council report cs 2015-16

AGENDA

COUNTY OF OXFORD

COUNCIL MEETING

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015 9:30 A.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBER, OXFORD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, WOODSTOCK

MEETING #15

County of Oxford ~ eAgenda Application Version 0.3.0 Agenda Version 1, Addition to Agenda►

1. CALL TO ORDER Time ______

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

3. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

4. ADOPTION OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

April 22 2015

5. PUBLIC MEETINGS

6. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Dylan WettlauferResident of Woodstock

Re: Global Act of Mother NatureDylan Wettlaufer Presentation

7. CONSIDERATION OF DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Resolution

That the information provided in the delegation by Dylan Wettlaufer, regarding the GlobalAct of Mother Nature, be received.

8. CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE

1. Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) CommunicationsApril 17, 2015

Re: AMO Policy Update - What Happened in Waste this WeekAMO 041715

Resolution

Link to resolution

COUNCIL AGENDAMAY 13, 2015


2. County of PeterboroughApril 14, 2015

Re: Ontario Imagery StrategyPeterborough 041415

Resolution

Whereas the County of Oxford has realized value from 2006, 2010, and 2015 aerialimagery projects collected under the leadership of Land Information Ontario (LIO), aprogram of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF);

Therefore be it resolved that the Warden write the Premier of Ontario and the Minister ofNatural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to express the County's support for a continuedand regular imagery update cycle by the Province beyond 2017.

3. SouthWestern Integrated Fibre Technology (SWIFT)May 1, 2015

Re: Request for Interim PaymentSWIFT 050115

Resolution

That the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to release $20,000 to the WesternOntario Wardens Caucus (WOWC) for the continued planning and development activitiesfor the SWIFT Project as outlined in the May 1, 2015 letter from the WOWC Chair and asincluded within the 2015 approved Budget.

4. Township of South-West OxfordMay 7, 2015

Re: Endorsement of ROEDC's Comments on OMAFRA's new "Draft Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas"

SWOX 050715

Resolution

That the correspondence from the Township of South-West Oxford, dated May 7, 2015,advising of the Township's endorsement of the Rural Oxford Economic DevelopmentCorporation's (ROEDC) comments on the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs'(OMAFRA) new "Draft Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime AgriculturalAreas", be received as information.

9. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENTS

COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

CASPO 2015-98Re: Review of Draft Provincial Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Prime Agricultural Areas and Minimum Distance Separation Formulae

Recommendation

1. That the Director of Community and Strategic Planning provide the County of Oxford’s formal submission to the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs in response to the Provincial consultation on the Draft “Minimum Distance Separation Formulae” and “Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas” respectively, as outlined in Report No. CASPO 2015-98.



CASPO 2015-105Re: Request for Connection to the Bright Water System (886280 Oxford Road 8 – Blandford-Blenheim Township)

Recommendations

1. That County Council approve the request by David and Kim Piggott to connect lands described as Part Lot 1, Concession 10 (Blandford), in the Township of Blandford-Blenheim, located on the south side of Oxford Road 8, west of Cuthbertson Street and known municipally as 886280 Oxford Road 8, to the Bright Water System.

2. And further, that County Council approve a grant for the Community Servicing Assistance Plan in the amount of approximately $2,700.

CORPORATE SERVICES

CS 2015-16Re: 2014 Audited Financial Statements Auditor Presentation

Recommendations

1. That the Oxford County Consolidated Financial Statements and the County of Oxford Trust Funds Statements for the year ended December 31, 2014 be accepted;

2. And further, that the Auditor’s letter of independence for the year ended December 31, 2014 be received;

3. And further, that the Treasurer coordinate improvements to address items identified in the Auditor’s 2014 Management Letter, dated May 13, 2015.

CS 2015-18Re: Oxford County Shared Municipal Network Consultant Presentation Service Review

Recommendation

1. That County Council approve the repatriation of the Oxford County shared municipal network and associated services as outlined in Report No. CS 2015-18 and supported by the report prepared by InfoTech Research Group entitled “Analysis of the Shared Municipal Network’s O&M Services”, dated May 13, 2015.



CS 2015-17Re: Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project and Various Other Servicing Projects - Internal Long-term Debt Issue

Recommendation

1. That By-law No. 5695-2015, being a by-law to authorize the borrowing of funds in the amount of $355,643 from the Landfill Reserve Fund to be used for the purposes of financing serviced property owners’ charges for capital costs relating to sewage and water services through the following projects, be presented to Council for enactment; a. Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project; b. Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road 59, Township of Norwich Project; c. Ingersoll – Wellington, Caffyn, Cross, Thames, Kirwin, Pine, Holcroft and Clark Road Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project; d. Woodstock – Devonshire Avenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and Water Services Project; e. Woodstock – Frederick Street Sewage Collection System Project; and f. Thamesford Sanitary Collection Project.

HUMAN SERVICES

HS 2015-03Re: Sale of Surplus Land and Assets to Support a Housing First Policy

Recommendation

1. That County Council hereby directs staff to develop a housing first policy for Council’s consideration that supports affordable housing development in the County of Oxford by reinvesting proceeds from sales of County-owned land and assets.

HS 2015-04Re: Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement - 30 Balsam Street, Innerkip

Recommendations

1. That Council authorize a $688,000 contribution to the proposed affordable housing renewal project located at 30 Balsam Street, Innerkip, to be financed from the Housing Reserve;

2. And further, that the Director of Human Services and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to execute all documents necessary to enter into a Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement with Innerkip Seniors Apartments Incorporated regarding the proposed 30 Balsam Street project.



HS 2015-05Re: Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement - 31 Maple Lane, Tillsonburg

Recommendations

1. That County Council authorize the Service Manager consent to remortgage 53 Queen Street, Tillsonburg which will finance an expansion project at 31 Maple Lane, Tillsonburg;

2. And further, that the Director of Human Services and the CAO be authorized to sign a Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement with the Town of Tillsonburg Non Profit Housing Corporation for the creation of 12 new seniors affordable rental housing units located at 31 Maple Lane, Tillsonburg.

PUBLIC WORKS

PW 2015-23Re: Ingersoll Wastewater System – Additional Capital Expenditure

Recommendations

1. That County Council authorize Public Works to proceed with the sanitary sewer installation project on Mutual Street and Park Avenue as requested by the Town of Ingersoll;

2. And further, that as the tendered costs exceed the amount budgeted in 2015 Capital Budget, the additional expenditure of $75,000 be funded from the benefiting property owners and the Community Servicing Assistance Plan (CSAP) reserve.

PW 2015-20Re: Bale Wrap Program at Oxford County Waste Management Facility

Recommendations

1. That County Council approve the expenditure of $2,500 for the disposal by Switch Energy Corp. of approximately 15 tonnes of bale wrap material currently stored at the Oxford County Waste Management Facility;

2. And further, that starting September 1, 2015, the Oxford County Waste Management Facility discontinue receiving bale wrap material and Oxford County Waste Management Staff direct producers of the material to Switch Energy Corp.for pick up directly from the generator.

10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Pending Items

11. MOTIONS

12. NOTICE OF MOTIONS

13. NEW BUSINESS/ENQUIRIES/COMMENTS



14. CLOSED SESSION (Room 129)

Resolution Time ______

That Council rise and go into a Closed session for the purpose of considering Reports No.PW (CS) 2015-21 and No. CS (CS) 2015-19 regarding matters that have not been madepublic concerning a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land and personalmatters about identifiable individuals.

Resolution Time ______

That Council rise and reconvene in Open session.

15. CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS ARISING FROM THE CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC WORKS

PW (CS) 2015-21

CORPORATE SERVICES

CS (CS) 2015-19

16. BY-LAWS

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015Being a By-law to authorize borrowed funds from the LandfillReserve Fund in the amount of $355,643, to be used for thepurposes of financing property owners’ charge for capital costsrelated to sanitary sewer and water services provided under theWoodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project;Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road59, Township of Norwich Project; Wellington, Caffyn, Cross,Thames, Kirwin, Pine, Holcroft and Clark Road Ingersoll SanitarySewer and Watermain Extension Project; Woodstock – DevonshireAvenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and Water ServicesProject; and Thamesford Wastewater System Project (the“Projects”).

BY-LAW NO. 5696-2015Being a By-law to authorize the Chief Administrative Officer toexecute contract documents between the County of Oxford andPermanent Paving Ltd. for 2015 and 2016 road resurfacing work.

BY-LAW NO. 5697-2015Being a By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of the Councilof the County of Oxford at the meeting at which this By-law ispassed.

17. ADJOURNMENT Time ______

NOTE: There will be a Mandatory Connections Workshop - Unserviced Properties in Serviced Areas - following the Council meeting in Room 129.

MINUTES

OF THE

COUNCIL OF THE

COUNTY OF OXFORD

County Council Chamber Woodstock April 22, 2015

MEETING #14 Oxford County Council meets in regular session this twenty-second day of April 2015, in the Council Chamber, County Administration Building, Woodstock. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., with Warden Mayberry in the chair. All members of Council present except Councillor Molnar. Staff Present: P. M. Crockett, Chief Administrative Officer L. Beath, Director of Public Health and Emergency Services P. D. Beaton, Director of Human Services L. S. Buchner, Director of Corporate Services C. Fransen, Director of Woodingford Lodge G. K. Hough, Director of Community and Strategic Planning A. Smith, Director of Human Resources R. G. Walton, Director of Public Works B. J. Tabor, Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: RESOLUTION NO. 1: Moved by: Marion Wearn Seconded by: Larry Martin That the Agenda be approved as amended by adding a By-law authorizing the execution of documents regarding the Independent Electricity System Operator Feed-In Tariff Program for a FIT project under repurposed By-law No. 5693-2015 and by renumbering the confirming By-law to No. 5694-2015. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried 3. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: NIL 4. ADOPTION OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: Council Minutes of April 8, 2015

April 22, 2015 RESOLUTION NO. 2: Moved by: Ted Comiskey Seconded by: Margaret Lupton That the Council Minutes of April 8, 2015 be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried 5. PUBLIC MEETINGS: RESOLUTION NO. 3: Moved by: Ted Comiskey Seconded by: Margaret Lupton That Council rise and go into a public meeting pursuant to Section 17(15) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, to consider an application for Official Plan Amendment for Application No. OP 14-03-1, and pursuant to Section 51(20) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, to consider an application for revisions to draft plan of subdivision, and that the Warden chair the public meeting. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried (7:02 p.m.) 1. Application for Official Plan Amendment

1578651 Ontario Limited - OP 14-03-1 to redesignate a portion of the subject lands from 'Service Commercial' to 'Low Density Residential' Application for Modifications to Draft Plan of Subdivision 1578651 Ontario Limited - 32T-01004 - subject lands are described as Part Lot 17, Concession 13 (Blenheim), Lots 3 & 6, Registered Plan 41R-6442 and Block 78, Registered Plan 41M-141, in the Township of Blandford-Blenheim - located on the northwest corner of Oxford Road 8 (Albert Street East) and Hofstetter Road and are municipally known as 926807 Oxford Road 8, in the Village of Plattsville

The Chair asks G. Hough, Director of Community and Strategic Planning, to come forward to present the applications. G. Hough summarizes Official Plan Amendment Application OP 14-03-1 and the application for modifications to Draft Plan of Subdivision as are contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-67. The Chair opens the meeting to questions from members of Council. There are none. The Chair asks if anyone on behalf of the developer wishes to speak. Brandon Flewwelling, Associate – Senior Planner, GSP Group Inc., comes forward and states that he is here as the planning consultant on behalf of the developers who are in the audience tonight, being John Zimmer and Greg Voisin, 1578651 Ontario Limited. B. Flewwelling states that they are in complete agreement with the staff report and comments briefly on the applications, also stating that he is here to answer any questions. The Chair opens the meeting to questions from members of Council. There are none. The Chair asks if there are any members of the public wishing to speak in favour of the applications. No one indicates such intent. The Chair asks if there are any members of the public wishing to speak against the application. Dylan Wettlaufer, a resident of Woodstock, comes forward and questions why they are not building up instead of out and later questions housing affordability. B. Flewwelling, G. Hough and Warden Mayberry respond as to the range of housing proposed in this particular development.

April 22, 2015 Dave Mandic, a resident of Plattsville, comes forward and questions what type of townhouses will be built whether upscale or lower income. B. Flewwelling responds as to the size and compatibility of the proposed townhouses to the existing neighbourhood. Councillor Wearn comments that the concerns of the Council of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim have been addressed and they are in favour of this development. RESOLUTION NO. 4: Moved by: Larry Martin Seconded by: Marion Wearn That Council adjourn the public meeting and reconvene as Oxford County Council with the Warden in the chair. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried (7:13 p.m.) CASPO 2015-67 Re: Applications for Official Plan Amendment and Modifications to Draft Plan of Subdivision OP 14-03-1; 32T-01004: 1578651 Ontario Limited RESOLUTION NO. 5: Moved by: Larry Martin Seconded by: Marion Wearn That the recommendations contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-67, titled “Applications for Official Plan Amendment and Modifications to Draft Plan of Subdivision OP 14-03-1; 32T-01004: 1578651 Ontario Limited”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendations Contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-67: 1. That Oxford County Council approve the application submitted by 1578651 Ontario Ltd. To redesignate a portion of the subject lands from ‘Service Commercial’ to ‘Low Density Residential’ for lands described as Part Lot 17, Concession 13 (Blenheim), Part of Lots 3 & 6, Registered Plan 41R-6442 and Part of Block 78, Registered Plan 41M-141, Township of Blandford-Blenheim, and that Council approve the attached Amendment No. 185 to the County Official Plan and raise the necessary implementing by-law; and further, 2. That Oxford County Council approve revisions to draft plan of subdivision (Application File No. 32T-01004) by 1578651 Ontario Ltd. to modify the plan to include 40 lots for single- detached dwellings and 6 blocks for street-fronting townhouse units (totaling 24 units), all served by two public streets, on lands described as Part Lot 17, Concession 13 (Blenheim), Lots 3 & 6, Registered Plan 41R-6442 and Block 78, Registered Plan 41M-141 in the Township of Blandford-Blenheim. RESOLUTION NO. 6: Moved by: Larry Martin Seconded by: Marion Wearn That Council rise and go into a public meeting pursuant to Section 17(15) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, to consider an application for Official Plan Amendment for Application No. OP 15-02-7, and that the Warden chair the public meeting. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried (7:16 p.m.)

April 22, 2015 2. Application for Official Plan Amendment

Tilson Property Investments - OP 15-02-7 to establish a special development policy to permit a call centre and accessory office space - subject lands are described as Parts 3 & 4 of Reference Plan 41R-1742 and Part Lot 1638, Plan 500, in the Town of Tillsonburg - located on the south side of Townline Road between Vienna Road and Cedar Street, municipally known as 25 Townline Road

The Chair asks G. Hough, Director of Community and Strategic Planning, to come forward to present the application. G. Hough summarizes Official Plan Amendment Application OP 15-02-7 as is contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-87. The Chair opens the meeting to questions from members of Council. There are none. The Chair asks if anyone on behalf of the proponent wishes to speak. Shane Curtis, the agent for the owner, Tilson Property Investments, is in the audience and indicates he is willing to address questions. The Chair asks if there are any members of the public wishing to speak for or against the application. No one indicates such intent. RESOLUTION NO. 7: Moved by: Larry Martin Seconded by: Marion Wearn That Council adjourn the public meeting and reconvene as Oxford County Council with the Warden in the chair. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried (7:19 p.m.) CASPO 2015-87 Re: Application for Official Plan Amendment OP 15-02-7: Tilson Property Investments RESOLUTION NO. 8: Moved by: Margaret Lupton Seconded by: Ted Comiskey That the recommendation contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-87, titled “Application for Official Plan Amendment OP 15-02-7: Tilson Property Investments”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-87: 1. That County Council approve the application submitted by Tilson Property Investments (File No. OP 15-02-7) to establish a special development policy to permit a call centre and accessory office space, for lands located at 25 Townline Road, in the Town of Tillsonburg and that Council approve the attached Amendment No. 189 to the County of Oxford Official Plan and raise the necessary implementing by-law. 6. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: 1. Amy Matheson, Communications/Administrator,

Oxford County Federation of Agriculture (OCFA) Joe Wilson, President, OCFA

Re: 2015 Agricultural Hall of Fame Award Presentation to James (Jim) Magee

April 22, 2015 Warden Mayberry asks Amy Matheson, Communications/Administrator, and Joe Wilson, President, Oxford County Federation of Agriculture, to come forward to make the presentation regarding the 2015 Agricultural Hall of Fame inductee. He also asks Jim Magee, the 2015 Award recipient, to come forward. Amy Matheson, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture, thanks Council for having them here tonight and speaks of the appropriateness of it being Earth Day. She states that the inductee into the 2015 Agricultural Hall of Fame has had a lifelong commitment to conservation, sustainable agriculture, water usage, and animal care so it is very fitting that today is Earth Day. She states that the Agricultural Hall of Fame recognizes an Oxford County individual who has demonstrated outstanding community service inside and beyond the agricultural community. It’s a true honour that represents so much more than just a single achievement or a series of job-related accomplishments. They are very proud that photos of all previous recipients are housed here in the County of Oxford building. A. Matheson comments that it is a very fitting place and a lovely display to honour the recipients in perpetuity. Amy Matheson introduces the 2015 inductee, Jim Magee. Mr. Magee is a long term Oxford County Federation of Agriculture Director and a person who is in tune with nature and the environment. On behalf of the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture she thanks the County for its continued support of the Hall of Fame. She presents a photograph of Jim Magee and asks Warden Mayberry to officially induct Mr. Magee into the Hall of Fame. Jim Magee speaks to receipt of the Award and states that he is not shy with regard to speaking out regarding agriculture in general and the cattle industry in particular. He states that he feels very honoured to be the recipient of the Award along with past inductees. J. Magee comments that agriculture has never been so under attack as it is today and he challenges young people to get out and get involved in speaking out for agriculture to the public who are so far removed from the farm and are very susceptible to misinformation. Warden Mayberry thanks J. Magee, A. Matheson and J. Wilson for their attendance tonight and states that the inductee’s photo will certainly be hung in the Hall of Fame. He states that anyone who knows agriculture in Oxford and certainly in the beef industry has heard of Jim Magee. Warden Mayberry comments that J. Magee is a man of community and sees his community and the beef industry as being much broader than his own farm. He expresses, on behalf of Oxford County, that he is grateful for J. Magee’s contributions to the community and to his industry and states that he is deserving of the Award. 7. CONSIDERATION OF DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: Not Required. 8. CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE: 1. Ross McElroy, DDS MD CCFP

Retired Woodstock GP/FP April 7, 2015

Re: Physician Recruitment RESOLUTION NO. 9: Moved by: Margaret Lupton Seconded by: Ted Comiskey That the correspondence from Ross McElroy, retired Woodstock General Practitioner/Family Practitioner, be received with acknowledgment that the correspondence was previously forwarded to the Physician Recruitment Committee. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried

April 22, 2015 2. Chief R. K. Joe Miskokomon

Chippewas of the Thames First Nation April 13, 2015

Re: Southwestern Landfill – Request for Cancellation RESOLUTION NO. 10: Moved by: Sandra Talbot Seconded by: Ted Comiskey That the correspondence from Chief R. K. Joe Miskokomon, dated April 13, 2015, requesting a moratorium on the Southwestern Landfill, be received and that the Warden be authorized to send a letter to the Premier, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs indicating that the correspondence illustrates further reason why Walker Environmental's Terms of Reference for the Southwestern Landfill Proposal is inadequate and should be denied approval by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried 9. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENTS: COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING CASPO 2015-67 Re: Applications for Official Plan Amendment and Modifications to Draft Plan of Subdivision OP 14-03-1; 32T-01004: 1578651 Ontario Limited Report dealt with under Public Meetings. CASPO 2015-87 Re: Application for Official Plan Amendment OP 15-02-7: Tilson Property Investments Report dealt with under Public Meetings. HUMAN RESOURCES HR 2015-01 Re: Succession Planning and Leadership Development Toolkit and Competency Framework Handbook With the motion on the floor and prior to discussion, A. Smith, Director of Human Resources, addresses Council on the Report by use of a PowerPoint presentation. RESOLUTION NO.11: Moved by: Sandra Talbot Seconded by: Ted Comiskey That the recommendation contained in Report No. HR 2015-01, titled “Succession Planning and Leadership Development Toolkit and Competency Framework Handbook”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. HR 2015-01: 1. That Council receive report HR 2015-01 entitled “Succession Planning and Leadership Development Toolkit and Competency Framework Handbook” as information.

April 22, 2015 PUBLIC WORKS PW 2015-16 Re: 2014 Water System Performance Update RESOLUTION NO. 12: Moved by: Deborah Tait Seconded by: Trevor Birtch That the recommendation contained in Report No. PW 2015-16, titled “2014 Water System Performance Update”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. PW 2015-16: 1. That County Council receive the Public Works report PW 2015-16 summarizing the findings of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Inspection Reports for the Bright, Drumbo-Princeton and Woodstock Drinking Water Systems. PW 2015-17 Re: Water Efficiency Plan – Low Flow Fixture Rebate Program RESOLUTION NO. 13: Moved by: Deborah Tait Seconded by: Trevor Birtch That the recommendation contained in Report No. PW 2015-17, titled “Water Efficiency Plan – Low Flow Fixture Rebate Program”, be deferred for further staff consideration and a Report be brought to the next meeting. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. PW 2015-17: 1. That County Council approve implementation of the Low Flow Fixture Rebate Program as part of the Water Efficiency Plan for Oxford County water and wastewater residential customers. PW 2015-18 Re: 2015 and 2016 Road Resurfacing Contract RESOLUTION NO. 14: Moved by: Trevor Birtch Seconded by: Deborah Tait That the recommendations contained in Report No. PW 2015-18, titled “2015 and 2016 Road Resurfacing Contract”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried

April 22, 2015 Recommendations Contained in Report No. 2015-18: 1. That County Council award a contract to the low bidder, Permanent Paving Ltd., in the amount of $8,890,000.00 plus HST, for the 2015 and 2016 Road Resurfacing work; 2. And further, that a By-law be raised authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to sign all documents related thereto. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Pending Items No discussion takes place regarding the Pending Items list. 11. MOTIONS: NIL 12. NOTICE OF MOTIONS: NIL 13. NEW BUSINESS/ENQUIRIES/COMMENTS: Councillor McKay requests that the correspondence received from AMO, titled “What Happened in Waste this Week”, be brought forward to the next meeting with perhaps some staff comment. P. Crockett, CAO, states that the correspondence will be on the Agenda for the next meeting. 14. CLOSED SESSION: NIL 15. CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS ARISING FROM THE CLOSED SESSION: Not Required. 16. BY-LAWS: BY-LAW NO. 5691-2015 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment Number 185 to the County of Oxford Official Plan. BY-LAW NO. 5692-2015 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment Number 189 to the County of Oxford Official Plan. BY-LAW NO. 5693-2015 Being a By-law to authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to execute all documents necessary to participate in the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Feed-In Tariff Program for a FIT project. BY-LAW NO. 5694-2015 Being a By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Oxford at the meeting at which this By-law is passed.

April 22, 2015 RESOLUTION NO. 15: Moved by: Don McKay Seconded by: Marion Wearn That the following By-laws be now read a first and second time: No. 5691-2015, No. 5692-2015, No. 5693-2015 and No. 5694-2015. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried RESOLUTION NO. 16: Moved by: Don McKay Seconded by: Marion Wearn That the following By-laws be now given third and final reading: No. 5691-2015, No. 5692-2015, No. 5693-2015 and No. 5694-2015. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried 17. ADJOURNMENT: Council adjourns its proceedings until the next meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. 8:00 p.m. Minutes adopted on by Resolution No.

WARDEN

CLERK

Speech #2. Oxford County Council.

May 5th. 2015

Good morning Oxford County council, guests, and citizens. Some of you may not know me; my name is Dylan Jeffrey John Wettlaufer I am one of the founders of OYFSF – (Oxford Youth For sustainable futures) we are a small organization that has just recently formed. We have committed individuals, a key slogan of ours is: “how young and how old children can be” that quote came from my favourite author orson scott card. We are a sustainable organization looking out for the futures of members of the human race. We share common goals and beliefs about a better tomorrow. We will be taking care of the sick, and helping the poor we support things like the Earth-ship (a sustainable off-grid housing system) green energies, local farming and much more.

I am 18 years, old and turn 19 on the 24th of May. My Wettlaufer grandparents were born right here in Canada in the midst of the 20th century. My other grandparents were both born in Europe around the time of the 2nd world war who moved to Canada shortly after birth.

I’m going to take some moments to honour the soldiers, fallen & fighting for a peaceful, sustainable, relevant world. (10 mississipi’s & bow head)

It was not long before my parents were born. Then eventually a couple of my siblings; and then myself & later my youngest sibling. I have realized how amazing it is to be a part of this world, and apart of life. Thousands of living things if not tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands possibly even millions of living organisms have died along my journey to evolve to who & what I am today. It is very possible that the human species evolved from a chimp, and that chimp possibly evolved from a fish or even a snail. It is very important to stay open minded. As a human I have to accept the fact that I can change every-day; I have evolved from a child, to a teenager to a young man. We as humans are always changing. It was just yesterday that I shaved and I already have new whiskers. Or 11 months ago when I cut my hair, and it’s….grown quite a bit. Or 3 weeks ago that I cut my nails.

Regardless to say if we look back in history before we were “human” we were:

Homo-nean-derthal-ensis’s. We have only considered ourselves Homo-sapiens or “human” for the last 100,000 years or so. I believe that we are in our final phases of being “homo sapiens” or humans. I believe that we are about to plateau, and realize that thousands of years of wars will be resolved in a short period of realization that we all share a common goal.

Together we can Change for peace. Change for Love, Change for belonging.

This morning I want to touch base on three large projects our county has been working on and or working towards. 1. LED city lighting. 2. Our local dump & recycling program, and 3. Protecting our farmland.

I have noticed new LED lights around the county cities including Ingersoll and Woodstock. The city of Woodstock will be saving five to six hundred thousand dollars (5-600,000$) a year on energy once all of the new LED lights are installed. This is stupendous ;). Approximately 5 years into the LED’s life & the investment will be paid off. 5 years after that the city should have saved about three million

$ (3,000,000$) on energy. Now what can we do with this three million dollars (3,000,000$) ? That is completely up to you! But that being said, I Dylan, a concerned citizen, environmentalists, & sustainabilist have a few ideas in mind; but first let me give you the urban dictionary definition for sustainabilist: “A Sustainabilist is someone who rejects as false the premise that the future cannot be as good or plentiful as the past or present. They value the future and are ready to fight for options that help society continue thriving while maintaining environmental wellbeing and social justice. In short, they are the greatest Champions the Earth has ever seen.”

One thing I would enjoy seeing our community of oxford do together; is being sustainable.

A 1.5 megawatt (megawatt) one million five-hundred thousand watt (1,500,000W) wind turbine costs roughly three to four million dollars (3-4,000,000$) We can store this energy with tesla battery’s. A 10(kilo-watt)KW battery costs roughly 3,000$ three thousand dollars. And holds 10,000 Watts. 1,500 of these and there would be enough battery storage for all the energy the turbine produces! Roughly… I say roughly because Mother Nature controls the breeze. One year it might be 1,600,000W produced and the next 1,400,000W produced. That’s enough math for one day.

Other options the County can look into for alternate green energy sources are Solar &Geo thermal. It is good to be different. I say this because communities closer to the super-massive volcanoes near Yellowknife might get the best usage out of geothermal energies.

Oxford County is just a single county, 1 of 64 from southern Ontario actually. We are like children in the class room; and right now the other children are looking for a specific child to lead. That county can be us: Oxford County.

I’m certain my grandparents would be very impressed with our recycling program out at Salford. How we can convert so much waste into new products again. My parents made this. Now it’s my turn to reflect on what my parents made for my grandparents. Seeing what we have accomplished is astonishing, knowing what we can accomplish is warming. The Salford dump has something like 30 years of life left, I believe by working together, with our recycling program and the people from oxford county we can triple that number to nearly 90 years, How can we do this one might ask? Well we can start by employing more recycling plant workers. There’s a single worker at the recycling plant in Salford. 1, the population of Oxford County is greater than 100,000 people. How can we only have 1 recycling plant worker for every 100,000 people? To extend the life of the dump we can start by expanding our recycling programs, and be more thorough when recycling. It starts at the individual level. Then the municipal. Perhaps a find should be given to those caught throwing recycling into the garbage? Things like Tim Horton’s cups sadly cannot be recycled. It would then need to become a provincial manner. The amount of Tim Horton’s cups my parents go through is disgusting; hundreds a year. I want to change this. I want big corporations like Tim Horton’s, Wendy’s, burger king etc. To make all of their products recyclable. This will be huge, this will be progress, and this will be giant leaps for human kind.”

Lastly in the last half-century the people of oxford have slowly been drifting away from local farms. It is very hard to stay positive in this section, seeing as many local farmers have been bought out by giant corporations. Driving down High way 2. (Dundas) Biking actually, a couple of weeks ago when I biked to my boss’s house in beach Ville (Greg smith) who is a local business owner to talk about my

future as an employee and the future of the county of oxford. I passed by a quarantined chicken farm, these guys were wearing hazardous suits, something really serious was going on. We need to get back to the old ways. The ways my grandparents were brought up in being independent and growing their own food, we need more local farmers, and less big corporations that spend their money outside the county. Greg and I talked about life in general. Greg was very concerned with the location of the proposed walker dump. Greg so determined that walker dumps would get their way (as usual) he sold his house!!! I completely understand; as I would do the same. The air quality would be horrific. Health should always come first. Also the county should take note that small business owners like himself will be taking his tax dollars elsewhere.

"A world of endless possibilities and infinite outcomes. Countless choices define our fate, each choice, each moment a ripple in the river of time. For enough ripples and you change the tide; for the future is never truly set."

http://site.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/downloads/GEA14954C15-MW-Broch.pdf

http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html

https://www.google.ca/search?q=how+much+are+giant+wind+turbines&rlz=1C1ASUT_en-GBCA483CA484&oq=how+much+are+giant+wind+turbines&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.4629j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8



http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html

From: AMO Communications [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April-17-15 3:49 PM To: Brenda Tabor Subject: AMO Policy Update - What Happened in Waste this Week

April 17, 2015

What Happened in Waste this Week

Municipal Discussion Paper:

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the City of Toronto, the Regional Public Works

Commissioners of Ontario (RPWCO), and the Municipal Waste Association (MWA) worked together on a

Municipal Discussion Paper:

New Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Framework Legislation - Letter and Paper

for Minister Glen Murray’s consideration as a new provincial legislative framework for waste reduction is being

developed.

The submitted paper outlines the municipal critical needs and interests the new framework needs to address

including:

minimizing the environmental impacts of waste

preserving limited disposal capacity

ensuring fair compensation for municipalities for services provided as well as any assets and associated

costs that are stranded as a new system is implemented.

2015 Municipal Blue Box Program Payments:

AMO and the City of Toronto have been working with Stewardship Ontario (SO) and Waste Diversion Ontario

(WDO) at the MIPC table to determine the 2015 Steward Obligation for the 2015 municipal payments for the 2013

Blue Box program. As you are aware, the 2014 Steward Obligation was decided by arbitration and municipalities

were awarded 50% of reported net costs. AMO/City of Toronto have requested that WDO should use the

methodology the Arbitrator, Mr. Armstrong, based his decision on for the 2015 and all future Steward Obligations

until new waste recovery legislation is implemented. He ruled that the reported net costs as determined through the

annual WDO Datacall and verification process pass the test of reasonableness and is sensible, thorough, and reliable.

Not surprisingly, SO does not agree with following this recommended methodology for 2015 and has a different

interpretation of Mr. Armstrong’s decision.

AMO/City of Toronto and SO presented their respective positions separately to the WDO Board of Directors on

April 16th. We are now awaiting a decision by the WDO Board on how to proceed to determine the 2015 Steward

Obligation. Further, AMO/City of Toronto requested WDO consider interim 2015 payments for municipalities until

the Steward Obligation is determined as the first quarterly installments are due to municipalities in June.

We will continue to provide you with updates as this important issue moves forward.

Municipal Council Resolutions on Producer Responsibility:

We understand that some municipal leaders have been approached by organizations asking Councils to support

resolutions regarding full producer responsibility. As noted above, the municipal sector has just sent a discussion

paper to the Minister on this topic.

If individual municipal governments want to put forward resolutions in support of full producer responsibility and

the development of a new Provincial legislative framework for waste recovery, we have attached a sample resolution

for your consideration:

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-PDFs/Reports/2015/MOECC-LTR-New-Waste-Reduction-and-Resource-Recover.aspx

Draft waste diversion motion:

"Whereas municipalities have no control over the form of municipal solid waste that is generated from packing and

products that enter their jurisdiction;

Whereas municipal taxpayers bear more than 50% of the cost of waste disposal and recycling of packaging and

printed paper in the waste stream, which products are increasingly complex, multi-material and expensive to recycle,

reclaim or dispose of;

Whereas the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change has committed to replacing the current waste

diversion legislation, but has not yet introduced replacement legislation to the legislature;

Whereas producer responsibility provides that producers be responsible for 100% of the costs of certain designated

wastes for full cost of end-of-life management for such products and packaging;

Whereas municipalities should not have to bear the cost of managing the disposal of these materials;

Whereas waste is a valuable resource;

Whereas producer responsibility would provide considerable savings to ________________ residents and grow the

local economy as producers innovate to reduce waste, develop more easily recyclable packaging and work with

municipalities on better ways to collect and process it;

Whereas increased recycling and reclamation could add 13,000 good, high-quality jobs in Ontario and contribute

more than $1.5 billion every year to Ontario’s economy;

Therefore be it resolved that the Municipality of ____________ calls on the Ontario Government to introduce

legislation to replace the Waste Diversion Act with a system based on full Producer Responsibility, ensuring that

producers are responsible for 100% of the end-of-life costs of designated waste, and that producers need to work

with the municipal sector on those Producer Responsibility programs that affect the municipal integrated waste

management system so that municipalities are fairly compensated for services provided to manage designated waste

that enters the municipal system."

AMO Contact: Dave Gordon, Senior Advisor, Waste Diversion, E-mail: [email protected], 416.971.9856 ext.

371.

PLEASE NOTE: AMO Breaking News will be broadcast to the member municipality’s council, administrator, and clerk. Recipients of the AMO broadcasts are free to redistribute the AMO broadcasts to other municipal staff as required. We have decided to not add other staff to these broadcast lists in order to ensure accuracy and efficiency in the management of our various broadcast lists.

DISCLAIMER: Any documents attached are final versions. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with this electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official record.

OPT-OUT: If you wish to opt-out of these email communications from AMO please click here.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]?subject=I%20wish%20to%20Opt%20Out%20of%20AMO%20Breaking%20News%20mailing%20list.

Whereas the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change has committed to replacing the current waste diversion legislation, but has not yet introduced replacement legislation to the legislature;

And whereas solid waste is generated by industrial, commercial, institutional, agriculture, agricultural and recreational etc. businesses, residents and visitors across the Province of Ontario;

And whereas the activities of all businesses in the Province of Ontario contribute approximately 60% to the total waste volumes generated and are governed by solid waste reduction and diversion legislation as regulated by the Province of Ontario;

And whereas municipalities across the Province of Ontario are delegated solid waste management responsibilities, regulated by the Province of Ontario, whereby:

municipalities have no control over the form of municipal solid waste that is generated from packaging and products that enter their jurisdiction;

presently municipal taxpayers, should not but unfairly do, bear more than 50% of the cost of waste disposal and recycling of packaging and printed paper in the waste stream, and which products are increasingly complex, multi-material, potentially toxic and expensive to recycle, reclaim or dispose of;

And whereas producer responsibility:

provides that producers be responsible for 100% of the costs of certain designated wastes for full cost of end-of-life management for such products and packaging;

would provide considerable savings to municipal taxpayers across the Province of Ontario;

is expected to grow local economies as producers innovate to reduce waste, develop more easily recyclable packaging and work with municipalities on better ways to collect and process it;

And whereas solid waste generation must first and foremost be reduced;

And whereas solid waste that is generated can be a valuable resource with increased recycling, reclamation and reuse estimated to be capable of generating 13,000 good, high-quality jobs in Ontario and contributing more than $1.5 billion every year to Ontario’s economy;

And whereas the Oxford community is developing its vision of community sustainability and the associated waste management goals, actions and targets as part of that plan will focus on the reduction of waste disposal demand in Oxford County;

And whereas Walker Environmental’s Southwestern Ontario Landfill proposal to locate a large scale landfill operation within the Oxford community that:

is arguably intended to meet future solid waste disposal demands across Ontario;

requires Oxford residents and businesses to locally shoulder the burden of increased risks to environment, health and safety and overall well-being associated with delivery of this provincially-targeted waste disposal facility;

would likely be avoidable if the Province of Ontario took meaningful action to substantively reduce waste generation and disposal rates in Ontario through effective waste reduction and enhanced waste diversion requirements on all sectors;

Therefore be it resolved that the Warden write the Minister of Environment and Climate Change requesting the Waste Diversion Act be replaced with legislation that creates a system that:

first and foremost takes definitive and meaningful action to reduce solid waste generation and disposal rates through effective waste reduction and enhanced waste diversion requirements across all sectors of the Province of Ontario;

fully supports and facilitates a community’s systematic approach to the reduction of waste disposal demand in that community;

establishes, retroactively, a definitive community needs assessment and acceptance requirement for any proposed landfill site prior to initiation of any Environmental Assessment for such a facility;

is based on full Producer Responsibility, ensuring that producers are responsible for 100% of the end-of-life costs of designated waste; and

requires that producers work with the municipal sector on those Producer Responsibility programs that affect the municipal integrated waste management system so that municipalities are fairly compensated for services provided to manage designated waste that enters the municipal system.

Our History. Your Future.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Tammy Sikma

Manager of GIS County Court House 470 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario K9H 3M3 Ph: (705) 743-0380 ext. 346 or 1-800-710-9586 Fax: (705) 876-1730 tsikma@ county.peterborough.on.ca www.county.peterborough.on.ca

County of

Peterborough April 14, 2015 The Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Premier Legislative Bldg, Rm. 281 Queen’s Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 The Honourable Bill Mauro Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 99 Wellesley Street West Room 6630, Sixth Floor, Whitney Block Toronto, Ontario M7A 1W3 Paula Reid Assistant Deputy Minister – Corporate Management & Information Division Whitney Block, 6th Flr, Rm 6540 99 Wellesley St. W. Toronto, ON M7A 1W3 Dear Premier Wynne: Re: Ontario Imagery Strategy At the April 1, 2015 meeting of the Council of the County of Peterborough approved the attached staff report and passed the following resolution:

Be it resolved that County Council has realized the value of aerial imagery projects collected under the leadership of Land Information Ontario (LIO), a program of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), in 2002, 2008, and 2013; Now therefore be it resolved that a letter be sent to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry – Corporate Management and Information Division expressing the County’s support for the Province to maintain and continue the current imagery update cycle and renew the Imagery Strategy beyond 2017; and, Further be it resolved that this report be sent to the member municipalities of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) and the Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (WOWC), and other rural Councils that have been involved in these projects requesting their endorsement of the same.

Thank you for considering this request. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Tammy Sikma Manager of GIS Encl. (1) Cc: Andy Brown, CAO, United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Gary King, CAO, County of Peterborough James Hepburn, Acting CAO, Prince Edward County Jennifer Moore, Acting CAO, Northumberland County Jim Hutton, CAO, County of Renfrew Jim Pine, CAO, County of Hastings Jim Wilson, CAO, County of Haliburton Kelly Pender, CAO, Frontenac County Kurt Greaves, CAO, Lanark County Larry Keech, CAO, County of Lennox & Addington Mark Fisher, CAO, City of Kawartha Lakes Stephane Parisien, CAO, United Counties of Prescott and Russell Tim Simpson, CAO, United Counties of Stormont, Dundas, and

Glengarry Don Shropshire, CAO, Municipality of Chatham-Kent Paul Emerson, CAO, County of Brant Kelley Coulter, CAO, Bruce County Sonya Pritchard, CAO, Dufferin County Mark McDonald, CAO, Elgin County Brian Gregg, CAO, County of Essex Derik Brandt, CAO, Grey County Brenda Orchard, CAO, Huron County Ron Van Horne, CAO, County of Lambton Bill Rayburn, CAO, Middlesex County Keith Robicheau, CAO, Norfolk County Peter Crockett, CAO, Oxford County Bill Arthur, CAO, Perth County Mark Aitken, CAO, Simcoe County Scott Wilson, CAO, Wellington County Michael Duben, CAO, District Municipality of Muskoka Stephen Kaegi, CAO, Township of the Archipelago Suzanne Klatt, CAO, Township of South Algonquin Donald Boyle, CAO, Haldimand County

The County of Peterborough

County Council To: Warden and Members of Council From: Tammy Sikma, Manager of GIS Date: April 1, 2015

Subject: Ontario Imagery Strategy Recommendation: Whereas County Council has realized the value of aerial imagery projects collected under the leadership of Land Information Ontario (LIO), a program of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), in 2002, 2008, and 2013; Now therefore be it resolved that a letter be sent to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry – Corporate Management and Information Division expressing the County’s support for the Province to maintain and continue the current imagery update cycle and renew the Imagery Strategy beyond 2017; and, Further be it resolved that this report be sent to the member municipalities of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) and the Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (WOWC), and other rural Councils that have been involved in these projects requesting their endorsement of the same. Financial Impact: None

Overview: Since 2002, the County has participated in three Province-led, multi-agency, public-private sector partnerships that have provided the County and Townships with complete recurring aerial photo coverage (2002, 2008, 2013). These images are available to all County and Township staff as well as the public as a backdrop to all of the mapping data available on the County’s web-GIS sites. Aerial photos can include any photographs taken from the air. Images used by municipalities are typically taken vertically (directly down from the plane) from a fixed-wing aircraft using a high-precision digital camera system flying low-level parallel grid patterns to ensure complete coverage across the landscape. Images are taken with a significant overlap between flight

Figure 1: Ontario Imagery Strategy 2013-2017. Image Credit: Queens Printer

Figure 2: Partner share of SCOOP 2013 imagery acquisition.

lines to create stereo imagery that can be viewed in 3D, used to generate elevation data, and required to create ortho photos or orthoimagery. Ortho photos are the raw aerial photos that have been processed to precise coordinates in order to remove distortion and “register” the final image (ortho-photo) directly on the ground, to an accuracy of 50 cm. In 2012, the Ontario Government committed to a 5-year Imagery Strategy to complete aerial photo projects across Southern and portions of Northern Ontario each year between 2013 - 2017, inclusive. Project areas are large (35,000 – 45,000 sq km) to take advantage of savings due to longer flight lines, processing contracts, multi-year contracts, etc. With this commitment half-completed, it is important to ensure that the Province is aware of the importance of continuing this valuable, cost-sharing program. In 2013, the County acquired 6,000 sq km of imagery through SCOOP (South Central Ontario Orthophotography Project, see Fig. 1), at a cost of $19,962. A blended funding model (Fig 2) calculated the sq km cost of imagery based on total orders to provide equally affordable pricing along the urban Hwy 401-corridor and remote rural portions of the Canadian Shield.

The SCOOP costs for the County-acquired coverage without partner support were $157,592 (Table 1), providing the County with 87.3% in savings. It is also important to note that the cost to fly this area independent of any partnerships would be higher due to greater gas consumption from shorter flight lines / more frequent turning and full-cost administration, setup, and processing costs. The current market value for a County of Peterborough project is estimated at $250,000 – 300,000, or 12.5 – 15 times what was spent through SCOOP. While each of the three public-private partnership projects led by the MNRF’s Land Information Ontario (LIO) that the County has participated in since 2002 (Table 1) have used different funding models and have delivered different products and/or copyright entitlements, the savings in each has been substantial. The total spent to date for all three orthophoto projects combined is less than the cost of the least expensive project without partnership savings. Without these cost-saving programs, the County’s ability to pay for imagery would be much more strained, possibly limiting the frequency of the update cycle. Table 1: Costs of Province-led, Multi-Sector Imagery Projects Involving the County of Peterborough

Project County Shared

Cost

Without Partners

Cost

Partnership Savings

Percent Saved

GTA 2002 $49,927 $1,120,924 $1,070,997 95.5%

DRAPE 2008 $20,674 $145,635 $124,961 85.8%

SCOOP 2013 $19,962 $157,592 $137,630 87.3%

TOTAL $90,563 $1,424,151 $1,333,588 93.6%

The benefits of regularly acquiring high-resolution (20cm pixel) aerial imagery (Fig 3 & Fig 4) are varied and cover the interests of the County, local municipalities, and the general public. Examples include:

- Change detection between imagery years - Review of land-use planning applications - By-Law enforcement - Identifying and/or realigning map features such as roads, bridges, storm sewer

catchbasins, building footprints - Base mapping - Creation of elevation models - Municipal revenue from the sales of imagery - Providing a connection between planar mapping and real-world understanding

Figure 3: Imagery taken of Oak Orchard sub-division in 2002, 2008, 2013.

Figure 4: Detailed view of 2013 imagery.

Analysis: Rural municipalities in Eastern Ontario, such as the County of Peterborough and its local municipalities, have benefitted greatly from the Ontario government’s leadership and partnership in multi-sector aerial imagery collection projects. Those municipalities cover large areas comprised of modest populations and would not be able to afford the costs on their own. The County of Peterborough shares the orthophotos collected through these projects with staff at the County and local municipalities, as well as the general public, via our web-GIS. Imagery is often the first layer turned on when examining the “lay of the land” and regular updates are needed to show the current, and changing, state of land-use.

See Fig 4

Regardless of the project year, participating municipalities have realized significant cost-savings, while retaining licensing permissions to use, sell, and share a full suite of imagery products. In the DRAPE (Digital Raster Acquisition Project – East) projects that took place in 2008 & 2014, EOWC municipalities spent approximately $330,000 and realized partnership savings in excess of $2.5 million. Similarly, the 2006 & 2010 SWOOP (South Western Ontario Orthoimagery Project) partnerships cost participating WOWC municipalities approximately $1 million, while leveraging over $2.8 million in shared savings. Differences in spending were the result of the contract values, the number of partners, and the size/extent of each project. As the Province prepares to consider the future of funding this program, it is important that past-partners advocate for the benefits and express their ongoing need for such programs. Recommendation: Whereas County Council has realized the value of aerial imagery projects collected under the leadership of Land Information Ontario (LIO), a division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), in 2002, 2008, and 2013, Now therefore be it resolved that a letter be sent to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry – Corporate Management and Information Division expressing the County’s support for the Province to maintain and continue the current imagery update cycle and renew the Imagery Strategy beyond 2017; and, Further be it resolved that this report be sent to the member municipalities of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) and the Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (WOWC) , and other rural Councils that have been involved in these projects requesting their endorsement of the same. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by

Tammy Sikma Manager of GIS

Our History. Your Future.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Tammy Sikma

Manager of GIS County Court House 470 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario K9H 3M3 Ph: (705) 743-0380 ext. 346 or 1-800-710-9586 Fax: (705) 876-1730 tsikma@ county.peterborough.on.ca www.county.peterborough.on.ca

County of

Peterborough April 14, 2015 The Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Premier Legislative Bldg, Rm. 281 Queen’s Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 The Honourable Bill Mauro Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 99 Wellesley Street West Room 6630, Sixth Floor, Whitney Block Toronto, Ontario M7A 1W3 Paula Reid Assistant Deputy Minister – Corporate Management & Information Division Whitney Block, 6th Flr, Rm 6540 99 Wellesley St. W. Toronto, ON M7A 1W3 Dear Premier Wynne: Re: Ontario Imagery Strategy At the April 1, 2015 meeting of the Council of the County of Peterborough approved the attached staff report and passed the following resolution:

Be it resolved that County Council has realized the value of aerial imagery projects collected under the leadership of Land Information Ontario (LIO), a program of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), in 2002, 2008, and 2013; Now therefore be it resolved that a letter be sent to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry – Corporate Management and Information Division expressing the County’s support for the Province to maintain and continue the current imagery update cycle and renew the Imagery Strategy beyond 2017; and, Further be it resolved that this report be sent to the member municipalities of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) and the Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (WOWC), and other rural Councils that have been involved in these projects requesting their endorsement of the same.

Thank you for considering this request. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Tammy Sikma Manager of GIS Encl. (1) Cc: Andy Brown, CAO, United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Gary King, CAO, County of Peterborough James Hepburn, Acting CAO, Prince Edward County Jennifer Moore, Acting CAO, Northumberland County Jim Hutton, CAO, County of Renfrew Jim Pine, CAO, County of Hastings Jim Wilson, CAO, County of Haliburton Kelly Pender, CAO, Frontenac County Kurt Greaves, CAO, Lanark County Larry Keech, CAO, County of Lennox & Addington Mark Fisher, CAO, City of Kawartha Lakes Stephane Parisien, CAO, United Counties of Prescott and Russell Tim Simpson, CAO, United Counties of Stormont, Dundas, and

Glengarry Don Shropshire, CAO, Municipality of Chatham-Kent Paul Emerson, CAO, County of Brant Kelley Coulter, CAO, Bruce County Sonya Pritchard, CAO, Dufferin County Mark McDonald, CAO, Elgin County Brian Gregg, CAO, County of Essex Derik Brandt, CAO, Grey County Brenda Orchard, CAO, Huron County Ron Van Horne, CAO, County of Lambton Bill Rayburn, CAO, Middlesex County Keith Robicheau, CAO, Norfolk County Peter Crockett, CAO, Oxford County Bill Arthur, CAO, Perth County Mark Aitken, CAO, Simcoe County Scott Wilson, CAO, Wellington County Michael Duben, CAO, District Municipality of Muskoka Stephen Kaegi, CAO, Township of the Archipelago Suzanne Klatt, CAO, Township of South Algonquin Donald Boyle, CAO, Haldimand County

SWIFT Initiative

May 1, 2015

Dear WOWC Members and Colleagues,

The SWIFT project is making good progress and we are seeing increasing interest and

support from both inside and outside the WOWC region. The project has not yet

received funding from the provincial and federal governments but discussions are

ongoing and continue to be positive. There is a requirement to continue with both

technical and outreach work from now until the time the project is funded. Unfortunately,

the funds currently available to the SWIFT project is not sufficient to cover this work.

On the technical side the project team has been requested to provide additional

information to MEDEI with respect to the funding application that is currently being

reviewed. Minister Duguid indicates in a recent letter that he sees great potential in the

project and believes it can provide significant economic benefit to Southwestern

Ontario. He identifies a number of areas requiring more detailed analysis. This is in line

with what was required for the Eastern Ontario Regional Network project and is

reasonable.

From an outreach perspective, the SWIFT Steering Committee, made up of

representatives from each WOWC member, identified the need for a more detailed and

comprehensive communications strategy. This strategy needs to target all stakeholders

to ensure everyone is receiving a clear and standardized message about the value of

the project.

To ensure sufficient funds are available to move the project forward and to complete the

additional technical and outreach work, I am requesting each WOWC member forward

$20,000 of the 2015 SWIFT project contribution as soon as possible. This is not an

additional amount but an interim payment. I know many municipalities have included

funds in the 2015 budget but are waiting to release them until the business plan is

available for review. The additional technical and outreach work will help complete the

business plan and assist the Province with the funding application decision.

May 1, 2015

Grey County: Colour It Your Way

The SWIFT project supports the revitalization of Southwestern Ontario’s economy and

positions our communities to successfully compete and participate in the global arena

through innovation, creativity and connectivity. Your ongoing support is important and

will help us get one step closer to our collective goal.

Yours truly,

Randy R. Hope, Mayor

Municipality of Chatham-Kent

of 8

Report No: CASPO 2015-98 COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

Council Date: May 13, 2015 To: Warden and Members of County Council From: Director, Community and Strategic Planning

Review of Draft Provincial Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Prime Agricultural Areas and Minimum Distance Separation Formulae RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Director of Community and Strategic Planning provide the County of Oxford’s

formal submission to the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs in response to the Provincial consultation on the Draft “Minimum Distance Separation Formulae” and “Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas” respectively, as outlined in Report No. CASPO 2015-98.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

The purpose of the report is to provide the County’s response to Provincial consultation on the draft ‘Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas’ and ‘Minimum Distance Separation Formulae’ (MDS) guidelines.

The proposed revisions to the MDS guidelines are largely technical in nature and consist primarily of minor adjustments and clarifications to the existing guidelines to improve interpretation and implementation. The planning staff comments on the proposed revisions consist primarily of minor wording revisions and guideline clarifications. No substantial concerns were identified.

The draft ‘Guidelines on Permitted Uses’ are intended to provide municipalities and others with a better understanding of the intent and purpose of the agricultural use policies in the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and to provide additional direction to assist with local implementation of those policies. Planning staff have identified a number of substantial comments and concerns with respect to the draft document that will likely warrant further review and discussion with the Province to adequately address.

Implementation Points The recommendation contained in this report will have no immediate impacts with respect to implementation. However, there could be future policy implementation impacts resulting from the direction contained in the final ‘Guidelines to Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas’ document, once it is released.


Council Date: May 13, 2015

Page 2 of 8

Financial Impact The comments in this report will have no financial impact beyond what has been approved in the current year’s operating budget. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with this statement. Risks/Implications There are no risks or other implications anticipated as a result of the comments contained in this report beyond those that can reasonably be expected with respect to potential appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board that may utilize the contents of such guidelines. Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan in March 2013. The recommendations contained in this report are fully supportive of the values and strategic directions as set out in the Plan and specifically support: 3. ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future – Implement development

policies and community planning guidelines that: - Strategically grow our economy and our community - Actively promote the responsible use of land and natural resources - Support agricultural land uses

DISCUSSION Background In late February 2015, the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) released a consultation draft of the ‘Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas’ and updated ‘Minimum Distance Separation Formulae’ (MDS) guidelines. Consultation on the ‘Permitted Uses’ guidelines is currently being undertaken through posting on the OMAFRA website, while the consultation on the revised MDS guidelines is being undertaken through a posting on the Provincial Environmental Registry (EBR 012-3526). The current commenting periods for the two guidelines end on May 13thand May 20th, 2015, respectively. OMAFRA recently conducted information webinars on the two draft guidelines (April 27th and 28th, 2015) which were attended by planning staff and, in the case of MDS, interested Township Building Officials. A general overview of the key elements of the ‘Permitted Uses’ guidelines was also included as part of the PPS policy discussion in the planning staff presentation on agricultural policy considerations given at the April 23rd Council information session. This report is intended to serve as the basis for the County’s formal submission to OMAFRA with respect to their consultation processes on these two guidelines. It is noted that the Rural Oxford Economic Development Corporation (ROEDC) has also submitted comments (Attachment No 3) directly to OMAFRA in response to the draft guidelines. The comments focus on providing the flexibility to: maintain rural populations; relocate conflicting uses to more appropriate locations;



Page 3 of 8

provide opportunities for woodland stewardship; allow for non-agricultural related activities as on-farm diversified uses and provide for growth and expansion of existing business uses. The draft guidelines can be viewed in their entirety at: MDS Guidelines: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/MDS_2015.pdf Permitted Uses Guideline: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/permitteduses.pdf The section references contained in the comments attached as Appendix 1 & 2 to this report correspond with the sections contained in the linked documents above. Comments The following sections provide an overview of the two draft guideline documents and the associated comments and/or concerns that have been identified through staff review. Minimum Distance Separation Formulae (MDS) Guidelines MDS is a land use planning tool that determines a recommended separation distance between a livestock barn or manure storage and another land use. The objective of MDS is to prevent land use conflicts and minimize nuisance complaints from odour. MDS does not account for other nuisances such as noise or dust. MDS is made up of two separate, but related formulae (MDS I and MDS II). MDS I – provides the minimum distance separation between proposed new development and existing livestock facilities and/or permanent manure storages located in areas where the keeping of livestock is permitted. MDS II – provides the minimum distance separation between proposed new, enlarged or remodelled livestock facilities and/or permanent manure storages and existing or approved development located in areas where the keeping of livestock is permitted. According to the OMAFRA website, the current review of the MDS guidelines is being undertaken to ensure that the MDS formulae:

reflects current land use planning principles and practices; reflects current technology and approaches within Ontario's livestock industry; continues to meet the needs of agriculture and rural communities across Ontario; and is consistent with the policies of the 2014 PPS).

Feedback on the proposed changes was obtained by OMAFRA through consultations with municipal staff, general farm organizations, livestock commodity organizations, private consulting firms and other technical users and stakeholders. A member of county planning staff and one of the Area Municipal Building Officials were involved in these previous consultation sessions. Following are the proposed key changes to the MDS Formulae and Implementation Guidelines: General revisions to clarify how to read and interpret the guidelines and how they should be

referenced in and implemented through local planning documents (e.g. Official Plan and Zoning By-laws)

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/MDS_2015.pdf

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/permitteduses.pdf



Page 4 of 8

Updates to the definitions section to harmonize terms with the PPS and Nutrient Management Act (NMA).

Inclusion of a requirement for municipalities to apply MDS to development on existing lots of record unless they adopt zoning by-law provisions to exempt this requirement. This reverses the municipal onus in the previous guidelines (e.g. MDS only applies to existing lots of record if it is stated in zoning). In Oxford, the Area Municipal Zoning By-Laws currently apply MDS to existing lots of record, with some exceptions to MDS I for rural residential and other non-agricultural zoned lots that existed at the date of passing of the zoning by-law.

Clarifying the application of MDS to various types of lot creation (e.g. MDS not required for consents for easements, minor boundary adjustments, infrastructure etc.). Also clarified that MDS I does not need to be applied to a livestock facility that is already located on a separate lot from a surplus dwelling that is proposed to be severed. Oxford has already largely addressed these guideline clarifications through existing Official Plan policies.

Clarifying that MDS does not apply to extraction of mineral aggregates and petroleum resources, infrastructure etc.

Clarifying that MDS I does not apply to accessory residential structures (e.g. decks garages, sheds, gazebos etc.) on an existing lot of record and MDS II shall not be applied to existing buildings and structures accessory to a dwelling.

Inclusion of a revised method for determining Factor B (Nutrient Units Factor) when performing MDS I calculations. The revised method places certain limits on the extent to which agricultural parcel size is used to determine livestock facility expansion potential. The general effect of this change is to reduce the required MDS I setbacks from smaller livestock facilities that are located on larger agricultural parcels.

The addition of a cap for MDS II setbacks between livestock barns and road allowances

Expanding the exemption from MDS to address not only reconstruction as a result of catastrophes, but also allowing reconstruction for other reasons (e.g. unsafe building conditions or to improve the environment). The new building or structure must be located no closer to the livestock facility or dwelling/non-agricultural use than the building it is replacing. Further, in the case of the replacement of a livestock facility, the new facility must not have a greater MDS setback requirement (e.g. due to a change in livestock type, larger design capacity, type of manure storage etc.) than the facility it is replacing.

Clarifying that churches, schools and cemeteries used by communities that rely on horse-drawn transportation will be Type A land use (e.g. lesser setback requirements) in both MDS I and MDS II calculations.

Clarifying that the municipality has the discretion to determine when MDS setbacks are to be applied to ‘agriculture-related uses’ and ‘on-farm diversified uses’. Such direction must be clearly set out in the provisions of the municipal zoning by-law.

The existing MDS guidelines use a computer software program to assist in determining appropriate separation distances. OMAFRA is currently working to develop a revised and improved web-based software application that will be available to municipalities at the time that the new MDS is implemented. OMAFRA has also indicated that they will be developing training material to accompany the final revised MDS document.



Page 5 of 8

As evidenced from the above summary, the proposed revisions to the MDS guidelines primarily consist of minor changes and clarifications to the current document which has been in effect since 2006. The MDS guidelines are technical in nature and there do not appear to be any changes to the document that would result in direct policy level impacts. However, there are a few changes where additional policy level discretion is being provided to municipalities (e.g. application of MDS to agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses). These changes will require more detailed review and discussion at such time as the specific Council direction on these matters is to be established through local planning documents (e.g. Official Plan and Zoning By-laws). In general, it appears that the proposed revisions will serve to improve the ease and consistency of interpretation and implementation of MDS. Planning staff have not identified any major concerns with the proposed revisions to the document. However, there are a considerable number of minor editorial/technical comments and a few areas in the document that staff feel would benefit from further review and/or clarification. These later comments consist primarily of requests for additional clarification on, and rationale for, a number of the proposed guideline revisions. However, additional flexibility for municipal discretion on the application of MDS has also been requested in certain situations (e.g. rural cemeteries and passive recreation areas). These comments are detailed in the proposed County submission on the draft document which is attached as Appendix 1 to this report. Draft Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas The PPS states that the Province may issue guidance material and technical criteria from time to time to assist planning authorities and decision-makers with implementing the policies of the PPS. The information, technical criteria and approaches outlined in the guidance material are meant to support, but not add to or detract from, the policies of the PPS. The purpose of the Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas, as stated in the draft document, is to assist in the interpretation of the policies in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) that pertain to uses permitted in ‘prime agricultural areas’. In Oxford County, all lands located outside of designated settlements are considered to be prime agricultural areas in accordance with the PPS. These lands represent over 87% of the County’s land area, so the PPS policies and related guidelines will affect the vast majority of Oxford County. The permitted uses document provides specific guidance on the following agriculture policy areas contained in the PPS:

Agricultural, on-farm diversified and agriculture-related uses described in policy 2.3.3. of the PPS;

Removal of land for new or expanding settlement areas (PPS policy 2.3.5) and limited non-agricultural uses (e.g. industrial, commercial, institutional, recreational etc.) in prime agricultural areas (Policy 2.3.6.1 b); and

Mitigation of impacts from new or expanding non-agricultural uses (Policy 2.3.6.2). Based on planning staff review, the draft document appears to be well structured and does provide additional Provincial guidance on the PPS policy areas that staff would expect to be addressed in such a document. However, the document as a whole and, in particular, many of the specific policy areas addressed in the guideline are in need of further Provincial review and



Page 6 of 8

revision for the document to be beneficial for municipal policy implementation. Such revisions should focus primarily on providing further clarification of Provincial policy intent and direction, ensuring all PPS policies that are applicable to prime agricultural areas are considered in the guidance provided, and providing clearer and, in some cases, additional guidance on specific policy areas and/or criteria for various permitted uses. Following are some of the key areas of the guideline that planning staff have identified as being in need of further review/revision:

General revisions to ensure the proper and accurate use of language, including the direct use of the PPS policy language versus paraphrasing, wherever possible;

Clarification of the overall policy intent and objectives for uses in prime agricultural areas to ensure they are complete and reflective of all applicable PPS policies;

Revisions to ensure the document is more clearly supportive of the role of municipalities in determining how best to ensure consistency with the PPS while ensuring an appropriate policy balance is achieved in their particular context (e.g. through locally developed Official Plan policies);

Need for clearer guidance on how natural heritage features in prime agricultural areas are to be dealt with from a PPS perspective;

Clarification of the intent and objectives for the PPS policies pertaining to agriculture-related uses and provision of further guidance on a number of the related policy criteria (e.g. ‘directly related to farm operations in the area’ and ‘benefiting from close proximity to farm operations’);

Clarification of the intent and objectives for the PPS policies pertaining to on-farm diversified uses and provision of further guidance on the related policy criteria and, in particular, the requirement that such uses be ‘secondary to the agricultural use of the property and limited in area’;

Review of the various examples of permitted uses provided in the document, in the context of the other comments provided, to ensure that such uses would clearly meet all applicable PPS policies and criteria and are appropriately qualified (e.g. size, scale, compatibility criteria are met); and

A number of other general comments to improve the clarity of the guidance in the sections on Categories of Permitted Uses, Implementation, Settlement Expansions and Non-Agricultural Uses.

County planning staff are generally supportive of the idea of additional Provincial guidance on permitted uses in prime agricultural areas. Explaining the intent and rationale behind the various PPS agricultural use policies and providing clear implementation guidance can greatly assist in informing and getting ‘buy-in’ from both the public and decision makers on how and why prime agricultural areas must be protected for agricultural use over the long term. The overriding planning staff concern with the guidelines, in their current form, is that they may potentially confuse (versus clarify) interpretation and implementation of the PPS policies in certain circumstances. As such, the comments and concerns identified by planning staff in this report are intended to ensure the guideline document provides clear and accurate guidance on



Page 7 of 8

each PPS agricultural use policy area and does not contribute to conflict or confusion in PPS policy interpretation or undermine the ability of municipalities to determine how best to implement the various PPS policies in their local context. These comments are detailed in the proposed County submission on the draft document which is attached as Appendix 2 to this report. Conclusions The comments provided in this report identify a number of areas in both the proposed revisions to the ‘Minimum Distance Separation Formulae’ Guidelines and the draft ‘Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas’ that would benefit from further review and revisions from an Oxford County perspective. The comments provided with respect to the proposed revisions to the MDS guidelines are largely technical in nature and consist primarily of minor wording revisions and guideline clarifications. As a result, these comments can likely be addressed through follow up discussions with OMAFRA staff and incorporation of minor revisions to the final draft document. However, the comments and concerns with respect to the draft Permitted Uses in Prime Agricultural Areas guidelines are more substantial and will require further discussion with OMAFRA staff and would benefit from review of a revised draft of the document to ensure the County’s comments are appropriately addressed.

SIGNATURES Report Author: original signed by Paul Michiels Manager of Strategic Policy Planning Departmental Approval: original signed by Gordon K. Hough, MCIP, RPP Director

Approved for submission: original signed by Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer



Page 8 of 8

ATTACHMENTS Attachment No. 1: Appendix 1: Comments regarding MDS Document 2015

Attachment No. 2: Appendix 2: Comments on Draft Guidelines on Permitted Uses in

Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas Attachment No. 3: Rural Oxford Economic Development Corporation (ROEDC) comments

Appendix 1-1

Appendix 1 (to Report No. CASPO 2015-98)

County of Oxford Comments on Proposed Revisions to the Minimum Distance

Separation (MDS) Formulae

The following comprises the County of Oxford’s formal comments with respect to the Provincial consultation on the proposed revisions to the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae guidelines. The comments are intended to be general in nature and simply identify the particular guideline and related issue that the County feels would benefit from further review and discussion. As such, the County would welcome the opportunity to discuss the comments provided in greater detail and/or to work directly with the Province to improve the guidelines in the identified areas. It should be noted that the Area Municipalities within the County may also submit comments in addition to those contained herein. Further, additional questions and technical comments may be forthcoming directly from County and/or Area Municipal staff as they have a further opportunity to work through the draft document. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The draft document may benefit from further review in terms of word usage and grammar.

2. As the accompanying software is necessary to implement the MDS guidelines, OMAFRA

should ensure the document has appropriate references to the need to use the, yet to be released, software in conjunction with the guideline document. Without the ability to review the MDS software update in conjunction with the guideline it is difficult for municipalities to fully consider and comment on the local impacts of all the proposed revisions to the MDS document (e.g. changes in the impact of tillable land area on MDS requirements for livestock facility expansions).

3. The relevant PPS policies i.e., 1.1.3.8(d), 1.1.5.9, 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.6.1(b) which specifically reference MDS Formulae each use specific language to identify the level of compliance required (with phrases like ‘is in compliance with’ and ‘shall comply with’, and ‘complies with’). OMAFRA should ensure that the language used in the MDS document is consistent with the language used in the PPS.

4. Many of the 43 ‘guidelines’ appear to be more ‘requirements’ than guidelines (e.g. where there isn’t intended to be any local interpretation or discretion). The document could do a better job of distinguishing between which guidelines are ‘required’ (e.g. those that simply state factual information, such a minimum number of NU or direct how a calculation is to be undertaken) as opposed to those that are more guidance.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Part “A” - This section should clearly state whether the 43 “guidelines” are optional or

required and use language accordingly. Like the PPS, the document should include a short description of how different types of language (e.g. ‘shall’ and ‘must’ versus ‘should’ and ‘may’) are to be interpreted in reading and implementing the guideline.

2. Part “B” - When describing the policy basis and legislative authority, it may be clearer to simply quote the actual PPS policy (e.g. 2.3.1) versus para-phrasing which may be create confusion for the reader of the document. The section describing “Intent of MDS Document” may make more sense to locate immediately after the “Preface” section. Finally, the references to the approach to defined terms is already captured by the introduction to the definitions in Part C.

Appendix 1 to Report No. CASPO 2015-98


Appendix 1-2

3. Part “C” - Definitions. If a particular definition originates from other governing legislation,

regulations or policy, including a reference to the source of the definition may be beneficial (eg. P.P.S. or NMA) so the user/reader of the MDS document can better understand the linkages with those documents. Also, adding definitions for the terms: “Building Permit”, “Planning Application” and “Manure Transfer Facility” may be beneficial. Also, OMAFRA may want to consider modifying the definition of ”Dwelling” to explicitly exclude any accessory structures and accessory uses located on the same lot but used in conjunction with the main dwelling in order to eliminate the need for Guideline #13. The definition of ‘development’ specifically excludes the construction of buildings or structures which only require site plan control approval. The intent of this exclusion is unclear and could affect the implementation of the guidelines considerably. Is construction of buildings or structures requiring a building permit considered development? If so, why is site plan approval excluded? Further clarification on this is required.

4. Part “D” - Prioritization of the individual Guideline statements would assist decision-makers in implementation. For example, Guideline #1 appears to have the highest priority as all remaining Guidelines draw from it. Guideline #2 establishes the circumstances “when” and “for what”, while Guideline #3 sets out the circumstances “when not” to apply MDS. If it is the intent for some guidelines to take precedence over others, even if only in certain circumstances, it should be clearly stated in the document.

5. The following comments relate to individual Guidelines:

#1 - REFERENCING MDS IN MUNICIPAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS

The latter 2 sentences starting with “More specifically …” appear to reiterate statements made earlier at the end of Part A - Preamble in the MDS document. OMAFRA may wish to consider removing the references in Part A to avoid redundancy and the potential for confusion.

#2 - FOR WHAT, AND WHEN, IS AN MDS SETBACK REQUIRED?

This section could be more clear for the MDS I column, as follows: “MDS I shall be applied and the required setback distances shall be met prior to the approval of any planning application or building permit application.“ With proper wording, this guideline should not require any further statements or qualifications regarding how MDS I must be applied for any other Implementation Guideline.

#3 - FOR WHAT, AND WHEN, IS AN MDS SETBACK NOT REQUIRED?

The phrase “…or a use that does not require MDS I by this implementation guideline…” is confusing within the context of the sentence and should be reviewed. It may be better to clarify the intent of this Guideline for “non-exemption” by including a statement of this nature in Guideline #2.

#4 - MDS SETBACKS FOR MANURE TRANSFER FACILITIES.

OMAFRA should consider moving the definition of “manure transfer facilities” to the Part C - Definitions and include the qualifying statement “For the purposes of…”. The guideline statement about the Building Base Distance should still remain here as it is relevant to explaining this issue.

#5 - MDS SETBACKS FOR EARTHEN MANURE STORAGES.

The wording of this guideline would benefit from review to improve grammar/clarity.



Appendix 1-3

#6 - REQUIRED INVESTIGATION DISTANCES FOR MDS.

In both the MDS I and MDS II columns, the phrase “…are reasonably expected…” should also state by whom. If it is the municipal official, or approval authority, then state so. Otherwise, it may be argued that such expectation includes the farm operator or the neighbour potentially impacted by the proposed development.

#7 - MDS I SETBACKS FOR BUILDING PERMITS ON EXISTING LOTS.

The proposed change to guideline #7 (as compared to the 2006 version) to clarify that MDS I setbacks are not required for dwelling additions and renovations on existing lots is supported as it should serve to simplify and improve implementation. Although providing municipalities with the “option” to exempt (new) buildings and structures on existing lots of record is also supported, to then state that “(municipalities) are strongly encouraged to require an MDS I setback for these applications” without outlining what type of rationale would be considered sufficient to justify such an exemption seems somewhat contradictory. For consistency in implementation, the option to exempt shouldn’t be based on local ‘preference’ but rather local context and justification based on acceptable rationale (e.g. the lot existed and was zoned for development of a non-agricultural use prior to the enactment of MDS and such lot would now be sterilized for such use if MDS was to be applied - there are no reasonable locations for the use on the lot that could comply with MDS). It may be more in keeping with the intent and objectives of MDS, if the guidelines simply indicated that MDS shall apply to existing lots (particularly larger lots with locational options for the proposed use), but identify that such situations may represent reasonable grounds for allowing a variance to the required setbacks. Such an approach would still allow for a planned land use to be located on an existing, properly zoned lot, while also ensuring that the proposed location minimizes the impacts on the required MDS I setbacks to the extent reasonable.

#8 - MDS SETBACKS FOR LOT CREATION

It is unclear as to what the rationale would be for not applying MDS I to a new lot for most agriculture-related uses, unless such a use also generates its own odours e.g. livestock assembly yards, grain drying facility etc. Much like a farm dwelling, the fact that a commercial or industrial use happens to be related to agriculture, on its own, isn’t likely to reduce the potential for the people working there, or otherwise attending the site, to complain about or be impacted by odour from nearby livestock facilities (Also see comments on guideline #35). Further, it is unclear as to why a severed or retained lot for an agricultural use would need to comply with MDS I if no dwelling exists on the proposed lots. Is the intent to ensure that every agricultural lot that is created maintains the ability to construct a dwelling, even if construction of a dwelling is not intended? Further, the County would request that the Province consider allowing for municipal discretion in applying MDS to lot creation for ‘low intensity recreational uses’ that are clearly passive in nature (e.g. natural heritage protection, rural recreational trails). It seems overly onerous to apply MDS to such lots and uses in most cases, particularly given the exceptions that are permitted for various other ‘more intensive’ type uses and the fact it will result in additional locational constraints for new livestock facilities.

#9 - MDS I SETBACKS AND LOT CREATION FOR A RESIDENCE SURPLUS TO A FARMING OPERATION.

It appears that the intent of this guideline is not to require MDS I to be applied to a livestock facility that is already located on a separate lot from the surplus dwelling that is proposed to be severed (e.g. MDS I need only be applied to a livestock facility located on the farm lot from which the surplus dwelling is to be severed), which the County supports. However, it appears the wording of this guideline could be greatly simplified



Appendix 1-4

while still accurately capturing the intent, particularly if it will be accompanied by associated schematics as indicated.

#11 - MDS SETBACKS FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.

For the second paragraph in the MDS II column, it may be simpler to state that the MDS II setbacks must still be met if the replacement facility would require a larger MDS II setback than the previous facility due to a change in animal type, increase in design capacity, change in manure storage type or changes to other MDS calculation factors.

#12 - EXISTING USES THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO MDS

MDS I Column - Some rationale should be provided as to why 4 or more was selected as the number of intervening uses on separate lots required to provide for an exemption to MDS I. Also, while the 3 bulleted criteria generally make sense, adding the last paragraph in the guideline as a 4th bullet criterion would also seem to make sense, since all those criteria must be met to qualify for the limited MDS I exemption. In the second bullet point, it should be noted that the definition of lot in the guildeline already speaks to being separately conveyable, so saying it again in the bullet is somewhat redundant. Finally, the logic for requiring only the same Type (A or B) land use is not clear. It appears the intent may have been to state of the same or greater intensity than the proposed development. For example, a situation involving 3 homes (Type A) and 1 non-agricultural small business use (Type B), all being on separately conveyable lots as intervening uses, but not qualifying for the MDS I exemption, does not seem to make sense.

#13 - NON-APPLICATION OF MDS TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

This Guideline can likely be eliminated if the definition of “Dwelling” explicitly excludes these accessory structures and accessory uses. In terms of intent, is the assumption that the MDS I setback requirement for the main dwelling is sufficient to ensure the reasonable use and enjoyment of outdoor amenity areas immediately abutting the dwelling (e.g. an attached deck) without undue impacts from livestock odour?

#18 - MDS II FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO RENOVATE EXISTING LIVESTOCK FACILITIES. May benefit from further clarification/rationale as to how and why a renovation to an existing livestock facility is treated differently from building reconstruction in accordance with guideline #11.

#20 - MDS SETBACKS FOR UNOCCUPIED LIVESTOCK BARNS.

Consider changing references to an “engineer” to a “Professional Engineer”. Use of the phrase “Only after concerted, documented effort has been made …” does not provide any guidance as to what steps must be taken by whom, or what essential information must be secured, before someone (e.g. a municipal official) concludes that the required MDS information cannot be collected. Also, OMAFRA may want to consider using the word ‘reasonable’ in place of the word “concerted” as ‘reasonableness’ seems to be a more standard legal test. Also, the phrase “…but obtaining information was not possible,…” should be re-phrased to state: “… but the information was not obtained…” since it may be possible to do something; but not practical or reasonable to do so. A common municipal practice is to require a change of use permit for the unoccupied barn/livestock facility to clearly document that the unoccupied barn/facility can no longer be used for the housing of livestock (e.g. would require another change of use permit and associated MDS compliance). Therefore, OMAFRA should consider identifying this as an option for determining when an unoccupied barn is not required to be included in the MDS calculation.



Appendix 1-5

#21 - MDS SETBACKS FOR UNUSED MANURE STORAGES.

See comments for #20.

#23 - CALCULATING BUILDING BASE DISTANCE (‘F’).

Appears to be more a requirement than a guideline. To improve the readability of the document, OMAFRA may wish to consider addressing all the MDS calculation requirements and detail type guidelines in a separate section or include them as references and notations with the calculation tables. The guidelines could then be limited to those matters where some level of discretion or interpretation is involved. If left as a guideline, a simple explanation of the reasons why Factors C and E are not used in MDS I and MDS II would likely be sufficient here.

#24 - DETERMINING STORAGE BASE DISTANCE (‘S’).

Would benefit from a simple explanation as to why the highest relative odour potential must be used (from Table 5).

#26 - FACTOR B: NUTRIENT UNITS FACTOR (TABLE 2).

OMAFRA may wish to consider including a brief explanation of the rationale for this revision to the guidelines so that readers can better understand the intent and impact without the benefit of having the accompanying software.

#27 - FACTOR C: EXPANSION FACTOR (TABLE 3).

Consider removing the phrase ‘negative increase’ to reduce the potential for confusion. Also consider removing, the 2nd paragraph ‘Expansion of a livestock facility…’ to keep each guideline as short and succinct as possible. A similar comment applies to the examples provided. If left as a guideline, the basis for the values of 1.14 and 0.5 should be explained.

#28 - FACTOR D: MANURE TYPE (TABLE 1).

Appears to be more of a requirement than a guideline. The Manure Type is factual and doesn’t seem to require guidance for interpretation. It may be clearer to include this type of direction within the preamble to the calculation tables (e.g. Table 1).

#29 - FACTOR E: ENCROACHING LAND USE FACTOR (TABLE 4).

Appears to be more a requirement than a guideline. Again, it may be clearer to include this type of direction within the preamble to the calculation tables (e.g. Table 4).

#30 - DETERMINING FACTOR A WHEN MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LIVESTOCK ARE HOUSED AND/OR

MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF MANURE ARE STORED…

The rationale for using a weighted average, as opposed to a non-weighted average, would benefit from further explanation, as this Guideline seems to represent a fairly major change in the MDS Formulae. The rounding factor (max 2 decimal places) is a general Guideline statement that may be more appropriately stated in the preamble of the Part D. Implementation Guidelines (top of page 15) in order to cover all such instances.

#31 - DETERMINING FACTOR D WHEN BOTH SOLID AND LIQUID MANURE ARE STORED ON A LOT.

See comments for #30, above.



Appendix 1-6

#32 - ROUNDING OF MDS CALCULATIONS.

See comments for #30, above

#33 - TYPE A LAND USES (LESSER IMPACT).

This guideline provides the rationale for determining Type A land uses and may be more appropriate to locate in the preamble to Table 4. Given the impact that the interpretation of this guideline can have on the required MDS setbacks, the language and examples should be further reviewed to ensure the intent is clearly captured (e.g. what is intended to constitute a Type A use and thereby have lessor setback requirements).

#34 - TYPE B LAND USES (GREATER IMPACT)

This guideline provides the rationale for determining Type B land uses and may be more appropriate to locate in the preamble to calculation table (e.g. Table 4). Given the impact that the interpretation of this guideline can have on required MDS setbacks, the language and examples should be further reviewed to ensure the intent is clearly captured (e.g. what is intended to constitute a Type B use and thereby have greater setback requirements). Further, the added reference to 4 lots or more outside of a settlement reference being considered as a Type B use, seems to run contrary to previous direction (e.g. only Type B if 4 lots or more and designated as a settlement in local planning documents) and warrants further review and discussion.

#35 - MDS SETBACKS FOR AGRICULTURE-RELATED AND ON-FARM DIVERSIFIED USES.

Although providing municipalities with the “option” to exempt agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses in certain circumstances is supported. There doesn’t seem to be adequate rationale for why such an exemption would be consistent with the intent and objectives of the MDS formulae and under what specific circumstances. These matters should be addressed in greater detail in the document, rather than simply relying on municipal zoning by-laws to provide consistent direction on this issue, as stated. For consistency in implementation, it may be better to provide municipalities with the option to exempt such uses from MDS based on local context and justification based on acceptable rationale, rather than the option to apply MDS to such uses. It is unclear as to what the rationale would be for not applying MDS I to most agriculture-related uses, unless such a use also generates its own odours e.g. livestock assembly yards, grain drying facility etc. Much like a farm dwelling, the fact that a commercial or industrial use is related to agriculture, on its own, isn’t likely to reduce the potential for the people working there, or otherwise attending the site, to complain about or be impacted by odour from nearby livestock facilities. Similarly, if on-farm diversified use are limited to small scale uses (e.g. limited # of off-site employees) and uses directly related to agriculture (e.g. value added processing, agriculture related tourism) they may be considered to have limited potential to generate additional odour complaints/conflicts with neighbouring livestock facilities and merit exemption. However, if larger scale on-farm diversified use that are not even related to agriculture are permitted (e.g. would have required compliance with MDS if located on a separately zoned lot), how does the fact the use is located on an agricultural parcel make it consistent with the intent of the guidelines (e.g. how would it have less potential to generate conflicts/complaints regarding surrounding livestock operations)?. It would seem to be more consistent with the intent and purpose of the guideline to require agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses to be subject to MDS, but then allow municipalities to provide exemptions for such uses under certain circumstances



Appendix 1-7

with appropriate justification/rationale in accordance with the detailed guidance that is then provided in the MDS document (e.g. location, type/intensity and scale of use considerations). Regardless, more direction on the type of rationale that would be considered sufficient to justify providing such exemptions and be consistent with the intent and purpose of the guidelines would be beneficial. The final paragraph speaks only to zoning by-laws. Without corresponding Official Plan policies to provide the basis for this optional application of MDS, it may be more difficult to defend why such “optional” application of Guideline #34 has been chosen by the municipality, if challenged.

#36 - NON-APPLICATION OF MDS WITHIN SETTLEMENT AREAS.

No specific comments with respect to this guideline. However, it would be beneficial to consider including additional guidance on how compliance with the MDS guideline can be achieved for proposed settlement expansions in livestock intensive areas, where there may be very limited or no reasonable settlement expansion options that would comply with MDS.

#37 - MDS SETBACKS FOR CHURCHES, SCHOOLS AND CEMETERIES USED PRIMARILY BY A

COMMUNITY RELIANT ON HORSE-DRAWN TRANSPORTATION.

Given that MDS is a science-based policy approach, specific rationale for why a Type A factor is being permitted for horse-drawn vehicle dependent communities should be provided. If such uses are located on a separate lot, they could be sold at any time and no longer serve such communities. As zoning is not typically used to restrict a particular use to a certain community/group, there would seem to be no trigger for ensuring compliance with MDS if such a lot were to be sold.

#38 - MDS SETBACKS FOR CEMETERIES.

For MDS II, the guideline should indicate which municipal planning documents cemeteries must be identified in (e.g. just zoning, or zoning an OP) to be considered a Type A use instead of a Type B use. Further, requiring stand alone (e.g. only limited buildings other than for storage or equipment or interment, no chapels, office etc) and site specifically zoned cemeteries in a rural areas to be treated as a Type B use (e.g. higher intensity land use with greater setback requirements) unless closed, seem overly onerous and does not seem consistent with the guidance on other uses (e.g. allowing an complete exemption from MDS for agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses). Further, it may create undue restrictions on expansions to nearby livestock facilities. This policy should be revised to provide more flexibility for municipalities to identify cemeteries as Type A land uses, particularly for the application of MDS II to existing cemeteries.

#39 - MDS II SETBACKS FOR REAR LOT LINES, SIDE LOT LINES AND ROAD ALLOWANCES.

This guideline would benefit from some explanation of the rationale for requiring MDS II setbacks to lot lines. It may be better to locate the statement regarding the “point of new construction” to the preamble of the Part D. Implementation Guidelines (top of page 15).

#40 - MEASUREMENT OF MDS SETBACKS FOR AREAS ZONED OR DESIGNATED, OR PROPOSED TO

BE REZONED OR REDESIGNATED, TO PERMIT NON-AGRICULTURAL USES.

To improve clarity for implementation, this guideline could be merged with Guideline #36.



Appendix 1-8

#41 - MEASUREMENT OF MDS I SETBACKS FOR LOT CREATION.

The intent of this guideline seems to be to ensure that any lot to be created has the ability to accommodate a dwelling in compliance with MDS. OMAFRA should consider the case where a proposed lot is clearly not intended to accommodate a dwelling (e.g. the severance of a lot to be transferred to a public body/agency for the protection of natural heritage features) and the restriction on the construction of a dwelling is clearly reflected in the OP policies and zoning for the property. Further, if the requirement to comply with MDS is included in all applicable zones in the Zoning By-law (subject to any exemptions permitted by the guidelines), that should be sufficient to ensure a dwelling is located in compliance with MDS once the lot has been created in most cases.

#42 - NON-EFFECT OF WIND DIRECTION, ETC. ON MDS SETBACKS.

The guideline indicates that wind, surrounding topography, and presence of trees, berms or other screening or other similar elements could be considered in applications to vary or reduce MDS setbacks. If such a statement is to be included in the guideline, additional direction should be provided as to how such factors could be considered to be mitigating factors for odour impacts and used to support or justify a potential MDS variance.

Appendix 2-1

Appendix 2 (to Report No. CASPO 2015-98)

County of Oxford Comments on Draft ‘Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural

Areas Guidelines’

The following comprises the County of Oxford’s formal comments with respect to the Provincial consultation of the Draft ‘Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas Guidelines. The comments are intended to be general in nature and simply identify the particular guideline issue and/or concern. As such, the County would request the opportunity to discuss the comments provided in greater detail with OMAFRA staff and/or to work directly with them to improve the identified areas of the guidelines document prior to the release of any final document. An opportunity to review and comment on a revised draft document that incorporates the comments received through consultation process is preferred.

GENERAL COMMENTS

The County generally supports the idea of additional Provincial guidance on the topic of permitted uses in prime agricultural areas. Explaining the intent and rationale behind the PPS agricultural use policies and providing clear implementation guidance can greatly assist in informing both the public and decision makers on how and why prime agricultural areas must be protected for agricultural use over the long term.

The language used throughout the document should be reviewed to ensure it is consistent with the terminology used in the applicable PPS policies and is conveying the required level policy compliance (e.g. ‘shall’ versus ‘should’). In some areas, slightly different language or terminology is used which could cause confusion.

The objectives and principles for permitted uses should be further reviewed to ensure they are complete and directly reflective of all relevant PPS policies, not just those pertaining specifically to prime agricultural areas (e.g. rural settlement areas shall be the focus for growth and development and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted). This is key to ensuring consistency with all relevant PPS policies is achieved and provides the foundation for the policy discussion and detailed guidance contained in the remainder of the document. Further, if the intent/objectives aren’t properly communicated in the document it may create confusion for municipalities in developing local approaches that are intended to achieve the same objectives.

Close attention should be given to the use of terms such as ‘farm/farm operation’, ‘farm property/parcel’, ‘agriculture’, ‘agricultural industry’, ‘farmer’, ‘farm operator’, ‘farm owner’ etc. to ensure they are being used appropriately in a given context to convey the intended policy intent and direction.

The guidance in the document needs to be more clearly supportive of the key role of municipalities in determining how best to implement the policies of the PPS in their particular context (e.g. through locally developed Official Plan policies). As such, the focus on the guidance in the document should be on providing additional policy direction to assist municipalities in developing local policies that are ‘consistent with’ the policies of the PPS, but that also go beyond the minimum policy direction provided in the PPS in order to provide the level and clarity of policy direction necessary to achieve an appropriate balance between various PPS policy objectives in the local context.

The guideline should avoid providing direction to municipalities on what Planning Act approvals they should require for a particular use (e.g. zone change, site plan). Again,



Appendix 2-2

municipalities are in the best position to determine what planning applications and review processes are most appropriate for the evaluation of a particular use.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Agricultural Use Guidelines (Section 2.1)

Additional clarification/guidance is required with respect to the intent and objective of the PPS policy stating that ‘all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural use shall be promoted and protected in accordance with provincial standards’ to eliminate potential for mis-interpretation (e.g. that the creation of all sizes of agricultural parcels is promoted).

Additional guidance on the role of natural heritage features in prime agricultural areas should be provided and, in particular, how such features are intended to be dealt with from a PPS policy perspective (e.g. whether such features and areas are intended to be subject to prime agricultural area policies).

Agriculture-Related Use Guidelines (Section 2.2)

The intent and objectives of the agriculture-related use policies would benefit from further clarification to ensure an appropriate policy balance can be achieved (e.g. ensure that commercial and industrial uses are directed to settlement areas, such as serviced villages, where reasonable and appropriate, while still providing reasonable opportunities to locate agriculture-related uses in prime agricultural areas to support local agricultural operations).

Additional/clearer guidance should be provided on what matters should be taken into consideration in determining whether an agriculture-related use is compatible with and does not hinder surrounding agricultural operations, particularly given that the draft MDS guidelines are proposing to allow municipalities to exempt such uses from MDS in certain circumstances.

Additional guidance on what types and scales of agriculture-related use are not generally considered to be appropriate for private services would be beneficial and help to ensure consistency with the PPS servicing policies. This topic would benefit from its own discussion section in the document rather than simply being referenced as part of the compatibility guidelines.

The guidelines indicate that limitations on use and scale for agriculture uses may be appropriate and should be assessed on a case by case basis. However, the document then provides little further direction in that regard. Further guidance on how appropriate scale should be determined (e.g. types of considerations) would be beneficial.

The guidance on how to determine compliance with the various PPS policy criteria for agriculture-related uses is very limited in many cases. For instance, the guidance on what constitutes ‘directly related to farm operations in the area’ is limited to a couple examples, whereas there should be more focus and discussion as to how ‘in the area’ should be determined for various uses. The discussion for each of the criteria could be expanded to address the various types of considerations that would go into the determination of compliance with these criteria together with specific examples. However, as with all the guidelines, this discussion should be limited to general direction and considerations, to assist in understanding the intent of the PPS policy, while not unduly limiting local discretion and policy application.



Appendix 2-3

The various examples of agriculture-related uses provided throughout this section should be carefully selected and qualified to ensure they would meet all the PPS criteria for such uses.

The guidelines state that municipalities may require evidence that an agriculture-related use cannot be located in a settlement area, but then provides no further guidance on this matter. This is an important policy consideration to ensure an appropriate policy balance is achieved. Therefore, it would benefit from more focus and discussion in the guideline.

The lists of uses that would and would not be permitted as agriculture-related uses should be reviewed and revised to ensure they address the common types of business uses that may be proposed for a rural location (e.g. building contractors/tradesman, excavators, farm drainage, custom farming, well drillers, trucking operations etc.) and whether they would be considered agriculture-related uses.

On-Farm Diversified Use Guidelines (Section 2.3)

The intent and objective of the on-farm diversified use policies would benefit from further clarification to ensure prime agricultural areas are protected for agriculture use over the long term, while still providing reasonable opportunities for a farmer to establish a secondary business on the farm to supplement their farm income and for value added processing and agriculture tourism uses to be established on a farm. The manner in which the current policy guidance is worded, someone might conclude that these policies are intended to allow for anyone to acquire a farm parcel upon which to locate/re-locate a business that is in no way related to, or secondary to, the agricultural use of the property.

The guidance provided with respect to how to determine if an on-farm diversified use is secondary to the principle agricultural use of the property is extremely limited and currently seems to defer to the guidance on the use being limited in area. This policy requirement is arguably the most important to address properly, as ensuring an on-farm diversified use is truly secondary to the farm operation on the property (rather than the farming of the property simply being incidental to the business use) is the key to ensuring an appropriate balance between providing flexibility for farmers to diversify and the PPS requirements to protect prime agricultural areas for agricultural use over the long term and for uses to be compatible with and not hinder agricultural operations. Therefore, additional guidance is requested with respect to the types of size and scale limitations that should be considered by a municipality to ensure an on-farm diversified use is, and remains, secondary to the farm operation (e.g. type of use, floor area, number of employees, parking, outdoor storage, location and type of buildings, operated by the farmer etc.). Further, the guidance provided must not undermine the ability of a municipality to establish reasonable limitations on the type, size and scale of such uses to ensure this policy criterion and all other applicable PPS policies are appropriately addressed through local Official Plan policies.

The ‘limited in area’ criterion is an important complement to the requirement for the on-farm diversified use to be secondary to the agricultural use of the property, but is a separate and distinct requirement. The current guidance on the ‘limited in area’ criterion is quite detailed and should be simplified (e.g. establish a reasonable maximum land area and require the use of existing buildings and driveways for such uses wherever possible and eliminate the need to calculate land area ‘discounts’ and property area ratios). Basing the ‘limited in land area’ calculation on the parcel size seems somewhat arbitrary as there could be a much more substantial agricultural use on a smaller parcel (e.g. intensive livestock operation) than on a larger parcel (e.g. primarily wetland with no farm buildings and little tillable area).



Appendix 2-4

As indicated in previous comments, the ‘limited in area’ guidance needs to be complemented by appropriate guidance on how to address the ‘secondary to the primary agricultural use of the property’ criterion. On its own, the ‘limited in area’ criterion provides no meaningful limitations on the size, scale or intensity of the use that could potentially be located on an agricultural property (e.g. factors to ensure the use is secondary) or the demand on services or impact on settlement areas. For example, a large scale business use (e.g. a 40,000 ft2 retail store or industrial use with large numbers of customers and/or employees) could potentially be established on a farm property without exceeding the land area restriction, but be in no way secondary to the agricultural use of the property or appropriate in an agricultural area.

Similar to the comments provided on the agriculture-related use guidelines, additional/clearer guidance should be provided on what matters should be taken into consideration in determining whether an on-farm diversified use is compatible with and does not hinder surrounding agricultural operations.

Additional guidance on the types and scales of on-farm diversified use that are generally not considered to be appropriate for private services would also be beneficial and help to ensure consistency with the PPS servicing policies.

The guidelines indicate that the cumulative impact of multiple on-farm diversified uses on several farms should be limited and not undermine the agricultural nature of the area. This is a serious concern that is almost impossible to address after the fact. The most fair and effective way to achieve this objective is by establishing reasonable limitations on the type, size and scale of on-farm diversified uses at the outset. Otherwise, it would simply result in a ‘first in the door’ approach to on-farm diversification.

Guidelines indicate that the appropriate scale for on-farm diversified use needs to be assessed on a case by case basis, but then provides little further direction as to how appropriate scale would be determined. As previously indicated, further guidance should be provided on appropriate limitations on the type, size and scale of use that should be considered to ensure on-farm diversified uses are, and remain, secondary to the agricultural use of the property and are compatible with and do not hinder surrounding agricultural operations.

Additional guidance should be provided on the potential need to limit the types of on-farm diversified uses that may be permitted to ensure that settlements (e.g. serviced villages and villages) remain the focus of growth and development in rural areas and that their vitality and regeneration is supported (e.g. the on-farm diversified use policies must not conflict with this PPS policy or any other applicable PPS policy).

The various examples of on-farm diversified uses provided throughout this section should be carefully selected and qualified to ensure they would meet all the PPS criteria for such uses. The examples provided for the purposes of illustrating the ‘limited in area’ criterion should also be reviewed in the context of all the comments provided on the on-farm diversified use guidelines, particularly with respect to establishing appropriate size and scale limitations to address the secondary to the agricultural use of the property criterion.

The list of uses that would not be permitted as on-farm diversified uses should be carefully reviewed to try to capture the full range of business uses that may commonly be proposed on a farm, but would not be consistent with the on-farm diversified use policy criteria or other relevant PPS policies. The guideline would also benefit from some explanation as to why such uses would not be considered on-farm diversified uses.



Appendix 2-5

Categorization of Permitted Uses (Section 2.4)

The Categorization of Use Permitted table in this section may be misleading, due to simplified nature of the comparison uses provided. This may lead someone to conclude that a certain use is permitted simply because it is listed in a particular category column without being aware of all the additional qualifiers that may be required to ensure it meets all the criteria of the PPS for a particular use. If this table is to remain in the document, it would benefit from further review in the context of the comments provided with respect to the various permitted uses, to ensure if is a clear and accurate as possible.

Implementation (Section 2.5)

The guideline should avoid trying to provide specific direction to municipalities on what Planning Act approvals they should or should not require for a particular use (e.g. zone change, site plan). Again, municipalities are in the best position to determine what planning applications and review processes are most appropriate for the evaluation of a particular use.

Beyond Permitted Uses (Section 3)

This section may benefit from additional examples of the types of non-agricultural uses that might potentially require a location in a prime agricultural area together with the type of justification that would need to be provided to establish such uses.

Many of the impact mitigation considerations identified in Section 3.1.3 would seem to be equally applicable to the assessment of whether an agriculture-related use or on-farm diversified use is compatible with, or does not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations. OMAFRA should consider including such considerations in the sections relating to those uses, where appropriate.

Section 3.2.1 of the guideline indicates that if a non-agricultural uses in a prime agricultural area is discontinued in the future, the prime agricultural area policies of the PPS and applicable Official Plan apply. Although the PPS policies for prime agricultural areas may continue to apply, the reality is that once a site has been designated and/or zoned to allow for a non-agricultural use they rarely return to agricultural use. As such, local Official Plan policies often provide some flexibility for minor changes in use to such existing uses.

Section 3.2.3 – Alternative Locations, provides an overview of how alternative locations for a non-agricultural use are to be evaluated. However, it does not currently include any reference to the potential to accommodate the proposed use through a settlement expansion as an option or first priority, where it has been successfully demonstrated that there is a need for the proposed use and it cannot be accommodated within an existing settlement.

Rural Oxford Economic Development Corporation

ROEDC

274620 27th Line, PO Box 306 Ingersoll, ON N5C 3K5

May 5, 2015

Draft Guidelines on Permitted Uses Food Safety and Environmental Policy Branch

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

1 Stone Rd. West, 3rd Floor Guelph, ON N1G 4Y2

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter for

Rural Ontario. The Rural Oxford Economic Development Corporation (ROEDC) was formed by the 5 rural Townships in Oxford County to help

support local business and economic development. The Corporation is supported by the 5 Townships and has engaged an Economic Development

Officer to provide a wide range of services and programs for local economic development. The Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime

Agricultural Areas will have a significant impact on our area.

The ROEDC Board of Directors considered this matter at the February 27, 2015 meeting and endorsed these comments at its meeting on April 24,

2105. Following are several comments for consideration and submission on

the Draft Guidelines.

The “people” side of Prime Agricultural Areas is missing. The guidelines protect the land, but do not protect the people living in the area, school

viability, churches, small communities, service groups and rural economic development as the guidelines tend to promote just the land. There needs

to be some flexibility to maintain people in the rural area.

There are strong policies to protect natural heritage areas, such as woodlots and wetlands, but without people living in the area, there is no one to

maintain and look after these areas. There should be provisions to permit some appropriate development so people can live in the area and look after

these important features. There should also be provisions to relocate or move potentially conflicting uses to locations that are more suited. Ex.

Provide the ability to relocate a residential dwelling from the prime

lbuchanan

Text Box

Attachment No. 3

Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas

agricultural area to a woodlot. This would maintain “people” in the rural

area, they would maintain the woodlot and be located in better locations that wouldn’t conflict with farming.

While farmland assessment has been rising, it is only taxed at 25% of

residential. The decreasing “people” in the rural areas means lower residential assessment and a negative effect on property taxation.

While the consultation is focussed on Guidelines for Permitted Uses in

Agricultural areas, one must be sure to examine whether farmland protection is being driven by an urban focussed agenda. Ie. Protecting

farmland means more industry, economic development and people in urban areas. We must remember that all land, whether in a City, Town or rural

Township was at one time farmland.

There needs to be flexibility in the interpretation of on-farm diversified

activities. It shouldn’t be just agriculture related. There are a wide range of activities that could and do take place in the rural area, that do not have a

detrimental effect on agriculture and provide a wide range of benefits to the local community, tax base, employment and local businesses. Often these

businesses limit their activity and opportunities for expansion for fear of being shut down if they grow and prosper. This is not the message that

should be sent if we want local businesses in the rural area.

There are some situations, where incremental growth has led to a significant business or industry being located in the rural area. While it is agreed that it

is not appropriate for a new, large business to locate in the prime agricultural area, there needs to be policies and provisions to recognize

growth and expansion in situations where there is so much investment in plant and machinery that is not feasible to relocate.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter.

On behalf of the ROEDC,

Jeff Carswell

ROEDC Admin Support / CAO Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

Copies: ROEDC Townships Oxford County Planning Department



Page 1 of 5

To: Warden and Members of County Council From: Director, Community and Strategic Planning Director, Public Works Director, Public Health & Emergency Services

Request for Connection to the Bright Water System (886280 Oxford Road 8 – Blandford-Blenheim Township) RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That County Council approve the request by David and Kim Piggott to connect

lands described as Part Lot 1, Concession 10 (Blandford), in the Township of Blandford-Blenheim, located on the south side of Oxford Road 8, west of Cuthbertson Street and known municipally as 886280 Oxford Road 8, to the Bright Water System.

2. And further, that County Council approve a grant for the Community Servicing

Assistance Plan in the amount of approximately $2,700.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS The purpose of this report is to obtain County Council direction regarding a request to

connect an existing residential dwelling located outside of the Bright settlement boundary to the municipal water system.

The private well serving the residential use on the subject property has been identified as

being in failure and the owner of the lands has requested consideration of connection to the municipal system as an alternative to drilling a new private well on the property.

Implementation Points Proposals to connect properties located outside of a settlement boundary to municipal water services are considered in accordance with the relevant policies of the Official Plan. In this instance, the relevant policies are found in Section 4.2.2.3.1 (Villages) – Village Servicing. The full text of these policies is included in this report as Attachment No. 1.



Page 2 of 5

Financial Impact If approved, the proposed service connection will be undertaken on a cost recovery basis and therefore will have no financial impact on the County. Both the Treasurer and the Director of Public Works agree with this statement.

Risks/Implications Risks and/or implications associated with this proposal are related primarily to whether the proposal maintains the intent and purpose of the County Official Plan as it pertains to the connection of municipal services to properties outside of settlement boundaries. The approval of proposals that do not comply with the objectives and policies of the Official Plan can set an undesirable precedent which could undermine the future application or effectiveness of the policies.

Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan in March 2013. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions: 3. ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future – Implement development

policies and community planning guidelines that: - Strategically grow our economy and our community - Actively promote the responsible use of land and natural resources

DISCUSSION

Background Proposal The County has received a request to connect a property located immediately west of the boundary of the Village of Bright to the existing municipal water system. The subject property is located on the south side of Oxford Road 8, west of Cuthbertson Street and is known municipally as 886280 Oxford Road 8 in the Township of Blandford-Blenheim (Plate 1). The Public Health and Emergency Services Department recently attended the subject lands and confirmed that the existing well serving the dwelling has failed and the property’s only on-site source of water at this time appears to be a cistern that is collecting rain water from the roof. Public Health has indicated that this water supply is not suitable for human consumption.



Page 3 of 5

Existing Municipal Services – Bright Water System The municipal water system serving the Village of Bright provides water to 149 properties in the community. As illustrated on Plate 2, the system serves properties on the south side of Cuthbertson Street, looping back into the village via Oxford Road 8. The dwelling subject to this request for connection is situated immediately west of the last house on Cuthbertson/Oxford Road 8 in the village. The Public Works Department has indicated that the property owner’s information regarding the quality and quantity of potable water in the area is consistent with Public Work’s understanding of the hydrogeological conditions in the vicinity of Bright. According to Public Works, there are two potential aquifers underlying Bright area. The deeper bedrock aquifer is set within the Salina Formation containing extreme aesthetic water quality issues that render the water unpotable without treatment. There are very few domestic wells completed within this formation due to the cost of treatment. The local overburden aquifer is intermittent and locating a water source with sufficient capacity can be very difficult for a domestic well. Local developers in Bright and subsequently Oxford County Public Works have worked for decades on locating and constructing groundwater wells to service the village. Two municipal wells that currently service Bright are located on a parcel of land approximately 270 metres (885 feet) southeast of the dwelling subject to this request for connection. The said wells are subject to yield constraints and require significant maintenance in order to maintain capacity. The primary issue is that the aquifer contains a fine sand which either plugs the well screen or passes through the screen into plumbing systems. Over the past ten years, Public Works has been actively searching for a new groundwater source to either augment or replace the existing Bright wells. To date, the hydrogeological study has been unable to find a suitable source with sufficient yield and reasonable water quality.

Comments Official Plan Policy Considerations The Official Plan prohibits the extension of, or connection to, municipal water and wastewater services beyond the limit of a Village designation (i.e. Bright). However, the Plan does provide an exemption for such extensions without the need for an Official Plan Amendment where specific criteria, as outlined in the Attachment section of this report, are met. The policies of the Plan regarding the extension of municipal services outside of serviced settlement boundaries are generally intended to limit pressure for the premature, unjustified or uneconomical extension of services and to ensure that urban-type land uses are not encouraged to establish outside of serviced settlement areas with the benefit of urban-level services. It is also the intent of the noted service extension policies to assist in ensuring that development outside of a serviced settlement is undertaken in a comprehensive manner and does not hinder or prevent the efficient expansion of settlement boundaries in the future. With respect to the current request, the subject lands are located immediately adjacent to the Village of Bright and are also within the municipal boundary of the County. The proposed connection is intended to service an existing residential dwelling on an agriculturally-zoned property comprising approximately 25 ha (62 acres). Further, the County Public Works



Page 4 of 5

Department has confirmed that the property owner is agreeable to paying all required connection fees as per County policy. As illustrated on the attached maps, the subject lands are occupied by the above-noted dwelling as well as a storage building and associated outdoor parking/storage area to the south. In accordance with the policies of the Official Plan, if the property owner’s request is approved by Council, it is recommended that the agreement between the County and the owner stipulate that the connection to the municipal water system be limited to only the dwelling. No accessory buildings or structures or any development associated with the remainder of the lands (the whole of the property is zoned for agricultural use) will be permitted to connect to the water system. Regarding the specific criterion related to water quantity or quality and the need to connect to the municipal system to remediate the problem, Public Works has verified a water quantity problem exists on the property and agrees that the extension of service is required to remediate the said problem. For Council’s information, the specific wording of the relevant policy in the Official Plan regarding the above directs that either a water quality or quantity problem must be verified by the Public Health and Emergency Services Department. However, when considering development in rural areas that rely on private servicing (i.e. zoning applications or farm consolidation severances), it is the Public Works Department that has historically reviewed reports or other materials to determine whether a suitable supply of potable water exists to support development. As such, Planning staff are of the opinion that the comments received from the Public Works Department regarding the quantity of water available to the subject property are the appropriate comments to be considered regarding questions of water quantity. Upon review of the relevant policies of the Official Plan and based on the comments provided by Public Works with respect to the water quantity issue, it would appear that the dwelling on the subject property is experiencing a water quantity problem and connection to the municipal system is required to remediate the problem. Cost Information Public Works has indicated that the cost estimate for extending the water system to the subject property is approximately $10,700 of which approximately $8,000 would be assessed to the property owner while the remaining $2,700 would be funded through the Community Servicing Assistance Plan (CSAP). A grant under CSAP is consistent with previous extensions of service to existing developed properties. A water meter will be installed as part of this connection. If approved, the Bright water rates would apply to the lands and the owner would be billed accordingly.

Conclusions In light of the foregoing, staff are of the opinion that the proposal to connect the subject lands to the water system meets with the exception criteria for the extension of services as contained in the Official Plan. As per the review and verification provided by the Public Works Department, the failure of the well serving the cannot be remedied via the construction of a new well.



Page 5 of 5

For Council’s information, the Public Works Department has confirmed that there is sufficient reserve capacity within the existing Bright municipal water system to accommodate the connection to the subject dwelling, if the request is approved.

SIGNATURE

Report Author: Report Author: original signed by original signed by Gordon K. Hough, MCIP, RPP Lynn Beath Director, Community and Strategic Planning Director, Public Health & Emergency Services

Report Author: original signed by Robert Walton, P. Eng. Director, Public Works

Approved for submission: original signed by Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer

ATTACHMENTS Attachment No. 1: Relevant excerpts from the County Official Plan Attachment No. 2: Report Mapping - Plates 1 & 2 - Location Maps

Attachment No. 1

RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM THE COUNTY OF OXFORD OFFICIAL PLAN SECTION 4.2.2.3.1 – VILLAGE SERVICING The extension of centralized water supply facilities and infrastructure to service development beyond the limit of the Village designation [i.e. Bright] as established on Schedules B-1, E-1, N-1, S-1 and Z-1 shall be prohibited. Notwithstanding the above, the extension of centralized water supply facilities and infrastructure to existing development may be permitted upon receipt of a written request, provided that all of the following criteria are satisfied: ● the existing development is within the immediate vicinity of the limit of the Village

designation; ● the existing development is within the municipal boundaries of the County; ● the extension of services is required for existing development only and that no additions

or intensification of existing uses are proposed with the exception of limited infilling in accordance with the policies of this Plan;

● the existing development is experiencing a water quantity or quality problem that has been verified by the Oxford County Department of Public Health and Emergency Services (PHES) and that PHES agrees that the extension of services is required to remediate the problem; or

● the existing development is no longer able to access existing communal water facilities and the Class Environmental Assessment process has indicated that the extension of centralized waste water and water supply facilities is the preferred servicing alternative;

● the owner of the existing development has agreed to pay connection fees based on the County’s cost recovery policy.

Each request for an extension of services shall be subject to County Council approval, consideration of which will be made upon a written recommendation of the County Public Works Department. Such recommendation shall be made on the basis of assessing the criteria listed above and with reference to the servicing hierarchy contained in Section 5 of the Official Plan. SECTION 5.5.3 – HIERARCHY OF SERVICING OPTIONS Requests for the extension of servicing beyond the designated limits of Villages, Serviced Villages, Large Urban Centres and the Future Urban Growth designation will be permitted, without the need for an amendment to the Plan, for existing development subject to the policies set out in Sections 4.2.2.3 [Villages], 4.2.2.4 [Serviced Villages] and 4.2.2.5 [Large Urban Centres], as applicable. These policies apply only to the extension of centralized systems. The extension of communal waste water or water supply facilities beyond the designated limits of the respective boundaries is prohibited.

May 5, 2015

This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site andis for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be

accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. This is not a plan of survey

Legend

1520

Notes

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N

76 Meters

Parcel Lines

Property Boundary

Assessment Boundary

Unit

Road

Municipal Boundary

Environmental Protection/Flood Overlay

Flood Fringe

Floodway

Environmental Protection (EP1)

Environmental Protection (EP2)

Zoning Floodlines/Regulation Limit

100 Year Flood Line

30 Metre Setback

Conservation Authority Regulation Limit

Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines

Zoning (Displays 1:16000 to 1:500)

rsmith

Polygon

rsmith

Text Box

Plate 1

rsmith

Line

rsmith

Text Box

Oxford Road 8

rsmith

Text Box

Dwelling Proposed to be Connected

rsmith

Text Box

Subject Property

rsmith

Line

lbuchanan

Text Box

Attachment No. 2

May 5, 2015

This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site andis for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be

accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. This is not a plan of survey

Legend

380

Notes

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N

19 Meters

Parcel Lines

Property Boundary

Assessment Boundary

Unit

Road

Municipal Boundary

Water Service Point

Connected

Not Connected

Retired

Water Service Line-Public

Private, Existing

Public, Existing

Water Service Line-Private

Water Customer Valve

System Valve

Water Test Box

Swab Launch BO

BO

Swab

Swab/BO

Yard Hydrant

Check or Air Valve

Fire Hydrant

Fire Hydrant Laterals

Manhole

Watermain Breaks

Watermain

Gravity Watermain

Production Well

Monitoring Well

rsmith

Polygonal Line

rsmith

Text Box

Subject Property

rsmith

Text Box

Plate 2: Existing Water Services

rsmith

Text Box

Oxford Road 8

rsmith

Text Box

Dwelling Proposed to be Connected

rsmith

Line

Report No: CS 2015-16

CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: May 13, 2015

Page 1 of 5

To: Warden and Members of County Council

From: Director of Corporate Services

2014 Audited Financial Statements

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Oxford County Consolidated Financial Statements and the County of Oxford

Trust Funds Statements for the year ended December 31, 2014 be accepted; 2. And further, that the Auditor’s letter of independence for the year ended December

31, 2014 be received;

3. And further, that the Treasurer coordinate improvements to address items identified in the Auditor’s 2014 Management Letter, dated May 13, 2015.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Auditor to present the 2014 consolidated financial statements, Letter of Independence and

Management Letter

Long Term Financial Sustainability Plan sustainability measures for 2010 to 2014

2014 year end budget surplus is $970,415

Implementation Points Staff will take the appropriate measures to remedy the weaknesses identified in the Auditor’s Management Letter.

Financial Impact 2014 year end budget surplus from general purposes has been transferred to the corporate general reserve for tax stabilization purposes in accordance with Reserve Policy No. 6.20.

2014 year end surpluses or deficits from water/wastewater systems have been transferred to(from) the respective water or wastewater reserve in accordance with Reserve Policy No. 6.20.

The Treasurer has prepared this report based on the audited 2014 consolidated financial statements.



Page 2 of 5

Risks/Implications There are no risks or implications that could result by adopting the recommendations contained within this report.

Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan at its regular meeting held March 27, 2013. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions:

4. ii. A County that Informs and Engages - Better inform the public about County programs, services and activities through planned communication by:

- Enhancing the communication value of Council reports

DISCUSSION

Background For the 2014 fiscal year, Council appointed Scrimgeour & Company, Chartered Accountant, as auditor for the financial statements for the County of Oxford including its local boards. Attached as Attachments 1 and 2 are copies of the County of Oxford Consolidated Audited Financial Statements and Audited Trust Funds Statements for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Comments In September 2011, County Council adopted a Long Term Financial Sustainability Plan that sets out sustainability measures based on “Indicators of Government Financial Condition”, defined and approved by the Public Sector Accounting Board. They include a core set of indicators for assessing financial condition of the government entity based on financial statements prepared on the full accrual basis of accounting. Financial condition is health measured in terms of ability to meet obligations in respect of service commitments and financial commitments, using elements of sustainability, flexibility and vulnerability and provides an overall assessment of the municipality’s financial condition. Sustainability measures the degree to which a government can maintain its existing service and financial commitment. Table 1 provides a list of sustainability measures based on the County’s 2010 - 2014 financial statements. Performance regarding 2014 achievements with respect to projects and advancement of the County’s strategic plan will form part of the 2014 Annual Report which will be published within a few weeks.



Page 3 of 5

Table 1 – Sustainability Indicators

Notes:

1 current assets/current liabilities - ability to meet short term debt obligations

2 total tax revenue/total expenses - ability to cover its costs through tax revenue

3 earnings before interest/borrowing costs - ability to pay interest on outstanding debt

4 capital expenditures/amortization - net increase or decrease in the asset base

Flexibility Indicators measure the degree to which a municipality can change its debt or tax burden to meet its existing service and financial commitments. Table 2 presents flexibility indicators based on the County’s 2010 - 2014 financial statements. Table 2 – Flexibility Indicators

Vulnerability indicators measure the degree to which a government is dependent on sources of funding from outside its control or influence or the extent to which it is exposed to risks that could impair its existing ability to meet service and financial obligations. Table 3 exhibits a vulnerability indicator based on the County’s 2010 - 2014 financial statements. Table 3 – Vulnerability Indicators

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

Financial assets to liabilities 1.57 1.28 1.15 0.91 0.93

0.96 0.94 0.76 0.65 0.46

Net working capital to operating expenses 0.86 0.76 0.61 0.50 0.39

Net debt to total operating revenue 0.37 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.35

Net debt to taxable assessment 0.0046 0.0049 0.0053 0.0063 0.0057

Accumulated surplus to taxable assessment 0.040 0.035 0.037 0.041 0.039

Total debt per household $1,321 $1,407 $1,463 $1,552 $1,401

Current ratio1 4.65 3.28 3.10 2.65 2.60

Taxation rates coverage2 0.38 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.32

Interest coverage3 7.11 8.03 5.46 4.56 4.86

Sustainability ratio41.57 2.14 1.25 3.52 2.89

Total cash and temporary investments to operating

expenses

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

Debt charges to total revenues 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02

0.65 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67

Total reserves to operating expenses 0.87 0.74 0.66 0.66 0.50

Total revenue to taxable assessment 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

Net book value of capital assets to cost of capital

assets

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

Government transfers to total revenues 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.39



Page 4 of 5

The Financial Statements include a Consolidated Statement of Financial Position which identifies the assets, liabilities and accumulated surplus as of December 31, 2014. Note 9 to the Financial Statements provides a breakdown of the components of the accumulated surplus which includes investment in tangible capital assets, the Library surplus (budget to actual) discretionary reserves and special purpose reserves. The accumulated surplus at December 31, 2014 totals $524,060,042 ($489,790,698 – 2013). The overall 2014 budget surplus was $970,415 ($1,441,879 – 2013). The Library surplus of $166 ($136,267 – 2013) forms part of the following year’s budget. The remaining $970,249 of the surplus was transferred to, and forms part of, the corporate general reserve balance in accordance with Reserve Policy No. 6.20. The 2014 budget surplus is explained in Table 4. Table 4 – Budget Surplus

Description Surplus (Deficit)

Taxation $662,000

Interest income 515,000

Provincial Offences Administration $210,000 revenues plus savings in expenses

315,000

Public Works - roads Winter control (560,000)

Public Works - waste management Revenues 560,000

Public Works - other Facilities and administration costs (210,000)

Public Health Salaries and benefits 460,000

Deferred reserve allocations Contributions from reserves not required

(1,191,750)

Miscellaneous other expenses 420,000

Library 166

Budget Surplus $970,415

Conclusions The five years of financial indicator comparatives suggest that the County is well positioned in the short and mid- term to meet its service and financial obligations. Attached to this report as Attachments 3 and 4 is a Letter of Independence for the year ended December 31, 2014 and a Management Letter prepared by the Auditor that identifies areas of weakness in the internal controls or procedures of the County for the 2014 fiscal year. Action is being taken by staff to remedy the weaknesses identified.



Page 5 of 5

Overall the 2014 financial statements, supported by clean Auditor’s Reports and stable financial indicators, reaffirms the County’s ability to continue to maintain its strong liquidity position with a moderate debt burden – key strengths necessary for financial sustainability.

SIGNATURE

Report Co-author:

Original signed by Carolyn King, CPA, CA Manager of Finance

Departmental Approval: Original signed by Lynn S. Buchner, CPA, CGA Director of Corporate Services

Approved for submission: Original signed by

Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer

ATTACHMENTS Attachment No. 1 – Consolidated Financial Statements – December 31, 2014 (CK) Attachment No. 2 – Trust Fund Statements – December 31, 2014 (CK) Attachment No. 3 – Scrimgeour & Company – Letter of Independence Attachment No. 4 – Scrimgeour & Company – Management Letter, dated May 13, 2015

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

DECEMBER 31, 2014

CS Report No. 2015-16

Attachment No. 1

COUNTY OF OXFORDTABLE OF CONTENTSDECEMBER 31, 2014

Auditor's Report .................................................................................................................................. 1

Consolidated Statement of Financial Position .................................................................................... 2

Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus ..................................................... 3

Consolidated Statement of Change in Net Financial Assets .............................................................. 4

Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows .............................................................................................. 5

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies .................................................................................... 6-8

Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements ........................................................................... 9-17

Consolidated Schedule of Tangible Capital Assets ..................................................................... 18-19

Consolidated Schedule of Segment Disclosure ........................................................................... 20-21

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

To the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the County of Oxford:

I have audited the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the County of Oxford, which comprise the consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31, 2014 and the consolidated statements of operations and accumulated surplus, change in net financial assets and cash flows for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information.

Management's Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial StatementsManagement is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these

consolidated financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of consolidated financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor's ResponsibilityMy responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements

based on my audit. I conducted my audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that I comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the consolidated financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements.

I believe that the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my audit opinion.

OpinionIn my opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material

respects, the financial position of the County of Oxford as at December 31, 2014 and its financial performance and its change in net financial assets and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards.

London, CanadaMay 13, 2015 LICENSED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

christene

Draft

COUNTY OF OXFORDCONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION

AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2014(with comparative balances as at December 31, 2013)

2014 2013

FINANCIAL ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalents $ 112,802,039 $ 112,775,064Investments (Note 1) 26,780,932 17,173,557Accounts receivable (Note 3) 19,713,367 21,018,206

159,296,338 150,966,827

LIABILITIES

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 21,810,755 23,396,248Deferred revenue (Note 4) 12,590,970 22,711,390Post retirement and employee future benefits (Note 5) 4,267,929 4,176,922Net long term liabilities (Note 7) 59,254,571 63,695,522Landfill closure and post closure liabilities (Note 8) 3,837,135 3,792,978

101,761,360 117,773,060

NET FINANCIAL ASSETS 57,534,978 33,193,767

NON FINANCIAL ASSETS

Tangible capital assets (Note 16, Schedule 1) 456,368,153 448,595,203Capital work in progress 9,645,854 7,769,618Inventories 79,057 93,191Prepaid and deferred charges 432,000 138,919

466,525,064 456,596,931

ACCUMULATED SURPLUS (Note 9, Note 16) $ 524,060,042 $ 489,790,698

The accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes are an integral part of these financial statements.Page 2

COUNTY OF OXFORDCONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND ACCUMULATED SURPLUS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014(with comparative balances for the year ended December 31, 2013)

Budget Actual Actual2014 2014 2013

(Note 10)REVENUES

Requisition on local municipalities $ 54,263,021 $ 54,926,344 $ 53,412,016User charges 50,790,088 51,573,820 51,585,197Government grants (Note 15) 45,169,686 45,697,902 44,792,923Investment income 750,000 1,890,670 1,710,362Long term care resident maintenance 5,110,145 5,149,941 5,078,775Provincial offences 1,975,000 2,152,902 2,139,287Other 17,200 295,975 58,505

158,075,140 161,687,554 158,777,065

EXPENSESGeneral government 4,865,104 5,252,089 3,271,195Protection to persons and property 2,197,613 2,071,104 2,011,269Transportation services 17,452,759 16,918,014 15,433,770Environmental services 35,813,930 36,446,976 35,627,039Health services 20,583,000 20,568,475 19,713,808Social and family services 51,282,453 48,272,829 47,839,684Social housing 8,542,582 8,435,803 8,130,754Recreation and cultural development 3,408,120 3,537,825 3,377,339Planning and development 3,605,349 3,227,163 3,061,007

147,750,910 144,730,278 138,465,865

EXCESS REVENUES OVER EXPENSES BEFORE OTHER 10,324,230 16,957,276 20,311,200

OTHER REVENUES (EXPENSES)Government capital transfers 4,725,000 3,224,160 3,125,000Developer contributions-in-kind

related to capital 4,622,142 14,824,920 7,135,439Gain (Loss) on disposal of capital assets 65,000 (845,514) (2,290,577)Capital revenue recoverable from residents 4,808,000 108,502 1,011,176

14,220,142 17,312,068 8,981,038

EXCESS REVENUES OVER EXPENSES 24,544,372 34,269,344 29,292,238

ACCUMULATED SURPLUS, BEGINNING OF YEAR (Note 16) 489,790,698 489,790,698 460,498,460

ACCUMULATED SURPLUS, END OF YEAR $514,335,070 $524,060,042 $489,790,698


COUNTY OF OXFORDCONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGE IN NET FINANCIAL ASSETS


2014 2013

EXCESS REVENUES OVER EXPENSES $ 34,269,344 $ 29,292,238

Acquisition of tangible capital assets (24,283,226) (31,806,095)Amortization of tangible capital assets 15,503,852 14,838,400Loss on sale of tangible capital assets 845,514 2,290,577Proceeds from the sale of tangible capital assets 160,910 174,358Decrease (increase) in capital work in progress (1,876,236) 1,327,747Decrease of inventory 14,134 11,589Decrease (increase) in prepaid and deferred charges (293,081) 14,887

INCREASE IN NET FINANCIAL ASSETS 24,341,211 16,143,701

NET FINANCIAL ASSETS, BEGINNING OF YEAR 33,193,767 17,050,066

NET FINANCIAL ASSETS, END OF YEAR $ 57,534,978 $ 33,193,767


COUNTY OF OXFORDCONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS


2014 2013

OPERATING ACTIVITIES

Excess revenues over expenses $ 34,269,344 $ 29,292,238

Non-cash changes to operationsAmortization of tangible capital assets 15,503,852 14,838,400Loss on disposal of capital assets 845,514 2,290,577

Changes in non-cash operating balancesAccounts receivable 1,304,839 (308,920)Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (1,585,493) 2,990,506Deferred revenue (10,120,420) 1,592,092Post retirement and employee future benefits 91,007 (4,387)Landfill closure and post closure liabilities 44,157 83,164Inventories 14,134 11,589Prepaid and deferred charges (293,081) 14,887

Net change in cash from operating 40,073,853 50,800,146

CAPITAL ACTIVITIES

Acquisition of tangible capital assets (24,283,226) (31,806,095)Proceeds from the sale of tangible capital assets 160,910 174,358Decrease in work in progress (1,876,236) 1,327,747

Net change in cash from capital (25,998,552) (30,303,990)

FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Proceeds from long term debt 1,450,000 7,000,340Long term debt principal repayments (5,890,951) (5,482,807)

Net change in cash from financing (4,440,951) 1,517,533

Increase in cash and cash equivalents 9,634,350 22,013,689

Cash and short term investments, beginning of year 129,948,621 107,934,932

Cash and short term investments, end of year $139,582,971 $129,948,621

COMPRISED OF:

Cash and cash equivalents 112,802,039 112,775,064Short term investments 26,780,932 17,173,557

$139,582,971 $129,948,621The accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Page 5

COUNTY OF OXFORDSUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

DECEMBER 31, 2014

Management's Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements

The County of Oxford is an upper-tier municipality in the Province of Ontario, Canada. Itconducts its operations guided by the provisions of provincial statutes such as the MunicipalAct, Municipal Affairs Act and related legislation. The consolidated financial statements of theCounty of Oxford are the representation of management prepared in accordance with Canadianpublic sector accounting standards established by the Public Sector Accounting Board ("PSAB")of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada ("CPA Canada"). The County of Oxfordprovides municipal services such as public works, planning, social services and housing, publichealth, emergency services and other general government services.

Basis of Consolidation

(i) Consolidated Entities

These consolidated statements reflect the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of allcommittees of Council and the following boards, municipal enterprises and utilities which areunder the control of Council:

Oxford County Library

All assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses between consolidated entities have beeneliminated.

(ii) Non-consolidated Entities

Trust funds and their related operations administered by the County are not consolidated, butare reported separately on the "Trust Funds Financial Statements".

Basis of Accounting

The consolidated financial statements are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting. Theaccrual basis of accounting records revenue as it is earned and measurable. Expenses arerecognized as they are incurred and measurable based upon receipt of goods or servicesand/or the creation of a legal obligation to pay.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Management considers all highly liquid investments with maturity of 90 days or less atacquisition or redeemable on demand to be cash equivalents.

Investments

Portfolio investments are recorded at cost, unless there has been a decline in the market valuewhich is other than temporary in nature, in which case the investments are written down tomarket value.

Page 6


DECEMBER 31, 2014

Environmental Provisions

The County provides for the cost of compliance with environmental legislation when conditionsare identified which indicate non-compliance with environmental legislation and costs can bereasonably determined. The estimated amounts of future restoration costs are reviewedregularly, based on available information and governing legislation.

Retirement Benefits

The County's contributions due during the period to its multi-employer defined benefit plan areexpensed as incurred. Other retirement benefits are expensed as incurred.

Non-Financial Assets

Non-financial assets are not available to discharge existing liabilities and are held for use in theprovision of services. They have useful lives extending beyond the current year and are notintended for sale in the ordinary course of operations. The change in non-financial assets duringthe year, together with the excess of revenues over expenses, provides the Change in NetFinancial Assets for the year.

Government Transfer

Government transfers, which include legislative grants, are recognized in the consolidatedfinancial statements in the period in which events giving rise to the transfers occur, providing thetransfers are authorized, any eligibility criteria have been met, and reasonable estimates of theamount can be made.

Revenue Recognition

Taxation revenues are recognized at the time tax billings are issued. Additional property taxrevenue can be added throughout the year, related to new properties that become occupied, orthat become subject to property tax, after the assessment return roll used for billing purposes.Property taxes for these supplementary/omitted amounts are then billed according to theapproved tax rate for the property class. Taxation revenues in any year may also be reduced asa result of reductions in assessment values arising from assessment and/or tax appeals. Theseassessment changes are recorded in the year the change is settled.

Charges for sewer and water usage are recorded as user fees when billed. Connection feerevenues are recognized when the connection has been established.

Conditional grant revenue is recognized to the extent the conditions imposed on it have beenfulfilled. Unconditional grant revenue is recognized when monies are receivable.

Grants for the acquisition of tangible capital assets are recognized in the period in which eligibleexpenses are made.

Sales of service and other revenue are recognized on an accrual basis.

Page 7


DECEMBER 31, 2014

Tangible Capital Assets

Tangible capital assets are recorded at cost less accumulated amortization. Cost includes allcosts directly attributable to acquisition or construction of the tangible capital asset includingtransportation costs, installation costs, design and engineering fees, legal fees, and sitepreparation costs. Contributed tangible capital assets are recorded at fair value at the time ofthe donation, with a corresponding amount recorded as revenue. Amortization is recorded on astraight-line basis over the estimated life of the tangible capital asset commencing once theasset is available for productive use as follows:

Land No amortizationBuildings 35 to 40 yearsFurnishings and fixtures 10 yearsLibrary books 7 yearsMachinery and equipment 10 to 30 yearsInfrastructure - water and wastewater 10 to 99 yearsRoads and bridges 7 to 99 yearsComputer hardware and software 4 yearsVehicles 5 to 20 years

Inventories

Inventories held for consumption are recorded at the lower of cost and market.

Deferred Revenue

Revenues received for specific purposes which are externally restricted by legislation, regulationor agreement and are not available for general municipal purposes are accounted for asdeferred revenue on the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. The revenue isrecognized in the Consolidated Statement of Operations in the year in which it is used for thespecified purpose.

Solid Waste Landfill

The estimated costs to close and maintain solid waste landfill sites are based on estimatedfuture expenses in current dollars, discounted, adjusted for estimated inflation, and are chargedto the expense as the landfill's capacity is used.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with Canadian public sectoraccounting standards requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect thereported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities atthe date of the consolidated financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues andexpenses during the period. Actual results could differ from management's best estimates asadditional information becomes available in the future.

Page 8

COUNTY OF OXFORDNOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

DECEMBER 31, 2014

1. Investments

The short term investments of $26,780,932 (2013 - $17,173,557) are recorded at cost. Theinvestments have a market value of $27,156,312 (2013 - $17,373,876). The market valuerepresents the realizable value of the investments if they were sold on December 31, 2014.

2. Trust Funds

Trust funds administered by the County of Oxford amounting to $28,840 (2013 - $44,982) havenot been included in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position nor have their operationsbeen included in the Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus.

3. Accounts Receivable

Included in accounts receivable are long term receivables for $7,678,006 (2013 - $9,091,997)with repayment continuing until 2023.

Accounts Receivable are reported net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $88,202 (2013 -$69,569).

4. Deferred Revenue

The deferred revenue balance is comprised of the following:

2014 2013

Development charges $ 6,448,534 $ 16,530,470Economic development grant 3,221,959 3,235,113Federal gas tax 1,779,436 1,833,721Other 1,141,041 1,112,086

$ 12,590,970 $ 22,711,390

Page 9


DECEMBER 31, 2014

5. Post Retirement and Employee Future Benefits

The County provides certain employee benefits which have been funded as noted below:

2014 2013

Workplace Safety & Insurance Board $ 4,123,224 $ 4,012,164Post retirement benefits 144,705 164,758

$ 4,267,929 $ 4,176,922

Liability for Workplace Safety & Insurance (WSIB)The County is a Schedule 2 employer under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. As aSchedule 2 employer, the County assumes the liability for any award made under the Act. Acomprehensive actuarial valuation of the future liability for WSIB benefits was conducted as atDecember 31, 2011 and has been extrapolated to estimate the liability for the 2012 to 2014period. The next required valuation will be conducted in 2015 for the period ending December31, 2014, and any change in this estimate will be recorded in 2015.

The significant actuarial assumptions adopted in estimating the County's WSIB liabilities are asfollows:• Discount rate 4.25%• Expected future WSIB payments per lost time injury - County 70%

- Woodingford Lodge 178%• Health care inflation CPI plus 4%• WSIB Administration Rate 30%• Lost time injury count - County 4 - Woodingford Lodge 5

Information about the County's WSIB liability is as follows:

2014 2013

Accrued benefit obligation, beginning of year $ 4,012,164 $ 3,940,230Current service cost 497,437 483,704Interest expense 221,147 224,257Actuarial loss 1,163,256 1,495,616Benefits paid (773,704) (802,207)

Accrued benefit obligation, end of year 5,120,300 5,341,600Unamortized net actuarial gain (997,076) (1,329,436)

$ 4,123,224 $ 4,012,164

Page 10


DECEMBER 31, 2014

5. Post Retirement and Employee Future Benefits Continued

Information about the County's WSIB expenses recognized in the period is as follows:

2014 2013

Current period benefit cost $ 497,437 $ 483,704Amortization of net actuarial loss 166,180 166,180Interest expense 221,147 224,257

Accrued benefit obligation, end of year $ 884,764 $ 874,141

A reserve has been accumulated to fund this obligation. It is funded as follows:

2014 2013

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (Note 9) $ 4,747,838 $ 5,252,690

Liability for Post Retirement Benefits

The municipality provides retirement benefits consisting of health care benefits and lifeinsurance to qualifying members.

6. Pension Agreements

The County makes contributions to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Fund(OMERS), which is a multi-employer plan, on behalf of members of its staff. The plan is adefined benefit plan which specifies the amount of the retirement benefit to be received by theemployees based on the length of services and rates of pay.

The amount contributed to OMERS for 2014 was $3,590,026 (2013 - $3,392,437) for the currentservice and is included as an expenditure on the Consolidated Statement of Operations andAccumulated Surplus.

The County had no obligation, as at December 31, 2014, under the past service provisions.

Page 11


DECEMBER 31, 2014

7. Net Long Term Liabilities

(a) The balance of long term liabilities reported on the Consolidated Statement of FinancialPosition is made up of the following:

2014 2013

Total long term liabilities incurred by the County at various rates of interest ranging from 1.96% to 7.00% (2013 - 1.96% to 7.00%) with maturity dates ranging from February 2015 to December 2040 $ 99,211,633 $104,886,374

Of the long term liabilities shown above, the responsibility for payment of principal and interest charges has been assumed by other municipalities (39,234,409) (40,332,038)

Of the long term liabilities shown above, the responsibility for payment of principal and interest charges for tile drainage has been assumed by individuals (722,653) (858,814)

$ 59,254,571 $ 63,695,522

(b) Of the net long term liabilities reported in (a) of this note, the minimum principal repaymentsrequired are estimated as follows:

2015 $ 6,147,1692016 5,657,5112017 5,075,3082018 4,916,2012019 5,028,581Thereafter 32,429,801

$ 59,254,571

(c) The net interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $2,777,351 (2013 -$2,889,892).

Page 12


DECEMBER 31, 2014

7. Net Long Term Liabilities Continued

(d) The net long term liabilities in (a) issued in the name of the County have received approvalof the Ontario Municipal Board for those approved on or before December 31, 1992. Thoseapproved after January 1, 1993 have been approved by by-law. The annual principal andinterest payments required to service these liabilities are within the annual debt repayment limitprescribed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

(e) The County is contingently liable for long term liabilities with respect to tile drainage, and ofthose for which the responsibility for the payment of principal and interest has been assumedby other municipalities. The total amount outstanding as at December 31, 2014, was$39,957,062 (2013 - $41,190,852) and is not recorded on the Consolidated Statement ofFinancial Position.

8. Landfill Closure and Post Closure Liabilities

The Public Sector Accounting Handbook Section 3270: Solid Waste Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Liability, establishes standards on how to account for and report liability for closure andpost-closure care of a solid waste landfill site. The Sanitary Closure costs include final cover andvegetation, completing facilities for drainage control features, leachate monitoring, water qualitymonitoring, and monitoring and recovery of gas. Post-closure care activities include all activitiesrelated to monitoring the site once it can no longer accept waste, including acquisition of anyadditional land for buffer zones, treatment and monitoring of leachate, monitoring ground waterand surface water, gas monitoring and recovery, and ongoing maintenance of various controlsystems, drainage systems, and final cover. The estimated liability for the care of landfill sites isthe present value of future cash flows associated with closure and post-closure costs.

The County owns and operates one open landfill site and it owns and monitors two closed landfillsites. The open site has a remaining capacity of 3,124,868 (2013 - 3,223,604) cubic metres withan estimated life expectancy of 29 years. The present value of the expected closure and postclosure costs of the open landfill site have been estimated using a discount factor of 2.5% and anannual inflation rate of 2.75%. The estimated expenses for closure and post closure care are$3,837,135 (2013 - $3,792,978). and has been reported on the Consolidated Statement ofFinancial Position. The estimated length of time required for post-closure care is 25 years.

Page 13


DECEMBER 31, 2014

9. Accumulated Surplus

Accumulated surplus consists of individual fund surpluses and reserves as follows:

2014 2013

Surpluses (deficits)Operating fund $ (9,360,748) $ (9,333,233)Invested in tangible capital assets 407,814,683 393,877,518Library 166 136,270

398,454,101 384,680,555

ReservesWorking capital 6,100,000 6,100,000General 13,749,158 11,298,881Water and wastewater systems 50,290,732 37,360,911Waste collection and disposal 2,178,000 2,178,000Ambulance services 1,267,818 1,234,121Social housing 4,364,097 4,124,853Library 492,235 477,828Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) 4,747,838 5,252,690Planning 693,349 693,349Other purposes and capital expenses 17,329,681 10,363,953

101,212,908 79,084,586

Special Purpose ReservesLandfill 24,393,033 26,025,557

24,393,033 26,025,557

$524,060,042 $489,790,698

Page 14


DECEMBER 31, 2014

10. Budget

The Financial Plan (Budget) By-Law adopted by Council on December 11, 2013 was prepared ona modified accrual basis consistent with the requirements of Section 289 of the Ontario MunicipalAct, 2001. The 2014 actual balances are reported on a full accrual basis which includes;amortization of, gains and losses on disposal of and certain revenues related to, capital assets,but excludes debt repayment, capital asset costs and transfers of accumulated surplus. This isconsistent with the Public Sector Accounting Standard. As a result, the budget figures presentedin the Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus represent the FinancialPlan adopted by Council on December 11, 2013 with adjustments as follows:

2014

Financial Plan (Budget) By-Law surplus for the year $ -

Add:Tangible capital assets 43,683,078Debt principal repayment 6,152,758

Less:Amortization 16,489,924Issuance of long term liabilities 4,000,000Transfers from accumulated surplus 4,801,540

$ 24,544,372

11. Commitments

In 2008, County Council approved a $400,000 capital grant to the Stratford General Hospital.The County has committed to fund $40,000 each year from its general levy to fulfil thisobligation. This obligation will be complete in the year 2017.

12. Public Sector Salary Disclosure

In 2014, as defined in the Public Sector Disclosure Act 1996, 29 employees were paid a salaryof $100,000 or more by the County of Oxford.

13. Contingent Liabilities

The County is in the process of defending a claim for damages concerning its involvement in theexpropriation of land for industrial development purposes. If successful, the cost associated withthis claim will be funded by the County's insurance provider or from revenues the Countyreceived from a third party having an interest in the matter.

Property assessment appeals have been filed by a property owner for years 2009 through to2013 under the Assessment Act and the Municipal Act that, in the event they are successful,would be funded from the County's Corporate General reserve.

Page 15


DECEMBER 31, 2014

14. Liability for Contaminated Sites

The County has adopted PSAB 3260 standard for the year ending December 31, 2014. Nodisclosure or liability is required for contaminated sites.

15. Oxford County Library Board

In 2014, the Oxford County Library Board received $135,675 (2013 - $135,675) from theMinistry of Tourism and Culture for the public library operating grant program and pay equityfunding of $3,229 (2013 - $3,229). These amounts are included in government grants on theConsolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus.

16. Comparative Balances

Certain comparative balances have been restated to conform with the current year'spresentation.

Page 16


DECEMBER 31, 2014

17. Segmented Information

The County of Oxford is a diversified municipal government institution that provides a widerange of services to its citizens such as emergency services, water and wastewater, roads andpublic housing. Distinguishable functional segments have been separately disclosed in thesegmented information. The nature of the segments they encompass are as follows:

General GovernmentGeneral government is responsible for: CAO/Clerk, Council, Facilities, Finance,Information Services and Human Resources.

Protection to Persons and PropertyProvincial Offences Administration is responsible for providing administrative support forthe Ontario Court of Justice. The Provincial Offences Act applies to all Ontario statutes(and regulations), municipal by-laws, and some federal contraventions.

Transportation ServicesTransportation is responsible for the delivery of municipal public works services related tothe planning, development and maintenance of roadway systems.

Environmental ServicesThe environmental services department consists of three distinct utilities - water,wastewater and solid waste disposal.

Health ServicesHealth services are comprised of public health services which works to improve the overallhealth of the population and overcome health inequalities by providing services toindividuals and communities. Emergency Medical Services provides the County andsurrounding areas with pre-hospital medical care and transportation services to the ill andinjured in the community.

Social and Family ServicesSocial Services provides services that are meant to help the less fortunate in society andassistance to the aged.

Social HousingSocial Housing is provided to help shelter individuals, families and elderly in need.

Oxford County Public Library BoardOxford County Public Library Board provides services meant to improve the health anddevelopment of the citizens of the County.

Planning and DevelopmentPlanning and development provides services related to property development within theCounty.

Page 17

COUNTY OF OXFORDCONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE OF TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS


Schedule 1

Land Buildings VehiclesFurniture

and Fixtures

Machineryand

Equipment Bridges

COST

Balance, beginning of year $25,461,990 $100,795,684 $10,783,276 $4,897,008 $11,276,816 $29,004,892

Add: additions during the year 297,920 3,325,396 1,526,686 16,392 224,618 506,884

Less: disposals during the year - 337,018 763,476 - 467,804 7,965

Balance, end of year 25,759,910 103,784,062 11,546,486 4,913,400 11,033,630 29,503,811

ACCUMULATED AMORTIZATION

Balance, beginning of year - $24,986,901 $6,075,566 $4,043,581 $3,995,968 $10,071,904

Add: amortization during the year - 2,730,775 1,228,737 141,385 665,855 426,060

Less: disposals during the year - 129,940 707,700 - 422,521 7,350

Balance, end of year - 27,587,736 6,596,603 4,184,966 4,239,302 10,490,614

NET BOOK VALUE OF TANGIBLECAPITAL ASSETS $25,759,910 $76,196,326 $4,949,883 $728,434 $6,794,328 $19,013,197

Page 18

COUNTY OF OXFORDCONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE OF TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS


Schedule 1

Water andWaste Water Roads

LibraryBooks

ComputerHardware

and Software TotalTotal2013

COST (Note 16)

Balance, beginning of year $342,897,273 $153,176,061 $1,888,409 $1,222,773 $681,404,182 $656,716,855

Add: additions during the year 8,094,942 9,441,179 280,744 568,465 24,283,226 31,806,095

Less: disposals during the year 875,147 663,707 494,798 331,773 3,941,688 7,118,768

Balance, end of year 350,117,068 161,953,533 1,674,355 1,459,465 701,745,720 681,404,182

ACCUMULATED AMORTIZATION

Balance, beginning of year $107,970,661 $73,945,447 $955,013 $763,938 $232,808,979 $222,624,412

Add: amortization during the year 4,693,116 5,021,004 236,985 359,935 15,503,852 14,838,400

Less: disposals during the year 375,578 465,604 494,798 331,773 2,935,264 4,653,833

Balance, end of year 112,288,199 78,500,847 697,200 792,100 245,377,567 232,808,979

NET BOOK VALUE OF TANGIBLECAPITAL ASSETS $237,828,869 $83,452,686 $977,155 $667,365 $456,368,153 $448,595,203

Page 19

COUNTY OF OXFORDCONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE OF SEGMENT DISCLOSURE


Schedule 2

GeneralGovernment

Protectionto Persons

and PropertyTransportation

ServicesEnvironmental

ServicesHealth

Services

Socialand Family

ServicesREVENUES

Taxation $5,196,607 $357,898 $16,906,000 $2,639,691 $7,862,793 $12,437,166User charges 1,376,677 - 1,050,371 43,813,650 435,174 2,354,652Government grants 31,362 - - 112,502 12,571,256 29,816,439Investment income 1,260,822 - - 627,852 - -Long term care resident maintenance - - - - - 5,149,941Provincial offences - 2,152,902 - - - -Other 247,192 2,698 - - 23,011 12,564

8,112,660 2,513,498 17,956,371 47,193,695 20,892,234 49,770,762

EXPENSES

Wages and benefits 4,919,634 345,342 4,003,387 6,413,631 15,618,440 20,152,051Materials and supplies 3,989,770 100,107 3,179,948 11,427,482 1,920,935 4,549,431Contracted services 2,666,621 269,488 750,528 10,873,931 616,625 1,878,421Rents and financial expenses 110,967 17,431 26,489 9,974 - 37,220External transfers 138,317 1,093,887 5,000 - 67,500 17,622,410Interfunctional transfers (9,201,524) 196,520 3,422,701 1,299,401 1,596,534 1,802,275Interest on long term debt 323,222 48,329 8,420 1,287,146 72,531 983,112Amortization 2,305,082 - 5,521,541 5,135,411 675,910 1,247,909

5,252,089 2,071,104 16,918,014 36,446,976 20,568,475 48,272,829

EXCESS REVENUES OVER (UNDER)EXPENSES BEFORE OTHER 2,860,571 442,394 1,038,357 10,746,719 323,759 1,497,933

OTHER REVENUES (EXPENSES)

Government capital transfers - - 3,224,160 - - -Developer contributions-in-kind related to capital 143,003 - 2,937,533 11,500,322 - -Gain (loss) on disposal (4,362) - (179,019) (529,377) 19,014 (151,770)Capital revenue recoverable from residents - - - 108,502 - -

138,641 - 5,982,674 11,079,447 19,014 (151,770)

EXCESS REVENUES OVER (UNDER)EXPENSES $2,999,212 $442,394 $7,021,031 $21,826,166 $342,773 $1,346,163

Page 20

COUNTY OF OXFORDCONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE OF SEGMENT DISCLOSURE


Schedule 2

SocialHousing

Oxford CountyPublic

Library BoardPlanning andDevelopment Total

Total2013

REVENUES

Taxation $3,589,160 $2,962,786 $2,974,243 $54,926,344 $53,412,016User charges 2,252,987 39,316 250,993 51,573,820 51,585,197Government grants 2,940,097 222,582 3,664 45,697,902 44,792,923Investment income 943 1,053 - 1,890,670 1,710,362Long term care resident maintenance - - - 5,149,941 5,078,775Provincial offences - - - 2,152,902 2,139,287Other - 10,510 - 295,975 58,505

8,783,187 3,236,247 3,228,900 161,687,554 158,777,065

EXPENSES

Wages and benefits - 2,011,206 2,408,368 55,872,059 52,711,221Materials and supplies 3,030,809 365,318 349,840 28,913,640 26,629,981Contracted services 448,150 56,115 141,938 17,701,817 19,943,203Rents and financial expenses - 215,434 16,373 433,888 407,197External transfers 4,575,556 - 25,000 23,527,670 21,045,972Interfunctional transfers 205,011 393,438 285,644 - -Interest on long term debt - 54,592 - 2,777,352 2,889,891Amortization 176,277 441,722 - 15,503,852 14,838,400

8,435,803 3,537,825 3,227,163 144,730,278 138,465,865

EXCESS REVENUES OVER (UNDER)EXPENSES BEFORE OTHER 347,384 (301,578) 1,737 16,957,276 20,311,200

OTHER REVENUES (EXPENSES)

Government capital transfers - - - 3,224,160 3,125,000Developer contributions-in-kind related to capital - 244,062 - 14,824,920 7,135,439Gain (loss) on disposal - - - (845,514) (2,290,577)Capital revenue recoverable from residents - - - 108,502 1,011,176

- 244,062 - 17,312,068 8,981,038

EXCESS REVENUES OVER (UNDER)EXPENSES $347,384 $(57,516) $1,737 $34,269,344 $29,292,238

Page 21

TRUST FUNDS

DECEMBER 31, 2014

Report No. CS 2015-16

Attachment No. 2

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

To the Members of Council, Inhabitants and Ratepayers of the County of Oxford:

I have audited the accompanying financial statements of the County of Oxford Trust Funds, which comprise the statement of financial position as at December 31, 2014 and the statements of operations and accumulated surplus and cash flows for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information.

Management's Responsibility for the Financial StatementsManagement is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial

statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor's ResponsibilityMy responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on my

audit. I conducted my audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditingstandards. Those standards require that I comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating overall presentation of the financial statements.

I believe that the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my audit opinion.

OpinionIn my opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the

financial position of the County of Oxford Trust Funds as at December 31, 2014 and its financial performance and its change in cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards.

London, CanadaMay 13, 2015 LICENSED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

christene

Draft

COUNTY OF OXFORDTRUST FUNDS

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND ACCUMULATED SURPLUSFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014

County CountyCounty Agreement TreeHome Forest Memorial

Total Trust Trust Trust

REVENUES

Capital $ 70,717 $ 70,717 $ - $ -

EXPENSESResident withdrawals 72,069 72,069 - -

EXCESS REVENUES OVER EXPENSES(EXPENSES OVER REVENUES) (1,352) (1,352) - -

FUND TRANSFER (Note 4) (14,790) - (5,748) (9,042)

ACCUMULATED SURPLUS, BEGINNING OF YEAR 44,982 30,192 5,748 9,042

ACCUMULATED SURPLUS, END OF YEAR $ 28,840 $ 28,840 $ - $ -

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITIONAS AT DECEMBER 31, 2014

ASSETSCash $ 28,840 $ 28,840 $ - $ -

ACCUMULATED SURPLUS $ 28,840 $ 28,840 $ - $ -

The summary of significant accounting policies is an integral part of this financial statement.


STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWSFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014

County CountyCounty Agreement TreeHome Forest Memorial

Total Trust Trust Trust

OPERATING ACTIVITIES

Excess revenues over expenses (expenses over revenues) $ (1,352) $ (1,352) $ - $ -

Fund Transfer (Note 4) (14,790) - (5,748) (9,042)

Increase (decrease) in cash (16,142) (1,352) (5,748) (9,042)

Cash, beginning of year 44,982 30,192 5,748 9,042

Cash, end of year $ 28,840 $ 28,840 $ - $ -

The summary of significant accounting policies is an integral part of this financial statement.


SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIESDECEMBER 31, 2014

1. Significant Accounting Policies

(a) The trust funds' financial statements reflect the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses ofthe County's trust funds.

(b) The financial statements have been prepared using the accrual basis of accounting inaccordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards established by the Public SectorAccounting Board ("PSAB") of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada ("CPA"Canada).

2. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements

Oxford County is an upper-tier municipality in the Province of Ontario, Canada. It conducts itsoperations guided by the provisions of provincial statutes such as the Municipal Act, MunicipalAffairs Act and related legislation. The trust funds financial statements of the County of Oxfordare the representation of management prepared in accordance with Canadian public sectoraccounting standards established by the PSAB of the CPA Canada.

3. Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with Canadian public sector accountingstandards requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reportedamounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date ofthe financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the period.Actual results could differ from management's best estimates as additional information becomesavailable in the future.

4. Fund Transfer

On January 8, 2014, Council authorized closure of the County Agreement Forest and theCounty Tree Memorial inactive trust funds, reserving the funds from the County AgreementForest and County Tree Memorial for future use in reforestation.


Attachment No. 3

CS Report No. 2015-16

Attachment No. 4



Page 1 of 5



Oxford County Shared Municipal Network Service Review

RECOMMENDATION

1. That County Council approve the repatriation of the Oxford County shared municipal network and associated services as outlined in Report No. CS 2015-18 and supported by the report prepared by InfoTech Research Group entitled “Analysis of the Shared Municipal Network’s O&M Services”, dated May 13, 2015.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Oxford County shared municipal network, known as the County of Oxford Integrated

Network (COIN), currently serves 48 County locations and 40 Area Municipal locations with pending connection for 20 additional County locations

Shared municipal network links Area Municipal and County governments, County departments, libraries and non-government community organizations/partners via a reliable, secure network that provides fast access to information and applications

Existing managed operations and maintenance agreement with an external service provider expires in July, 2016

Research, analysis and concluding recommendations prepared by InfoTech Research Group will be presented to Council by the consultants

Implementation Points Upon Council approval staff will ensure the Area Municipality shared municipal network partners are well informed of the process and any changes that will affect service levels.

Staff will engage the necessary expertise to ensure continuity of service during the transition phase which will be based on a detailed, sound work plan.

Financial Impact The recommendations contained in this report are expected to be funded within the remaining 2015 approved budget for this project of approximately $77,000.

The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact statement.

Risks/Implications There is no inherent risk with the adoption of the recommendation in this report other than what was identified in the InfoTech report with respect to Council’s commitment to maintain a budget



Page 2 of 5

sufficient to sustain the infrastructure and resources to secure and maintain required service levels.

Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan at its regular meeting held March 27, 2013. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions:

1. ii. A County that Works Together – Enhance the quality of life for all of our citizens by:

- Maintaining and strengthening core infrastructure

3. iii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future - Apply social, financial and environmental sustainability lenses to significant decisions by assessing options in regard to:

- Life cycle costs and benefit/costs, including debt, tax and reserve levels and implications

5. ii. A County that Performs and Delivers Results - Deliver exceptional services by:

- Regularly reviewing service level standards to assess potential for improved access to services / amenities

- Conducting regular service reviews to ensure delivery effectiveness and efficiency - Developing and tracking key performance indicators against goals and efficiency - Identify best practices and appropriate benchmarking

DISCUSSION Background The County’s shared municipal network (COIN) is a wide area network that originated in 1998. Considering it is a closed/internal network, it neither replaces nor competes with the Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology (SWIFT) initiative proposed by the Ontario Western Ontario Warden’s Caucus (WOWC). SWIFT is a proposal to accelerate access to internet service providers, through high capacity/high speed fibre technology connectivity, for all residents and businesses in Southwestern Ontario. In contrast, the County’s shared municipal network functions similar to the network within a household connected to an external Internet service provider. Such a household network allows multiple computers and devices access to secure internal communications and shared external Internet access. In COIN’s case, the network provides reliable and secure internal connections amongst the appropriate computers and operations located at 108 sites across the County. The 108 locations include Area Municipal and County governments, County departments, libraries and non-government community organizations/partners. The County’s shared municipal network has been enhanced over the years to better serve the needs of the County and its eight area municipalities. In 2006, there was a steering committee of Council established to consider the ownership and operational management of the shared network. The review was facilitated by an external consultant and resulted in the County



Page 3 of 5

entering into an agreement with an external service provider for the operation and maintenance of the shared network. The ten-year term of the agreement expires July, 2016. In order to plan for continued services following the expired contract, Council approved, in the 2014 and 2015 Information Systems Business Plans, the goal of determining an IT/COIN Strategy supported by a $100,000 budget provision. In 2013, County Council approved a corporate-wide service delivery review with a mandate to review effectiveness, efficiency and value of each service provided by the County. The two-year review process is intended to evaluate whether specific services should be expanded, reduced, discontinued or delivered in an alternate manner. Given the degree of technical issues, and with the expiry of the external operation and maintenance agreement within the next year, the COIN review was undertaken separate from the Services That Works program. To undertake the COIN review, the County engaged InfoTech Research Group. Burgeoning from its inception in 1997, InfoTech Research Group is considered the world’s fastest growing information technology research and advisory company with offices currently in London, Toronto and Las Vegas, NV. Their mission is to assist IT leaders in all sectors systematically improve their core processes and governance; and successfully implement critical technology projects. InfoTech was engaged to conduct a comprehensive analysis of available options and recommend a course of action following the expiring service agreement to inform the ongoing corporate-wide service delivery review.

Comments In considering options for operations and maintenance of the County’s shared municipal network, InfoTech not only relied on their own technical expertise, but also researched other best practices in the public and private sectors. They identified three options available to the County that subject to a comprehensive analysis to determine the optimal solution. The three options are set out in Table 1. Table 1 – Shared Network – Operation and Maintenance Options

Following a comprehensive research and analysis process, InfoTech condensed their findings and resulting conclusions in a report entitled “Analysis of the Shared Municipal Network’s O&M Services”, dated May 13, 2015 – attached as Attachment No. 1. The estimated costs of each of the three options are set out in Table 2. It is important to understand the assumptions used in estimating these. They are found on pages 12 – 28 of InfoTech’s report. An appendix to InfoTech’s report provides a list of all endpoints and cost calculations used in Option 3.

Recommendations

1. Enter into an agreement with a managed service provider

2. Repatriate the shared municipal network operation services (in-house)

3. Discontinue the shared municipal network and associated services



Page 4 of 5

Table 2 – Operation and Maintenance Options – Estimated Annual Costs

In addition to estimated annual costs, careful consideration was given to the following influencing factors typically associated with complex IT systems and projects:

Ease of implementation Risk Amount of control over service levels.

A summary of InfoTech’s assessments can be found on page 26 of their report – see Attachment No. 1. Upon deciding the preferred option for management of the operations and maintenance for the shared municipal network, work will begin immediately to plan for implementation. Should Council choose Option 1 – an agreement with an external managed service provider as the preferred solution, a competitive bid process (RFP) would be required and would be completed in Q3. Such timing will ensure the 2016 budget is presented with the necessary provisions and a solid work plan is developed to maintain continuity of service during the transition phase. Should Council choose Option 3, a much more complex competitive bid process would be required to ensure services delivered by the County and the Area Municipalities are not negatively impacted. In addition to the levels of service available under Option 3, the number of service providers and agreements and/or contracts that would be involved would exacerbate an already complex process – not just for the County, but for all eight of the Area Municipalities. In comparing the implementation processes for all three options, InfoTech has determined Option 2 to be the easiest to implement – refer to page 26 of their report. That being said, to ensure the least amount of disruption to the shared municipal network services, planning the implementation needs to begin, supported by external expertise. The cost of the research and analysis phase of this project was approximately $23,000 therefore there are sufficient funds remaining in the 2015 provision of $100,000 to engage external expertise and possibly legal assistance to assist with implementation. The cost and the expertise required to assist with that process will be largely dependent upon the selected solution. The reliance on the municipal shared network has grown over the years as our services change and evolve in response to our communities’ needs and provincial requirements. With respect to the reliance that the Area Municipal services have invested in the shared network, a copy of this report and the InfoTech report have been shared with the Area Municipal staff to allow an opportunity for dialogue and any concerns to be raised.

Recommendations Estimated Annual Costs

1. Enter into an agreement with a managed service provider $257,520

2. Repatriate the shared municipal network operation services (in-house)

$167,133

3. Discontinue the shared municipal network and associated services

$233,160 - $619,488



Page 5 of 5

Conclusions In 1998 when COIN was constructed, it was considered to be leading edge access to technology for a government entity and some key community partners. In today’s municipal sector, a municipal shared service network is common place in order to deliver services and forms a critical component of their infrastructure. Similar to a road network, a shared municipal IT network is a significant investment that requires regular maintenance and improvements to ensure secure and reliable sharing of information and applications that provide more efficient and cost effective delivery of a very diverse set of services to the County and its eight area municipalities. The concluding recommendation formulated by InfoTech Research Group is sound and will provide the most reliable continuity of service for the County and the Area Municipalities well into the future. As such, staff recommend repatriation of the management of the shared municipal network into County operations.

SIGNATURE

Report Co-author: Original signed by Michael McCuaig Manager of Technology Services




ATTACHMENTS Attachment No. 1 - Analysis of the Shared Municipal Network’s O&M Services”, dated May 13, 2015, InfoTech Research Group

Info-Tech Research Group 1

Analysis of the Shared Municipal Network’s O&M Services

Final Report

Prepared for: County of Oxford

Date: May 13th, 2015


Attachment No. 1


Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

1 Context 7

2 Options Analysis 10

3 Options Comparison 24

Appendix 27

Page

Info-Tech Research Group 3Info-Tech Research Group 3

Executive Summary

• Introduction

• Recommended course of action

What’s in this Section


The County of Oxford and area municipalities currently leverage ashared municipal network for connectivity and other services

• The County of Oxford Integrated Network (COIN) is a broadband network that enables high‐speed

communications, data transfers, Internet access and other services in the County of Oxford (the

County).

• COIN was put in service in 1998. It links municipal governments, county departments, libraries and

community organizations. The network is composed of a fibre-based core, hybrid (fibre + wireless)

transmission, and a number of DSL links.

• In 2006, the County entered into an agreement with Packet-Tel Corp (“PacketWorks”) for the operation

and maintenance (O&M) of the network. The agreement ends on July 2nd, 2016.

• The County is undertaking a corporate-wide service delivery review with a mandate to review the

effectiveness, efficiency and value of each service provided by the County.

• The County is evaluating whether specific services should be expanded, reduced, discontinued or

delivered in an alternate manner. As a result, it will recommend changes in services, programs and

resources.

• For that purpose, the County has engaged Info-Tech to conduct an analysis of available options and

recommend a course of action following the expiry of the existing network operation and maintenance

agreement.


After expiry of the operation and maintenance agreement for thenetwork, the County will have 3 options to continue serving its users

Option 1: Enter into an agreement with a managed service provider

Option 2: Repatriate the shared municipal network operation services (in-house)

Option 3: Discontinue the shared municipal network and associated services

This document investigates the three options available to the County:


The recommended course of action, after completing ouranalysis of the 3 options, is for the County to service theshared municipal network using internal resources

• There is low risk for the County to

service the shared network internally

• This option proves to be more cost

efficient

Option 2:

Repatriation of the

shared municipal

network and

associated

services

• Implementation would not require

physical changes to the network

• By servicing the shared municipal

network internally the County gains full

control of security and continuity services

Cost

Risk

Ease of

Implementation

Control

Value to County


Context

• Background



The County’s shared municipal network is currently maintained byPacketWorks, a managed service provider

• The County of Oxford Integrated

Network (COIN) is a shared municipal

broadband network that enables

high‐speed communications, data

transfers, Internet access and other

services.

• The network links municipal

governments, county departments,

libraries and community organizations

via a reliable network that affords fast

access to information and

applications.

• The network was put in service in 1998 by Packet-Tel Corp (“PacketWorks”) and

managed in-house by the County of Oxford’s (“The County”) Information Systems

department until 2006.

• Since July 2006, PacketWorks has been operating and maintaining the network. The

current term of this agreement ends on July 2, 2016.

• Today the network services 48 County locations and 40 area municipality locations. It is

estimated that in 2016, 20 County locations will be added to the network.


The County monitors and uses the network to ensure selectedservices to all end users

• The County’s Information Systems function is fulfilled by two teams: Technology Services

and Information Services

• Resources from the Technology Services team actively monitors, troubleshoots, manages

new installations, and controls the firewalls at endpoints.

• To monitor the network, the County is using two software tools, Nagios and Cacti.

• The County leverages the network to provide services to end users of the network. This

includes end users from area municipalities. These end users have access to applications

that are provided by the County, such as Laserfiche, GIS Software, Mail DNS Services and

many others across the network.

Current County offerings on the network

Security

Central File

Storage &

Remote

Server

Access

GIS

Applications

& Services

Voice over

IP (VoIP)


Options Analysis

• Option 1

• Option 2

• Option 3



After expiry of the current managed service agreement, theCounty will have to implement one of three options

Network

O&M

Options

Option 1: Enter into another

agreement with a managed

service provider

Option 2: Repatriate the

network operation services

(in-house)

Option 3: Discontinue the

shared network



shared network



(in-house)

Option 1: Enter into another agreement with a managedservice provider

Option 1: Enter into a new


service provider

Network

O&M

Options


The first option is for the County to enter into a new managedservice agreement

Current Agreement Terms

Should the new agreement’s terms be comparable to those of the current agreement, the

responsibilities for servicing the shared municipal network will be as follows

Full-time involvement of a County Network support staff (1.0 FTE) who would complete the following tasks:

• Troubleshoot and supervise all new installations

• Control all firewalls at endpoints

• Monitoring of connection’s performance at service locations.

The Managed Service Provider would be responsible for the following:

• Service installation / changes

• Service monitoring

• Service maintenance

• Internet connectivity

Recurring Costs

Base Fee $10,000 monthly

New Service Location* Fee $100 monthly for each New Service Location

Additional Bandwidth Fee $100 monthly for each Mbps over 10 Mbps

One-Time Costs

Installations of any New Service Location in the period $250 for each New Service Location installed in the period

Fee for any Moves, Changes and Adds (MACs) The cost for PacketWorks for the MACs in the period plus 15%

Option 1


The total annual cost of the new agreement, should it followthe same terms as the existing agreement will be $257,520

• 108 service locations (68 County locations and 40 in area municipalities)

• County Network support staff (1 FTE at $93,000/year in salary and benefits)

• Same scope of services as current agreement

• Same service level commitments as current agreement

• Same pricing structure and prices as current agreement

Cost Categories Annual Costs

Provider fees

Base fee ($13,710/month) $164,520

County Network support staff $93,000

Total $257,520

Annual

Cost =

$257,520

Assumptions

Option 1


Option 2: Repatriate the network operation services (in-house)

Option 1: Enter into an


service provider



(in-house)

Network

O&M

Options


shared network


Repatriating the network O&M services currently offered by the Managed

Service Provider would require more effort to be deployed in-house

Internet connectivity to be provided by an external

provider :

• 100 mbps symmetrical connection

• Border Gateway Protocol services provided

Current Future

Responsibilities for servicing the shared municipal network

Full-time involvement of a County Network support staff

from the technology department to provide the

following:




• Troubleshooting

• Network performance monitoring


who completes the following tasks:



• Monitoring of connection’s performance at service

locations.

The Managed Service Provider is responsible for the

following:




• Internet connectivity

Option 2


Option 2 would result in an annual cost of $167,133

Break-down of Costs

Shared municipal network servicing

1 FTE’s salary and benefits (same as required for

Option 1)

Inventory costs for spare equipment

Internet Connection

100 mbps symmetrical connection

Border Gateway Protocol services provided

Static IP

Internal network connections

Radio Replacement on towers

Assumptions:

Estimated salary plus benefits = $93,000 per year

Assumptions: (Reference price used is that of an Internet service

provider’s Business Internet Package)

• 250 Mbps/250 Mbps

• 1 static IP

• $231 per month

• 3 years contract

Cost Categories Annual Costs


Communication equipment inventory $3,333

Internet connection $3,000

Internal network connections $55,800

Radio Replacement on Towers $12,000

Total $167,133

Annual

Cost =

$167,133

Assumptions:

$10,000 of communication equipment inventory which we assume to be

depreciated linearly over 3 years

Assumptions:

Riggers 24/7 service contract = $12,000 per year

Assumptions:

Current costs = $4,650 per month

Option 2


Option 3: Discontinue shared network services

Option 1: Enter into an

agreement with another

managed service provider



(in-house)

Option 3: Discontinue

shared network services

Network

O&M

Options


Discontinuing the shared municipal network would result in each of the existing

service locations having to find a provider of internet connectivity and add-on

services

Upstream locations will need to secure:

• Their own internet connectivity needs and

• Connectivity needs of downstream locations.

Current FutureThe County will need to secure individual data links for

County locations.

Other network “customers”, such as the area

municipalities, would be responsible for securing their

own internet connectivity needs.

County Network support staff (1.0 FTE) will be involved

for troubleshooting at service locations.


who completes the following tasks:



• Monitoring of connection’s performance at service

locations.

The Managed Service Provider is responsible for the

following:

• Service installation/ changes



• Internet connectivity It is possible that some service locations may

not have access to external internet connectivity

services.

Responsibilities for servicing the shared municipal network

Option 3


For the Option, three costing scenarios were used, each usingthe same base assumptions

• 68 County service locations (including 20 new service

locations for future Water Department sites)

• 40 Municipal service locations

• Costs associated with Option 3 are:

‒ Cost of internet connectivity for connections in County

locations (Set up cost + recurring costs of

connectivity, static IP, VPN, and support)

‒ Cost of internet connectivity for connections in

Municipal locations (Set up cost + recurring costs of

connectivity, static IP, VPN, and support)

‒ Cost of dismantling the existing shared municipal

network (COIN)

‒ Cost of changing all DNS records (WWW,SMTP etc)

and municipalities getting their own IP addresses,

reconfiguring all firewalls etc.

• Reference costs that will be used are based on tariffs

specified in each of the internet service providers’ plans for

Business Customers. This includes:

‒ Set-up cost

‒ Cost of internet at endpoint: We will select the

connection speed that is closest to that currently

offered.

• Cost of changing all DNS records and performing all firewall

configurations: 1 person.month x $7,705/person.month

• Cost of County Network support staff for troubleshooting: 1.0

FTE x $93,000 annually

Base AssumptionsWe estimated service costs to both the County

and the area municipalities:

• Three different costing scenarios were

developed based upon the available tariff

plans of three different internet service

providers.

• The pricing information that was obtained

was derived from preliminary quotes and

headline tariffs that are advertised on these

providers’ websites. These indicative prices

were not obtained through a formal

RFP/RFQ process and therefore cannot be

deemed final.

• For each existing service location, a

substitute connection speed was selected

from those available to the respective

providers in order to estimate the monthly

service cost.

• A yearly service cost for each existing

service location was calculated.

• Detailed calculations can be found in the

Appendix.

Option 3


Option 3 costing: Using Provider 1’s listed prices

• Reference costs used for calculations in the tables below are based on the

tariffs advertised in Provider 1’s internet plans for Business Customers :

‒ Set-up cost = $50.00

‒ Cost of 60/10 internet: $106



‒ All Internet prices include

Static IP, VPN and 24/7

Support

Cost Categories Annual Costs for the County

Recurring Costs

Internet Connectivity $87,816


One-time Costs

Changing DNS records, etc. $7,705

Connectivity set-up $3,400

Total (1st year) $191,921

Annual Cost

to County =

$180,816

Cost Categories Annual Costs for Area Municipalities

Recurring Costs


One-time Costs



Annual Cost

to Area

Municipalities

= $52,344

Total cost to County and Area Municipalities = $180,816 + $52,344 = $233,160

• Important Note: The internet plans used for Provider 1 may not be

available in the County’s area or available at the standard tariffs.

Assumptions

Option 3


Option 3 costing: Using Provider 2’s listed prices

• Reference costs used for calculations in the tables below are based on

the tariffs advertised in Provider 2’s internet plans for Business

Customers:




‒ Cost of 10/1: $51

‒ Set-up cost: $80

‒ 8-hour level support: $15

‒ Static IP cost: $27.50


Recurring Costs



One-time Costs




Annual Cost

to County =

$182,676


Recurring Costs


One-time Costs



Annual Cost

to Area

Municipalities

= $53,460


• Important Note: The internet plans used for Provider 2 may not be

available in the County’s area or available at the standard tariffs.

Assumptions

Option 3


• Important Note: The

internet plans used for

Provider 2 may not be

available in the County’s

area or available at the

standard tariffs.

Option 3 costing: Using Provider 3’s quoted prices


Recurring Costs



One-time Costs




Annual Cost

to County =

$416,130


Recurring Costs


One-time Costs



Annual Cost

to Area

Municipalities

= $203,358


• Reference costs used for calculations in the tables below are based on the tariffs quoted by Provider 3

verbally during a telephone inquiry:

‒ Set-up cost = $150.00



• For Gateway locations, the reference cost used is that of 250/250 internet provided by Provider 2: $231

Assumptions


‒ All Internet prices include Static

IP, VPN and Support

Option 3


Options Comparison

• Implications of each Option

• Assessment of the Options



Each of the options highlighted has associated implications

• New managed service agreement (existing terms

were used for option comparison purposes)

– 5 year, renewable agreement

– Base fee $120,000/annum

– $1,200/annum for each additional location

• $257,520 of annual costs

• County would provide O&M services in-house

• Requires a dedicated technician from the County

• Requires provision of Internet connectivity by a third

party

• $167,133 of annual costs

• County would decommission COIN

• County would need to purchase internet

connectivity for their unique service locations

• $233,160 - $619,488 of annual costs

Option Implications

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

• The County would need to solicit bids from service

providers.

• The success of the partnership would depend on

negotiating the right terms.

• There will be a cost associated with managing and

executing the bid process.

• There will be a cost associated with managing the

execution of the service agreement..

• Requires that the County be able to out-task

installation and maintenance works on the network

when necessary (e.g. repair of wireless transmission

elements).

• Costs include $12,000 annual service contract for

rigging

• One-time cost for dismantling the shared network.

• One-time revenue from disposing of network assets.

• Requires that all service locations have access to

internet connectivity from a provider.

• No centralized security monitoring.

• Less control over level of service for connectivity and

shared solutions.


At risk that the County would

not be able to adhere to

expected service levels using

internal resources

At risk that budget for an

increased resource level

would not be available.

An analysis of the three options finds Option 2 to be the mostefficient and effective way of servicing the shared network

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Ease of

Implementation

Risk

Amount of Control

(over service levels)

Annual Costs

Requires the

implementation of a

new managed service

sourcing process.

The County currently has

capabilities to service the network

but may have to increase

resource engagement as

workload increases.

Requires service

availability for each

service location.

At risk that the County

will not be able to find

a suitable provider or

negotiate acceptable

agreement terms.

At risk that some

service locations would

not receive the same

connectivity bandwidth

as today.

Depends on the

mechanisms that will

be negotiated to

enforce service level

commitments.

County has full control over

service levels to the

network customers.

County has little to no

control to service

levels to each service

location.

$257,520

(cost estimated based

on existing terms)

$167,133 $233,160 - $619,488


Appendix

• Endpoints and cost calculations for discontinuing COIN



Costs to the County using Provider 1 as the service provider

Site Type Downstream ADSL SDSL Cable Wireless Fiber Speed (mb)Substitute Internet

ConnectionMonthly Cost Yearly Cost

Archives (Turnkey) County Endpoint Y 1000 150/10 $200 $2,400

Board of Health (410 Buller) County Endpoint Y 1000 150/10 $200 $2,400

Board of Health (93 Graham) County BoH (410 Buller) Y 1000 150/10 $200 $2,400

Bower Hill County Hub Y Y 1000 150/10 $200 $2,400

Brownsville Library County Brownsville Fire Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Burgessville Library County Burgessville Fire Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Bysham Park EMS County Endpoint Y 60M/10M 30/5 $86 $1,032

Courthouse (old POA) County Endpoint Y 6M/800k 30/5 $86 $1,032

Drumbo Works/EMS County Bla-Ble, Princeton Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Embro Library County Embro Arena, Fire Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Harrington Library County Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Highland Works/EMS (Embro Shop) County Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll EMS County Endpoint Y 6M/800k 30/5 $86 $1,032

Ingersoll Library County Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll LTC County Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll Pumphouse County Endpoint Y 6M/800k 30/5 $86 $1,032

Ingersoll Social Services County Endpoint Y 6M/800k 30/5 $86 $1,032

Ingersoll Waste Water County Endpoint Y 20 60/10 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll Water County Ingersoll Waste Water Y 20 60/10 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll Water Tower County Hub Y Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Innerkip Library County All Drumbo Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Mill St EMS County Endpoint Y 20 60/10 $106 $1,272

Mt. Elgin Library County SWOX, Salford Y 2 30/5 $86 $1,032

Norwich EMS County Endpoint Y 5 30/5 $86 $1,032

Norwich Fire County Endpoint Y 4 30/5 $86 $1,032

Norwich Library County Endpoint Y 10 30/5 $86 $1,032

Norwich Water Tower County Hub Y 45 60/10 $106 $1,272

Otterville Library County Endpoint Y 5 30/5 $86 $1,032

Otterville relay point County Otterville Fire, Library Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Oxford County Admin Building County Everything! Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Oxford Tourism County Endpoint Y 60M/10M 30/5 $86 $1,032

Plattsville Library County Endpoint Y 6M/800k 30/5 $86 $1,032

Plattsville Waste Water County Endpoint Y 3M/512k 30/5 $86 $1,032

POA (new) County Endpoint Y 1000 150/10 $200 $2,400

Princeton Library County Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Salford Landfill County Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Southside Water County Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Springford Yard County Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Tavistock Library County Endpoint Y 25M/2M 30/5 $86 $1,032

Thamesford Library County Thamesford Arena Y 6M/800k 30/5 $86 $1,032

Thamesford Waste Water County Endpoint Y 2 30/5 $86 $1,032

Tillsonburg EMS County Endpoint Y 6M/800k 30/5 $86 $1,032

Tillsonburg Library County Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Tillsonburg LTC County Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Tillsonburg Reservoir County Hub Y 45 60/10 $106 $1,272

Woodstock LTC County Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Waste Water County Endpoint Y 6M/800k 30/5 $86 $1,032

Woodstock Works Yard County Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Total annual cost for all sites $62,37620 additional sites $25,440

Total annual cost for all sites $87,816


Costs to the area municipalities using Provider 1 as the serviceprovider

Site Type Downstream ADSL SDSL Cable Wireless Fiber Speed (mb) Substitute Cxn Monthly Cost Yearly Cost

Beachville Fire Municipal Beachville Maintenance Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Beachville Maintenance Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Blandford-Blenheim Township Municipal Endpoint Y 20 60/10 $106 $1,272

Blandford-Blenheim Works Yard Municipal Endpoint Y 45 60/10 $106 $1,272

Brownsville Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Burgessville Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

City of Woodstock Municipal All CoW sites Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

East Zorra/Tavistock (Hickson) Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Embro Arena Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Embro Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

EZT Garage (Hickson) Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll Fusion Youth Center Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll Town Municipal Ingersoll Library, LTC, Vic ParkWater, Waste Water

Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll Victora Park Municipal Endpoint Y 60/10 $106 $1,272

Kintore Works Municipal Endpoint Y 20 60/10 $106 $1,272

Mt. Elgin Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Norwich Arena Municipal Endpoint Y 2 30/5 $86 $1,032

Norwich Health Municipal Endpoint Y 6M/800k 30/5 $86 $1,032

Norwich Township Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Otterville Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 5 30/5 $86 $1,032

Oxford Center Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 1.5 30/5 $86 $1,032

SWOX Township Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Thamesford Arena Municipal Endpoint Y 2 30/5 $86 $1,032

Thamesford Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 6M/800k 30/5 $86 $1,032

Tillsonburg Airport Municipal Endpoint Y 10 30/5 $86 $1,032

Tillsonburg Cemetary Municipal Endpoint Y 1.5 30/5 $86 $1,032

Tillsonburg City Corporate Office Municipal Endpoint Y 1000 150/10 $200 $2,400

Tillsonburg Customer Service Center MunicipalTburg Corp, cemetery, airportFire, Library, Livingston, LTC

Rec Complex, Seniors, MuseumY 1000 150/10 $200 $2,400

Tillsonburg Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Tillsonburg Recreation Complex Municipal Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Tillsonburg Seniors Center Municipal Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Tillsongburg Museum Municipal Endpoint Y 1000 150/10 $200 $2,400

Woodstock Community Complex Municipal Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Engineering Municipal Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Library Municipal Endpoint Y 100 60/10 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Market Square Theater Municipal Endpoint Y 60/10 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Museum Municipal Endpoint Y 60/10 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Swimming Complex Municipal Endpoint Y 60/10 $106 $1,272

Zorra Township Municipal Kintore Works Y 15 60/10 $106 $1,272




Site Type Downstream ADSL SDSL Cable Wireless Fiber Speed (mb) Substitute Internet Connection Monthly Cost Yearly CostArchives (Turnkey) County Endpoint Y 1000 250/250 $231 $2,772



















































Costs to the area municipalities using Provider 2 as the serviceprovider

Site Type Downstream ADSL SDSL Cable Wireless Fiber Speed (mb) Substitute Cxn Monthly Cost Yearly CostBeachville Fire Municipal Beachville Maintenance Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Beachville Maintenance Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Blandford-Blenheim Township Municipal Endpoint Y 20 15/15 $106 $1,272

Blandford-Blenheim Works Yard Municipal Endpoint Y 45 15/15 $106 $1,272

Brownsville Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Burgessville Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

City of Woodstock Municipal All CoW sites Y 100 15/15 $106 $1,272

East Zorra/Tavistock (Hickson) Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Embro Arena Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Embro Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

EZT Garage (Hickson) Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll Fusion Youth Center Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll Town MunicipalIngersoll Library, LTC, Vic Park

Water, Waste Water Y 100 15/15 $106 $1,272

Ingersoll Victora Park Municipal Endpoint Y 15/15 $106 $1,272

Kintore Works Municipal Endpoint Y 20 15/15 $106 $1,272

Mt. Elgin Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Norwich Arena Municipal Endpoint Y 2 10/10 $86 $1,032

Norwich Health Municipal Endpoint Y 6M/800k 10/1 $86 $1,032

Norwich Township Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Otterville Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 5 10/10 $86 $1,032

Oxford Center Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 1.5 10/10 $86 $1,032

SWOX Township Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Thamesford Arena Municipal Endpoint Y 2 10/10 $86 $1,032

Thamesford Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 6M/800k 10/1 $86 $1,032

Tillsonburg Airport Municipal Endpoint Y 10 10/10 $86 $1,032

Tillsonburg Cemetary Municipal Endpoint Y 1.5 10/10 $86 $1,032





Tillsonburg Recreation Complex Municipal Endpoint Y 100 15/15 $106 $1,272

Tillsonburg Seniors Center Municipal Endpoint Y 100 15/15 $106 $1,272

Tillsongburg Museum Municipal Endpoint Y 1000 250/250 $231 $2,772

Woodstock Community Complex Municipal Endpoint Y 100 15/15 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Engineering Municipal Endpoint Y 100 15/15 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 15/15 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Library Municipal Endpoint Y 100 15/15 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Market Square Theater Municipal Endpoint Y 15/15 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Museum Municipal Endpoint Y 15/15 $106 $1,272

Woodstock Swimming Complex Municipal Endpoint Y 15/15 $106 $1,272


Total annual costs for all sites $53,460



Site Type Downstream ADSL SDSL Cable Wireless Fiber Speed (mb) Substitute Cxn Monthly Cost Yearly CostArchives (Turnkey) County Endpoint Y 1000 50/50 $216 $2,586



















































Cost to the area municipalities using Provider 3 as the serviceprovider

Site Type Downstream ADSL SDSL Cable Wireless Fiber Speed (mb) Substitute CxnMonthly

CostYearly Cost

Beachville Fire Municipal Beachville Maintenance Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000

Beachville Maintenance Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000Blandford-Blenheim Township Municipal Endpoint Y 20 10/10 $500 $6,000

Blandford-Blenheim Works Yard Municipal Endpoint Y 45 10/10 $500 $6,000Brownsville Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000

Burgessville Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000City of Woodstock Municipal All CoW sites Y 100 10/10 $500 $6,000East Zorra/Tavistock (Hickson) Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000

Embro Arena Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000Embro Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000

EZT Garage (Hickson) Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000Ingersoll Fusion Youth Center Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000

Ingersoll Town MunicipalIngersoll Library, LTC, Vic Park

Water, Waste Water Y 100 10/10 $500 $6,000Ingersoll Victora Park Municipal Endpoint Y 10/10 $500 $6,000

Kintore Works Municipal Endpoint Y 20 10/10 $500 $6,000Mt. Elgin Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000Norwich Arena Municipal Endpoint Y 2 5/5 $200 $2,400

Norwich Health Municipal Endpoint Y 6M/800k 5/2 $150 $1,800Norwich Township Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000

Otterville Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 5 5/5 $200 $2,400Oxford Center Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 1.5 5/5 $200 $2,400

SWOX Township Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000Thamesford Arena Municipal Endpoint Y 2 5/5 $200 $2,400Thamesford Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 6M/800k 5/2 $150 $1,800

Tillsonburg Airport Municipal Endpoint Y 10 10/10 $500 $6,000Tillsonburg Cemetary Municipal Endpoint Y 1.5 5/5 $200 $2,400





Tillsonburg Recreation Complex Municipal Endpoint Y 100 10/10 $500 $6,000Tillsonburg Seniors Center Municipal Endpoint Y 100 10/10 $500 $6,000Tillsongburg Museum Municipal Endpoint Y 1000 250/250 $216 $2,586

Woodstock Community Complex Municipal Endpoint Y 100 10/10 $500 $6,000Woodstock Engineering Municipal Endpoint Y 100 10/10 $500 $6,000

Woodstock Fire Municipal Endpoint Y 15 10/10 $500 $6,000Woodstock Library Municipal Endpoint Y 100 10/10 $500 $6,000

Woodstock Market Square Theater Municipal Endpoint Y 10/10 $500 $6,000Woodstock Museum Municipal Endpoint Y 10/10 $500 $6,000Woodstock Swimming Complex Municipal Endpoint Y 10/10 $500 $6,000




This document has been prepared and is intended solely for the County of

Oxford in connection with the analysis of the COIN MSP services.

Info-Tech will not assume responsibility or liability for damages or losses suffered

by anyone as a result of circulation, publication, reproduction or use of this

document contrary to this disclaimer. Information in this document is based on

the scope of this strategy and limitations set out therein.

© 2015 Info-Tech Research Group Inc, a Canadian Corporation and its

associated firms Info-Tech Research Group International and McLean & Co. All

rights reserved.

The Info-Tech name, logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of Info-Tech

Research Group.



Page 1 of 4



Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project and Various Other Servicing Projects - Internal Long-term Debt Issue

RECOMMENDATION

1. That By-law No. 5695-2015, being a by-law to authorize the borrowing of funds in the amount of $355,643 from the Landfill Reserve Fund to be used for the purposes of financing serviced property owners’ charges for capital costs relating to sewage and water services through the following projects, be presented to Council for enactment;

a. Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project; b. Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road 59,

Township of Norwich Project; c. Ingersoll – Wellington, Caffyn, Cross, Thames, Kirwin, Pine, Holcroft and

Clark Road Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project; d. Woodstock – Devonshire Avenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and

Water Services Project; e. Woodstock – Frederick Street Sewage Collection System Project; and f. Thamesford Sanitary Collection Project.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project serviced 81 properties

$458,994 of the assessed costs have been paid

$22,180 to be financed over a five-year term

$297,801 to be financed over a ten-year term

One property serviced under the Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road 59, Township of Norwich Project to be financed in the amount of $9,000 over a ten-year term

One property serviced under the Wellington, Caffyn, Cross, Thames, Kirwin, Pine, Holcroft and Clark Road Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project to be financed in the amount of $7,500 for a ten-year term



Page 2 of 4

One property serviced under the Woodstock – Devonshire Avenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and Water Services Project to be financed in the amount of $4,162 for a five-year term

One property serviced under the Woodstock – Frederick Street Sewage Collection System Project to be financed in the amount of $7,500 over a ten-year term

One property serviced under the Thamesford Sanitary Collection Project to be financed in the amount of $7,500 over a ten-year term

Implementation Points The respective Area Municipalities will add the annual debenture payments to each of the respective property tax rolls beginning in 2015 and forward the funds to the County.

Financial Impact The Treasurer has updated the Annual Debt Repayment Limit to ensure the inclusion of this debt does not exceed the County’s limit as prescribed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The Treasurer agrees with the financial impact statement.

Risks/Implications There are no foreseen risks or implications that will result by adopting the recommendations contained within this report.

Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan at its regular meeting held March 27, 2013. The initiative contained within this report supports the values and strategic directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions:



DISCUSSION

Background On March 25, 2015, County Council approved the funding sources for the Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project under By-law No. 5679-2015 which also authorizes a charge to be billed to serviced properties. The total cost of the project was $3,741,089 with $1,348,869 funded from development charges; $427,596 from systems reserves; $751,218 attributed to future development; and, the remaining $937,719 shared by existing development, net of CSAP ($275,687).



Page 3 of 4

In addition to the recently approved billing by-law for the Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project, there are several other servicing projects with single properties that now require financing. Some of those properties were previously granted a deferral due to financial hardship while the others are related to small serving projects that were not subject to mandatory connection provisions since all properties were serviced and, therefore were approved by resolution. As this debenture issue provides an opportunity to finance these smaller projects they have been added to the debenture by-law introduced by this report.

Table 1 provides a summary of the debenture requirements for each of the previously approved servicing projects.

Table 1 – Debenture Financing by Project

Comments In accordance with the County’s Water and Sewer Services Financing Policy No. 6.5, financing options were offered in addition to a full payment option to each of the property owners billed under the by-laws and reports referenced in Table 1. The financing options include:

1. debenture the full amount owing over ten year; or 2. pay 50% of the charge now and finance the remaining 50% over five years.

Project Name By-law/ Report to Approve Funding Sources

Date By-law Approved

Amount to be Debentured

Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project

5679-2015 March 25, 2015 $319,981

Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road 59, Township of Norwich Project

D-1 2010-37 May 12, 2010 $9,000

Wellington, Caffyn, Cross, Thames, Kirwin, Pine, Holcroft and Clark Road Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project

5344-2012 April 11, 2012 $7,500

Woodstock – Devonshire Avenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and Water Services Project

5364-2012 June 27, 2012 $4,162

Woodstock – Frederick Street Sewage Collection System Project

D-7 2002-89 August 14, 2002 $7,500

Thamesford Sanitary Collection Project 5145-2010 January 27, 2010 $7,500

Total $355,643



Page 4 of 4

Considering the County’s Landfill Reserve Fund balance is currently $24.4 million with $7.7 million in idle funds, it is recommended that the total amount of $355,643 required to be debentured, be financed internally. In accordance in the Debt Management Policy, the following rates have been fixed for the two term options as set out in Table 2. Table 2 – Annual Fixed Interest Rates

Conclusions A by-law is required to authorize the financing and collection of annual debt obligation payments from the respective property owners through their property tax bills.

SIGNATURE

Report Co-author:

Original signed by Carolyn King, CPA, CA Manager of Finance




ATTACHMENTS None

Term of Financing Annual Interest Rate

5 Years 3.0%

10 Years 3.4%

Report No: HS 2015-03

HUMAN SERVICES Council Date: May 13, 2015


From: Paul Beaton, Director of Human Services

Sale of Surplus Land and Assets to Support a Housing First Policy RECOMMENDATION 1. That County Council hereby directs staff to develop a housing first policy for

Council’s consideration that supports affordable housing development in the County of Oxford by reinvesting proceeds from sales of County-owned land and assets.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS ___________________________________________________________

A housing first policy leverages funds generated by monetizing County land and assets to support continued development of affordable housing options.

Any appropriate municipal surplus land would be made available through a

competitive proposal call to a non-profit or private sector developer to develop affordable housing.

If the surplus land is deemed as not suitable for residential development then 100%

of the net sale proceeds from the land disposal would be put into the County of Oxford Social Housing Reserve for the purposes of supporting new affordable housing developments.

Staff will review municipal-owned sites on an annual basis to identify lands and

buildings suitable for affordable housing development.

Net sale proceeds derived from the sale of all County tangible assets would be dedicated to the Social Housing Reserve.

Implementation Points A draft policy, based on the parameters set out in this report will be developed and presented to Council for consideration at a future Council meeting in 2015.

Page 1 of 5



Financial Impact There will be no financial impact on operating expenditures with the exception of defrayed expenses associated with the disposed land and assets, the amounts of which would be dependent upon each asset’s respective use. The proceeds from disposed land and assets will be reinvested in affordable housing capital that the County would otherwise be required to fund through reserves, taxation or debt financing. The proposed policy will provide specific direction for the use of proceeds resulting from the disposition of County owned land, buildings and other tangible assets. The adoption of the proposed policy is an investment opportunity for the County. It may enable developers to leverage existing developments that will generate new tax revenue and assist with meeting the affordable housing needs of our community. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information. Risks/Implications If this policy is not undertaken, there will likely be less new affordable housing units created to meet the needs of County residents which may cause increased pressure on the social housing waiting list and already overburdened emergency services. The lack of affordable housing brings risk for a number of low income people who may have to rely on emergency services which is partially funded by the County, adding to annual operational expenditures to the Human Services and EMS budgets. Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan at its regular meeting held March 27, 2013. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions: 1. ii. A County that Works Together – Enhance the quality of life for all of our citizens by:

- Maintaining and strengthening core infrastructure - Ensuring a range of housing options - Implementing a healthy community strategy - Adapting programs, services and facilities to reflect evolving community needs - Working with community partners and organizations to maintain / strengthen public

safety


- Potential impacts to the vulnerable population in our community - Life cycle costs and benefit/costs, including debt, tax and reserve levels and implications

Page 2 of 5



DISCUSSION Background In 2011, Oxford County’s population was 105,179. The majority of the population resides in the urban municipalities, Woodstock being home to 35.7% of the population. Over the past 30 years Oxford County has grown significantly with the bulk of the growth occurring in Woodstock. The median age in Oxford County is 41.2 years, higher than Ontario’s at 40.4. Oxford County has an aging population with baby boomers (age 46 to 65 years) comprising 27.8% of the population; 45% of the population is age 45 and older. Oxford County’s population is projected to increase by approximately 17,500 persons over the forecast period of 2011-2041, growing from 108,200 persons in 2011 to 125,700 in 2041. Statistics Canada reports that Oxford County has one of the higher proportions of residents aged 50 years and older, compared to the rest of the Province, and the number is expected to rise considerably in the next 20 years. The highest number of seniors resides in the City of Woodstock. Considering the population growth forecasts, an aging population and aging housing stock, Oxford County’s 10 Year Shelter (Housing) Plan identifies the need for additional affordable housing units to meet the growing demand for housing. The purpose of the Plan is to develop a long term vision to address housing needs of residents along the housing continuum. The Plan also addresses matters of Provincial interest which is defined as having a system of housing and homelessness services that:

• is focused on achieving positive outcomes for individuals and families; • addresses the housing needs of individuals and families in order to help address

other challenges they face; • provides for partnerships among governments and others in the community; • allows for a range of housing options to meet a broad range of needs; • supports economic prosperity.

Finding rental accommodation in the service areas is very challenging due to critically low vacancy rates - Ingersoll 6.0%, Tillsonburg 1.7% and Woodstock 1.4%, compounded with high average rents. Affordable housing projects help address the need of low to moderate income earners and secure, safe affordable housing. The 10 Year Shelter Plan includes a variety of measures showing the significant need for affordable housing for many of our modest income residents including seniors living on basic pensions, people working full time at minimum wage rates and others receiving disability pensions. Despite the recent Provincial and Federal government notional allocation of Investment in Affordable Housing, it is difficult to meet the local housing needs without the support or contribution from all three levels of government. At a Council meeting held on January 28, 2015 Council directed staff, through the CAO, to develop a strategy to leverage the remainder of

Page 3 of 5



the Investment in Affordable Housing funding and to report back to Council in the Spring of 2015. Adopting a policy of using surplus municipal owned land for affordable housing, or using the proceeds from the sale of municipal lands, buildings and tangible assets, would enable staff to leverage the Investment in Affordable Housing program funding and continue to help meet the need for affordable housing. It will also demonstrate the County’s commitment in addressing the housing needs of this community and its willingness to partner with the non-profit and private sector. Research in affordable housing has identified a number of benefits to an adequate supply in all communities. The Community Value of Affordable Housing Stability and Security Affordable housing plays a critical role in the stability and security of many individuals and families. Housing in general, offers a meaningful place in the community, a safe place for families to grow, and security of tenure. A wide of range of housing options, including affordable housing, ensures that a greater proportion of residents can remain in areas where they have lived for a long time and are close to their support networks. An adequate supply of affordable housing helps reduce disparity among various segments of the population and can provide greater stability to families and individuals. Job Creation and New Taxes for All Levels of Government Affordable housing can also help provide economic stimulus in a community. In preparation for the recent Development Charges update and the County of Oxford Official Plan review currently underway, population housing and employment forecasts (amount, type and location of each) for the County and its Area Municipalities were updated in 2014. Oxford County’s housing base is forecasted to increase from approximately 41,600 in 2011 to 52,900 in 2041, an increase of 11,300. All local municipalities are expected to experience housing growth over the long-term forecast period. Upon review of the population and housing growth forecasts, and the trend in renting, it is prudent of staff to recommend additional affordable rental housing units be created in our community. Although the Provincial and Federal governments offer program funding, these funds alone will not address the growing need for additional rental units. The challenge faced by many municipalities is finding a revenue source to create these much need housing units. Funding an Affordable Housing Program Funding any affordable housing incentive program can be a challenge. One mechanism available to a municipality is to direct the use of surplus lands and monetize surplus lands not

Page 4 of 5



suitable for residential development, along with other surplus tangible assets, to generate funds to support an affordable housing program. This best practice is often referred to as a Housing First Policy. Through such a policy, Staff would review surplus municipal-owned sites on an annual basis detailing lands and buildings suitable for affordable housing developments and lands and tangible assets to be monetized. All suitable lands or funds generated from disposal of surplus lands/assets would then be transferred into the Housing Reserve for the development of future affordable housing opportunities. The County of Oxford has been actively working to increase the affordable housing choices for County residents. For many potential affordable housing providers, accessing new lands through the use of surplus County-owned lands or County capital contributions is crucial to creating new affordable housing. Alternatively, the proceeds generated from the sale of municipal lands, buildings or other assets would be a major funding source towards the creation of new affordable housing. Conclusions Staff recommend the development and presentation to Council for consideration and approval, a Housing First Policy that guides the disposal of all County surplus lands and tangible assets whereby all appropriate County surplus lands will be available through a competitive proposal call to a non-profit or private sector developer for the development of affordable housing and surplus County lands deemed unsuitable for residential development and surplus County tangible assets be monetized with 100% of the net sale proceeds to be placed in the County of Oxford Housing Reserve for the purposes of supporting new affordable housing developments. Adoption of the recommendation in this report will allow staff to bring forward a proposed policy set out to serve a core strategic direction for the County and bring Oxford County in line with similar policies adopted by other municipalities. Staff will continue to research innovative approaches to help meet the housing needs of Oxford residents. The monetization of unused or surplus lands, buildings and assets is a mechanism for funding the capital cost of future housing developments. SIGNATURE Original signed by

Paul Beaton Director of Human Services



Page 5 of 5




From: Director, Human Services Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement - 30 Balsam Street, Innerkip RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That Council authorize a $688,000 contribution to the proposed affordable

housing renewal project located at 30 Balsam Street, Innerkip, to be financed from the Housing Reserve;

2. And further, that the Director of Human Services and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to execute all documents necessary to enter into a Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement with Innerkip Seniors Apartments Incorporated regarding the proposed 30 Balsam Street project.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS This report authorizes the Director of Human Services and the Chief Administrative

Officer to sign a Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement with Innerkip Seniors Apartments Incorporated for the development of 16 new affordable housing units.

The municipal contributions are as follows: a) $688,000 capital contribution from the Social Housing Reserve b) Waiver of development charges c) Annual tax rebate for the tax differential between the multi-residential tax rate and

the single residential dwelling tax rate d) Annual rental subsidy payment for rent geared to income units

Implementation Points Upon Council approval of the Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement the Agreement will be secured on title by registering it as a second mortgage. Staff will monitor the new project and conduct an annual review for compliance.

Financial Impact In accordance with section 2.5 of Reserve Policy No. 6.20, “reserve transfers not part of the annual operating or capital budget or set out specifically in this policy must be approved by County Council.” Based on this policy requirement staff is seeking Council’s authorization to transfer $688,000 from the Housing Reserve to support the new affordable housing development located at 30 Balsam Street, Innerkip. The transfer will reduce the Housing Reserve to $1,870,401. This project, along with another affordable housing project scheduled for completion in the fall of 2015 will place the Housing Reserve below the targeted balance of $2,600,000.

Page 1 of 6



The $688,000 municipal contribution, together with the housing provider’s financial loan with a conventional lender, enables the housing provider to create 16 new affordable rental housing units. The proposed new development is a permanent asset and will generate new tax revenue. In addition to the reserve contribution, the Agreement allows for an annual rebate to the proponent for the tax differential between the multi-residential property tax and the single residential property tax rates. The annual rental subsidy, estimated in the amount of $17,800 will continue for the term of the Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information. Risks/Implications There is a level of risk with any construction project. Staff are confident the Innerkip Seniors Apartments Incorporated group, along with their Project Consultant, have completed their due diligence to mitigate risk. In addition, the Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement will be registered on title securing the County’s interest in the property. Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan at its regular meeting held March 27, 2013. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions:



safety



DISCUSSION Background Service Managers (SM) are responsible for the funding of social housing for all programs transferred under the former Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 and subsequently the Housing Service Act, 2011 (HSA). This simply means that each SM must maintain a prescribed number of units in their service area at rental rates which are affordable to low and moderate income households. Service levels must be maintained despite the fact that federal subsidies will

Page 2 of 6



sunset after End of Operating Agreements (EOA), leaving Service Managers on their own to address the on-going financial obligations that service levels impose. Table 1 below depicts a list of non-profit housing providers and the expiry dates for their Operating Agreements. Service Managers (SM) have a keen interest in sustaining affordable housing as it is an integral part of a complete housing system and a complete community. Affordable housing supports the concept of inclusive and healthy communities. In addition to this interest in sustaining affordable housing, the HSA legislation requires continued payment of a prescribed level of subsidy by SMs for projects under Provincial Reformed and Public Housing programs despite Operating Agreements ending, mortgages ending and or federal funding ending. The Operating Agreement for Innerkip Seniors Apartments Incorporated expires in 2017 and their mortgage expires in 2017. To ensure an adequate local supply of affordable housing and in an effort to meet continuing service level standards obliged by legislation, this report demonstrates how a non-profit housing provider can leverage equity in their housing asset, offset financial pressures and continue to sustain affordable housing units in the community of Innerkip. If approved, the proposed expansion project will be the first social housing provider to deliver a mix of rental units offering rent geared to income, affordable rentals and market rentals. Table 1: Non Profit Operating Agreements – Expiry Dates Name of Non Profit group Operating

Agreement – Expiry Date

Adam Oliver Housing Co-operative Inc. 2021 Anchorage Homes, Services & Initiatives Inc. 2026 Daystar Community Homes 2025 Dereham Forge Housing Co-operative Inc. 2022 Drumbo & District Housing Corporation 2023 Embro and Area Seniors Housing Corporation 2020 Ingamo Family Homes (Woodstock) Inc. 2024 Innerkip Senior Apartments Inc. 2017 Percy Heights Co-operative Inc. 2023 Princeton & District Housing Association 2019 Town of Tillsonburg Non Profit Housing Corporation 2022 Woodstock Non Profit Housing Corporation 2022

Innerkip Seniors Apartments Incorporated (Innerkip Apartments) is proposing to construct a two storey, 16 unit addition to its existing 29 unit apartment building at 30 Balsam Street in the community of Innerkip in the municipality of East Zorra-Tavistock. The subject property includes a large vacant piece of land which can accommodate the expansion and the required parking spaces. The new space will include self-contained apartments (12 one bedroom and 4 two bedroom) for low and moderate income seniors/older adults, providing affordable rents for the next 30 years. See Attachment No. 1 for aerial photo of the subject property. The provider will contribute approximately $160,000 in land value as equity, as well they will re-mortgage their existing building to pay for the majority of the construction costs, however the provider is requesting $688,000 or $43,000 per unit to reduce the capital costs to construct 16

Page 3 of 6



new units. Table 2 below depicts the project costs and funding sources for the proposed new project. Table 2: Project Funding Sources & Costs: Project Costs $2,840,800 Provider contribution $160,000 County contribution $688,000 Waiver of County development charges $ 18,812 HST rebate $202,760 First mortgage required $1,771,228 Total $2,840,800 $2,840,800 The project highlights include:

• The majority of the units will be one bedroom in size which is the type in highest demand for the service area;

• The building will be energy efficient with R24 insulation, energy star rated windows, doors and appliances, LED lighting systems, low flush toilets and water fixtures;

• The provider will leverage the value of the existing building to reduce the amount of government funding required to create the new units;

• The existing space and new space will share the elevator, ensuring the units are accessible on both floors;

• The project utilizes existing municipal infrastructure, the building is fully serviced with municipal water and sewage hook-ups;

• The provider has non-profit status and therefore ensures ongoing affordability of the new housing units.

Comments The County of Oxford recently released Request for Proposals (RFP) 15-01 to expend $1,032,400 of the Provincial/Federal Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) program funding by creating additional affordable housing units. Based on the response to the previous RFP, it is anticipated that several proposals will be submitted that request funds that far exceed the funding envelope. The RFP permits proponents to request up to $70,000 per unit. This proposal is requesting $43,000 per unit, which will allow more affordable housing units to be developed in the County. Innerkip Seniors Apartments Incorporated has an Operating Agreement with Oxford County. The Operating Agreement requires the housing provider to provide rent geared to income units until 2017 and the County to provide an annual rental subsidy payment.

Innerkip Seniors Apartments Incorporated proposes to create 16 new affordable rental housing units for seniors in the Village of Innerkip. The housing provider will leverage equity by refinancing their property located at 30 Balsam Street, Innerkip.

In order to sustain the rent geared to income units and provide for additional senior units, the provider requires additional funding to make the project financially viable. In addition to the housing provider’s equity contribution and the refinancing of their existing building, they are

Page 4 of 6



requesting a municipal capital contribution in the amount of $688,000 from the County of Oxford to support this new development.

This proposal is exactly what Service Managers want from social housing providers. It leverages equity, land, and existing infrastructure and meets the growing need for suitable and affordable housing in the service area. The municipal contribution is a clear demonstration of the County’s commitment to supporting the ongoing housing needs of this community. Conclusions The $688,000 municipal contribution enables Innerkip Seniors Apartments Incorporated to utilize existing infrastructure and increase density within their current location resulting in 16 new affordable rental housing units. This 30 year commitment assists the County in meeting its legislated obligation to maintain service level standards by offering rental rates which are affordable to low and moderate income households. The proposed additional units will be permanent assets that will help meet the growing demand for affordable housing options in our community. SIGNATURE Report Author: Original signed by Jamie Stephens Manager of Housing Development Departmental Approval: Original signed by Paul Beaton Director of Human Services Approved for submission: Original signed by

Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT Attachment No. 1 – Aerial Map – 30 Balsam Street, Innerkip

Page 5 of 6



Attachment No. 1 – Aerial map - 30 Balsam Street, Innerkip

Owner: Innerkip Senior Apartments Incorporated

Page 6 of 6




From: Director, Human Services Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement - 31 Maple Lane, Tillsonburg RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That County Council authorize the Service Manager consent to remortgage 53 Queen

Street, Tillsonburg which will finance an expansion project at 31 Maple Lane, Tillsonburg;

2. And further, that the Director of Human Services and the CAO be authorized to sign a Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement with the Town of Tillsonburg Non Profit Housing Corporation for the creation of 12 new seniors affordable rental housing units located at 31 Maple Lane, Tillsonburg.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS The Town of Tillsonburg Non Profit Housing Corporation has an Operating Agreement with

Oxford County. The Operating Agreement requires the housing provider to provide rent geared to income units until the year 2022.

The Town of Tillsonburg Non Profit Housing Corporation proposes to create 12 new seniors affordable rental housing units at 31 Maple Lane, Tillsonburg. The provider will leverage equity from a property which it also owns and operates and is located at 53 Queen Street, Tillsonburg.

In order to sustain the rent geared to income units and provide for additional senior units, the provider requires additional funding to make the project financially viable. An annual property tax rebate for the difference between the multi-residential tax rate and the residential tax rate and the annual rental subsidy payment will continue.

Page 1 of 7



Financial Impact The housing provider is requesting an annual rebate for the tax differential between the multi-residential rate and the residential rate. This provision is typically included the in the County’s Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement. The County currently provides an annual rental subsidy in the amount of $200,989 to the Town of Tillsonburg Non-Profit Housing Corporation. Therefore agreeing to continue to provide the annual subsidy will have no additional financial impact to the County’s budget. The proposed new affordable housing units generate new tax revenue for the County calculated using the residential tax rate. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information. Implementation Points Upon Council approval of the Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement the Agreement it will be secured by registering on title as a second mortgage.

Staff will monitor the new project and conduct an annual review for compliance.

Risks/Implications There is a level of risk with any construction project. However the Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement will be registered on title securing the County’s interest in the property. Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan at its regular meeting held March 27, 2013. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions: 1. ii. A County that Works Together – Enhance the quality of life for all of our citizens by:


safety



Page 2 of 7



DISCUSSION Background

Service Managers (SM) are responsible for the funding of social housing for all programs transferred under the former Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 and subsequently the Housing Service Act, 2011 (HSA). This simply means that each SM must maintain a prescribed number of units in their service area at rental rates which are affordable to low and moderate income households. Service levels must be maintained despite the fact that federal subsidies will sunset after End of Operating Agreements (EOA), leaving Service Managers on their own to address the on-going financial obligations that service levels impose. Table 1 below depicts a list of non-profit housing providers and the expiry dates for their Operating Agreements. Service Managers (SM) have a keen interest in sustaining affordable housing as it is an integral part of a complete housing system and a complete community. Affordable housing supports the concept of inclusive and healthy communities. In addition to this interest in sustaining affordable housing, the HSA legislation requires continued payment of a prescribed level of subsidy by SMs for projects under Provincial Reformed and Public Housing programs despite Operating Agreements ending, mortgages ending and or federal funding ending. The Operating Agreement for Town of Tillsonburg Non Profit Housing Corporation (TTNPHC) expires in 2022. To ensure an adequate local supply of affordable housing and in an effort to meet continuing service level standards obliged by legislation, this report demonstrates how a non-profit housing provider can leverage equity in their housing asset, offset financial pressures and continue to sustain affordable housing units in the community of Tillsonburg. Table 1: Non Profit Operating Agreements – Expiry Dates Name of Non Profit group Operating Agreement –

Expiry Date Adam Oliver Housing Co-operative Inc. 2021 Anchorage Homes, Services & Initiatives Inc. 2026 Daystar Community Homes 2025 Dereham Forge Housing Co-operative Inc. 2022 Drumbo & District Housing Corporation 2023 Embro and Area Seniors Housing Corporation 2020 Ingamo Family Homes (Woodstock) Inc. 2024 Innerkip Senior Apartments Inc. 2016 Percy Heights Co-operative Inc. 2023 Princeton & District Housing Association 2019 Town of Tillsonburg Non Profit Housing Corporation 2022 Woodstock Non Profit Housing Corporation 2022 TTNPHC is a municipal non-profit comprised of Board members who are elected annually by the municipality. The housing provider is proposing to construct a 12 unit addition to its existing 60 unit apartment building in the Town of Tillsonburg. The addition will occur at the rear of the existing building which is located at 31 Maple Lane, Tillsonburg. The subject property includes

Page 3 of 7



land that can, with the approval of a site specific zoning by-law amendment reducing setbacks, accommodate the expansion and the required parking spaces. The new space will include self-contained apartments for low and moderate income seniors/older adults with affordable rents for the next 30 years. Attachment No. 1 includes an aerial photo of the subject property. In 2014, the County of Oxford passed By-Law 5578-2014 and the Town of Tillsonburg passed By-Law 3827 exempting eligible affordable housing projects from paying development charges. Staff have reviewed the provider’s proposal and consider it an eligible affordable housing project. The housing provider is also asking the Town of Tillsonburg for a tax rebate for the tax differential between the multi-residential rate and the residential rate. If approved, staff will conduct annual compliance checks to ensure the provider is abiding by the terms and conditions as outlined in the Municipal Housing Facility Agreement. The provider will contribute approximately $120,000 in land value as equity, as well they will re-mortgage their existing building located at 53 Queen Street to pay for the majority of the construction costs. Table 2 below depicts the project costs and funding sources for the proposed new project. Table 2: Project Funding Sources & Project Costs: Project Costs $1,660,825 Provider contribution $120,000 Provider’s mortgage on Queen St.

$750,000

HST rebate $117,900 CMHC Project development funding

$ 30,000

First mortgage required $541,405 Total $1,660,825 $1,660,825 The project highlights include:

• All 12 units will be one bedroom in size which is the type in highest demand for the service area;

• The building will be energy efficient with R24 insulation, energy star rated windows, doors and appliances, LED lighting systems, low flush toilets and water fixtures;

• The provider will leverage the equity in 53 Queen Street and place a mortgage on title to reduce the amount of government funding required to create the new units;

• The existing space and new space will share the elevator, ensuring the units are accessible on both floors;

• The project utilizes existing municipal infrastructure, the building is fully serviced with municipal water and sewage hook-ups;

• The provider has non-profit status and therefore ensures ongoing affordability of the new housing units.

Page 4 of 7



Comments The County of Oxford recently released Request for Proposals (RFP) 15-01 to expend $1,032,400 of Provincial/Federal Investment in Affordable Housing program funding by creating additional affordable housing units. Based on the response to the previous RFP, it is anticipated that several proposals will be submitted that request funds that far exceed the funding envelope. The RFP permits proponents to request up to $70,000 per unit. This proposal is requesting an annual property tax rebate for the difference between the multi-residential rate and the residential rate from the Town of Tillsonburg. This proposal is exactly what Service Managers want from social housing providers. It leverages equity, land, and existing infrastructure and meets the growing need for suitable and affordable housing in the service area. The municipal contribution is a clear demonstration of the County’s commitment to supporting the ongoing housing needs of this community. The need to develop additional affordable housing is identified as a goal in the Corporate Strategic Plan, the Official Plan and the County’s 10 Year Shelter Plan. Conclusions Entering into a Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement with the Town of Tillsonburg Non-Profit Housing Corporation allows the provider to develop 12 affordable housing units for seniors. The housing provider will be enabled to leverage equity, utilize existing infrastructure and increase density within their current location. The Agreement will require the housing provider to maintain affordable rents for the term of the Agreement. This 30 year commitment assists the Service Manager to meet its legislated obligation to maintain service level standards by offering rental rates which are affordable to low and moderate income households. The proposed additional units are permanent assets and will help meet the growing demand for affordable housing options in our community.

Page 5 of 7



SIGNATURE Report Author: Original signed by Jamie Stephens Manager of Housing Development Departmental Approval: Original signed by Paul Beaton Director of Human Services Approved for submission:

Original signed by

Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT Attachment No. 1 – Aerial Map – 31 Maple Lane, Tillsonburg

Page 6 of 7



Attachment No. 1– 31 Maple Lane, Tillsonburg

Owner: Town of Tillsonburg Non Profit Housing Corporation

Page 7 of 7

Report No: PW 2015-23

PUBLIC WORKS Council Date: May 13, 2015

Page 1 of 3


From: Director of Public Works

Ingersoll Wastewater System – Additional Capital Expenditure

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That County Council authorize Public Works to proceed with the sanitary sewer

installation project on Mutual Street and Park Avenue as requested by the Town of Ingersoll;

2. And further, that as the tendered costs exceed the amount budgeted in 2015 Capital Budget, the additional expenditure of $75,000 be funded from the benefiting property owners and the Community Servicing Assistance Plan (CSAP) reserve.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

To obtain County Council approval to continue with planned sanitary sewer extension projects that have tendered construction costs above the approved 2015 Capital Budget.

The Town of Ingersoll, as the County’s Engineering Service Provider, designed and tendered the projects to extend sanitary sewers to currently unserviced properties on Mutual Street and Park Avenue.

Additional costs associated with crossing the CPR rail right-of-way on Mutual Street as well as increased road reinstatement costs on Mutual Street and Park Ave exceed the approved budget by approximately $75,000.

Implementation Points

If approved, the Town of Ingersoll Engineering Department will proceed with the award and construction of the works.

Financial Impact

The County has adopted a Community Servicing Assistance Program (CSAP) which provides a 25% grant to reduce the financial burden of the water and wastewater costs related to servicing existing properties and sets a maximum cost for residential wastewater service at $13,260 for 2015. Estimated costs related to the proposed installation of sewers on these two streets was included in the approved 2015 Capital Budget, however costs associated with crossing the CPR right-of-way and road reinstatement were higher than anticipated. Both locations are in difficult to service areas and were anticipated to result in costs to property owners approaching or at the CSAP maximum cost of $13,260 per existing developed property. In accordance with the CSAP, the increased cost will be funded through the CSAP reserve. At the end of 2014, the



Page 2 of 3

reserve balance was $2.7 M; therefore there are sufficient funds available to fund this expenditure.

The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.

Risks/Implications

On both streets, property owners approached County and Town staff regarding the possibility of connecting to municipal sewers due to failing private septic systems. One property on Mutual Street has been serviced by a holding tank for several years. Cancelling or deferring this project could result in costly repairs to property owners should the private service fail.

Strategic Plan

County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan at its regular meeting held March 27, 2013. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions:


- Maintaining and strengthening core infrastructure

3. iii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future - Apply social, financial and

environmental sustainability lenses to significant decisions by assessing options in regard to:


DISCUSSION Background The County and the Town have been planning for the extension of a sanitary sewer to service three existing properties between the CPR line and the Thames River on Mutual Street for several years. Approvals to cross the railway were complicated and time consuming to receive and resulted in delays to the project. One property is currently serviced by a holding tank which was approved by Public Health and Emergency Services based on the condition of sewers being extended to the area. In 2014, a resident of Park Avenue inquired as to the possibility of connecting to the municipal services due to a failing septic system. County and Town staff investigated the possibility and met with the 5 property owners on Park Ave with private services. Two property owners requested the services be extended due to concerns over the viability of their current septic systems. The remaining three property owners wished to continue on private services however indicated that should the project proceed, there was a strong preference for gravity sewers over individual local grinder pumps. Staff determined there was no substantial cost savings in servicing only the two requestors and included the project in the 2015 Capital budget as a mandatory connection project.

Comments The two streets were tendered together for economy of scale purposes and due to the similarity of the work. Both projects are in difficult to service areas and costs were anticipated to approach the CSAP maximum of $13,260.



Page 3 of 3

Four bids were received with the results, excluding HST, shown in the table below.

Contractor Bid Amount

Russell Construction $352,514.60

J-AAR Excavating $413,666.50

Tri Con Excavating $420,354.06

Elgin Construction $532,569.05

The bid amounts include minor watermain appurtance replacement which will be funded by the Ingersoll water system and storm sewer replacement which is a Town cost. The preliminary cost breakdown of the low bidder as follows: Mutual Sanitary - $197,414, Park Sanitary - $116,060, Storm sewer - $23,609 and Water - $15,433

The tendered cost is approximately $35,475 over the approved budget and the fees for the Town of Ingersoll as the County’s Engineering Service Provider on this project are anticipated to be $39,525. The tender results for the last phase of the South Ingersoll Servicing have been received and Public Works is reviewing the Sanitary component in advance of the Town of Ingersoll awarding the project.

Conclusions

While the project is approximately $75,000 over the approved 2015 Capital budget, staff feel the costs are reasonable and competitive. The additional costs can be accommodated by the CSAP reserve. If approved by Council, Town staff will proceed with the award to Russell Construction with construction proceeding in 2015.

SIGNATURE

Report Author: Original signed by Deborah Goudreau, P.Eng. Manager of Water Services

Departmental Approval: Original signed by Robert Walton, P.Eng. Director of Public Works

Approved for submission:

Original signed by




Page 1 of 3


From: Director of Public Works

Bale Wrap Program at Oxford County Waste Management Facility

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That County Council approve the expenditure of $2,500 for the disposal by Switch

Energy Corp. of approximately 15 tonnes of bale wrap material currently stored at the Oxford County Waste Management Facility;

2. And further, that starting September 1, 2015, the Oxford County Waste Management Facility discontinue receiving bale wrap material and Oxford County Waste Management Staff direct producers of the material to Switch Energy Corp. for pick up directly from the generator.

REPORT HIGHLIGHT To obtain County Council approval to dispose of 15 tonnes of bale wrap material stored at

the Oxford County Waste Management Facility and develop a program where by material is picked up directly from the producer.

Implementation Points If Council approves this report, staff will proceed with disposal of the material currently stored and begin working on promotional material for implementation of the new program.

Financial Impact Although funds were not specifically directed to the Bale Wrap program, funds for this project are available in the 2015 budget as part of the general diversion activities at the Waste Management Facility. The cost to divert the material is approximately $165 per tonne. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.



Page 2 of 3

Risks/Implications If this report is not approved, the bale wrap material will continue to accumulate at the Waste Management Facility. Additional costs will need to be budgeted in the future to cover the disposal fees for the material collected at the Oxford County Waste Management Facility. Currently there is no charge to Oxford County Waste Management Facility customers to dispose of the material if it is not transported with other materials that have tipping fees. Strategic Plan

County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan at its regular meeting held March 27, 2013. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions:


- Maintaining and strengthening core infrastructure - Adapting programs, services and facilities to reflect evolving community needs - Working with community partners and organizations to maintain / strengthen public

safety


- Responsible environmental stewardship

5. ii. A County that Performs and Delivers Results - Deliver exceptional services by:

- Regularly reviewing service level standards to assess potential for improved access to services / amenities

- Conducting regular service reviews to ensure delivery effectiveness and efficiency - Identify best practices and appropriate benchmarking

DISCUSSION

Background The Bale Wrap program at the Oxford County Waste Management Facility began when overall responsibility for Waste Management was transferred to the County. Previously several area municipalities held depot days where generators could bring material to the depots at no cost. The material was processed by Think Plastics of New Hamburg. The County began a program at the Oxford County Waste Management Facility to accept this material year-round with no tipping fee. At that time and until recently Think Plastics of New Hamburg continued to be the preferred processor of bale wrap material.



Page 3 of 3

Comments

Over the last 10 years the Oxford County Waste Management Facility has collected on average 14-15 tonnes of bale wrap material a year. Think Plastics has been the primary processor of this material but has had to suspend service due to low market demand for the product several times over the past 7 years. Material had to be landfilled at one time as no market was available for 2 years and the storage area was overflowing. There is no longer a processor of the material that will take this material in bulk, as collected at the Oxford County Waste Management Facility, at no charge. Think Plastics is now referring customers to Switch Energy Corp. who will work directly with generators to come to their location to pick up the material. Under the proposed system there would be no need for producers to transport the material to the Oxford County Waste Management Facility. Switch Energy Corp. also has the ability to collect other materials such as pallet shrink wrap, net wrap and silage bags. An overview of Switch Energy Corp.is included as Attachment 1.

Conclusions

Staff recommend that this report be approved and that the Bale Wrap program at the Oxford County Waste Management Facility be discontinued as of September 1, 2015 to allow for the program change to be advertised in the August, 2015 Waste Management Calendar. If this report is approved, Waste Management staff will promote the Switch Energy Corp. option for the management of bale wrap material as the replacement for use of the depot at the Oxford County Waste Management facility for this purpose.

SIGNATURE

Report Author:

Original signed by Dave Vermeeren Waste Management/Rural Properties Supervisor

Departmental Approval:

Original signed by Robert Walton, P.Eng. Director of Public Works

Approved for submission:

Original signed by


ATTACHMENT Attachment 1 Switch Energy Corp. Agricultural Film Recycling Program

Attachment 1 to PW 2015-20May 13, 2015

PENDING ITEMS

Council Lead

Meeting Date Issue Pending Action Dept. Time Frame

10-Sep-14 Report PW 2014-50 - Acceptance of Liquid Waste at Oxford County Staff to develop policy and report - Res. No. 4, PW Spring 2015

Wastewater Treatment Facilities 25-June-14, delegation request to pass resolution to

not accept leachate from privately owned or operated

landfills for treatment deferred until such time

10-Sep-14 Report CAO 2014-12 - University of Ottawa - Woodstock Satellite Staff to negotiate partnership agreement and report CAO 2015 - Q3

Campus Proposal

14-Jan-15 Report CAO (CS) 2015-01 (Released) University of Ottawa -

Woodstock Satellite Campus Proposal Update

10-Dec-14 2015 Budget Meeting To Do List - Public Works - winter control Pursue as part of Collective Agreement negotiations PW 2015 - Q4

staff optimization

17-Dec-14 2015 Budget Meeting To Do List - Strategic Plan review with new Council Workshop March 25. Report to Council CAO 2015 - Q2

Council to follow

14-Jan-15 Resolution No. 9 - Presentation made on behalf of SouthWestern CAO Report CAO 2015 - Q1

Integrated Fibre Technology (SWIFT)

14-Jan-15 2015 Budget Meeting To Do List - Building Conditions Assessment Staff Report prior to moving forward PW 2015 - Q1

28-Jan-15 Investment in Affordable Housing direction to staff through CAO Develop a strategy to leverage remainder of HS 2015 - Q2

further to adoption of Report HS 2015-01 recommendations Investment in Affordable Housing funding and report

back to Council

22-Apr-15 Report PW 2015-17 - Water Efficiency Plan - Low Flow Fixture Deferred for further staff consideration and report PW 2015 - Q2

Rebate Program

COUNTY OF OXFORD

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015 BEING a by-law to authorize borrowed funds from the Landfill Reserve Fund in the amount of $355,643, to be used for the purposes of financing property owners’ charge for capital costs related to sanitary sewer and water services provided under the Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project; Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road 59, Township of Norwich Project; Wellington, Caffyn, Cross, Thames, Kirwin, Pine, Holcroft and Clark Road Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project; Woodstock – Devonshire Avenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and Water Services Project; and Thamesford Wastewater System Project (the “Projects”). WHEREAS section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 c. 25, provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority;

AND WHEREAS section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 c. 25, provides that the County of Oxford, as an upper-tier municipality, has jurisdiction for provision of public utilities specifically including collection of sanitary sewage and water distribution;

AND WHEREAS sections 9, 11 and 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 c. 25, provide that the County of Oxford, as an upper-tier municipality, may pass by-laws imposing charges for capital costs related to sewage and water services upon the owners of lands to which such services are provided;

AND WHEREAS Section 401 the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 c. 25, as amended, provides that a municipality may incur a debt for municipal purposes, whether by borrowing money or in any other way, and may issue debentures and prescribed financial instruments and enter prescribed financial agreements for or in relation to the debt; AND WHEREAS Section 417(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 c. 25, provides that money raised by a body exercising a power with respect to municipal affairs under any Act in unorganized territory for a reserve fund shall be paid into a special account and may be invested only in the securities or classes of securities prescribed; AND WHEREAS the County has adopted an Investment Policy No. 6.06 in accordance with Section 418 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and Ontario Regulation 438/97, providing legislative authority for the investment guidelines of municipal funds; AND WHEREAS the County of Oxford has installed sanitary sewer and water services, referred to as the Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project (the “Services”) and approved funding sources for the Project under By-law No. 5679-2015, including authorization for charges to be billed to serviced properties; AND WHEREAS the County of Oxford has installed sanitary sewer services, referred to as the Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road 59, Township of Norwich

Project (the “Services”) and approved funding sources for the Project by resolution adopting Report No. D-1 2010-37, including authorization for charges to be billed to serviced properties; AND WHEREAS the County of Oxford has installed sanitary sewer and water services, referred to as the Wellington, Caffyn, Cross, Thames, Kirwin, Pine, Holcroft and Clark Road Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project (the “Services”) and approved funding sources for the Project under By-law No. 5344-2012, including authorization for charges to be billed to serviced properties; AND WHEREAS the County of Oxford has installed sanitary sewer and water services, referred to as the Woodstock – Devonshire Avenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and Water Services Project (the “Services”) and approved funding sources for the Project under By-law No. 5364-2012, including authorization for charges to be billed to serviced properties; AND WHEREAS the County of Oxford has installed sanitary sewer services, referred to as the Woodstock – Frederick Street Sewage Collection System Project (the “Services”) and approved funding sources for the Project by resolution adopting Report No. D-7 2002-89, including authorization for charges to be billed to serviced properties; AND WHEREAS the County of Oxford has installed sanitary sewer services, referred to as the Thamesford Sanitary Collection Project (the “Services”) and approved funding sources for the Project under By-law No. 5145-2010, including authorization for charges to be billed to serviced properties; AND WHEREAS the County of Oxford has adopted a Water and Sewer Services Financing Policy No. 6.05, which contains provisions for property owners who are responsible for capital costs related to sanitary sewer and water services, to be offered long term financing to pay their financial obligation over time with interest. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF OXFORD ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

A. Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project

1. That, in accordance with County of Oxford Water and Sewer Services Financing Policy No. 6.05, certain property owners billed for sanitary sewer and/or water services related to the Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project, under the provisions of County of Oxford By-law No. 5679-2015, desire to borrow upon the credit of the County.

2. The principal amount of $319,981 shall be debentured upon the Landfill Reserve Fund of the County to be repaid in annual instalments of combined principal and interest, as hereinafter set forth under paragraphs A.3 and A.4 of this By-law.

3. Schedule A.1 – 10 Year Amortization – Principal Amount $297,801

(a) That the loan shall be dated the 15th day of May, 2015 with repayment beginning on the 15th day of May, 2016 in lawful money of Canada and shall mature during a period of 10 years from the date thereof and the respective amounts of principal and interest payable in each of the years in such period shall be as set out in Schedule “A.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule

“A.1”). The loan shall bear interest from the date thereof payable annually in arrears in each year. The loan shall bear interest at the rate of 3.4% per annum.

(b) There shall be raised, from the property owners as set out in Schedule “A.1.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “A.1.1”), in each year as part of the general upper-tier levy, the amounts required to be repaid to the County in accordance with Schedule “A.1” to this By-law.

4. Schedule A.2 – 5 Year Amortization – Principal Amount $22,180

(a) That the loan shall be dated the 15th day of May, 2015 with repayment beginning on the 15th day of May, 2016 in lawful money of Canada and shall mature during a period of 5 years from the date thereof and the respective amounts of principal and interest payable in each of the years in such period shall be as set out in Schedule “A.2” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “A.2”). The loan shall bear interest from the date thereof payable annually in arrears in each year. The loan shall bear interest at the rate of 3.0% per annum.

(b) There shall be raised, from the property owners as set out in Schedule “A.2.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “A.2.1”), in each year as part of the general upper-tier levy, the amounts required to be repaid to the County in accordance with Schedule “A.2” to this By-law.

B. Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road 59, Township of Norwich Project

1. That, in accordance with County of Oxford “Water and Sewer Services Financing” Policy No. 6.05, as amended, certain property owners billed for sanitary sewer services related to the Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road 59, Township of Norwich Project, by resolution adopting Report No. D-1 2010-37, desire to borrow upon the credit of the County, the sum of $9,000 upon the Landfill Reserve Fund of the County to be repaid in annual instalments of combined principal and interest, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby authorized.

2. The loan, for the sum of $9,000, shall be structured based on a ten-year amortization schedule as set out in Sections B.3 of this By-law.

3. 10 Year Amortization – Principal Amount $9,000

(a) That the loan shall be dated the 15th day of May, 2015 with repayment beginning on the 15th day of May, 2016 in lawful money of Canada and shall mature during a period of 10 years from the date thereof and the respective amounts of principal and interest payable in each of the years in such period shall be as set out in Schedule “B.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “B.1”). The loan shall bear interest from the date thereof payable annually in arrears in each year. The loan shall bear interest at the rate of 3.4% per annum.

(b) There shall be raised, from the property owners as set out in Schedule “B.1.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “B.1.1”), in each year as part of the general upper-tier levy, the amounts required to be repaid to the County in accordance with Schedule “B.1” to this By-law.

C. Wellington, Caffyn, Cross, Thames, Kirwin, Pine, Holcroft and Clark Road Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project

4. That, in accordance with County of Oxford “Water and Sewer Services Financing” Policy No. 6.05, as amended, certain property owners billed for sanitary sewer and/or water services related to the Wellington, Caffyn, Cross, Thames, Kirwin, Pine, Holcroft and Clark Road Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project, under the provisions of County of Oxford By-law No. 5344-2012, desire to borrow upon the credit of the County, the sum of $7,500 upon the Landfill Reserve Fund of the County to be repaid in annual instalments of combined principal and interest, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby authorized.

5. The loan, for the sum of $7,500, shall be structured based on a ten-year amortization schedule as set out in Sections C.3 of this By-law.


(a) That the loan shall be dated the 15th day of May, 2015 with repayment beginning on the 15th day of May, 2016 in lawful money of Canada and shall mature during a period of 10 years from the date thereof and the respective amounts of principal and interest payable in each of the years in such period shall be as set out in Schedule “C.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “C.1”). The loan shall bear interest from the date thereof payable annually in arrears in each year. The loan shall bear interest at the rate of 3.4% per annum.

(b) There shall be raised, from the property owners as set out in Schedule “C.1.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “C.1.1”), in each year as part of the general upper-tier levy, the amounts required to be repaid to the County in accordance with Schedule “C.1” to this By-law.

D. Woodstock – Devonshire Avenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and Water Services Project

1. That, in accordance with County of Oxford “Water and Sewer Services Financing” Policy No. 6.05, as amended, certain property owners billed for sanitary sewer and/or water services related to the Woodstock – Devonshire Avenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and Water Services Project, under the provisions of County of Oxford By-law No. 5364-2012, desire to borrow upon the credit of the County, the sum of $4,162 upon the Landfill Reserve Fund of the County to be repaid in annual instalments of combined principal and interest, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby authorized.

2. The loan, for the sum of $4,162, shall be structured based on a five-year amortization schedule as set out in Sections D.3 of this By-law.

3. 5 Year Amortization – Principal $4,162

(a) That the loan shall be dated the 15th day of May, 2015 with repayment beginning on the 15th day of May, 2016 in lawful money of Canada and shall mature during a period of 5 years from the date thereof and the respective amounts of principal and interest payable in each of the years in such period shall be as set out in Schedule “D.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “D.1”).

The loan shall bear interest from the date thereof payable annually in arrears in each year. The loan shall bear interest at the rate of 3.0% per annum.

(b) There shall be raised, from the property owners as set out in Schedule “D.1.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “D.1.1”), in each year as part of the general upper-tier levy, the amounts required to be repaid to the County in accordance with Schedule “D.1” to this By-law.

E. Woodstock – Frederick Street Sewage Collection System Project

4. That, in accordance with County of Oxford “Water and Sewer Services Financing” Policy No. 6.05, as amended, certain property owners billed for sanitary sewer services related to the Woodstock – Frederick Street Sewage Collection System Project, by resolution adopting Report No. D-7 2002-89, desire to borrow upon the credit of the County, the sum of $7,500 upon the Landfill Reserve Fund of the County to be repaid in annual instalments of combined principal and interest, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby authorized.

5. The loan, for the sum of $7,500, shall be structured based on a ten-year amortization schedule as set out in Sections E.3 of this By-law.


(a) That the loan shall be dated the 15th day of May, 2015 with repayment beginning on the 15th day of May, 2016 in lawful money of Canada and shall mature during a period of 10 years from the date thereof and the respective amounts of principal and interest payable in each of the years in such period shall be as set out in Schedule “E.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “E.1”). The loan shall bear interest from the date thereof payable annually in arrears in each year. The loan shall bear interest at the rate of 3.4% per annum.

(b) There shall be raised, from the property owners as set out in Schedule “E.1.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “E.1.1”), in each year as part of the general upper-tier levy, the amounts required to be repaid to the County in accordance with Schedule “E.1” to this By-law.

F. Thamesford Sanitary Collection Project

7. That, in accordance with County of Oxford “Water and Sewer Services Financing” Policy No. 6.05, as amended, certain property owners billed for sanitary sewer and/or water services related to the Thamesford Sanitary Collection Project, under the provisions of County of Oxford By-law No. 5145-2010, desire to borrow upon the credit of the County, the sum of $7,500 upon the Landfill Reserve Fund of the County to be repaid in annual instalments of combined principal and interest, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby authorized.

8. The loan, for the sum of $7,500, shall be structured based on a ten-year amortization schedule as set out in Sections F.3 of this By-law.

9. 10 Year Amortization – Principal $7,500

(a) That the loan shall be dated the 15th day of May, 2015 with repayment beginning on the 15th day of May, 2016 in lawful money of Canada and shall mature during a period of 10 years from the date thereof and the respective amounts of principal and interest payable in each of the years in such period shall be as set out in Schedule “F.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “F.1”). The loan shall bear interest from the date thereof payable annually in arrears in each year. The loan shall bear interest at the rate of 3.4% per annum.

(b) There shall be raised, from the property owners as set out in Schedule “F.1.1” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “F.1.1”), in each year as part of the general upper-tier levy, the amounts required to be repaid to the County in accordance with Schedule “F.1” to this By-law.

READ a first and second time this 13th day of May, 2015.

READ a third time and finally passed in this 13th day of May, 2015.

DAVID MAYBERRY, WARDEN

BRENDA J. TABOR, CLERK

SCHEDULE “A.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015


10 Year Amortization – Principal Amount $297,801

Date Payment Interest Principal

5/15/16 $35,679.79 $10,211.30 $25,468.495/15/17 35,679.79 9,338.01 26,341.785/15/18 35,679.79 8,434.78 27,245.015/15/19 35,679.79 7,500.57 28,179.225/15/20 35,679.79 6,534.33 29,145.465/15/21 35,679.79 5,534.97 30,144.825/15/22 35,679.79 4,501.33 31,178.465/15/23 35,679.79 3,432.25 32,247.545/15/24 35,679.79 2,326.52 33,353.275/15/25 35,679.82 1,182.87 34,496.95

Totals $356,797.93 $58,996.93 $297,801.00

SCHEDULE “A.1.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015 Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project

Property Listing

Roll Water Sewer Total 324202008738300 $5,427 $5,663 $11,090324202008738400 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008738501 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008740400 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008738504 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008738505 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008738506 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008740401 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008740500 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008740600 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008740700 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008740900 1,427 1,663 3,090 324202008739100 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008734310 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008734300 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008733100 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008733500 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008741700 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008741804 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008741900 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008742100 - 5,663 5,663 324202008742300 - 5,663 5,663 324202008742400 - 5,663 5,663 324202008742401 - 5,663 5,663 324202008742500 - 5,663 5,663 324202008742600 - 5,663 5,663 324202008742601 - 5,663 5,663 324202008742602 - 5,663 5,663 324202008734102 5,427 - 5,427 324202008738515 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008738500 5,427 5,663 11,090 324202008738507 5,427 5,663 11,090

$126,248 $171,553 $297,801

SCHEDULE “A.2”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015




5/15/16 $4,846.22 $670.39 $4,175.835/15/17 4,846.22 544.18 4,302.045/15/18 4,846.22 414.15 4,432.075/15/19 4,846.22 280.19 4,566.035/15/20 4,846.21 142.18 4,704.03

Totals $24,231.09 $2,051.09 $22,180.00

SCHEDULE “A.2.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015 Woodstock Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project

Property Listing

Roll Water Sewer Total 324202008738502 $2,713 $2,832 $5,545324202008738520 2,713 2,832 5,545324202008738513 2,713 2,832 5,545324202008739000 2,713 2,832 5,545

$10,852 $11,238 $22,180

SCHEDULE “B.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015

Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road 59, Township of Norwich Project



5/15/16 $1,078.30 $308.60 $769.705/15/17 1,078.30 282.21 796.095/15/18 1,078.30 254.91 823.395/15/19 1,078.30 226.68 851.625/15/20 1,078.30 197.48 880.825/15/21 1,078.30 167.27 911.035/15/22 1,078.30 136.04 942.265/15/23 1,078.30 103.73 974.575/15/24 1,078.30 70.31 1,007.995/15/25 1,078.28 35.75 1,042.53

Totals $10,782.98 $1,782.98 $9,000.00

SCHEDULE “B.1.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015 Woodstock Sanitary Collection System Extension – Oxford Road 59, Township of Norwich Project

Property Listing

Roll Total 320204003002400 $9,000

SCHEDULE “C.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015




5/15/16 $898.58 $257.17 $641.415/15/17 898.58 235.17 663.415/15/18 898.58 212.43 686.155/15/19 898.58 188.90 709.685/15/20 898.58 164.56 734.025/15/21 898.58 139.40 759.185/15/22 898.58 113.36 785.225/15/23 898.58 86.44 812.145/15/24 898.58 58.59 839.995/15/25 898.59 29.79 868.80

Totals $8,985.81 $1,485.81 $7,500.00

SCHEDULE “C.1.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015


Property Listing

Roll Total 321802004027400 $7,500

SCHEDULE “D.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015

Woodstock – Devonshire Avenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and Water Services Project



5/15/16 $909.38 $125.80 $783.585/15/17 909.38 102.11 807.275/15/18 909.38 77.71 831.675/15/19 909.38 52.58 856.805/15/20 909.36 26.68 882.68

Totals $4,546.88 $384.88 $4,162.00

SCHEDULE “D.1.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015 Woodstock – Devonshire Avenue and Mill Street Sanitary Sewer Mains and Water Services Project

Property Listing

Roll Total 324202008508100 $4,162

SCHEDULE “E.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015




5/15/16 $898.58 $257.17 $641.415/15/17 898.58 235.17 663.415/15/18 898.58 212.43 686.155/15/19 898.58 188.90 709.685/15/20 898.58 164.56 734.025/15/21 898.58 139.40 759.185/15/22 898.58 113.36 785.225/15/23 898.58 86.44 812.145/15/24 898.58 58.59 839.995/15/25 898.59 29.79 868.80

Totals $8,985.81 $1,485.81 $7,500.00

SCHEDULE “E.1.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015


Property Listing

Roll Total 3242020087364000 $7,500

SCHEDULE “F.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015

Thamesford Sanitary Collection Project



5/15/16 $898.58 $257.17 $641.415/15/17 898.58 235.17 663.415/15/18 898.58 212.43 686.155/15/19 898.58 188.90 709.685/15/20 898.58 164.56 734.025/15/21 898.58 139.40 759.185/15/22 898.58 113.36 785.225/15/23 898.58 86.44 812.145/15/24 898.58 58.59 839.995/15/25 898.59 29.79 868.80

Totals $8,985.81 $1,485.81 $7,500.00

SCHEDULE “F.1.1”

BY-LAW NO. 5695-2015

Thamesford Sanitary Collection Project

Property Listing

Roll Total 322701001019316 $7,500

COUNTY OF OXFORD

BY-LAW NO. 5696-2015 BEING a By-law to authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to execute contract documents between the County of Oxford and Permanent Paving Ltd. for 2015 and 2016 road resurfacing work. WHEREAS, the Table to Section 11 and Section 52 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, prescribes that specified highways are within the jurisdiction of the County of Oxford for all matters relating to those highways, including parking and traffic. AND WHEREAS, Section 5.4.4 of the County of Oxford Purchasing Policy prescribes that where the total value of a tender exceeds $1,000,000 then Council approval of the tender is required by resolution and any agreement should be approved by Council by-law.

AND WHEREAS, Section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act.

AND WHEREAS, Council has adopted Public Works Report No. PW 2015-18, dated April 22, 2015. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the County of Oxford enacts as follows: 1. That the Chief Administrative Officer is hereby authorized and instructed to

execute contract documents between the County of Oxford and Permanent Paving Ltd., in the amount of $8,890,000.00 plus HST, for 2015 and 2016 road resurfacing work.

READ a first and second time this 13th day of May, 2015. READ a third time and finally passed this 13th day of May, 2015.



COUNTY OF OXFORD

BY-LAW NO. 5697-2015

BEING a By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Oxford at the meeting at which this By-law is passed. The Council of the County of Oxford enacts as follows: 1. That all decisions made by Council at the meeting at which this By-law is passed, in respect

of each report, resolution or other action passed and taken by the Council at this meeting, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed.

2. That the Warden and/or the proper officers of the County are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said decisions referred to in Section 1 of this By-law, to obtain approvals where required, and except where otherwise provided, to execute all necessary documents and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the corporate seal where necessary.

3. That nothing in this By-law has the effect of giving to any decision the status of a By-law

where any legal prerequisite to the enactment of a specific By-law has not been satisfied. 4. That all decisions, as referred to in Section 1 of this By-law, supercede any prior decisions

of Council to the contrary. READ a first and second time this 13th day of May, 2015. READ a third time and finally passed this 13th day of May, 2015.



council report cs 2015-16

Documents