2014 09 04 Lambton Shores Municipality Council Meeting Agenda

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORESCOUNCIL MEETING

AGENDA

Meeting #: 18-2014Date: Thursday, September 4, 2014Time: 2:30 p.m.Location: Legacy Centre - Thomas Hall, Thedford

Pages

1. Call to Order

2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest

3. Confidential Business

Open Session begins at 3:00 p.m. with any Closed Session items beingscheduled between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m., with the start time determined by thematerial to be considered.

3.1 Minutes of the Closed Session of Council - August 7, 2014

3.2 Education Session (Authorization to Close - Section 239 (3.1) of theMunicipal Act

4. Approval of Agenda

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the September 4, 2014 Council agenda as presented be approved.

5. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meetings

5.1 Council Meeting - August 7, 2014 9 - 20

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the minutes of the August 7, 2014 Council meeting be accepted aspresented.

5.2 Special Council Meeting - August 14, 2014 21 - 25

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the minutes of the Special Council meeting held August 14, 2014be accepted as presented.

1

6. Councillor Reports

An opportunity for Members of Council to make a report.

7. Delegations

8. Presentations & Public Meetings

8.1 3:00 p.m. - Everett Moons & Bill Shea, Forest & District AgriculturalSociety - Re: Request for Bridge Loan for Proposed Building

26 - 39

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the presentation from the Forest and District Agricultural Societyas presented be received.

9. Consent Agenda

There were no items to include in the Consent Agenda.

10. Correspondence & Petitions

Correspondence - For Council Information

10.1 Ms. Prithi Yelaga, Communications Specials Policy andCommunications - College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario - Re:Physician Nomination

40

10.2 Brenda Howie, Local Area Manager, London Woodstock - Canada Post- Re: Potential Reductions to Weekday Business Hours at the ForestPost Office

41

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the following items of correspondence be received and filed:

10.1 Ms. Prithi Yelaga - College of Physicians and Surgeons - Re:Physician Nomination;

10.2 Brenda Howie - Canada Post - Re: Potential Reductions toWeekday Business Hours at the Forest Post Office.

Correspondence - For Council Direction

10.3 Ted Archer - Re: Additional Information on Making the Hamlet of PortFranks a More Aesthetically Pleasing Locale

42 - 47

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Mr. Archer and Mr. Nelson be invited to meet with Councillor Scottand staff for the purpose of understanding the suggested projects.

11. Consideration of Committee Minutes & Staff Reports

2

Corporate & Strategic

11.1 Report CAO 15-2014 - Re: Answers to Questions Received Regardingthe Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant

48 - 83

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CAO 15-2014 providing answers to questions receivedregarding the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant be received.

11.2 Report CAO 16-2014 - Re: Municipal Responsibility Related to theRoads of Armstrong East

84 - 88

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CAO 16-2014 regarding Municipal responsibility related tothe Roads of Armstrong East be received.

Planning

11.3 Report PL 21-2014 - Re: Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton ShoresOfficial Plan Review of Public Comments

89 - 168

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT comments related to Draft 6 of the proposed Lambton ShoresOfficial Plan be received; and

THAT the summary of staff suggestions (Appendix A) resulting from thepublic review be incorporated into Draft 7 of the proposed LambtonShores Official Plan; and

THAT direction be provided with respect to the items listed in AppendixB and any other changes required to be incorporated in Draft 7; and

THAT Draft 7 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan be finalizedand returned to Council at the October 2nd meeting for Council’sconsideration and possible adoption.

Community Services

11.4 Report DCS 63-2014 - Re: School Zone Speed Limit Review 169 - 179

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT DCS 63-2014 regarding “School Zone Speed Limits” be received;and

THAT school zones be established in the following areas:

Grand Bend Public School (Grand Bend)

3

• Gill Road, from Main Street East (County Road #81) to 39 GillRoad.

Kinnwood Public School (Forest)

• Morris Street, from 16 Morris Street to 50 Morris Street.• MacDonald Street, from 40 MacDonald Street to 99 MacDonald

Street.

St. John Fisher Catholic Elementary School

• Main Street North, from Townsend Line to 28 Main Street North• Queen Street, from 28 Queen Street West to 27 Prince Street

North Lambton Secondary School

• George Street, from Main Street South to 6 Park Lane; and

THAT a reduced speed limit of 40 km/h be established for these areas,enforceable from 8:00am – 4:30pm on school days, September 1 – June30; and

THAT staff prepare the necessary by-law to amend the speed limit inthese areas for consideration at the September 18, 2014 Councilmeeting.

11.5 Report DCS 65-2014 - Re: Policy #66 Community Grants Amendmentsand Draft Secondary Sponsorship Policy

180 - 204

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT DCS 65-2014 regarding Policy #66 Community Grants and thedraft Seconday Sponsorship Policy be received; and

THAT the amendments to Policy #66 Community Grants be approved;and

THAT the draft “Secondary Sponsorship Policy” be adopted andimplemented for 2015 with a budget consideration of $2,000.00 beincluded during budget deliberations.

11.6 Report DCS 66-2014 - Re: 2014 Drinking Water Inspection Reports 205 - 262

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 66-2014 regarding the “2014 Drinking WaterInspection Reports” be received for Council’s information.

4

11.7 Report DCS 67-2014 - Re Request from the Junior B Predators for aLicensed Area at the Shores Recreation Centre

263 - 269

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 67-2014 regarding a “Request from the Junior BPredators for a Licensed Area at the Shores Recreation Centre” bereceived; and

THAT the request received from the Predators Hockey Club beapproved with the following stipulations:

The licensed area is restricted to the site plan provided (Attachment 1 tothis report); and

Hours of operation are limited to one half hour prior to the game startingto the 10:00 minute mark (halfway through) of the third period; and

The licensed area must abide by the Municipal Alcohol Policy; and;

The Junior B Predators sign the Memorandum of Agreement found in‘Attachment 2’.

11.8 Report DCS 68-2014 - Re: Windsor Park Association – Various TrafficRequests

270 - 275

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 68-2014 regarding “Windsor Park Association –Various Traffic Requests” be received; and

THAT speed limits within Windsor Park be reduced to 40 km/h; and

THAT the north side of Bond Road, the west side of Wedd Road and theroads at the intersection of Clarke and Dune Drives be changed to “NoParking anytime”; and

THAT the set fine for infraction on Clarke Drive and Dune Drive beincreased to $ 65.00; and

THAT parking restriction at the Bond Road beach parking area bechanged “No Parking 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.”, and

THAT staff prepare the necessary by-laws for consideration at theSeptember 18, 2014 meeting.

11.9 Report DCS 69-2014 - Re: Speed Limit Review – Richardson Drive,Ipperwash

276 - 277

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 69-2014 regarding “Speed Limit Review –Richardson Drive, Ipperwash” be received; and

THAT the speed limit on Richardson Drive be reduced to 40 km/h and

5

that staff prepare the necessary by-law for consideration at theSeptember 18, 2014 meeting.

11.10 Report DCS 70-2014 - Re: Tornado Clean-up Update 278 - 279

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report DCS 70-2014 regarding “Tornado Response Update” bereceived for Council’s information.

Finance & Administration

11.11 Report TR 40-2014 - Re: Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund andSmall Communities Fund

280 - 285

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report TR-40-2014 regarding the Ontario CommunityInfrastructure Fund and Small Communities fund be received; and

THAT the Thedford Storm Water and Road Reconstruction project andthe Forest Broadway Street Watermain and Road Reconstruction projectare the identified projects for the programs.

11.12 Report TR 41-2014 - Re: Land Stewardship and Habitat RestorationProgram Funding

286 - 317

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report TR-41-2014 regarding the Land Stewardship and HabitatRestoration Program be received; and

THAT the Mayor and Treasurer be authorized to execute the fundingagreement for the Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Programfor Invasive Phragmites Control and Habitat Restoration for a LambtonShores Coastal Meadow Marsh – PMA V B1 & B2.

11.13 Report CL 58-2014 - Re: Amending the Noise By-law to allow forExemptions under certain circumstances

318 - 333

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT CL Report No. 58 -2012 regarding an amendment to the NoiseBy-law to allow exemptions under certain circumstances be approved,and

THAT the Lambton Shores Noise By-law be amended to provide forexemptions, and the draft policies/procedures and application form beapproved; and

THAT the staff prepare the necessary amendment to the by-law for

6

consideration at the September 18, 2014 Council meeting.

11.14 Report CL 60-2014 - Re: Forest & District Agricultural Society – Requestto Renew Lease

334 - 335

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT CL Report No. 60-2014 regarding the request from the Forest & District Agricultural Society to renew a lease (license) agreement bereceived; and

THAT Council supports in principle the negotiations for a renewalagreement with the Forest & District Agricultural Society for the use ofthe Forest Fairgrounds property for an additional 20 year period.

11.15 Report CL 61-2014 - Re: 2014 Drain Maintenance 336

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT CL Report 61-2014 respecting the collection of funds for DrainMaintenance works be received, and

THAT By-Law 86 of 2014 authorizing the collection of the sums beapproved.

11.16 Report CL 62-2014 - Re: Council Compensation for Mileage Expenses 337 - 341

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CL 62 of 2014, regarding Council compensation formileage expenses be received for discussion.

11.17 Report CL 63-2014 - Re: Farm Land Tender for the Use of the ForestIndustrial Lands

342 - 346

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CL 63 – 2014 regarding the results from the farm landtenders for the Forest Industrial land be received; and

THAT the tender submitted by Triple “L” farms in the amount of $325.00per workable acre be accepted; and

THAT the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to sign the requiredagreements.

12. By-laws & Resolutions

12.1 By-law 84-2014 - Re: Authorizing Agreement with Triple "L" Farms

12.2 By-law 85-2014 - Re: Confirming Resolutions to Date 347

7

12.3 By-law 86-2014 - Re: Collecting the Sums from the Lands and RoadsAssessed for the Maintenance of Certain Drains

348 - 350

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the following by-laws be read a first, second and third time,passed and numbered appropriately, signed by the Mayor and Clerk andengrossed in the by-law book:

- By-law 84-2014 - Authorizing Agreement with Triple 'L' Farms;

- By-law 85-2014 - Confirming Resolutions to Date;

- By-law 86-2014 - Collecting Sums for Drain Maintenance.

13. Accounts

13.1 Report TR 63-2014 - Re: July 2014 Cheque Listing 351 - 357

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report TR-39-2014; regarding the Lambton Shores cheque listingfor July 2014 in the amount of $1,886,974.87, be received.

14. Notices of Motion

14.1 Notice of Motion from Councillor Bonesteel - Re: Discussion with MTOregarding Traffic Flow Along Highway #21

358

14.2 Notice of Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg - Re: United NationsAgenda 21

359

15. Emergent Issues

An opportunity for an emergent issue to be discussed by Council.

16. Adjournment

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the September 4, 2014 Council meeting adjourn at _____ p.m.

8

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, August 7, 2014

2:00 p.m.

Member Present: Mayor Bill Weber

Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg Councillor Doug Bonesteel Councillor Lorie Scott Councillor Ken McRae Councillor Martin Underwood Councillor Doug Cook Councillor John Russell

Staff Present: Chief Administrative Officer Kevin Williams

Clerk Carol McKenzie Treasurer Janet Ferguson Director of Community Services Brent Kittmer Administrative Assistant Roberta Brandon

1. Call to Order Mayor Weber called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest

The Mayor asked members of Council to declare any pecuniary interest that they may have with the business itemized on the agenda and Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg declared a conflict with Item # 11.9 regarding the Cedar Point Wind Energy Project Road Use Agreement and Item # 11.10 dealing with the Cedar Point Wind Energy Project Collection Line Infrastructure Installations. In addition Councillor Cook declared a conflict with Item # 13.1 dealing with the Municipal accounts.

3. Confidential Business

14-0807-01 Moved By: Councillor Scott Seconded By: Councillor Underwood THAT Council goes into a “Closed Session” to review minutes of the July 3, 2014 Closed Session, Report DCS 62-2014 regarding the Water and Wastewater Operations RFP Award – Review Summary, Report DCS 59-2014 dealing with the 2014 Volunteer Achievement Award Recipients and to discuss concerns regarding a personal matter. Carried

_____________________________________________________________________

9

Minutes of the August 7, 2014 Council Meeting 2

Council rose from the Closed Session at 3:05 p.m. and made the following resolution:

14-0807-02 Moved By: Councillor Russell Seconded By: Councillor Underwood

THAT Council rise and report progress on matters discussed in the Closed Session of Council. Carried

4. Approval of Agenda Mayor Weber advised that there was a supplement to the agenda and asked for Council consent to bring the supplemental agenda forward after the presentation from the EDC.

14-0807-03 Moved By: Councillor Russell Seconded By: Councillor Scott

THAT the Supplemental Agenda for the August 7th, 2014 Council with the following items be approved; 1. Report CAO 15-2014 – Re: Municipal Storm Clean Up Strategy 2. Report TR-38-2014 – Re: Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance

Program 3. Report CL 57-2014 – Re: Request for a Class 5 Septic System

(Holding Tank), Wood Drive; and THAT the Supplemental Agenda be dealt with following the presentation from the Economic Development Committee. Carried

5. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meetings

5.1. Council Meeting - July 3, 2014 5.2. Special Council Meeting - July 31, 2014

1-0807-04 Moved By: Councillor Scott

Seconded By: Councillor Cook

THAT the minutes of the regular Council meeting held July 3, 2014 and the minutes of the Special Council meeting held July 31, 2014 be accepted as presented. Carried

6. Councillor Reports Members of Council brought forward items of interest to the community and noted their appreciation of Municipal staff’s efforts in the cleanup following the recent storm.

10


7. Delegations There were no applications submitted to be a delegate to Council. 8. Presentations & Public Meetings

8.1. 3:00 p.m. - Paul Wilson, Lambton Shores Economic Development Committee - Re: Economic Development Action Plan

Paul Wilson, Chair of the Lambton Shores Economic Development Committee appeared before Council to present the Committee’s Action Plan, which outlined seven specific goals, each with identified strategies designed to advance economic development in Lambton Shores. Mr. Wilson further proceeded to identify the six actions as priorities for implementing these Action Plan goals.

8.1.1. Report CAO 14-2014 - Re: Presentation of the Economic Development Action Plan

14-0807-05 Moved By: Councillor Russell

Seconded By: Councillor Scott

THAT Report CAO 14-2014 bringing forward the Economic Development Action Plan on behalf of the Economic Development Committee be received; and THAT the Economic Development Action Plan (EDAP) dated August 7, 2014 be received and posted to the Municipal website; and THAT support in principle be given to the six (6) actions identified as priorities in the plan; and THAT the Committee be encouraged to seek stakeholder feedback on the EDAP actions and priorities; and THAT the Economic Development Committee review its mandate as necessary for the consideration of Council. Carried

Supplemental Agenda

1. Report CAO 15-2014 – Re: Municipal Storm Clean-Up Strategy 14-0807-06 Moved By: Councillor Bonesteel

Seconded By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg

11


THAT Report CAO 15-2014 bringing forward an outline of the proposed Storm Clean-up Work Plan be received for information; and

THAT the roadside brush management program be concluded and re-evaluated on Sunday, August 17th, to enable ongoing clean-up and restoration efforts on the municipal road allowances. Carried

2. Report TR 38-2014 – Re: Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program

14-0807-07 Moved By: Councillor Bonesteel Seconded By: Councillor Scott

WHEREAS: The Municipality of Lambton Shores recently experienced an EF1 tornado on July 27, 2014 and has experienced substantial damage requiring clean up on municipal property and has received reported losses of private damage, the council of Lambton Shores hereby requests the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to declare the areas identified as Grand Bend, Southcott Pines, Pinedale, Merrywood, Beach O’Pines, Huron Woods, Wee Lake Estates, Klondyke Rd, Van Dongen and Dalton subdivisions a “disaster area” for the purposes of the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program (ODRAP);

FURTHER, should the Minister declare a disaster area regarding the private component of ODRAP, Council will immediately, under the authority of ODRAP, appoint members to a disaster relief committee to administer ODRAP.

THAT the storm related private property cost estimate form be distributed to affected property owners via a notification in a press release, the website, volunteers and office locations with a return date of August 13, 2014. Carried

A recorded vote was requested on the following motion: 14-0807-08 Moved By: Councillor Scott Seconded By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg

THAT Councillor Bonesteel be designated as the single point of contact for facilitating information to those residents affected by the recent tornado. Those members of Council in favour: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg, Councillors Bonesteel, Scott, Underwood, McRae and Russell. Those members opposed: Mayor Weber and Councillor Cook.

Carried

12


3. Report CL 57-2014 – Re: Request for a Class 5 Septic System (Holding Tank)

14-0807-09 Moved By: Councillor Scott Seconded By: Councillor Underwood THAT Report CL 57-2014, regarding the request for a Class 5 sewage system (holding tank) for property on Wood Drive be received; and THAT the use of a Class 5 septic system (holding tank) is approved as a replacement system for the failed septic system for 9177 Wood Drive; and THAT the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to enter into an agreement with the property owners that will include the recommendations from the St Clair Region Conservation Authority, and the County of Lambton Part 8 Direction/C.B.O. as well as address any Municipal issues or concerns. Carried

9. Consent Agenda There were no items included for the Consent Agenda. 10. Correspondence & Petitions There was no correspondence or petitions for Council’s review. 11. Consideration of Committee Minutes & Staff Reports

11.1. Minutes of the Forest Business Improvement Area Board Meeting held May 21, 2014

11.2. Minutes of the Forest Business Improvement Area Board Meeting

held June 18, 2014

14-0807-10 Moved By: Councillor Scott Seconded By: Councillor Cook

THAT the minutes of the Forest Business Improvement Area Board meetings held May 21st and June 18th, 2014 be received and filed. Carried

11.3. Minutes of the Lambton Shores Accessibility Committee Meeting held May 29, 2014


Seconded By: Councillor Cook

13


THAT the minutes of the Lambton Shores Accessibility Committee meeting held May 29, 2014 be received.

Carried

Corporate & Strategic 11.4. Report CAO 15-2014 - Re: Storm Cleaning-Up Strategy - Pending

Report CAO 15-2014 was dealt with as part of the supplemental agenda.

Planning 11.5. Report PL 19-2014 - Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OP-

02/2014 & Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-04/2014 for Erich & Annegret Ungerer - 9122 Northville Road

14-0807-12 Moved By: Councillor Cook

Seconded By: Councillor Scott THAT Report No. 19-2014 regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OP-0/2014 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-04/2014, submitted by Erich and Annegret Ungerer relating to lands known as 9122 Northville Road, to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be received and filed and that the By-laws to implement the amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be approved. Carried

11.6. Report PL 20-2014 - Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2014 & Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-03/2014 for Donalds’ Crossroads Farms Ltd. - 5883 Proof Line


Seconded By: Councillor Cook THAT PL Report No. 20-2014 regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2014 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-03/2014, submitted by Donalds’ Crossroads Farms Ltd. relating to lands known as 5883 Proof Line, to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the creation of a new non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a farm consolidation be received and filed and that the by-laws to implement the amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be approved. Carried

14


Community Services 11.7. Report DCS 57-2014 - Re: Water and Waste Water Operations

Contract – Recommendation for RFP Award

14-0807-14 Moved By: Councillor Underwood Seconded By: Councillor Russell

THAT Report DCS 57-2014 regarding the “Water and Wastewater Operations Contract RFP Award” be received; and THAT staff commence service agreement negotiations with Operations Management International Canada, Inc. for the operation, maintenance and management of the Lambton Shores water and waste water systems. Carried

11.8. Report DCS 58-2014 - Re: World Under-17 Hockey Challenge

14-0807-15 Moved By: Councillor Scott Seconded By: Councillor Bonesteel

THAT DCS 58-2014 regarding the World Under-17 Hockey Challenge be received for information. Carried

11.9. Report DCS 60-2014 - Re: Cedar Point Wind Energy Project Road Use Agreement

14-0807-16 Moved By: Councillor Cook

Seconded By: Councillor Underwood

THAT Report DCS 60-2014 regarding the “Cedar Point Wind Energy Project Road Use Agreement” be received; and THAT By-Law 77-2014, authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk to execute the Cedar Point Road Use Agreement be passed.

Carried

11.10. Report DCS 61-2014 - Re: Cedar Point Wind Energy Project – Collection Line Infrastructure Installations

14-0807-17 Moved By: Councillor Underwood

Seconded By: Councillor Cook THAT DCS 61-2014 regarding the Cedar Point Wind Energy Project Collection Line Infrastructure Installations be received; and

15


THAT the Municipality of Lambton Shores accepts the locations of proposed electrical infrastructure within the municipal rights of way as submitted by Suncor for the Cedar Point Wind Energy Project, subject to the terms and conditions recommended in Dillon Consulting’s technical memos dated July 30, 2014. Carried

Finance and Administration 11.11. Report TR 37-2014 - Re: Build Canada Fund Agreement Amendment

14-0807-18 Moved By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg Seconded By: Councillor Scott

THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Build Canada Fund Agreement Amendment and that the pertinent by-law is passed. Carried

11.12. Report CL 55-2014 - Re: By-law 64 - 2014 Being a By-law to Authorize the Rice Drain


Seconded By: Councillor Cook THAT Report CL 55-2014 providing information on the addendum considered at the Court of Revision for the Rice Drain be received; and THAT, prior to the third and final reading, By-law 64-20014 be amended to include the Addendum dated July 2, 2014 considered at the Court of Revision on July 3, 2014.

Carried

11.13. Report CL 56-2014 - Re: Extension Agreement for the Horse and Carriage Rides in Grand Bend

14-0807-20 Moved By: Councillor Scott

Seconded By: Councillor Bonesteel THAT Report CL 56-2014 respecting the extension of an agreement be received; and THAT the agreement with Humes Horse and Carriage Rides be extended until November 30, 2014. Carried

16


12. By-laws & Resolutions

12.1. By-law 64-2014 - Drainage Works - Rice Drain as Amended - Third Reading (See Report CL-55-2014)

12.2. By-law 77-2014 - Re: Authorize Road Use Agreement with Suncor

Energy (See Report DCS 60-2014) 12.3. By-law 78-2014 - Re: Zoning By-law Amendment - Ungerer (See

Report PL 19-2014) 12.4. By-law 79-2014 - Re: Official Plan Amendment No. 40 - Ungerer (See

Report PL 19-2014) 12.5. By-law 80-2014 - Re: Zoning By-law Amendment - Donalds'

Crossroads Farms Ltd. (See Report PL 20-2014) 12.6. By-law 81-2014 - Re: Official Plan Amendment No. 41 - Donalds'

Crossroads Farms Inc. (See Report PL 20-2014) 12.7. By-law 82-2014 - Re: Confirming Resolutions to Date 12.8. By-law 83-2014 - Re: Amending Build Canada Funding Agreement

14-0807-21 Moved By: Councillor Underwood Seconded By: Councillor Scott

THAT the following by-law be read a third time as amended, passed and numbered appropriately, signed by the Mayor and Clerk and engrossed in the by-law book: - By-law 64-2014 as Amended - Rice Drain; and THAT the following by-laws be read a first, second and third time, passed and numbered appropriately, signed by the Mayor and Clerk and engrossed in the by-law book: - By-law 77-2014 - Authorize Road Use Agreement with Suncor Energy; - By-law 78-2014 - Zone Amendment - Ungerer; - By-law 79-2014 - Official Plan Amendment No. 40 - Ungerer; - By-law 80-2014 - Zone Amendment - Donalds' Crossroads; - By-law 81-2014 - Official Plan Amendment No. 41 - Donalds' Crossroads;

17


- By-law 82-2014 - Confirming Resolutions to Date; and - By-law 83-2014 - Amending Build Canada Funding Agreement. Carried

13. Accounts

13.1. Report TR 36-2014 - Re: June, 2014 Cheque Listing

14-0807-22 Moved By: Councillor Russell Seconded By: Councillor Underwood

THAT Treasurer’s Report TR 36-2014 regarding the Lambton Shores cheque listing for June 2014 in the amount of $4,881,497.65, be received. Carried

14. Notices of Motion Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg provided the following “Notice of Motion” for consideration at the September 4, 2014 Council meeting: WHEREAS, the Municipality of Lambton Shores recognizes that we are called to be good stewards of the land and its resources, and WHEREAS, the Municipality of Lambton Shores views United Nations Agenda 21 as a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering and global political control, that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout Lambton Shores and Canada through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21’s plan of “sustainable development” views private property ownership, single family homes, private vehicle ownership; individual travel choices, and privately owned farms as destructive to the environment; and WHEREAS, according to United Nations Agenda 21, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which United Nations Agenda 21 would accomplish by redistribution of wealth; and WHEREAS, according to United Nations Agenda 21 national sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now therefore be it

18


RESOLVED, that the Municipality of Lambton Shores recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes the dangerous intent of United Nations Agenda 21; and therefore be it further RESOLVED, that the Municipality of Lambton Shores views United Nations Agenda 21 as an infringement on the inalienable rights of Canadian citizens, and RESOLVED that the Municipality of Lambton Shores withdraw from ICLEI and inform its residents of the harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 and we hereby reject its destructive strategies for “sustainable development.” Councillor Bonesteel provided the following “Notice of Motion” for consideration at the September 4, 2014 Council meeting: THAT staff are directed to pursue formal discussions with the Ministry of Transportation staff to find ways of improving both the north and south flows of traffic along Hwy. 21 connecting link within Grand Bend. 15. Emergent Issues 14-0807-23 Moved By: Councillor Russell Seconded By: Councillor Scott

That the Notice of Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg regarding a disaster relief committee be brought forward as an emergent issue. Carried 15.1. Notice of Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg - Re: Striking a

Disaster Relief Committee

14-0807-24 Moved By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg Seconded By: Councillor Bonesteel

WHEREAS the greater Grand Bend area has been seriously damaged by the tornado of July 27th; AND WHEREAS there are land owners who have been impacted beyond their financial means to complete restoration; AND WHEREAS Lambton Shores council and municipal staff need to establish coordinated communication with residents and need to help quantify the needs that are not covered by insurance; AND WHEREAS there are individuals who are volunteering to donate finances or physically assist those in need; NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that Lambton Shores council strike a Disaster Relief Committee as required under the ODRAP

19


program with representation from the Huron Woods Community Association, the Beach o’ Pines Association, Van Dongen subdivision, Klondyke Road residents and three individuals from the community with fund-raising experience; AND THAT Council waive the requirements of Policy 75 pertaining to the recruitment procedure for Lambton Shores’ committees, due to the extenuating circumstances AND THAT staff be directed to define the Terms of Reference for this committee in accordance with the ODRAP program requirements, and to include but not limited to (1) initiating a fund-raising campaign; (2) managing donations; (3) coordinating the offers to assist with the outstanding needs; and (4) communicating regularly with staff and Council. Carried

16. Adjournment

14-0807-25 Moved By: Councillor Underwood Seconded By: Councillor Cook THAT the August 7, 2014 Council meeting adjourns at 5:08 p.m. Carried

20

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES

Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:00 p.m.

Member Present: Mayor Bill Weber Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg Councillor Dave Maguire Councillor Doug Bonesteel Councillor Lorie Scott Councillor Ken McRae Councillor Martin Underwood Councillor Doug Cook Councillor John Russell

Staff Present: Chief Administrative Officer Kevin Williams

Clerk Carol McKenzie Planner Patti Richardson

1. Call to Order Mayor Weber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and explained that this was a special meeting of Council to provide the public an opportunity to formally express issues or concerns with respect to the draft Official Plan to Council, as required under Section 26 of the Planning Act.

The procedural rules for the meeting were reviewed, and it was noted that in order to ensure there is time to hear all participants, Council is granting an initial time limit of 5 minutes per person, with the opportunity for the speaker to return to the podium after everyone else has had an opportunity to speak.

2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest

The Mayor asked members of Council to declare any pecuniary interest that they may have with the business to be discussed and none were declared.

3. Public Meeting held under Section 26 of the Planning Act

14-0814-01 Moved By: Councillor Underwood Seconded By: Councillor Scott

_____________________________________________________________________

21

THAT the special Council meeting adjourns at 7:05 for a Public Meeting held under section 26(3) of the Planning Act. Carried

1. Philip Walden – Ridge Road

Mr. Walden presented comments pertaining to the governing time frame of the document, development in Walden North, Walden South, and in the western portion of the Municipality.

2. Graeme Wallace – Jura Line

Mr. Wallace outlined concerns with respect to reducing the amount of lands designated for development, and increased intensification, and with increased general regulations, restricting agriculture through the promotion of ecological buffer zones, the impacts of sustainability plans, the need for archeological assessments, and cultural heritage evaluation reports, the extension of the Source water protection provisions, the United Nations Agenda 21 sustainable development wording in the document. (Presentation provided and filed)

3. Ruth Anne Wallace – Jura Line

Mrs. Wallace presented concerns with the fact that the rural agricultural sector of Lambton Shores was not labelled in the Official Plan, and the restrictions on the land through increased regulations. (Presentation provided and filed)

4. Ernest Lewis – Huron Woods

Mr. Lewis noted that allocation of sewage capacity had not been addressed in the document.

5. Theo Rood – Goosemarsh Line

Mr. Rood is the owner of Grand Bend Produce on Walker Road, and requested that the land owned by the company adjacent to the business remain in the current designation, which would allow for future expansion.

6. Eugen Burgin – Hickory Creek Line

Mr. Burgin provided comments on the potential impact on farm operations resulting from the natural heritage provisions in the Plan. (Presentation provided and filed)

7. Cindy Moyer – on behalf of Ian Wilkinson, Senior Litigation Paralegal

Ms. Moyer advised Council that Mr. Wilkinson had been retained by 4 property owners and noted that they objected to any and all claims that infringe, frustrate or interfere with land ownership and land rights. (Presentation provided and filed)

22

8. Gerry Rupke – East Parkway Drive

Mr. Rupke outlined concerns with the expansion of the Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) in Ipperwash.

9. Mark Rupke

Mr. Rupke outlined concerns with the expansion of the Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) in Ipperwash and the fact that the designation was not applied uniformly.

10. Cheryl deVries– Ontario Land Owners Association

Mrs. deVries outlined concerns with the requirement for ecological buffers associated with the natural heritage features.

11. Al Hannahson – East Parkway

Mr. Hannahson outlined his families land ownership in the Ipperwash area and the impacts that the extension of the ANSI area would have on the ability to develop the lands.

12. Robert Johnston – St. Clair Township

Mr. Johnston expressed his concern with the setbacks and buffer zones, and the lack of input from the agricultural area. He suggested that a committee of agricultural landowners be formed to review the document and provide feedback. He also expressed concerns with the similarities in the Plan to Agenda 21.

13. Eleanor Davis – Petticoat Lane

Mrs. Davis stated concerns with the community design and improvement components of the plan and the sustainability references. (Presentation provided and filed)

14. Randall Jago – East Parkway

Mr. Jago also expressed concerns about the expansion of the ANSI area in Ipperwash and the limited development potential

15. Bob Sharen - William Street

Mr. Sharen suggested that the 2 major Lambton Shores’ industries, Tourism and Agriculture, need to be addressed and respected in the document. Also noted were concerns regarding the impact the draft plan will have on taxation and personal property rights, and the conservation authorities’ regulations.

16. Jay Trothen – Defore Drive & Riverside Drive

Mr. Trothen brought forward concerns regarding the Commercial Constraint designation on property in Port Franks, and the change to the designation in the new plan that would not allow residential development on lands. (Presentation provided and filed)

23

17. John Zekueld – Christian Farmers Federation of Agriculture

Mr. Zekueld advised that the Christian Farmers Federation of Agriculture had not been circulated a copy of the document, and that he would like to see matters that pertain to and impact the farm community be referred to the Federation for comments. Also noted were comments with respect to property rights and the buffer strips.

18. Sheila Thompson – Main Street, Thedford

Mrs. Thompson shared her concerns that the Official Plan infringed on the rights and freedoms of property owners, and the impact of woodlots being deemed “significant” on their lumber business. Also expressed were concerns regarding Agenda 21 similarities.

19. Michelle Doornbosch – Beechwood Street

Mrs. Doornbosch expressed concern with Section 5.4 of the plan referencing the need for sustainability plans for all residential development, which would be onerous for single lot development. Also noted were the concerns regarding the minimum requirement for industrial properties to have a minimum of 10% of the lands landscaped, and the process to review and approve development proposals.

20. Ron MacDougal – Lambton Federation of Agriculture

Mr. MacDougal spoke on the concern that a significant amount of agricultural land could be lost if the buffers and setbacks are initiated, and supported the creation of an Agricultural Advisory Committee to get input from the residents.

21. Don McCabe – Ontario Federation of Agriculture

Mr. McCabe provided his concerns on the impact on the agricultural sector if the plan is approved as written, and the impact of the 120 metre setbacks.

22. Brian Richardson– East Parkway

Mr. Richardson expressed his concern over the extension of the ANSI area in the East Parkway area and the inconsistent application of the line, and recommended staying with the status quo.

23. Graeme Wallace (Continued)

Mr. Wallace spoke on the United Nations’ Agenda 21, and that the plan will change the community be adding restrictions and limit development. Mr. Wallace presented his 7 recommended actions. (Included in presentation filed)

24. Bob Sharen – (continued)

Mr. Sharen noted that the discharge of the sewage into the rivers in high tourist times would not be considered sustainable.

14-0814-02 Moved By: Councillor Russell Seconded By: Councillor Scott

24

THAT the Public Meeting adjourns at 8:50 p.m., and that the Special Meeting of Council reconvenes. Carried

Mayor Weber thanked the audience members for attending, and advised that the comments received tonight, and at the 2 prior public meetings would be compiled and presented at the September 4, 2014 Council meeting.

14-0814-03 Moved By: Councillor Underwood Seconded By: Councillor McRae

THAT the Special Council meeting adjourns at 8:58 p.m. Carried

25

Forest & District Agricultural Society

Proposed Building Presentation

September 4, 2014

26

A Brief History

The first record of a Fair being held in Forest was at the corner of Broadway and Main Streets in 1870.

The 1879 prize list offered some interesting prizes. A large framed picture of Queen Victoria was the first prize for the best 10 pound crock of butter.

A Class “B” status was reached in 1983, the Forest Fair expanded to a three day fair by adding a Sunday fair featuring a demolition derby.

The Exhibition Hall was erected in 1982. Later an addition was added that included a meeting hall and a commercial kitchen. This building is a very busy place for events held by local businesses and families.

27

A Brief History continued…

In 1991, the old Crystal Palace (the former Armories) was replaced by a new structure to accommodate a variety of usages. Handicapped accessible washroom facilities were added to this building in 2007 .

The Fair attracts (weather permitting) between 12,000 and 15,000 people to the event over 3 days. The Forest Fall Fair is still growing with more to come.

28

Primary Reasons to Build

The existing structures (the sheep and horse barns) are worn out and more of a liability than an asset.

A new large enclosed area would serve to weather-proof our Fair and any other events currently held on site

29

Secondary Reasons to Build

Increase the appeal of our grounds for EXISTING events

Steam Threshers

Livestock shows

Campers

Relay for Life

Forest Fireman Reunion

Canadian Motorcycle Reunion

Square dancers

30

Secondary Reasons to Build

Increase the appeal of our grounds for NEW events More livestock shows

RCMP Musical ride

Community garage sale

Flea market

Auction sales

Car shows

Pet Shows

And more….

31

What do we Need in a New Building

It needs to be big enough Tall enough to allow for a door large enough to bring in

large equipment for farm equipment shows

Wide and long enough to allow for livestock shows (both exhibitions and competitions)

The initial structure we build needs to have sufficient lighting, electrical and plumbing to accommodate the Fair and other events.

32

Basics of the Proposed building

100’ x 150’ x 18’

33

North-east View

34

West View

35

How are we Raising the Money?

The Building Committee has met regularly over the past year and are currently in the process of forming fund-raising groups that will target the different sectors of the local population.

Benchmarks have been set for the groups so they have a percentage of the total cost that it is their fund-raising goal.

The efforts have been divided up as follows: Ag Business, Local Business, Corporate/Farms, General solicitation, Grants & Fund Raising Events.

36

How Much will it Cost?

Based on multiple quotes from different sources we expect the project to cost between $450,000 and $500,000.

37

What are we asking of Council?

We are asking Council for a bridge loan to allow us

to collect the money for the project over a 3 year period.

We would like Council to afford us a loan in the amount of $300,000 which would be paid back on an ongoing basis while the funds are collected.

We are asking for 3 years because that is the period we are offering as a donation option for those that want to spread their donation over more than one tax period.

38

QUESTIONS?

39

40

41

July 27, 2014

Mayor and Council members of Lambton Shores;

Cc: Carol McKenzie, Clerk

Kevin Williams, CAO

Re: Ted Archer letter of November 27, 2013, submitted to council at their meeting of

December 19, 2013

Dear Council and Staff;

Attached is an addendum to my November 27, 2013 letter. My, purpose with this addendum is

to provide additional information.

My understanding, is, that during council’s meeting of June 04, 2014, my, letter had been

resurrected, and reviewed, with some positive discussion. It is my understanding also, I, would

be contacted, and involved, to review, and discuss the letter’s content, with a report then given

back to council. I have not been contacted at the time of this writing.

However, let us ignore what should have taken place, and get to the reason for my letter in the

first instance.

“Share my passion, to make the hamlet of Port Franks, a more aesthetically pleasing locale.”

As we all know, an outside, engineering firm, was engaged several years ago, and tasked, to

present a study, for beautification in Lambton Shores. Completion of parts of that study, have

been done in some of our seven wards. As we all know too, capital monies, even expense

dollars, have not been included in our budgets to date, for beautification in Ward 3, and

specifically, Port Franks.

We should not ignore that study, and its events planned for the Port. My items for

beautification should be a supplement to, or maybe to take precedence over the study.

We need someone, who will take hold of this beautification project, establish cost numbers,

present it to council, for some inclusion into the 2015 budget. It may be my numbers are

enough to get started.

Apparently, there was not time, to get things done during 2014, but, let us not say that for the

year 2015.

To be realistic, I have gone back, and prioritized my list, rendering them to seven items, in total.

Over time, additional items could, and should, be added.

42

In fairness to you on council, and the project, there was not enough meat on the bone in my

first submission, allowing you to give a more rapid, and favourable response. In my initial

preparation, I had given these items a dollar value. That was not passed to you. I do so now.

My prioritizing keeps in mind the whole of Port Franks, rather than concentration on a given

location. This thought considers not all can be done in a budget year, but, a plan needs to be

developed to complete the beautification of Port Franks, now, and through the next couple of

budget years, 2016, and 2017.

Based strictly on my limited ability to estimate, costs to complete come wholly from my past

work experience, and my working knowledge. I can give to you further breakdown, if needed.

My, numbers are for your edification only, giving you a heads up to the scope of work, and its

expected cost. These figures require verification from our staff, and engineering department,

eventually being given a definite number to the end cost, by the bidding process.

Items are listed on a separate attachment.

Respectfully;

Ted Archer

Port Franks

(This letter was modified, and re-submitted, on August 26, 2014

Beautification items for Port Franks (attachment to July 27, 2014 letter)

Item 1: Install low level roadway lighting (amber) along Port Franks Road from

Highway 21 to the Community Center. Spaced at 400ft, 13 lighting

standards are needed. At a cost of $12,000 each to install, total cost is

$156,000

Item 2: All mail locations to be addressed, adding arbors, flowers/ perennial

bedding. Based on 20 outlets (to be confirmed), at an average cost

$4400 each, total cost is $88,000

Item 3: All intersections of paved streets will require rebuilding. These must

be rebuilt, and paved to Provincial standards. The turning radius needs

to be increased to accommodate school bus turning. Based on ten

intersections (to be confirmed) at an average cost of $6800 each, total

cost is $68,000 (it, is possible, concrete curbing will be required, this

has not been added in to this cost)

43

Item 4: Transform the parcel of land (municipality owned), bounded by Alfred

Street and Alfred Crescent, into a park like setting. An estimate of 360

man hours, machine time, plus material, would put this cost at,

$51,000

Item 5: Negotiate with ABCA, making the Conservation Area open once again

at no cost to the residents of Lambton Shores. Since we already

support and subsidize ABCA, this park should be accessible to us, and

visitors. There is no cost shown here. The only loss to the community is

a small amount of revenue from those choosing to pay, to have access.

Item 6: Install a paved walkway/bike path, along Port Franks Road, from

Highway 21 to the Community Center. An estimated cost for this item

would be $25,000. This number would have to be adjusted, based on

established costs to install existing and similar walk/bike paths.

Item 7: Reshape, top dress, and sow grass seed along both sides of Powell

Road, from Estates Drive, to Andrea Crescent. An estimated cost for

this work might be $7500

Summary:

Item 1: $156,000

Item2: $88,000

Item 3: $68,000

Item 4: $51,000

Item 5: $no cost

Item 6: $25,000

Item 7: $7,500

Total; $395,500

Unknowns; Add 15%: $59,000

Contingency: Add 10%:$39500

Grand total: $494,000

44

Port Franks Improvement Project Ideas:

(Edited List of Community Improvements by Ted Archer, Nov. 27’14)

1/ Roadway Lighting along Port Franks Road, from Highway #21 to

P.F.C.C. to improve safety & attractiveness of the entrance into our

community. The request for street lighting does not extend beyond

Port Franks Road. Many Port Franks residents enjoy the absence of

“light pollution” on the residential streets of the community and this

request does not change that positive aspect.

2/ Improved gravel shoulders of Port Franks Road from Highway #21 to

Superior Street, including refreshed/additional gravel and regular

grading of the shoulders to remove the deep, unsafe valleys left after

heavy rainfall and heavy vehicle use. Outer Drive from Highway #21 to

the mud Creek bridge needs the same attention.

3/ Improved Grassy Aprons on both sides of Port Franks road attracting

the need to “push back” foliage growth and regular cutting during the

summer months.

4/ Summertime grass cutting of the entrances, up and over, the Mud

Creek bridge will improve the attractiveness of Port Franks to our many

visitors to the “heart” of the community.

5/ Paved Pedestrian Pathway on the western side of Port Franks Road

from Highway #21 to the P.F.C.C. The pathway needs to be off-set from

the asphalt edge and the gravel shoulder, similar in design to the very

successful pedestrian pathway from the Pinery to Grand Bend. This

45

improvement is consistent with the integration plans of the Lambton

Shores Trails Committee.

6/ The asphalt roadways in Port Franks were laid several decades ago.

The small radius intersections are no longer suitable for the much

larger School Buses and Trucks that frequent Port Franks streets,

leaving significant mud holes, broken asphalt & ponds of water after

heavy rains. Use of gravel fill is very expensive and very temporary fix.

New professionally paved intersection corners are required.

7/ Street Sweeping of the residue of salt & sand from winter road

clearance. This service will enhance the ability to grow grass to the

street edge, improving the attractiveness of Port Franks streets. We

request the resumption of this service that was available until stopped

in 2013.

8/ Install concrete shallow arch curbing between the roadway and the

paved walkway from Superior Street to Poplar Ave., along Riverside

Drive to increase attractiveness in the “heart” of Port Franks.

9/ Replace the unsightly pedestal base of the light standard on

Riverside Drive at the “four corners”.

10/ Transform the Lambton Shores owned parcel of land bounded by

Alfred Street & Alfred Crescent into a park like setting.

11/ Make the Port Franks Marina area free access to all. This wonderful

attribute of Port Franks needs to be available to all residents, not just

boaters. Cleaning up and improving the general appearance of the

marina and boat storage areas would be an enhancement of value.

46

12/ Clean up, reshape, top dress and seed the length of Powell Street

from Port Franks Estates to Andrea Street. Good fences will provide for

better relations with the neighbouring Trailer Park.

13/ The Post Office Mail Boxes in Port Franks need attention. In many

cases the lack of maintenance over the years has lead to subsided areas

where vehicles ramp off/on the roadway to access the boxes, creating

ponds of standing water so deep that the pedestrian approach to the

locations are underwater. We are unclear as to who is responsible for

such maintenance – Canada Post or Lambton Shores.

14/ Climbing the Sand Dune at MacPherson’s is a Port Franks tradition

dating back decades and fondly remembered by many Port Franks

residents. Increased popularity, more & larger vehicles, trucks, ATVs &

MotoCross Motorcycles have all taken a toll on this wonderful

landmark. This area needs attention! Small children running down the

dune pose a terrible risk of injury. We suggest the installation of a

permanent berm/wall at the bottom of the dune with a set of steps

that users would climb up to continue up the dune, would address

several of the realities. The temporary sand berm graded into place in

2014 was effective, until washed away by rain.

Wayne Nelson: [email protected]

July 25, 2014

47

mailto:[email protected]

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

Report CAO No. 15 - 2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014

TO: Mayor Weber and Members of Council

FROM: Kevin Williams, Chief Administrative Officer

RE: Answers to Questions Received Regarding the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report CAO 15-2014 providing answers to questions received regarding the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant be received.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report is provided in answer to Council’s request that clear and concise answers be provided to public questions related to the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Plant project. These questions and answers are captured in tabular format. The questions are quoted as received to maintain the relationship of lines of questioning. Answers are augmented with source data being referenced where appropriate. Any “questions” that are in fact statements, or would require a subjective response have been treated as unanswerable. BACKGROUND At the Council meeting held the 19th day of June, 2014, the following resolution was passed:

Carried 14-0619-21 THAT the C.A.O. act as the central point of accountability to distribute the questions regarding the Watson Report presented on May 15th to Gary Scandlan for a written response to them by August 1st ; and THAT the C.A.O. assign the remaining questions regarding need, cost, and procurement to the appropriate staff for answers ; and THAT these answers are reported to Council by the first Council meeting in September, 2014.

48

As requested, all questions that were received and presented to Council through Report CL 52-2014 have been reviewed by Mr. Scandlan, and the appropriate municipal staff. Answers are provided in tabular format and presented as Attachment 1. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER N/A RECOMMENDED ACTIONS This report recommends receipt of the answers. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no specific financial impact associated with receipt of this report. CONSULTATION

Mr. Gary Scandlan, Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. Mr. Barry Card, Solicitor Janet Ferguson, Treasurer Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services Patti Richardson, Planner

ATTACHMENT

GBA STF Questions 2014 08 29

49

Page 1 of 34

S # Q # Question Answer Source

1 1 Can you tell me when the proposed date for the sewer will be?

Lambton Shores Council has adopted the recommendations from the Ad-Hoc Committee on sewers, and the Zone 3 and Zone 4 residential service areas are not to be serviced until there is an identifiable environmental need.

A tender for the upgrade to the sewage treatment facility was accepted by Lambton Shores Council on July 3, 2014 and awarded to K&L Construction Ltd. Substantial completion of this project is forecasted for November 1, 2015.

- Report on the Review of Zones 3 & 4 Collection Systems and Their Relationship to the New Sanitary Treatment Facility (Ad Hoc Sewage Advisory Committee, March 5, 2012).- Resolution #12-0709-36, Minutes of the July 9, 2012 Lambton Shores Council Meeting- Resolution #14-0703-24, Minutes of the July 3, 2014 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

1 2 Can you tell me what the cost of installation to the home owner will be?

As above, there will not be any servicing for residential properties located in Zone 3 and Zone 4 as a part of the current project.

Cost apportionment for the sewage treatment facility upgrade component of the project is currently under consideration by municipal Council, and a decision has been deferred until project tenders and the 6th draft of the Official Plan are received. The tender for the sewage treatment facility has closed, and the tender for the pump station upgrades is pending the fall of 2014.

- Resolution #14-0515-07, Minutes of the May 15, 2014 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

1 3 Should you proceed with any improvements to your present system in the interim.

The County of Lambton is the approval authority for septic systems in Lambton Shores. It is recommended that the County of Lambton be contacted regarding any necessary upgrades (www.lambtononline.com).

2 1

Why are you taking so long to even begin this project? 4 years ago the plant was approved for approximately $25,000,000.00 and now 4 years later the same price is being quoted for a plant that is half the original size and still not even near being started. Money has been wasted for engineering fees.

The original sewage treatment facility was designed for 4,659 m3/day and tendered in September 2011. The tender price was $21,226,655 (excluding HST and contingency). In January 2012 Council decided not to award the tender. Throughout 2012 the project underwent a design review completed by working group that included one elected official and technical staff each from Lambton Shores and South Huron and our consulting engineer Stantec. In August 2012 Council selected a preferred option for the re-designed project. As required by the Environmental Assessment Act this change required an addendum to be filed for the project Environmental Study Report (ESR). In addition, a scope change request was required for the Federal and Provincial funding received for the project. The ESR addendum was filed October 26, 2012 and a number of Part II order bump-ups were received requesting that the Ministry of Environment require further environmental assessments. The MOE provided authorization to proceed 11 months later in September 2013. The funding scope change request was filed October 4, 2012 and approval for the funding change was received in August 2013. The newly designed facility has a capacity of 2,473 m3/day. The facility has been tendered at a cost of $12,767,900 (excluding HST and contingency).

- Resolution #12-0130-01, Minutes of the January 30, 2012 Lambton Shores Council Meeting- Resolution #12-0814-05, Minutes of the August 14, 2012 Lambton Shores Council Meeting- Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility Upgrade Tender Analysis (Dillon Consulting, October 24, 2011)- New Grand Bend Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Report on Tenders (Stantec Consulting, June 17, 2014)

GBA STF Questions

50

Page 2 of 34

S # Q # Question Answer SourceGBA STF Questions

2 2

Why can the council of the day not make up their minds as to how this project is going to be funded? The Legacy Center and the Shores Arena were funded by the entire Municipality of Lambton Shores and we think the Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Plant should be funded by the entire Municipality of Lambton Shores.

Unanswerable Comment.

2 3We know this is an election year and no one wants to make a decision on this project, however, the business of Lambton Shores must carry on.


2 4

The sewage from Grand Cove Estates goes to the Grand Bend lagoon system. The agreement with Grand Cove Estates and the Municipality of South Huron concerning the sewage treatment plant needs to be revisited. At least the portion of South Huron that is Grand Cove Estates should be paying a share of the project.

Sewage flows from Grand Cove Estates are metered, and are accounted for as part of South Huron's flows to the sewage treatment facility. South Huron pays their proportionate share of operating costs of the sewage treatment facility based on flows contributed to the facility, which include flows from Grand Cove Estates.

- 2013 GB STF Flows summary (internal operating document)

3 1

The traditional policy for paying for the sewage treatment facility is to get the money through taxes from only those who are and will benefit from using it. Why should we, as owners of property in Ipperwash (on septic tanks) have to contribute?

Cost apportionment for the sewage treatment facility upgrade component of the project is currently under consideration by municipal Council, and a decision has been deferred until project tenders and the 6th draft of the Official Plan are received. The tender for the sewage treatment facility has closed, and the tender for the pump station upgrades is pending the fall of 2014.


4 1What is the cost of the originally proposed "green technologies" that are being excluded from the STF tender?

The 2011 tender price received for the originally proposed green initiatives was $1,653,815 (excluding HST).

- Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility Upgrade Tender Analysis (Dillon Consulting, October 24, 2011)

4 2What is the impact on the FCM $1.0M Grant and $10.0M loan by eliminating the originally proposed green technologies?

There is no direct impact to the FCM funding by eliminating the originally proposed green initiatives.

The project has qualified for $1,000,000 in grant funding and up to $5,765,346.80 in a low interest loan under the FCM Green Municipal Fund for eligible costs. The basis of the funding approval is achieving a "targeted environmental benefit" which is measured by an improvement in effluent quality. The final loan and grant amount will be proportional to the final project eligible expenses and subject to the project meeting stated effluent quality standards as identified in the agreement.

- Staff report #DCS 54-2014, (included on the July 1, 2014 Lambton Shores Council meeting agenda, www.lambtonshores.ca)- FCM Amended Agreement (2013)

51

Page 3 of 34


4 3Please provide and "apples to apples" comparison of the cost of the two tendered options (less "green technologies") compared to the new design concept.

The basis for the calculation below is total tendered price (less contingency and HST) divided by total treatment capacity:

Original Full Build Design Concept (2011 Tender)- Total tender (less contingency and HST) = $21,226,655.06- Treatment capacity = 4,659 m3/day- Cost per unit = $4,556.05/unit of capacity

Original Half Build Design Concept (2011 Tender)- Total tender (less contingency and HST) = $17,061,344.50- Treatment capacity = 2,329.5 m3/day- Cost per unit = $7,324.04/unit of capacity

Re-Design Concept (2014 Tender)- Total tender (less contingency and HST) = $12,767,900.00- Treatment capacity = 2,473 m3/day- Cost per unit = $5,162.92/unit of capacity


- New Grand Bend Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Report on Tenders (Stantec Consulting, June 17, 2014)

5 1

Who should pay .....clearly future users who it was built for which I’m sure they will in part thru fees, albeit it obviously not enough to cover the full cost. Since there is no benefit to existing users and since the existing septic users have been shut out and future users will only cover a portion it can only be justified as an asset of the municipality.

The funding model is currently under review.

5 2

Additionally existing users will be burdened with higher operating and replacement costs, when they didn't have to. (Many are still paying the capital costs of the original Sewer system).


5 3

The only justification for the system is as an asset of the Municipality to allow growth. So who will benefit from future development. EVERYONE. New assessment will be created which flows to tax dollars which will benefit the entire community with extra revenue and hopefully less taxes on an individual basis. The growth will be in the Grand Bend area which pays the largest portion of tax dollars already and that extra revenue is spread throughout the Municipality.


5 4 So in simple terms the only beneficiaries of this plant on an equal basis is EVERYONE.


6 1Why have z3 & z4 areas not been taken out of the Official Plan as directed by both Mr. John Byrne and council's direction to planner?

Draft 6 of proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan, only makes one reference to Zones 3 and 4 and that is in Section 13.3.2 under the recommendation of the Adhoc Sewer Committee.

'

52

Page 4 of 34


6 2 Why did the Goosemarsh line go ahead without paymentfrom South bend development?

The forcemain was built to service the Pinery Park and the proposed sewer expansion area as identified in the Development Charges study and now known as zone 3 and 4. The project also included sizing to service the subdivision known as South Bend which is identified in their subdivision agreement. Item 33 (a) of the subdivision agreement notes when payment is due - upon registration of the plan.

6 3What calculations have been used to justify the costs ofthis sewer line and why is the Pinery the only user todate?

See 6-2 above. The project was approved by council in November of 2008. When the project was complete, the capital costs were divided based on flows as per the engineer.

DCS-36-2008 and DCS-84-2008 TR-52-2010

6 4

When did the administration plan to tell the present sewer users on the various sewer systems in Lambton Shores that everyone's sewer use rates would rise to help pay for the increased cost of operation of the new mechanical STF?

Lambton Shores Council included the estimated operational costs for the new sewer treatment plant in the sewer rate study completed in 2012. The current user fee study will be updated in 2014 for the future years. The capital cost allocation for this project is currently under review by Council.

TR-87-2012 and TR-5-2013

6 5 WHERE did the negative statements regarding the sewercapacity come from?


6 6 Why did the zone 4 people not receive a proper PIC to inform them of sewers?

A Public Information Centre was held February 12, 2008 to inform residents of this project.

- " North Lambton Shores Pressure Sewer "Zone 4" Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design" Project File (Dillon Consulting, April 2012)

6 7 What is the benefit of the STF to the taxpayers ofLambton Shores?

The new mechanical treatment facility provides sewage treatment capacity for growth and development, which will have a positive improvement to the tax assessment.

The new mechanical treatment facility represents an improvement to the environment and the surrounding waterways that are enjoyed by memebrs of the public. The new facility will dishcarge cleaner effluent. The new facility will achieve the following compared to the current lagoon sysstem:

- 55% reduction in total suspended solids discharged- 25% reduction in total residual chlorine discharged- 87% reduction in total phosphorus discharged- 12% reduction in total ammonia nitrogen discharged

- Table 3.1 "Targeted Environmental Benefit", FCM Funding Agreement

53

Page 5 of 34


6 8What is expected to be Lambton Shores' share in dollarsof the: A) Capital cost, B) Annual operating cost, C) Lifecycle cost?

A Joint Operating agreement was approved by Lambton Shores Council on April 3, 2014. A copy of the Joint Agreement is available by viewing the April 3, 2014 Council meeting agenda posted at www.lambtonshores.ca (see report number DCS 22-2014). A) Capital costs are apportioned based upon capacity allocation of the new facility. Lambton Shores received 64.7% of the capacity and pays 64.7% of the capital costs.B) Annual operating costs will be apportioned based on actual flows conveyed to the facility by each respective partner municipality.C) Lifecycle costs are considered an "ownership cost" of the facility. "Ownership costs" are apportioned based upon capacity allocation of the new facility. Lambton Shores received 64.7% of the capacity and pays 64.7% of the capital costs.

- Resolution# 14-0403-31, Minutes of the April 3, 2014 Lambton Shores Council Meeting- Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility Joint Operating Agreement (2014) (attached to staff report #DCS 22-2014, publically available at www.lambtonshores.ca in the April 3, 2014 Council meeting agenda)

6 9 Where will Lambton Shores obtain the funds to pay foreach of the above three costs?

The capital cost is still under review by Council. The operating and lifecycle costs are typically funded through a user rate system. The Lambton Shores rates will be reviewed in 2014.

7 1Were there any creative/imaginative attempts made by the council to secure funding from any other possible sources besides Build Canada?

In 2008 when the project was moving forward to a point where funding options could be considered, all programs available were reviewed. At that time the Build Canada Fund and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Green Municipal Fund were the only available funding programs. Further, Council considered this project from the very early stages and incorporated it in the development charges, connectoin fees and waste water rate studies. Council has recently reviewed the CCME report for consideration of other methods to fund the plant. The funding model is currently under review.

8 1

What would be the rationale for not continuing to apply the Council's traditional policy of raising taxes from only those taxpayers who are current and from those future beneficiaries (future development) of sewage treatment in the municipality?


8 2

If the decision on a treatment facility had to be made in light of the Federal regulations which do not demand the shutting down of lagoon systems, would consideration also have been given to operating the STF alongside the treatment capacity of the two remaining lagoons?


54

Page 6 of 34


8 3

Will the recommendation of the ad hoc committee be imposed as part of the plan to deal with septic that the Sewage Treatment Facility represents? Surely there are failing septic systems in Lambton Shores - as is the case in Sauble Beach. When will the mandatory septic tank inspections (as recommended by the ad hoc committee) be implemented in Lambton Shores in order to protect Lake Huron from further degradation?

Septic inspections are the mandate of the County of Lambton. At its May 19, 2010 meeting County Council passed the following resolution:

a) That the County continue to participate in activities relating to re-inspection initiatives and await further direction from the province prior to implementing a re-inspection program County-Wide. b) That the County work with Lambton Shores' Council/staff to develop a re-inspection program that meets the needs/goals of Lambton Shores with all costs associated with the implementation/enforcement of such to be the sole responsibility of Lambton Shores, through a prescribed user-pay program.Carried. According to the County, To date in Lambton Shores, re-inspection program development work has been focussed on geographic area surveys of the septic systems according to age, vacant land, the lack of and the existence of records. There has been no formal development of a program to date.

Lambton Shores Council has accepted the recommendations of the Ad-Hoc committee. Focus on this matter has been deferred thoughout 2012, 2013 and 2014 as staff's focus has been on the re-design of the Grand Bend Area sewage treatment facility. With that project now at construction stage, staff will turn their focus to bringing this matter forward for consideration.

- Minutes of the May 19, 2010 Lambton CountyCouncil Meeting- Email from C. Nauta to B. Kittmer, July 24, 2014. - Resolution #12-0709-36, Minutes of the July 9, 2012 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

9 1 How is the cost to be amortized?

To be determined. The funding model is currently under review.

10 1Why did our elected council member never discuss this with Beach O'Pines although he met with Southcott quite often?


55

Page 7 of 34


10 2

Why were we excluded from an Environmental Assessment in Beach O'Pines and Southcott and Huron Woods Surely these lakefront communities should have been part of such a review. Was there political or outside interference that stopped such a review?

Zone 3 and Zone 4 sanitary servicing areas were identified through the “Grand Bend Area Sanitary Servicing Master Plan” completed in 2006. A Schedule B Municipal Class EA for Zone 4 was completed in 2009. A Schedule B Municipal Class EA was initiated by Lambton Shores for Zone 3, however the notice of completion was withdrawn after extending the public review period. The public response revealed opposition to sanitary service in Zones 3 and 4. Specifically, a public concern was raised that groundwater monitoring completed as a part of the Zone 3 Environmental Assessment did not demonstrate that septic systems were having an environmental impact. These ground water monitoring results were subsequently reviewed by hydrogeologists and surface water specialists within the Ministry of the Environment and they concluded that there is no current environmental impairment occurring as a result of the study area being serviced by septic systems

An Ad Hoc Sewage Advisory Committee was created and recommended against servicing in Zone 3 and Zone 4 unless there was an identifiable environmental need. Lambton Shores Council elected to defer servicing of these areas until such time that there is an identifiable enviornmental need.

- Resolution #10-1206-08, Minutes of the December 6, 2012 Lambton Shores Council Meeting.- Email from Craig Newton, Regional Environmental Planner, Ministry of the Environment, August 8, 2012- Report on the Review of Zones 3 & 4 Collection Systems and Their Relationship to the New Sanitary Treatment Facility (Ad Hoc Sewage Advisory Committee, March 5, 2012)- Resolution #12-0709-36, Minutes of the July 9, 2012 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

10 3 Why were the lakefront communities never considered for sewers and the requirement for a bigger STF?

Please see answer to 10-2.

11 1Has there been a feasibility study done for the proposed new Grand Bend sewage treatment plant? Is this available to the public?

There are several studies that serve the purpose of a feasibility study reviewing alternatives for the proposed sewage treatment facility:- Municipalities of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan (Dillon Consulting, February 21, 2006)- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)- Sewage Working Group Report to Grand Bend Area Sewage Board: Evaluation of Alternative Options for the Grand Bend Sewage treatment Facility (Stantec Consulting, July 26, 2012)- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting, October 26, 2012)

These studies are available publically from Lambton Shores.

11 2What costing model will be used for the new plant based on the percentages used in the new Joint Sewer Board Agreement?


11 3

A user pay model for funding for sewage treatment is based on domestic water usage/flow into the plant. If there is allocation without flow, how does the municipality intend on covering the cost and for how long?

A user pay model has not yet been determined. The funding model is currently under review.

56

Page 8 of 34


11 4Does the Municipality of Lambton Shores assign a time limit to the payment and use of sewage treatment for developments?

Payment for sewage treatment for developments is through the Lambton Shores Development Charges fee. Development charges are generally paid at the time of building permit.

The Municipality has recently been including conditions in draft approvals and subdivision agreements dealing with the time frames under which the Municipality will reserve capacity in the sewage treatment facility. These clauses now include the volume of capacity reserved for the development and a time period (eg 2 years) that the assignment is valid for without review, adjustment or even revocation.

11 5Can the Municipality of Lambton Shores provide a cost estimate per unit (1 cubic meter/day) of sewage allocation for the new plant?

The basis for the calculation below is total tendered price (less contingency and HST) divided by total treatment capacity:

Original Full Build Design Concept (2011 Tender)- Total tender (less contingency and HST) = $21,226,655.06- Treatment capacity = 4,659 m3/day- Cost per unit = $4,556.05/unit of capacity

Original Half Build Design Concept (2011 Tender)- Total tender (less contingency and HST) = $17,061,344.50- Treatment capacity = 2,329.5 m3/day- Cost per unit = $7,324.04/unit of capacity

Re-Design Concept (2014 Tender)- Total tender (less contingency and HST) = $12,767,900.00- Treatment capacity = 2,473 m3/day- Cost per unit = $5,162.92/unit of capacity



11 6

How much of the cost to provide this service will development fees cover? (as a percentage of the following; the full cost of capital , annual operational and long term life cycle costs)

Development Charges only cover capital costs associated with the project. The funding model is currently under review.

11 7 Who would cover the remaining costs for development from question #4 and how?


11 8

The agreement of subdivision between the Municipality of Lambton and Grand Bend Community Corp. as per By- Law 52 of 2008 for South Bend Estates was unregistered and unsigned when a cost for $359,239.10 was attributed to this agreement in report TR Report 52-2010. The report states the amount will be "collected and paid down when a subdivision agreement is finalized". Are the new owners of South Bend Estates legally bound to the past unregistered agreement?

This issue is subject to solicitor-client privilege and forms part of the ongoing dialogue between the municipality and new owners.

11 9If so, has the municipality finalized a registered agreement for this development? Has this debt been paid down?

The agreement has not been finalized nor has a payment been received, and the plan of subdivision has not been registered

57

Page 9 of 34


11 10 Is the municipality legally bound to the assignment of allocation for this development?

This issue is subject to solicitor-client privilege and forms part of the ongoing dialogue between the municipality and new owners.

11 11 What is the standard limit to unused allocation in other municipalities?

There is a wide variety of approaches, and there is no standard time limit for allocation of capacity to developments. Some municipalities choose to approve capacity allocations with "sunset clauses" noting a deadline for when capacity must be used by. Other municipalities allow for capacity allocation to continue without any deadline.

11 12

A technical review of the average daily flow from the Pinery Park indicates that approximately 10% of the assigned capacity of 470 m2/day is being used. How does the municipality intend on recovering costs assigned to this allocation based on this limited flow?

The Crown agrees to pay for the internal system engineering, pumpstation, forcemain and plant expansion up to $4,540,000.00

Section 3.1 of the Cost Sharing Agreement with the Minister of Natural Resources.

11 13Why was an allocation of 470m2/day assigned to the Pinery when the design limit for flow in the Goose Marsh Force Main supplying sewage to the plant is 253m2/day?

The sewage allocation for the Pinery Park was determined by Dillon consulting as a part of the forcemain design. Water consumption data for July and August 2005 was provided by the Pinery Provincial Park. The average water consumption for the Park was 450 m3/day and the maximum daily water consumption was 650 m3/day. The design water consumption was identified as the water consumption value at 20% probability of occurrence (11 of the 58 measurements taken). The estimated design water consumption was 550 m3/day. The design wastewater flow rate for the Park is 470 m3/day assuming there is a 15% water loss of water consumed.

Pinery flows were revisited and confirmed as part of the design of the Pinery sewage collection system in March 2008.

- Cost Sharing Estimate for Forcemain and Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrades (Dillon Consulting, June 16, 2006)

- Pinery Provincial Park Sanitary Sewage Design Flow Brief (Dillon Consulting, March 24, 2008)

11 14

The Pinery is using a 'grey water recovery system' as well as 'septic holding tanks' for solids. How does this system affect flow rates and required treatment of sewage from the park?

The MNR has been contacted on this matter and a response is pending.

11 15What percentage of the total assigned allocation, for the Lambton Shores portion of the new treatment plant, is the Pinery and South Bend Estates?

Lambton Shores' allocation in the new sewage treatment facility is 1,600 m3/day.

The Pinery Park's allocation is 470 m3/day, which represents approximately 29.4% of Lambton Shores' total allocation.

The South Bend Estates allocation is 260 m3/day, which represents approximately 16.3% of Lambton Shores' total allocation.

- 2014 DRAFT GB STF Capacity Assessment (internal document)

58

Page 10 of 34


11 16 What percent of the cost for operation of the plant will they assume?

Sewer operating costs are apportioned to users through their rates, based on actual flows contributed to the facility.

12 1

I am looking for a complete list of all the costs/expenses that are shown on the STF list of all costs and expenses as misc. This amounts to almost $ 200,000 CDN. Previously I was told by the mayor and the council they would look into to it and provide me with an answer. Obviously I forgot to ask what year that would happen since it appears that neither they nor the CAO or Treasurer seem to be able to answer promptly.

Ontario Clean Water Agency $7,000.00 ABCA - SWM Report $1,275.00 ABCA - OPA / ZBLA $350.00 Photocopies $110.35 Reprint Drawings $147.49 Postage for mailings $3,413.36 2009 administration allocation $75,459.33 2010 administration allocation $121,285.82 The administration allocation is as per the budget and financial reporting approved by Council.

TR-84-2013 last page of detailed information. Page 120 of October 17, 2013 Council agenda.

13 1 What are the current operating costs for the Grand Bend Lagoon System?

The 2014 approved operating budget for the system (lagoons and main pumping station) is $61,995.47.

- Minutes of the November 12, 2013 Grand Bend Joint Sewage Board Meeting

13 2 How are the current operating costs allocated among users?

Current operating costs are apportioned to Lambton Shores and South Huron based on actual flows contributed to the facility. The three year average is approximately 52% of costs to South Huron and 48% of costs to Lambton Shores.

In Lambton Shores, sewer operating costs are apportioned to users through their rates, based on actual flows.


13 3 What are the operating costs expected to be for the GBSTP?

The 2012 Environmental Study Report Addendum completed by Stantec Consulting presented operating costs estimated at $360,000 per year. These costs are qualified as being pre-design with a level of accuracy of +/- 25%.

The Joint Agreement requires a first "draft operating budget" to be approved by the Joint Board. Budget development is in progress, and is forecasted to be less than Stantec's projection.

- GB STF ESR Addendum (Stantec Consulting, 2012)- GB STF Joint Board Agreement

13 4 What is the Yearly Asset Replacement Cost for the GBSTP?

The Joint Agreement requires a first "draft operating budget" to be approved by the Joint Board. Budget development is in progress, and various approaches to developing the lifecycle reserve contribution will be presented for consideration. Our facility infrastructure is broken down by various components so the asset replacement will vary as the useful life of the components vary from 20 to 60 years depending on the component.

- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report Addendum (October 26, 2012, Stantec Consulting).- Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility Joint Operating Agreement (2014) (attached to staff report #DCS 22-2014, publically available at www.lambtonshores.ca in the April 3, 2014 Council meeting agenda)

59

Page 11 of 34


14 1

Is the GB sewage plant being upgraded to a mechanical plant in order to meet the requirements of the new Federal Regulations? If yes, please specify where in the regulations you read that lagoon systems must be upgraded. (I already understand that the need to upgrade is based on effluent monitoring, and that special provision is made, in the regs. for lagoons during the months when lagoons may have difficulty meeting some of the standards. So just tell me where you found the statement that lagoons must be upgraded).

No, the purpose of the upgrades project is not driven by the Federal wastewater regulations. Presently all municipal facilities achieve a secondary level of treatment and meet the effluent quality requirements. The Municipality is required to report every year, and the annual effluent quality criteria dictate how the Federal regulations apply. If the facilities continue to meet the limits established then the Municipality is not required to complete upgrades. If a facility does not meet the limits, the Municipality must apply for a transitional or temporary authorization to discharge effluent. Facilities requiring temporary or transitional authorization are assigned a risk level based on the effluent quality and quantity. The risk level then corresponds to a certain time period permitted before the facility must meet the effluent quality requirements.

The new mechanical treatment facility provides sewage treatment capacity for growth and development.

The new mechanical treatment facility represents an improvement to the environment with respect to effluent discharge quality. The mechanical treatment plant will achieve the following:

- 55% reduction in total suspended solids discharged- 25% reduction in total residual chlorine discharged- 87% reduction in total phosphorus discharged- 12% reduction in total ammonia nitrogen discharged

- 2013 year end report for the Federal waste water regulations (online database)

- Table 3.1 "Targeted Environmental Benefit", FCM Funding Agreement

14 2 What has the monitoring of the GB lagoons, for the Federal regulations shown to date?

Please see answer to 14-1

14 3

Please provide the current lagoon daily capacity, the capacity in the currently tendered Stantec design and the capacity in Dillon's design. Also provide the capacity allocated to Lambton Shores in each of these three systems.

The current lagoon facility has an approved sewage treatment capacity of 1,891 m3/day. The capacity apportionment is contested with Lambton Shores' position that its ownership share is 1,497 m3/day. South Huron's position is that Lambton Shores owns 945.5 m3/day of capacity. This historic dispute has been put aside with the establishment of the new Joint Agreement.

The original design completed by Dillon Consulting was for a sewage treatment facility with a total capacity of 4,659 m3/day. Lambton Shores capacity allocation was 48.4% or 2,255 m3/day.

The currently tendered facility designed by Stantec Consulting has a total capacity of 2,473 m3/day. Lambton Shores' capacity allocation is 64.7% or 1,600 m3/day.

- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009))

- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting, October 26, 2012)- Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility Joint Operating Agreement (2014) (attached to staff report #DCS 22-2014, publically available at www.lambtonshores.ca in the April 3, 2014 Council meeting agenda)

60

Page 12 of 34


14 4

When allocating design capacity to new development how much capacity is allocated to each dwelling unit. What is the technical support for this allocation,and how does it compare to the allocation used by 10 surrounding municipalities in South West Ontario? What allocation is recommended by the Ontario sewage plant design manual? (see section 8.4.4 for sewage flows without extraneous flow, and section 5.5 for extraneous flows. The two are added together to get the total sewage flow.)

Sanitary sewage flows for residential properties are allocated based on "Municipality of Lambton Shores Infrastructure Design Guidelines and Construction Standards" developed by Dillon Consulting (2002). Section 4.2 outlines Hydraulic Design criteria. Section 4.2.1 (A) directs developers to assume a design population of 3 people per unit, unless otherwise specified. Lambton Shores commonly accepts the 2011 census "average number of persons per census family" of 2.6 as reported by Statistics Canada for Lambton Shores. Section 4.2.1 (B) requires that a per capital flow rate of 400 L/cap/day be used, exclusive of extraneous flows. This falls within the MOEs accepted design criteria of 225-450 L/cap/day (exclusive of extraneous flows) (Sec. 5.5.2.1, "Design Guidelines for Sewage Works", Ontario MOE, 2008).

The calculation results in an average day flow of 1,040 L/day per unit. For simplicity, this design capacity is rounded to 1,000 L/day per unit (or 1 m3/day per unit).

Note:Section 8.4.4 does not exist in the MOE's "Design Guidelines for Sewage Works" (2008)

- Municipality of Lambton Shores Infrastructure Design Guidelines and Construction Standards (Dillon Consulting, 2002)- Design Guidelines for Sewage Works (Ontario MOE, 2008)

14 5How much allocation has been requested by developers and /or potential developers in Grand Bend in the last 2 years?

The Rice Development - 80 m3. Pitaeo is looking for sufficient (undetermined) capacity for development of 45 acre site.

14 6

What is the anticipated cost expressed as" $/M3/day of new capacity" of the Stantec design and the Dillon design for both Lambton Shores and South Huron individually?



The basis for the calculation below is Municipal allocation of total tendered price (less contingency and HST) divided by municipal allocation of total treatment capacity. The calculations for the original project assume Bluewater's participation in the project.

Original Full Build Design Concept (2011 Tender)- Total tender (less contingency and HST) = $21,226,655.06- SH Allocation (30.2%) = $6,410,449.83- LS Allocation (48.4%) = $10,273,701.05

- Total treatment capacity = 4,659 m3/day

- SH Allocation = 1,407 m3/day- SH Actual + Committed Flows = 465 m3/day- SH "New" Capacity = 942 m3/day- Cost per unit = $6,805/unit of "new" capacity

- LS Allocation = 2,255 m3/day- LS Actual + Committed Flows = 1,304 m3/day- LS "New" Capacity = 951 m3/day- Cost per unit = $10,803/unit of "new" capacity

Original Half Build Design Concept (2011 Tender)- Total tender (less contingency and HST) = $17,061,344.50- SH Allocation (30.2%) = $5,152,526.04- LS Allocation (48.4%) = $10,273,701.05

61

Page 13 of 34


15 1Several years ago council provided $10,000 to support an university study on the groundwater quality in zones 3 and 4. What were the results of that study?

At the April 8, 2013 Council meeting, Council approved a request from the Southcott Pines Park Association to support a grant application under the Great Lakes Guardian Fund for a water quality study to measure the potential impacts that may be related to septic systems in the area. This grant application was denied, and Council received a re-scoped project proposal on April 17, 2014. The proposed program is in partnership with Dr. Will Robertson from the University of Waterloo. The Municipality has $10,000 committed in the 2014 operating budget to support this project which is currently in progress.

- Resolution #13-0408-10, Minutes of the April 8, 2013 Lambton Shores Council Meeting- Resolution #14-0417-14, Minutes of the April 17, 2014 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

15 2

What happens to the nitrates in the sewage in zones 3 and 4? If it doesn't flow into the lake with the groundwater, please explain the mechanism of removal, in aerobic sandy soils with no carbon source, and no harvesting of organic crops.

Groundwater flows near Lake Huron ultimately end up being discharged to the lake. Groundwater monitoring has been completed for Zone 3 and Zone 4 as a part of the collection systems environmental assessments. These ground water monitoring results were subsequently reviewed by hydrogeologists and surface water specialists within the Ministry of the Environment and they concluded that there is no current environmental impairment occurring as a result of the study area being serviced by septic systems.

- Email from Craig Newton, Regional Environmental Planner, Ministry of the Environment, August 8, 2012

- Treatment capacity = 2,329.5 m3/day

- SH Allocation = 703.5 m3/day- SH Actual + Committed Flows = 465 m3/day- SH "New" Capacity = 238.5 m3/day- Cost per unit = $21,603/unit of "new" capacity

- LS Allocation = 1,127.5 m3/day- LS Actual + Committed Flows = 1,304 m3/day- LS "New" Capacity = NONE- Cost per unit = Not applicable.

Re-Design Concept (2014 Tender)- Total tender (less contingency and HST) = $12,767,900.00- SH Allocation (35.3%) = $4,507,068.70- LS Allocation (64.7%) = $8,260,831.30

- Treatment capacity = 2,473 m3/day

- SH Allocation = 873 m3/day- SH Actual + Committed Flows = 465 m3/day- SH "New" Capacity = 408 m3/day- Cost per unit = $11,046.74/unit of "new" capacity

- LS Allocation = 1,600 m3/day- LS Actual + Committed Flows = 1,304- LS "New" Capacity = 296- Cost per unit = $27,908.21/unit of "new" capacity

62

Page 14 of 34


15 3How many Kg/year of nitrogen (expressed as nitrates) would 1500 homes (2.5 people/home) discharge in their sewage?

Generic technical question better answered by Mimistry of the Environment or Ministry of Natural resources. Not specific to this particular project.

15 4

Does the GLEAM report show that the near shore water along the entire Lambton Shores shoreline of Lake Huron, is highly stressed by Nitrogen? Will this nitrogen stress negatively affect the near shore water quality?

The GLEAM report is not a municipal report commissioned for the purposes of the Grand Bend Area sewage treatment facility upgrade project. As this is not an official municipal report, the municipality does not offer comment on its findings.

15 5Is the near shore water quality, along the LS shoreline, important to our council? If the answer is yes, what have they done to ensure the nitrate stress is reduced?


15 6Approximately what % of the total LS taxes are paid by taxpayers located between highway 21/lakeshore Rd and the lake Huron beaches?

This identified area within the municipal boundary pays approximately 57% of the Municipal portion of taxes in Lambton Shores.

15 7

Once all the new sewage capacity in GB has been allocated and all the units built,will the new STP be able to treat all the sewage, including the sewage from all the existing homes if they were all occupied full time?

The re-designed sewage treatment facility is able to treat average daily flows of 2473 m3/day. During peak flows, the facility is designed with peak flow shaving for flow equalization and flows are directed to the lagoons which will operate in series with the facility. If/when sewage flows exceed an average daily flow of 2473 m3/day the facility will be required to be upgraded.

- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting, October 26, 2012).- Telephone call with Stantec Consulting (2014-07-15)

15 8

How much sewage capacity in the new GB STP is allocated to the existing users. Based on the 900+ ,existing sewer connections in GB, how many M3/Day are allocated to each sewer connection and how does that amount of sewage allocation compare to design standards in Ontario.

Note, the Grand Bend sewage system is subjected to seasonal flow variations with peaks in the summer, and lows in the winter. Capacity allocation is considered on an annualized average daily flow which understates the summer peak, and overstates winter flows.

The three year daily average flow for Grand Bend users is 374 m3/day (347 m3/day for private sewer connections, and 27 m3/day for the Pinery Provincial Park). The current number connections to system is 898. Sewage flows per connection is calculated as 0.386 m3/day/connection (or 386 L/day/connection).

Statistics Canada reports the population of Grand Bend as 2,102 persons in the 2011 Census. Based on a population of 2,102 persons with a total flow of 347 m3/day (or 346,764 L/day) average daily per capita flow is calculated as 165 L/cap/day.

The MOE's design criteria for sewage flows is 225-450 L/cap/day (exclusive of extraneous flows) (Sec. 5.5.2.1, "Design Guidelines for Sewage Works", Ontario MOE, 2008). The current actual average daily per capita flow for Lambton Shores customers connected to the Grand Bend system is less than the MOE design criteria. This is typical for sewer sheds with seasonal flows.

- 2014 DRAFT GB STF Capacity Assessment (internal document)- LS sewer billing records

- Design Guidelines for Sewage Works (Ontario MOE, 2008)

63

Page 15 of 34


16 1Who will be paying for the municipality's share of the cost? I certainly hope that those of us on septic tanks will not be expected to pay toward the sewage plant.


17 1 Gross cost of this project compared to the original tender for the 1/2 build and full build?

Refer to 4 - 3

17 2 Net cost of this project to Lambton Shores compared to the original tenders for the 1/2 build and full build?

17 3Net cost of the Pump Station upgrade to Lambton Shores compared to the original tendered options? Why the change?

The pump station upgrades are a "new" component of this project approved by Council on September 4, 2012. This component of the project was not part of the original design. This component of the project was added to upgrade components of the main pumping station that have reached the end of their useful life, and to address deficiencies identified in a consulting engineer's review of the facility. The budget for the main pumping station upgrades is $1,741,724.00 and the net cost to Lambton Shores is $290,287.00

- Resolution # 12-0904-23, Minutes of the September 4, 2012 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

17 4Capacity available for new development in Lambton Shores, excluding current unsued commitments (ie Southbend & others)?

Lambton Shores' capacity allocation in the new sewage treatment facility is 1,600 m3/day. Current daily average flows are 374 m3/day and committed capacity is 930 m3/day for a total 1,304 m3/day. This leaves 296 m3/day of sewage treatment capacity available for new development.

- Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility Joint Operating Agreement (2014) (attached to staff report #DCS 22-2014, publically available at www.lambtonshores.ca in the April 3, 2014 Council meeting agenda)- 2014 DRAFT GB STF Capacity Assessment (internal document)

17 5 Are there any discussions with the Pinery about capacity, and if so, why?

Yes. The Municipality is in regular contact with the Pinery and Ministry of Natural Resources regarding sewage flows as a part of our normal operating procedures to review annual flow totals.

Original Net Cost LSHalf Build $2,974,800Full Build $5,282,582

Current Net Cost LSSTP 3,349,678$ PS2 290,287$ Total 3,639,965$

Original project assumes Bluewater InAll include expense and grant to dateAll include engineeringAll include full contingencyAll include net HST expenseAll include full FCM grantAll include the Pinery Park portion

64

Page 16 of 34


17 6 What are the terms of agreement with South Huron about this new facility?

A Joint Operating agreement was approved by Lambton Shores Council on April 3, 2014. A copy of the Joint Agreement is available by viewing the April 3, 2014 Council meeting agenda posted at www.lambtonshores.ca (see report number DCS 22-2014).

- Resolution #14-0403-31, Minutes of the April 3, 2014 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

17 7How will all costs incurred by Lambton Shores be recovered on this facility? Is it the same as on other sewage treatment facility?


18 1I believe a problem exists with the Transfer Agreement with the Province that does not seem to have been addressed.


18 2

In the past South Huron always understood that Grand Bend and subsequently Lambton Shores owned about 80% of the capacity of the plant, and conceded that and conceded that Lambton Shores had majority say in what happened with the STF. Unfortunately the Transfer Agreement gives South Huron equal say (with Lambton Shores) on what happens with the STF.


18 3

That issue was addressed when the new agreement with Bluewater and South Huron was developed but Bluewater dropped out and the Agreement seemed to revert back to the 50/50% split. This Council seems not to have addressed this issue. It was suggested that Lambton Council approach the Minister for a change in the agreement but that did not happen, so Lambton Shores remains with about 70% to 80% of the capacity in the plant but only 50% of the say in the plant.


18 4

Was this issue not rectified in the agreement (with Bluewater and South Huron), when Bluewater backed away? This could raise issues of who pays for operating and repair, and possibly upgrading costs in the future to the detriment of Lambton Shores taxpayers (at least those who will find themselves paying for the STF). If Lambton Shores not pursued a revised Transfer Agreement that reflects the original capacity split, does the agreement not put Lambton Shores in jeaprody?

A Joint Operating agreement was approved by Lambton Shores Council on April 3, 2014. A copy of the Joint Agreement is available by viewing the April 3, 2014 Council meeting agenda posted at www.lambtonshores.ca (see report number DCS 22-2014).

A) Capital costs are apportioned based upon capacity allocation of the new facility. Lambton Shores received 64.7% of the capacity and pays 64.7% of the capital costs.B) Annual operating costs will be apportioned based on actual flows conveyed to the facility by each respective partner municipality.C) Lifecycle costs are considered an "ownership cost" of the facility. "Ownership costs" are apportioned based upon capacity allocation of the new facility. Lambton Shores received 64.7% of the capacity and pays 64.7% of the capital costs.

- Resolution #14-0403-31, Minutes of the April 3, 2014 Lambton Shores Council Meeting- Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility Joint Operating Agreement (2014) (attached to staff report #DCS 22-2014, publically available at www.lambtonshores.ca in the April 3, 2014 Council meeting agenda)

65

Page 17 of 34


19 1What was the Lambton Shores population being serviced by the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility (lagoons) in 2005? How was this number determined?

The serviced population was estimated to be 1,100 by Dillon Consulting in the 2006 Master Plan (see page 10 of the Master Plan). This was calculated by multiplying the total number of connections by an estimate for persons per home. The total number of connections was 693. The estimate for persons per home was 1.57 based on 2002 Ontario Municipal Directory information.

- Municipalites of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan (Dillon Consulting, February 21, 2006)

19 2 What is the current population of that service area? How is this number determined?

Statistics Canada reports the population of Grand Bend as 2,102 persons in the 2011 Census. The current number of Lambton Shores properties connected to the Grand Bend system is 898.

- LS sewer billing records

19 3What criteria were used by Dillon Consulting in 2005 to support the need for a mechanical upgrade to the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility lagoon system?

The 2006 master plan identified the need for an upgraded centralized sanitary sewage treatment facility and associated collection systems. Section 2 of the 2006 Master plan reviewed existing conditions and predictions for the future. The following items were reviewed:- Engineering Considerations- Cultural Resources Considerations- Natural Features Considerations- Socio-Economic Considerations

Section 4 of the 2006 Master Plan serves as Phase 1 of the EA process where the problem and need is defined. The section acts as a long form summary of the findings of Section 2, and the problem statement is summarized as:

"The Grand Bend STF is quickly reaching its capacity, especially during the peak season. Committed, currently proposed and future growth in the Study Area must be serviced by municipal sanitary sewage services to comply with Provincial policies and legislation requiring environmental protection. More than 70% of the Study Area's total existing population of 7,110 is serviced by septic systems. Malfunctioning septic systems, as well as discharges from the Grand Bend STF, are adversely affecting surface and groundwater, including Lake Huron and the Ausable River, the Study Area's most important natural and recreational assets. Septic system failure rates are expected to be high over the next 20 years. Based on these considerations, existing and future development in the Sturdy Area requires short and long-term municipal sanitary sewage servicing improvements."


66

Page 18 of 34


19 4

Which Council resolution directed staff to engage the services of Dillon Consulting to produce the 2005 'Municipality of Lambton Shores Sanitary Sewage Master Plan'?

Dillon was the engineer of record for the former Village of Grand Bend and completed the design and construction administration for the original sewage treatment lagoons, pump station, and collection system. After amalgamation Dillon remained the engineer of record for the sewage treatment facility, and the former Director of Community Services (Mr. Paul Turnbull) confirms that Dillon was directly assigned the work associated with the master plan and environmental assessments.

Dillon was assigned the work for the sewage treatment plant final design and construction administration upon approval of the former Tri-Municipal Committee on March 20, 2009. Dillon was asked to submit a proposal for the work, and Lambton Shores Council approved the contract on May 19, 2009.

- Telephone conversation with Mr. Turnbull- Minutes of the March 20, 2009 Tri-Municipal Committee Meeting- Resolution #09-0519-04, Minutes of the May 19, 2009 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

19 5 When did the 2005 Ontario Provincial Policy Statement take effect?

On March 1st, 2005

19 6

In what time frame was the 2005 'Municipality of Lambton Shores Sanitary Sewage Master Plan' produced by Dillon Consulting? Which municipal staff participated in the project?

The majority of the work for the master plan process was completed between 2004-2006. The final report was titled "Municipalities of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan" and was published February 21, 2006 by Dillon Consulting.

The key municipal staff from Lambton Shores who worked on this project were:Mr. John Byrne (CAO)Mr. Paul Turnbull (Director of Community Services)

19 7

Which Council resolution directed staff to engage the services of Dillon Consulting to produce the 2006 'Municipalities of Lambton Shores, Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewer Servicing Master Plan'?


67

Page 19 of 34


19 8

When did the municipality correspond with the County of Lambton to determine the feasibility of upgrading the Grand Bend lagoon system without implementing a mechanical treatment system solution? Where is a record of that correspondence?

There are several studies that serve the purpose of a feasibility study reviewing alternatives for the proposed sewage treatment facility:- Municipalities of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan (February 21, 2006, Dillon Consulting)- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report (March 2009, Dillon Consulting)- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report Addendum (October 26, 2012, Stantec Consulting)

The County of Lambton was consulted as a stakeholder agency as a part of the process to develop the 2006 master plan titled "Municipalities of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan (Dillon Consulting, February 21, 2006)". Appendix B documents agency consultations.

The County of Lambton was consulted as a stakeholder agency as a part of the process to develop the 2009 ESR titled "Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)". Appendix C documents agency consultations.

The County of Lambton was consulted as a stakeholder agency as a part of the process to develop the 2009 ESR titled "Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting, October 26, 2012)". Appendix II documents agency consultations.

- Municipalites of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan (Dillon Consulting, February 21, 2006)- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting, October 26, 2012)

68

Page 20 of 34


19 9

When did the municipality correspond with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to determine the feasibility of improving the capacity of the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility lagoon system without implementing a mechanical upgrade to the treatment system? Where is a record of that correspondence?

There are several studies that serve the purpose of a feasibility study reviewing alternatives for the proposed sewage treatment facility:- Municipalities of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan (February 21, 2006, Dillon Consulting)- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report (March 2009, Dillon Consulting)- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report Addendum (October 26, 2012, Stantec Consulting)

The Ministry of Environment was consulted as a stakeholder agency as a part of the process to develop the 2006 master plan titled "Municipalities of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan (Dillon Consulting, February 21, 2006)". Appendix B documents agency consultations.

The Ministry of Environment was consulted as a stakeholder agency as a part of the process to develop the 2009 ESR titled "Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)". Appendix C documents agency consultations.

The Ministry of Environment was consulted as a stakeholder agency as a part of the process to develop the 2009 ESR titled "Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting, October 26, 2012)". Appendix II documents agency consultations.

- Municipalites of Lambton Shores Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewage Servicing Master Plan (Dillon Consulting, February 21, 2006)- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)- Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report Addendum (Stantec Consulting, October 26, 2012)

69

Page 21 of 34


19 10

Which documents support the claim of environmental compromise from septic system failure in Zone 3 and any adverse impact on Lake Huron? Are they accessible to the public?





19 11What evidence does the municipality have that the Province will impose a central sewer collection system in Zones 3 and 4 in the future?

There is no evidence that the Province will impose a central collection system on lots currently serviced by private septic systems.

New development is required to follow the Provincial Policy Statements.

19 12

Prior to 2011,why was such a significant sewage capacity allocated to Southbend Estates (whose draft development plan is still unregistered) without a sunset clause?

The agreement as executed in 2011 was endorsed by Council in 2008 when the final approval was given for the first phase. The Council of the day was planning to expand GBSTF and granted sanitary sewage capacity for Phase 1 of the Development. The agreement states no additional sewage capacity will be available to the lands until a new sewage treatment facility is constructed.

Sec. 12 of the Development Agreement

70

Page 22 of 34


19 13 What rationale did the municipality use to propose a central sewage collection system for Zones 3 and 4?





19 14

Given the statements made in Ontario Minister of the Environment Jim Bradley's Summary of Key Issues in the fall of 2013, and the recommendations of the municipal Ad hoc Sewer Advisory Committee ,why has the municipality not removed references to the need for a central sewage collection system for Zones 3 and 4 from the 5th draft of The Official Plan?

The Official Plan Steering Committee deferred all decisions respecting sanitary servicing policies in Zones 3 and 4 to Council. Council has now reviewed Draft 5 and set direction for servicing in Grand Bend in Draft 6. The only reference to Zones 3 and 4 in Draft 6 of proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan, is in Section 13.3.2 under the recommendation of the Ad hoc Sewer Committee.

71

Page 23 of 34


19 15

Why was the project for the original design andenvironmental assessment for the Grand Bend SewageTreatment Facility, as well as the environmentalassessment process for Zones 3 and 4, directly assignedto Dillon Consulting in contravention of Policy #20- 2002?

Dillon was the engineer of record for the former Village of Grand Bend and completed the design and construction administration for the original sewage treatment lagoons, pump station, and collection system. After amalgamation Dillon remained the engineer of record for the sewage treatment facility, and the former Director of Community Services (Mr. Paul Turnbull) confirms that Dillon was directly assigned the work associated with the master plan and environmental assessments.

Dillon was assigned the work for the sewage treatment plant final design and construction administration upon approval of the former Tri-Municipal Committee on March 20, 2009. Dillon was asked to submit a proposal for the work, and Lambton Shores Council approved the contract on May 19, 2009.

- Telephone conversation with Mr. Turnbull- Minutes of the March 20, 2009 Tri-Municipal Committee Meeting- Resolution #09-0519-04, Minutes of the May 19, 2009 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

19 16Why was the 2005 'Municipality of Lambton Shores Sanitary Sewage Master Plan' project directly assigned to Dillon Consulting?


19 17

Why was the 2006 'Municipalities of Lambton Shores, Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewer Servicing Master Plan' project directly assigned to Dillon Consulting?


19 18 Why was the contract for groundwater quality testing in Zones 3 and 4 directly assigned to Golder & Associates?

Golder & Associates was the approved sub-consultant proposed by Dillon Consulting in their proposal for engineering services that was approved by Lambton Shores Council on May 19, 2009.


19 19On what basis or rationale did the municipality decide to use a low pressure grinder pump central sewage collection system for Zones 3 and 4?

Section 5.7 of the 2006 master plan reviewed the alternatives for the proposed sanitary sewage collection systems and recommended a low pressure sanitary collection system. A low pressure system was recommended by Dillon because of the following identified advantages:- lower capital cost- can accommodate very long runs of forcemains before another pump is needed to increase pressure- can accommodate low flows- non-invasive construction- suitable for all types of terrains


19 20

What was the overall anticipated cost for the originally proposed sewage treatment mechanical upgrade for the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility including design, building and environmental assessment aspects?

For the full build the total estimated cost was $26,814,425.00-includes net hst cost-includes engineering-includes contingency

72

Page 24 of 34


19 21

What are the specific costs associated with the originally proposed sewage treatment mechanical upgrade facility design and environmental assessment aspects to date? What is Lambton Shores' cost?

Referring to TR-84-2013 and removing the Pump Station 2 review, ESR design review and ESR addendum costs the total costs for the originally proposed project were $1,836,911.20 - of that Lambton Shores was responsible for $713,305.09.

This includes all eligible and non-eligible costs, net hst expense and the grant has been deducted from the Lambton Shores net cost.

TR-84-2013 adjusting for new design review

19 22 What was the overall cost for the environmental assessment processes for Zones 3 and 4?

Zone 3 $307,743.84Zone 4 $311,002.73These are total cost for the EA with net HST included

19 23 How much has the design of the new down sized treatment plant cost the municipality?

Stantec Consulting was assigned the work for the re-designed sewage treatment plant final design and construction administration upon approval of the Grand Bend STF Joint Board on November 12, 2013. The proposal was considered and approved by Lambton Shores Council on November 21, 2013 at a total cost of $1,395,000 (excluding HST).

- Minutes of the November 12, 2013 Grand Bend Area Joint Board Meeting- Resolution # 13-1121-17, Minutes of the November 21, 2013 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

19 24Was a revised environmental assessment necessary for the new downsized plant, and if so, what were the costs to the municipality associated with that?

Yes, the Environmental Assessment Act required an addendum to the "Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility Expansion & Upgrade Environmental Study Report (Dillon Consulting, March 2009)" as a result of the proposed re-design of the facility,

The net cost to Lambton Shores for the design review and environmental assessment review was $12,832.72

19 25

Why did the municipality not determine an overall cost for the low pressure central sewage collection system proposed for Zones 3 and 4 prior to supporting the need for the size of the originally proposed sewage treatment mechanical upgrade design for the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility?

Required treatment plant capacity and collection system costs were both considered in the 2006 master plan. Section 5.7 of the 2006 master plan reviewed the alternatives for the proposed sanitary sewage collection systems and recommended a low pressure sanitary collection system. Table 18 presented forecasted costs of low pressure sewer servicing at $20,600,000 for Lambton Shores' proposed system.


19 26What is the maximum amount or cap assigned by Build Canada to the cost of the sewage treatment plant mechanical upgrade project for funding eligibility?

The total eligible expenses for the current project; which is for the treatment plant and pump station 2, are $21,600,000.00

By-law 93 of 2013 BCF Agreement Amendment By-law 83 of 2014 BCF Agreement Amendment

19 27What was the proposed project management fee to build the original design mechanical upgrade for the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility?

Dillon was assigned the work for the sewage treatment plant final design and construction administration upon approval of the former Tri-Municipal Committee on March 20, 2009. Dillon was asked to submit a proposal for the work. The proposal was considered and approved by Lambton Shores Council on May 19, 2009 at a total cost of $1,921,200 (excluding GST).

- Minutes of the March 20, 2009 Tri-Municipal Committee Meeting- Resolution #09-0519-04, Minutes of the May 19, 2009 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

19 28What is the anticipated project management fee proposed to build the new down sized plant for the Grand bend Sewage Treatment Facility?

Stantec Consulting was assigned the work for the re-designed sewage treatment plant final design and construction administration upon approval of the Grand Bend STF Joint Board on November 12, 2013. The proposal was considered and approved by Lambton Shores Council on November 21, 2013 at a total cost of $1,395,000 (excluding HST).

- Minutes of the November 12, 2013 Grand Bend Area Joint Board Meeting- Resolution # 13-1121-17, Minutes of the November 21, 2013 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

73

Page 25 of 34


19 29What has it cost the municipality to build the Goosemarsh Line low pressure sewage collection system line? Has the project been fully paid for?

The Lambton Shores portion of the forcemain was $1,044,581.20. (engineering and net hst included) The capital cost is financed and the debt repayment is currently funded through the Sewer Operating budget and some funds from Development Charges.

TR-52-2010 Development Charges Study

19 30

Are there any benefitting properties that have yet to contribute to the cost of building the Goosemarsh Line low pressure sewage collection system line? If so, what is the amount of money still owed by these properties? Why have these funds not been collected?

The forcemain was built to service the Pinery Park and the proposed sewer expansion area as identified in the Development Charges study and now known as zone 3 and 4. The project also included sizing to service the subdivision known as South Bend which is identified in their subdivision agreement. Item 33 (a) of the subdivision agreement notes when payment is due - upon registration of the plan.

19 31What did it cost the municipality to produce the 2005 'Municipality of Lambton Shores Sanitary Sewage Master Plan'?

Total cost of the Lambton Shores Sewer Master Plan was $63,291.44

19 32

What did it cost the municipality to produce the 2006 'Municipalities of Lambton Shores, Bluewater and South Huron Grand Bend and Area Sanitary Sewer Servicing Master Plan'?

The Lambton Shores cost of the North End Sewer Master Plan was $91,508.37

19 33

What did the groundwater testing project for Zones 3 and 4 completed by Golder & Associates cost the municipality? Is there ongoing groundwater testing being done by Golder and Associates for Zones 3 and 4? If so, what are the costs associated with this project?

Zone 3 costs were $144,485.59Zone 4 costs were $ 23,649.31Costs include net hstThese costs are included in the EA process costs shown in 19-22

There is no current groundwater testing being completed by Golder & Associates. The Municipality has decided to fund an alternative groundwater monitoring program. At the April 8, 2013 Council meeting, Council approved a request from the Southcott Pines Park Association to support a grant application under the Great Lakes Guardian Fund for a water quality study to measure the potential impacts that may be related to septic systems in the area. This grant application was denied, and Council received a re-scoped project proposal on April 17, 2014. The proposed program is in partnership with Dr. Will Robertson from the University of Waterloo. The Municipality has $10,000 committed in the 2014 operating budget to support this project which is currently in progress.

- Resolution #13-0408-10, Minutes of the April 8, 2013 Lambton Shores Council Meeting- Resolution #14-0417-14, Minutes of the April 17, 2014 Lambton Shores Council Meeting

20 1

On page 189 under a alternatives I believe there's a spelling error and that the word should be innovative rather than innocative. Should this perception be incorrect would you kindly explain to me what the word in innocative is?

There was a transposition error, the correct word is "innovative". CCME Report - page 7

20 2 What would a government service partnerships be in easy understandable terminology?

Government Service Partnerships use various combinations of government partnerships such as municipal - municipal, provincial - municipal, or federal - municipal to fund infrastructure projects.

CCME Report - page 2

74

Page 26 of 34


20 3 In item B what is meant by Provincial State?

With regards to revolving loans the Provincial Government or State Government may participate. State infrastructure banks are state run banks in the United States that operate like private banks with low-rate loans.


20 4 "Trust Funds" probably referred to reserve funds but please clarify this.

Trust funds are not reserves or reserve funds which are generally used by the municipality as part of their budgeting practices. Trusts are "Special Funds" and exist where money or property are held by the municipality or local board for the benefit of another. Trust funds were only mentioned in the presentation because a request was made by council to consider the alternatives presented in a document provided by the Canadian Councils of Ministers. The Watson presentation discussed the applicability and potential use as it applied to this project.

Gary Scandlan CCME Report - page 4

20 5I presume that "Securitizations Funds" probably referred to the issuance of securities. Would you kindly explain/clarify this point?

Securitization funds use repackaged loans to sell securities which entitle the owner of the securities to repay a portion or the total amount of loan. The loans are pooled and the cash flow from loans is used to pay the interest and principal on the securities.


20 6 Under D what is meant by the term "Contributions"?

Contributions are a non-repayable transfer of funds from the federal government to the provincial and municipal governments. The funds provided by the federal government are intended for a specific purpose and must meet the terms of a Contribution Agreement.


20 7

In D there is a reference to Development Charges, back can only be brought into play when the development requires capacity in the Sewage Treatment Facility as I understand. If this is not correct please explain why?

Development charges are imposed by the provisions of the by-law… i.e. the by-law defines the services and the areas which will pay for the charges.

Watson Presentation - slide 4 Gary Scandlan

20 8The comments on page 190 of the agenda raise the question, would this include the funds due to Lambton Shores from the sale of Southbend Estates?

No - the allocation for the South Bend Construction Costs were removed from the forcemain cost.

Watson Presentation - slide 5

20 9

At page 191 bullet 3, is confusing at best. This should be clearer. Is Mr. Scandlan suggesting that the Development Charges should be collected at the time of signing the development/subdivision agreements?

Under the Development Charge Act, a council can collect the charge for water, wastewater, storm and roads earlier than building permit (i.e. at time of subdivision agreeement signing). For developments proceeding through a plan of subdivision, it would increase the timing of recovery if the muncipality collected the revenue at that time.


20 10At page 192 bullets 2 there is no mention of a definition for "at some later point in time". Would you kindly explain what this means?

Watson presentation slide 7 bullet 2 references the Municipal Act and is written exactly as stated in the Act. The timing would be determined by Council in the future.

Watson Presentation - slide 7 Municipal Act, 2001 Sec.391(2)

20 11 Surely there must be a definition somewhere that an ordinary person can rely on.


20 12 This appears almost if not actually the denial of natural justice.


75

Page 27 of 34


20 13 At page 195, bullet 1 Local Improvement has the benefit of having the right of appeal to the OMB.


20 14 Bullet 2, under this section the application is only to a very limited to a very narrow number of properties.


20 15At page 196, Bullet 1it appears that what is being said is that "Grant Funding Availability" is now very unreliable. Is this a correct reading of this section?

On slide 11 it is a statement that "in general" the availability of grants has declined over the last 2 decades. Grants provided by senior levels of government are based on specific programs and activities they are targeting for the funding. Lambton Shores was fortunate to secure funding in 2009 for this project.


20 16 At page 199 Allocation etc. item 2 what developments are included in the 930 m(3)?

The following developments represent the 930 m3/day committed capacity for Lambton Shores:- Gill Road (River) (7 m3/day)- Harbourside Village (22 m3/day)- Government Road (5 m3/day)- Johnstone Phase 2 (29 m3/day)- Lakeview Circle (1 m3/day)- Pinery Provincial Park (net) (443 m3/day)- Rice Development (140 m3/day)- Riverbend Wharf (11 m3/day)- Southbend Estates (260 m3/day)- Wondergrove Developments (12 m3/day)


20 17 At page 200 item "less Bluewater $ 122,706 what does this represent?

This is Bluewater's proportionate share of the original engineering review and cost to date.

Watson Presentation - slide 15 TR-84-2013

20 18 The reference to South Huron would appear to be their capital share of the STF.


20 19 At page 201,reference is made to the Zone 3 & 4 Force main. Why is this being mentioned?

Slide 16 includes the Goosemarsh forcemain which was constructed to service the collection systems proposed in zone 3 & 4 and formed part of the costs for the collection system project. The collection system has been put on hold and no new funding model solution provided.


20 20Actually there is no EA for what was Zone 3. There is no EA planned for this area. The force main in question can only serve the Pinery Park because of its design.


20 21Council has clearly stated that there will be only gravity sewers in zone 4. Therefore why are we talking about Zone 3 & 4 being responsible for this force main?

See 20 - 19

20 22 What is the exact meaning of "new only" as used in this section?

New users not presently on the system Watson Presentation - slide 16 Gary Scandlan

20 23Please note that the users paid for this repair in their user rates for 30 years, why are they paying a second time?


76

Page 28 of 34


20 24At page 202, "and future users-" shouldn't it read plus rates rather than or rates. How does Mr. Scandlan plan to charge future users to pay rates?

Council may choose to recover these costs as a charge under the Development Charges Act or Part 12 of the Muncipal Act. If Council chooses not to have a capital charge then it would need to have the costs recovered from existing ratepayers as part of there rates.


20 25 Zone 3 & 4 are shown as future users (Deferred Benefits). When will Zones 3 & 4 see any benefit?

As required or determined by Council Municipal Act, 2001 Sec. 391(2)

20 26

At page 204, 2nd box "Wastewater Users" this is only regarding the STF costs which reduce over a period of time to zero. Why didn't the consultant explain that these charges are in addition to the increase in operating costs for the new STF over the lagoon system?

The chart presents the potential added impacts of the capital cost for the STP under different funding options for Council. The capital costs are shown on page 202 - exsiting benefit and future customer benefit. These costs are then coverted to 20 year debt charges based on the funding noted on 198. On page 202, the Existing User impact is the added cost of the existing benefit costs being recovered on either rates or taxes. Similarly, if Council chose not to use the Development charges Act but to pay for these future benefit costs via rates or taxes, the added costs are presented.

Watson Presentaion - slide 19 Gary Scandlan

20 27 Again at page 204,what divisor is being used? For wastewater rates, 417,183 m3 and for taxation, weighted current value assessment of 1,957,138,903.


20 28 Is the same divisor used in all calculations? Yes Gary Scandlan

20 29 To be totally clear how was the divisor determined?Wastewater rates are based on 2013 metered flows and assessment was based on 2014 taxation data

Gary Scandlan

20 30I don't see any mention of the increase required under the Asset Management Plan (AMP). Why isn't that pointed out very clearly as well?

The recommendations included in the Asset Management Plan have not been approved by Council at this time. As noted on page 187, the presentation purpose was to respond to Council direction, i.e. "THAT Mr. Gary Scandlan provide Council with possible scenarios for a funding mechanism for the sewer treatment facility"

Council Meeting March 20, 2014 TR-18-2014 Gary Scandlan

20 31 I believe that all the charges referenced are on an annual basis. Is that correct?

Yes - based on 20 year debt charges Gary Scandlan

20 32 At page 205, at Bullet 1How far in the future is council expecting this benefit to occur?

Not determined by Council at this time. Watson Presentation - slide 20

20 33At Bullet 2, Why should there be any cost to property owners when the users of sewers in Lambton Shores and the predecessors paid to create reserve funds?

Not determined by Council at this time. Watson Presentation - slide 20

20 34 How were these funds used if not for replacing the STF?

One Sewer Reserve Fund is established for all of our sewer infrastructure. There have been several infrastructure replacements over the years that have been funded from the Sewer Reserve Fund. There has been no designated fund or allocation for the Grand Bend lagoon replacement or plant construction. The Sewer Reserve Fund is non project specific ; however, Council reviews the 10 year capital budget projections annually during budget discussions.

20 35 At Bullet 3, why are there no reserve funds?In addition to 20 - 34, there is a Sewer Reserve Fund; however, at this time there has been no council decision to allocate Sewer Reserve Funds to the project.


1

77

Page 29 of 34


20 36 At Bullet 4 please explain what this item means?Development Charges collected for a specific service must be used for that type of service. The legislation does not allow for a refund of Development Charges.

Watson Presentation - slide 20 Development Charges Act

20 37 Given the actual cost per household, is this STF really needed?


20 38 Has any thought been given to the economic impact of this project to the citizens of Lambton Shores?

A question for Council

20 39Has any report been done showing the potential impact on property values on those properties that will be paying these increased fees?

No

20 40What is the impact on the base rate for waste water service? (What will the new quarterly and annual rate be for sewer service/waste water rate?)

Rates are under review and not approved for 2015 or forward. By-Law 06 of 2013 - last rates approved 2012 Rate Study

20 41

Since, it is conceded that this STF is in fact for development and the Municipality of Bluewater only why should the ordinary citizen be paying for developers to make a greater profit and Bluewater to sit back with no money in the project for the benefit they (Bluewater) is receiving?


20 42Why does the Municipality (Lambton Shores) not have our share of the capital cost of the STF in our Sewer Reserve Fund?

In addition to comments under 20 - 34, the lagoon system replacement evolved into a tertiary treatment facility and Council chose to fund from grants, rates, development charges and connection fees.

20 43 Can Lambton Shores or more correctly the citizens of Lambton Shores afford this STF?


20 44Since Bluewater is a member of the Joint Sewer Board and has access at any time to hook into the STF why are they not paying a Deferred Benefit of some sort?

Bluewater is a party to the Joint Agreement because they have a future interest in the facility should they decide to service a portion of their municipality. There is no accommodation for Bluewater's future flows in the current design thus a deferred benefit does not apply. The re-designed facility has been designed to accommodate Lambton Shores' and South Huron's current and future needs only.

Bluewater's future flows will have to be accommodated through an expansion of the facility. The Joint Agreement is structured such that Bluewater will be required to pay 100% of the costs of the expansion that benefits them.

- Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility Joint Operating Agreement (2014) (attached to staff report #DCS 22-2014, publically available at www.lambtonshores.ca in the April 3, 2014 Council meeting agenda)

20 45

How will the funds paid by Bluewater or developers at a later date be divided amongst the landowners who actually loan these two entities the funds to ensure that the capacity in the STF is available? Albeit, the loan is forced on our (Lambton Shores) by other means than voluntary.

Refer to 20-44.

20 46There is another fairer way to ensure that Bluewater and the developers pay their fair share later but I don't see anything about that. Therefore I won't mention it.


78

Page 30 of 34


20 47

This report does not appear to deal with the fact that Lambton Shores will be paying 63% and South Huron will be paying 37% of the operating cost of the STF. Watson was not asked for that information. It however is very important that the citizenry is aware of all the costs associated with the STF before council takes the next step in this project. Can anyone on council tell us what the cost to the users will rise because of the increased costs of operating this STF? Bear in mind using Mr. Scandlan's figures of a low of $ 18,101,287 and a high of $ 21,723,943 there will be a requirement of Life Cycle Reserve Funds (LCRF) of 905,064.35 or $ 1,086,197.15 annually. This is without paying an operator, utilities or chemicals etc.


20 48Could we please receive the actual total costs related to all aspects of this STF in enough detail so that everything the citizens receive is verifiable?

Yes - costs to date were reported in detail in TR-84-2013 To date TR-84-2013

21 Table omitted No Question 21 1 Duplicate of 20 1 Refer to 20 - 121 2 Duplicate of 20 2 Refer to 20 - 221 3 Duplicate of 20 3 Refer to 20 - 3

21 4

"Trust Funds" probably referred to reserve funds but please clarify this. The presentation on the 15th of May 2014 clarified that that it was not reserve funds but "trust funds" such as the cemetery trust funds.

Refer to 20 - 4

21 5I understand from the discussion of the report that this is a source for borrowing only. Will you please confirm if this is correct?

Not clear on what "this" is - may refer to 20 - 4 and 20 - 5

21 6 Duplicate of 20 5 Refer to 20 - 521 7 Duplicate of 20 6 Refer to 20 - 6

21 8 Neither of the two immediate preceding statements were explained at the council meeting on 15 May 2015.

These terms were only mentioned in the presentation because a request was made by council to consider the alternatives presented in a document provided by the Canadian Councils of Ministers. The Watson presentation discussed the applicability and potential use as it applied to this project.

Gary Scandlan

21 9 Duplicate 20 7 Refer to 20 - 721 10 Duplicate 20 8 Refer to 20 - 8

21 11

When I addresssed council regarding the South Bend Estates "agreement" trying to get answers earlier this year Mr. Weber stated that we (the municipality) were in the process of collecting the funds which now exceed $400,000 when the interest is calculated onto the funds that were due when the agreeemtn was executed.


79

Page 31 of 34


21 12

At page 191 bullet 3, is confusing at best. This should be clearer. Is Mr. Scandlan suggesting that the Development Charges should be collected at the time of signing the development/subdivision agreements to cover the municipal indebtedness earlier?

Refer to 20 - 9

21 13 Duplicate 20 10 Refer to 20 - 1021 14 Duplicate 20 11 Refer to 20 - 1121 15 Duplicate 20 12 Refer to 20 - 1221 16 Duplicate 20 13 Refer to 20 - 1321 17 Duplicate 20 14 Refer to 20 - 1421 18 Duplicate 20 15 Refer to 20 - 1521 19 Duplicate 20 16 Refer to 20 - 16

21 20

Mr. Scandlan mention the Piney Park as part of this allocation. While the MNR had committed to this capacity at some point the MNR will want the agreement renegotiated since the actual use is a little more than 10% of the "allocation".


21 21

At page 200 item "less Bluewater $ 122,706 what does this represent? I believe that this amount is the amount paid by Bluewater earlier and is not refundable. Is that correct?

In addition to the comments under 20 - 17, payment has been received and staff is not aware of a reason to refund.

21 22The reference to South Huron would appear to be their capital share of the STF. Is that correct or is that South Huron's earlier costs for studies for the STF?

The costs shown are costs incurred since 2009 forward for this project as well as the estimated capital costs.


21 23 Duplicate 20 19 Refer to 20 - 1921 24 What has the "Force Main" to do with Zone 3 & 4? Refer to 20 - 19

21 25 Is this the Goosemarsh Sewer Line that is referred to?Yes

21 26 Duplicate 20 20 Refer to 20 - 2021 27 Duplicate 20 20 Refer to 20 - 2021 28 Duplicate 20 21 Refer to 20 - 2121 29 Duplicate 20 22 Refer to 20 - 2221 30 Duplicate 20 23 Refer to 20 - 2321 31 Duplicate 20 24 Refer to 20 - 2421 32 Duplicate 20 25 Refer to 20 - 2521 33 Duplicate 20 26 Refer to 20 - 2621 34 Duplicate 20 27 Refer to 20 - 2721 35 Duplicate 20 28 Refer to 20 - 2821 36 Duplicate 20 29 Refer to 20 - 2921 37 Duplicate 20 30 Refer to 20 - 3021 38 Duplicate 20 31 Refer to 20 - 3121 39 Duplicate 20 32 Refer to 20 - 3221 40 Duplicate 20 33 Refer to 20 - 3321 41 Duplicate 20 34 Refer to 20 - 34

80

Page 32 of 34


21 42 How many dollars is sewer development charges have been collected?

The following is a summary of the collection and application of the sewer DC's from 2006 to 2013.

Balance at Dec.2000 $30,782.63Collected $810,466.09Interest earned $37,202.93Applied to Debt repayment $225,677.83Credits $2,036.432013 Year End balance $650,737.39

21 43 At Bullet 3, why are there not sufficient reserve funds on hand to apply to this project?

Refer to 20 - 34 and 20 - 35

21 44 At Bullet 4, please explain what this item means?Refer to 20 - 36

21 45Costs related to all aspects of this STF in enough details so that everything the citizens received is give in the actual cost per household, is this STF really needed?

Refer to 20 - 48

21 46 Duplicate 20 38Refer to 20 - 38




21 50

Why does the Municipality (Lambton Shores) not have Lambton Shores share of the capital cost of the STF in our Sewer Reserve Fund given the amount DC charges collected as well as the reserve funds set aside for this purpose?

The funding model is currently under review. Lambton Shores does have a sewer reserve fund for the entire sewer system within Lambton Shores and a DC fund for sewer.

21 51Can Lambton Shores or more correctly the citizens of Lambton Shores afford this STF given the capital costs and the increased operating costs?


21 52 Duplicate 20 44 Refer to 20 - 44




81

Page 33 of 34


21 56 Could we please receive the actual total in a verifiable form?

Yes - costs to date were reported in detail in TR-84-2013 TR-84-2013

21 57 Where are the sewer reserve funds (2 reserves) from Grand Bend?

At the time of amalgamation the sewer reserve and reserve funds of all former municipalities were combined and applied to the costs of infrastructure replacement as required through the capital budget process. The 2013 year end value of the Lambton Shores sewer reserve / reserve fund is $684,223.00.

Jan 1 2001 Balance Sewer R/RF $814,489.57RevenueUser Rate contribution $1,383,103.46Connection Fees $ 64,841.00Interest $ 103,631.35

ExpensesOperating repairs, studies, IT $ 678,375.51Road Related Replacements $ 91,858.38Infrastructure Replacements $ 911,608.45

2013 Year End Balance $ 684,223.04

21 58 These reserves had a value of $565,680.53 at 1 January 1997?

Correct

21 59

At page 8 of 10 of the Transfer Order (dated 7 February 2000 for the Grand Bend Sewer Lagoons, transferring certain Piping,the lagoons and PS2, the Hon. Tony Clements stated; "A Capital Replacement and Rehabilitation Reserve Fund will be held by the Administering Municipality for the purpose of ensuring that sufficient funds are held to properly maintain the system." I have calculated the value for 31 December 1999 using an average of 6% per annum payable on a six month basis. This is a low calculation figure but provides a good indication of the value at amalgamation. The total came to $ 696,827.93 which will be a very close approximation as I might be slightly out. Where are these funds?

The original transfer order for the Grand Bend Area Wastewater Treatment System outlined the various financial and budget related functions of the Grand Bend Area Joint Sewage Board and set it up so that there would be common system wide financial processes in place. South Huron and Lambton Shores elected to modify the proposed financial activities and each member municipality chose to look after finances on their own (i.e. setting rates, billing, and establishing reserves). Lambton Shores has established a sewer reserve.

21 60

This is especially true when South Huron's contributions to match Lambton Shores contributions are added to the equation. South Huron's contribution of $ 696,827.93 plus (+) Lambton Shores contribution created a total fund of $ 1,393,655.86 as required by Minister Clement.


21 61

Additionally there were the Reserve funds built into the sewer service rates for this purpose as well as for the other STFs in Lambton Shores along with the ongoing Reserve monies from South Huron. How much does this add up to?

Refer to 21-57 for the Lambton Shores Sewer Reserve information. South Huron Reserves are reported in their financial statements and not consolidated in ours.

82

Page 34 of 34


21 62 Perhaps, I should ask how much it should have added up to in the Minister Clement's mandated Reserve Fund?


21 63

Then there is the question of "Development Charges". A portion of all "DCs" are supposed to be reserved in what is now called a Life Cycle Reserve Fund (LCRF). How much has accrued in this fund?

Development Charges and a Life Cycle Reserve Fund are two different funds. The 2013 year end balance of each fund was:DC - $650,737.39 refer to 21 - 42Sewer Life Cycle RF for all infrastructure - $167,873.72Sewer general R/RF for all infrastructure - $516,349.32

21 64

How can this community proceed when the citizens appear to be in the position of having paid their share of the original cost of the original STF and a large amount of funding toward a new STF and now are being told that most of these funds are no longer available?


22 1 Who pays for this just grand bend or everybody? The funding model is currently under review.

23 1

What is the current status regarding municipal sewer hookup in my zone ie are they still planned, if so, when, which type has been selected, what cost(s) I will incur, etc.?

The servicing horizon for residential properties located in Zone 3 and Zone 4 is currently forecasted at 20+ years in the future.

23 2Or are we staying on septic for the foreseeable future or a defined timeline after which sewer hook up is mandatory?

Refer to 23 - 1

24 No definite questions.

83


Report CAO 16-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014


FROM: Kevin Williams, CAO

RE: Municipal Responsibility Related to the Roads of Armstrong East

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Report CAO 1 6 -2014 regarding Municipal responsibility related to the Roads of Armstrong East be received.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY

This report provides Council with requested background and legal considerations related to the municipality’s responsibilities/options related to associated with the Roads of Armstrong East.

BACKGROUND

The Armstrong East Committee met on April 24, 2014, and through report CL 40-2014 advanced the following motion to Council’s meeting of May 15th:

THAT Lambton Shores explore the possibility of gifting the Armstrong East Municipal Rights of Way to the ABCA or Parks Ontario or a Homeowners Association.

Prior to considering the possibility of “gifting” the Rights of Ways, Council requested additional information through the following resolution: Carried 14-0515-26

THAT staff obtain a legal opinion on Municipal responsibility on options for the roads of Armstrong East.

This report is provided to fulfill this request. The road allowances on Armstrong East have been established as part of registered plan 578. They are owned by the Municipality; however they are unopened and have never been assumed through by-law.

84

This type of road is considered a public highway, whether or not they have been used as, or constructed as roads. As such, the roads are open to the public for use. What is a public highway? Under the Municipal Act 2001, s. 1(1) a highway is defined as “a common and public highway and, except as otherwise provided, includes a portion of a highway”. The Province goes further to define a “highway” in Municipal ownership under Municipal Act 2001, s.26 as:

1. All highways that existed on December 31, 2002. 2. All highways established by by-law of a municipality on or after January 1, 2003. 3. All highways transferred to a municipality under the “Public Transportation and

Highway Improvement Act”. 4. All road allowances made by the Crown surveyors that are located in

municipalities. 5. All road allowances, highways, streets and lanes shown on a registered

plan of subdivision, 2001, c.25, s.26. The Province then defines Municipal highway ownership under Municipal Act 2001, s. 30 as :”A highway is owned by the municipality that has jurisdiction over it subject to any rights reserved by a person who dedicated the highway or any interest in the land held by any other person, 2001, c.24, s.30”. It is noted that the Province did repeal Municipal Act, 2001, s. 31 in 2007, which is the definition of what constitutes a highway and replaced it with enhanced wording in s. 26 and s. 30 as above. The wording enhancements in these sections were the Province’s attempt to remove uncertainty about what does and does not constitute a highway. Although no longer in effect, the previous wording also supports the municipal position on assumption. Municipal Act 2001, s.31 provided that:

A municipality may by by-law establish a highway;

After January 1, 2001, land may only become a highway by virtue of a by-law passed under s.31 and not by the activities of the municipality or any other person in relation to the land, including the spending of public money (with exceptions);

Unopened road allowances and streets shown on a registered plan of subdivision are not “assumed” for the purposes or the non-repair provisions of s. 44 of the 2001 Act, until an assumption by-law is passed for them; and

Widenings become part of the highway upon the acquisition for same.

85

Who controls use of a public highway? The use of unassumed roads that are captured under the definition of “highway” in section 26 (5) of the municipal Act can be restricted under section 35. The Municipal Act 2001, R.S.O. s.35 reads:

“Without limiting sections 9 (Natural Personal Powers), 10 (Broad authority, single-tier municipalities), and 11, (Broad authority, lower-tier and upper-tier municipalities) a municipality may pass by-laws removing or restricting the common law right of passage by the public over a highway and the common law right of access to the highway by an owner of land abutting a highway”.

In summary, and with respect to Cottage access issues on Armstrong East…this access is/has been available to property owners by an un-maintained , un-opened municipal road allowance dedicated through a registered plan of subdivision. If the road allowance has not been assumed, then there is no duty to maintain. Furthermore, the municipality has the right to pass by-laws that determine, or restrict, the types of use that the public may enjoy on these roads. As stated, the municipality does have the right to impose restrictions on use of its land as per Section 30 of the Municipal Act. It could do this for reasons of public safety, environmental protection or to mitigate impacts such as noise. It could restrict certain uses…or more simply pass a bylaw to assume the road allowance as a public walkway and restrict other types of access. It must be noted that since the roads are technically “public highways” and since Lambton Shores has not passed a bylaw approving the use of All Terrain vehicles on its roads, this use is not legal. In addition, the Highway Traffic Act in the Operation of off-Road vehicles on Highways On Reg. 316/03 says that the offroad vehicle shall not be operated in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause risk to safety, harm or discomfort to any person, harm to property flora, destruction of natural environment. These factors all need to be considered if it is Council’s wish to consider the passing of an ATV bylaw in any location. Conversely, any change or restriction to current use, legal or otherwise, should be well considered, documented, and communicated before the imposition of change. Gifting? The Armstrong East Committee resolution to consider “gifting” the rights of way to a third party would need to be carefully considered. Council would have to “close” the roads under section 34 of the municipal Act before disposing of ("gifting") the land. This closure could trigger concern from some members of the public who could in turn allege

86

an economic loss (due to elimination of the highway) and would no doubt make a claim for injurious affection:

“injurious affection” means, ... (b) where the statutory authority does not acquire part of the land of an owner, (i) such reduction in the market value of the land of the owner, and (ii) such personal and business damages,

Council is advised that in the absence of consent from all affected owners to the closing, we would likely have to convey an easement ("right of way") over the closed road allowances to each owner before gifting the land to a third party. Those easements would in turn greatly reduce the ability of the new owner to control the use of the land. This would be a serious consideration for any third party agency that may be interested in considering the “gift”. If the third party were an association of agreeable owners, consent from those affected might be possible. Assumption of the roads? Council could further consider factors associated with assumption of the highways (roads). Most likely this action will cause an expectation that the municipality would undertake, or at least authorize, “improvements”. These authorized improvements will then carry a duty of care and subsequently a potential liability for the municipality. Although the exact history of why the Armstrong East roads are where they are is not known, it is known that road allowances were traditionally laid out in plan view by surveyors, without much regard for topography and other factors (physical/environmental) that would inhibit or prevent actual road construction. When developing a plan of subdivision, it is not unusual that less desirable lands are dedicated to the municipality while more attractive and marketable lands are retained for development. Regardless, simply because a road allowance is shown on a plan does not mean that there will ever be a travelled road there. The Council would benefit from information about the appropriateness of any assumption and/or improvement of the Armstrong East Roads. In considering any decision to assume the roads, it is suggested that the decision should be informed by study. The study will answer questions like:

Is it appropriate for sand to be moved, or surfaces placed to facilitate the passage of particular types of vehicles and if so what types of vehicles?

What improvements could be undertaken with the least deleterious impact on the dunes?

Is winter maintenance necessary or appropriate?

Are there seasons when, for environmental reasons, vehicles should not be permitted on these roads?

There is little doubt that Armstrong East is unique and the municipality has an obligation to look after the public interest. This could include a responsibility for environmental

87

stewardship that should be shared with the property owners. In order to understand the types of activities that may or may not be appropriate, the attributes of the local environment would need to be investigated in a fashion similar to an environmental assessment. If ongoing or requested activities associated with the roads are shown to materially damage the environment, then an appropriate action for Council may be to step in to actually protect the environment. Should the study find some level of improvement warranted, even if subject to limitations aimed at protecting the environment, then such actions could be undertaken by the municipality or even as a local improvement or on some other basis where benefiting owners pick up the direct cost. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER

a) Status quo, which is the unregulated use of vehicles by some of the residents; b) Regulate the use of vehicles; or c) Ban the use of vehicles; or d) Undertake an study to determine the environmental impacts of different existing

and planned uses for the Armstrong East Roads; or e) Declare closed and gift the roads of Armstrong East (not recommended)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS This report has been provided at the request of Council to provide information on the legal responsibilities and options available with respect to the roads of Armstrong East. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There are no direct financial impact with the recommendation as written, however all of the identified alternatives, save and except status quo, will carry costs for study, legal review, and/or implementation. These costs can be better identified with clear direction from Council.

CONSULTATION

Carol McKenzie, Municipal Clerk Barry Card, Solicitor

88


Report PL Report 21-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014


FROM: Patti Richardson, Senior Planner

RE: Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan Review of Public Comments

RECOMMENDATION: THAT comments related to Draft 6 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan be received; and That the summary of staff suggestions (Appendix A) resulting from the public review be incorporated into Draft 7 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan; and That direction be provided with respect to the items listed in Appendix B and any other changes required to be incorporated in Draft 7; and That Draft 7 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan be finalized and returned to Council at the October 2nd meeting for Council’s consideration and possible adoption.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report summarizes comments that have been received to date respecting the Lambton Shores Draft Official Plan and provides some recommendation to Council respecting the comments. BACKGROUND Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan was received for discussion and Public consultation by Council on June 5, 2014. Two Public Open Houses were held. The first was held at the Grand Bend Public School on July 17, 2014 with 55 Persons in attendance. The second Public Open House was held at The Shores Recreation Centre on July 24, 2014 with 29 persons in attendance. On August 14, 2014 a Public Meeting under Section 17 of the Planning Act was held at the Legacy Centre with 23 people presenting their opinions of the Draft Plan to Council.

89

This report will:

summarize the public comments received to date on Draft 6 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan;

explain what the related Draft 6 policy provides as it relates to the public comment;

provide recommendation and guidance to Council on the issues identified though the public process; and

seek Council direction on the disposition of the comments and changes to the Draft Official Plan.

General Comments Council will recall that the purpose of an Official Plan is to provide direction for future development within the Municipality. The Official Plan is used to assess development applications. “Development” is defined in The Provincial Policy Statement as

“the creation of a new lot, a change in land use or the construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act, such as an Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law amendment, Plan of Subdivision/Condominium approval, Site Plan approval and minor variance. Development does not include activities to create or improve “infrastructure”.”

Comments Received 1. Ecological Buffers and Natural Heritage Features Related to Agriculture

Public Comments Concern has been expressed by:

Graeme Wallace - 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 1)

Eugin Burgin – 6666 Hickory Creek Line (Correspondence 2)

Ruth Ann Wallace – 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 3)

Ron MacDougall - Lambton Federation of Agriculture

John Zekveld – Christian Farmers Association – 4622 London Line, Wyoming

Shelia Thompson – 489 Main Street, Thedford

Don McCabe - Federation of Agriculture

Cheryl DeVries – Ontario Land Owners Association

Robert Johnston – St. Clair Township

90

respecting the requirements for ecological buffers associated natural heritage features and the impacts of these buffers on agriculture. The concern that was communicated is that Official Plan policies will result in 100’s of acres of farm land being forced out of production as a result of application of buffer zones around Natural Heritage features Staff Response Section 3.4.2.7 - Ecological Buffers Zones, Section 3.5 - Development Approvals Process and Environmental Impact Studies and Section 4.4 - Environmental Farm Management of the draft Official Plan address ecological buffers as they relate to natural heritage features. Section 3.4.2.7 specifies various buffer zones from natural heritage features and new development. Section 3.5 defines buffer zone areas used to determine if new development proposed adjacent to natural heritage features is required to prepare an environmental impact study. Finally, Section 4.4 encourages agricultural uses to provide buffers adjacent to natural heritage features. All of these section support Council’s stated strategic priority of environmental protection. To be clear there is no requirement for existing agricultural uses to provide buffers. The Official Plan supports and protects existing agriculture as follows:

Section 3.1 - Goals and Objectives (Natural Heritage Systems) of the Draft Official Plan contains the following provision as it relates to existing agricultural uses:

“Consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (see definition, Section 2.5) the Lambton Shores Official Plan permits existing agricultural uses to continue in natural heritage areas (see definition, Section 2.5). New agricultural uses are not permitted nor will existing agricultural uses be permitted to expand in a natural heritage areas.

Section 3.3.1- Hazards states the following:

“Excluding buildings and structures, uses permitted in hazard areas include: o existing agriculture; o conservation, forestry and wildlife management; o parks and open space, including beaches and passive recreation;

91

o existing golf courses and parking areas. Any new golf courses and parking areas or expansions/extensions require Conservation Authority approval

o notwithstanding the above some of these uses may not be

permitted if located on or adjacent to wetlands, ESA’s, ANSI’s or other significant components of the natural heritage system.

Section 3.4.2.2- Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA’s) states:

“Consistent with the PPS, development, infrastructure, public service facilities and site alteration, as defined in Section 2.5 are not permitted in ESA’s. Permitted uses include:

Non-agricultural uses, that existed on the day of adoption of this plan but no expansions are permitted;

Agricultural uses may continue adjacent to ESA’s, but shall not be expanded;

Passive recreational uses, including pedestrian trails, provided such trails are designed, constructed and managed to minimize impacts on the ESA;

The harvesting of trees in accordance with responsible forestry management practices, as outlined in Section 17.4.”

Section 3.4.2.4 – Significant Woodland states;

With the exception of the “Natural Environment” area in North Bosanquet, development and site alteration are not permitted in woodlands designated “Natural Environment”. New infrastructure and public service facilities are also not permitted. Woodlots may be used for agricultural purposes, such as timber harvesting and maple sugar operations, in accordance with good forestry and Environmental Farm Management practices. Existing agricultural uses are also permitted with the exception of livestock grazing. Minor tree clearing, to make farming operations easier or to “round out” crop fields, is allowed subject to the County of Lambton Tree-Cutting By-law. Stewardship programs for woodlots are included in Section 3.6.

Section 4.7 Woodlots (Agricultural Policies) states:

It is the policy of the Municipality that development in wooded parts of the Agricultural Area, including all major woodlots, be discouraged.

92

Land severances for non-farm related uses and amendments to the Zoning By-law to permit non-farm uses will generally not be allowed.

This Plan recognizes the importance of trees to agriculture due to their wind protection and moisture holding capabilities. Existing woodlots will be protected in accordance with the Lambton County Tree Protection By-law that regulates the cutting of certain trees and woodlots. This Plan encourages reforestation and conservation of woodlots.

In consideration of the foregoing, Draft 6 of the Official Plan has been written so that existing agricultural uses can continue and are not generally impacted or restricted by the Natural Heritage Polices in the Plan, including buffer zones, as is required by Section 2.1.9 of the Provincial Policy Statement, which states:

“Nothing in Policy 2.1 (Natural Heritage) is intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue.”

Staff Suggestions

A. In order to provide more clarity that Section 3.4.2.7 Ecological Buffer Zones and Section 3.5 Development Approvals Process and Environmental Impact Studies apply to development and site alteration, these two sections could be combined into one section. (1A)

B. The Second Bullet in Section 3.4.2.2- Environmentally Significant Areas

(ESA’s) which currently states:

Agricultural uses may continue adjacent to ESA’s, but shall not be expanded;

could be revised as follows:

Existing Agricultural uses may continue within or adjacent to ESA’s, but shall not be expanded). (1B)

C. During Council’s review of the Official Plan, Council discussed buffer zones and

supported the current Section 4.4 as it only encourages agricultural uses to provide buffers adjacent to natural heritage features. It seems this Section has caused a lot of fear that such provisions will be forced on the agricultural community in the future. Council needs to determine if they want this section to remain in the Plan. (1C)

93

2. Lands Designated “Residential Beyond 20 Years” In North Bosanquet Planning Area

Public Comments

A number of concerns have been expressed respecting the designations of lands on the west side of Ipperwash Road, they are as follows: a) Philip Walden represents the owner of two parcels of land located east of

Goosemarsh Line, north of Canal Street and west of Burwell Road, identified as Properties 1 and 2 on Attachment 1 (Schedule A-2). Draft 6 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands “Future Residential Beyond 20 years” with the balance of the lands being designated “Agricultural”. Small portions of the north parts of lands also lie within the “Significant Woodlot” designation.

Mr. Walden is requesting that these lands be placed in a “Residential” designation, with no restrictions being placed on the time frame for development. He indicates that large scale development of the lands would not be permitted by the servicing policies of the Official Plan as there are no municipal sanitary services in the area. He suggested that limited development of the lands be allowed in compliance with the servicing policies of the Official Plan which allows limited development of up to 5 new dwellings on septic systems. The area is serviced with municipal water, hydro, and gas. He believes the policy is far too restrictive and believes this a reasonable comprise.

b) Stan and Antoinette Pachlarz, 9931 Walker Road, (Correspondence 4) own two properties located on the south side of Goosemarch Line, south of Walker Road, identified as Properties 3 and 4 Attachment 1 (Schedule A-2). Draft 6 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official designates the west 300 ft. of the Pachlarz’s properties “Future Residential Beyond 20 years” with the balance of the lands being designated “Agricultural”. The north part of the land also lies within the Significant Woodlot” designation.

The Parchlarz’s are requesting that the west 300 ft. of their lands remain in a “Residential” designation, with no restrictions being placed on the time frame for development. They also request that the significant wood lot designation be removed as they state that the trees on the property are mainly wild cherry, with a thick underbrush and in their opinion have no future value as a woodlot. They indicate that it is their intention to create estate-sized lots at some time in the future.

The West 300 ft. of the Pachlarz’s property is currently zoned “Residential 6 (R6) in the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law. A single detached dwelling is a permitted

94

use in the zone on a lot with a minimum lot area of 4,000 m² and a minimum lot frontage of 30 metres.

c) Scott MacGregor, 9727 Lakeshore Road, (Correspondence 5) who indicated he is a Zone 4 representative, stated that he and his neighbours have looked at the maps and do not like the future residential zoning (designation) on the area north of Greenaway Road. He indicated that this area is already built up and should be zoned as it is. He indicates he feels this is a cash grab by the Municipality.

Staff Comments Current Official Plan a) Walden Lands

The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands “Residential Constraint A” with the “Significant Woodlot” designation affecting portion the north area of the lands.

b) Pachlarz Lands

The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the west 300 ft. of each of the Pachlarz properties “Residential” with the balance of the lands being designated “Agricultural Constraint” The north part of the lands also lie within the “Significant Woodlot” designation.

c) McGregor and surrounding lands

The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands north of Greenway Road “Mixed Commercial and Residential”. Uses permitted in this designation include agriculture, including accessory dwellings and facilities such as greenhouses, produce storage and sales and similar activities, commercial uses catering to the tourist trade, travelling public and the local market, single detached dwellings, public and private parks including campgrounds and trailer parks, and small scale institutional uses.

Some lands within the Highway 21 corridor on Schedule A-2 “North Bosanquet” have been placed in a “Future Residential (beyond 20 years) and Future Development Special Policy Area designation. The policies respecting this designation can be found in Section 5.7.4. Generally, the policies indicate that the lands are not needed for development for the next 20 years and thus will not be developed until residential development in Grand Bend (Phase 1) as shown on Schedule “A1” is “substantially complete” (90%). In the interim, permitted uses include the existing residential and commercial uses. New development will consist of minor residential and commercial infilling only, including one residence/commercial use per lot, with no new lot creation. Any new development

95

proposal shall be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Study in compliance with Section 3.10.

The Future Residential Special Policy Area A” lands are located in the flood fringe between the floodway and regulatory flood level. These lands will be developed in accordance with the policies included in Section 6.6 - Residential Special Policy Areas. However, no development is expected to occur over the lifetime of this Official Plan. The Future Development designation was placed on the lands to ensure that development was directed to the urban area of Grand Bend, which has municipal sanitary and water services and other community services. It is recognized that Lambton Shores has a significant surplus of residentially designated lands and that development should be encouraged in serviced areas. The plan also recognizes that the lands comprise part of a natural heritage area and may have species at risk issues, which could pose a regulatory barrier to development proceeding. Council may recall that the Draft Official Plan as originally prepared did not allow new lot creation except on municipal sanity and water services. Council has revised Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan to allow limited development of up to five lots on individual on-site sewage services and municipal water. Staff Suggestion To be fair and equitable, this limited development option, permitting up to 5 lots on private individual septic systems could also be offered to lands designated for Future Residential development. As such Council could designate the lands to “Residential” and rely on the servicing policies to limit large scale development. (2)

3. Natural Environment Area Along Highway 21 on Schedule “A2” North Bosanquet

Public Comments

a) Mr. Theo Rood and his wife, of Grand Bend Produce, (Correspondence 6, 7 and

8) owns three undeveloped properties, lying north of their existing business located at the north east corner of Walker Road and Highway 21 (see properties 5, 6 and 7, Attachment 1 (Schedule A-2)). In order to provide for future expansion of his business he would like his land put back into the agricultural designation.

b) Mr. Ross Hayter, Les and Wendy Kobayashi and Paul and Susan Sovie, (correspondence 7 and 8) own properties lying north of Walker Road (see properties 8, 9, 10 and 11 Attachment 1 (Schedule A-2)). They have requested that they be permitted to sever each of the properties into two lots.

96

Staff Comments

Some lands within the Highway 21 corridor on Schedule A-2 “North Bosanquet” have been placed in a “Natural Environment” designation. The designation reflects the properties location within a significant wood lot. The policies respecting this designation can be found in Section 3.4.2.4 on Page 46 of the Draft Plan. Permitted uses in this designation include one dwelling per lot, with no new lot creation. The policies also indicate that only a minimal amount of the existing tree cover and natural vegetation may be cleared for dwelling construction, including septic system, if applicable. Tree removal will be addressed in any development approval and development agreement. No access from these properties from Highway 21 is permitted. The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands “Agriculture” and “Significant Woodlot”. The “Natural Environment” designation was placed on the lands to ensure that the significant woodlots are protected. One dwelling per lot is permitted. The designation also recognized that the lands comprised part of a natural heritage area and may have species at risk issues, which could pose a regulatory barrier to development proceeding. As Council will recall, the Draft Official Plan as originally prepared, did not allow new lot creation except on municipal sanitary and water services. Council however, has revised Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan to allow limited development of up to five lots on individual on-site sewage services and municipal water.

Staff Suggestion

a) Staff support Mr. Rood’s request to change the designation on his lands back to

“Agriculture” from “Natural Environment”. (3A)

b) To be fair and equitable, and given the size of the lots (10 Acres) staff support the owners request to allow each of the lots to be divided into two lots for single detached dwelling purposes, subject to the Section 3.5 - Development Approvals Process and Environmental Impact Studies policies of the Draft Official Plan, that will limit and negative impact to the natural heritage features and ensure compliance with the Species at Risk Act. (3B)

A letter was also received at the Public Meeting, rom Mr. Ian Wilkinson on, behalf of Mr. Rood, Mr. Hayter, Mr. Kobayashi and Mr. Sovie (Correspondence 8) in objection to the plan which is attached for Council’s information.

97

Due to the nature of the letter, Staff requested that the Municipal Solicitor, Mr. Card’s respond. His response is attached (Correspondence 9).

4. Commercial Constraint Lands Port Franks

Public Comments Mr. Jay Trothen, owner of the lands at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and Poplar Avenue in Port Franks which is the site of Christina`s restaurant, (Correspondence 10) has expressed concerns that the new commercial special policy area policies do not provide for residential uses within this Port Franks commercial area, as the current official plan policies do. He requested that similar policies allowing residential uses in this commercial designation be included in the Draft Official Plan. Staff Comments Lands lying along Riverside Drive, east of Poplar Avenue and west of Erie Street in Port Franks have been placed in a Commercial Special Policy Area designation in the Draft Official Plan. The lands in this designation are subject to flooding and include existing marinas and small scale local and tourist oriented uses, as well as some residential uses. The policies for this land use designation recognize existing uses and permit new commercial uses similar in type and scale to the existing permitted uses. The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands “Commercial Constraint”. Permitted uses include general commercial uses including retail stores, restaurants, offices, banks, personal service stores and similar commercial uses. The policies also provide for the establishment of limited amount of new freestanding residential uses, provided the new residential uses are compatible with the existing commercial development and do not preclude new commercial development

Staff Suggestion Staff can support the concern of Mr. Trothen and if Council agrees, will redraft the Commercial Special Policy Area policies to allow residential uses. (4)

5. Ipperwash ANSI Boundaries

Public Comments Concern has been expressed by: Brian Richardson - 6780 East Parkway Drive (Correspondence 11)

98

Mark Rupke - 6757 East Parkway Drive (Correspondence 12) J.W Gerald Rupke - 6753 East Parkway Drive (Correspondence 13) Leonard and Carol Hensley – 9794 East Parkway Drive and Lot 70, Plan 402, East Parkway Drive (Correspondence 14) Catherine Stevens – Lot 69, Plan 402, East Parkway Drive; (Correspondence 14) Janet Aiken – 6786 East Parkway (2 Lots) and Lot 71, Plan 402 (Correspondence 15) respecting the expansion of the Ipperwash ANSI. Staff Comments The boundary of the Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) in Ipperwash has been expanded in Draft 6 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan. Specifically, the boundaries have been expanded at the front of the properties lying east of Richardson Drive on the south side of East Parkway Drive as well as on the lakeside lots in this general area. The boundaries of ANSI`s are established by the Province. The expanded ANSI boundary was added to Draft 6 map schedules based on mapping information available at the County of Lambton. In light of the concerns, the County of Lambton Planning Technician, who revised the schedules, has confirmed the accuracy of the ANSI boundary with the Province. The Province has confirmed that the ANSI boundary is correct. The front part of the lands and the lake lots were not previously shown in current Official Plan as being part of the ANSI. The lands are designated as Ipperwash Residential with the Natural Heritage Schedule showing it located in the ANSI. Staff Suggestion If Council wishes to treat this area like that part Grand Bend Residential designation adjacent to the Old Ausable Channel (which is a Provincially Significant Wetland), policies can be added to the Ipperwash Residential designation to allow one single detached dwelling and associated accessory building to be located in this area without providing any environmental reporting. (5)

6. 9843 Army Camp Road Public Comments Concern has been expressed by property owners Al Hannahson and Randal Jago, respecting lands known municipally as 9843 Army Camp Road and located at the south west corner of Army Camp Road and East Parkway Drive. They feel their development rights are being taken away by the proposed Official Plan.

99

Staff Comments The Draft Official Plan designates the north ⅓ of the lands or approximately 600 ft. of the lands as residential. The balance of the lands is designated ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) to reflect the sensitive nature of the lands and their location within a provincially designated Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Much of the land lies within the area regulated by the St Clair Region Conservation Authority and is subject to a flooding hazard from the Lower Dufus Drain. It is the regulated area that overlays the residential designation which appears to be causing some concern, as it does not appear to be within the floodplain of the Lower Dufus Drain. The entire property lies within the extended ANSI as determined by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Current Official Plan designated the north ⅓ of the lands or approximately 600 ft. “Residential”. Most of the balance of the lands is designated “Hazard and Environmental Protection”. A small triangle of land at the south end of the property is also designated “Residential”. Staff Suggestions As suggested in 5 above, perhaps like that part of the Grand Bend Residential designation adjacent to the Old Ausable Channel, which is a Provincially Significant Wetland, policies can be added to the Ipperwash Residential designation which allows one single detached dwelling and associated accessory building to be located in this area without providing any environmental reporting. However, if the owners want to pursue new lot creation on the property, an environmental impact study would be required as the PPS and the Draft Lambton Shores Official Plan does not permit development within an ANSI unless it can be determined that there is no negative impact on the feature. (6) Staff has contacted the SCRCA to determine why the north area of the lands lies within their regulated area.

7. Increased General Regulations Lands

Public Comments Concern has been expressed by Graeme Wallace (Correspondence 1) respecting what he believes to be increased general regulation lands. Staff Comments The Schedules to Draft 6 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan show the areas regulated by the two Conservation Authorities having jurisdiction in Lambton Shores.

100

The Regulation limits shown on the Schedules reflect the areas that the Conservation Authorities have delegated authority over by virtue of Ontario Regulation 171/06 as approved by the Government of Ontario. The areas are not being expanded only shown as they exist by regulation today. Staff Suggestions No change is recommended.

8. Lands On Eric Street in Northville

Public Comments:

Mr. Philip Walden represents the owner of three undeveloped parcels of land located on either side of Eric Street in Northville, identified as Properties 12, 13 and 14 on Attachment 2 (Schedule A-3). Draft 6 of the proposed Lambton Shores Official designates the lands “Hazard Area with an overlay of Regulation Area. Mr. Walden indicates that the lands were designated Residential Constraint “A” which recognizes that the lands are located in the floodplain, but allowed Residential, after a floodplain study was completed by the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, as a “Special Policy Area under the Provincial Policy Statement. Mr. Walden is requesting that land be placed in a “Residential Special Policy Area “A” designation, with no restrictions being placed on the time frame for development. He indicates that large scale development of the lands would not be permitted by the servicing policies of the Official Plan as there are no municipal sanitary services in the area. He suggested that limited development of the lands be allowed in compliance with the servicing policies of the Official Plan which allows limited development of up to 5 new dwellings on septic systems. The area is serviced with municipal water, hydro, and gas. Staff Comments

The current Lambton Shores Official Plan designates the lands “Residential Constraint A”. Staff has reviewed this request and finds that in the first draft of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan the lands were designated “Hazard and Environmental Protection”. After reviewing the First Draft Council directed the lands be placed in the “Future (beyond 20 Years) Residential Development Special Policy Area A designation. As stated previously, the Future Development designation was placed on the lands to ensure that development was directed to the urban area of Grand Bend, which has municipal sanitary and water services and other community services. It is

101

recognized that Lambton Shores has a significant surplus of residentially designated lands and that development should be encouraged in serviced areas. Council may recall that the Draft Official Plan as originally prepared did not allow new lot creation except on municipal sanity and water services. Council has revised Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan to allow limited development of up to five lots on individual on-site sewage services and municipal water. Staff Suggestions

As directed by Council during review of Draft 1 of the Plan the land should be placed in a Residential Special Policy Area designation. Further, to be fair and equitable, the limited development option, permitting up to 5 lots on private individual septic systems could also be offered to these lands. As such Council could designate the lands to “Residential Special Policy Area “A” and rely on the servicing policies to limited large scale development. (8)

9. Residential Section 5.4

Public Comments Concern has been expressed by Michelle Doornbosch, Zelinka Priamo Planning Consultants and Concept Construction, respecting Section 5.4, bullet 13 on Page 89. Ms. Doornbosch would like to see single lot creation and single detached and semi-detached dwellings exempt from the requirement for site plan control.

Staff Comments Section 19.9 – Site Plan Control of the Draft Official Plan addresses site plan control in Lambton Shores. Paragraph 2 of that Section 19.9, which is at the top of page 213, specifically exempts residential uses including single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings and additions to these residential uses from Site Plan Control.

Staff Suggestions Perhaps for future clarity, this bullet could be amended to read:

All new residential development will be subject to Subdivision and Site Plan control, except as exempted in Section 19.9 and may be required to prepare a Sustainability Plan, as outlined in section 15.1.5.(9)

102

10. Section 7.3 Industrial Site Design Policies Public Comments Concern has been expressed by Michelle Doornbosch, - Zelinka Priamo Planning Consultants and Concept Construction, respecting Section 7.3 Site Design Policies for our Industrial Designation policies, specifically, bullets 5 and 8. She indicates that the requirements are not generally found in Official Plans and should be removed.

Staff Comments Section 7.3 - Bullet 5 states: The width of the building’s fronting façade shall be at least 30% of the lot width. Section 7.3 – Bullet 8 states: A minimum of 10% of the site will be landscaped and consists or appropriately managed naturalized areas using native plants. Existing trees and hedgerows will be preserved where possible. Council will recall that they had considerable discussion respecting site design policies in the draft Official Plan. It was the consensus of the majority of Council that the site design policies would remain in the plan, but that the following statement would be added at the beginning of the section: Noncompliance with these provisions does not require an amendment to this section, however, Council will use these policies to evaluate new industrial development. Staff Suggestions No change is recommended.

11. Ipperwash Road - Ipperwash

Public Comments 1. Gerry and Shelia Pyne, 9447 Ipperwash Road (Correspondence 16), expressed

concern respecting the change of the designation on the front part of their property from Agriculture to Residential. They are concerned that the change in designation will affect their rate of taxation, resulting in an increase in taxes. They are also concerned that the change will result in their horse farm not being permitted.

103

2. Renee Henderson, 9569 Ipperwash Road (Correspondence 17), is concerned with the Natural Heritage designation placed on her lands. She asks the following questions: 1. Why is my parcel of land not being considered for Residential designation? 2. What is different about my property that qualifies it to be Natural Environment

comparing it to all other properties on the west side of Ipperwash Rd. that are zoned Residential

3. What are the zoning by-laws that apply to Natural Environment designation and where can I access this information?

4. What affect does Natural Environment designation have on any future development of this property?

5. What adverse effect could this designation have on my property value and resale potential?

6. Who if anyone, has visually surveyed my land to verify the Wetlands area that has been added to the Official Plan draft?

The draft is not a true representation of the actual property. These large areas of wetlands do not exist.

Staff Comments

1. Gerry and Shelia Pyne

With respect to the Pynes’ concern related to an increase in taxation, the Municipal Finance Department was consulted and they advised that the actual use of the property determines how the taxation rate is determined. The Official Plan designation does not affect that.

With respect to the retention of the horse farm, it is a legal use which has the right to continue, despite a change in designation. At this time the actual Agricultural 1 zoning on the lands is not being changed. This zone permits agriculture which is the current use of the property. This information has been conveyed to the Pynes, who are satisfied.

2. Renee Henderson

The “Residential” designation proposed along the west side of Ipperwash Road, was intended to recognize the existing uses of the front portion of the properties (see Attachment 3). Additional lot creation was not anticipated when the Draft Official Plan was originally prepared as it did not allow new lot creation in areas without municipal sanitary services. This area does not have municipal sanitary services. Council has revised Draft 6 of the Proposed Lambton Shores Official Plan to allow limited development of up to five lots on individual on-site sewage services and municipal water.

104

The rear portion of the Henderson lands is located within the ANSI and the south portion of the front of the lands is subject of a provincially designated wetland as well as designated significant woodlot. The lands also lie within the area regulated by the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority. The current Natural Environment designation recognizes the significant natural heritage features existing on the lands. The policies respecting lands designated “Natural Environment” permits one dwelling per lot. The current Official Plan designates the front portion of the Henderson land as “Agriculture” with the rear being designated “Hazard and Environmental Protection” to recognize its location within an ANSI. The lands are also designated “Significant Woodlot”. The current plan did not allow residential development to occur. The wetland designation on the lands was established by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Staff Suggestions

The Henderson lands, as well as the residential designation on the west side of Ipperwash road have been reviewed and staff recommends the following:

1. The north part of the front portion of the Henderson lands could be placed in a

“Residential” designation. The dwelling on the Henderson property lies in this location and the area has been cleared. Future lot creation on the Henderson lands and on the other lands designated for residential purposes is subject of the natural heritage policies and any new development will have to prove that there is no negative impact on the natural heritage features. This will require that an environmental impact study be prepared (See Attachment 4). (11A)

2. The depth of the residential designations on other properties on the west side of

Ipperwash Road could be reduced so that the west boundary of the “Residential” designation is the east boundary of the ANSI. The lands within the ANSI should be designated Natural Environment (See Attachment 4). (11B)

12. Archeological

Public Comments

Concerns have been expressed by:

Graeme Wallace 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 1); and Ruth Ann Wallace 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 3)

105

respecting the mapping of archeological areas and the requirements for an archeological study. It is the Wallaces’ opinion that the requirement for an archeological study greatly increases the costs to land owners attempting to use their own land. Mr. Wallace also wonders how the archeological evaluation was done. Staff Comments

Archeological evaluations are required to support new development. Section 2.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement states:

“2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural

heritage landscapes shall be conserved.

2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved.

2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote

archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources.

2.6.5 Planning authorities shall consider the interests of Aboriginal

communities in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources.”

In order for Council to be satisfied that new development applications comply with Provincial Policy, Archeological Assessment reports are required. Archeological assessment reports are required in the current official plan under Section 23.1.3, which states:

“The Municipality will require the completion of archeological surveys for development proposed in areas where such features are believed to exist and require the excavation of these sites and/or where suitable, the preservation of the significant sites “

When Official Plan review was commenced, Fisher Archeological Consulting was retained to prepare a background report. The Archeological map included in the Draft Official Plan was prepared by the consultants.

Staff Suggestions No change is recommended.

106

13. Name for Agricultural Area

Public Comments Ruth Ann Wallace, 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 3), has expressed concern that the agricultural area of Lambton Shores has not been named, like the other Planning Areas in the Official Plan. She suggests that “Rural Agricultural Bosanquet or Central Bosanquet be considered. Staff Comments - None Staff Suggestions Council direction is required in this matter.

14. Sustainability Plans Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by: Graeme Wallace - 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 1) Michelle Doornbosch - Zelinka Priamo Planning Consultants and Concept Construction

respecting the inclusion of a requirement for a sustainability plan supporting development applications. It is Mr. Wallace’s opinion that requiring sustainability plans for new development will create chilling effects on development, it will send developers away and the added burden of time delays and expense will be detrimental to Lambton Shores. Michelle Doornbosch questioned the need for Sustainability Plans. She indicated that they are an added cost to developers and are subject to subjective opinion. She indicated that no developer is going to develop a site which is not sustainable, so the requirement for a sustainability plan is redundant and unnecessary. She asks if the sustainability plan will be reviewed and approved or is it just a requirement for the sake of process. She indicated that there is no level of measure and there needs to be a more detailed process outlined for review. She also indicated that the three major building blocks for sustainability: sustainable community form, sustainable land use and infrastructure and sustainable site, Building and design elements are not even addressed in the sustainability plan table. Staff Comments

107

Council has had considerable discussion respecting requirements for sustainability plans. It was Council’s decision to leave the requirement for sustainability plans in the Draft Official Plan, subject to a clause which was added which allowed Council to determine if a sustainability plan would be required for each development application. With respect to the process used to review a sustainability plan, Official Plans set the policy for requiring reports in support development of applications. They do not contain a process for review. Process and review of reports is an administrative process that will be established by Council and municipal staff once the requirement for sustainability plans is contained in the Official Plan. Finally, it has been suggested that there is no connection between the three major sustainability building blocks; Sustainable Community Design; Sustainable Land Use and Infrastructure Planning; and Sustainable Site, Building and Design Elements and the Table 6 - Sustainability Plan Components and examples of Measures. I disagree. There are many connections. For example; the natural heritage system protection, energy supply and infrastructure components; particularly land dedication for pedestrian and bicycle paths, promotion of alternative to car use; street design to optimize energy efficiency all are related to sustainable community form. Further, the water conservation and storm water control components relate sustainable infrastructure Planning. Finally the efficient site and buildings component relates to sustainable urban design. Staff Suggestions No change is recommended.

15. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by Graeme Wallace - 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 1), respecting the inclusion of a requirement for a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for any development in Forest, Main Street Grand Bend and downtown Arkona and Thedford. It is Mr. Wallace’s opinion that requiring these reports is too lengthy and expensive. He indicates that the towns are not so old so that they require extensive heritage evaluation before progressing with a new project. He indicates that the Royal Bank and Forest Community Health Centre have been constructed without such studies. Staff Comments Section 2.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement states:

108

“2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural

heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site

alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.”

In order for Council to be satisfied that new development applications comply with Provincial Policy, Section 14.22 of the Draft Official states:

“A Cultural Heritage Inventory Evaluation Report (CHER) may be required for any development, site alteration, infrastructure and public service facilities, as defined in Section 2.5, that potentially directly affect a significant built heritage resource or cultural landscape. The CHER completed in accordance with Ministry of Culture Guidelines.

A CHER may be required for any development in the Historic Village

Areas shown on Schedule D. These areas are located in Forest, Grand

Bend, Port Franks, Arkona and Thedford.

All new development and urban spaces will be designed to be in

character with historic streetscapes, as identified in Lambton Shores’

Community Design Plan (2008). Historic streetscapes include downtown

Forest, Main Street in Grand Bend and “downtown” Arkona. A CHER may

be required for any development affecting these areas.

There is no mandatory requirement to prepare a CHER for every development application in the municipality’s historic downtowns. The policy would require one be prepared if a proposed development proposed was identified as potentially affecting a significant built heritage resource or cultural landscape. Mr. Wallace is correct that CHER’s were not required for the Royal Bank and the Community Health Centre. Such reports were not required because the development as proposed was seen to respect the historic streetscape and built heritage resources. Staff Suggestions

109

No change is recommended.

16. Intensification and the Reduction of Development Lands Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by Graeme Wallace - 7013 Jura Line (Correspondence 1), respecting intensification and a significant reduction in land designated for development. He indicates that a target density of 7 units per acre is too high. He indicates it will result in very small lots. Staff Comments The target density of 7 units will not be comprised of single detached dwellings. It is intended to represent an average that includes other forms of housing, such as townhouses, semi-detached dwellings apartment buildings. As has been discussed in considering other addressed concerns, large lot development is still enabled through the policy framework of the draft official plan. Staff Suggestions No change is recommended.

17. Lakeshore Areas 1 and 2 as they affect 6492 West Parkway Drive Public Comments

Concern has been expressed by Patricia Marshall – 6492 West Parkway Drive (Correspondence 18), respecting the hazard designation along the Lake Huron Shoreline Staff Comments The shoreline policies in the official plan reflect provincial policy as it relates to the hazardous shoreline of the great lakes. Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy statement provides:

“3.1 Natural Hazards 3.1.1Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of:

a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shoreline of the Great Lakes which are impacted by flooding hazards, erosion hazards and /or dynamic beach;

110

3.1.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within:

a) the dynamic beach hazard;

c) areas that would be rendered inaccessible to people and vehicles during times of flooding hazard, erosion hazard and/or dynamic beach hazard unless it has been demonstrated that the site has safe access appropriate for the nature of the development and the natural hazard. “

The St Clair Region Conservation Authority regulates the Lake Huron Shoreline. They have completed a shoreline study of the hazards. The boundaries of the Lakeshore Area 1 and 2 designations are the result of the study which is based on Provincial Policy.

Staff Suggestions No change is recommended.

18. Allocation of Sewage Capacity

Public Comments Mr. Ernest Lewis of Grand Bend commented that sewage allocation has not been addressed.

Staff Comments Sewage allocation is reviewed when development applications are considered by Council. Council conditions of approval and the subdivision agreements set out how capacity allocation will be dealt with. Section 19.7, contains general policies relating to subdivision development. They direct Council to consider the adequacy of infrastructure when assessing subdivision development applications. Further it provides direction on how long subdivision approval should continue, if development has not commenced. The policies provide Council the flexibility to determine what is appropriate for each development based on specific requirements and situations. Staff Suggestions No change is recommended.

111

19. Other General Comments Received

Other comments of a more general nature were received and are summarized as follows;

Mrs. Eleanor Davis has expressed concern respecting reference in the Official Plan

to sustainable development. (Correspondence 19 and 20) Mr. Bob Sharen expressed concern that in his opinion the Draft Official Plan does not respect tourism or agriculture. He is concerned about the impact the draft plan will have on taxation and personal property rights. He is also concerned about the conservation authorities’ regulations.

Mr. Bob Pattison expressed concern that the draft official plan was severely restricting development rights along the Old Ausable Channel, which would reduce the value of property and as a result impact tax revenues. He objects to the use of the terms sustainable, sustainability and climate change. He considered the private property rights are being eroded. (Correspondence 21)

20. Addressed Concerns

Mr. Rick Frayne, of Grand Bend expressed concern at the Grand Bend Public Open House respecting the impact the 22 metre setback from the Old Ausable Channel, contained in the Grand Bend Residential Policies, might have on his property. Staff provided mapping to Mr. Frayne showing how the buffers would affect his property. Upon reviewing this information Mr. Frayne advised staff that his concerns were addressed.

112

APPENDIX ‘A’

Staff Suggestions 1A In order to provide more clarity that Section 3.4.2.7 Ecological Buffer Zones and

Section 3.5 Development Approvals Process and Environmental Impact Studies apply

to development and site alteration, these two sections could be combined into one

section.

1B The Second Bullet in Section 3.4.2.2- Environmentally Significant Areas

(ESA’s) which currently states:

Agricultural uses may continue adjacent to ESA’s, but shall not be

expanded;

could be revised as follows:

Existing Agricultural uses may continue within or adjacent to ESA’s,

but shall not be expanded)

2 To be fair and equitable, this limited development option, permitting up to 5 lots on private individual septic systems could also be offered to lands designated for Future Residential development. As such Council could designate the lands to “Residential” and rely on the servicing policies to limit large scale development.

3A Staff support Mr. Rood’s request to change the designation on his lands back to “Agriculture” from “Natural Environment”.

3B To be fair and equitable, and given the size of the lots (10 Acres) staff support the owners request to allow each of the lots to be divided into two lots for single detached dwelling purposes, subject to the Section 3.5 - Development Approvals Process and Environmental Impact Studies policies of the Draft Official Plan, that will limit and negative impact to the natural heritage features and ensure compliance with the Species at Risk Act.

4 Staff can support the concern of Mr. Trothen and if Council agrees, will redraft the Commercial Special Policy Area policies to allow residential uses.

5 If Council wishes to treat this area like that part Grand Bend Residential designation adjacent to the Old Ausable Channel (which is a Provincially Significant Wetland), policies can be added to the Ipperwash Residential designation to allow one single detached dwelling and associated accessory building to be located in this area without providing any environmental reporting.

6 As suggested in 5 above, perhaps like that part of the Grand Bend Residential designation adjacent to the Old Ausable Channel, which is a Provincially Significant Wetland, policies can be added to the Ipperwash Residential designation which allows one single detached dwelling and associated accessory building to be located in this area without providing any environmental reporting. However, if the owners want to pursue new lot creation on the property, an environmental impact study would be required as the PPS and the Draft Lambton Shores Official Plan does not permit

113

development within an ANSI unless it can be determined that there is no negative impact on the feature. (6)

8 As directed by Council during review of Draft 1 of the Plan the land should be placed in a Residential Special Policy Area designation. Further, to be fair and equitable, the limited development option, permitting up to 5 lots on private individual septic systems could also be offered to these lands. As such Council could designate the lands to “Residential Special Policy Area “A” and rely on the servicing policies to limited large scale development.

9 Perhaps for future clarity, this bullet could be amended to read:

All new residential development will be subject to Subdivision and Site Plan control, except as exempted in Section 19.9 and may be required to prepare a Sustainability Plan, as outlined in section 15.1.5.

11A The north part of the front portion of the Henderson lands could be placed in a “Residential” designation. The dwelling on the Henderson property lies in this location and the area has been cleared. Future lot creation on the Henderson lands and on the other lands designated for residential purposes is subject of the natural heritage policies and any new development will have to prove that there is no negative impact on the natural heritage features. This will require that an environmental impact study be prepared

11B The depth of the residential designations on other properties on the west side of Ipperwash Road could be reduced so that the west boundary of the “Residential” designation is the east boundary of the ANSI. The lands within the ANSI should be designated Natural Environment

114

APPENDIX ‘B’

Issues Requiring Council Direction 1C During Council’s review of the Official Plan, Council discussed buffer zones and

supported the current Section 4.4 as it only encourages agricultural uses to provide buffers adjacent to natural heritage features. It seems this Section has caused a lot of fear that such provisions will be forced on the agricultural community in the future. Council needs to determine if they want this section to remain in the Plan

13 Council direction required on naming Agricultural Area

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168


Report DCS 63-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014


FROM: Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services

RE: School Zone Speed Limit Review

RECOMMENDATION: THAT DCS 63-2014 regarding “School Zone Speed Limits” be received; and THAT school zones be established in the following areas:


Gill Road, from Main Street East (County Road #81) to 39 Gill Road.


Morris Street, from 16 Morris Street to 50 Morris Street.

MacDonald Street, from 40 MacDonald Street to 99 MacDonald Street.


Main Street North, from Townsend Line to 28 Main Street North

Queen Street, from 28 Queen Street West to 27 Prince Street North Lambton Secondary School

George Street, from Main Street South to 6 Park Lane; and

THAT a reduced speed limit of 40 km/h be established for these areas, enforceable from 8:00am – 4:30pm on school days, September 1 – June 30; and THAT staff prepare the necessary by-law to amend the speed limit in these areas for consideration at the September 18, 2014 Council meeting.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report presents a summary of the Municipality’s ability to establish reduced speed limits in school zones, and recommends a reduced speed limit and the applicable school zones based upon the requirements of the Highway Traffic Act and relevant traffic engineering literature.

169

BACKGROUND At the May 15, 2014 meeting Council received correspondence from Grand Bend Home and School articulating concerns about the speed of traffic on Gill Road in the area of the Grand Bend Public school. Council requested that staff report on the requirements to establish a community safety zone, and at the June 5, 2014 meeting the following resolution was passed:

Carried 14-0606-26 THAT the area of Gill road, from Main Street East to 660 feet (200 metres) south of Main Street East be designated as a Community Safety zone, and staff are directed to prepare the required by-law.

On June 19, 2014 Council enacted by-law# 68-2014 designating a section of Gill Road as a community safety zone. As a measure to increase traffic safety in the area of schools in Lambton Shores Council requested that staff report on the Municipality’s ability to reduce speed limits within all school zones located in Lambton Shores:

Carried 14-0703-29 THAT staff prepare a report on reducing vehicular speed limits within all Lambton Shores’ school zones as a complement to the “Community Safety Zone” designation.

The Highway Traffic Act (HTA) sets out the default speed limits for various roadways in Section 128. This section also provides the Municipality with the authority to modify speed limits in school zones. Please see attachment #1 for the applicable sections of the HTA. Section 128.(1) designates a speed limit of 50 km/h for built-up urban areas. Section 128. (2) provides a municipality with the ability to pass a by-law to establish a speed limit that is different than what is set out in 128.(1) for roadways under the municipality’s jurisdiction. Section 128.(5) provides the municipality to establish reduced speed limits for school zones, with the following conditions:

The reduced speed limit is only applicable in the “school zone” which can be established on a roadway that adjoins the entrance to, or exit from, a school;

The school zone is delineated within 150 m in either direction beyond the limits of the land used for the purposes of the school;

The reduced speed limit is only applicable on days which school is normally held;

The Municipality may prescribe specific times that the reduced speed limit is enforceable.

Various alternatives for the reduced speed limits in Lambton Shores’ school zones are discussed below.

170

ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER Speed Limit The draft notice of motion presented to Council indicated a desire to reduce the speed limit in school zones to 30 km/h. Staff has researched Ontario precedents and has found that it is common reduced speed limits in school zones to be either 40 km/h or 30 km/h. The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) reports that operating speeds under 40 km/h are generally not practically achieved unless significant traffic calming measures are implemented. This is supported by research published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers that reports speed compliance rates can be as low as 10-15% in school zones that are posted at 30 km/h. Practitioner literature reports research findings that drivers travel at a speed at which they feel is safe given the particular characteristics of a roadway. Simply posting a reduced speed limit has not been found to be effective at reducing driver speeds. Research has found higher driver compliance rates in a 30 km/h school zone speed limit when the speed limit of the approaching road section is 40 km/h. A 40 km/h speed limit is typically established for local residential roadways where land access to private property is the primary function of the road and traffic movement is a secondary consideration. For the roadways affected by this review, it is staff’s opinion that the majority serve a dual function of land access and traffic movement, the current 50 km/h speed limits are justified, and a reduction of speed limits to 40 km/h to accommodate school zone speed limits of 30 km/h would not be warranted. As a result of the considerations above, staff recommends an incremental approach of establishing a speed limit of 40 km/h for school zones. A speed limit of 30 km/h may be artificially low for the areas affected given the surrounding speed limit of 50 km/h. Further, it is expected that there could be a low compliance rates by drivers in a 30 km/h zone. This presents a risk to pedestrians as there may be a false sense of security with a 30 km/h speed limit despite the prevailing speed of traffic being higher. School Zone Locations Lambton Shores is currently home to four elementary schools and one secondary school. The proposed school zone for each school is articulated below based on the criteria established in Section 128.(5) of the Highway Traffic Act. The HTA stipulates that a school zone can only be established on a roadway that adjoins the entrance to or exit from a school. The HTA further stipulates that the school zone is delineated 150 m in either direction beyond the limits of the land used for the purposes of the school. A diagram of each of the proposed school zones is shown in Attachment #2 and each zone is further described below:

171

Bosanquet Central Public School

Located on County Road #9. Lambton Shores cannot establish a reduced school zone speed limit for this location.


Gill Road, from Main Street East (County Road #81) to 39 Gill Road.







George Street, from Main Street South to 6 Park Lane. Time Period for Enforcement The HTA sets out that the reduced speed limit is only enforceable when school is normally held. Staff has researched the enforceability periods established by other municipalities, and how these are communicated. There appears to be a wide range of statements used to identify when the reduced limit is enforceable. For days of enforceability, most statements are non-specific to accommodate for annual variations to school schedules. For time of enforceability, staff has found two common approaches: limit enforceability to normal drop-off and pick-up times, or have the reduced limit be enforceable for the duration of the school day. In staff’s opinion, full day enforceability is preferred so that recess times and lunch hours are also covered by the reduced limit. Research published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers reports that signage which communicates the actual time of enforcement is the most effective at achieving a higher driver compliance rate. It is recommended that the reduced speed limit be enforced with the following statement, which will be reflected by in the signage purchased:

“Enforceable from 8:00am – 4:30pm on School Days, September 1 – June 30” RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Staff recommends that school zones be established in the following areas:


Gill Road, from Main Street East (County Road #81) to 39 Gill Road (which is 150 m from the school’s property line).

172




St. John Fisher Catholic ElementarySchool



George Street, from Main Street South to 6 Park Lane. With a reduced speed limit of 40 km/h, enforceable from 8:00am – 4:30pm on school days, September 1 – June 30. As noted above, simply posting a reduced speed limit may not result in reduced driver speeds. Active enforcement is an important factor, and, if approved, staff will notify the OPP of the speed limit changes. In addition, each of the affected school zones will have scheduled times when Community Services will dedicate the speed indicating trailer to its respective speed zone in an effort to make drivers aware of their speed. Staff will return with the authorizing by-law at the next Council meeting to put these changes into effect. Once passed, the by-law will be provided to the OPP for enforcement of the new speed limits. FINANCIAL IMPACT Cost will be incurred to purchase and install new speed limit signs if this proposal is approved by Council. The Community Services department budgets for roadside signage as a part of the annual operating budget, and the costs of this speed limit change can be accommodated within the approved operating budget. CONSULTATION

When preparing this report, staff corresponded with the Lambton-Kent District School Board, the St. Clair District Catholic School Board, the Chatham Kent Lambton Administrative School Services, and the County of Lambton. The following is a summary of the comments received: Lambton-Kent District School Board:

Supportive on the reduction of speed limits in the areas of schools. St. Clair District Catholic School Board:

Supportive of reduced speed limits for the purposes of safety, but have not researched the topic sufficiently to form an opinion. Deferential to the municipality’s decision.

173

Chatham Kent Lambton Administrative School Services:

Responsible for school bus transportation of both boards, among other services.

Supportive on the reduction of speed limits in the areas of schools. County of Lambton

The County has a policy of not supporting Community Safety Zone (CSZ) requests. The County has researched this matter and available research literature indicates that the establishment of a CSZ does not improve road safety.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Highway Traffic Act, applicable sections. 2. Aerial views of the proposed school zone areas.

174

Highway Traffic Act:

128. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than,

(a) 50 kilometres per hour on a highway within a local municipality or within a built-up area;

(b) despite clause (a), 80 kilometres per hour on a highway, not within a built-up area, that is within a local municipality that had the status of a township on December 31, 2002 and, but for the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001, would have had the status of a township on January 1, 2003, if the municipality is prescribed by regulation;

(c) 80 kilometres per hour on a highway designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as a controlled-access highway under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, whether or not the highway is within a local municipality or built-up area;

(d) the rate of speed prescribed for motor vehicles on a highway in accordance with subsection (2), (5), (6), (6.1) or (7);

(e) the maximum rate of speed set under subsection (10) and posted in a construction zone designated under subsection (8) or (8.1); or

(f) the maximum rate of speed posted on a highway or portion of a highway pursuant to section 128.0.1. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 17 (1); 2006, c. 11, Sched. B, s. 6 (2); 2006, c. 32, Sched. D, s. 4 (1).

Rate of speed by by-law (2) The council of a municipality may, for motor vehicles driven on a highway or

portion of a highway under its jurisdiction, by by-law prescribe a rate of speed different from the rate set out in subsection (1) that is not greater than 100 kilometres per hour and may prescribe different rates of speed for different times of day. 2006, c. 32, Sched. D, s. 4 (3).

Rate in school zones (5) The council of a municipality may by by-law,

(a) designate a portion of a highway under its jurisdiction that adjoins the entrance to or exit from a school and that is within 150 metres along the highway in either direction beyond the limits of the land used for the purposes of the school; and

(b) for motor vehicles driven, on days on which school is regularly held, on the portion of a highway so designated, prescribe a rate of speed that is lower than the rate of speed otherwise prescribed under subsection (1) or (2) for that portion of highway, and prescribe the time or times at which the speed limit is effective. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 128 (5); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table; 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 29 (2); 2006, c. 32, Sched. D, s. 4 (6).

175

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm




Gill Road, from Main Street East (County Road #81) to 39 Gill Road (which is 150 m from the school’s property line).

176




177



Queen Street, from 28 Queen Street West to 27 Prince Street

178

North Lambton Secondary School

George Street, from Main Street South to 6 Park Lane.

179





RE: Policy #66 Community Grants Amendments and Draft Secondary Sponsorship Policy

RECOMMENDATION: THAT DCS 65-2014 regarding Policy #66 Community Grants and the draft Seconday Sponsorship Policy be received; and THAT the amendments to Policy #66 Community Grants be approved; and THAT the draft “Secondary Sponsorship Policy” be adopted and implemented for 2015 with a budget consideration of $2,000.00 be included during budget deliberations.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report summarizes the annual review of the Policy #66 Community Grants and recommends the implementation of a Secondary Sponsorship Policy per the following Council resolution: 13-0114-20 Carried

That staff draft a policy for Council approval on sponsoring events that do not qualify under the current Municipal grant policy.

BACKGROUND Community Grant Program The Lambton Shores Community Grant Program provides limited financial assistance to community groups within Lambton Shores to assist with events and programs. The program also provides for in-kind services such as fee waivers, staff assistance and equipment use. Each year, the policy undergoes an internal review, and recommendations are made based on past experiences and needs. In 2014, the changes are minor and of an administrative nature. The chart below identifies the specific changes and a copy of the policy can be reviewed in Attachment 1.

180

Section Current Change Rationale

Eligibility #4 One-time special requests for assistance will be considered on an individual merit basis. Examples of these types of requests would be flood or ice storm disaster relief requests either locally or on a broader scope.

One-time special requests for assistance will be considered on an individual merit basis.

Eliminate examples provided as provincial funding is more likely to assist in these circumstances.

Municipal Review #1 All requests for financial donations and in-kind grants will be considered having regard for the Municipality’s current budget.

Add: The Municipality reserves the right to adjust requested dollar amounts based on the annual budget allocation.

Council approves a budgeted amount annually for the program. Requested amounts may be adjusted to allow more groups to benefit from financial support.

The Community Grant Program describes six areas for funding:

1) Agricultural / Rural Affairs 2) Arts / Culture / Community Heritage 3) Community / Special Events 4) Community Beautification / Environmental Awareness 5) Supporting Youth / Seniors 6) Tourism / Economic Development

In order to be eligible for a financial grant or in-kind donation, groups must be based in Lambton Shores (some exceptions for County-based groups), and must be non-profit. For-profit groups, political organizations, individuals, special interest groups and adult sports leagues are ineligible for funding. In addition, uniforms, travel, equipment rentals and rent (other than municipal facilities) are ineligible expenses. Secondary Sponsorship Program Occasionally, requests for assistance are submitted after the Community Grant deadline of October 31 has passed. Currently there is no official mechanism in place to respond to these requests. A secondary sponsorship policy would help to address these issues and provide local organizations with some flexibility when seeking financial support from the Municipality.

181

A copy of the draft Secondary Sponsorship Policy is included in Attachment 2 and is proposed as a compliment to the existing Community Grant program. The draft policy proposes that a budget of $2,000.00 per year be established for the Secondary Sponsorship Policy. Further, it recommends that individual requests are limited to a maximum of $500.00 to ensure that a minimum of four groups would have the opportunity to benefit from the program per year. Under the policy, requests will not be considered for municipal sponsorship unless the event/program is developed after the deadline of the Community Grant Program has passed. Funding will not be provided to a group that has already received funding through the Community Grant Program in the same year. Additionally, funding through this policy will not be provided more than one time per year to any group. The draft Secondary Sponsorship Policy provides a mechanism to provide financial support to events or programs that are developed after the Community Grant Program deadline has passed. Requests will be accepted on an ongoing basis throughout the year until the budgeted amount has been spent. Community Services staff will receive all requests and determine funding eligibility based on the criteria and categories described in Policy #66 Community Grants. Staff will be able to approve grant requests through the Secondary Sponsorship Policy as they will be $500.00 or less, as outlined in Policy #25 Donations. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER

1. No contribution from Lambton Shores. Requests of this nature would not be considered and the organization would need to use other resources for financial support.

2. Include one-time sponsorship requests into the existing Community Grant Policy. In order to allow for flexibility, this option is not recommended as specific eligibility criteria and deadlines have been established for the grant policy.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS It is recommended that the revisions to Policy #66 Community Grants be approved. Further, it is recommended that the Secondary Sponsorship Policy be adopted and implemented in 2015 with a budget consideration of $2,000.00 for the program. With a $500.00 per request limit, this would allow at least four groups to receive assistance per year. The amount will be reviewed annually during the budget process to determine if the amount needs to be increased or decreased based on the number of requests received. FINANCIAL IMPACT

182

The Municipality budgets for the Community Grant program in its annual budget, and the final budget amount is subject to Council approval. The recommended changes to the Community Grant program have no direct financial impact, but clarify that the Municipality can adjust grant requests to achieve the approved budget allocation. A budget allocation of $2,000.00 per year is recommended for the draft Secondary Sponsorship Policy. CONSULTATION

Community Services staff contacted area municipalities that participate in the South Western Ontario Recreation Facilities Association (SWORFA) for comparable sponsorship programs; however, no municipalities reported having a similar program available. ATTACHMENTS

1. Policy #66 Community Grants 2. Draft Policy Secondary Sponsorship Program

183

Municipality of Lambton Shores Policy #:

Effective Date:

DRAFT Secondary Sponsorship Policy Purpose The Municipality of Lambton Shores has adopted a “Secondary Sponsorship Policy” to establish a program to provide limited financial assistance to community groups and organizations. The purpose of this policy is to provide a means of supporting activities or special events deemed to provide a public good to the residents of Lambton Shores that are organized after the annual Community Grant program review. Eligibility As part of the annual budget process Council will consider a $2,000 commitment to support this policy. Support will only be in the form of a financial donation. Applications will be considered starting at the beginning of the fiscal year and reviewed on a bi-monthly basis to determine eligibility. Sponsorships will be limited to a maximum $500.00 per request. Requests will not be considered for municipal sponsorship unless the event/program is developed after the deadline of the Community Grant program has passed. Events developed or in the planning stage prior to the annual Community Grant program deadline must apply for municipal assistance under that program. Requests for sponsorship of new events will be given first priority. Funding for recurring events will only be considered for the inaugural event. Funding for recurring events in their second iteration or later will be considered under the Community Grant program and not this program. Applications under this program will be considered up until the annual budget allocation is fully spent. The activity or event must fall under the funding categories and eligibility criteria that have been established for the Community Grant Program. The funding categories are as follows:

1. Agriculture / Rural Affairs

2. Arts / Culture / Community Heritage

3. Community / Special Events

4. Community Beautification / Environmental Awareness

5. Supporting Youth / Seniors

6. Tourism / Economic Development

Community Services staff will review the request against the edibility criteria and guidelines set forth in the Community Grant Policy #66 to determine if a sponsorship request is to be approved.

184

Requests may be submitted at anytime during the year, however funding is limited to the annual amount that is allocated to this program budget. Funding will not be provided to a group that has received assistance through the Community Grant program in the same year. Funding will not be provided to a group who has already received assistance under this program in the same year. Funding under this program will not be provided two years in a row. Groups and organizations interested in receiving funds for future programs will be encouraged to apply under the Community Grant program. Requesting Municipal Sponsorship Requests for municipal sponsorship must be made by submitting the requisite application form, attached as “Appendix A” to this policy. The form and accompanying documents shall be submitted to:

The Municipality of Lambton Shores Community Services Department

9575 Port Franks Road, RR 1 Thedford, ON N0M 2N0

Accountability

1. Community groups or organizations approved for a municipal sponsorship will be held accountable for the expenditure of the funds in accordance with the stated objectives/plans. Requests in future years will be reviewed based on past demonstrated fiscal responsibility of the community group or organization.

2. Funds granted under this program are not transferable between projects or groups without prior municipal approval, and must be used for the specific purposes outlined.

3. Project Evaluations Forms (provided) must be completed and submitted to the Community Services Department within two months of the completion of the event or project.

Municipal Recognition Organizations receiving a municipal sponsorship shall acknowledge the Municipality’s contribution through printed material or other promotional means. The Municipality’s logo is available from the Community Services Department. Policy Review This policy will be reviewed on an as needed basis by the Community Services Department. 185

Appendix A

Lambton Shores Sponsorship Application Form

Applicants must review the Community Grant Policy and Lambton Shores Secondary

Sponsorship Policy prior to submitting an application.

1. Applicant Information

Organization Name: ____________________________________________________

Contact Name: ____________________________________________________

Mailing Address: ____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

Telephone Number: ____________________________________________________

Email Address: ____________________________________________________

2. Assistance Requested

Financial Donation: $ _________________ (maximum $500.00)

3. Funding Categories

Which funding category are you applying for?

o Agriculture / Rural Affairs

o Arts / Culture / Community Heritage

o Community / Special Events

o Community Beautification / Environmental Awareness

o Supporting Youth / Seniors

o Tourism / Economic Development

4. Project Description

4.1. Provide a brief description of the event, program or project.

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

4.2. For what specific purposes are the requested grant funds to be utilized within your

organization?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________ 186

4.3. Who will benefit from the proposed event, project or program (i.e. children, seniors,

persons with disabilities, low income residents, etc.)?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

5. Organizational Details

5.1. Provide a brief history of your organization, and indicate if it is incorporated as a non-

profit organization.

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

5.2. What are the general objectives / services of your organization?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

5.3. In what geographical area does your organization operate?

____________________________________________________________________________

5.4. Do volunteers participate in your organization? If yes, indicate the number of volunteers

and type of involvement.

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

5.5. List the Executive Officers of your organization:

Name Position Town

6. Financial Information

6.1. Has your organization received funding from the Municipality in prior years?

□ YES □ NO 187

If yes, indicate past amounts:

Year Amount

6.2. What other steps are being taken to provide revenue (include any other grants that the

organization has received, admission fees, donations, etc.).

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

6.3. Provide a budget for the event, program or project and / or the organization, and the

organization’s financial statement from the previous year or financial statement from the

previous years’ event.

6.3.1.1. For groups showing a surplus, a statement of the intended use of the

surplus

6.3.1.2. For groups showing a deficit, a statement as to how the deficit will be

eradicated

7. Terms and Conditions

In the event that a grant is awarded, the applicant agrees to the following:

To provide a written statement of the use of funds within two months of the event, project

or program.

To complete the Project Evaluation Form (provided) within two months of the completion

of the event, program or project.

To acknowledge the support of the Municipality of Lambton Shores in all printed material

and through other promotional means.

The funds will be used only for the purposes described in this application.

To inform Council if the project is delayed or changed substantially for any reason.

In the event the project does not go forward, the applicant will return those funds granted

for the proposed project.

I agree to the terms and conditions outlined above. The information contained in this application

is, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct. I acknowledge that the contents of this

application may be discussed in an open Council forum.

_________________________ _______________________ _________________________

Print Name Title/Position Signature

_________________________

Date 188

Statement of Revenues and Expenditures

______________________________________

(Name of Organization)

For the Year Ending ________________

Sources of Revenue Current Budget Last Year Actual

(list separately) $ ___________ $ ___________

(Include ticket sales, user fees, donations

Fund raising events, service charges, including all

municipal, provincial and federal grants, etc.)

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

___________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

Total Revenues: $ ___________ $ ___________

Expenditures: ( ie permit fees, printing etc.)

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

Total Expenditures: $ ___________ $ ___________

Surplus/Deficit ___________ ___________

Surplus/Deficit from prior year: ____________ ___________

Cash on Hand: ____________ ___________

189

SAMPLE BALANCE SHEET

Lambton Shores' Seniors

Family Fun Day

STATEMENT OF INCOME

October 30, 2008

SAMPLE BALANCE

SHEET

INCOME

DONATIONS

Opening Balance

$ 201.15

Lambton Wildness

200.00

Sponsor- Municipality of Lambton Shores 100.00

Sponsor - Canadian Workers

100.00

Sponsor - Harley James Dental

100.00

Sponsor - The Little Store on the

Corner

100.00

Registration

355.00

Cookie Sales

152.00

Total Donations and Income

1308.15

EXPENSES

Advertising

158.50

Brochures, Signage

700.00

Fuel

20.00

Baking Supplies

80.75

T-Shirts

250.00

TOTAL EXPENSES

1209.25

NET INCOME TO BE APPLIED TO NEXT YEAR'S EVENT

$ 98.90

190

Appendix B

Municipality of Lambton Shores Project Evaluation Form

Applicant Information:


Contact Name: ____________________________________________________

Mailing Address: ____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________


Email Address: ____________________________________________________

Project/Event Description:

____________________________________________________________________________

What specific results were achieved through the funding of your project?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Did this grant benefit the community as anticipated or expected?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

As a result of this grant did your organization increase or enhance partnerships and

collaborations with other groups in the community? Explain.

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

If you received a financial grant, attach a financial report that outlines the project income

(funding) and expenditures. Invoices for the event, program or project must also be

included.

**Attach photos of the completed event, project or program

_________________________ _______________________ _________________________


_________________________

Date

191

Municipality of Lambton Shores

Policy # 066

Effective Date: September 11, 2012

Repeals Policy # 035

Community Grant Program

Purpose

The Municipality of Lambton Shores has adopted a “Community Grant Program” to

provide limited financial assistance to community groups and organizations within the

Municipality to assist with activities or special events, in recognition of the value of these

groups to the well-being and growth of the community and in helping the Municipality

retain a strong community focus.

Funding Options and Criteria

Each year, as part of the annual budget process, Council will determine the financial

commitment to the “Community Grant Program”. Council will also establish a budget

amount for in-kind services such as rental fee waivers, staff support and equipment

supply.

A maximum of $2,000.00 per request has been established for financial

contributions

A maximum of $2,500.00 per request has been established for in-kind services

Capital projects for municipal property will not be funded through the Community

Grant Program. Capital project requests must be submitted in writing to the

Director of Community Services and will be assessed for eligibility based on

budget projections and capital planning within the Municipality. A meeting with

the organization may be required at staff’s discretion. Capital project requests

are to be submitted by August 1 of the year preceding the proposed project for

Council consideration.

In-kind support will be limited to the use of Municipal property at reduced or no

cost, waiving of permit fees, municipal staff support, loan of municipal equipment,

and 3rd Party Liability Insurance Coverage. In-kind support will not include

equipment rental fees or payment of invoices. Any refundable deposits (i.e.

damage deposits) will not be waived.

The Director of Community Services, at his/her discretion, may require

organizations to provide volunteer support to assist staff when in-kind services

192

are granted and/or when in-kind services exceed the maximum grant amount.

This will be coordinated on an individual case basis.

Categories for Funding

1. Agriculture / Rural Affairs

2. Arts / Culture / Community Heritage

3. Community / Special Events

4. Community Beautification / Environmental Awareness

5. Supporting Youth / Seniors

6. Tourism / Economic Development

Applications

1. All grant applications shall be submitted on the approved Community Grant

Application Form.

2. All application forms and supporting documents must be received by the

Community Services Department no later than October 31 each year.

3. Application forms will be available in Municipal offices and on the Municipal

website by September 1 each year.

4. Availability of application forms will be advertised on the Municipal website,

through weekly email updates, and in the Living in Lambton Shores weekly

advertisement in local newspapers.

5. Grant application forms shall include:

a. The name of the organization, and the contact information (name,

address, email address and telephone number) of a person who can

answer questions regarding the information submitted in the application

b. Financial assistance or in-kind donation request

c. Description of the event, program or project

d. Details of the organization

e. Financial information including a budget for the event/project/program and

the financial statement from the previous year from either the event or the

organization

i. If report shows a surplus, a statement of intended use of the

surplus

193

ii. If report shows a deficit, a statement as to how the deficit will be

eradicated

f. Financial reporting

g. Project evaluation

Eligibility

1. Applicants, with the exception of local elementary and secondary schools, must

be non-profit community groups and organizations.

2. Organizations must be based in the Municipality of Lambton Shores, with at least

a majority of members being municipal residents. Membership and programs

must be open to all residents, and services, programs and activities must be of

benefit primarily to Lambton Shores residents.

3. The organization should have demonstrated support from some other source

than public funds (i.e. through ticket sales, membership fees, provincial/federal

funding or community donations).

4. One-time special requests for assistance will be considered on an individual

merit basis.

5. County organizations may be considered for a Municipal grant if the

program/event provides a clear benefit and/or service to Lambton Shores

residents.

6. If a parent organization is making an application for a financial grant and/or in-

kind contribution, the affiliated organizations must prove eligibility for in-kind

services and/or financial grants, if the requested services will directly impact

them.

Ineligible for Funding

1. Groups that have failed to comply with reporting requirements from previous

grants

2. Requests for contributions to fund prior year deficits incurred by the organization

3. Organizations which are profit oriented

4. Organizations with a political mandate

194

5. Special interest groups and clubs

6. Individuals

7. Travel, accommodation, uniforms, personal equipment, rent (excluding Municipal

facilities), or debt repayment

8. Attendance at conferences, workshops or seminars

9. Requests for grants from recreational sports groups (with the exception of minor

sports), individual athletes or teams for a competition or to subsidize participation

in a sports event

10. Retroactive funding will not be considered

Council may grant special consideration to entities that do not meet all of the above

criteria, but are unique in nature and fulfill a specific need in the community.

The granting of financial assistance in any year is not to be regarded as a commitment

by the Municipality to continue such assistance in future years. In addition, the

Municipality will not provide guaranteed funding beyond the current year. In making

grants, the Municipality may impose `conditions as it deems fit.

Municipal Review

1. All requests for financial donations and in-kind grants will be considered having

regard for the Municipality’s current budget. The Municipality reserves the right

to adjust requested dollar amounts based on the annual budget allocation. Under

normal circumstances, only one request per organization is to be considered in a

calendar year.

2. Applications will be reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and compliance with

this policy.

Incomplete applications will be returned to the organization with a list of the

additional information required. Completed applications must be submitted no

later than October 31, incomplete applications received on or after this date will

not be considered for a grant.

195

Applications that do not comply with this policy will be returned with an

explanation as to why the request does not comply.

3. All grant requests will be assessed in terms of the need for the project; cost

effectiveness, financial viability, contribution to the quality of life in the community

and community involvement/response.

4. Staff are authorized to administer requests for donations of less than $500.00, as

per Policy 25-2002 Requests for Donations Under $500.00.

5. Council will make the final decision on all donations valued over $500.00, and

may make exceptions to any criteria as it deems necessary.

Accountability

1. Applicants awarded a grant will be held accountable for the expenditure of the

funds in accordance with the stated objectives/plans. Grants in future years will

be reviewed based on past demonstrated fiscal responsibility of the applicants.

2. Funds granted under this program are not transferable between projects or

groups without prior Council approval, and must be used for the specific

purposes outlined.

3. Accountability statements must be completed and submitted to the Community

Services Department within two months of the completion of the event or project,

but in all cases, by October 31.

Year-end financial statements are to be submitted by January 31 of the year

following the grant.

4. Project Evaluations Forms (provided) must be completed and submitted to the

Community Services Department within two months of the completion of the

event or project.

Municipal Liability Insurance Coverage

In support of the efforts of volunteers, community groups and organizations, the

Municipality may extend its liability insurance coverage to the directors and volunteers

associated with community events. The insurance coverage offered would protect the

196

organizers from third party liability claims by those who sustain an injury or property

damage by participating in or attending the event.

Groups wishing to be covered under the Municipal Insurance Liability Coverage are

required to provide details on the event, including the date, location, activities, names of

volunteers and the directors (which is to include at least one Municipal Councillor), a

copy of the operating budget, and how the proceeds from the event will be distributed.

Within 60 days of the event, final financial and event information is to be submitted to

the Municipality. The information provided will be submitted to Council and if the event

meets the Municipal criteria, a resolution will be passed allowing them inclusion under

our insurance program, and the group is informed of the coverage provided and the

reporting requirements.

Municipal Recognition

Organizations receiving financial and or in-kind grants shall acknowledge the Municipality’s contribution through all printed material and other promotional means. The Municipality’s logo is available from the Community Services Department. Application Dates Application forms will be available on the Municipal Website and in Municipal offices by September 1 each year. Completed applications must be received by the Community Services Department on or before October 31 each year. Publication Notice of availability of applications and application deadlines will be posted on the Municipal Website, in Living in Lambton Shores weekly newspaper advertisements and through weekly email updates. Reporting All groups receiving a financial and/or in-kind grant from the Municipality of Lambton Shores must complete a Project Evaluation Form (provided), to be submitted to the Community Services Department no more than two (2) months after the completion of the event, program or project, or by October 31 of the grant year – whichever comes first. Groups must submit a financial report outlining the project income and expenditures, and must attach any invoices relating to the project, event or program. Administered by the Director of Community Services

197

Lambton Shores Municipal Grant/Assistance Application Form

Note: Eligible organizations must submit the completed application form to the Community

Services Department on or before October 31 to be considered for a community grant.

Applicants must review the Community Grant Policy prior to submitting an application.

1. Applicant Information


Contact Name: ____________________________________________________

Mailing Address: ____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________


Email Address: ____________________________________________________

2. Assistance Requested

Financial Donation: $ _________________ (maximum $2,000.00)

In Kind Services: $ _________________ (maximum $2,500.00 calculate total using

the chart below)

Service Quantity/Hours Rate Total

Rental Fee Waiver Fee schedule available from the Community Services Department

Application Fee Waiver

Fee schedule available from the Community Services Department

Parking Pass (Grand Bend Beach)

$20.00/day

Snow Fence Drop Off – to be set up by group

$80.00/hr

Equipment Drop Off $80.00/hr $26.00/hr extra operator

Staff support $26.00/hr

3rd

Party Liability Insurance Coverage

No Fee

Other

198

** Note: groups are asked to estimate the number of hours/types of services required.

The Community Services Department may make adjustments based on actual hours

and/or experience from past events.

Volunteer support may be required to assist with equipment set up/take down at the

discretion of the Director of Community Services or his/her designate.

3. Funding Categories

Which funding category are you applying for?

o Agriculture / Rural Affairs

o Arts / Culture / Community Heritage

o Community / Special Events

o Community Beautification / Environmental Awareness

o Supporting Youth / Seniors

o Tourism / Economic Development

4. Project Description

4.1. Provide a brief description of the event, program or project.

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

4.2. For what specific purposes are the requested grant funds to be utilized within your

organization?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

4.3. Who will benefit from the proposed event, project or program (i.e. children, seniors,

persons with disabilities, low income residents, etc.)?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

5. Organizational Details

5.1. Provide a brief history of your organization, and indicate if it is incorporated as a non-

profit organization.

199

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

5.2. What are the general objectives / services of your organization?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

5.3. In what geographical area does your organization operate?

____________________________________________________________________________

5.4. Do volunteers participate in your organization? If yes, indicate the number of volunteers

and type of involvement.

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

5.5. List the Executive Officers of your organization:

Name Position Town

** Note: if requesting 3rd Party Liability Insurance Coverage, a member of Council must be listed

as one of the Executives.

6. Financial Information

6.1. Has your organization received funding from the Municipality in prior years?

□ YES □ NO

If yes, indicate past amounts:

Year Amount

200

6.2. What other steps are being taken to provide revenue (include any other grants that the

organization has received, admission fees, donations, etc.).

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

6.3. Provide a budget for the event, program or project and / or the organization, and the

organization’s financial statement from the previous year or financial statement from the

previous years’ event.

6.3.1.1. For groups showing a surplus, a statement of the intended use of the

surplus

6.3.1.2. For groups showing a deficit, a statement as to how the deficit will be

eradicated

7. Terms and Conditions

In the event that a grant is awarded, the applicant agrees to the following:

To provide a written statement of the use of funds within two months of the event, project

or program.

To complete the Project Evaluation Form (provided) within two months of the completion

of the event, program or project.

To acknowledge the support of the Municipality of Lambton Shores in all printed material

and through other promotional means.

The funds will be used only for the purposes described in this application.

To inform Council if the project is delayed or changed substantially for any reason.

In the event the project does not go forward, the applicant will return those funds granted

for the proposed project.

I agree to the terms and conditions outlined above. The information contained in this application

is, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct. I acknowledge that the contents of this

application will be discussed in an open Council forum.

_________________________ _______________________ _________________________


_________________________

Date

201

Statement of Revenues and Expenditures

______________________________________

(Name of Organization)

For the Year Ending ________________

Sources of Revenue Current Budget Last Year Actual

(list separately) $ ___________ $ ___________

(Include ticket sales, user fees, donations

Fund raising events, service charges, including all

municipal, provincial and federal grants, etc.)

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

___________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

Total Revenues: $ ___________ $ ___________

Expenditures: ( ie permit fees, printing etc.)

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

_____________________________ ___________ ___________

Total Expenditures: $ ___________ $ ___________

Surplus/Deficit ___________ ___________

Surplus/Deficit from prior year: ____________ ___________

Cash on Hand: ____________ ___________

202

SAMPLE BALANCE SHEET

Lambton Shores' Seniors

Family Fun Day

STATEMENT OF INCOME

October 30, 2008

SAMPLE BALANCE

SHEET

INCOME

DONATIONS

Opening Balance

$ 201.15

Lambton Wildness

200.00

Sponsor- Municipality of Lambton Shores 100.00

Sponsor - Canadian Workers

100.00

Sponsor - Harley James Dental

100.00

Sponsor - The Little Store on the

Corner

100.00

Registration

355.00

Cookie Sales

152.00

Total Donations and Income

1308.15

EXPENSES

Advertising

158.50

Brochures, Signage

700.00

Fuel

20.00

Baking Supplies

80.75

T-Shirts

250.00

TOTAL EXPENSES

1209.25

NET INCOME TO BE APPLIED TO NEXT YEAR'S EVENT

$ 98.90

203

Municipality of Lambton Shores Project Evaluation Form

Applicant Information:


Contact Name: ____________________________________________________

Mailing Address: ____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________


Email Address: ____________________________________________________

Project/Event Description:

____________________________________________________________________________

What specific results were achieved through the funding of your project?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Did this grant benefit the community as anticipated or expected?

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

As a result of this grant did your organization increase or enhance partnerships and

collaborations with other groups in the community? Explain.

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

If you received a financial grant, attach a financial report that outlines the project income

(funding) and expenditures. Invoices for the event, program or project must also be

included.

**Attach photos of the completed event, project or program

_________________________ _______________________ _________________________


_________________________

Date

204




FROM: Brent Kittmer, P.Eng., Director of Community Services

RE: 2014 Drinking Water Inspection Reports

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report DCS 66-2014 regarding the “2014 Drinking Water Inspection Reports” be received for Council’s information.

__________________________________________________________

SUMMARY This report presents the 2014 Annual Drinking Water Inspection Reports for the Lambton Shores drinking water systems as prepared by the Ministry of the Environment. This report is presented to Council for information so that Council is aware of the safe operation of the municipal water systems as necessary under Section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. BACKGROUND The Municipality of Lambton Shores owns two large municipal drinking water systems servicing its’ residents. These drinking water systems are subject to requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 and are inspected by the Ministry of the Environment at least once per year to ensure their compliance with applicable legislation. Both systems were inspected by the Ministry of the Environment on July 10, 2014. The two systems are referred to as the East Lambton Shores Distribution System and the West Lambton Shores Distribution System. Operations Management International, Canada (OMI) is contracted to carry out the operation and maintenance activities associated with Lambton Shores drinking water systems. They are required to perform the necessary tasks to ensure the municipal systems provide safe and compliant drinking water to its users. Both systems received final inspection ratings of 100%, meaning that there were no non-compliances observed during the inspection. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER This report is presented for informational purposes only. No alternatives are presented. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS This report is presented for informational purposes only. There are no recommended actions 205

FINANCIAL IMPACT There are no financial impacts related to this report. CONSULTATION

Ministry of the Environment, Sarnia District, Drinking Water Branch

ATTACHMENTS

East Lambton Shores Distribution System 2014 Inspection Report

West Lambton Shores Distribution System 2014 Inspection Report

206

WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Ministry of the Environment

Inspection Report

1-BD0N0Inspection Number:

Jul 10, 2014Date of Inspection:

260006581Site Number:

Inspected By: Paul Tersteege

207

Ministry of the EnvironmentDrinking Water Inspection Report

Owner Information

Signatures

Inspection Summary

Appendices

Inspection Details

Non-Compliance with Regulatory Requirements and Actions Required

Table of Contents

Description

2

22

Summary of Best Practice Issues and Recommendations

Appendix 1 - Inspection Rating ReportAppendix 2 - Area MapAppendix 3 - Continuous Monitoring Tag and Set PointsAppendix 4 - Summary of Reported Sample ResultsAppendix 5 - Drinking Water System Dossier - ExcerptsAppendix 6 - Contacts

Introduction 4

Treatment Processes 4

Treatment Process Monitoring 5

Operations Manuals 5

Logbooks 6

Security 6

Certification and Training 6

Water Quality Monitoring 7

Water Quality Assessment 7

Reporting & Corrective Actions 8

9

10

11

4

208

OWNER INFORMATION:

7883

AMTELECOM PARKWAY

FOREST

ON N0N 1J0

Street Number:

Street Name:

Unit Identifier:

City:

Province: Postal Code:

Company Name: LAMBTON SHORES,THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF

INSPECTION DETAILS:

WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMSite Name:

Site Address: LAMBTON SHORES

County/District: Lambton Shores

MOE District/Area Office: Sarnia District

Health Unit: LAMBTON HEALTH UNITHealth Unit:

Conservation Authority N/A

MNR Office: N/A

Category: Large Municipal Residential

Inspection Type: Unannounced

Inspection Number: 1-BD0N0

Date of Inspection: Jul 10, 2014

Date of Previous Inspection: Jun 05, 2013

Site Number: 260006581

COMPONENTS DESCRIPTION

West Lambton Shores Distribution SystemSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

Lambton Shores is supplied by two municipal water systems – the East and the West LambtonShores Distribution Systems. In order to understand this large municipal residential system, one hasto appreciate components inside and outside of Lambton Shores that are part of other area watersystems.

Comments:

1. Townsend Line Meter ChamberSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

The south and westerly part of Lambton Shores receives water from the Lambton Area Water SupplySystem (LAWSS) via a meter chamber at the northwest corner of Townsend Line and Hwy 21. Thewater received by the Municipality originates from a water treatment plant in Sarnia. The water isconveyed across Lambton County via arterial mains and the East Lambton Booster Station.

.

Comments:

Ministry of the EnvironmentInspection Report

Page 2 of 11 on 31/07/2014 (dd/mm/yyyy)Report Generated for terstepa

Site #: 260006581

Date of Inspection: 10/07/2014 (dd/mm/yyyy)

WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 209

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

2. Forest StandpipeSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

From their chamber, LAWSS has a 300mm main that extends along Townsend Line to their 3,841m3standpipe in Forest.

Comments:

3. Emergency Interconnection with LHPWSSSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

The Municipality owns a 300mm watermain that stretches along Hwy 21 from Townsend Line to WestIpperwash Road (where there is an emergency interconnection with the Lake Huron Primary WaterSupply System).

Comments:

4. Continuous AnalyserSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

The Municipality has a chlorine analyser in their main sewage lift station at 55 Clyde Street in Forest.The analyser continuously monitors the free chlorine residual in the Municipality’s water distributionsystem, and is equipped with an alarm.

Comments:

5. Bulk Water StationSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

The Municipality has a bulk water filling station at 7875 Rawlings Road in Forest.

Comments:

MOE DWS MappingSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:DWS Mapping Point

Not Applicable

Comments:



Site #: 260006581



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

INSPECTION SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

* The primary focus of this inspection is to confirm compliance with Ministry of theEnvironment legislation and authorizing documents such as Orders and Certificates ofApproval, as well as evaluating conformance with Ministry drinking water related policiesand guidelines during the inspection period.

This report is based on an inspection of a "stand alone connected distribution system".This type of system receives treated water from a separately owned "donor" system. Thisreport contains all of the elements required to assess key compliance and conformanceissues associated with a "receiver" system to ensure that the system was not beingoperated or managed in a "deficient" condition, as defined under O. Reg. 172/03. The reportdoes not contain items associated with the inspection of the donor system, such as sourcewaters, intakes/wells and treatment facilities.

This drinking water system is subject to the legislative requirements of the Safe DrinkingWater Act, 2002 (SDWA) and regulations made therein, including Ontario Regulation 170/03,"Drinking Water Systems" (O.Reg.170/03). This inspection has been conducted pursuant toSection 81 of the SDWA.

Your system was chosen for a focused inspection during this inspection cycle becauseinspection findings over the past three years were such that the number of violations wereminimal or non existent, there were few or no orders issued to you that were of significancein the maintenance of water potability and there were no deficiencies as defined in O. Reg.172/03. The undertaking of a focused inspection at your drinking water system during thisyear's inspection cycle does not ensure that a similar type of inspection will be conductedat any point in the future.

On July 10, 2014, the Officer conducted an unannounced inspection, and met with theMunicipality's Operating Authority to obtain documents for review.

.

TREATMENT PROCESSES

* Records confirmed that the water treatment equipment which provides chlorination orchloramination for secondary disinfection purposes was operated so that at all times and alllocations in the distribution system the chlorine residual was never less than 0.05 mg/l freeor 0.25 mg/l combined.

Section 1-5 in Schedule 1 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires the Municipality’s treatmentfacilities/equipment to be capable of providing a free chlorine residual of 0.2mg/L at all locationswithin the distribution system. Further, Section 1-2 requires the equipment to be operated so thatthe free chlorine residual is never less than 0.05mg/L.

The West Lambton Shores Distribution System does not include any treatment equipment of itsown; however, the Municipality does have a continuous analyser in Forest monitoring the chlorineresidual in the distribution system.

The Officer did not note any concerns in the chlorine residual data provided to him for review.

.



Site #: 260006581



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

TREATMENT PROCESS MONITORING

* The secondary disinfectant residual was measured as required for the distribution system.

The West Lambton Shores Distribution System makes use of a continuous analyser in Forest tosatisfy the chlorine residual monitoring requirements in Schedule 7 of O. Reg. 170/03.

.

* Continuous monitoring equipment that was being utilized to fulfill O. Reg. 170/03requirements was performing tests for the parameters with at least the minimum frequencyspecified in the Table in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 and recording data with theprescribed format.

Section 6-5(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 prescribes a minimum time interval for testing ofchlorine and turbidity by continuous monitoring equipment (e.g., 5 minutes, 15 minutes, 1 hour).Alternatively, where monitoring equipment tests more frequently, the monitoring equipment mayrecord the minimum, maximum, and the mean results for periods equal to the prescribed intervals.

The Operating Authority confirmed data from the continuous monitoring equipment captures data at30-second intervals and stores it on the Municipality’s “lsscadaLambtonShores.local” server. TheOperating Authority provided daily and monthly summary reports, and had their consultant provide5-minute data for review.

.

* All continuous analysers were calibrated, maintained, and operated, in accordance with themanufacturer's instructions or the regulation.

Section 6-5(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires owners to ensure the accuracy of theircontinuous monitoring equipment (e.g., chlorine residual, turbidity) through checks and, wherenecessary, calibrations. (Besides the equipment referenced in Schedule 6 as requiring routinecalibration, the Ministry recommends owners check and calibrate all continuous monitoringequipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.)

The available documents indicated operators are regularly assessing the equipment.

.

OPERATIONS MANUALS

* The operations and maintenance manuals contained plans, drawings and processdescriptions sufficient for the safe and efficient operation of the system.

Section 28 of O. Reg. 128/04 requires owners and operating authorities to ensure operators andmaintenance personnel have ready access to comprehensive operations and maintenancemanuals that contain plans, drawings and process descriptions sufficient for the safe and efficientoperation of the system. As such, these documents should encompass all of the subsystems towhich they apply, and they should include up-to-date descriptions and plan/drawings.

As noted in the Officer’s previous inspection, the Operating Authority has a manual readilyavailable. The manual includes a chronology of modifications to the document.

.

* The operations and maintenance manuals did meet the requirements of the Permit andLicence or Approval issued under Part V of the SDWA.

Per Section 31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the use and operation of municipal drinking watersystems must comply with the applicable licence. As a number of the required elements areaddressed within other sections of this report, the Officer's scope was limited to ensuring theavailability of the Licence and Permit, and procedures for,

- monitoring and recording parameters related to the performance of the water system



Site #: 260006581



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

OPERATIONS MANUALS

- the operation and maintenance of treatment and/or monitoring equipment

- dealing with complaints and emergencies

.

LOGBOOKS

* Records or other record keeping mechanisms confirmed that operational testing notperformed by continuous monitoring equipment was being done by a certified operator,water quality analyst, or person who suffices the requirements of O. Reg. 170/03 7-5.

Pursuant to Section 7-5 in Schedule 7 of O. Reg. 170/03, only qualified personnel (e.g., certifiedoperators or water quality analysts) appear to be performing operational tests.

.

SECURITY

* The owner had provided security measures to protect components of the drinking-watersystem.

The Ministry recommends owners adopt various measures to secure their supplies, and treatmentand storage facilities from intruders and potential sources of contamination. While this standalonedistribution system does not include any treatment or storage facilities (included within thisinspection), it includes a bulk water station at the intersection of Highway 21 and Rawlings Road.The station is readily accessible to vehicles; however, keyed meters control its usage.

The Municipality and Operating Authority have not reported any events that would suggest a needfor additional security measures.

.

CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING

* The overall responsible operator had been designated for each subsystem.

O. Reg. 128/04 prescribes a system for classifying municipal residential systems. The Regulationincludes a corresponding system for certifying operators. Further, Section 23(1) requires theappointment of an "overall responsible operator" for each subsystem.

The Operating Authority has appointed an "overall responsible operator". Further, the OperatingAuthority has appointed one backup for the "overall responsible operator".

.

* Operators in charge had been designated for all subsystems which comprised the drinking-water system.

Section 25(1) of O. Reg. 128/04 requires the appointment of one or more "operator-in-charge" foreach subsystem. The Operating Authority advised they permit all qualified operators to serve inthis capacity. When acting as an operator-in-charge, they have directed their operators to note thesame in the logbook.

.

WATER QUALITY MONITORING



Site #: 260006581



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle


* All microbiological water quality monitoring requirements for distribution samples werebeing met.

Results reported by the Municipality’s laboratory indicate the number of distribution samplescollected for testing microbiological parameters exceeds the minimum number required by Section10-2 of Schedule 10 in O. Reg. 170/03.

.

* All trihalomethanes water quality monitoring requirements prescribed by legislation wereconducted within the required frequency.

Results reported by the Municipality’s laboratory indicate operators have been collectingdistribution samples for testing trihalomethanes as prescribed in Section 13-6 of Schedule 13 andSection 6-1.1(4) of Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 (i.e., at least once every three months with aminimum of 60 days between samples and a maximum of 120 days between samples).

.

* All sampling requirements for lead prescribed by schedule 15.1 of O. Reg. 170/03 werebeing met.

The Officer understands that based upon their last sample results, the Municipality is eligible tocollect distribution samples at a reduced frequency. E.g., Schedule 15.1 in O. Reg. 170/03 requires“Standard sampling” per Section 15.1-4 until a system qualifies for “Reduced sampling” per Section15.1-5. If not more than 10 per cent of the results exceed half the limit for lead, the collection ofplumbing samples can be discontinued altogether. Distribution sampling would continue to berequired at a reduced frequency and numbers per Sections 15.1-5(9) and (10).

.

* Records confirmed that chlorine residual tests were being conducted at the same time andat the same location that microbiological samples were obtained.

Sampling records indicate operators test the chlorine residual at the same time and location theyare collecting microbiological samples as required by Section 6-3(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg.170/03.

.

WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT

* The audit samples collected by the inspector met the applicable Ontario Drinking WaterQuality Standards and/or the aesthetic objectives or operation guidelines.

The Ministry's laboratory confirmed they did not detect any coliform bacteria, including Escherichiacoli, in the Officer’s audit sample.

* Records show that all water sample results taken during the review period met the OntarioDrinking Water Quality Standards (O. Reg. 169/03).

Per the summary of reported sample results appended to this report, all of the test results reportedby the Municipality's laboratory since the last inspection were within the limits prescribed in theOntario Drinking Water Quality Standards.

.

REPORTING & CORRECTIVE ACTIONS



Site #: 260006581



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle


* Where required continuous monitoring equipment used for the monitoring of chlorineresidual and/or turbidity triggered an alarm or an automatic shut-off, a qualified personresponded in a timely manner and took appropriate actions.

Where continuous chlorine residual or turbidity monitoring equipment malfunctions, loses power,alarms or results in a shutdown, the Ministry requires prompt and appropriate action.

The Officer reviewed the results of the chlorine residual testing in the distribution system capturedby the monitoring system. The Officer did note some null values related to communication faults,and some outliers generated when work was being performed on the system. However, the Officerdid not note evidence of actual events where the chlorine residual dropped to the point whereaction was required.

.

* All changes to the system registration information were provided within ten (10) days of thechange.

After drinking water systems were registered, Section 10.1 of O. Reg. 170/03 required owners tonotify the Director of any changes to the profile information within 10 days. The Officer providedthe attached Drinking Water System Dossier, and asked about any recent changes to theMunicipality’s profile.

The Operating Authority noted the Ministry should not have removed Dale Wright as the OperatingAuthority's "Alternate Contact". Further, they provided a copy of an earlier profile listing Rick Marshas the "Primary Contact" and Dale Wright as the "Alternate Contact". The Officer has forwardedthis information to the Ministry's registration team.



Site #: 260006581



tersteegepa

Rectangle

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ACTIONS REQUIRED

This section provides a summary of all non-compliance with regulatory requirements identified during theinspection period, as well as actions required to address these issues. Further details pertaining to theseitems can be found in the body of the inspection report.

Not Applicable



Site #: 260006581



SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICE ISSUES

Not Applicable

This section provides a summary of all recommendations and best practice issues identified during theinspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found in the body of the inspection report. In theinterest of continuous improvement in the interim, it is recommended that owners and operators develop anawareness of the following issues and consider measures to address them.



Site #: 260006581



SIGNATURES

Inspected By: Signature: (Provincial Officer):

Paul Tersteege

Reviewed & Approved By: Signature: (Supervisor):

Gary Johnson

Review & Approval Date:

Note: This inspection does not in any way suggest that there is or has been compliance withapplicable legislation and regulations as they apply or may apply to this facility. It is, and remains,the responsibility of the owner and/or operating authority to ensure compliance with all applicablelegislative and regulatory requirements.



Site #: 260006581


WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

2014.07.31 15:35:03 -04'00'

218


Appendix 1 - Inspection Rating Report

219

Ministry of the Environment - Inspection Summary Rating Record (Reporting Year - 2014-2015)

DWS Name: WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMDWS Number: 260006581

DWS Owner: Lambton Shores,The Corporation Of The Municipality OfMunicipal Location: Lambton Shores

Regulation: O.REG 170/03Category: Large Municipal Residential System

Type Of Inspection: AdhocInspection Date: July 10, 2014

Ministry Office: Sarnia District

Maximum Question Rating: 209

Inspection Module Non-Compliance Rating

Treatment Processes 0 / 21

Operations Manuals 0 / 28

Logbooks 0 / 14

Certification and Training 0 / 14

Water Quality Monitoring 0 / 51

Reporting & Corrective Actions 0 / 25

Treatment Process Monitoring 0 / 56

TOTAL 0 / 209

Inspection Risk Rating 0.00%

FINAL INSPECTION RATING: 100.00%

Inspection Rating Record Generated On 31-JUL-14 (Inspection ID: 1-BD0N0).R:\Public\DW\DW-08 Compliance\Shared Comp Data\Inspection Ratings 1415\Gary Johnson\1415 WEST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 1-BD0N0.pdf

220


Appendix 2 - Area Map

221

222


Appendix 3 - Continuous Monitoring Tag and Set Points

223

224


Appendix 4 - Summary of Reported Sample Results

225

Summary of Reported ResultsMinistry of the EnvironmentSafe Drinking Water Branch

Category: LMRSSource: Distribution

Regulation: O.REG 170/03MOE Area: Southwestern Region, Sarnia District

DW System: 260006581, West Lambton Shores Distribution System

Health Unit: Lambton Health Unit

Microbiological - Number of Samples Collected Each MonthLocation: Distribution:West Lambton Shores Distribution System

Month EC TC HPC HPC/ECType: Distributed Drinking Water Filter: >= Jan 1, 2013

Yes2014 Jul 15 15 6 40%Yes2014 Jun 20 20 8 40%Yes2014 May 20 20 8 40%Yes2014 Apr 20 20 8 40%Yes2014 Mar 25 25 10 40%Yes2014 Feb 20 20 8 40%Yes2014 Jan 20 20 8 40%Yes2013 Dec 25 25 10 40%Yes2013 Nov 20 20 8 40%Yes2013 Oct 23 23 9 39%Yes2013 Sep 22 22 9 41%Yes2013 Aug 20 20 8 40%Yes2013 Jul 25 25 10 40%Yes2013 Jun 21 21 8 38%Yes2013 May 20 20 8 40%Yes2013 Apr 25 25 10 40%Yes2013 Mar 20 20 8 40%Yes2013 Feb 20 20 8 40%Yes2013 Jan 25 25 10 40%

Microbiological - Exceedances

Sampled EC TC HPC Sample IDFilter: >= Jan 1, 2008

Yes2012-Aug-21 0 1 10< 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED

Trihalomethanes Samples

Sampled Sample ID ResultsDays Elapsed

260006581 Filter: >= Jan 1, 2013

Yes2014-Apr-08 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 25.0 UG/L84Yes2014-Jan-14 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 25.0 UG/L98Yes2013-Oct-08 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 57.0 UG/L91Yes2013-Jul-09 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 49.0 UG/L98Yes2013-Apr-02 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 25.0 UG/L84Yes2013-Jan-08 12435 DW BULK WATER SHED 32.0 UG/L

Page 1 of 2260006581, West Lambton Shores Distribution System: Sampling and Testing Summary

226

Lead - Distribution Samples

Avg Max CountSample PeriodFilter: >= Jan 1, 2008

Yesto 20.230.232012-Jun-15 2012-Oct-15Yesto 20.170.132011-Dec-15 2012-Apr-15Yesto 40.690.262009-Jun-15 2009-Oct-15Yesto 46.952.112008-Dec-15 2009-Apr-15Yesto 10.730.732008-Oct-16 2008-Dec-14Yesto 4137.0034.892008-Jun-15 2008-Oct-15

17137.008.85Summary:

Lead - Non-Residential Plumbing Samples


Yesto 20.080.082012-Jun-15 2012-Oct-15Yesto 20.170.112011-Dec-15 2012-Apr-15Yesto 42.621.692009-Jun-15 2009-Oct-15Yesto 40.510.262008-Dec-15 2009-Apr-15Yesto 41.330.692008-Jun-15 2008-Oct-15

162.620.68Summary:

Lead - Private Residential Samples


Yesto 200.730.342012-Jun-15 2012-Oct-15Yesto 200.410.232011-Dec-15 2012-Apr-15Yesto 422.330.552009-Jun-15 2009-Oct-15Yesto 406.360.662008-Dec-15 2009-Apr-15Yesto 4228.601.662008-Jun-15 2008-Oct-15

16428.600.79Summary:

Lead - Exceedances

Sample IDSampledFilter: >= Jan 1, 2008

ResultsYes1D2F2 TAP-PR 12 FRANCES KITCHEN 1ST2008-Oct-06 28.6 UG/LYes12433 DW MAIN & GEORGE SAMPLE STATION SAMPLE STA2008-Oct-06 137 UG/L

Laboratories testing Routine ParametersLaboratory Parameter Group Testing Period

YesChemical/Physical 2009-Mar-23 2012-Oct-04andSgs Environmental Services - LakefieldYesInorganic Chemical 2008-Jun-17 2012-Oct-04andSgs Environmental Services - LakefieldYesMicrobiological 2008-Jan-02 2008-May-27andSgs Environmental Services - LakefieldYesOrganic Chemical 2008-Jan-15 2014-Apr-08andSgs Environmental Services - Lakefield

Laboratory Parameter Group Testing Period

YesMicrobiological 2008-Jan-02 2014-Jul-15andSgs Environmental Services - London

Page 2 of 2260006581, West Lambton Shores Distribution System: Sampling and Testing Summary

227

This page has been intentionally left blank.

228


Appendix 5 - Drinking Water System Dossier - Excerpts

229

021 - Drinking Water System Dossier for 260006581as of 08-JUN-2014

Drinking Water System Profile InformationDWS # 260006581Registration Date (yyyy/mm/dd) 2002/09/18DWS Status Active DWSDWS Expiry Date (yyyy/mm/dd)MOE Assigned Name West Lambton Shores Distribution SystemCategory LMRSRegulation Short Name O.REG 170/03DWS Type Distribution SystemSource Type DistributionAddress Lambton ShoresRegion Southwestern RegionDistrict Sarnia DistrictMunicipality Lambton ShoresPublic Health Unit Lambton Health Unit DWS OPERATIONAL INFORMATIONConcession Plan NumberLotGeographic TownshipPopulation: 3,200Number of Private Residences:Number of Service Connections:Rated Daily Capacity (L/S) 26.6Number of DFs Served: 0LSN Compliance Status: Complete LSNDate of Last Sample (as per DWIS) 3 June, 201424/7 Contact Omi Answering Service 24/7 Contact Info p: (888)3991643, f: - , e: - , c: - , pg: - DWS OWNER INFORMATIONOwner Legal Name Lambton Shores,The Corporation Of The Municipality OfOwner Business Name Lambton Shores,The Corporation Of The Municipality OfOwner Address 7883 Amtelecom Parkway ,Forest,Ontario,N0N 1J0Owner Contact Brent Kittmer, Director Of Community ServicesOwner Contact Info p: (519)2431400, f: (519)2433500, e: [email protected] Alternate Contact Jeff Wolfe, Manager Of Projects And InfrastructureOwner Alternate Contact Info p: (519)2431400, f: (519)2433500, e: [email protected] DWS OPERATING AUTHORITY INFORMATIONOp. Authority Legal Name Operations Management International Canada Inc. (Lambton Shores)Op. Authority Business Name Operations Management International Canada Inc. (Lambton Shores)Op. Authority Address 7550 Brush Rd ,Lambton Shores,Ontario,N0N 1J5Op. Authority Contact Rick Marsh, Senior Project ManagerOp. Authority Contact Info p: (519)7862421, f: (519)7862433, e: [email protected]. Authority Alternate ContactOp. Authority Alternate Contact Info WLIS PROFILE INFORMATIONMunicipal DWS ID 128Municipal DWS Name East and West Lambton Shores Distribution SystemMunicipal DWS Owner ID 48

9-Jun-14 - 1 - 3:51:01 PM230

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

021 - Drinking Water System Dossier for 260006581Laboratory Service Notification (LSN) Information

Chemical/Physical

O. Reg. 170 Parameter Name LSN Effective Date Lab Name

Alkalinity 2009-01-26 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield

Inorganic Chemical


Lead 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield

Microbiological


Escherichia Coli 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield

2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - London


2009-01-26 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield

Fecal Coliforms 2006-07-26 Sgs Environmental Services - London

Heterotrophic Plate Count (Hpc) 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield



Total Coliform 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield



2009-01-26 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield

Total Coliform Background 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield


Organic Chemical


Trihalomethanes (Total) 2004-11-17 Sgs Environmental Services - Lakefield

9-Jun-14 - 6 - 3:51:01 PM231

tersteegepa

Rectangle

This page has been intentionally left blank.

232


Appendix 6 - Contacts

233


Contacts

Drinking Water Inspection Report

mber:

2Company: Municipality of Lambton Shores Phone: 519-243-1400 Fax: 519-243-3500

Email: [email protected]

Name: Jeff Wolfe, Project and Infrastructure Manager

Address: 7883 Amtelecom ParkwayForest, ON N0N 1J0

Role: Owner

mber:

2Company: CH2M Hill Canada Limited Phone: 519-527-1004 Fax: 519-527-0295


Name: Joe Arnold, Senior Project Manager

Address: 30 Welsh StreetSeaforth, ON N0K 1W0

Role: Overall Responsible Operator

mber:



Name: Rick Marsh, Senior Project Manager

Address: 7550 Brush RoadLambton Shores, ON N0N 1J5

Role: Operating Authority

mber:



Name: Shawn Young, Project Manager Intern



mber:



Name: Dale Wright, Lead Operator



mber:

2Company: Lambton Public Health Phone: 519-383-8331 ext 3507Fax: 519-383-7092


Name: Chad Ikert, Public Health Manager

Address: 160 Exmouth StreetPoint Edward, ON N7T 7Z6

Role: Public Health

mber:



Name: Theresa Warren, Health Inspector


Role: Public Health

mber:

2Company: St. Clair Region Conservation Authority Phone: 519-245-3710 Fax: 519-245-3348


Name: Girish Sankar, Water Resources Engineer

Address: 205 Mill Pond CrescentStrathroy, Ontario N7G 3P9

Role: Source Protection

mber:

2Company: Ministry of the Environment Phone: 519-383-3797 Fax: 519-336-4280


Name: Paul TerSteege, Water Inspector

Address: 1094 London RoadSarnia, ON N7S 1P1

Role: Compliance - SDWA

234

EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM


Inspection Report

1-BD0MFInspection Number:

Jul 10, 2014Date of Inspection:

260006568Site Number:

Inspected By: Paul Tersteege

235


Owner Information

Signatures

Inspection Summary

Appendices

Inspection Details

Non-Compliance with Regulatory Requirements and Actions Required

Table of Contents

Description

2

22

Summary of Best Practice Issues and Recommendations

Appendix 1 - Inspection Rating ReportAppendix 2 - Area MapAppendix 3 - Continuous Monitoring Tags and Alarm Set PointsAppendix 4 - Summary of Reported Sample ResultsAppendix 5 - Contacts

Introduction 5

Treatment Processes 5

Treatment Process Monitoring 7

Distribution System 8

Operations Manuals 9

Logbooks 9

Security 9

Certification and Training 10

Water Quality Monitoring 10

Water Quality Assessment 11

Reporting & Corrective Actions 11

Other Inspection Findings 12

13

14

15

5

236

OWNER INFORMATION:

7883

AMTELECOM PARKWAY

FOREST

ON N0N 1J0

Street Number:

Street Name:

Unit Identifier:

City:

Province: Postal Code:

Company Name: LAMBTON SHORES,THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF

INSPECTION DETAILS:

EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMSite Name:

Site Address: LAMBTON SHORES

County/District: Lambton Shores

MOE District/Area Office: Sarnia District

Health Unit: LAMBTON HEALTH UNITHealth Unit:

Conservation Authority N/A

MNR Office: N/A

Category: Large Municipal Residential

Inspection Type: Unannounced

Inspection Number: 1-BD0MF

Date of Inspection: Jul 10, 2014

Date of Previous Inspection: Jun 05, 2013

Site Number: 260006568

COMPONENTS DESCRIPTION

East Lambton Shores Distribution SystemSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

Lambton Shores is supplied by two municipal water systems – the East and the West LambtonShores Distribution Systems. In order to understand this large municipal residential system, one hasto appreciate its relationship with area water systems.

The easterly part of Lambton Shores receives water from the Lake Huron Primary Water SupplySystem (LHPWSS). While Grand Bend can be supplied through a metered connection from the watertreatment plant, the valve to that chamber is normally closed. Currently, this system primarily receiveswater through a connection to twin mains near B Line in South Huron.

Comments:

1. B Line Valve ChamberSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

From the connection to the LHPWSS, the Municipality has a 600mm main on B Line that enters achamber housing an adjustable pressure-reducing valve. The chamber also houses a flow meter.

Comments:



Site #: 260006568


EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 237

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

2. Hwy 21 and Grand Bend Valve ChambersSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

A 600mm main connects to a second chamber near Pinetree Drive and Hwy 21 that houses a flowmeter and a control valve that regulates flow based upon the water level in the Northville Tower. TheSCADA system allows for monitoring and online operation of the control valve.

A flow meter monitors the discharge to the main extending southwest along Hwy 21 to Northville/PortFranks where a 450mm main branches off to supply the Northville Elevated Tower.

The Hwy 21 Valve Chamber is also connected to a neighbouring chamber, equipped with a pressurereduce valve, that supplies the 350mm main running north along Hwy 21 to serve Grand Bend andarea.

Neither pressure nor flows are monitored within this chamber. Flows into the Grand Bend area areestimated by subtracting flow directed toward Northville from the total flows passing through the BLine chamber.

Comments:

3. Northville Water TowerSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

The property housing Lambton Shores’ Northville Office is also the site of the 3,725m3 Northville (orBosanquet) Water Tower that was built in 1997. The Tower maintains pressure in Port Franks, alongthe shoreline between Ipperwash and the Hwy 21 Valve Chamber, and down to the Northville BoosterPumping Station.

The Tower is equipped with a standby generator in the event of power failure, and a chlorinationsystem to maintain the residual around 1.55mg/L. The residual is continuously monitored by ananalyser that is equipped with an alarm, and the SCADA system housed in the municipal buildingrecords the water level and chlorine residual.

The Municipality also operates a bulk water filling station at this location.

From the Tower, a 300mm line runs south along Northville Road delivering water to the NorthvilleBooster Pumping Station.

Comments:

4. Emergency Interconnection with LAWSSSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

From Northville, the main reduces in size to 450mm, and it continues southwest to serve theIpperwash area. This main is interconnected to the 300mm main supplied by the Lambton Area WaterSupply System, in a chamber near Hwy 21 and West Ipperwash Road.

Comments:

5. Northville Booster Pumping StationSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

An above ground water booster pumping station, located at 7810 Ravenswood Line, is equipped withtwo centrifugal pumps, a standby generator, and pressure sensors.

The Station receives water from the Northville Tower, and the pumps (that normally alternate betweenactive and standby duty), are used to fill the Arkona Standpipe via a 300mm main.

Comments:



Site #: 260006568



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

6. Arkona Stand PipeSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

The 1,300m3 standpipe is equipped with level controls to trigger the Northville Booster PumpingStation. Once filled, standpipe maintains pressure for Arkona and the rural area back to the NorthvilleBooster Pump Station.

(A chlorine residual analyzer at the Arkona Sewage Treatment Plant is used to monitor the chlorineresidual in the distribution system.)

Comments:

7. Coultis Road Reservoir and Booster Pumping StationSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:

This facility is also known as the Thedford and the Gordon Road Reservoir and Booster PumpingStation. It includes a 909m3 underground reservoir southwest of the intersection of Ravenswood Lineand Coultis Road. The Reservoir is gravity fed from the Northville Elevated Tower via a 250mm mainand a control valve in a chamber just ahead of the reservoir.

The Reservoir discharges by gravity to a 227m3 well in a booster station on the east side of CoultisRoad. The Station is equipped with four vertical turbine pumps to maintain pressure in the communityof Thedford. The pumps are staged to run as pressure decreases, with the fourth pump coming on forfire flows.

The Station is equipped with a standby generator, and the discharge is equipped with flow andpressuring monitoring equipment. The Station is also equipped with standby chlorination equipment,and a chlorine residual analyser.

There is a 150mm line coming from Parkhill (which also receives water from the LHPWSS) that canbe used as an emergency supply. As there are a few customers supplied directly from this line, a19mm connection from the line to the reservoir is left open to maintain water quality.

Comments:

MOE DWS MappingSite (Name):

Type: Sub Type:DWS Mapping Point

Not Applicable

Comments:



Site #: 260006568



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

INSPECTION SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

* The primary focus of this inspection is to confirm compliance with Ministry of theEnvironment legislation and authorizing documents such as Orders and Certificates ofApproval, as well as evaluating conformance with Ministry drinking water related policiesand guidelines during the inspection period.

This report is based on an inspection of a "stand alone connected distribution system".This type of system receives treated water from a separately owned "donor" system. Thisreport contains all of the elements required to assess key compliance and conformanceissues associated with a "receiver" system to ensure that the system was not beingoperated or managed in a "deficient" condition, as defined under O. Reg. 172/03. The reportdoes not contain items associated with the inspection of the donor system, such as sourcewaters, intakes/wells and treatment facilities.

This drinking water system is subject to the legislative requirements of the Safe DrinkingWater Act, 2002 (SDWA) and regulations made therein, including Ontario Regulation 170/03,"Drinking Water Systems" (O.Reg.170/03). This inspection has been conducted pursuant toSection 81 of the SDWA.

Your system was chosen for a focused inspection during this inspection cycle becauseinspection findings over the past three years were such that the number of violations wereminimal or non existent, there were few or no orders issued to you that were of significancein the maintenance of water potability and there were no deficiencies as defined in O. Reg.172/03. The undertaking of a focused inspection at your drinking water system during thisyear's inspection cycle does not ensure that a similar type of inspection will be conductedat any point in the future.

On July 10, 2014, the Officer conducted an unannounced inspection, and met with theMunicipality's Operating Authority to obtain documents for review.

.

TREATMENT PROCESSES

* The owner had ensured that all equipment was installed in accordance with Schedule A andSchedule C of the Drinking Water Works Permit.

Per Section 31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the establishment, replacement or alteration of amunicipal drinking water system must be done in accordance with a Drinking Water Works Permit.Schedule “A” of the Municipality’s Permit identifies the use of treatment at two locations in the EastLambton Shores Distribution System.

The Operating Authority confirmed there have been no changes to the chlorination equipment usedat either the Northville Elevated Tower, or the Coultis Road Reservoir and Booster PumpingStation. The sodium hypochlorite feed system at the Northville Tower consists of two chemicalmetering pumps (one on duty, one on standby) that draw from a 200L tank, and the sodiumhypochlorite feed system at the Coultis Road facility consists of one chemical metering pump thatdraws from a 110L tank.

.



Site #: 260006568



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

TREATMENT PROCESSES

* The owner/operating authority was in compliance with the requirement to prepare Form 1documents as required by their Drinking Water Works Permit during the inspection period.

Per Section 31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the establishment or alteration of municipal drinkingwater systems must comply with the applicable approval or permit, including the completion of aForm 1 in response to the addition or alteration of watermains.

The Officer reviewed examples of the documents, and noted they appeared to be complete.

.

* Records confirmed that the water treatment equipment which provides chlorination orchloramination for secondary disinfection purposes was operated so that at all times and alllocations in the distribution system the chlorine residual was never less than 0.05 mg/l freeor 0.25 mg/l combined.

Section 1-5 in Schedule 1 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires the Municipality’s treatmentfacilities/equipment to be capable of providing a free chlorine residual of 0.2mg/L at all locationswithin the distribution system. Further, Section 1-2 requires the equipment to be operated so thatthe free chlorine residual is never less than 0.05mg/L.

The East Lambton Shores Distribution System has continuous analysers in Arkona, at theNorthville Tower, Northville Booster Station and at the Thedford Pumping Station. These analysersare used for both compliance and/or operational purposes.

Data for chlorine residual readings captured in Arkona were not available as 5-minute data;however, the Operating Authority did provide the daily minimum, average and maximum readings.As such, the Officer cross-referenced dates with values below the low alarm set point with logsentries. In almost every instance, the low readings stemmed from abnormal readings recordedduring meter calibrations.

The Officer also assessed the 5-minute data for the three channels the Operating Authorityprovided. Again, he noted several momentary spikes that could be discounted. The Officer alsonoted the readings from the Northville Booster Station froze at the end of March. Log recordsindicated operators found the instrument was not providing reliable readings, and they opted totake the unit offline until the unit was serviced in June.

.

* The Operator-in-Charge had ensured that all equipment used in the processes wasmonitored, inspected, and evaluated.

To ensure the treatment process equipment is performing appropriately, Section 26(2) of O. Reg.128/04 requires operators-in-charge to monitor the equipment, and to document its operatingstatus. In this case, the Municipality’s SCADA system is of assistance in documenting theperformance of various components of the system. Further, the Operation Logs document variousmaintenance activities performed by operators.

Lastly, the Officer understands the Operating Authority makes use of a computerized maintenancemanagement system to generate weekly work orders identifying facilities and equipment requiringwork, along with details of the work to be performed. (An examination of this system was notincluded within the scope of this inspection.)

.




Site #: 260006568



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle


* The secondary disinfectant residual was measured as required for the distribution system.

The East Lambton Shores Distribution System has four continuous analysers. These analysersare used for both compliance and/or operational purposes. I.e., while readings from a dischargewhere treatment is provided cannot be used to satisfy the chlorine residual monitoringrequirements in Schedule 7 of O. Reg. 170/03, all of these readings are of value when assessingthe performance of a system.

(Operators also perform tests with handheld analysers when collecting samples from thedistribution system for microbiological testing.)

.

* Operators were examining continuous monitoring test results and they were examining theresults within 72 hours of the test.

Section 6-5 in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires an examination of results captured bycontinuous monitoring equipment within 72 hours of the tests. The Operating Authority'sdocuments indicated that operators usually begin each day by reviewing the SCADA trends andprinting a daily report. When abnormal values arise, the Officer noted the daily reports usuallyincluded brief explanations, and occasionally printouts of the daily trends.

.

* All continuous monitoring equipment utilized for sampling and testing required by O. Reg.170/03, or approval or order, were equipped with alarms or shut-off mechanisms thatsatisfied the standards described in Schedule 6.

Subsections 6-5(1)5i and 6-5(1.1)1 in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires the use of alarms orinterlocks. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that in the event of a malfunction, loss ofpower, etc., a certified operator will take prompt and appropriate action to resolve the concern, oran interlock stop the flow of water to consumers.

The Officer assessed both prescribed and other operational parameters monitored by this system.A listing of these parameters, and the associated alarm set points, is appended to this report.

.

* Continuous monitoring equipment that was being utilized to fulfill O. Reg. 170/03requirements was performing tests for the parameters with at least the minimum frequencyspecified in the Table in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 and recording data with theprescribed format.

Section 6-5(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 prescribes a minimum time interval for testing ofchlorine and turbidity by continuous monitoring equipment (e.g., 5 minutes, 15 minutes, 1 hour).Alternatively, where monitoring equipment tests more frequently, the monitoring equipment mayrecord the minimum, maximum, and the mean results for periods equal to the prescribed intervals.

The Operating Authority confirmed data from the continuous monitoring equipment captures data at30-second intervals. The Operating Authority provided daily and monthly summary reports, andhad their consultant provide 5-minute data for review.

.

* All continuous analysers were calibrated, maintained, and operated, in accordance with themanufacturer's instructions or the regulation.

Section 6-5(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 requires owners to ensure the accuracy of theircontinuous monitoring equipment (e.g., chlorine residual, turbidity) through checks and, wherenecessary, calibrations. (Besides the equipment referenced in Schedule 6 as requiring routinecalibration, the Ministry recommends owners check and calibrate all continuous monitoringequipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.)



Site #: 260006568



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle


Log entries indicate operators are calibrating or assessing the continuous chlorine analyzersseveral times each month. The Operating Authority noted that operators routinely calibrate theirhandheld units, and compare results from the continuous analysers to results from handheld unitsin order to ensure the continuous analysers are not drifting out of calibration.

.

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

* Existing parts of the distribution system that were taken out of service for inspection, repairor other activities that may lead to contamination, and all new parts of the distributionsystem that came in contact with drinking water, were disinfected in accordance withSchedule B, Condition 2.3 of the Drinking Water Works Permit.

Per Section 31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the establishment and alteration of municipaldrinking water systems must comply with the Permit which includes the disinfection of the systemcomponents that are added, altered or repaired in accordance with an AWWA standard (e.g., C651,C652 and/or C653), or an equivalent. (Note: Procedures differing significantly from the AWWAstandards may require approval by a Director designated under Part V of the Safe Drinking WaterAct.) Consequently, the Overall Responsible Operator should ensure operators and contractorsrecord sufficient details to permit them to confirm compliance.

The Officer noted entries regarding repairs. Many were related to repairs of curb stops, valves thatcan be used to isolate a premise from the municipal system.

.

* Based on the records available the owner was able to maintain proper pressures in thedistribution system.

The Ministry strongly recommends the industry standard calling for the maintenance of a minimumresidual pressure in the distribution system of 140kPa (20psi) during peak flow. Further, theMinistry’s Drinking Water Works Permit prohibits additions or alterations that would “adverselyaffect a distribution system’s ability to maintain a minimum pressure of 140kPa at ground level atall points in the distribution system under maximum day demand plus fire flow conditions.”

Water is supplied to the East Lambton Shores Distribution System under pressure by the LakeHuron Primary Water Supply System. To maintain pressure, the Municipality makes use ofelevated storage at the northern and southern ends of this system, and two pumping stations in themiddle. The Municipality’s SCADA system captures pressure data at the valve chamber supplyingtheir system and at the two booster stations. Further, the system captures water level data at thetwo elevated storage facilities.

(Note: Several months of data were unavailable for the Northville Booster Station. Recordsindicate that the two pressure transmitters were irreparably damaged by lightening.)

Based on the available information, the Officer did not note evidence of significant pressure dropsin the system.

.

OPERATIONS MANUALS



Site #: 260006568



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

OPERATIONS MANUALS

* The operations and maintenance manuals contained plans, drawings and processdescriptions sufficient for the safe and efficient operation of the system.

Section 28 of O. Reg. 128/04 requires owners and operating authorities to ensure operators andmaintenance personnel have ready access to comprehensive operations and maintenancemanuals that contain plans, drawings and process descriptions sufficient for the safe and efficientoperation of the system. As such, these documents should encompass all of the subsystems towhich they apply, and they should include up-to-date descriptions and plan/drawings.

As noted in the Officer’s previous inspection, the Operating Authority has a manual readilyavailable. The manual includes a chronology of modifications to the document.

.

* The operations and maintenance manuals did meet the requirements of the Permit andLicence or Approval issued under Part V of the SDWA.

Per Section 31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the use and operation of municipal drinking watersystems must comply with the applicable licence. As a number of the required elements areaddressed within other sections of this report, the Officer's scope was limited to ensuring theavailability of the Licence and Permit, and procedures for,

- monitoring and recording parameters related to the performance of the water system,

- the operation and maintenance of treatment and/or monitoring equipment, and

- dealing with complaints and emergencies.

.

LOGBOOKS

* Records or other record keeping mechanisms confirmed that operational testing notperformed by continuous monitoring equipment was being done by a certified operator,water quality analyst, or person who suffices the requirements of O. Reg. 170/03 7-5.

Pursuant to Section 7-5 in Schedule 7 of O. Reg. 170/03, only qualified personnel (e.g., certifiedoperators or water quality analysts) appear to be performing operational tests.

.

SECURITY

* The owner had provided security measures to protect components of the drinking-watersystem.

The Ministry recommends owners adopt various measures to secure their supplies, and treatmentand storage facilities from intruders and potential sources of contamination. The Municipality hasvarying levels of security associated with the different components of its system. For example, theNorthville Water Tower is located on property that is occupied by the Northville municipal office. Assuch, personnel are present during the day. Further, access to the Tower is controlled by a keycode activated gate to restrict vehicular access to the tower. Some components like the ArkonaWater Tower have perimeter fencing, while others have partial fencing. All facilities had lockedentrances.

Lastly, the Operating Authority reported that they have not had problems with vandalism, and theOfficer is unaware of any events or damage suggesting a need for additional security measures.

.



Site #: 260006568



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING

* The overall responsible operator had been designated for each subsystem.

O. Reg. 128/04 prescribes a system for classifying municipal residential systems. The Regulationincludes a corresponding system for certifying operators. Further, Section 23(1) requires theappointment of an "overall responsible operator" for each subsystem.

The Operating Authority has appointed an "overall responsible operator". Further, the OperatingAuthority has appointed one backup for the "overall responsible operator".

.

* Operators in charge had been designated for all subsystems which comprised the drinking-water system.

Section 25(1) of O. Reg. 128/04 requires the appointment of one or more "operator-in-charge" foreach subsystem. The Operating Authority advised they permit all qualified operators to serve inthis capacity. When acting as an operator-in-charge, they have directed their operators to note thesame in the logbook.

.

* Only certified operators made adjustments to the treatment equipment.

The Operating Authority advised that pursuant to Schedule 1 of O. Reg. 170/03, subsection 1-2(2)5, only individuals who are certified as Drinking-Water System Operators under O. Reg.128/04, are permitted to make adjustments to the treatment equipment. Further, the OperatingAuthority confirmed that any new personnel who are awaiting receipt of certification are notauthorized by them to adjustment the treatment equipment.

.


* All microbiological water quality monitoring requirements for distribution samples werebeing met.

Results reported by the Municipality’s laboratory indicate the number of distribution samplescollected for testing microbiological parameters exceeds the minimum number required by Section10-2 of Schedule 10 in O. Reg. 170/03.

.

* All trihalomethanes water quality monitoring requirements prescribed by legislation wereconducted within the required frequency.

Results reported by the Municipality’s laboratory indicate operators have been collectingdistribution samples for testing trihalomethanes as prescribed in Section 13-6 of Schedule 13 andSection 6-1.1(4) of Schedule 6 of O. Reg. 170/03 (i.e., at least once every three months with aminimum of 60 days between samples and a maximum of 120 days between samples).

.



Site #: 260006568



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle


* All sampling requirements for lead prescribed by schedule 15.1 of O. Reg. 170/03 werebeing met.

Per the attached summary, samples were collected during the review period. The Officerunderstands the Municipality is eligible to collect distribution samples at a reduced frequency. E.g.,Schedule 15.1 in O. Reg. 170/03 requires “Standard sampling” per Section 15.1-4 until a systemqualifies for “Reduced sampling” per Section 15.1-5.

Note: If not more than 10 per cent of the results exceed half the limit for lead, the collection ofplumbing samples can be discontinued altogether. Distribution sampling would continue to berequired at a reduced frequency and numbers per Sections 15.1-5(9) and (10).

.

* Records confirmed that chlorine residual tests were being conducted at the same time andat the same location that microbiological samples were obtained.

Sampling records indicate operators test the chlorine residual at the same time and location theyare collecting microbiological samples as required by Section 6-3(1) in Schedule 6 of O. Reg.170/03.

.

WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT

* The audit samples collected by the inspector met the applicable Ontario Drinking WaterQuality Standards and/or the aesthetic objectives or operation guidelines.

The Ministry's laboratory confirmed they did not detect any coliform bacteria, including Escherichiacoli, in the Officer’s audit sample.

.

* Records show that water sample results taken during the review period met the OntarioDrinking Water Quality Standards (O. Reg. 169/03), with the following exceptions:

Per the summary of reported sample results appended to this report, the Municipality’s laboratorynoted 4 adverse test microbiological results during the inspection review period. The samplestation in front of the standpipe in Arkona was the source of two adverse test results. Despiteflushing, occasionally false positives can arise from insects taking up residence in the samplestations. In light of adverse results in July of previous years, the Operating Authority has opted todiscontinue using this station in the summer.

.


* Corrective actions (as per Schedule 17) had been taken to address adverse conditions,including any other steps that were directed by the Medical Officer of Health.

Schedule 17 of O. Reg. 170/03 prescribes generic corrective actions in response to adverse testresults and/or indicators of improper disinfection – including consulting with, and taking anyadditional measures prescribed by the Medical Officer of Health (Health Unit). (Reporting andcorrective action related to lead sampling is discussed within Schedule 15.1)



Site #: 260006568



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle


Following the last inspection, samples collected June 25, 2013 and August 6, 2013 from the ArkonaWater Tower tested adverse. A sample August 8, 2013 on Dietrich Crescent in Grand Bend testedadverse, and a sample collected December 18, 2013 on West Parkway Drive in Ipperwash testedadverse. In each instance, corrective action was taken. (Similarly, sampling was conductedfollowing damage to mains in the Grand Bend and Thedford area on April 8, 2014 and July 17,2014.)

.

* All required notifications of adverse water quality incidents were immediately provided asper O. Reg. 170/03 16-6.

.

* All changes to the system registration information were provided within ten (10) days of thechange.

After drinking water systems were registered, Section 10.1 of O. Reg. 170/03 required owners tonotify the Director of any changes to the profile information within 10 days. The Officer providedthe attached Drinking Water System Dossier, and asked about any recent changes to theMunicipality’s profile.

The Operating Authority noted the Ministry should not have removed Dale Wright as the OperatingAuthority's "Alternate Contact". Further, they provided a copy of an earlier profile listing Rick Marshas the "Primary Contact" and Dale Wright as the "Alternate Contact". The Officer has forwardedthis information to the Ministry's registration team.

.

OTHER INSPECTION FINDINGS

* The following issues were also noted during the inspection:

The "Summary of Best Practices Issues and Recommendations" section at the end of this reportincludes recommendations related to concerns outside the scope of the specific questions raisedduring the inspection.



Site #: 260006568



tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

tersteegepa

Rectangle

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ACTIONS REQUIRED

This section provides a summary of all non-compliance with regulatory requirements identified during theinspection period, as well as actions required to address these issues. Further details pertaining to theseitems can be found in the body of the inspection report.

Not Applicable



Site #: 260006568



SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICE ISSUES

This section provides a summary of all recommendations and best practice issues identified during theinspection period. Details pertaining to these items can be found in the body of the inspection report. In theinterest of continuous improvement in the interim, it is recommended that owners and operators develop anawareness of the following issues and consider measures to address them.

The following issues were also noted during the inspection:

Northville Booster Station – Instrumentation Failure

As the Municipality encountered the loss of a chlorine analyzer and two pressure transmitters at thislocation, they brought in an electrical engineer to evaluate the grounding/surge protection. To ensure thereliability of their monitoring system, we would encourage them to continue to work to resolve anyelectrical issues.

Recommendation:

1.



Site #: 260006568



SIGNATURES

Inspected By: Signature: (Provincial Officer):

Paul Tersteege

Reviewed & Approved By: Signature: (Supervisor):

Gary Johnson

Review & Approval Date:

Note: This inspection does not in any way suggest that there is or has been compliance withapplicable legislation and regulations as they apply or may apply to this facility. It is, and remains,the responsibility of the owner and/or operating authority to ensure compliance with all applicablelegislative and regulatory requirements.



Site #: 260006568


EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

2014.07.31 15:38:40 -04'00'

250


Appendix 1 - Inspection Rating Report

251

Ministry of the Environment - Inspection Summary Rating Record (Reporting Year - 2014-2015)

DWS Name: EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMDWS Number: 260006568

DWS Owner: Lambton Shores,The Corporation Of The Municipality OfMunicipal Location: Lambton Shores

Regulation: O.REG 170/03Category: Large Municipal Residential System

Type Of Inspection: AdhocInspection Date: July 10, 2014

Ministry Office: Sarnia District

Maximum Question Rating: 342

Inspection Module Non-Compliance Rating

Treatment Processes 0 / 60

Distribution System 0 / 21

Operations Manuals 0 / 28

Logbooks 0 / 14

Certification and Training 0 / 28

Water Quality Monitoring 0 / 51

Reporting & Corrective Actions 0 / 49

Treatment Process Monitoring 0 / 91

TOTAL 0 / 342

Inspection Risk Rating 0.00%

FINAL INSPECTION RATING: 100.00%

Inspection Rating Record Generated On 31-JUL-14 (Inspection ID: 1-BD0MF).R:\Public\DW\DW-08 Compliance\Shared Comp Data\Inspection Ratings 1415\Gary Johnson\1415 EAST LAMBTON SHORES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 1-BD0MF.pdf

252


Appendix 2 - Area Map

253

254


Appendix 3 - Continuous Monitoring Tags and Alarm Set Points

255

Continuous Monitoring: Parameters and Set Points

East Lambton Shores Distribution System

Parameter Location Tag Low Alarm High Alarm Units

Free Chlorine Residual Northville ET LSNEAIT001 0.20 3.00 mg/L

Free Chlorine Residual Northville BS LSNBAIT001 0.20 3.00 mg/L

Free Chlorine Residual Thedford PS LSTPAIT001 0.20 3.00 mg/L

Free Chlorine Residual Arkona Distribution LSAWAIT001 0.20 3.00 mg/L

Pressure Hwy 21 VC Inlet LSGVPIT002 350 1,100 kPa

Pressure Hwy 21 VC Outlet LSGVPIT001 250 1,000 kPa

Pressure Northville BS Inlet LSNBPIT001 140 1,000 kPa

Pressure Northville BS Outlet LSNBPIT002 180 1,200 kPa

Pressure Thedford PS LSTPPIT001 180 1,000 kPa

Flow B Line VC LSGVFIT001 -- -- L/s

Flow Hwy 21 VC LSGVFIT002 -- -- L/s

Flow Thedford PS LSTPFIT001 -- -- L/s

Water Level Northville ET LSNELIT001 7.0 12.0 m

Water Level Thedford PS LSTPLIT001 2.5 3.4 m

Water Level Arkona SP LSARLIT001 27.0 32.0 m

256


Appendix 4 - Summary of Reported Sample Results

257

Summary of Reported ResultsMinistry of the EnvironmentSafe Drinking Water Branch

Category: LMRSSource: Distribution

Regulation: O.REG 170/03MOE Area: Southwestern Region, Sarnia District

DW System: 260006568, East Lambton Shores Distribution System

Health Unit: Lambton Health Unit

Microbiological - Number of Samples Collected Each MonthLocation: Distribution:East Lambton Shores Distribution System

Month EC TC HPC HPC/ECType: Distributed Drinking Water Filter: >= Jan 1, 2013

Yes2014 May 64 64 24 38%Yes2014 Apr 80 80 28 35%Yes2014 Mar 70 70 26 37%Yes2014 Feb 64 64 24 38%Yes2014 Jan 56 56 22 39%Yes2013 Dec 86 86 30 35%Yes2013 Nov 64 64 24 38%Yes2013 Oct 66 66 25 38%Yes2013 Sep 77 77 29 38%Yes2013 Aug 76 76 24 32%Yes2013 Jul 80 80 30 38%Yes2013 Jun 70 70 26 37%Yes2013 May 74 74 27 36%Yes2013 Apr 80 80 30 38%Yes2013 Mar 64 64 24 38%Yes2013 Feb 64 64 24 38%Yes2013 Jan 86 86 32 37%

Microbiological - Exceedances

Sampled EC TC HPC Sample IDFilter: >= Jan 1, 2008

Yes2013-Dec-16 0 1 10< 123E6 DW WEST PARKWAY DRIVEYes2013-Aug-12 0 1 10< 153A8 DW DIETRICK CRES SSYes2013-Aug-6 0 11 1B65D DW ARKONA TOWERYes2013-Jun-25 0 17 10< 1B65D DW ARKONA TOWERYes2012-Sep-10 0 1 123DC DW LAMBTON MUSEUMYes2011-Jul-5 1 1 1B65D DW ARKONA TOWERYes2011-May-3 0 1 10< 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCPYes2011-May-3 0 11 10< 153A8 DW DIETRICK CRES SSYes2011-May-3 0 2 10< 1ACBB DW THEDFORD RESERVOIR SSYes2011-May-2 0 22 10< 123E6 DW WEST PARKWAY DRIVEYes2010-Jul-27 1 1 1B65D DW ARKONA TOWERYes2009-Jul-30 0 1 RESAMPLE 123C7 DW ARKONA TOWERYes2009-Jul-28 0 21 123C7 DW ARKONA TOWERYes2008-Dec-22 11 11 10< 123C6 DW ARKONA WPCP

Page 1 of 3260006568, East Lambton Shores Distribution System: Sampling and Testing Summary

258

Trihalomethanes Samples

Sampled Sample ID ResultsDays Elapsed

260006568 Filter: >= Jan 1, 2013

Yes2014-Apr-15 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 34.0 UG/L85Yes2014-Jan-20 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 33.0 UG/L97Yes2013-Oct-15 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 52.0 UG/L98Yes2013-Jul-09 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 47.0 UG/L91Yes2013-Apr-09 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 33.0 UG/L84Yes2013-Jan-15 1B659 DW ARKONA WPCP 31.0 UG/L

Lead - Distribution Samples


Yesto 30.320.212013-Dec-15 2014-Apr-15Yesto 30.170.102011-Jun-15 2011-Oct-15Yesto 30.290.212010-Dec-15 2011-Apr-15Yesto 84.450.902008-Jun-15 2008-Oct-15

174.450.52Summary:

Lead - Non-Residential Plumbing Samples



201.950.71Summary:

Lead - Private Residential Samples



2004.710.43Summary:


259

Laboratories testing Routine ParametersLaboratory Parameter Group Testing Period

YesChemical/Physical 2011-Mar-17 2014-Apr-03andSgs Environmental Services - LakefieldYesInorganic Chemical 2008-Sep-14 2014-Apr-10andSgs Environmental Services - LakefieldYesMicrobiological 2008-Jan-02 2008-May-27andSgs Environmental Services - LakefieldYesOrganic Chemical 2008-Jan-15 2014-Apr-15andSgs Environmental Services - Lakefield

Laboratory Parameter Group Testing Period

YesMicrobiological 2008-Jan-26 2014-May-27andSgs Environmental Services - London


260


Appendix 5 - Contacts

261


Contacts

Drinking Water Inspection Report

mber:



Name: Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services


Role: Owner

mber:



Name: Jeff Wolfe, Project and Infrastructure Manager


Role: Owner

mber:



Name: Joe Arnold, Senior Project Manager

Address: 30 Welsh StreetSeaforth, ON N0K 1W0

Role: Overall Responsible Operator

mber:



Name: Rick Marsh, Senior Project Manager



mber:



Name: Shawn Young, Project Manager Intern



mber:



Name: Dale Wright, Lead Operator



mber:



Name: Chad Ikert, Public Health Manager


Role: Public Health

mber:



Name: Theresa Warren, Health Inspector


Role: Public Health

mber:

1Company: St. Clair Region Conservation Authority Phone: 519-245-3710 Fax: 519-245-3348


Name: Girish Sankar, Water Resources Engineer

Address: 205 Mill Pond CrescentStrathroy, Ontario N7G 3P9

Role: Source Protection

mber:

1Company: Ministry of the Environment Phone: 519-383-3797 Fax: 519-336-4280


Name: Paul TerSteege, Water Inspector

Address: 1094 London RoadSarnia, ON N7S 1P1

Role: Compliance - SDWA

262





RE: Request from the Junior B Predators for a Licensed Area at the Shores Recreation Centre

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report DCS 67-2014 regarding a “Request from the Junior B Predators for a Licensed Area at the Shores Recreation Centre” be received; and THAT the request received from the Predators Hockey Club be approved with the following stipulations:

The licensed area is restricted to the site plan provided (Attachment 1 to this report); and

Hours of operation are limited to one half hour prior to the game starting to the 10:00 minute mark (halfway through) of the third period; and

The licensed area must abide by the Municipal Alcohol Policy; and.

The Junior B Predators sign the Memorandum of Agreement found in ‘Attachment 2’.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report presents a housekeeping request from the Lambton Shores Predators Junior B Hockey Club for a licensed area during their home games hosted at the Shores Recreation Centre. Approval for the licensed area has been granted to the Club for the past three seasons. The Club is again seeking permission to offer this service during their home games. BACKGROUND The Lambton Shores Predators Junior B Club is continuously looking for ways to generate revenue to offset the expenses incurred with operating the team. One venture that the Club requests Council’s approval for annually is the option of operating a licensed bar area within the Shores Recreation Centre during their home games.

263

The Lambton Shores Predators have been granted approval since 2011 to operate a licensed area within the Shores Recreation Centre during their home games, subject to annual review. Each season, the Predators have attempted to source a local service club to operate their bar, with the service club obtaining the permits and insurance. Unfortunately, the hockey club has not been able to form an agreement and therefore, has not yet operated a license area during home games. The Predators are again requesting Council’s permission in an attempt to operate a licensed area for the 2014/2015 season. Attachment 1 shows the site plan approved by Council for the licensed area in previous years. The same area has been requested for 2014, and the Predators plan to use their storage locker under the stands to store any items required to host a bar. Games are typically played on Saturday or Sunday evenings. Staff has consulted with the municipality’s insurers to address any concerns they may have with the agreement. The agreement has been amended to reflect those concerns. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER Council could consider not granting approval for the licensed area, however, this is not recommended as similar approvals have been granted in the past to Junior B hockey and Senior A hockey clubs upon request. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Staff recommends that Council approve the request received from the Predators Hockey Club with the following stipulations:

The licensed area is restricted to the site plan provided in “Attachment 1”; and

Hours of operation are limited to one half hour prior to the game starting to the 10:00 minute mark (halfway through) of the third period; and

The licensed area must abide by the Municipal Alcohol Policy; and.

The Junior B Predators sign the Memorandum of Agreement found in ‘Attachment 2’.

FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to Lambton Shores resulting from this request. The Predators are responsible for set up and take down of the proposed area. CONSULTATION

Staff provided a copy of the draft agreement to the municipal insurance company and reviewed the request internally.

264

Attachment 2

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT made this ____ day of ______________ 20__ BETWEEN:

_____________________________ hereinafter called the “Club” OF THE FIRST PART

- AND –

THE “MUNICIPALITY” OF LAMBTON SHORES hereinafter called the “Municipality” OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS the “Club” is desirous of using space at

[ ] The Shores Recreation Centre [ ] The Legacy Centre

for the purposes of serving alcohol; (the “Licensed Area”) AND WHEREAS: It is deemed expedient to outline the roles and responsibilities of each of the parties with respect to this usage; NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:

1. The “Municipality” hereby grants permission to the “Club” to enter, occupy and use the “licensed area” for the specific purpose of serving alcoholic beverages in accordance with the terms set out herein.

a) The “Club” is responsible for obtaining a Special Occasions Permit (SOP) from the LCBO 30 days prior to the event and providing proof to the Municipality that the license has been obtained.

b) The “Club” must provide proof of insurance for such events to the Municipality two (2) weeks prior to the date of the event.

c) The “Club” must abide by the Alcohol Policy set in place by the Municipality. An authorized person representing the “Club” must review the policy with municipal staff and must sign off on the policy at least two (2) weeks prior to the date of the event. The Municipality will provide signage that must be posted in the licensed area during operation.

d) The “Club” is responsible for supplying and storing their own alcoholic beverages. Storage must be secure and only accessible by the people operating the licensed area.

e) The “Club” is responsible for the set up of the licensed area. It will be inspected by arena staff prior to the sale of any alcohol.

265

f) The licensed area must be clearly defined with ropes and the points of entry must be manned with security. Alcohol will not be permitted beyond these boundaries.

g) The “Club” must provide the Municipality with a copy of the servers SmartServe card (includes their name and SmartServe number).

h) Patrons of the licensed area must be 19 years of age or older to purchase and/or consume alcoholic beverages. The “Club” and/or arena staff reserves the right to request identification from any patron looking younger than 19 years of age. Arena staff reserves the right to eject anyone under the legal drinking age of 19 years who is observed to be consuming alcohol on the premises.

i) The “Club” will not serve more than two (2) alcoholic beverages to a patron at one time and reserves the right to limit service to one (1) drink per patron (see Alcohol Policy 9.12).

j) The “Club” will not serve any patron whom is believed to be intoxicated (see Alcohol Policy 9.19).

k) Patrons will not be permitted to bring in outside alcoholic beverages of any kind into the arena and may be subject to eviction by doing so.

l) Alcohol sales within the area will commence one half (1/2) hour prior to the game starting and conclude at the 10:00 minute mark (halfway through) of the third period.

m) Alcohol sales are not permitted if minor sports are utilizing the arena before or after the game. Under these circumstances the licensed area will only operate during the game time and will promptly close at the end of it.

n) Municipal facilities are smoke free

2. ACCESS BY THE MUNICIPALITY

The municipality will have access to the storage facility for emergency purposes, or for Health and Safety inspections.

5. TERM

The term of usage shall be for one (1) year, commencing _______________. 6. RENTAL FEE

There will be no rental fee for the use of the “leased premises”.

7. INSURANCE

The “Club” must provide proof of a minimum of $2,000,000 of General Liability Insurance on a per occurrence basis issued by an insurance company licensed to conduct business in the Province of Ontario and at minimum must include the following:

a) Lambton Shores shown as an additional insured b) Coverage for bodily injury and property damage

266

c) A Liquor Liability endorsement or have issued a separate alcohol policy such as PAL

d) Tenants Legal Liability e) Products and Completed Operations Liability f) Personal Injury Liability g) Advertiser’s Liability h) 30 Day Notice of Cancellation Provision

A Certificate of Insurance evidencing coverage shall be provided to Lambton Shores within 14 days of the event.

8. MAINTENANCE

The “Municipality” will be responsible for all external maintenance necessary to protect the integrity of the building. The “Club” will be responsible for the interior maintenance of the leased premise, and all equipment and facilities for which it claims exclusive use. The “Club” will be responsible for all damage to the Licensed Area that occurs, and is responsible to notify the Community Services Department immediately upon becoming aware of the damage.

9. SIGNAGE

The “Municipality” must approve all signage prior to it being erected anywhere on the property. The “Municipality” is not responsible for any cost for the sign production or special installation.

10. POSSESSORY INTEREST

It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that the agreement between the two parties for occupancy by the “Club” does not create a possessory interest or any other interest in real property, and the property shall remain the sole property of the “Municipality”.

11. NOTICE OF TERMINATION

The “Municipality” has the right to terminate this agreement immediately if the “Club” fails to abide by the terms and conditions outlined above. This decision will be left to the discretion of the Director of Community Services or their designate. The “Municipality” agrees that a notice to terminate the Lease as described above shall be delivered or mailed to: ______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

267

If the “Club” wishes to terminate this agreement prior to the end of the term created by this agreement, notice to that affect will be given in writing NOT LESS THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS prior to each anniversary date or to the termination date. The “Club” agrees and acknowledges that a notice to terminate the Lease as described above shall be delivered or mailed to the offices of the “Municipality” at: The Municipality of Lambton Shores 9575 Port Franks Road R. R. # 1 Thedford, ON N0M 2N0 Attention: Facilitator of Recreation and Leisure

12. INDEMNITY

The “Club” shall indemnify and hold harmless the Municipality, its officers, members of municipal council and employees from and against any liabilities, claims, expenses, demands, loss, cost, damages, actions, suits or other proceedings by whomsoever made, directly or indirectly arising out of this Agreement attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death or to damage to or destruction of tangible property including loss of revenue or incurred expense resulting from disruption of service and caused by any acts or omissions of the “Club”, its officers, agents, servants, employees, customers, invitees or licensees, or occurring in or on the premises or any part thereof and, as a result of activities under this agreement.

By signing said terms and conditions noted in this Agreement, the representative(s) indemnifies the Municipality of Lambton Shores of any liability for lost, stolen or damaged property stored on said premises.

_____________________________

Lambton Shores Predators Jr B President

_____________________________ Lambton Shores Predators Jr B

Representative

_____________________________ Date

MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES

_____________________________ Community Services Department Representative

_____________________________

268

Attachment 1

Site plan – Requested licensed area for the Lambton Shores Predators Junior B Club

269




FROM: Carol McKenzie, Clerk; Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services

RE: Windsor Park Association – Various Traffic Requests

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report DCS 68-2014 regarding “Windsor Park Association – Various Traffic Requests” be received; and THAT speed limits within Windsor Park be reduced to 40 km/h; and THAT the north side of Bond Road, the west side of Wedd Road and the roads at the intersection of Clarke and Dune Drives be changed to “No Parking anytime”; and THAT the set fine for infraction on Clarke Drive and Dune Drive be increased to $ 65.00; and THAT parking restriction at the Bond Road beach parking area be changed “No Parking 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.”, and THAT staff prepare the necessary by-laws for consideration at the September 18, 2014 meeting.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report presents various traffic related requests received from the Windsor Park Association, and staff’s evaluation and recommendation for each respective request. BACKGROUND Lambton Shores has received the following requests from the Windsor Park Association for various traffic and parking related modifications in Windsor Park in Port Franks:

1. Reduce the speed limit on the streets within Windsor Park by 10 km/hr (i.e. from 50 to 40 km/hr);

2. Install seasonal speed bumps on Bond Road at a point near the top of the hill

and on Sanderson Road about halfway between Bond and Wedd Roads;

270

3. Ban parking, 9 AM to 5 PM, along Windsor Park streets every day, not just on

weekends and Holidays; and,

4. Change the parking regulations for the public parking areas on Bond Road to read “No Parking- 11 PM to 6 AM”.

Each of these requests and the options considered by staff are discussed in the next section. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER 1. Speed Limit Request Section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act provides a local road authority to change speed limits of roadways under its jurisdiction. One of the many ways to create a safer road environment is to provide credible posted speed limits that match the expectation of drivers for a given roadway and its surrounding area. Recognizing that speed limits have considerable influence on roadway safety and efficiency, the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) has developed guidelines to provide a systematic, consistent, and repeatable process for establishing posted speed limits. When posted speed limits are requested to be reviewed a traffic engineering study is conducted based on the process established by TAC. This assessment primarily focuses on a review of the road characteristics, including horizontal and vertical geometry, pedestrian and cyclist use, roadside hazards, roadside parking, and existing accesses to the roadway. Staff has completed the necessary speed limit assessments the affected roads in Windsor Park and has found that a speed limit reduction to 40 km/h is justified, but is contingent upon roadside parking (request #3). If roadside parking remains permissible in the area, the hazard rating for pedestrians, cyclists, and obstructions is higher than if roadside parking is eliminated and justifies the speed limit change. If roadside parking is eliminated, the pedestrian and cyclist risk is reduced as the shoulder of the road is now available for travel, and a speed limit change is not justified based on the TAC assessment. Staff has shared these findings with the Windsor Park Association. After discussion, the Association is in agreement with Staff’s recommended parking changes (discussed below) which means roadside parking will remain. As a result, staff is prepared to recommend that a speed limit reduction to 40 km/h be approved. 2. Speed Bump Request In 2013 seasonal speed bumps were installed at two locations within Windsor Park as a pilot to determine if they would have the desired traffic calming effect. The speed bumps were installed again in the spring of 2014; unfortunately the original speed bumps were

271

stolen on the Victoria Day Long weekend. This theft was reported to the OPP; however the units have not been recovered. The current request is for the original speed bumps to be reinstalled with the addition of a third set of speed bumps. Each location costs approximately $1,200 for the temporary units and is funded through the Community Services operating budget. Staff did not plan for the purchase of three locations in 2014 and presently there is not a budget item for this purchase. From a practical perspective, the lag time for delivery of units ordered is several week and corresponds to when the speed bumps would be removed for the season. To accommodate this request, staff will include a budget item in the 2015 draft operating budget. 3. Full Roadside Parking Ban within Windsor Park One of the requests from the WPA was consideration of a full parking ban on Windsor Park streets every day, not just on weekends and Holidays. As noted above, the TAC calculation for speed limit reductions depends on whether or not there is on street parking. If the on street parking was eliminated, the reduction in speed from 50 km/h to 40 km/h could not be justified. When polled, the Windsor Park Association favoured the reduced speed limit option over the parking ban. Staff reviewed the current parking restrictions, and there are some changes that could be incorporated that may improve pedestrian safety, and help further reduce parking infractions in the area: a) eliminate all parking on the lake side of Bond Road (currently there are a couple of spots close to the beach parking area) and b) change the restrictions at the corners of Wedd and Bond and also at Clarke and Dune to “No Parking anytime” due to visibility issues ( see map attached). c) There are provisions in the Lambton Shores parking by-law for increased fines for parking infractions near the beach. These fines are in place for the Bond, Wedd and Sanderson Road infractions only. The area for the higher fines could be extended to include violations on Clarke and Dune Drives as well which would treat all roads uniformly. The Association has also requested by-law staff provide additional mid-week patrols of the Windsor Park area during hot and sunny summer days, in addition to the existing weekend patrol schedule. This request will be considered for the 2015 parking enforcement season.

272

4. Bond Road Beach Parking Area – Time Change Staff can recommend that the parking restriction at the Bond Road beach parking area be changed FROM “No Parking Midnight to 6 a.m.” to “No Parking 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.”, which will make it consistent with other beach area parking lots. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Staff recommends that a speed limit reduction from 50 km/h to 40 km/h be approved for Windsor Park, and that parking restrictions are amended to prohibit parking on the north side of Bond Road and the west side of Wedd Road, and that the prohibition at the beach parking area be changed from midnight to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., and that the fines for all parking infractions in Windsor Park be set at $ 65.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT Costs to the Municipality to accommodate these requests are primarily time and material costs. The cost to install a new sign is approximately $100 which includes purchase of a sign and operator time to install. The Municipality budgets for sign purchase and installations within the annual operating budget, and the costs associated with these requests can be accommodated within the approved 2014 operating budget. CONSULTATION

Prior to the preparation of this report staff met with members of the Windsor Park Association Board to discuss the various requests. Staff learned that the Association has previously completed a survey of their membership to determine opinion on each of the requests. The results of the survey were provided to staff for inclusion in this report:

WPA Survey Results As requested, here are the results from last February’s survey, sent to 52 of our members who have email addresses. We have 2 members who do not use email and they weren’t contacted. The 52 we contacted represent 58% of the 89 homes in Windsor Park.

We had 27 responses or 52% of those contacted although one member responded to only 3 of the 4 questions. The questions and responses were: 1) Should the speed limit on the streets within Windsor Park be reduced by 10 km/hr (i.e. from 50 to 40 km/hr) consistent with the 40 km/hr speed limit on Port Franks Road, Superior Street, Riverside Drive and Outer Drive? 93% (25 of 27) responded in favour of reducing the speed limit to 40 km/hr.

273

2) Should weekday parking, 9 AM to 5 PM, be eliminated along Windsor Park streets? 52% (14 of 27) responded in favour of eliminating weekday parking. 3) Would you support the creation of 6 additional designated parking spots in Windsor Park (across from the Wedd Rd. beach access, as indicated on the attached map) where the same parking rules would apply as are in force for the 24 designated parking spots located at the Bond Rd. entrance to Port Franks Beach? 70% (19 of 27) responded against adding additional parking spots. 4) Should the parking regulations on Bond Road be changed to read No Parking- 11 PM to 6 AM (from the existing Midnight to 6 AM), consistent with the beach parking regulations at Grand Bend and elsewhere in Lambton Shores’ beach areas? 77% (20 of 26) responded in favour of not allowing parking after 11 pm. Also, even though we didn’t ask for comments several respondents took the time to respond in detail to item 3. Virtually all the responses expressed safety concerns if the additional parking spaces suggested were added. Please advise if you have any further questions. Bill MacDonald President Windsor Park Association

ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed parking restrictions in Windsor Park

274

275





RE: Speed Limit Review – Richardson Drive, Ipperwash

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report DCS 69-2014 regarding “Speed Limit Review – Richardson Drive, Ipperwash” be received; and THAT the speed limit on Richardson Drive be reduced to 40 km/h and that staff prepare the necessary by-law for consideration at the September 18, 2014 meeting.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report presents a summary of staff’s review of a request to reduce the speed limit on Richardson Drive in Ipperwash to 15 km/h. BACKGROUND Lambton Shores has received a request from the residents of Richardson Drive in Ipperwash to reduce the speed limit on that street to 15 km/h. The residents have signed a petition showing their support for the change. One of the many ways to help create a safer road environment is to provide credible posted speed limits that match the expectation of drivers for a given roadway and its surrounding area. The Highway Traffic Act (HTA) sets out the default speed limits for various roadways in Section 128. Section 128.(1) designates a speed limit of 50 km/h for built-up urban areas. Section 128. (2) provides a municipality with the ability to pass a by-law to establish a speed limit that is different than what is set out in 128.(1) for roadways under the municipality’s jurisdiction. Recognizing that speed limits have considerable influence on roadway safety and efficiency, the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) has developed guidelines to provide a systematic, consistent, and repeatable process for establishing posted speed limits. When posted speed limits are requested to be reviewed a traffic engineering study is conducted based on the process established by TAC. This assessment primarily focuses on a review of the road characteristics, including horizontal and vertical geometry, pedestrian and cyclist use, roadside hazards, roadside parking, and existing accesses to the roadway.

276

ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER The requested speed limit for Richardson Drive is 15 km/h. Staff has completed the necessary speed limit assessment this section of roadway and have found that a speed limit of 15 km/h is not appropriate given the roadway characteristics. In addition, the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) reports that operating speeds under 40 km/h are generally not practically achieved unless significant traffic calming measures are implemented. Practitioner literature reports research findings that drivers will travel at a speed at which they feel is safe given the particular characteristics of a roadway. Simply posting a reduced speed limit with a desired speed has not been found to be effective at reducing driver speeds. Based on the TAC assessment for this section of roadway the lowest appropriate speed limit to be established should be 40 km/h. Staff is recommending that Council support a reduction to this limit. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Staff recommends that the speed limit on Richardson Drive be reduced to 40 km/h and that staff prepare the necessary by-law for consideration at the September 18, 2014 meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT Costs to the Municipality to accommodate these requests are primarily time and material costs. The cost to install a new sign is approximately $100 which includes purchase of a sign and operator time to install. In this instance one sign will be required. The Municipality budgets for sign purchase and installations within the annual operating budget, and the costs associated with these requests can be accommodated within the approved 2014 operating budget. CONSULTATION

This report was circulated internally prior to approval.

277





RE: Tornado Clean-up Update

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report DCS 70-2014 regarding “Tornado Response Update” be received for Council’s information.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report is provided to Council as an update on the work to date regarding response to the July 27, 2014 tornado, and work plans moving forward into September. BACKGROUND A two phase approach to the clean-up effort has been implemented: Phase 1: “Curb to Curb” Clearance of Trees and Brush

Focus: immediately clear the travelled road way to allow for safe access by emergency responders and safe use of the roadway.

This portion of the clean-up was completed July 31, 2014. Phase 2: Clean Up of Road Allowance Beyond Curb + Collection of Residential

Brush

Focus: clear leaning trees and fallen brush within the road allowance outside the limit of the curb to protect the municipal roadway.

At the July 31, Special Council meeting the focus of this phase was amended to allow residents to pile brush in the road allowance for municipal collection.

An initial cut-off date for residential collection was set at August 17, 2014, subject to re-evaluation. The cut-off date was subsequently extended to September 1, 2014.

Crews began the morning of July 31, 2014 on this task. Municipal crews were committed for five 12-hour work days the week of August 4, and three 8-hour work days per week the weeks of August 11 and August 18.

As of August 26, brush volumes are observed to be reducing, and only one day of clean-up is forecasted for this week.

We forecast a three to five day effort the week of September 1 after the final week-end for residential pick-up

278

Contract operators were hired to remove trees that were leaning over the road allowance. Contractors are now focusing on removing hanging limbs that become apparent as leaves die and contrast with the living canopy.

Lambton Shores has been fortunate to receive assistance in the work effort from other local municipalities, including: Bluewater, Lambton County, Huron County, Plympton-Wyoming and St. Clair Township.

The County of Lambton continues to provide manpower and equipment on an as-needed basis.

Brush Drop-Off

A temporary location for residents to drop off storm damaged tree waste was established at the Klondyke Sports Park. The temporary site will remain open to the public until the end of September as the Municipality continues with its clean-up efforts.

Brush and body wood that accumulates at the drop-off site will need to be managed in the future. Several alternatives are currently being considered for the final form of disposal.

ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER None at this time. This report is presented for information only. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS That the report be received for information. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff submitted an application to the Ontario Disaster Recovery Program (ODRAP) for funding to assist with the onerous costs of the tornado related cleanup. To date we have not received a decision. In discussions with other municipalities that have submitted an application under the ODRAP program, the decision timeline varied; however, it was on average 5 months before a decision was received. The total estimated municipal costs of clean-up are $901,195.00 with $720,130.00 forecasted as eligible under ODRAP. Actual costs will be dependent upon the volume of and type material that ultimately requires clean-up, and the cost to repair/replace damaged road infrastructure. CONSULTATION

Internally with staff.

279


Report TR-40-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014

TO: Mayor Weber and Council

FROM: Janet Ferguson, Treasurer

RE: Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund and Small Communities Fund

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report TR-40-2014 regarding the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund and Small Communities fund be received; and THAT the Thedford Storm Water and Road Reconstruction project and the Forest Broadway Street Watermain and Road Reconstruction project are the identified projects for the programs.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report will provide Council with information on the recently announced capital infrastructure funding programs and projects considered. BACKGROUND On August 18, 2014 the Province announced infrastructure funding for municipalities under the permanent Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) and the Building Canada Fund – Small Communities Fund (BCF-SCF). The OCIF program is delivered in two ways, one through a stable, predictable formula-based funding model and one by an application-based method. The details on the formula-based model will be provided by letter in September. The application-based method requires that an expression of interest (EOI) identifying the project be submitted by September 19, 2014. If the EOI passes the pre-screening, we will be notified in October and asked to submit a full application in December. Final decisions are due in January or February of 2015. The SCF program only has one component which is an application process. The SCF program has similar deadlines for submission and approval as noted above. The funding parameters, amounts and levels of government are different for the application based programs. A comparison of the two application based programs has been provided in attachment 1.

280

In preparation to submit an expression of interest for both funding programs, the Community Services Department has compiled information on the infrastructure projects that meet the criteria and are shown in the following table: Project Name Work Type Priority Date Budget Project

Complete by by Dec 31,

2016

Outstanding Tasks

TH- Storm Water Upgrades (Phase 2/3/4)

Stormwater

Road reconstruction

2015/2016 $1,711,429 Yes Ph 2 - approvals, tendering Ph 3/4/5 - engineering, approvals, tendering

FO - Broadway Street

Watermain

Road Reconstruction

6-10 yrs $1,320,000 Yes None

FO - King Street E.

Watermain

Road Reconstruction

No Date $1,227,000 TBD Survey, Engineering, Approvals

FO - Main Street S.

Watermain

Road Reconstruction

No Date $1,397,000 TBD Survey, Engineering, Approvals

Thedford Storm Water Upgrades The landscape of the Village of Thedford is heavily influenced by several drainage systems in the area that converge and pass through the Village. In recent years summer storms have become more severe with significant rainfalls that have exceeded the two and five year storm levels on a regular basis. As a result of these storms, there have been significant storm water drainage issues identified within the Village resulting in roads requiring temporary closure and private property being damaged due to flooding. In an effort to address these issues Lambton Shores hired Spriet Associates in 2011 and 2012 to provide recommendations for improving drainage issues within the town. The findings from the Spriet report recommend selected road reconstruction and the installation of new storm sewers throughout the Village. Working within the constraints of the annual capital budget, staff has split the recommendations into a four phased construction plan to significantly complete construction by 2018. The first phase of this work was tendered and awarded in 2014 at a total construction cost of $524,937.09 inclusive of all taxes and contingency pricing.

281

The storm water issues in Thedford are considered a high priority as they pose an immediate risk to public and private health and safety. As such, staff recommends that a grant application be submitted for the remaining phases of this project to assist the Municipality with completing this project ahead of 2018. The estimated cost of the remaining works is $1,711,429. Forest Broadway Street Watermain and Road Reconstruction There are 51 homes and an elementary school located in this project area. The water, road and sidewalk infrastructure in this area are in need of replacement due to age and condition. The majority of the water mains in this location are 90 years old and in need of replacement. Due to the water main age, there is a serious risk of water main break which has the risk of negatively affecting water quality and health for the nearby residents and youth. The aging water infrastructure also restricts the present day requirements for fire protection. Replacing the aging infrastructure will accommodate the current and future population of the area. Broadway Street is an arterial road with a nearby school and therefore heavy vehicular and foot traffic. Staff has reviewed the condition of the road and feel there is a need for resurfacing prior to the end of the useful life to accommodate the residents and traffic flow. With reconstruction of the road and associated infrastructure there will be an improvement to the existing marginal road drainage, which will in turn enhance the useful life of all infrastructure in the area. Staff has submitted questions to the funding program administration and once answers are received a better determination can be made for which program best suits each of the recommended projects. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER Staff has identified two other potential projects for consideration that meet the program criteria; however, they currently have a lessor priority and are not as close to being construction ready. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS That expression of interests be submitted to the OICF and SCF funding programs and that the Thedford Storm Water and Road Reconstruction project and the Forest Broadway Street Watermain and Road Reconstruction project are the identified projects for the programs.

282

FINANCIAL IMPACT These projects are included in our capital infrastructure replacement program; however, due to the many budget priorities and constraints they are projected forward over several years. Receiving grant funding would allow projects to be completed sooner than projected as well as possibly doing more with our reserve funds. The financial impact of these funding programs and eligible projects has not been determined at this time as the determination of which project fits best in which program has not yet been made. This report is to seek Council’s concurrence of the projects selected for the application-based funding programs so an EOI can be submitted by the deadline of September 19, 2014. CONSULTATION

Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services

283

Attachment 1

The following table provides a brief summary and comparison of the application-based component of the OCIF and the intake to identify potential SCF projects.

OCIF and SCF Comparison Table

OCIF Application-based Component

Federal Government’s Small Communities Fund

Funding available?

$50 million in annual provincial funding.

$272 million from each of the federal and provincial governments.

Who is an eligible applicant?

Municipalities that:

• have a population of less than 100,000; or

• are located in northern Ontario.

Note: Municipalities that were eligible to apply for funding under the 2013 Small, Rural and Northern Municipal Infrastructure Fund and do not meet the eligibility criteria noted above are eligible to apply for funding under the application-based component of the OCIF.

Local Services Boards (LSBs) with water or wastewater systems.

Note: Municipalities may develop project applications in partnership with other municipalities, LSBs, and First Nations communities.

Municipalities and Local Services Boards (LSBs)

Public Sector Bodies that are owned by a province, municipality or regional government and provide municipal infrastructure services.

Indian Act Band Councils

Private sector bodies (for-profit or not-for-profit organizations) with support by a municipality by way of resolution in council

Eligible applicants are those entities listed above and are restricted to those whose projects are situated within and/ or for the benefit of communities with a population of less than 100,000 people. (A community is defined as the legal entity of the local government pursuant to applicable provincial or territorial legislation, that is, having the legal status of a local government pursuant to provincial or territorial legislation in that province or territory).

Which projects are eligible?

Roads, bridges, water and wastewater projects.

Highways and major roads, drinking water, wastewater, public transit, solid waste management, green energy, innovation,

284

connectivity and broadband, brownfield remediation and redevelopment, disaster mitigation, local/regional airports, short-line rail and short sea shipping projects.

What portion of funding may be requested?

Up to 90% provincial funding of the total eligible costs of a project. No federal funding.

In most cases, the maximum federal and provincial contribution will be two-thirds of the total eligible costs of a project (See section 8.1 for exceptions).

What is the funding cap?

$2 million maximum provincial share.

None

How will funding flow?

Funding will be flowed as project milestones are achieved.

Receipts based

Project completion

Projects must be completed by December 31, 2016.

To be outlined in contribution agreements.

EOI timeline? EOIs will be accepted until 5 pm (EST) on September 19, 2014.

Timelines for full applications?

Eligible applicants that successfully pass the EOI stage will be provided with an application package and will have a minimum of 30 days to complete application forms. Applications will be due in December 2014.

285





RE: Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program Funding

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report TR-41-2014 regarding the Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program be received; and THAT the Mayor and Treasurer be authorized to execute the funding agreement for the Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program for Invasive Phragmites Control and Habitat Restoration for a Lambton Shores Coastal Meadow Marsh – PMA V B1 & B2.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report requests Council authorization to execute a funding agreement under the Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program in the amount of $20,000.00 for phragmites control. BACKGROUND Lambton Shores is fortunate to have a volunteer group that has a well-established focus on phragmites control. Earlier this year, the Lambton Shores Phragmites Community Group brought together the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (SCRCA), Ward 4 Cottage Association, Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, Dover Agri-Serve, a Wetland Ecologist, the municipality and private property owners to have a joint approach to control phragmites in Lambton Shores and subsequently submitted a funding application to the Ministry of Natural Resources Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program (LSHRP). The funding request has been approved and a funding agreement provided by the Ministry. Similar to 2013, Lambton Shores is the lead on the application and responsible for executing the funding agreement. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER Council could choose not to support this funding agreement; however, it is not recommended. The Lambton Shores Phragmites Community Group spend countless

286

volunteer hours moving the eradication and control program forward and these funds will support their efforts and allow the joint program to move forward. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS That Council support this joint effort in phragmites control and that the Mayor and Treasurer be authorized to execute the funding agreement for the Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program for Invasive Phragmites Control and Habitat Restoration for a Lambton Shores Coastal Meadow Marsh – PMA V B1 & B2 FINANCIAL IMPACT The approved funding amount is $20,000.00 and will be applied to the equipment, material and contract work required to complete a small portion of the total joint project costs. There is no direct financial impact to Lambton Shores by executing this funding agreement. The Lambton Shores 2014 budget allocation will remain and work continue as planned for municipal property. CONSULTATION

None

Attachment – Ontario Funding Agreement

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317


Report CL No. 58 – 2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014


FROM: Carol McKenzie, Clerk

RE: Amending the Noise By-law to allow for Exemptions under certain circumstances

RECOMMENDATION: THAT CL Report No. 58 -2012 regarding an amendment to the Noise By-law to allow exemptions under certain circumstances be approved, and THAT the Lambton Shores Noise By-law be amended to provide for exemptions, and the draft policies/procedures and application form be approved and THAT the staff prepare the necessary amendment to the by-law for consideration at the September 18, 2014 Council meeting.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY The report provides information on an exemption process for the Noise By-law and possible conditions of approval for Council’s consideration. BACKGROUND The Lambton Shores Noise By-law 30 of 2002 provides standards for noise with the intention of reducing the impact of unwanted sound on the residents. The by-law applies to all properties within the Municipality of Lambton Shores, and prevents persons from making, causing or permitting any noise which is likely to disturb residents.

Part 3 of the by-law outlines the types of events that can be granted an exemption from the provisions of the by-law, and these include public celebrations and parades (with the written permission of the Municipality), emergency vehicles, and radios in private vehicles intended for the sole benefit of occupants. There are no provisions in the by-law for applications for noise by-law exemptions for any other purpose other than as stated above.

Section 1.9 of the Noise by-law includes provisions that apply to noise from excavation or construction work arising between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (There is an

318

opportunity for an exemption in the case of “urgent necessity”, with a special permit from the Building Inspector.)

A request has been received from Stantec Consulting for an exemption to the Noise by-law for construction works proposed for 2015 and 2016, however, the request currently cannot be processed as there aren’t provisions in the by-law for exemptions.

There may also be other events that may benefit from an exemption to the by-law, and it is recommended that Council consider amending the Noise by-law to add a process by which applications for exemptions would be reviewed and approved.

Part of the recommended procedure is to require notification of the proposed event and application to the residents and businesses in the specific area that may be impacted. The comments from the residents would be provided to Council in a report with the exemption request application.

One of the caveats in the proposed procedures (attached) is that if an exemption is approved by Council, the event or activity would be restricted to the approved location(s) and details set out in the permit only, and failure to comply with the conditions of the permit would result in the Noise Exemption Permit being revoked. A performance deposit would be required to ensure adherence to the approval. Failure to comply would also result in a fine under the Noise By-law in the amount of $ 300.00 plus costs.

Attachment 2 is the draft policies/procedures and application form for a “Noise Exemption Permit” for consideration.

ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER There is no alternative being suggested. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS That the Lambton Shores Noise By-law be amended to provide for exemptions, and the draft policies/procedures and application form be approved. If the recommendation is approved, a by-law to revise By-Law 30 of 2002 will be brought to the next Council meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact associated with this report; however, it is recommended that if the exemption policy is approved, an application fee of $ 100.00 be established to cover the municipal costs to process applications. The proposed policy includes a requirement for the applicant to provide a refundable performance deposit prior to the request being submitted to Council for consideration, with the suggested amount being $ 500.00

319

CONSULTATION

Various noise by-laws from other Municipalities were reviewed and the best practices included in the recommendations. Attachment 1. Noise By-law 30 of 2002 Attachment 2. Policies/procedures and application form

320


BY-LAW 30 OF 2002

Being a by-law to provide for the prohibition of certain noises

WHEREAS: The Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, Section 210, Subsection 138, provides that a municipality may pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating noises;

AND WHEREAS: It is deemed expedient and necessary to regulate or

prohibit unusual noises, or noises likely to disturb the inhabitants of the Municipality of Lambton Shores;

THEREFORE: The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the

Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts as follows: SHORT TITLE: NOISE CONTROL BY-LAW Part 1: NOISES – PROHIBITED 1. Likely to Disturb – Unusual – Prohibited

No person shall cause or permit to be caused any unusual noises, or noises likely to disturb the inhabitants.

1.2 Likely to Disturb – Unusual – Set Out For the purpose of Section 1 of this by-law, the noises or sounds

deemed to constitute unusual noises or noises likely to disturb the inhabitants shall include, but are not limited to, those set out in sections 1.3 to 1.13 inclusive of this by-law.

1.3 Horn – Siren – Bell – Duration – Unreasonable The sounding of a bell, horn, siren, or signal device for an

unnecessary or unreasonable period of time is prohibited. 1.4 Radio – Loud Speaker – Other – Annoying – Disturbing Unless specific permission is granted by the Municipality, the sound

or noise from or created by any radio, phonograph, public address system, sound equipment, loud speaker, or similar device or devices, or any musical or sound producing instrument or whatever

321

By-law 30-2002 Prohibiting Certain Noises Page 2

kind, when such device or instrument is played or operated in such a manner or with such volume:

(a) As to likely annoy or disturb the peace, quiet, comfort of

repose of any individual in any type of residence; or

(b) In the case of a device or instrument located in any commercial building or structure, as to be plainly audible upon the public streets at a distance of 8 metres (25 feet) from the building or structure in which such device or instrument is located:

is prohibited.

1.5 Dogs No person who has the care, custody or control of a dog within the

Municipality of Lambton Shores shall permit such dog to indulge in prolonged yelping, howling, barking or other sounds during any time of the day or night.

1.6 Animal – Bird – Disturbing Peace – Quiet Any sound made by any domestic pet, animal or bird, which is likely

to disturb the peace, quiet, comfort or repose of any individual in any type of residence, is prohibited.

1.7 Vehicle – Rattling – In Disrepair – Maladjusted The grating, grinding or rattling noises or sound caused by

condition of disrepair or maladjustment of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, or other vehicle whatsoever or part or accessory thereof is prohibited.

1.8 Exhaust – Discharge – Without Muffler The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any steam engine,

stationary internal combustion engine, motor vehicle or motorcycle, except through a muffler or other device that effectively prevents loud or explosive noises, is prohibited.

1.9 Construction – Excavation – 8 p.m. – 7 a.m. Any noise arising between the hour of 8:00 o’clock p.m. of any day

and 7:00 o’clock a.m. of the next following day from any excavation or construction work whatsoever, including the erection, demolition,

322


alteration or repair of any building is prohibited, except in case of urgent necessity and then under a special permit from the Building Inspector.

1.10 Loud Speaker – Horn – Other – Advertising The noise or sound created by the use or operation of any drum,

horn, bell, radio or mechanical loudspeaker, or other instrument or device or sound-producing, or sound transmitting instrument or apparatus for the purpose of advertising or for attracting attention to any performance, show or sale or display of goods, wares or merchandise or which projects noise or sound into any street or other public place is prohibited, unless the Municipality has granted specific approval for same.

1.11 Loud Speaker - Other – In vehicle – Use – Restricted The noise or sound created by the use or operation of any radio or

mechanical loudspeaker or amplifier or other instrument or device or sound-producing, sound-reproducing, or sound transmitting instrument or apparatus in or upon any vehicle is prohibited, unless the Municipality has granted specific approval for same.

1.12 Firearms – Discharge – Exception – Peace Officers The noise or sound caused by the discharge of any gun or other

firearm, air gun and spring-gun or any class or type thereof is prohibited in the urban areas of the Municipality. This prohibition shall not apply to peace officers in the performance of their duties.

1.13 Shouting – verbal sounds The noise or sound caused by loud shouting, or excessive sounds

generated by a human voice, which is likely to disturb the peace, quiet, comfort or repose of any individual in any type of residence is prohibited.

1.14 Highways – Prohibitions – Exceptions The prohibitions imposed by the following sections do not apply to

noises occurring on any street to which the Highway Traffic Act applies:

(a) Section 1.7 (relating to vehicle noises arising from vehicles

not in a proper state of repair);

323


(b) Section 1.8 (relating to vehicle discharge noises other than through a noise muffling device); and

(c) Section 1.11 (relating to devices for broadcasting amplified

sound from vehicles). 2. Violator - definition Any person being an occupant, person of authority, owner or being

in possession of a room, building, cabin or enclosed space, yard or lands appurtenant to a cabin, residence, building or motel from which a noise prohibited in Section 1 above is emitted, shall be deemed a violator of the said Section 1 whether or not he or she personally made or created the said noise, unless he or she proves affirmatively that the maker of the said noises was a trespasser on the said premises.

Part 3 - EXEMPTIONS 3.1 Public Celebration – Election – Gathering – Authorized None of the provisions of this by-law shall apply to the use in a reasonable manner of any apparatus or mechanism for the amplification of the human voice or of music in a public park or any other commodious space in connection with any public election meeting, public celebration or other lawful gathering, provided written permission of the Municipality has first been obtained. 3.2 Parade – Band – Authorized None of the provisions of this by-law shall apply to any military or other band or to a parade operating under written permission from the Municipality. 3.3 Emergency Vehicle – Police – Fire – On Duty None of the provisions of this by-law shall apply to any vehicle of the police or fire department or any ambulance or any public service or emergency vehicle while answering a call. 3.5 Radio – Private – Motor Vehicle – Conditions None of the provisions of this by-law shall apply to any sound from any private radio in a motor vehicle, installed for the sole benefit or entertainment of the operator and occupants of such vehicle when same is not audible at a distance of 8 metres (25 feet) from such vehicle.

324


Part 4 - ENFORCEMENT 4.1 Offence Every person who breaches a section of this By-law is guilty of an offence and subject to a penalty as provided under the “Provincial Offences Act” 4.2 Continuation – new offence Each new day of a continuing offence will be considered a new offence. 4.3 Continuation – Repetition – Prohibited – By Order The court in which the conviction has been entered and any court of competent jurisdiction thereafter, may make an order prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted, and such order shall be in addition to any other penalty imposed on the person convicted. Part 5 – Severability 5.1 Validity – severable It is declared that notwithstanding that any section or sections of this by-law, or parts thereof, may be found by any court of law to be bad or illegal or beyond the power of the Council to enact, such section or sections or parts thereof shall be deemed to be severable and that all other sections or parts of this by-law are separate and independent therefrom and enacted as such. Part 6. Conflict with the Highway Traffic Act

6.1 Conflict

In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this By-law and the Highway Traffic Act, the Highway Traffic Act will prevail. Part 7. Headings Not Part of the By-law 7.1 Headings The headings in the body of this by-law are used for convenience or reference only and do not form part of the by-law.

325


Part 8. Force and Effect 8.1 In effect This By-law shall come into force and effect on August 7, 2002.

Part 9. Previous by-laws Repealed 9.1 Repealed All by-laws listed in Schedule “A-1” of this by-law are repealed as of the final passing of this by-law. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 21st DAY OF MAY 2002

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2002.

“MAYOR – J. C. Ivey

“CLERK - Carol McKenzie” As amended by by-law 46/02 Passed August 6, 2002 Consolidated By-law

326


SCHEDULE "A" BY-LAW 30 OF 2002

Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine as provided in the Provincial Offences Act.

327


SCHEDULE "A-1" BY-LAW 30 OF 2002

The following by-laws regulating noise are hereby repealed as of the final passing of By-law 30 of 2002: Bosanquet By-law 30/1996 Forest By-law 1212 By-law 9-1998 Grand Bend By-law 4020/84 By-law 4062/93 By-Law 4081/98 Thedford By-law 13-1994 Any other by-law regulating noise passed by the Municipality of Lambton Shores or its predecessors are also hereby repealed.

328

Policy for an Application for an Exemption to the Noise By-law (DRAFT) An application for exemption from the provisions of the Noise by-law shall be made in writing to the Clerk at least ninety (90) days prior to the event for which the exemption is sought and include the following:

a. The applicant's name, address, telephone number and e-mail address; b. Municipal address(es) where the source of the noise will come from; c. The date(s) of the event; d. The duration and time(s) of the event; e. A detailed description of the source of sound or vibration in respect to which the

exemption is being sought.( For instance, the source of sound could be rock music, for sporadic announcements to be made or to play jazz music with the use of an amplified sound system and speakers, or for exemptions under the Noise By-law provisions pertaining to construction noise, details on the number and type of equipment to be used. Be specific.)

f. A statement of the particular provisions of the By-law from which the exemption is being sought;

g. The reasons why the exemption is being sought; h. The name of the contact person or persons who will be supervising the event;

and i. Payment of the application fee ( Suggested fee $ 100.00) j. Agreement to remit a performance guarantee in the amount of $ 500.00,

payable in cash, which would be due prior to the request being submitted to Council for approval.

Public Notice of the Application

Once an application is received, the Municipality will prepare a “Public Notice” of the application that the applicant will be required to circulate to the residents and/or businesses that may be affected by the noise aspect of the event. Applicants will be required to provide documentation confirming that notification of the event has been given to the affected parties by one of the approved methods.

A notice of circulation may be made:

Via a Canada Post mailing to all assessed property owners within 500 m (1,640 ft) radius from the event location at least ten (10) weeks before the date the event is to take place; and

Publication in a newspaper of general circulation for two (2) consecutive weeks at least ten (10) weeks before the date of the event.

A three (3) week time frame will be given to residents to respond to the circulated notice to voice, write or email their concerns, objections or comments about the event, and the feedback will be included in a staff report to Council regarding the application. The

329

report will provide comments on the merits of the application and recommendations of any suggested terms and conditions. If the exemption is granted, the applicant will be provided with a letter outlining what has been approved including any terms and conditions as deemed necessary.

A breach of any of the terms and conditions imposed by the municipality for the granting of an exemption shall immediately render the exemption null and void, and result in the forfeiture of the performance bond.

330

Application Form

Noise Exemption PermitApplicant InformationName:

Address:

Home Telephone: Business Telephone Number:

Mobile Telephone Number: E-mail address:

Other:

Event/Activity Information1. Municipal address or location of event or activity:

2. Type of event or activity:

3. Date of event, information on start time, end time and duration of event or activity:

331

4. Please describe all sound or construction equipment which would be used:

5. Which provision of the By-law does the exemption request pertain:

6. Reason why a noise exemption permit is required:

7. For events, number of people expected to attend:

8. Contact information for onsite supervising person(s) who will ensure compliance. As mentioned above, one or more persons are required to be onsite supervising throughout the entire duration of the event and activity and are responsible to ensure compliance with the permit's terms.

Name: Telephone Number(s):



332

Application ChecklistIn order for your application to be reviewed, it must: 1. A completed application form. 2. A site plan (if applicable). 3. Payment of the $100 application fee to the municipal office. If you are submitting a cheque, it must be addressed to: Municipality of Lambton Shores

By submitting this form, I affirm that all the information is true and complete and that I agree to abide by all conditions.

Signature of Applicant: Date of Application:

333


Report CL No. 60-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014



RE: Forest & District Agricultural Society – Request to Renew Lease

RECOMMENDATION: THAT CL Report No. 60-2014 regarding the request from the Forest & District Agricultural Society to renew a lease (license) agreement be received; and THAT Council supports in principle the negotiations for a renewal agreement with the Forest & District Agricultural Society for the use of the Forest Fairgrounds property for an additional 20 year period.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY The report outlines the request from the Forest Agricultural Society to renew an existing lease for the Forest Fairgrounds. BACKGROUND In 1999, the Town of Forest entered into a twenty-one (21) year lease agreement with the Forest & District Agricultural Society for the use of the Forest Fairgrounds. The agreement detailed the fact that the municipality owned the land and the Society owned the buildings, and it outlined the responsibilities of each party. Although there is still a number of years left on the current lease, the Society has asked to renew the agreement now, as they are planning a fund raising campaign to replace two of the older buildings with more modern, functional structures, and prior to commencing with the program, want to ensure the continued use of the property. A new agreement has been prepared and reviewed by the Municipal solicitor and insurer, and provides for the non-exclusive use of the lands by the Society, (ie it includes provisions to allow the municipality to use the land if need be, for example for snow storage) Once the Society has had an opportunity to review and approve the new agreement, the final document will be brought back to Council for approval.

334

The request is being brought forward at this time so that Society can have assurances of a longer term lease prior to the building fund campaign kick off, which is planned to coincide with the 2014 Fair which is from September 19-21, 2014. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER The alternative would be to continue with the existing lease/license agreement that expires in 2020; however, this is not being recommended as the Society would like to invest significant funds in the improvement of the buildings, and would like a level of comfort that they would have the use of the property for at least 20 years. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS THAT Council supports in principle the negotiations for a renewal agreement with the Forest & District Agricultural Society for the use of the Fairgrounds for an additional 20 year period. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact associated with the approval CONSULTATION

The draft agreement was reviewed by the Municipal solicitor and Insurance Company, as well as the Director of Community Services, C.A.O. and Treasurer.

335


Report CL 61-2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014



RE: 2014 Drain Maintenance

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT CL Report 61-2014 respecting the collection of funds for Drain Maintenance works be received, and

THAT By-Law 86 of 2014 authorizing the collection of the sums be approved.

____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

The report provides information on the collection of drain maintenance costs.

BACKGROUND

Each year, maintenance is performed on a number of the 500 plus drains under the jurisdiction of the Municipality. The cost for the maintenance work is allocated to the benefiting property owners based on the approved drainage schedule, and the sums are added to the appropriate tax roll, and collected with the final tax installments. In order to levy and collect the sums, an authorizing by-law is required, and By-law 86 of 2014 has been prepared, and Schedule “A” to the by-law provides details on the recoverable costs for the drain maintenance program.

ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER

There are no alternatives provided as this is the standard practice for the collection of drain maintenance costs.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS THAT by-law 86 of 2014 respecting the collection of funds for Drain Maintenance works be approved FINANCIAL IMPACT

This by-law authorizes the collection of funds owing to the Municipality. CONSULTATION

There has been no outside consultation for this report.

336


Report CL 62 - 2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014



RE: Council Compensation for Mileage Expenses

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report CL 62 of 2014, regarding Council compensation for mileage expenses be received for discussion.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY At the Council meeting held the 3rd day of July, the following motion of Council was approved:

Carried 14-0703-28 THAT staff prepare a report on reimbursing Council members those mileage costs related to Council business.

BACKGROUND The Municipal Act in force prior to the current version outlined the options for Council members to be remunerated, and with respect to expenses, noted that: Expense allowance

255. (1)Despite this Act or any other general or special Act, where an elected member of a council of a municipality or a local board, as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act, is, under a by-law or resolution of the council or such local board, paid a salary, indemnity, allowance or other remuneration, one-third of such amount shall be deemed to be for expenses incident to the discharge of his or her duties as a member of the council or such local board. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, s. 255. ( bold added)

Lambton Shores complied with this requirement, and the remuneration was set accordingly.

The requirements for Council remuneration and expenses changed with the passing of the new Act, however, Section 283 (4) and (5) state:

337

283 (4) No part of the remuneration of a member of a council or local board paid under this section is deemed to be for expenses incidental to his or her duties as a member and a municipality or local board shall not provide that any part of the remuneration is for such deemed expenses. 2001, c. 25, s. 283 (4).

283 (5) Despite subsection (4), if a resolution of a municipality under subsection 255 (2) or (3) of the old Act is not revoked before January 1, 2003, the resolution shall be deemed to be a by-law of the municipality and one-third of the remuneration paid to the elected members of the council and its local boards is deemed as expenses incident to the discharge of their duties as members of the council or local board. 2001, c. 25, s. 283 (5); 2002, c. 17, Sched. A, s. 46 (1). ( bold added)

In 2002, the municipal Treasurer provided Council with information on the requirements in the new Act, and the option to retain the 1/3 allocation for expenses. This decision was to continue with the current practice, and this decision was reaffirmed with each successive Council (in January of 2004, January of 2007 and in December of 2010) and in May of 2011, Council passed By-law 23 of 2011, which formally set the remuneration for Members of Council as follows:

Salary of the Mayor: The Mayor shall be paid a salary of $24,600.00 per annum, of which $8,200.00 (1/3) is designated as compensation of expenses attending meetings within the Municipality. Salary of the Deputy Mayor: The Deputy Mayor shall be paid a salary of $18,600.00 per annum, of which $6,200.00 (1/3) is designated as compensation of expenses attending meetings within the Municipality. Salary of the Members of Council: The Members of Council shall be paid a salary of $16,200.00 per annum, of which $5,400.00 (1/3) is designated as compensation of expenses attending meetings within the Municipality. Other Stipends Received: The salary set out in this By-law is the total compensation for all duties required to be fulfilled by the Mayor and Members of Council. Should the Mayor or any Member of Council receive any additional payment from any other municipal sources (including: boards, commissions or special purpose bodies), he or she shall be entitled to receive such compensation at his/her sole discretion.

As noted in By-law 23A-2011 (attached), Council also receives compensation for all mileage for municipal related meetings and events that occur outside of the municipal limits, and for conference attendance.

A survey of 9 area municipalities undertaken in 2013 indicated that all allocated 1/3 of the Council remuneration as the non-taxable allowance for expenses.

338

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_01m25_f.htm

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_01m25_f.htm

ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER Councillors could commence tracking mileage for the next 3 months to determine the actual expenses incurred to determine if the amount exceeds the compensation amount allocated per office. Alternatively, the decision on compensation for mileage could be referred to the next Council for review and consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Information provided for discussion purposes and direction. FINANCIAL IMPACT If a change was initiated in the compensation paid for mileage, a similar change would need to be made to the budget to accommodate the change. CONSULTATION

Other municipal policies were reviewed when preparing this report.

339


BY -LAW NUMBER 23A -2011

Being a by -law to set the remuneration to be paid to the Members of Council andMembers of Standing Committees and Cemetery Boards

WHEREAS: The Municipal Act, 2001 requires the passage of by -laws respectingCouncil remuneration.

AND WHEREAS: At the meeting held the 9 day of March, 2011, Council reviewed and

affirmed the existing level remuneration for members.

AND WHEREAS: On December 20, 2010, Council affirmed that 1/3 (one third) of the

total Council remuneration be deemed to be for expenses incurred

resulting from the discharge of duties as members of Council.

THEREFORE: The Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts as follows:

DEFINITION: Municipality of Lambton Shores Standing Committees include the

Committee of Adjustment and the Accessibility Committee.

REMUNERATION:

Salary of the Mayor: The Mayor shall be paid a salary of $24,600.00 per annum, of

which $8,200.00 (1/3) is designated as compensation of expenses attending meetingswithin the Municipality.

Salary of the Deputy Mayor: The Deputy Mayor shall be paid a salary of $18,600.00 per

annum, of which $6,200.00 (1/3) is designated as compensation of expenses attendingmeetings within the Municipality.

Salary of the Members of Council: The Members of Council shall be aid a salary ofp rY

16,200.00 per annum, of which $5,400.00 (1/3) is designated as compensation of

expenses attending meetings within the Municipality.

Other Stipends Received: The salary set out in this By -law is the total compensation for

all duties required to be fulfilled by the Mayor and Members of Council. Should the Mayoror any Member of Council receive any additional payment from any other municipalsources (including: boards, commissions or special purpose bodies), he or she shall be

entitled to receive such compensation at his /her sole discretion.

Committee Members: The Members of the public appointed to a Municipal StandingCommittees shall be paid a meeting stipend of $100.00 per meeting, paid bi- annually.

340

Arkona Cemetery Board Members: Members of the Arkona Cemetery Board shall be

paid a meeting stipend of 50.00 per meeting, paid annually.

Pinery Cemetery Board: The Chair person and Administrator of the Pinery CemeteryBoard shall be paid a meeting stipend of $60.00 per meeting, paid annually, and all other

members shall receive $40.00 per meeting, paid annually.

Miscellaneous:

Mileage: The Mayor and Members of Council who incur mileage costs while on Council

sanctioned municipal business outside the limits of Municipality of Lambton Shores shallreceive reimbursement for those mileage expenses at the rate set by Council throughpolicy.

Expenses: The Mayor and Members of Council shall be reimbursed for actual, out -of-

pocket expenses as defined through the Municipality's Council Expense Policy.

Conference

The Mayor and each member of Council shall also be entitled to a maximum of $1,700.00per annum for Conferences and Training expenses, subject to budget approval.

Severability: If a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction declares any portion of this

by -law to be illegal or unenforceable, that portion of this by -law shall be considered to be

severed from the balance of the by -law, which shall continue to operate in full force and

effect.

Effective Date: This By -law shall come into force on the date it is finally passed.

Read a first and second this 6 day of June, 2011

Read a third and final time, this 6 day of June, 2011

Mayor Bill Weber

CCle Ca( McKenzie

341


Report CL 63 - 2014 Council Meeting Date: September 4, 2014



RE: Farm Land Tender for the Use of the Forest Industrial Lands

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report CL 63 – 2014 regarding the results from the farm land tenders for the Forest Industrial land be received; and THAT the tender submitted by Triple “L” farms in the amount of $325.00 per workable acre be accepted; and THAT the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to sign the required agreements.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report presents the results from the recent tender for the use of the Forest Industrial Land for farming purposes. BACKGROUND The current agreement for the use of the 85 workable acres at the Forest Industrial land property will expire at the end of August, 2014. Tenders for the continued use of the land for farming purposes closed on August 18, 2014 with the following results:

Bidder Name Annual rate per workable acre

Devet Arka Poultry Farms Inc $ 120.00

Eusi Farms Ltd. $ 300.00

Triple "L" Farms $ 325.00

342

The lease agreement includes the following clause that outlines the process in the event that the lands are required by the Municipality during the term of the lease:

If any or all of the land is required by the Municipality during the term of the agreement, it is agreed that a sum of money will be paid to the Lessee for crop loss, on a per bushel basis, with the yield to be mutually agreed to at the time the land is harvested or required.

ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER There are no alternatives provided RECOMMENDED ACTIONS That the tender for the Forest Industrial lands be awarded to the highest bidder, being Triple “L” farms in the amount of $325.00 per workable acre FINANCIAL IMPACT Funds realized for the use of the Industrial Lands have traditionally been allocated to the Economic Development business unit. CONSULTATION

None

343

THIS INDENTURE, made in duplicate the day of 2014 pursuant to the short form of Leases Act: Between:

The Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores hereinafter called the "Municipality" OF THE FIRST PART and Triple “L” Farms hereinafter called the "Lessee" OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS: the Municipality is the owner of land more particularly described as Concession South Boundary, part of Lots 36 and 37, in the Municipality of Lambton Shores, in the County of Lambton, comprised of 90 acres, more or less, of which 85 are workable, and hereinafter referred to as the "property", and shown of the attached Schedule “A”; AND WHEREAS: The lessee is desirous of leasing the property, and parties agree as follows: 1. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT The Municipality agrees to lease the said property to the Lessee for a 2 ½ year period, commencing September 1, 2014, and expiring on April 14 2017. This Agreement terminates at the end of the term set out above but may be renewed by written agreement of the parties. 2. LEASE FEE The Lessee shall pay to the Municipality the annual lease fee on or before the first day of the May in each year of the agreement, that being $325.00 per workable acre plus HST. 3. TERMINATION WITH NOTICE If any or all of the land is required by the Municipality during the term of the agreement, it is agreed that a sum of money will be paid to the Lessee for crop loss, on a per bushel basis, with the yield to be mutually agreed to at the time the land is harvested or required. In addition to this termination provision, either party may, in any year, cancel the lease by providing to the other party at least 3 months notice prior to the May renewal date. 4. GENERAL The Lessee agrees and acknowledges: That the Municipality will not be responsible for any loss or damage to crops caused by vandalism or Acts of God;

344

That the lease of the said land(s) shall be on a cash rent basis only and shall be for a term of two and ½ years, commencing September 1, 2014, and ending on April 14, 2017. After the two and ½ year term, the Municipality will re-tender the farm land. That this lease will be solely for the use by the Tenant, not to be assigned or sublet or occupied by anyone other than the Tenant without prior written consent from the Municipality. He/she will be responsible for any costs associated with farming the lands, with the exception of property taxes. He/she shall cultivate, seed, control weeds, insects and disease and harvest crops on the land in a sustainable manner. That continuous cropping is allowed. That this land is to be leased on an “as is” basis. There are no warranties offered or implied on the condition of the property. That the premises is to be kept clear of noxious weeds in accordance with the Weed Control Act, RSO 1980 and amendments thereto. That he/she shall cultivate, seed, control weeds, insects and disease and harvest crops on the land in a sustainable manner. That all existing fences on the premises are to be maintained in a good state or repair. That all personal property of any kind or description stored or left on the premises is done so at the lessee’s sole risk and the Municipality shall not be liable for any claims resulting from damage to or loss of such property, however, the tenant may insure such property for his own benefit. To permit the Municipality, agents or employees to enter upon the premises at any reasonable time for purposes of inspection, investigation, testing, surveying or other activity related to the operation of the existing municipal wastewater facilities, improvement or development of the premises, including management of the woodlots. Any improvement necessary to the land (access lane, fence, etc) must have the prior approval of the municipality but will be constructed by the Lessee at his/her expense. The Lessee and the Municipality mutually agree that assent or consent to changes in or waiver of any part of this agreement in spirit or letter shall NOT be deemed as made, unless the same is done in writing and attached to, or endorsed hereon. The Lessee acknowledges that, prior to signing this Agreement; he has read this Agreement and consents to the terms, covenants and conditions herein. This Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and there are not and shall not be any verbal statements, 345

representations, warranties, undertakings or agreements between the parties not contained herein. This Agreement may not be amended or modified in any respect except by written instrument signed by the original parties to it. In the event of any misunderstanding or misinterpretation arising out of the agreement, the parties agree that the matter shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitrations Act, as amended from time to time, and agree to be bound by any such decisions obtained as a result thereof. The Lessee shall not assign or sub-let any portion of the property without the written consent of the Municipality; 5. NOTICE Notice or other communication shall be given in writing and shall be given either by delivering same to the recipient or mailing the same to the recipient at the following address: If to the Municipality: The Municipality of Lambton Shores 7883 Amtelecom Parkway Forest, Ontario NON IJO If to the Lessee: Triple “L” Farms 9310 Arkona Road, R. R. # 4 Thedford, Ontario NOM 2NO Attn: Mr. Joe Lacey IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seal.

Triple “L” Farms Seal or witness ________________________________________

MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES Seal _______________________________________ Bill Weber, Mayor _______________________________________ Carol McKenzie, Clerk

346


BY-LAW NUMBER 85 of 2014

A By-law of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores

to confirm the proceedings of Council which were adopted up to and including September 4, 2014

WHEREAS: It has been expedient that from time to time, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores should act by resolution of Council;

AND WHEREAS: It is deemed advisable that all such actions that have been adopted by a resolution of the Council be authorized by By-law;

THEREFORE: The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts as follows;

THAT all actions of Council which have been authorized by a resolution of the Council

and adopted in open Council and accepted by Council up to and including September 4,

2014 be hereby confirmed; and

THAT the Mayor and the proper officials of the Municipality of Lambton Shores are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the approved actions or to obtain approvals where required, and to execute all documents as may be necessary in that behalf and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the Corporate Seal to all such documents.

THAT any pecuniary interest declared during any Council meeting or Committee meeting is deemed to be in force and the same as though repeated in this by-law;

THAT THIS BY-LAW is read a FIRST, SECOND and THIRD time and finally passed September 4, 2014.

_________________________ MAYOR – Bill Weber

_________________________

CLERK – Carol McKenzie

347


BY-LAW NUMBER 86 OF 2014

Being a By-law to collect the sums from the lands and roads assessed for the maintenance of certain drains.

WHEREAS: The sums for the maintenance of the attached drains have been advanced out of the general funds of the Municipality.

AND WHEREAS: It is necessary to levy and collect the said sums under the provisions of the Drainage Act.

AND WHEREAS: The Municipal Council of the Municipality of Lambton Shores enacts as follows:

That the said sums are hereby charged and assessed pro-rata upon the lands and roads assessed for the maintenance of certain drains as per the drainage schedules, and summarized on Schedule "A" to this by-law.

THEREFORE: The amounts so assessed against each of the said lots or parts of lots as set forth in the maintenance schedules prepared shall be levied and collected in the same manner and at the same time as other taxes are levied and collected for the year 2014 from the said lots and parts of the lots and the sum so assessed against the Municipality of Lambton Shores shall be paid out of the general funds of the Municipality.

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 4th day of September 2014 READ THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS 4

th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014

________________________ MAYOR – Bill Weber

________________________ CLERK - Carol McKenzie

348

SCHEDULE A TO BY-LAW # 86 OF 2014

DRAIN MAINTENANCE RECOVERABLE

DRAIN NAME BY-LAW # TOTAL BILLED

B & C Pump 99-01 $4,865.07

Coultis Drain 38-97 $1,709.29

Defore Drain 36-88 $15,641.80

Defore Pump 34-2002 $1,646.27

Duffus 6-71 $9,458.84

Duffus 1782 $18,939.20

Duffus 12-68 $1,245.94

Dummigan 9-74 $5,044.50

Elliott McBryan 67-63 $469.34

Evans 7-98 $2,631.95

Frayne 64-1995 $1,538.54

Frayne 66-2001 $626.22

Golf Club 37-86 $1,530.23

Grant 25-92 $8,545.16

Hobbs McKenzie 122-2009 $178.60

Ipperwash Pump 65-1998 $12,112.39

Lakesmith # 1 Channel 27-82 $27,362.67

Lakesmith # 1 Pump 26-82 $3,341.72

349

Lakesmith # 2 Pump 34-2002 $4,779.72

Malley 1674 $12,268.55

Mud Creek Lower # 1 36-85 $374.80

Russell 54-60 $25,875.21

South Boundary 50-83 $15,601.08

Struyf 29-98 $2,984.53

Stubbs Pump 49-2011 $1,941.63

Todd 30-1981 $3,119.55

Tulpin 25-76 $4,001.86

Vandenberk 46-70 $3,828.96

TOTAL

$191,663.62

350





RE: July 2014 Cheque Listing

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Report TR-39-2014; regarding the Lambton Shores cheque listing for July 2014 in the amount of $1,886,974.87, be received.

____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This report accompanies the July cheque listing in the amount of $1,886,974.87 for expenses of the operating and capital activities for Lambton Shores. BACKGROUND Council’s procedural by-law incorporates a section for accounts and a cheque listing is submitted on the second meeting in the month for Councils review. The Department Head or Area Manager is responsible for approving all expenses prior to payment being made, to ensure budget allocations are adhered to. ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER None RECOMMENDED ACTIONS That the July 2014 cheque listing is received for information. FINANCIAL IMPACT This listing includes the regular monthly payments for items such as payroll remittances, policing, LAWSS, OMI, waste and recycling collection and utility costs. Also included are dredging contract and dock repair costs for both Harbours and dust fighter for the annual road program. Budgeted capital costs for the Grand Bend pedestrian railing, Ridge Road, Pearl & Pherrill Street reconstruction and the new pumper for the Grand Bend Fire Department are also included.

351

Capital costs for the Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility are included in this listing at the full amount and the eligible and proportionate costs will be recovered from the grant and South Huron. CONSULTATION

None

352

2014

DATE CHQ # DESCRIPTION AMOUNT

02/07/2014 40342 Petty Cash/Carrie Snell Replenish pettycash - GB Office $232.50

04/07/2014 40343 2230880 Ontario Ltd. LAN, equipment $1,745.85

04/07/2014 40344 Vicki Sheppard Forest & GB office cleaning $260.00

04/07/2014 40345 Crawford Security N. By-Law contract $10,227.56

04/07/2014 40346 Grand Bend Canada Day Flow through donations $6,704.75


09/07/2014 40348 Petty Cash/Roberta Brandon Replenish pettycash - Forest Office $313.20

09/07/2014 40349 Petty Cash-Jodie Poland Replenish pettycash - Northville Office $136.00

09/07/2014 40350 Karen Cameron Expense report - Jan to June $214.50

10/07/2014 40351 Darch Fire New pumper - GB FD $456,357.00

10/07/2014 40352 Dave Moore Fuels Fuel - CS & GB Harbour $29,666.67

10/07/2014 40353 Dillon Consulting Rd survey,Pinery Park pump,wind (reimbursed) $34,837.34

10/07/2014 40354 OMERS Regular monthly remittance $40,654.80

10/07/2014 40355 Receiver General Regular payroll remittance $50,950.59

10/07/2014 40356 OMI Canada Inc. July agreement $127,303.64

10/07/2014 40357 634524 Ontario Inc. Final inspection security bond refund $750.00

10/07/2014 40358 A.B.C.A. Drain review $300.00

10/07/2014 40359 A.J. Braun Mfg.Limited Municipal addressing $949.20

10/07/2014 40360 Al's Gas & Variety Garbage bag tags refund $357.87

10/07/2014 40361 Arkona Black Hawks Refund rental damage deposit $200.00

10/07/2014 40362 Catharine Bartlett Garbage bag tags refund $178.00

10/07/2014 40363 Bas-Tim Inc Hanging baskets $112.98

10/07/2014 40364 Tom Boon Training - Forest,Arkona,NV FD's & CS $645.00

10/07/2014 40365 Bosanquet Central Public School Refund rental damage deposit $225.00

10/07/2014 40366 Carswell Office supplies - GB $101.80

10/07/2014 40367 C.G. Equipment Vehicle repair - CS $553.25

10/07/2014 40368 Cintas, The Uniform People Uniforms, supplies, shower cleaning $3,106.02

10/07/2014 40369 County Of Lambton Housing Garbage bag tags refund $137.50

10/07/2014 40370 C.U.P.E. Union dues - July $1,091.99

10/07/2014 40371 D.Culbert Ltd. Registry search $1,469.00

10/07/2014 40372 Dales Snow Maintenance HB release $5,738.80

10/07/2014 40373 Dashwood Lock And Key Replace locks - PF Harbour $331.84

10/07/2014 40374 Den-Mar Brines Limited Dust fighter $21,813.24

10/07/2014 40375 Jacqueline Dolan PFCC cleaning - June $765.00

10/07/2014 40376 Doug Ellison Garbage bag tags refund $67.50

10/07/2014 40377 Eusi Farms Ltd Final inspection security bond refund $3,250.00

10/07/2014 40378 Raya Evans Garbage bag tags refund $95.00

10/07/2014 40379 Forest Fire Department Training - Forest,Arkona,NV FD's & CS $171.26

10/07/2014 40380 Russell Fuller Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

10/07/2014 40381 Green Shield Canada Employee benefits - July $9,466.72

10/07/2014 40382 H.E. Zavitz Electrical & Heating Water heater replacement $2,147.03

10/07/2014 40383 Steve Holmes Training - Forest FD $297.00

10/07/2014 40384 Huronia/Med-E-Ox Ltd. Supplies - GB $101.70

10/07/2014 40385 Integra Document Destruction Document shredding $320.92

10/07/2014 40386 Dave Kaczmarczyk Training - Forest FD $198.00

10/07/2014 40387 Rick Kennett Garbage bag tags refund $55.00

10/07/2014 40388 Bev Kobe Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

10/07/2014 40389 Gregory J. Levine Legal fees $2,579.79

10/07/2014 40390 Jerry Liddle Refund account overpayment $107.00

10/07/2014 40391 Line-X Coatings (London) Pick up truck accessories $1,084.68

10/07/2014 40392 Randy Lovie Conference registration reimbursement $1,085.93

10/07/2014 40393 M & M Embroidery & Designs Uniforms $244.08

10/07/2014 40394 Bob Magee Plumbing Plumbing repairs - various facilities $2,743.61

10/07/2014 40395 Main Variety Garbage bag tags refund $137.46

10/07/2014 40396 Rhonda Manore Garbage bag tags refund $1,160.00

10/07/2014 40397 Marshall Larry NV office cleaning - June $300.00

Municipality of Lambton ShoresJuly Cheque Register

Page 1 of 5

353

2014



10/07/2014 40398 Larry Martin GB Plant watering $1,450.00

10/07/2014 40399 Jackie Mason Training mileage $40.25

10/07/2014 40400 Mccann Redi-Mix Inc GB Beach mtce $5,107.60

10/07/2014 40401 David Mclean Training supplies - Forest FD $24.10

10/07/2014 40402 The Mearie Group Regular monthly remittance $424.73

10/07/2014 40403 Mechanical Advertising Signs $4,056.26

10/07/2014 40404 Microage Basics Office supplies - GB $209.00

10/07/2014 40405 Ministry Of Finance Regular EHT remittance $5,120.21

10/07/2014 40406 Minister Of Finance Tile loan debenture $3,600.50

10/07/2014 40407 National Process Equipment Inc Equipment repair - CS $5,299.14

10/07/2014 40408 Ontario Clean Water Agency Spring lagoon treatment $7,000.00

10/07/2014 40409 Olde Haus Cafe Training meals - FD's $136.73

10/07/2014 40410 Parkbridge Lifestyles Community Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

10/07/2014 40411 Pepsi Bottling Group (Canada) GB Beach concession supplies $1,064.69

10/07/2014 40412 Bruce Poland & Sons Trucking Release holdbacks on drain mtce $3,849.05

10/07/2014 40413 Prouts Building Centre Supplies - CS $62.03

10/07/2014 40414 Shannon Prout Expense report - April to June $130.35

10/07/2014 40415 Canada Revenue Agency Regulated remittance $497.95

10/07/2014 40416 Bob Roney GB Harbourmaster contract $1,778.99

10/07/2014 40417 Harald Rosenfeld Forest banners $350.00

10/07/2014 40418 Peter Sanio Garbage bag tags refund $75.00

10/07/2014 40419 Sidewalks Plus Sidewalk repairs $1,943.58

10/07/2014 40420 Spedquip Industries Ltd Supplies - GB FD $239.24

10/07/2014 40421 Strictly Sunrooms Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

10/07/2014 40422 Wayne Stubbs June wtr mtr reads, July retainer, inet Jan - June $2,690.88

10/07/2014 40423 Summit Food Service GB Beach concession supplies $2,154.53

10/07/2014 40424 Sundowner Truck Accessories Pick up truck accessories $3,339.94

10/07/2014 40425 Sweitzer Electric Inc Electrical - GB beachhouse $1,570.31

10/07/2014 40426 Mr. Joseph Taylor Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

10/07/2014 40427 Technical Standards & Safety Assoc Elevator licence - Shores $105.00

10/07/2014 40428 UTC Fire & Security Canada Fire equipment inspection & repair - Legacy $2,326.67

10/07/2014 40429 Jerry Vanbruaene Equipment repair - GB FD $85.20

10/07/2014 40430 Vandriel Excavating Inc. Ridge Road $19,131.06

10/07/2014 40431 West Ipperwash Property Ownes Refund rental damage deposit $50.00

10/07/2014 40432 Kevin Williams Expense report - May/June $1,229.08

10/07/2014 40433 GSS Engineering Consultants RFP for water & wastewater operations $3,616.00

10/07/2014 40434 Mike Herrington Training - Thedford FD $291.73

10/07/2014 40435 Gary Sorko Garbage bag tags refund $57.50

10/07/2014 40436 2230880 Ontario Ltd. IT,LAN, equipment $1,462.22

10/07/2014 40437 CIBC Visa - all managers $8,778.96

10/07/2014 40439 Forest Canada Day Committee Flow through donations $5,130.00

10/07/2014 40440 Forest Canada Day Committee Refund damage deposit $500.00

11/07/2014 40441 Petty Cash/Carrie Snell Replenish & increase petty cash GB Office $497.00

11/07/2014 40442 Communities In Bloom 2014 Symposium registration $2,302.80

11/07/2014 40443 Mr. Gary Faulds Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

11/07/2014 40444 Kens Auto Glass GB Beach elevator repair $296.00

11/07/2014 40445 Pitney Works Postage & supplies - all offices $16,950.00

11/07/2014 40446 Prouts Building Centre Materials & supplies - CS $679.70

11/07/2014 40447 Josh Yates GB Beach patrol supplies $129.62

16/07/2014 40448 Bluewater Recycling Assoc. 3rd qtr recycling $109,201.20

16/07/2014 40449 Tom Boon Training - Forest,Arkona,NV FD's & CS $680.00

16/07/2014 40450 Canada Post Corporation Municipal election $779.70

16/07/2014 40452 Hugh Edgar Garbage bag tags refund $56.00

16/07/2014 40453 Dominic Franze Garbage bag tags refund $137.50

16/07/2014 40454 Aquafest Flow through donations $2,500.00

16/07/2014 40455 J & B Hardware Garbage bag tags refund $59.25

Page 2 of 5

354

2014



16/07/2014 40456 Brent Kittmer Expense report - April to June $2,088.36

16/07/2014 40457 Frances Lawson Garbage bag tags refund $126.00

16/07/2014 40458 Mr. Steve Lupa Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

16/07/2014 40459 Melinda Pearson Garbage bag tags refund $95.00

16/07/2014 40460 Petty Cash/Roberta Brandon Replenish & increase pettycash - Forest Office $462.65

16/07/2014 40462 Vicki Sheppard Forest & GB office cleaning $260.00

16/07/2014 40463 Don Welten Building inspections & mileage $602.70

16/07/2014 40464 Cope Construction Grand Bend crosswalks $38,552.94

16/07/2014 40465 Robinson Farm Drainage Pearl St & Pherill St. reconstruction $45,725.13

14/07/2014 40466 Void


24/07/2014 40469 Acklands Grainger Inc. Supplies - CS & Arkona & GB FD's $1,970.33

24/07/2014 40470 Actons Service Centre Vehicle service - CS $463.30

24/07/2014 40471 AGO Industries Inc. Safety uniforms - CS $1,649.47

24/07/2014 40472 Arkona Food Market Refund garbage bag tags $104.28

24/07/2014 40473 B.M. Ross & Associates Ltd NV PBS,Decker,Kennedy,Sauble,MacDonald $17,211.21

24/07/2014 40474 Glenn C Bell S. By-Law contract $4,285.72

24/07/2014 40475 Benko Sewer Service Hydrovac $14,641.98

24/07/2014 40476 Best Cooling Systems Equipment repair - GB Harbour $1,774.10

24/07/2014 40477 Bill Hoekstra General Contract Washroom upgrades - GB Beach House $1,741.07

24/07/2014 40478 Birnam Excavating Ltd MacDonald Street reconstruction $6,511.99

24/07/2014 40479 Bluewater Recycling Assoc OCC & waste lifts & composters $3,789.40

24/07/2014 40480 Bluewater Power Services Corp. Traffic light repair $610.88

24/07/2014 40481 Ian Brebner Tree removal - Arkona Cemetery $56.50

24/07/2014 40482 Diana Campbell Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

24/07/2014 40483 Can Fuels Refund garbage bag tags $310.47

24/07/2014 40484 Celerity Communications Ltd Radio rentals & repair $582.35

24/07/2014 40485 Corporate Express Office supplies - all offices $569.51

24/07/2014 40486 County Of Lambton 911 house & road signs, prosecutorial services $1,268.75

24/07/2014 40487 C.R. Keller Vehicle repair - CS $125.43

24/07/2014 40488 Dashwood Lock And Key Supplies - GB Harbour $50.01

24/07/2014 40489 Dave Moore Fuels Fuel - CS & GB Harbour $20,927.26

24/07/2014 40490 Dekra-Lite GB Christmas lights $4,484.61

24/07/2014 40491 Delta Power Equipment Equipment repair parts - CS $469.74

24/07/2014 40492 Den-Mar Brines Limited Dust fighter $25,439.66

24/07/2014 40493 Wendy Dhoine Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

24/07/2014 40494 Dielco Industrial Contractors General mtce & repairs $9,075.83

24/07/2014 40495 D.T.Enterprises Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

24/07/2014 40496 Eusi Farms Ltd Final inspection security bond refund $1,750.00

24/07/2014 40497 Fastenal Canada Shop supplies $1,503.96

24/07/2014 40498 Janet Ferguson Expense report - Jan - June $910.48

24/07/2014 40499 Forest Automotive Parts & supplies - CS $132.09

24/07/2014 40500 Forest Agri Services Supplies - CS $47.01

24/07/2014 40501 Fruti Distributing GB Beach concession supplies $244.89

24/07/2014 40502 Gerrys Truck Centre Vehicle repair parts - CS $72.13

24/07/2014 40503 Gil And Sons Limited Legacy solar system $21,767.19

24/07/2014 40504 Goertz Electric Ltd Arkona ball park & pump motor service $1,086.90

24/07/2014 40505 Grand Bend And Area Horticultural Supplies - GB FD $25.00

24/07/2014 40506 Home Hardware Building Centre Materials & supplies - CS $406.60

24/07/2014 40507 Susan Hartman Lease agreement - Arkona ball park $300.00

24/07/2014 40508 Hayter-Walden Publications June/July advertising $1,423.80

24/07/2014 40509 Hensall District Co-Operative Landscaping supplies $300.00

24/07/2014 40510 Huron Shores Marine Ltd Equipment repairs - CS $1,237.61

24/07/2014 40511 Hudson Entry & Automation Overhead door repairs $2,128.53

24/07/2014 40512 Ideal Supply Company Ltd Lighting supplies $83.80

24/07/2014 40513 Imperial Coffee And Services Equipment rental & supplies- CS & GB office $751.25

Page 3 of 5

355

2014



24/07/2014 40514 Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd Gravel $39,875.93

24/07/2014 40515 Johnson'S Sanitation Services Portable toilet rentals $2,147.00

24/07/2014 40516 Christie Kloske Refund seasonal dockage fee $1,012.88

24/07/2014 40517 Lambton Group Police Services Regular monthly remittance $295,386.76

24/07/2014 40518 Lambton Heritage Museum Refund garbage bag tags $260.00

24/07/2014 40519 Lambton County Fire Chiefs Ass Training - Forest FD $400.00

24/07/2014 40520 Mr. Mario Leandro Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

24/07/2014 40521 Lightning Equipment Sales Inc. Supplies - Arkona FD $623.76

24/07/2014 40522 LVM Church Street watermain $284.48

24/07/2014 40523 Larry Martin Plant watering - GB $700.00

24/07/2014 40524 Mr. Harold Meier Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

24/07/2014 40525 Minister Of Finance/Transport. Parking court fees - April - June $74.25

24/07/2014 40526 Catherine Minielly Reimburse for Trees - CIB $836.80

24/07/2014 40527 Mitoi Works Inc. Dredging contracts - both harbours & dock repairs $47,183.15

24/07/2014 40528 M & L Supply Supplies - Forest, NV & GB FD's $478.73

24/07/2014 40529 Joel Moloy Ltd Topsoil & Drain mtce $1,728.90

24/07/2014 40530 Municipal World Inc Election supplies $34.27

24/07/2014 40531 Nortrax Canada Inc Vehicle service - CS $892.97

24/07/2014 40532 Office Central Office supplies - all offices $3,871.84

24/07/2014 40533 Optimist Club Of Forest Hall rental - Accessibility $92.45

24/07/2014 40534 Orkin Canada Pest control - various locations $548.05

24/07/2014 40535 Pepsi Bottling Group (Canada) GB Beach concession supplies $597.93

24/07/2014 40536 Pockele & Associates Inc. WHMIS training $675.86

24/07/2014 40537 Pole Printing Inc Office supplies - all offices $2,461.71

24/07/2014 40538 Praxair Supplies - CS $894.35

24/07/2014 40539 Princess Auto Supplies - CS $605.38

24/07/2014 40540 Pro Drainage Drain mtce $4,997.15

24/07/2014 40541 Shannon Prout Expense report - July $245.31

24/07/2014 40542 Purolator Courier Ltd Courier services - all offices $136.47

24/07/2014 40543 Rays Electric Lighting - GB FD $94.23

24/07/2014 40544 Canada Revenue Agency Regulated remittance $449.58

24/07/2014 40545 RFS Canada Photocopier lease - all offices $2,098.41

24/07/2014 40546 Bob Roney Grand Bend Harbourmaster contract $1,778.99

24/07/2014 40547 Void

24/07/2014 40548 John Sawatsky Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

24/07/2014 40549 Sebo Farm Equipment Ltd Vehicle repair parts - CS $561.25

24/07/2014 40550 Sentry Fire Protection Service Fire extinguisher parts & service-various locations $1,010.36

24/07/2014 40551 SGS Canada Inc. GB Beach water testing $607.94

24/07/2014 40552 Lori Sheidow Refund garbage bag tags $120.00

24/07/2014 40553 Spedquip Industries Ltd Vehicle repair - CS $4,297.82

24/07/2014 40554 Squeak Window Cleaning GB office window cleaning $169.50

24/07/2014 40555 Stonetown Supply Services Inc Facility cleaning supplies $3,893.81

24/07/2014 40556 Strathroy Monuments Ltd Supplies - Cemetery $333.35

24/07/2014 40557 Strong Macdougall Oudekerk Legal fees - Ridge Rd, W & WW RFP $5,364.68

24/07/2014 40558 Summit Food Service GB Beach concession supplies $852.17

24/07/2014 40559 Sunmedia Corporation June/July advertising $1,564.15

24/07/2014 40560 Swish Maintenance Limited Facility cleaning supplies $638.79

24/07/2014 40561 Syl Rumas Petroleum Maintenance Equipment repair - GB Harbour $1,087.44

24/07/2014 40562 Track 21 Graphix Inc. Signs $1,241.06

24/07/2014 40563 Tri- County Tree Service Tree removal - Grand Bend $1,073.50

24/07/2014 40564 V.B. Sand & Gravel Ltd. Concrete, stumps & brush removal $276.67

24/07/2014 40565 Bill Weber Reimburse for CIB dinner & supplies $357.50


24/07/2014 40567 D.Jill Wong Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

24/07/2014 40568 Woodwards Service Centre Equipment & parts - CS $975.18

24/07/2014 40569 Work Equipment Ltd Vehicle repair parts - CS $160.86

Page 4 of 5

356

2014



24/07/2014 40570 WSIB Regular monthly remittance $7,232.22

24/07/2014 40571 YMCA's Across Southwestern Ontario Association services - July $4,750.00

24/07/2014 40572 Zavitz General Store Supplies - CS $1,000.97

24/07/2014 40573 Pineridge Barbecue Co Ltd. CIB dinner $748.06

24/07/2014 40574 2230880 Ontario Ltd. IT,LAN $2,384.30

24/07/2014 40575 Receiver General HST remittance $3,701.06

31/07/2014 40576 Fadhil Askar Garbage bag tags refund $66.36

31/07/2014 40577 Barry R Card Legal fees - GBSTF,general & wind (reimbursed) $2,812.02

31/07/2014 40578 C.U.P.E. Union dues - August $1,091.99

31/07/2014 40580 Green Shield Canada Employee benefits - August $9,816.18

31/07/2014 40581 The Grist Mill Final inspection security bond refund $250.00

31/07/2014 40582 Hydro One Networks Regular monthly remittance (reimbursed) $116.85

31/07/2014 40583 Diane Jamieson Garden mtce - Thedford Village Green $765.00

31/07/2014 40584 Knox Presbyterian Church CIB luncheon $150.00

31/07/2014 40585 Mike & Terri No Frills GB Beach concession supplies $227.92

31/07/2014 40586 Matt Millar Plant watering - Arkona $935.64

31/07/2014 40587 Catherine Minielly Reimburse for CIB expenses $217.66

31/07/2014 40588 Shirley O'Halloran Forest compost site supervision - July $710.10

31/07/2014 40589 Parking Boxx Corp. PF Harbour supplies $623.58

31/07/2014 40590 Paul Davis Systems Emergency repair - Old Forest arena $8,052.35

31/07/2014 40591 Petty Cash/Roberta Brandon Replenish pettycash - NV Office $409.50

31/07/2014 40592 Roger Piett Refund garbage bag tags $87.50

31/07/2014 40593 Receiver General Regular payroll remittance $42,537.41

31/07/2014 40594 Scott Ruddle Reimburse beach patrol supplies $899.48

31/07/2014 40595 Sentry Fire Protection Service Fire extinguisher parts & service $588.33

31/07/2014 40596 Sobeys Garbage bag tags refund $1,898.37

31/07/2014 40597 St Clair Region Conservation Reimburse for CIB signs $337.87

31/07/2014 40598 Glen Starkey CIB accommodations $630.00

31/07/2014 40599 Astrid Underwood Reimburse CIB expenses $75.00

31/07/2014 40600 Jerry Vanbruaene Mileage & training - GB FD $331.61

31/07/2014 40601 Watec Services Inc Sauble Road culvert $3,729.00


31/07/2014 40603 Forest B.I.A. Refund damage deposit $500.00

31/07/2014 40604 GSS Engineering Consultants RFP - W & WW operations mtce $2,147.00

31/07/2014 40605 Grand Bend Canada Day Flow through donations $3,100.00

31/07/2014 40606 Petty Cash-Jodie Poland Replenish pettycash - NV Office $95.00

31/07/2014 40607 Vicki Sheppard GB & Forest Office cleaning $260.00

31/07/2014 40608 2230880 Ontario Ltd. IT, LAN, equipment $1,626.07

31/07/2014 PAP Eastlink Pre-Authorized Payments $118.62

31/07/2014 PAP Execulink Telecom Pre-Authorized Payments $1,944.58

31/07/2014 PAP Hay Communications Pre-Authorized Payments $1,400.29

31/07/2014 PAP Hydro One Networks Pre-Authorized Payments $39,661.47

31/07/2014 PAP RBC (Paytickets) Pre-Authorized Payments $114.13

31/07/2014 PAP Reliance Home Comfort Pre-Authorized Payments $439.80

31/07/2014 PAP Rogers At & T Pre-Authorized Payments $1,560.93

31/07/2014 PAP Union Gas Pre-Authorized Payments $1,548.78TOTAL $1,886,974.87

Page 5 of 5

357

Notice of Motion: September 4, 2014 Moved By: Councillor Bonesteel THAT staff are directed to pursue formal discussions with the Ministry of Transportation staff to find ways of improving both the north and south flows of traffic along Hwy. 21 connecting link within Grand Bend.

358

Notice of Motion: September 4, 2014 Moved By: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg WHEREAS, the Municipality of Lambton Shores recognizes that we are called to be good stewards of the land and its resources, and WHEREAS, the Municipality of Lambton Shores views United Nations Agenda 21 as a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering and global political control, that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout Lambton Shores and Canada through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21’s plan of “sustainable development” views private property ownership, single family homes, private vehicle ownership; individual travel choices, and privately owned farms as destructive to the environment; and WHEREAS, according to United Nations Agenda 21, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which United Nations Agenda 21 would accomplish by redistribution of wealth; and WHEREAS, according to United Nations Agenda 21 national sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Municipality of Lambton Shores recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes the dangerous intent of United Nations Agenda 21; and therefore be it further RESOLVED, that the Municipality of Lambton Shores views United Nations Agenda 21 as an infringement on the inalienable rights of Canadian citizens, and RESOLVED that the Municipality of Lambton Shores withdraw from ICLEI and inform its residents of the harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 and we hereby reject its destructive strategies for “sustainable development.”

359

Documents

2014 09 04 Lambton Shores Municipality Council Meeting Agenda