by naming citizens to it with specific expertise, in canvassing pertinent local organizations, and at minimal cost. Thirdly, speaking both on my own behalf and that of the Port Burwell Historical Society, I would recommend the inclusion of 3-4 narrative/pictorial historic plaques in the design to enrich visitor experience, community pride, sense of place and to connect beach goers with the village centre above. Suggested topics: Along the pier - 1. 19th century shipbuilding and lumber trade at the harbour. 2. 20th century trans-lake shipping, particularly the Ashtabula and the coal era. Along the boardwalk: 1. Shipwrecks and rescues on the lake, specifically the 'Cecil M' in 1938. 2. Holidaying at the beach since the Victorian era, highlighting the 1920s-1950s at Sam Shipp's Casino. Plaques could replicate the format used recently at the Market Square. The Historical Society would be pleased to research and write the narrative, and to source photos and diagrams. Design and construction would be approximately $1200 per plaque - $5000 total in a waterfront plan of millions. Lastly, David and I like the plan A LOT - Traffic flow, parking, boardwalk, natural habitat, aesthetics, pedestrian flow. We also like many of the suggestions made by others: connecting the east end up to Memorial Park in particular. A small amount of money each year Susan & David Start can make significant progress in a short time toward a goal as well articulated as this plan. Thank you for your consideration of this input. I am opposed to the spending of any tax dollars to enhance the parking or other amenities on the East Beach. Tax dollars should be used to provide essential services. I can accept the need for some beach maintenance for sanitary health purposes; further enhancements would provide an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. We have seen over the past couple of years sidewalks that are being repaired with orange paint, roads that need to be repaired, bridges that are near the end of their lifespan, garbage collection that is being reduced to the point where some taxpayers are having to pay additional fees for garbage disposal or seek alternative disposal methods and I am sure that the members of Bayham’s Council are aware of many other problems that need to be fixed. Contrary to some of the arguments in support of the Beach Proposal such as the Beach Project improvements serving to increasing property values, this has value only if you intend selling your property in the near future. Those who intend to remain, long term, would find their property values increase and thus have their property taxes increase accordingly, they receive a beautified beach they may or may not use and the definite burden of increased property taxes which they may not be able to afford. While I do not have a magic Crystal Ball, the past realty records I am sure will indicate that property values will continue to increase even without the East Beach enhancements. Allowing a Natural verses Manicured beach. I do not think this is something that is desired by many; however some naturalization such as the formation of dunes in from the shore could be an idea that could be a cash savings to the municipality. Water levels by my recollection have reached sustained levels that would be near the southern side of the washroom facility, so some dune formation and allowing of a natural berm formation could be useful and allowing this would reduce the amount of beach that would need to be groomed for sanitation purposes effectively reducing maintenance costs In conclusion my vote is” No” to the East Beach Proposal and I am not interested in any expenditure of tax dollars to continue with this matter. I implore you, Bayham’s Councilors in this matter and all Budget considerations to be frugal in your spending. Wisely concentrate your expenditures to essential services such as garbage collection, road repairs, and water and sewer items and let those who want the luxuries find funds from other sources than the general tax coffers. Fred Shelly I would like to see a band shell, some type of a water park, a boardwalk. Rick Vernon Thank-you for providing both the opportunity and the conduit to provide public input into the subject planning activities. I have read with mixed interest the July 14, 2014 IBI Group Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan and studied the proposed re design of the beach area as submitted by Spriet Associates dated 31 May 2016 and Mr. Wades letter of December 2015. I acknowledge the input and assimilation of various interests culminating in all presentations which are both visionary and socially responsible. The cost benefit analysis, however, is non-existent and conspicuously absent. My concern as a taxpayer at this juncture lies with the fiscal uncertainty surrounding the legal situation regarding the Elgin County Museum and the Township of Bayham. I respectfully suggest it to be more prudent to hold this exercise in abeyance until such time as Bayham Barry W. Parker Township knows for certain it’s rights and ownership with respect to the Oberon submarine: now a presumably permanent fixture on the riverside. Further, the authors of the Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan make it abundantly clear that a successful plan would depend upon land ownership rights as articulated several times as tactfully but unmistakably as is possible. Section 3.4, Para 2 Some key issues exist in terms of harbour access, control of adjoining lands areas and the capital costs associated with marina development. Section 3.5 Para 2: In addition to the municipality, other key ownerships in the core reside with private landholders. The quantum of high profile sites held in private ownership may create some challenges for the development of a consistent Waterfront Plan, as in some cases owners have been unwilling to invest in their properties or provide public easements. To this end, ownership may hold back the success of redevelopment of large parts of the Waterfront……….Consideration should be strongly given to the acquisition of privately held lands that might prevent the development of a cohesive Waterfront Master plan. And, of special note, Section 3.5 Para Given the above noted challenges with ownership of the Harbour front lands, it is important the Waterfront Master Plan develop an implementation plan that has staged development in order to accommodate improvements that can be completed absent of the harbour area lands. Similarly, the Master Plan will need to be staged to match financial realities. And even more blunt in Section 5 Para 7 Currently there is a mixture of public and private land owners within the study area which makes investment and the creation of a cohesive waterfront plan difficult. Consolidating ownership within the study area will provide greater flexibility to construct infrastructure and public assets; thus strengthening the functionality and connectivity of subject lands. Indeed, Bayham Township faces some rather unique and unfortunate financial realities and it behooves the corporation to certify its position with respect to the Oberon and lands thereon and then re-visit the Master Plan. If however, council and Bayham Township “damn the torpedoes” (no pun intended) and insist on continuing with the architectural changes as suggested by Spriet et al, and, with all due respect to the stakeholders of said proposal who worked diligently to its end, this writer can’t conceive of any argument to justify a beachfront boardwalk. Furthermore, and worthy of note is that on 03 July, 2016, there were approximately 56 cars nonchalantly parked on the parking lot to the east of Robinson and approxim ately 116 cars/trucks similarly parked on the informal lot to the west of Robinson totalling 170 surpassing the parking vacancies recommended. The aforementioned beach-goers were oblivious to the esthetics of the parking situation and were clearly enjoying the admirably kempt beach. So, to be direct; • Stop all efforts to improve the beach area other than continued maintenance. • Pursue swift legal closure to the Elgin Military Museum debacle. • Explore and act with due diligence upon all options for land ownership and then revise the Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan accordingly. After all, it is still just a “Plan”. First I would like to say the meeting about the beach was very well done! Even with a lot of negativity I think you all did a great job! My thoughts on the beach design is very small. We would need an area in which a stage could be put on the beach for events. On the design with the boardwalk and post there isn't an area for when this needs to be done. Jayde Winkworth I don't believe a boardwalk is a good idea. Yes I love the thought behind it but it makes just another obstacle for people to get to the beach especially those who need a walker, wheelchair or the mother with a stroller. Also the up keep on the boards will cost more in the long run. There needs to be a drain for the water that keeps coming onto the beach that causes the pools of stagnant water. As for parking just leaving it a Gravel and putting up post I think is the best bet low cost and easier to do plus adds the feel of an old harbour town. Thanks again for the chance to put in my ideas. To whom it may concern: In regards to the beachfront project I believe funds would be better allocated towards our aging roads and sidewalks. I feel as though orange paint for sidewalks and filling potholes every year are band aids and would rather see these problems fixed. We have already been hit with submarine that raised our taxes and feel that a plebiscite including the entire municipality should be in order so the entirety of the people of the municipality have a say! If you decide to go ahead with the project I do hope you consider paid parking like Port Stanley so the tourists that wish to use the beach can help fund and maintain it. Considering Port Stanley seems to be the desired motto! Trevor Shelly In regards to the East Beach Design Considerations, I am in favour of the CAO’s recommendations regarding costing-funding and design proposal. The East Beach is in great need of improvements. It makes sense to approach this project in the most cost-effective manner possible to avoid additional expenses incurred by the tax payers. I feel that applying for grant monies to offset costs for upgrades, stretching the project out over several years, and utilizing our municipal works employees to their fullest potential in this project would be in the best financial interest of our municipality. It makes sense to visit changes the turnabout at a later date at the conclusion of the Port Burwell Storm Sewer Environmental Assessment as drainage is an issue that needs to be addressed as well. The turnabout is functional and serves its purpose well enough for now. The proposed design is modest and realistically represents what is affordable to the municipality at present time. The boardwalk will lend to the aesthetic needs of the beach while accommodating accessibility needs. I like the rope and post design as well as it gives a nautical feel to the beach. I particularly like the proposed signage, this is something our municipal assets lack and I feel it will enhance the aesthetic image of the main street as well as the beach area. In regards to parking, I feel that the proposed parking plan would accommodate more visitors while working within a reasonable budget. I like the Mayor`s suggestion that a parking pad be included for motorcycles as it will provide a more stable area for parking. I also feel that imposing a parking fee for non-residents at the East Beach would generate funds that could be utilized for further enhancements to the beach area for years to come. I feel that an exception would be to those visitors whose vehicles have handicapped status; they should be exempt from parking fees as well. To be able to make this possible, the municipality could issue parking permit stickers to residents, and implement parking lot attendants, possibly a future job for a student or two? Regarding other enhancements to the East Beach, the possibilities are endless. I would love to see the addition of a splash pad, Marni Wolfe amphitheatre, volleyball courts, vendor areas, covered shade areas etc. at the East Beach. The reality is, money is limited at this time and it would not be feasible to incorporate such ideas in the near future without additional funding from an outside source given the current financial obligations of the municipality. Create a Beach front Project Committee that will be transparent to municipality and residents of Bayham. The committee should create a survey involving both residents, tourists & vacationers. Change Robinson St. Traffic circle to landscaping as suggested in Storm Water Drain Plans. Colour branding using red& blue on white back ground embraced where appropriate in this project. (as seen on Port Burwell village signage, flower planters, lighthouse etc.) Maintain the whole length of the beach as a recreational beach. Possibly maintain Boardwalk in winter, to facilitate walking. Add beach bathroom facilities to existing change house & remove Port a Potties! Or at least place Port a Potties in a discrete enclosure. Helen Deltor & Terry Parker 1. Parking should be paid for by any users from outside of Bayham township, as with Port Stanley & Turkey Point, two other great beaches, Port Stanley's decision to charge for parking has not altered the volume usage of the beach. This information was printed in the local papers showing the revenue it generated. I resent the removal of day use garbage, grooming of the beach use of municipal water unless it is paid for by the users of the beach!!! We are not cash machines for persons outside of the township!! To appease residents and take care of our own, the township should issue, - AFFIXED NON VEHICLE TRANSFERABLE parking permits for persons of Bayham township. The parking permits could be gotten from the township with PROOF of residency. Just as we come into get our dog tags. AFFIXED means stuck to the vehicle and non- transferable, means it cannot be used on any other vehicle that it is issued to, and that plate number must be on the permits AND only one vehicle per residence!! NO LOOP HOLES!! -parking regulation could be a summer student job creation, for a student who is a BAYHAM resident THE Prov. park charges for day use, and so should we. When I used to sit down at the boardwalk, several years ago I saw a greyhound bus (coach bus) pull in to the parking lot full of people who disembarked and walked into the back end of the park beach. They were stealing park revenues. The government doesn't give away free beach, so why are we?? Our beach is better than the provincial side because it is groomed for family use. Please do not penalize the residents of Bayham with picking up the costs of day users. Day use costs. The noise pollution, the garbage, the human waste into our systems, the municipal water, and the air pollution from their vehicles, costs Bayham RESIDENTS, and particularly residents of Port Burwell. We like to see them come, but we like to see them go. If you have a nice beach they will come, and they will pay. Compare Janet Koost the costs to use all the other beaches. Turkey point charges, Port Stanley charges, Grand Bend, Pinery. All charge in some form, and for parking. Thank you for reading my submission. I have looked at the design and would suggest that there be more wheelchair accessible picnic area. The shade of the tree is premium and everyone seeking shade tries to utilize the area on the beach under the tree. I have seen also where more than one person needed the picnic table. So additional tables would be wonderful. Now to discuss mobimats so that we can someday afford to have a mobichair. The population that is able to walk is advantaged but those who can't still want and need to be able to enjoy the feeling of sand and surf. I'm sure that this is one your wish list. At least I hope it is. Val Donnell My thoughts.. After spending many years working as a Lifeguard on the East beaches of Toronto there are a couple of things I noted during this time.. The number of heat stroke victims was considerable and they often required medical attention. As there is very limited shade areas on the East beach, I think the necessity for an area where people can congregate to get shade is very important.. a large pavilion with potable water access is a feature that should be integrated into the plan. A drinking fountain would be a nice touch as well in this pavilion area. This area should also be easily accessible to the washroom and I suggest a Change area also be considered as the recent change house no longer exists and the current washroom area is not sufficient to accommodate this. A much larger and more easily accessible area for the physically challenged guests in a shady area would be an asset to the beach.. Currently the area set aside for this is neither large enough or easily accessible due to having to push wheelchairs or walkers through sand to get to it.. the current area also needs work as the boards there are falling apart and might even be considered dangerous.. A boardwalk is an expensive luxury we probably don't need but sometime down the road it would also be a nice touch. There is one in the east beaches of Toronto but it also has a running and bike track alongside and is mostly in the shade due to the large and very old tree growth alongside them.. The beach is Port Burwell is our largest asset and needs to be brought into this century.. as a business owner as well as resident, I feel developing it further will ring further prosperity and growth to our community and will increase property values, add further commerce to PB and enhance the quality of life in Bayham for all residents.. Other beach communities have done this and have benefited tremendously from doing so.. Just my thoughts and trying to be reasonable and fiscally responsible... as my Uncle Bob used to say.. "you can't eat a pig like that all at once".. Serge A Pieters REPORT CAO TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: July 21, 2016 REPORT: CAO-50/16 SUBJECT: ENABLING ACCESSIBILITY FUND BACKGROUND In June 2016 the Enabling Accessibility Fund was launched. The Community Accessibility Stream provides funding to eligible recipients for projects that improve accessibility in communities across Canada. Projects may include: • renovating, retrofitting or constructing community facilities where programs and/or services are or will be offered to people with disabilities; • retrofitting motor vehicles used as community-based transportation; and, • providing information and communications technologies for community use. To be considered eligible for funding, projects must be directly related to removing barriers and increasing accessibility for people with disabilities in Canadian communities. All projects must also meet the specific eligibility criteria identified in calls for proposals, including support from the community. The application deadline is July 26, 2016. DISCUSSION After eliminating projects based on grant program criteria the focus came to the following outline of projects, in no particular order: i. PR-6 – Accessible Viewing Platform – $20,000 ii. Straffordville Library Elevator a. The County has requested the Municipality consider placement of an elevator in the facility as the facility is the second highest use library in Elgin County. As noted within Report CAO 47/16 re Ontario 150 Fund, depending on what Council does with the East Beach Design Considerations this project is a prime candidate for application to the current Enabling Accessibility Fund call for proposals. As a note, the above does not consider projects which the Municipality has made application for under other, current grant programs. Council must also be cognisant that past return of approved EAF Funds may have an impact on future award of the same. For that reason staff have not included Accessible Entrance costing at the Vienna Community Centre. RECOMMENDATION 1.THAT Report CAO-50/16 re Enabling Accessibility Fund be received for information; 2.AND THAT Council provide staff direction. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO REPORT CAO TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: July 21, 2016 REPORT: CAO-51/16 SUBJECT: MUSEUMS BAYHAM – EDISON MUSEUM BACKGROUND At the Special Meeting of Council on May 11, 2015 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution: THAT staff be directed to bring forward a resolution to declare the Edison Museum and the abutting vacant property surplus to the needs of the Municipality for Council consideration at the May 21, 2015 meeting of Council. At the Regular Meeting of Council on May 21, 2015 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham also passed the following resolution: THAT Report CAO-27/15 re Municipal Property Surplus – Edison Museum be received for information; AND THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham declare 14 Snow Street, being Plan 54 Lot 8-9, Vacant Lot, being Plan 54 Lot 7 and the unopened road allowance between Lot 7 and 8 surplus to the needs of the Municipality for the purpose of sale via a realtor; AND THAT the Municipality provide until June 26, 2015 at 4:30 PM for written public comment on the same. AND THAT staff be directed to circulate the RFP utilizing the Zoning By-law exception and report back to Council. As part of the standard records investigation due diligence when municipal property is to be disposed or transferred, staff sorted through all historical records, which are now digitized and searchable within Laserfiche. No documents of concern were identified. On June 16, 2015 staff were provided with documentation of a donation agreement for the Edison Museum lands from a Museums Bayham member. Staff provided said documents to legal for assessment as follows: The basis for the transfer from Douglas Howard to the Village of Vienna was a conditional gift. The Edison Museum property has conditions that are ongoing, perpetual conditions that were set out in reasonably specific ways. When a Court investigates whether or not the conditions of a gift are being satisfied, it looks to the wishes of the Donor to determine the overall spirit of the gift as well as any specific rules that may have been reduced to writing. In the case of the Edison Museum, the conditions of the gift of land were all reduced to writing and essentially amount to the following: a. The Village of Vienna will create an Edison Museum b. The Village of Vienna will operate an Edison Museum c. The Howards will donate parts 8 and 9 of plan 54 (the Property) d. The gift is binding on successors, assigns, heirs, etc. of the Donor and Donee e. The language included for the length of the conditions is “for all time” As a result, during 2015 and 2016, the Municipal solicitor engaged with the executor of the estate of Mr. Howard, to determine if the Municipality could be released from the conditions of the gift and/or modify the conditions or failing all else transfer the land and structure back to the Howard estate. On January 28, 2016 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolution: THAT the discussion topic of the Edison Museum be referred to Museums Bayham for consideration specifically considering the provision of temporary and static displays and the response be provided to Council in the form of an Advisory Board Committee resolution. On April 21, 2016 the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following resolutions: 1) Museums Bayham Advisory Board & Committee Resolution re Unstaffed Static Display THAT the Council of the Municipality of Bayham supports the proposal from Randy Breyer for an unstaffed static display in the Bayham Family Table Restaurant for the 2016 season. AND THAT the Curator to be hired develop the static display to be placed at the Bayham Family Table Restaurant. 2) Museums Bayham Advisory Board & Committee Resolution re future of the preservation of the Edison Story THAT the Council of the Municipality of Bayham supports that the current building lot and the current funds that were raised by the building committee be kept in their current state until a final decision is made regarding the Edison Museum. After significant discussions by the municipal solicitor with the heir to the Howard estate it was determined that the heir requested the property be transferred back to the ownership of the Howard estate. As per the direction of Council the transfer process will be completed late August early September. DISCUSSION In assessing the potential future of the Edison Museum or iterations of the same Council has relied on discussions with the Museums Bayham Committee. A key finding of which was that Bayham has a great deal of significant cultural and historical stories to tell beyond just Edison that are not currently being told. The aforementioned is a fact that has been previously identified in numerous studies compiled for the Municipality as indicated below. Likewise, the Edison Museum has had an approximate average annual attendance, between 2010-2015, of 506 persons per year. Subsequently, staff utilized the aforementioned study information, the Council requested Elgin County review of the current Edison Museum, municipal museum, cultural and historical asset best practices and portions of Museums Bayham commentary to develop a proposal for Council consideration to move forward. Studies: 2014 Economic Initiatives & Opportunities Plan Capitalize on Cultural Assets and Resources with a Place-based Approach to Tourism: A comprehensive cultural resource mapping exercise based on current provincial policy and mapping guidelines would further inform Bayham’s marketing and promotional efforts and support future community economic development services and programs. Mapping results could assist with the planning and development associated with festivals and events, tourism product development opportunities, and investment opportunities for both the municipality and the county. Rather than focusing on major attractions, place-based cultural tourism provides the visitor with an authentic and memorable experience through discoveries of the destination’s history and heritage, its stories, landscape, and culture. This is often a more effective and affordable approach to tourism investment for municipalities. 2014 Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan The Waterfront Master Plan will expand upon the Bayham Culture Plan (2005) conducted by F.J. Galloway and Associates & IBI Group. Part of the methodology to developing this master plan involved extensive public engagement process for the purpose of identifying current cultural assets as they relate to Bayham's culture, heritage and tourism resources and to explore emerging tourist market potential. Community consultation identified the beach, harbour and shoreline of the Port Burwell area as being a strength in the community. The Bayham Culture Plan lists Four Pillars as the foundation to the culture plan. These are important and should guide the implementation of the Waterfront Master Plan and support the development of a successful area that incorporates recreation and commercial activity. The Bayham Experience is defined in the Plan based on four key opportunity pillars, being: 1) The Lake Erie shoreline, with its beaches, water-based activities, the harbour, marina, vistas and related connections. 2) The heritage and history of the area, involving ship building, lumbering, transportation, the Edison family and numerous other key links that create both attractiveness to the area and unique learning opportunities. 3) Recreation activities that attract visitors to the beaches, waterways, hiking, etc. 4) The natural environment, and the diversity of environmental areas, etc., available within quiet settings, that are not overly developed or threatened, and which provide quality outdoor experiences for both recreational and educational activities. In addition to the Four Pillars, the Bayham Culture Plan outlines a number of relevant goals to guide future development. Most notably: To increase the sense of community pride and engagement in pursuing Bayham's future by encouraging increased participation in community development and a broader understanding and appreciation of the community's tourism potential and heritage resources. 2007 Marketing Strategy & Promotion Initiative for Cultural and Heritage Products In 2006, the Bayham Cultural Committee (BCC) and the Bayham Tourism and Community Marketing Committee (BTCC) determined the need to proceed with implementing some of the recommendations of the Bayham Culture Plan. The document that was produced focused on museum and heritage experiences with the goal of preparing ‘a working strategic plan that [would] maximize visitor attendance at heritage events and museums, while preserving their separate and distinct natures.’ The study concluded that while there are a wide variety of cultural/heritage resources within the Municipality, they are less distinct and robust from the rest of the County in terms of content and/or quality. The study made a number of recommendations to strengthen this finding that are also applicable to this Waterfront Master Plan, including: i. Emphasize the unique and distinct qualities of the cultural assets will make Bayham more competitive. The cultural assets should be cross- marketed with the other regional attractions. ii. Enhance and make more visible and accessible existing primary heritage and natural resources in Bayham (rather than develop new products). This includes some specific recommendations as follows: a. Design a distinct 'name mark' and graphic identity to be used on all signs and promotional material; b. Install better entrance, banner and event signage in Memorial Park, beach/pier area, Lighthouse, Marine Museum, and all tourist areas; c. Install interpretive and wayfinding signage throughout the tourist areas; d. Use Public Art or Marine Artefacts to enhance the tourist areas, particularly Memorial Park and along trails; e. Install more benches, gathering areas and viewpoints throughout, f. Install a storm shelter for weather viewing near the beach/pier area, g. Develop a mixed-use area adjacent to lighthouse/marine museum that includes food, recreation, crafts and retail opportunities; h. Make improvements to Otter Valley Trail (Glen Erie Line) and Talbot Trail including surface upgrades, signage, access, increased heritage experiences; and i. Install viewing platforms for Big Otter Creek and other significant environmental features. j. Create an identity for Bayham as a place. As a Municipality it doesn't have an identity beyond the local market. In addition to these specific items listed above, the study recommended that three key communication goals be accomplished. These goals are: i. To make the existing heritage resources more visible; ii. To establish Bayham as a place and destination; iii. To create a sense of synergy between cultural assets of Bayham. Elgin County Museum Review Attached hereto as Appendix ‘A’ is the Elgin County review of the current Edison Museum collection based on the request of the Municipality of Bayham to provide a recommendation on key artefacts currently held and options for reducing the collection size of the Edison Museum. It is important to note the recommendations and considerations within Appendix ‘A’ provided by the County were provided at the request of the Municipality of Bayham and to the question of refocusing the museum and reducing collection size. Best Practices – Relevant Considerations The following best practices highlight current successes within the municipal and museum world pertaining to effectiveness of programs and initiatives that would align with what staff sense the goals of the Municipality and Museums Bayham are. The focus includes digitization of collections and the changing nature of visitorship and place making through cultural and heritage signage. City of London Culture is a deep and encompassing concept that enhances the quality of life of residents and visitors on a daily basis. Understanding and building upon the complexity of culture, and recognizing the significant value it generates, both from a quality of life and economic perspective, enables the achievement of broader reaching and more meaningful outcomes. Celebrating and promoting London’s culture, including its assets, programming, and other defining characteristics, is key to building awareness about the potential value and opportunities culture can bring to the city. i. George Wenige and the Red Bird Bicycle Picnics ii. City Mills: The Legacy of Charles Hunt Grey Roots Museum & Archives: Grey Roots has grown and developed into a unique facility from the County Museum's beginning in 1955 and the later establishment of a County Archives in 2000. With the consolidation of the Grey County Museum, Grey County Archives, and Tourism in 2004, Grey Roots has become a multi- faceted attraction. Innovative programs and demonstrations, rotating exhibits, a heritage village, archival resources and superior customer service come together to create an exciting and educational visitor experience. You can find the Grey County Historic Communities online mapping project at the Grey County Maps Portal, https://geo.grey.ca as well as through Grey Roots Museum & Archives’ website Archives Canada Users give Library and Archives Canada low marks for public access to collection. New York Times – Museum Visitorship “Museums in the past are about visitorship, but the meaning of visitorship has changed,” he said. “You could be sitting in China, sitting in India, and this will only cause you to put us on your bucket list.” Istanbul Modern The redesigned Istanbul Modern allows you to access the museum’s exhibitions, events, cinema, educational programs and other activities on your mobile at any time. This new app also offers an interactive museum experience with the brand-new iBeacon technology. Aurora Museum & Archives The Mission of the Aurora Museum & Archives is to serve as a repository for the collective stories and experiences of the Town of Aurora. We are committed to preserving, promoting and presenting the vibrant and ever changing character of the Town by making our collection accessible and available. CONCLUSION Considering the above information staff would respectfully recommend the consideration of the following proposal pertaining to the Edison Museum and Museums Bayham: 1) Change the current Curator contract from a fixed term summer contract to a contract for one day/week/year. The estimated financial impact of said change would be approximately $6,000. a. The Curator has rejuvenated and cycled the exhibits at the Marine Museum, provided quality leadership to the students and has a finite understanding of museum operations, collections and displays. Year round application of this knowledge and skill will provide an opportunity for a continued sense of intrigue and evolving experience at the Museum. b. The Curator would be required to rewrite the Museums Bayham Terms of Reference and originating by-law to suit the modified direction, resources and location of Museums Bayham. 2) The Curator design historical/cultural signage to be placed throughout the Municipality commemorating various important, events, persons, places etc. The same to be provided to Museums Bayham for commentary (and/or developed utilizing the expertise of Museums Bayham at the discretion of the Curator). These would be like the Market Square signage with an approximate cost of $1,500/sign. a. This would support place based culture and heritage appreciation and potentially draw visitors into the community to experience the same. Each year additional signage could be developed and placed. Once placed self-guided tours could be designed throughout the Municipality to experience said locations and surrounding amenities. b. A planned and focused use of social media and new age marketing tools would lend additional avenues to assist with drawing persons to the Museum, community and experience. 3) As the Curator develops new exhibits post the same to a dedicated portion of the website and include links to existing Bayham physical locations where persons can experience the culture and history of Bayham in person. This point is closely linked to Point No. 2. 4) Construct an addition to the Marine Museum to account for proper storage of retained Marine Museum and Edison Museum artefacts (in the interim utilize the Municipal Office and Bayham’s Family Table location for storage of retained artefacts). The addition would also permit a ‘Bayham Historical Corner’ or like named area specifically for displaying a rotating series of exhibits focused on the history of Bayham, with the focus being the retained artefacts from the Edison Museum. a. Conversations with Reid & Deleye reveal this was contemplated in 2010, with Museums Bayham, and not followed through on. The benefit of an addition to the Marine Museum versus a new build at a new location or even repairs to the historic Edison Museum is an efficiency in resources whereby expenses and resources are consolidated in one location, with a built in audience (a place to get out of the sun on a hot summer day at the beach, etc.). The Marine Museum has proven to have stable annual attendance, with opportunities for attendance improvement as outlined above. The above scenario contemplates the cessation of storing non-municipal artefacts, careful deaccession of the majority of the Edison Museum collection, utilization of existing Edison Museum Reserve Fund (application to Cultural Spaces Fund) and would permit the sale of the ‘Future Edison Museum’ Lands if it is the will of Council**. The four point plan, as an option for consideration, outlines a path forward within the current financial realities of Bayham while still achieving key components of previous study information, the Council requested Elgin County review of the current Edison Museum, municipal museum, cultural and historical asset best practices and portions of Museums Bayham commentary to develop a proposal for Council to move forward. **The Edison Museum Reserve Fund was originally established by Village of Vienna By-law No. 1997-003, attached hereto as Appendix ‘B’. Subsequently the reserve has been funded by a combination of municipal contributions and a significant amount of Edisonfest/Museums Bayham/volunteer time, with additional financial assistance allocations annually from the Municipality. Utilization of any funds from said Reserve Fund, on the above noted matters, would procedurally require the amendment of the establishing by-law by Council. Operationally, given the volunteer efforts to date consideration of support of Museums Bayham and the Edisonfest Committee on utilization of funds and potentially funds from the sale of land on any path forward, though not procedurally required, would be prudent and give the potential project the best opportunity for success due to support from those who have dedicated so much time and effort to the initiative to date. RECOMMENDATION 1.THAT Report CAO-51/16 re Museums Bayham – Edison Museum be received for information; 2.AND THAT Council provide staff direction. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO Elgin County - Edison Museum Collection Evaluation The Edison Museum's existing permanent collection numbers approximately 3000 items which includes both artifacts and archival material. Assembled beginning about 1988, the artifact collection is largely composed of furnishings from the Nora Coomb house (535), a large number of Edison Company products - mainly records and players (over 1000), and archival material composed of photographs, letters, newspapers and ledgers. There is a separate collection housed in the museum identified in the database as BHS (for Bayham Historical Society) of which 197 items appear in the database. This material should be returned to the Bayham Historical Society. The Nora Coomb collection is listed in the database at 535 pieces of which 414 are books. The collection was given to the County of Elgin along with her house and several adjacent building lots in 1981, to be used in her words ‘as a museum to be known as the pioneer Edison Home of Vienna.’ She was often referred to as the last of the Edison family to reside in the village. She was a first cousin of Thomas Edison, her father Charles O. Edison being a half-brother of Thomas Edison's father Samuel Jr. The donated house had been built by her father. In 1986 the house and remaining property were transferred to the Village of Vienna. A museum committee was set up to manage the property and carry out Mrs. Coomb's wishes. Shortly after the transfer to Vienna, the house was found to be in poor shape and was subsequently sold and moved to Port Burwell in 1989. In the meantime another house was offered to the museum from Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Howard. This house is the present museum which opened in 1988. The museum committee began to accept donations of artifacts at this point. The current collection has largely been the result of gifts from individual donors. Part of the mandate for Museums Bayham as articulated under Bayham By-Law 2010-059 encompassed a Statement of Purpose that included the intentions of Nora Coomb in her bequest and was extended to include the story of Thomas Alva Edison and his inventions. Present Statement of Purpose: The Edison Museum of Vienna has been established to collect, preserve, promote, research and share the history of Bayham; and Thomas Alva Edison, his inventions and family. The Museum will collect, preserve, exhibit and interpret, in a domestic setting furnishings donated by the late Nora Edison Coomb, as well as artifacts that have been used by, or are relevant to the Edison Family from 1700 to the present. The museum will collect, exhibit and interpret artifacts that tell the story of Thomas Alva Edison, his inventions, and his connection to Vienna and the Bayham area, in addition to other local inventors and famous personalities, in accordance with documented research and records. The Museum will collect, exhibit and interpret artifacts that tell the story of the Bayham area, its hamlets and villages, in accordance with documented research and records. APPENDIX 'A' Mission Statement The Edison Museums is committed to collecting, preserving, researching and sharing the history of Bayham and Thomas Alva Edison, his inventions, his family and promoting the Canadian Edison Connection. This is detailed elsewhere under ‘Objectives’: ‘To promote use by the public in recognizing the extent and impact of Thomas Alva Edison, the inventor, on the local area, and world-wide, by his many inventions and family artifacts on display and to promote and preserve the historical artifacts and records of the Bayham area and its inhabitants. The revised Mission Statement and Statement of Purpose put a greater emphasis on Edison and his inventions outside of Bayham than the original museum concept envisioned. Portraying one of the world's most prolific inventors is a challenge for national sites like Henry Ford and is far beyond the capacity of a community museum like Edison. Re-focussing the Statement of Purpose The direction for the Edison Museum should come from refocusing its mandate on the history of Bayham and its communities. This is already contained in the statement of Purpose: ‘The Museum will collect, exhibit and interpret artifacts that tell the story of the Bayham area, its hamlets and villages, in accordance with documented research and records.’ Using this criterion as a means of assessing the collection will result in a collection which can be used to interpret the development of the Bayham community. Artifacts that support the refocused mandate (to interpret the development of the Bayham) can be found in each component of the permanent collection. The collection has been broken into 8 categories: 1) Nora Coomb Collection 2) Edison Company Material 3) Material related to the Village of Vienna and the Municipality of Bayham 4) Clipping files and research files 5) Edison Museum records and archives 6) Edison family records 7) Textiles 8) Other material Process The re-assessment will result in a large number of de-accessions. They should be dispersed under the provisions found in Section 9 - De-accessions, of the Museums Bayham Collections and Records Management Policy. A key objective of the policy is directing de-accessions to other ‘cultural institutions’ to ensure they ‘remain in the public domain.’ The policy provides for the following methods of de-accession 1) Transfer to education or research collection 2) Donation or trade to another cultural institution 3) Sale to a dealer or by public auction 4) Repatriation to rightful destination (examples human remains ,or illegal ownership) 5) Appropriate permanent physical disposal The De-accessioning policy also provides that funds derived from sales should be used either for ‘improvement in collections care or by new acquisitions.’ This proviso would likely apply to the Marine Museum as it is managed by Museums Bayham. 1) Nora Coomb Collection The collection is composed mainly of furnishings, books and some personal belongings that were located in the Nora Coomb home at the time of her death in 1981. They cover a wide date range. A partial photographic inventory was completed possibly at the time the collection was appraised in 1982. These photographs are stored in a binder in the municipal office. The photographs can be used to identify the Coomb Collection. As well, several of the labels with the photographs contain some information concerning provenance. Books Should be appraised by a competent dealer (Attic Books of London is recommended). An offer from the dealer could be accepted or the collection sent to auction. Art Works by the Edison family and works depicting local scenes should be transferred to the Elgin County Museum. The balance should be offered to area museums with the remainder sent to auction. Furnishings Contains approximately 70 pieces. Several of these pieces were quite possibly made in Bayham and, even if not, represent good examples of furnishings of the period. The following should be retained: Rocking chair -988.01.56 Mantle clock Dining room table 2 pieces of Gouda art pottery The Amberola and recordings given to the Edison family by Thomas Edison The balance of the collection should be offered to neighbouring museums with the remainder to be sold at auction. 2) Edison Company Material Approximately 1000 pieces Includes a number of gramophones and hundreds of recordings, light bulbs and other Edison inventions. Most of this collection has been assembled from various individual donors over time. This collection should be reviewed by the Edison museums in Port Huron and Milan, Ohio and the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn. With one exception, anything not of interest to these institutions should go to auction. Exception, to be retained by Museum Bayham: A restored gramophone donated by Michael Koleada and a selection of recordings. 3) Material related to the Village of Vienna and the Municipality of Bayham For example team uniforms, furnishings made in Bayham or Elgin, such as the large oak and maple sideboard {993.02.01), other items made in Bayham or Elgin, material from Bayham institutions including schools and churches. This material relates directly to the mandate and therefore should be retained. There are perhaps 300 artifacts fitting this description. The largest of which is the sideboard. 4) Clipping files and research files - transfer to the Elgin County Museum 5) Edison Museum records and archives - transfer to the Elgin County Archives 6) Edison family records including correspondence and photographs (some of which are hanging on the walls of the house) - transfer to the Elgin County Archives 7) Textiles -transfer to the Elgin County Museum 8) Other material not covered in any of the above categories should be offered to area museums with the remaining material sent to auction. Conclusion The municipality will undertake a detailed assessment of each artifact and its provenance which will determine whether it fits the refocused mandate. Prior to any dispersal the entire collection should be appraised by qualified people. The Elgin County Museum is prepared to assist with this process. The assessment will reduce the overall size of the collection by at least two-thirds. Storage requirements will likely be on the order of 1000 square feet. De-accessioning should be carried out under the terms of the Museum's own policies. Other Considerations Each artifact's data-base entry should be revised to include its final disposition. Review all terms of the Museums Bayham collection management policy Review all terms and conditions of the Coomb Estate and the Howard House donations Identify and return all outstanding loans Consider what form an acknowledgment of the museum's founders and donors should take. THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2016–055 A BY-LAW TO ADOPT A FLAG PROTOCOL POLICY WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham recognizes the need for a clear and concise policy concerning the proper etiquette and protocol for the raising and half-masting of flags at municipal facilities; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it advisable that the Municipal Flag Protocol Policy be confirmed and adopted by By-law; THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT effective upon passage the Municipal Flag Protocol Policy attached hereto as Schedule “A” and forming part of this by-law is hereby adopted as the policies and procedures for the proper etiquette and protocol for the raising and half - masting of flags at municipal facilities for the Municipality of Bayham. 2. THAT this Municipal Flag Protocol Policy By-law may be amended from time to time as directed and deemed necessary by The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham 3. THAT any Municipal Flag Protocol policies previously adopted are hereby repealed; 4. AND THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME and finally passed this 21st day of July 2016. ____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2016–056 A BY-LAW TO ADOPT A PROCLAMATION – DECLARATION – DONATION POLICY WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham recognizes the need for a clear and concise policy concerning guidelines regarding requests for proclamations, declarations and donations for events and activities that are not within the municipal mandate; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it advisable that the Municipal Proclamation – Declaration - Donation Policy be confirmed and adopted by By-law; THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT effective upon passage the Municipal Proclamation – Declaration - Donation Policy attached hereto as Schedule “A” and forming part of this by-law is hereby adopted as the policies and procedures in response to requests for proclamations, declarations and donations for events and activities that are not within the municipal mandate for the Municipality of Bayham. 2. THAT this Municipal Proclamation – Declaration – Donation Policy By-law may be amended from time to time as directed and deemed necessary by The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham 3. THAT any Municipal Proclamation – Declaration – Donation policies previously adopted are hereby repealed; 4. AND THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME and finally passed this 21st day of July 2016. ____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK BY-LAW NO. 2016-057 OF THE CORPORATION OF MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BEING A BY-LAW TO ADOPT SCHEDULES ‘A’ – ‘H’ FOR THE MANAGEMENT, REGULATION & CONTROL OF CEMETERIES WHEREAS on Ju n e 7 , 2016 B y -Law 2015 -116, being a By -Law for the Management, Regulation & Control of Cemeteries for the following cemetery licenses: 00513 00514 00515 00516 00517 00518 00519 00520 00522 00523 00524 00525 00526 00527 00528 00529 00530 00531 00532 00533 00534 was approved by the Bereavement Authority of Ontario; AND WHEREAS the Bereavement Authority of Ontario deems it necessary to remove all schedules as follows from the By-Law for the Management, Regulation & Control of Cemeteries: Schedule ‘A’ – Contract for Purchase of Interment Rights, Cemetery Supplies or Services; Schedule ‘B’ – Interment Rights Schedule ‘C’ – Interment Rights Resale Endorsement Schedule ‘D’ – Interment Permission Form Schedule ‘E’ – Interment Rights Transfer Form Schedule ‘F’ – Repurchase of Interment Rights Request Form Schedule ‘G’ – Columbarium Schedule ‘H’ – Cemetery Rates & Fees AND WHEREAS the Bereavement Authority of Ontario deems it necessary to enact a by- law to adopt Schedules “A” – “H”; NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: THAT effective upon passage of By-Law 2016-057 Schedules ‘A’ – ‘H’ attached hereto and forming part of this by-law are hereby adopted and shall remain in effect until amended or rescinded; AND THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 21st DAY OF JULY, 2015 ____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK To be made in DUPLICATE The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham 9344 Plank Road, Box 160 Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Telephone: 519-866-5521 www.bayham.on.ca bayham@bayham.on.ca CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF INTERMENT RIGHTS, CEMETERY SUPPLIES OR SERVICES Schedule “A” to By-law 2016-057 Cemetery operator License # 3267732 2016 In Name and Address of Cemetery CONTRACT INFORMATION Contract Reference # __________________________ Date of issue _________________________________ PURCHASER INFORMATION Name ________________________________________________ Address______________________________________________________ PC_________________ Telephone ____________________________ Email address_______________________________ Purchaser’s relationship to the Recipient(s) _______________________________________________ RECIPIENT #1 INFORMATION RECIPIENT #2 INFORMATION Name _______________________________ Name __________________________________ Address _____________________________ Address ________________________________ Province ________ Postal Code__________ Province ____________Postal Code _________ Telephone ___________________________ Telephone ______________________________ Email _______________________________ Email __________________________________ This contract is between the Purchaser AND The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham For cemetery Interment Rights, Supplies and/or Services for the recipient(s) as identified in this contract. Schedule “A” to B/L 2016-057 - 2 - 2016 The Purchaser (if different than the Recipient (s) represents being legally authorized or charged with the responsibility for the Recipient(s) cemetery Interment Rights and cemetery pre-paid supplies and services arrangements specified in this contract. This agreement will be enforceable to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Interment Rights per regular lot may include no more than one full size traditional body interment, plus two (2) cremation interments, provided the first interment is in a vault . Alternatively, up to four (4) cremation interments only, may be made in a regular lot. No more than two (2) appropriately sized urns shall be placed in any single columbarium niche or in a designated 3’ x 3’ cremation lot. Cremation urns or containers may be used for burials in regular lots when used for cremation burials only. All cremated human remains interred in a regular 4’x10’ lot on top of a full body casket in a vault shall be placed in a small flat six by six inch (6”x6”) box type container with a depth of no more than four (4) inches to ensure at least two feet (2’) of earth coverage over the cremation remains, at surrounding ground level. For each cremation interment on top of an existing body burial with a vault, permission forms must be completed, signed and on file with the Municipality, in advance. **The purchase price per regular lot, cremation lot or niche permits one interment only in the respective lot or niche. **Each additional interment in a regular lot, cremation lot or niche is subject to payment of an additional fee, as may be in place at time of such interment, and must be properly authorized in writing. ** Resale: Interment Rights may be resold to a third party, through the operator, subject to restrictions. The Purchaser agrees that in the event of resale of the said Internment Rights, this certificate shall be returned with the completed and signed Part 1 and Part 2 of the Interment Rights Resale Endorsement – Form “C”, to the Cemetery Operator who, upon completion, approval and payment of any required fees, will issue a new certificate to the new Interment Rights holder. **( Examples of Care and Maintenance Fund contributions from purchase of interment rights: 1. The Purchase Price of $600.00 (six hundred dollars) per regular lot includes $300.00 to the Care and Maintenance Fund and allows one interment in the regular lot. 2. The purchase price of $300.00 (three hundred dollars) per cremation lot includes $150.00 to the Care and Maintenance Fund and allows one interment in the cremation lot.) Schedule “A” to B/L 2016-057 - 3 - 2016 3. The Purchase Price of $1200.00 (twelve hundred dollars) per single columbarium niche includes $300.00 to the Care and Maintenance Fund and allows one interment in a single columbarium niche. Interment Rights to Regular / Cremation Lot or Columbarium Niche purchased: Location & Details Block ____________ Section_______________ Plot # ______________ Row _______________ Grave(s): ______________ No. of graves(s) __________ Dimensions per lot _____________ Area of ___________ square feet. OR: Columbarium Niche Unit 1 or 2 Side A or B # ____________ The number of Regular Lot(s) / Cremation Lot(s) or columbarium niche purchased: ______________ at ($600 / $300 or $1200)_____________, each, equals ________________________, which includes ($ 150, $300 or $300)_____________________ to the Care and Maintenance Fund. (Circle above as appropriate) Interment Rights Purchases: Amount HST Regular lot(s) ____________ ________ Cremation lot(s) ____________ ________ Columbarium Niche ____________ ________ Services: Identification & marking of lot for burial ____________ ________ Identification & marking of lot for marker placement ____________ ________ Placement of up to four corner posts provided by interment rights holder ____________ ________ Duplicate Interment Rights Certificate – Transfer ____________ ________ Duplicate Interment Rights Certificate – Resale Endorsement ____________ ________ Interment Permission Form No charge Municipal fee for opening & closing Cremation grave ____________ ________ Municipal fee for opening & closing Columbarium Niche ____________ ________ Fee for each additional interment in a regular or cremation lot or inurnment in a single columbarium niche (circle selection) ____________ ________ Name plate & engraving plus cast shipping ____________ ________ Extra copy of Cemetery By-law Booklet ____________ ________ Purchase of two (2) or four(4) corner markers (circle choice) ____________ ________ Ministry interment/inurnment fee ____________ N/C Other ____________________________ ____________ ________ __________________________________________ ____________ ________ Sub-Totals ____________ + ________ Total Contract Price $_____________ Schedule “A” to B/L 2016-057 - 4 - 2016 TERMS & CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT 1. THE FOLLOWING TRUSTING PROVISIONS ARE IN EFFECT: Per each regular Lot: 40% of the Purchase price or $ 300, whichever is greater Per each cremation lot: 40% of the Purchase price or $150, whichever is greater. Per each columbarium niche: 40% of the Purchase price or $300, whichever is greater. 2. CONTRIBUTION TO CARE AND MAINTENANCE FOR MARKER INSTALLATION: Flat marker 173 square inches or more: $ 50. Upright monument up to 4 feet in height or width $100. Upright monument more than 4 feet in height or width $200. 3. A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF INTERMENT RIGHTS INCLUDES:  In accordance with the cemetery By-law 2015-116, the following restrictions on the exercising of interment rights and documents required are under the Interment Heading.  If an interment rights holder desires to transfer an interment right, the rights holder shall give notice on the appropriate form Schedule “E” to the cemetery owner and return the original interment rights certificate. Upon full payment of all applicable fees, the cemetery owner shall issue a new interment rights certificate to the Transferee.  For Contract Cancellation within thirty days of purchase, refer to the By-law heading “Cancellation”.  In accordance with By-law 2015-116, restrictions on the transfer of interment rights can be found under the Transfers, Repurchases & Third Party Sales heading.  The resale of interment rights after 30 days by the purchaser or interment rights holder, as applicable, to a third party is now permitted. Please refer to “Resales” under the Transfers, Repurchases & Third Party ReSale heading. NOTE: ALL THIRD PARTY RESALES OF INTERMENT RIGHTS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT THROUGH THE CEMETERY OPERATOR. 4. CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT  If the above Interment Rights have been paid for in full, have not been used, and the Interment Rights Certificate has not been issued, the Purchaser may, in writing to the owner, within thirty (30) days from the signing of the contract, cancel this contract and receive a full refund.  If the above Interment Rights have been paid for in full, have not been used, and the Interment Rights Certificate has been issued, the Interment Rights Holder(s) may, in writing to the owner, within thirty (30) days from the signing of the contract, cancel this contract and receive a full refund.  The Purchaser or Interment Rights Holder, as applicable, may in writing to the owner, within thirty (30) days from the signing of the contract, cancel pre-paid supplies and services, provided they are paid in full, and receive the refund. Schedule “A” to B/L 2016-057 - 5 - 2016 5. RESALE OF INTERMENT RIGHTS AFTER 30 DAY COOLING-OFF PERIOD & PRICE  Unless the interment rights have been exercised the Purchaser or Interment Rights Holder, as applicable, retains the right to re-sell the interment rights.  A Purchaser or an Interment Rights Holder cannot re-sell their Interment Rights for more than the current value on the cemetery price list.  The current cost for the cemetery operator to complete and provide a new Interment Rights Certificate upon resale is listed on the Cemetery Tariff/Fee Schedule. 6. SUBDIVISION OF INTERMENT RIGHTS  No Purchaser or Interment Rights Holder(s) may sub-divide and sell or transfer a portion of an Interment Rights. 7. MEMORIALIZATION  The purchase of a lot permits placement of a maximum of one (1) upright monument only on a traditional full body interment, plus up to two (2) cremations or on a lot with up to 4 cremations only, subject to approved by-laws.  Care and Maintenance Fund Contribution for Marker and Monument Installation: In accordance with the FBCSA and Ontario Regulation 30/11, the following contributions will be made to the Care and Maintenance Fund for every installation of a marker or monument: (a) In the case of a flat marker measuring less than 1,116.3 sq. cm. (173 sq. in.) $0.00 (b) In the case of a flat marker measuring over 1,116.3 sq. cm. (173 sq. in.) $50.00 (c) In the case of an upright monument measuring 1.22 m. (4 ft.) or less in height or length, including the base $100.00 (d) In case of an upright monument measuring more than 1.22m. (4 ft.) either in height or length, including the base $200.00.  Only the Memorial plaque included with the purchase of the Niche are permitted as found under the Columbarium heading.  Interment Rights Holder(s) request to remove memorialization: A marker, monument, or memorialization purchased and/or installed by anyone other than the Rights Holder(s) may be removed by the cemetery representative on the written request of the Rights Holder(s). 8. PAYMENT TERMS  Payment in full is required at time of purchase. Full payment must be made before any burial or memorialization can take place. An Interment Rights Certificate will not be issued until the Interment Right(s) and Care and Maintenance portions have been paid in full. An Interment Rights Certificate(s) will be issued within 14 days of full payment and signing of the contract by the operator. 9. CAUSES BEYOND THE CEMETERY OPERATOR’S CONTROL  The cemetery operator cannot be responsible if unable/prevented from carrying out this contract due to causes beyond its control. Schedule “A” to B/L 2016-057 - 6 - 2016 Privacy Policy Personal Information: The Purchaser acknowledges and provides consent to permit the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham to collect, use and disclose your personal information in accordance with the requirements under the FBCSA and Ontario Regulation 30/11 for information within the municipal owned cemeteries public register. The Purchaser also understands that the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham does not rent or sell personal information to third party organizations. Consumer Information Guide and cemetery price list: By initialing below, the purchaser acknowledges receiving a copy of the Ontario Government’s Consumer information Guide (where made available by the Registrar) and the cemetery price list at the time of entering into this contract. {__} I hereby acknowledge I have been offered and/or received a copy of the Ontario Government’s Consumer Information Guide and the Cemetery Price List. I have reviewed the Contract’s terms and conditions and hereby confirm that the Interment Rights, as specified in this contract are complete and correct. I direct the operator to proceed with the sale of the Interment Right(s), as identified in the contract in accordance with the cemetery by-laws which are now or at any time hereafter in force. {__} I hereby acknowledge I have received and reviewed a copy of the cemetery’s by-laws. The Terms and Conditions set out in this contract expire within 30 days unless executed by the purchaser and the operator. The contract date set out below is the date on which this contract is accepted by the operator. {__} I acknowledge having received a copy of this contract, and assume full responsibility for payment of the total contract amount to the operator in accordance with the contract’s terms and conditions. It is agreed between the parties that this contract and the operation of the cemetery, including restrictions on Interment Rights, is subject to the Cemetery By-laws of the Municipality of Bayham and the Purchaser hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the current By-laws and that the “Terms & Conditions of Contract” above, have been read and understood. Total Contract Price $_____________ (from page 3) Ordered by: _______________________________ Signature _______________________________ (Purchaser Name) Payment by cheque #: _________________ received on _____________________ Accepted on behalf of the Operator by: _______________________________________ Name Cemetery Operator / Representative: ___________________________________ Signature Contact: Email:___________________________________ Telephone #:_ _____________________ 2016 MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM 9344 Plank Road, Box 160 Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Telephone 519-866-5521 www.bayham.on.ca bayham@bayham.on.ca Schedule “B” to B/L 2016-057 INTERMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE Certificate #: ____________ ______ Operator License # 3267732 Pursuant to the Cemeteries Act and Regulations and all amendments thereto, BETWEEN: The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham Cemetery Name and Address Here hereinafter called “The Cemetery Operator” AND: Interment Rights Holder, hereinafter called the “Purchaser” In consideration of the sum of ______________________________Dollars ($ ), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and which included the sum of _______________________Dollars ($ ), for Care and Maintenance which is deposited with the Municipality of Bayham, the Cemetery Operator agrees to assign the Purchaser the Interment Rights as f ollows: Section: ____________________ Block: ______________________ Plot # ____________________ Row: _______________Grave(s)/Lot(s): _________________ Area of _______________ square feet. OR: Columbarium Niche Unit (1 or 2) Side (A or B) # ____________________ Date of Purchase/Transfer or Third Party Resale (circle 1 only): ______________________________ Interment Rights per regular lot may include no more than one full size traditional body interment, plus two (2) cremation interments, provided the first interment is in a vault. All cremated human remains interred in a regular 4’x10’ lot on top of a full body casket in a vault shall be placed in a small flat six by six inch (6”x6”) box type container with a depth of no more than four (4) inches to ensure at least two feet (2’) of earth coverage over the cremation remains, at surrounding ground level.” Section 3.58 Alternatively, up to four (4) cremation interments only, may be made in a regular lot. A maximum of two (2) cremation burials are permitted in a 3’ x 3’ cremation lot or in a single columbarium niche. Cremation urns or containers may be used for burials in regular lots when used for cremation burials only and in designated 3’x3’ cremation burial lots. Interment Rights Certificate-Schedule B to By-Law 2016-057 Page 2 of 2 To be made in DUPLICATE (Issue one certificate for each lot sold) 2016 For each cremation interment on top of an existing body burial with a vault, permission forms must be completed, signed and on file with the Municipality, in advance. No more than two (2) appropriately sized urns shall be placed in any single columbarium niche. The purchase price per regular lot, cremation lot or niche permits one interment only in the respective lot or niche. Each additional interment in a regular lot, cremation lot or niche is subject to payment of an additional fee, as may be in place at time of such interment, and must be properly authorized in writing. Resale: Interment Rights may be resold to a third party, through the operator, subject to restrictions. The Purchaser agrees that in the event of resale of the said Internment Rights, this certificate shall be returned with the completed and signed Part 1 and Part 2 of the Interment Rights Resale Endorsement – Form “C”, to the Cemetery Operator who, upon completion, approval and payment of any required fees, will issue a new certificate to the new Interment Rights holder. The Purchaser, by signature below acknowledges acceptance of this indenture and confirms that the By-law(s) governing the operation of the cemetery have been received and read, and agrees to be guided by the said By-law(s) as well as the provisions of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act and Regulations thereto, as if these were included as part of this indenture. With respect to the erection or installation of markers, the Purchaser agrees to abide by the restrictions in the Cemetery by-law(s) regarding the erection or installation of monuments or markers. Signature of Purchaser: _______________________________________ In WITNESS whereof the Cemetery Operator has affixed its signature by the hands of its proper signing officer this ______day of_______________________ in the year ___________. Cemetery Operator Representative Name: ________________________________________ Signature:__________________________________ Schedule “C” to B/L 2016-057 2016 MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM 9344 Plank Road, Box 160, Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Telephone 519-866-5521 Website: www.bayham.on.ca Email: bayham@bayham.on.ca INTERMENT RIGHTS RESALE ENDORSEMENT Regarding the _____________________Cemetery at _________________________________ [If there are more than one Interment Rights Holders, all living Rights Holders shall sign the endorsement certificate. All Third Party Purchaser’s shall be listed in full on the endorsement certificate in order to register their names and addresses on the cemetery records.] Part 1 – Interments Rights Holder(s) Resale Endorsement I/we, the Interment Rights Holder(s) registered on the cemetery records, hereby wish to re-sell the Interment Rights to Section: ______________ Block: _________________ Plot # _______________ Row: _______________Grave(s)/Lot(s): _________________ to a third party purchaser. I/we certify that the Interment Rights are being resold in accordance with the Funeral Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 (FBCSA) and Ontario Regulation 30/11, and the Cemetery By-law(s). I/we further certify that the resale is for an amount no greater than the value on the cemetery price list in effect, at the time this resale is completed. I/we hereby acknowledge and direct the above named Cemetery to resell the identified Interment Rights to the purchaser(s) listed below. Interment Rights Holders contact information: Name(s): ______________________________ __________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________PC_______________ Telephone #:____________________________ Email: ____________________________________ Signed: _____________________________________ & ___________________________________ Interment Rights Holder(s) Part 2 – Acknowledgement of Purchaser(s) I/we the third party purchaser(s) acknowledge that we have received a current copy of the Cemetery By-laws from the Interment Rights Holder(s). I/we have reviewed the Cemetery By-laws as they may apply to the Interment Rights and hereby agree to abide by the Cemetery By-laws and certify that I/we meet all necessary qualifications and restrictions under those By-laws. I/we have been informed by the Interment Rights Holder(s) that the Interment Rights being resold contains _____ lot(s), and that no lot(s) have been utilized and said lots remain available for future use. Third Party Purchaser’s contact information: Name(s) _______________________________ ________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________PC_______________ Telephone #: ______________________________ Email: __________________________________ Signed: _______________________________ & ___________________________________ *Date received by Cemetery Representative: ______________________________(Mandatory) Schedule “C” to B/L 2016-057 2016 Parts 1 and 2 of this form must be completed by the interment rights holder(s) and returned to the Municipal Treasurer in order to proceed with Re-sale of interment rights to a third party, subject to restrictions in the cemetery by-law. The Resale Endorsement fee listed in the current Cemetery Fee Schedule will apply based on the date this form is received by the Cemetery Operator. Part 3 – Cemetery Representative Acknowledgement and Acceptance of the Resale Endorsement The Operator for the above named Cemetery hereby confirms that the cemetery records have been reviewed and that the above Interment Rights Holder(s) are registered on the cemetery records and have the authority to resell the Interment Rights to the Third Party Purchaser(s). It is also confirmed that no monies are owing by the Interment Rights Holder(s) to the above named Cemetery in respect of the Interment Rights. On behalf of the above named Cemetery, I hereby accept and confirm that the resale has been recorded on the cemetery records and have issued a new Interments Rights Certificate in the name(s) of the Third Party Purchaser(s), as applicable for each resold lot. I also confirm payment of the Interment Rights Resale Endorsement Fee of $ _____________, plus HST of $ ______, has been received and paid in full by cheque # ______ in the amount of $_______________. Accepted on behalf of the _________________________ Cemetery License # 3267732 Municipality of Bayham Treasurer: _________________________________ Date of Resale: _________________________ APPLICATION OF RESALE ENDORSEMENT FEES Calculation of the applicable fee(s) for Interment Rights Resale Endorsement will be based on the date this form is received by the Cemetery Operator representative and the current approved fee on the received date. Based on the fee at time of 2016 By-law approval, the Resale Endorsement Fee Payable = $75.00 plus HST $9.75 = $ 84.75, for each new Interment Rights Certificate issued. Examples 1. In the case of four cremation burials to be placed in a regular lot, (or other combinations as applicable), up to four names may be included on the certificate. In this instance, one original would be created and retained by the Operator, certified photocopies would be provided to each of the four persons listed and the respective Cemetery Secretary-Treasurer, if/as applicable, upon full completion of the transaction. This would be considered as one new certificate being issued at a cost of $84.75. 2. A Third Party Resale that pertains to more than one lot, will require a separate interment rights certificate to be issued for each lot regardless of the number of proposed interments in each. Example: 4 resold lots = 4 fees /4 certificates at $84.75 each for a total fee cost of $336.00 Schedule “D” to B/L 2016-057 2016 MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM 9344 Plank Road, Box 160, Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Telephone 519-866-5521 Website: www.bayham.on.ca Email: bayham@bayham.on.ca INTERMENT PERMISSION FORM Regarding the _____________________Cemetery at _____________________________________ Section: ____________________ Block: ______________________ Plot # ____________________ Row: _______________Grave(s)/Lot(s): _________________ OR: Columbarium Niche Unit (1 or 2) Side (A or B) # ____________________ Certificate #(s) OR Other Document(s) _________________________________________________ (Perpetuity Receipt, Deed or other document acceptable to the Cemetery Operator) I/We ___________________________________________________________________________ of Address:__________________________________________________________ PC____________ Telephone: _____________________________ Email: ____________________________________ hereby authorize the burial of __________________________________ in the above noted lot/niche. I acknowledge the following interment requirements (B/L 2015-116, Sections # 3.44, 3.45, 3.46 & 3.47 & 3.58): 3.44 Subject to restrictions, no more than three interments may be made in a regular lot, the first interment must be in a concrete vault, and the remaining two interments must be cremation burials for which proper authorization has been documented and approved by the cemetery representative. 3.45 Installation of a concrete vault for all casket type burials is strongly recommended. 3.46 A full body casket in a vault or cremation interment must be to a depth that will ensure at least two feet of earth coverage over the case at the surrounding ground level; 3..47 No more than four (4) cremation interments, if placement allows, shall be made in a regular lot. A maximum of two (2) cremation burials are permitted in a 3’ x 3’ cremation lot. 3.58 All cremated human remains interred in a regular 4’x10’ lot on top of a full body cask et in a vault shall be placed in a small flat six by six inch (6”x6”) box type container with a depth of no more than four (4) inches to ensure at least two feet (2’) of earth coverage over the cremation remains, at surrounding ground level. ___________________________________ ________________________________________ Signature of Interment Rights Holder Signature of Interment Rights Holder {Both if Joint Rights Holders only} In WITNESS whereof the Cemetery Owner has affixed its signature by the hands of it’s proper signing officer this ______day of____________________in the year _____________. For Cemetery Operator: __________________________ (Print Name) Signature: _____________________________________ Schedule “E” to B/L 2016-057 2016 MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM 9344 Plank Road, Box 160, Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Telephone 519-866-5521 Website: www.bayham.on.ca Email: bayham@bayham.on.ca INTERMENT RIGHTS TRANSFER FORM Regarding the ________________________ Cemetery at___________________________________ Section: ____________________ Block: ______________________ Plot # ____________________ Row: _______________Grave(s)/Lot(s): _________________ OR: Columbarium Niche Unit (1 or 2) Side (A or B) # ____________________ Certificate #(s) or other documents _____________________________________ __ dated ________ __________ (Perpetuity Receipt, Deed or other document acceptable to the Cemetery Operator) I/We _______________________________________________________________________ of Address:__________________________________________________________________________ Telephone: _____________________________ Email: __________________________________ hereby authorize the transfer of the above noted lot(s), made without consideration, as a gift to: Name __________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________________________________ Telephone: ___________________________ Email: __________________________________ Name __________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________________________________ Telephone: ___________________________ Email: __________________________________ I/We hereby relinquish all rights to the above lot(s) and submit the original copy of the Interment Rights Certificate and request that the Cemetery Operator issue a new certificate(s) in the above noted name(s). (One name per regular lot unless multiple cremation or a mix of burials are proposed, in which case, all names must be provided in writing.) In WITNESS whereof the Cemetery Operator has affixed its signature by the hands of it’s proper signing officer this ______day of ___________________in the year ______________________. _____________________________________ ______________________________________ Signature of Interment Rights Holder Signature of Interment Rights Holder {Both if Joint Rights Holders only} Transfer Fee: $35.00+$4.55 HST per certificate issued For Cemetery Operator: Name: _____________________________ (Print) Signature: _______________________________ Fee amount received: $_______________ Schedule “F” to B/L 2016-057 2016 MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM 9344 Plank Road, Box 160 Straffordville, Ontario N0J 1Y0 Telephone 519-866-5521 Website: www.bayham.on.ca Email: bayham@bayham.on.ca REPURCHASE OF INTERMENT RIGHTS REQUEST FORM Regarding the _____________________ Cemetery at ___________________________________ Section: ____________________ Block: ______________________ Plot # ____________________ Row: _______________Grave(s)/Lot(s): _________________ OR: Columbarium Niche Unit (1 or 2) Side (A or B) # ____________________ Certificate #(s) OR Other Document(s) ________________________________________________ (Perpetuity Receipt, Deed or other document acceptable to the Cemetery Operator) I/We _______________________________________________________________________ of Address:_________________________________________________________________________ Telephone: ____________________________ Email: _____________________________________ hereby request the repurchase of the above noted lot(s) by the ______________________________ Cemetery Board, in the negotiable amount of $ ____________________. I/We acknowledge that the Care & Maintenance portion is non-refundable and a negotiated repurchase, including relevant HST, apply only to the interment right portion of purchases made after May 1, 2014. I/We hereby submit the original copy of the Interment Rights Certificate(s) and upon receipt of the Repurchase Price, I/we hereby relinquish all rights to the above lot(s) (All rights holders must sign). Signed & Dated: ______________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Signature of Interment Rights Holder Signature of Interment Rights Holder ****** Upon successful negotiation, the following is to be completed I/We hereby acknowledge receipt of the agreed repurchase amount of $_________________, paid by cheque # _______ dated ________________________, ____________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Signature of Interment Rights Holder Signature of Interment Rights Holder In WITNESS whereof the Cemetery Owner has affixed its signature by the hands of it’s proper signing officer this ______day of ___________________in the year ______________. For Cemetery Operator: _____________________________ THIS FORM TO BE USED ONLY WHEN THE CEMETERY OPERATOR CHOOSES TO NEGOTIATE THE REPURCHASE OF INTERMENT RIGHTS. Unit 1 Unit 2 Schedule H to By-Law 2016-057 Municipality of Bayham 9344 Plank Road, Box 160 Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0 Tel: 519-866-5521 Email: bayham@bayham.on.ca Web: www.bayham.on.ca License # 3267732 Cemetery Rates & Fees Fee HST@13% Total Identification & Marking of lot for burial $ 50.00 $ 6.50 $ 56.50 Identification & Marking of lot for marker placement $ 35.00 $ 4.55 $ 39.55 Placement of up to 4 corner posts provided by interment rights holder $ 35.00 $ 4.55 $ 39.55 Interment Rights Certificate - Transfer $ 35.00 $ 4.55 $ 39.55 Interment Rights Certificate - Resale Endorsement $ 75.00 $ 9.75 $ 84.75 Interment Permission Form No charge Municipal Cremation fee for opening & closing grave $300.00 $ 39.00 $ 339.00 Regular Lot Purchase price of regular lot total (Interment Rights @ $300, C&M @ $300) Purchase price permits one interment in a lot. Purchase price permits the erection of a flat or upright marker, subject to approved by-laws. $600.00 $ 78.00 $ 678.00 Fee for each additional interment in any regular lot, subject to completion of authorizing documents. Two (2) cremation burials are permitted on top of a casket burial, provided the first interment is in a vault, and subject to completion of authorizing documents. Up to four (4) cremation burials only are permitted in a regular lot, subject to completion of authorizing documents. $300.00 $ 39.00 $ 339.00 Cremation Lot Fee HST@13% Total Purchase price of one cremation lot total (Interment rights @ $150, C&M @ $150) Purchase price permits one interment in a lot. Purchase price permits the erection of one flat marker Only, at a maximum size of 24” x 14”, or less, on a 12” diameter post hole filled with a minimum depth of Three feet of concrete, subject to approved by-laws. A maximum of two (2) cremation burials are permitted in a cremation lot, subject to completion of authorizing documents. A cremation lot is 3' x 3'. $300.00 $ 39.00 $ 339.00 Fee for each additional interment in any lot used for cremation purposes, subject to completion of authorizing documents $300.00 $ 39.00 $ 339.00 Columbarium Niche Fee HST@13% Total Purchase price of a single columbarium niche includes (Interment Rights @ 900 C&M @ 300) Purchase price permits one cremation inurnment in a single columbarium niche A maximum of two (2) cremation inurnments are permitted in a single columbarium niche, subject to completion of authorizing documents $1,200.00 156.00 $1,356.00 Niche Nameplate & Engraving Must be purchased as part of initial columbarium purchase price $300.00 $39.00 $339.00 Interment – Open/Close $150.00 $19.50 $169.50 Fee for a second cremation inurnment in a single columbarium niche $300.00 $39.00 $339.00 General Extra copy of Cemetery By-law/Booklet $ 2.00 $ 0.26 $ 2.26 Purchase of 2 small corner markers $ 10.00 $ 1.30 $ 11.30 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2016-058 BEING A BY-LAW TO REPEAL THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW 2014-082 WHEREAS the Section 8 of the Municipal Act, 2001, c.25 as amended provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any Act; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it necessary to repeal By-law 2014-082, being a By-law to adopt a policy for the operation and management of the Straffordville and Vienna Community Centre Facilities ; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the By-Law 2014-082 enacted by the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and attachments thereto is hereby repealed; 2. AND THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 21st DAY OF JULY 2016. ___________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW 2016-066 A BY-LAW TO APPOINT BLUMETRIC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. RISK MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT INSPECTOR WHEREAS subsection 47(1)(b) of the Clean Water Act, 2006 (the “Act”), provides that a municipality that has authority to pass by-laws respecting water production, treatment and storage under the Municipal Act, 2001 is responsible for the enforcement of Park IV of the Act in the municipality; AND WHEREAS subsection 47(6) of the Act provides that a municipality that is responsible for the enforcement of Part IV of the Act shall appoint a risk management official and such risk management inspectors as are necessary for that purpose NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT BluMetric Environmental Inc. be appointed Risk Management Official and Risk Management Inspector pursuant to subsection 47(6) of the Clean Water Act, 2006 for a three year period ending June 30, 2019; 2. THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 21st t DAY OF JULY 2016. ___________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2016–067 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 21, 2016 WHEREAS under Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, the powers of a municipal corporation are to be exercised by the Council of the municipality; AND WHEREAS under Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the powers of Council are to be exercised by by-law; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it advisable that the proceedings of the meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law. THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham in respect of each recommendation and each motion and resolution passed and other action by the Council at the regular meeting held July 21, 2016 is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law. 2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the Council including executing all documents and affixing the Corporate Seal. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME and finally passed this 21st day of July, 2016. ____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK