The Corporation of the Municipality of Leamington

Transcription

1 The Corporation of the Municipality of Leamington Meeting of Municipal Council Agenda Monday, December 7, 2015 Commencing at 6:00 PM In Leamington Council Chambers Special Closed Meeting of Council to be held at 5:30 PM in the Ante Room (A) (B) (C) (D) Call to Order: National Anthem: Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest: Adoption of Council Minutes: 1. Minutes of the Council Meeting held November 16, 2015 Pages 5 to 13 (E) (F) Business Arising Out of the Minutes: Public Meetings/Court of Revision: 1. Tax Adjustment Agenda 2. Public Meeting for Drainage New Access Culvert over the Lundy Drain (G) Reports of Staff and Delegations: 1. Delegation, Leamington Rotary Club, in recognition of sponsoring the new TRX equipment in the Fitness Studio at the Leamington Kinsmen Recreation Complex Wendy Parsons, President Page 1 of 102

2 Page 2, December 7, 2015, Council Meeting Agenda 2. Delegation, Leamington Triathlon Weekend, in recognition of sponsoring the new cadence meters in the Indoor Cycling Studio David Campbell, Representative Ben Balkwill, Representative 3. Delegation, Sun Parlour Folk Music Society, Kingsville Folk Music Festival Michele Law, Producer, Kingsville Folk Music Festival, Wheatley John Law, Producer, Kingsville Folk Music Festival, Wheatley Joanna Sweet, President, Sun Parlour Folk Music Society, Windsor Michelle Fortier, Director, Sun Parlour Folk Music Society, Kingsville 4. Report CAO dated November 30, 2015 regarding Blue Dot Leamington, Request for Declaration Pages 14 to 20 Lisa Jeffery, Leamington Blue Dot 5. Report PLA dated November 20, 2015 re: Removal of Holding (H) Symbol ZBH #124, Phase 2, Destiny Estates Plan of Subdivision 37-T-11002, Larry Santos Construction Ltd. (ARN ) Pages 21 to Report FIN dated November 26, 2015 regarding 2016 Fee Schedule Pages 24 to Report IS dated November 25, 2015 regarding Union Gas Transmission Line Phase 2 Easement Pages 59 to Report IS dated November 25, 2015 regarding County Road 20 Multi-Use Trail and County Road 20 Environmental Assessment Pages 63 to Report IS dated December 1, 2015 regarding Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Reconstruction and the Future Land Uses of Southeast Leamington, Dillon Consulting Report for the East Marsh Dyke listed as Additions on the Agendas, Meetings and Minutes Municipal website page. Pages 80 to Report LLS dated November 17, 2015 regarding Appointment of an Integrity Commissioner Pages 96 to 98 (H) Matters for Approval: 1. Minutes of the Leamington Accessibility Advisory Meeting held November 4, 2015 Pages 99 to 101 Page 2 of 102

3 Page 3, December 7, 2015, Council Meeting Agenda (I) Other Matters for Consideration: None (J) Report on Closed Session: Clerk to provide report on the closed session (K) Consideration of By-laws: By-law being a by-law to provide for the abandonment of the Dick Pumping Station, in Part Lot 9, Broken Front Concession in the Municipality of Leamington, in the County of Essex (3 rd and final reading) By-law being a by-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-law No for the Municipality of Leamington, which pertains to the subject lands ZBH #124, Phase 2 Destiny Estates Plan of Subdivision By-law being a by-law to provide for a tariff of fees to be charged in 2016 by the Municipality of Leamington By-law being a by-law for the construction of a Bridge over the Lundy Drain in Part Lot 12, Concession 9, in the Municipality of Leamington, in the County of Essex (1 st and 2 nd reading) By-law being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of The Municipality of Leamington at its meeting held December 7, 2015 (L) Notices of Motion: Notice of Motion dated November 4, 2015 regarding a Request for a Peer Review of the Traffic Engineer s Report on Seacliff Drive and Bevel Line Intersection as introduced at the November 9, 2015 Council Meeting Page 102 (M) (N) Open Session: Announcement of Upcoming Meetings/Events: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 Leamington Accessibility Advisory Committee, 3:00 PM, West End Boardroom Monday, December 14, 2015 Council Meeting, 6:00 PM, Council Chambers Page 3 of 102

4 Page 4, December 7, 2015, Council Meeting Agenda (O) (P) Statement of Members: non-debatable Adjournment: Page 4 of 102

5 The Corporation of the Municipality of Leamington Minutes of the Council Meeting Held Monday, November 16, 2015 at 6:00 PM In Leamington Council Chambers Members Present: Deputy Mayor Hilda MacDonald Councillors: Bill Dunn, John Hammond, John Jacobs, Larry Verbeke, Tim Wilkinson Members Absent: Staff Present: Mayor John Paterson Chief Administrative Officer Peter Neufeld Director of Legal and Legislative Services Ruth Orton Director of Infrastructure Services Rob Sharon Director of Community & Development Services Tracey Pillon-Abbs Clerk/Manager of Legislative Services Brenda Percy Manager of Environmental Services Shannon Belleau Outgoing Manager of Environmental Services Kit Woods Manager of Public Works Ken Brown Development Planner Brian Nagata Economic Development Officer Jeanine Lassaline-Berglund Council Services Assistant Mary Ann Manley There was a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the terrorist attacks in Paris, France on Friday, November 13, John Tofflemire, member of the County Classic Chorale presented Council with a DVD of the Chorale group performing the Canadian National Anthem for use at future Council meetings. Mr. Tofflemire introduced two group members in the audience, Adriana Reynolds, Vice President and Joyce Moran, Music Librarian. Mr. Tofflemire announced their upcoming concert, A Choral Christmas Card, on Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:30 PM and Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 3:00 PM to be held at the Leamington United Church. Mr. Tofflemire invited residents to visit their website at for further information. Deputy Mayor MacDonald on behalf of Council thanked the County Classic Chorale for the recording. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest: None noted. Page 5 of 102

6 Page 2, November 16, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes Adoption of Council Minutes: No. C Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor Jacobs Councillor Verbeke That Minutes of the Council Meeting held November 9, 2015 be adopted. Carried Business Arising Out of the Minutes: None. Public Meetings: None. Reports of Staff and Delegations: 1. Delegation, Leamington Minor Soccer, Presentation of Cheque Towards the Soccer Fieldhouse Elder Ribeiro, President, Bob Rumble, Vice President and Tony Omar, Treasurer expressed their appreciation to present and past Councils, and staff for their contribution towards the reality of the Soccer fieldhouse. They also expressed appreciation of the donation from Mr. Schlater, CEO, Domino s Pizza of Canada. Mr. Ribeiro presented Council with a cheque in the amount of $150,000 from Leamington Minor Soccer towards the Soccer Fieldhouse. In response to a question from Council Mr. Ribeiro said Leamington Minor Soccer is expecting to host more tournaments once the fieldhouse is complete. Deputy Mayor MacDonald expressed appreciation on behalf of Council for Leamington Minor Soccer s generosity. 2. Delegation, Communities in Bloom Charlie Wright, Chair, Kathy Smyth, Provincial Communities in Bloom Judge, Catherine Riediger, CIB Committee Member and Bill Sherk, CIB Committee Member made a presentation to Council. Mr. Wright provided Council with the Communities in Bloom 2015 Profile Book. Mr. Wright introduced Ms. Riediger and Mr. Sherk, who donated the funds for the production of the 2015 Profile Book. Ms. Riediger said she learned so much about Leamington during the compiling of this book and hoped Council enjoyed reading it. Mr. Wright introduced Kathy Smyth, one of the provincial CIB judges. Ms. Smyth congratulated the Municipality on achieving a Five Blooms designation. Ms. Smyth Page 6 of 102

7 Page 3, November 16, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes encouraged members of Council to attend next year s judging tour. Ms. Smyth also encouraged the involvement of the Heritage Committee in documenting the municipality s heritage. She also spoke of the municipality s culture, waterfront, landscapes, floral displays, cleanliness, conservation and environmental efforts. Ms. Smyth presented two CIB plaques (achievement of five blooms and special recognition for environmental action) to Deputy Mayor MacDonald who accepted on behalf of the Municipality of Leamington. Council expressed appreciation to the members of Communities in Bloom for all their work. 3. Delegation, Leamington District Secondary School Echo Team Tam Do, student at Leamington District Secondary School (LDSS) used a PowerPoint presentation and introduced a proposal that would assist in reducing the environmental impact of Leamington planters/baskets and also, decrease the use of phosphorus to reduce harmful algae blooms in Lake Erie. The proposal included the planting of perennial native plants that require less phosphorous and the use of pollinator plants. Director of Infrastructure Services Robert Sharon requested clarification on what the group is asking of the Municipality. Lisa Jeffery, teacher LDSS Echo Team replied they are requesting the Municipality s support of this initiative if required for grant applications. Mr. Sharon advised that he would meet with the group to discuss ways to decrease phosphorous use by public works and report back to Council. Page 7 of 102

8 Page 4, November 16, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes 4. Report PLA dated November 4, 2015 regarding Amendment to Draft Approved Plan and Removal of Holding Symbol (H) ZBH #124, Phase 2, Destiny Estates Plan of Subdivision 37-T-11002, Larry Santos Construction Ltd. (ARN ) Development Planner, Brian Nagata presented his report. No. C Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor Jacobs Councillor Wilkinson That the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Verhaegen, Stubberfield, Hartley, Brewer, Bezaire Inc., dated September 30, 2011, prepared by B. J. Bezaire O.L.S. be revised in accordance with the Redlined Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by Verhaegen, Stubberfield, Hartley, Brewer, Bezaire Inc., dated October 14, 2015, prepared by Brian Coad O.L.S., be supported by Council; And that Council s resolution of support be forwarded to the County of Essex for approval of the minor amendment to the draft plan; And that Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBH #124 to remove the Holding Symbol (H) from the lots found in Phase 2 of the Destiny Estates Plan of Subdivision be approved by Council; And that the Clerk be directed to forward the amending by-law # to Council for its consideration (Report PLA-58-15). Carried 5. Report PLA dated November 4, 2015 regarding Extension of Second Dwelling Agreement, 394 Seacliff Drive West (ARN ), Helen Peters Development Planner, Brian Nagata summarized his report. No. C Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor Wilkinson Councillor Verbeke That the request to amend the Second Dwelling Agreement to permit the extension of the use of an existing dwelling during the construction of a new single detached dwelling on the subject property until June 30, 2016, be approved; And the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into an amending agreement (Report PLA-57-15). Carried Page 8 of 102

9 Page 5, November 16, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes 6. Report IS dated October 30, 2015 regarding Rickway Lands Development Director of Infrastructure Services Robert Sharon summarized his report. Mike Van Der Vlist, Executive Director Habitat for Humanity Windsor-Essex (HHWE) provided background on the Habitat program and how a family qualifies for the program. Mr. Van Der Vlist announced that a resale store will be opening on March 5, 2016 and will be located on Talbot Street. No. C Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor Jacobs Councillor Verbeke That residents in the audience be allowed to address Council in regards to Rickway Park. Carried Larry Jekel, 9 Rickway, expressed frustration regarding the history of Rickway Park. Mr. Jekel noted that he did not want the lot sold stating the building lot has always been used as green space. He would also like to see a few shade trees in this area. A resident at 11 Rickway stated the neighbourhood children use this area to play in and she does not want the lot to be sold. Henry Botelho 12 Rickway, advised that he enjoys the green space and prefers the lot not to be sold. Mr. Botelho asked about the current chain link fence between his property and the building lot and whether he would need to build a fence if the lot is sold. Lara Bishop, 17 Rickway, advised it was a safe community and she appreciates the work Council does. She requested that the neighbours continued to be provided with information and their input solicited in regards to decisions regarding the park. In response to a Council inquiry, Director of Community & Development Services Tracey Pillon-Abbs replied a privacy fence between 12 Rickway and the buildable lot would be subject to development not site plan control. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Sharon could not guarantee continued access through the park to the Marina as the lot behind the park is private property. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Jekel agreed the park is not used all the time, however, it is used for activities that can t be done in a small backyard such as kicking a ball or flying a kite. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Sharon said the size of the remaining lot is comparable to other small parkettes and it could be an option to leave the park as a green space and not install the equipment if the residents prefer. He also advised the lot has always been a buildable lot owned by the Municipality but historically has been used as open green space next to the existing park lot. Page 9 of 102

10 Page 6, November 16, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes In response to a question from Council, Mr. Van Der Vlist reviewed the criteria for purchasing a Habitat home. He noted the process could take up to a year. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Van Der Vlist noted the resale store funds the operation of Habitat for Humanity Board while the money from the sale of homes goes to building more Habitat homes. Mr. Van Der Vlist said HHWE works with the Municipality to build a home that suits the neighbourhood. Council requested an amendment to the recommendation that was presented. No. C Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor Jacobs Councillor Hammond That the sale of the municipally owned residential lot on Rickway Drive, described as Lot 30, Plan M-13, except for Parts 1 and 2 on 12R-26323, to Habitat for Humanity for a cost of $50,000 be approved; And that $50,000 from the sale of the residential lot be held in a Parks Reserve for a final decision by residents and administration (IS-18-15). Carried 7. Report ES dated November 4, 2015 regarding Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Funds, Grant for Leamington Pollution Control Centre Manager of Environmental Services Shannon Belleau presented her report. In response to a question from Council, Outgoing Manager of Environmental Services Kit Woods is confident there will be fewer bypasses in the future and noted there were fewer odour complaints in Mr. Woods noted that he would share the accolades of Council as staff has worked diligently to maintain acceptable affluent levels. The report was for Council s information. Page 10 of 102

11 Page 7, November 16, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes 8. Report LWS dated November 4, 2015 regarding Leamington (Wheatley) Water Distribution System Inspection Report dated October 20, 2015 Manager of Environmental Services Shannon Belleau presented her report No. C Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor Verbeke Councillor Hammond That the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Drinking Water System Inspection Report for the Leamington (Wheatley) Distribution System, dated October 20, 2015, be received; And that the report be placed on the Municipality s website and also be made available for public inspection at the Municipal Clerk s office, during normal business hours (Report LWS-05-15). Carried Matters for Approval: None. Other Matters for Consideration: No. C Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor Verbeke Councillor Dunn That Minutes of the Mayor s Youth Advisory Committee held October 13, 2015 be approved. Carried Report on Closed Session: None. Consideration of By-laws: No. C Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor Wilkinson Councillor Dunn That the following by-law be read a first, second and third time and finally enacted: By-law being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of The Municipality of Leamington at its meeting held November 16, Carried Page 11 of 102

12 Page 8, November 16, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes Notices of Motion: Deputy Mayor MacDonald stated it was inappropriate for the Chair to put forward a resolution and asked if another member of Council would move to postpone the discussion on the Notice of Motion dated November 4, 2015 to the following Council meeting. No. C Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor Jacobs Councillor Verbeke That the Notice of Motion dated November 4, 2015 be postponed to the Council Meeting to be held December 7, Carried Open Session of Council and Administration: Director of Community & Development Services Tracey Pillon-Abbs advised citizens of the following two events: Friday, November 20, 2015 is National Jersey Day in Leamington and there is a free skate sponsored by the Essex Power Youth Fund from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM on the Unico Arena; Saturday, November 21, 2015 is RBC Sports Day in Canada and a free swim will be held from 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM in the Leamington Kinsmen Recreation Complex pool. Chief Administrative Officer Peter Neufeld noted Mayor Paterson was in Toronto as he has been nominated by Lambton College to receive the Premier s Award which celebrates the achievements of Ontario college graduates in the province and throughout the world. Deputy Mayor MacDonald reported the Alzheimer Society of Windsor and Essex County is hosting a free seminar on living safely with dementia on November 17, 2015 from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM at Colasanti s Tropical Garden, Ruthven. Statement of Members: non-debatable None noted. Page 12 of 102

13 Page 9, November 16, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes Adjournment: No. C Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor Wilkinson Councillor Dunn That the meeting adjourn at 7:55 PM. Carried John Paterson, Mayor Brenda M. Percy, Clerk Minutes approved at Council Meeting held December 7, 2015, Resolution C-XXX-15, Confirmation By-law XXX-15 Page 13 of 102

14 Report CAO To: From: Mayor and Members of Council Peter A. Neufeld, Chief Administrative Officer Date: November 30, 2015 Re: Blue Dot Leamington Request for Declaration Aim: To report upon the request by Blue Dot Leamington for a declaration by Leamington Municipal Council entitled The Right to a Healthy Environment. Background: On October 5, 2015 representatives of Blue Dot Leamington appeared before Leamington Municipal Council requesting Council approve a Declaration in support of achieving a healthy environment in Leamington. What is provided below is taken directly from the Blue Dot movement website. What is the Blue Dot Movement? In October and November 2014 David Suzuki and the David Suzuki Foundation crossed Canada on a tour to ignite a movement that would see environmental rights enshrined in the Canadian constitution. The movement is underway and individuals, groups, and municipalities are standing up for the right to a healthy environment. The Blue Dot movement is a grassroots movement that aims to see the right to a healthy environment, including the rights to fresh air, clean water, and safe food, enshrined in our Canadian constitution. The movement has started with people like you standing up and saying they believe in our inherent right to a healthy environment. The growing movement of Canadians is calling upon their local communities to pass municipal declarations respecting people s right to live in a healthy environment. Already, dozens of communities across Canada have mobilized, and many have already passed municipal declarations for the right to a healthy environment. Community by community, this movement will inspire decision-makers across our provinces and territories to take notice. With so many communities calling for action from all levels of government, the next step is to have our provinces follow suit and pass environmental bills of rights. When seven out of 10 provinces representing more than 50 per cent of the Canadian population have recognized our right to a healthy environment we turn toward the ultimate goal: amending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Recognition Page 14 of 102

15 Page 2, CAO-09-15, Blue Dot Leamington Request for Declaration in the Charter is the final step in protecting the right to clean air, fresh water and healthy food for all Canadians. This ensures that we all benefit from a healthy environment, world-class standards and a say in the decisions that affect our health. In 1999, Municipal Council enacted a policy designed to advise organizations that Council does not make public proclamations nor take any action that could be perceived as supporting an organization (Policy M01-Proclamations/Support attached). This policy is applicable to all organizations who request Council to show publicly that it supports the organization by enacting a proclamation, flying the organization s flag, or advertising. As per the policy, Blue Dot Leamington has been informed of such policy. Despite the policy, Council has asked for a report setting the manner in which the Municipality endeavours to achieve the underlying principles upon which the declaration is based. Comments: The Municipality of Leamington endeavors to meet or exceed the principles espoused in the proposed Declaration in order to ensure a healthy living environment in Leamington. To that end, Council and Administration included in the Strategic Planning sessions held in January 2015, directions that the Municipality wanted to be environmentally sensitive (green) when considering the application of planning principles, economic development initiatives, and perhaps most importantly, the installation and maintenance of municipal infrastructure. While these principles are not new to the Municipality, the Strategic Planning session brought new emphasis to these guiding principles when administration makes recommendations to Council, and during Council priority setting deliberations and decisions. Evidence of the application of these guiding principles is best set out in the Municipality s priorities when making application for funding from upper levels of government for large infrastructure projects. In 2015, the Municipality of Leamington was successful in obtaining up to $4,000,000 for the installation of a sanitary sewer line extending from the Pollution Control Centre to the gates of Point Pelee National Park running the length of Bevel Line and Pelee Drive. This project will ensure the collection of all septic waste along the route, most importantly collecting the human waste from failing private septic systems that is currently finding its way into municipal drains and subsequently Lake Erie. It is well documented that septic waste is high in phosphorous (as well as other harmful chemicals) which is attributed in large part to the development of the toxic algae blooms which threaten Lake Erie waters each summer. In 2015, the Municipality of Leamington also made application for funding assistance from the Province of Ontario in order to complete a large sewer separation project and is currently completing final documentation after having received confirmation that the application has been selected to proceed to the next step. Sewer separation entails the separation of the storm water system from the septic system, ensuring untreated septic waste no longer reaches the environment, and rain water no longer is required to be Page 15 of 102

16 Page 3, CAO-09-15, Blue Dot Leamington Request for Declaration treated before being returned to the environment, thus decreasing the Municipality s carbon footprint. The above examples applying guiding principles upon which the proposed declaration are in addition to the following: Construction of new Pollution Control Centre Maintenance of parks and greenspaces Installation of functioning rain garden at Seacliff Park Implementation of an energy management plan designed to reduce electricity usage through the installation of LED street lights Construction of trails, bike lanes and active infrastructure to promote an active lifestyle Involvement in a source water protection plan in partnership with Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) The Leamington Official Plan sets out policies to help protect the environment. This includes trails, natural heritage, hazards and environmentally significant areas and are currently reviewed every 5 years. Leamington s Zoning By-laws set out regulations to help protect the environment, as directed by ERCA and the Leamington Development Manual identified development standards that ensure adequate infrastructure. Development is subject to site plan control which focus on sustainable external design elements such as storm water management, green space, and is subject to parkland dedication which is used to plan for future green space. As part of development, Environmental Assessments may be required. One recent example is the new location of Leamington District Secondary School (LDSS). The Municipality is also subject to upper tier legislation such as the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Source Water Protection Act, and Provincial Policy Statements. Community gardens are supported in the Municipality, for example, Pizza Park on Chestnut Street now has a garden included within its boundaries. The Municipality participates in a tree planting program in partnership with ERCA with a target of 20% regional tree coverage being set as part of a bio-diversity plan. In the spring of 2015, old plantings along the urban walking trails were removed, and a milkweed planting program in partnership with Point Pelee National Park was initiated in support of the monarch butterfly. A final example of the Municipality s commitment to ensuring a healthy environment is the transit system provided by the Municipality which helps to provide the community with alternative transportation and reduction of the reliance on individual automobiles. In support of this, subdivisions are designed with sidewalks, trees and regional ponds, and green spaces. Financial Impact: There would be no financial impact to the Municipality in enforcing the policy to make no declaration. The financial impact of endorsing the declaration is unknown given the requirements are open to interpretation and enforcement. Page 16 of 102

17 Page 4, CAO-09-15, Blue Dot Leamington Request for Declaration Conclusion: If the purpose of the proposed declaration is to encourage municipalities to consider the environment when making policy decisions and spending priorities, the Municipality of Leamington already has the environment front of mind when considering the options. Administration takes the environment into high consideration when making recommendations, and Council takes the effect on the environment into high consideration when making final decisions upon which Administration will act. Making a declaration will not change the manner in which Council and Administration consider the environment during decision making as Council and Administration are already meeting the principles espoused within the declaration. It is important to note that paragraph 6 of the proposed declaration sets out further requirements that the Municipality write a letter in support of the Blue Dot movement to other levels of government. Recommendation: That Council deny the request for a declaration by Blue Dot Leamington. (Report CAO-09-15) Respectfully submitted, Peter Neufeld, CAO Digitally signed by Peter Neufeld, CAO DN: cn=peter Neufeld, CAO, o, ou, =pneufeld@leamington.ca, c=ca Date: :08:01-05'00' Peter. A. Neufeld Chief Administrative Officer /kms File: T:\CAO\CAO 2015\2015 Reports\CAO BlueDot Request for Declaration.docx Page 17 of 102

18 MunicipalDeclaration TheRightToAHealthyEnvironment WhereastheTownofLeamingtonunderstandsthatpeoplearepartoftheenvironment,andthata healthyenvironmentisinextricablylinkedtothewellbeingofourcommunity; TheTownofLeamingtonfindsanddeclaresthat: 1. Allpeoplehavetherighttoliveinahealthyenvironment,including: Therighttobreathecleanair Therighttodrinkcleanwater Therighttoconsumesafefood Therighttoaccessnature Therighttoknowaboutpollutantsandcontaminantsreleasedintothelocalenvironment Therighttoparticipateindecisionmakingthatwillaffecttheenvironment 2. TheTownofLeamingtonhastheresponsibility,withinitsjurisdiction,torespect,protect,fulfill andpromotetheserights. 3. TheTownofLeamingtonshallendeavourtoapplytheprecautionaryprinciple:wherethreatsof seriousorirreversibledamagetohumanhealthortheenvironmentexist,thetownof Leamingtonshalltakecosteffectivemeasurestopreventthedegradationoftheenvironment andprotectthehealthofitscitizens.lackoffullscientificcertaintyshallnotbeviewedas sufficientreasonforthetownofleamingtontopostponesuchmeasures 4. TheTownofLeamingtonshallendeavourtoapplyfullcostaccounting:whenevaluating reasonablyforeseeablecostsofproposedactionsandalternatives,thetownofleamingtonwill considercoststohumanhealthandtheenvironment. 5. TheTownofLeamingtonshallendeavourtospecifyobjectives,targets,timelinesandactionsthe TownofLeamingtonwilltake,withinitsjurisdiction,tofulfillresidents righttoahealthy environment,includingpriorityactionsto: a. Ensureequitabledistributionofenvironmentalbenefitsandburdenswithinthe municipality,withthegoalofpreventingthedevelopmentofpollution hotspots ; b. Ensureinfrastructureanddevelopmentprojectsprotecttheenvironment,includingair quality; c. Addressclimatechangebyreducinggreenhousegasemissionsandimplementing adaptationmeasures; d. Responsiblyincreasedensity; e. Prioritizewalking,cyclingandpublictransitaspreferredmodesoftransportation; Page 18 of 102

19 f. Ensuretheprovisionofadequateinfrastructurefortheprovisionofsafeandaccessible drinkingwater; g. Promotetheavailabilityofsafefoods; h. Supportthereductionofsolidwasteandpromoterecyclingandcomposting; i. Wherepossible,establishandmaintainaccessiblegreenspacesinallresidential neighbourhoods. TheTownofLeamingtonshallreviewtheobjectives,targets,timelinesandactionseveryfive (5)years,andevaluateprogresstowardsfulfillingthisdeclaration. TheTownofLeamingtonshallconsultwithresidentsaspartofthisprocess. 6.TheTownofLeamingtonshallsendalettertotheprovincialgovernmentcallingforapublicreviewof theontarioenvironmentalbillofrightsinordertoimprovetheactandtoincluderecognitionthatall peoplehavetherighttoliveinahealthyenvironment.thetownofleamingtonwillalsosendaletterto thefederalgovernmentcallingforthedevelopmentoffederallegislationthatrecognizesthatallpeople havetherighttoliveinahealthyenvironment. Page 19 of 102

20 Policy No.: M01-Proclamations/Support Date Enacted: June 7, 1999 Amended By: No. C Subject Request for proclamations or support. Purpose To advise organizations that Council does not make public proclamations nor take any action that could be perceived as supporting an organization. Scope This policy is applicable to all organizations who request Council to show publicly that it supports the organization by enacting a proclamation, flying the organization s flag or advertising. Definitions Support shall mean any proclamation, advertisement or action such as flying an organization s flag on the public flag poles that would give the public the perception that Council supports the organization. Organization shall mean any individual, religious, non-profit groups or any other body that has a specific interest. Procedures Any organization seeking the Municipality s support whether it be through a declaration of Council, flying a flag on a municipal flag pole, or placing an advertisement be advised by the Municipal Clerk that the Corporation has a policy that it does not publicly support organizations. (CAO/15/14) File:T:\CAO\CAO 2014\A00-Administration\A09-Policies & Procedures\Policies\M01-Proclamations-Support.doc Page 20 of 102

21 Report PLA To: From: Mayor and Members of Council Brian Nagata, Development Planner Date: November 20, 2015 Re: Removal of Holding (H) Symbol ZBH #124 Phase 2 - Destiny Estates Plan of Subdivision 37-T Larry Santos Construction Ltd. (ARN ) Aim: To recommend that By-law #518-15, being a by-law to remove the Holding (H) Symbol from the R3 zoning of Phase 2 of the Destiny Estates Plan of Subdivision be approved. Background: On November 16, 2015, Council approved Zoning By-law Amendment application ZBH #124 to remove the Holding (H) Symbol from Phase 2 of the Destiny Estates Plan of Subdivision, subsequent to the issuance of Notice of Intention to Remove the Holding (H) Symbol and approval of By-law # Notice of Intention to Remove the Holding (H) Symbol was given by the Municipality in the local newspaper on November 18, 2015, stating the earliest date Council may consider passing a by-law for this purpose to be December 7, There are no appeal opportunities for the removal of a Holding (H) Symbol from the zoning of a property. No comments were received in respect to this Notice of Intention. The internal roads have been constructed and utilities are being installed. Engineering upon being satisfied that the services have been constructed and installed to municipal standards will bring forward a recommendation for the Municipality to accept the services and associated maintenance. Prior to acceptance of the road and services, building permits will be available upon the developer providing the following information in accordance with Municipal Policy P10-Bldg Permits, all to the satisfaction of the Municipal Engineer: Confirmation that there is no conflict between the activity that would result from the building permit being issued and the installation of various utilities in the utility corridor; Surveyor s certificate pertaining to the lot for which the building permit is being sought; and Letter from the developer confirming support for the building permit issuance. Page 21 of 102

22 Page 2, PLA 60 15, Destiny Estates Subdivision Phase 2 (Redline Revision and Removal of H) Conclusion: Key Map of Phase 2 - Destiny Estates Plan of Subdivision Administration is in a position to state the application as proposed: i) Is consistent with the direction of the Provincial Policy Statement; ii) Is in keeping with the overall goals and policies of the Official Plan, including Section 7.3, referenced in Planning Report PLA-58-15; and iii) Satisfies the criteria to be considered when amending Zoning By-law # Financial Impact: There are no financial impacts to the Municipality as a result of the proposed amendment. Page 22 of 102

23 Page 3, PLA 60 15, Destiny Estates Subdivision Phase 2 (Redline Revision and Removal of H) Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBH #124 to amend the zoning for lands known as Phase 2 of the Destiny Estates Plan of Subdivision to remove the Holding (H) Symbol be approved; And that the Clerk be directed to forward the amending by-law # to Council for its consideration. (Report PLA-60-15) Danielle Digitally signed Respectfully submitted, by Danielle Truax, Truax, Manager Manager of of Planning Services Planning Date: Services 10:02:01-05'00' Brian Nagata Brian Nagata, Development Planner Digitally signed by Brian Nagata DN: cn=brian Nagata, o=municipality of Leamington, ou=development Planner, =bnagata@leamington.ca, c=ca Date: :05:01-05'00' Danielle Truax, Manager of Planning Services Tracey Pillon- Abbs, Director of Community & Development Services Digitally signed by Tracey Pillon-Abbs, Director of Community & Development Services Date: :38:02-05'00' Tracey Pillon-Abbs Director of Community and Development Services Peter Neufeld, CAO Digitally signed by Peter Neufeld, CAO DN: cn=peter Neufeld, CAO, o, ou, =pneufeld@leamington.ca, c=ca Date: :50:16-05'00' :bn attachments T:\Planning\Council Reports\2015\PLA ZBA Destiny Estates Subdivision (Removal of Holding (H) Symbol) Page 23 of 102

24 Report FIN To: From: Mayor and Members of Council Ramona Nordemann, Director of Finance & Business Services Date: November 26, 2015 Re: 2016 Fee Schedule Aim: To obtain approval for the Municipality of Leamington 2016 Fee Schedule. Background: Funding for municipal services is largely based on a combination of taxation revenues and user fees. Municipal fees are established to apply a user pay or fee for service approach to services that benefit a particular individual or group. Municipal fees are reviewed annually and adopted under municipal by-law for implementation on January 1 of the following fiscal year. These fees are then used in estimating related revenues in that fiscal year s budget, which mitigate the dollars required to be raised through taxation for funding municipal services. Comments: The Proposed 2016 Fee Schedule, with comparative data for 2015 Fees and the last year in which the fee was amended, is attached as Schedules A through M. The proposed fee schedule has been compiled based on input from the various operating departments. In determining recommended fees, administration considered market rate comparisons, service delivery costs increases and commodity cost increases, using the best information available at this time. As noted above, municipal fees are generally effective January 1 each year, and are effective from January 1 through December 31. An exception is made for the ice rentals category at the Leamington Kinsmen Recreation Complex, where fees are implemented July 1 of each year and are effective July 1 through June 30 to follow the common ice season. This exception is noted on Schedule B. Recommended 2016 rate adjustments are shown in relation to 2015 fees, and include increases, decreases or remain unchanged as noted in the attached schedules. Highlights of new fees for 2016 are as follows: Page 24 of 102

25 Page 2, Report FIN Fee Schedule Schedule A Leamington Kinsmen Recreation Complex: New fees are recommended to account for pickleball/55+ badminton, tradeshows, and pool advertising for second signs. Other various adjustments are also being recommended. Schedule B Arena Fees: New fees are recommended for additional advertising space as well as recommended changes for ice rates. Schedule E Planning and Building: Various fee changes are recommended as presented previously in planning reports PLA and PLA Current planning fees do not cover the costs of staff time, external costs, and materials for processing each application. As a result, the majority of the cost to process a planning application is being covered by taxation. Schedule M Legal & Legislative Services: A new fee is recommended related to By-Law Enforcement for non-compliance at re-inspection. Approval of the 2016 fee schedule is requested at this time to facilitate operations such as dog tag sales for the 2016 season Marina fees have already been approved by council and will be incorporated into the 2016 Tariff of Fees By-law. Should circumstances change throughout the year or budget implications dictate; further reports recommending in year fee adjustments may be brought forward for Council s consideration at a later date. Financial Impact: The cost of delivering services to users increases annually based on internal (staffing, equipment, etc.) and external cost factors (materials, utilities, insurance, purchase of service contracts, etc.). The decision to reduce fees or forego fee increases may be justified where market sensitivity would result in a reduction in users and therefore a reduction in total revenues based on a fee increase. However, all else equal, holding 2016 fees at the 2015 level will result in a net increase in demand from taxation revenue to cover increased operating costs not passed along to service users through fee increases. Recommendation: That the proposed 2016 Fee Schedule be approved and that the Clerk be directed to bring forward By-law to Council for its consideration. (Report FIN-23-15) Respectfully submitted, Peter Neufeld, CAO Digitally signed by Peter Neufeld, CAO DN: cn=peter Neufeld, CAO, o, ou, =pneufeld@leamington.ca, c=ca Date: :03:58-05'00' Ramona Nordemann, CPA, CA Director of Finance & Business Services Page 25 of 102

26 Schedule A Kinsmen Recreation Complex Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Memberships I) Individual 12 Month fee $ $ $9.00 Comparative increase Month fee $ $ $4.00 Comparative increase Month fee $ $ $4.00 Comparative increase Month fee $58.00 $ Month day use fee (6am-4pm) - $ ($396.00) Eliminate fee Month day use fee (6am-4pm) - $ ($246.00) Eliminate fee Month day use fee (6am-4pm) - $ ($150.00) Eliminate fee Month student fee $ $ $9.00 Comparative increase Month senior fee $ $ $9.00 Comparative increase Month senior fee $ $ $4.00 Comparative increase Month senior fee $ $ $4.00 Comparative increase Month New Year Shape-Up $ $ $5.00 Comparative increase Month Spring Shape-Up $ $ $5.00 Comparative increase Month Student Summer Special $ $ $5.00 Comparative increase Month Youth (14 and under) $ $ II) Couples 12 Month fee $ $ $24.00 $50 discount Month fee $ $ $9.00 $35 discount Month fee $ $ $9.00 $25 discount Month fee - $ ($106.00) Eliminate fee Month day use fee (6am-4pm) - $ ($736.00) Eliminate fee Month day use fee (6am-4pm) - $ ($456.00) Eliminate fee Month day use fee (6am-4pm) - $ ($280.00) Eliminate fee Month senior fee $ $ $24.00 $50 discount Month senior fee $ $ ($1.00) $35 discount Month senior fee $ $ $1.00 $25 discount 2015 Corporate Discount ($45.00) ($45.00) Promotional Discount - one month individual membership ($28.00) ($28.00) Single Visit Passes Page 26 of 102

27 Schedule A Kinsmen Recreation Complex Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Adult (14+) (10 visits) $56.64 $ Youth (-13) (10 Visits) $30.00 $ Youth (-13) (20 Visits) - $60.00 ($60.00) Eliminate fee 2012 Pickleball/55+ Badminton (10 visits) $ $21.24 New fee 2016 Single Visit Fees Adult (14+) $7.08 $ Youth (-13) $3.54 $ Family (Immediate 6 or less) $15.04 $13.27 $ Pickleball/55+ Badminton $ $2.65 New fee 2016 Personal Trainer 1 Session - 60 minutes $45.00 $ Sessions - 60 minutes $ $ Sessions - 60 minutes $ $ Session - 30 minutes $30.00 $ Sessions - 30 minutes $ $ Couples: 1 Session - 60 minutes $70.00 $ Couples: 5 Sessions - 60 minutes $ $ Couples: 10 Sessions - 60 minutes $ $ Youth Day Camps & Specialized Programs Youth Day Camp Program Daily $28.50 $28.25 $0.25 Comparative increase 2015 Youth Day Camp Program Weekly $ $ $10.00 Comparative increase 2015 Youth Instructional Fitness Program (10 classes) $60.00 $ Late Program Registration Fee (per program) $10.00 $ Children's Program (under 6 years old, 10 classes) $50.00 $ Youth Day Camp Program Daily Multi-child Discount ($2.50) - ($2.50) New discount 2016 Youth Day Camp Program Weekly Multi-child Discount ($13.00) - ($13.00) New discount 2016 Aquatic/Fitness Instructional Standard Programs Standard Instructional Swim Program (10 classes) $70.00 $66.00 $4.00 Comparative increase 2015 Specialty Instructional Swim Program - Page 27 of 102

28 Schedule A Kinsmen Recreation Complex Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Private Swim Lessons (10 classes) $ $ $10.00 Comparative increase 2013 Family Swim Lessons (10 classes each) $ $ $10.00 Comparative increase; 'limit 3 person' removed Last Year Changed Family Swim Lessons (4 persons 10 classes each) $0.00 $ ($280.00) Eliminate fee 2013 Aquafitness Instructional Program (10 classes) $52.00 $47.00 $5.00 Comparative increase 2015 Standard Instructional Fitness Program (10 classes) $52.00 $44.00 $8.00 Comparative increase 2012 Specialty Instructional Fitness Program all costs all costs Standard First Aid - CPR B (full recovery) $ $ ($13.81) Error - rate exl. HST 2015 Standard First Aid - CPR Recert (full recovery) $75.22 $85.00 ($9.78) Error - rate exl. HST 2015 Standard First Aid - HCP (full recovery) $ $ ($16.35) Error - rate exl. HST 2015 Babysitting Course (full recovery) $60.00 $ Aquatics Leadership Full cost recovery Rentals I) Squash/Racquet Courts (per hour) Adult $8.85 $ Youth $7.53 $ II) Racquet Rental $2.00 $ III) Gymnasium (one-half) Non-Profit hourly: Schools, Minor Sports $50.00 $45.00 $5.00 Comparative increase 2012 Non-Profit daily: Schools, Minor Sports $ $ $25.00 Comparative increase 2012 Profit hourly: Concert & Trade Shows $70.00 $65.00 $5.00 Comparative increase 2012 Profit daily: Concert & Trade Shows $ $ $25.00 Comparative increase 2012 IV) Gymnasium (whole) Non-Profit hourly: Schools, Minor Sports $94.00 $90.00 $4.00 Comparative increase 2012 Non-Profit daily: Schools, Minor Sports $ $ $30.00 Comparative increase 2012 Profit hourly: Concert & Trade Shows $ $ Profit daily: Concert & Trade Shows $ $ V) Fitness Studio Non-Profit hourly: Schools, Minor Sports $45.00 $ Non-Profit daily: Schools, Minor Sports $ $ Page 28 of 102

29 Schedule A Kinsmen Recreation Complex Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Profit hourly: Concert & Trade Shows $65.00 $ Profit daily: Concert & Trade Shows $ $ VI) Capital Facility Surcharge $6.00 $ VII) Swimming Pool* - School Board/Community* $74.00 $ Tot & Leisure Pool* $48.00 $ Swim Team (Sept.-April)* $45.00 $ Birthday Party (Full Cost Recovery for Party)* $54.00 $ Lifeguard (hourly rate) $ $15.76 New fee 2016 Swim Instructor (hourly rate) $ $18.65 New fee 2016 VIII) Capital Pool Surcharge $6.00 $ * Plus cost of guards $15.76 Full cost recovery IX) Meeting Rooms (Auditorium A or B, Leamington Arena Meeting Room) a) Minor Sport Flat Rate (per event) - $40.00 ($40.00) Eliminate fee 2015 b) Minor Sport Daily Rate (4+ hours per event) $65.00 $ c) Community, Commercial & Education Rate (per hour) i) Without liquor* (max. $300) $50.00 $ ii) With liquor* (max. $450) $65.00 $ * Plus clean-up and set-up charge *Add $25/hr or per event for full auditorium (A & B) d) Community Events (Full Recovery) $30.00 $ XI) Main Lobby (Exclusivity) $ $ Wording change 2006 a) Tradeshow For Profit $ $65.00 New fee 2016 b) Tradeshow Non-Profit $ $50.00 New fee 2016 XIII) Trade Show Booth (per running foot) - $36.00 ($36.00) Eliminate fee 2011 Activity Guide/Electronic Advertising Wording change Half page - no colour $ $ Page 29 of 102

30 Schedule A Kinsmen Recreation Complex Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Full page - no colour $ $ Half page - full colour $ $ Full Page - full colour $ $ Pool Advertising (Per Sign/Year) Pool $ $ Lane $ $ Corner $ $ Second sign $ $ New fee 2016 Racquet Court Advertising (Per sign/year) Racquetball/Squash Court $ $ Locker Rental (annual members) $ $ Administration Charges Reprinting Receipts $10.00 $ Membership cancellation $25.00 $ pre 2005 Program cancellation $15.00 $ pre 2005 Page 30 of 102

31 Schedule B Arena Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Ice Rates (Note: Ice Rates Effective July 1, June 30, 2017) Ice Rates Prime Time (per hour) Monday-Friday 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm $ $ $2.00 Comparative increase 2015 Sat/Sun 6:30 am to 11:00 pm Non-Prime time (per hour) Monday-Friday 6:00 am to 3:00 pm $ $ ($30.00) Encourage off hrs use 2015 Sat/Sun 11:00 pm to 6:00 am Eliminate time slot Non-Prime time Profit (per hour) Monday-Friday 6:00 am to 3:00 pm $ $ New fee 2016 Development Ice (30 mins, max 8 people) Monday-Friday 6:00 am to 3:00 pm $ $74.00 New fee 2016 Minor Hockey Association (per hour) Ice Time (Game & Practice) $ $ $1.00 Comparative increase 2015 Figure Skating Club (per hour) $ $ $1.00 Comparative increse 2015 Junior Hockey Club Wording changed Regular Season (per game) $ $ $17.00 Comparative increase 2015 Practice time (per hour) - $ ($157.00) Eliminate fee 2015 Shinny Hockey (Mon. to Fri 12-1:00 p.m.) Person $6.64 $ Season $ $ High School Hockey (per hour) Page 31 of 102

32 Schedule B Arena Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Last Year Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Changed (Non-Prime Ice Time) - $ ($144.00) Eliminate fee 2015 High School Hockey Academy Monday-Friday 6:00 am to 11:00 am $ $90.00 New fee 2016 Birthday Party (one hour) $ $ Same Day Booking (one hour) - $ ($135.00) Eliminate fee 2013 Public Skating Rates Child/Student $3.10 $ Adult $3.54 $ Parent & Tots (Parent) $2.21 $ Parent & Tots (Tots) $2.21 $ Family (immediate, max. 6) $9.51 $ Seniors (65+) - $3.54 ($3.54) Eliminate fee 2011 Ice Rental Capital Surcharge $6.00 $ Arena Floor Rental Special Events (Not for Profit per hour) $90.00 $ Minor Lacrosse (per hour) $60.00 $ Commercial Rental (per day) $2, $2, Multiple Day Rental (to be negotiated) Arena Instructional Programs Full cost recovery Advertising Space (per sign/year) Arena Rink Boards - HCC & Unico $ $ renamed nd Rink Ad $ $ Press Box $1, $1, Ice Logos $1, $1, Page 32 of 102

33 Schedule B Arena Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Floor Logos $1, $1, Zamboni Exit Doors $ $ New fee 2016 Bench Ads $ $ New fee 2016 Unico Clock $ $ New fee 2016 Flyers Office Space September - March (per month) $ $ $7.00 Comparative increase 2013 Page 33 of 102

34 Schedule C Fire Services Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Last Year Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Changed No changes proposed. File Search / Inspection Documentation or Letter $66.37 $ Insurance Company Information Reports $66.37 $ False alarms* (per response) $ $ * When there is more than three consecutive false alarms in a one year period as a result of faulty alarm equipment Retro-Fit Inspections a) First Unit $66.37 $ b) Additional Units/per unit up to maximum 6 units $26.55 $ c) 7 or more units flat rate $ $ Fire Department Liquor Licence Inspection/Inspection, Occupancy Load Signage & Approval Letter $ $ Open Air Fire Permit $17.70 $ Standby for events (full recovery) Full Cost Recovery Full Cost Recovery - Page 34 of 102

35 Schedule D Marina Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Seasonal Mooring a) Serviced docks (per foot for boats 26ft>) $49.00 $ b) Boats exceeding slip size (minimum plus) $49.00 $ c) Seasonal dock hydro fee 40ft + $ $ d) Seasonal dock hydro fee 36ft-39ft $ $ e) Seasonal dock hydro fee 31ft-35ft $ $ f) Seasonal dock hydro fee 26ft-30ft $75.00 $ g) Seasonal dock hydro fee 21ft-25ft $50.00 $ h) Seasonal dock hydro fee 15ft-20ft $25.00 $ i) Per Jet Ski / Dinghy (Used in the same well) $ $ j) 1 month dockage 30ft or less $ $ k) 1 month dockage 31-50ft $ $ l) Serviced dock feet (Flat fee) $ $ m) Serviced dock $39/ft $39.00 $ n) Jet-ski dock rentals (per unit) $ $ Approved by Council Resolution C Transient Mooring a) overnight rate (per foot/day) $1.75 $ b) daily day dock rate (3 hr max.stay) $20.00 $ c) Mid Week 3 Day Special $ $ d) Captains Club Rate (per foot/day) $1.50 $ Boat Launching Ramp a) In and out rate (per day) $11.50 $ b) Seasonal pass per boat (Unlimited) $ $ c) Senior seasonal pass (60+) $ $ d) Weekend stay with truck & trailer (up tp 2 days) $22.12 $ e) Long stay with truck & trailer (between 3-30 days) $44.25 $ Sanitary Pump-out Seasonal/Transient $11.50 $ Page 35 of 102

36 Schedule D Marina Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Seasonal/Monthly/Charter Boaters Sunday-Thursday (no charge) Seasonal/Monthly/Charter Boaters Friday-Satuday (no charge with fuel purchase) Last Year Changed Marina Picnic Shelter LYC Rentals - Complimentary No Fee a) Seasonal Boaters (no charge) 1 per season No Fee Half-Shelter per event (2nd and subsequent rentals) $ $ Full-Shelter per event (2nd and subsequent rentals) $ $ b) Transient Boaters Half-shelter per event $ $ Full-shelter per event $ $ c) Hospital, School, Church, Not for Profit Half-shelter per event $ $ Approved by Council Resolution C Full-shelter per event $ $ d) Area Rentals Half-shelter per event $ $ Full-shelter per event $ $ e) Business/Commercial Half-shelter per event $ $ Full-shelter per event $ $ f) Clean up fee (deposit) $ $ g) Staff time (per hour) $25.00 $ Community Barbecue Use of one BBQ $25.00 $ Use of both BBQ's $50.00 $ Use of portable BBQ $10.00 $ Fuel Mark-Up Per litre $0.20 $ Page 36 of 102

37 Schedule D Marina Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Last Year Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Changed Advertising Kiosk - 20x20 Signage (May-October) $ $ $ Advertising Kiosk - 40x40 Signage (May - October) $ $ $ Approved by Council Resolution C Mooring Rate/Day (Jet Express or Cruise Ship) $ $ Captain s Club Membership (US Dollars) $50.00 $ Bike Rental Half-day $20.00 $ Full-day $25.00 $ Page 37 of 102

38 Schedule E Planning and Building Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Planning Services Plan of Subdivision/Condominium $5, $2, $2, Condominium added 2009 Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval Extension $ $ New fee 2016 Amendment to Draft Plan of Subdivision $1, $1, New fee 2016 Development Agreement Amendment $1, $1, New fee 2016 Part Lot Control $1, $ $ Part Lot Control Extension $ $ New fee 2016 Official Plan Amendment $3, $2, $1, New fee 2016 Combined Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment $4, $4, Zoning By-law Amendment $3, $2, $1, Zoning By-law Amendment (Consents) - $ ($600.00) Eliminate fee (no longer processed) 2010 Temporary Use By-law $1, $ $ Temporary use By-law Extension $ $ New fee 2016 Removal of H holding Zoning $1, $ $ Pre-Consultation Fee - $50.00 ($50.00) Eliminate fee (cost incorporated into application fee) 2009 Page 38 of 102

39 Schedule E Planning and Building Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Site Plan Agreement $1, $1, Site Plan Amendment $ $ Minor Variance $ $ $50.00 Pre-consultation fee added 2012 Creation of New lot $ $ $50.00 Pre-consultation fee added 2012 Lot Addition $ $ $50.00 Pre-consultation fee added 2012 Easement, right of way etc. $ $ $ Increase fee and preconsultation fee added 2012 Certificate of Validation $ $ New fee 2016 Consent Freeze Release $80.00 $ Park Land Fees $ $ Combined Consent & Minor Variance $ $ New fee 2016 Minor Combined Zoning and Consent (Agricultural) $1, $1, Major Combined Zoning and Consent (New Use or Zone Regulation) $3, $3, Committee of Adjustment Special Meeting Fee $ $ New fee 2016 Page 39 of 102

40 Schedule E Planning and Building Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Recirculation Fees $75.00 $ This fee is applicable to any application Last Year Changed 2012 Subdivision Compliance Letter $75.00 $ Micro FIT & Small FIT Zoning Certification $ $75.00 New fee nd Dwelling Agreement ($1,000 Security deposit) $ $ Official Plan Publication (incl. Update Service) $ $ Zoning By-law Publication (incl. Update Service) $ $ Development Manual (per copy) $50.00 $ Subdivision Tree Fee (per lot) $ $ ERCA fees - per application As set by ERCA 2013 Building Services Zoning & Work Order Certificates (fees doubled if a response is required within 3 business days) $ $75.00 $ Managers working on new process Swimming Pool Enclosure $ $ Demolition Permit (per $1,000 value) * $11.00 $ Note: Agricultural buildings are exempt 2012 Residential Building Permits * New (per square foot) $0.80 $ New Basement/Renovations (per square foot) $0.35 $ Additions (per square foot) $0.80 $ Detached Accessory Structures (per square foot) $0.25 $ Renovations and Alterations (per $1,000 value) $11.00 $ Revised Plan Review (per square foot) $0.40 $ Page 40 of 102

41 Schedule E Planning and Building Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Farm Permits - New/Additions * Greenhouse (per first 10 Acres) $0.02 $ (Remainder) $0.01 $ Boiler Room (per $1,000 value) $11.00 $ Packing/Warehouse (per $1,000 value) $11.00 $ Barns (per square foot) $0.25 $ Farm Building Renovation (per $1,000 value) $11.00 $ Commercial/Industrial/Institutional/Assembly * New Construction-Building Shell (per square foot) $0.60 $ New/Interior/Renovations and Alterations (per $1,000 value) $11.00 $ Plumbing * New Residential (per unit) $ $ Other than Residential (per fixture) $11.00 $ Renovations (per fixture) $11.00 $ Sanitary Sewer Inspection $ $ Storm Sewer Inspection $ $ Septic Tank New/Exemption for purpose of outlet to sanitary sewer (inspection only) $ $ Backflow Preventor $ $ Underground for Site Servicing (per $1,000 value) $10.00 $ Water Service Connector $75.00 $ On-site Sewage Systems New Installation * $ $ Septic Inspection for Severance $ $ Septic Inspection for Minor Variance $ $ Repair or Alteration to Existing System * $ $ Miscellaneous Fees Page 41 of 102

42 Schedule E Planning and Building Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Inspection fees not listed above $ $ Inspections - Ontario Renovate Program $ $ Inspections - Rental Supplement Program $ $ Liquor Licence Inspection $75.00 $ Change of Use Permit $75.00 $ Designated Structures sign, tower, tank, retaining wall (per $1,000 value) $10.00 $ Minimum Permit Fee * $75.00 $ Designated Structures $ $ Greenhouse $1, $1, All Other Septic Inspections (i.e. Demo) $ $ Signage $70.00 $ * Building Permit Fees (building, plumbing & septic) double if any work requiring a permit is commenced prior to receiving a Building permit. Page 42 of 102

43 Schedule F Finance & Business Services Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Tax Account/Assessment Information No changes proposed Certified Statement of Account - Sec 352 MA $75.00 $ Certified Statement of Account - Sec 352 MA - response is required within 3 business days $ $ Detailed Account History * On-line database - current year $25.00 $ Off-line database - current year $25.00 $ plus - per year of past history $10.00 $ Statement of Account * $15.00 $ Statement of Account - required within 3 business days* $30.00 $ Record of Payments or Tax Notice Reprint* $10.00 $ * Available only to Owners Registered on Title or by written authorization to designate. Account History is a detailed listing of transactions in the account database. Statement of Account is similar to a tax certificate but is not binding. Certified Statement is available to any person and is binding on the municipality. Refund/Misposting of Payment $25.00 $ Tax Sale Tender Package $10.00 $ Municipal Tax Sale - Part XI of the Municipal Act Third party preparation / services - 100% recovery of actual costs Page 43 of 102

44 Schedule F Finance & Business Services Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Returned Cheque/Negotiable Item $25.00 $ Last Year Changed Photocopies () Letter, Legal, 11 x 17Oversize copier Digital Plotter $0.40 $ $7.50 $ $ $ 2006 $.50 $ Courier Services - customer service required $20.00 $ Accounts Receivable - invoices outstanding over 30 days 1.25% monthly 1.25% monthly Council policy Financing Administration - per property/roll # $ $ Page 44 of 102

45 Schedule G Parks & Seasonal Facilities Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Baseball Diamonds Minor Ball Association (per diamond/time slot*) $15.00 $14.50 $0.50 Approximately 3% increase 2013 Adult (per diamond/time slot*) $36.00 $35.00 $1.00 Approximately 3% increase 2013 Tournaments** $ $ $25.00 Approximately 3% increase 2012 Baseball Light Charges (per diamond/time slot*) $46.50 $45.00 $1.50 Approximately 3% increase 2013 Key for Lights-Refundable Deposit (per season) $ $ pre 2005 (less deduction for call in, etc per occasion) $50.00 $ pre 2005 Capital surcharge for improvements (per diamond/league) $ $ pre 2005 Soccer Pitches Youth/time slot* $15.00 $14.50 $0.50 Approximately 3% increase 2013 Adult/time slot* $36.00 $35.00 $1.00 Approximately 3% increase 2013 Seacliff Park-Picnic Facility Picnic Shelter with hydro and water per day $75.00 $70.00 $5.00 Cost Reasonableness 2013 Mersea Park-Picnic Facility Picnic Shelter only per day $50.00 $ Page 45 of 102

46 Schedule G Parks & Seasonal Facilities Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Miscellaneous Snowfence-fencing, posts etc. (per foot) with $250 refundable deposit. Municipal staff will remove fence. Less deduction for damages $1.00 $ Portable fencing - per section $10.00 $ Definitions: *Time slot allocations for baseball/soccer: 8:30-12:30 pm, 12:30-4:30 pm 4:30-8:30 pm, 8:30-11:30 pm **Tournament costs refers to a maximum of 3 days, (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) and includes one float of assigned diamonds Page 46 of 102

47 Schedule H Public Works Operations Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Winter On-Street Parking Permit - Urban $40.00 $ Materials/Goods Cold Patch Material (per lb) - $0.20 ($0.20) Consolidated under Miscellaneous Signs and Materials fee 2012 Salt (per lb) - $0.15 ($0.15) Consolidated under Miscellaneous Signs and Materials fee Signs $70.00 $ Snow Fence and Posts Rental (per foot) - $1.00 ($1.00) See Parks Fee Schedule 2012 Portable fencing - per section - $10.00 ($10.00) See Parks Fee Schedule 2013 Miscellaneous Signs and Materials (Cost + 15% admin) 2016 Equipment Sweeper/Operator Rental (regular hours) $ $ Road Grader/Operator (per hour) $ $ Front End Loader/Operator (per hour) $ $ Tractor/Operator-10 ft. mower (per hour) $ $ Page 47 of 102

48 Schedule H Public Works Operations Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Single Axle Dump/Operator (per hour) $ $ Tandem Dump/Operator (per hour) $ $ Cat Traps Urban only (per day) $5.00 $ Labour/service Operator (per hour) $46.32 $ Weed Cutting (per lot per hour) $ $ Senior Citizen Clear Driveways (per house) $25.00 $ Garbage Collection * Residential Until Collection $ $ $6.50 Approximately 5% increase 2010 Yard Waste Collection $17.50 $16.50 $1.00 Approximately 6% increase 2010 * The charge is per unit as assessed by MPAC up to 5 units; multi-residential greater than 5 units is exempt. If privately serviced; charges are included with property tax notices and collected in a like manner as taxes. Page 48 of 102

49 Schedule I Pollution Control Centre Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Septic Tank Rebate $ (67.50) $ (67.50) Residential/Industrial/Commercial Sewer Surcharge (collected as an additional charge on metered water bills) base rate cubic metres/month $42.19 $40.18 $2.01 remainder of consumption per 1000 gallon - no cap $9.18 $8.74 $0.44 remainder of consumption per cubic metre - no cap $2.02 $1.92 $0.10 5% increase based on 2010 Watson model 5% increase based on 2010 Watson model 5% increase based on 2010 Watson model Leachate Disposal (per cubic metre) $2.75 $ Septage Disposal (per gallon) $0.09 $ Holding Tank Waste Disposal (per gallon) $0.09 $ Grey Water Disposal (per gallon) $0.09 $ Page 49 of 102

50 Schedule J Transit Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Transit Rates* No changes proposed a) Adult $2.00 $ b) Student $1.50 $ c) Senior $1.75 $ d) Child (12 and under) $1.00 $ e) Passes (22 rides) $35.00 $ f) Passes - Senior (22 rides) $30.00 $ *One child under 6 rides free when accompanied by a paying adult 2013 Transit Bus Advertising a) Exterior - side / two weeks $60.00 $ Exterior - side / month $ $ b) Exterior - rear 17x35 space / 2 weeks $35.00 $ x35 space / month $60.00 $ x50 space / 2 weeks $45.00 $ x50 space / month $85.00 $ x40 space / 2 weeks $65.00 $ x40 space / month $ $ Transit Shelter Advertising a) Per poster per month $ $ b) Per poster per month for 3 month contract $ $ Page 50 of 102

51 Schedule K Water Services Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Municipal Service Connections Size of Line: ¾ inch $2, $2, inch $2, $2, inch with meter pit $6, $6, inch, shut off valve only $3, $3, MTO encroachment permit for excavation on or near MTO Highways $ $ Disconnect / Reconnect - each $50.00 $ sidewalk restoration. Actual cost will be applied Supplementary watermain buy in assessment (i) residential/com/ind/parcel $5, $5, Pre-existing agreements only pre 2005 (ii) Convert vacant to connection $2, $2, pre 2005 (iii) additional cost per supplementary water assessment $5, $5, pre 2005 Water Distribution Rates (i) To supply metered water from a fire hydrant during working hours (ii) To supply metered water from fire hydrant after normal working hours $80.00 $ $ $ Inside Set Up's 5/8 inch meter & setter $ $ /4 inch meter & setter $ $ inch meter & setter $ $ Page 51 of 102

52 Schedule K Water Services Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed 1 1/2 inch meter & flanges $ $ inch meter & flanges $ $ Large Water Connections Phase 1A & 1B North/South Trunk Watermain 4 inch water service connection $5, $5, inch water service connection $5, $5, inch water service connection $6, $6, Future High Prescon Pipe Connections 4 inch water service connection $7, $7, inch water service connection $8, $8, inch water service connection $9, $9, Water Consumption by Residential, Commercial; Water Meters Less than 25mm (1 inch) a) Basic Water Charge (per month) $17.48 $16.97 $0.51 b) Metered replacement charge (per month) $3.58 $3.48 $0.10 c) Metered water (per 1000 gallons) $3.62 $3.51 $0.11 d) Metered water (per cubic metre) $0.79 $0.77 $0.02 e) Monthly flat rate users $50.47 $49.00 $1.47 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model Water Consumption by Commercial, Greenhouse, Field Drip Irrigation Water Meters Greater than 25mm (1 inch) Regulated* Greenhouse/Commercial Basic water charge (per month) $17.48 $16.97 $0.51 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 2015 Page 52 of 102

53 Schedule K Water Services Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Meter replacement charge (per month) $3.58 $3.48 $0.10 Metered water (per 1000 gallons) $3.94 $3.83 $0.11 Metered water (per cubic metre) $0.87 $0.84 $0.03 *A regulated greenhouse must have a Municipality of Leamington approved on-site reservoir and rate of flow control system. 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model Unregulated Greenhouse/Commercial Basic water charge (per month) $17.48 $16.97 $0.51 Meter replacement charge (per month) $3.58 $3.48 $0.10 Metered water (per 1000 gallons) under 3 acres $4.30 $4.17 $0.13 Metered water (per cubic metre) under 3 acres $0.95 $0.92 $0.03 Metered water (per 1000 gallons) over 3 acres $8.59 $8.34 $0.25 Metered water (per cubic metre) over 3 acres $1.90 $1.84 $0.06 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model 3% increase based on 2010 Watson model Last Year Changed Page 53 of 102

54 Schedule L Engineering Fees (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fees or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Encroachment Permit Fee $ $ Plus $1,000 refundable deposit 2015 Subdivision Engineering Review (Per lot) $50.00 $ Property Inquiry Request Letters - Engineering $75.00 $ Drainage Fees Property Inquiry Request Letters - Drainage $75.00 $ Drainage Apportionment Agreements (as a request of severance) $ $ Proof of Drainage Review (as a request of severance) $75.00 $ Drainage Admin Fee per Parcel (Maintenance & Capital) $10.00 $ Drainage Admin Fee Per Parcel (Pump Schemes) $5.00 $ Drainage Admin Fee (Policy E09 Fees) $ $ Drainage Postage (project mailing costs) Actual Costs Actual Costs Cost Recovery Mutual Drain Agreement $75.00 $ Drainage Tile Loan - Inspection services $ $ Mapping Fees Points of Interest Maps (11 X 17) max. 5 Free Free - Points of Interest Map (11 X 17) per map after 5 $2.00 $ Street Map per sq ft $2.50 $ Airphoto per sq ft $3.00 $ Custom Mapping (size TBD) - cost/hour $40.00 $ Cost Recovery 2015 Local Improvement Base Fees Storm Sewer ($/m) ($/m of Frontage) $ $ Storm Service Connection (Per each) $1, $1, $ Reflective of Market Costs 2014 Sanitary Sewer ($/m of Frontage) $ $ $14.00 Reflective of Market Costs 2014 Page 54 of 102

55 Sanitary Connection (Per each) $2, $1, $ Reflective of Market Costs 2014 Curb & Gutter ($/m of Frontage) $48.00 $41.00 $7.00 Reflective of Market Costs 2014 Asphalt Pavement ($/m of Frontage) $ $ Sidewalk $96.00 $ Street Light $3, $3, Page 55 of 102

56 Schedule M Legal & Legislative Services Fees Licencing Fees established under specific by-laws are not included in this schedule (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Affidavits Resident $23.00 $ Non-Resident $33.00 $ Agreements Encroachment $ $ Animal Control Dog Tags (per dog) $20.00 $ Late Fee - after March 31st $20.00 $ New Dog to Home after March 31st or Seasonal Resident $20.00 $ Replacement Tag $5.00 $ Kennel (includes 1 dog tag) $ $ By-law Enforcement Non-compliance at re-inspection $ $ New fee 2016 Death Registration Registration of Death $28.00 $ Registration of Outside Death $38.00 $ Letter of Residency $33.00 $ Lottery Licences: Raffles, Break Open Tickets 3% of prize 3% of prize - per Legislation - AGCO Bingo per session 3% of prize 3% of prize Marriages Licence $ $ Ceremony (office hrs) $ $ Ceremony (office hrs, other than English) $ $ Ceremony (after hours and/or off site) $ $ Ceremony Mileage: per Canada Customs & Revenue Agency (after hours Leamington border & back) per CCRA Ceremony Cancellation Fees (withheld from refund) During office hours $30.00 $ After hours/off site - with 24 hrs notice $60.00 $ Page 56 of 102

57 Schedule M Legal & Legislative Services Fees Licencing Fees established under specific by-laws are not included in this schedule (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Last Year Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Changed After hours/off site - without 24 hrs notice $ $ Gallery Rental (2 hour photo session) $ $ Privacy Act Access/Correction Application Request $5.00 $ per Legislation 2007 Miscellaneous charges per OReg 823 Municipal Parking Lots Parking Permit Annual $ $ month $70.00 $ Monthly $15.00 $ P/T uptown annual $65.00 $ Mill St Parking Lot (maximum 10 permits) Parking Permit Annual $ $ month $ $ Monthly $25.00 $ Taxi By-law Taxi Cab Licence $75.00 $ Taxi Cab Driver Licence $65.00 $ Taxi-Cab Driver Licence 2nd replacement within year $25.00 $25.00 Sign Permits Portable Sign - per month $53.00 $ Facia Sign $79.00 $ Ground Sign $79.00 $ Billboard Sign $ $ Removal of sign (non-portable) -cost recovery $56.00 $ Removal of portable sign & storage $86.00 $ Plus after 5 days of storage charged per day $11.00 $ Application for Sign Variance $ $ Vendor Permits Transient Trader Licence (per event) $1, $1, Peddler Licence (annual) $ $ Page 57 of 102

58 Schedule M Legal & Legislative Services Fees Licencing Fees established under specific by-laws are not included in this schedule (applicable taxes will be added to all fees) Description of Fee or Service 2016 Fees 2015 Fees Change Comment Last Year Changed Mobile Vendor Motorized Licence (annual) $ $ Mobile Vendor Licence Non Motorized (annual) $ $ Page 58 of 102

59 Report IS To: From: Mayor and Members of Council Robert Sharon, Director of Infrastructure Services Date: November 25, 2015 Re: Union Gas Transmission Line Phase 2 Easement Aim: To obtain Council approval to grant an easement to Union Gas Limited (Union Gas) for the installation of a natural gas pipeline on the former railway lands between County Road 14 and County Road 18. Background: Council Report DCS outlined the desire of Union Gas to expand their natural gas delivery capacity to customers in the Leamington area, and in particular to the greenhouse sector. In 2013, Union Gas is undertook the Leamington Expansion Project, Phase 1, which included the construction of a 12 inch natural gas pipeline from the existing Union Gas Comber station, to an existing station located on County Road 14 in Leamington, a distance of approximately 3.5km. Phase 2 of this initiative will see the continuation of this pipeline from County Road 14 (9 th concession) to County Road 18 (4 th concession), including the construction of a new station at County Road 18 on lands not owned by the municipality. (See attachment #1). Union Gas will require an easement from the municipality to install the pipeline. The permanent easement for the installation of the pipeline will be 5 meters wide and approximately 7 kilometers in length, with construction and maintenance access required over the entire 15 meter wide corridor. Investigation into required setbacks between various utilities including the existing water main, the subject natural gas pipeline and the proposed future electricity infrastructure, has concluded that all three utilities can partially utilize the area of the former rail lands. The installation of the electricity related infrastructure has required the acquisition of lands to the East of the corridor since the original planning documents. Once the natural gas pipeline alignment is determined, Hydro One can determine the required extent of their property purchases. Comments: The former rail lands were purchased to allow for the increased feasibility of utility expansions, for the promotion of economic growth in the area, and to utilize the land for trail development to promote an active and healthy community. Page 59 of 102

60 Page 2, Union Gas Easement Phase 2 Union Gas is planning to begin the installation of the pipeline in the spring of 2016 with completion targeted for the fall of Union Gas is working diligently to complete the project as demand for natural gas in the area is growing and is needed by the greenhouse industry. Administration and representatives from Union Gas have negotiated draft terms and conditions of the easement including compensation considerations. This proposal is for a non-exclusive easement which will allow for other utilities to utilize the area so long as required setbacks to the pipeline are achieved. Union Gas will be required to return the rail corridor, which is now a fully constructed trail, to the pre-construction conditions. In 2015, Leamington Administration contacted Union Gas officials to discuss the construction of the Trans Canada Trail in the hopes that the projects could be integrated to avoid unnecessary disruption to the future use. Unfortunately, the Phase 2 pipeline project was not approved at that time, nor could a date of approval for the project be provided. While the Municipality cannot control these external processes, Administration can develop strategies to manage within the framework. It is unfortunate that a large stretch of recently constructed trail will be closed to the public for the entire construction window noted above. However, the pipeline is a vital utility to promote economic activity and when installed, the trail will be once again open for public use to enjoy long into the future. Financial Impact: Union Gas has agreed to pay the Municipality $500,000 for the granting of this easement. A $5,000 option price will be paid within 30 days of signing the agreement, the balance shall be paid on the closing date. As mentioned above, Union Gas is targeting construction in It is recommended that the payment be allocated to the Municipal Trails Reserve to be used for the expansion of the Leamington Trail Network. This is consistent with the treatment of the payment for the easement for phase 1 of this project, and in line with the vision of Council when they purchased the rail lands to act as a utility corridor and trail network. Page 60 of 102

61 Page 3, Union Gas Easement Phase 2 Recommendation: That the granting of an easement on the former railway lands between County Road 14 and County Road 18 to Union Gas Limited for the purposes of installing a natural gas pipeline be approved; And that the Municipality execute an agreement with Union Gas in a form consistent with the contents of this report and acceptable to the Municipal Solicitor; And further, that the proceeds from the agreement be allocated to the Municipal Trail Reserve. (Report IS-20-15) Respectfully submitted, Peter Neufeld, CAO Digitally signed by Peter Neufeld, CAO DN: cn=peter Neufeld, CAO, o, ou, =pneufeld@leamington.ca, c=ca Date: :53:31-05'00' Robert Sharon, CMO Director of Infrastructure Services Page 61 of 102

62 Page 4, Union Gas Easement Phase 2 Attachment #1: Map of the Pipeline Route Page 62 of 102

63 IS Report To: From: Mayor and Members of Council Robert Sharon, Director of Infrastructure Services Date: November 25, 2015 Re: County Road 20 Multi-Use Trail and County Road 20 Environmental Assessment Aim: To discuss the County Wide Active Transportation System (CWATS), and specifically the multi-use trail consideration for County Road 20; And to provide Council with recommendations regarding County Road 20. Background: As previously reported to Council, CWATS was commissioned by the County of Essex in response to the Essex Windsor Regional Transportation Plan (2005) and the County of Essex Official Plan, both of which speak to the need to provide a comprehensive regional plan to encourage and accommodate non-motorized active transportation. MMM Group (MMM) was retained by the County of Essex in January 2010 to conduct the study. A steering committee, consisting of administrative representatives from the various municipalities of Essex County, Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA), the County of Essex, the City of Windsor, and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, was created to oversee and provide input to the project. The objectives of the Study were to: Recommend actions to improve conditions for walking, cycling and active transportation in the County of Essex for people of all ages, by providing an on-road corridor and off-road trails system which integrates a number of facility types for both recreation and utilitarian use; Identify the elements of an Active Transportation network that are appropriate for Essex County, that will improve consistency and coordination throughout the County, and will provide appropriate connections to the neighbouring municipalities of Chatham-Kent and the City of Windsor; Develop an effective and practical implementation strategy that will identify priorities, annual costs, best practices for facility design and support an improved active transportation network; Page 63 of 102

64 Page 2, Report IS County Road 20 Identify and recommend strategies and programs that the County as well as local municipalities can lead, or partner with others, to encourage more people to walk and bicycle more often for utilitarian and recreational purposes; Identify roles and responsibilities for the County, local municipalities, and other partners in facilitating walking, cycling, and active transportation. Background information concerning the vision, projected needs, and user demands were gathered through online surveys and public open houses. The report recommended that an Active Transportation Advisory (AT Committee) be established by the County of Essex, consisting of representatives from: County of Essex Active Transportation Coordinator (voting) Local municipalities (voting) ERCA (voting) Go for Health Windsor-Essex (resource) Windsor Essex County District Health Unit (voting) City of Windsor (resource) Municipality of Chatham-Kent (resource) Other stakeholders as may be determined by the County of Essex. (resource) Throughout the development of the CWATS Study, Administration from the lower tier municipalities met with Administration from the County of Essex and with each other, to review the active transportation projects and the cost sharing formula to be included in CWATS. It was during this preliminary stage, and after Leamington Council had agreed to the CWATS study in principle pending the resolution of an acceptable cost sharing formula, that the County Road 20 multi-use paths were identified as a Leamington priority. (See Attachment #1). After much deliberation, a mutually acceptable funding formula was realized which included the following provisions: The County would pay 100% of the costs of the works on county roads in a rural area (excepting sidewalks). The County would pay 40%, and local municipalities would pay 60% of the cost of the works on county roads and county connecting links within an agreed upon urban area (excepting sidewalks). The local municipalities would pay 100% of the cost of the works on any local road. The County would pay 100% of the cost of all signed routes anywhere. All sidewalks would be funded 100% by local municipalities. Multi-use trails outside of the county or local rights of ways built on lands owned by the local municipality would be paid 100% by the local municipality. Multi-use trails outside of the county or local rights of ways and build on lands not owned by the municipality would be paid 100% by ERCA. The funds obtained from the local levy would not be used to build this infrastructure. Page 64 of 102

65 Page 3, Report IS County Road 20 After consensus was reached at the administrative level, adoption of CWATS was recommended to all municipal councils. On October 15, 2012 Leamington Council enacted the following resolution: No. C That the Municipality of Leamington endorse the policies and recommendations of the County Wide Active Transportation Master Plan (CWATS) Final Report, September 2012 prepared by MMM Group for the County of Essex; Once approved, specific procedures for the approval and construction of individual infrastructure initiatives was established. Annually, municipalities in Essex County must submit completed applications to the AT Committee for funding consideration. The AT Committee then recommends projects for approval. CWATS applications are deemed complete for consideration if accompanied by; A declaration for the project and funding commitment by means of a resolution or a letter from Municipal Council. A functional design study that supports the total project and associated costs. Detailed project schedule to support full completion of the CWATS segment or partial segments. Copies of all permits and approvals. A map identifying the segment and location of the project. County Road 20 In the County of Essex undertook a Feasibility Design Study for the construction of a portion of the CWATS network along County Road 20 between County Road 31 and Sherk Street, known as a context sensitive solution (please refer to Attachment #2 for a map of the study area).the cost of the County Road 20 Feasibility Design Study was shared between the Municipality of Leamington and the County of Essex, in accordance with the cost sharing formula outlined in the County Wide Active Transportation Study. The multi-use paths along County Road 20 from Sherk Street to County Road 31 were proposed to be a 1.2m to1.5m wide shared pathway located behind curb. Cyclists and pedestrians would have been directed to travel the same direction as traffic by use of a painted bike and pedestrian stencil and arrow on the surface of the pathway. Cyclists would have been required to yield to pedestrians on the pathway and signs to that effect would be posted. (See Attachment #3 and #4 for illustration). The proposed trail along County Road 20 is divided into four segments: 11A, 11B, 11C and Seacliff Drive between Branton Drive and Sherk Street (please refer to Attachment #2). Per the approved CWATS plan, segments 11A, 11C, and the segment on Seacliff Drive are within the agreed upon settlement/urban areas and therefore cost shared between the County (40%) and Leamington (60%). Segment 11B is considered within the approved designation framework of CWATS, to be rural and therefore 100% funded by the County. Page 65 of 102

66 Page 4, Report IS County Road 20 In 2014, Leamington Council supported and approved an application to construct segment 11C and the segment between Branton Drive and Sherk Street along County Road 20. That project was approved by County Council through delegated authority to the AT Committee. Comments: Through the feasibility study, it was observed by the design team that the existing curbing along County Road 20 is beyond repair and would prove to be a hazard to users of the road and the trail if left in place. The project consultant has recommended that 100% of the curbing be removed and replaced. This recommendation to replace 100% of the curbing significantly increased the cost of the project beyond the approved budget. When the context sensitive solution along County Road 20 was identified in the CWATS study in 2011, segment 11C had an estimated total project cost of $561,000, with Leamington responsible for 60% ($336,600) and the County 40% ($224,400). It is recognized that these estimates were preliminary and based on the construction of a hard surface path on both sides of the road. With 100% curb replacement, the estimated cost of segment 11C is now $1.5 million, of which approximately $650,000 is curb replacement, and $850,000 for building the trails. At a 60/40 split, this proposed scope would result in $900,000 of cost to Leamington and $600,000 of cost to the County of Essex. The total project cost estimate of segments 11A, 11B, 11C and the section between Branton Drive and Sherk Street is now approximately $2.4 million, of which approximately $1 million is the cost of curb replacement. The preliminary CWATS estimate for the total project was $960,000. Using the project cost sharing identified above, the estimated $2.4 million total project costs results in an almost equal share of $1.2 million each to the Municipality of Leamington and to the County of Essex. Leamington Administration does not dispute the fact that the curbing along County Road 20 is in a current state of disrepair. Please see attachment # 5 for pictures of the curbing taken in the summer of The County of Essex has indicated however that they do not plan on replacing the curbing over the next 10 years. Specifically, in correspondence from the County dated August 26, 2015 and in response to a request from Leamington Administration for the County to assume responsibility for the curbing, the County advised: The CWATS project for segment Leam-11C is advancing the curb replacement outside of the County s rehabilitation schedule. At this time, the curb replacement for County Road 20 is not scheduled within the next 10 years. As such, the request for the County to pay for the additional $600,000 curbing costs to construct the active facility is not supported at this time. Additionally, the County has noted that the curbing is not scheduled to be replaced at the time of the planned resurfacing of County Road 20, identified in the 2015 County of Essex Rehabilitation Program to take place in 2017 and Considering the importance of improving County Road 20 for current and future users, Council of the Municipality of Leamington submitted an application to the CWATS AT Committee for the design and construction of segment 11A and encouraged the approval of Page 66 of 102

67 Page 5, Report IS County Road 20 segment 11B as part of the 2016 CWATS project approval process. Given the safety concerns, Leamington did this while also recognizing that the matter of cost sharing of curbing would need to be resolved through decisions of Leamington Council and Essex County Council prior to the project moving to the construction phase. The 2016 CWATS application for 11A was denied by the CWATS Committee given the unresolved issue of the cost sharing obligations of curb replacement. In addition, the AT Committee elected to reallocate the funds previously approved for segment 11C to other CWATS initiatives. As detailed design work on the installation of the multi-use paths was underway, and as the County of Essex initiated an RFP for the Environmental Assessment of improvements to County Road 20 as will be discussed below, the writer agreed to cease all detailed design work until further direction from Leamington Council was received. Environmental Assessment of County Road 20 In October 2015, the County of Essex released a Request for Proposals to initiate the Environmental Assessment (EA) process for potential corridor improvements for County Road 20, from Kratz Sideroad in the Town of Kingsville to Sherk Street in the Municipality of Leamington. See Attachment # 6. The purpose of the project was defined in the County RFP document as follows: The purpose of the Project is to correct operational deficiencies, to examine roadway capacity and safety with particular consideration to vehicle, cyclists and pedestrian movements, and the addition of active transportation facilities, which will serve the needs of the Essex County Region in transportation and area growth for a 20-year period. It is the opinion of Administration that this EA process and the identification of a comprehensive long-term solution is the more appropriate strategy for the County of Essex to pursue to correct the operational deficiencies that exist on their road. County Road 20 becomes a connecting link just West of Branton Drive. Resultantly, the road is owned and operated by the County West of this divide. Given the now known existing state of County Road 20, it is the opinion of Administration that it is not in the best interest of the local ratepayers to spend approximately $2.4 million on an interim, temporary solution to correct the existing transportation deficiencies while a comprehensive solution is also being explored. Given the associated community safety aspects of the existing road design that will undoubtedly be communicated by the citizens of the County of Essex through this EA process, administration anticipates active transportation infrastructure to be included in the recommended alternative upon project conclusion. Administration recommends that the Municipality of Leamington no longer pursue the interim solution of building multi-use paths to address deficiencies along County Road 20 as identified in the CWATS study, but rather encourage the County to implement the likely improvements that result from the completion of the EA process. Timing of subsequent construction, if required, would be at the discretion of County Council. As a stakeholder, Leamington will continue to be engaged with the County throughout the EA process. Page 67 of 102

68 Page 6, Report IS County Road 20 The recommended alternative resulting from the EA process to address the transportation challenges of County Road 20 will be identified upon the completion of the EA. Specific to active transportation facilities, options could include the addition of bikes lanes, a multi-use path similar to the existing consideration, sidewalks, or other potential considerations not yet explored. Financial Impact: Given the recommendation of Administration, this report has no direct budgetary impact. Recommendation: That the Municipality of Leamington support the decision of the County of Essex to complete the Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design of County Road 20 from Kratz Sideroad in the Town of Kingsville to Sherk Street in the Municipality Leamington; And that the Municipality of Leamington encourage the County of Essex to expedite the process and improve the safety of County Road 20 for all users. (IS-17-15) Respectively Submitted, Peter Neufeld, CAO Digitally signed by Peter Neufeld, CAO DN: cn=peter Neufeld, CAO, o, ou, =pneufeld@leamington.ca, c=ca Date: :56:07-05'00' Robert Sharon, CMO Director of Infrastructure Services Page 68 of 102

69 Page 7, Report IS County Road 20 Attachment #1 Page 69 of 102

70 Page 8, Report IS County Road 20 Attachment #2 Page 70 of 102

71 Page 9, Report ENG CWATS Application Attachment #3: Trail Design Considerations Page 71 of 102

72 Page 10, Report ENG CWATS Application Attachment #4: Trail Design Around Obstacles Page 72 of 102

73 Page 11, Report ENG CWATS Application Attachment #5: State of the Curbing Page 73 of 102

74 Page 12, Report IS County Road 20 Attachment #5 Continued Page 74 of 102

75 Page 13, Report IS County Road 20 Attachment #5 Continued Page 75 of 102

76 Page 14, Report IS County Road 20 Attachment #5 Continued Page 76 of 102

77 Page 15, Report IS County Road 20 Attachment #5 Continued Page 77 of 102

78 Page 16, Report IS County Road 20 Attachment #5 Continued Page 78 of 102

79 Page 17, Report ENG CWATS Application Attachment #6: County of Essex Notice of RFP for County Rd. 20 Environmental Assessment Page 79 of 102

80 Report IS To: From: Mayor and Members of Council Robert Sharon, CMO, Director of Infrastructure Services Date: December 1, 2015 Re: Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Reconstruction and the Future Land Uses of Southeast Leamington Aim: To review the decision of the Court of Revision dated September 15, 2014; To seek Council direction regarding the Engineer s Report prepared by Dillon Consulting dated June 17, 2013, for the East Marsh Dyke Repair pursuant to the provisions of Section 78 of The Drainage Act R.S.O. 1990; And to seek Council direction regarding the long-term sustainable land uses of Southeast Leamington. Background: This report is not intended to provide a comprehensive background to the history of the East Marsh Dyke, or the infrastructure concerns surrounding the lands commonly referred to as Southeast Leamington (See Attachments 1-3). The East Marsh Drainage Scheme is identified as Zone 8 on Attachment #1. There is a large body of work including; technical studies, drainage engineer s reports and administrative reports to Leamington Council that together capture the history, current state, infrastructure challenges, and long term land use considerations for the area. This report is specifically seeking Council direction regarding the next steps as it relates to the Engineer s Report prepared by Dillon Consulting dated June 17, 2013, for the East Marsh Dyke Repair (attached under separate cover), and to provide options for Council if they do not proceed with the works. In order to do that however, a brief review of Southeast Leamington is in order. 1) Summary of challenges and technical conclusions associated with Southeast Leamington: Inadequate dyke structures, specifically the Hillman / East Marsh dyke and the Marentette and Lloyd Dykes adjacent to Point Pelee National Park (PPNP) Inadequate shoreline protection from Wheatley Harbour to PPNP Page 80 of 102

81 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 2 Inadequate protection of the barrier beach at Hillman Marsh Inadequate road infrastructure Municipal and residential risk and liability The total investment required to address the infrastructure inadequacies identified above were estimated to be $35 million in (DCS 01-10) See Attachment #4 for a map of the location of the primary infrastructure. (Note: this map is intentionally simplified for illustration purposes) 2) Technical conclusions for Southeast Leamington derived from the following reports: Sustainable Management Strategy for Southeast Leamington- Baird and Associates (May 2007) This study identified a number of serious concerns, such as ongoing changes to the shoreline profile, deterioration of protective dykes and drainage infrastructure, inadequate road access, and failure to meet various components of the Provincial Policy Standards for both public and private infrastructure in the study area. The study also raised the possible need for a hydraulic connection between the waters of the Hillman Marsh, and the marshes of Point Pelee National Park. The report described various alternative scenarios for possible future changes to the land uses in the area, generally concluding that the low-lying agricultural areas within the East Marsh, Marentette, and Lloyd Drainage schemes, and the shoreline residential areas adjacent to Lake Erie between Wheatley and Point Pelee National Park, (the Study Area ) were not sustainable, and that alternative land uses should be considered. East Marsh Drainage Scheme Dyke Stability Assessment- Todgham & Case Associates Inc. (September 2008) This report resulted from Council s direction to obtain an opinion from a qualified engineer with respect to the long term stability of the dyke that abuts the Hillman Marsh. This study concluded that the dyke needed to be reconstructed, and estimated the costs at $3.5M (2008). The costs would be borne by both the Municipality and the drainage scheme participants. Council received this report for information and no further action was taken. Concession Road B and C Improvements, Dillon Consulting (Nov 2008) Review of alternatives for access into the study area including the possible reconstruction of Road B or Road C in order to provide access compliant with Provincial standards. The existing elevation of the access road(s) is too low, and side slope deficiencies exist to the open drainage ditches. The report concluded that Road C could be reconstructed to meet the standard and correct the deficiencies at a cost of approximately $3.7M (2007). Page 81 of 102

82 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 3 Council received the report for information and no further action was taken. Point Pelee Peninsula Eastern Shoreline Erosion Mitigation Study (PPPESEMS), Baird and Associates (April 2010) The area where the Marentette Drainage Scheme and Point Pelee National Park (PPNP) intersect with Lake Erie was approved for study by Council. This study consisted of a geotechnical review of the Marentette Dyke and adjacent PPNP shoreline. The issues are somewhat similar to the Hillman Dyke study, although the Marentette dyke study area is larger and more complex because of the need to consider the existing shoreline area adjacent to Point Pelee. This report recommended a number of immediate measures in the area where the Marentette Drainage scheme, PPNP, Marentette Beach Rd, and Lake Erie meet. This included a shoreline flood berm, a cutoff dyke, shoreline protection upgrades and a cobble/rip rap berm in Lake Erie. These works were estimated to cost up to $5.7M (2009). The report also proposes a second phase of interior infrastructure upgrades and repairs in and around the Marentette and Lloyd Drainage schemes and Marentette Beach Road, including: shore protection upgrades, Road C upgrades, Marentette pump house upgrades, Marentette South Dyke upgrades for seepage and erosion, Road 19 / Road D bridge repair, Lloyd South Dyke upgrades for seepage and erosion. The cost of these works was estimated to total approximately $18M (2009). 3) Recent Council direction regarding Southeast Leamington In 2010, and after contemplating the magnitude issues surrounding Southeast Leamington, Council fundamentally considered two options: Option 1: maintain the status quo land uses of the Official Plan, or Option 2: support a significant change in land uses such as open space or managed wetlands. At the October 18, 2010 meeting, Council adopted Option 1 of report DCS 01/10, and among other motions, resolved through Res. C : That Council confirm its existing land use policies for the South East Leamington Study Area as contained in Leamington s Official Plan (By-law ); And that Council confirm its commitment that the study area is sustainable for continued agricultural and residential use; And that Council authorize Administration to report back with recommended, terms of reference, time lines, consultants and study cost estimates for Council approval prior to 2011 budget deliberations, for the following: 1. Engineering reports under the Drainage Act for: Page 82 of 102

83 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 4 repairs and improvements to the East Marsh Dyke, as described in the East Marsh Drainage Scheme Dyke Assessment Report (Nov 2008) repairs and protection of the Marentette Drainage Scheme as described in the PPPESEMS (April 2010) repairs and protection of the Lloyd Drainage Scheme as described in the PPPESEMS (April 2010) 2. An Environmental Assessment process for Road C improvements along the lines of the Concession Road B and C Improvements report (Nov 2008); Consistent with the direction of resolution C in 2010, on December 12, 2011, Council appointed Dillon Consulting to prepare an Engineer s Report pursuant to Section 78 of the Drainage Act, to provide for Repairs & Improvements to the East Marsh Drain. (Resolution No. C ). This drainage Engineers report was presented to Council on August 11, 2014 and the following resolution was enacted: No. C That the report provided by Dillon Consulting dated June 17th, 2013, for the preparation of a report together with the necessary plans and profile for the repairs and improvements to the East Marsh Dyke pursuant to the provisions of Section 78 of the Drainage Act be adopted; And that By-law authorizing the work be presented to Council for 1 st and 2 nd reading; And that the Clerk send by prepaid mail a copy of the By-law and Notice of the Court of Revision to each of the affected parties; And that a Court of Revision be held on the 8th day of September, 2014; And that Jerome Trudell, P.Eng., Allan Botham, P.Eng., Manager of Engineering Services and Lu-Ann Barreto, Drainage Superintendent, be appointed as Commissioners to let and superintend the said drainage works; And that all costs be charged to Account # , East Marsh Dyke Repairs; And that the Essex Region Conservation Authority be advised of the drainage works. (Report DR/6/14) The by-law was given first and second reading on August 11, the Court of Revision (COR) was held on September 15, 2014 in accordance with procedures outlined in the Drainage Act. In Leamington, the COR is made up of five (5) Members of Council and chaired by the Deputy Mayor. The COR hears concerns related to: assessments mistakenly being assessed too high or too low, lands mistakenly not assessed, and the current use of the property. (Use affects tax class and eligibility for grants) Should appellants not agree with the decision of the COR, they may appeal to the Tribunal within 21 days of the decision. Page 83 of 102

84 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 5 If all appeals have been heard and dealt with, Council may choose to give third reading and adopt the by-law. There is no mandated timeline from the expiry of the final appeal date to the requirement to hear the third and final reading. Council may then allow construction after 10 days from the third and final reading. There is no time line or statutory requirement to begin construction. There must be however, an understanding that an engineer s report has been prepared, and that the report recommends improvements to an existing, deficient dyke system that is protecting land and homes. After hearing a number of appeals, primarily relating to the appellants ability to pay for the costs of the works assessed to their lands, in addition to questions regarding why other lands were omitted from the assessment, on September 15, 2014 the COR enacted the following resolution: No. C That the Court of Revision to provide repairs to the East Marsh Dyke, Lots 19 to 21,Concessions A and B in accordance with By-law , in the Municipality of Leamington, in the County of Essex be adjourned; And that the issue of proposed work and how it will be paid for referred back to Council. There is general opposition to the East Marsh Dyke Reconstruction project from the benefitting landowners. Comment: The Court of Revision typically hears appeals related to the Assessment Schedule of Drainage Act Reports. If specific errors are identified in the assessment schedule, or if more investigation is required, the Court will direct further action. In this particular case however, the COR, after hearing the general concerns of landowners regarding the high cost of the project, elected to refer the matter back to Council. This is in spite of the fact that Council had already given the by-law first and second reading. Minutes from the September 15, 2014 Court of Revision are included as Attachment #5. In the opinion of Administration, the appeal from Peter Peter s would require a minor revision to the assessment schedule. The other matters raised, such as the high cost of the projects, are not matters within the authority of the COR. While not specifically referenced in the minutes, there was some discussion regarding obtaining a legal opinion on the risks and liabilities assumed by the Municipality of Leamington by not proceeding with the work at this time. As the Municipal Election took place on October , it was prudent to wait until the new Council was sworn-in and established before referring this matter back to Council for consideration. Council received a legal opinion dated November 19, 2015 from Courey Law Professional Corporation in closed session. Given that opinion and the fact that the action of Administration has been in line with the 2010 Council direction on the matter of Southeast Page 84 of 102

85 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 6 Leamington, Administration recommends two primary options at this time, and provides a third option that is not recommended by Administration: Option 1: Reaffirm the Council position taken on August 11, 2014 and direct the Court of Revision to deal with their mandated responsibilities. Option 2: Rescind Council Resolution C and the associated by-laws, elect to receive the report, and adopt a new resolution similar to the following: That part of resolution C to adopt the report provided by Dillon Consulting dated June 17th, 2013, for the preparation of a report together with the necessary plans and profile for the repairs and improvements to the East Marsh Dyke pursuant to the provisions of Section 78 of the Drainage Act be rescinded; And that the first and second reading of By-law authorizing the work be rescinded; And that the report provided by Dillon Consulting dated January 17th, 2013, for the preparation of a report together with the necessary plans and profile for the repairs and improvements to the East Marsh Dyke pursuant to the provisions of Section 78 of the Drainage Act be received; And that Council acknowledge that the existing land use policies for the South East Leamington Study Area as contained in Leamington s Official Plan are unsustainable due to the magnitude of costs to renew the infrastructure and the ability to pay; And that Administration be directed to examine short and long term strategies to amend the existing land uses of Southeast Leamington. If Council selects option # 2, short term steps should include the addition of a holding provision in the official plan being placed on all the lands currently deemed undevelopable due to flooding, and ingress and egress concerns. This would acknowledge that new development and significant additions to existing structures would be restricted in the designated areas. One of the first steps would be to clearly identify the boundaries and define the issues of the unique areas of the lands known as Southeast Leamington. As with any change to the Official Plan, public consultation would be required. Additionally, if option #2 is selected, long term strategies should be developed to transition the area from existing land uses to land uses deemed sustainable. An example of such a strategy could be to transition from the existing residential and agricultural land uses, to agricultural land uses only, and perhaps eventually to a managed wetland or perhaps to remain agricultural only. Once a long term strategy for the area is developed, an interim plan to manage municipal infrastructure and infrastructure built under the Drainage Act can be developed. Page 85 of 102

86 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 7 Option 3: A third option, one which is not recommended by Administration, is for Council to consider a resolution such as: That the report provided by Dillon Consulting dated January 17th, 2013, for the preparation of a report together with the necessary plans and profile for the repairs and improvements to the East Marsh Dyke pursuant to the provisions of Section 78 of the Drainage Act be received; And that Administration report back to Council when additional funding sources, such as funding from upper levels of government, are secured to offset the cost of the project. This consideration is problematic as it inhibits the development of short, medium and long term infrastructure management planning. This option leaves the area, and the residents who reside within, in a state of uncertainty, not knowing when, if ever, they will be afforded full use of their property. Currently, the Municipality refers all development approval matters to ERCA as Administration does not have the tools to deny development applications for the area. They do this knowing that ERCA will be denying the request given the state of the infrastructure and the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statements. While the municipality seeks funding under this scenario, and as has happened during the five years since the Council decision to confirm existing land uses in 2010, the infrastructure will continue to deteriorate without a practical plan for repair, rehabilitation or renewal. Proportionately, the East Marsh Dyke represented 10% of the required infrastructure works in Southeast Leamington as identified in DCS 01/10. The challenges associated with the ability to pay for improvements to the East Marsh Dyke provides great insight into the financial magnitude of this matter, and the need to establish attainable objectives for the Southeast Leamington area. Financial Impact: Approximately $242,000 has been spent on the Engineer s Report prepared by Dillon Consulting dated June 17, This project was 50% funded from the Province of Ontario through a Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) grant secured through ERCA. As a result the Municipality has carried $121,000 of the project costs which was intended to be included in the total amount billed to the benefitting landowners at the conclusion of construction. If Council selects with option #1 and construction proceeds (now or in the future), the costs will be borne by the benefitting landowners. If the project does not proceed to construction (option #2 or other), the $121,000 will be borne by the Municipality as a whole. As noted in DR/6/14, the total project costs are estimated to be $5.9 million, of which $1.5 million is direct cost to the Municipality. A detailed allocation breakdown is found within the Page 86 of 102

87 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 8 Engineer s report provided under separate cover. Costs and funding of the proposed works for the East Marsh Dyke are summarized as follows: Task Estimated Cost (excluding HST) Engineering Design and $750,000 Miscellaneous Construction Estimate & Allowances $5,154,970 Total $5,904,970 Funding Leamington Share $1,503,092 Landowner-Non Agriculture $ 502,331 Landowners- Agriculture $2,599,698 OMAF 1/3 grant $1,299,849 Total $5,904,970 As discussed earlier in this report, DCS estimated $35 million as the cost of the works to maintain the status quo land uses and to; improve the East Marsh Drainage Scheme, the Marentette Drainage Scheme, the Lloyd Drainage Scheme and to improve Road C. Additionally, the completion of these works does not necessarily mean development in the area of Southeast Leamington would be permitted by the Conservation Authority given their obligation to enforce Provincial Policy Statements. Of the $35 million identified in DCS 01-10, $10 million was direct cost to the municipality, $12.5 million was the cost to private landowners under the Drainage Act, and $12.5 million in costs would be cost shared between private property owners, the municipality, Drainage Act participants and perhaps other agencies. Given that the East Marsh Dyke improvements have been estimated to be approximately 70% higher in 2014 than the 2010 estimates, it is probable that the total cost of all works is also much higher than the $35 million estimate in Recommendation: Provided to Council for Direction to Administration. (IS-01-15) Respectfully submitted, Peter Neufeld, CAO Digitally signed by Peter Neufeld, CAO DN: cn=peter Neufeld, CAO, o, ou, =pneufeld@leamington.ca, c=ca Date: :58:36-05'00' Robert Sharon, CMO Director of Infrastructure Services Page 87 of 102

88 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 9 Attachment #1: Zones of Southeast Leamington ZONES OF SOUTHEAST LEAMINGTON Source: Baird& Associates, Sustainable Management Strategy for Southeast Leamington, 2007 Page 88 of 102

89 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 10 Attachment #2: Southeast Leamington Circa 1850 SOUTHEAST LEAMINGTON CIRCA 1850 Source: Baird& Associates, Sustainable Management Strategy for Southeast Leamington, 2007 Page 89 of 102

90 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 11 Attachment #3: Southeast Leamington 1850 with Modern Layer SOUTHEAST LEAMINGTON 1850 MAP WITH MODERN ERA LAYER Source: Baird& Associates, Sustainable Management Strategy for Southeast Leamington, 2007 Page 90 of 102

91 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 12 Attachment #4: Map Noting Location of Primary Infrastructure Page 91 of 102

92 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 13 Attachment #5: Minutes of the Court of Revision Page 92 of 102

93 IS Request for Direction Regarding East Marsh Dyke Report 14 Page 2, September 15, 2014, Court of Revision Minutes Items for Consideration: 1. East Marsh Dyke Repairs: Jerome Trudell, Dillon Consulting, provided a power point presentation on the East Marsh Dyke repairs. Mr. Trudell suggested the consolidated list of appeals be dealt with in groupings of similar reasons for appealing. In response to a question from Council, the Director of Legal and Legislative Services, Brian Sweet clarified the Court of Revision process. The Court of Revision is to hear appeals on assessment noting each property owner has the right to voice their written appeal. The Court of Revision makes a decision based on each appeal. Mr. Sweet advised a property owner who submitted an appeal to the Court of Revision and is not satisfied with the decision can appeal to the Drainage Tribunal. Mr. Trudell addressed similar appeals: Essex Region Conservation Authority should be included in the assessment. Mr. Trudell stated if the dyke was to breach Hillman Marsh would not be at risk, in fact the marsh would expand as a result of flooding. He further stated a historical analysis did not show any assessment reviews for ERCA. The dyke was built to protect internal lands from flooding. Drainage costs should not be separate from the dyke repair costs. Mr. Trudell responded the drainage costs are separate as only some of the properties will benefit from the drainage repairs. Assessment valuation of dwelling should be tied to MPAC assessment. Mr. Trudell said the reasoning for assessing a dwelling at $20,000 was to acknowledge that buildings could suffer more damage in a flood than vacant land and so those properties with houses were assessed accordingly. Deputy Mayor Wright invited those who submitted appeals to address Council: 1. Len Driedger, 1932 Mersea Road 7, submitted an appeal as he felt Essex Region Conservation Authority and Hillman Marsh properties should be included in the assessment as a flood event would affect more than the internal properties. Council asked Mr. Trudell if there were similar cases regarding conservation areas relative to dyke schemes. Mr. Trudell could not speak to the fact if there was case law to support the request to include ERCA and the Hillman Marsh in the assessment. In response to a question from the Court of Revision, Mr. Sweet stated the Court can request the engineer to further research ERCA assessment. Page 93 of 102