Policy Review Committee Agenda - Carleton Place Review Agenda -July 2… · STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file COMMITTEE DECISION . Policy Review Committee - July 29th, 2014 -

Policy Review Committee Agendafor July 29th, 2014 to be held in the

Council Chambers at 1:30 p.m.

1) DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY/CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF- now or anytime during the meeting

2) REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK - with the secretary

3) PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES AND PAGERS

4) COMMUNICATION 125352 IS A CLOSED MEETING

5) If there is an addendum, in accordance with Section 15.2.4 (of Striking Report) does thecommittee wish to approve this addendum?

The following items are for information only and will not be discussed unless the Committee chooses to doso. The Chair will entertain a motion to receive and file for those items not pulled out for discussion.

125318 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 18th, 2014Topic Rehabilitation of the Pool Roof

SUMMARYTenders for the rehabilitation of the pool roof close on July 8th, 2014 and the work needsto begin so it can be completed during the summer shutdown.

UPDATESeven companies submitted tenders and the results (including tax) are as follows:

BIDDER TENDER BID

T. P. Crawford Ltd $139,324

Morin Insulation & Roofing Ltd. $163,624

A-Line Roofing $167,805

Flynn Canada Ltd. $184,960

Irvcon Ltd. $185,058

Raymond & Associates Inc. $202,055

Covertite Eastern Ltd. $226,170

Policy Review Committee - July 29th, 2014 - Page 2

125318 Continued

The Town’s roofing consultant Snetsinger Consultants Ltd, has confirmed that T. P.Crawford has worked on some of his projects over the past years and is a good anddependable roofing contractor. The Director of Recreation and the DevelopmentCoordinator both feel that there is no reason to award the contract to any other than thelowest tender.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council hereby authorizes the Mayor and the Clerk to execute a contract with T. P.Crawford Limited for the re-roofing of the Carleton Place & District Swimming Pool forthe bid price of $139,324.48

This was dealt with at the July 15th, 2014 Special Meeting of Council

Receive and file

COMMITTEE DECISION

125325 Received from Town of PenetanguisheneAddressed to Premier Kathleen Wynne (Copy of)Date June 27th, 2014Topic Call for Formation of Small and Rural School Alliance

SUMMARYTown of Penetanguishene is looking for support of their motion for small town and ruralOntario municipalities to jointly lobby for a moratorium on all school closures until theadministrative process on accommodation reviews is completed.

COMMENTFor Council’s Information.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file

COMMITTEE DECISION


125326 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 7th, 2014Topic Energy Management Plan

SUMMARYRegulation 397/11 requires municipalities to prepare an Energy Management Plan Theattached has been prepared and posted on the Town’s web site.



COMMITTEE DECISION

125327 Received from Les Reynolds, Director of Protective Services Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 14th, 2014Topic OWFC Activity Report

SUMMARYActivity Report for June 2014 is attached.



COMMITTEE DECISION


125328 Received from Les Reynolds, Director of Protective Services Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 21st, 2014Topic Police Service Board Minutes

SUMMARYMinutes of the Carleton Place Policy Service Board meeting of June 23rd, 2014 areattached. Noteworthy items include:

( The Board will be following Council`s new policy of posting agendas andminutes on the municipal website.



COMMITTEE DECISION

125329 Received from Ted Wieclawek, Ontario Fire Marshal and Chief of EmergencyManagement

Addressed to Mayor and CouncilDate June 17th, 2014Topic Fire Safety in Vulnerable Occupancies

SUMMARYOn January 1, 2014 O. Reg. 150/13 came into effect, amending the Fire Code to makesignificant improvements to the provisions for fire safety in vulnerable occupancies(nursing homes, hospitals, retirement homes, certain group homes etc.). The FireMarshal is writing to all municipalities to make them aware of the changes and what theymean to their municipality.

COMMENTMany of the requirements of the new regulations were already in place with our localestablishments and our fire prevention program. All full time fire staff have taken the oneday training session offered by the OFMEM and the Fire Chief has been certified toapprove Fire Safety Plans for this type of occupancy.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and File

COMMITTEE DECISION


125330 Received from Les Reynolds, Director of Protective Services Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 14th, 2014Topic Leduc Bus Lines

SUMMARYOn April 27, 2014 Leduc Bus Lines of Rockland, ON acquired the Ontario operations ofAutobus Galland, including their Carleton Place operation which provides a dailycommuter service into Ottawa as well as charter services. They have indicated that theydo not plan any immediate changes to the service but feel it has a very positive futureand they hope to expand both it and the charter business.

COMMENTFor Council’s Information

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and File.

COMMITTEE DECISION

TO BE DISCUSSED

125284 Received from Gary Lynfield and Yvonne Harvey Addressed to Planning and Protection CommitteeDate May 25th, 2014Topic McNeely Fence and Stonewater Bay Pond

SUMMARYThe previously distributed email briefly describes the concerns of the residents with respectto the condition of the fence along McNeely Avenue as well as the stormwater managementpond within the Stonewater Bay neighbourhood.

The residents have requested to make a presentation to Council with respect to the abovenoted items.

The function of the Stonewater Bay storm pond is being investigated by staff (Communication 124442) as discussed on the Physical Environment agenda for June 3rd, 2014.

COMMENTThere were numerous meetings with the residents with respect to a variety of options forrepairing the fence. It was decided that the Property Standards bylaw would be utilized toresolve the sections of the fence that were in disrepair. This practice continues today andproperty owners are provided with a reasonable time period in which to repair their fence.

UPDATE 1At the June 3, 2014 meeting of the Planning and Protection Committee staff were directedto draft a letter for the committee’s review that would be sent to all property ownersbordering the fence that runs along McNeely and Lake Aves. Between Stonewater Bay andPeckett Dr. The letter is meant to solicit their approval for construction of a new fence to befunded through the imposition of a Local Improvement Charge on their tax bills. Approval oftwo-thirds of all 81 property owners is required to proceed.


125282 Continued

UPDATE 2To ensure the fence along McNeely Ave is maintained the Town has four options;

1) Continue the current practice of enforcing the Property Standards Bylaw andrequiring owners to repair damaged fence sections. This is a piecemeal approachthat will never result in a complete rebuild of the fence. Furthermore it is timeconsuming to enforce.

2) Rebuild the fence as a municipal project but this would result in the generaltaxpayer funding the entire cost.

3) Rebuild the fence as a Local Improvement authorized by section 322 of theMunicipal Act. The cost of the fence would be collected via the tax bill fromadjacent owners but it requires a majority of owners to agree and was notsuccessful when attempted in 2011.

4) Rebuild the fence as a municipal project and impose a fee on benefiting owners asauthorized by section 391 of the Municipal Act. This section allows themunicipality to imposed a fee or charge for a service or capital project andcollect the fee or charge from the benefiting property owners. This is similar to aLocal Improvement but there is no requirement for agreement by the owners – thisis entirely a Council decision. While not mandatory, staff would recommend anopportunity for public input prior to proceeding.

COMMENTHistorically, the Town has used section 391 of the Municipal Act to authorize a number ofcharges, generally related to recovering sewer and water capital cost. However, for thesecharges, the Town has only required owners to pay the charge when they choose tobenefit (connect to the sewer and water). Note – section 391(2) provides authority toimpose a charge on persons not receiving an immediate benefit from the service but whowill receive a benefit at some later point in time. Before Council proceeds with a section391 project of this type, other potential projects that could be foreseen in the future shouldbe considered and the powers of the act applied with some consistency.

When Developers build infrastructure it is commonly accepted that roads, sidewalks,streetlights etc become the municipality’s responsibility to maintain whereas driveways(including the portion located on the road allowance) are the owner’s responsibility tomaintain. It could be argued that fencing constructed by a Developer along a property linebenefits the owner of both sides (in the case of along a road, the community benefitsbecause of the consistent look from the street – the owner benefits from the barrierbetween their yard and the public street) but most municipalities have determined thatfences adjacent to roads are the owner’s responsibility. Fencing between a private yardand a pathway should be viewed similarly.

Also, complicating the particular situation along McNeely, over the past 3 years, 17 of the81 owners have already paid the cost of repairing their fence as they complied withproperty standards bylaw enforcement.


125284 Continued

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT staff develop a draft policy for consideration that uses the authority in section 391 forCouncil to take action to ensure that fences along streets and pathways are appropriatelymaintained. Policy would be prepared this fall for potential adoption and action by the nextCouncil.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125314 Received from Duncan Rogers, Clerk and CEMC Addressed to Policy Review CommitteeDate June 16th, 2014Topic Emergency Management

SUMMARYAs requested by Councillor Probert, the Clerk has prepared a presentation on our localEmergency Management Program. The Clerk has included Carleton Place CERV as partof the presentation.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONTHAT Clerk give presentation

COMMITTEE DECISION

125331 Received from Councillor AntonakosAddressed to Policy Review Committee Date June 25th, 2014Topic Hospital Redevelopment Update

SUMMARYThe Hospital has been requested to provide an update regarding redevelopment of thehospital.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT the hospital representatives update Council.

COMMITTEE DECISION


125332 Received from Chamber of CommerceAddressed to Town of Carleton Place Date June 2014Topic Annual Golf Classic

SUMMARYChamber of Commerce Annual Golf Classic will be held September 8th, 2014. There are avariety of sponsorship options.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT Council determine participate and sponsorship.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125333 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 2nd, 2014Topic Pumping Station South - PSS

SUMMARYAs described in 125243 (attached for reference), a pumping station, (Pumping StationSouth - PSS), needs to be constructed near Hwy 7 east of Rona to service the area southof Hwy 7. Ainley Consultants has been engaged to provide engineering services for thisproject. Their first task is to prepare a concept plan and cost estimate for this project andthis task should be completed in September 2014. In order to meet Developers reportedschedule, detailed design of the pumping station will need to begin as soon as the conceptplans and cost estimate are complete. The costs for all work associated with the projectshould be shared by benefitting property owners. However, not all owners in the servicearea are actively considering development at this time.

COMMENTOn September 12th, 2014 the Council will/may enter a ‘lame duck’ period so approval foritems not included in the 2014 budget need to be approved by Council prior to this date. Adraft cost sharing agreement is attached but the final agreement cannot be prepared untilafter concept plan/cost estimate is complete and estimated costs for the detaileddesign/property acquisition are known.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT Council hereby authorizes staff to execute the attached cost sharing agreement, which addresses the cost for preparing the concept plan/cost estimate, acquiring propertyand detailed design of the pumping station. Upon execution of this cost sharing agreementand deposit of the required security staff would authorize Ainsley to proceed with thedetailed design for PSS. Building permits for all properties in the area that will require thispumping station for servicing can only be issued after a further cost sharing agreement,that ensures construction of the pumping station will proceed, has been executed andsecurity deposited.

COMMITTEE DECISION


125334 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 2nd, 2014Topic Cost Sharing - Pumping Station Industrial

SUMMARYAs described in 125277 (attached for reference), the pumping station on Industrial Ave.needs to be rehabilitated to provide service for the expansion of the North Business Parkon Bates Ave. and to service the proposed residential development on Lanark/CarletonStreets. J L Richards has been engaged to prepare a concept plan and cost estimate toproceed with this rehabilitation project and their report should be available in September2014. In order to meet the Developer’s schedule, detailed design of the station will need tobegin as soon as the concept plans and cost estimate are complete and the costs for allwork associated with the project should be shared by benefiting property owners. Theexisting pumping station is approaching the end of its useful life so the costs for the newpumping station should be shared between;

Area Funded By

The existing serviced properties in thebusiness park

funded by the Town as amaintenance project from the sewerand water 2015 operations budget

The newly serviced industrial properties alongBates

funded by the individual owners(Volundur Thorbjornsson and Town)

The newly serviced residential properties in theservice area (outside the current BusinessPark)

funded by the individual owners(NOTE: Certain properties on LanarkSt. are currently serviced but not toproper standards. The Town shouldfund the share of costs associatedwith these properties as amaintenance project from the sewerand water 2015 operations budget)

COMMENTOn September 12th, 2014 the Council will/may enter a ‘lame duck’ period so approval foritems not included in the 2014 budget need to be approved by Council prior to this dateand a draft cost sharing agreement is attached.

The cost sharing agreement is based solely on area. While the detailed design for thisproject is underway, the various options for sharing costs (area, number of units, flows,higher cost for higher benefit) will be assessed and the various legal options (developmentcharges, Section 391 of the Municipal Act) considered. After the detailed design iscompleted, the cost for all common infrastructure will be determined and then the totalcommon development costs will be shared equitably among benefiting owners in a formulaacceptable to the Town of Carleton Place. Construction will then be authorized to proceed. Building permits for residential properties that require this pumping station for servicing canonly be issued after a further cost sharing agreement, implementing a equitable costsharing formula and ensuring construction of the common infrastructure will proceed, hasbeen executed and security deposited.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT Council hereby authorizes staff to execute the attached cost sharing agreementwhich addresses the cost for preparing the concept plan/cost estimate, acquiring propertyand detailed design of the pumping station Execution of this agreement by the Developerwould satisfy the Town’s condition related to the sale of lots on Carleton St.


125334 Continued

ALSO THAT staff follow the Town’s Purchasing Policy and engage a consultant to proceedwith detailed design of the Industrial Pumping Station upon execution of this cost sharingagreement and deposit of the required security.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125335 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 2nd, 2014Topic Cost Sharing - Pumping Station North

SUMMARYAs described in 125243 (attached for reference), a pumping station, (Pumping StationNorth - PSN), needs to be constructed on Hooper St, to service the area north of Hwy 7. Ainley Consultants has been engaged to provide engineering services for this project. Their first task is to prepare a concept plan and cost estimate for this project and this taskshould be completed in September 2014. In order to meet Developers reported schedule,detailed design of the pumping station will need to begin as soon as the concept plans andcost estimate are complete. The costs for all work associated with the project should beshared by benefiting property owners. However, not all owners in the service area areactively considering development at this time. Also, as outlined in 125243, in 1999 - 2000,the Town and NuGlobe partnered to service their respective properties. Completedevelopment of both the Town’s and NuGlobe’s properties would utilize the entire capacityof the existing sewer mains. Further development in the area should not be approved untilthere is a firm commitment to proceed with PSN as this pumping station will create therequired capacity. The existing sewer mains were installed by the Town andNuGlobe for their respective properties and their contribution to further upgradeswas determined in 2000. A draft bylaw that sets out how costs related to this newpumping station (PSN) could be shared has been circulated to owners in the area. Todate, the only comments received questioned the legality of the proposed bylaw. (see125315)

COMMENTOn September 12th, 2014 the Council will/may enter a ‘lame duck’ period so approval foritems not included in the 2014 budget need to be approved by Council prior to this dateand draft cost sharing agreement is attached.

The Town’s and NuGlobe’s property are to be serviced using the existing sewer mains andthe Town has already committed to including the proposed McDonalds Restaurant withinthe existing sewer mains. Any other building permits issued in this area could result inrestrictions on the Town’s/NuGlobe’s property in the future if construction of PSN did notproceed. Encouraging commercial growth is important to the community and should not behindered.


125335 Continued

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT Council hereby authorizes staff to execute the attached cost sharing agreement, which addresses the cost for preparing the concept plan/cost estimate, acquiring propertyand detailed design of the pumping station. Upon execution of this cost sharing agreementand deposit of the required security which demonstrates the Developers serious intent toproceed, staff will authorize Ainley to proceed with the detailed design for PSN. Buildingpermits for commercial properties in the area can then be issued upon receipt of all otherapprovals. However, building permits for residential properties will only be issued after afurther cost sharing agreement that ensures construction of the pumping station willproceed has been executed and security deposited.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125336 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 2nd, 2014Topic Proposed Development

SUMMARYRecently Bodnar’s consultant has sought direction from the Town so they can incorporateappropriate features in their proposed subdivision so it functions in the community. Also,staff have begun discussions with MVCA to accomplish the joint goals for pathways and apublic ‘conservation area’ in Roy Brown Park. As well, the extension of sewer, water andgas services to their property is important to the MVCA.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION That a sketch illustrating conceptual plans for Roy Brown Park and expectations forBodnar’s property be prepared and presented to the Recreation Committee on September8th and then at a joint public open house, hosted by MVCA, on September 15th, 2014 forfeedback. This issue and a proposed joint (MVCA and town) management of the naturalarea of Roy Brown Park will then be presented to Council/Board on September 16th/17th.Hopefully installation of a gas service for the MVCA and construction of some pathways inRoy Brown Park could then proceed in the fall of 2014.

COMMITTEE DECISION


125337 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 2nd, 2014Topic New Public Works Yard

SUMMARYClearing and grubbing of the future Public Works area at the end of Bates is planned forfall 2014. The public currently enjoys walking on rough pathways in this area. Prior tobeginning work, the public should be made aware of the Town’s plans for the area whichinclude a pathway system.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT plans for the pathway system in the north portion of the Town be reviewed withCouncil on September 2nd, 2014 and presented to the public at an open house onSeptember 3rd, 2014 at Carambeck. Clearing and grubbing of the public works yard willfollow.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125338 Received from Lisa Young, Director of Planning and DevelopmentAddressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 15th, 2014Topic Development Permit By-law

SUMMARYStaff have now produced a final copy of the Development Permit Bylaw with the followincorporated into the document;

• Section 2.24 Decision of Council outlines the Planning Act requirements forCouncil decisions related to Development Permit applications and how conditionsare laid out. This new section has been added to provide clarity on the fivepossible decisions that Committee can make when making a decision on aDevelopment Permit application. Those decision choices are: approve, refuse,approve with conditions, approve subject to applicant fulfilling requirement prior toapproval or, approve with conditions subject to applicant fulfilling requirement priorto approval.

• Section 2.18 Development Permit Review Process includes an additional stepin the process for Class 2 and 3 applications which requires the applicant toaddress any comments or concerns received from the pre-consultation processprior to the application being deemed complete.

• Section 13 Schedule A will be used for internal purposes only and not form partof the by-law.

• Section 15.0 Built Form Design Criteria has been updated to reflect the OfficialPlan policies

• Section 16.0 Definitions was revised to include illustrations to clarify definitions.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT the Development Permit Bylaw be forwarded to Council for approval.

COMMITTEE DECISION


125339 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 2nd, 2014Topic Town’s Web Site

SUMMARYStaff have been working with McSweeney and Associates to refresh the look, feel andfunctionality of the Town’s existing website. One of the main goals was to streamlinecontent and incorporate a search engine which users would find familiar and make contentwithin the website easier to find.

A landing page was incorporated, both for visual and functional purposes, with the intentionof directing traffic to the section most applicable to what the user is looking for. One of thethings affected by this switch will be the option to have ‘trending’ event/news featureddirectly on a central homepage. Instead, once you select a section to visit from the landingpage there will be the option to highlight relevant ‘hot topic’ information via the use of arotating picture header with a headline at the top of each home page (Living Here,Business, Town Hall, Visitors). The site will however retain the ‘what’s new’ functionalityvia a scrolling bar on the landing page with the option to highlight 1-3 stories.

The decision was made to discard the pull down menu in factor of a side bar menu againwith the intention of making information easier to access.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT the updated web site be presented to Council.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125340 Received from Duncan Rogers, Clerk Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date June 23rd, 2014Topic Request for the Naming of a Municipal Facility

SUMMARYIn accordance with the recently adopted Commemorative Naming Policy for Parks,Facilities and Municipal Assets, the Clerk has received a written request for the naming ofthe Small Upper Hall of the Carleton Place Community Centre.

COMMENTAs per the Commemorative Naming Policy, a park, facility or asset must be identified fornaming before applications can be considered. Once approved, the official namingprocess can commence.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT the Small Upper Hall of the Carleton Place Community Centre to be identified fornaming.

COMMITTEE DECISION


125341 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 2nd, 2014Topic Development Permit Fees

SUMMARYThe new Development Permit Bylaw introduces a new class (Class 1a) ofapplication. New fees for planning applications, which includes Class 1a, need to beestablished. Current planning fees are;

Type of Fee or Charge Amount of Fee or Charge Rationale for Fee or Charge

Development Permit Application

Class 1 $250.00

Administrative time,stationary supplies, postageand office supplies

Class 2 $2,155.00

Class 2 -Discretionary uses thatrequire Class 2 approval

$1,500.00

Class 3 $3,155.00

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT Council hereby sets the fee for a Class 1a Development Permit application at$500.00 plus legal fees. This fee is to be an interim fee and all planning fees are to bereviewed as part of the 2015 budget process.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125342 Received from Various CommitteesAddressed to Policy Review Committee Date JulyTopic Action Reports/Minutes

SUMMARYMinutes form the June 2014 and July 9th, 2014 meetings of the Municipal HeritageAdvisory Committee are attached. Noteworthy items include:

( Findlay Factory heritage Panel and dedication event;( Heritage Videos project;

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT Council accepts Committees’ decisions.

COMMITTEE DECISION


125343 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 7th, 2014Topic 2015 Sewer and Water Budget

SUMMARYThe Treasurer has prepared a proposed 2015 Sewer and Water budget that would requirea 2.19% increase to rates.

The July 29th, 2014 agenda includes three major projects (pumping stations) with asignificant municipal contribution to each. The cumulative impact of these projects needsto be considered.

Historically, the Town has cooperated with Developers to promote growth and has assistedwith funding - recovering these funds from future Developers.

Town’s Contribution to Design

Item 2015 Sewer &Water Budget

Future ProjectsReserve *

Total

Industrial $114,558.32 $25,912.88 $140,471.20

PSS $52,926.94 $52,926.94

PSN $151,428.90 $151,428.90

TOTAL $114,558.32 $230,268.72 $344,827.04

* Funds to be recovered from future developers or sale of land.

These are major projects that are being initiated by Developers and the Town should onlyparticipate if the Developers demonstrate serious intent by depositing the funds as per theattached agreements.

Furthermore, everyone should be aware that the cost of construction will follow when thedesign is completed. The cost of construction needs to be determined, the formula fordistributing costs and the method of collecting these costs needs considerable review. However, to illustrate the potential impact, if the same sharing methodology was appliedthe impact of construction costs could be:

Town’s Potential Contribution to Construction

Item 2015 Sewer &Water Budget

Future ProjectsReserve

Total

Industrial $494,080.00 $111,760.00 $605,840.00

PSS $576,320.00 $576,320.00

PSN $1,136,736.00 $1,136,739.00

TOTAL $494,080.00 $1,824,816.00 $2,318,899.00

* Funds to be recovered from future developers or sale of land.

On September 12th, 2014, the Council will/may enter a ‘lame duck’ period so the sewer andwater budget needs to be approved.


125343 Continued

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT the proposed sewer and water budget be presented to the public on September 2nd,2014 and then presented to Council for approval on September 2nd, 2014. Note - theregular Council meeting for September 9th, 2014 has been cancelled so should berescheduled for September 2nd, 2014.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125344 Received from Wayne Fraser, Public Works Development Coordinator Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 10th, 2014Topic Development Securities Update

SUMMARYLate last fall, the CAO informed Council that the Development Coordinator was beingasked to investigate why the Town was still holding development securities for projects thatwere many years old. A summary of those securities that have been reviewed to date isattached. Owners/developers were sent a written notice asking them to either completethe outstanding site plan work on their projects so that securities could be returned or toexplain why they thought the outstanding work is no longer required.

COMMENTOne project had been cancelled before it began and the owner had not requested thereturn of the security that he had previously provided. Some of the projects had beencompleted but the owners/developers had not requested the return of securities and somehad outstanding work to be completed. In this latter case securities were either maintainedor reduced appropriately. In two situations security had been held by the Town for twosmall businesses, to ensure that they paved their parking areas. The addresses are 20Albert St (2004) and 143 Beckwith St (2011). Staff has received written requests fromboth, asking to be allowed to leave their parking areas gravel surfaced. Both are concernedabout mature trees/plantings existing close by the parking areas and how constructionwould affect them. They also had reservations about disturbing a situation whereby mostrain water now percolates into the soil as opposed to running off these parking areas if theywere paved.

Both locations have been inspected by Public Works staff who found these two smallparking areas to be neat and tidy and in a well-graded condition. Staff feel that bothrequests are reasonable and if granted would not set a dangerous precedent (i e they areboth very small in size and are located in densely developed areas). Further the securityamounts in both situations are insufficient should the Town decide to complete the workitself.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the owners of 20 Albert St and 143 Beckwith St be allowed leave their parking areasas they presently exist.

COMMITTEE DECISION


125345 Received from Wayne Fraser, Public Works Development Coordinator Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 14th, 2014Topic Recycling Promotion and Education Plan ( P&E Plan)

SUMMARYIn past years, a “Best Practices” section has been added to the annual Waste DiversionDatacall that must be completed by Ontario Municipalities if they wish to receive additionalannual grants from Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO). Those municipalities that are able toanswer yes to these questions receive the lion’s share of the funding given for this area ofthe datacall. For example, such questions are:

Does your staff regularly attend CIF/AMO recycling consultation sessions? Do you work with other municipalities to increase regional optimization? Do you have a council-approved Municipal Waste Recycling Strategy? Do you have a council-approved P&E Plan?

Carleton Place staff can answer yes to all of these questions once Council approves theP&E Plan attached to this agenda.

COMMENTThe Town of Carleton Place’s new seven year garbage and recycling collection/processingcontracts began June 1st, 2013. These new contracts were awarded to Matrec Inc. andhave significantly transformed waste management services previously provided toresidents. Changed include:

! New Recyclable Blue Box Materials include:U All plastics numbered 1 through 7;U Gable top cartons;U Milk containers;U Tetra packs.

! A new single stream recycling system with curbside collection each week. Recyclables are hauled to a new Matrec-owned transfer station just east ofCarleton Place. This transfer station has been designed as a state of the art,multi-use facility that allows for the sorting of waste streams, two walking floorloading bays and a residential drop off all within an enclosed building. CarletonPlace residents now have a local location where recyclables, that are not allowedin the blue box, can be dropped off knowing they will be recycled (i.e. tires,electronics, construction demolition materials etc).

! Carleton Place recyclables are now hauled from the transfer station to a MRF inSt. Hubert, Quebec where this facility sorts and separates recyclables andprepares them for marketing by Matrec.

The advantages of these changes are two fold. Residents now are offered a recyclingsystem that is simpler with much less confusion about what plastics are collectable. Thisshould result in increased recycling capture rates and increases waste diversion. Additionally, residents are enjoying the convenience of having their blue box recycling andgarbage collected on the same day of the week at the same time by the same contractor.

The problem is that many residents are confused about what has changed and why. Therefore, it is crucial that the town create a well-designed P&E Plan to effectivelycommunicate these changes to residents and encourage participation in order to ensurethe success of our new recycling program.

This plan must be reviewed and updated every three years but Council can modify orchange this plan at any time should the need arise.


125345 Continued

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT Council hereby approves the Recycling Promotion and Education Plan for the yearsbeginning July 2014 through July 2017.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125346 Received from Les Reynolds, Director of Protective Services Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 14th, 2014Topic County Policing

SUMMARYLanark County Council recently approved a report from the CAO recommending that theyask all county municipalities if they are interested in requesting that the City of Ottawaprovide a costing for the provision of policing services to Lanark County.

COMMENTThe only way that such a service could be provided to another municipality is if they bordereach other (Police Services Act. S.5(4)), so the County can request it, but not individualmunicipalities such as Carleton Place that aren’t contiguous to the city. While staff arehighly doubtful that this initiative will be successful for a number of reasons, it may beworthwhile going through the exercise to determine whether any potential savings exist.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the County of Lanark be informed that Carleton Place has no objection to themrequesting a cost estimate from the City of Ottawa for the provision of police services to theCounty of Lanark.

COMMITTEE DECISION


125347 Received from Dave Young, Director of Public Works Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 22nd, 2014Topic Piping of Open Ditch from McNeely Avenue to Hooper Street.

SUMMARYCouncil authorized staff to engage McIntosh Perry Engineering Consultants to prepareplans and acquire approvals for this project. Timing of the design work will not allow for afull tender process prior to the September 2nd, 2014.

Instead of this approach, staff are recommending that the Town acquire quotations for thematerials, following the Town’s Purchasing Policy and have quotations available for theSeptember meeting.

Actual installation could then be done on an equipment rental basis.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT staff proceed with the acquisition of quotations for materials for this project andpresent to Committee in September 2014.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125348 Received from Wayne DrummondAddressed to Dave Young, Director of Public Works Date July 2014Topic No Parking Restrictions on William Street

SUMMARYResident is expressing his concerns that no parking restrictions have been put in place onWilliam Street from Baines Street to Edmund Street. He feels that as a property owner ofthree properties that he should have been contacted for input into the matter.

He would like to see parking on the north side of William Street reinstated, at least acrossthe frontage of his properties.

COMMENTMr. Drummond’s property is at the eastern limit of this restriction and there is currently noaccess from his property onto William Street. The effect of reinstating parking in thissection would be minimal.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT the No Parking restriction on William Street be amended to have the current easternlimit be moved to a point 30m west.

COMMITTEE DECISION


125349 Received from County of LanarkAddressed to Town of Carleton Place Date July 17th, 2014Topic Disposal of “5N” Site

SUMMARYSince Carleton Place has not expressed an interest to purchase any of the 5N Site, theCounty has sent a Confirmation, Consent and Authorization Form which when signedconfirms the Town has no interest to purchase the 5N lands and authorizes the County toproceed with the sale and conveyance of the lands.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT Council hereby authorizes staff to execute the County’s Confirmation, Consent andAuthorization Form.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125350 Received from Councillor AntonakosAddressed to Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Date July 9th, 2014Topic 7 Beckwith

SUMMARYRegarding the Lake Ave contamination, After serious re-consideration, Councillor nowbelieves that his 'yea' vote to support the "pump and treat" decision on June 24th, 2014 waspremature, primarily because of the lack of official documentation that has not been madeavailable to council regarding this matter.

He has asked for the opportunity to personally review all the official ministrycorrespondence that has been sent to the Corporation of the Town of Carleton Placeregarding this matter and that remediation item be put back on the next agenda for furtherdiscussion.

He would also like to add that a peer review of the "pump and treat" approach would be inorder, considering the large amount of tax payers money that has already been spent andthe significant amount of tax payers money that will be spent moving forward with aremediation solution for 7 Beckwith Street - Lake Avenue.

COMMENTWhen the Town receives correspondence, staff summarizes the important points andpresents the issue to Council. The actual correspondence is of course available uponrequest but generally people understand the issue sufficiently from the summary providedby staff and you can imagine the volume of paper if all correspondence was always copiedto everyone.

Related to the Lake Ave contamination, the Town received the attached memo in March2011. At the April 5th, 2011 meeting it was explained to Council that MOE has stated thatthe Town's proposal to just monitor the contamination, which is it is not causing anyproblems, is not acceptable. The memo has been available upon request since then but,until just recently, nobody has asked for an actual copy of the memo.


125350 Continued

The memo has now been provided to Councillor Antonakos and is attached for everyone’sreference.

The March 2011 memo resulted in the following decision by Council:

THAT the Town proceed as outlined in Option 3 above planning to coordinate remediationwork with installation of a forcemain on Lake Avenue and repair of rail crossing after railshave been removed.

ALSO THAT the attached press release be issued.

Staff are to authorize consultants (SNL and Genivar) to proceed.

Option 3 was:

3) Proceed as planned with parking lot/road and proceed with work to fullydelineate the contamination in 2011.

Remediation work would then follow in the future but only after exploringgrant/funding opportunities and fully evaluating this new remediationtechnology.

Demolition/Parking Lot/Road $1.5M 2011Delineate Contamination $50,000 2011Remediation $0.95M - $1.15M** 2012+

**NOTE:Remediation work could be higher ($20,000 - $30,000) as some rework would berequired (repair asphalt on Beckwith Street)

Other contact with MOE has been at meetings.

Since then Council has been kept informed of progress and has made decisions at keypoints.

05-14-11-1 April 5th, 2011123044 January 10th, 2012123061 January 17th, 2012123381 July 24th, 2012124139 March 5th, 2013124241 May 7th, 2013125286 June 3rd, 2014 and June 24th, 2014

On June 24th, 2014, Council spent considerable time reviewing information from theConsultant and approved the following motion:

“That Council accept SNC-Lavalin’s proposal to design a “Ground WaterPump and Treat System” and prepare specifications for its constructionand operation for the 7 Beckwith site in Carleton Place.”

Staff have acted on this decision and the consultant is working on the detailed design.


125350 Continued

A peer review can sometimes be useful - especially if the consultant's report has beenprepared for another client (for example by a developer) and there is some specificpoints that should be checked. But, a peer review does come at a cost (both time andmoney) and the cost/benefit should be considered.

In this case, the consultant has always been working for the Town. Further, staff feelthat there are no specific points that warrant a peer review.

- MOE's position is quite clear and would be not be altered by a peer review. At the lastmeeting with MOE a Ministry representative provided the following information:

" “he has no concerns about installing or operating the P&T system andsees it as a viable option for managing the source area. He is veryfamiliar with this technology and recognizes that it is widely used atcontaminated sites and does work, although it may take a long time.”

- a wide range of options have already been considered by the consultant and staff donot believe a peer review would identify any new viable options.

- the consultant has presented a detailed comparison of three options. The cost for twoof the options is based on a quote from a contractor. A peer review will not improve thedetail of these cost estimates. The cost estimate for the proposed "pump and treat"option is preliminary and a peer review could provide a second opinion on this potentialcost. However, this would still just be a preliminary cost estimate. The detailed designmust be completed before a more accurate cost estimate can be prepared. Staffsuggest is it better to spend $60,000 for the detailed design rather than $30-$40,000 foranother preliminary estimate and then still have to pay for the detailed design.

- the consultant's comparison of options explains the impacts on the community of eachoption. Staff have enough experience with construction projects to be comfortableconfirming the consultant has accurately presented the impacts.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION That work continue as per Council's decision on June 24th, 2014.

COMMITTEE DECISION

125351 Received from County of Lanark Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 29th, 2014Topic Consent Application B14-025 (343 Moffatt St/Dufferin St)

SUMMARYA consent application has been received for the property located on the southeast sideof Dufferin Street, located in the block of land between Moffatt St, McDonald St andDufferin St as shown on the attached key map.

The severed lot would be approximately 19.81 metres wide, 33.18 metres deep and657.1 m2. The retained parcel would be approximately 19.81 metres wide, 33.18 metresin depth and 651 m2. Access to the retained would be from Moffatt St and access to thesevered would be from Dufferin St. There is an existing single family dwelling on theretained parcel.


125351 Continued

COMMENTThe Official Plan designation is Residential ®. This designation allows for a mix ofhousing types which complement the existing small town character. This includes singledetached, semi-detached and townhouse style dwellings and apartment units. TheDevelopment Permit designation of the property is Residential. The effect of theseverance will be to create an infill building lot. The applicant is proposing a semi-detached dwelling to be constructed on the severed lot. The intent for the retainedparcel is to demolish the existing single family dwelling unit and construct a semi-detached unit. Both the retained and severed lot will both have the minimum lotfrontage required under the Development Permit By-law.

Staff recommends approval of the severance with the following conditions:

1. The balance of any outstanding taxes, including penalties and interest, (and anylocal improvement charges, if applicable) shall be paid to the Town.

2. That the applicant provides a digital copy of the reference plan (in NAD83datum);

3. That the applicant provides the Town with a Building Location Survey orSurveyor’s Certificate demonstrating that the lands severed and the landsretained are in compliance with all Development Permit provisions. Thesurveyor’s information shall include confirmation of adequate frontage and areafor both the severed and retained parcels along the maintained road.

4. That the applicant provides a Site Grading and Drainage Plan for the retainedand severed parcels to the satisfaction of the Town of Carleton Place.

5. Satisfactory evidence shall be provided to the Town of Carleton Place by way ofa surveyor’s report to confirm the setback for all the existing building to the newproperty lines and existing property lines meet the Ontario Building Code andDevelopment Permit By-law.

6. The building elevations for the severed lot be provided that demonstrate that theexisting character of the neighbourhood is maintained.

7. That the applicant provides a landscape plan including the existing vegetationfor the severed and retained parcels to the satisfaction of the Town of CarletonPlace.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION That staff forward suggested conditions of approval to the County for consideration.

COMMITTEE DECISION


125352 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date July 24th, 2014Topic Closed Meetings

SUMMARYAs authorized by the Municipal Act, Council should review selected items in closedsession.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT in accordance with Section 239 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, that the meetingbe closed to the public with the following agenda:

AGENDA

06-05-14-2 personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal orlocal board employees. - General Nature - Staff Appraisal

13-05-14-2 personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal orlocal board employees. - General Nature - Staffing

12-11-13-3 a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by themunicipality or local board - General Nature - Beckwith Street

29-07-14-1 a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by themunicipality or local board - General Nature - Carambeck

03-09-13-1 a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by themunicipality or local board - General Nature - South of Hwy. 7

11-06-13-1 a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by themunicipality or local board - General Nature - Old Curling Club Property

COMMITTEE DECISION

Town of Carleton Place

Energy Management Plan

(Effective date July 1, 2014)

Decreasing Green House Gasses “1 switch at a time”!!!

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Executive Summary

This plan is designed to demonstrate municipal compliance with Ontario Regulation 307/11, which is

under the “The Green Energy Act 2009". The Town recognizes the need to prevent the wasting of fossil

fuels and making sure that when these fuels are used that the maximum efficiency is attained. Carleton

Place has a proud history of managing and limiting the amount of energy the Town consumed but from

an economic concern that was only considered on with a short term perspective. As with limited

resources it was prudent to ensure proper fiscal constraint is demonstrated.

In the future not only will consideration be given to the immediate costs but also to the long term costs

which are not only economical but environmental, as it is the long term viability of the community to be a

healthy enjoyable sustainable municipality within Eastern Ontario. Therefore, with economics as the

base and a continued enjoyable community in which to live, this plan will serve as an evolving map which

will result in lower fossil fuel usage per square foot of facility within the Town. The most important

objective is the control that the Town will gain over the energy consumed during the next 5 years.

▶ The Energy Management Plan presented in this report is comprised of the following elements:

∙ Overview usage and calculations from the 2012 year;

∙ Mandated provincial requirements/timelines and desired local requirements/timelines;

∙ Overview of the strategy and goals of the Town’s Energy Management;

∙ The benefits (Financial) that are anticipated.

THE STARTING LINE!! The starting line for this plan was the requirement that the energy usage for each municipality in Ontario

from 2011 had to be made public by July 1st, 2013. This calculation is created by considering the

amount of energy that Carleton Place used in the form of electricity and natural gas at all the facilities for

the calendar year and determining the amount of carbon that was released from those locations. Other

factors in those calculations include the number of hours each building was used per week and square

footage of the building. It is important to note that it is not an actual economic cost for use but the

number of KW/hr or cubic metres used by the facility.

The following charts illustrate the energy consumption at each municipal facility, including the sewage

and water treatment plants which are operated by OCWA.

Figure 1 shows the Hydro consumed at each location in 2012. The sewage treatment plant, water plant

and arena were the largest consumers. Streetlights also used considerable energy.

Figure 2 shows the gas consumed at each location in 2012. The indoor pool is the largest user followed

by the arena and sewage plant.

Figures 3 and 4 show the Green House Gas Emissions due to electricity and gas consumption

respectively at each location. The large users of electricity and gas of course are the major causes of

Green House Emmissions.

Interestingly, Figure 5 adds the electrical and gas Green House Emissions together to show the

cumulative impact by each facility. The indoor pool and arena have the highest cumulative Green House

Gas Emissions followed by the sewage plant and the water plant.

TIME LINES

The province mandated that local municipalities make public the actual usage reports yearly. It started

with the 2011 usage being completed by July 1st, 2013. Next, a Municipal GHG plan must be created

and made public along with the 2012 usage report by July 1st, 2014. This report meets this requirement.

Reports and usage will continue to be made public on or before every July 1st of the next year.

OVERVIEW OF GHG STRATEGIES AND GOALS

Goals

Carleton Place has been concerned about energy costs for a number of years and most facilities are in

good to excellent conditions, therefore dramatic reductions may not be possible. That does not change

the fact that every step taken to reduce the local use is important. The Town’s goal is to reduce GHG

emissions by 5% by 2025 while growing the town population by 20%.

STRATEGIES

With limited resources the Town will need to implement these goals without increasing staffing.

Responsibility for implementing this plan will reside with the Town’s Management Committee. Efforts will

concentrate on first educating and encouraging the basic principles of conservation. This includes turn it

off, turn it down and control it. This strategy of people action first is trying to achieve 50% of the

reduction goals. Another short term priority will be to consider LED streetlighting and electric vehicles.

The 0ther 50% reduction will be achieved during regular and scheduled upgrades in which technology is

considered weighing the costs and dependability to achieve these goals.

SHOW ME THE MONEY

This plan will certainly seek to demonstrate the reduced use of fossil fuels and the reduction of GHG as

positive steps for the local environment and the community, as a whole. In addition, with the anticipation

of increased costs for energy, the reduction of the amount of energy uses as compared to today will be

smaller. However, the question of “will the energy cost in the budget become smaller?” is much more

difficult to answer. This is due to the lace of control/influence that local municipalities have over the cost

of energy. This Town will manage to implement this plan with current human resources and proven

technologies.

OWFC Activity ReportJune 2014

EMERGENCY CALLS Jan Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. YTD YOYFire Related 11 6 13 8 10 13 61 ‐25MVC 2 0 1 1 2 0 6 NCMedical Assist 1 2 1 2 0 0 6 NCOther 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 ‐5Total 15 9 16 12 13 13 78 ‐30

Automatic Aid to Miss. Mills (incl. in above calls) 2 0 1 2 3 0 8 2

NON‐EMERGENCY CALLSMeetings 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 ‐1Training 3 3 2 3 3 3 17 ‐3Other 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ‐1Total 4 5 3 4 4 4 24 ‐5

TOTAL CALLS 19 14 19 16 17 17 102 ‐35Avg. Response (%) All Calls 57% 57% 55% 68% 57% 70% 61% NCAvg.Response (%) Mon‐Fri 6am‐6pm 50% 57% 59% 68% 54% 49% 56% 2%Fire Loss ($) 0 0 52000 0 0 460500 512500 166500Rescues 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 NCInjuries 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1Fatalities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC

FIRE PREVENTION

Fire Safety Inspections 10 27 20 16 18 24 115 19Orders Issued 4 13 8 5 6 11 47 ‐3Charges Laid 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2Public Education (Hrs.) 14 24 28 29 33 32 160 ‐64

Sheet2

Items of InterestJune was highlighted by 3 structure fires, 2 of which were relatively minor and 1 serious one with an estimated loss of $450,000. The Fire Service Master Plan was received by Council June 3 and approved on June 27. On June 21 a number of our firefighters participated in the annual EOFA competition held in Mississippi Mills, where they placed 5th overall out of 11 departments and won the 5 man hose laying race as well as being named the most sportsmanlike department and best on parade.

CARLETON PLACE POLICE SERVICES BOARD REGULAR MEETING

Minutes June 23, 2014 Town Hall – Council Chamber 4:00 p.m. Present: Councillor D.Black, Wayne Drummond, Chris Gray, Sgt. R. Croth, Les Reynolds (PSB Administrator) Regrets: Mayor W. LeBlanc, Jamie DeBaie I. CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:03 pm II. DELEGATIONS: None III. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Motion 2014-09 Moved by Wayne Drummond Seconded by Chris Gray THAT the minutes of the April 28, 2014 regular meeting be approved as circulated CARRIED IV. COMMUNICATIONS 372. Received from Lanark County Association of Police Service Boards Date May 1, 2014 Topic Notice of Meeting SUMMARY The next LCA-PSB meeting will be held in Perth on June 4th, 2014 STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Available members to attend. Receive and File BOARD DECISION Receive and File 373. Received from Duncan Rogers, Town Clerk Date May 27, 2014 Topic Committee Agendas and Minutes SUMMARY Town Council has decided that the agendas and minutes of all Town associated Committees and Boards are to be posted on the municipal website so that

members of the public may access them. The new policy will apply to the Police Services Board.

Carleton Place Police Services Board – June 23, 2014 - Page 2

STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Administrator be directed to comply with the new policy. BOARD DECISION Motion 2014-10 Moved by Chris Gray Seconded by Wayne Drummond THAT the Administrator be directed to comply with the new policy CARRIED

V. REPORTS

None VI. BUSINESS/DISCUSSIONS REQUIRING PARTICIPATION OF DETACHMENT

COMMANDER

1. Financial Statements

2. Detachment Commander’s Report The contract statistics for April and May 2014 were reviewed

VII. BY-LAWS

None VIII. OTHER BUSINESS IX. NEXT MEETING At the call of the Chair X. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 4:38 pm Chair – Doug Black Administrator – Les Reynolds ____________________ ________________________ Date Approved -

Carleton Place & District Memorial HospitalUpdate to Council – July 29, 2014

Carleton Place & District Memorial Hospital

Vision Shaping a Healthy Future for our Communities through Caring, Quality and Innovation

Mission To deliver the highest level of health care by:

Connecting patients to responsive, integrated services Leading the way in quality and safety Being the kind of hospital that patients recommend to family and friends

At CPMDH we CARE,Compassionate, Consistent, Courteous and Confidential Advocates for delivering Accessible and Accountable servicesRespectful and encouraging of decisions based on individual Rights and community ResourcesEfficient, Equitable, dedicated to a safe Environment and Excellence


TOPICS

Population Health

Services

Finances

Quality and Safety

Hospital Redevelopment

Champlain LHIN Statistics

Top 10 Leading Causes of Death by Comparison to the C-LHIN

%

Ischaemic Heart Disease 2.3%

Cancer of lung, bronchus 15.8%

Dementia, Alzheimer Disease -7.6%

Cerebro-vascular Diseases 9.6%

Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 17.9%

Cancer of Colon, Rectum, Anus 23.1%

Cancer of Lymph, Blood Related 18.3%

Diabetes 39.1%

Cancer of Breast -1.4%

Diseases of Urinary System -21.4%

Average Life Expectancy 79.8 years

Service Volumes

2013/14 2012/13 % Change

Hospital Admissions 519 542 -4.2%Inpatient Days 6,272 5,855 7.1%ALC Days 2,421 2,160 12.1%Emergency Visits 18,071 18,136 -0.4%

11,147 9,674 15.2%Surgery Cases 1,432 1,378 3.9%

14,916 16,330 -8.7%

Service

Ambulatory Care Visits

Diagnostic Imaging Exams

CPDMH Service Enhancements

Credentialed 87 physicians Two new GP’s -18 One Rehab Specialist Four New Surgeons – Orthopedic & ENT, General

Surgery Pulmonary Function Test Expansion of clinical outpt programs- Chiro,

respirology Clinical documentation at the bedside to improve

the Transfer of Patient Information


Finances

Ended March 31, 2014 with an operating surplus Invested 2.1 million to maintain a safe facility and

procure modern, medical equipment Advanced the development of a electronic medical

record Submitted a balance budget for 14-15 Continue to provide quality services while

maintaining an enviable, efficiency record

CPDMH Quality & Safety

Four year Exemplary Accreditation standing with Accreditation Canada 2012-2016

CPDMH laboratory received outstanding results in lab accreditation with a compliance standing of 97.86%.

Commendation from LHIN and Minister’s office for most improved emergency wait times among small hospitals in province

Staff Engagement - hospital has high employee engagement compared to the majority of healthcare settings.

Priority Initiatives – Hand Hygiene, Wait Times – ED and ALC, medication safety

Stage 1 Business Case Proposal submitted in 2008 Updated 2012 to better align with: A vision of hospital and community integration Engagement exercise completed with community and

partners LHIN Integrated health services plan, Ministry Action Plan and priorities A natural “Health Links” Fit Our community’s needs and values

Emergency Strategies

Mental Health Strategies

Senior Friendly Care Strategies

Chronic Disease Strategies

Redevelopment Activities 13-14

MPP and legislative official engagement Provincial election advocacy Completed Stage 1B analysis Proposal currently before the MOH waiting

for approval.


Thanks for your ongoing support of the Carleton Place & District

Memorial Hospital.

Policy Review Committee - May 27th, 2014 - Page 2

TO BE DISCUSSED

125243 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date March 25th, 2014Topic Pumping Station - Eastern Carleton Place

SUMMARYIn the early 1990s, Mississippi Quays subdivision began construction. As part of thisdevelopment, a sanitary pumping station was constructed and the capacity for thispumping station was designed to also include the Town owned land between LakeAvenue and Cavanagh Road. At that time, the property along Hwy. 7 was in BeckwithTownship and there was no plans to service or develop that area.

In 1999 the property along Hwy. 7 had been annexed and construction of a new CanadianTire Store at McNeely and Hwy. 7 required the extension of services, but it was outsidethe designed service area for the pumping station. To service this area, a 450 diametersewer was installed from Lake Avenue along Hooper Street . This 450 diameter sewerdischarges into a smaller 300 diameter pipe and neither the 300 diameter pipe nor thepumping station have capacity to accept the maximum flow from the 450 diameter pipe.

It was recognized that the smaller 300 diameter sewer and pumping station would functionas an interim solution but that, as growth occurred, this area would need to be upgradedto remove this restriction. To fund this work, the Town adopted By-law 03-2000 in whichSchedule A imposes a charge on development in this area of $7,500 per ha. A McIntoshHill report that recommended increasing the capacity by surcharging the 300 diametersewer and installing larger pumps in the pumping station documents this issue.

To note other related by-laws, Schedule B of By-law 03-2000 imposes a fee of $3,500 perha on certain lands and By-law 78-2005 imposes a charge of $225,580 on property eastof Hooper Street (Scarf). These by-laws relate to recovering costs for the installation oftrunk sanitary sewers and should remain. Schedule C of By-law 03-2000 relates to stormdrainage and has been repealed as circumstances have changed.

Since 2000, the interim servicing solution has worked well but significant growth in thisarea is now planned. The Town’s Master Servicing Study established a servicing areaand speaks to servicing. There have been further annexations and the density ofdevelopment has increased considerably since trunk sewers were sized in the late 1990's.

J.L. Richard’s recent report evaluates recent actual flows and the projected impact ofdeveloping additional annexed land. The report concludes that even if the 300 diametersewer and pumping station are upgraded the 450 diameter sewer does not have sufficientcapacity to service all property north of Hwy. 7 if the recently annexed land is included. ASanitary Sewer Servicing Strategy, for the east area of Town, north of Hwy. 7, is required. Note - the area south of Hwy 7 uses the 450 diameter trunk sewer for interim servicing butwill ultimately be serviced with a pumping station and forcemain to the Treatment Plant.


125243 Continued

It is recommended that a new sanitary pumping station be constructed at Lake/Hooper. This pumping station would accept flows from the existing 450 diameter trunk sewer on Hooper and from a new trunk sewer that would service properties to the east as described in the Town’s Master Servicing Plan. The pumping station would be designed such that it can be expanded in the future and the capacity increased to accept flows from the new trunk sewer that will service to the east. Schedule A of By-law 03-2000 will need to be amended so that the cost of the new pumping station and forcemain is shared among the benefitting property owners.

COMMENT Implementing the recommended alternative will mean that two new significant pumping stations will be constructed, one north and one south of Hwy. 7. The forcemains from the pumping stations should be installed at the same time in the same trench and the two pumping stations should be designed with the same features. To ensure coordination, the Town should undertake both projects rather than trying to ensure work by various developers is coordinated. A Funding Formula, for these two projects, needs to be established and the Developers may have differing views on who should fund the cost.

The Town has been collecting Development Fees for sewer and water projects for many years. These Development Fees are save in a reserve for future expansion projects at the treatment plants but they could be loaned to another sewer and water projects in the interim. Potentially these pump stations could be constructed by the Town and funded from the Town’s sewer and water reserves. The Town would then collect back the cost from developers and repay the reserves so that the reserve funds are available for the designated projects.

UPDATE 1 A meeting to explain the proposed project to construct a pumping station and gather input was held on April 15th, 2014. Staff is still gathering input and finalizing the details for a preferred solution to recommend. However, it is clear that Schedule A of By-law 03-2000 needs to be amended to ensure sufficient funds are collected to fund the cost of the required pumping station. Applying the charge in the current by-law ($9,700/Ha for 85 Ha) would raise about $825,000. Staff now believe constructing the pumping station and forcemain could cost $2.5 - $3.0 million).

UPDATE 2 Staff have now received feedback from both major residential developers in the service area. Both support the Town`s plans to proactively plan for growth but they differ on how costs should be funded.


125243 Continued

In 1999, the Town partnered with NuGlobe and the Developer of the Canadian Tire to bringservices to the area. Included in this partnership arrangement, it was agreed that: `Forgreater certainty, it is agreed that Nu Globe shall not be required to pay any servicingcharges, connection or other fees for utilizing the sanitary sewer and water works to beconstructed by the Municipality under this Agreement to service the Nu Globe Lands,except for the sum of $7,500 per ha. plus applicable increases for inflation, which theMunicipality has indicated it will charge for such connection and Nu Globe reserves theright to dispute.`

So the capacity for NuGlobe`s property and the Town’s property has already been installedand the price established.

In 2000, it was thought that this same charge of $7,500/Ha, applied to all of the lands,would be sufficient to fund the cost of upgrades to expand the capacity. However, recentinvestigation has shown otherwise and a significantly higher charge will be required. Based on a preliminary cost estimate of $2.6m, the charge would be approximately $3,000per residential unit and $30,000 per Ha for commercial.

A draft by-law to amend By-law 03-2000 which reflects this funding arrangement isattached. This By-law would be presented to Council after more accurate costs areavailable to be included in the amendment, likely summer 2014. In the meantime, theterms of the current By-law 03-2000 will apply until it is amended. However, newdevelopment can only be approved to proceed if there is sufficient confirmed sanitarysewer capacity. So far, capacity has been confirmed for NuGlobe’s subdivision andlimited development on Thruway’s property. Additional development would be approvedafter there is a funding commitment for construction to proceed on the pumping stationnorth of Hwy 7 and By-law 03-2000 has been amended.

To move this project forward, the Class EA needs to be completed and a consultantengaged to proceed with design work.

There have not been any concerns identified with locating the pumping station (PSN) nearLake Ave E/Hooper. The best specific location is on municipal property at Roe/Hooper asshown below.

Proposals have been received from three consulting firms, (EXP, Ainley and Hatt-McDonald), to proceed with design work on the two pumping stations (north and south ofHwy. 7). Consultant’s proposals have been evaluated based on the experience,qualifications of staff to be assigned to the project, hourly costs and availability to completethe work on Schedule. Accurate costs for the design work cannot be determined untilmore preliminary work has been completed. Hatt-McDonald’s proposal did not cover theentire design process. The hourly cost for EXP and Ainley is very similar. Staff likedAinley’s approach to the project, realistic schedule and minimal use of sub-consultants.

UPDATE 3Thruway has provided the attached letter offering the opinion that the Town cannot useSection 326 of the Municipal Act to impose a fee on an area unless the fee is the same forall properties.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT staff engage Ainley Consultants to proceed with design work on two pumpingstations (north and south of Hwy. 7). Their first task would involve creating a conceptplan, a cost estimate and identifying property requirements for both pumping stations.

.


125243 Continued

THAT the attached Notice of Completion for the Municipal Class EA project to determine Sanitary Sewer Service in Eastern Carleton Place be issued.

THAT the attached draft By-law and Notice of Completion be circulated to owners in the area THAT comments received on the draft By-law be reviewed by the Town’s solicitor.

THAT the Town consider participating in the funding the construction of the pumping station north provided there is a firm funding commitment from a significant portion of land owners. For example:

Estimated cost $2,600,000 Pegasus 550 units @ $3,000 $1,650,000 Commercial 10 Hz @ $30,000 $ 300,000

Shortfall financed by Town and recovered in the future ($650,000)

COMMITTEE DECISION THAT staff engage Ainley Consultants to proceed with design work on two pumping stations (north and south of Hwy. 7). Their first task would involve creating a concept plan, a cost estimate and identifying property requirements for both pumping stations.

THAT the attached Notice of Completion for the Municipal Class EA project to determine Sanitary Sewer Service in Eastern Carleton Place be issued.

THAT the attached draft By-law and Notice of Completion be circulated to owners in the area.

THAT comments received on the draft By-law be reviewed by the Town’s solicitor.

THAT the Town consider participating in the funding the construction of the pumping station north provided there is a firm funding commitment from a significant portion of land owners. For example:

Estimated cost $2,600,000 Pegasus 550 units @ $3,000 $1,650,000 Commercial 10 Hz @ $30,000 $ 300,000

Shortfall financed by Town and recovered in the future ($650,000)

DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF HWY 7 - PUMPING STATION SOUTH

JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT

August , 2014

Made between the Corporation of the Town of Carleton Place

and Pegasus, RSSR Properties Inc. and Cardel

(hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Developer”

WHEREAS the Town’s updated Official Plan designates the area south of Hwy. 7 for development withResidential, Highway Commercial and Employment uses:

AND WHEREAS the development of the nine properties, located south of Hwy. 7, is inter-related anddevelopment should be planned for the entire area;

AND WHEREAS certain property owners desire to proceed with development of their property:

AND WHEREAS certain planning work, for the development of this area, has already been jointly undertaken:

THEREFORE the parties acknowledge and agree as follows:

1) To date the Town has:

i) incurred a net cost of $369,834.97 to extend McNeely Avenue and construct a pathway. Torecover the Town’s cost this cost will be included in the total cost for development of thearea and shared among benefitting owners.

ii) worked with other owners to prepare a concept plan for the area (see Appendix A). The finalactual costs of $309,428.33 to prepare the concept plan will be included in the total cost fordevelopment of the area and shared among benefitting owners.

iii) has entered into an Agreement with the County of Lanark and certain owners to share coststo design extending McNeely Avenue and Captain Roy Brown Blvd. The Town has engageda Consultant (BTE) to proceed with detailed design work and their costs of approximately$536,000 will be shared as shown in Appendix B.

iv) has reviewed proposals and engaged a consultant (Ainley) to complete the detailed designand oversee construction of PSS (125243). To date, Ainley has been authorized to preparea concept plan and cost estimate for PSS and the cost of approximately $14,432 for thiswork needs to be shared (See Appendix C)

2) To proceed with development of this area, the next step that requires cooperation of the variousowners is the construction of the pumping station PSS with the associated trunk sewers andforcemains. The cost to complete the detailed design are estimated to be:

ITEM ESTIMATED COST

Concept Plan $14,432

Property/Survey/Geotech $60,000

Hwy. 7 Crossing Design $30,000

PSS & Forcemain Design $75,635

Connection at WWTP Design $25,000

Project Management $15,000

Total - Detailed Design & Approvals $220,067

3) The costs associated with this project need to be shared amoung the four benefitting owners. Ifdivided by gross area the costs would be (See Appendix D)

OwnerApprox

Area(ha)

Share of Cost

% Total

Mutuura/Laing 14.449 1 18.01 $39,634

RSSR 11.436 14.25 $31,360

Cardel 15.508 19.33 $42,539

Pegasus 38.837 2 48.41 $106,534

TOTAL 80.23 100 $220,067

NOTES:1 Includes 1.817ha of Mutuura’s property that is located south of Captain A. Roy Brown

Boulevard. Mutuura/Laing have not shown any interest in developing at this time.

2 Includes 20.863ha (approximately 50%) of Pegasus’ property located outside the currentmunicipal boundary. The pumping station will be sized so it can be expanded to service asmuch of Pegasus’ property as can be developed given traffic restrictions.

4) To meet Developer’s proposed construction schedule, the detailed design of PSS needs to becompleted fall of 2014 and others will need to upfront the share for non-participating owners andrecover these funds in the future. Historically, the Town has cooperated with Developers to promotegrowth and assisted with funding - paying the Town’s fair share and often upfronting the share fornon-participating owners and then recovering these costs from future Developers. This is a majorproject, initiated by Developers, and the Town is only participating because the Developers havedemonstrated serious intent to proceed.

5) The Town and the Owners hereby agree to fund the cost to complete the detailed design as follows:

Owner Amount HST Total

Town (for Mutuura/Laing) $46,838 $6,089 $52,927

RSSR $37,060 $4,818 $41,878

Cardel $50,271 $6,535 $56,806

Pegasus $125,898 $16,367 $142,265

TOTAL $260,067 $33,809 $293,876

During the design process, design options will be considered and less costly alternatives will beimplemented provided the alternative provides service to all intended properties.

6) The private owners shall provide a deposit to the Town equal to their estimated cost for this work.Upon completion of this phase of the project, the Town will provide details of actual costs. Fundswill then be either paid by or refunded to the private owners based on actual costs.

7) At this time, the cost of constructing the pumping station is not known but it could be in the range of3.2m. If this cost were distributed as above, based on area, the costs would be:

OwnerApprox

Area(ha)

Share of Construction Cost

% Total

Mutuura/Laing 14.449 1 18.01 $576,320

RSSR 11.436 14.25 $456,000

Cardel 15.508 19.33 $618,560

Pegasus 38.837 2 48.41 $1,549,120

TOTAL 80.23 100 $3,200,000

The cost sharing shown in this Agreement is based solely on area. While the detailed design for thisproject is underway, the various options for sharing costs (area, number of units, flows, higher costfor higher benefit, Phasing of construction and costs) will be assessed and the various legal options(Development charges, Section 391 of the Municipal Act, cash payments) considered. After thedetailed design is completed, the cost for common infrastructure will be determined and then the totalcommon development costs, including the costs identified above, will be shared equitably amongbenefitting in a formula acceptable to the Town of Carleton Place. Construction will then beauthorized to proceed.

8) Upon completion of work and determination of actual costs, the Town will register a By-law on titlethat will ensure the Town collects an owner’s fair share of the cost prior to the owners proceedingwith development. The Town will then provide the funds collected to the Owners that funded thecost.

9) At the conclusion of each step, the Town will provide a report detailing costs and allocations toowners.

10) Owners may assign this Agreement to any subsequent purchaser of their property.

11) Individual property owners will be responsible for preparing detailed plans for the development oftheir property which follow the concept plan for the area and submitting applications for approval.

12) This Agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successorsand assigns.

IN WITNESS OF WHICH the Parties have duly executed this Agreement.

The Town of Carleton Place

per:Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer

Pegasus

per:

RSSR Properties Inc. (Stewart)

per:

Cardel

per:

APPENDIX AFinal Cost Spreadsheet from Concept Plan

Note: The Concept Plan and associated Material was acceptedby Council on October 8th, 2013 and is available

on the Town’s Website

DESCRIPTION Amount Town (Doyle) 2289337 Ontario Inc RSSR Properties Colonnade/Cardel Pegasus

Wayne Fraser $263.03 $60.23 $23.15 $45.77 $62.08 $71.81Counterpoint Engineering Inc 12249 $8,805.45 $2,016.45 $774.88 $1,532.15 $2,078.09 $2,403.89Muncaster Environmental Planning 1139-01 $4,135.50 $947.03 $363.92 $719.58 $975.98 $1,128.99Muncaster Environmental Planning 1139-02 $4,252.25 $973.77 $374.20 $739.89 $1,003.53 $1,160.86Counterpoint Engineering Inc 12994 $4,554.35 $1,042.95 $400.78 $792.46 $1,074.83 $1,243.34Novatech Engineering 1011696 $16,628.84 $3,808.00 $1,463.34 $2,893.42 $3,924.41 $4,539.67Novatech Engineering 1011835 $23,020.39 $5,271.67 $2,025.79 $4,005.55 $5,432.81 $6,284.57Novatech Engineering 1011898 $16,091.00 $3,684.84 $1,416.01 $2,799.83 $3,797.48 $4,392.84Novatech Engineering 1012070 $44,987.50 $10,302.14 $3,958.90 $7,827.83 $10,617.05 $12,281.59 Paterson Group (Soils - Included in 1012070) $8,350.00 $2,496.65 $968.60 $1,895.45 $0.00 $2,989.30Novatech Engineering 1012179 $16,811.00 $3,849.72 $1,479.37 $2,925.11 $3,967.40 $4,589.40Novatech Engineering 1012378 $27,331.00 $6,258.80 $2,405.13 $4,755.59 $6,450.12 $7,461.36Novatech Engineering 1012426 $27,492.50 $6,295.78 $2,419.34 $4,783.70 $6,488.23 $7,505.45Preliminary Plan/Survey Carried Forward $13,359.80 $3,059.39 $1,175.66 $2,324.61 $3,152.91 $3,647.23Muncaster Environmenntal Planning 1139-06 $1,316.00 $301.36 $115.81 $228.98 $310.58 $359.27Muncaster Environmental Planning 1139-07 $480.00 $109.92 $42.24 $83.52 $113.28 $131.04Paterson Group - 65337 $180.00 $41.22 $15.84 $31.32 $42.48 $49.14Novatech Engineering 1014985 $55,771.77 $12,771.74 $4,907.92 $9,704.29 $13,162.14 $15,225.69

Sub-Total $273,830.38 $63,291.66 $24,330.87 $48,089.04 $62,653.37 $75,465.44HST $35,597.95 $8,227.92 $3,163.01 $6,251.57 $8,144.94 $9,810.51

TOTAL $309,428.33 $71,519.57 $27,493.89 $54,340.61 $70,798.31 $85,275.95

INVOICE BREAKDOWN FOR CONCEPT PLAN

APPENDIX BCost Schedule from BTE Project

NOTE: Work is progressing on this project.Information presented at the June 26th, 2014

Open House is available on the Town’s Website.

SOUTH OF HWY 7 - DETAILED DESIGN

COST SHARING - June 6th, 2014

ESTIMATED COSTS

Description McNeely/Roy Brown Blvd.

Hwy. 15Intersection

Employment Lands Total

By-Town - design and EA Addendum $227,900 $99,100 $96,000 $423,000

Survey $15,000 $15,000 $28,000 $58,000

Approvals $5,000 $5,000 $10,000

Contingency $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $45,000

Total $257,900 $134,100 $144,000 $536,000

Cost Shares

% Amount % * Amount % Amount Total

County 50% $128,950.00 50% $67,050.00 $196,000.00

Town 12.5% $32,238.00 12.5% $16,762.50 100 $144,000 $193,000.50

Cardel 13% $33,527.00 13% $17,433.00 $50,960.00

Stewart 9.5% $24,500.00 9.5% $12,739.50 $37,239.50

Pegasus 15% $38,685.00 15% $20,115.00 $58,800.00

Note - Includes HST

APPENDIX C(Cost Schedule from Ainley)

Task Description

APPENDIX : PROJECT TIME / TASK MATRIX

Sanitary Pumping Stations South East Carleton Place

Engineering Services for Design, and Contract Administration

Garr

y P

earc

e

Desig

nate

d P

roje

ct

Man

ag

er

Jo

hn

Mab

ira

Desig

n D

irecto

r

Mik

e A

inle

yQ

A/Q

C L

ead

Gary

Sco

tt

QA

/QC

Pro

cess

Mech

an

ical

Bri

an

Wic

ken

his

er

QA

/QC

Str

uctu

ral

Nic

k H

allas

QA

/QC

E

lectr

ical/I&

C/S

CA

DA

Mark

Miln

e

Dis

cip

lin

e L

ead

er

Str

uctu

ral

Bo

b L

aw

so

n

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Pro

cess-

Mech

an

ical

Dave E

llis

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Civ

il

Rad

u Ilie

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Ele

ctr

ical

Sean

Wri

gh

tE

lectr

ical D

esig

n

Dave E

ntw

istl

e

Desig

nate

d L

ead

er

CA

D

Ad

am

Plu

mste

ad

I &

C D

esig

n

Ju

lia R

oest

Desig

n A

ssis

tan

ce

CA

D E

lectr

ical

Garr

y P

earc

e

Co

ntr

act

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

Do

ug

Cave

Co

ntr

act

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

Assis

tan

ce

Fra

nk B

rod

ie

Sit

e In

sp

ecti

on

Garr

y P

earc

e

Co

mm

issio

nin

g L

ead

Su

rvey C

rew

CA

D S

up

po

rt

Geo

tech

nic

al S

erv

ices

TO

TA

L H

OU

RS

To

tal T

ask F

ees

Dis

bu

rsem

en

ts

TO

TA

L T

AS

K C

OS

TS

Task Description

$130 $130 $165 $165 $130 $175 $130 $140 $130 $140 $90 $110 $110 $70 $70 $130 $110 $80 $130 $110 $75 5%

1.0A Project Management - PMP and Conceptual Design

1.1 Project Management Plan 2 1 3 $425 $21.25 $446.25

1.2 Finalize Project Schedule 2 2 4 $400 $20.00 $420.00

1.3 Quality Management Plan 1 2 2 2 7 $1,050 $52.50 $1,102.50

1.4 Risk Management Plan 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 $825 $41.25 $866.25

1.5 Project Kick Off Meeting 6 8 14 $1,820 $500.00 $2,320.00

1.6a Monthly Progress Meetings and Reports 3 1 3 7 $690 $34.50 $724.50

1.9a QA/QC Reviews 1 1 1 1 4 $635 $31.75 $666.75

Total Group Hours 15 8 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45

Total Group Costs $1,950 $1,040 $660 $660 $520 $175 $130 $140 $130 $0 $90 $0 $0 $350 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,845 $701.25 $6,546.25

1.0B Project Management - Design

1.6b Monthly Progress Meetings and Reports 12 4 16 $1,920 $96.00 $2,016.00

1.7 Confirm / Update Scope, Schedule and Cost 4 2 6 $780 $39.00 $819.00

1.9b QA/QC Reviews 5 5 5 1 16 $2,475 $123.75 $2,598.75


Total Group Costs $2,080 $260 $825 $825 $650 $175 $0 $0 $0 $0 $360 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,175 $258.75 $5,433.75

2.0A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SERVICES

2.1 Collect and Review Existing Information 2 2 2 4 5 4 1 4 12 36 $3,950 $197.50 $4,147.50

2.2 Review and Confirm Proposed Phasing 2 2 8 5 17 $1,990 $99.50 $2,089.50

2.3 Field Survey of Conditions and Mapping 18 18 $1,980 $99.00 $2,079.00

2.4 Determine Projected Flows at Phase 1A - PSS 0.5 0.5 3 4 $340 $17.00 $357.00

2.5 Determine Projected Flows at Phase 1B - PSS 0.5 0.5 3 4 $340 $17.00 $357.00

2.6 Determine Projected Flows at Phase 2 - PSS 0.5 0.5 3 4 $340 $17.00 $357.00

2.7 Determine Projected Flows at PSN 0.5 0.5 3 4 $340 $17.00 $357.00

2.7a Additional Effort for Phasing PSN and Increasing Flows 0.5 0.5 3 4 $340 $17.00 $357.00

2.8 Establish required inverts in cooperation with Developer's Engineers 0.5 0.5 2 3 $390 $19.50 $409.50

2.8A Conceptual Design Report 8 2 2 2 2 4 8 2 4 10 24 45 113 $10,855 $542.75 $11,397.75

2.9 Compare Forcemain Options 1 2 3 $390 $19.50 $409.50

Total Group Hours 16 11 0 2 2 4.0 8 21 8 5.0 4.0 10 0 56 0 0 0 18 45 0 210

Total Group Costs $2,080 $1,430 $0 $330 $260 $700 $1,040 $2,940 $1,040 $700 $360 $1,100 $0 $3,920 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,980 $3,375 $0 $21,255 $1,062.75 $22,317.75

2.0B PRELIMINARY DESIGN SERVICES

2.10 Prepare Preliminary functional design Phase 1A - PSS 1 2 0.5 4 6 1 4 8 2 8 37 $3,918 $195.88 $4,113.38

2.11 Prepare Preliminary functional design Phase 1B - PSS 1 2 0.5 4 6 1 4 8 2 8 37 $3,918 $195.88 $4,113.38

2.12 Prepare Preliminary functional design Phase 2 - PSS 1 2 0.5 4 6 1 4 8 2 8 37 $3,918 $195.88 $4,113.38

2.13 Prepare Preliminary functional design - PSN 1 2 0.5 4 6 1 4 8 2 8 37 $3,918 $195.88 $4,113.38

2.13a Additional Effort for Phasing PSN and Increasing Flows 1 2 0.5 4 6 1 4 8 2 8 37 $3,918 $195.88 $4,113.38

2.14 Develop Station Base Drawings 8 28 36 $2,980 $149.00 $3,129.00

2.15 Coordinate with local utilities 0.5 8 4 13 $1,065 $53.25 $1,118.25

2.16 Determine Property Requirements 8 2 2 12 $1,440 $72.00 $1,512.00

2.17 Prepare functional design for station and forcemain - Phase 1A - PSS 2 0.5 2 6 4 1 10 8 2 10 46 $4,728 $236.38 $4,963.88

2.18 Prepare functional design for station and forcemain - Phase 1B - PSS 2 0.5 2 4 1 10 8 2 10 40 $3,928 $196.38 $4,123.88

2.19 Prepare functional design for station and forcemain - Phase 2 - PSS 2 0.5 2 4 1 10 8 2 10 40 $3,928 $196.38 $4,123.88

2.20 Prepare functional design for station and forcemain - PSN 2 0.5 2 4 1 10 8 2 10 40 $3,928 $196.38 $4,123.88

2.20a Additional Effort for Phasing PSN and Increasing Flows 2 0.5 2 4 1 10 8 2 10 40 $3,928 $196.38 $4,123.88

2.21 Implementation Plan 1 2 2 1 6 $740 $37.00 $777.00

2.22 Cost Estimate - Phase 1A - PSS 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 1 2 1 0.5 1.25 0.75 1 9 $1,131 $56.56 $1,187.81

2.23 Cost Estimate - Phase 1B - PSS 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 1.25 0.75 1 5 $591 $29.56 $620.81

2.24 Cost Estimate - Phase 2 - PSS 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 1.25 0.75 1 5 $591 $29.56 $620.81

2.25 Cost Estimate - PSN 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 1.25 0.75 1 5 $591 $29.56 $620.81

2.25a Additional Effort for Phasing PSN and Increasing Flows 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 1.25 0.75 1 5 $526 $26.31 $552.56

2.26 Health and Safety Review 4 4 8 $840 $42.00 $882.00

2.27 Application for Approvals 2 2 8 3.5 8 24 $2,185 $109.25 $2,294.25


Total Group Costs $2,210 $3,055 $0 $413 $325 $1,094 $4,290 $8,400 $910 $1,750 $8,303 $880 $9,598 $3,080 $6,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,100 $0 $52,706 $2,635.31 $55,341.56

3.0 DETAILED DESIGN SERVICES

3.1 Prepare Final Design Report 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 4 4 20 46 $4,660 $233.00 $4,893.00

3.2 Contract Drawings 1 3 1 1 1 8 4 8 0.5 8 16 16 350 418 $33,060 $1,653.00 $34,713.00

3.3 Contract Specifications 0.5 2 1 1 1 16 6 12 1 5 1 20 67 $7,365 $368.25 $7,733.25

3.4 Tender Documents 2 2 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 5 2 1 16 42 $4,360 $218.00 $4,578.00

3.5 90% Complete Submittal to Town - Phase 1A - PSS 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2 0.5 10 7 4 20 51 $4,793 $239.63 $5,032.13

3.6 90% Complete Submittal to Town - Phase 1B - PSS 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2 0.5 10 7 4 20 51 $4,793 $239.63 $5,032.13

3.7 90% Complete Submittal to Town - Phase 2 - PSS 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2 0.5 10 7 4 20 51 $4,793 $239.63 $5,032.13

3.8 90% Complete Submittal to Town - PSN 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2 0.5 10 7 4 20 51 $4,793 $239.63 $5,032.13

3.8a Additional Effort for Phasing PSN and Increasing Flows 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2 0.5 10 7 4 20 51 $4,793 $239.63 $5,032.13

3.9 90% Review with Town 4 0.5 4 4 13 $1,665 $83.25 $1,748.25

3.10 Pretender Estimate - Phase 1A - PSS 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 4 8 $745 $37.25 $782.25

3.11 Pretender Estimate - Phase 1B - PSS 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 4 8 $745 $37.25 $782.25

3.12 Pretender Estimate - Phase 2 - PSS 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 4 8 $745 $37.25 $782.25

3.13 Pretender Estimate - PSN 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 4 8 $745 $37.25 $782.25

3.14 100% Contract Set Submittal 2 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 2.5 12 8 14 43 $4,010 $200.50 $4,210.50

3.15 Review 100% with Town 4 2 3 3 12 $1,590 $79.50 $1,669.50

3.16 Final Contract Document Submittal 2 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 2 1 2 8 8 28 $2,533 $126.63 $2,659.13

Total Group Hours 28.5 18 6 8.5 8.5 0.5 47 37 40 8 70.5 10 56 98 44 0 0 0 0 0 472 0 953

Total Group Costs $3,705 $2,340 $990 $1,403 $1,105 $88 $6,110 $5,180 $5,200 $1,120 $6,345 $1,100 $6,160 $6,860 $3,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,400 $0 $86,185 $4,309.25 $90,494.25

4.0A TENDER PERIOD ASSISSTANCE - PSS

4.1 Pre-Tender Site Meeting 10 10 $1,300 $65.00 $1,365.00

4.2 Tender Period Services 12 2 2 1 1 4 4 15 41 $4,820 $241.00 $5,061.00

4.3 Addenda to Tender Documents 3 1 1 1 1 6 13 $1,580 $79.00 $1,659.00

4.4 Tender Opening 4 4 $520 $26.00 $546.00

4.5 Tender Evaluation and Recommendation 3 1 1 3 8 $980 $49.00 $1,029.00


Total Group Costs $4,160 $520 $0 $0 $0 $0 $260 $420 $260 $140 $360 $0 $440 $0 $0 $0 $2,640 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,200 $460.00 $9,660.00

4.0B TENDER PERIOD ASSISSTANCE - PSN




4.4 Tender Opening 3 3 $390 $19.50 $409.50




Details Page 1 of 2

Task Description




Garr

y P

earc

e

Desig

nate

d P

roje

ct

Man

ag

er

Jo

hn

Mab

ira

Desig

n D

irecto

r

Mik

e A

inle

yQ

A/Q

C L

ead

Gary

Sco

tt

QA

/QC

Pro

cess

Mech

an

ical

Bri

an

Wic

ken

his

er

QA

/QC

Str

uctu

ral

Nic

k H

allas

QA

/QC

E

lectr

ical/I&

C/S

CA

DA

Mark

Miln

e

Dis

cip

lin

e L

ead

er

Str

uctu

ral

Bo

b L

aw

so

n

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Pro

cess-

Mech

an

ical

Dave E

llis

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Civ

il

Rad

u Ilie

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Ele

ctr

ical

Sean

Wri

gh

tE

lectr

ical D

esig

n

Dave E

ntw

istl

e

Desig

nate

d L

ead

er

CA

D

Ad

am

Plu

mste

ad

I &

C D

esig

n

Ju

lia R

oest

Desig

n A

ssis

tan

ce

CA

D E

lectr

ical

Garr

y P

earc

e

Co

ntr

act

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

Do

ug

Cave

Co

ntr

act

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

Assis

tan

ce

Fra

nk B

rod

ie

Sit

e In

sp

ecti

on

Garr

y P

earc

e

Co

mm

issio

nin

g L

ead

Su

rvey C

rew

CA

D S

up

po

rt

Geo

tech

nic

al S

erv

ices

TO

TA

L H

OU

RS

To

tal T

ask F

ees

Dis

bu

rsem

en

ts

TO

TA

L T

AS

K C

OS

TS

Task Description

$130 $130 $165 $165 $130 $175 $130 $140 $130 $140 $90 $110 $110 $70 $70 $130 $110 $80 $130 $110 $75 5%

5.0A CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DURING CONSTRUCTION - PSS

5.1 Pre-Construction Meeting 6 6 12 $1,440 $72.00 $1,512.00

5.2 Regular Site Meetings (12 Meetings) - PSS 8 8 48 64 $7,840 $392.00 $8,232.00

5.4 General Discipline Inspections and Field Support 10 10 10 10 10 8 58 $6,880 $344.00 $7,224.00

5.5 Shop Drawing Review 6 20 8 7 16 16 2 20 8 103 $11,860 $593.00 $12,453.00

5.6 Contract Admin (Schedule, Payments,RFIs, COs, Coordinations) 24 4 4 6 10 10 10 100 168 $19,280 $964.00 $20,244.00

5.7 Deficiency Lists 1 4 4 2 4 15 $1,910 $95.50 $2,005.50

5.8 Final Approvals 2 2 2 4 10 $1,240 $62.00 $1,302.00

5.9 Contract Close Out and Certification 2 2 2 4 10 $1,240 $62.00 $1,302.00

5.10 Prestart Health and Safety 6 1 2 9 $1,190 $59.50 $1,249.50

5.11 Contractor O&M Manuals 24 2 6 4 4 1 16 57 $7,150 $357.50 $7,507.50

5.12 As Constructed Drawings 1 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 16 1 2 50 102 $9,235 $461.75 $9,696.75


Total Group Costs $3,120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175 $3,250 $10,640 $4,940 $2,380 $4,680 $880 $5,720 $0 $1,120 $9,750 $17,380 $0 $0 $880 $4,350 $0 $69,265 $3,463.25 $72,728.25

5.0B CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DURING CONSTRUCTION - PSN


5.3 Regular Site Meetings (12 Meetings) - PSN 8 8 48 64 $7,840 $392.00 $8,232.00





5.8 Final Approvals 2 2 2 4 10 $1,240 $62.00 $1,302.00







6.0A INSPECTION SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION - PSS

6.1 Inspection Services - PSS 4 4 800 808 $64,800 $3,240.00 $68,040.00

6.3 Special Testing During Construction 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00


Total Group Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $360 $0 $440 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,800 $3,240.00 $68,040.00

6.0B INSPECTION SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION - PSN

6.2 Inspection Services - PSN 4 4 800 808 $64,800 $3,240.00 $68,040.00




7.0A COMMISSIONING, TRAINING AND CLOSE OUT DOCUMENTATION - PSS

7.1 Final Operations Manual 1 4 4 8 4 2 2 25 $2,745 $137.25 $2,882.25

7.2 Commissioning Plan 2 1 10 13 $1,690 $84.50 $1,774.50

7.3 Training 8 4 8 20 $2,600 $130.00 $2,730.00

7.4 Attend Panel FAT (PSS) 12 12 $1,320 $66.00 $1,386.00

7.6 Attend Software FAT (PSS) 12 12 $1,320 $66.00 $1,386.00

7.8 Start Up and Commissioning - PSS 8 2 16 8 8 24 66 $7,720 $386.00 $8,106.00

7.10 Substantial Performance - PSS 4 8 8 2 8 30 $3,680 $184.00 $3,864.00


Total Group Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175 $520 $3,640 $1,560 $560 $2,520 $1,760 $3,960 $0 $0 $0 $770 $0 $5,460 $0 $150 $0 $21,075 $1,053.75 $22,128.75

7.0B COMMISSIONING, TRAINING AND CLOSE OUT DOCUMENTATION - PSN

7.1 Final Operations Manual 1 4 0.5 2 8 4 2 2 24 $2,635 $131.75 $2,766.75

7.2 Commissioning Plan 1 1 4 6 $770 $38.50 $808.50

7.3 Training 8 4 4 16 $2,080 $104.00 $2,184.00

7.5 Attend Panel FAT (PSN) 12 12 $1,320 $66.00 $1,386.00

7.7 Attend Software FAT (PSN) 12 12 $1,320 $66.00 $1,386.00

7.9 Start Up and Commissioning - PSN 8 2 16 8 24 58 $6,840 $342.00 $7,182.00

7.11 Substantial Performance - PSN 4 8 8 2 8 30 $3,680 $184.00 $3,864.00

Total Group Hours 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 25 12 4.5 26 8 36 0 0 0 7 0 32 0 2 0 158

Total Group Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175 $520 $3,500 $1,560 $630 $2,340 $880 $3,960 $0 $0 $0 $770 $0 $4,160 $0 $150 $0 $18,645 $932.25 $19,577.25

8.0A WARRANTY PERIOD SERVICES - PSS

8.1 Maintenance period Support (1 year) - PSS 1 8 8 8 4 29 $3,290 $164.50 $3,454.50

8.3 End of Warranty & Guarantee Maintenance Period Inspection - PSS 1 1 8 2 8 4 24 $2,865 $143.25 $3,008.25

Total Group Hours 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 16 2 16 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 53

Total Group Costs $260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175 $0 $0 $2,080 $280 $1,440 $0 $880 $0 $1,040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,155 $307.75 $6,462.75

8.0B WARRANTY PERIOD SERVICES -PSN

8.2 Maintenance period Support (1 year) - PSN 1 8 8 8 4 29 $3,290 $164.50 $3,454.50

8.4 End of Warranty & Guarantee Maintenance Period Inspection - PSN 1 1 8 2 8 4 24 $2,865 $143.25 $3,008.25



TOTAL PROJECT HOURS 208 71 15 22 22 19 151 316 192 70 378 68 347 203 166 166 378 1600 74 34 665 0 5,164

TOTAL PROJECT FEES 26,975.00$ 9,165.00$ 2,475.00$ 3,630.00$ 2,860.00$ 3,281.25$ 19,630.00$ 44,240.00$ 24,960.00$ 9,800.00$ 33,997.50$ 7,480.00$ 38,197.50$ 14,210.00$ 11,620.00$ 21,580.00$ 41,580.00$ 128,000.00$ 9,620.00$ 3,740.00$ 49,875.00$ -$ $506,916 $25,755 $532,671.06

Details Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX D

Policy Review Committee – May 27th, 2014 – Page 6

125277 Received from Paul Knowles, Chief Administrative Officer Addressed to Policy Review Committee Date March 25th, 2014 Topic Industrial Avenue Pumping Station (25-03-00-1)

SUMMARY The Industrial Avenue Pumping Station was constructed in 1973 is nearing the end of its useful life. The Pumping Station needs to be rehabilitated or replaced. During this work three issues should be addressed:

▶ the current pumping station is located on the side of the road allowance and appears to encroach onto private property;

▶ the current pumping station does not include standby power;

▶ development (residential) is planned nearby. The drainage area for the pumping station should be examined and potentially expanded.

It is recommended that the Industrial Avenue Pumping Station be replaced with a new pumping station that includes standby power and is located adjacent to the existing pumping station on property acquired by the Town. The drainage area, for this station, would be expanded to allow servicing and development on vacant land to the west. All above ground structures of the new pumping station will be attractive with appropriate landscaping.

The cost for constructing the new pumping station would be shared with Developers contributing an appropriate share of the cost.

No concerns have been received regarding the proposal to rehabilitate the Industrial Pumping Station.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT the attached Notice of Completion be issued for the Municipal Class EA project to Rehabilitate the Industrial Avenue Pumping Station.

FURTHER THAT J.L. Richards be engaged to prepare a concept plan and cost estimate for the project and identify property requirements.

COMMITTEE DECISION

THAT the attached Notice of Completion be issued for the Municipal Class EA project to Rehabilitate the Industrial Avenue Pumping Station.

FURTHER THAT J.L. Richards be engaged to prepare a concept plan and cost estimate for the project and identify property requirements.

DEVELOPMENT NORTHEAST OF TOWN


August 2014


and Thorbjornsson Development Ltd. and Volunder Thorbjornsson

(hereinafter referred to collectively as “Thorbjornsson” or “the Developer”

WHEREAS the Town’s updated Official Plan designates the area in the northeast quadrant of the Townfor development as Residential and Employment:

AND WHEREAS servicing for the development of the properties, in this area should be planned for theentire area;


AND WHEREAS rehabilitation of the Industrial Avenue Pumping Station is required:



i) Completed the Environmental Assessment and determined that the existing IndustrialAvenue Pumping Station should be replaced with a new pumping station with standbypower (125277); - work completed by staff - no cost charged to project.

ii) Engaged a Consultant to prepare a conceptual design and cost estimate for therehabilitation of the Industrial Avenue Pumping Station (125277): estimated cost $22,150

2) To proceed with development of this area the next steps that involve area owners are:

Item Cost

Prepare detailed design for new pumping station $100,000

Purchase property for new pumping station $35,000


TOTAL $142,000

3) The costs associated with development of the area need to be shared among the benefitingowners. If divided by gross area the costs would be:

i) Sanitary Pumping Station (see sketch in Appendix A)

Area Owner ApproxSize Ha

% Concept NextStep

Total

1 Town 34.5 a 61.25 $13,566.87 $86,975.00 $100,541.87

2 Volunder Thorbjornsson 13.31 b 23.63 $5,234.05 $33,554.60 $38,788.65

3 Volunder Thorbjornsson .36 c .64 $141.76 $908.80 $1,050.56

4 Town 1.43 c 2.54 $562.61 $3,606.80 $4,169.41

5 Town 0.29 d .51 $112.97 $724.20 $837.17

6 Various Private Owners 6.44 e 11.43 $2,531.74 $16,230.60 $18,762.34

TOTAL 56.33 100 $22,150.00 $142,000.00 $164,150.00

NOTES:

a Existing Business Park has been included as existing pumping station is approaching theend of its useful life.

b Proposed new residential development with no current sanitary outlet.

c Proposed new Industrial development.

d Existing homes within new residential development - area of lots and associated roadhave been deducted from Area 2.

e Potential future residential

4) To meet Developer’s proposed construction schedule, the detailed design work needs to becompleted fall of 2014 and others will need to upfront the share for non-participating owners andrecover these funds in the future. Historically, the Town has cooperated with Developers topromote growth and assisted with funding - paying the Town’s fair share and often upfronting theshare for non-participating owners and then recovering these costs from future Developers. Thisis a major project, initiated by a Developer, and the Town is only participating because theDeveloper has demonstrated serious intent to proceed.

5) The Town and Volunder Thorbjornsson hereby agree to fund the cost of the next steps outlinedabove as follows:

PARTY AMOUNT HST TOTAL

Town f $124,310.79 $16,160.40 $140,471.19

Volunder Thorbjornsson $39,839.21 $5,179.10 $45,018.31

TOTAL $164,150.00 $21,339.50 $185,489.50

NOTE:

f Includes Various Private Owners Share

6) The private owners (Volunder Thorbjornsson) shall provide a deposit to the Town equal to theirestimated cost for this work. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Town will engage aConsultant to proceed with detailed design for rehabilitating the Industrial Avenue Pumping Stationand acquire the property required for the new pumping station. After this phase of the project iscomplete, the Town will provide details of actual costs. Funds will then be either paid by orrefunded to the private owners based on actual costs.

7) At this time, the cost of constructing the pumping station is not known but it could be in the rangeof $800,000. If this cost were distributed as above, based on area, the costs would be:

Area Owner ApproxSize Ha

% Total

1 Town 34.5 61.25 $490,000.00

2 Volunder Thorbjornsson 13.31 23.63 $189,040.00

3 Volunder Thorbjornsson .36 .64 $5,120.00

4 Town 1.43 2.54 $20,320.00

5 Town 0.29 .51 $4,080.00

6 Various Private Owners 6.44 11.43 $91,440.00

TOTAL 56.33 100 $800,000.00

While the detailed design for this project is underway, the various options for sharing costs (area, numberof units, flows, higher cost for higher benefit, phasing of construction and costs) will be assessed and thevarious legal options (Development charges, Section 391 of the Municipal Act, cash payments)considered. After the detailed design is completed, the cost for common infrastructure will be determinedand then the total common development costs, including the costs identified above, will be sharedequitably among benefitting owners in a formula acceptable to the Town of Carleton Place. Constructionwill then be authorized to proceed. Building permits for residential properties that require this pumpingstation for servicing can only be issued after a further cost sharing agreement, implementing an equitablecost sharing formula and ensuring construction of the common infrastructure will proceed, has beenexecuted and security deposited.

8) Upon completion of work and determination of actual costs, the Town will register a By-law on titlethat will ensure the Town collects an owner’s fair share of the cost prior to the owners proceedingwith development. The Town will then provide the funds collected to the Parties that funded thecost.



11) Individual property owners will be responsible for preparing detailed plans for the development of their property and submitting applications for approval.

12) This agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the parties hereto, theirsuccessors and assigns.




Thorbjornsson Holdings Ltd.

per:Volunder Thorbjornsson

Volunder Thorbjornsson

per:

APPENDIX A

Sanitary Sewer

Area 4

1.43 ha

Area 3

0.36 ha

Area 1

34.5 ha

Area 2

See Notes

Area 5

See Notes

Area 6

6.44 ha

DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF HWY 7 - PUMPING STATION NORTH


August , 2014


and Pegasus and Thruway

(hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Developer”

WHEREAS the Town’s updated Official Plan designates the area north of Hwy. 7 for development withResidential and Highway Commercial uses:

AND WHEREAS the development of the properties, located north of Hwy. 7, is inter-related and developmentshould be planned for the entire area;


AND WHEREAS certain servicing work, for the development of this area, has already been undertaken:



i) in the late 1990s early 1990s shared in the cost to expand the Mississippi Quays subdivisionpumping station to provide sanitary sewer service to the municipal property between LakeAvenue and Cavanagh Road;

ii) in 1999 - 2000 entered into a partnership agreement with NuGlobe and the Developer of theCanadian Tire store to extend the services from the Town’s property to NuGlobe’s propertyand service the new commercial development. This arrangement established a charge tobe applied to owners as they develop to fund the cost of increasing the capacity of thesanitary sewer system. As NuGlobe was a partner and participated in the cost to install theservices, capacity for their property was reserved and their required contribution toimprovements set at $7,500/Ha plus inflation (see 12523);

iii) in 2013-2014, reviewed the capacity of current trunk sanitary sewer in response to significantDeveloper interest and determined only limited capacity remains;

iv) completed an Class Environmental Assessment and determined that a new pumping stationPSN with associate forcemains needs to be constructed to service the expanded area.

v) has reviewed proposals and engaged a consultant (Ainley) to complete the detailed designand oversee construction of PSN (125243). To date, Ainley has been authorized to preparea concept plan and cost estimate for PSN and the cost of approximately $14,432 for thiswork needs to be shared (See Appendix A)

2) To proceed with development of this area, the next step that requires cooperation of the variousowners is the construction of the pumping station PSN with the associated trunk sewers andforcemains. The cost to complete the detailed design is estimated to be:

ITEM ESTIMATED COST

Concept Plan $14,432

Property/Survey/Geotech $60,000

PSS & Forcemain Design $75,635

Connection at WWTP Design $25,000


Total - Detailed Design & Approvals $190,067

To date the Town has collected:

Owner ApproxArea Ha

Connection Fee HST Allowance

AmountCollected

Thruway 0.5 $3,318.58 $431.42 $3,750.00

Walmart 11.8 a $91,430.30 $11,885.94 $103,316.24

C P Oil

0.78 $5,176.99 $673.01 $5,850.00

NOTE:a includes cost of inflation

Remaining funds required to complete detailed $90,141.13

3) The costs associated with the detailed design could be shared amoung the benefitting owners basedon gross area. Acknowledging the funds already paid and the requirements of earlier agreementsthe costs could be shared as below. (See Appendix B)

OwnerApprox

Area(ha)

Share of Cost

% Total

Pegasus 53.62 3 53.39 $41,677.46

Gibson 24.52 3 24.41 $19,055.00

Commercial Property along Hwy. 7 8.87 8.83 $6,892.90

Residential Properties alongFranktown Road

10.47 4 10.42 $8,134.10

Thruway, existing restaurant .5 Paid

Thruway - 2014 Application Phase1

1.21 Note 1 $12,078.83

Thruway remainder 2.96 2.95 $2,302.84

C P Oil (Tim Hortons) 0.78 Paid

NuGlobe - east McNeely 10.06 Note 2

NuGlobe - west 12.62 Note 2

Walmart 11.8 Paid

TOTAL $90,141.13

NOTES:1 Terms of By-law 03-2000 should apply to current application.

2 Funds will be collected as per agreement and applied to construction costs.

3 Includes area that may be in a flood plain and cannot be developed.

4 Includes existing houses. Further study will be required to determine area of development.

4) To meet Developer’s proposed construction schedule, the detailed design of PSN needs to becompleted fall of 2014 and others will need to upfront the share for non-participating owners andrecover these funds in the future. Historically, the Town has cooperated with Developers to promotegrowth and assisted with funding - paying the Town’s fair share and often upfronting the share fornon-participating owners and then recovering these costs from future Developers. This is a majorproject, initiated by Developers, and the Town is only participating because the Developers havedemonstrated serious intent to proceed.

5) The Town and the Owners hereby agree to fund the cost to complete the detailed design as follows:

Owner Amount HST Total

Town (from funds collected earlier) $99,925.87 $12,990.37 $112,916.24

Town (for non-participating owners) $34,082.00 $4,430.66 $38,512.66

Pegasus $41,677.46 $5,418.07 $47,095.53

Thruway $14,381.67 $1,869.62 $16,251.29

TOTAL $190,067.00 $24,708.72 $214,775.72

During the design process, design options will be considered and less costly alternatives will beimplemented provided the alternative provides service to all intended properties.

6) The private owners shall provide a deposit to the Town equal to their estimated cost for this work.Upon completion of this phase of the project, the Town will provide details of actual costs. Fundswill then be either paid by or refunded to the private owners based on actual costs.

7) At this time, the cost of constructing the pumping station is not known but it could be in the range of$2.6m. If this cost were distributed based on area as above, the costs would be:

OwnerApprox

Area(ha)

Share of Cost

% Total

Pegasus 53.62 53.39 $1,267,263.38

Gibson 24.52 24.41 $579,395.00

Commercial Property along Hwy. 7 8.87 8.83 $209,588.61

Residential Properties alongFranktown road

10.47 10.42 $247,328.80

Thruway, existing restaurant .5 Paid

Thruway - 2014 Application Phase 1 1.21 Paid

Thruway remainder 2.96 2.95 $70,021.11

C P Oil (Tim Hortons) 0.78 Paid

NuGlobe - east McNeely 10.06 Note 5 $100,423.95

NuGlobe - west 12.62 Note 5 $125,979.15

Walmart 11.8 Paid

TOTAL $2,600,000.00

Note 5

Cost is set at $7,500/Ha plus inflation

The cost sharing shown in this Agreement is based solely on area. While the detailed design for thisproject is underway, the various options for sharing costs (area, number of units, flows, higher costfor higher benefit, Phasing of construction and costs) will be assessed and the various legal options(Development charges, Section 391 of the Municipal Act, cash payments) considered. After thedetailed design is completed, the cost for common infrastructure will be determined and then the totalcommon development costs, including the costs identified above, will be shared equitably amongbenefitting in a formula acceptable to the Town of Carleton Place. Construction will then beauthorized to proceed.

8) Upon completion of work and determination of actual costs, the Town will register a By-law on titlethat will ensure the Town collects an owner’s fair share of the cost prior to the owners proceedingwith development. The Town will then provide the funds collected to the Owners that funded thecost.



11) Individual property owners will be responsible for preparing detailed plans for the development oftheir property which follow the concept plan for the area and submitting applications for approval.

12) This Agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successorsand assigns.




Pegasus

per:

Thruway

per:

APPENDIX A

Task Description




Garr

y P

earc

e

Desig

nate

d P

roje

ct

Man

ag

er

Jo

hn

Mab

ira

Desig

n D

irecto

r

Mik

e A

inle

yQ

A/Q

C L

ead

Gary

Sco

tt

QA

/QC

Pro

cess

Mech

an

ical

Bri

an

Wic

ken

his

er

QA

/QC

Str

uctu

ral

Nic

k H

allas

QA

/QC

E

lectr

ical/I&

C/S

CA

DA

Mark

Miln

e

Dis

cip

lin

e L

ead

er

Str

uctu

ral

Bo

b L

aw

so

n

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Pro

cess-

Mech

an

ical

Dave E

llis

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Civ

il

Rad

u Ilie

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Ele

ctr

ical

Sean

Wri

gh

tE

lectr

ical D

esig

n

Dave E

ntw

istl

e

Desig

nate

d L

ead

er

CA

D

Ad

am

Plu

mste

ad

I &

C D

esig

n

Ju

lia R

oest

Desig

n A

ssis

tan

ce

CA

D E

lectr

ical

Garr

y P

earc

e

Co

ntr

act

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

Do

ug

Cave

Co

ntr

act

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

Assis

tan

ce

Fra

nk B

rod

ie

Sit

e In

sp

ecti

on

Garr

y P

earc

e

Co

mm

issio

nin

g L

ead

Su

rvey C

rew

CA

D S

up

po

rt

Geo

tech

nic

al S

erv

ices

TO

TA

L H

OU

RS

To

tal T

ask F

ees

Dis

bu

rsem

en

ts

TO

TA

L T

AS

K C

OS

TS

Task Description

$130 $130 $165 $165 $130 $175 $130 $140 $130 $140 $90 $110 $110 $70 $70 $130 $110 $80 $130 $110 $75 5%

1.0A Project Management - PMP and Conceptual Design

1.1 Project Management Plan 2 1 3 $425 $21.25 $446.25

1.2 Finalize Project Schedule 2 2 4 $400 $20.00 $420.00

1.3 Quality Management Plan 1 2 2 2 7 $1,050 $52.50 $1,102.50

1.4 Risk Management Plan 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 $825 $41.25 $866.25

1.5 Project Kick Off Meeting 6 8 14 $1,820 $500.00 $2,320.00

1.6a Monthly Progress Meetings and Reports 3 1 3 7 $690 $34.50 $724.50

1.9a QA/QC Reviews 1 1 1 1 4 $635 $31.75 $666.75


Total Group Costs $1,950 $1,040 $660 $660 $520 $175 $130 $140 $130 $0 $90 $0 $0 $350 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,845 $701.25 $6,546.25

1.0B Project Management - Design

1.6b Monthly Progress Meetings and Reports 12 4 16 $1,920 $96.00 $2,016.00

1.7 Confirm / Update Scope, Schedule and Cost 4 2 6 $780 $39.00 $819.00

1.9b QA/QC Reviews 5 5 5 1 16 $2,475 $123.75 $2,598.75


Total Group Costs $2,080 $260 $825 $825 $650 $175 $0 $0 $0 $0 $360 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,175 $258.75 $5,433.75

2.0A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SERVICES

2.1 Collect and Review Existing Information 2 2 2 4 5 4 1 4 12 36 $3,950 $197.50 $4,147.50

2.2 Review and Confirm Proposed Phasing 2 2 8 5 17 $1,990 $99.50 $2,089.50

2.3 Field Survey of Conditions and Mapping 18 18 $1,980 $99.00 $2,079.00

2.4 Determine Projected Flows at Phase 1A - PSS 0.5 0.5 3 4 $340 $17.00 $357.00

2.5 Determine Projected Flows at Phase 1B - PSS 0.5 0.5 3 4 $340 $17.00 $357.00

2.6 Determine Projected Flows at Phase 2 - PSS 0.5 0.5 3 4 $340 $17.00 $357.00

2.7 Determine Projected Flows at PSN 0.5 0.5 3 4 $340 $17.00 $357.00

2.7a Additional Effort for Phasing PSN and Increasing Flows 0.5 0.5 3 4 $340 $17.00 $357.00

2.8 Establish required inverts in cooperation with Developer's Engineers 0.5 0.5 2 3 $390 $19.50 $409.50

2.8A Conceptual Design Report 8 2 2 2 2 4 8 2 4 10 24 45 113 $10,855 $542.75 $11,397.75

2.9 Compare Forcemain Options 1 2 3 $390 $19.50 $409.50


Total Group Costs $2,080 $1,430 $0 $330 $260 $700 $1,040 $2,940 $1,040 $700 $360 $1,100 $0 $3,920 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,980 $3,375 $0 $21,255 $1,062.75 $22,317.75

2.0B PRELIMINARY DESIGN SERVICES

2.10 Prepare Preliminary functional design Phase 1A - PSS 1 2 0.5 4 6 1 4 8 2 8 37 $3,918 $195.88 $4,113.38

2.11 Prepare Preliminary functional design Phase 1B - PSS 1 2 0.5 4 6 1 4 8 2 8 37 $3,918 $195.88 $4,113.38

2.12 Prepare Preliminary functional design Phase 2 - PSS 1 2 0.5 4 6 1 4 8 2 8 37 $3,918 $195.88 $4,113.38

2.13 Prepare Preliminary functional design - PSN 1 2 0.5 4 6 1 4 8 2 8 37 $3,918 $195.88 $4,113.38

2.13a Additional Effort for Phasing PSN and Increasing Flows 1 2 0.5 4 6 1 4 8 2 8 37 $3,918 $195.88 $4,113.38

2.14 Develop Station Base Drawings 8 28 36 $2,980 $149.00 $3,129.00

2.15 Coordinate with local utilities 0.5 8 4 13 $1,065 $53.25 $1,118.25

2.16 Determine Property Requirements 8 2 2 12 $1,440 $72.00 $1,512.00

2.17 Prepare functional design for station and forcemain - Phase 1A - PSS 2 0.5 2 6 4 1 10 8 2 10 46 $4,728 $236.38 $4,963.88

2.18 Prepare functional design for station and forcemain - Phase 1B - PSS 2 0.5 2 4 1 10 8 2 10 40 $3,928 $196.38 $4,123.88

2.19 Prepare functional design for station and forcemain - Phase 2 - PSS 2 0.5 2 4 1 10 8 2 10 40 $3,928 $196.38 $4,123.88

2.20 Prepare functional design for station and forcemain - PSN 2 0.5 2 4 1 10 8 2 10 40 $3,928 $196.38 $4,123.88

2.20a Additional Effort for Phasing PSN and Increasing Flows 2 0.5 2 4 1 10 8 2 10 40 $3,928 $196.38 $4,123.88

2.21 Implementation Plan 1 2 2 1 6 $740 $37.00 $777.00

2.22 Cost Estimate - Phase 1A - PSS 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 1 2 1 0.5 1.25 0.75 1 9 $1,131 $56.56 $1,187.81

2.23 Cost Estimate - Phase 1B - PSS 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 1.25 0.75 1 5 $591 $29.56 $620.81

2.24 Cost Estimate - Phase 2 - PSS 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 1.25 0.75 1 5 $591 $29.56 $620.81

2.25 Cost Estimate - PSN 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 1.25 0.75 1 5 $591 $29.56 $620.81

2.25a Additional Effort for Phasing PSN and Increasing Flows 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 1.25 0.75 1 5 $526 $26.31 $552.56

2.26 Health and Safety Review 4 4 8 $840 $42.00 $882.00

2.27 Application for Approvals 2 2 8 3.5 8 24 $2,185 $109.25 $2,294.25


Total Group Costs $2,210 $3,055 $0 $413 $325 $1,094 $4,290 $8,400 $910 $1,750 $8,303 $880 $9,598 $3,080 $6,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,100 $0 $52,706 $2,635.31 $55,341.56

3.0 DETAILED DESIGN SERVICES

3.1 Prepare Final Design Report 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 4 4 20 46 $4,660 $233.00 $4,893.00

3.2 Contract Drawings 1 3 1 1 1 8 4 8 0.5 8 16 16 350 418 $33,060 $1,653.00 $34,713.00

3.3 Contract Specifications 0.5 2 1 1 1 16 6 12 1 5 1 20 67 $7,365 $368.25 $7,733.25

3.4 Tender Documents 2 2 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 5 2 1 16 42 $4,360 $218.00 $4,578.00

3.5 90% Complete Submittal to Town - Phase 1A - PSS 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2 0.5 10 7 4 20 51 $4,793 $239.63 $5,032.13

3.6 90% Complete Submittal to Town - Phase 1B - PSS 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2 0.5 10 7 4 20 51 $4,793 $239.63 $5,032.13

3.7 90% Complete Submittal to Town - Phase 2 - PSS 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2 0.5 10 7 4 20 51 $4,793 $239.63 $5,032.13

3.8 90% Complete Submittal to Town - PSN 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2 0.5 10 7 4 20 51 $4,793 $239.63 $5,032.13

3.8a Additional Effort for Phasing PSN and Increasing Flows 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 2 2 0.5 10 7 4 20 51 $4,793 $239.63 $5,032.13

3.9 90% Review with Town 4 0.5 4 4 13 $1,665 $83.25 $1,748.25

3.10 Pretender Estimate - Phase 1A - PSS 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 4 8 $745 $37.25 $782.25

3.11 Pretender Estimate - Phase 1B - PSS 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 4 8 $745 $37.25 $782.25

3.12 Pretender Estimate - Phase 2 - PSS 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 4 8 $745 $37.25 $782.25

3.13 Pretender Estimate - PSN 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 4 8 $745 $37.25 $782.25

3.14 100% Contract Set Submittal 2 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 2.5 12 8 14 43 $4,010 $200.50 $4,210.50

3.15 Review 100% with Town 4 2 3 3 12 $1,590 $79.50 $1,669.50

3.16 Final Contract Document Submittal 2 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 2 1 2 8 8 28 $2,533 $126.63 $2,659.13

Total Group Hours 28.5 18 6 8.5 8.5 0.5 47 37 40 8 70.5 10 56 98 44 0 0 0 0 0 472 0 953

Total Group Costs $3,705 $2,340 $990 $1,403 $1,105 $88 $6,110 $5,180 $5,200 $1,120 $6,345 $1,100 $6,160 $6,860 $3,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,400 $0 $86,185 $4,309.25 $90,494.25

4.0A TENDER PERIOD ASSISSTANCE - PSS




4.4 Tender Opening 4 4 $520 $26.00 $546.00




4.0B TENDER PERIOD ASSISSTANCE - PSN




4.4 Tender Opening 3 3 $390 $19.50 $409.50




Details Page 1 of 2

Task Description




Garr

y P

earc

e

Desig

nate

d P

roje

ct

Man

ag

er

Jo

hn

Mab

ira

Desig

n D

irecto

r

Mik

e A

inle

yQ

A/Q

C L

ead

Gary

Sco

tt

QA

/QC

Pro

cess

Mech

an

ical

Bri

an

Wic

ken

his

er

QA

/QC

Str

uctu

ral

Nic

k H

allas

QA

/QC

E

lectr

ical/I&

C/S

CA

DA

Mark

Miln

e

Dis

cip

lin

e L

ead

er

Str

uctu

ral

Bo

b L

aw

so

n

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Pro

cess-

Mech

an

ical

Dave E

llis

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Civ

il

Rad

u Ilie

Desig

nate

d D

iscip

lin

e

Lead

er

Ele

ctr

ical

Sean

Wri

gh

tE

lectr

ical D

esig

n

Dave E

ntw

istl

e

Desig

nate

d L

ead

er

CA

D

Ad

am

Plu

mste

ad

I &

C D

esig

n

Ju

lia R

oest

Desig

n A

ssis

tan

ce

CA

D E

lectr

ical

Garr

y P

earc

e

Co

ntr

act

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

Do

ug

Cave

Co

ntr

act

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

Assis

tan

ce

Fra

nk B

rod

ie

Sit

e In

sp

ecti

on

Garr

y P

earc

e

Co

mm

issio

nin

g L

ead

Su

rvey C

rew

CA

D S

up

po

rt

Geo

tech

nic

al S

erv

ices

TO

TA

L H

OU

RS

To

tal T

ask F

ees

Dis

bu

rsem

en

ts

TO

TA

L T

AS

K C

OS

TS

Task Description

$130 $130 $165 $165 $130 $175 $130 $140 $130 $140 $90 $110 $110 $70 $70 $130 $110 $80 $130 $110 $75 5%

5.0A CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DURING CONSTRUCTION - PSS


5.2 Regular Site Meetings (12 Meetings) - PSS 8 8 48 64 $7,840 $392.00 $8,232.00





5.8 Final Approvals 2 2 2 4 10 $1,240 $62.00 $1,302.00







5.0B CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DURING CONSTRUCTION - PSN


5.3 Regular Site Meetings (12 Meetings) - PSN 8 8 48 64 $7,840 $392.00 $8,232.00





5.8 Final Approvals 2 2 2 4 10 $1,240 $62.00 $1,302.00







6.0A INSPECTION SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION - PSS

6.1 Inspection Services - PSS 4 4 800 808 $64,800 $3,240.00 $68,040.00




6.0B INSPECTION SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION - PSN

6.2 Inspection Services - PSN 4 4 800 808 $64,800 $3,240.00 $68,040.00




7.0A COMMISSIONING, TRAINING AND CLOSE OUT DOCUMENTATION - PSS

7.1 Final Operations Manual 1 4 4 8 4 2 2 25 $2,745 $137.25 $2,882.25

7.2 Commissioning Plan 2 1 10 13 $1,690 $84.50 $1,774.50

7.3 Training 8 4 8 20 $2,600 $130.00 $2,730.00

7.4 Attend Panel FAT (PSS) 12 12 $1,320 $66.00 $1,386.00

7.6 Attend Software FAT (PSS) 12 12 $1,320 $66.00 $1,386.00

7.8 Start Up and Commissioning - PSS 8 2 16 8 8 24 66 $7,720 $386.00 $8,106.00

7.10 Substantial Performance - PSS 4 8 8 2 8 30 $3,680 $184.00 $3,864.00


Total Group Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175 $520 $3,640 $1,560 $560 $2,520 $1,760 $3,960 $0 $0 $0 $770 $0 $5,460 $0 $150 $0 $21,075 $1,053.75 $22,128.75

7.0B COMMISSIONING, TRAINING AND CLOSE OUT DOCUMENTATION - PSN

7.1 Final Operations Manual 1 4 0.5 2 8 4 2 2 24 $2,635 $131.75 $2,766.75

7.2 Commissioning Plan 1 1 4 6 $770 $38.50 $808.50

7.3 Training 8 4 4 16 $2,080 $104.00 $2,184.00

7.5 Attend Panel FAT (PSN) 12 12 $1,320 $66.00 $1,386.00

7.7 Attend Software FAT (PSN) 12 12 $1,320 $66.00 $1,386.00

7.9 Start Up and Commissioning - PSN 8 2 16 8 24 58 $6,840 $342.00 $7,182.00

7.11 Substantial Performance - PSN 4 8 8 2 8 30 $3,680 $184.00 $3,864.00

Total Group Hours 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 25 12 4.5 26 8 36 0 0 0 7 0 32 0 2 0 158

Total Group Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175 $520 $3,500 $1,560 $630 $2,340 $880 $3,960 $0 $0 $0 $770 $0 $4,160 $0 $150 $0 $18,645 $932.25 $19,577.25

8.0A WARRANTY PERIOD SERVICES - PSS

8.1 Maintenance period Support (1 year) - PSS 1 8 8 8 4 29 $3,290 $164.50 $3,454.50

8.3 End of Warranty & Guarantee Maintenance Period Inspection - PSS 1 1 8 2 8 4 24 $2,865 $143.25 $3,008.25



8.0B WARRANTY PERIOD SERVICES -PSN

8.2 Maintenance period Support (1 year) - PSN 1 8 8 8 4 29 $3,290 $164.50 $3,454.50

8.4 End of Warranty & Guarantee Maintenance Period Inspection - PSN 1 1 8 2 8 4 24 $2,865 $143.25 $3,008.25



TOTAL PROJECT HOURS 208 71 15 22 22 19 151 316 192 70 378 68 347 203 166 166 378 1600 74 34 665 0 5,164

TOTAL PROJECT FEES 26,975.00$ 9,165.00$ 2,475.00$ 3,630.00$ 2,860.00$ 3,281.25$ 19,630.00$ 44,240.00$ 24,960.00$ 9,800.00$ 33,997.50$ 7,480.00$ 38,197.50$ 14,210.00$ 11,620.00$ 21,580.00$ 41,580.00$ 128,000.00$ 9,620.00$ 3,740.00$ 49,875.00$ -$ $506,916 $25,755 $532,671.06

Details Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX B

10341

150

455

535

142

10

315

485

211

6

225

7

1

15110

10511

120

309

204

299

7

10316

10202

325

10432

355

293285

75

255

295265

315325

347252

345

228

249

126

27

1044110451

3

10418

400

269

77

10471

80

105

2

349

1

10293

1

55

232

139

9

345

37

49

255

166

25

152

19

5

24

2

10483

212

281

196

45

49

71

47

656

200

13

200245

18

71

3

223

27 301

97

6

298

71

212

7

42

9

1

75

45

120

6

6139

166

60

3

7

50

240

171

124

174

18

48 59

173

85

6

5919

30

104

100

7

52

22352

2

193

346

222

89

58

6

342

5

188

49

155

10497350

180

37

17 77

77

72

287

69

6

78

272

206

18

65

29

62

150

31

6468

75

82

199

52

39

67

2417

72

204

290

73

63

43

72

61

97

49

24

45

32

14

79

15

55

63

37

51

22

71

53

24

39

4

280

197

6

118

71

32

198

174

166172

14

57

205

99

55

29

10

35

43

93

138

18

269

4727

227

55

59

98

229

11

146

11

160

86

68

26

113

84

41

9685

53

1395

2211

65

154

137

45

91

207211

30

14

97

26

88

140180189

272

239

21

162

273

176

33

192

191

70

46

70260

1086

2

2

40 178

31

17

103

2199

26

94

27

91

142

230

69

78

86

38

95

80

77

1741 25

11

31

4457 5063

60

71

69

68

14

194

34

94

10

260 2715

60

63

42

54 50

26

33

124

67

112

49

7369

7785

89

57

49

65

62

117

17

71

19

34

77

55

75

506618

26

185

25 24

51

79

190

93

96

222224

154

1142

30

66

252

72

50

54 2250

248

92

34

202

45

38

161

117

16520

25826

252

8

14

27

179

118

81

90

57

195

256

2311

77

10

88

15

2270

227

36

66

164

27

76

87

92

8889

24

153

142 252

202

24

104

104

127 65

64

123 129

17

75

85

27

80

93

17

179

114

224

49

261

101

25

77

130

9

32120

114

4

115

27

138

95

157

176

155

165

105

40

146180

79

266

109

184

154

115

33

142

150

126 141

118

225

130

265

235

20

134 243

3733

112

32

122

257

115

140

116

130

187

238

100

129

236

214

172

153144

170

34

234

139

193

60230

249

241

231

109

160 188172

239

222242

68

90

148

253

141

94

217

222

25

54

161

164

151

221

6

247

299282

8

133

164

44

10

143

195

96 98

125

95 89

145

251

58

59

110

273

46

267

165

9 29

234

160

153

McNeely Ave

Highway 7

Hooper St

Lansdowne Ave

Lake Ave East

King St

jralph

Typewritten Text

Gibson 24.52 ha

jralph

Typewritten Text

Pegasus 53.62 ha

jralph

Typewritten Text

NuGlobe 10.06 ha

jralph

Typewritten Text

NuGlobe 12.62 ha

jralph

Typewritten Text

Walmart 11.8 ha

jralph

Typewritten Text

Hwy 7 Commercial 8.87 ha

jralph

Typewritten Text

Franktown Rd Residential 10.47 ha

jralph

Typewritten Text

Thruway 4.67 ha

jralph

Typewritten Text

Tim Hortons 0.78 ha

jralph

Typewritten Text

jralph

Typewritten Text

jralph

Line

MINUTES

MUNICIPAL HERITAGE ADVOSIR Committee MEETING JUNE/2014

Attended: Margaret Smith, David Jeschor, Colin Coveny, Councillor Probert

Regrets: Bernie deFrancesco, David Roberstson

ITEM 1) The installation of the Findlay Factory heritage panel was discussed. All are happy with the image and story line; Thanks to the property owner for allowing the installation.

It was the consensus that the final trim should be coloured metal, allowing for a permanent, no maintenance trim. Colour to co‐ordinate with the rest of the building.

ITEM 2) It was decided that a dedication event should take place for the Findlay Panel. Jennifer Irwin offered to co‐ordinate a mail out to known individuals who worked there or have connections with the plant. The date set for July 13 at 1 pm with a casual reception hosted at the Moore House.

Moved by Jennifer Irwin, second by Margaret Smith, all in favour

ITEM 3) A discussion was held regarding the continuation of Heritage Videos project.

It was decided that $2,000.00 could be made available from the committee’s 2014 budget for this project. Jennifer Irwin will contact Jeff Maguire to review the specific information elements that need to be covered in a heritage interview. The selection of interview candidates will be left to the discretion of the interview team. Other future work to include co‐ordinating common stories into Carleton Place “minutes”.. along the lines of 15 minute recaps that tell a particular story and could be useful as an on‐line product.

Moved by David Jeschor, second by Jennifer Irwin, all in favour

ITEM 4) There was a general discussion about the Committee providing a high school bursary along the lines of Promoting Carleton Pl ace Heritage. No decision was reached on this and may be discussed again with additional information.

Meeting Adjourned at 8:30 pm

Wednesday, July 9th, 2014

CP MHC Meting Minutes

1. Findlay Plaque Unveiling Ceremony

‐ Sunday, July 13th, 2014, 1‐3pm, at The Moore House

‐ Guests will be greeted at The Moore House by the MHC Committee

‐ Bernie: introductory remarks

‐ Jennifer: overview of the plaque and exhibit showcase

‐ Mayor Wendy LeBlanc: remarks on the impact the Findlay Foundry had on

the development of Carleton Place

‐ Robert Probert: closing remarks

N.B.: ‐ no need for a P.A. system

‐ THE COMMITTEE CO‐OPTED ROBERT PROBERT AND JENNIFER ADAMS

TO PREPARE THE REFRESHMENTS

‐ PLEASE, LET'S MAKE THE EFFORT TO ALL ATTEND, ca 12:45 pm

*** Robert, would you please confirm Wendy's attendance?

2. The Committee was informed that the summer employee is Jennifer Adams.

She is currently present at The Moore House during daytime. In September and

October, she will move the Museum to help Jennifer Irwin with heirtage related

work.

3. The Committee decided to subscribe to the Architectural Conservancy Ontario

magazine, for one ( 1 ) year, at the cost of 60$, the Corporate fee. The magazine

will be sent to the Museum.

4.. The Committee will ask Jennifer Adams to attend our meetings, if she wishes.

Thanks all. As usual review is welcome.

Bernie De Francesco, Chair, CP MHC

Company/Builder/Devel't Contact Security Inspeced Action Taken

Hi QA ‐ SPC01‐2006 Danny Agnell $1,000 15‐Mar‐14 Project never started ‐ Reurned $1,000 Mar 27/14

St Gregory ‐ DP201‐2013 Craig McDonald $10,000 01‐May‐14 Reduced L o C to $0 ‐Returned L o C to Scotiabank

H/Rose Mach. DP101‐2008 Graham Whitelaw $6,000 06‐May‐14 All site work completed OK ‐Returned $6,000 May 15/14

Army/Navy/Air ‐SPC04‐2003 Phil Grierson $1,000 12‐May‐14 All site work completed OK ‐Returned $1,000 May 15/14

Willowshr Way DP201‐2010 Len Fraser $2,000 09‐Jun‐14 All site work completed OK ‐Returned $2,000 June 23/14

Seagrave Fire SPC14‐2004 Neil Greene $500 20‐May‐14Owner wants CP to finish landscaping using held security‐ completed June/2014

Napoleon ‐ #193 Craig Angus $5,000 22‐May‐14 All site work completed OK ‐Returned $5,000 May 22/14

Napoleon ‐ #195 Craig Angus $5,000 22‐May‐14 All site work completed OK ‐Returned $5,000 May 22/14

Lake ‐ Medical Clinic #299 Jane Garceau $1,500 28‐May‐14 Reduced L o C to $0 ‐Returned L o C to Scotiabank

Dica Electronics‐SPC06‐2008 Spencer Grabe $10,000 13‐May‐14 All complete except 4 trees‐ reduced security to $ 1500.

Karhu Woodworking DP 2‐01 2011 Cheryl Lester $6,325 12‐Jun‐14Site work completed except one issue which owner says will be corrected by July 31/14

100 Indust'l Ave DP201‐2010 Len Fraser $18,000 09‐Jun‐14Most site work completed‐Reduced security to$16,500 June 23/14. Small amount of privacy fencing outstanding

Brigil‐SUB 01‐2006(Phase 1) Michel Gagnon $22,225 17‐Jun‐14Site work completed except one back yard drainage issue which owner says will be corrected bsoon

Uland Coleman‐SPC16‐2004 Ed Coleman $1,000 Mar‐14 Owner asks to not pave driveway ‐refer to Council

Simond Gold DP2‐01 2011 Simond Gold $1,000 20‐May‐14 Owner asks to not pave driveway ‐refer to Council

2014 DEVELOPMENT SECURITY RELEASE SUMMARY

“Recycling - Moving Forward”

Town of Carleton Place Blue Box P & E Communications Plan

Prepared By: Wayne Fraser

Date: July 14, 2014

CARLETON PLACE BLUE BOX COMMUNICATION PLAN July 14, 2014

2

TableofContents 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 3

1.1 Municipal Information .................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Program Description ..................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Program History and Future Directions .................................................................. 4

2 IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Target Audience............................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Promotion & Education Efforts .................................................................................... 5

2.4 Strategic Approach ........................................................................................................ 6

2.5 Messages Used ............................................................................................................. 7

2.6 Resource Allocation ...................................................................................................... 7

3 TRACKING ............................................................................................................................ 8

3.1 Tracking Methodologies Used ..................................................................................... 8

3.2 Stop, Start, and Continue ............................................................................................. 9


3

1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1 Municipal Information Population 9,921 Households (single family) 4,243 Blue Box Tonnage (2012 Datacall) 623.18 Tonnes Municipal Grouping Small Urban (5) Blue Box Program net cost (2012 Datacall) $235,349 Net Cost Per Tonne (2012 Datacall) $378/tonne Previous Annual P&E Budget $425

1.2 Program Description The Town of Carleton Places’ new seven year garbage and recycling collection/processing contracts commenced June 1, 2013. These new contracts have been awarded to Matrec Inc. and will significantly transform the waste management services presently provided to residents. Immediate changes include: New Recyclable Blue Box Materials

o All plastics numbered 1 through 7 o Gable top cartons o Milk containers o Tetra packs

New single stream recycling system with curbside collection each week. Recyclables will be hauled to a new Matrec-owned transfer station five kilometers east of Carleton Place. This transfer station opened June 1, 2013 and has been designed to be a state of the art, multi-use facility that allows for the efficient sorting of waste streams, two walking floor loading bays and a residential drop off all within an enclosed building. Carleton Place residents will now have a local location where recyclables that are not allowed in the blue box can be dropped off knowing they will be recycled, (i.e. tires, electronics, construction demolition materials etc.)

Carleton Place recyclables are now hauled from the transfer station to a MRF in St. Hubert, Quebec where this facility sorts and separates recyclables and prepare them for marketing by Matrec.

The advantage of these changes is two-fold: Residents now are offered a recycling system that is simpler with much less confusion about what plastics are collectable. This should result in increased recycling capture rates and increased waste diversion. Additionally, residents are enjoying the convenience of having their blue box recycling and garbage collected on the same day of the week at the same time by the same contractor.


4

The problem is that many residents are confused about what has changed and why. Therefore, it is crucial that the Town create a well-designed strategy to effectively communicate changes to residents and encourage participation in order for the new recycling program to succeed.

1.3ProgramHistoryandFutureDirections Effective communications, public engagement and also public education and promotion are typically considered to be “best practices” for any waste diversion program. These combined initiatives will help Carleton Place to:

raise the awareness of the new recycling program; and

foster change in behaviour in residents so that waste diversion becomes the norm instead of the exception, with the goal of significantly reducing material sent for disposal.

The goal is to advertise and promote Carleton Place’s new blue box program aggressively and successfully by way of a strategic communication Strategy over a three year term starting July 2014.


5

2 IMPLEMENTATION

2.1 Goals and Objectives

1.) Increase the Town’s recycling tonnage by 15% from 623 tonnes to 716 tonnes in 2017. This is an increase of 5%, or 31 tonnes, per year.

2.) Increase our current blue box diversion rate by 6.4% from 15.6% to 22% over the

next three years.

3.) Increase our current blue box participation rate by 5% from the current rate by measuring the set out rate of 100 sample houses over four consecutive weeks.

2.2 Target Audience The target audience is all residents of the Town of Carleton Place with an emphasis on the student population.

2.3 Promotion & Education Efforts Table 2.3: Outline of planned expenditures for July 2014 to July 2017 for P&E efforts

Tactic Method Date Target Total Cost Cost/Target YEAR ONE – 2014 Recycling Notices developed by staff

Direct mailing July 2014 All residences

$4,000 $0.94/household

News Media In-kind advertisements with four other municipalities

Fall 2014 17000 local households

No Charge N/A

Recycling Info. Mail outs

Water/tax bills Fall 2014 All residences

$250 $0.06/household

Newspaper Ads Fall/ winter 2014

All residents $1,000 $0.10/household

YEAR TWO – 2015

Recycling presentations

Interaction with schools

May 2015

Co-0p Student


Recycling Info. Mail Outs

Water/tax bills Summer2015

All residences



Spring /Fall 2015

17000 local households

No Charge



Recycling Notices by staff

Direct mailing July 2015 All residences

$4,000 $0.94/household


6

YEAR THREE – 2016 Recycling presentations

Interaction with schools

May 2016

Co-0p Student


Recycling Info. Mail Outs

Water/tax bills Summer2016

All residences



Spring /Fall 2016

17000 local households

No Charge N/A



TOTAL: $12,000 $1/household/year

2.4 Strategic Approach The “Moving forward” strategy to be employed over the next three years will be:

Create as many different types of recycling information packages as possible within the municipal budget constraints.

Make this information as interesting and easy to read and understand as possible.

Get this recycling information out to Carleton Place residents in as many affordable fashions as possible.

Stagger the recycling packages over the next 36 months so that recipients are not overwhelmed but receive constant and consistent reminders of the importance of recycling.

Utilize all existing resources to get the word out that recycling is everybody’s responsibility (i.e. school curriculum, recycling signage and messages in commercial establishments)

Develop messaging pertaining to seasons (i.e. what to do when winter storms happen on recycling collection days.

We will get this information on the new recycling service out to residents through many different mediums:

o Newspaper advertisements - both Carleton Place specific and, generic advertisements in combination with our four other municipal neighbours with whom we share a common recycling contract and contractor

o Carleton Place website

o Municipal Facebook account

o Municipal Twitter account

o Municipal water account mail-outs


7

o Municipal tax notice mail-outs

o Direct mailing to all households i.e. calendars

o Handouts at local events

o Interaction with schools

2.5 Messages Used The main focus is to reach as many residents as possible with the message catch-phrase “Recycling – Moving Forward”. This message will hopefully explain and answer many questions presently being asked by Carleton Place residents:

Why should I recycle? What materials can I place in my Blue Box? Where can I find information about the blue box program? Why is there a limit on the number of free garbage bags I can put out? Why is it illegal to throw out recyclables in my garbage?

2.6 Resource Allocation

Tasks to be completed during the implementation phase and personnel responsible to complete each task Task Description Person

Responsible Timeline

Get Council “Buy-in”

Create reports for council’s approval

Wayne Fraser July 2014

Manage new blue box give-away and inventory

Newspaper notices and monitoring blue box give-away process

Sharyl Andrews – Public Works Department

2014-and onwards

New Allowable Items

Newspaper notices

Sharyl Andrews – Public Works Department

2014- and onwards

Modify and update municipal website for changes to new recycling program

Create and maintain a new streamlined, easy to access recycling section on the municipal website

Manda Blakely- Municipal Promotions coordinator

July and August 2014- and onwards


8

3 TRACKING

3.1 Tracking Methodologies Used The effectiveness of the current P&E plan will be evaluated based on the objectives that have been set for the Town’s recycling program; as outlined in section 2.1. The Public works staff will be responsible for compiling the data necessary to complete Table 3.1. The most effective means of collecting the tracking information is annual recycling/waste audits. Our base audit provided the following information:

No of kg of blue box recyclables generated per household per week % of waste that is set out that is recyclable % of organics in the waste that is going to landfill Town’s diversion rate based on the sampling % of all recyclable paper generated that is captured in the blue box program % of all recyclable containers generated that is captured in the blue box program % of contamination in the recyclables Composition of blue box material i.e. Paper, metal cans, plastic bottles, glass

bottles/jars, and contaminated material

The participation rate will be determined by measuring the set out rate of 100 consecutive houses over a four week period during the fall of every year. If 60 houses participate in the recycling program every week, 30 houses participate at least one week, and 10 houses do not put out their blue box once over the four week period, this is a 90% participation rate. These houses will be one hundred successive houses in the Town and a tally sheet will be created to track the participation over the four week period. Table 3.1: P&E effects tracking methodologies, collection points, and general comments Tracking Methodology

Data Collection Point

Timeline Current (2014)

Goal (2017)

Marketed Tonnage

Contractor, scales, WDO Datacall

Yearly, spring 623 716

Blue Box Diversion Rate

WDO Datacall Annually 15.6% 22%

Participation Rate Survey of 100 consecutive houses

Annually (fall) Unknown 5% increase


9

3.2 Stop, Start, and Continue The current P&E communication plan has been created to represent Carleton Place’s P&E efforts between July 15, 2014 and July 15, 2017. The communication plan will be reviewed, evaluated, and updated by June of every third year. The next review commencement date is set as January 1, 2017 in order to ensure it is completed in a reasonable and accurate manner. Regularly, municipal staff will evaluate recent P&E tactics that have been employed. Staff will consider the Stop, Start, and Continue evaluation method; considering questions, like: What is not working and should be stopped? What have I heard from other municipalities or sources that may work and should be started? What has been working and will continue to be used in the P&E program? The Start, Stop, and Continue method will provide the framework for making running changes to the P&E plan on and ongoing basis.

Ministry of the Environment Ministère de l'Environnement P.O. Box 22032 C.P. 22032 Kingston, Ontario Kingston (Ontario) K7M 8S5 K7M 8S5 613/549-4000 or 1-800/267-0974 613/549-4000 ou 1-800/267-0974 Fax: 613/548-6908 Fax: 613/548-6908

M E M O R A N D U M 25 March 2011 TO: G. Davis Sr. Environmental Officer Ottawa District Office Eastern Region FROM: F. Crossley Hydrogeologist Technical Support Section Eastern Region RE: Preliminary Remedial Action Plan 7 Beckwith Street, Carleton Place, Ontario Having reviewed the “Preliminary Remedial Action Plan – 7 Beckwith Street” dated February, 2011 (received March, 2011) by SNC-Lavalin Environment (SLE), I offer the following comments. The Town of Carleton Place purchased the property at 7 Beckwith Street in Carleton Place. The former land use of this site was commercial, Canadian Tire Corporation store. The Town of Carleton Place had SLE (formerly Aqua Terre Solutions Incorporated) undertake an Environmental Site Assessment of the site and surrounds. The Environmental Site Assessment identified volatile organic compound impacts both in the soils and groundwater both on and off site. The contaminants of concern are tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and their related breakdown products, dichloroethylenes (DCE’s) and vinyl chloride (VC). The presence of PCE indicates that the PCE is the primary volatile organic compound. PCE is the primary solvent used in the dry cleaning industry. The Environmental Site Assessment identified one “main source area” and two “secondary source areas”: - “Main source area” – vicinity of MW08-4 as product is present based on highly elevated

concentrations of PCE. The consultant’s supposition that PCE was historically dumped into the sewer system and leaked out in proximity to MW08-4 is plausible as there is no apparent source in the vicinity (roadway).

- “Secondary source area” – vicinity of MW08-6 as highly concentrations of PCE occur in

this area. SLE’s supposition is that PCE was historically dumped into the sewer system and leaking out in proximity to MW08-6 is plausible as there is no apparent source in the vicinity (roadway).

- 2 - - “Secondary source area” – vicinity of the western portion of the study area and is likely

related to the activities at the dry cleaners at 27 Bridge Street. I previously recommended (November, 2010) that the owners of this property should undertake an Environmental Site Assessment, both Phase I and Phase II.

The focus of the preliminary remediation action plan is related to the remediation of the “main source area”, PCE product. The consultants summarized the various technologies available and evaluated the technologies based on advantages, disadvantages, timeliness and estimated cost. SLE recommend that a monitored natural attenuation approach be undertaken. The monitored natural attenuation approach is a passive approach. Typically this approach is utilized if the source and residual source (impacted soils) are remediated or contained. In this case, neither the source nor the residual source are neither remediated nor contained. The monitored natural attenuation approach also requires a sound understanding of the hydrogeological conceptual model. This is not the case. I offer the following conclusions and recommendations: - The contaminants of concern are PCE, TCE and their related breakdown products, DCE’s

and VC. The best tracer of the volatile organic compound plume is PCE. - The presence of PCE suggests that it is the primary volatile organic compound solvent.

PCE is the primary solvent used in the dry cleaning industry. - The cleanup criteria is derived from the "Soils, Ground Water and Sediment Standards

for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act" (MOE, 2004 and 2009). The 2009 cleanup criteria is to be used. SLE state that a Site Specific Risk Assessment is being undertaken to derive risk based cleanup criteria (RBCC).

- The Environmental Site Assessments determined that there is one “main source area”

(MW08-4) and two “secondary source areas” (MW08-6 and 27 Bridge Street). The focus of the remedial action plan is the “main source area”.

- The consultants evaluated various active remedial options. The consultant’s

recommended remedial option is a monitored natural attenuation approach. This approach is a passive approach. This approach is typically used when the source and residual source (impacted soils) have been remediated or contained. This is not the case. This approach also requires a sound understanding of the hydrogeological conceptual model. This is not the case as the groundwater flow in both the overburden and bedrock are not confirmed. Additional hydrogeological work is required. Therefore the proposed remedial approach of monitored natural attenuation is not acceptable.

- 3 - - The consultants should recommend an active remedial approach to address the source and

residual source impacts.

F. Crossley, P.Geo. /sh ec: P. Kehoe P. Taylor c: File GW-03-06, Town of Carleton, CAPL (7 Beckwith Street) FC/IDS #7843-8EMQP4