GENERAL COMMITTEE AGENDA - INDEX MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2010 ... Documents/Agendas and... · 3/29/2010 · March 29 2010 P.O. Box l30, Brechin, Ontario LOK lBO, (705) 484-5374 Toll Free

PAGE 1

GENERAL COMMITTEE AGENDA - INDEXMONDAY, MARCH 29, 2010 - 7:00 P.M.

AGENDA ............................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan ......................................................................................... 4

5.1 AD-06-10 Health & Safety Policy ............................................................................ 28

5.2 CD-09-10 Variance to Fence Bylaw - 3728 Portage Bay Rd. .................................... 36

6.1 WD-04-10 Provincial Parks Parking Restrictions ..................................................... 38

7.1 CD-08-10 Ward Information ...................................................................................... 41

7.2 TR-06-10 2009 DC Reserve Fund Stmt .................................................................... 43

7.3 AD-07-10 Administration Centre ............................................................................. 51

7.4 G8 Huntsville ............................................................................................................. 52

7.5 EC - LC Decommissioning Program ........................................................................... 54

7.6 TR-08-10 Tax Sale Results .......................................................................................... 56

8.1 CD-06-10 BCCBM .................................................................................................... 59

PAGE 2

THE CORPORATION OF THE

TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA Proud History - Progressive Future

GENERAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2010 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS

1. OPENING OF THE MEETING BY THE MAYOR

2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

3. DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS/PUBLIC MEETINGS

3.1 Rex Meadley, Susanne Troxler and Mark Dorfman o Feasibility of phosphorous trading o Phosphorous reduction strategy o Shoreline discussion paper

4. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - Councillor O'Donnell, Chair

UNFINISHED OR NEW BUSINESS

5. PROTECTIVE SERVICES - Councillor Appleby, Chair

5.1 Report AD-06-1 0

5.2 Report CD-09-1 0

Health & Safety Policy

Request for Variance to Fence By-Law 3728 Portage Bay Road


6. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES - Councillor Neher, Chair

6.1 Report WD-04-1 0 Parking Restrictions Near Provincial Parks


General Committee Agenda March 29 2010

P.O. Box l30, Brechin, Ontario LOK lBO, (705) 484-5374 Toll Free 1-800-663-4054 (for 689 exchange only) FParglJs:r tJt20441 Email: [email protected] Web Site: www.township.ramara.on.ca

Proud Member of Lake Country

PAGE 3

7. ADMINISTRATION/FINANCE/PERSONNEL - Deputy Mayor Clarke, Chair

7.1 Report CD-08-1 0 Ward Information to Councillors

7.2 Report TR-06-1 0 2009 Development Charges Reserve Fund Statement

7.3 Report AD-07-1 0 Administration Centre

7.4 CAO Memo - G8 Huntsville

7.5 Environment Canada correspondence dated March 24, 2010 regarding Lagoon City Decommissioning Program

7.6 Report TR-08-1 0 Tax Sale Results


8. CULTURE & RECREATION SERVICES - Councillor Kahler, Chair

8.1 Report CD-06-1 0 Brechin Community Centre Board of Management


9. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

10. CLOSED SESSION, IF REQUIRED

11. ADJOURNMENT

General Committee Agenda March 29, 2010

Page 2 of 2

PAGE 4

ITEM 3.1

prepared by:

c.c. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consulting Engineers

LAKE SIMCOE PROTECTION PLAN Draft Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, Water Quality Trading Feasibility, and

Proposed Shoreline Protection Regulation

Summary and Comments

e,c, Tatham & Associates Ltd. And Mark l. Dorfman, Planner Inc, 145 Columbia Street West Waterloo, ON N2L 3L2

prepared for

Township of Ramara 115 Sandford Fleming Drive, Suite 200 Collingwood, ON 19Y SA6 Tel: (705) 444-2565 Fax: (705) 444-2327 [email protected]

Tel: (519) 888-6570 Fax: (519)888-6382 March 23, 2010

CCTAFile 310813-1

prepared by:





e.c. Tatham & Associates ltd. And Mark L Dorfman, Planner Inc. 145 Columbia Street West Waterloo, ON N2l3L2

prepared for

Township of Ramara 115 Sandford Fleming Drive, Su ite 200 Collingwood, ON 19Y SA6 Tel: (705) 444.2565 Fax: (705) 444·2327 [email protected]

Tel: (519) 888·6570 Fax: (519)868·6382 March 23, 2010

CCTA File 310813·1

prepared by:





e.c. Tatham & Associates ltd. And Mark L Dorfman. Planner Inc. 145 Columbia Street West Waterloo, ON N2l3L2

prepared for

Township of Ramara 115 Sandford Fleming Drive, Su ite 200 Collingwood, ON 19Y SA6 Tel: (705) 444.2565 Fax: (705) 444·2327 [email protected]

Tel: (519) 888·6570 Fax: (519)868·6382 March 23, 2010

CCTA File 310813-1

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2

2.1

2.2

3

3.1

Draft Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy

Overview

2.1.1 Sewage Treatment Plants

2.1.2 Urban Runoff and Stormwaler

2.1 .3 Rural and Agricultural Sources

2.1.4 The Holland Marsh and Smaller Polders

2.1.5 On-site Sewage Systems

2.1.6 AtmospheriC Deposition

Suggested Comments on the Draft PRS on behalf of the Township

Water Quality Trading Feasibility Study

Overview

3.2 Suggested Comments on the WQT Feasibility Study on behalf of the Township

4

4.1

4.2

Proposed Shoreline Protection Regulation Discussion Paper

Basis for the Proposed Regulation

Approach to the Proposed Regulation

4.2.1 Removal of Existing Naturally Vegetated Areas

4.2.2 Establishment of New Vegetation

4.2.3 Significant Shoreline Alteration

4.2.4 Fertilizer Use

2

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

7

7

7

9

9

10

11

11

11

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2

2.1

2.2

3

3.1

3.2

4

4.1

4.2


Overview



2.1 .3 Rural and Agricultural Sources



2.1.6 Atmospheric Deposition

Suggested Comments on Ihe Draft PRS on behalf of the Township


Overview

Suggested Comments on the WQT Feasibilily Study on behalf of the Township








2

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

7

7

7

9

9

10

11

11

11

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2

2.1

2.2

3

3.1

3.2

4

4.1

4.2


Overview



2.1.3 Rural and Agricultural Sources




Suggested Comments on Ihe Draft PRS on behalf of the Township


Overview

Suggested Comments on the WQT Feasibilily Study on behalf of the Township








2

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

7

7

7

9

9

10

11

11

11

11

PAGE 6

4.3

4.4

4.2.5 Septic Systems

4.2.6 Wetlands and Areas Associated With Wetlands

Suggestions for Implementing the Regulation

Answers to the Ministry's Suggested Questions

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Defined Terms - Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

Appendix B: Summary of Shoreline Policies - Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

12

12

12

12

4.3

4.4





APPENDICES



12

12

12

12

4.3

4.4





APPENDICES



12

12

12

12

PAGE 7

1 Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the recent postings on the MOE Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) regarding the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and 10 suggest comments on behalf of the Township of Ramara.

The following documents were posted on the EBR on February 17, 2010;

Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy - Draft February 2010, and Amendments to the Lake Simcoe Proteclion Plan.

Water Quality Trading in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Feasibility Study - February 2010.

Proposed Shoreline Protection Regulation Discussion Paper;

Comments must be received on the EBR by April 3, 2010.

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Summary and Comments

Page 1 Marci123, 2010

1 Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the recent postings on the MOE Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) regarding the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and to suggest comments on behalf of the Township of Ramara.


Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy - Draft February 2010, and Amendments to the Lake Simcoe Proleclion Plan.





Page 1 March 23, 2010

1 Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the recent postings on the MOE Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) regarding the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and to suggest comments on behalf of the Township of Ramara.


Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy - Draft February 2010, and Amendments to the Lake Simcoe Proleclion Plan.






PAGE 8

2 Draft Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy

2.1 Overview

The objective of the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy (PRS) is to reduce the annual phosphorus load to Lake Simcoe from 72 Tonneslyr to 44 T/yr. or by 40% by the year 2045. a significant reduction considering the anticipated population growth in the drainage area.

The proposed approach is to achieve proportional reductions from each major source of phosphorus; for example. sewage treatment plants. which ClJrrentty contribute 7% of the total load, must reduce their contribution so that their future loads do not exceed 7% of 44 T/year

The draft PRS acknowledges that:

Even by implementing all possible and known reduction measures, the 44 T/year objective cannot be achieved. More research and improvements in technology are needed to find means to meet the objective; ongoing monitoring and research are therefore part of the strategy.

As the understanding of each phosphorus sources increases, the relative proportion of phosphorus contributed by each major source may change. The draft PRS therefore uses the concept of Adaptive Management, ie., the PRS will evolve and adapt to incorporate the latest scientific knowledge and the experience gained during its implementation.

The draft PRS also applies a watershed approach to manage the phosphorus problem. It proposes to implement solutions across the entire Lake Simcoe watershed including the slreams that drain into the lake. Phosphorus loading targets will be established for each sub watershed, but these have not been issued yet. An Amendment to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is currently posted on the EBR to provide an additional year to develop the priority sub watersheds and specific targets.

In the meantime, the draft PRS proposes to take immediate actions, targeting the six major sources of phosphorus:

1. sewage treatment plants

2. stormwater and runoff from urban areas

3. runoff from rural and agricultural areas

4. the Holland Marsh and other polders

5. private septic systems located close to Lake Simcoe

6. atmospheric deposition




2.1 Overview

The objective of the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy (PRS) is to reduce the annual phosphorus load to Lake Simcoe from 72 Tonneslyr to 44 Tlyr. or by 40% by the year 2045, a significant reduction considering the anticipated population growth in the drainage area.

The proposed approach is 10 achieve proportional reductions from each major source of phosphorus; for example, sewage treatment plants, which currently contribute 7% of the total load, must reduce their contribution so that theirfuture loads do not exceed 7% of 44 T/year.


Even by implementing all possible and known reduction measures, the 44 Tlyear objective cannot be achieved. More research and improvements in technology are needed to find means to meet the objective; ongoing monitoring and research are therefore part of the strategy,

As the understanding of each phosphorus sources increases, the relative proportion of phosphorus contributed by each major source may change. The draft PRS therefore uses the concept of Adaptive Management, i.e., the PRS will evolve and adapt to incorporate the latest scientific knowledge and the experience gained during its implementation.

The draft PRS also applies a watershed approach to manage the phosphorus problem. It proposes to implement solutions across the entire Lake Simcoe watershed including the streams that drain into the lake. Phosphorus loading targets will be established for each sub watershed, but these have not been issued yet. An Amendment to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is currently posted on the EBR to provide an additional year to develop the priority sub watersheds and specific targets.



2, stormwater and runoff from urban areas



5, private septic systems located close to Lake Simcoe





2.1 Overview

The objective of the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy (PRS) is to reduce the annual phosphorus load to Lake Simcoe from 72 Tonneslyr to 44 Tlyr. or by 40% by the year 2045, a significant reduction considering the anticipated population growth in the drainage area.

The proposed approach is to achieve proportional reductions from each major source of phosphorus; for example, sewage treatment plants, which currently contribute 7% of the total load, must reduce their contribution so that theirfuture loads do not exceed 7% of 44 T/year.


Even by implementing all possible and known reduction measures, the 44 Ttyear objective cannol be achieved. More research and improvements in technology are needed to find means to meet the objective; ongoing monitoring and research are therefore part of the strategy,

As the understanding of each phosphorus sources increases, the relative proportion of phosphorus contributed by each major source may change. The draft PRS therefore uses the concept of Adaptive Management, i.e., the PRS will evolve and adapt to incorporate the latest scientific knowledge and the experience gained during its implementation.

The draft PRS also applies a watershed approach to manage the phosphorus problem. It proposes to implement solutions across the en lire Lake Simcoe watershed including the slreams thai drain into the lake. Phosphorus loading targets will be established for each sub watershed, but these have not been issued yet. An Amendment to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is currently posted on the EBR to provide an additional year to develop the priority sub watersheds and specific targets.



2, stormwater and runoff from urban areas



5, private septic systems located close to Lake Simcoe


lake Simcoe Protection Plan Summary and Comments


PAGE 9

The draft PRS identifies specific targeted reductions from each major source, however a detailed plan was only developed for regulating the sewage treatment plants. Below is a brief summary of the proposed actions for each major source, and the potential impact on the Township of Ramara.


The draft PRS proposes a plan to reduce the total phosphorous contribution from all STPs to Lake Simcoe to 3.2 T/year by 2045. This reduction is proposed to be achieved in multiple phases:

First phase: Each STP is limited to a "Maximum Baseline Load" of phosphorus. The Baseline Load is calculated for the current rated capacity of the STP and for an effluent phosphorus concentration that has been selected based on the size of the STP. This Maximum Baseline Load and the maximum effluent concentration will be incorporated in the STP's Certificate of Approval as compliance criteria by 2015. An Amendment to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan that proposes this change is currently posted on the EBR.

The sum of all the STPs Baseline Loads is 7 T/yr. Although this sum exceeds the current load to the lake from all STPs, it is less than is currently approved by the STPs Certificates of Approval. The STPs must all achieve a lower effluent phosphorus concentration to meet this objective.

Subsequent phases will achieve further reductions in increments. Two options are presented to achieve a total load from the STPs of 3.2 T/yr by 2045:

o Reduce each STP's phosphorus load by 20% every 10 years; or, o Reduce each STP's phosphorus load by 10% every 5 years, or purchase phosphorus

credits through a Water Quality Trading Program.

The Table below presents the current and proposed allowable phosphorus load from the Lagoon City STP.

Lagoon City STP Current and Proposed Effluent Limits

Current Performance and Flows (2008)

Permitted by Certificate of Approval

Ultimate as per the Lagoon City/Brechin MSP

Draft PRS, by 2015

Draft PRS, by 2045

Ultimate and in compliance with draft PRS


Flows Effluent Phosphorus (rn3/day) Cone. (rng/L)

1,575 0.08

2,273 0.30

4,753 0.15

2,273 0.15

4,753 0.033

Effluent Phosphorus Load (kg/year)

46

249

249

124

58

58


PAGE 10

As shown in the table above, the PRS would reduce the allowable phosphorus load from the Lagoon City STP from its approved 249 kg/year to 124 kg/year by 2015, and to 58 kg/year by 2045. In other words, when the Lagoon City STP is expanded (doubled in capacity) to service the ultimate population in the Lagoon City/Brechin area, the annual effluent phosphorus load would only be permitted to increase by 12 kg, an increase of 26% above its current output of 46 kg/year.

To service the projected build-out of the Lagoon City/Brechin area, as per the Master Servicing Plan, the Lagoon City STP would need to achieve an effluent phosphorus concentration of 0.033 mg/L to meet the maximum loading suggested in the draft PRS. The draft PRS considers the current limit of phosphorus removal technology to be 0.05 mg/L using the most advanced and expensive sewage treatment technology. Therefore the proposed STP load limit cannot be achieved without the purchase of phosphorus credits from other sources, as per the Water Quality Trading Program under consideration.

2.1.2 Urban Runoff and Stormwater

The draft PRS provides a Strategic Direction to achieve no net increase in phosphorus loading from new developments. The details of this future requirement have not been developed.

The draft PRS document builds upon the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan policies by suggesting tools to further reduce and control the amount of phosphorus that enters the Lake Simcoe watershed from urban stormwater:

Retrofit existing stormwater facilities and adding stormwater facilities where stormwater is uncontrolled.

• Install enhanced stormwater works for new developments. • Implement innovative technologies and approaches such as Low Impact Development (LID)

practices. LSRCA is completing a study on LID costs and opportunities. • Purchase phosphorus credits under a Water Quality Trading Program. • Municipal cash-in-lieu program. • Add and improve maintenance of oil and grit separators.

The implications of the this section of the draft PRS for the Township of Ramara are somewhat limited as there are no large urban areas from which stormwater phosphorus discharges to Lake Simcoe. As per the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, the Township will need to develop stormwater management master plans for its existing settlement areas.

2.1.3 Rural and Agricultural Sources

The draft PRS provides a Strategic Direction to encourage continued best management practices through stewardship activities by landowners. It encourages integrated stewardship approaches to enable partnerships, and continued research and monitoring. The draft PRS projects that a reduction of 5 T/year can be achieved by participating in stewardship programs.



PAGE 11

The draft Strategy to control phosphorus from rural areas is not well developed.


Similarly, the draft PRS provides a Strategic Direction to enhance existing stewardship programs to reduce the phosphorus load from polders by 1 T/yr by 2032, and promote research and innovation. Research will focus on new BMPs developed specifically for polder agriculture.


The draft PRS does not add any requirements or Strategic Direction to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, which includes policies for the re-inspection of existing on-site sewage systems located within 100 m of the shoreline of the lake and streams, and the prohibition of new on-site systems within this distance except where permitted by the municipality's zoning by-law.


2.2

Atmospheric deposition of phosphorus comes from: natural sources; the burning of fossil fuels; and wind transport of disturbed soils such as land that is stripped during construction, unpaved roads, agricultural fields, and aggregate operations.

The MOE will complete a study on this source of phosphorus, develop best management practices and determine if additional standards are needed for mineral resource aggregate activities.

The draft PRS provides a Strategic Direction to continue and expand stewardship opportunities and best management practices that address urban and agricultural sources of airborne phosphorus; and to work with aggregate and development industries to fill information gaps and identify opportunities for phosphorus reduction.

Suggested Comments on Draft PRS on behalf of the Township

• The Township of Ramara is supportive of efforts to improve Lake Simcoe water quality. Resident associations, such as the North Mara Beach Resident Association, monitor on a regular and ongoing basis the water quality in the streams that discharge to Lake Simcoe. This data is made available to the municipality and to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.

• The Township cannot support a Phosphorus Reduction Strategy that requires STPs to reduce their phosphorus contribution to a point that is not currently technically achievable. It is not realistic to rely on innovation and new technology to bridge the gap between what is currently achievable and the objective for the STPs. The currently available sewage treatment technologies for phosphorus removal are already reaching the limit of what is physically and chemically possible.



PAGE 12

• In the absence of promising and cost-effective new phosphorus removal technology, the draft Strategy for the STPs therefore relies on obtaining phosphorus credits from other sources to achieve the overall STP objective. This strategy is weak and may not succeed because a decision has not even been made to implement a Water Quality Trading Program. Should the Water Quality Trading Program not be implemented, or not be successfully implemented, the phosphorus reduction objective for the STPs will not be met.

• The requirement for all STPs to be upgraded to incorporate the most sophisticated level of treatment technology is very onerous to municipalities. The burden to the existing residents (increasing the level of treatment at an existing STP must be paid by the existing residents) and for developers of small subdivisions, is significant for a very small overall reduction in the phosphorus loading to Lake Simcoe.

• The Township cannot support a plan that requires a roll-back in the MOE-approved phosphorus loading to the lake without a commitment from the provincial government to assist with the costs of upgrading the sewage treatment plant. The Lagoon City STP was recently expanded and upgraded with MOE's approval, which we believe was based on considerations of the impact of the effluent on the lake's water quality, to serve a community that was until then serviced by on-site sewage systems. The Lagoon City/Brechin sewage works project was entirely funded by the existing residents and future growth through development charges, and will result in improvements to surface water quality. The costs of further upgrades to the Lagoon City STP to meet the PRS proposed effluent quality would be an unfair burden on the residents.

• The draft Strategy does not address the higher need to reduce phosphorus loads to priority areas with lower lake water quality. It is not clear how the sub watershed specific targets, which we understand have not yet been developed, will be implemented as part of the PRS. In our opinion, establishing the priority areas and the sub watershed targets should precede the establishment of effluent loading limits for the STPs.



PAGE 13

3 Water Quality Trading Feasibility Study

3.1 Overview

The report Water Quality Trading in the Lake Simcoe Watershed is a feasibility study that was undertaken on behalf of Ihe Province by a consultant team. The entire 184-page study is posted on the EBR for comments. The sludy looked al the feasibility of implemenling a waler qualily Irading program for controlling phosphorus pollution to Lake Simcoe.

With Water Quality Trading (WQT), 'dischargers that reduce their pollutant loadings below required levels can sell surplus reductions, called credits, to other dischargers thai need to make reductions to meet compliance requirements but who face much higher costs to achieve required reductions'-

The study delermined Ihal there are Iwo primary sources of phosphorus credils in the Lake Simcoe watershed: reductions from agricultural sources (agricultural row cropping, best management practices, and treatment of agricultural polder water); and reductions from retrofi tting existing urban stormwater facilities. The agricultural credits are predicted to be the lowest cost phosphorus credits ($4801 kg of phosphorus). The demand for phosphorus credits would come from municipal STPs that need to upgrade and expand, and from new urban stormwater projects.

The study suggests that if a WQT program were developed, it should be administered by a coalition of exisling agenCies and organizations, subjecl to regulatory oversight by the province, and it should use a 'clearinghouse' markel, through which credits would be boughl and sold, and which would sel the price of Ihe phosphorus credil. II is anlicipaled that the development of a trading framework and administration would likely requ ire 3 to 4 years.

The study concluded that WQT is feasible because: there is sufficient knowledge about phosphorus loadings to Lake Simcoe; Ihere will be regulatory requiremenls 10 meet maximum phosphorus limits; and there would be an economically viable market for phosphorus credits.

The decision has not been made to develop and implement a WQT program in part because it is not known if potential partiCipants would be willing to engage in the program.

3,2 Suggested Comments on the WQT Feasibility Study on behalf of the Township

The Water Quality Trading program should continue 10 be developed, although not given approved status as yel, as il has Ihe polenlial 10 reduce the cosls of prolecling and improving Ihe Lake's water quality while allowing growth to continue.




3.1 Overview

The report Water Quality Trading in the Lake Simcoe Watershed is a feasibility study that was undertaken on behalf of the Province by a consultant team. The entire 184-page study is posted on the EBR for comments. The study tooked at the feasibility of implementing a water quality trading program for controlling phosphorus pollution to Lake Simcoe.

With Water Quality Trading (WQT). 'dischargers that reduce their pollutant loadings below required levels can sell surplus reductions, called credits, to other dischargers that need to make reductions to meet compliance requirements but who face much higher costs to achieve required reductions,"

The study determined that there are two primary sources of phosphorus credits in the Lake Simcoe watershed: reductions from agricultural sources (agricultural row cropping, best management practices, and treatment of agricultural polder water); and reductions from retrofitting existing urban stormwater facilit ies. The agricultural credits are predicted to be the lowest cost phosphorus credits ($4801 kg of phosphorus). The demand for phosphorus credits would come from municipal STPs that need to upgrade and expand, and from new urban stormwater projects.

The study suggests that if a WQT program were developed, it should be administered by a coalition of existing agencies and organizations, subject to regulatory oversight by the province, and it should use a 'clearinghouse" market, through which credits would be bought and sold, and which would set the price of the phosphorus credit. It is anticipated that the development of a trading framework and administration would likely require 3 to 4 years.

The study concluded that WQT is feasible because: there is sufficient knowledge about phosphorus loadings to Lake Simcoe; there will be regulatory requirements to meet maximum phosphorus limits; and there would be an economically viable market for phosphorus credits.



The Water Quality Trading program should continue to be developed, although not given approved status as yet, as it has the potential to reduce the costs of protecting and improving the Lake's water quality while allowing growth to continue.




3.1 Overview

The report Water Quality Trading in the Lake Simcoe Watershed is a feasibility study that was undertaken on behalf of the Province by a consultant team. The entire 184-page study is posted on the EBR for comments. The study tooked at the feasibility of implementing a water quality trading program for controlling phosphorus pollution to Lake Simcoe.

With Water Quality Trading (WQT). 'dischargers that reduce their pollutant loadings below required levels can sell surplus reductions, called credits, to other dischargers that need to make reductions to meet compliance requirements but who face much higher costs to achieve required reductions:

The study determined that there are two primary sources of phosphorus credits in the Lake Simcoe watershed: reductions from agricultural sources (agricultural row cropping, best management practices, and treatment of agricultural polder water); and reductions from retrofi tting existing urban stormwater facilit ies. The agricultural credits are predicted to be the lowest cost phosphorus credits ($4801 kg of phosphorus). The demand for phosphorus credits would come from municipal STPs that need to upgrade and expand, and from new urban stormwater projects.

The study suggests that if a WQT program were developed, it should be administered by a coalition of existing agencies and organizations, subject to regulatory oversight by the province, and it should use a 'clearinghouse" market, through which credits would be bought and sold, and which would set the price of the phosphorus credit. It is anticipated that the development of a trading framework and administration would likely require 3 to 4 years.

The study concluded that WQT is feasible because: there is sufficient knowledge about phosphorus loadings to Lake Simcoe; there will be regulatory requirements to meet maximum phosphorus limits; and there would be an economically viable market for phosphorus credits.



The Water Quality Trading program should continue to be developed, although not given approved status as yet, as it has the potential to reduce the costs of protecting and improving the Lake's water quality while allowing growth to continue.



PAGE 14

• It is premature to request a detailed opinion on the phosphorus trading program as it is still a concept for which few details have been developed and for which a cost-benefit analysis has not been completed. Consequently, the Township would request that further review and input be sought from stakeholders as the program details are developed.

• The Feasibility Study indicates that the WaT program is based on the concept that it does not matter which discharger cuts back on phosphorus, as long as the overall amount of phosphorus discharged to the lake is reduced. We disagree with this concept as some areas of the lake are more stressed than others and would therefore benefit from significant local reductions in phosphorus loadings.

• It is not readily apparent how municipalities will plan infrastructure expansions and establish servicing costs and appropriate development charges to ensure the new works are paid by growth when it is not known if phosphorus credits will be available, and what their market value will be. It is anticipated municipalities will need to assume that the full capital costs associated with sewage and stormwater treatment will be required until the WaT program is fully implemented.

• We understand that the "clearinghouse" would establish the price of a phosphorus credit. In our opinion, the valuation of phosphorus credits should be transparent and the price should be fixed, known, and the same for all, so that there is a level playing field. The system must not allow a small number of buyers to dominate the acquisition of phosphorus credits.

• We believe reliable non-point source baseline data, followed by proven monitoring programs, are needed to confirm that Best Management Practices are effective. They should be established before a decision is made to implement the WaT program. Applying a high trading ratio to compensate for lack of monitoring data is not sufficient.

• We suggest that the WaT program should be administered by an objective, third-party organization, accountable to all stakeholders, and with staff with expertise in environmental program administration, finance and trading.



PAGE 15

4 Proposed Shoreline Protection Regulation Discussion Paper

4.1 Basis for the Proposed Regulation

The Lake Simcoe Proleclion Plan provides for Ihis proposed regulation in Ihe following slralegic aclions 6.16. 6.17. and 6.18.

6.16: Wilhin one year of Ihe dale Ihe Plan comes inlo effecl. ihe MOE. in collaboralion wilh Ihe MNR, olher minislries and regulalory agencies will release for consullalion proposed draf! regulalions under Seclion 26 of Ihe Lake Simcoe Proleclion Acl, 2008 based on further advice from Ihe Lake Simcoe Science Committee. These regulalions will build on and are not inlended to duplicate existing legislation and regulations ihat apply to ihe shoreline areas including ihe Conservalion Aulhorilies Acl, Lakes and Rivers Improvemenl Acl and Ihe Public Lands Act.

6.17: The area 10 which the shoreline regulation proposed under policy 6.16 would apply includes Ihe littoral zone, Ihe riparian area, on-land areas beyond riparian areas and wellands where any aclivity may affecl ecological funcfions. This regulated area musl be described in Ihe Plan once Ihe regulation is made.

6.18: The proposed regulalion under policy 6.16 may address ihe following:

a. Ihe use of fertilizer use for non-agnculfurallands such thalihe waler qualily of lakes and streams is not affected;

b. activities Ihat contribule 10 ihe spread of invasive species;

c. peat extraction in all wetlands in the watershed;

d. the filling or draining of existing weffands except as relaled 10 mineral aggregate operations or existing seWement areas where the regulation would only apply to Ihose wellands of provincial significance, and in relation 10 existing agricultural operations (e.g., Holland Marsh);

e. removal of vegetation and coarse woody debris would not be permitted within shoreline areas, with some exceptions, 10 prolecl exisling nalural areas adjacent 10 shorelines and 10 retain vegelaled buffers consislenl wilh Ihose required by development and sife alteration policies (e.g. 30 melre minimum vegelalion prolection zone on eiiher side of a permanent or intermittent stream); and

f. other issues idenlified Ihrough research and consullations.

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Summary and Coovnents



4.' Basis for the Proposed Regulation

The Lake Simcoe Prolection Plan provides for this proposed regulation in Ihe following slralegic aclions 6.16. 6.17. and 6.18.

6.16: Wilhin one year of Ihe dale Ihe Plan comes inlo effecl. the MOE, in collaboralion with Ihe MNR, olher minislries and regulalory agencies will release for consultalion proposed draft regulalions under Seclion 26 of Ihe Lake Simcoe Proleclion Acl, 2008 based on further advice from the Lake Simcoe Science CommiNee. These regulalions will build on and are not inlended 10 duplicate existing legislation and regulations that apply to Ihe shoreline areas including Ihe Conservalion Aulhorilies Act, Lakes and Rivers Improvemenl Acl and Ihe Public Lands Act.

6.17: The area 10 which Ihe shoreline regulation proposed under policy 6.16 would apply includes the liftoral zone, Ihe riparian area, on-land areas beyond riparian areas and wetlands where any aclivity may affecl ecological funcfions. This regulaled area musl be described in the Plan once Ihe regulation is made.

6.18: The proposed regulalion under policy 6.16 may address the following:

a. Ihe use of fertilizer use for non-agricultural lands such thai the waler qualily of lakes and streams is not affected;

b. activities that conlribule 10 the spread of invasive species;

c. peat extraction in all wetlands in the watershed;

d. the filling or draining of existing wetlands except as relaled 10 mineral aggregate operations or existing sefflement areas where the regulalion would only apply 10 Ihose wetlands of provincial significance, and in relation 10 exisling agricultural operations (e.g., Holland Marsh);

e. removal of vegetation and coarse woody debris would nol be permitted within shoreline areas, wilh some exceplions, to protect exisling nalural areas adjacent 10 shorelines and 10 relain vegelaled buffers consislenl wilh Ihose required by developmenf and sffe alteration policies (e.g. 30 melre minimum vegelation proleclion zone on either side of a permanent or intermittent stream); and

f. other issues idenlified Ihrough research and consultations.

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Summary aIld Comments

Page 9 Marcil 23, 2010


4.1 Basis for the Proposed Regulation

The Lake Simcoe Prolection Plan provides for this proposed regulation in the following slrategic aclions 6.16. 6.17. and 6.18.

6.16: Within one year of the dale Ihe Plan comes inlo effect. the MOE. in collaboralion wilh the MNR, olher minislries and regulalory agencies will release for consultalion proposed draft regulalions under Seclion 26 of Ihe Lake Simcoe Proleclion Acl, 2008 based on further advice from the Lake Simcoe Science CommiNee. These regulalions will build on and are nol inlended 10 duplicale exisling legislalion and regulalions thai apply 10 Ihe shoreline areas including Ihe Conservation Aulhorilies Acl, Lakes and Rivers Improvemenl Acl and Ihe Public Lands Act.

6.17: The area 10 which Ihe shoreline regulalion proposed under policy 6.16 wouk! apply includes the lifforal zone, Ihe riparian area, on-land areas beyond riparian areas and wetlands where any aclivity may affecl ecological funcfions. This regulaled area musl be described in the Plan once the regulalion is made.

6.18: The proposed regulalion under policy 6.16 may address the following:

a. the use of fertilizer use for non-agricultural lands such thai the water quality of lakes and streams is nol affected;

b. activities thai conlribule 10 the spread of invasive species;

c. peal extraclion in all wetlands in the walershed;

d. the filling or draining of existing wetlands excepl as relaled to mineral aggregate operations or existing seff/ement areas where the regulation would only apply 10 Ihose wetlands of provincial significance, and in relation 10 exisling agricultural operations (e.g., Holland Marsh);

e. removal of vegetation and coarse woody debris would not be permitted within shoreline areas, with some exceptions, to protect existing nalural areas adjacent 10 shorelines and 10 relain vegelaled buffers consislenl wilh those required by developmenl and s~e

alteration policies (e.g. 30 metre minimum vegetation proteclion zone on either side of a permanent or intermittent stream); and

f. other issues idenlified through research and consultalions.



PAGE 16

Words in italics are defined terms in the LSPP and are included in Appendix A to this report. A summary of how the policies of the LSPP apply to development and site alteration in the shoreline areas is included in Appendix B to this report.

4.2 Approach to the Proposed Regulation

The discussion paper sets out ideas that are intended to frame a proposed regulation that may be drafted for consultation. The paper sets out three fundamental principles that will guide the drafting of the proposed regulation:

• focus on key issues and minimum standards to ensure the watershed is protected;

• build on existing regulatory frameworks where possible, to avoid duplication; and,

• rely on existing agencies to provide compliance functions, avoiding duplication in implementation and maximizing cost effectiveness.

It is evident that the paper puts forward suggestions on how to regulate the behaviour of landowners along the Lake Simcoe shoreline, littoral areas, and other lakes and streams. The future regulation goes beyond the policies that guide development and site alteration along the defined shorelines and buffer zones.

The paper also suggests possible amendments to the LSPP that provide clarification or to provide additional detail and to include a description of the area to which a shoreline protection regulation would apply.

The paper proposes that the regulation would apply to the following areas within the watershed.

• The littoral zone of Lake Simcoe and any other lake within the Lake Simcoe watershed

• All areas within a stream and within 120 m (in-land) from the shoreline of any lake or stream

• Areas within any wetland within the Lake Simcoe watershed, and areas within 120 m of a wetland

• Areas within a shoreline natural area, and areas within 120 m of a shoreline natural area

• Areas regulated under section 28 of the CAA (flood plain, wave up-rush, stable slope, dynamic beaches, river valleys, meander belts)

The paper states that there are "some activities that may pose a threat to the future health of the lake. It may be appropriate to address these activities through a shoreline protection regulation as the activities are not addressed by the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan policies.

There are six activity areas that are addressed in the paper. A summary follows in order to capture the essence of the discussion.



PAGE 17


The suggestion is to prohibit the removal of ground cover, trees, shrubs, aquatic vegetation in order to leave the areas undisturbed. There would be exceptions to provide viewing and access to lakes and streams, removal of hazards, drain maintenance and repair, invasive species removal, and removal of natural products. Removal of vegetation for permitted structures would be allowed if there is no alternative and where there is approved development and site alteration.

The regulation would apply to a 15 metre buffer along the Lake Simcoe shoreline and 30 metres along a stream. It is apparent that this restriction applies to designated settlement areas, built-up areas along the shoreline, and to other shoreline areas.


A vegetation riparian area of 5 metres from a lake or stream would be required when other work or activities are being undertaken near the shorelines. These other activities may include erosion control, boathouse or dock construction, or new landscaping with in 15 metres of a lake or stream. Small works and maintenance of existing manicured areas would not require additional planting.


The LSPP, in policy 6.7, prohibits significant alteration of the shoreline of Lake Simcoe or a stream connected to Lake Simcoe in all areas, unless the significant alteration stabilizes, protects, restores or rehabilitates the shore, or the project is undertaken by a public body.

The LSPP does not define the meaning of "significant alteration", and the paper suggests that the LSPP could be amended or the regulation include the definition.

The paper suggests that the prohibition of shoreline alteration could include new or expanded dredging into the shoreline, new or expanded lagoons, new or expanded channels between a pond or lagoon and the lake. Some alterations to restore the shoreline or where development approval exists may not be included.


The issue is to reduce the use of chemical phosphorus and organic materials such as compost and manure that contain phosphorus.

It is suggested that all fertilizers be prohibited within the 5 metre riparian area in the area up to 30 metres from the shoreline, only phosphorus free fertilizer be used. Agriculture activities would be exempted. There could be provisions for soil testing in certain public areas.



PAGE 18


The LSPP prohibits new subsurface sewage treatment systems within 100 m of the Lake Simcoe shoreline, other lakes, or any permanent stream, except for agriculture uses, agriculture-related uses, public open space, and one dwelling unit.

The paper suggests that these prohibitions can be achieved by the proposed regulation and also that the regulation would be designated as applicable law under the Building Code, thereby allowing the CBO to not issue a building permit.


A proposed regulation could go beyond what the LSRCA is authorized to regulate. Some of the existing gaps in CA authority include: prohibit activities that would change a wetland boundary or the hydrology of a wetland; prohibit removal of vegetation in wetlands and within 30 metres of a wetland; clarify that wetland drainage is a form of site alteration. There would be exceptions to the prohibition for maintenance and repair, among others.

4,3 Suggestions for Implementing the Regulation

The paper is clear that implementation would be shared by existing agencies including the municipality. It sets out a variety of "soft and hard compliance tools", such as:

• educating and making people aware of what is the "right thing to do";

• using the Building Code to implement the regulation;

• using existing regulations as a means of achieving the regulations;

• using the authority under the Planning Act and the Condominium Act when development approvals are considered;

• use the regulation to enforce the provisions where there is non-compliance;

• use the regulation to issue Orders for non-compliance and allow for appeals;

• require municipalities to enact bylaws consistent with the proposed regulation;

• include transition provisions in the regulation to ensure that development and site alteration approvals and applications that have commenced are not affected by the proposed regulation.

The following questions are suggested to frame the response to the discussion paper.



PAGE 19

1. Is a regulation the preferred tool to address the activities discussed in this paper?

It is evident that the regulation would go beyond the standard guidance to development and site alteration. There is an implicit objective that the municipality and/or the conservation authority would be required to enforce the regulation. Although the current LSPP policies are valid with regard to determining how development should take place in relation to Lake Simcoe and the other watercourses, this regulation would add a layer of enforcement that infringes on human behaviour.

The use of a behavioural regulation to achieve protection of Lake Simcoe is unusual because of its power and the potential difficulties of enforcement by the municipality. If the province and/or the conservation authority take the responsibility to enforce human behaviour, then this will be seen as authoritarian and would further remove the protection objectives from the residents of the Township of Ramara.

For these reasons, a regulation is not acceptable to achieve the protection objectives.

2. Should the proposed shoreline protection regulation address other activities that have not been discussed in this paper?

A regulation should only address development and site alteration and the technical solutions that would achieve the protection objectives.

3. Is it appropriate for site alteration and drainage to be clarified?

This should be clarified in the LSPP.

4. What other programs and/or information are necessary to support a regulation addressing these types of activities (education, outreach, mapping, etc.)?

It is evident that education of the public is important, however there needs to be a local consensus that the protection objectives are in the public interest. There needs to be a balance between achieving the public interest objectives and the interests of residents and landowners.

5. Are the proposed compliance tools reasonable?

Education and awareness; Building Code provisions; planning approvals, and transition provisions are reasonable implementation tools.

6. Who should be responsible for ensuring compliance?

This is a difficult question to answer. The Province should not unilaterally empower the Township and or the conservation authority to enforce any regulation. There are financial, social and human resource implications if the municipality and/or the conservation authority are required to enforce a regulation.



PAGE 20

Serious collaboration between the province, the municipality, and the conservation authority is required in order to determine the appropriate implementation approach.

Although the LSPP policies are in the public interest, it is still a provincial policy that should be administered by the province. It would be difficult for the municipality and the conservation authority to be accountable to the public and transparent in its implementation if they are required to enforce a regulation and a process that have not been agreed to and have not been well understood.

There are significant discrepancies in the capacities of watershed municipalities to undertake implementation and enforcement of the proposed regulation. The larger municipalities and those with growth expectations will have the capacity. The Township of Ramara cannot support the requirement for enforcement since it will not have the growth, and financial and human resource capacity in the short and long-terms.

Authored by: Suzanne Troxler, M.Sc., P. Eng. Reviewed by: Manager, Environmental Engineering

and: Mark L. Dorfman, F.C.I.P., R.P.P. Planner, Mark L. Dorfman, Planner Inc.

© C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd

The information contained in this document is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document.

This document may not be used for any purpose other than that provided in the contract between the Owner/Client and the Engineer nor may any section or element of this document be removed, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the express written consent of C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd.



PAGE 21

D

D

PAGE 22

Defined Terms· Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings or structures, any of which require approval under the Planning Act, the Public Lands Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, or that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, but does not include,

a. the construction of facilities for transportation, infrastructure and utilities used by a public body;

b. activities or works under the Drainage Act; or

c. the carrying out of agricultural practices on land that was being used for agricultural uses on the date the Plan came into effect.

Ecological functions means the natural processes, products or services that living and non-living environments provide or perform within or between species, ecosystems and landscapes, including hydrological functions and biological, physical, chemical and sociol-economic interactions.

Existing settlement areas are settlement areas that are designated in an official plan on the date the Plan comes into effect.

Intermittent streams means stream-related watercourses that contain water or are dry at times of the year that are more or less predictable, generally flowing during wet seasons of the year but not the entire year, and where the water table is above the stream bottom during parts of the year.

Invasive species means species of plants, animals, and micro-organisms introduced by human action outside their natural past or present distribution whose introduction or spread threatens the environment, the economy, or society.

Lakes means any inland body of standing water, usually fresh water, larger than a pool or pond or a body of water filling a depression in the earth's surface.

Littoral zone means the area of shallow water in a lake that extends from the shoreline lakeward to the limit occupancy (sic) of rooted aquatic plants.

Mineral aggregate operation means:

a. an operation, other than wayside pits and quarries, conducted under a licence or permit under the Aggregate Resources Act, or successors thereto; and

b. associated facilities used in extraction, transport, beneficiation, processing or recycling of mineral aggregate resources and derived products such as asphalt and concrete, or the production of secondary related products.

PAGE 23

Permanent stream means a stream that continually flows in an average year.

Riparian area means the area of land adjacent to a stream, river, lake or wetland.

Site alteration means activities such as filling, grading and excavation that would change the landform and natural vegetation characteristics of land, but does not include:

a. the construction of facilities for transportation, infrastructure and utilities uses (sic) by a public body;

b. activities or works under the Drainage Act; or

c. the carrying out of agricultural practices on land that was being used for agricultural uses on the date the Plan came into effect.

Wetland means land such as a swamp, marsh, bog or fen (not including land that is being used for agricultural purposes and no longer exhibits wetland characteristics) that,

a. is seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water or has the water table close to or at the surface;

b. has hydric soils and vegetation dominated by hydrophytic or water-tolerant plants; and

c. has been further identified, by the Ministry of Natural Resources or by any other person, according to evaluation procedures established by the Ministry of Natural Resources, as amended from time to time.

PAGE 24

D

E E ON

PAGE 25

Summary of Shoreline Policies· Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

The following policies relate to development and site alteration under section 6 of the LSPP and are described as they apply to the Lake Simcoe Watershed in the Township of Ramara.

Reference to the "Lake Simcoe Shoreline" means the mark made by the action of water on the shore or bank of Lake Simcoe which action is so common and usual and so long continued that it has created a difference between the character of the vegetation or soil on one side of the mark and the character of the vegetation or soil on the other side of the mark. This is known as the High Water Mark or the elevation of 219.15 mas!.

Existing Settlement Areas

The designated settlement areas along the Lake Simcoe shoreline are Lagoon City and AtherleyUptergrove. The areas of Lake Simcoe, including the littoral zone, adjacent to these settlement areas are also included.

• Development or site alteration applications shall, where applicable,

a. increase or improve fish habitat in streams, lakes and wetlands and any adjacent riparian areas;

b. include landscaping and habitat restoration that increase the ability of native plants and animals to use valleylands or riparian areas as wildlife habitat and movement corridors;

c. seek to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate impacts associated with the quality and quantity of urban run-off into the receiving streams, lakes and wetlands; and

d. establish or increase the extent and width of a vegetation protection zone adjacent to Lake Simcoe to a minimum of 30 m where feasible.

• Where a buffer is required, the buffer shall be composed of and maintained as natural self-sustaining vegetation.

PAGE 26

Shoreline Built-Up Area

The areas designated in the Ramara Official Plan as "Shoreline Residential" are Shoreline Built-Up Areas.

Reference to "key natural heritage feature" includes wetlands, significant woodlands, significant valleylands and natural areas abutting Lake Simcoe.

Reference to "key hydrologic features" include wetlands, permanent and intermittent streams and lakes other than Lake Simcoe.

• The minimum vegetation protection zone is 30 metres from the Lake Simcoe shoreline or larger as determined by a natural heritage evaluation.

• An application for development or site alteration within 120 metres of the Lake Simcoe shoreline shall include a natural heritage evaluation according to policy 6.26.

• No development and site alteration is permitted in Lake Simcoe and within a vegetation protection zone, with specific exceptions.

• A proposal for development or site alteration within 240 metres of the Lake Simcoe shoreline must demonstrate that the development or site alteration will maintain and enhance or restore functional wildlife movement corridors between any key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature located along the Lake Simcoe shoreline and from the Lake Simcoe shoreline to another key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature within 240 metres of the Lake Simcoe shoreline.

• No development and site alteration within a key natural heritage feature, and a key hydrologic feature, with certain exceptions.

• The minimum vegetation protection zone for a key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature is 30 metres or larger if determined by a natural heritage evaluation.

• An application for development or site alteration within 120 metres of a key natural heritage feature or a key hydrologic feature shall include a natural heritage evaluation according to policy 6.26.

B A permit from the LSRCA for development or site alteration is required in a regulated area.

• Where one dwelling unit is proposed to be built on a lot that is already zoned, the policies of the LSPP apply.

• Where the Township's site plan approval is required for development, the policies of the LSPP apply.

• The LSPP applies to a consent application and a minor variance application, and to amendments to the official plan and zoning bylaw.

PAGE 27

Outside Existing Settlement Areas and Shoreline Built·Up Areas

• The minimum vegetation protection zone is 100 metres from the Lake Simcoe shoreline.

• No development and site alteration is permitted in Lake Simcoe and within a vegetation protection zone, with specific exceptions.

• A proposal for development or site alteration within 240 metres of the Lake Simcoe shoreline must demonstrate that the development or site alteration will maintain and enhance or restore functional wildlife movement corridors between any key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature located along the Lake Simcoe shoreline and from the Lake Simcoe shoreline to another key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature within 240 metres of the Lake Simcoe shoreline.

• No development and site alteration within a key natural heritage feature, and a key hydrologic feature, with certain exceptions.

• The minimum vegetation protection zone for a key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature is 30 metres or larger if determined by a natural heritage evaluation.

• An application for development or site alteration within 120 metres of a key natural heritage feature or a key hydrologic feature shall include a natural heritage evaluation according to policy 6.26.

PAGE 28

ITEM 5.1


Proud HistOlY - Progressive Future

MEETING: GENERAL COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. AD-06-10

DATE: MARCH 29, 2010

SUBJECT: HEALTH & SAFETY POLICY

SUGGESTED MOTION:

THAT we adopt amended Health & Safety Policy #6 - Early & Safe Return To Work

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:

The attached policy was prepared by management after discussion with the Workplace Safety Insurance Board (WSIB) and is being recommended by the Joint Health and Safety Committee. Council endorsement is required as the employer.

ALTERNATIVES:

None presented

FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There is no impact on the budget.

STRATEGIC ISSUES:

The Safety and Security strategic issue applies.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

THAT the policy be adopted.

Respectfully submitted,

II ~ n ~---Rl~ates, B.A.S., C.E.T. Chief Administrative Officer RPB/cmw Attachment

P.O. Box 130, Brechin, Ontario LOK lBO, (705) 484-5374 Toll Free 1-800-663-4054 (for 689 exchange only) Fax (705) 484-0441 Email: [email protected] Web Site: www.township.ramara.on.ca


PAGE 29

Corporation and Joint Health and Safety Policy and Procedure Manual

Revised: Description EARL Y & SAFE RETURN TO Policy # 6 Feb'/10 WORK formerly MODIFIED WORK Supersedes: Scope Corporate Policy Page 1 of7 May 21104 Date Issued: Approval JHSC - March 12,2010 Effective Date: Feb.IlIIO Council

I. PURPOSE:

To provide an early and safe return to work program which accommodates an employee who is temporarily unable to return to hislher duties due to an occupational injury or illness. The Corporation recognizes the benefits of a formal rehabilitation program and will undertake to provide meaningful employment for both permanently and temporarily disabled employees finding opportunities for the employee to perfonn their regular job with modifications or, when available, alternate temporary work that meets the employee's functional abilities.

II. RESPONSIBILITY:

A. The Manager and workplace supervisor are responsible for ensuring that every reasonable effort is made to provide suitable modified work to any employee who is unable to perform his normal duties as a consequence of an occupational injury or illness.

B. If required, an "Early & Safe Return to Work Committee" will be established and will be responsible to act as a resource for management and the employee. An "Early & Safe Return to Work Committee" may include the Supervisor, Employee, WSIB Rehabilitation Worker and Joint Health and Safety Committee Worker Member, as required.

C. The injured worker is responsible for active participation in the modified work program, as defined in this procedure.

III. PROCEDURE:

A. General:

1. Modified work is any job, task, function or combination thereof that a worker, who suffers from a diminished capacity, may perform safely without risk of reinjury.

2. The work must be productive and the result ofthe work must have value

3. The work must be seen as temporary, generally not to exceed 8-12 weeks in duration, and is intended to assist the employee in returning to hislher regular duties.

1

"BY WORKING SAFEL Y, WE PROTECT ONE ANOTHER"

PAGE 30


Revised: Description EARL Y & SAFE RETURN TO Policy # 6 Feb'/10 WORK formerly MODIFIED WORK Supersedes: Scope Corporate Policy Page 2 of7 May 21104 Date Issued: Approval JHSC - March 12, 2010 Effective Date: Feb.11l10 Council

4. Each service area will try to accommodate any employee unable to perform their regular duties.

5. Where the employee's "home service area" is unable to provide a suitable work assignment, an attempt will be made to place the employee in another service area within the Township. This process will be co-ordinated by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).

B. Responsibilities:

1. The duties ofthe employer are to:

a) Provide a safe work environment;

b) Educate all employees about the Early & Safe Return to Work Policy;

c) Work with the employee and health professionals to identify suitable work;

d) Modify the workplace, as required and as economically feasible;

e) Monitor the progress of all employees on modified work and meet with them regularly to ensure they will be successful in returning to their regular duties.

2. The duties ofthe workplace supervisor are to:

a) Meet with the worker to set program goals and objectives;

b) Determine what outside professionals are needed; e.g. "ergonomic specialist";

c) Establish individual programs for workers, with the help of other professionals;

d) Organize the placement of injured workers in modified jobs;

e) Meet with the employee on the first day back and facilitate the return to work;

2


PAGE 31


Revised: Feb.!10 Supersedes: May 21104 Date Issued: Feb.11110

Description EARL Y & SAFE RETURN TO Policy # 6 WORK formerly MODIFIED WORK

Scope Corporate Policy Page 3 of7

Approval JHSC - March 12,2010 Effective Date: Council

f) Arrange meetings with the worker and Early & Safe Return to Work Committee, as required, to monitor the status of worker and discuss strategies for future development of the program.

g) Educate workers about the Early & Safe Return to Work Program, safety practices and the WSIB.

3. The duties of the Early & Safe Return to Work Committee are to:

a) Develop an individual program for the worker and keep himlher actively involved in the rehabilitation plan by setting goals, maintaining continuous contact and monitoring progress

b) Keep minutes of meetings and distribute them to all committee members.

4. The duties of the worker are to:

a) Maintain regular contact through the recovery period with the workplace supervisor;

b) Obtain clearance from the treating physician for the Early & Safe Return to Work Program;

c) Notify the relevant WSIB caseworker of availability for the Early & Safe Return to Work Program;

d) Take an active role in developing hislher individual Early & Safe Return to Work program;

e) Communicate any concerns to the workplace supervisor or WSIB adjudicator so that potential problems can be resolved immediately;

f) Ensure that other scheduled activities, such as physiotherapy or doctor's appointments do not interfere with the return to work;

g) Attend all scheduled return to work progress meetings.

3


PAGE 32


Revised: Description EARLY & SAFE RETURN TO Policy # 6 Feb'/10 WORK formerly MODIFIED WORK Supersedes: Scope Corporate Policy Page 4 of7 May 21104 Date Issued: Approval JHSC - March 12,2010 Effective Date: Feb.11l10 Council

C. Following an injury:

1. For a "Medical Aid Injury" or a "Critical Injury", the injured employee will be given a "Functional Abilities Form for Timely Return to Works" (WSIB), to be taken to hislher attending physician.

2. The "Functional Abilities Form for a Timely Return to Work" form will be accompanied by notification that the Township of Ramara has an Early & Safe Return to Work Program and will be anxious to receive the completed form immediately.

3. The employee will take a "Functional Abilities Form for Timely Return to Work" to the attending regulated health care professional, have it completed and returned to the supervisor immediately.

4. Regular contact between the employee and the supervisor is to be maintained throughout the employee's recovery period, with progress meetings held at a minimum suggested frequency of once every two weeks, and preferably following the employee's medical appointments.

5. The completed "Functional Abilities Form for Timely Return to Work" will be given to the workplace supervisor at these progress meetings and the injured employee's progress shall be jointly reviewed.

D. Early & Safe Return To Work Implementation:

1. When the physician indicates that the employee is available for early & safe return to work duties, the supervisor and the employee will meet to discuss what work options are available, those being, in order of priority:

a) A modified pre-injury job

b) An alternate job

c) Another suitable job

4


PAGE 33


Revised: Description EARL Y & SAFE RETURN TO Policy # 6 Feb.!10 WORK formerly MODIFIED WORK Supersedes: Scope Corporate Policy Page 5 of7 May 21104 Date Issued: Approval JHSC - March 12,2010 Effective Date: Feb.11l10 Council

2. A "Physical Demands Analysis" (Form RHS012) should be completed to identify what activities need to be performed in carrying out the job assignment and to match these with any identified restrictions.

3. It may be necessary to modify the pre-injury job on a temporary or permanent basis, to accommodate the employee's physical restrictions. This may include, but not be limited to:

a) The regular job/tasks that have been changed, redesigned or physically modified

b) A reduction in time (e.g. Fewer days per week or fewer hours per day than normal)

c) A reduction in volume or work performed

d) Assistance from another co-worker for more difficult tasks

4. If the pre-injury job cannot be modified to accommodate the injured employee's needs, alternate jobs may be considered.

5. An alternate job is one that involves work that is approximately the same standing within the organization, looking at the "home" service area first and then all outside service areas second.

6. When looking at alternate jobs, consideration should be given to:

a) The employee's previous work history

b) Transferable skills

7. When neither the pre-injury job nor an alternate job is appropriate, other suitable jobs should be considered.

8. Other suitable jobs are defined as those jobs within the capacity of the worker and which pose no health or safety risks to himlher, but may be quite different from the pre-accident job.

5


PAGE 34


Revised: Description EARLY & SAFE RETURN TO Policy # 6 Feb'/10 WORK formerly MODIFIED WORK Supersedes: Scope Corporate Policy Page 6 of7 May 21104 Date Issued: Approval JHSC - March 12,2010 Effective Date: Feb.ll/10 Council

E. Program Monitoring:

1. The injured employee should be monitored closely while on an Early & Safe Return to Work Program, with any difficulties he/she has being reported and evaluated by one of the workplace supervisors.

2. The information provided on the Functional Abilities Form for Timely Return to Work will be used to place the worker in an Early & Safe Return to Work Program within the capabilities and limitations identified.

3. When monitoring an injured worker's participation, the following factors should be considered:

a) Attendance

b) Productivity

c) Accuracy

d) Problems with particular tasks

e) Ability to increase speed

f) Ability to improve efficiency

4. Once the worker completes his modified work program and returns to full duties, a complete review of the individual's progress should be performed by the:

a) Supervisor

b) Worker

c) The Early & Safe Return to Work Committee, where applicable and the recommendations for improvements made by the above, documented.

6


PAGE 35


Revised: Description EARLY & SAFE RETURN TO Policy # 6 Feb.l10 WORK formerly MODIFIED WORK Supersedes: Scope Corporate Policy Page 7 of7 May 21104 Date Issued: Approval JHSC - March 12, 2010 Effective Date: Feb.11/10 Council

F. Permanent Alternate Work

1. Where it is found that after completing all ofthe steps outlined in the Early & Safe Return to Work Program that the employee cannot perform his or her regular job, the employer will consider accommodating the employee in permanent alternate work provided:

- the employee can perform the duties, - a vacant position exists within the organization, - the employee is willing to be trained when required, - the employee will accept the rate of pay established for the job.

7


PAGE 36

ITEM 5.2



REPORT: CD-09-10

MEETING: GENERAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO FENCE BY-LAW 3728 PORTAGE BAY ROAD

SUGGESTED STAFF MOTION;

THAT we grant a variance to By-law 1998.46 to allow the construction of a fence 2.0 metres (6.5 feet) in height at 3728 Portage Bay Road.

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION

Council received a request from the property owners at 3728 Portage Bay Road to vary the fence by-law to permit a closed fence 2 metres (6.5 ft) in height. It is the property owners' intention to construct the fence entirely within the limits of their property and at their own expense. The direction was for staff to prepare a report. Photos of the property where the fence is proposed to be installed were attached to the initial request.

The intent of Fence By-law 98.46 is to allow Council to control the height and description of fences. The by-law indicates that closed fences are not permitted to exceed 1.6 meters (5' 3").

Usually, if there are complaints about fence heights, they come from the abutting neighbour. These neighbours cannot agree on where the property line lies and have taken the matter to the Province with a Boundaries Act claim. The final decision has not yet been made.

The general neighbourhood consists of lots surrounded on three sides by cedar and lilac hedges approx. 10 to 15 feet in height. A 2 metre fence would be less obtrusive than the higher hedges in the area, but would assist the property owner in restoring his lost privacy and maintaining peace and harmony in the neighbourhood. Council has in the past exempted at least two properties from the height restrictions and permitted higher fences.

AL TERNATIVES

Council could deny the request to vary the fence by-law.


Proud Member of Lake CountlY

PAGE 37

FINANCIAL

There are no financial obligations affecting the Municipality.

STRATEGIC ISSUES

To recognize the diversity of communities within the Township is paramount to community harmony.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council exempt this property from Section 2.1 of Bylaw 98.46 and permit the construction of a closed fence not to exceed 2.0 metres in height,

By-Law Enforcement/Property Sta dards Officer TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA

Noted by CAO Ii (( ~ i

PAGE 38

ITEM 6.1

MEETING:

REPORT NO:

DATE:

SUBJECT:



GENERAL COMMITTEE

WD-04-10

MARCH 29, 2010

PROVINCIAL PARKS PARKING RESTRICTIONS

SUGGESTED MOTION:

THAT a bylaw be presented to Council to prohibit parking on both sides of Courtland Street from Balsam Road to Orkney Beach Road; and,

THAT a bylaw be presented to Council to prohibit parking on both sides of McRae Park Road from Parkside Drive to the park entrance.


Correspondence was received from Mason Inch of Ontario Parks, dated July 27, 2009, requesting Courtland Street and Concession Road 10 surrounding Mara Provincial Park be a no parking/tow zone for the safety of the public. As well they requested McRae Park Road leading into McRae Provincial Park to be considered under the same bylaw.

ALTERNATIVES:

As the Township has jurisdiction over parking on these streets it is up to their discretion whether to pass no parking and/or tow zones on all or part of these roads or to leave them status quo.


The average cost for installing each sign is $100.00 for material and labour. Signs in rural area shall not be further than 150 metres apart and signs in urban areas shall not be further than 45-50 metres apart. As well, signs are required at the beginning and end of the restricted zone as well as at each cross road.

Courtland Street (Balsam Road - Orkney Beach Road) is 1500 metres in length and would require 22 signs to sign both sides of the street.

Concession Road 10 (Courtland Street - Lake Simcoe) is 393 metres in length and would require 8 signs to sign both sides of the street.

Page 2 WO-04-10

P.O. Box 130, Brechin, Ontario LOK lBO, (705) 484-5374 Toll Free 1-800-663-4054 (for 689 exchange only) Fax (705) 484-0441 Email: ramara(al,township.ramara.on.ca Web Site: www.township.ramara.on.ca


PAGE 39

McRae Park Road (Bayview Avenue - McRae Park entrance) is 600 metres in length and would require 28 signs to sign both sides of the street.

McRae Park Road (Parkside Drive - McRae Park Entrance) is 250 metres in length and would require 10 signs to sign both sides of the street.

STRATEGIC ISSUES:

Ensuring our roads are safe falls under Municipal Services where we aim to provide our stakeholders with cost effective services and programs consistent with the community's financial resources, priorities and best interests.

RESIDENTIAL IMPACT:

Courtland Street is a busy hard surface street with an average annual daily traffic account (AADT) of 1270 and a speed limit of 50 km/hr. The road is narrow with open ditches and cannot accommodate parking off the paved surface of the road. Although there are two residential properties within the area impacted adequate off-street parking is available.

Concession Road 10 is a dead end gravel road with an AADT of 70 and a speed limit of 80 km/hr leading to the lake. There is one private road at the end of the road. The road is used for street parking by ice fishermen and those accessing the lake at the end of the road.

McRae Park Road is a busy hard surface street with an AADT of 1080 and a speed limit of 50 km/hr. There are 16 residential properties within the area impacted, some of which have limited off-street parking available. Joyland Community Centre is also in the area of impact. The shoulders are wide enough to accommodate parking in most areas, particularly adjacent to the Community Centre parkland.

ANALYSIS:

Courtland Street

For safety reasons, due to the volume of traffic and lack of shoulders to accommodate parked vehicles, staff have recommended that parking restrictions be imposed on both sides of Courtland Street from Balsam Road to Orkney Beach Road. These restrictions will have little to no negative impact on the residents in the area of impact.

Concession Road 10

Due to the low traffic volume and the close proximity to the lake access staff are not recommending parking restrictions be imposed on Concession Road 10 from Courtland Street to the lake.

Page 3 WO-04-10

PAGE 40

McRae Park Road

Although McRae Park Road has high traffic volumes the shoulders are wide enough in most areas to accommodate on-street parking. Residents in the area regularly utilize the street for additional parking. Visitors to the Community Centre also use the street for additional parking. As a compromise staff have recommended that parking restrictions be imposed on both sides of McRae Park Road from Parkside Drive to the park.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That the suggested motion be adopted - that parking restrictions be imposed on Courtland Street and the section of McRae Park Road closest to the park.


Kathy Sipos Manager of Municipal Works (!

i (11f£ Noted by:

Dated:

Chief ~9ministrative Officer .

J//{ d t'~( ~-j; D

Page 4 WO-04-10

PAGE 41

ITEM 7.1


Proud History - Progressive Future

REPORT: CD-08-2010

MEETING: General Committee

DATE: March 29, 2010

SUBJECT: Ward Information To Councillors

SUGGESTED STAFF MOTION:

THAT Report CD-OS-10 be received; AND THAT for the remainder of this term of Council, when staff prepare correspondence in reply to a resident's concern, a copy be e-mailed to the respective Ward Councillor or placed in their internal mail slot.

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION

In order for Councillors to be aware of what is transpiring within their Ward, Council requested that any correspondence from staff to a resident be copied and forwarded to the Ward Councillor responsible for that area.

Staff suggested that perhaps the customer care system could address the concerns of Councillors. However, it has been determined that in order to accommodate the reporting system, we will have to purchase additional software. Additionally, the operators of the software must be technically inclined and it will require a large amount of training.

In light of the additional cost for the reporting system, it would be cost effective to simply supply each Ward Councillor with the copy of correspondence as requested. The most efficient manner to relay this information would be via e-mail.

STRATEGIC ISSUES

We strive to provide our stakeholders with cost effective services and programs consistent with legislation, the community's resources, priorities and their best interests.

FINANCIAL

The reporting system would cost approximately $1,100.00 to purchase. The largest burden would be on staff time to learn and operate the system.

. .. 2



PAGE 42

CD-08-10 March 29, 2010

RECOMMENDED ACTION

- 2-

That the copies of correspondence to residents be sent to the Ward Councillor.


~~-'~~~ Janice McKinnon, CMO. Clerk

:jm

PAGE 43

ITEM 7.2





REPORT: TR-06-10

SUBJECT: 2009 Development Charges Reserve Fund Statement

SUGGESTED MOTION:

THAT the 2009 Development Charges Reserve Fund Statement be received; AND THAT the following transfers be authorized:

General Development Charges Reserve Fund

695.21 7,339.08

36,034.38

Fire Equipment Roads Vehicles Road Improvements Studies 8,833.44 52,902.11

14,729.63 Recreation - Indoor Library Building 4,800.75 19,530.38

Bayshore Water Development Charges Reserve Fund Bayshore Sewer Development Charges Reserve Fund Brechin/Lagoon City Water Development Charges Reserve Fund Brechin/Lagoon City Sewer Development Charges Reserve Fund

to General Revenue.


1,003.69 10,660.00 44,773.69 29,211.70

Attached is the 2009 Development Charges Reserve Fund Report. I am recommending that the above-noted transfers be authorized. The report details the specific projects for which funds are being used.

AL TERNA TIVES:

None presented.

Cont'd '" .. 2



PAGE 44

Page 2


The balances after the recommended transfers will be:

General Bayshore Water Bayshore Sewer Brechin/Lagoon City Water Brechin/Lagoon City Sewer

STRA TEGIC ISSUES:

Balance 438,801.01

63,510.53 71,211.30

To provide cost effective services to our stakeholders.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

TR-06-10

Owing 364,549.30

6,970.18

4,700,225.23

THAT the following transfers to the 2009 Development Charges Reserve Fund Statement be authorized.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mare~CMA'AMCT' Manager of Corporate ServiceslTreasurer

MB/sh It /J:;t Noted by Chief Administrative Officer: ,./ ((~ Dated: Ilia rt ~) (11)

PA

GE

45

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES RESERVE FUND STATEMENT - TOWNSHIP WIDE SERVICES - FOR THE YEAR 2009 January 11, 2010 Page 1

FIRE FIRE FIRE ROADS ROAD RECREATION LIBRARY LIBRARY LIBRARY BUILDING VEHICLES EQUIPMENT VEHICLES IMPROVEMENTS INDOOR BUILDING BUILDING VOLUMES STUDIES TOTAL

2001 2010 Information from April 4, 2005 Development Charges Bylaw and Report Residential - Cost per capita 67.75 169.63 9.12 95.80 471.96 211.92 69.07 50.82 12.87 115.36 1,274.30 Commercial - Cost per square foot 0.078 1.300 0.010 0.1'11 0.527 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.133 2.159

OPENING BALANCE - JANUARY 1. 2009 52,049.84 303,074.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37,260.27 14,114.80 0.00 406,499.80

COLLECTIONS JAN Residential Collections 659.71 1,651.76 88.81 932.135 4.595.68 2,063.56 672.56 494.86 125.32 1.123.31 12,408.42 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 48.19 280.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.49 13.07 0.00 376.32

Subtotal 52,757.74 305.007.22 88.81 932.135 4,595.68 2,063.56 672.56 37,789.62 14,253.19 1,123.31 419,284.54

FEB Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Residential Collections 353.63 5,893.90 45.34 503.:25 2.389.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 602.99 9,788.40 I nterest Allocated 32.38 187.18 0.05 0.:57 2.82 1.27 0.41 23.19 8.75 0.69 257.31

Subtotal 53,143.75 311,088.30 134.20 1,436.137 6,987.79 2,064.83 672.97 37,812.81 14,261.94 1,726.99 429,330.25

MAR Residential Collections 450.44 1,127.80 60.64 636.93 3,137.86 1,408.97 459.22 337.88 85.57 766.98 8,472.28 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 21.21 124.18 0.05 0.57 2.79 0.82 0.27 15.09 5.69 0.69 171.38

Subtotal 53,615.40 312,340.28 194.89 2,074.17 10,128.44 3,474.62 1,132.46 38,165.78 14,353.20 2,494.66 437,973.91

APR Residential Collections 225.22 563.90 30.32 318.47 1,568.93 704.48 229.61 168.94 42.78 383.49 4,236.14 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I nterest Allocated 16.30 94.98 0.06 0.'63 3.08 1.06 0.34 11.61 4.36 0.76 133.19

Subtotal 53,856.92 312,999.16 225.27 2,393.27 11,700.45 4,180.16 1,362.41 38,346.33 14,400.34 2,878.91 442,343.24

MAY Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 9.15 53.17 0.04 0.41 1.99 0.71 0.23 6.51 2.45 0.49 75.14

Subtotal 53.866.07 313,052.33 225.31 2,393.68 11,702.44 4,180.87 1,362.64 38,352.84 14,402.79 2,879.40 442,418.38

JUN Residential Collections 225.22 563.90 30.32 318.47 1.568.93 704.48 229.61 168.94 42.78 383.49 4,236.14 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 8.86 51.46 0.04 0.39 1.92 0.69 0.22 6.30 2.37 0.47 72.73

Subtotal 54,100.15 313,667.69 255.67 2,712.54 13,273.29 4,886.04 1,592.47 38,528.08 14,447.94 3,263.36 446,727.25

JUL Residential Collections 225.22 563.90 30.32 318.47 1,568.93 704.48 229.61 168.94 42.78 383.49 4,236.14 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 15.49 89.80 0.07 0.78 3.80 1.40 0.46 11.03 4.14 0.93 127.90

Subtotal 54.340.86 314.321.39 286.06 3,031.79 14,846.02 5,591.92 1.822.54 38.708.05 14,494.86 3.647.78 451,091.29

AUG Residential Collections 450.44 1,127.80 60.64 636.93 3,137.86 1,408.97 459.22 337.88 85.57 766.98 8,472.28 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 48.46 280.30 0.26 2.70 13.24 4.99 1.63 34.52 12.93 3.25 402.27

Subtotal 54,839.76 315,729.49 346.96 3.671.42 17.997.12 7,005.88 2,283.39 39,080.45 14,593.36 4,418.01 459,965.84

PA

GE

46

Page 2 FIRE FIRE FIRE ROADS ROAD RECREATION LIBRARY LIBRARY LIBRARY

BUILDING VEHICLES EQUIPMENT VEHICLES IMPROVEMENTS INDOOR BUILDING BUILDING VOLUMES STUDIES TOTAL 2001 2010

SEP Residential Collections 895.93 2,243.19 120.60 1,266.86 6,241.21 2,802.43 913.38 672.04 170.19 1,525.52 16,851.36 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 47.33 272.48 0.30 3.17 15.53 6.05 1.97 33.73 12.59 3.81 396.96

Subtotal 55,783.02 318,245.16 467.86 4,941.45 24,253.86 9,814.36 3,198.74 39,786.22 14,776.14 5,947.34 477,214.16

OCT Residential Collections 893.45 2,236.99 120.27 1,263.36 6,223.95 2,794.68 910.86 670.19 169.72 1,521.30 16,804.76 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 49.75 283.80 0.42 4.41 21.63 8.75 2.85 35.48 13.18 5.30 425.57

Subtotal 56,726.22 320,765.95 588.55 6,209.22 30,499.44 12,617.79 4,112.45 40,491.89 14,959.04 7,473.94 494,444.49

NOV Residential Collections 222.74 557.70 29.98 314.96 1,551.67 696.73 227.08 167.08 42.31 379.27 4,189.54 Non-Residential Collections 122.41 2,040.19 15.69 174.20 827.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 208.73 3,388.28 Interest Allocated 48.96 276.82 0.51 5.36 26.32 10.89 3.55 34.94 12.91 6.45 426.71

Subtotal 57,120.33 323,640.66 634.73 6,703.74 32,904.49 13,325.41 4,343.08 40,693.91 15,014.26 8,068.39 502,449.02

DEC Residential Collections 445.49 1,115.39 59.97 629.93 3,103.34 1,393.47 454.17 334.16 84.63 758.54 8,379.08 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 46.09 261.13 0.51 5.41 26.55 10.75 3.50 32.83 12.11 6.51 405.40

SUB-TOTAL - DEC 31/09 57,611.91 325,017.18 695.21 7,339.08 36,034.38 14,729.63 4,800.75 41,060.90 15,111.00 8,833.44 511,233.50

2009 Transfers 695.21 7,339.08 36,034.38 14,729.63 4,800.75 8,833.44 72,432.49

TOTAL - DEC 31/09 57,611.91 325,017.18 0.00 0 .. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41,060.90 15,111.00 0.00 438,801.01

Credits Granted - 2009 15.95 39.93 2.15 22 .. 55 111.11 49.89 16.26 11.96 3.03 27.16 300.00

AlP to General Revenue - Dec 31/09 0.00 0.00 1,686.33 12,753.70 108,304.01 125,722.14 46,478.49 0.00 0.00 69,604.63 364,549.30 Charges Collected - 2009 5,169.90 19,686.42 692.90 7,314.68 35,914.71 14,682.25 4,785.32 3,520.91 891.65 8,804.09 101,462.82

Total Interest 3,270.88

Discounted Services no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes

PA

GE

47

Projects Completed in 2009 Eligible for Development Charges Reserve Funding

I Department

Project FGenera, Tax Sources of Financing Total

I I Development Charges Project Item Levy 2009 Grants Reserve Fund Cost

Municipal Works Railways - Con Rd 7 0 27,694 3,533 31,227 - Con Rd 12 1,272 0 359 1,631

Simcoe Road 5,042 5,043 10,085

1 Recreation Ramara Centre 0 14,730 676,0771

1 Library Ramara Centre 0 4,801 860,4611

Studies Drainage Studies 21,522 5,313 26,835

Recreation Master Plan 614 151 765

Development Charges 2,633 23,695 26,328

Total 31 ,083 27,694 57,625 1,633,409

March 18,2010

PA

GE

48

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES RESERVE FUND STATI:MENT - SPECIFIC AREAS - FOR THE YEAR 2009

Page 1

BAYSHORE BAYSHORE BRECHIN/L.C. BRECHIN/L.C. WA.TER SEWER WATER SEWER

Information from 2004 Development Charges Bylaw and Report Residential Charge 480.00 2,260.00 2,271.00

Commercial - Cost per square foot N/A N/A 0.52

Information from 2007 Development Charges Bylaw and Report Residential Charge 13,995.00

Commercial - Cost per square metre 52.00

OPENING BALANCE - JANUARY 1, 2009 0.00 69,207.19 109,958.12 0.00

COLLECTIONS JAN Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 2,603.26 14,526.81

Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Interest Allocated 0.00 64.07 101.79 0.00

Subtotal 0.00 69,271.26 112,663.17 14,526.81

FEB Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Subtotal 0.00 69,313.77 112,732.31 14,535.73

MAR Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Subtotal 0.00 69,341.44 112,777.31 14,541.53

APR Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Subtotal 0.00 69,362.53 112,811.61 14,545.95

MAY Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Subtotal 0.00 69,374.31 112,830.77 14,548.42

JUN Residential Collections 999.10 4,444.36 2,603.26 14,526.81



Subtotal 999.10 73,830.07 115,452.58 29,077.62

PA

GE

49

Page 2 BAYSHORE BAYSHORE BRECHIN/L.C. BRECHIN/L.C.

WATER SEWER WATER SEWER

JUL Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 0.28 21.14 33.06 8.32

Subtotal 999.38 73,851.21 115,485.64 29,085.94

AUG Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 0.89 65.86 102.99 25.94

Subtotal 1,000.27 73,917.07 115,588.63 29,111.88

Information from 2009 Development Charges Bylaw and Report Residential Charge 1,653.00 2,242.00 532.00 14,623.00 Commercial - Cost per square metre 2.04 56.02

SEP Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 0.86 63.79 99.75 25.12

Subtotal 1,001.13 73,980.86 115,688.38 29,137.00

OCT Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 0.89 65.97 103.17 25.98

Subtotal 1,002.02 74,046.83 115,791.55 29,162.98

NOV Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 0.86 63.90 99.93 25.17

Subtotal 1,002.88 74,110.73 115,891.48 29,188.15

DEC Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Residential Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest Allocated 0.81 59.80 93.51 23.55

SUB-TOTAL - DEC 31/09 1,003.69 74,170.53 115,984.99 29,211.70

2009 Transfers 1,003.69 10,660.00 44,773.69 29,211.70

TOTAL - DEC 31/09 0.00 63,510.53 71,211.30 0.00

Credits Granted - 2009 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AlP to General Revenue - Dec 31/09 6,970.18 0.00 0.00 4,700,225.23 Charges Collected - 2009 999.10 4,444.36 5,206.52 29,053.62

Total Interest 4.59 518.98 820.35 158.08

PA

GE

50

Projects Completed in 2009 Eligible for Development Charges Reserve Funding - Specific Areas

Projected Eli!)ible Actual Actual Project Project Cost C'ost Project Cost Eligible Cost

Lagoon Renovations (debt) 88,000.00 H8,000.00 88,000.00 8,800.00 Bayshore Sewer

Spray Irrigation Land/Class EA 20,000.00 2,800.00 13,288.00 1,860.00

Chemical Feed Pump/Systems 2,500.00 350.00 0.00 0.00 Bayshore Water

Deep Well Pumps 9,000.00 1,260.00 0.00 0.00

Distribution Pumps/Equipment 6,000.00 840.00 40,349.85 5,648.98

Process and Control Equipment 8,000.00 1,120.00 11,125.27 1,557.54

Process and Control Equipment 20,000.00 '13,800.00 32,037.47 22,105.85 Brechin/Lagoon City Water

Chemical Feed Systems 5,000.00 3,450.00 0.00 0.00

Granular Activated Carbon replacement 36,000.00 24,840.00 32,851.94 22,667.84

Distribution Pumps/Equipment 10,000.00 6,900.00 0.00 0.00

PAGE 51

ITEM 7.3




REPORT NO. AD-07-10


SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATION CENTRE

SUGGESTED MOTION:

THAT we authorize our architect, Rod Young, to prepare working drawings and tender documents for the new Administration Centre.


On February 8, 2010, our architect presented preliminary drawings for the proposed administration centre. As a result of the conversation that evening, further input from our engineers and staff and a review for accessibility, we are now ready to proceed to working drawings and prepare the required documents for tender.

We are still aiming at going to tender by August 2010.

AL TERNATIVES:

None presented


Nothing presented

STRATEGIC ISSUES:

Nothing presented

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

THAT the motion be adopted.



PAGE 52

ITEM 7.4



MEMO

TO: GENERAL COMMITTEE

FROM: RICHARD BATES, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

MARCH 29, 2010 DATE:

SUBJECT: G8 HUNTSVILLE

The G8 Summit is being held in Huntsville this June. After Huntsville all personnel will travel to Toronto for the G20.

G8 - Huntsville June 24/25 Transition day June 26

G20 - Toronto June 26-27

We have been working with the Province on Ramara's response to the Summit under emergency management.

First, we have declined to send fire personnel or equipment to Huntsville. Highway 12 could be an alternate route on transition day should the Highway 11 and Highway 400 corridor be blocked with traffic. We may need our forces here.

Secondly, we will be taking the following action prior to the Summit:

i) installing no camping, no fire and no overnight parking on all unopened road allowances in the north end,

ii) topping up all fuel supplies, iii) ensuring all other supplies for fire services are topped up, iv) holding at least two personal preparedness public open houses, v) reviewing the emergency plan with staff and vi) releasing public service bulletins



PAGE 53

Thirdly, for the week of the G8 Summit the following will apply:

vii) the Community Control Group will be on standby and available to respond, viii) all fire personnel will be encouraged to be available within the area, ix) extra security will be placed on all water systems, x) fire halls may be manned on transition day dependent on traffic and xi) a burning ban may be imposed on transition day.

This memo is provided for your information.

K((~ Richard P. Bates, B.A.S., C.E.T. Chief Administrative Officer

RPB/cmw

PAGE 54

ITEM 7.5

.+. Environment Canada

Margaret Black

Erwironnemcnt Canada

Manager of Corporate ServicesfTreasurer Township of Ramara Highway 12 Brechin, ON LOK 1 BO [email protected]

Dear Ms. Black

Project title: Lagoon City Decommissioning Program

I am pleased to extend my congratulations on your successful application to the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund (LSCUF).

LSCUF is considering a contribution of up to $190,250 for the above mentioned project in the April 1 , 2010 to March 31, 2011 fiscal year. This offer of funding is conditional on the successful negotiation of a Contribution Agreement between your organization and Environment Canada.

Your Project Officer, Melanie Gregorich, will be contacting you shortly regarding the negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contribution Agreement. Melanie will provide you with the information and advice you need to complete the attached templates, and will monitor your project on behalf of Environment Canada.

To ensure the successful negotiation of your Contribution Agreement you will need to do the following:

(1) Obtain and submit written confirmation from all of your project partners including the amount of cash or in-kind contribution they will be providing and the intended purpose of the contribution if not done so already;

(2) Submit, for approval, any proposed changes in project activities, scope, funding sources, etc., since the submission of the original applications; and

(3) Respond to any additional information requirements (Le. copies of any necessary permits for project work) and funding conditions identified by your Project Officer.

Please return these items to your Project Officer no later than March 31, 2010 who will prepare a draft Contribution Agreement for review. Please note that your project should not begin until all the required documents have been received by Environment Canada and the Contribution Agreement is signed by both parties.

C p.,

anaoa

PAGE 55

In addition, you must obtain the necessary permits, approvals, letters of advice or authorization required for the projects and send copies to your project officer if not already provided with your application before any work can commence.

A requirement for a final report will be outlined in the Contribution Agreement.

You may reach Melanie Gregorich directly at (905) 336-6282, or by email at [email protected]. My staff and I look forward to working with you and thank you for your commitment to protect and improve the environment of Lake Simcoe.

Yours sincerely,

Janette Anderson Manager, Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund Environment Canada 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R4A6

Attachments: 1. Project Details Template 2. Project Funding Template 3. Examples Environmental Indicators (Performance Measures) template

Ca -1>.1 , naoa

PAGE 56

ITEM 7.6





REPORT: TR-08-2010

SUBJECT: Tax Sale Results

SUGGESTED MOTION:

THAT the Treasurer be authorized to vest Concession 7, Part Lot 18, PIN #74016-0008 (LT); AND THAT the adjacent property owner(s) be advised that the Township has taken ownership of the property and is willing to consider an offer to purchase from them.


On February 10, 2010, tenders were opened for four properties offered for sale under the Tax Sale Regulation. The results of the tender are as follows:

Part Block E, Plan 416 Minimum bid = $6,684.93 One tender received - $10,155.00 Funds received in full, tax deed not yet registered

Part Block F, Plan 416 Minimum bid = $6,574.99 One tender received - $10,155.00 Funds received in full, tax deed not yet registered

Lot 20, Concession 2, Rama Minimum bid = $5,109.85 Ten tenders received - range $5,222.00 - $33,500.00 Funds received in full from highest tenderer, tax deed has been registered

Part Lot 18, Concession 7, Rama Minimum bid = $6,324.34 One tender received - $6,522.00 Tenderer claimed information provided by the Township was inaccurate and requested deposit to be returned. Advertised as 0.57 acres, actual size - 0.2725 acres Error acknowledged and deposit returned.

For this last property, Council must now decide to vest the property, re-advertise it, or cancel the tax arrears certificate. I believe the last two options are not in the best interest of the Township. I am recommending that the Township vest (take ownership of) the property, write-off the taxes and costs and offer the property for sale to the adjacent land owner.

Cont'd ... .2



PAGE 57

Page 2 TR-08-2010

The attached map shows that there is only one property owner that may be interested in the property. Staff was contacted by this property owner during the tax sale who expressed interest in the property, but not at the minimum tender amount. I am hopeful that we can transfer the property and at least recoup the Township's share of the outstanding taxes and tax sale costs, or the major portion of them.

Our solicitor did discover that the legal description for the property was wrong and a survey was necessary to correct the error. The Land Registrar will allow the Township to vest the property without the survey on the understanding that if the Township wished to sell the property in the future, the survey would be necessary. Therefore, this will be an added cost if we were to find a willing buyer.

AL TERNA TlVES:

The Township can vest the property, re-advertise it, or cancel the tax arrears certificate.

FINANCIAL INFORM A TlON:

The Township's share of the taxes and total interest that would be written off would be $932.98. Legal and advertising to-date is $1,458.44 and would be an additional $750.00 to sell the property. The necessary survey would cost $950.00.

Therefore, the total Township costs up to and including the sale of the land would be $4,091.42.

If the Township does not sell the property, no future taxes will be generated from this property.

STRA TEGIC ISSUES:

To provide our stakeholders with cost effective services and programs consistent with the community's financial resources, priorities and best interests.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

THAT the Treasurer be authorized to vest Concession 7, Part Lot 18, PIN #74016-0008 (LT); AND THAT the adjacent property owner(s) be advised that the Township has taken ownership of the property and is willing to consider an offer to purchase from them.

Respe~~~ Ma~. Black, BComm, CMA, AMCT M~t;:: ~ Corporate Services/Treasurer

MB/sh

Attachment ;/ f /4 / Noted by Chief Administrative Officer: ---=:...fv __ ';;_(_/~ ___ -,=~:::../_' __ _

Dated: MtP/'c-( Z. t ( f 0

PAGE 58

003-74500

006-43600

-75400

·003-75410

......

PAGE 59

ITEM 8.1




REPORT NO. CD-06-10

DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2010

SUBJECT: BRECHIN COMMUNITY CENTRE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT

SUGGESTED MOTION:

THAT we receive Report CD-06-10 regarding the Brechin Community Centre Board of Management dated February 1, 2010.


Further to the Brechin Community Centre Board of Management's (the Board) deputation of December 21, 2009 and Report CD-04-1 0 dated January 11, 2010, members of Council requested a further report on the status of the Board and their future intentions. Staff met with members of the BCCB on January 21, 2010 and attached is the minutes of that meeting. Staff believe the Board's issues have been resolved and the Board will continue to operate and maintain its 4 park areas in accordance with Bylaw 2009.41.

AL TERNATIVES:

None


The BCCB has submitted their 2010 proposed budget for February 4th.

STRATEGIC ISSUES:

Municipal Services

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

That we receive the report.


OMJ;1 WttG~OWl. Cathy Wainman, AMCT Council/Committee Secretary

Noted by CAO:

P.o. Box 130, Brechin, Ontario LOK lBO, (705) 484-5374 Toll Free 1-800-663-4054 (for 689 exchange only)

Email: ramaralaltownship.ramara.on.ca Web Site: www.township.ramara.on.ca Proud Member of Lake Country

Fax (705) 484-0441

PAGE 60

BRECHIN COMMUNITY CENTRE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT

The following met in the Building/Planning/Environmental meeting room on January 21, 2010:

Richard P. Bates Janice McKinnon Margaret Black Caroline Schiavone Cathy Wainman Bob Poyntz Pam Poyntz Joe Brulotte

Chief Administrative Officer Municipal Clerk Corporate Services Manager/Treasurer Recreation Coordinator Council/Committee Secretary Chair, Brechin Community Centre Board Treasurer, Brechin Community Centre Board Member, Brechin Community Centre Board

Cathy opened the meeting at 11 :00 a.m. and everyone introduced themselves.

Future of the Board

Bob Poyntz, Chair of the Brechin Community Centre Board of Management (the "Board"), addressed the group with the Board's proposed future. The Board would like to become an advisory board to Council and recommend when repairs, replacement, additions and removal of facility features are required. The Board wishes the Township to oversee and run the baseball teams through the Recreation Department and the online registration. It was advised that the Board continue to report to the Recreation & Leisure Advisory Committee.

Caroline responded that the baseball and soccer operate under their own leagues and she only rents/make the field space available. Caroline did commence a T-Ball program during the summer of 2009 and expansion this year includes the Little Park in Atherley. It was confirmed Brechin could be included in the expansion in 2010, but this would have to be confirmed now.

Men's Fastball Contract

We discussed the contract for the men's fastball team which is nuisance for all involved when it comes to playoffs. Changes to the contract were recommended as follows:

~ Remove the Township as a party to the agreement ~ Include a "No Alcohol on the Properly" clause ~ Board requested lowering the $200 deposit, but they were advised against it. ~ Caroline to add baseball rates standardized contract to Recreation Advisory

Agenda this month.

Park Appearance

Since the Youth Fair last spring, the vandalism and garbage has been reduced considerably. The Board experienced virtually no problems last year. Garbage

PAGE 61

containers and the Youth Fair are both contributors to this. It is recommended that the garbage containers be signed with "No Household Garbage". The Board asked if they could, and were authorized, to send out a notice that household garbage is not to be dumped at park litter containers if they wish to do so at their own expense. Caroline will order portapotties x 2 for May 15 to Thanksgiving weekend. The Board has budgeted $800 for this.

Facility Features

It is the Board's intention to deal with the building in stages. The first step includes removing interior walls, washrooms, floor, etc. Cathy will arrange for the Board to have a copy of the building plans and estimates as prepared by Steenhof in 2008. The Board was advised to inquire at the Building Department to determine the need for building permits. The Board is aware any plans for a new structure MUST be accessible. It was confirmed that any fundraising will go towards the repairs to the building.

We discussed the fence that existed, along the front of the property (Ramara Road 47), prior to the Brechin Sewer Project and the need for its replacement. The Board was advised to get a cost estimate and budget for this item.

It was confirmed that the Board will be making repairs to the bleachers by replacing boards. This will be an ongoing maintenance procedure.

The sign at the entrance to the park has been refurbished, but requires new posts. The Board wishes to relocate the sign and they were advised to get a utilities locate before they dig.

Budget

The Board has concerns that they are not being treating the same as Udney and Longford when it comes to budget items such as hydro, heat, taxes and insurance. It was suggested they write a letter to Council for the budget meeting. The Board confirmed they will no longer be budgeting for a Volunteer Appreciation Dinner and would like to be included in the Township's annual dinner. It was clarified that the Township does not hold a dinner during election years.

We discussed funding and the Board's request for a not-for-profit status. The Board has a direct relationship with the Municipality and cannot become a charity. They are eligible to apply for grants through Trillium and the CDC. Staff will remain alert to possible funding opportunities the Board could capitalize on. The Board can ask the Township, the Church, Ball Teams and other users of the park to become partners in funding applications.

PAGE 62

Bob confirmed that the Board has received the last of the Rotary money and it is reflected in the budget. They received $1892 which was used for playground equipment.

Miscellaneous Items

The Board currently uses a post office box to receive their mail and would like to be able to receive their mail through the Township. A mail slot at the administration office will be set up for the Board.

Signed minutes of the Board meeting are to be kept in a Minute Book in the Board's possession and a copy is to be forwarded to the Recreation & Leisure Advisory Committee.

The Board would like to take advantage of the Township's website and it was confirmed that any information can be forwarded to Susan Smith, [email protected], and she will add the content to the website.

The Board would like to meet with Kathy Sipos, Municipal Works Manger, to determine maintenance responsibilities i.e. grass cutting, pick up of garbage, repairs to bleachers and fences, etc. Also the mail bar and parking area is a mess and a better understanding between Works and Board is required. Contact Linda Richardson to set up this meeting, at [email protected] or at extension 232.

It is recommended that the Township review and make amendments to its bylaw establishing Community Centre Board of Management (2009.41). Some of the amendments noted are to allow for ticketing for illegal dumping, appointments, election of officers.

Adjourned at 12:15 p.m.