Township of Amaranth Council Agenda Wednesday, July 25, :00 p.m.

Transcription

1 Township of Amaranth Council Agenda Wednesday, July 25, :00 p.m. 1. Opening of Meeting 2. Late Submissions (to be in the office prior to the meeting) 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest with Reasons 5. Approval of Minutes 5.1. Regular Meeting Minutes held July 11, 2018 (to follow) 6. Public Question Period (6:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.) 7. Delegations 7.1. Dufferin Federation of Agriculture, Sherri Gray Land Use Policies and Agriculture (6:15) 7.2. R.J Burnside - Arunus Kalanauskas (6:30) Presentation Revised Asset Management Plan OCIF top up Funding - Discussion 8. Public Meetings (8:00 p.m.) Zoning Application Z3-18 Holmes Agro Ltd. / Ontario Inc. (Owner) Jeff Holmes (Applicant) East Part Lot 2, Concession 3, County Road 11 To allow an agricultural related use (crop inputs) and an accessory structure (scale) in the front yard Notice of Public Meeting and Application Z Planning Report (to follow) 9. Unfinished Business 9.1. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ontario Sport and Recreation Communities Fund - Update

2 Council Agenda July 11, 2018 Page 2 of Minister Agriculture and Rural Affairs Intake of OCIF Top-Up Application Funding 9.3. IESO Cancellation of FIT Contract 9.4. Other 10. Public Works Director of Public Works Update Hot Mix Paving Tender Report Speed Limit Reduction Report Bridge 15 Update Bridge 17 Update Other 11. Planning Development Updates Trailer Agreement Exemption Request Concession 2, E. Part Lot 14, Alves request to extend Town of Orangeville Request for Proposal 02PW-18 - Consulting Services for a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment New Municipal Supply Well News article Notice of Passing Zoning By-law Riddell Road Removal of Holding Symbol Spencer and Riddell Removal of Holding Hansen Blvd

3 Council Agenda July 11, 2018 Page 3 of Hamount Investments Ltd. Laurelpark Inc Notice of Application Superior Court Hamount Decision June Town of Shelburne Response dated July 11, 2018 Fiddle Park Lands Sarah Properties Ltd dated July 5, 2018 Refusal of Application OPA Township of East Garafraxa Notice of Meeting Tri-County Aggregates July 24, Other 12. Committee Report County of Dufferin July 12, 2018 County Council Agenda Media Release - GIS Interactive Mapping July 25, :00 p.m. Sutton Room Special Meeting County Council County of Dufferin - DC Pamphlet - June POA Letter-John Creelman Shelburne District Fire Department Draft Board Agreement - Update Orangeville District Fire Department Minutes Fire Services Advisory Committee Agreement Letter Town of Orangeville Municipalities Recreation Meeting Minutes dated June Orangeville Rec Meeting Recreation Non-Res Pass Holders 2018 Graph Waldemar Park Committee Update Credit Valley Conservation CVC Forest Health Board Report June Grand River Conservation Authority Current July 2018

4 Council Agenda July 11, 2018 Page 4 of Lake Erie Source Water Protection Grand River Source Protection representative Other 13. General Business and Correspondence 14. By-Laws AMO July 19 Watchfile Policy Update Ontario Government s Speech from the Throne Township of Centre Wellington Letter dated June 29, 2018, Moratorium on Permits to Take Water f for Commercial Water Bottling Upper Grand District School Board Board Passing of Long Term Accommodation Plan (report in office) Independent Electricity System Operator Ontario Municipal Energy Profile Elections MMA 2018 Municipal Election Presentation June 28 Notice of Intention to pass the following By-Laws: Site Plan Control By-law Being A Bylaw To Designate Site Plan Control Areas In The Township Of Amaranth By-Law to Assume a Road Widening Part Lot 30, Concession By-Law to Amend Zoning By-Law Rezoning Application Z3-18 Con 3, East Part Lot Other 15. Late Submissions 16. Budget Budget Summary at meeting

5 Council Agenda July 11, 2018 Page 5 of Accounts General Accounts Road Accounts 18. New Business 19. Closed Meeting 18.1 Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board 18.2 Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose 20. Confirming By-Law 21. Adjournment

6 5,090 jobs in Dufferin are connected to farming and food 9 out of 10 believe the agri-food sector is capable of creating more jobs in future decades Where are the farms? The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) believes the province can do much more for its citizens by simply distributing economic development opportunities across the province. Producing Prosperity in Ontario is our election priority. ProducingProsperity.ca Nearly 90% of those in the GTA believe Ontario s economy should include a strong agriculture sector

7 Farmers are stewards of 43% of the land base in Dufferin County Nearly 50% believe Ontario s agriculture industry contributes to a healthier environment Rural Water Quality strong interest reported by GRCA. Farmers eager to leverage Dufferin County $ with their own $ to go forward on projects. Most farms have an Environmental Farm Plan. Risks have been identified and action plans initiated Dufferin farmland loss Total Farm Area (acres) 2006 Ag Census 190, Ag Census 156,593 Farm acres down by 34,014 OR The equivalent of 9.3 acres lost every day! By 2016 the acerage of seeded land either in no-till or minimal tillage systems had increased to 56%. Good for soils, good for the environment. Dufferin Soil & Crop Improvement Association are active in promoting best farming practices. PRODUCINGPROSPERITY.CA Agriculture contributes $13.7 billion to Ontario s annual GDP Ontario s farm sector generates $1.4 billion in provincial tax revenues 158,000 jobs are generated by the farm sector $8.1 billion in wages and salaries are supported by Ontario farms

8 PRODUCINGPROSPERITY.CA Spreading economic investments around Ontario Create jobs New investment in Ontario s rural communities will grow existing businesses, attract new companies and boost opportunities for residents and regional economic development. Build affordable communities Improving infrastructure in rural Ontario can ease the urban housing strain and open new opportunities for working and living in smaller and mid-sized communities across the province. Secure a sustainable local food system Strengthen Ontario s agri-food sector by investing in our rural communities sound roads and bridges, reliable broadband and affordable energy will guarantee our local food system. Proper public polices with thoughtful land-use policies will protect our land and resources for future generations. Ontario s rural communities need these investments: Natural Gas Transportation Broadband Schools Access to more affordable energy will give farms, businesses and rural residents the competitive edge to drive growth and save more than $1 billion in annual energy costs. Sound roads, bridges and proper drainage are needed to support growth and transportation of our goods and services. Reliable internet supports farms and rural communities without it, our businesses, residents and schools are at a disadvantage. Rural schools are essential to attract and retain local employees by providing quality education and local community hubs for the next generation of Ontarians. Producing Prosperity is supported by Bill McCutcheon, President wmccutcheon2@gmail.com Sherri Gray, Admin Sherri.dfa@hotmail.com dufferinfederationofagriculture.ca

9 2018 Amendment to the Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan Arunas Kalinauskas Business Manager Asset Management / GIS

10 Agenda Asset Management Amendment, Project Outline Amended State of Local Infrastructure Levels of Service Amended Asset Strategy Capital Needs Amended Financial Strategy Recommendations Questions

11 Asset Management Amendment Review Township Road and Bridge assets Update conditions and lifecycle needs Level of service and risk/criticality assessment Compile an amended asset management strategy Present an amended financing strategy

12 Asset Management Requirement Applying for Provincial Funding Plans are now part of the grant application Federal Gas Tax Agreement Require a full plan with identified priority projects Development Charges Act Consideration for the Township in the future Bill 6 Infrastructure for Jobs Prosperity Act Makes asset management planning a requirement Regulation 588/17 (Dec. 2017)

13 Asset Management Internal Benefits Great tool for Infrastructure planning Identify capital priorities Tie to budget & capital forecast, Rate study, other strategic planning documents (Master Plan Studies) Long term financial plan A living document: Only useful if it is kept up to date Update when Township priorities change

14 Building Together Guide Guide documents the components, information and analysis that are required to be included in a municipality s asset management plan 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. State of Local Infrastructure 4. Expected Levels of Service 5. Asset Management Strategy 6. Financing Strategy

15 State of Local Infrastructure Good data is key Asset inventory based on Township data Asset condition adjustments were identified and corrected Staff input to ensure completeness Bridge inspection report incorporated Township staff inputs

16 Performance 10 Excellent Asset Condition Decay curve Condition Good Fair Minimal performance level 2 Poor Decreasing Time Increasing To gain better understanding of Remaining Service Life

17 Asset Type Township Tax Supported Assets Asset Sub- Type Historic Cost 2015 Accumulated Amortization 2015 Net Book Value 2018 Replacement Cost Condition (weighted average) Useful Life (years) Age (weighted average) Remaining Life (weighted average) Risk (weighted average) Value Text Value Text Road Surface $2,524,522 $799,394 $687,541 $5,229, Average 15, Moderate Roads Road $8,607,429 $4,554,257 $4,145,550 $67,132, Average Moderate Bridges & Culverts $4,654,146 $1,391,214 $3,262,933 $13,181, Average 75, High Cross Road Culverts $190,476 $117,409 $73,067 $606, Average Moderate Street Lights $148,684 $129,536 $19,148 $91, Average Moderate Signs $180,176 $153,574 $26,562 $214, Average Moderate Barriers $18,589 $12,490 $6,099 $23, Average Moderate Sidewalks $16,077 $9,968 $6,109 $70, Average Moderate Asset Type Roads Asset Sub- Type Historic Cost 2015 Accumulated Amortization 2015 Net Book Value 2016 Replacement Cost Condition (weighted average) Useful Life (years) Age (weighted average) Remaining Life (weighted average) Risk (weighted average) Value Text Value Text Road Surface $2,524,522 $799,394 $687,541 $4,130, Average 15, Moderate Road $8,607,429 $4,554,257 $4,145,550 $67,132, Average Moderate Bridges & Culverts $4,654,146 $1,391,214 $3,262,933 $11,831, Average 75, High Cross Road Culverts $190,476 $117,409 $73,067 $606, Average Moderate Street Lights $148,684 $129,536 $19,148 $91, Average Moderate Signs $180,176 $153,574 $26,562 $214, Average Moderate Barriers $18,589 $12,490 $6,099 $23, Average Moderate Sidewalks $16,077 $9,968 $6,109 $70, Average Moderate

18 Levels of Service Levels of Service (LOS) Requirements: Performance measures, targets and timeframes illustrating defined levels of service; External trends or issues that may affect desired levels of service or the municipality s ability to meet them; and Show current performance relative to established targets Compare: Current LOS to Expected LOS Typically describes How much effort to maintain service levels Minimum acceptable service levels What are the risks of not maintaining service levels How frequently action needs to be taken to maintain service levels

19 Levels of Service Roads meetings with Director of Public Works Recommend a Road Needs Study to better define condition, and long term improvement plan Also may require a Transportation Master Plan Bridges recommended maintenance from OSIM report

20 Levels of Service

21 Amended Asset Management Strategy Recommended actions (i.e. long term forecast) required to move towards a sustainable position while delivering expected levels of service in a cost effective manner Non-infrastructure solutions & Maintenance activities Renewal/rehabilitation activities Replacement activities Expansion activities Options (Scenario) analysis Risk Assessment

22 Significant Major Moderate Minor Insignificant Risk / Criticality Ratings Risk of Asset Failure = Probability of Failure X Consequence of Failure Cost Social Environmental Significant Cost Difficult to Recover Substantial Cost Multi-year Budget Impacts Considerable Cost Requires Revisions to Budget Small/Minor Cost within Budget Allocations Negligible or Insignificant Cost Death, Serious Injury Major Injury Moderate Injury Minor Injury No Injury Long-term Impact Permanent Long-term Impact Fixable Medium-term Impact Fixable Short-term/Minor Impact Fixable No Impact Probability of Failure Service Delivery Major Interruptions Significant Interruptions Moderate Interruptions Minor Interruptions No Interruptions Consequence of Failure Significant Major Moderate Minor Insignificant Almost Certain E E H H M Likely E H H M M Possible E H M M L Unlikely H M M L L Rare H M L L L

23 Amended Asset Management Strategy

24 Asset Management Strategy 10 Year Comparison 2018 Amendment 2016 AMP

25 Amended Financing Strategy Included costs associated with: Maintenance stayed the same; Renewal/Rehabilitation adjustments; Replacement/Disposal adjustments; and Expansion stayed the same. Expected Levels of Service incorporated into the forecast period. This will need to be expanded in the future to fulfil Regulation 588/17

26 Financing Strategy

27 Capital Over 5 Years Total Potential Added to Reserves OCIF Proposal Denied Financial Strategy Over 10 Years Total Potential Added to Reserves Over 19 Years Total Potential Added to Reserves Non-Inflated Amended Scenario 1 $7,801,653 $0 $12,406,908 $0 $21,507,854 $0 Amended Scenario 2a $5,187,500 ($2,614,153) $10,687,500 ($1,719,408) $21,375,000 ($132,854) Amended Scenario 2b $5,375,000 ($2,426,653) $11,375,000 ($1,031,908) $23,750,000 $2,242,146 Inflated Amended Scenario 1 $8,142,375 $0 $13,392,856 $0 $25,560,272 $0 Amended Scenario 2a $5,509,803 ($2,632,572) $11,959,358 ($1,433,498) $26,382,139 $821,867 Amended Scenario 2b $5,711,485 ($2,430,890) $12,750,000 ($642,856) $29,466,908 $3,906,636 Capital Over 5 Years Total Potential Added to Reserves OCIF Proposal Received Over 10 Years Total Potential Added to Reserves Over 19 Years Total Potential Added to Reserves Non-Inflated Amended Scenario 1 $9,090,521 $0 $13,695,776 $0 $22,796,722 $0 Amended Scenario 2a $5,187,500 ($3,903,021) $10,687,500 ($3,008,276) $21,375,000 ($1,421,722) Amended Scenario 2b $5,375,000 ($3,715,521) $11,375,000 ($2,320,776) $23,750,000 $953,278 Inflated Amended Scenario 1 $9,457,020 $0 $14,707,501 $0 $26,874,918 $0 Amended Scenario 2a $5,509,803 ($3,947,217) $11,959,358 ($2,748,144) $26,382,139 ($492,779) Amended Scenario 2b $5,711,485 ($3,745,535) $12,750,000 ($1,957,501) $29,466,908 $2,591,990

28 Recommendations That Council receive and approve the 2018 Amendment to the Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan; That Council consider the 2018 Amendment to the Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan during annual budget deliberations; That the Plan be updated as needed over time as Township priorities change.

29 Questions For more information please contact: Business Manager Asset Management / GIS R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

30 Township of Amaranth 2018 Amendment to the 2016 Asset Management Plan R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 15 Townline Orangeville ON L9W 3R4 CANADA July 25,

31 Township of Amaranth i 2016 Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Distribution List No. of Hard PDF Organization Name Copies o Yes Yes Township of Amaranth Record of Revisions Revision Date Description 1 July 17, 2018 Initial Submission to Township of Amaranth 2 July 25, 2018 Final Amendment Submission to Township of Amaranth R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Report Prepared By: Arunas Kalinauskas Business Manager Asset Management / GIS AK:kl R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

32 Township of Amaranth ii 2016 Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Executive Summary The Township of Amaranth (Township) has requested that a review of their Asset Strategy be undertaken in light of the localized extreme weather events of the last two years as well as the many capital projects undertaken by the Township. Given the updated information provided, an amendment to the Township of Amaranth 2016 Asset Management Plan was undertaken. This Amendment to the Township of Amaranth 2016 Asset Management Plan will focus on updating and prioritizing the capital projects for Road and Bridge assets. The Amendment contains the following: Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 2: Amended State of Local Infrastructure; Chapter 3: Expected Levels of Service Chapter 4: Amended Asset Management Strategy; Chapter 5: Amended Financing Strategy; and Chapter 6: Recommendations. As an Amendment to the Township Asset Management Plan the focus is on changes/updates to the "state of local infrastructure" from data that was provided by Township Staff. The overall asset inventory has not changed significantly but it is important to note that some asset types as roads and bridges continue to be the main focus of infrastructure gap and this Amendment. The Amendment will not report on overall condition, levels of service, or risk, but focus on the changes that have influenced an updated prioritized list of Road and Bridge capital projects. The overall asset weighted condition or risk level have not changed significantly since last reported. However, due to changes in traffic flows and extreme weather events some capital road work priorities need to be re-assessed. The "expected levels of service" recommended in the reported Asset Management Plan are being incorporated into the regular maintenance and service practices by Township Staff. As the Township continues to grow there will be a need to review the levels of service to ensure that the Township capital assets attain their maximum lifecycle while providing appropriate service to the public. The updated "asset management strategy" provides an adjustment to the capital forecast for Road and Bridge asset related capital costs. This updated capital project list of the Township's Road and Bridge assets, although financially challenging need to be completed in a timely fashion to ensure that appropriate service levels are maintained and long-term vision and best practices are maintained. We have also taken into consideration the potential risk of not completing these capital projects. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

33 Township of Amaranth iii 2016 Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 The following have been identified based on the updated Township data as assets that need to be replaced or improved as soon as practicable: Roads 20th Sideroad, from in between 9th Line & 8th Line to County Rd 11 Updated Recommendation which includes the previously recommended: 20th Sideroad, from 7th Line to 8th Line Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $106,884; 2018). 20th Sideroad from 4th Line to 5th Line (County Rd 12) Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $104,098; 2019). The total project includes the following contiguous road segments: 20th Sideroad, from in between 9th Line & 8th Line to 8th Line 20th Sideroad, from 8th Line to 7th Line (as previously recommended) 20th Sideroad, from 7th Line to 6th Line 20th Sideroad, from 6th Line to County Rd 12 20th Sideroad, from County Rd 12 to 4th Line 20th Sideroad, from 4th Line to County Rd 11 The length of road is 7.8 km in length, with 5 km requiring reinforcement of the road base by way of pulverizing the asphalt surface and mixing it in with the road base. Additional type A gravel will also be added and compacted to extend the life of this road base. This part of the project will also have two lifts of asphalt. The remaining 2.8 km of road will be shave and paved as the road base is still in good condition (approximate cost $1,300,000 plus Engineering and Construction Inspection, 2019). Amaranth/Grand Valley Townline, from 20 th Sideroad to 1.8 km north of 20 th Sideroad Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $180,000; 2018). Expected to be completed in Amaranth/Grand Valley Townline from 1.6 km north of 15 th Sideroad to 20 th Sideroad Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $103,950; 2019). 5 th Sideroad from 2 nd Line to County Road 11 Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $100,960; 2019). Moved to 2020 due to 20 th Sideroad priority. Devonleigh Drive from 30 th Sideroad to 30 th Sideroad Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $51,277; 2019). Moved to 2020 due to 20 th Sideroad priority. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

34 Township of Amaranth iv 2016 Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Station Street from 10 th Line/Mill Street to St. John Street Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $19,539; 2019). Moved to 2020 due to 20 th Sideroad priority. Station Street from St. John Street to Peter Street Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $22,479; 2019). Moved to 2020 due to 20 th Sideroad priority. Road bases are not expected to be fully replaced but improved and in localized places dug out and repacked. However, there are several road pavements showing that their road bases need some additional support and stabilization. One of these is the following: 5 th Sideroad from 2 nd Line to County Road 11 (approximate cost $100,000; 2019). Moved to 2020 due to 20 th Sideroad priority Bridges Bridge 17 (20 th Sideroad) This bridge is being completed this year. The remaining elements to be completed are the bridge railings, approaches, waterproofing and road works. The Province of Ontario is providing an Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) Grant to pay 90% of the cost to replace this bridge (approximate cost to the Township $100,000; 2017/18). To be completed in Bridge 15 (7 th Line) The Township had to close this bridge since it did not have sufficient funds to replace it. Last year work was started on replacing the bridge deck but work was stopped due to the base elements required reinforcement. Approximately $650,000 was already invested in this bridge reconstruction, but still more investment is required to have it completed (approximate remaining cost $300,000; 2018). To be completed in Bridge 6 (10 th Line) This bridge, based on the bridge inspection report, requires rehabilitation to extend the lifecycle (approximate cost $275,000, 2019). Bridge 12 (6 th Line) This bridge needs to be replaced based on the bridge inspection report (approximate cost $800,000, 2020). Bridge 13 (6 th Line) - This bridge needs to be replaced based on the bridge inspection report (approximate cost $800,000, 2020). Facilities Municipal Office HVAC System (Air Conditioner) The old system is well past its life and not working properly therefore needs to be replaced (approximate cost $28,000; 2017). Completed in Public Works Garage Windows Old windows are scheduled to be replaced in (approximate cost $6,000; 2017). Still to be completed. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

35 Township of Amaranth v 2016 Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Municipal Office Well Water supply being critical for the proper functioning of this building the well and pump are still working and potentially in good condition but there is concern over its age, and this is recommended to be investigated. The Township may want to ensure that money is set aside for a replacement as soon as it is required (approximate cost $15,000; 2018). Still to be scheduled. Public Works Garage Is an old facility and with growing need for more space for equipment. The expansion of this building is identified (approximate cost $200,000; 2018). To be completed in Vehicles 2000 Ford Sterling Plow Truck Has exceeded its life expectancy and therefore is recommended to be replaced. These types of trucks are critical to ensuring that the Township roads are in good repair and safe to drive (approximate cost $275,000; 2017). New Truck was purchased Ford F-150 Pickup Truck Has exceeded it life expectancy and therefore is recommended to be replaced. This is a vehicle that has been well used by Township Road staff (approximate cost $32,000). New Truck was purchased Grader Champion 740S4 Is well past its expected life and is recommended to be replaced. These types of vehicles are critical to ensuring that Township roads are in good repair and safe to drive (approximate cost $415,000; 2018). Still to be scheduled Volvo Loader This vehicle is past it s useful life and starting to show signed of its age, and recommended to be replaced (approximate cost $250,000; 2020). Street Lights Township Street Lights The Township has not yet converted their street lights to LED lighting. The conversion will save the Township 40%-50% in electrical costs annually which can be over $5,000 per year which will pay off the capital investment expense in less than 10 years (approximate cost $45,000; 2018). To be completed in Storm Ponds Storm Retention Pond James Street Runoff from the neighbouring agricultural land has caused some cleanout work required to ensure that this storm pond is functioning well (approximate cost $4,500; 2017). Completed in The above clearly identifies the additional priorities as well as the completed capital projects that were recommended to be completed in the 2016 Asset Management Plan report. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

36 Township of Amaranth vi 2016 Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Even though the Township received funding to replace Bridge 17 the Township experienced some extreme weather events, compounded by heavier traffic loads on 20 th Sideroad which still leaves the Township with an exceeding gap in infrastructure relief. The Township is making steps forward to close this funding gap, and obtaining an OCIF funding grant to assist with the replacement of 7.8 km of 20 th Sideroad will really help. However, more needs to be done to ensure that the Township can continue to offer appropriate levels of service to the public. The "financing strategy" as described in Chapter 5 of this Amendment shows that if the Township receives the OCIF funding for the much needed 20 th Sideroad re-construction work it will be able to maintain the previously identified financing strategy over the remaining 19 years defined in the 2016 Asset Management Plan. Overall, this Amendment to the 2016 Asset Management Plan is provided to identify the progress and changes in priorities to capital funding projects. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

37 Township of Amaranth vii 2016 Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Overview Amendment Objectives Amendment Development Maintaining the Asset Management Plan Amendment Integration Amended State of Local Infrastructure Scope and Process Road and Bridge Asset Overview Road Environment Assets Roads Bridges Expected Levels of Service Scope and Process Amended Asset Management Strategy Scope and Process Risk Assessment Priority Identification Long-term Forecast Amended Financing Strategy Scope and Process Tax Supported Financing Strategies Amended Scenario 1: Expected Levels of Service Amended Scenarios 2a, and 2b Financing Strategies Summary Tax Supported Services Improving the Annual Funding Deficit Recommendations Tables Table 3-1: Township Bridge Expected Levels of Service Table 4-1: Probability of Failure Matrix Table 4-2: Consequence of Failure Matrix Table 4-3: Total Risk of Asset Failure Matrix Figures Figure 4-1: Amended Scenario 1 - Proposed Tax Supported Asset Strategy d on Expected Levels of Service and OCIF Funding Figure 4-2: Scenario 2 Capital Phased In Approach R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

38 Township of Amaranth viii 2016 Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Figure 5-1: Tax Supported Assets Amended Scenario 1 d on Expected Levels of Service Figure 5-2: Tax Supported Assets Scenario 2a and 2b Appendices Appendix A Township Roads and Bridge Asset Inventory & Asset Management Plan Assumptions Appendix B 19 Year Detailed Asset Management Strategy & Financing Strategy R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

39 Township of Amaranth ix 2016 Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Disclaimer Other than by the addressee, copying or distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is not permitted without the express written consent of R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited. In the preparation of the various instruments of service contained herein, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited was required to use and rely upon various sources of information (including but not limited to: reports, data, drawings, observations) produced by parties other than R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited. For its part R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited has proceeded based on the belief that the third party/parties in question produced this documentation using accepted industry standards and best practices and that all information was therefore accurate, correct and free of errors at the time of consultation. As such, the comments, recommendations and materials presented in this instrument of service reflect our best judgment in light of the information available at the time of preparation. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited, its employees, affiliates and subcontractors accept no liability for inaccuracies or errors in the instruments of service provided to the client, arising from deficiencies in the aforementioned third-party materials and documents. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited makes no warranties, either express or implied, of merchantability and fitness of the documents and other instruments of service for any purpose other than that specified by the contract. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

40 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, Introduction 1.1 Overview R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) was retained by the Township of Amaranth (Township) to prepare an amendment to their 2016 asset management plan. This amendment, in conjunction with the current asset management plan, is intended to be a tool for the Township to use during various decision-making processes, including the annual budget process and Provincial/Federal capital grant application processes. This plan will serve as a road map for sustainable infrastructure planning going forward. Assets included in this asset management plan amendment are the following: Bridges; Roads (s and Surfaces - Asphalt, Gravel); It is recommended that the asset management plan be updated on an annual basis to ensure that it is kept up to date. As water system assets have their own sustainable financing plan as per Provincial Guidelines, they were not part of this amendment work. 1.2 Amendment Objectives The Township s goals and objectives with respect to their capital assets relate to the level of service being provided to Township constituents. Services should be provided at expected levels, as defined within this asset management plan. Township infrastructure and other capital assets are anticipated to be maintained at condition levels that provide for a safe and functional environment for its residents and visitors. Therefore, the amendment to the asset management plan and its implementation will be evaluated based on the Township s ability to meet the plan s goals and objectives. 1.3 Amendment Development The development of the Township s asset management plan amendment was based on the steps summarized below: 1. Identify the changes in condition of Road and Bridge assets, from reports and discussion with Township Staff. 2. Assess the risk of asset failure for the assets that have shown exceeding elements of ware/degradation since the asset management plan. This risk assessment was identified on an asset by asset basis and was used to identify the adjustment in priority projects for inclusion in the asset management plan amendment. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

41 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, Prepare an asset management strategy based on identified priorities. 4. Determine a financial strategy to support the amended asset management strategy, thus determining how the capital related expenditure forecast will need to be amended over the asset management plan period ending Prepare an amendment report, summarizing the process, strategy and results of the 2016 Asset Management Plan Amendment. 1.4 Maintaining the Asset Management Plan The asset management plan should be updated as the capital needs and priorities of the Township changes. Extenuating weather and traffic load conditions have constituted the need to amend the Township asset management plan. Completing this type of amendment requires the understanding that the state of local infrastructure, expected levels of service, asset management strategy and financing strategy are integrated and impact each other. Looking at these components in reverse order, one can see the financing strategy outlines how the asset management strategy will be funded. The asset management strategy illustrates the costs required to maintain expected levels of service at a sustainable level. The expected levels of service component summarizes and links each service area to specific assets contained in the state of local infrastructure section and thus determines how these assets will be used to provide expected service levels. This amendment report only covers road and bridge assets that have clearly changed the Township focus priorities. 1.5 Amendment Integration The municipal environment is continually changing and demanding when it comes to legislation and other responsibilities. Integrating this asset management plan amendment with Township s budget process, as well as, Public Standards Accounting Board Handbook Section 3150 (tangible capital asset) requirements can make updates in all three areas more efficient. With respect to integrating the Township s budget process with asset management planning, both require a projection of capital and operating costs over a future period. The budget outlines total operating and capital requirements for the Township, while the asset management plan focuses in on specific asset related requirements. With this link to the annual budget, the budget update process can also become an asset management plan update process. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

42 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, Amended State of Local Infrastructure 2.1 Scope and Process This section of the amendment provides an opportunity to outline the assets that have more rapidly degraded and are therefore looking to become higher priorities for either capital improvement or replacement over a short 2 to 4 year period. The Township asset management plan provides a detailed asset inventory listing which was used as a starting point. Discussions with Township staff identified the changes to asset conditions, which then reflected on the asset improvement needs. Burnside engineers and the Township staff reviewed the lifecycles of the assets identified in this project and believe they now reflect the conditions, maintenance practices and management of Township assets. 2.2 Road and Bridge Asset Overview From the Township Asset Management Plan it is clear that Township owned road and bridge assets have the greatest percentage tax supported replacement cost if the road base values were included in the calculation (see Figure Asset Management Plan). Road bases were explained as assets that will never be totally replaced, but will from time to time be improved and in small locations reconstructed on an as needed basis. 2.3 Road Environment Assets The Township s road assets make up a key service that reflects the economic and social development of the community. The road surface and bridge assets contain the following percentage of Township assets when not including the road bases: Road Surface Asphalt 22% of the total Township Road asset replacement costs; Road Surface Gravel 8% of the Total Township Road asset replacement costs; Bridges 70% of the total Township Road asset replacement costs; Below we provide more detail on the two key asset groups in the Road Environment group of assets, Roads, and Bridges Roads At the 2016 replacement cost the road environment assets account for $16.9 million dollars or 57% of the Township s tax supported assets excluding road bases. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

43 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 This has increased due to some significant increases in replacement costs as well as accelerated needs to $19.4 million or close to 61% of the Township s tax supported assets excluding road bases. The composition of the road surfaces is outlined in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Road Surface Composition Road Surface Burnside met with the Township Staff to review the Township roads and establish the main changes to the road conditions from when they were reviewed for the 2016 Asset Management Plan. Discussions with the Township Director of Public Works, helped to identify the road conditions, and identified the changed needs for the asphalt and gravel surface roads. The weighted average condition of the Asphalt roads has decreased from 6.9 (value between 1 to 10), to 6.5. This shows that the Township road network is experiencing greater stress and requiring more attention and funding. It was identified that both: 20 th Sideroad between County Road 11 and 9 th Line; and 5 Sideroad form 2 nd Line to County Road 12 have experienced more rapid increase in degradation caused by potentially several factors as: Increased road traffic; Length (km) Increased vehicle loads (weight); and Some severe/extreme weather events. Condition (weighted average) Condition (Text) Replacement Cost Asphalt 46, Average $4,789,212 Gravel 182, Average $439,820 Total 229,094 Average $5,229,032 Both of these roads were identified in the 2016 Asset Management Plan as priority capital projects, however due to the above noted more rapid degradation greater extended lengths of these roads are now in the greatest need of rehabilitation and capital replacement. It was noted that the Township was falling behind in trying to maintain good asphalt road surfaces, which do eventually affect the road bases (the costlier rehabilitation). It is very important to maintain the road surfaces which are comparatively a minor replacement cost to the major cost to replace/rehabilitate a road base. Due to other major projects as bridge replacements the funding has not been made available to re-enforce the above road bases and replace their asphalt surfaces. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

44 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 A section of 5 Sideroad from County Rd 11 to County Rd 12 noted above is a gravel surface road which has been identified as a problem area which requires more and more calcium and grading to maintain an appropriate level of service to the public. To gain a better understanding of the road conditions it is recommended that the Township complete a Road Needs study. This will provide a more detailed report of condition related deficiencies, and other deficiencies that may impact longevity or operations of Township roads, including road widths, drainage, surface type, alignment, and brushing maintenance where required Bridges The Township has a total of just under $12 million replacement cost of bridge and culvert assets. Figure 2-1 provides the distribution of the types of bridges that the Township owns. Figure 2-1: Township of Amaranth Types of Bridge Structures The capital works needs include any repair, rehabilitation or replacement work which would typically be completed by a Township hired Contractor, to assist in extending the service life of a structure and increasing the Bridge Condition Index (BCI). Taking into consideration the structures calculated BCI s, several structures have been identified for rehabilitation. Within the next six years, three structures have been identified for rehabilitation capital works. d on the biennial inspection of each structure, the Bridge Condition Index (BCI) is calculated for each structure. The Bridge Condition Index Distribution graph, shown in Figure 2-2 below, provides a summary of the current state of the Township s structures. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

45 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Figure 2-2: Bridge Condition Index Distribution (2016) Series The Township moved forward with the reconstruction of Bridge 15 (7 th Line) and Bridge 17 (20 th Sideroad). These projects are expected to be completed in There are 7 more bridges that will need some improvements or replacement to achieve the Province MTO s established goal of 85% of Township structures in good condition (BCI of greater than 70). The next priorities for bridge rehabilitation and/or replacement are: Bridge 6 10 th Line, Rehabilitation including deck surface replacement, cleaning, waterproofing, and asphalt resurfacing (approximate cost $250,000) Bridge 12 6 th Line, Replacement of a single lane bridge with proper two-lane bridge (approximate cost $800,000) Bridge 13 6 th Line, Replacement of a single lane bridge with proper two-lane bridge (approximate cost $800,000) Continued maintenance and completion of rehabilitative or replacement works as recommended in the Bridge report will help to continue a trend of overall improvement of the Municipality s bridge assets. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

46 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, Expected Levels of Service The Township of Amaranth has been offering and maintaining, for its municipality, good service levels during challenging economic times. The Province has become more demanding of all municipalities requiring residents to invest more and more into replacing older infrastructure. Reviewing past records has shown that small investments were being made into maintaining and replacing Township infrastructure. The last few years have seen improvements with greater investments in retaining proper service levels on Township assets. It is important to note that the long-term objective of the Township needs to be infrastructure sustainability. In general, the Township is performing maintenance activities when required. 3.1 Scope and Process The levels of service (LOS) analysis completed in the Asset Management Plan clearly outlined the expected actions the Township was to move forward on to appropriately maintain Township assets. This Amendment to the Township Asset Management Plan does not see any additional service requirements that need to be applied at this time. What was identified as an oversight omission in the body of the text to the 2016 Asset Management Plan was that the Bridge related assets levels of service table. This table was part of Appendix C in the 2016 Asset Management Plan. The same levels of service table related to Township Bridges is now included in Table 3-1. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

47 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Table 3-1: Township Bridge Expected Levels of Service Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Expected Strategic LOS Current LOS Expected LOS Benchmark (if Applicable) Estimated Cost of Expected LOS Cost Description Bridge & Culvert Assets Safe Bridges Bridges Maintained Maintain good bridge condition and 8 bridges with load limits. Follow Bridge Inspection Report recommendations for Bridge and Culvert maintenance. Maintain good condition and no load limits. Proactive Bridge and Culvert maintenance (based on bridge report). MTO bridge guides $100,600 Township is working towards completing this LOS. Closed Bridge 17 will be re-opened after new construction in 2017, and Bridge 15 will be replaced. Township is completing this LOS, with improving the maintenance issues identified in the Township's Bridge Inspection Report over the next 10 years. Required funds are identified in the LOS tables Proper Bridge Spring Maintenance Blowing out Expansion Joints & Washing of Bridges in Spring Blowing out Expansion Joints & Washing of Bridges in Spring Township is completing this LOS Bridge Inspections Bridge inspections (i.e. using OSIM reports) required every 2 years. Bridge inspections (i.e. using OSIM reports) required every 2 years. Completed every 2 years $7,800 Township is completing this LOS R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

48 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, Amended Asset Management Strategy 4.1 Scope and Process The asset management strategy provides the recommended course of actions required to maintain (or move towards) a sustainable asset position while delivering appropriate levels of service. This course of actions, when combined, form a long-term operating and capital forecast that includes: Non-infrastructure solutions: Reduce costs and/or extend expected useful life estimates; Maintenance activities: Regularly scheduled activities to maintain existing levels of service levels, or repairs needed due to unplanned events; Renewal/Rehabilitation: Significant repairs or maintenance planned to maintain the levels of service and increase the remaining life of assets; and Replacement/Disposal: Complete disposal and replacement of assets, when renewal or rehabilitation is no longer an option. Priority identification becomes a critical process during the development of an asset management strategy. Priorities have been determined based on assessment of the overall risk of asset failure, which is determined by looking at both the probability of an asset failing, as well as, the consequences of failure. The consequences of the municipality not meeting desired levels of service must also be considered in determining risk. Adding enhanced levels of service results in both operating and capital budget impacts over the remaining 19 years of a 20-year forecast period. This must be taken into consideration, with the overall objective of reaching sustainable levels while mitigating risk. 4.2 Risk Assessment The risk of an asset failing is defined by the following calculation: Risk of Asset Failure = Probability of Failure X Consequence of Failure Probability of failure has been linked to the condition assessment for each asset, assuming that an asset in very good condition has a rare probability of failure. The following table outlines the probability factor tied to each condition rating: R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

49 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Table 4-1: Probability of Failure Matrix Condition (Value) Condition Probability of Failure 9 10 Very Good Rare 7 8 Good Unlikely 5 6 Average Possible 3 4 Poor Likely 1 2 Very Poor Almost Certain Consequence of failure has been determined by examining each asset type separately. Consequence refers to the impact on the municipality if a particular asset were to fail. Types of impacts include the following: Cost Impacts: the cost of failure to the Township (i.e., capital replacement, rehabilitation, fines and penalties, damages, etc.); Social impacts: potential injury or death to residents; Environmental impacts: the impact of the asset failure on the environment; and Service delivery impacts: the impact of the asset failure on the Township s ability to provide services at desired levels. Each type of impact was reviewed and consequence of failure for each asset type was determined by using the information contained in Table 4-2 as a guide to assess the level of impact. Levels of impact were documented as ranging from significant to insignificant. Table 4-2: Consequence of Failure Matrix Significant Major Moderate Minor Insignificant Cost Social Environmental Significant Cost Difficult to Recover Substantial Cost Multi-year Budget Impacts Considerable Cost Requires Revisions to Budget Small/Minor Cost Within Budget Allocations Negligible or Insignificant Cost Death, Serious Injury Major Injury Moderate Injury Minor Injury No Injury Long-term Impact Permanent Long-term Impact Fixable Medium-term Impact Fixable Short-term/Minor Impact Fixable No Impact Service Delivery Major Interruptions Significant Interruptions Moderate Interruptions Minor Interruptions No Interruptions R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

50 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 With both probability of failure and consequence of failure documented, total risk of asset failure was determined using the matrix contained in Table 4-3. Total risk has been classified under the following categories: Extreme Risk (E): Risk beyond acceptable levels; High Risk (H): Risk slightly beyond acceptable levels; Medium/Moderate Risk (M): Risk at acceptable levels, monitoring required to ensure risk does not become high; and Low Risk (L): Very little risk. Table 4-3: Total Risk of Asset Failure Matrix Probability of Failure Consequence of Failure Significant Major Moderate Minor Insignificant Almost Certain E E H H M Likely E H H M M Possible E H M M L Unlikely H M M L L Rare H M L L L Risk levels can be reduced or mitigated through planned maintenance, rehabilitation and/or replacement of an asset. An objective of this asset management plan is to reduce risk levels where they are deemed to be too high, as well as, ensure assets are maintained in a way that keeps risk at acceptable levels. 4.3 Priority Identification Through a review of the asset risk of failure assessment, the road and bridge assets/categories were identified as being priorities of the Township for over the next few years. Further review of what has been completed and yet to be completed or altered due to changing priorities is listed below. Roads 20 th Sideroad, from in between 9 th Line & 8 th Line to County Rd 11 Updated Recommendation which includes the previously recommended: 20 th Sideroad, from 7 th Line to 8 th Line Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $106,884; 2018); 20 th Sideroad from 4 th Line to 5 th Line (County Rd 12) Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $104,098; 2019). R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

51 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 The total project includes the following contiguous road segments: 20 th Sideroad, from in between 9 th Line & 8 th Line to 8 th Line 20 th Sideroad, from 8 th Line to 7 th Line (as previously recommended) 20 th Sideroad, from 7 th Line to 6 th Line 20 th Sideroad, from 6 th Line to County Rd th Sideroad, from County Rd 12 to 4 th Line 20 th Sideroad, from 4 th Line to County Rd 11 The length of road is 7.8 km in length, with 5 km requiring reinforcement of the road base by way of pulverizing the asphalt surface and mixing it in with the road base. Additional type A gravel will also be added and compacted to extend the life of this road base. This part of the project will also have two lifts of asphalt. The remaining 2.8 km of road will be shave and paved as the road base is still in good condition. The Township is applying for OCIF funding for this project (approximate cost $1,300,000 plus Engineering and Construction Inspection, 2019). Amaranth/Grand Valley Townline, from 20 th Sideroad to 1.8 km north of 20 th Sideroad Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $180,000; 2018). Expected to be completed in Amaranth/Grand Valley Townline from 1.6 km north of 15 th Sideroad to 20 th Sideroad Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $103,950; 2019). 5 th Sideroad from 2 nd Line to County Road 11 Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $100,960; 2019). Moved to 2020 due to 20 th Sideroad priority. Devonleigh Drive from 30 th Sideroad to 30 th Sideroad Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $51,277; 2019). Moved to 2020 due to 20 th Sideroad priority. Station Street from 10 th Line/Mill Street to St. John Street Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $19,539; 2019). Moved to 2020 due to 20 th Sideroad priority. Station Street from St. John Street to Peter Street Recommendation is to replace the surface of this asphalt road (approximate cost $22,479; 2019). Moved to 2020 due to 20 th Sideroad priority. Road bases are not expected to be fully replaced but improved and in localized places dug out and repacked. However, there are several road pavements showing that their road bases need some additional support and stabilization. One of these is the following: 5 th Sideroad from 2 nd Line to County Road 11 (approximate cost $100,000; 2019). Moved to 2020 due to 20 th Sideroad priority. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

52 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Bridges Bridge 17 (20 th Sideroad) This bridge is being completed this year. The remaining elements to be completed are the bridge railings, approaches, waterproofing and road works. The Province of Ontario is providing an Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) Grant to pay 90% of the cost to replace this bridge (approximate cost to the Township $100,000; 2017/18). To be completed in Bridge 15 (7 th Line) The Township had to close this bridge since it did not have sufficient funds to replace it. Last year work was started on replacing the bridge deck but work was stopped due to the base elements required reinforcement. Approximately $650,000 was already invested in this bridge reconstruction, but still more investment is required to have it completed (approximate remaining cost $300,000; 2018). To be completed in Bridge 6 (10 th Line) This bridge based on the bridge inspection report requires rehabilitation to extend the lifecycle (approximate cost $275,000, 2019). Bridge 12 (6 th Line) This bridge needs to be replaced based on the bridge inspection report (approximate cost $800,000, 2020). Bridge 13 (6 th Line) - This bridge needs to be replaced based on the bridge inspection report (approximate cost $800,000, 2020). Facilities Municipal Office HVAC System (Air Conditioner) The old system is well past its life and not working properly therefore needs to be replaced (approximate cost $28,000; 2017). Completed in Public Works Garage Windows Old windows are scheduled to be replaced in (approximate cost $6,000; 2017). Still to be completed. Municipal Office Well Water supply being critical for the proper functioning of this building the well and pump are still working and potentially in good condition but there is concern over its age, and this is recommended to be investigated. The Township may want to ensure that money is set aside for a replacement as soon as it is required (approximate cost $15,000; 2018). Still to be scheduled. Public Works Garage Is an old facility and with growing need for more space for equipment. The expansion of this building is identified (approximate cost $200,000; 2018). To be completed in Vehicles 2000 Ford Sterling Plow Truck Has exceeded its life expectancy and therefore is recommended to be replaced. These types of trucks are critical to ensuring that the Township roads are in good repair and safe to drive (approximate cost $275,000; 2017). New Truck was purchased R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

53 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, Ford F-150 Pickup Truck Has exceeded it life expectancy and therefore is recommended to be replaced. This is a vehicle that has been well used by Township Road staff (approximate cost $32,000). New Truck was purchased Grader Champion 740S4 Is well past its expected life and is recommended to be replaced. These types of vehicles are critical to ensuring that Township roads are in good repair and safe to drive (approximate cost $415,000; 2018). Still to be scheduled Volvo Loader This vehicle is past it s useful life and starting to show signed of its age, and recommended to be replaced (approximate cost $250,000; 2020). Street Lights Township Street Lights The Township has not yet converted their street lights to LED lighting. The conversion will save the Township 40%-50% in electrical costs annually which can be over $5,000 per year which will pay off the capital investment expense in less than 10 years (approximate cost $45,000; 2018). To be completed in Storm Ponds Storm Retention Pond James Street Runoff from the neighbouring agricultural land has caused for some cleanout work required to ensure that this storm pond is functioning well (approximate cost $4,500; 2017). Completed in This list of capital asset replacements are only for the next few years, and do not limit the needs that the Township requires to become fully sustainable. The Finance Strategy will further outline the needs for investing in assets annually via reserves to ensure that funds are available for future asset replacements. 4.4 Long-term Forecast For many years, lifecycle costing has been used in the field of engineering to evaluate the advantages of using alternative materials in construction or production design. The method has gained wider acceptance and use recently in the management of capital assets. By definition lifecycle costs are all the costs which are incurred during the lifecycle of a capital asset, from the time it is purchased or constructed, to the time it is taken out of service for disposal. In defining the long-term forecast for the Township s asset management strategy, costs incurred through an asset s lifecycle, the assets condition, expected LOS, and risk were considered and documented. Asset Replacement Analysis in forecasting the municipality s asset replacement needs are summarized in Figure 4-1, which we are calling Amended Asset Strategy Scenario 1 based on expected levels of service. This asset strategy was further developed into an Amended Scenario 2a, and 2b. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

54 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 This second developed scenario takes the developed asset strategy and applies a Capital Phased-In Approach as shown in Figure 4-2. Scenario 2 is fully discussed in Chapter 5. The amended asset strategy incorporated all the information discussed above in this amendment report and based on the information provided by the Township, staff input, and understanding of the asset s reaction in their current environment as well as the expected asset maintenance levels, and the current asset condition, which is expected to produce a reduced asset potential risk of failure. The outcome of this scenario approach was to provide appropriate asset service levels, and assets are expected to meet or exceed their useful life which reduces expected infrastructure deficits. In total, $25.5 million in assets (inflated to appropriate year) are shown as replacement needs in the amended 19 years of the 20-year forecast assuming the Township receives approximately $1.3 million in OCIF funding for 20 th Sideroad reconstruction. This is the recommended amended asset strategy for the Township of Amaranth. Without the OCIF funding the total will be $26.8 million over the same period. Assets like Bridges, Storm Water, and Facility Structures, are not expected to be replaced for usually over 50 years. It needs to be stated to ensure that these assets have reserve funding for their replacement schedule in the future. These assets will need to be replaced beyond the amended 19 year analysis period and not having reserve funds to do so will elevate the risk of failure to extreme levels in the future. Scenario 2b attempts to provide the Township with an investment plan into Township reserve accounts. For the recommended scenario to be feasible, it is important that the Township follow through with the expected level of service adjustments discussed in the 2016 Asset Management Plan in conjunction with the current level of service amounts in order to effectively maintain and rehabilitate the assets as required. The financing strategy discussed in the next chapter will incorporate the level of service adjustments into the recommended financing analysis. Please refer to Appendix C for the full amended 19-year details. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

55 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Figure 4-1: Amended Scenario 1 - Proposed Tax Supported Asset Strategy d on Expected Levels of Service and OCIF Funding R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

56 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Figure 4-2: Scenario 2 Capital Phased In Approach 2,500,000 Tax Supported Assets Amended Scenario 2 - Capital Phased-In Approach - Inflated Future Replacement Cost (Inflated) 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 Scenario 2a Scenario 2b Year of Replacement R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

57 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, Amended Financing Strategy 5.1 Scope and Process The financing strategy outlines the suggested financial approach to funding the tax supported asset management strategies outlined in Chapter 4, while utilizing the Township s existing budget structure and available funding sources. This section of the amended asset management plan includes: Annual expenditure forecasts broken down by lifecycle cost, including: Maintenance/non-infrastructure solutions; Renewal/rehabilitation activities; Replacement/disposal activities; and Expansion activities. An approximation of the annual funding devoted to Capital improvements/ Replacements; Identification of the funding shortfall and the infrastructure gap, including how the impact will be managed; and All key assumptions documented. The financing strategy forecasts (including both expenditure and approximate capital revenue sources) were prepared consistent with the Township s budget structure so that it can be used in conjunction with the annual budget process. Various financing options, including user fees, reserve funds, debt, and grants were considered during the process. For all amended financing strategy scenarios, a detailed 19 year of the original 20 year plan was generated. The plan identifies specific lifecycle costs and associated funding sources required for the asset management strategies described in Chapter Tax Supported Financing Strategies As discussed in Chapter 4, two asset management strategies were developed to provide different avenues of moving towards sustainable asset management planning. Amended Scenario 1 outlines the preferred approach, allocating rehabilitation and replacement needs based on asset condition, risk and expected levels of service. Amended Scenario 2, the recommended approach, provides for the same capital needs as Amended Scenario 1 over the 19 years of the 20-year forecast period, however, some potential capital deferrals are used to phase-in the impact over earlier years to assist with affordability. Included in this chapter are three distinct financing strategies, one for Amended Scenario 1 and two for Amended Scenario 2 (referred to as 2a and 2b), that attempt to move the Township towards asset management sustainability. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

58 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Table 5-1 below provides a costing overview of the three financing strategies and the cumulative, non-inflated and inflated capital expenses over five, ten, and nineteen years of the original 20-year forecast. Please note that the totals below include not only rehabilitation and replacement needs identified in Chapter 4, but also levels of service and expansion related capital costs. Amended Scenarios 2a and 2b provide the same capital forecast; however, provide different options on how to finance the recommended asset management scenario. As noted above, Amended Scenario 2 ensures all capital identified in Amended Scenario 1 is completed by the end of the 20 year forecast, but achieves so at a marginally higher price due to capital inflation. Table 5-1: Tax Supported Financing Strategy Scenarios Capital Over 5 Years Total Potential Added to Reserves Over 10 Years Total Potential Added to Reserves Over 19 Years Several methods of funding capital expenditures are utilized across all three financing strategy scenarios, in particular: Taxation funding is suggested for all maintenance costs, reserve fund transfers, as well as levels of service adjustment related costs related to operations. Formula based Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) proceeds and Gas Tax proceeds are expected to be stable and long-term funding sources for capital projects. OCIF Proposal Funding for 20 th Sideroad reconstruction project is included. Total Potential Added to Reserves Non-Inflated Amended Scenario 1 $7,801,653 $0 $12,406,908 $0 $21,507,854 $0 Amended Scenario 2a $5,187,500 ($2,614,153) $10,687,500 ($1,719,408) $21,375,000 ($132,854) Amended Scenario 2b $5,375,000 ($2,426,653) $11,375,000 ($1,031,908) $23,750,000 $2,242,146 Inflated Amended Scenario 1 $8,142,375 $0 $13,392,856 $0 $25,560,272 $0 Amended Scenario 2a $5,509,803 ($2,632,572) $11,959,358 ($1,433,498) $26,382,139 $821,867 Amended Scenario 2b $5,711,485 ($2,430,890) $12,750,000 ($642,856) $29,466,908 $3,906,636 R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

59 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 External Debt financing may be an additional measure required to help smooth capital financing in years where there are increases in funding requirements. This is in particular a good method over the first five years of the 20-year plan. Internal debt issued from the Township s Reserve Fund (when accumulated) can be utilized to help fund annual capital needs understanding that these Reserve Funds need continuous investment to provide for potential unexpected capital needs as well as long term capital needs. The portion of newly acquired or constructed assets that are growth (DC) related can be financed by development charges. The Township will be dependent upon maintaining healthy capital reserve funds in order to provide the remainder of the required funding over the forecast period. This will require the Township to proactively increase amounts being transferred to these capital reserve funds during the annual budget process. Amended Scenario 2b is the most applicable for the Township to implement and increase the capital reserve accounts, as beyond the 20-year forecast period there will be additional capital needs that will need funding Amended Scenario 1: Expected Levels of Service Figure 5-1 below presents the first 10 years of the amended capital forecast for Amended Scenario 1. This forecast ensures that capital assets are rehabilitated or replaced as identified, based on levels of service, risk and condition (see Chapter 4). R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

60 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Figure 5-1: Tax Supported Assets Amended Scenario 1 d on Expected Levels of Service Table 5-2 shows the tax supported expenditure forecast for maintenance, renewal/ rehabilitation, replacement/disposal and expansion for the first 10 years of the forecast. While this summary only shows high-level cost classifications, further detail (including the full 20-year forecast) can be obtained from Appendix A and Appendix C. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

61 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Table 5-2: Tax Supported Capital Expenditure Forecast Amended Scenario 1: Expected LOS Asset Type Total Scheduled Capital - Inflated 1,502, ,025 1,601,589 2,945,053 1,195,699 1,244,722 1,425,623 1,172, , ,938 Road Surface - Asphalt 242, , , , , , ,113 38,826 39, ,872 Road Surface - Gravel 142, , , , , , , , , ,703 Road 1,000 1, ,312 1,061 1,082 1,104 1,126 1,149 1,172 1,195 Bridge & Culverts 417, ,461 18,582 1,854,843 19, ,872 20, , ,675 - Facilities 204,500-78,030 12, , Sidewalks Signs 4,500 4,590 4,682 4,775 4,871 4,968 5,068 5,169 5,272 5,378 Barriers ,688 Street Lights 45, Cross Road Culverts 4,500 4,590 4,682 4,775 4,871 4,968 5,068 5,169 5,272 5,378 Storm Mains Catch Basin 2,000 2,040 2,081 2,122 2,165 2,208 2,252 2,297 2,343 2,390 Storm Manhole Storm Pond Discharge Point Vehicles 415, , , ,791-33, ,052 36, ,206 - Equipment 20, ,217 1,167 19, ,004 77,587 29,291 20,914 Software & Hardware 2,500 17,053 17,791 6,049 27, ,456 3,101 24,019 9,823 Land Improvements ,404-6,495-16,892 17,230 6,444 - R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

62 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 In order to fund the amended asset requirements over the forecast period using the Township s own available funding sources (i.e., using taxation, Gas Tax funding, OCIF funding, reserves/reserve funds, and internal and external debentures), no changes to the 2016 Asset Management Plan Financing Strategy will be required. This was identified as an increase in the Township s taxation levy of approximately 1% 2% annually. However, if other funding sources become available (i.e., grant funding) or if maintenance and rehabilitation practices allow for the deferral of capital works, then the impact on the Township s taxation levy would decrease under Amended Scenario 1 implementation Amended Scenarios 2a, and 2b As previously mentioned, Amended Scenarios 2a and 2b present different funding options to finance the recommended asset management strategy. The major difference between these two approaches is the extent to which capital assets are either financed through external debt, or deferred until funds are available as well as the resulting impact on projected taxation rates. Scenario 2b opts to use less external debentures, resulting in higher taxation rates, while Scenario 2a utilizes more potential external debentures, which has the effect of reducing the impact on taxation (by spreading capital costs out over many years). However, both Amended Scenarios require $1.3 million in OCIF funding for 20 th Sideroad reconstruction. Also note that even with a 1% annual tax increase towards capital funding it will take over 10 years in Scenario 2b to attain a positive investment into Capital Reserves. Figure 5-2 below presents the first 10 years of the capital forecast for the recommended Amended Scenario 2 asset management strategy. In this figure, the different Amended Scenarios 2a and 2b are shown. This forecast gradually increases the investment in capital assets over the forecast period. Both Amended Scenario 2a and 2b start at $1,000,000 in 2017 as outlined in the 2016 Asset Management Plan. The difference between Amended Scenario 2a and 2b is that Scenario 2b has a higher annual increase in annual taxation. Scenario 2a increases by 0.5% and Scenario 2b increases by 1%, each year over the 20 year forecast period. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

63 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Figure 5-2: Tax Supported Assets Scenario 2a and 2b The Amended Scenario 2 asset management strategy defers the timing of some of the capital assets identified in the early years of Amended Scenario 1 to assist in implementing sustainable funding. Please note that if additional funding is identified (i.e., grants) beyond the OCIF August 2018 submission or cost efficiencies are found through annual budget processes going forward, this infrastructure gap could be reduced further. Table 5-3: Tax Supported Capital Expenditure Forecast Asset Type Scenario 2a 1,032,750 1,066,410 1,101,003 1,136,554 1,173,086 1,210,625 1,249,196 1,288,825 1,329,540 1,371,369 Scenario 2b 1,045,500 1,092,420 1,140,799 1,190,675 1,242,091 1,295,087 1,349,706 1,405,991 1,463,988 1,523,743 Table 5-3 shows the tax supported expenditure forecast for maintenance, renewal/ rehabilitation, replacement/disposal and expansion for the first 10 years of the amended forecast. While this summary only shows required investment, further detail (including the full 19 remaining years of the 20-year forecast) can be found in Appendix C. In order to fund the recommended asset requirements over the forecast period using the Township s own available funding sources (i.e., using taxation, Gas Tax funding, OCIF funding, reserves/reserve funds, and internal and external debentures), an increase in the Township s taxation levy (which includes inflationary operating adjustments, assumed to be 2.0%). R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

64 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Amended Scenario 2a and 2b have a starting point at $1,000,000 in year 2017, and increasing at a lower rate than Amended Scenario 2b, increasing at a higher annual rate. The objective of these two amended scenarios was to ensure that the total funding required was in place to complete the capital works over the 20-year asset management forecast period. Amended Scenario 2 may require some debt or initial draining of reserve funds or capital project deferral. It is important to point out that debt would be a short term need as the tax levies catch up with the capital requirements of the Township in the second half of the 20-year forecast period. However, if other funding sources become available (i.e., grant funding) or if maintenance and rehabilitation practices allow for the deferral of capital works, then the impact on the Township s taxation levy would decrease Financing Strategies Summary The main differences between the scenarios: The deferral of capital within the 20-year forecast period in Amended Scenarios 2a, and 2b; The use of external debentures to help finance capital in the early years of the forecast period; and The year-over-year increases to the taxation rate. Assuming the Township receives the OCIF funding for 20 th Sideroad reconstruction and maintains adequate capital reserve funds, both financing strategies will fully fund all capital identified for replacement via their expected levels of service. While the annual funding requirement may fluctuate, it is important for the Township to implement a consistent, yet increasing annual investment in capital so that the excess annual funds can accrue in capital reserve funds. If the Township does not receive the OCIF funding for 20 th Sideroad reconstruction then Amended Scenario 2a will not be sufficient to fund all the identified capital and maintenance requirements further expanding the infrastructure gap. Not to mention the additional capital needs that will be required beyond the 20-year forecast period. Table 5-4 shows this shortfall. Amended Scenario 2b will still be able to complete the necessary projects, however it will not leave much in capital reserves for beyond the forecast period. The Township really needs to receive the OCIF funding to take some of the pressure off the Township s infrastructure gap. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

65 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 Table 5-4: Tax Supported Financing Strategy Scenarios without 2018 OCIF Funding Capital Over 5 Years Total Potential Added to Reserves Tax Supported Services Over 10 Years Capital investment is hereto referred as the sum of annual contributions to fund capital asset rehabilitation, replacement, and/or expansion. For the purposes of the Township, this can take the form of contributions to capital reserves/reserve funds, internal and external debt payments and consistent capital grant funding. This differs from the Township s annual budget and forecast, which includes asset maintenance from an operating perspective and one-time funding for capital projects. The annual capital investment represents ongoing and constant investments in capital over the forecast period. From a tax supported asset base perspective, the estimated amended optimal annual capital investment is approximately $1.4 million, from the $1.1 million stated in the 2016 Asset Management Plan. d on the Township s 2017 budget, current annual capital investment of approximately $1,000,000. This would provide a high-level estimate of the Township s annual tax supported infrastructure funding gap at $400,000, which is $300,000 higher than previously stated Improving the Annual Funding Deficit Total Potential Added to Reserves Over 19 Years Under the recommended amended financing strategy 2b, the Township would be making proactive attempts to mitigate these funding gaps over the forecast period. Total Potential Added to Reserves Non-Inflated Amended Scenario 1 $9,090,521 $0 $13,695,776 $0 $22,796,722 $0 Amended Scenario 2a $5,187,500 ($3,903,021) $10,687,500 ($3,008,276) $21,375,000 ($1,421,722) Amended Scenario 2b $5,375,000 ($3,715,521) $11,375,000 ($2,320,776) $23,750,000 $953,278 Inflated Amended Scenario 1 $9,457,020 $0 $14,707,501 $0 $26,874,918 $0 Amended Scenario 2a $5,509,803 ($3,947,217) $11,959,358 ($2,748,144) $26,382,139 ($492,779) Amended Scenario 2b $5,711,485 ($3,745,535) $12,750,000 ($1,957,501) $29,466,908 $2,591,990 R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

66 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, 2018 To further mitigate the potential infrastructure funding deficit, the Township could consider: Decreasing expected levels of service to make available capital funding; Issuing more debt for significant and/or unforeseen capital projects, in addition to the debt recommended within this report, while staying within the Township s debt capacity limits (this would have the impact of spreading out the capital repayment over a defined term); Actively seeking out and applying for grants; Consider approaching the community for funding assistance with respect to growth/ expansion related projects; Rate increases, where needed (i.e., taxation); and/or Implementing net operating reductions or efficiencies. For example: Reduced operating costs to allow for more capital investment. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

67 Township of Amaranth Asset Management Plan July 25, Recommendations The following recommendations have been provided for the Township of Amaranth consideration: That this 2018 Amendment to the Amaranth Asset Management Plan be received and approved by the Township of Amaranth Council; and That consideration of this 2018 Amendment to the Amaranth Asset Management Plan be given as part of the annual budgeting process to ensure sufficient capital funds are available to fund capital requirements over the long-term. The current level of funding for asset replacement and renewal at the Township will not sufficiently fund required capital needs or close the infrastructure funding gap. As such, it is recommended that the following be considered: That Council approve the recommended financing strategy amended scenario 2b, for Township staff to implement moving forward; That the levels of service strategies discussed in 2016 Asset Management Plan be implemented; That the Township use reserve funds for asset management planning purposes; That this Asset Management Plan be updated and improved as needed over time to reflect the current priorities of the Township; and That the Township consider the capital priorities identified within this report when applying for future grants or deciding on how to utilize Gas Tax, OCIF funding and/or other funding that becomes available. Substantial investment in asset capital needs will be required over the 20-year forecast period and beyond. Through the recommendations provided above, proactive steps will be made to increase capital investment, as well as, reduce the annual infrastructure funding gap for Township assets. Enhanced maintenance plans will assist in maintaining adequate asset conditions, mitigate asset risk as well as potentially defer capital needs within the forecast period. In addition, the Township of Amaranth is recommended to pursue all available capital grants wherever possible to further reduce the infrastructure funding gap. Through the creation of this plan, the Township has been provided with Excel spreadsheets in which amendments and revisions can be made as needed by the Township. It is anticipated that this plan adopted by Township Council will be monitored and updated frequently as part of the budget process, with refinements and specific recommendations being provided with respect to the priority of each individual project. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Amendment to Amaranth Asset Management Plan.docx

68 Appendix A Appendix A Township Roads and Bridge Asset Inventory & Asset Management Plan Assumptions

69 Amaranth Roads - Road Section Inventory Current Leveles of Service Expected Levels of Service + Town Input Replacement/Improvement Year d on Current Levels Service Replacement/Improvement Year d on Expected Levels Service Probability of Asset Failure Expected Levels of Service Condition Year Replacement due Revised Levels Revised Proposed Extended Life Revised Levels Year Replacement Surface Length Width Square Useful Remaining 2015 Accumulated 2015 Net Book Replacement Condition d On Condition from Condition Used (d on Consequence of Risk of Numerical Value Current Levels of Year Replacement Subsequent Year for % benefit over Current + Subsequent Revised Remaining Fixed Asset # Map Link Subtype Asset Name - Roads From To Classification Type Install Year Age Historic Cost (As per to minimmal Service Replacement Remaining Rehabilitation Cost (Years) due to Service Replacement Applying Risk Score - or Material (m) (m) meters (m) Life Useful Life Amortization System Value System Cost/Section Useful Life Town for Analysis Condition or Failure Failure of Risk of Failure Service % benefit Applying Risk Score Replacement Year Rehabilitation Condition better then Replacement Year3 Useful Life5 Priority maintenance practices Year Useful Life (2016 $) Betterment Year2 Staff Override Expected expected for age Rating) Condition) 229, $2,524,522 $799,394 $687,541 $5,229, $4,000 10TH LINE from Henry ST to Section 5th Line HENRY STREET 5TH LINE Rural Asphalt $ 55, $186, Good Unlikely Moderate M TH SIDEROAD from 10th Line to 9th Line 10TH SIDEROAD 9TH SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt , , $91,323 $138, Very Good Rare Moderate L MONO 20TH SIDEROAD from 2nd Line AMARANTH Section to Amaranth/Mono TL 2ND LINE TOWNLINE Rural Asphalt $ 86, $139, Good Unlikely Moderate M TH SIDEROAD from 4th Line COUNTY ROAD Section to County Rd 11 4TH LINE 11 Rural Asphalt $ 77,255 $ 77,255 $0 $151, Average Possible Moderate M TH SIDEROAD from 5th Line Section to 4th Line 5TH LINE 4TH LINE Rural Asphalt $ 66,175 $ 66,175 $0 $130, Average Possible Moderate M TH LINE 20TH SIDEROAD from 6th Line (COUNTY ROAD Section to 5th Line (County Rd 12) 6TH LINE 12) Rural Asphalt $ 81, $176, Poor Likely Moderate H TH SIDEROAD from 7th Line Section to 6th Line 7TH LINE 6TH LINE Rural Asphalt $ 111, $238, Poor Likely Moderate H TH SIDEROAD from 8th Line Section to 7th Line 8TH LINE 7TH LINE Rural Asphalt $ 83, $187, Poor Likely Moderate H TH SIDEROAD from AMARANTH Amaranth/East Luther TL to EAST LUTHER th Line TOWNLINE 10TH LINE Rural Asphalt , , $87,093 $105, Very Good Rare Moderate L TH SIDEROAD from County Section Rd 11 to 2th Line COUNTY ROAD 11 2ND LINE Rural Asphalt $ 77, $125, Good Unlikely Moderate M th SR from.6km E. of 9th 0.6 km E. of 9TH Section Line to 8th Line LINE 8TH LINE Rural Asphalt $ 48, $104, Poor Likely Moderate H th SR from 9th Line to.6km 0.6 km E. of 9TH Section E. of 9th Line 9TH LINE LINE Rural Asphalt $ 79,653 $24,347 $55,306 $62, Very Good Rare Moderate L km N. of 2nd Line from County Rd 109 COUNTY ROAD COUNTY ROAD Section to.6km N of County Rd Rural Asphalt $ 35, $62, Average Possible Moderate M TH SIDEROAD from 2nd Line 2ND LINE (County Rd 11) to.7km E of (COUNTY ROAD 0.7 km E. of 2ND Section 2nd Line 11) LINE Rural Asphalt $ 40, $70, Good Unlikely Moderate M MONO _ 30th SR from.7km E. of 2nd 0.7 KM E. of 2ND AMARANTH Section Line to Amaranth / Mon TL LINE TOWNLINE Rural Asphalt $ 40, $69, Poor Likely Moderate H AMARANTH 5th Sideroad from 10th Line to EAST LUTHER Section GV / Amaranth Townline TOWNLINE 10TH LINE Rural Asphalt $1,498 $9,738 $131, Very Good Rare Moderate L MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE th SR from.7km E. of 2nd lin 0.7 km E. of 2ND (COUNTY ROAD 2403 Section to Amaranth / Mono TL LINE 16) Rural Asphalt $ 41, $68, Good Unlikely Moderate M th SR from 2nd Line to.7km 0.7 km E. of 2ND Section E. of 2nd Line 2ND LINE LINE Rural Asphalt $ 41, $70, Good Unlikely Moderate M th SR from 2nd Line to Section County Rd 11 2nd Line County Rd 11 Rural Asphalt $ 79, $126, Poor Likely Minor M km N. of 6th Line from County Rd 10 to COUNTY ROAD Section.4km N. of County Rd 10 COUNTY ROAD Rural Asphalt $ 21,104 $ 21,104 $0 $44, Good Unlikely Moderate M TH LINE from County Rd 109 COUNTY ROAD Section to 5th SR 109 5TH SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt $ 31,206 $11,493 $19,713 $45, Good Unlikely Moderate M th Line from Box Culvert to COUNTY ROAD Section Station Str 109 STATION STREET Rural Asphalt $1,230 $7,997 $104, Very Good Rare Moderate L TH LINE from County Rd 109 to 128 m North of County COUNTY ROAD Section Road STATION STREET Rural Asphalt $ 10, $16, Very Good Rare Moderate L AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE from 1.6km N of 1.6 km N. of 15TH Section 15th SR to 20th SR SIDEROAD 20TH SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt $ 2,467 $ 2,467 $129, Average Possible Moderate M AMARANTH / EAST LUTHER TL from 0.6km N of 20th SR to 0.6 km N. of 20TH 1.4 km N. of 20TH 2380 Section 1.4km N. of 20th SR SIDEROAD SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt Disposed AMARANTH / EAST LUTHER TL from 20th SR to 1.4km N. of 1.4 km N. of 20TH 2385 Section 20th SR SR 20TH SIDEROAD SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt Disposed AMARANTH / Grand Valley TOWNLINE from 20th SR to 1.8 km N. of 20TH Section 1.8km N of 20th SR 20th SR SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt $ 42, $180, Average Possible Moderate M Amaranth / Mono TL from 0.25 l, S. of 20th Section 15th SR to.25km S of 20th SR 15th Sideroad Sideroad Rural Asphalt ,204 $ $48, Average Possible Moderate M Amaranth / Mono TL from Section 30th SR to.6km N of 30th SR 30TH SIDEROAD 0.6 km N. of 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt ,635 $ $59, Good Unlikely Moderate M AMARANTH / MONO TOWNLINE from.3km S of 0.3 km S. of 20TH Section 20th SR to 20th SR SIDEROAD 20TH SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt ,583 $ $27, Average Possible Moderate M AMARANTH / MONO TOWNLINE from 20th SR to 3202 Section 25th SR 20TH SIDEROAD 25TH SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt $ 39, Not to be replaced as rolled into ID 3259 AMARANTH / MONO TOWNLINE from 20th SR to Section 25th SR 20TH SIDEROAD 25TH SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt ,681 $ $88,882 $126,797 $306, Average Possible Moderate M AMARANTH / MONO TOWNLINE from 25th SR to Section 30th SR 25TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Asphalt ,038 $ $90,497 $109,541 $304, Good Unlikely Moderate M CEDAR PLACE from MAPLEWOOD DRIVE to END MAPLEWOOD END OF CEDAR Section OF CEDAR PLACE DRIVE PLACE Semi Urban Asphalt ,481 $ 15,481 $ $29, Average Possible Moderate M CHERRYWOOD PLACE from END OF MAPLEWOOD DRIVE to END MAPLEWOOD CHERRYWOOD Section OF CHERRYWOOD Place DRIVE DRIVE Semi Urban Asphalt ,708 $ 15,708 $ $30, Average Possible Moderate M CHURCH STREET from 10th Section Line to Mill St 10TH LINE MILL STREET Semi Urban Asphalt ,928 $ 21,928 $ $36, Very Good Rare Moderate L Crago Road From 5th Sideroad Section to end of culdesac 5TH SIDEROAD End of Culdesac Semi Urban Asphalt $2,513 $35,186 $58, Very Good Rare Moderate L David St from Mill St to Main Section St MILL STREET MAIN STREET Semi Urban Asphalt ,208 $ 3,208 $ $9, Good Unlikely Moderate M DEVONLEIGH DRIVE from 30th Section SR to 30th SR 30TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Semi Urban Asphalt ,325 $ $64, Average Possible Moderate M Evans Ave from James St to Section end JAMES STREET END Urban Asphalt ,047 $ 1,047 $ $2, Good Unlikely Moderate M Evans Ave from James St to Section Henry St JAMES STREET HENRY STREET Urban Asphalt ,555 $ 2,555 $ $7, Good Unlikely Moderate M HENRY STREET from Evans St Section to End EVANS STREET END Urban Asphalt ,340 $ 2,340 $ $6, Good Unlikely Moderate M HENRY STREET from Main St to Section Evans St MAIN STREET EVANS STREET Urban Asphalt ,211 $ 5,211 $ $14, Good Unlikely Moderate M HENRY STREET from Mill St to Section Main St MILL STREET MAIN STREET Urban Asphalt ,242 $ 3,242 $ $9, Good Unlikely Moderate M HORNETT LANE from Menary COUNTY ROAD Section Drive to County Rd 10 MENARY DRIVE 10 Semi Urban Asphalt ,448 $ 3,448 $ $7, Average Possible Moderate M Hughson St Amaranth/Mono Amaranth/Mono Section Townline to Crago Rd CRAGO ROAD Townline Semi Urban Asphalt $2,689 $37,645 $65, Very Good Rare Moderate L James St from Evans Ave to Section End of James St EVANS AVENUE END OF JAMES STREET Urban Asphalt ,460 $ 9,460 $ $26, Good Unlikely Moderate M $4, John St from Church St to Mill Section St CHURCH STREET CHURCH STREET Urban Asphalt ,881 $ 10,881 $ $30, Good Unlikely Moderate M MAIN STREET from David St to Section Henry St DAVID STREET HENRY STREET Urban Asphalt ,987 $ 6,987 $ $19, Good Unlikely Moderate M Maplewood Dr from Cherrywood Place to CHERRYWOOD WOODLAND Section Woodland Rd PLACE ROAD Semi Urban Asphalt ,593 $ 14,593 $ $27, Average Possible Moderate M Maplewood Dr from END OF Woodland Rd to End of WOODLAND MAPLEWOOD Section Maplewood Dr ROAD DRIVE Semi Urban Asphalt ,926 $ 6,926 $ $13, Average Possible Moderate M MAPLEWOOD DRIVE from MONO Amaranth / Mono TL to Cedar AMARANTH Section Place TOWNLINE CEDAR PLACE Semi Urban Asphalt ,536 $ 19,536 $ $37, Average Possible Moderate M MAPLEWOOD DRIVE from SYLVANWOOD Section Cedar Place to Sylvanwood Rd CEDAR PLACE ROADE Semi Urban Asphalt ,345 $ 10,345 $ $19, Average Possible Moderate M MAPLEWOOD DRIVE from Sylanwood Rd to Cherrywood SYLVANWOOD CHERRYWOOD Section Place ROAD PLACE Semi Urban Asphalt ,649 $ 4,649 $ $8, Average Possible Moderate M Mckibbon Ave from Crago Section Road to Hughson Street CRAGO ROAD HUGHSON STREET Semi Urban Asphalt $2,731 $38,230 $65, Very Good Rare Moderate L

70 Fixed Asset # Map Link Subtype Asset Name - Roads From To Classification Probability of Asset Failure Condition Year Replacement due Revised Levels Surface Length Width Square Useful Remaining 2015 Accumulated 2015 Net Book Replacement Condition d On Condition from Condition Used (d on Consequence of Risk of Numerical Value Current Levels of Year Replacement Subsequent Type Install Year Age Historic Cost (As per to minimmal Service Replacement Material (m) (m) meters (m) Life Useful Life Amortization System Value System Cost/Section Useful Life Town for Analysis Condition or Failure Failure of Risk of Failure Service % benefit Applying Risk Score Replacement Year Priority maintenance practices Year Expected Rating) Condition) MENARY DRIVE from County 2045 Section Rd 12 to Hornett Lane COUNTY ROAD 12 HORNETT LANE Semi Urban Asphalt $ 9,126 $ 9,126 $20, Average Possible Moderate M Mill St from Church St to David 2049 Section St CHURCH STREET DAVID STREET Urban Asphalt $ 8,738 $ 8,738 $24, Good Unlikely Moderate M Mill St from David St to Station 2049 Section St DAVID STREET STATION STREET Urban Asphalt $ 5,023 $ 5,023 $14, Good Unlikely Moderate M MILL STREET from Station St to 2049 Section Henry St STATION STREET HENRY STREET Urban Asphalt $ 2,339 $ 2,339 $6, Good Unlikely Moderate M MONO AMARANTH TOWNLINE from.6km N of 0.6 km N. of 30TH 2032 Section 30th SR to Highway 89 SIDEROAD HIGHWAY 89 Rural Asphalt $ 34, $59, Good Unlikely Moderate M Peter Court from Peter St to END OF PETER 2034 Section end of Peter Court PETER STREET COURT Urban Asphalt $ 10, $16, Good Unlikely Moderate M Expected Levels of Service Revised Proposed Extended Life Revised Levels Year Replacement Year for % benefit over Current + Subsequent Revised Remaining Remaining Rehabilitation Cost (Years) due to Service Replacement Applying Risk Score - or Rehabilitation Condition better then Replacement Year3 Useful Life5 Useful Life (2016 $) Betterment Year2 Staff Override expected for age PETER STREET from Russel Hill RUSSEL HILL PETER STREET / Section Rd to Peter St / Peter Court ROAD PETER COURT Urban Asphalt ,363 $ $34, Good Unlikely Moderate M PETER STREET from St John St Section to Russel Hill Rd ST. JOHN STREET RUSSEL HILL ROAD Urban Asphalt ,894 $ $12, Good Unlikely Moderate M RUSSEL HILL ROAD from Peter PETER STREET / Section St / Peter Court to Peter St PETER COURT PETER STREET Urban Asphalt $ 28, $45, Good Unlikely Moderate M RUSSEL HILL ROAD from St Section John St to Peter St ST. JOHN STREET PETER STREET Urban Asphalt $ 17, $28, Good Unlikely Moderate M END OF SHANNON COURT from 3rd SHANNON Section Line to end of Shannon Court 3RD LINE COURT Rural Asphalt $ 31,536 $ 31,536 $65, Average Possible Moderate M ST. JOHN STREET from Russel RUSSEL HILL Section Hill Rd to Peter St ROAD PETER STREET Urban Asphalt $ 30, $47, Good Unlikely Moderate M ST. JOHN STREET from Station RUSSEL HILL Section St to Russel Hill Rd STATION STREET ROAD Urban Asphalt $ 11, $19, Good Unlikely Moderate M Station St from 10th Line/Mill Section St to St. John Street 10TH LINE ST. JOHN STREET Semi Urban Asphalt $ 22, $36, Average Possible Moderate M Station St from St. John St to Section Peter St ST. JOHN STREET PETER STREET Semi Urban Asphalt $ 17, $28, Average Possible Moderate M Station Str from 9th Line to 0.3 km E. of Section East Boundary Line PETER STREET 9TH LINE Rural Asphalt $522 $3,393 $53, Good Unlikely Moderate M SYLVANWOOD ROAD, from HIGHWAY 89 to MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD Section DRIVE HIGHWAY 89 DRIVE Semi Urban Asphalt $ 13,578 $ 13,578 $25, Average Possible Moderate M WOODLAND ROAD from END OF Maplewood Dr to end of MAPLEWOOD WOODLAND Section Woodland Dr DRIVE DRIVE Semi Urban Asphalt $ 23,067 $ 23,067 $44, Average Possible Moderate M th Line from 15th SR to 20th SR 15TH SIDEROAD 20TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel , , $2,245 $4, Very Good Rare Minor L th Line From 20th Sideroad Section To 25th Sideroad 20TH SIDEROAD 25TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $9, Average Possible Minor M th Line From 25th Sideroad Section To 30th Sideroad 25TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $9, Average Possible Minor M th Line From 30th Sideroad Section To Highway 89 30TH SIDEROAD HIGHWAY 89 Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Line from 5th SR to COUNTY ROAD County Rd 10 5TH SIDEROAD 10 Rural Gravel , , $2,473 $4, Very Good Rare Minor L th Line from County Rd 10 to 15th SR COUNTY ROAD 10 15TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel , , $2,267 $4, Very Good Rare Minor L th Sideroad From 10th Line Section To 9th Line 10TH LINE 9TH LINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M MONO 15th Sideroad From 2nd Line AMARANTH Section To Amaranth/Mono TL 2ND LINE TOWNLINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 4th Line COUNTY ROAD Section To County Rd 11 4TH LINE 11 Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M TH LINE 15th Sideroad From 6th Line (COUNTY ROAD Section To County Rd 12 6TH LINE 12) Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 7th Line Section To 6th Line 7TH LINE 6TH LINE Rural Gravel $5, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 8th Line Section To 7th Line 8TH LINE 7TH LINE Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 9th Line Section To 8th Line 9TH LINE 8TH LINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From AMARANTH Amaranth/Grand Valley TL To EAST LUTHER Section 10th Line TOWNLINE 10TH LINE Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From County Rd Section 11 To 2nd Line COUNTY ROAD 11 2ND LINE Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M TH LINE 15th Sideroad From County Rd (COUNTY ROAD Section 12 To 4th Line 12) 4TH LINE Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th SR from 7th Line to 6th Section Line 7th Line 6th Line Rural Gravel $ 3,052 $610 $2,442 $3, Average Possible Minor M SIDEROAD FROM 2ND LINE MONO TO MONO AMARANTH AMARANTH TOWNLINE 2ND LINE TOWNLINE Rural Gravel , $687 $1, Very Good Rare Minor L SIDEROAD FROM 4TH LINE TO COUNTY RD 12 County Rd 12 4TH LINE Rural Gravel , $893 $1, Very Good Rare Minor L SIDEROAD FROM COUNTY RD 11 AND 2ND LINE COUNTY ROAD 11 2ND LINE Rural Gravel , $687 $1, Very Good Rare Minor L SIDEROAD FROM COUNTY COUNTY ROAD RD 11 TO 4TH LINE 4TH LINE 11 Rural Gravel , $893 $1, Very Good Rare Minor L th Sideroad From 10th Line Section To 9th Line 10TH LINE 9TH LINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M TH LINE 25th Sideroad From 6th Line (COUNTY ROAD Section To County Rd 12 6TH LINE 12) Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 7th Line Section To 6th Line 7TH LINE 6TH LINE Rural Gravel $5, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 8th Line Section To 7th Line 8TH LINE 7TH LINE Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 9th Line Section To 8th Line 9TH LINE 8TH LINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From AMARANTH Amaranth/Grand Valley TL To EAST LUTHER Section 10th Line TOWNLINE 10TH LINE Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M nd Line From 15th Sideroad Section to 20th Sideroad 15TH SIDEROAD 20TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,789 $1,790 $7, Good Unlikely Minor L nd Line From 20th Sideroad Section to 25th Sideroad 20TH SIDEROAD 25TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,789 $1,788 $7, Good Unlikely Minor L nd Line From 25th Sideroad Section to 30th Sideroad 25TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,798 $1,798 $7, Good Unlikely Minor L nd Line from 5th SR to COUNTY ROAD County Rd 10 5TH SIDEROAD 10 Rural Gravel , , $3,297 $6, Very Good Rare Minor L ND LINE FROM COUNTY RD 10 TO 15 SIDEROAD County Rd 10 15th SR Rural Gravel , , $3,022 $6, Very Good Rare Minor L km N. of 2nd Line from North of Maples COUNTY ROAD Section school to 5th SR 109 5TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $ 10,219 $ 10,219 $10, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 10th Line Section To 9th Line 10TH LINE 9TH LINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 4th Line COUNTY ROAD Section To County Rd 11 4TH LINE 11 Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M TH LINE 30th Sideroad From 6th Line (COUNTY ROAD Section To County Rd 12 6TH LINE 12) Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 7th Line Section To 6th Line 7TH LINE 6TH LINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 8th Line Section To 7th Line 8TH LINE 7TH LINE Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 9th Line Section To 8th Line 9TH LINE 8TH LINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From AMARANTH Amranth/Grand Valley TL To EAST LUTHER Section 10th Line TOWNLINE 10TH LINE Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M TH LINE 30th Sideroad From County Rd (COUNTY ROAD Section 12 To 4th Line 12) 4TH LINE Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Line 5th Sideroad to COUNTY ROAD Section County Rd 10 5TH SIDEROAD 10 Rural Gravel $1,786 $1,785 $7, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line County Rd 10 to Section 15th Sideroad 10TH SIDEROAD 15TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,786 $1,787 $7, Good Unlikely Minor L TH LINE FROM 15 SIDEROAD TO 20 SIDEROAD 15th SR 20th SR Rural Gravel , , $3,160 $6, Very Good Rare Minor L th Line from 20th SR to 25th SR 20TH SIDEROAD 25TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel , , $3,847 $7, Very Good Rare Minor L

71 Fixed Asset # Map Link Subtype Asset Name - Roads From To Classification Probability of Asset Failure Condition Year Replacement due Revised Levels Surface Length Width Square Useful Remaining 2015 Accumulated 2015 Net Book Replacement Condition d On Condition from Condition Used (d on Consequence of Risk of Numerical Value Current Levels of Year Replacement Subsequent Type Install Year Age Historic Cost (As per to minimmal Service Replacement Material (m) (m) meters (m) Life Useful Life Amortization System Value System Cost/Section Useful Life Town for Analysis Condition or Failure Failure of Risk of Failure Service % benefit Applying Risk Score Replacement Year Priority maintenance practices Year Expected Rating) Condition) 4TH LINE FROM 25TH SR TO TH SR 25TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel , , $3,572 $7, Very Good Rare Minor L th Line from 30th SR to Highway 89 30TH SIDEROAD HIGHWAY 89 Rural Gravel , , $1,374 $2, Very Good Rare Minor L th Line From County Rd 109 COUNTY ROAD Section to 5th Sideroad 109 5TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,804 $1,804 $7, Good Unlikely Minor L th Sideroad From 10th Line Section To 9th Line 10TH LINE 9TH LINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 4th Line To COUNTY ROAD Section County Rd 11 4TH LINE 11 Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 6th Line To COUNTY ROAD Section County Rd 12 6TH LINE 12 Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 7th Line To Section 6th Line 7TH LINE 6TH LINE Rural Gravel $5, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 8th Line To Section 7th Line 8TH LINE 7TH LINE Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From 9th Line To Section 8th Line 9TH LINE 8TH LINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M th Sideroad From County Rd Section 12 To 4th Line COUNTY ROAD 12 4TH LINE Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M th Line 15th Sideroad to Section 20th Sideroad 15TH SIDEROAD 20TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,161 $1,161 $4, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line 5th Sideroad to COUNTY ROAD Section County Rd 10 5TH SIDEROAD 10 Rural Gravel $1,147 $1,146 $4, Good Unlikely Minor L Expected Levels of Service Revised Proposed Extended Life Revised Levels Year Replacement Year for % benefit over Current + Subsequent Revised Remaining Remaining Rehabilitation Cost (Years) due to Service Replacement Applying Risk Score - or Rehabilitation Condition better then Replacement Year3 Useful Life5 Useful Life (2016 $) Betterment Year2 Staff Override expected for age th Line North of Township 0.4 km N. of Section Office to 15th Sideroad COUNTY ROAD 10 15TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,147 $1,148 $4, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line from 20th SR to 25th Section SR 20TH SIDEROAD 25TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $ 10,406 $ 10,406 $10, Average Possible Minor M th Line from 25th SR to 30th Section SR 25TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $ 10,745 $ 10,745 $10, Average Possible Minor M th Line from 30th SR to Section Highway 89 30TH SIDEROAD HIGHWAY 89 Rural Gravel $ 4,045 $ 4,045 $4, Average Possible Minor M th Line 15th Sideroad to Section 20th Sideroad 15TH SIDEROAD 20TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,213 $1,212 $4, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line 20th Sideroad to Section 25th Sideroad 20TH SIDEROAD 25TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,202 $1,202 $4, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line 25th Sideroad to Section 30th Sideroad 25TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,204 $1,204 $4, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line 30th Sideroad to Section Highway 89 30TH SIDEROAD HIGHWAY 89 Rural Gravel $437 $437 $1, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line 5th Sideroad to COUNTY ROAD Section County Rd 10 5TH SIDEROAD 10 Rural Gravel $1,234 $1,234 $4, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line County Rd 10 to Section 15th Sideroad 10TH SIDEROAD 15TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,193 $1,192 $4, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line County Rd 109 to COUNTY ROAD Section 5th Sideroad 109 5TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,198 $1,198 $4, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line from 25TH SIDEROAD 2330 Section to 30TH SIDEROAD 25TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $ 10,248 $ 10,248 DIspose th Line 15th Sideroad to Section 20th Sideroad 15TH SIDEROAD 20TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,422 $1,423 $5, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line 5th Sideroad to Section County Rd 10 5TH SIDEROAD COUNTY ROAD 10 Rural Gravel $1,438 $1,439 $5, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line County Rd 10 to Section 15th Sideroad COUNTY ROAD 10 15TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,438 $1,437 $5, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line County Rd 109 to Section 5th Sideroad COUNTY ROAD 109 5TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $1,462 $1,461 $5, Good Unlikely Minor L th Line From 20th Sideroad Section To 25th Sideroad 20TH SIDEROAD 25TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $9, Average Possible Minor M th Line From 25th Sideroad Section To 30th Sideroad 25TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $9, Average Possible Minor M th Line From 30th Sideroad Section To Highway 89 30TH SIDEROAD HIGHWAY 89 Rural Gravel $3, Average Possible Minor M TH LINE from 5TH SIDEROAD Section to COUNTY ROAD 10 5th SR County Rd 10 Rural Gravel $ 6,072 $ 6,072 DIspose 9TH LINE from 0.3 km S. of 20TH SIDEROAD to 20TH 0.3 km S. of 20TH Section SIDEROAD SIDEROAD 20TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $ 586 $ 586 $ Average Possible Minor M th Line from 20th SR to 25th Section SR 20TH SIDEROAD 25TH SDIEROAD Rural Gravel $ 10,477 $ 10,477 $10, Average Possible Minor M th Line from 25th SR to 30th Section SR 25TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $ 10,460 $ 10,460 $10, Average Possible Minor M th Line from 30th SR to Section Highway 89 30TH SIDEROAD HIGHWAY 89 Rural Gravel $ 3,784 $ 3,784 $3, Average Possible Minor M th Line from 5th SR to County COUNTY ROAD Rd 10 5TH SIDEROAD 10 Rural Gravel , , $2,679 $5, Very Good Rare Minor L th Line from County Rd 10 to 15th SR COUNTY ROAD 10 15TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel , , $2,748 $5, Very Good Rare Minor L th Line from Station St to 5th SR STATION STREET 5TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel , , $1,649 $3, Very Good Rare Minor L Amaranth/Grand Valley TL From 1.4km N of 20th 1.4km N. of 20TH Section Sideroad To 25th Sideroad SIDEROAD 25TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $5, Average Possible Minor M Amaranth/Grand Valley TL From 15th Sideroad To 1.6km 1.6 km N. of 15TH Section North of 15th Sideroad 15TH SIDEROAD SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $4, Average Possible Minor M Amaranth/Grand Valley TL From 25th Sideroad To 30th Section Sideroad 25TH SIDEROAD 30TH SIDEROAD Rural Gravel $9, Average Possible Minor M Amaranth/Grand Valley TL From 30th Sideroad To Section Highway 89 30TH SIDEROAD HIGHWAY 89 Rural Gravel $2, Average Possible Minor M GRAND VIEW ROAD from COUNTY ROAD 109 to END OF COUNTY ROAD END OF GRAND Section GRAND VIEW ROAD 109 VIEW ROAD Rural Gravel ,505 $ 1,505 $ $1, Average Possible Minor M

72 Amaranth Roads - Road Inventory Current Leveles of Service Expected Levels of Service + Town Input Replacement/Improvement Year d on Current Levels Replacement/Improvement Year d on Expected Fixed Asset # Map Link Subtype Asset Name - Road Classification Surface Material Install Year Remainin Useful g Useful Age Life Life Historic Cost 2015 Accumulated Amortization System 2015 Net Book Value System Replacement Cost/Section Condition d On Useful Life Condition from Town Condition Used for Analysis Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (d on Consequence Risk of Condition or Expected Condition) of Failure Failure Numerical Value of Risk of Failure Year Replacement due to minimmal maintenance practices Current Levels of Service % benefit Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life Proposed Rehabilitation Cost (2016 $) Year for Rehabilitation Extended Life (Years) due to Betterment Expected Levels of Service % benefit over Current + Condition better then expected for age Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score - or Staff Override Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life $8,607,429 $4,554,257 $4,145,550 $67,132, $480, Valuation 10th Line County Rd 109 Church St. (2404 Surface) Asphalt $ 79,604 $ 41,129 $ 38,475 $ 146, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 10th Line Paving south of Village to County Rd 109 Asphalt $ 40,167 $ 2,678 $ 37,489 $ 40, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 10th Line Paving north of Station St north of the Village Asphalt $ 28,294 $ 1,886 $ 26,408 $ 28, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 20 SR from 9th Line to.6km E of 9th Line (2392 Surface) Asphalt $ 31,756 $ 24,875 $ 6,880 $ 187, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 20th SR from.6km E. of 9th Line to 8th Line (2402 Surface) Asphalt $ 37,606 $ 29,458 $ 8,148 $ 222, Average Possible Moderate M $44, Valuation 20th SR from 10th Line to 9th Line (2370 Surface) Asphalt $ 70,072 $ 54,890 $ 15,182 $ 414, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 20th SR from 2nd Line to Amaranth / Mono TL (2377 Surface) Asphalt $ 281,594 $ 126,717 $ 154,877 $ 419, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 20th SR from 4th Line to County Rd 11 (2375 Surface) Asphalt $ 63,073 $ 55,714 $ 7,358 $ 455, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 20th SR from 5th Line to 4th Line (2374 Surface) Asphalt $ 54,027 $ 47,724 $ 6,303 $ 390, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 20th SR from 6th Line to County Rd 12 (5th Line) (2372 Surface) Asphalt $ 63,851 $ 50,017 $ 13,834 $ 377, Average Possible Moderate M $75, Valuation 20th SR from 7th Line to 6th Line (2372 Surface) Asphalt $ 86,608 $ 67,843 $ 18,765 $ 512, Average Possible Moderate M $101, Valuation 20th SR from 8th Line to 7th Line (2371 Surface) Asphalt $ 67,738 $ 53,061 $ 14,677 $ 400, Average Possible Moderate M $79, Valuation 20th SR from Amaranth / East Luther TL to 10th Line (2369 Surface) Asphalt $ 66,835 $ 52,354 $ 14,481 $ 395, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 20th SR from County Rd 11 to 2nd Line (2376 Surface) Asphalt $ 252,471 $ 113,612 $ 138,859 $ 376, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 2nd Line from County Rd 109 to.6km N of County Rd 109 (2464 Surface) Asphalt $ 70,636 $ 42,381 $ 28,254 $ 187, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 30th SR 500m of reconstruction west of County Rd 11 Asphalt $ 29,879 $ 1,992 $ 27,887 $ 29, Very Good Rare Moderate L Valuation 30th SR from.7km E of 2nd Line to Amaranth / Mono TL (2406 Surface) Asphalt $ 180,999 $ 45,250 $ 135,749 $ 207, Poor Likely Moderate H $80, Valuation 30th SR from 2nd Line to.7km E of 2nd Line (2431 Surface) Asphalt $ 183,155 $ 45,789 $ 137,367 $ 210, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 5th SR.1km east of Amaranth / Grand Valley TL 10th Line (4120 Surface) Asphalt $ 207,971 $ 100,520 $ 107,452 $ 346, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 5th SR.7km East oif 2nd Line Amaranth / Mono TL Asphalt $ 112,131 $ 57,934 $ 54,197 $ 206, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 5th SR 2nd Line.7km East oif 2nd Line Asphalt $ 114,813 $ 59,320 $ 55,493 $ 211, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 5th SR Amaranth / Grand Valley TL.1km east of Amaranth / Grand Valley TL (4120 Surface) Asphalt $ 29,285 $ 14,155 $ 15,131 $ 48, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation 5th SR County Rd 11 2nd Line (2439 Surface) Asphalt $ 268,235 $ 116,235 $ 152,000 $ 381, Poor Likely Moderate H $100, Valuation 6th Line County Rd 10.4km North of County RD 10 (2461 Surface) Asphalt combined into betterment completed in Valuation 6th Line Paving County Rd 10 north of Township Office Asphalt $ 105,718 $ 41,139 $ 64,578 $ 141, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 9th Line from County Rd 109 to Station St (3514 Surface) Asphalt $ 272,839 $ 104,588 $ 168,251 $ 363, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Grand Valley TL.6km North of 20th SR 1.4km North of 20th SR (2380 Surface) Asphalt $ 201,580 $ 33,597 $ 167,983 $ 208, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Grand Valley TL 1.6km North of 15th SR 20th SR (2471 Surface) Asphalt $ 363,229 $ 72,646 $ 290,583 $ 389, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Grand Valley TL 20th SR.7km North of 20th SR (2385 Surface) Asphalt $ 189,985 $ 37,997 $ 151,988 $ 203, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Mono TL.3km South of 20th SR 20th SR (2476 Surface) Asphalt $ 9,181 $ 1,071 $ 8,110 $ 9, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Mono TL.6km North of 25th SR 30th SR (2468 Surface) Asphalt $ 82,101 $ 9,578 $ 72,522 $ 82, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Mono TL.6km North of 30th SR Highway 89 (2432 Surface) Asphalt $ 32,060 $ 24,045 $ 8,015 $ 178, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Mono TL 20th SR 25th SR (3259 Surface) Asphalt $ 20,444 $ 2,385 $ 18,059 $ 20, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Mono TL 25th SR.6km North of 25th SR (3258 Surface) Asphalt $ 2,840 $ 2,840 NULL $ 178, Good Unlikely Moderate M

73 Fixed Asset # Map Link Subtype Asset Name - Road Classification Surface Material Install Year Remainin Useful g Useful Age Life Life Historic Cost 2015 Accumulated Amortization System 2015 Net Book Value System Replacement Cost/Section Condition d On Useful Life Condition from Town Condition Used for Analysis Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (d on Consequence Risk of Condition or Expected Condition) of Failure Failure Valuation Amaranth / Mono TL 30th SR.6km North of 30th SR (2475 Surface) Asphalt $ 156,586 $ 39,147 $ 117,440 $ 179, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Cedar Place from Maplewood Dr to end of Cedar Place Asphalt $ 15,970 $ 11,977 $ 3,992 $ 88, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Cherrywood Place from Maplewood Dr to end of Cherrywood Place (2307 surface) Asphalt $ 16,204 $ 12,153 $ 4,051 $ 90, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Church St 10th Line Mill St (2448 Surface) Asphalt $ 99,620 $ 21,584 $ 78,035 $ 108, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Crago Rd 5th SR McKibbon Avenue (4257 Surface) Asphalt $ 12,699 $ 7,831 $ 4,868 $ 37, Very Good Rare Moderate L Valuation Crago Rd Houghton St end of Cargo Rd (4257 Surface) Asphalt $ 23,188 $ 14,300 $ 8,889 $ 67, Very Good Rare Moderate L Valuation Crago Rd McKibbon Houghton (4257 Surface) Asphalt $ 23,952 $ 14,770 $ 9,182 $ 70, Very Good Rare Moderate L Valuation David St Mill St Main St (2458 Surface) Asphalt $ 14,245 $ 7,597 $ 6,648 $ 27, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Devonleigh Drive 30th SR 30th SR (2450 Surface) Asphalt $ 167,655 $ 41,914 $ 125,742 $ 192, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Evans Avenue James St end (2426 Surface) Asphalt $ 4,833 $ 2,497 $ 2,336 $ 8, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Evans Avenue James St Henry St (2427 Surface) Asphalt $ 11,792 $ 6,092 $ 5,699 $ 21, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Henry St. Evans St. end of Henry St. (2412 Surface) Asphalt $ 10,802 $ 5,581 $ 5,221 $ 19, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Henry St. Main St. Evans St. (2413 Surface) Asphalt $ 24,050 $ 12,426 $ 11,624 $ 44, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Henry St. Mill St. Main St. (2414 Surface) Asphalt $ 14,964 $ 7,732 $ 7,233 $ 27, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Hornett Lane Menary Drive County Rd 10 (2408 Surface) Asphalt $ 14,970 $ 6,986 $ 7,984 $ 23, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Hughson McKibbon Amaranth / Mono TL (4258 Surface) Asphalt $ 25,327 $ 15,618 $ 9,709 $ 74, Very Good Rare Moderate L Valuation Hughson St Cargo McKibbon (4258 Surface) Asphalt $ 41,419 $ 25,542 $ 15,877 $ 121, Very Good Rare Moderate L Valuation James St Evans Avenue end of James St (2447 Surface) Asphalt $ 43,661 $ 22,558 $ 21,103 $ 80, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation MAIN STREET David St Henry St (2451 Surface) Asphalt $ 31,029 $ 16,549 $ 14,480 $ 59, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Maplewood Drive Amaranth / Mono TL Cedar Place (2430 Surface) Asphalt $ 20,153 $ 15,115 $ 5,038 $ 112, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Maplewood Drive Cedar Place Sylvanwood Rd (2429 Surface) Asphalt $ 10,671 $ 8,003 $ 2,668 $ 59, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Maplewood Drive Cherrywood Place Woodland Rd (2401 Surface) Asphalt $ 15,053 $ 11,290 $ 3,763 $ 83, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Maplewood Drive Sylvanwood Rd Cherrywood Place (2428 Surface) Asphalt $ 4,796 $ 3,597 $ 1,199 $ 26, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Maplewood Drive Woodland Rd end of Maplewood Drive (2400 Surface) Asphalt $ 7,145 $ 5,358 $ 1,786 $ 39, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Mckibbon Ave from Crago Rd to Hughson St (4259 surface) Asphalt $ 66,837 $ 41,216 $ 25,621 $ 195, Very Good Rare Moderate L Valuation Menary Drive County Rd 12 Hornett Lane (2407 Surface) Asphalt $ 39,630 $ 18,494 $ 21,136 $ 62, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Mill St Church St David St (2425 Surface) Asphalt $ 40,328 $ 20,836 $ 19,492 $ 74, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Mill St David St Station St (2399 Surface) Asphalt $ 7,459 $ 5,719 $ 1,740 $ 42, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Mill St Station St Henry St (2422 Surface) Asphalt $ 3,473 $ 2,662 $ 810 $ 19, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Mill St. Church St Church St (2424 Surface) Asphalt $ 16,157 $ 12,387 $ 3,770 $ 92, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Peter Court Peter St end of Peter Court (3044 Surface) Asphalt $ 48,740 $ 8,123 $ 40,617 $ 50, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Peter St Russel Hill Rd Peter Court (2420 Surface) Asphalt $ 76,775 $ 28,151 $ 48,624 $ 102, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Peter St St. John St Russel Hill Rd (2421 Surface) Asphalt $ 28,371 $ 10,403 $ 17,968 $ 37, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Russel Hill Rd Peter St Peter St (2418 Surface) Asphalt $ 102,529 $ 37,594 $ 64,935 $ 136, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Russel Hill Rd St. John Street Peter St (2419 Surface) Asphalt $ 63,830 $ 23,404 $ 40,426 $ 84, Good Unlikely Moderate M Numerical Value of Risk of Failure Year Replacement due to minimmal maintenance practices Current Levels of Service % benefit Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life Proposed Rehabilitation Cost (2016 $) Year for Rehabilitation Extended Life (Years) due to Betterment Expected Levels of Service % benefit over Current + Condition better then expected for age Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score - or Staff Override Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life

74 Fixed Asset # Map Link Subtype Asset Name - Road Classification Surface Material Install Year Remainin Useful g Useful Age Life Life Historic Cost 2015 Accumulated Amortization System 2015 Net Book Value System Replacement Cost/Section Condition d On Useful Life Condition from Town Condition Used for Analysis Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (d on Consequence Risk of Condition or Expected Condition) of Failure Failure Valuation Shannon Court 3rd Line end of Shannon Court (2409 Surface) Asphalt $ 144,249 $ 60,104 $ 84,145 $ 197, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation St. John St. Russel Hill Road Peter St. (2417 Surface) Asphalt $ 108,130 $ 39,648 $ 68,483 $ 143, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation St. John St. Station St. Russel Hill Road (2416 Surface) Asphalt $ 43,007 $ 15,769 $ 27,238 $ 57, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Station St (86m) Paving east of curve Asphalt $ 7,079 $ 472 $ 6,607 $ 7, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Station Street (82m) base reconstruction east of curve Asphalt $ 4,454 $ 297 $ 4,157 $ 4, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Station Street from.3km E of Peter St to 9th Line (4119 Surface) Asphalt $ 147,561 $ 31,972 $ 115,589 $ 160, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Station Street from 10th Line/Mill St to St John St Asphalt $ 69,941 $ 32,639 $ 37,302 $ 110, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Station Street from Peter St to.3km E of Peter St (2415 Surface) Asphalt $ 63,691 $ 13,800 $ 49,891 $ 93, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Station Street from St John St to Peter St Asphalt $ 53,225 $ 24,839 $ 28,387 $ 84, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Sylvanwood Rd Highway 89 Maplewood Drive (2304 Surface) Asphalt $ 14,007 $ 10,505 $ 3,502 $ 77, Good Unlikely Moderate M Valuation Woodland Road Maplewood Drive end of Woodland Drive (2452 Surface) Asphalt $ 23,795 $ 17,846 $ 5,949 $ 132, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 6th Line County Rd 109 5th SR (3510 Surface) Numerical Value of Risk of Failure Year Replacement due to minimmal maintenance practices Current Levels of Service % benefit Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score Asphalt / Gravel $ 14,125 $ 24,030 $ 89,149 $ 888, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 10th Line 15th SR 20th SR (3397 Surface) Gravel $ 14,702 $ 14,702 NULL $ 924, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 10th Line 20th SR 25th SR (4198 Surface) Gravel $ 14,701 $ 14,701 NULL $ 924, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 10th Line 25th SR 30th SR (4197 Surface) Gravel $ 14,762 $ 14,762 NULL $ 928, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 10th Line 30th SR Highway 89 (4196 Surface) Gravel $ 5,296 $ 5,296 NULL $ 333, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 10th Line 5th SR County Rd 10 (3399 Surface) Gravel $ 14,640 $ 14,640 NULL $ 920, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 10th Line County Rd 10 15th SR (3398 Surface) Gravel $ 14,741 $ 14,741 NULL $ 927, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 15th SR 10th Line 9th Line (4176 Surface) Gravel $ 6,545 $ 6,545 NULL $ 411, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 15th SR 2nd Line Amaranth / Mono TL (4211 Surface) Gravel $ 6,675 NULL NULL $ 419, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 15th SR 4th Line County Rd 11 (4209 Surface) Gravel $ 7,288 $ 7,288 NULL $ 458, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 15th SR 6th Line County Rd 12 (4180 Surface) Gravel $ 6,419 $ 6,419 NULL $ 403, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 15th SR 7th Line 6th Line (2434 Surface) Gravel $ 8,879 $ 8,879 NULL $ 558, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 15th SR 8th Line 7th Line (4178 Surface) Gravel $ 6,299 $ 6,299 NULL $ 396, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 15th SR 9th Line 8th Line (4177 Surface) Gravel $ 6,871 $ 6,871 NULL $ 432, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 15th SR Amaranth / Grand Valley TL 10th Line (4175 Surface) Gravel $ 6,242 $ 6,242 NULL $ 392, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 15th SR County Rd 11 2nd Line (4210 Surface) Gravel $ 6,023 $ 6,023 NULL $ 378, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 15th SR County Rd 12 4th Line (4181 Surface) Gravel $ 6,307 $ 6,307 NULL $ 396, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 25th SR.1km east of County Rd 11 2nd Line (2478 Surface) Gravel $ 5,208 $ 5,208 NULL $ 327, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 25th SR 10th Line 9th Line (4204 Surface) Gravel $ 6,618 $ 6,618 NULL $ 416, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 25th SR 2nd Line Amaranth / Mono TL (2368 Surface) Gravel $ 6,693 $ 6,693 NULL $ 420, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 25th SR 4th Line County Rd 11 (2367 Surface) Gravel $ 7,233 $ 7,233 NULL $ 454, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 25th SR 6th Line County Rd 12 (4208 Surface) Gravel $ 6,075 $ 6,075 NULL $ 382, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 25th SR 7th Line 6th Line (4187 Surface) Gravel $ 8,237 $ 8,237 NULL $ 518, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 25th SR 8th Line 7th Line (4206 Surface) Gravel $ 6,307 $ 6,307 NULL $ 396, Average Possible Moderate M Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life Proposed Rehabilitation Cost (2016 $) Year for Rehabilitation Extended Life (Years) due to Betterment Expected Levels of Service % benefit over Current + Condition better then expected for age Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score - or Staff Override Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life

75 Fixed Asset # Map Link Subtype Asset Name - Road Classification Surface Material Install Year Remainin Useful g Useful Age Life Life Historic Cost 2015 Accumulated Amortization System 2015 Net Book Value System Replacement Cost/Section Condition d On Useful Life Condition from Town Condition Used for Analysis Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (d on Consequence Risk of Condition or Expected Condition) of Failure Failure Valuation 25th SR 9th Line 8th Line (4205 Surface) Gravel $ 6,658 $ 6,658 NULL $ 418, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 25th SR Amaranth / Grand Valley TL 10th Line (4203 Surface) Gravel $ 6,292 $ 6,292 NULL $ 395, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 25th SR County Rd 12 4th Line (2366 Surface) Gravel $ 6,175 $ 6,175 NULL $ 388, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 2nd line from.6km N of County rd 109 to 5th SR (3193 Surface) Gravel $ 275,937 $ 165,562 $ 110,375 $ 734, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 2ND LINE from.8km N of 20th SR to 25th SR (3253 Surface) Gravel $ 119,574 $ 89,680 $ 29,893 $ 664, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 2nd Line from 1.9km N of County RD 10 to 15th SR (3251 Surface) Gravel $ 5,522 $ 5,522 NULL $ 347, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 2ND LINE from 15th SR to 20th SR (4212 Surface) Gravel $ 14,611 $ 14,611 NULL $ 918, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 2ND LINE from 20th SR to.8km N of 20th SR (3255 Surface) Gravel $ 4,034 $ 4,034 NULL $ 253, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 2nd Line from 25th SR to 30th SR (4214 Surface) Gravel $ 166,087 $ 124,565 $ 41,522 $ 923, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 2ND LINE from 5th SR to County Rd 10 (3249 Surface) Gravel $ 14,555 $ 14,555 NULL $ 915, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 2ND LINE from County Rd 10 to 1.9km N of County RD 10 (3250 Surface) Gravel $ 9,021 $ 9,021 NULL $ 567, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 30th SR from 10th Line to 9th Line (4174 Surface) Gravel $ 6,618 $ 6,618 NULL $ 416, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 30th SR from 4th Line to County Rd 11 (4191 Surface) Gravel $ 4,695 $ 4,695 NULL $ 445, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 30th SR from 6th Line to County Rd 12 (5th Line) (4186 Surface) Gravel $ 5,829 $ 5,829 NULL $ 366, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 30th SR from 7th Line to 6th Line (4207 Surface) Gravel $ 6,068 $ 6,068 NULL $ 381, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 30th SR from 8th Line to 7th Line (4171 Surface) Gravel $ 6,430 $ 6,430 NULL $ 404, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 30th SR from 9th Line to 8th Line (4172 Surface) Gravel $ 6,695 $ 6,695 NULL $ 421, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 30th SR from Amaranth / East Luther TL to 10th Line (4173 Surface) Gravel $ 6,416 $ 6,416 NULL $ 403, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 30th SR from County Rd 12 (5th Line) to 4th Line (4185 Surface) Gravel $ 8,012 $ 8,012 NULL $ 503, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 4th Line from 1.2km N. of 15th SR to 20thSR (2386 Surface) Gravel $ 100,060 $ 73,378 $ 26,683 $ 529, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 4th Line from 15th SR to 1.2km N. of 15th SR (2387 Surface) Gravel $ 73,119 $ 53,621 $ 19,499 $ 387, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 4th Line from 20th SR to 25th SR (3418 Surface) Gravel $ 284,847 $ 180,403 $ 104,444 $ 912, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 4th Line from 25th SR to 30th SR (3417 Surface) Gravel $ 291,337 $ 184,513 $ 106,824 $ 932, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 4th Line from 30th SR to Highway 89 (3245 Surface) Gravel $ 107,254 $ 67,928 $ 39,327 $ 343, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 4TH LINE from 5th SR to County Rd 10 (4216 Surface) Gravel $ 173,144 $ 126,973 $ 46,172 $ 916, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 4th Line from County Rd 10 to 15th SR (4217 Surface) Gravel $ 173,229 $ 127,034 $ 46,194 $ 917, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 4TH LINE from County Rd 109 to 5th SR (4215 Surface) Gravel $ 174,893 $ 128,255 $ 46,638 $ 925, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 5th SR 10th Line 9th Line (4199 Surface) Gravel $ 6,487 $ 6,487 NULL $ 407, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 5th SR 4th Line County Rd 11 (4190 Surface) Gravel $ 7,314 $ 7,314 NULL $ 460, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 5th SR 6th Line County Rd 12 (4189 Surface) Gravel $ 6,102 $ 6,102 NULL $ 383, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 5th SR 7th Line 6th Line (4202 Surface) Gravel $ 8,321 $ 8,321 NULL $ 523, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 5th SR 8th Line 7th Line (4201 Surface) Gravel $ 6,064 $ 6,064 NULL $ 381, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 5th SR 9th Line 8th Line (4200 Surface) Gravel $ 6,674 $ 6,674 NULL $ 419, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 5th SR County 12 4th Line (4188 Surface) Gravel $ 6,464 $ 6,464 NULL $ 406, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 6th Line.4km North of County Rd 10 15th SR Gravel $ 12,442 $ 12,442 NULL $ 782, Average Possible Moderate M Numerical Value of Risk of Failure Year Replacement due to minimmal maintenance practices Current Levels of Service % benefit Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life Proposed Rehabilitation Cost (2016 $) Year for Rehabilitation Extended Life (Years) due to Betterment Expected Levels of Service % benefit over Current + Condition better then expected for age Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score - or Staff Override Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life

76 Fixed Asset # Map Link Subtype Asset Name - Road Classification Surface Material Install Year Remainin Useful g Useful Age Life Life Historic Cost 2015 Accumulated Amortization System 2015 Net Book Value System Replacement Cost/Section Condition d On Useful Life Condition from Town Condition Used for Analysis Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (d on Consequence Risk of Condition or Expected Condition) of Failure Failure Valuation 6th Line 15th SR 20th SR (4220 Surface) Gravel $ 14,736 $ 14,736 NULL $ 926, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 6th Line 20th SR 25th SR (3235 Surface) Gravel $ 14,638 $ 14,638 NULL $ 920, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 6th Line 25th SR 30th SR (3236 Surface) Gravel $ 15,115 $ 15,115 NULL $ 950, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 6th Line 30th SR Highway 89 (3237 Surface) Gravel $ 5,692 $ 5,692 NULL $ 358, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 6th Line 5th SR County Rd 10 (4218 Surface) Gravel $ 14,551 $ 14,551 NULL $ 915, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 7th Line 15th SR 20th SR (4224 Surface) Gravel $ 14,844 $ 14,844 NULL $ 933, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 7th Line 20th SR 25th SR (4225 Surface) Gravel $ 14,715 $ 14,715 NULL $ 925, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 7th Line 25th SR 30th SR (4226 Surface) Gravel $ 14,737 $ 14,737 NULL $ 926, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 7th Line 30th SR Highway 89 (4227 Surface) Gravel $ 5,331 $ 5,331 NULL $ 335, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 7th Line 5th SR County Rd 10 (4222 Surface) Gravel $ 15,105 $ 15,105 NULL $ 950, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 7th Line County Rd 10 15th SR (4223 Surface) Gravel $ 14,597 $ 14,597 NULL $ 918, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 7th Line County Rd 109 5th SR (4221 Surface) Gravel $ 14,670 $ 14,670 NULL $ 922, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 8TH LINE from 15th SR to 20SR (4231 Surface) Gravel $ 14,568 $ 14,568 NULL $ 916, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 8TH LINE from 20th SR to 25th SR (4184 Surface) Gravel $ 14,671 $ 14,671 NULL $ 922, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 8th Line from 25th SR to 30 SR (4183 Surface) Gravel $ 14,613 $ 14,613 NULL $ 919, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 8TH LINE from 30th SR to Highway 89 (4182 Surface) Gravel $ 5,288 $ 5,288 NULL $ 332, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 8th Line from 5SR to County Rd 10 (4229 Surface) Gravel $ 14,732 $ 14,732 NULL $ 926, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 8TH LINE from County Rd 10 to 15th SR (4230 Surface) Gravel $ 14,720 $ 14,720 NULL $ 925, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 8TH LINE from County Rd 109 to 5th SR (4228 Surface) Gravel $ 14,968 $ 14,968 NULL $ 941, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 9th Line from.3km S of 20th SR to 20th SR (2318 Surface) Gravel $ 1,421 $ 1,421 NULL $ 89, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 9TH LINE from 20SR to 25th SR (3179 Surface) Gravel $ 14,739 $ 14,739 NULL $ 926, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 9TH LINE from 25th SR to 30SR (3177 Surface) Gravel $ 247,558 $ 165,039 $ 82,519 $ 925, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 9TH LINE from 30th SR to Highway 89 (3175 Surface) Gravel $ 5,326 $ 5,326 NULL $ 334, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 9TH LINE from 5th SR to County Rd 10 (3402 Surface) Gravel $ 14,590 $ 14,590 NULL $ 917, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 9TH LINE from County Rd 10 to 15th SR (3408 Surface) Gravel $ 14,760 $ 14,760 NULL $ 928, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation 9TH LINE from Station ST to 5th SR (3401 Surface) Gravel $ 8,884 $ 8,884 NULL $ 558, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Grand Valley TL 1.4km north of 20th SR 25th SR (4193 Surface) Gravel $ 8,127 $ 8,127 NULL $ 511, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Grand Valley TL 15th SR 1.6 km north of 15th SR (4192 Surface) Gravel $ 8,386 $ 8,386 NULL $ 527, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Grand Valley TL 25th SR 30th SR (4194 Surface) Gravel $ 14,691 $ 14,691 NULL $ 923, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Amaranth / Grand Valley TL 30th SR Highway 89 (4195 Surface) Gravel $ 4,369 $ 4,369 NULL $ 274, Average Possible Moderate M Valuation Grand View Rd County Rd 109 eno of Grand View Rd (2305 Surface) Gravel $ 3,588 $ 3,588 NULL $ 225, Average Possible Moderate M Numerical Value of Risk of Failure Year Replacement due to minimmal maintenance practices Current Levels of Service % benefit Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life Proposed Rehabilitation Cost (2016 $) Year for Rehabilitation Extended Life (Years) due to Betterment Expected Levels of Service % benefit over Current + Condition better then expected for age Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score - or Staff Override Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life

77 Amaranth Roads - Bridge Inventory FIXED ASSET ID Subtype Asset Name Asset Type Install Year Useful Life Remaining Useful Life Age Historic Cost 2015 Accumulated Amortization 2015 Net Book Value Replacement Cost Condition Inspection Condition Used d On Assessed for Analysis Useful Life Condition Asset Condition (As per Priority Rating) Probability of Failure (d on Condition or Expected Condition) Consequence of Failure Risk of Failure Numerical Value of Risk of Failure Year Replacement due to minimmal maintenance practices Current Levels of Service % benefit Current Leveles of Service Expected Levels of Service Replacement/Improvement Year d on Current Levels Service Replacement/Improvement Year d on Expected Levels Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life Proposed Rehabilitation Cost (2016 $) Extended Life Year for (Years) due to Rehabilitation Betterment $ 4,654,146 $ 1,391,214 $ 3,262,933 $ 13,181, $ 902, Roads Bridge Arch Culvert 15th Sideroad for Drain #20 Arch Culvert $32,769 $1,092 $31,677 $35, Very Good Rare Major M Roads Bridge Bridge 1 MTO(4 106) 6th Line I beam or Girders $345,958 $41,515 $304,443 $41, Very Good Rare Major M Roads Bridge Bridge 10 MTO(4 72) 7th Line Solid Slab $16,233 $16,233 $0 $700, Poor Likely Major H Roads Bridge Bridge 11 MTO(4 73) 15th SR Solid Slab $16,115 $16,115 $0 $700, Average Possible Major H Roads Bridge Bridge 12 MTO(4 76) 6th Line Bowstring Arch $20,256 $20,256 $0 $800, Poor Likely Major H Roads Bridge Bridge 13 MTO(4 75) 6th Line Bowstring Arch $15,360 $15,360 $0 $800, Poor Likely Major H Roads Bridge Bridge 14 MTO(4 74) 6th Line Rigid Frame, Vertical Legs $431,256 $92,001 $339,255 $510, Good Unlikely Major M Roads Bridge Bridge 15 MTO(4 71) 7th Line Solid Slab $16,548 $16,548 $0 $800, Very Poor Almost Certain Major E $300, Roads Bridge Bridge 16 MTO(4 69) 7th Line Rigid Frame, Vertical Legs $303,072 $113,147 $189,925 $480, Good Unlikely Major M Roads Bridge Bridge 17 MTO(4 70) 20th SR Solid Slab $15,169 $15,169 $0 $1,000, Poor Likely Major H $100, Roads Bridge Bridge 18 MTO(4 50) 25th SR Rigid Frame, Vertical Legs $340,527 $40,863 $299,664 $340, Very Good Rare Major M Roads Bridge Bridge 19 MTO(4 49) 6th Line Rigid Frame, Vertical Legs $145,291 $27,121 $118,170 $163, Good Unlikely Major M Roads Bridge Bridge 2 MTO(4 105) 7th Line Solid Slab $7,762 $7,762 $0 $450, Average Possible Major H Roads Bridge Bridge 20 MTO(4 78) 4th Line Multi Plate Culverts $56,370 $27,058 $29,312 $150, Good Unlikely Major M Roads Bridge Bridge 3 MTO(4 104) 8th Line T Beam $25,058 $25,058 $0 $257, Average Possible Major H $105, Roads Bridge Bridge 4 MTO(4 103) 9th Line Arch Culvert $161,595 $45,247 $116,348 $210, Good Unlikely Major M Roads Bridge Bridge 5 MTO(4 155) Station St / Mill St Box Beams of Girders $526,120 $252,538 $273,582 $1,400, Good Unlikely Major M $137, Roads Bridge Bridge 6 MTO(4 101) 10th Line I beam or Girders $355,960 $227,814 $128,146 $2,200, Poor Likely Major H $260, Roads Bridge Bridge 7 MTO(4 102) 5th SR Rigid Frame, Vertical Legs $453,778 $151,259 $302,519 $620, Good Unlikely Major M Roads Bridge Bridge 8 MTO(4 66) 9th Line Rigid Frame, Vertical Legs $465,186 $142,657 $322,529 $620, Good Unlikely Major M Roads Bridge Bridge 9 MTO(4 65) ** 8th Line I beam or Girders $903,765 $96,402 $807,363 $903, Very Good Rare Major M Roads Bridge Grand Valley Owned Bridge AMARANTH EAST LUTHER TOWNLINE South of NVALID CONDITIO #N/A Major #N/A Expected Levels of Service % benefit over Current + Condition better then expected for age Revised Levels Service Replacement Year Year Replacement Applying Risk Score - or Staff Override Subsequent Replacement Year Revised Remaining Useful Life

78 APPENDIX A: AMENDMENT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were made and applied during the creation of the Township of Amaranth s asset management plan. 1. AMENDED STATE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE a) All replacement costs for Roads and Bridges were estimates based on current 2018 pricing. b) Useful life of an asset were provided by the Township, discussed with Township Staff and/or obtained from similar assets in other communities/municipalities. c) Condition was from staff s understanding of the asset s relative condition, and finally via estimation from the asset s age were used to provide estimated remaining life to the assets. 2. AMENDED ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY a) Capital inflation rate was assumed to be 2.0% annually. b) Operating budget inflation rate was assumed to be 2.0% annually. c) Regarding operating expenses included in the Township s current budget, it is assumed that they will increase at an operating inflation rate annually. 3. AMENDED FINANCING STRATEGY a) OCIF application for 2018 is expected to be received to assist in closing the Township infrastructure gap. b) Gas Tax and OCIF Formula d Funding revenue have been identified as a funding source for the purposes of this analysis (i.e. for asset replacement purposes), and has been assumed to continue throughout the forecast period. c) Interest rate earned on a Capital Replacement Reserve Funds will be 1.0% annually. d) Township of Amaranth past Annual Capital Investment was identified as $1,000,000. Appendix A - AMP Assumptions.Docx 7/17/ :00 AM B-1

79 Appendix B 19 Year Detailed Asset Management Strategy & Financing Strategy Appendix B

80 Tax Supported Assets Inflated Amended Scenario 1 d on Expected Levels of Service and OCIF Funding Future Replacement Cost (Inflated) 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, , Land Improvements Software & Hardware Equipment Vehicles Discharge Point Storm Pond Storm Manhole Catch Basin Storm Mains Cross Road Culverts Street Lights Barriers Signs Sidewalks Facilities Bridge & Culverts Road Road Surface Gravel Road Surface Asphalt Year of Replacement Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. I:\ARUNAS\Amaranth\AMP Amendment\Amaranth AMP Amendment.xlsx

81 Asset Type TOTAL Total Scheduled Capital - Inflated 1,502, ,025 1,601,589 2,945,053 1,195,699 1,244,722 1,425,623 1,172, , , , , ,087 1,829,812 1,001,959 1,262,425 2,266,198 1,881,154 1,530,979 25,560,272 Road Surface - Asphalt 242, , , , , , ,113 38,826 39, , , ,998 42, ,749 44, ,747 1,581,207 1,039, ,292 8,515,793 Road Surface - Gravel 142, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,811 3,243,359 Road 1,000 1, ,312 1,061 1,082 1,104 1,126 1,149 1,172 1,195 1,219 1,243 1,268 1,294 1,319 1,346 1,373 1,400 1, ,112 Bridge & Culverts 417, ,461 18,582 1,854,843 19, ,872 20, , ,675-9,508-9, ,525 10,292-10,708-11,140 5,199,439 Facilities 204,500-78,030 12, , , ,766 6, , ,373 Sidewalks ,050-3,869 Signs 4,500 4,590 4,682 4,775 4,871 4,968 5,068 5,169 5,272 5,378 5,485 5,595 5,707 5,821 5,938 6,056 6,178 6,301 6, ,783 Barriers ,688 9,770 6, , ,598 Street Lights 45, ,920 Cross Road Culverts 4,500 4,590 4,682 4,775 4,871 4,968 5,068 5,169 5,272 5,378 5,485 5,595 5,707 5,821 5,938 6,056 6,178 6,301 6, ,783 Storm Mains , ,872 Catch Basin 2,000 2,040 2,081 2,122 2,165 2,208 2,252 2,297 2,343 2,390 2,438 2,487 2,536 2,587 2,639 2,692 2,746 2,800 2,856 45,681 Storm Manhole Storm Pond Discharge Point Vehicles 415, , , ,791-33, ,052 36, , , , , , , , , ,768 6,049,254 Equipment 20, ,217 1,167 19, ,004 77,587 29,291 20,914 57,110 1,057 38,047 6,274 37,209 60,564 55,529 42,069 52, ,006 Software & Hardware 2,500 17,053 17,791 6,049 27, ,456 3,101 24,019 9,823 20,845 23,251 3,171 24,215 12,667 3,634 29,142 1,007 28, ,286 Land Improvements ,404-6,495-16,892 17,230 6,444-88,987 31, , , ,145 Levels of Service Costs - Inflated Asset Type TOTAL Total Scheduled Capital - Inflated 234, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,521 3,686,084 Road Surface - Asphalt 58,800 34,476 35,166 35,869 36,586 37,318 38,064 38,826 39,602 40,394 71,677 42,026 42,867 43,724 44,598 45,490 46,400 47,328 48, ,486 Road Surface - Gravel 110, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,107 2,512,461 Road 1,000 1,020 1,040 1,061 1,082 1,104 1,126 1,149 1,172 1,195 1,219 1,243 1,268 1,294 1,319 1,346 1,373 1,400 1,428 22,841 Bridge & Culverts 17,860 10,261 18,582 10,676 19,332 11,107 20,113 11,556 20,926-9,508-9,892-10,292-10,708-11, ,953 Facilities Sidewalks ,050-3,869 Signs Barriers Street Lights 45, ,920 Cross Road Culverts Storm Mains , ,872 Catch Basin 2,000 2,040 2,081 2,122 2,165 2,208 2,252 2,297 2,343 2,390 2,438 2,487 2,536 2,587 2,639 2,692 2,746 2,800 2,856 45,681 Storm Manhole Storm Pond Discharge Point Vehicles Equipment Software & Hardware Land Improvements Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. I:\ARUNAS\Amaranth\AMP Amendment\Amaranth AMP Amendment.xlsx

82 2016 Asset Management Plan Amendment Scheduled Capital Replacement - Inflated Scenario 2: Capital Phased-In Approach - Medium Deferral (Recommended) Tax Supported Assets Inflation Factor 102.0% 104.0% 106.1% 108.2% 110.4% 112.6% 114.9% 117.2% 119.5% 121.9% 124.3% 126.8% 129.4% 131.9% 134.6% 137.3% 140.0% 142.8% 145.7% Asset Type TOTAL Scenario 2a 1,032,750 1,066,410 1,101,003 1,136,554 1,173,086 1,210,625 1,249,196 1,288,825 1,329,540 1,371,369 1,414,338 1,458,478 1,503,818 1,550,388 1,598,219 1,647,343 1,697,793 1,749,602 1,802,804 27,382,139 Scenario 2b 1,045,500 1,092,420 1,140,799 1,190,675 1,242,091 1,295,087 1,349,706 1,405,991 1,463,988 1,523,743 1,585,302 1,648,714 1,714,029 1,781,296 1,850,569 1,921,900 1,995,344 2,070,957 2,148,796 30,466,908 Tax Supported Assets Amended Scenario 2 Capital Phased In Approach Inflated 2,500,000 2,000,000 Future Replacement Cost (Inflated) 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 Scenario 2a Scenario 2b Year of Replacement Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. I:\ARUNAS\Amaranth\AMP Amendment\Amaranth AMP Amendment.xlsx

83 Township of Amaranth th Line Amaranth ON L9W 0M6 Telephone: (519) Fax: (519) info@amaranth.ca NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF A COMPLETE APPLICATION & NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FOR A PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT A public meeting will be held at the Amaranth Township Office, to consider the following application for an amendment to the Amaranth Township Zoning By-Law: Application Number: Z3-18 Related SPA2-14 Applications: Council Meeting: July 25, 2018 at 8:00 p.m. Owner: Holmes Agro Ltd./ Ontario Inc. Applicant: Jeff Holmes Location: County Road 11 Concession 3, East Part Property Area: 7.9ha/19.6ac Lot 2, RP 7R2297 Part 1 and RP 7R4644 Part 1 Present Zoning: Agricultural and Industrial Proposed Zoning: Agricultural Exception and Industrial Exception Purpose: To allow an agricultural related use (crop inputs) and an accessary structure (scale) in the front yard. PUBLIC MEETING: You are entitled to attend this public hearing in person to express your views about the Zoning by-law amendment application or you may be represented by counsel for that purpose. If you wish to make written comments, they may be forwarded to the Clerk-Treasurer at the address shown above. A copy of the application and background material, if any, are available at the Administration Office during regular office hours. FAILURE TO ATTEND HEARING: If a person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of the Council of the Township of Amaranth to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal but the person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the Council of the Township of Amaranth before the by-law is passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision; If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submission to the Council of the Township of Amaranth before the by-law is passed, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. DECISION: If you wish to be notified of the Decision of the Council of the Township of Amaranth on the Zoning bylaw amendment application, you must make a written request to the Township of Amaranth at the address above noted. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Hearing. For illustration purposes only. This is not a plan of survey Dated: July 5, 2018 Susan M. Stone AMCT CAO/Clerk Treasurer TOWNSHIP OF AMARANTH

84

85 I t DATE RECEIVED PROPERW ROLL \iii iir \',I' i li :ri''l' ; ;]i' ll :l\! :; T 'liliu\.ilr[\ t.] t Ltt'.] iil.;"il1\ri:tr 22o9 - ooo - OO I - Olboo - ooao AP LICATION FOR: Zoning By-Law Amendment n Temporary Use tsy-law n Holding Zone Removal n Other: Completeness of the Application The information in this form must be provided by the applicant with the appropriate fee and deposit. lf the information, fee and deposit are not provided, the application will be retumed or refused for further consideration until the required information and payments have been provided. Section 7, Sworn Affrdavit, must bc dgncd by tll owncrs ln front of t commlssisncr, or Sections 7.1 tnd 7.2 must bc aompleted by tha propefi swncr lf tn rgcnt rs meking thls tppllcatlon on tholr bohtlf. lf you have any qucstions please contact the Municipal Offlce at: Submision of the Appllcatlon. 1 copy of the completcd eppllcatlon form and a copy of the sketch are required by thc Township. (For largc drawings, please providr dlgital copy). Appllcation Fce and Drporlt purruant to By{-aw ar emrndcd by Meacuromcntc to bo ln mctrlc unltr.. Thc Gonservation Authority may rrquire e proccrring fee for rrvirwing epplleation. Township of Amaranth, th Line,Amaranth,ON, LgW 0M6 Tel.: (519) ; Fax: (519) Appllcant end Ownrrship lnformetion 1.1 Name of Applloant Home Telcphone No. {-rc F\o\^,.res.(\q -'iq [- o \lfc Firm/corpo.ation: lr e'1 {Ga of,s&i., \*.- / \\.wfs /\c Address Ll?3o{d C\, &lu A*=..^.kf- t, Postal Code tsusinese/gell. Phone No. {rq^qvo- 3?"1 I ef- g hao\r^.s a.\ro. Co n, Name of Owncr(s) lf different ftom the applioent an owner's authorization is required in Section 7, if the applicant is not the owner -/ Address Home Telephonc No. Business /Cell.Phone No. 1.3 Name of the person who is to be contacted about the application, if difrerent than the applicant (this may be a person or flrm acting on behalf of the applicant). Name of Contact Porson Home Telephone No. Firm/Corpontion Business/Cell. Fhone No. Address: Postal Code Any Mortgages, Charges, or other encumbrances in respect of the subject land: (cc Name Address tl ttt \n,r.,,)/.'t $e"o.-l- Kt *o '-T H.'. '1n,, -, n -,[TnRt o

86 2. Location and Description of the Subject Land 2.1 County: Dufferin Municipality Township of Amaranth Concession Number.r ( _ f{gq." -Q *{&\rv Plan No. Width of streeuroad _m to'.pl u"; z Registered Plan/Lot(s) / Block(s) " Part Number (s) StreeURoad: - \ (n.,j- LJ t\ StreeUEmergency No. qn?.^ fd I Municipal year round maintained road ElCounty Road fl Seasonal or private road Frontage (m) Depth (m) Area (hectares) Entire Property il-l fn 1{1 f 3. Zoning and Official Plan lnformation 3.1 Current zoning of the AEri.*\L..{ Ti: J"f,L,*t- rq-b AIR/S! 3.3 Related Applications under the Planning Act, if any: S? Az-\\ Affected Area (if amendment does not affect entire property) 3.2 Proposed Zoning: \ri.*\\.,nol /-..ep{l"j l*a{el,tl 3.4 Has subject lands ever been subject of an Application under the Planning Act? File # File # Status: Status: 3.5 Nature & Extent of the proposed Rezoning or Temporary Use By-Law 3.6 a why the ing is requested: [1 fcl K"-\A+A r \<cz a( ( ho lru1,,rtf + \ A*ets e- \..r J- r., fta Qole* \rrus 3.7 Cunent Official Plan Designation SL (r< use_ t fr\a"it- + fi<^r t{.,tj 3.8 Provide an explanation of how the application conforms to the Official Plan?\- OQ & M

87 4 GonsistencywlthPolicyDocuments 4.1 Does this application Alter the boundary of a settlement area? Create a new settlement area? Remove lands from an employment area? yes yes yes { * no no no lf yes, provide details of any Official Plan or Official Plan Amendment 4.2 Are the subject lands in an area where conditional zoning may apply? tr yes /^. lf yes, provide details of how this application conforms to Official Plan conditional zoning policies. 4.3 ls the proposed application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and any other Policy Statements issued under subsection 3(1) of the Planning Act: n yes nno Name of individual having knowledge of the policy statements. Signature A report may be required to accompany this application and support the above statement of consistency 4.4 Are the subject lands within the Greenbelt Plan area n ves {no 4.5 Ar9 the subject lands within the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan area 6 yes nno 4.6 Does the proposed application conform to or does not conflict with the Provincial Plans, including the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan: n yes trno Name of individual having knowledge of the plans Signature A report may be required to accompany this application and support the above statement of consistency

88 5. Land Use 5.1 Date property acquired! unknown Arri\ t (\qq< 5.3 Proposed Use 5.2 Existing Use G,.^"^<ri"".,t C" rnrnzfc'... \ \.r"1"{ (ic \ 5.4 Existing and Proposed buildings and structures (complete chart for each existing and proposed building or structure) Type of building or structure Setbacks (m) Front Rear Side 5 Side Z Existing o (\r fl Proposed tgu Z8o 5I 17 d e*i.tingwarcl$"9( n Proposed t i9o z4 t1 lof d n Proposed z 6 eri.tinf{dkzcr tj Height (m) Dimension (mxm) 6 Area (m2) 6 nyes,pleaseprovideplannumber-anddateapprovedbyomafra- \otl'"sfet'&(- E5- Date of Construction or proposed construction tb 9ot 1. 2rbs /o\ t\. 7ua& Existing bcvclerar Ao\ z.il lol z1 2_ oao n Proposed SkJra< 7tb I 1 8 t1 lo \1sl E e*i.ting <[.1 lj Proposed { n existing ScAe tr Proposed L81 \,8{ t{ \f6 1t <1 llb 33 {1 z) /ot?-- Time use has continued (for existing buildings and structures) 5.5 Environmental Water dprivate well! Communal Well n Municipal Well Sewage Disposal EaPrivate Septic n Communal System! other: Storm Drainage n sewer El Ditches I Swales! others: Tile Drainage nno E-yes, please mark on site plan location of tile runs Biosolids {no n yes, please mark on site plan location and timing of applications Does the proposed devetopment produce greater than 4500 litres of effluent per day? n yes no lf yes, attach a servicing options report and hydro geological report. 5.6 Agriculture Are lands part of a Nutrient Management Plan? Are there any livestock facilities within 500 metres of the subject lands? ll no u yes lf yes, complete the attached Farm Data Sheet

89 5.7 Statement of Requirements: Please complete the following chart Zone Requirements: (Office Use) Lot Area (hectares) Frontage (m) Front Yard (distance between front lot line and building or structure) 11" (b Acres I I -1 r^ cd<s (m) { \ {e rnad<i ) Rear Yard (m) 11 g c.n,eav\ lnterior Side Yard (m) Exterior Side Yard (m) Height (m) \f"^c*rtlzg Lot Coverage (building footprint as % lot area)./ C,,tul; 3zo o sr?= q% q Dwelling Size (m2) Landscaping (% oflot area) tf r-,v-".lcr.-, i 6. Sketch 6.1 The application shall be accompanied by a sketch showing the following: (Please Use Metric Units). the boundaries and dimensions of the subject land. the location, size and type of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the subject land, indicating the distance of the buildings or structures from the front yard lot line, rear yard lot line and side yard lot lines. the approximate location of all natural and artificial features on the subject land and on land that is adjacent to the subject land that may affect the application. Examples include buildings, railways, roads, watercourses, drainage ditches, river or stream banks, wetlands, wooded areas, wells and septic tanks. the cunent use on land that is adjacent to the subject land. the location width and name of any road within or abutting the subject land, indicating whether it is an unopened road allowance, a public travelled road, a private road or a right of way. a the location and nature of any easement affecting the subject land. S:\Planning\,Application Forms (Bill 51 )\AM zoning Application.doc

90 7 Affidavit, Swom Declaration an Authorizations 7.1 Afiidavit or Sworn lli,^es Alfo of the' t,.9 \!F\.CA in the information contai this application is true. Swom (or declared) before me at the in the this? in this application is true and tfiat the.infor-m,ation coltained in^the documents that accompany Chrlstlne Hlckey, Deputy Clerk Commissioner of Oaths Townshlp of day of t make oath and say (or solemnly declare) that the Ap Commissioner of Oaths Applicant,./rrthe appticant is not the owner of the land that is the subject of this application, the written authorization of the owner that the applicant is authorized to make the application must be included with this form or the authorization set out below must be completed. ' fk am the owner of the land that is the subject of this applicationandlauthorizetomakethisapplicationonmy behalf. Date Signature of Owner lt the applicant.is not the owner of the land that is the subject of this application, complete the authorization of the - owner concerning personal information set out below. l,, am the owner of the land that is the subject of this application and for the purposes of the Freedom of lnformation and Protection of Privacy Act, I authorize ff.hi?,"'?r'?i:t"tj"':ffi JT'.l..""H;i*:ffI"'mvpersonar 7.4 Permission to Enter Date Signature of Owner,ff-Q the owner of the land that is the subject of this application and I authorize Township staff or their representative to enter my property for the purposes of evaluating this application ate.,( nature of Owner 8. Gonsent of the Owner Complete the consent of the owner conceming personal information set out below 8.1 Consent of the Owner to the Use and Disclosure of Personal lnformation,, -(at!# t\(--.*s, am the owner of tand that is the subject of this appticaten ano tor ne purposes of the Freedom of lnformation and Protection of Privacy Act, I authorize and consent to the use by or the disclosure to any person or public body of personal information that is collected under the authority of the Planning Act for the purposes of processing.{".*e- 1 Date 2.,r ( Signature of Owner

91 d (<) \$ag t?' 3 qy <7ff' r."l,;l L \\t \R"-\ NTH T()1 \\si-ip JUN RECEIVED (*1,'le* t+-<a.1< *3 l-l \t '- r1'-' '\o'n I -J*a*c - 3\. 6<t ({' 5^ A $zoo5\ fn s R / /2' z\bo vtr- 0($*.ool Sf, -O!rTB.{ 1. \\"\'\ * f" /2o' \Uare)**ga rtt \ 12-oo {xcu $a,o r\, f 'f*az S! I 1,'l zo

92 120 Adelaide Street West Suite 1600 Toronto, Ontario M5H 1T1 T F VIA & COURIER July 16, 2018 The Corporation of the Township of Amaranth th Line, Amaranth, ON L9W 0M6 ATTN: Susan Stone Re: FIT Contract F SPV between The Corporation of the Township of Amaranth (the Supplier ) and the Independent Electricity System Operator (the IESO ), dated as of October 12, 2017, as amended (the FIT Contract ): Notice of Termination and Stop Work Notice pursuant to Section 2.4(a) of the FIT Contract Dear Susan Stone, We refer to the directive to the IESO from the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines issued July 13, 2018 and approved by Order in Council 1003/2018 (the Directive ) 1. The Directive may be found on the IESO s website at This letter is notice to the Supplier that the IESO is terminating the FIT Contract pursuant to the Directive and Section 2.4(a) of the FIT Contract, effective immediately. In addition, this letter is a Stop Work Notice issued pursuant to Section 2.4(a)(ii) of the FIT Contract. The Supplier must therefore immediately and permanently refrain from commencing, or allowing any third party to commence, and immediately and permanently cease, and cause any third party to cease, the development, construction and operation of the Facility or any part of the Facility. Pursuant to Section 2.4(a) of the FIT Contract, the IESO will return or refund, as applicable, all Completion and Performance Security to the Supplier within 20 Business Days following receipt by the IESO of a written request from the Supplier for such return or refund, as applicable. In order to facilitate this return or refund of security, please complete and submit the applicable Prescribed Form, which will be made available by the IESO shortly. Pursuant to Section 2.4(b) of the FIT Contract, the Supplier is required to provide to the IESO a written statement documenting the Pre-Construction Development Costs incurred by the Supplier prior to the Termination Date. Pre-Construction Development Costs are defined in the FIT Contract as those reasonable costs incurred after the Contract Date for the development of the Facility, excluding: (i) the costs of Generating Equipment, (ii) that portion of any costs charged by a Person who does not deal at Arm s Length with the Supplier that is in excess of the costs that would have been charged had such Person been at Arm s Length with the Supplier, and (iii) profits, less any grants received pursuant to any government or IESO programs that the Supplier is not obligated to repay. Pre-Construction Development Costs may include reasonable costs incurred for feasibility studies; obtaining Access Rights; obtaining a 1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this letter have the meanings ascribed to them under the FIT Contract, and including means including without limitation.

93 Independent Electricity System Operator Renewable Energy Approval (if applicable); development of business and financial plans; negotiation of contracts relating to equipment procurement, construction and financing; reasonable non-refundable deposits on Generating Equipment, and on transformers or other equipment used to transform or transmit Electricity; non-refundable deposits in connection with the Connection Costs; resource assessments; obtaining permits and approvals necessary to commence construction and reasonable overhead expenses allocated to any of these. Pre-Construction Development Costs do not include costs associated with construction of the Facility. If the Supplier has commenced site preparation or other construction activities, any costs incurred in this regard are not Pre-Construction Development Costs under the FIT Contract. In order for the IESO to confirm the Pre-Construction Development Costs, the Supplier must complete and submit the applicable Prescribed Form, which will be made available by the IESO shortly, along with adequate supporting documentation for all Pre-Construction Development Costs submitted therein. Further information on how to complete the Prescribed Form and the nature of expected supporting documentation will also be made available. Following receipt by the IESO of the written statement documenting the Pre-Construction Development Costs, and the IESO s confirmation of such costs, acting reasonably, the IESO will pay to the Supplier as the sole and exclusive remedy for terminating the FIT Contract an amount equal to such confirmed Pre- Construction Development Costs, and in any case the amount shall not exceed the Pre-Construction Liability Limit set out in Section 1.2(d) of Exhibit A to the FIT Contract. Nothing provided in this letter constitutes a waiver of the IESO s rights or remedies under the FIT Contract. Should you have any questions, please contact Tasnim Ahsan at (416) or by at Tasnim.Ahsan@ieso.ca. Sincerely, Michael Lyle Vice President, Legal Resources & Corporate Governance cc: Darryl Yahoda, IESO Viviana von Bertoldi, IESO

94 Township of Amaranth Administration Office th Line Amaranth, ON L9W 0M6 TEL: (519) FAX: (519) REPORT TO COUNCIL To: From: Mayor MacIver and Council Ben Ryzebol, Director of Public Works Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Subject: Hot Mix Paving Tender Awards 2018 Recommendation(s) THAT the 2018 Hot Mix Paving Tender be awarded to the lowest bidder, The Murray Group Limited in the amount of $134, plus taxes. Tender for Hot Mix Paving The location for the hot mix paving is Amaranth-Luther Grand Valley Townline for 20 Sideroad to Luther Grand Valley The area to be completed is 1450 metres long and 6.7 metres wide. The tender closed at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 12, Tenders were opened on Thursday, July 12, 2018 at approximability 1:30 p.m. The tender requirements specified the supply mix and placing of HL3 Asphalt at.70 ML, approximately 1665 tonnes. The following criteria was specified in the tender document: Contractor shall supply and place hot mix asphalt as directed by the Supervisor at the location specified. The Contractor shall also pave intersections back to the Township Right of Way Limit and three (3) Private Entrance. There will be three (3) butt joints needed, tack coat to be put down on existing asphalt for good adhesion of new to old. Scratch coat to be put down first to regain profile, first lift to be approximability 20 ml, with a second lift of 50 ml to finish. Include the use of asphalt shuttle buggy to ensure little to no segregation. Contractor shall supply a traffic control plan in compliance with the construction act regulations as well as personnel and signage.

95 The Hot Mix Paving Tender was advertised on the Township website and provided by to past bidders. The following Tenders were received and the results are as follows: Bidder Bid Amount 1665 Tonness (per unit Unit Price The Murray Group Limited $ tax $134, Cox Construction Limited $ tax $138, Aecon Construction and Materials Limited $ tax $166, The tenders met the criteria as set out in the tender document issued by the Director of Public Works. Financial Impact The 2018 amount for the completion of this job was $120,000.00, the total amount of the tender will exceed the 2018 budgeted amount. Respectfully Submitted, Ben Ryzebol Director of Public Works

96 Township of Amaranth Administration Office th Line Amaranth, ON L9W 0M6 TEL: (519) FAX: (519) REPORT TO COUNCIL To: From: Mayor MacIver and Council Ben Ryzebol, Director of Public Works Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Subject: Reduction of Speed Limit 9 th Line and 5 Sideroad Recommendation(s) THAT the speed on the 9 th Line be reduced to 50 km. hour north and south of the 5 Sideroad intersection. Background The intersection of 5 sideroad and the 9th Line has long been a problem for visibility and safety. There historically have been accidents and many near misses at this intersection. The Public Works Department clear cut two corners of that intersection 4 to 5 years ago which greatly helped visibility looking south while eastbound and looking north while westbound. The southeast part and the northwest parts of the intersection remain a problem, the northwest being the very worst part of the problem.. Therefore the Public Works Department will be cutting back that corner to the fence line to the full width of the Road Allowance to regain better sight lines. A letter will be sent to the owners advising of the work to be conducted. The work is required to provide for more appropriate level of safety Request: The Director of Public Works requests that the speed limit be lowered to 50 km approaching the intersection from the North and South, as visibility will always be a challenge at the intersection. Speed is a problem as they pick up speed on the hill and proceed through the intersection at a high a rate of speed. This greatly reduces the ability to avoid another vehicle, or farm, or Municipal machinery, attempting to enter the intersection. We will also be erecting Restricted Visibility or Hidden Intersection signs to enhance the warning approaching this intersection from north and south. Financial Impact The signage can be accommodated within the 2018 budget. Respectfully Submitted, Ben Ryzebol Director of Public Works

97 Notice of Intent to Remove a Holding (H) Symbol and Council Meeting Monday, September 10, 2018 (No earlier than 7 P.M.) Banquet Room, Tony Rose Memorial Sports Centre, 6 Northmen Way, Orangeville, Ontario Take Notice that the Corporation of the Town of Orangeville has received an application from Cachet Developments (Orangeville) Inc. for a proposed Holding (H) Symbol Removal (File No. H6/18) pursuant to Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act as follows. Description of the Land: The total landholding is comprised of a hectare (2.479 acres) parcel located within a Block (Block 92) on a registered plan of residential subdivision. The lands are triangular in shape and are bounded to the north by Hansen Boulevard; to the east by Parkinson Crescent; and, to the south by an existing condominium townhouse development located within the Mono Meadows ( Phase 4 ) plan of subdivision. Lands designated for future employment uses are located to the west of the subject lands. A portion of the subject lands were approved by Council in March 2018 for the removal of a Holding (H) Symbol for 14 townhouse dwellings and they are currently under construction. The remainder of the lands are presently vacant. A location map is attached. Purpose and Effect of the Holding (H) Symbol Removal Application: The applicant has proposed the construction of 25 freehold townhouse dwellings on the remaining portion of the property. In order for the proposed development to proceed, the Council approval of a Holding (H) Symbol Removal Application is required. According to the Town s Sewage Treatment Allocation Policy, all projects containing five or more residential units require the removal of a Holding (H) Symbol by seeking allocation of sewage and water from Council in order for the development to proceed. Related Application: Site Plan Control Approval Application (SP4/18)

98 Council Meeting: All persons interested in the above application are invited to attend the Council meeting. Those persons who attend the Council meeting will be given an opportunity to ask questions or to make an oral submission to Council. Written comments, addressed to the Mayor and Members of Council, may also be submitted either before or at the meeting. This Council meeting will be where Council of the Corporation of the Town of Orangeville gives or refuses to give approval to the Holding (H) Symbol Removal Application. Information Available: Additional information and material relating to the application is available for review during business hours, in the Planning Department at 87 Broadway, Orangeville, Ontario. For further information, you may also contact Gordon Dickson, Senior Planner at Ext or by at during normal business hours or visit the Planning Department. Dated: July 18, 2018

99 WardlawA venu e Parkinson Crescent Porter Drive HutchisonCourt DrewBrownBoulevard Hansen Boulevard Gibson Court Laverty Crescent Paisley W ay Fitzgerald Street Laverty Crescent Pa rkinson Crescent LocationMap Applicant: CachetDevelopments(Orangeville)Inc. Subject Property

100 Karen Canivet Subject: FW: Letter to council for trailer permit extension From: michael alves Sent: Monday, July 16, :22 PM To: Christine Hickey Subject: Letter to council for trailer permit extension Hello Christine Thank you for your reply here is my letter to council also could you let me know what time the meeting will be held so i could try to attend thank you. Dear council, I am writing on behalf of the trailer permit on mine and my parents property on nd line in amaranth. We have submitted our plans to the town ship and got your approval for the construction of a new home and demolition of the old one. We are now just finalizing the last few details with Dufferin county building department to finalize the permit to begin demolishion and construction. As this is our first time going through this process we have had a few hiccups along the way which have delayed this process but we are now on the right track. We kindly ask that we extend the trailer permit for a year and a half or until we have occupancy of the new home as the old one will be demolished once we attain the permit go ahead from Dufferin county and we would be left with no one to be able to stay while at he property. Thank you again for your time and patience. 1

101 The Gorporation of the Town of Orangeville By-lawNumber 0BB-Z0Ig A By-law to amend By-law as amended, (Riddell Park Place Inc.) Block 9, Plan 7M-68 (515 Riddell Road) Whereas on December 11, 2017, Council held a public meeting with respect to Zoning By-law Amendment Application lo rezone the subject property from Neighbourhood Commercial (C2) Zone, Special Provision (SP ) to Neighbourhood Commercial (C2) Zone, Special Provision (SP ) to permit the development of an 'automobile service station' on the propefty. And whereas on June 25,2018 Council approved the Zoning By-law Amendment Application; Be it therefore enacted by the municipal Council of The Corporation of the Town of Orangeville as follows: 1. That Zoning Map D2 is hereby amended in accordance with Schedule "4" hereto. 2. That Section 24 of By-law No , as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following text thereto: ' Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.1 (Permitted Uses) to the contrary, permitted uses for the property described as Block 9, Plan 7M-68 (515 Riddell Road) shall only include the following: an automobile service station', a busrness or professional office; a fi n anci al establ ish ment; a medical laboratory; a nursery school', a personal seruice shop', a recre ati o n al estab I i sh me nt; a restaurant; a retailsfore; a repair, service or rental establishment; a veterinarian clinic.

102 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.2 and Section 15.3, to the contrary, the following regulations shall apply to the lands zoned Neighbourhood Commercial (C2) Zone, SP : Requlations Lot area (minimum) Lot frontage (minimum) Front yard (minimum) - for building - for fuel pump lnterior side yard (minimum) Exterior side yard (minimum) - for building - for fuel pump Rear yard (minimum) Bu ilding height (maximum) Maximum gross floor area for a retail outlet, other than food store and hardware store m metres 3.5 metres 4.5 metres 5.0 metres 3.5 metres 4.5 metres 7.5 metres 8.0 metres 1,858.0 m2" 3. That Section of By-law No , as amended, be deleted in its entirety Passed in open Council this 25th day of June, c:g4a 4ù/t4{t I ùatyqa<

103 A C 0 RM2(H) ) 775 os2 2(H ) ( c3(h) 4 ø (. o{ ( 2 \!e The Corporation of The Town of Orangeville Schedule 'A'Town of Orangeville Zoning By-law N A Schedule rrarr to by-law Passed the day of 0g 3 - Z 0I I r^/untr: âolk S.P to be deleted and 5.P to be added fuv'q Mayor zoy Clerk Zoning Map No. D2 This is a reference map only

104

105 The Corporation of the Town of Oranqeville 87 Broadway, Orangeville, On. L9W 1K1 Phone: (519) Notice of the Passing of a Zoning By-law Riddell Road Take notice that the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Orangeville passed By-law No onthe25thdayof June,2018, undersection34of the PlanningAcf, R.S.O. 1990,c.P.13, as amended. And take notice that a notice of appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in respect to the bylaw may be submitted to the Clerk, The Corporation of the Town of Orangeville, 87 Broadway, Orangeville, ON LgW 1K1 no later than 4 p.m. on the 30th day of July, Only individuals, corporations and public bodies may appeal a zoning by-law to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. A notice of appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated association or group. However, a notice of appeal may be filed in the name of an individual who is a member of the association or group on its behalf. lf a person or public body does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to the Town of Orangeville before the proposed Zoning By-law is passed, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, unless in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. lf you wish to file an appeal with respect to the by-law to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), a copy of the appealform is available from the LPAT website at A notice of appeal must set out the reasons for the appeal and be accompanied by a certified cheque or money order in the amount of $ payable to the Minister of Finance. Dated at the Town of Orangeville this 1Oth day of July, 2018 Purpose and Effect Susan Greatrix, Clerk The purpose and effect of By-law is to amend the Town of Orangeville Zoning By-law 22-90, as amended, and rezone the subject property from Neighbourhood Commercial (C2) Zone, Special Provision (SP ) to Neighbourhood Commercial (C2) Zone, Special Provision (SP ) to permit the development of an "automotive service station" on the property. The location of the subject lands is shown on the Key Map on the reverse.

106 Location Map Applicant: Riddell Park Place Inc N A % 670 Subject Property + 7z & s %

107 Notice of Intent to Remove a Holding (H) Symbol and Council Meeting Monday, September 10, 2018 (No earlier than 7 P.M.) Banquet Room, Tony Rose Memorial Sports Centre, 6 Northmen Way, Orangeville, Ontario Take Notice that the Corporation of the Town of Orangeville has received an application from Riddell Development Inc. for a proposed Holding (H) Symbol Removal (File No. H4/18) pursuant to Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act as follows. Description of the Land: The subject property is located in proximity to the intersection of Spencer Avenue and Riddell Road and is comprised of a parcel generally rectangular in shape with a total lot area of approximately 0.32 hectares and approximate frontage onto Spencer Avenue of metres. The lands are currently vacant. Adjacent and surrounding development includes an existing multi-building, multi-tenant commercial development abutting the interior side yard (comprised of three (3) restaurants, a pharmacy; and a gas bar (in conjunction with a convenience retail use)); a registered plan of residential subdivision ( Riddell Village ) and dedicated commercial Block on the opposite side of Spencer Avenue; Open Space (recreation and conservation) lands abutting the interior side yard and rear yard; and, vacant lands (designated and zoned for High Density Residential uses) located further northwest along Riddell Road. A location map is attached. Purpose and Effect of the Holding (H) Symbol Removal Application: The applicant has proposed the construction of a five (5) storey multiple dwelling (i.e. apartment building) comprised of 42 units. Parking for the proposed development will include a combination of surface and underground parking with a total of 62 parking spaces contemplated for the building. In order for the proposed development to proceed, the Council approval of a Holding (H) Symbol Removal Application is required. According to the Town s Sewage Treatment Allocation Policy, all projects containing five or more residential units require the removal of a Holding (H) Symbol by seeking allocation of sewage and water from Council in order for the development to proceed.

108 Related Application: Site Plan Control Approval Application (SP5/18) Council Meeting: All persons interested in the above application are invited to attend the Council meeting. Those persons who attend the Council meeting will be given an opportunity to ask questions or to make an oral submission to Council. Written comments, addressed to the Mayor and Members of Council, may also be submitted either before or at the meeting. This Council meeting will be where Council of the Corporation of the Town of Orangeville gives or refuses to give approval to the Holding (H) Symbol Removal Application. Information Available: Additional information and material relating to the application is available for review during business hours, in the Planning Department at 87 Broadway, Orangeville, Ontario. For further information, you may also contact Gordon Dickson, Senior Planner at Ext or by at during normal business hours or visit the Planning Department. Dated: July 18, 2018

109 Abbey Road Althorp Drive WintertonCourt GlengarryRoad BuckinghamStreet Cornwall Gate Northampton Street Biscayne Crescent Riddell Road Centennial Road Spencer Avenue Winterton Court LocationMap Applicant: Riddell DevelopmentInc. Subject Property &

110 Notice of Intent to Remove a Holding (H) Symbol and Council Meeting Monday, September 10, 2018 (No earlier than 7 P.M.) Banquet Room, Tony Rose Memorial Sports Centre, 6 Northmen Way, Orangeville, Ontario Take Notice that the Corporation of the Town of Orangeville has received an application from Cachet Developments (Orangeville) Inc. for a proposed Holding (H) Symbol Removal (File No. H6/18) pursuant to Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act as follows. Description of the Land: The total landholding is comprised of a hectare (2.479 acres) parcel located within a Block (Block 92) on a registered plan of residential subdivision. The lands are triangular in shape and are bounded to the north by Hansen Boulevard; to the east by Parkinson Crescent; and, to the south by an existing condominium townhouse development located within the Mono Meadows ( Phase 4 ) plan of subdivision. Lands designated for future employment uses are located to the west of the subject lands. A portion of the subject lands were approved by Council in March 2018 for the removal of a Holding (H) Symbol for 14 townhouse dwellings and they are currently under construction. The remainder of the lands are presently vacant. A location map is attached. Purpose and Effect of the Holding (H) Symbol Removal Application: The applicant has proposed the construction of 25 freehold townhouse dwellings on the remaining portion of the property. In order for the proposed development to proceed, the Council approval of a Holding (H) Symbol Removal Application is required. According to the Town s Sewage Treatment Allocation Policy, all projects containing five or more residential units require the removal of a Holding (H) Symbol by seeking allocation of sewage and water from Council in order for the development to proceed. Related Application: Site Plan Control Approval Application (SP4/18)

111 Council Meeting: All persons interested in the above application are invited to attend the Council meeting. Those persons who attend the Council meeting will be given an opportunity to ask questions or to make an oral submission to Council. Written comments, addressed to the Mayor and Members of Council, may also be submitted either before or at the meeting. This Council meeting will be where Council of the Corporation of the Town of Orangeville gives or refuses to give approval to the Holding (H) Symbol Removal Application. Information Available: Additional information and material relating to the application is available for review during business hours, in the Planning Department at 87 Broadway, Orangeville, Ontario. For further information, you may also contact Gordon Dickson, Senior Planner at Ext or by at during normal business hours or visit the Planning Department. Dated: July 18, 2018

112 WardlawA venu e Parkinson Crescent Porter Drive HutchisonCourt DrewBrownBoulevard Hansen Boulevard Gibson Court Laverty Crescent Paisley W ay Fitzgerald Street Laverty Crescent Pa rkinson Crescent LocationMap Applicant: CachetDevelopments(Orangeville)Inc. Subject Property

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d appel de l aménagement local ISSUE DATE: June 19, 2018 CASE NO(S).: PL The Ontario Municipal Board (the OMB ) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal ), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Hamount Investment Ltd. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to announce a decision on the application Purpose: To permit the development of a plan of subdivision Property Address: East Half of Lots 1 and 2, Concession 1 Municipality: Township of Amaranth Municipal File No.: 22T OMB Case No.: PL OMB File No.: S PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Valleygrove Investments Incorporated Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to announce a decision on the application Purpose: To permit the development of a plan of subdivision Property Address: East Half of Lots 1 and 2, Concession 1 Municipality: Township of Amaranth Municipal File No.: 22T OMB Case No.: PL OMB File No.: S050041

125 2 PL Heard: May 30, 2018 by Telephone Conference Call APPEARANCES: Parties Township of Amaranth Hamount Investments Ltd. Laurelpark Investments Inc. Town of Orangeville Counsel J. J. Wilker J. M. Alati A. Biggart for J. R. Hart DECISION DELIVERED BY SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL INTRODUCTION [1] Hamount Investment Ltd. and Valleygrove Investments Incorporated applied for approval of two proposed residential subdivisions in the eastern portion of the Township of Amaranth ( Township ) on the border with the Town of Orangeville ( Town ). [2] On June 27, 2012, Valleygrove Investments Incorporated transferred its property to Laurelpark Investments Inc. Hamount Investment Ltd., Valleygrove Investments Incorporated and Laurelpark Investments Inc. are controlled by the same principal. Hearing no objection, the Tribunal is satisfied to record Laurelpark Investments Inc. in place of Valleygrove Investments Incorporated to reflect the correct, current ownership. Hamount Investment Ltd. and Laurelpark Investments Inc. are together referred to in this decision as the Proponents. [3] The Ontario Municipal Board issued its decision giving draft plan approval, subject to conditions, for the subdivisions on August 5, The initial draft approval was for three years after which the draft approval would lapse if the conditions had not been cleared and final approval given by that time.

126 3 PL [4] There have been three previous requests for two-year extensions of the lapsing date. Each of these requests came on consent of the Township and each was granted. The Proponents have now sought a fourth two-year extension. The Township objects to this further extension. [5] In order to understand better the dispute between the parties and then make a decision on the request for extension, the Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference call with the Township, the Proponents and the Town on May 30, [6] Following submissions and questions from the Tribunal, it became clear that more detailed information and elaboration of the grounds for each Party s position was necessary and that the matter should proceed by way of a motion. It also became clear that the complexity of the motion would likely require three hearing days. [7] As a direct consequence of pressures on the Tribunal s resources, and therefore on its hearing calendar, the earliest the Tribunal could accommodate a three-day motion to be heard, appropriately, in the Township was in February, As such, the Tribunal sets the motion down for three days to commence at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 6, 2019 in: Council Chambers Amaranth Municipal Building th Line, Orangeville Amaranth, ON L9W 0M6 [8] February 6, 2019 is after the lapsing date for the draft approval of the two subdivisions. [9] To support a fair process and on consent of the Parties, the Tribunal agrees to issue an interim extension of the lapsing date from August 5, 2018 to the date the Tribunal issues its decision on the motion requesting an extension.

127 4 PL [10] With the full agreement of the Parties, the Tribunal s decision to issue an interim extension is contingent upon the following: 1. In issuing this interim extension, the Tribunal makes no finding on the question of whether an extension is appropriate and the interim extension is given solely to accommodate the Tribunal s calendar challenges. 2. The motion date is peremptory. 3. The interim extension is without prejudice to any party to raise issues relevant to the question of extension, except that the fact of the interim extension is not to be used as a basis for arguing in favour of a further extension. 4. The Proponents may serve and file their Notice of Motion and Motion Record, including any authorities, at any time as long as the final Reply is served and filed not later than 14 days prior to the commencement of the motion hearing and as long as the following deadlines are met: i. The Town is to file its Response, including any authorities, within 30 days of being served with the Notice of Motion. ii. The Township is to file its Response within 10 days of being served with the Town s Response. iii. The Proponents are to file their Reply within 21 days of being served with the Township s Response. iv. The Town is to file its Reply within 14 days of being served with the Proponents Reply. The Town s Reply is to be limited to unanticipated issues raised by the Township that are of concern to the Town.

128 5 PL [11] Materials being filed with the Tribunal are to be filed in both hard and electronic form within the deadlines set out above. Electronic filings are to come to the Tribunal in a portable storage drive. File downloads from a client or third party server will not be accepted. [12] I am seized of this matter. [13] So Orders the Tribunal. Susan de Avellar Schiller SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER VICE-CHAIR If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit to view the attachment in PDF format. Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: Telephone: Toll Free:

129 Good Afternoon Your dated June 22, 2018 was included on the Council agenda for July 9, 2018 and received for information. The information below is provided by the CAO who presented the report on Fiddle Park, June 18, The report does reference in two locations the annexation agreement. However, the CAO verbally stated in her presentation that the proposal for the 414 units was in place prior to the annexation which it was not and she apologizes for the error. The following two points of clarification are provided based on our review of the Town s Official Plan Review files from 2003 to 2005: 1) A residential development proposal for the land annexed by Shelburne from Amaranth (now the Fiddle Park property) was brought forward by the landowner/developer during the Town s Official Plan Review process ( ), which was after the land was annexed by Shelburne. At the time, the land was still subject to the Township of Amaranth Official Plan because the Shelburne Official Plan had not yet been amended to incorporate new land use designations and policies for the annexed land. A residential designation of the land was being considered for the land in the Town of Shelburne Official Plan, but due to servicing limitations at the time there was a limit on how much land the Town could designate for development. 2) The number of units proposed on the property at the time as indicated in the Town s Official Plan Review files was 414 units. As explained above, amendments to the Town of Shelburne Official Plan were being considered at the time to designate the annexed land for development and to replace the previous designations of the land as Estate Residential and Environmental in the Township Official Plan. The proposal at the time required an Official Plan amendment, so it makes sense that it was brought forward and considered during the Town s OP Review process ( ). No timeline has been established for Council to rescind the by-law declaring Fiddle Park surplus. Thank You Jennifer Willoughby, Clerk

130 Subject: Refusal of appl. OPA2-15 Dear Ms. Stone: I wanted to write you a note to convey my thanks and gratitude on council's decision to refuse the amendment. That was the right decision to make for all the residents, and I, for one, applaud you for upholding the Official Plan for both Dufferin and Amaranth. I'm sure everyone in Waldemar is breathing easier now. Please pass along my thanks to the rest of your esteemed colleagues. Warm regards, Kim Rancher

131 TH LINE AMARANTH ON L9W 0M6 NOTICE OF COUNCIL MEETING July 24, 2018 at 7:00 pm Administration Office Council Chamber th Line, Amaranth Please take notice that the Council of the Township of East Garafraxa will be considering the following planning applications: Official Plan Amendment File OPA1/15 and Zoning By-Law Amendment File Z1/15 by Tri-County Aggregates Ltd. to redesignate and rezone Part of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Concession 18 in the Township of East Garafraxa to allow the development of an aggregate operation (pit). Please refer to the Township of East Garafraxa s website for the Agenda including the Planning Recommendation Report, which will be posted as soon as available and no later than Friday July 20, All background reports and correspondence are available at the following Township website link: within the Planning and Development and the Planning Notices tabs. Township Council will be considering the Planning Recommendation Report at the above noted Council meeting. The Planning Recommendation Report includes information and delegations arising from the statutory public meetings and includes all written submissions received regarding the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments. It is anticipated that Township Council will determine the next steps in this matter which may include approval or refusal of the applications and requested amendments. The Council meeting is open to the public. Dated this 10th day of July 2018 Susan M. Stone, A.M.C.T. CAO/Clerk-Treasurer TOWNSHIP OF EAST GARAFRAXA T: F:

132 THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF DUFFERIN DEVELOPMENT CHARGES INFORMATION The Council of the Corporation of the County of Dufferin passed Development Charges By-Law # on the 23 rd day of August, 2017 under Section 12 of the Development Charges Act, This Act authorizes Municipalities to pass by-laws for the partial recovery of net growth-related capital costs incurred to provide services to new residential and non-residential developments. Development charge (DC) funds may only be used for the purpose for which they are collected. These services include the improvements to the County roads system. The County currently provides 326 kilometres of roads. Road and bridge costs represent about one quarter of the residential DC. Other Services for which DC s are collected include ambulance service, general government studies, the Edelbrock Centre, Health Unit buildings, public works fleet, the Shelburne hospital housing project, and debt payments on a 2010 senior s social housing facility. In accordance with By-Law # , DC s by type of dwelling unit and for each service component are listed in the table below. County of Dufferin By- Law # applies to all lands in the geographic area of the County of Dufferin. Development charge rates are indexed annually for inflation. All DCs must be paid before building permits are issued. Copies of the Development Charges By-Law # are available at the County of Dufferin Treasurer s Office at the Court House at 55 Zina Street, Orangeville. For further information regarding DCs, please contact the County Treasurer s Office at between the hours of 8:30am and 4:30pm. RESIDENTIAL CHARGE PER UNIT NON-RESIDENTIAL CHARGE Per square meter of gross floor area County-wide Charges Service Component Single & Semi-Detached Multiples Apartments Uniform Non-Residential Roads and Bridges $ $ $ $ 4.57 Other Services $ 2, $ 1, $ 1, $ 3.28 County-wide Total $ 3, $ 2, $ 1, $ 7.85

133 COUNTY OF DUFFERIN This pamphlet has been produced in accordance with the Regulations of the Development Charges Act. It is not intended as a substitute for either the Development Charges Act or the County of Dufferin By-Law # In the event of discrepancies between this pamphlet and the By- Law, the By-Law shall govern. Certified true copies of By-Law # may be obtained from the Treasurer of the County of Dufferin. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW # June 14 th, 2018 A BY-LAW FOR THE IMPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND TO REPEAL BY-LAW #

134 John E. Creelman rd Line Mono, Ontario L9W 5X9 11 July 2018 Mayor and Members of Council, I am writing to you regarding Provincial Offence services in Dufferin County. I previously copied you on a press release issued Monday on this topic but wish to elaborate further through this letter. The matter is of some urgency due to decisions recently made at County Council. As you read this, bear in mind POA revenue, net of administrative expenses, yields around $500,000 annually for Dufferin s local municipalities. As you may know, I was a Justice of the Peace for the last 15 year, six years of which was as Regional Senior Justice of the Peace for our judicial region. In the interest of full disclosure, I am now a candidate for Deputy Mayor in Mono. I hope you will not dismiss this letter for that reason as the issue described here is important and won t wait until after October 22. Background: Eighteen months ago, senior judiciary threatened to move all POA trials and associated administrative to the Caledon East POA court. They did this in frustration over Dufferin County s leasing of the POA courtroom for Brampton overflow trials. These bookings were sometimes done on short notice and at great inconvenience to POA. While POA trial court was accommodated elsewhere in the court complex, there is no assurance going forward this will always happen. Again, when it happens, there is disruption and inconvenience. Early this year, senior judiciary revoked the decision to move POA to Caledon East. This was done for a number of reasons, not the least were the inconvenience to Dufferin residents needing to attend court and Dufferin police services having to send officers out of county to file paperwork and give evidence at trials. The latter would have cost our police services tens of

135 thousands of dollars and taken police resources off the road for longer periods of time. This reprieve has done nothing lessen pressures on POA court services in Dufferin. An all-councils meeting to discuss POA was cancelled by the County and a promised questionnaire to be circulated to local municipalities never materialized. In the mean time, County Council recently voted to move POA administrative staff into a totally inadequate space, half the size it currently occupies (but once barely functioned out of 10 years ago!) over the strenuous objections of Caledon on behalf of POA staff. The County s actions are remarkable in view of the fact that local municipal governments are the overseers of POA through a Board of Management structure. The County is merely the landlord. Despite this, at every turn, County Council has voted the interest of the landlord and not local, rational POA service delivery. If this continues, I safely predict the local delivery of POA court and associated administrative services will once again be in jeopardy. POA administration can not function out of a closet and court sittings can not be assured on a long term basis elsewhere in the complex no matter what County Councillors are being assured. This is especially true if POA court starts to once again sit two days a week, something that is badly needed to deal with cases on a timely basis. Every other alternative to continued delivery of POA services at the Courthouse/ County building makes little or no sense, can not work and will cost much more at the cost of revenue flow to local municipalities. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge difficulties with Caledon as the service provider. Caledon effectively broke up the oversight Board of Management by insisting that only municipal staff sit on the Board. There is absolutely no basis for insisting on this. For years, the Board of Management functioned perfectly well with elected officials from member municipalities. Despite being technically chaired by Caledon, it was effectively co-chaired by a Dufferin representative as well as it should be.

136 So what needs to be done? First, Dufferin s local municipalities need to reconstitute the POA Board of Management, meet and make the determination that POA services must be delivered in Dufferin in the most rational and cost efficient way possible. Right now, that is in the facility that Dufferin County specifically built for POA. It sought, and received federal and provincial grant monies for a POA facility. This message needs to be delivered to and reinforced at County Council by County Councillors. Second, the County needs to stop the constructive dismissal of POA by halting further leasing of Courtroom 103 for Brampton overflow trials and the movement of POA administration from its present space until local municipalities can, through the Board of Management or otherwise, assert their responsibility for POA. Finally, and I believe it is important to understand this: What started out as a proposal to occasionally lease out the POA courtroom for other purposes has simply gotten out of control. Instead of setting conditions or boundaries such as leasing any day that POA is not sitting, County staff were directed by Council to enter into leasing agreements without clear direction that protects the operation of POA in that space. The temptation to realize revenue has eclipsed the necessity of delivering a local service in a rational and cost effective fashion. POA court and attendant services cannot be replicated elsewhere without enormous expense and inconvenience. I urge you and your Council to take action on this issue. Best Regards, John E. Creelman c.c. the local municipalities of Dufferin County

137

138 2018 FIRE SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Thursday, February 8 th, 2018 at 2:00pm The Town of Orangeville, Town Hall, Lower Committee Room Present: Deputy Mayor Warren Maycock The Town of Orangeville Chair Deputy Mayor John Stirk East Garafraxa Mayor Don MacIver Amaranth Councilor Fred Nix Mono CAO Ed Brennan The Town of Orangeville Deputy Chief Michael Richardson Orangeville Fire Department Chief Ronald Morden Orangeville Fire Department Ashleigh Milliner-Cowan, Administration Orangeville Fire Department Regrets: Councilor Gail Campbell The Town of Orangeville The meeting was called to order at 2:10pm, and everyone was welcomed by the meeting Chair Deputy Mayor Warren Maycock. He brought greetings from Councilor Gail Campbell, who sent her regrets. Ed welcomed everyone and spoke about going forward with the fire department and municipalities. He noted the future changes and additions to the fire department are an important part of the growth of the department and the growth of the Town of Orangeville, and surrounding municipalities. Chief Ronald Morden then welcomed everyone and noted that the Orangeville Fire Department has had a great year. After almost 30 years, Training Officer Bruce Beatty retired in the spring, and Colleen Adams has been promoted to the Training Officer Position. Ashleigh Milliner-Cowan has returned from Maternity Leave. Chief Morden then presented a PowerPoint presentation, showing the employee tree and ranks that our departments hold, he described each rank and highlighted the job tasks of each employee. There are 12 full time firefighters with the suppression crews, with two platoons, and 5 firefighters on each platoon who work 6:00am 6:00pm. Going forward, as mentioned last year the Orangeville Fire Department, in consideration of the Master Fire Plan, and the NFPA Standards, will be making changes to be in accordance with the standards. The volunteer firefighters are still very active within the Orangeville Department, and there was nine new recruits hired in Training is held every Monday evening for hours, with a minimum of 4 weekend trainings per year for 6-12 hours. It was also noted that the paging process of utilizing our volunteers would continue for many years to come.

139 Fred Nix posed the question in regards to the new Provincial Standards, and how the Orangeville Fire Departments feels about this change. Chief Morden stated that we anticipated that one day the certification would become mandatory, and that 80% of our department are certified or grandfathered, and that our new recruits will be certified by He assured those in attendance that we will meet the standards fully, and our full time compliment of staff are currently all fully certified at this time. Chief Morden noted that smaller departments and new recruits going forward would have a tight timeline on getting their firefighters certified. It typically takes years to fully train a new recruit and that any new hires going forward; there will be a tightened timeline for training and training opportunities to be certified. Deputy Chief Michael Richardson noted that the Orangeville Fire Department is renowned with the The Ontario Fire College in regards to an excellent training program. He stated it was known at some point in time, the NFPA standards were coming down the line in Firefighter Standards. NPFA is an international standard, and there are accreditation program associated with this for creating training programs at a local level. The Ontario Fire Marshall s office released on Wednesday, February 7 th 2018 guidelines and topics to discuss at a departmental level. Municipal risk assessments were also released, and guidelines can be discussed at a municipal level. Chief Morden showed the coverage areas for Dufferin County. Don MacIver stated that Grand Valley Fire Board has requested a boundary reevaluation, and he wondered if a new building in the future for the Orangeville Fire Department would affect the boundary levels for our response area. Chief Morden noted that nothing has been solidified with locations, or exact plans for a new fire department building. Ed Brennan noted that the boundary discussions would happen before the plans are put into motion. Chief Morden presented pictures of each apparatus and uses of each, and how each apparatus is used in different types of fire operations. The RFP and approval for a new Pumper/Tanker has been awarded to Dependable Emergency Vehicles in Brampton, this truck will have a 4-person cab, with fire pump, and 3000-gallon water tank. This truck can be selfsufficient on its own fire operation, and delivery is planned for fall Chief Morden also presented pictures of other equipment that we have purchased in 2017, noting that these new purchases are NFPA certified. Our RAD Device is a piece of equipment that was donated by The Royal Canadian Legion, Orangeville Branch 17 years ago, and it was recently replaced by our department. This tool measures the CO level in a patient s blood stream. This item was useful during the Grand Valley Arena s CO call last year, and Chief Morden noted over 30 patients were assessed by this tool. Mike noted we also use this tool during medical assessment of our firefighters on scene of a fire, and they are assessed medically with this tool. As a side conversation, Fred Nix asked about radio issues from a county level, and if all emergency service can be on the same radio frequency. Both Mayor MacIver and Deputy Mayor Warren Maycock responded that there are assessments currently being conducted. We have the technology available, however the costs and collaboration of all emergency

140 service is not on the same page. It was noted that this project is ahead of the province, and this effort is forward thinking and ahead it s time. Chief Morden then highlighted some training initiatives and on the presentation with pictures of training programs the Orangeville Fire Department have recently participated in. Some of these training operations are the Mississauga Burn Tower, water and recue training at the local Tony Rose pool, our skills day and auto extrication. He presented the statistics of the training department on the NFPA standards, which as previously mentioned was 80% for our department currently, 11% by the end of 2018 and 9% more by the end of 2019 for a total of 100% of The Orangeville Fire Department being NFPA Certified by the end of The Orangeville Fire Department proudly participated in The Orangeville Fair, The Orangeville Food Bank Food Drives, Big Brothers & Big Sisters Kids & Kops Camp, The Remembrance Day Service, and our annual Fire Prevention Week Open House. Fire Prevention has also been working within the schools throughout our coverage area, day care programs and other youth programs spreading the message about fire safety and prevention. Chief Morden noted about the defibrillator program, and that one of the pictures in the presentation was that of a young boy, who was playing soccer and he collapsed VSA on the soccer field in Orangeville. Our crew responded, delivered a couple of shocks with our defibrillator, and saved the young man s life. About 3 days later, he visited and had the picture taken with the crew. Chief Morden noted the restrictions of the hall with inadequate space on the apparatus floor, and the inaccessibility of our administration level to the public being issues of priority.

141 Chief Morden then presented the total calls and breakdowns for the 2017-year end. Below are the charts that were presented.

142

143

144

145 Chief Morden noted in closing that The Orangeville Fire Department could be found online with the Town of Orangeville Website, Twitter and Facebook. Chair Deputy Mayor Warren Maycock then introduced Treasurer Marc Villeneuve, and he presented the Fire Service Analysis. The town of Orangeville has transitioned to a 5-year budget plan. This budget is broke down into Administration, Full Time Suppression, Volunteer Firefighters, Fire Prevention, Training and Facilities Management. The biggest increase will be effected by the increase of staffing. Marc presented a review of the historical costs of the fire department, call volumes and revenues received from contracted municipalities. The review indicated that Orangeville s share of the fire department costs outweighed the % of call responses attributed to the Town. The shortfall has steadily decreased over time with ongoing increases to rates charged to our contracted municipalities. Going forward, the Town would like to share costs based on the percentage of use (or calls). 21% of the calls are those of the outlying municipalities. The average call percentage over the last 3 years are 5% for Amaranth, 3% for East Garafraxa, and 13% for Mono. The Fire department will incur increased cost but will see improved service with the addition of 8 full time firefighters beginning in The Chief commented that with this 24% increase to the municipalities, there would be a significant increase in level of service. This increase will be for 2018, and 2-3% in years thereafter. This increase savings may also decrease insurance rates for faster response times in service. Don MacIver posed the question in regards to billing for MVC recourse, and if the revenue from these billings were included in the revenue line presented. Ashleigh Milliner-Cowan commented that the new ARIS system which is being used by Orangeville, and can be used by all municipalities. Mono is already using this system, and East Garafraxa and Amaranth likely are too. The Orangeville Fire Department also uses Thomson Insurance Adjusters for cost recovery for in town collisions. Mayor MacIver asked if the Town of Orangeville has considered a joint operations center for EMS and Fire to be housed as one. Ed Brennan noted that it s not something that has been considered but going forward it could be explored. Ed Brennan spoke about the numbers presented and that the Town of Orangeville wants fair and equal balances for all municipalities. He proposed the question of would the Municipalities be interested in the idea of a fixed rate for service of Fire? Mayor MacIver questioned if this would be yearly agreement, or a five year agreement. He is in favor of a five

146 year agreement. Fred Nix commented that although he cannot speak for the Town of Mono, he will take the idea back to the council. Marc commented that there was discussion around keeping the same billing practice for a per call basis, or a yearly rate that could be billed and paid quarterly. John Stirk stated that the Township of East Garafraxa would also be interested in looking at the options also. Chief Morden indicated that if there is any additional information needed, or if attendance at a council meeting would be, helpful The Orangeville Fire Department would be happy to attend. Mayor MacIver commented that the Ice Water Rescue Training is also still very important to this area, with 230,000 visitors to Island Lake Conservation Area in Orangeville. Chief Morden responded that we are proud of the equipment that we do have, and the training and systems we that we have in place are excellent. Provincially, there were halted training efforts during a training accident when two firefighters were killed during a training exercise. There are several levels of water rescue which Fire Departments can be training in. Orangeville Fire Department is trained on land base go rescue, and we can go out feet. Warren Maycock closed the meeting at 3:56PM and thanked everyone for coming.

147 Amendment to Agreement Fire Protection Services The Corporation of The Township of Amaranth 1. This amendment (the Amendment ) is made by The Corporation of The Town of Orangeville and The Corporation of The Township of Amaranth, parties to the agreement for the term January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011, subsequently extended to December 31, The Agreement is amended as follows: a. Extend the Agreement until December 31 st, 2022; and b. That Schedule E Service Fees Section 17 of the agreement be deleted and replaced with the following: Agreement Year Rate Increase Fees for Fire Service Fire Inspection and Education Per Hour % $ 238,917 $ % $ 243,571 $ % $ 251,483 $ % $ 261,540 $ % $ 269,658 $126

148 3. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement is unaffected and shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. If there is a conflict between the amendment and the Agreement or any earlier amendment, the terms of this amendment will prevail. The Corporation of The Town of Orangeville Jeremy Williams, Mayor Date Susan Greatrix, Clerk Date The Corporation of The Township of Amaranth Don MacIver, Mayor Date Susan M. Stone, CAO/Clerk-Treasurer Date

149 Municipalities Recreation Meeting Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5 p.m. Town Hall, Main Floor Boardroom Meeting Minutes In Attendance: Heather Foster, Councillor, Township of Amaranth Chris Gerrits, Councillor, Township of Amaranth Tom Nevills, Councillor, Township of East Garafraxa (5:45 p.m.) Kim Perryman, Director of Recreation, Township of Mono Chaired By: Ray Osmond, General Manager, Community Services Don Kidd, Councillor, Town of Orangeville Minutes By: Andrea Shaw, Administrative Assistant, Community Services 1. Welcome and introductions General Manager, Ray Osmond opened the meeting discussion with a welcome and introduction to the attendees. 2. Overview of last meeting The attendees discussed the Non-resident surcharge of 20% for registered programs. Majority of neighbouring municipalities refund their residents for swim lessons. Collaboration between all neighbouring municipalities is a benefit to all sharing ideas, infrastructure surplus/deficits, events and program collaboration opportunities 3. Municipalities Involved East Garafraxa, Mono, and Amaranth direct neighbours and have been invited to this particular meeting At future meetings, more neighbouring municipalities should be considered.

150 4. Overview of Department Programs and Facilities Ray Osmond gave the group and overview of the Town of Orangeville s corporate structure changes. The corporation has shifted into 3 divisions, Community Services, Infrastructure and Corporate Services. 5. Review of Updated Program Participation Data Statistic graphs of resident vs. non-resident participates were reviewed. Aquatics programs trending at approximately 45% non-resident participants. Recreation programs trending at approximately 25% non-resident participants. Some surrounding municipalities will reimburse the 20% non-resident surcharge for aquatic programs only. 6. Possible Funding Scenario s 1. Continue the current arrangement: The 20% surcharge to client, and the clients can try to redeem the surcharge from their Town Hall for aquatics if applicable. 2. Invoice municipalities directly: The non-resident client does not see the 20% surcharge amount and this portion and through third party billing is invoiced quarterly to the neighbouring municipality. 3. Flat Grant: Annual grant amount allocation towards Recreation infrastructure each year based on 3 to 4 year surcharge average. Chris Gerrits gave the Shelburne Library example of charging per user bases. Chris believes Option 2 is a possibility for Amaranth charging municipality directly is perhaps a foreseeable option. Heather Foster currently just reimbursing for aquatics this could open the possibility of subsidizing other programs not offered locally improved access to recreation to the community. Kim Perryman raised the question of why change from the current nonresident surcharge situations - are we following best practices as directed by Council.

151 7. Draft Memorandum of Understanding A draft MOU template was distributed for discussion as an example. Concern and discussion was raised in regards to Caledon residents using the recreation centres and the possibility of inviting them for future discussion. Concern over the MOU start dates - as template draft those are negotiable Item #9 enter into agreement with each municipality Amaranth has other such agreements with other boards/municipalities and will provide a template agreement if this option is approved by council. 8. Feedback and Suggestions Municipal Recreation Advisory board including all the surround municipalities involved assisting in funding Surrounding municipalities want input into programs and infrastructure. Allow other municipalities to use Orangeville facilities for i.e. Amaranth Day East Garafraxa reimburses all programs, Mono reimburses only structured swim lessons, Amaranth reimburses only structured swim lessons Chris / Heather will bring up the options and discussion at next Amaranth Council meeting similar agreement with Shelburne and Grand Valley graduated invoicing Tom Nevills of East Garafraxa current Council will not sign any agreements due to upcoming elections skeptical that East Garafraxa will support even the invoicing option Invoicing will assist better at seeing what the needs are for each municipality - working together more as a region for what is best for the residents Inter-municipal Collaboration of municipalities Kim Perryman of Mono Sport Fields: residential concern over lack of sport fields, particularly baseball diamonds Orangeville Minor ball doesn t charge non-res fee -ball Diamond are in large demand Recreation Advisory board would allow municipalities to collaborate ideas and infrastructure shortfalls to assist future planning. Shelburne minor lacrosse charges non-res fee 20% - This surcharge is directly given back to the Town of Shelburne Sport User Groups discussion majority don t charge non-res fees

152 9. Other Current Trends people are commuters becoming common to commute for recreation Regional perspective / Regional Delivery system discussion Mono in process of Parks public needs study currently Waldemar two proposed subdivisions park being added and possibility of 2 new soccer pitches that will need usage Mono and Shelburne on PerfectMind system will have to discuss further with PerfectMinds and the Recreation Team 10. Next Steps Councillors Chris Gerrits and Heather Foster will report at the next Amaranth Council meeting and discuss the invoicing possibility. Councillor Tom Nevills supports recreation collaboration meetings as this supports needs assessment discussions will discuss the possibility of direct invoicing at the next East Garafraxa Council meeting will require verification from Township that they are not paying for other areas Kim Perryman is requesting a report on non-resident Memberships Andrea will pull the information. Reach out to Shelburne & Grand Valley when holding future meetings Further meetings can be scheduled during daytime hours -preferably mornings Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

153 Jessica Kennedy Subject: Attachments: FW: Municipal Recreation Meeting image005.png; ATT00001.htm; image006.jpg; ATT00002.htm; Municipalities Rec Meeting Minutes.pdf; ATT00003.htm; Non-Res Pass Holders 2018 Graph.pdf; ATT00004.htm Subject: Re: Municipal Recreation Meeting Dear Municipal Recreation Meeting Attendees, I hope everyone is doing well and enjoying the Summer weather! Please find attached the minutes from the June 13 th meeting and the resident vs. non resident membership holders stats as requested at the meeting. Many of you mentioned at the June meeting that you will discuss the options and ideas from the meeting at your next Council meetings. It would be appreciated if you could update us on any feedback you may have received. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Town of Orangeville 275 Alder Street Orangeville, ON L9W 5H Ext Toll Free Ext ashaw@orangeville.ca Connect with the Town of Orangeville online! 1

154 Membership/Pass Holders 2018 Resident vs. Non-Resident Non-Residents 31% Residents Non-Residents Residents 69%

155 SCHEDULE E PAGE TO: The Chair and Members of the Board of Directors, Credit Valley Conservation SUBJECT: CVC WATERSHED FOREST HEALTH REPORT PURPOSE: To update the CVC Board of Directors on the current state of our watersheds forest health and emerging issues related to new invasive pests and their management BACKGROUND: The Credit River watershed has undergone dramatic change since pre-settlement times. The arrival of European settlers resulted in intense logging and conversion of land for agriculture. In Ontario, woodland cover reached an all-time low of approximately 10% by 1920, from an estimated 80% in pre-settlement times. Since 1920, reforestation initiatives and natural succession has expanded and recovered a portion of the original woodlands lost. By 1954 in the Credit River watershed woodland cover was estimated to be up to 16%, and currently accounts for approximately 21% of the land area (Figure 1). Forests are our green infrastructure and they provide numerous, irreplaceable ecosystem services including those related to air quality improvements (e.g. production of oxygen through photosynthesis, sequestration of carbon and pollutants) and the moderation of climate through shading effects and transpiration of trees. Forests also play a role in regulating hydrology and reducing the impacts of intense storms by reducing run-off rates (through infiltration and interception), reducing soil erosion and improving surface water quality. Finally, forests in the Credit River watershed provide important habitat for a diversity of plant and animal species, including about 49 Ontario Species at Risk. The Benefits of Green Infrastructure Some recent statistics from the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalitions 2016 State of the Urban Forest report: 2.7 billion - the number of tonnes of carbon stored in the GTA s urban forests. The GTA urban forests remove 113,000 tonnes of carbon annually, which is equivalent to the annual emissions of 23,000 passenger vehicles. The GTA s urban forests remove nearly 4,000 tonnes of atmospheric pollution annually; over half of this pollution (approximately 2,300 tonnes) is ground level ozone, the primary component of photochemical smog, which can have negative health effects. In addition, our urban forests benefit watershed residents in many ways. Urban forests are ecosystems of trees in urban areas that consist of street trees, yard trees, vegetation within parks and along public rights of way. By offering local and accessible recreational

156 SCHEDULE E PAGE opportunities urban forests improve human health through stress reduction, opportunities for enhanced physical fitness and improvements in concentration. Residents also benefit economically from urban forests as they reduce costs associated with heating and cooling. Finally, by intercepting and slowing the flow of water, urban forests can reduce the occurrence of basement flooding during intense storms, and reduce the overall costs of storm water treatment activities. Figure 1: Woodland cover throughout the Credit River watershed as of Many of the threats to watershed forests are related to removal, which have led to overall habitat loss and fragmentation. Habitat loss and fragmentation by agriculture and urban land uses have created smaller forest patches that are isolated from one another. These modifications influence ecosystem services, and have made forest conditions less desirable for some plant and animal populations, including species at risk. In addition to forest removal, forest communities are currently threatened by fragmentation from infrastructure, modified fire (suppression of natural fires), treatment of natural disease outbreaks, spread of invasive non-native species, air pollution and climate change. All of these stressors have impacted forest health throughout the watershed, and reduced their capacity to respond to new threats. Threats to urban forests are somewhat amplified compared to rural forests. Urban woodlands are even smaller and more isolated than rural forests. Air and salt pollution are higher in urban areas. Loss of topsoil during land development results in thin and nutrient-poor soils, creating sub-standard growing conditions for urban plants. All of these additional pressures make urban forest more susceptible to existing and emerging threats. In December of 2013 Southern Ontario witnessed one of its most significant ice storms in recent memory. The storm had significant and measurable impacts to the urban tree canopy as well as requiring that many conservation areas be closed down while trail maintenance was conducted to make these areas safe for public visitors. At the same time, present for at

157 SCHEDULE E PAGE least several years in the GTA, emerald ash borer (EAB) was beginning to visibly affect the health of native ash trees within the region. In many cases both the weakening of ash trees and the ice storm collided to produce serious risk tree issues across the region. As well, the health of another key forest tree species, American beech, has been severely impacted by beech bark disease since the early 2000 s. Diseases targeting two of the more common tree species within Credit watershed forests can have potentially devastating effects on overall forest health. More bad news arrived in 2013 as a second infestation of Asian long-horned beetle was found in Mississauga near the Lester B. Pearson Airport. Coinciding with reports of other emerging forests pests (e.g. hemlock wooly adelgid) these events have created increased concern over the fate of our watershed forests and the ability of agencies to respond and ensure our forests have a viable future. ANALYSIS: Current Forest Health Currently, forest communities within the Credit watershed generally rank fair to good in health based on indicators of tree health, plant and bird communities. However, there are a few areas of concern, based on CVC s monitoring results over the last 14 years: 1) Beech bark disease (BBD) and EAB are widespread throughout the watershed. As beech and ash are common species in forests throughout the watershed that provide important wildlife habitat and ecosystem services, the impacts to forest communities may be serious and long-lasting without adequate management. 2) Non-native plant species are becoming more abundant in forest communities throughout the watershed. Increasing proportions of non-native plant species in the ground vegetation layer can change the way future forest communities function and the ecological services they provide. For example, future forests will have more nonnative trees, which can affect the ability of wildlife to find food, shelter and breeding habitat. The trend toward non-native and invasive species in our forests is not just a local CVC trend but is indicative of the larger trend in the GTA. Figure 2 below shows that in the GTA region invasive non-native common buckthorn is the fourth most common species. Combining this with EAB that will all but eliminate ash (currently third most present tree species) is a concern. Of special concern, urban forests have lower plant species diversity and higher proportions of non-native species than the rural regions of the watershed. This includes street trees, where only a handful of salt and drought tolerant species are planted, many of which are non-native. Increasing native diversity in urban forests will make them more resilient to existing and emerging threats.

158 SCHEDULE E PAGE Figure 2: Top Ten Most Common trees in the GTA Region (State of the Urban Forest in the Greater Toronto Area Report.2016.Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition.) 3) Sugar maple is increasing in dominance in the regeneration layer within forest communities; while other species are showing declines. If a pest or disease targeting maples (e.g. Asian long-horned beetle) were to arrive, the overall health implications for forest communities could be serious. 4) Urban forests in particular have a higher proportion of smaller and unhealthy trees than rural forests. Because they are generally growing in shallow and nutrient poor soils, with space restrictions, they succumb to disease and are less likely to survive to maturity, resulting in smaller, diseased trees within urban forests. These trees are less likely to offer the full benefits and ecosystem services compared to healthy large trees found in rural areas. 5) Many forest communities in the watershed have in-sufficient snag densities, especially large diameter snags, to support a diversity of dead-wood dependent wildlife species. This pattern is especially pronounced in urban forests. Standing snags and downed wood are an important component of wildlife habitat that are often removed from urban forests. These features should be retained whenever there are no public health and safety concerns.

159 SCHEDULE E PAGE % non-native plant species Urban forests have more non-native species than rural forests Lower (Urban) Middle (Rural) Upper (Rural) Watershed Zones Figure 3: Urban forests in the watershed have a higher proportion of non-native species than rural forests based on 2014 and 2015 monitoring results. In order to maintain and enhance the health of watershed forests, building resilience by increasing biodiversity and management of non-native species is a necessity. Emerging Issues and Threats Invasive Species Following habitat loss, non-native species are the second most significant threat to biodiversity in Canada. As the world economy has become more globalized with increasing trade, commerce and movement of people and labour between nations we have witnessed an increasing occurrence of new pests and diseases that have become agents of change in our forests. We have already seen the effects of Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight that represented the first wave of this phenomena decades ago and EAB is but the most recent threat we have faced. Climate change has also contributed as we see some native pests that were once restricted to southerly climes now becoming real threats locally as local climate warms (e.g. mountain pine beetle in British Columbia). Some of the newest threats that CVC is now monitoring: 1. Hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA) - Originating from Asia, this invasive insect established a western population in the 1920s, but has since been found in the eastern US in Ohio and New York. Detections in Ontario were recorded in 2012 (Etobicoke) and 2013 (Niagara) and trees were cut down and burned, but it is suspected the pest may have spread and government agencies are now monitoring. Similar to EAB, mortality is expected to be severe for our native eastern hemlock trees 2. Asian long-horned beetle (ALHB) - Originating from Asia and detected in Toronto in 2003 where significant efforts were made to control its spread, this invasive insect has since been detected in 2013 near the Pearson International Airport. Even now we cannot say with certainty if all local infestations have been dealt with. This tree affects

160 SCHEDULE E PAGE a broad range of hardwood trees from maple to poplar and birch, so the potential for impact is significant. 3. Beech bark disease (BBD)- First reported in Ontario in 1966 and as previously noted, is widespread throughout the watershed. This disease is a combination of both an insect pathogen (beech scale insect) and several fungal pathogens. This disease has been spreading steadily through southern and eastern Ontario. The Credit River watershed falls within the killing zone (Figure 4) where both the scale and fungal pathogen are present, and death of beech trees has started to occur. Currently, 84% of monitored beech trees have been infested by the beech scale insect and 16% are in advanced stages of infection, exhibiting signs of the fungal pathogen. Death is not as dramatic or rapid as we have seen with EAB, but is more gradual and slow in its progression, so it has not caught the public eye as significantly. Yet, the disease will remove this species as a component of our native forests over the next few decades. American beech plays a significant role in mast production (nut food source) for many forest species, so concerns centred on biodiversity impacts are real. Some of these ecological impacts include reduced food production for wildlife, habitat loss and increased canopy gaps in which less desirable plant species can become established. Economic impacts associated with BBD include hazard tree management and restoration costs once the beech trees have died, particularly along property boundaries and trails. Figure 4: Figure illustrating the extent of beech scale and disease in Ontario by The Credit River watershed is within the killing zone in which both the scale and pathogen are present. (MNRF 2012) 4. Oak wilt- Oak wilt has been reported throughout the northwestern United States, along the Great Lakes region and southwest as far as Texas. This pathogen does not occur in Canada and as a result the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

161 SCHEDULE E PAGE regulates the importation of oak materials. There is no timetable for arrival, but the pathogen is currently observed 12 km from the Ontario border. The CFIA is annually surveying oak trees across southern Ontario for oak wilt. The causal agent, Ceratocystis fagacearum, is found only within the borders of the United States, but the origin of the pathogen is not known. Recent evidence suggests that the pathogen was introduced into the United States, possibly from Central or South America. Oak wilt has the potential to kill a red oak in one year. Presently there is no cure. 5. Emerald ash borer- (EAB) is a small green bark beetle that arrived in North America from Asia and was first identified in 2002 in Detroit and Windsor and more locally in The quarantine zone for this pest now extends over all of southern and much of central Ontario and as far east as Quebec. EAB will kill 99.9% of the ash in CVC s watershed. There are effective injectable pesticides that can control the insect, but these are only viable for single specimen tree protection, nothing is available that is economically viable to control the insect at the scale of an entire forest. In 2014, CVC s Board of Directors approved a CVC response and action plan (Resolution No. 83_14) for this pest. Staff are currently implementing this plan to manage the impacts of the pest within its conservation areas by mitigating the risks posed by the numerous hazard trees being created. In summary, if we were to only account for oak and hemlock, these two species are found in 26% of our conservation area forest compartments. If we were to add in the ash component, it would then represent 86% of forest compartments with some component of these three species within them. The cumulative impacts of just these three agents alone can be ominous in terms of management and forest health implications. Climate Change Climate change is anticipated to have significant impacts on the structure and distribution of our forests. Climate prediction models show that many species may shift in their ranges. This means that for some northern species in our area conditions may no longer be favourable for vigorous growth, while some southern species may migrate into the region as local conditions become more favourable. Species have evolved with the ability to migrate to keep pace with gradual and natural shifts in global climate, but with the speed at which human influenced climate change is happening, species are unlikely to be able to keep pace with the shifts required for adaptation to occur. The impacts may manifest themselves in various ways - New southerly pests moving into the region (related to above discussion) - Loss of high functioning habitat and slow die off of some species - Functional species gaps in our forests as northerly species extirpate - Changes in evapotranspiration rates leading to a trend towards more drought tolerant tree species or even grasslands in favour of forests - More extreme weather events such as drought, rain downbursts and ice storms - Loss of forest cover (shading) and changes in soil moisture leading to oxidation of organic soils (peatlands) contributing further to release of CO 2 and loss of habitat for associated species

162 SCHEDULE E PAGE Current Programs and Efforts Addressing Forest Health Planting Programs- CA, Municipal CVC currently plants through both its volunteer planting programs (many coordinated with our municipal partners), and direct plantings by CVC staff through its naturalization and reforestation programs. On average the sum total of these programs contributes between trees and shrubs annually towards the watershed forest each year. Reforestation vs. Naturalization Reforestation is the most cost effective way to reforest large areas and utilizes bare root seedling stock planted by hand or machine. Generally conifers dominate the planting and are utilized as a cover crop for hardwood species to eventually reach the ultimate goal of establishing a native hardwood forest. Naturalization is the planting of larger potted stock (usually 2-3 gallon size pots) to restore tree cover. It has the advantages of being able to be planted over an extended planting season and the larger stock accelerates the process of establishing tree cover, but costs tend to be higher than reforestation so it is generally used at a smaller scale to fill in plantings gaps in woodland and for riparian and buffer plantings A quick assessment of some of our municipal partners (Brampton, Mississauga, Caledon and Halton) which includes both street tree and natural area plantings, 80, , 000 trees are planted on average each year by our municipal partners in their respective jurisdictional boundaries Many municipalities also have tree by-law enforcement and/or stewardship programs (e.g. Halton Regional Forests and Woodland Stewardship Program). However woodland stewardship is delivered primarily through the CAs, funded by municipal levy. CVC Nursery CVC has maintained a tree nursery in some form since the late 1970 s. Initially in 1975, a four acre nursery was established in the location of the current head office with specific emphasis on growing shrubs and trees for erosion and flood control. This was closed in 1996 and reestablished at Terra Cotta Conservation Area around In 2012 CVC constructed a fully operational and dedicated facility at Warwick Conservation Area to meet the needs of its growing planting programs and to bolster its planting efforts in response to a need to dramatically increase numbers to mitigate climate change impacts and the impacts from new invasive pests. In 2014 CVC doubled its production capacity (from units a year to ) with the addition of new growing space as part of a partnership agreement with Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) that would enable both partners to expand their planting program efforts. Invasive Species CVC currently has an Invasive Species Program funded by Peel Region, but lacks municipal funding for the Halton Region, Wellington and Dufferin portions of the watershed. This program was established to address the need for invasive species management in the watershed with a focus on invasive plant control, but also addresses the need to promote local awareness and develop action at a watershed level with local NGO s, the public, government agencies and municipalities. Also, under this program CVC received enhanced project based funding from both Halton and Peel to deal with the impacts and management of EAB in the watershed as it relates to

163 SCHEDULE E PAGE management of hazardous ash trees in conservation areas. In addition to this, extension support is also provided to private landowners to deal with management concerns and impacts. Currently within Peel Region CVC has completed ash removal work at Rattray Marsh Conservation Area and is now planning on initiating additional removals at both its Ken Whillans and Belfountain Conservation Areas in Within Halton Region initial removal of hazardous ash was initiated in 2015 at Terra Cotta Conservation Area and will continue through 2016 and 2017 at this location, with additional removals planned for Limehouse Conservation Area and surveys and planning for Silver Creek Conservation Area. The infestation and decline of ash is progressing faster than many anticipated, so timelines and planning may need to shift to accommodate this fact Forest Management CVC s current forest management program focuses on three main areas: Private landowner extension services- CVC provides expert advice to landowners seeking to manage their woodlots and plantations. CVC may also facilitate and advise landowners on implementation of these recommendations through their hiring of private contractors to do the work. Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP) - The current forestry program administers this government run incentive program both for CVC held lands and private landowners. The MFTIP is also an educational tool that provides more awareness to private landowners regarding their forested areas. With assistance from a managed forest plan approver, landowners can outline minor activities on their property such as hiking and trail maintenance. In-depth silviculture treatments are not a specific requirement of a MFTIP. (MFTIP should not be confused with forest management plans. Operating plans are a main component of full forest management plans and outline specific silvicultural work to take place. This may include access road creation, harvesting specifications and detailed wildlife retention areas. Depending on the size and/or complexity of the forest unit, full management plans may require several months of information gathering and field checks, in order to create detailed operating plans that will guide professional forest management activities in subsequent years.) Conservation Area (CA) Forest Management- The forestry program seeks to manage the health of CVC owned forests. Large scale management of CVC held lands largely ceased in the late 1980 s due to budget constraints and challenges with implementation. It is only until recently that greater support for management of our woodlots has re-emerged given increased concerns over climate change, new and existing invasive pests and our ageing plantations that are now requiring management if they are to be successfully converted into the target native hardwood stands. Currently forestry programs at CVC are limited in the ability to address private landowner extension and CA forestry needs given the necessity to focus currently on EAB driven hazard tree management.

164 SCHEDULE E PAGE Other Programs and Initiatives CVC Monitoring - Integrated Watershed Monitoring Program (IWMP) - Initiated in 2002, IWMP measures the health and trends of 30 forest communities throughout the watershed. Components monitored in forest ecosystems include tree health, regeneration, understory plants, breeding birds and salamanders. Through the regular monitoring of forest communities, the program evaluates the overall health of forest communities, determines if conditions are changing over time (i.e. stable, deteriorating or improving), and identifies emerging issues. Specifically, the IWMP is able to evaluate the impacts of increasing populations of pests and diseases on forest community structure, composition and function. This information can be used by resource managers to determine what areas are priority for management intervention and what issues are of greatest concern to the health of forest communities both within the urban and rural regions of the watershed. CVC Natural Heritage System - CVC has developed a natural heritage system to improve and protect biodiversity and ecological function throughout the watershed. Implementation of the system will help maintain and improve forest health and strengthen the ability of forests to withstand existing and emerging threats. Peel Forest Working Group - CVC is a member of the Peel Urban Forest Working Group. It facilitates collaboration between conservation authorities, Region of Peel and its member municipalities. The working group focuses on implementation of the Peel Urban Forest Strategy through projects such as a mapping tool that highlights what areas within the urban landscape of Peel Region are high priorities for tree planting initiatives (Figure 5 below). Priorities are categorized according to what benefits additional trees can provide such as relief of urban heat island, walkability and wildlife habitat. The group is currently updating mapping of urban tree cover within the region to determine if greening efforts since 2007 have resulted in increased canopy. This will help determine how effective the greening strategies are in Peel Region and whether additional actions are needed to reach urban forest targets. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) - The ministry provides support in the form of technical guidance and support through dissemination of information and tools to those undertaking forest management. Over the last two decades the ministry has continued to pull out of being a participant on the landscape in terms of on the ground management and has even reduced its capacity in terms of being an active stewardship agent in the field. The Ontario Forest Health Review workshop held in Orillia once a year is an example of one of the important activities the ministry supports to identify new and existing forest health issues that are important to forest managers. Canadian Forest Service (CFS) - Similar to OMNRF, the CFS provides support in the form of technical guidance and support through dissemination of information and tools to those undertaking forest management, but no funding or active programs that develop on the ground application.

165 Figure 5: Peel Priority Planting Tool (State of the Urban Forest in the Greater Toronto Area Report.2016.Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition) SCHEDULE E PAGE

166 SCHEDULE E PAGE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As noted previously, CVC and its many partners (municipal, provincial, federal and NGO) have programs that are attempting to address many of the issues identified. More effort is needed, but balancing what is practical and achievable with the financial constraints we all face as a publicly funded agency is challenging. With EAB funding from Peel and Halton, CVC has seen an increase to its budget to address concerns with managing the resulting hazardous trees on CVC lands. Approximately $450,000 plus each year until 2019 in Peel and $ each year until 2022 within Halton Region has been committed to address this major concern. However, this does not address other impacts the beetle may have beyond the concerns centered on hazardous trees. A few examples of other impacts from EAB on forest health: Loss of tree canopy in some forests or parts of forests that will remove habitat for wildlife either directly or indirectly. Ash is very common along streams and rivers. Concerns centered on loss of riparian cover, shading and bank stabilization. Studies now show in many urban forests, where ash is being lost, that these areas are being replaced by opportunistic non-native invasive species. The funds set aside for EAB should be continued to enable rapid response, ensure public safety and management of forest lands for the benefits they provide. More funds will be needed to address invasive herbaceous species such as garlic mustard, European buckthorn and planting and restoring those lands after removal. Flexibility in funding and planning for an uncertain future, given the possible outcomes will be a requirement not an option. CONCLUSION: What are the implications as a result of the above analysis? To summarize, the main issues are as follows: Historical plantations now needing to be addressed through management to ensure their next steps in conversion to healthy forests takes place. Current pests such as EAB that we are now addressing. Future pests on the horizon whose impact is uncertain. Invasive plants that are now widespread and new ones that may yet come. Loss of forests and their fragmentation to continuing urbanization. A changing climate, extreme weather events and the challenges of species adaptation. Resources are limited and prioritization of actions will be essential. Our forests are an important watershed resource. They are our lungs, our playground, our quiet places; they nurture wildlife and provide many other services and functions. CVC with its local partners must play a larger role in maintaining them and look beyond their own land holdings to a larger systems approach. This means enhanced collaboration between CVC and its

167 SCHEDULE E PAGE municipal partners and adjacent CAs to share expertise and resources where priorities and initiatives are identified. We must have the vision to look beyond what we are dealing with currently. For example, EAB is but the most recent event and this project funding has a time frame and expiry date. When the last hazardous ash tree is removed there will still be ongoing issues with managing the impacts it has had in our forests. And as noted in this report, there are numerous other issues we are and will be required to manage in the future. This is where further monitoring and a need for action will be required. In summary, CVC staff have identified the following priorities: Improve capacity to manage and monitor our watershed forests both looking at our own CVC lands and providing improved extension services that would seek the same goal on private lands, given the threats discussed in this report and the need to improve forest resiliency; Enhanced collaboration with municipal partners to seek improvements to our urban forests which are facing the greatest challenges; and, Proactive planning and ensuring we are adaptable to be able to respond to crisis events such as EAB in a timely fashion. Budget to support carrying out these priorities RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: WHEREAS our watershed forests are an important socio-economic and environmental resource that provides a range of goods and services to watershed residents and nurtures natural biodiversity that supports us all; and WHEREAS their long term health and resiliency is threatened by a number of factors including climate change, invasive species and pests; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled CVC Watershed Forest Health Report be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule E ; and THAT CVC staff continues to monitor the health of the watersheds forests and explore the means whereby their management can be enhanced to improve their future condition; and further that CVC staff be directed to maintain a budget allocation for forest management, invasive species and tree planting activities.

168 SCHEDULE E PAGE Submitted by: Rod Krick Manager, Terrestrial Ecosystem Restoration & Management Kata Bavrlic Terrestrial Monitoring Specialist, Mike Puddister Deputy CAO and Director, Watershed Transformation Recommended by: Deb Martin-Downs Chief Administrative Officer

169 GRCA Current July, 2018 Volume 23 Number 6 GRCA General Membership Chair Vice-Chair Helen Jowett Chris White Townships of Amaranth, East Garafraxa, Melancthon and Southgate and Town of Grand Valley Guy Gardhouse Townships of Mapleton and Wellington North Pat Salter Township of Centre Wellington Kirk McElwain Town of Erin, Townships of Guelph/Eramosa and Puslinch Chris White City of Guelph Bob Bell, Mike Salisbury Region of Waterloo Les Armstrong,Elizabeth Clarke, Sue Foxton, Helen Jowett, Geoff Lorentz, Jane Mitchell, Joe Nowak, Wayne Roth, Sandy Shantz, Warren Stauch Municipality of North Perth and Township of Perth East George Wicke Halton Region Cindy Lunau City of Hamilton George Stojanovic Oxford County Bruce Banbury County of Brant Brian Coleman, Shirley Simons City of Brantford Dave Neumann, Vic Prendergast Haldimand and Norfolk Counties Bernie Corbett, Fred Morison 187,200 trees planted through the GRCA in 2018 The annual GRCA tree planting tally is complete and 187,200 trees were planted this spring, reflecting a higher demand for trees when compared to last year. The vast majority of the trees (122,500) were planted on private land in 110 projects. These projects were undertaken through the GRCA s Rural Water Quality Program, which helps landowners create custom tree planting plans and also helps them find funding sources to assist with project costs. Through online sales and the annual May tree sale, 44,000 trees were sold to 156 customers. The GRCA also engaged the public in 15 planting events at which 20,700 trees were planted. The general trend is toward smaller planting projects, because most of the large tracts of land within the watershed have already been planted. In 2017, the GRCA was the winner of the Green Leaf Challenge in the small organization category. Last year, 88,867 trees were planted through the GRCA. The Green Leaf Challenge was set up for Canada 150 by the province and Forests Ontario to encourage planting across Ontario. The program tracked numbers and also mapped the locations of the trees. Tree planting numbers fluctuate significantly from one year to the next partly because of changes to funding programs. Grand River Conservation Foundation update In , the Grand River Conservation Foundation (GRCF) expects to focus on several initiatives. These include finding long-term funding for the Haldimand Children s Water Festival and continuing to raise funds for the new Guelph Lake Nature Centre, and improvements to the Laurel Creek and Apps Mill nature centres. Ongoing Foundation funding will also go towards tree planting, outdoor education, trails and habitat improvement at Luther Marsh Wildlife Management Area. The GRCF is also looking more broadly at its planned giving program, which provides donors a way to leave an environmental legacy on the health of the Grand River watershed. More than $250,000 was allocated to GRCA projects thanks to planned gifts received in The annual river fundraiser dinner held by the Neighbourhood Group of Companies took place on June 25 at four restaurants in Guelph and Kitchener, with all of the $15,600 raised going to the new Guelph Lake Nature Centre project. Variable rainfall in June Rainfall in June was variable, with most rain falling during localized storms. Some areas of the watershed received nearnormal precipitation, while parts of the southern Grand didn t have localized rain events. May was also dry, and ranged from 60 per cent of the long-term average to slightly below average. The widespread rainfall events in May were ideal for recharge and also produced limited runoff. Temperatures in June were close to the longterm average, but it became hot at the end of the month. The average temperature during the first two weeks of June at the Shand Dam climate station was 16.1 C, slightly below the average of 16.3 C in May. May was very warm, much warmer than average. Water levels in the GRCA s four biggest reservoirs are within the normal range for this time of the year. Reservoirs are now being operated to release water in order to increase river flows. By June 12, close to 65 per cent of the flow through Kitchener, 25 per cent of the flow through Brantford and 25 per cent of the flow on the Speed River below Guelph was coming from the reservoirs. The level of Lake Erie continues to be above the long-term average and is the same as it was last June, when it reached the highest level since Grand River Conservation Authority

170 1998. New GRCA administrative bylaw being drafted In July, the GRCA board will be presented with the first reading of a new GRCA bylaw. Amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act were passed by the province in December 2017 and included a new section that outlines further requirements for conservation authority bylaws. In 1985, the Ministry of Natural Resources approved a standard administrative regulation and directed all conservation authorities to adopt it. This is often referred to as the generic bylaw, and it was intended as a minimum set of standards that could be expanded upon by individual conservation authorities to suit their needs. The GRCA expanded upon the generic bylaw, and has reviewed and updated its bylaw from time to time to reflect updates to legislation and best practices, most recently in February The GRCA s current bylaw meets most of the new requirements that are specifically identified in the new legislation, and is being amended to reflect any further updates that are required. A best management practices model bylaw has been developed by a Conservation Ontario working group to assist all conservation authorities with the implementation of new bylaws. This model bylaw forms the basis of the revised GRCA bylaw. The GRCA s new bylaw must be adopted before December Windstorm caused up to $70,000 damage The GRCA spent $60,000 to $70,000 to clear away tree hazards and repair hydro infrastructure after a severe windstorm on May 4. The power was out in many locations. Two hydro poles were broken at Elora Gorge and a large tree near the entrance to Brant Park took out the hydro lines. Another tree fell onto the hydro lines at Pinehurst Lake. In most cases the power was restored quickly. Brant, Pinehurst Lake, Shades Mills, Elora Gorge and Rockwood parks experienced the most severe tree damage. The hot weather is ideal to enjoy Grand River Parks, including Guelph Lake, pictured above. This park is large and has two beaches to enjoy. It also offers kayaks and stand-up paddleboards for rent. Severe weather events have become more frequent over the last several years. Lessons learned from the ice storms on December 22, 2013 and March 24, 2016 were incorporated into the GRCA s Tree Risk Management Plan. It and the emergency response plan were followed after the May windstorm. A major difference from past events was that this windstorm took place when the parks and cottage lots were in operation, presenting different challenges. The GRCA will be enhancing existing procedures in order to respond to similar events in the future. New source protection documents released The Grand River Source Protection Authority has released two new documents related to the Guelph-Guelph/Eramosa Water Quantity Policy Development Study. The documents are the Threats Management Strategy and the Water Quantity Policy Discussion Paper. Both of these were presented to the members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee at its meeting on June 21, and they are available on The new documents provide the foundation for water quantity policy development that will be part of the Grand River Source Protection Plan. This plan is made up of a series of policies developed in consultation with the local community to protect municipal drinking water sources. The source protection planning process is ongoing and the Lake Erie Source Protection Commitee meets regularly at the GRCA Administration Centre. This issue of GRCA Current was published in July, It is a summary of the June, 2018 business conducted by the Grand River Conservation Authority board and committees, as well as other noteworthy happenings and topics of interest. The Grand River Conservation Authority welcomes distribution, photocopying and forwarding of GRCA Current. Next board meeting: July 27 at 9:30 a.m., GRCA Administration Centre Subscribe to GRCA Current and other news: View meeting agendas: View coming events: PO Box 729, 400 Clyde Road, Cambridge, Ontario N1R 5W Follow the GRCA:

171

172 Subject: AMO Policy Update - Ontario Government's Speech from the Throne July 12, 2018 Ontario Government s Speech from the Throne At Queen s Park, the Lieutenant Governor, Elizabeth Dowdeswell, read the Throne Speech outlining the Progressive Conservative government s legislative objectives. The new provincial government is seeking to deliver quickly on key actions discussed during the campaign. Priorities of interest to municipal governments include: Respect for our municipal partners. Actions will include: o partnering with Toronto/GTA municipalities to build a world-class transit system; o addressing the transportation needs of other Ontario urban centres; and o respecting the wishes of rural municipalities by putting an end to unfair, unaffordable green energy contracts that have been imposed on them over local objections. Balanced budget on a timetable that is responsible, modest, and pragmatic; Action to reduce gas prices and lower hydro bills; Scraping the cap-and-trade carbon tax; Health care investments including 15,000 new long-term care beds and new $3.8 billion for mental health and addictions, including supportive housing; Police services to have the tools, support, and resources they need; Expansion of sale of beer and wine to convenience, grocery, and big box stores. To date, AMO President Lynn Dollin has written to congratulate the Premier, Cabinet Ministers, and Parliamentary Assistants. In these introductory letters, she highlighted what AMO, and our members, bring to assist the Province

173 with their new responsibilities and the importance of working together. Using the strength and local knowledge of our members, AMO brings practical advice and front-line information to Queen s Park. Among the priority issues for AMO and its membership are early discussions with Ministers on: Cannabis including the current excise tax sharing agreement; Legislative protection for double hatters; Moving forward on Bilateral Agreement programs for infrastructure and Housing; Continuing toward full producer responsibility for waste diversion; Police Services Act next steps with a municipal funders lens; Joint and Several liability changes; and Reduction of provincial red tape, regulatory burden and unnecessary reporting requirements placed on municipal governments. We look forward to soon welcoming all the provincial Leaders, Cabinet Ministers, and MPPs to the AMO Conference in Ottawa August 19 th 22 nd.

174

175

176

177 To: IESO Community Engagement Subject: Just Released - Ontario Municipal Energy Profile We are pleased to share with you some research that was commissioned by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) that sheds light on the current state of municipal energy use in the province and points to future trends and opportunities for undertaking sustainable energy improvements in communities like yours. The Ontario Municipal Energy Profile webpage hosts a copy of the Report as well as a four-page summary that captures some of the more prominent findings. The full Report provides data on a range of factors related to municipal energy performance and will equip municipalities with valuable information to inform future energy conservation plans. We would also like to take this opportunity to provide you with a link to the IESO s latest publication, Power Perspectives: Today s Challenges, Tomorrow s Opportunities. This report provides an overview of some of the drivers of change in Ontario s electricity sector, including emerging technologies, customer expectations, climate change policies and increased digitalization. It touches on a number of key themes innovation, cybersecurity, engagement, reliability and continuous improvement. And, building on the success of the 2017 regional electricity forums, the IESO will once again host regional events to discuss existing conditions and emerging trends related to local electricity needs and seek input from communities on emerging initiatives. Events will be planned in the fall of 2018 and spring of 2019 and we encourage you to visit the regional electricity forum webpage as additional information will be posted in the coming weeks. For your reference, we have mailed letters to the municipal heads of council across Ontario to outline these initiatives with an invitation to meet and discuss the Municipal Energy Profile or any other electricity matters. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this material further, please do not hesitate to contact us at communityengagement@ieso.ca Yours truly, Susan Harrison Supervisor, Regional & Community Engagement

178 Ontario 2018 Municipal Election Candidate and Third Party Advertiser lnformation Session Dufferin Gounty June 28,2018 DISCLAIMER These slides are provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for convenience only. The slides should not be considered legal advice. These slides are not meant to replace provincial legislation. For more specific information, please refer to the relevant legislation and regulations which can be found online at www. e-laws. gov. on. ca. As local facts and circumstances are variable, users should obtain their own legal and professional advice when specific issues arise. June 28, 2018 Mlnlstry of Municipal Affai6 2 Fon,rr,o

179 : I!! I OVERVIEW I Roles and responsibilities of elected officials, staff and third party advertisers Eligibility rules Nomination process Campaign finances Compliance audit Voters' list and voting proxy Scrutineers Recounts Resources June 28, Ministry of Municipal Affairs 3 Fontario WHY RUN FOR OFFICE? June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal,Affairs 4 #>ontario

180 ROLE OF COUNCIL Section 224 of the Municipal Act, 2001 It is the role of council to:. represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality. develop and evaluate the policies and programs of the municipality. determine which services the municipality provides. ensure that administrative and controllership policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of council June 28, Ministry of Municipal Affairs 5 Fontario ROLE OF COUNCIL (cont'd) It is the role of council to: ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality maintain the financial integrity of the municipality carry out the duties of council under the Municipal Act, 2001 or any other Act June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 6 Fontario

181 ROLE OF COUNCIL (cont'd) of counciltor. conduct meetings. pass bylaws. develop policies with respect to:. accountability and transparency. notice. delegation of authority. hiring. disposition and sale of land. procurement of goods and services. relationship between council and staff*. protection of tree canopy and natural vegetation*. pregnancy and parental leaves* *The requirement for council to develop these policies comes into effect June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 7 ftsontario ROLE OF HEAD OF COUNCIL Section 225 of the Municipal Act, 2001 It is the role of head of council to:. act as the chief executive officer. preside over council meetings "so that its business can be carried out etficiently and effectively". provide leadership to the council. provide information/recommendations to council on policies, practices, procedures, to ensure transparency and accountability. represent the municipality at official functions. carry out the duties of the head of council under the Municipal Act, 2001 or any other Act June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 8 #>ontario

182 ROLE OF HEAD OF COUNGIL (cont'd) As the chief executive officer of the municipality, the head of council shall: uphold and promote the purposes of the municipality promote public involvement act as the representative and promote the municipality locally and elsewhere participate in and foster activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well being of the municipality and its residents June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 9 Itsontario ROLE OF MUNIGIPAL STAFF It is the role of municipal staff to implement council's decisions and establish administrative practices and procedures to carry out council's decisions undertake research and provide advice to council on the policies and programs of the municipality carry out duties required under legislation and as assigned by council June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affalrs 10 Fontario

183 COUNCIL/STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Governance Gouncil Leadership '.Representing the 'Developing vision 'Managing people and community and goals resources, information.setting direction.aligning people and and actions to achieve and policy resources with vision goals.overseeing and and goals being accountable 'Motivating and for public funds and inspiring trust June 28, 2018.Planning, organizing and delivering 'Being accountable to.measuring progress council for work.beingaccountableundertakenonitsbehalf and transparent Ministry of Municipal Affairs 11 - Fontario ROLE OF SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE School board trustees are members of the school board. Trustees are locally-elected representatives of the public, and they are the community's advocate for public education. Ihe Education Act creates four different kinds of school boards: (i) English-language public district school boards, (ii) English-language separate district school boards, (iii) French-language public district school boards, and (iv) French-language separate district school boards June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 12 Fontario

184 ROLE OF SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE (cont'd) The role of a school board trustee is to:. establish policy direction. participate in making decisions that benefit the entire school board while representing the interests of constituents. be accountable to: o cohstituents o Ministry of Education " families o CoIT'lfilunity June 28, 2018 Ministry of Muoicipal Affalrs 13 lfontario ELIGIBILITY TO RUN FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICE What are the qualifications to run for municipal office? A resident, non-resident owner or tenant or spouse of a non-resident owner or tenant A Canadian citizen 18 years of age or older Not legally prohibited from voting Not disqualified by any legislation from holding municipal office June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 14 Fontario

185 NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR MUNICIPAL OFFIGE Who is not eligible to run for municipal office?. any person not eligible to vote in the municipality.?n employee of the municipality (unless a leave of absence is taken before nomination and the employee resigns if elected). a judge of any court. a member of the Ontario Legislature, Senate or House of Commons. a person who was a candidate in the previous election and did not file a campaign financial statement by the deadline June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 't5 Fontarto ELIGIBILITY TO RUN FOR SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE What are the criteria to run for school board trustee?. a resident within the jurisdiction of the board. eligible to vote for school board election On the day the candidate files a nomination, they must.. be a Canadian citizen aged 18 or older. meet any other qualifications to vote for the school board (for example - being a Roman Catholic, or hold French language rights) June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 16 Fontario

186 NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE Who is not eligible to run for school board trustee?. any person who is not eligible to vote for the school board. an employee of any school board who has not taken an unpaid leave of absence. municipal officials. ajudge of any court. a member of the Ontario Legislature, Senate or House of Commons. a person who was a candidate in the previous election and did not file a campaign financial statement by the June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 17 #>ontario THIRD PARTY ADVERTISER A third party advertiser is an individual, corporation or trade union that is registered in the municipality to promote, support or oppose a candidate or a "yes" or "no" answer to a question on the ballot. A third party advertisement means an advertisement in any broadcast, print, electronic or other medium that has the purpose of promoting, supporting or opposing, a) a candidate, or b) a "yes" or "no" answer to a question on the ballot. June 28, 2018 Minlstry of Municipal Affairs 18 Fontario

187 ELIGIBILITY TO REGISTER AS A THIRD PARTY ADVERTISER The following are eligible to be a registered third party advertiser in a municipal election: an individual a corporation a trade union June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 19 Fontario NOT ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER AS A THIRD PARTY ADVERTISER The following persons and entities are not eligible to file a notice of registration:. a candidate whose nomination has been filed under section 33. a federal political party registered under the Canada Elections Acf (Canada) or any federal constituency association or registered candidate at a federal election endorsed by that party. a provincial political party, constituency association, registered candidate or leadership contestant registered under the Election Finances Act. Crown in right of Canada or Ontario, a municipality or a local board. any group or association that is not a corporation June 28, 2018 Ministry of Munlcipal Affairs 20 #=on*r,o

188 NOMINATION PROCESS Nominations can be submitted beginning Tuesday, May 1,2018. Nomination day is Friday, July 27,2018 (between 9:00 am and 2'.00 pm). Wlthdrawal of a nomination must be filed with the clerk's office in writing before 2:00 pm on nomination day. It is recommended that a candidate personally attend at the clerk's office to withdraw a nomination. Clerk must certify nominations by 4:00 pm on Monday following nomination day (July 30, 2018). June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affalrs 21 Fontario NOMINATION PROCESS (cont'd) Candidates must complete Form 1 (nomination paper) and submit it to the municipal clerk with the filing fee:. $200 for head of council or. $100 for all other offices The clerk may require candidates to show proof of eligibility or fill out a declaration that the individual is eligible to run. ln a ward system, an eligible voter in the municipality may run in any ward. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municlpal Affairs 22 Fontario

189 NOMINATION PROCESS 25 SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT The nomination for an office on council must be endorsed by at least 25 persons on the official form provided by the province. Persons endorsing a nomination must be eligible to vote in an election for an office within the municipality if a regular elections was held on the day that the person endorses the nomination. lndividuals may endorse more than one nomination. The clerk is entitled to rely upon the information filed by the candidate. June Ministry of Municipal Affairs 23 #Fontario RUNNING FOR A DIFFERENT OFFICE Occasionally a candidate changes their mind and decides to run for a different office A candidate may only run for one office at a time lf a candidate files a second nomination, the first nomination is deemed to be withdrawn lf a candidate decides to run for a different office on the same council or as a school board trustee and both are elected at large, everything from the first campaign is transferred to the second campaign. Note: lf a candidate was running for an atlarge council position and decided to run for the head of council position the nomination filling fee would need to be topped up to $ lf one or both of the offices is/are elected by ward, the two campaigns must be kept separate and a separate nomination filing fee would be required. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 24 Fon*r'o

190 REGISTRATION OF THIRD PARTY ADVERTISERS lndividuals, corporations and trade unions will be required to identify themselves and provide mandatory information on all advertising. There is no registration fee for third party advertisers. A third party advertiser would register in the local municipality with the clerk responsible for conducting an election. Third parties may advertise in support of or opposition to any candidate being elected by voters in that municipality. Registration for questions on the ballot would be included in third party advertising. For a regular election, the registration cannot be filed earlier than May 1, 2018 and cannot be filed later than the Friday, October 19, 2018, during the clerk's office hours. June 28, 2018 Ministry of l,lunicipal Affairs 25 Fontario CONTRIBUTIONS Candidates and third party advertisers do not have to open a bank account if they do not raise or spend money. A contribution includes money, goods or services. Contributions to candidates from trade unions and corporations are prohibited in municipal elections. Corporations and trade unions can contribute to third party advertisers. Municipalities and local boards are required to set policies about the use of municipal or board resources during the campaign period. Municipalities or local boards providing information to the public on a website or other electronic means is not a contribution. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 26 #>ontario

191 GONTRIBUTIONS (cont'd) Candidates can accept contributions from:. individuals who are normally resident in Ontario. the candidate and their spouse Third party advertisers may accept contributions from individuals normally resident in Ontario, trade unions that holds bargaining rights for employees in Ontario and corporations that carry on business in Ontario. The rules for determining if corporations are deemed to be a single corporation have been simplified. Corporations are deemed to be a single corporation if one of the corporations controls the others, directly or indirectly, or if all of the corporations are owned or controlled by the same person or group of persons either directly or indirectly. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 27 Fontario CONTRIBUTIONS (cont'd) Neither candidates nor third party advertisers can accept contributions from:. federal political party, constituency association or a registered candidate in a federal election. provincial political party, constituency association or a registered candidate or leadership contestant. federal or a provincial government c e municipality o!l school board c e business or group that is not a corporation June 28, 2018 Mlnlstry of Municipal Affairs 2A Fontario

192 CONTRI BUTIONS (cont'd) Contributions over $25 may be by cheque or money order or by a method that clearly shows where the funds originated, lf goods sold to raise funds are sold for $25 or less, that amount is considered campaign income, not a contribution. Donations under $25 at fundraising events are not contributions. Ticket price of fundraiser is a contribution, Receipts must be issued for each contribution and should include the name, address, amount and date of the contribution No anonymous contributions except for pass the hat collections (limited to $25) June 28,2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 29 #>ontario CONTRIBUTION LIMIT The limit on contributions to any one candidate or registered third party advertiser is $1,200. Contributors are limited to an aggregate total of $5,000 to any number of candidates running for the same council or school board. Contributors are limited to an aggregate total of $5,000 to any number of third party advertisers registered in the same municipality. Limit applies whether it is one large contribution or the total of a number of smaller contributions or combination of money, goods and services Candidates and third party advertisers are required to inform contributors of contribution limits. June 28, 2018 Minlstry of Municipal Affaim 30 Fontario

193 SELF.FUNDING LIMIT There is now a limit on the amount that a candidate for a municipal council can make to their own campaign. This limit also applies to contributions made by the candidate's spouse This limit is based on the number of electors voting for the office, to a maximum of $25,000 per candidate:. $7,500 + $0.20 per elector for head of council. $5,000 + $0.20 per elector for other council offices These contributions must be deposited into the campaign account, a receipt provided and contributions reported on the financial statement^ June 28, 20'18 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 3t Fontario BORROWING o a a Loan - only from bank or other recognized lending institution in Ontario and paid directly to campaign account. Loans may only be guaranteed by the candidate or their spouse. Generally, the same borrowing rules apply to third party advertisers. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 32 Fontario

194 CAMPAIGN EXPENSES For the purposes of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the following are considered campaign expenses:. Candidates - costs incurred for goods or services by or under the direction of a candidate wholly or partly for use in their election campaign are expenses.. Third party advertisers - costs incurred by or under the direction of an individual, corporation or trade union for goods or services for use wholly or partly in relation to third party advertisements that appear during an election in a municipality are expenses. June 28, 2018 Mlnlstry of Municipal Affairs 33 Fontario CAMPAIGN EXPENSES (cont'd) A campaign expense includes:. any expense incurred for goods and services in relation to an election. the replacement value of any goods held in inventory from a previous election. the equivalent value of any contribution of goods and services for use in whole or in part June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affaitr 34 Fonor,o

195 GAMPAIGN EXPENSES (cont'd) Changes to the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 since the last regular election: The nomination fee is not a campaign expense After the 2018 election, campaign deficits cannot be carried fonruard from the previous campaign. Expenses related to preparation of the auditor's report, where one is required, that accompanies the financial statement can be incurred after December 31. June 28, 2018 Minlstry of Municipal Affairs 35 Font.rio SPENDING LIMIT o Ontario Regulation a a O a Head of council: $ cents per elector All other offices: $ cents per elector Maximum amount for parties etc. after voting day - 10% of the above calculated amounts. The clerk's calculation of the spending limit is final. June 28, 2018 l,llnistry of Municipal Affalrs 36 Fontario

196 SPENDING LIMIT (cont'd) The clerk will provide both candidates and third party advertisers with two certificates:. preliminary estimate - when filing a nomination form or when registering as a third party advertiser, based on the 2014 voter's list. Amount based on the 2018 voter's lists which will be provided by September 25 The higher of the two amounts is the spending limit. A 10o/o spending limit is in effect for parties and expressions of appreciation after the close of voting. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Munlcipal Affairs 37 Fontario EXPENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE SPENDING LIMIT Expenses that are not subject to the general campaign spending limit include:. holding a fundraising event or activity. expenses related to a recount. expenses incurred by a candidate with a disability that are directly related to the disability. audit and accounting fees. expenses related to a compliance audit. expenses related to a court action for a controverted election. expenses incurred after voting day (Note: expenses related to a recount and controverted elections do not apply to third party advertisers.) June 28, Fontario

197 THIRD PARTY ADVERTISER SPENDING LIMIT Third party advertisers will be subject to two spending limits:. a general spending limit. a separate limit for expenses related to parties and expressions of appreciation after the close of voting. Changes proposed to O. Reg include the following formula for calculating third party spending limits: $5,000 plus $0.05 per elector, to a maximum of $25,000. The formula used is based on the number of electors entitled to vote in an election in the municipality. The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 also provides that the spending limit for parties and other expressions of appreciation after voting day be set at 10% of the general spending limit. This would be consistent with the spending limit in place for candidates. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 39 Fontario CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES Campaign finance rules for candidates (sections and of the Municipal Elections Act, 1ee6). Campaign finance rules for third party advertisers (sections and 88.21). A campaign bank account must be opened for election campaign purposes prior to spending money or accepting contributions. All contributions of money must be deposited in the campaign account. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 40 Fontario

198 CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES (cont'd) Accurate record keeping is a legislated requirement. Candidates and third party advertisers must keep records of:. receipts issued for every contribution. value of every contribution. whether contribution is in form of money, goods or services. contributor's name and address. every expense including the receipts obtained for each expense. All campaign financial records must be retained until after November 15,2022 once the new council/local board has been sworn in. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 41 Fontario CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES (cont'd) As a best practice, candidates and third party advertisers should:. ensure that receipts are stored in a secure place. have a multi-part receipt (one for contributor, one for candidate to keep).. make sure that receipts are sequentially numbered. consider including contribution limits on the receipt. have the bank provide monthly statements and cancelled cheques for the account. produce duplicate deposit slips for every deposit. maintain a petty cash fund June 28, 2018 Ministry of Munlcipal Affairs 42 Fontario

199 CAMPAIG N ADVERTISEMENTS t I Candidates and third party advertisers cannot cause an election campaign advertisement to appear unless they provide the following information to the broadcaster or publisher in writing:. the name of the candidate/registered third party advertiser. the name, business address and telephone number of the individual who deals with the broadcaster or publisher under the direction of the candidate/registered third party advertiser. the third party advertiser must also include the name of the municipality where the third party advertiser is registered. No broadcaster or publisher shall cause a campaign or third party advertisement to appear unless this information has been provided. The restricted period for third party advertisements is May 1,2018 until the close of voting on voting day on October 22,2018. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 43 Fontario CAMPAIGN ADVERTISEMENTS (cont'd) The broadcaster or publisher of a third party or candidate advertisement shall maintain records containing the following information for a period of four years after the date the advertisement appears and shall permit the public to inspect the records during normal business hours:. the name of the candidate/registered third party advertiser. the name, business address and telephone number of the individual who deals with the broadcaster or publisher under the direction of the candidate/registered third party advertiser. a copy of the advertisement, or the means of reproducing it for inspection.. a statement of the charge made for its appearance. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 44 Fontario

200 FINANGIAL STATEMENT a o Candidates and third party advertisers must file their financial statement on or before 2:00 pm Friday, March 29, lf a candidate/third party advertiser feels that they will not meet the deadline, they may apply to the courts for an extension prior to the March 29,2019 deadline. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 45 Fontario FINANCIAL STATEMENT (cont'd). All contributions must be reported.. The names of contributors who contribute more than $100 must be reported on the financial statement.. The clerk is required to make financial statements available to the public in an electronic format free of charge.. Financial statements must include an auditor's report if expenses or contributions exceed $10,000. June 28, 20'18 Mlnlstry of Munlclpal Affairs 46 Fontario

201 FINANCIAL STATEMENT (cont'd) Candidates can close their campaign and file their financial statement before December 31,2018. Clerks are required to make public a report (on a website or in another electronic format) setting out all candidates and third party advertisers and indicating whether each candidate/third party advertiser complied with the filing requirements by April 30,2019 (or within 90 days of a by-election). Clerks can determine conditions and limits regarding electronic filing of financial statements. June 28, 2018 Mlnistry of Municipal Affairs 47 lfontario FINANCIAL STATEMENT (cont'd) The candidate's nomination fee is refundable only if the financial statement is filed on time. A candidate or third party advertiser who misses the filing deadline may file within a 30-day grace period, provided a $500 late filing fee is paid to the municipality. A candidate or third party advertiser may resubmit a financial statement to correct an error up until the filing deadline. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal AffaiE 48 Fontarto

202 SURPLUS Entire amount of a campaign surplus must be paid to the clerk. A candidate or third party advertiser is entitled to a refund of any contributions they (or their spouse, if an individual) made to the campaign before the filing of the financial statement and the payment of the surplus to the clerk. The clerk holds the surplus monies in trust for the candidate in the event of a compliance audit. The clerk holds the surplus monies in trust by the third party advertiser in the event of a compliance audit. lf there is no compliance audit, the surplus becomes the property of the municipality or school board. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 49 ftsontario COMPLIANCE AUDIT Every council and school board must establish a compliance audit committee. A member of a compliance audit committee cannot be a candidate, a member or employee of a council or school board or a registered third party advertiser. The clerk reviews contributions to candidates and third party advertisers and prepares a report for consideration by the compliance audit committee. lf the clerk determines that a contributor has exceeded the contribution limits, the clerk will provide a report to the compliance audit committee, which will determine whether or not to proceed with legal action. The clerk then sends the report regarding contributors to trustee candidates to the secretary of the school board, who will forward the report to the school board's CAC. A qualified elector may apply to the compliance audit committee for a review of a candidate's or third party advertiser's campaign finances even if the candidate or third party advertiser hasn't filed a financial statement. The committee will consider the application and decide whether to retain an auditor June 28, 20'18 Mlnlstry of Municipal Affalrs 50 lfontario

203 COMPLIANCE AUDIT (cont'd) Compliance audit committee meetings are required to be open to the public but the committee may deliberate in private. Electors will be able to apply for a compliance audit of a third party advertiser's campaign finances. The compliance audit committee is required to provide brief written reasons for its decision. lf the auditor's report concludes that a contravention of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 has occurred, the committee will decide whether or not to proceed with a legal proceeding. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Munlcipal Affairs 5'l Fontario OFFENCES It is an otfence to directly or indirectly:. offer, give, lend or promise to give any valuable consideration connected to the exercise or non-exercise of an elector's vote. otfer a person money or other valuables in order to convince them to run for office or refrain from running for office. give, procure or promise to procure an office or employment to induce a voter to vote or not vote, or a candidate to run or not run for office. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Ltunicipal Affairs 52 #>ontario

204 PENALTIES ln general, the following penalties are available to the courts.llpo-n cotviction'for an offenc--e'under the Municipal Elections Act, lndividual. maximum fine of $25,000. up to six months imprisonment. ineligibility to run in the next general election or if convicted of corr[pt piactices: bribery to vote in next general election Candidate. penalties listed above, plus. fines for excess campaign expenses. forfeiture of otfice if offence committed knowingly Trade union and corporation. maximum fine of $50,000 June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 53 Fontario VOTERS'LIST a a a The preliminary list of electors, as corrected by the clerk, becomes the voters' list on September 1,2018. The clerk determines how and when individuals can apply to have their name and information corrected or added to or removed from the voters' list. The clerk can also remove a name from the list if the clerk becomes aware that the person has d ied. June 28, 2018 Mlnistry of Munlcipal Affairs 54 Fontario

205 VOTERS' LIST (cont'd) One copy of the voters' list can be provided to each municipal candidate or trustee candidate (request must be made to the clerk in writing). Candidates running in a ward are entitled only to that portion of the list that contains the names of the electors entitled to vote for that office. Copies of the voters' list are not available before September 1, The voters' list shall not be posted in a public place. The voters' list shall not be made available to the public by posting on an internet website or via any other print or electronic medium of mass communication. Third party advertisers are not eligible to receive a copy of the voters'list. June 28, 2018 Minlstry of Municipal Affairs 55 Fontario VOTERS' LIST (cont'd) a a o The clerk may require anyone who receives a copy of the list to sign a receipt acknowledging the list is only to be used for election purposes and any other use would be in violation of the Municipal Elections Ac[ An elector's name shall appear only once on the list ln a ward system, an elector is entitled to vote only in the ward where he or she resides. June 28, 2018 Minlstry of Municipal Affalrs 56 Fontario

206 VOTING PROXY. A person who is entitled to be an elector in a local municipality may appoint another person who is also entitled to vote as their voting proxy.. No proxy appointments can be made until nominations close.. A voter must directly appoint another eligible voter by name as their proxy.. A person may only act as the voting proxy for one person, unless they are acting on behalf of a spouse, sibling, parent, child, grandparent or grandchild.. The prescribed proxy form must be completed by the individual appointing the proxy. Note: if the municipality is using alternative voting you should verify with the clerk whether or not proxy voting is permitted June 28, 2018 li'linistry of Municipal Affai6 57 Fontario SCRUTINEERS a o a o a a The scrutineer must have written proof of authorization from the candidate Clerk may require an oath of secrecy During the regular election process, only one candidate or scrutineer per ballot box Scrutineers are not permitted to touch ballots Third party advertisers cannot appoint scrutineers No age restriction on scrutineers No "campaigning" within the voting place June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municlpal Affairs 58 Fontario

207 RECOUNTS ln the event of a tie, a recount is automatic. ln addition:. councils and school boards may establish policies prior to the election setting out additional conditions for an automatic recount. council may pass a resolution for a recount within 30 days after clerk declares the election results. an eligible elector may apply to the Superior Court of Justice for a recount within 30 days after clerk declares election results ln all instances the recount must happen within 15 days of the clerk receiving a court order or council passing a resolution to conduct a recount. Recount must be held in the same manner as the original count. June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 59 #>ontario KEY DATES a a a Opening of nominations/registration as third party advertiser: May 1,2018 Nomination day: Friday, July 27,2018 Voting day: Monday, October 22,2018 Candidate campaign period: from filing of nomination until Wednesday, December 31,2018 Third party advertiser campaign period: from registration until December 31,2018 Campaign financial statement filing deadline: Friday, March 29,2019 at 2:00 pm June 28, 2018 Minlstry of Municlpal Affairs 60 fi>ontario

208 RESOURCES a o a e-laws. Municipal Elections Act, Municipal Act,2001, Municipal Conflict of lnterest Act. Education Act. MMA municipal elections website: rio. caimu n icipa lelections Municipal World. June 28,2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 61 Fon,rr,o QUESTIONS Tim Ryall, Municipal Advisor, Ministry of Municipal Affairs tim.rvall@. ontario.ca Maureen BeatU, Municipal Advisor, Ministry of Municipal Affairs maureen.bea ontano.ca June 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs 6Z Fontario

209

210