2014-06-04 Council Agenda - East...

CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK COUNCIL 2013-2014

AGENDA

for the Meeting to be held on Wednesday, June 4, 2014 in the Council Chambers of the Township Hall, Hickson, Ontario at 10:00 a.m.

1. Call to order and opening remarks

2. Approve Agenda

3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

4. General Business:

a) Confirm Minutes of Previous Meeting b) Approve May 2014 Pay Voucher c) Upper Thames River Conservation Authority – May Newsletter d) Oxford County Land Division Committee – re: Application B14-25-2 (Ramseyer) e) Oxford County Land Division Committee – re: Application B14-26-2 (Krueger)

5. Delegations & Appointments:

a) 10:15 a.m. Mervin & Gloria Ropp re: Roofing Project on 233 Woodstock Street N Property (Staff Report #CBO2014-02)

6. Reports of Municipal Officers and Committees:

a) Conferences and Seminars b) County Council – Update & Questions c) Staff Reports – Updates & Questions d) May 2014 Building Permit Report e) Monthly Public Works/Drainage/Development Activity Report f) Staff Report #PW2014-08 re: Fibermat Tender Results g) Staff Report #PW2014-09 re: Fence Proposed for George Street, Innerkip h) Staff Report #CAC2014-02 re: Year End Budget Adjustments for Amortization

Expense (2013 Budget Amendment) i) Staff Report #CAC2014-03 re: Asset Management Plan j) Staff Report #PSAA2014-01 re: 72 Hour Club Campaign Results k) Staff Report #TC2014-05 re: Joint Compliance Audit Committee

7. By-laws:

a) By-law #2014-25 By-law to Appoint a Joint Compliance Audit Committee

8. Other and Unfinished Business:

a) Cancel July and August Evening Meetings?

9. Legal & Personnel

10. Confirming By-law

11. Adjourn

COUNCIL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2014 Page 352

The Council of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock met in the Council Chambers of the Hickson Municipal Office, Hickson, Ontario at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 21, 2014.

Members present: Mayor Don MCKAY, Deputy Mayor Maureen RALPH and Councillors Linda FULTON, Don LAZENBY, Don MACDONALD and Jeremy SMITH.

Members absent: Councillor Clive LAWRY

Staff present: CAO Jeff Carswell, Clerk Brenda Junker, Director of Public Works & Development Dennis O’Neil, Fire Chief Scott Alexander and Chief Building Official John Scherer

Approve Agenda 1. Moved by Maureen RALPH Seconded by Don MACDONALD Resolved that Council approve the agenda for the May 21, 2014 meeting as printed and circulated and further that the following be added to the agenda for this meeting: • Planning Report for King Minor Variance Application A-6-2014 • L&P Item re Day Street Lots

CARRIED.

PECUNIARY INTERESTS: Councillor Don MACDONALD declared his interest in Item 5a.

Confirm Minutes 2. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that Council confirm the minutes of the May 7, 2014 meeting as printed and circulated.

CARRIED.

Correspondence & Reports – No Resolutions

Grand River Conservation Authority – May Current Oxford County Museum School – Spring Newsletter Delcan – re: Notice of Study Update – Highway 7 Rehabilitation East Zorra-Tavistock Police Services Board – May 2014 Minutes

Correspondence & Reports – Resolutions Following

Development Charges Review

Staff Report #2014-19 – re: Development Charges Update CAO Jeff Carswell provided a brief overview of the Development Charges review, including a time frame for public meetings that must be held prior to passing a new by-law.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.a

COUNCIL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2014 CONTINUED 53

BY-LAWS

1st & 2nd Reading 3. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Jeremy SMITH Resolved that the following by-laws be read a first and second time: 2014-21 Amending Agreement for Extension of OPP Contract

2014-22 2014 Budget & Tax Rates By-law

2014-23 By-law to Amend Clean Yard By-law #49-90

CARRIED.

3rd Reading 4. Moved by Maureen RALPH Seconded by Don MACDONALD Resolved that the following by-laws be read a third and final time: 2014-21 Amending Agreement for Extension of OPP Contract

2014-22 2014 Budget & Tax Rates By-law

2014-23 By-law to Amend Clean Yard By-law #49-90

CARRIED.

Councillor MACDONALD left the table for discussion of Minor Variance Application A-6-2014.

Minor Variance Application A-5-2014 (King)

PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION #A-6-2014 of Russ & Charlene King, Lot 10, Plan M115(East Zorra) At 7:20 p.m. Council, constituted as Committee of Adjustment, considered Minor Variance Application #A-1-2014 of Russ & Charlene King. The Planning Report #2014-132 from Planner Andrea Zietsma-Hächler recommended deferral to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide further information to the Planning Department regarding an existing accessory shed on the property. No members of the public were present for the Hearing.

Defer MVA-6-2014 5. Moved by Jeremy SMITH Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that Council, constituted as Committee of Adjustment, defers Minor Variance Application #A-6-2014 of Russ & Charlene King, Lot 10, Plan M115 (East Zorra) until June 4 or June 18 to allow the applicant to provide further information to the Planning Department regarding an existing accessory structure on the property; And further require Notice of Hearing be recirculated.

CARRIED.

Councillor MACDONALD returned to the table.

Page 3

COUNCIL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2014 CONTINUED Page 354

Committee of the Whole, in camera

6. Moved by Maureen RALPH Seconded by Jeremy SMITH Resolved that Council does now adjourn to Committee of the Whole, in camera, at 7:23 p.m. to consider a matter pertaining to: • a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the

municipality or local board. CARRIED.

Council Reconvenes 7. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Don MACDONALD Resolved that the Committee of the Whole does now rise and Council reconvenes at 7:48 p.m.

CARRIED.

Confirming By-law 8. Moved by Maureen RALPH Seconded by Don MACDONALD Resolved that by-law #2014-24 being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council held Wednesday, May 21, 2014 be read a first, second and third time this 21st day of May, 2014 and further that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the same and affix the corporate seal thereto.

CARRIED.

Adjourn 9. Moved by Jeremy SMITH Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that Council does now adjourn at 7:50 p.m.

CARRIED.

Brenda Junker, Clerk Don McKay, Mayor

#4.bTOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK

MAY ACCOUNT SUMMARY

MAY TOWNSHIP ACCOUNTS PAID: $615,599.73

LESS: Approved by othersInnerkip Community Centre Board of Management $10,840.08Hickson Recreation Committee $7,257.22Innerkip Recreation Committee $17,704.85Tavistock & District Recreation Facilities Board $65,718.12

PLUS: May Payroll $96,693.32

TOTAL ACCOUNTS FOR APPROVAL BY COUNCIL $610,772.78ON JUNE 4, 2014

________________________ _________________________BRENDA JUNKER, CLERK DON MCKAY, MAYOR

First Last

2014-05-01 2014-05-31

First LastFirst Last

TWP TWP

Cheque Number

AVAIL, TAKEN, FNCHG, PURCH, TRADE, MISC, FREIGHT, WRITE, OTHER

CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REPORT

2014-05-30 12:12:45 P Township Of East Zorra-Tavistock 1Page:User ID:Date:

Ranges: From: To:Vendor ID:

Vendor Name: Cheque Date:

Chequebook ID: Cheque Number:

Sorted By:

Distribution Types Included:

BRENDA

Cheque

Number

Cheque

Date Vendor

Name Description Cheque

Amount

11 Township General FundFund

000 GeneralDepartment

121 Departmental ExpendituresActivity

00034255 $ 845.55 2013 Vacancy Rebate2014-05-23

CASH00034260 $ 200.00 Contribution Retirement Gift2014-05-23

00034261 $ 170.87 2013 Vacancy Rebate2014-05-23

00034263 $ 646.37 2013 Vacancy Rebate2014-05-23

00034271 $ 865.25 2013 Vacancy Rebate2014-05-23

000 $ 2,728.04 Total for Department

111 CouncilDepartment

111 Council & Committee MeetingsActivity

CASH00034184 $ 3.55 Petty Cash - May 7, 20142014-05-08

Mike's valu-mart00034291 $ 122.15 Council Lunch April 2/142014-05-23



Stacy Weicker00034313 $ 55.52 Council / Office Supplies2014-05-29


111 $ 230.17 Total for Department

Date:


2014-05-30 12:12:45 P Township Of East Zorra-Tavistock 2Page:User ID:

VendorCheque Cheque Cheque

BRENDA

Description

Number Date Name Amount

181 Township Office HicksonDepartment


Carter-Grant Mechanical Systems00034159 $ 160.71 Preventative Mntnc Spring 20142014-05-02

Heather Hill00034164 $ 1,200.00 2013 & 2014 Office Water Agrmn2014-05-02

Sparkle Products & Services00034179 $ 350.91 General Office Cleaning Apr142014-05-02

CASH00034184 $ 50.00 Planters for Office2014-05-08

Kaufmann Service & Supply00034193 $ 13.73 Battery2014-05-08

Union Gas00034251 $ 102.37 April 2014 Union Gas -Hck/Kip2014-05-16

Frank Cowan Company Ltd.00034268 $ 766.72 Insurance Premiums Apr2014-152014-05-23

Hydro One Networks Inc00034273 $ 569.20 April 2014 Hydro (Hck)2014-05-23

Southwood Landcaping00034314 $ 89.55 May 2014 Grass Cutting2014-05-29



182 89 Loveys St - HicksonDepartment


Frank Cowan Company Ltd.00034268 $ 1,170.72 Insurance Premiums Apr2014-152014-05-23


430 Departmental CapitalActivity

Raedon Excavating Ltd.00034241 $ 1,404.29 Break Up Concrete2014-05-16


183 Former PUC OfficeDepartment


Union Gas00034204 $ 85.54 April 2014 Union Gas (Tavi)2014-05-08

Date:




BRENDA

Description


Erie Thames Power00034225 $ 76.62 April 2014 Hydro/Water/Sewer2014-05-16







191 General AdministrationDepartment


Integra Document Destruction00034191 $ 40.70 Shredding Services April 20142014-05-08

VISA00034205 $ 6.10 CMOS Battert2014-05-08

VISA00034205 $ 86.56 April 2014 MSFT Office 3652014-05-08

VISA00034205 $ 18.40 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08

MTE Paralegal Professional Corp00034237 $ 228.96 Wrap up Saputo Appeal2014-05-16

The Tavistock Gazette00034248 $ 40.00 Gazette Subscription 20142014-05-16

Blowes Stationery00034259 $ 95.11 Office Supplies2014-05-23



Pitney Works00034283 $ 610.56 Postage April 17-May 9, 20142014-05-23


126 Municipal ElectionActivity

Ayr News Limited00034182 $ 222.24 Election 2014 Ad2014-05-08

Canada Post Corporation00034185 $ 702.14 Business Reply Mail 20142014-05-08

Sun Media Corporation00034246 $ 436.65 Notice to Municipal Electors2014-05-16

The Tavistock Gazette00034248 $ 259.49 Notice to Municipal Electors2014-05-16

Date:




BRENDA

Description



211 Hickson Fire DepartmentDepartment


Bell00034183 $ 83.99 April 2014 Phones (Hck/Kip)2014-05-08

Kaufmann Service & Supply00034193 $ 150.82 Cleaning Supplies/Wheel Blocks2014-05-08

VISA00034205 $ 18.40 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08

Corp. of City of Woodstock00034218 $ 442.33 May 2014 Fire Dispatch Fees2014-05-16

Spectrum Communications00034244 $ 136.76 Portable Radio Batteries2014-05-16


Acklands-Grainger Inc00034253 $ 166.58 Burn Kit Supplies2014-05-23

Execulink Telecom00034265 $ 50.82 May 2014 Fire Halls Internet2014-05-23


Fireservice Management Lt.,00034269 $ 363.20 PPE Repair & Cleaning2014-05-23

Hickson Firefighters Assoc.00034272 $ 44.85 Food/Drinks for Mutual Aid2014-05-23




M & L Supply00034279 $ 70.54 Facepiece Strap Assembly2014-05-23

Rogers Wireless00034284 $ 18.01 Fire Cellphones - April 20142014-05-23

Mike's valu-mart00034291 $ 7.28 1st Aid/CPR April 25/142014-05-23


A.J. Stone Company Ltd.00034296 $ 93.16 Gas Calibration2014-05-29

Nick Dorken00034306 $ 16.22 OSB Board - WRSTRC Training2014-05-29


124 FD Training & PracticeActivity

Quehl's of Tavistock00034172 $ 13.18 1st Aid/CPR Training Meals Apr2014-05-02

Date:




BRENDA

Description



Scott Alexander00034173 $ 3.73 1st Aid/CPR Coffee Apr/20142014-05-02

Fred Chilvers00034228 $ 26.87 Pop for Station2014-05-16

Quehl's of Tavistock00034239 $ 26.36 1st Aid/CPR Meals May 10/112014-05-16

Scott Alexander00034243 $ 6.64 1st Aid/CPR Coffee May 10/112014-05-16

Troy Stere00034316 $ 14.95 Food - WRESTC Training2014-05-29


132 Fire Public EducationActivity

Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety00034270 $ 224.38 Smoke/CO Alarms2014-05-23

801 Hickson 2001 Ford Sterling PmpActivity



802 2007 Freightliner TankerActivity


Core Fuels Ltd.00034219 $ 100.80 April 2014 Diesel2014-05-16


803 Hickson 06 Rescue VanActivity

Kaufmann Service & Supply00034193 $ 5.40 Red Clearance Lamp2014-05-08


Core Fuels Ltd.00034219 $ 52.53 April 2014 Diesel2014-05-16



222 Innerkip Fire DepartmentDepartment


Date:




BRENDA

Description


SaniGear00034175 $ 219.91 PPE Cleaning & Repair2014-05-02


Perth Communications00034196 $ 532.20 Replacement Pager2014-05-08

VISA00034205 $ 18.40 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08




Hydro One Networks Inc00034231 $ 137.11 April 2014 Hydro (Innerkip)2014-05-16

Scott Alexander00034243 $ 18.32 Captian Epillettes2014-05-16




Fireservice Management Lt.,00034269 $ 230.28 PPE Repair & Cleaning2014-05-23















Date:




BRENDA

Description


804 Innerkip - 2005 F/Liner PumperActivity


805 Innerkip-1994 InternationalActivity

Weber's Fabricating Ltd.00034206 $ 5,088.00 Tank Repair2014-05-08

Weber's Fabricating Ltd.00034206 $ 2,981.87 Annual Pump Test & Mntnc2014-05-08

C-Max Fire Solutions00034221 $ 258.69 Fill Valve Repair2014-05-16


806 Innerkip-1999 Ford Rescue VanActivity



233 Tavistock Fire DepartmentDepartment


Ideal Supply00034166 $ 11.49 Batteries2014-05-02

SaniGear00034175 $ 100.63 PPE Cleaning & Repair2014-05-02


VISA00034205 $ 18.40 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08

Bell00034211 $ 67.49 April 2014 Telephones-Tavi2014-05-16









Date:




BRENDA

Description




Zehr Home Hardware00034295 $ 15.22 Ontario Flag/Cleaning Supplies2014-05-23

Zehr Home Hardware00034295 $ 61.05 Ontario Flag/Cleaning Supplies2014-05-23

Zehr Home Hardware00034295 $ 11.57 Ant Traps2014-05-23



SaniGear00034312 $ 209.65 PPE Cleaning - Miller Fire2014-05-29


Thornton's Lockworks00034315 $ 147.55 OPP Door Handle Repair2014-05-29











807 Tavistock-1998 PumperActivity


808 Tavistock-1987 Ford Tanker/PumActivity

Jutzi Petroleum Inc.00034235 $ 18.60 Diesel Fuel Apr 20142014-05-16


809 Tavistock-2005 Rescue VanActivity

Date:




BRENDA

Description


Jutzi Petroleum Inc.00034235 $ 79.22 Diesel Fuel Apr 20142014-05-16

Jutzi Petroleum Inc.00034235 $ 71.22 Diesel Fuel April 20142014-05-16



244 Township Fire DepartmentDepartment




Stokes International00034177 $ 121.03 Uniform - Twp Fire Chief2014-05-02

VISA00034205 $ 18.40 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08


Scott Alexander00034243 $ 412.13 OAFC Conference Hotel 20142014-05-16

Scott Alexander00034243 $ 30.00 OAFC Conference Hotel 20142014-05-16



Carla Garrett00034262 $ 6.04 Prizes for Game during EP Pres2014-05-23

Carla Garrett00034262 $ 22.29 EP Week Word Game2014-05-23


PPE Solutions Inc00034238 $ 1,840.63 New Bunker Gear - O'Hearn2014-05-16

834 2007 GMC Sierra X-Cab (Scott)Activity



246 Community Emergency Man.Department

Date:




BRENDA

Description



Diversified Business Communica00034188 $ 483.36 World Cnfrnc - Disaster Mngmnt2014-05-08


Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety00034270 $ 197.52 Children's Tote Bags2014-05-23


252 Police Services BoardDepartment




253 Township PolicingDepartment


Ministry of Finance00034169 $ 104,997.00 April 2014 OPP Pmt2014-05-02

Sparkle Products & Services00034179 $ 365.89 OPP Office Cleaning Apr 20142014-05-02


261 By-law EnforcementDepartment


Yantzi TIM-BR Mart Total Home00034252 $ 32.49 Plywood Building Security2014-05-16


271 Building and Structural Insp.Department


Date:




BRENDA

Description


Kaufmann Service & Supply00034193 $ 2.99 Misc Supplies2014-05-08

VISA00034205 $ 18.40 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08



812 2006 GMC CanyonActivity

Kaufmann Service & Supply00034193 $ 45.43 Oil Change2014-05-08



311 Roads&PW - OverheadDepartment


Sun Media Corporation00034178 $ 300.55 PW Foreman Job Ad 20142014-05-02


TSC Stores Ltd.00034203 $ 49.83 Grass Seed / Tshirts2014-05-08

VISA00034205 $ 128.90 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08

MTS Allstream Inc00034210 $ 0.03 April 2014 Long Distance2014-05-16

Sun Media Corporation00034246 $ 275.48 PW Foreman Job Ad - 20142014-05-16

Sun Media Corporation00034246 $ 300.55 PW Foreman Job Ad - 20142014-05-16

The Tavistock Gazette00034248 $ 189.27 PW Foreman Job Ad -20142014-05-16


821 1999 Champion 740AActivity


823 2004 Volvo 730B GraderActivity

Auto & Home Glass Service00034254 $ 351.73 Supply & Install Windshield2014-05-23


Strongco00034286 $ 338.14 Rear View Mirror2014-05-23

Date:




BRENDA

Description


Strongco00034310 $ 148.71 Latch2014-05-29

824 2005 John Deere TractorActivity

John Deere Financial00034233 $ 92.01 Inside & Outside Air Filters2014-05-16


825 2010 Caterpillar LoaderActivity


Toromont Industries Ltd.00034293 $ 25.44 Delivery Charge2014-05-23

Toromont Industries Ltd.00034293 $ 207.21 Lamp2014-05-23

827 Chainsaws and other small eqp.Activity

Double B Machining & Fabricatin00034161 $ 97.63 Repair Pole Saw2014-05-02

McFarlane Auto Parts00034214 $ 7.57 Water Pump Filter2014-05-16

828 Snowplows, Wings, etc.Activity

Valley Blades Ltd00034181 $ 1,593.56 Heat Treated Highwear2014-05-02


Valley Blades Ltd00034294 $ 732.67 Heat-Treated Wing Blade2014-05-23

829 2006 Vermeer Brush ChipperActivity


830 2008 Sterling Dump TruckActivity

Auto & Home Glass Service00034254 $ 61.06 Supply & Install Windshield2014-05-23


Total Town & Country Repair Inc00034317 $ 1,709.82 Replace Radiator etc2014-05-29

831 2006 Volvo Dump TruckActivity


832 2006 Sterling 1375Activity

Date:




BRENDA

Description


Total Town & Country Repair Inc00034250 $ 690.45 Air Tarp & Brake Light Repairs2014-05-16


833 2012 TerraStar Flatbed (Roads)Activity

Carrier Centres00034186 $ 7.90 Re Stocking Charge2014-05-08


835 2010 Silverado LT (PW Foreman)Activity


836 2009 GMC Sierra (Dennis)Activity


837 2007 GMC Pickup (Roads)Activity



312 Roads&PW - FacilitiesDepartment


Spectrum Communications00034174 $ 172.99 May 2014 Maintenance Agrmnt2014-05-02

Kaufmann Service & Supply00034193 $ 11.06 Misc Hardware2014-05-08

Kaufmann Service & Supply00034193 $ 50.12 Cutting Blades2014-05-08

Dowler Karn00034223 $ 381.21 April 4/14 Propane2014-05-16

Dowler Karn00034223 $ 49.51 Propane April 30/142014-05-16






Date:




BRENDA

Description


Fastenal Canada00034227 $ 24.25 Misc Items2014-05-16




J.R.W. Custom Welding00034276 $ 198.43 Welding Alum Gate at Yard2014-05-23

Superior Sealers00034288 $ 70.21 Sweeping2014-05-23

Easy Way00034301 $ 100.09 Cleaning Supplies2014-05-29

Spectrum Communications00034311 $ 172.99 June 2014 Mntnc Agreement2014-05-29



313 Roads&PW - Road MaintenanceDepartment

315 HM-Patching/Base RepairActivity

Oxford Sand & Gravel Ltd.00034171 $ 412.74 Coarse Cold Mix2014-05-02

317 HM-SweepingActivity


Superior Sealers00034288 $ 1,755.36 Sweeping2014-05-23

331 LM-Patch Gravel SurfaceActivity

Hart Sand & Gravel00034275 $ 2,296.72 B Gravel, Clear Stone2014-05-23

341 RM-Grass Cutting/Seed/SodActivity

TSC Stores Ltd.00034203 $ 773.27 Grass Seed / Tshirts2014-05-08




342 RM-Tree Planting & RemovalActivity

Date:




BRENDA

Description


Tabor Bros. & Sons Ltd.00034180 $ 23,246.16 Removal of Trees2014-05-02

Tabor Bros. & Sons Ltd.00034289 $ 9,738.43 Chipping Brush on Road Side2014-05-23

345 RM-Debri Pick-upActivity

BFI Canada00034212 $ 105.53 April 2014 Garbage Services2014-05-16

348 RM-Sewers&DrainsActivity

Raedon Excavating Ltd.00034285 $ 457.92 Backhoe Rental2014-05-23

Dance Sewer Cleaning Inc00034299 $ 725.04 Flush Storm Drain - Tavi2014-05-29

349 RM-Catchbasin Repairs/CleaningActivity

Hunter Steel Limited00034165 $ 119.67 Carbon Flatbar2014-05-02

371 Signs/Barricades/Guide RailsActivity

Foris Signs Inc.00034230 $ 10.18 Rural Route Sign 6768922014-05-16


314 Roads&PW - Winter MaintenanceDepartment

416 Snow Removal from StreetsActivity

Bluemont Excavating Services00034158 $ 2,482.94 Truck Hauling Snow2014-05-02


351 Leaf & Yard Waste ProgramDepartment


Jel-Joe Haulage00034303 $ 1,322.88 Hauling Brush - April 20142014-05-29


371 StreetlightingDepartment

Date:




BRENDA

Description



Erie Thames Power00034190 $ 2,098.98 April 2014 Streetlight Power2014-05-08

ERTH Holdings Inc.00034226 $ 274.75 April 2014 Stlght Mntnc/Sftwr2014-05-16

Hydro One Networks Inc00034231 $ 1,006.13 April 2014 Streetlight Power2014-05-16

ERTH Holdings Inc.00034267 $ 1,883.58 Replace Damaged Stlght Pole2014-05-23

ERTH Holdings Inc.00034267 $ 1,477.56 Replace Damaged Stlght Pole2014-05-23


Treasurer,County of Oxford00034160 $ 22,500.00 LED Streetlight Loan Pmt2014-05-02

Treasurer,County of Oxford00034160 $ 5,391.94 LED Streetlight Loan Pmt2014-05-02

D & D Electric Ltd.00034298 $ 5,046.28 Streetlights in Innerkip (NEW)2014-05-29


751 Hickson ParkDepartment



VISA00034205 $ 18.40 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08

Corner Farm Market Ltd.00034220 $ 500.00 Repair Diamond Baselines Fence2014-05-16

Jimmi Jons00034234 $ 296.00 Apr-May 2014 Portable Toilets2014-05-16





752 Innerkip ParkDepartment


Date:




BRENDA

Description


M&M Irrigation00034170 $ 565.00 2014 Maintenance & Repairs2014-05-02


VISA00034205 $ 18.40 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08


Can-Tario Brick & Stone00034216 $ 172.50 Topsoil2014-05-16



Foris Signs Inc.00034230 $ 196.50 'No Dog' Signs2014-05-16


Jimmi Jons00034234 $ 296.00 Apr-May 2014 Portable Toilets2014-05-16



753 Tavistock ParkDepartment


Stratford Glass & Lock Service00034176 $ 137.75 Diamond & Fence Pad Locks2014-05-02

Ken Wettlaufer00034194 $ 250.09 Management Fees Apr 16-30/142014-05-08

Ken Wettlaufer00034194 $ 1,381.45 Management Fees Apr 16-30/142014-05-08






Ken Wettlaufer00034277 $ 409.09 Management Fees May 1-15/142014-05-23



Stratford Glass & Lock Service00034287 $ 126.00 Lock Repair, Lock Boxes2014-05-23

Date:




BRENDA

Description


D & D Electric Ltd.00034298 $ 75.00 Locate Underground Wires2014-05-29



Riverside Brass & Aluminum Fou00034240 $ 1,441.35 Pavilion Signage Front Entranc2014-05-16


755 Tav Memorial Hall (3 Adam)Department






BFI Canada Inc00034213 $ 199.09 April 2014 Garbage Services2014-05-16








Ken Wettlaufer00034277 $ 1,162.29 Management Fees May 1-15/142014-05-23

Stratford Glass & Lock Service00034287 $ 12.00 Lock Repair, Lock Boxes2014-05-23

The Tavistock Gazette00034292 $ 63.71 Booking Ads -March & April '142014-05-23

Zehr Home Hardware00034295 $ 4.30 Lampholder2014-05-23


Date:




BRENDA

Description


756 Bender Subd Passive ParkDepartment







758 Parks & Recreation AdminDepartment




761 Innerkip Community CentreDepartment


David & Cheryl Sutherland00034162 $ 314.50 April 2014 Hall Cleaning2014-05-02


Scott Lattimer Plumbing00034200 $ 480.60 Repair Toilet in Left Washroom2014-05-08

VISA00034205 $ 18.40 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08


Barbara Kelso00034215 $ 1,206.00 Jan-Apr 2014 Mngmnt Fees2014-05-16

Barbara Kelso00034215 $ 114.76 Jan-Apr 2014 Mileage2014-05-16




Date:




BRENDA

Description





ERTH Holdings Inc.00034226 $ 2,293.70 Streetlights at Innerkip C.C.2014-05-16


762 Hickson Recreation CommitteeDepartment

712 ConcessionActivity

Heather Smith00034302 $ 7.88 Booth Items for Resale2014-05-29





Nancy Killing00034307 $ 139.92 Booth Items for Resale2014-05-29



713 Minor Ball ProgramActivity

00034187 $ 110.00 Ball Registration 2014 Refund2014-05-08



CASH00034207 $ 600.00 Umpire Float - HP May 20142014-05-08

South Oxford Softball League00034209 $ 100.00 2014 Village Bond Hck/Kip2014-05-16

South Oxford Softball League00034247 $ 300.00 League Registration 2014 (3)2014-05-16

South Oxford Softball League00034247 $ 184.00 Liability & Accident Insurance2014-05-16

South Oxford Softball League00034247 $ 400.00 Tournament Fees (2) Hickson2014-05-16

Dunnys Source For Sports00034264 $ 254.93 Scorebooks, Tball Stand, balls2014-05-23

Date:




BRENDA

Description


Oxford Source for Sports00034281 $ 82.50 Easton Leather Grips2014-05-23

Scott Alexander00034309 $ 149.99 Catcher's Kit2014-05-29

Scott Alexander00034309 $ 2.00 Catcher's Kit2014-05-29

716 Park TractorsActivity



763 Innerkip Recreation CommitteeDepartment

712 ConcessionActivity

Coca-Cola Bottling00034217 $ 324.40 Booth Items for Resale2014-05-16

Coca-Cola Bottling00034217 $ 1,057.60 Booth Items for Resale2014-05-16

00034245 $ 100.00 Parent Volunteer 2013 $ Refund2014-05-16

Buzzy's Bakery & Catering00034256 $ 2,360.50 Booth Items for Resale2014-05-23

Exhaust Tech00034266 $ 325.00 Hood Filter & Exhaust Cleaning2014-05-23

PK Snacks00034282 $ 334.85 Booth Items for Resale2014-05-23

PK Snacks00034282 $ 118.25 Booth Items for Resale2014-05-23

The Coffee Man Sales & Service00034290 $ 68.00 Booth Items for Resale2014-05-23


Karrys Bros., Limited00034304 $ 70.21 Booth Items for Resale2014-05-29

Karrys Bros., Limited00034304 $ 1,384.35 Booth Items for Resale2014-05-29

713 Minor Ball ProgramActivity

Foris Signs Inc.00034163 $ 1,769.40 Embroidery Services 20142014-05-02

South Oxford Softball League00034201 $ 1,000.00 2014 Ball Registration (10)2014-05-08

South Oxford Softball League00034201 $ 1,800.00 2014 Ball Tournament Fee (9)2014-05-08

CASH00034208 $ 1,500.00 Umpire Float IRC May 15/142014-05-14

South Oxford Softball League00034209 $ 100.00 2014 Village Bond Hck/Kip2014-05-16

Date:




BRENDA

Description


Home Run Sports00034274 $ 238.00 Chest Protectors/Equip. Bags2014-05-23

Peter VanBoekel00034308 $ 39.96 Umpire Clinic Lunch2014-05-29

Peter VanBoekel00034308 $ 17.00 Umpire Clinic Lunch2014-05-29

716 Park TractorsActivity



781 TDRC - Arena (1 Adam)Department


Bell00034157 $ 35.02 Arena Internet April 20142014-05-02


Union Gas00034204 $ 1,971.69 April 2014 Union Gas (Tavi)2014-05-08

VISA00034205 $ 18.40 2014 OHS Act2014-05-08



BFI Canada Inc00034213 $ 198.94 April 2014 Garbage Services2014-05-16

McFarlan Rowlands Insurance Br00034236 $ 2,901.96 Liability Insurance 2014-152014-05-16

TSC Stores Ltd.00034249 $ 7.13 Inner Tube2014-05-16

Bell00034257 $ 44.00 Public Internet May 20142014-05-23


Ken Wettlaufer00034277 $ 7,292.99 Management Fees May 1-15/142014-05-23

Ken Wettlaufer00034277 $ 79.99 Petty Cash May 21, 20142014-05-23





Maximum Solutions Inc00034280 $ 463.17 Annual Service Agrmnt 20142014-05-23

Date:




BRENDA

Description



Mike's valu-mart00034291 $ 7.58 Scrubber Battery Water2014-05-23

Zehr Home Hardware00034295 $ 28.60 Sink Water Supply Hose2014-05-23

Zehr Home Hardware00034295 $ 41.46 Blades & Screws2014-05-23

D & D Electric Ltd.00034298 $ 210.00 Supply & Install Hour Meter2014-05-29

Erie Thames Power00034300 $ 2,820.54 April 2014 Hydro/Water/Sewer2014-05-29




782 TDRC - Concession BoothDepartment




786 TDRC - Ice ResurfacerDepartment


Nella Cutlery (Hamilton) Inc.00034195 $ 20.00 Sharpening2014-05-08



871 Agriculture & ReforestationDepartment


Treasurer,County of Oxford00034160 $ 12,661.11 Stewart/Lawson/McIntosh Dr Pmt2014-05-02

Treasurer,County of Oxford00034160 $ 1,629.91 Stewart/Lawson/McIntosh Dr Pmt2014-05-02

Date:




BRENDA

Description



902 Accounts ReceivableDepartment

906 Other A/RActivity





Southwood Landcaping00034314 $ 109.90 May 2014 Grass Cutting 2014-05-29

907 Other Gov't & Agencies - A/RActivity











910 Other AssetsDepartment

910 Other AssetsActivity

Treasurer,County of Oxford00034222 $ 90.00 Composters(5), BlueBoxes(20ea)2014-05-16



Date:




BRENDA

Description


MacKay Fuels (Woodstock) Ltd.00034278 $ 1,894.23 April 2014 Fuel2014-05-23




911 Municipal Debt Burden - DrainsDepartment

911 Municipal Debt Burden - DrainsActivity

Dance Sewer Cleaning Inc00034189 $ 753.02 Video Storm Drain - 14th Line2014-05-08

K. Smart Associates Ltd.00034192 $ 18,388.48 OnSite Mtg/Survey Etc2014-05-08

R.J. Burnside & Associates Ltd00034198 $ 1,642.83 Engineering re: Goring Dr2014-05-08


932 Accounts Payable & Accrued LiaDepartment

935 Other A/PActivity

Innerkip & District Lions Club00034232 $ 949.00 Bar Assoc. Fees Pd Out May/142014-05-16

937 Payroll PayableActivity

Minister of Finance00034168 $ 1,624.19 April 2014 EHT Pmt2014-05-02

CASH00034184 $ 80.00 Petty Cash - May 7, 20142014-05-08

Receiver General for Canada00034197 $ 6,358.52 Regular Deductions May 2, 20142014-05-08


Receiver General for Canada00034197 $ 114.40 Regular Deductions May 2, 20142014-05-08


Sun Life00034199 $ 5,841.22 May 2014 Benefits2014-05-08

Receiver General for Canada00034242 $ 6,140.26 May 16/14 Regular Deductions2014-05-16


Receiver General for Canada00034242 $ 342.14 May 16/14 Regular Deductions2014-05-16

Date:




BRENDA

Description



CASH00034297 $ 80.00 Petty Cash - May 29/142014-05-29


938 Security DepositsDepartment

938 Security DepositsActivity

K. Smart Associates Ltd.00034167 $ 817.50 Final Review/Approval of Lots2014-05-02

K. Smart Associates Ltd.00034192 $ 3,512.50 First Submission Eng Review2014-05-08

00034224 $ 500.00 Builder Deposit Returned2014-05-16

00034229 $ 1,161.00 Lot Grading Deposit Returned2014-05-16

00034229 $ 561.00 Final Lot Gr Deposit Returned2014-05-16

00034229 $ 1,161.00 Lot Grading Deposit Returned2014-05-16

K. Smart Associates Ltd.00034305 $ 474.60 Subd Agreement for Final Rlse2014-05-29


950 Fixed/Variable DistributionsDepartment

950 Fixed/Variable DistributionActivity



Bell Mobility00034258 $ 708.31 April 2014 Cellphones2014-05-23


972 Oxford Co. - Water RatesDepartment

071 TransferActivity

Treasurer,County of Oxford00034160 $ 1,642.94 Innerkip Sewer Debnt 20132014-05-02

Date:




BRENDA

Description


Treasurer,County of Oxford00034160 $ 732.22 Innerkip Sewer Debnt 20132014-05-02


11 $ 615,599.73 Total for Fund

1

FYIMay 2014

London TD Tree Maintenance Pilot Project

On May 5, 25 TD employees joined UTRCA staff at City Wide Sports Fields on Commissioners Road to visit a tree planting site from 2011. The TD staff spent two hours on maintenance tasks such as adding more mulch around the trees, adjusting tree collars,

The morning was very successful and the immediate impact was

to offer the help. In the words of Natasha Martin, TD Manager of National Programs, “I think we are on to something!”

It is hoped that TD will do this program on a yearly basis to maintain projects that they have planted. TD will now look at other cities and previous planting they have done, and do the same

any other volunteer groups looking for something to do, to help maintain other Communities for Nature projects. Contact: Karen Pugh, Resources Specialist

New Curriculum: Barrier Removal and the Environment

A partnership between the Thames Valley District School Board and the UTRCA saw the development of a three day curriculum program called Barrier Removal and the Environment. Working with the TVDSB’s Itinerant Gifted Resource Teacher, Colleen Ellison-Waring, the program guides students through an inquiry-based learning process. The students decide whether to remove a dam or not, and develop an environmental plan for the

surrounding landscape. This program was developed to complement classroom visits by representatives from the Professional Engineers of Ontario on dams.

From March 25 to April

schools (each school hosting students from a Family of Schools) to implement this specialized differentiated p r o g r a m m i n g . B o t h partners are pleased with the student engagement and level of learning that took place. Some minor adjustments are all that is needed in order to offer it as an outreach program next winter.Contact: Joanna John, Community Education Specialist

The Value of Cover CropsThe UTRCA has partnered with an environmental consulting

management on runoff and nutrient release. Cover crops provide ground cover over the winter and spring until a new crop canopy grows. They reportedly decrease soil erosion, runoff, phosphorus

Monitoring equipment has been installed to assess the impact of the cover crop on water quality and soil loss.

TD employees all set to work at the site, which was planted in 2011.

The students show off their work .

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.c

2

and soil structure; and replenish soil organic matter; as well as

management. The project will assess different cover crop management

practices as they relate to water quality runoff and soil loss. Field monitoring will take place at two farm sites near the City of London. On one farm, a tillage radish cover crop has been planted

across a slope that is susceptible to erosion. Water quality data will be collected by both grab sampling and automated methods during runoff events.

Funding for the one year Water Adaptation Management and Quality Initiative project has been provided through Growing Forward 2, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative. The program is administered by Farm & Food Care Ontario.Contact: Craig Merkley, Conservation Services Specialist

Green Week BiodiversitySeventeen grade 4-6 students with an interest in the environment

participated in a “Green Week 2014: Biodiversity” workshop on April 23 in Stratford. Green Week is a local tradition started by the late Ted

Committee (CBEAC), to celebrate Earth Day and the environment. As in previous years, The Royal Palisade Retirement Residence

was our host, providing space, an opportunity to work side by side with residents and lunch! We greatly appreciate their generosity.

Students spent the morning learning about biodiversity through a video, games and conversations. The highlight was having students, staff and retirement home residents build birdhouses together. The birdhouses will be placed around the property and the stormwater management pond, which was naturalized by students during last year’s workshop.

Each group of student participants returned to their schools with a birdhouse kit for their school grounds and a Biodiversity Balance game so that they could share what they learned with other students and staff.

Thank you to UTRCA Chairperson Jane McKelvie, who was on hand to give a few words and joined us all for lunch.

The day was a collaboration by the CBEAC, The Royal Palisade Retirement Residence and the UTRCA.Contact: Maranda MacKean, Community Education Technician

Brook Trout Back in Avon RiverTwenty years ago, the newly formed Upper Avon River

Conservation Club planted trees and shrubs on two acres of land along a tributary of the Avon River upstream of Stratford. Those trees are now more than 20 feet high and the area is a woodlot.

The small tributary of the Avon that runs through the planting site is now a healthy stream. According to UTRCA aquatic biologist John Schwindt, the stream can now support Brook Trout. John has been monitoring the tributary over the years and is impressed by how healthy the stream is compared to 20 years ago.

On May 7, some of the Conservation Club members who had planted those trees gathered to witness the reintroduction of Brook Trout into the stream. Included in the group were Marina and Wayne Schmidt and their grandchildren. The Schmidts offered

site in the upper Avon watershed, in April 1994. Wayne remembers catching trout in the stream 50 years ago,

club’s work, which is summed up in their motto: “Neighbours helping Neighbours.”

site by the Thames River Anglers Association. This club runs a hatchery near Komoka and works with the UTRCA to reintroduce

Contact: Craig Merkley, Conservation Services Specialist

Students and retirement home residents build birdhouses together.

UTRCA Aquatic Biologist John Schwindt with a bag of young Brook Trout ready to be released.

3

Tree-mendous Faith FestivalOn May 4, families with children attending schools in the

London District Catholic Secondary School Board, St. Clair Catholic School Board, Huron-Perth Catholic District School Board and Brant Haldimand Catholic School Board came together for a rousing kick start to Catholic Education Week. The Family Faith Festival was held at St. Andre Bessette Catholic Secondary School, a recently constructed high school in London.

Families enjoyed workshops, a barbeque and live musical entertainment. UTRCA Community Education staff contributed to the festivities with a workshop entitled Trees – A Wonder of Creation, followed by the enthusiastic planting of four Sugar Maple trees in the school yard. Contact: Joanna John, Community Education Specialist

No one is too little to plant a tree! On April 25, children from 18 months old to 6 years old from

of the City of Stratford. The trees were given to the City by the

in honour of Green Week 2014, and were planted with the UTRCA.

Being little didn’t stop these children from working hard. Each tree was well “tucked in” with many tree dances to pack down the soil around the roots. Multiple trips to the mulch pile provided by the City taught the littlest ones the meaning of “more,” if they didn’t know if before! Not surprisingly, the most talked about aspect of planting was the “donut” of mulch placed around the base of each tree. Contact: Maranda MacKean, Community Education Technician

WatershedProject a Winner!Thames Valley Science and Engineering Fair on April 5, to the project that best explored conservation with a local focus.

Lucy Kim and Bogdana Sredojevic impressed the judges with their project entitled “Les Hydrographiques Bassins Différents.” These students were the Junior Division pair from Jeanne Sauve French Immersion Public School. Their project compared rates

and the other a more natural environment. In recognition of their accomplishment, each girl received a

pair of binoculars and the school received a plaque that will be hung at the school until next year’s Science and Engineering Fair.

Many compliments have been received for the Conservation Award plaque. It is in the shape of a Tulip Tree leaf, a Carolinian tree species that emerges from the forest into the super canopy. The Lower Thames Valley, Kettle Creek and Upper Thames River Conservation Authorities are proud to recognize these deserving students.Contact: Joanna John, Community Education Specialist

Eastern Meadowlarks in Fanshawe CASeveral years ago, Fanshawe CA staff stopped cutting the grass in a

pond. This area is naturalizing and slowly becoming a meadow. Eastern Meadowlarks have moved in with the taller grasses. Like

most grassland-dependent birds, this species is at risk in Ontario (listed as Threatened) because of the sharp decline in suitable

nesting in this newly created habitat.Eastern Meadowlarks are chunky birds that are very well

brown with black streaks, blending in well when they sit on the

Participants plant one of the Sugar Maple trees in the school yard.

A young helper does the tree dance to pack down the soil.

Joanna John, UTRCA Community Education Specialist (centre), presents the Conservation Award to the winning students.

4

www.thamesriver.on.ca519-451-2800

Twitter @UTRCAmarketingFind us on Facebook!

both sides of its short tail. When perched, it reveals a bright yellow throat and breast adorned with a black “V.” This medium-sized bird reaches 22-28 cm in length.

Some of the Eastern Redcedars trees that have also moved into

The Eastern Redcedars are native to the shores of the Great Lakes, but not to Middlesex County.Contact: Cathy Quinlan, Terrestrial Biologist

On the AgendaThe next UTRCA Board of Directors meeting will be May

27, 2014. Approved board meeting minutes are posted at www.thamesriver.on.ca; click on “Downloads.” For Your Information Report Fanshawe Pioneer Village Report 2015 - 20 Year Flood Control Capital Repair Plan Administration and Enforcement - Section 28

Contact: Susan Shivas, Executive Assistant

Eastern Meadowlarks nest in this field at Fanshawe Conservation Area.

Eastern Meadowlark (photo: Ron Ridout)

Report No: CASPO 2014-142 COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

Land Division Committee Meeting: June 5, 2014

To: Chair and Members of Oxford County Land Division Committee From: Andrea Zietsma-Hächler, Development Planner, Community and Strategic

Planning

Application for Consent B14-25-2 – Steve & Margaret Ramseyer

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS The application for consent proposes to sever lands to be added to lands to the immediate

south. The lot to be enlarged comprises an existing veterinarian clinic and parking lot. The lands to

be added will be utilized for parking and snow storage.

The proposal is consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement and the relevant policies of the Official Plan.

Agency circulation resulted in no concerns with the proposed development.

DISCUSSION Background OWNER: Steve & Margaret Ramseyer 104 Hope Street West, Tavistock ON N0J 1M0 LOCATION: The subject lands are described as Part Lot 14, e/s of Woodstock Street, n/s of Hope Street, Plan 307, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The lands are located on the east side of Woodstock Street North, between Hope Street East and Jacob Street, and are municipally known as 26-28 Woodstock Street North, Tavistock. COUNTY OFFICIAL PLAN: Schedule “C-3” County of Oxford Serviced Village Settlement Strategy Plan Schedule “E-2” Village of Tavistock Village Core Land Use Plan

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.d



Page 2 of 5

TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK ZONING BY-LAW NO.2003-18: Existing Zoning: Central Commercial Zone (CC) Proposed Zoning: Central Commercial Zone (CC) &

Special Central Commercial Zone (CC-sp) SERVICES: municipal water and sanitary sewers serve the lot to be retained and the

lot to be enlarged ROAD ACCESS: Lot to be Enlarged – paved, county road (Hope Street East) Lot to be Retained – paved, County road (Woodstock Street North) PROPOSAL: Area: Frontage: Depth:

SEVERED LOT 493.9 m2 (5,316.5 ft2) None 30.3 m (99.4 ft)

RETAINED LOT 627.1 m2 (6,750.6 ft2) 16.5 m (54.1 ft) 38.1 m (125 ft)

ENLARGED LOT 1,392.4 m2 (14,988.2 ft2) 21.2 m (69.6 ft) 51.5 m (169 ft)

The purpose for the application for consent is for a commercial lot addition. The parcel to be severed will cover an area of approximately 493.9 m2 (5,316.5 ft2), is vacant and will be added to the commercial lot to the immediate south, covering an area of 1,392.4 m2 (14,988.2 ft2) and consisting of an existing veterinarian clinic and parking lot. The added lands will be utilized for parking and snow storage for the veterinarian clinic. The lot to be retained will cover an area of 627.1 m2 (6,750.6 ft2) and contains an existing commercial unit and accessory residential unit. The owner has applied to rezone the retained lands from ‘Central Commercial Zone (CC)’ to ‘Residential Type 3 Zone (R3)’ to permit a converted dwelling house containing 3 residential units. A Partial Discharge of Mortgage has also been applied for. The surrounding uses are a mix of commercial and residential uses with Yantzi’s Feed & Seed mill and the Bonnie Brae Long Term Care facility to the northwest. Plate 1 – Existing Zoning and Location Map, indicates the location of the subject lands and the existing zoning in the immediate vicinity as well as the approximate location of the proposed lot to be severed. Plate 2 – Aerial Map (2010), shows the location of existing buildings on the lot to be severed and the lot to be retained. Plate 3 – Applicant’s Site Sketch, provides additional details of the lands to be severed, retained and enlarged.



Page 3 of 5

Application Review 2014 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement (2014) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The policy framework came into effect April 30, 2014. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, where a municipality is exercising its authority affecting a planning matter, such decisions “shall be consistent with” all policy statements issued under the Act. The policies of Section 1.1 state that sufficient land shall be made available to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs for the planning period. Within settlement areas, sufficient land shall be made available through intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas. The policies of Section 1.1.3 state that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Section 1.1.3.3 states that planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs. Official Plan The subject lands are located within the ‘Village Core’ designation according to the Village of Tavistock Land Use Plan (Schedule “E-2”), as contained in the County Official Plan. The Village Core within the Serviced Village represents a relatively compact area of predominantly commercial uses which have historically functioned as a downtown pedestrian shopping district. It is intended that the Village Core will continue to be the most intensive and dominant business area within the settlement serving both village residents and those within the wider rural area. Within the Village Core, the full range of retail, office, administrative and public utility uses, cultural, entertainment, recreational and institutional uses are permitted. Cottage industry and associated retail may also be permitted. Residential dwelling units including Low & Medium Density residential development, accessory dwelling units within a non-residential use, bed and breakfast establishments, converted dwellings, social housing and special needs housing are also permitted in the Village Core where adequate servicing levels exist. Zoning By-law The subject lands are zoned ‘Central Commercial Zone (CC)’ in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-Law No. 2003-18, which permits a range of commercial/business uses as well as converted dwellings containing 2 or less units and accessory dwelling units. The lot to be enlarged meets all of the relevant provisions of the ‘CC’ with respect to frontage, setbacks, lot coverage and parking. As previously indicated, the applicant is seeking a zone change for the lot to be retained to permit a 3-unit converted dwelling house. The current ‘CC’ zoning permits a maximum of 2 residential units in a converted dwelling house however the Zoning By-law requires that any



Page 4 of 5

converted dwelling in the ‘CC’ zone must be considered by Council and if approved, given special zoning to permit the use. The applicant is seeking a zone change to permit 3 residential units in the existing dwelling on the retained lands. The proposal appears to meet all of the relevant provisions of the ‘R3’ zone, which permits a maximum of 4 units in a converted dwelling house. In order to maintain the commercial component of the retained lands and permit the conversion of the building to accommodate 3 residential units, Staff are of the opinion that it is appropriate to rezone the lands to ‘CC-special’. Agency Comments This application was circulated to a number of agencies and the following comments were received: The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Chief Building Official provided the following comments: “A survey completed by an Ontario Land Surveyor of both the severed and retained portions

of land is to be submitted. Landscaped Open Space should be noted as part of the survey for the property fronting on Woodstock Street North.

The zoning requirements for the Central Commercial Zone appear to be met with the reduction in lot size.

The applicant should ensure all of the new R3 zoning requirements are met. A site plan agreement will be required for the property facing Woodstock Street North.” The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Director of Public Works provided the following comments:

“A site plan control agreement will be required; Drainage Assessment Reapportionment will be required.”

The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Fire Department, Oxford County OPP, and County of Oxford Public Works Department have indicated that they have no concerns with the proposal. Public Consultation Public notification of this application was circulated to neighbouring property owners on May 16, 2014. No concerns have been raised by neighbouring property owners as of the writing of this report. Planning Analysis The purpose of the subject application is for a commercial lot addition. The lands to be severed will be merged with the lands to the immediate south to accommodate additional parking and snow storage for the associated veterinarian clinic. The lands to be retained are intended to accommodate a 3-unit converted dwelling house. Considering the intent of the application is to grant a commercial lot addition, which will improve the operation of the existing business, Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed application represents an efficient use of land and resources and appears to be compatible with neighbouring uses and is therefore consistent with the direction of the Provincial Policy Statement and the policies of the Official Plan.



Page 5 of 5

As previously indicated, the applicant has submitted a zone change application to rezone the retained lands to accommodate a 3-unit converted dwelling house. The zone change seeks to rezone the lands to ‘Residential Type 3 Zone’. If this subject severance application is approved, it appears that the retained lands meet the relevant ‘R3’ zoning provisions. In order to maintain the commercial uses permitted in the ‘CC’ zone and support the proposed 3-unit converted dwelling house, Staff recommend that the retained lands be rezoned to ‘Special Central Commercial Zone (CC-sp)’. That being said, if the applicant decides not to pursue the zone change, Planning staff are satisfied that the retained lands will meet the ‘Central Commercial Zone’ provisions for the existing commercial unit and accessory residential unit. The proposed lot to be enlarged meets the relevant zoning provisions of the ‘Central Commercial Zone’. In light of the foregoing, Planning staff is satisfied that the subject application can be given favourable consideration subject to a number of conditions.

RECOMMENDATION Whereas the application for consent is consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, complies with the Policies of the County of Oxford Official Plan and lands are zoned appropriately, we are of the opinion that the application is acceptable from a planning perspective, and should be granted, subject to the following conditions:

1. The Clerk of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock advise the Secretary-Treasurer of the Land Division Committee that all requirements of the Township, financial, services, and otherwise, have been complied with.

2. The parcel intended to be severed be conveyed to the abutting landowner to the immediate south and be consolidated with said owner’s existing property. Any additional transactions with regard to the severed parcel must comply with Section 50(3) & (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, as amended, and be reflected on the certificate.

3. If required, drainage assessment re-apportionment be undertaken, pursuant to

Section 65 of The Drainage Act, R.S.O., 1990, at the owner's expense, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

4. The owner provide shall provide a recent survey confirming lot sizes and building setbacks of the severed and retained lands, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

SIGNATURES Authored by: Original Signed By Andrea Zietsma-Hächler, Development Planner Approved for submission: Original Signed By Gordon K. Hough, MCIP, RPP, Director

May 16, 2014

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

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

Legend

510

Notes

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N

25 Meters

Parcel LinesProperty Boundary

Assessment Boundary

Unit

Road

Municipal Boundary

Environmental Protection/Flood OverlayFlood Fringe

Floodway

Environmental Protection (EP1)


Zoning Floodlines/Regulation Limit100 Year Flood Line

30 Metre Setback

Conservation Authority Regulation Limit

Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines

Zoning (Displays 1:16000 to 1:500)Road Restriction/Closures

azietsma

Polygonal Line

azietsma

Text Box

Lands to be Severed

azietsma

Line

azietsma

Polygonal Line

azietsma

Text Box

Lands to be Enlarged

azietsma

Line

azietsma

Polygonal Line

azietsma

Text Box

Lands to be Retained

azietsma

Line

azietsma

Text Box

Hope Street East

azietsma

Text Box

Plate 1: Existing Zoning & Location Map B14-25 -2 - Steve & Margaret Ramseyer - 26-28 Woodstock Street N, Tavistock

April 4, 2014



Legend

250

Notes


13 Meters


Assessment Boundary

Unit

Road

Municipal Boundary

Road Restriction/Closures

azietsma

Text Box

Plate 2: Aerial Photo (2010) B14-25-2 - Steve & Margaret Ramseyer - 26 - 28 Woodstock Street North, Tavistock

azietsma

Polygonal Line

azietsma

Polygonal Line

azietsma

Polygonal Line

azietsma

Text Box

Lot to be Enlarged

azietsma

Line

azietsma

Text Box

Lot to be Severed

azietsma

Line

azietsma

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

azietsma

Line

azietsma

Text Box

Woodstock Street North

azietsma

Text Box

Hope Street East

azietsma

Text Box

Plate 3: Applicant's Site Sketch B14-25-2 - Steve & Margaret Ramseyer - 26-28 Woodstock Street N, Tavistock

Site Photos – B14-25-2

Lands to be Severed

Lands to be Retained

Lands to be Enlarged

Report No: CASPO 2014-90 COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING Land Division Committee Meeting: June 5, 2014

To: Chair and Members of Oxford County Land Division Committee From: Andrea Zietsma-Hächler, Development Planner Community and Strategic Planning

Application for Consent and Minor Variance B14-26-2; A14-03-2– Christine Kreuger

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS The application for consent proposes to create a vacant residential lot.

The applicant has requested relief from Section 12.2 – Table 12.2: Zone Provisions – Front

Yard Depth, to reduce the minimum front yard depth of the retained lot from 9 m (29.5 ft) to 0.5 m (1.6 ft), and Section 12.2 – Table 12.2: Zone Provisions – Exterior Side Yard Width, to reduce the minimum exterior side yard width of the retained lot from 9 m (29.5 ft) to 2.4 m (7.8 ft).

The proposal is consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement and the relevant policies of the Official Plan regarding infill severances.

Agency circulation resulted in no concerns with the proposed development.

DISCUSSION Background OWNER: Christine Kreuger 12 Balsam Street, Innerkip ON N0J 1M0 APPLICANT: William Burkart

716010 18th Line, R. R. #1, Innerkip ON N0J 1M0 LOCATION: The subject lands are described as Lots 45 and 46, Registered Plan 111, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The lands are located on the northwest corner of Balsam Street and Queen Street, and are municipally known as 12 Balsam Street, Innerkip. COUNTY OF OXFORD OFFICIAL PLAN: Schedule “C-3” County of Oxford Serviced Village Settlement Strategy Plan Schedule “E-3” Village of Innerkip Low Density Residential

Land Use Plan

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.e

TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK ZONING BY-LAW NO. 2003-18: Existing Zoning: Residential Type 1 Zone (R1) SERVICES: Lot to be Severed – municipal water and sewer system

Lot to be Retained – well and private septic system to be connected to municipal water and sewer system

ROAD ACCESS: Lot to be Severed – paved, municipal road (Balsam Street) Lot to be Retained – paved, municipal road (Balsam Street) PROPOSAL: SEVERED LOT

RETAINED LOT

Area 1,012 m2 (10,899 ft2) 1,012 m2 (10,899 ft2)

Frontage 25.3 m (82.8 ft) 25.3 m (82.8 ft)

Depth 40 m (136.5 ft) 40 m (136.5 ft) The purpose of the Application for Consent is to create a new residential lot. The lot to be severed will comprise an area of approximately 1,012 m2 (10,899 ft2) and is vacant of any structures. A single detached dwelling is proposed to be constructed on the lot to be severed. The lot to be retained will cover an area of approximately 1,012 m2 (10,899 ft2) in size and contains an existing single detached dwelling and an attached garage.

In addition, the applicant has requested relief from Section 12.2 – Table 12.2: Zone Provisions – Front Yard Depth, to reduce the minimum front yard depth of the retained lot from 9 m (29.5 ft) to 0.5 m (1.6 ft), and Section 12.2 – Table 12.2: Zone Provisions – Exterior Side Yard Width, to reduce the minimum exterior side yard width of the retained lot from 9 m (29.5 ft) to 2.4 m (7.8 ft). The applicant has indicated that the requested variances on the lot to be retained are required because the front yard and the exterior side yard have been interchanged as a result of the severance. The lot to be retained contains an existing single detached dwelling and an attached garage. There are no proposed additions or alterations to the structures, therefore the requested variance will not have an impact on abutting properties.

Both the lots to be severed and retained will front on Balsam Street, a paved, municipal road, maintained all year. Surrounding land uses are predominately residential. For the Committee’s information, the landowner to the immediate west has also applied to sever lands to create a residential building lot. The proposed severance will create a lot that is very similar in frontage, area and depth as the subject application. Plate 1, Existing Zoning & Location Map, illustrates the location of the subject lands and the existing zoning in the immediate vicinity. Plate 2, Aerial Map (2010), illustrates the location of the subject lands and surrounding properties. Plate 3, Applicant’s Sketch, illustrates the existing structures and the approximate dimensions of the lot to be severed and lot to be retained.

Application Review 2014 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement (2014) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The policy framework came into effect April 30, 2014. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, where a municipality is exercising its authority affecting a planning matter, such decisions “shall be consistent with” all policy statements issued under the Act. The policies of Section 1.1 state that sufficient land shall be made available to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs for the planning period. Within settlement areas, sufficient land shall be made available through intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas. The policies of Section 1.1.3 state that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Section 1.1.3.3 states that planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs. The policies of Section 1.1.3.6 state that new development taking place in designated growth areas should occur adjacent to the existing built-up area and shall have a compact form, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities. Further, Section 1.4 Housing, specifically ss. 1.4.3 states that planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area by:

• Establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households;

• Permitting and facilitating all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current and future residents

• Directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs;

• Promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation and transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed; and

• Establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.

Official Plan The subject lands are located within the ‘Low Density Residential’ designation according to the Village of Innerkip Land Use Plan (Schedule “E-3”), as contained in the County Official Plan. Low density residential districts are those lands that are primarily developed or planned for a variety of low-rise, low density housing forms consisting of single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplexes, converted dwellings and street townhouses. Within areas

designated ‘Low Density Residential’, it is intended that there will be a mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall density of use. The Official Plan defines ‘infill housing’ as the placement of new residential development into established built-up areas on vacant or underutilized sites. In order to efficiently utilize the residentially-designated land supply and municipal servicing infrastructure, infill housing will be supported in ‘Low Density Residential’ districts. The introduction of new residential housing into an established streetscape pattern will only be permitted if the proposal is deemed to be consistent with the characteristics of existing development in the immediate area. In order that street oriented infill projects are sensitive to the continuity of the existing residential streetscape, Township Council will ensure that the proposal is consistent with the street frontage, setbacks, lot area and spacing of existing development within the immediate area. Furthermore, all ‘infill’ proposals in serviced villages are subject to the following criteria:

• Stormwater run-off from the proposal will be adequately controlled and will not negatively affect adjacent properties;

• Adequate off-street parking and outdoor amenity areas will be provided; • The location of vehicular access points, the likely impact of traffic generated by the

proposal on public streets and potential traffic impacts on pedestrian and vehicular safety and surrounding properties is acceptable;

• Existing municipal services or private services and community facilities will be adequate to accommodate the proposed infill project;

• The extent to which the proposed development provides for the retention of any desirable vegetation or natural features that contribute to the visual character of the surrounding area;

• All infill proposals will be evaluated as to the environmental impacts and constraints associated with the proposed development in accordance with Section 3.2, as well as to the potential effect of the development on heritage resources (Section 3.2.7.5);

• Compliance of the proposed development with the provisions of the Zoning By-Law of the Township and other municipal by-laws.

Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned ‘Residential Type 1 (R1)’ in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-law No. 2003-18. The provisions of the ‘R1’ zone require a minimum front yard depth and exterior side yard width of 9 m (29.5 ft). The applicant is proposing a front yard depth of 0.5 m (1.6 ft) and an exterior side yard width of 2.4 m (7.8 ft). The relief is required because the front yard and the exterior side yard will be interchanged as a result of the severance. According to the Zoning By-law, the lot frontage is considered to be the shortest width of a lot that has frontage on to an improved road. In the case of this application, the frontage was originally along Queen Street but as a result of the severance, the frontage will be measured along Balsam Street. The applicant is not proposing any further development of the retained lot. The lot to be retained contains an existing single detached dwelling and an attached garage. There are no proposed additions or alterations to the structures, therefore the requested variance will not have an impact on abutting properties.

Single detached dwellings are permitted in the ‘R1’ zone. The lots to be severed and retained as well as the existing single detached dwelling and attached garage on the retained lands appear to comply with all other provisions of the ‘R1’ zone. Agency Comments This application was circulated to a number of agencies and the following comments were received: The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Chief Building Official provided the following comments:

• “Section 5.6 of the Township’s zoning bylaw (Established Building Line) should not be able to be used for the newly created lot as it could enable the building setback line to be the average of the 2 houses currently in place on the block.

• A survey completed by an Ontario Land Surveyor is to be submitted for both lots as a condition of severance.”

The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Director of Public Works provided the following comments:

• “Severance Agreement will be required for newly created parcel; • Drainage Assessment Reapportionment will be required; • Cash-in-lieu of parkland - Fee in effect at the time the consent is finalized will be

payable to the Township; • Disclosure for the cost of service connections.”

The County of Oxford Public Health & Emergency Services Department indicated that the applicant should be advised that the existing septic tank must be decommissioned. The County of Oxford Public Works Department indicated that a sanitary service was installed as part of the 2009 servicing project in anticipation of a future severance. A water service will be installed by Oxford County when required. The fee breakdown is attached to this report. The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Fire Department reviewed the application and had no objections to the proposal. Public Consultation The subject application was circulated in accordance to the requirements of the Planning Act, as amended, on May 16, 2014. At the time of writing the subject report, no correspondence has been received from the public regarding this application. Planning Analysis The purpose of the Application for Consent is to create a new residential parcel. The lot to be severed will comprise an area of approximately 1,012 m2 (10,899 ft2) and does not contain any existing structures. A single detached dwelling is proposed to be constructed on the lot to be severed. The lot to be retained will cover an area of approximately 1,012 m2 (10,899 ft2) in size and contains an existing single detached dwelling and an attached garage.

The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) directs that planning authorities shall promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where they can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas and the availability of suitable existing or planned

infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs. The PPS also states that planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area. As the lot will be serviced by a municipal sanitary sewer system in the near future, Planning staff are satisfied that the application maintains the policies of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement. The subject lands are located in an area characterized by low density residential development. It appears that the proposed severance will be consistent in setbacks and spacing of the existing development in the immediate residential area. Although the dwelling on the retained lot will have a significantly smaller front yard depth and exterior side yard width, Planning staff are of the opinion that the existing dwelling will have no further impacts on sightlines or neighbouring properties. As previously indicated through the agency circulation, the Township Building Official has requested that any future development on the lot to be retained maintain a minimum front yard setback of 7 m (23 ft) as opposed to the established building line, which would be a minimum front yard setback of 4 m (13.1 ft). If a dwelling were permitted to meet the provisions of Section 5.6 – Established Building Line, a legal parking space could not be provided and therefore could potentially result in cars parking on the street. A condition of the minor variance has been included, requiring any development on the lot to be severed to maintain a minimum front yard setback of 7 m (23 ft). Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed severance maintains the general intent of the Official Plan as it pertains to street-oriented infilling in Innerkip. The proposed severed and retained lots meet the relevant provisions of the ‘R1’ zone for lots on full municipal services, providing sufficient area to accommodate setbacks, spacing and parking. Further, it is the opinion of staff that the applicant’s request to reduce the exterior side yard width and front yard depth can be considered minor in nature and desirable for the area as the dwelling is existing and the applicant is not proposing further development on the site. No objections with respect to the proposed lot creation were raised during agency circulation. In light of the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Office that the proposed severance appears to comply with the policies of the Official Plan and the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, is acceptable from a planning perspective and can be given favourable consideration subject to a number of conditions.

RECOMMENDATION Whereas the variances requested are minor variances from the provisions of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-law No. 2003-18, are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, buildings or structures, are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the County of Oxford Official Plan, and are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-law No. 2003-18, we are of the opinion that this application is acceptable from a planning perspective, and should be granted subject to the following condition:

i. a minimum front yard setback of 7 m (23 ft) for any development on the lot to be severed must be maintained.

Whereas the application for consent is consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, complies with the Policies of the County of Oxford Official Plan and the subject lands are zoned appropriately, we are of the opinion that the application is acceptable from a planning perspective, and should be granted, subject to the following conditions:

1. The Clerk of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock advise the Secretary-Treasurer of the Land Division Committee that all requirements of the Township, financial, services, and otherwise, have been complied with.

2. The owner enter into a Severance Agreement with the Township of East Zorra-

Tavistock.

3. The owner submit a cash-in-lieu of parkland fee in effect at the time the consent is finalized, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

4. If required, drainage assessment re-apportionment be undertaken, pursuant to Section 65 of The Drainage Act, R.S.O., 1990, at the owner's expense, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

5. The owner properly decommission any abandoned private services (water well, cistern and/or septic system) located on the lot to be retained, in accordance with the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990 (Ontario Regulation No. 903) and to the satisfaction of the Oxford County Department of Public Works.

6. The County of Oxford Department of Public Works advise the Secretary-Treasurer

of the County of Oxford Land Division Committee that all financial requirements of the County of Oxford with respect to provision of water and sewer services to the subject property have been complied with, including payment for the cost of the two service connections on the proposed severed lot. This condition can be cleared by payment for the required services or entering into a severance agreement with the area municipality which states that no building permit shall be issued until payment is made to the County. In order to clear this condition, a copy of the draft Severance Agreement which addresses the above requirements to the satisfaction of the County of Oxford Public Works Department, must be provided to the Public Works Department.

SIGNATURES Authored by: Original Signed by Andrea Zietsma-Hächler, Development Planner Approved for submission: Original Signed by Gordon K. Hough, MCIP, RPP, Director

April 14, 2014



Legend

530

Notes


26 Meters


Assessment Boundary

Unit

Road

Municipal Boundary

Environmental Protection/Flood OverlayFlood Fringe

Floodway



Zoning Floodlines/Regulation Limit100 Year Flood Line

30 Metre Setback

Conservation Authority Regulation Limit

Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines

Zoning (Displays 1:16000 to 1:500)

azietsma

Text Box

Queen Street

azietsma

Polygonal Line

azietsma

Polygonal Line

azietsma

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

azietsma

Line

azietsma

Text Box

Lot to be Severed

azietsma

Line

azietsma

Text Box

Plate 1: Existing Zoning & Location Map B14-26-2; A14-03-2 - Christine Kreuger - 12 Balsam Street, Innerkip, East Zorra-Tavistock

April 14, 2014



Legend

260

Notes


13 Meters


Assessment Boundary

Unit

Road

Municipal Boundary

fcraciun

Text Box

Plate 2 - Aerial Map (2010) B14-26-2; A14-03-2 - Christine Kreuger - 12 Balsam Street, Innerkip, East Zorra-Tavistock

azietsma

Polygonal Line

azietsma

Polygonal Line

azietsma

Text Box

Queen Street

azietsma

Text Box

Blandford Street

azietsma

Text Box

Balsam Street

azietsma

Text Box

Lot to be Severed

azietsma

Text Box

Lot to be Retained

azietsma

Line

azietsma

Line

,, I[\ 't-t It'-

N

fl. 1 e. /11 fY0 ~~ ;)J

c;.i< t ft p(

~ fb - ~ \ ){Jf!{ ~ ~{

~j,06~ ~ ":4 \ ~t> ~ rttJ ~ I fl/~ t/Jt

\Ll \J--.,

j

~ ~ .1,~

K-~ tjo,t

~J\~ 1-Yh].. t - .

'v ~5. J- 5'. - > '--~---·- .,v-. <

J

~< I' e:=: - 7 ?..5~ :z_<_; •

fcraciun

Text Box

Plate 3 - Applicant's Sketch B14-26-2; A14-03-2 - Christine Kreuger - 12 Balsam Street, Innerkip, East Zorra-Tavistock

Site Photo

B14-26-2; A14-03-2 - Christine Kreuger

Lands to be Severed in Foreground and Lands to be Retained in Background

STAFF REPORT Report #CBO2014-02 To:

His Worship the Mayor and Members of Council From:

John Scherer, Chief Building Official

Re:

Response to Mervin & Gloria Ropp Letter to Council

Date: May 28, 2014 Background: Letter received from Mervin & Gloria Ropp regarding roof structure over container storage is attached. April 3, 2014 – Building Inspector/Public Works Assistant Jason Brunt was dealing with a drainage issue on an abutting property when he noticed this structure being erected. April 4, 2014 – Both Jason Brunt & John Scherer visited the site to inform the owner that a permit was required for this type of work and construction was to stop until permits were issued. Some issues noted at the time of inspection include the self-built truss, the lack of proper footings/foundations, the shipping containers supporting the roof structure and the lack of a building permit. The Building Department has met with the owners and has clearly indicated what is required in order to obtain a building permit (a professional engineer to review and approve the trusses, an architect or engineer to review and approve both the shipping containers and their support base and an engineer or architect to review building and truss anchorage). Information: Council is responsible, under the direction of The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his or her Director/Acting Director, for the enforcement of the Building Code Act through the appointment of a Chief Building Official. Council alone does not have the authority to issue or deny building permit applications;

Brenda Junker

Text Box

5.a

Staff Report - 233 Woodstock St N, Tavistock (Ropp) Page 2

In Ontario, all buildings require a building permit before construction starts and Municipal By-laws cannot supersede the requirements set forth in the Building Code Act;

The type of structure partially erected would be classified as a Small Building (Part 9 of the Building Code) and would further be designated as an F2 – Medium Hazard Industrial building as it is located on a non-residential and non-farm property. Shipping containers have been used as part of a structure in Canada in the past, but have always been heavily controlled by Architects, Engineers and Building Officials to ensure their safety as these containers were never intended to be used as a permanent structure or building. Since the current edition of the Ontario Building Code does not cover this type of construction and is outside the scope of the Ontario Building Code, an Architect and/or Engineer would be required to design and review the structure as part of the building permit application. The owner has indicated a licensed carpenter and Architect have both reviewed the structure; however, the documents supporting this claim have never been submitted to the building department for review or approval.

Staff Report - 233 Woodstock St N, Tavistock (Ropp) Page 3

Recommendations:

1. That Council does not direct staff to allow the continued illegal construction of a building without proper approvals and permits as it would expose the municipality to an unprecedented amount of risk, liability and negligence.

2. That Council does direct staff to continue to consistently enforce the Ontario Building Code Act to ensure the safety of all buildings within the Township.

C.A.O. Comments I agree. It would not be appropriate for Council to permit this structure, or others, to proceed without the proper design, certifications and approvals no matter how “logical” it may seem or appear. Knowingly doing so will compromise any possible defence should something go wrong and would limit the Township’s ability to get insurance if it becomes known that regulations the Township must enforce, such as the Ontario Building Code, are being ignored.

Report prepared andsubmitted by:

Jeff Carswell Chief Administrative Officer

John SchererChief Building Official

Zoning Officer

Dennis O’Neil Director of Public

Works and Development

27 May,Zt[A

Meru& Gloria RoppRopp's PowerWash Inc.233 Woodstock St N.P.O. Box 366Tavistoch ONNOB 2RO

{s1e) 6ss-2683

Dear East ZorcaTavistock Mayor and Ccuncil Members:

We are writing this letter in regards to the roofing project at233 Woodstock StreetNorth. This property was purchased in the spring of 2013 and included two shipcontainers at the very rear of the property. The ship containers are placed 14 feetapart and allow us to park our straw chopper truckbetween the containers. Topreserve the machinery from the elements we planned to put a tarp acrtss the twocontainers. However, we were encouraged to build something more secure, long-term, and aesthetically pleasing. We chose to constructwooden rafters with a metalroof, bolting the rafters on both the outside and inside of each container [please see

diagramJ. At this poin! we were told to cease completion as the codebook does notrecognize this type of project.

We have consulted with professionals including licensed carpenters and an architectwho all agree that this project is sound and secure. We have also researched andfound that people are using these storage containers as housing units. This type ofinnovative green architecture is on the rise as there are many shipping containerssitting unused at ports.

Because of our research, consultation with experts, and quality constructio& webelieve that the project is secure and take full responsibility. We ask that you givepermission to complete the project. This includes: closing in the front, addingeavestroughs, and painting the containers.

Best Regards,

h,P

Merv & Gloria Ropp

rti1

'r)?

Ifl¿

,r¿N ,l

Tîf

<--* t?

\,

¿ lrrt

t

rffi

3{ + 1,,. Ii¿ { t=i nfi

F* u r a,'Å

l¿€ ¿l $--

{"þl*{*-}

t2.-¿

3 f'Y?:fùFT

ÞJ\

s*Il r

¡d +-

t

11

.!

]

I lr;tç rwrTr

q*:.. ;

I {¡+¿:}

f1

r{t,. 1

rinjt¡h#e¡qÈ

¿ ***-*.?

tÉ

¡t

r4 t'l way ,êË {¿d.?d+f

', lf ür- y$frq s F &,L{

t

f$ {j

rnse

er.-i

MûlAR

,*

h{5{liJ 4152SÛ 2

4?C1

- "-'" *- *" 1

üÉd

-;*3;-

ii**rt'<æt

':ii ¡.ìtlr:!

i

lvlAil"lBl{

tì'iil'r:¡::

-al

B'F

l,I T

N\ì

t 34

\

r'

, :-

r':

"r!:"

-

¡

New Actions Settings View: Monthly Permit Repor...

Name & Address of Owner Contractor Name & Address

Count = 25 Sum = 1 873 400 Sum = 12 280.72

E2014-022 020-020-12102

2274581 Ontario Inc.(Apple Homes) c/o JPB Developments 3523 Huron Road New Hamburg ON N3A3C5

Owner 10 Halliday Dr.Tavistock

SFD 2014/05/02 200 000 1 600.00

E2014-023 010-050-08100

Luke Bender 596957 Hwy 59 RR #6 Woodstock ON N4S 7W1

Owner 596957 Hwy 59 Detached Garage 2014/05/05 30 000 200.00

E2014-024 010-020-41100

Alistair Stevenson 201 Stonegate Rd Innerkip ON N0J 1M0

Charron Construction 118 Coleman St. PO Box 243 Innerkip ON N0J 1M0

201 StongegateRd., Innerkip

Roof over Deck 2014/05/05 1 000 105.00

E2014-025 020-010-12000

Mary Lou Holst 185 William St. S. PO Box 115 Tavistock ON N0B 2R0

Howard Ropp 16 Jacob St. W. Tavsitock ON N0B 2R0

185 William St.S. Tavsitock

Roof over ExistingGarage

2014/05/05 5 000 105.00

E2014-026 010-040-10205

Kim and Scott Rudy 15 Morningview Pl Kitchener, ON N2P 1Z2

Raedon Excavating 596117Strathallan Rd

Demolition SFD 2014/05/05 0 50.00

E2014-027 020-010-13648

Eric Paulson 114 Liebler St. RR #1 Tavistock ON N0B 2R0

Owner 114 Liebler St.Tavistock

Construction of Deck 2014/05/06 2 000 105.00

E2014-028 020-010-19700

Greg Schwass 73 Hope St. W PO Box 562 Tavistock ON N0B 2R0

Barry Bender ExcavatingLimited 3840 Nafziger Road Wellesley ON N0B 2T0

73 Hope St. W.Tavistock

Demolition garagestructure

2014/05/06 4 000 50.00

E2014-029 010-030-16300

James and Linda Riddell 727 Queen St. PO Box 185 Innerkip ON N0J 1M0

Owner 727 Queen St.Innerkip

Construction of Deck 2014/05/07 1 500 105.00

E2014-030 011-010-02220

David Johnson 684728 Hwy 2 RR #3 Woodstock ON N4S 7V7

Renewable Watts CanadaLtd 110 Pony Dr. Newmarket, ON L3Y 7B6

684728 Hwy 2 Rooftop Solar PanelArray

2014/05/08 28 500 220.72

E2014-031 010-040-08000

Manfred Bohner 596029 Hwy 59 RR #6 Woodstock ON N4S 7W1

Owner 596029 Hwy 59 Above Ground Pool 2014/05/13 2 500 100.00

E2014-032 010-040-08000

Manfred Bohner 596029 Hwy 59 RR #6 Woodstock ON N4S 7W1

Owner 596029 Hwy 59 Deck 2014/05/13 1 000 105.00

E2014-033 020-020-12114

2274581 Ontario Inc.(Apple Homes) c/o JPB Developments 3523 Huron Road New Hamburg ON N3A3C5


SFD 2014/05/14 200 000 1 600.00

Permit Number Roll Number MUN_ADDRESS Building Description Permit Date PERMIT_VALUE Permit Fee

Brenda Junker

Text Box

6.d

E2014-034 020-020-17710

Charles Wettlaufer 10 Homewood Ave. E. PO Box 197 Tavistock ON N0B 2R0

Jon Witzel Construction Ltd Perth Oxford Rd. Tavistock ON

10 HomewoodAve E. Tavistock

Remove LoadBearing Wall

2014/05/15 5 000 300.00

E2014-035 020-020-25000

Terry-Lee Horst PO Box 503 Tavistock ON N0B 2R0

Owner 173 WoodstockSt. N. Tavistock

Shed 2014/05/16 200 105.00

E2014-036 010-030-10500

Kevin & Lee-Ann Butler PO Box 135 Innerkip ON N0J 1M0

Hogg Construction 216 Milton St. Thamesford ON N0M 2M0

245 BlandfordSt. Innerkip

Sewer Connection 2014/05/16 1 700 0.00

E2014-037 010-040-29100

Robert Pettigrew 20 Loveys St. W Hickson ON N0J 1L0

Owner 20 Loveys St.W. Hickson

Kitchen Renovation 2014/05/16 10 000 200.00

E2014-038 010-030-16707

James Pereira 1615 Clyde Road Cambridge ON N1R 5S7

James Pereira 1615 Clyde Road Cambridge ON N1R 5S7

11 Scott St.Innerkip

SFD 2014/05/21 275 000 1 600.00

E2014-039 010-010-28600

Catherine Smith 744806 Oxford Rd 17 RR #3 Woodstock ON N4S 7V7

A.P. Hurley Construction Ltd

50 Bysham Park Dr. Woodstock ON N4T 1R2

744806 OxfordRoad 17

Deck 2014/05/21 6 500 105.00

E2014-040 010-060-00300

Rousant Poultry 656833 15th Line RR #1 Tavistock ON N0B 2R0

Jon Witzel Contracting Ltd 985920 Perth Oxford Rd Tavistock ON N0B 2R0

656649 15thLine

SFD 2014/05/21 400 000 1 600.00

E2014-041 010-010-31000

Walter Bloxsidge 744935 Oxford Rd 17 RR #6 Woodstock ON N4S 7W1

James A. VanceConstruction Inc. 163 Main St. Woodstock ON N4S 1T1

744931 OxfordRd 17

Detached Garage 2014/05/22 45 000 305.00

E2014-042 010-030-16200

Jeff and Sheri Karelsen 721 Queen St. PO Box 177 Innerkip ON N0J 1M0

John Devries 721 Queen St.Innerkip

Sewer Connection 2014/05/23 2 500 0.00

E2014-043 010-010-23800

Cassie Donkers 635339 14th Line Woodstock ON

Wettlaufer HomeImprovements 163 Janelle Drive Tavistock ON

635339 14thLine

Deck Addition 2014/05/26 12 000 105.00

E2014-044 020-020-12173

2274581 Ontario Inc(Apple Homes) 3523 Huron Rd New Hamburg ON N3A 3C5


SFD 2014/05/27 200 000 1 600.00

E2014-045 010-010-06800

Adam DeFayette 515155 11th Line RR #3 Woodstock ON N4S 7V7

A.P. Hurley Const. 50 Bysham Park Dr. Woodstock ON N4T 1R2

515155 11thLine

Addition of FamilyRoom

2014/05/29 40 000 415.00

E2014-046 010-030-12114

Hunt Homes Inc PO Box 20145 Woodstock ON N4S 8X8

Owner 64 George St.Innerkip

SFD 2014/05/29 400 000 1 600.00

$3,331,500

$6,560,200

$4,636,300$4,445,505

$3,004,077$2,850,822

$7,771,431$7,807,315

$4,612,000

$6,720,550

$4,806,667$4,944,476

$5,412,080

$4,874,956

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Perm

it Va

lue

Year

Permit Value

YTD Permit Values - May

44

6255

6148 48 44

56

3443 44 45

5242

3018

60

81

6

4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Num

ber o

f Per

mits

Year

YTD Permit Numbers - May

Water/WW #

Permit #

STAFF REPORT To:

His Worship the Mayor and Members of Council

From:

Dennis O’Neil, Director of Public Works & Development

Re:

Monthly Report

Date: May 29, 2014

Information: Public Works: Gravel resurfacing and dust control application was completed on May

29th. Tree planting will be completed by the end of May with some staking

and mulching to be done next week. Public works staff is hoping to get caught up on grass cutting, some

washout repairs and shop and yard activities. The Matheson Drain crossing on the 16th Line is scheduled for the week

of June 9th or 16th. This work will take approximately 3days to complete.

Some base excavation is planned for the Cassel Sideroad just east of the 16th Line and the intersection of the 9th Line and Cassel Sideroad.

Road staff will also be working on seasonable maintenance work such as grass cutting, stump removal, roadside clean up, sweeping, etc.

Brush and yard waste bins also continue to keep our staff very busy. Tom Lightfoot takes the reigns as our new Foreman as of June 1st. Tom

has done a great job as an Operator over the last year, and staff is very confident that he will do equally as well as Foreman. Interviews for a new operator will be conducted over the next week or so with the hope of engaging someone by month’s end.

Staff would like to thank Darrell for his 7 years of service as Roads Foreman and wish him all the best in his retirement. Darrell has expressed that he will miss winter patrols most of all????????

Development: House construction is well under way at The Ponds development in

Tavistock. Hunt Homes continues some construction in Phase Two of Innerkip

Meadows.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

6.e

Still no activity in the James street area. Plans continue to progress for the BLZ Development in Tavistock. Site work is scheduled to begin soon at the Hickson development. Drainage:

Some equipment has been moved onto the Jacques Drain and the

contractor should be on site by the time Council meets As stated earlier in this report, Township forces will be installing the

road crossing on the 16th Line in anticipation of the contractor starting the Matheson Drain in early June.

K. Smart Associates continue to work on the report for the Timms Creek Drain.

The Goring Drain is still in the report preparation stage with Burnsides Engineering.

Jason has still been quite busy with drain repairs in various areas. The Public Meeting and Open House for the Tavistock 1987 and Rudy

Drains will be held on June 2, 2014 from 5:00 to 8:00 at the Tavistock Memorial Hall.

CAO Comments: Good update.

Report preparedand submitted by:


Dennis O’NeilDirector of Public Works and

Development

STAFF REPORT Report #PW2014-08 To:


From:

Dennis O’Neil, Director of Public Works and Development

Re: Fibermat Tender Results Date: May 29, 2014 Background: As part of the 2014 Capital budget, funds in the amount of $185,000.00 were approved for the surface treatment or fibermat treatment of the 14th and 15th Lines from Maplewood Sideroad to the Perth Oxford Road. These road sections were converted to hardtop in 2010, and the treatment is meant to extend their life by approximately five years. The Township has used this treatment in the past on the 13th Line north of Maplewood, as well as the very southern end of the 13th Line. The Braemar Sideroad from Oxford Road #59 west has also been treated with very good results. Information: The work was tendered through the Service Sharing Committee and administered by County staff. The County, Blandford Blenhiem and East Zorra-Tavistock were included in the tender. There were two bidders for this work with bids as follows:

Supplier Total bid East Zorra Tavistock’s portion

Norjohn Contracting $1,692,175.00 $176,960.00 Cornell Construction $1,865,659.06 $205,922.00 The above prices are provided based on an estimated number of m2 of product and include 13% HST. Staff feels the number of m2 at a price of $4.20 m2 was estimated on the high side, and this, combined with prices adjusted for net HST, would place the Townships actual costs from the lowest bidder at approximately $168,000.00 or within the budget forecast. All past work of this kind in East Zorra Tavistock has been completed by Norjohn Contracting with excellent results.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

6.f

Staff Report – Fibermat Tender Results Page 2 Recommendations: 1. That Council accept the bid from Norjohn Contracting to supply and apply

“single surface treatment and stress absorbing material” at a cost of $4.20 per m2 plus taxes, on the 13th and 14th Lines as stated in Contract #930250-2014.

2. That County Public Works staff be informed of Council’s decision. C.A.O. Comments I agree.

Report prepared and submitted by:



Development

STAFF REPORT Report #PW2014-09 To:


From:

Dennis O’Neil, Director of Public Works and Development

Re: Fence Along George Street Development Date: May 29, 2014 Background: As Council is aware, the land along George Street in Innerkip opposite the quarry and trailer park is under development by Hunt Homes. The second phase of this development consists of lots along the north side of George Street opposite the trailer park. Steve Hunt, of Hunt Homes, has inquired about building a wooden fence along the south side of George Street from the park gate to the eastern edge of the park. Information: Hunt Homes is proposing to build an 8 foot solid board fence at the developer’s expense. The fence would be constructed of 6”x6” posts, 2”x4” supports and 5/4” deck boards. Staff has reviewed the design and believes a maximum height of 7 feet would be preferable. There are only minor details to be identified on the plans, otherwise staff find the proposed construction to be sound. The fence would remain the responsibility of the developer until the Township has assumed all phases east of James Street, at which time it would become property of the municipality. Staff believes that in hindsight the subdivision agreement probably should have provided for some sort of separation between the two areas and would support the developer’s proposal. Staff has discussed the fence construction with the park owners and they are not opposed to the fence being constructed so long as the Township owns and is responsible for the fence. They did raise concerns with the location of the sanitary sewer connection for the park but staff explained that the two issues should not be connected in any way.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

6.g

Staff Report – Fence Along George Street Development Page 2 Recommendation: 1. That Council endorse the construction of a 7 foot high fence along the

south side of George Street as proposed by Hunt Homes; and further that the fence remains the responsibility of Hunt Homes until the Township has assumed all phases east of James Street in the Innerkip Meadows development.

C.A.O. Comments

I agree.




Development

GENERAL NOTEi& ·~ftloll:l.x.~iM'f~

.:::.-=:;::r=:.,*"~-IC!Mm :~:e\:.ar~-=-m .................. -dloal. ...... _... -~~~..,. ... .,., .l ... l'tll-..-....~

:=--~~l:f..~tJftPII __ ,_, -~ ..... ......,..,.~--~ ·--~RIWIIIIIIII!-~~ ...... ..ai'U.W-I"'Looll:mlloft-.t~ ,_._"'.-.a ..,..,... .......-r ....... w-..-r.........,~,._

. ..-....... ·~~~~-,.,..,_,....,........:Nift:IIIIIIAI.L~IIIIL ..... ~~~

OE&Ia.N HOTS& ~ DA1ALDC.4""""' ~

' --- '-... ,...,~, ~llfllllr:llll-a.tp, v....,.-.."""'

~ ....... 1111~

lu --- _....,.,....pof.l'

h-f•~.T.~ ~ ........ ....-...-,,.~~~ ;~.DIIII·rli-.. lloi"'CU-"IDCIIC.Ii:Aiiii -· ~~-~~ .. --.o&.ftl~-.

I r-

......... t.I"'M I 1-1--....... ,..t.-I-!--1'x11" p.t . .....,.~.....,&

I ~ ~~~ ~

~ r..A•fii'.T.~ I ~ ~

I GRADE I!

I •'.d' I GRADE ~~~ _J

r--.==--11 1

ELEVATION flECTION ac:.oLJ!! >1>6">1-d 5C.AL.I!!sn.•.,•-o-

Ob djDESIGN ~ D b NchhoctumO • HVAC J. :::-==z.. ~~ ______ _,

...... -~IIM'IIa........,.,.. .. ,_,,.. ___ ., ______ --..tMI.....CM.UI

~~~~~

- -El.SVATION c 6ECl10N

... ..._

.--· A-1 'I"'\4YD,.:IM

,_....,.

Staff Report – Fence Along George Street Development Page 3 Proposed area for the Fence

Staff Report – Fence Along George Street Development Page 4 Going east along George Street, starting at the gate.

Staff Report – Fence Along George Street Development Page 5

Staff Report – Fence Along George Street Development Page 6

STAFF REPORT

Report #CAC2014-02

To: His Worship the Mayor and Members of Council

From:

Stacy Weicker, Capital Accounting Clerk

Re: Year End Budget Adjustments for Amortization Expense – 2013 Budget Amendment

Date: May 28, 2014

Background:

As part of the year end audit process, the auditor identifies to the Township areas where changes or improvements to current practices are required in order to comply with various audit standards. With transparency and accountability concerns becoming more common in the public sector, the auditors are requesting more information and details of the Township’s overall operations in order to fulfill their audit obligations. As part of this, their work is being reviewed in greater detail by their superiors and must meet their professional guidelines regarding levels of autonomy from their clients. Due to this higher level of scrutiny, many items that were previously done based on common sense and necessity now requires formal approval to demonstrate the auditor’s autonomy from the Township.

With the introduction of PSAB 3150 and having to account for for all Township tangible capital assets (TCAs), one new area that is identified is the reporting for amortization expense. The auditors have indicated that they need an approved budget item for amortization expense in the 2013 financial statements. Currently, there is no budget allocation for these items as amortization is not an “expense” in the true sense of the term, as no actual monies are exchanged or transferred and it does not have an impact on The Township’s tax levy requirement.

Discussion:

In order to comply with the request from the auditor an amendment to the 2013 Budget is required. Staff believes completing this as a budget adjustment is appropriate due to the variability of amortization expense incurred each year with new asset additions and disposals. By performing this adjustment at year end, the final budget amounts will reflect the actual amortization in any given year, thereby continuing to present an accurate picture of the Township’s overall financial position on an annual basis.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

6.h

Based on the amortization accumulated in 2013 and the requested information from the auditors, the proposed budget adjustments for 2013 would be as follows:

2013 Proposed Amortization Budget

DEPARTMENT

CLASS 2013 ACTUAL

AMORTZATION PROPOSED 2013

BUDGET AMENDMENT General Buildings $ 10,402 $ 10,400 Machinery & Equipment 9,108 9,100 Land 0 0 Building Vehicles 0 0 Township Fire Machinery & Equipment 2,854 2,900 Vehicles 0 0 Hickson Fire Buildings 4,054 4,100 Machinery & Equipment 12,518 12,500 Land 0 0 Vehicles 27,926 27,900 Innerkip Fire Buildings 2,601 2,600 Machinery & Equipment 12,165 12,200 Land 0 0 Vehicles 22,708 22,700 Tavistock Fire Buildings 8,746 8,700 Machinery & Equipment 12,021 12,000 Land 0 0 Vehicles 24,549 24,500 Public Works Buildings 9,398 9,400 Machinery & Equipment 45,089 45,000 Infrastructure 618,897 618,900 Land 0 0 Vehicles 59,483 59,500 Tavistock DRC Buildings 48,702 48,700 Machinery & Equipment 19,198 19,200 Land 0 0 Land Improvements 8,046 8,000 Recreation Infrastructure 1,397 1,400 Innerkip CC Buildings 7,245 7,200 Machinery & Equip/Furniture 1,122 1,100 Land 0 0 Hickson Rec. Buildings 7,101 7,100 Machinery & Equipment 2,753 2,800 Land 0 0 Land Improvements 5,027 5,000 Innerkip Rec. Buildings 7,589 7,600 Machinery & Equipment 4,404 4,400 Recreation Infrastructure 283 300 Land 0 0 Land Improvements 12,209 12,200 TOTAL $ 1,007,594 $ 1,007,400

C.A.O. Comments: I agree.

Jeff Carswell, AMCT Chief Administrative Officer

Amortization is the deduction of capital expenses over a specific period of time (usually over the asset's life which is referred to as ‘useful life’) to represent the asset's true value at that current period. Land and road base does not amortize. The actual 2013 amortization total is the sum of the previous owned assets annual amortization as well as the amortization of any additional assets purchased in the current year. Based on these facts and the actual amortization expense in 2013, staff believes this budget amendment to be reasonable and feels that this adjustment would not have any adverse effect on The Township’s finances for 2013. Recommendation:

1. That Council approves the adjustments to the 2013 Budget as set out

in this report and further that the auditors are instructed to record this amendment to the 2013 Budget in our 2013 audited financial statements.


Stacy Weicker Capital Accounting Clerk

STAFF REPORT

Report # CAC2014-03

To: His Worship the Mayor and Members of Council

From:

Stacy Weicker, Capital Accounting Clerk

Re:

Asset Management Plan

Date:

May 28, 2014

Background: As you are aware, the Ministry set up guidelines on what needed to be covered under asset management in order to be considered for funding in the future. The Township engaged Public Sector Digest/CityWide Software Solutions (PSD) to ensure that the Township would meet the said guidelines. An Asset Management Plan (AMP) must include, but not limited to the following sections (top overview of sections): State of the Infrastructure, Infrastructure Report Card, Desired Level of Service, Asset Management Strategy, and Financial Strategy.

Discussion:

The attached AMP complies with the requirements as outlined within the provincial Building Together Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans. It will serve as a strategic, tactical, and financial document, ensuring the management of the Township’s infrastructure follows sound asset management practices and principles, while optimizing available resources and establishing desired levels of service. Measured in 2012 dollars, the replacement value of the asset classes’ analyzed (infrastructure only) totaled almost $58 million. While the Township is responsible for the strategic direction, it is the taxpayer in East Zorra-Tavistock who ultimately bears the financial burden. As such, a ‘cost per household’ analysis was conducted for each asset class to determine the financial obligation of each household in sharing the replacement cost of the Township’s assets. The AMP shows that the infrastructure replacement cost per household, for the following classes are as follows:

• Road Network (excludes gravel) $7,628 cost per household • Storm Sewer Network $1,109 cost per household • Bridges & Culverts $5,762 cost per household

Brenda Junker

Text Box

6.i

Staff Report – AMP Page 2 In assessing the Township’s state of the infrastructure, PSD examined and graded both the current condition (Condition vs. Performance) of the asset classes as well as the Township’s financial capacity to fund the asset’s average annual requirement for sustainability (Funding vs. Need). This information was then used to generate the Township’s infrastructure report card. The Township received a cumulative GPA of ‘C’, with an annual infrastructure deficit of $220,000. While the AMP shows the Township is fully funding its road network, earning an ‘A’, it received an ‘F’ on the Funding vs. Need dimension for both the storm, and bridges & culverts assets, funding 0% for the storm network and 25% for its bridges & culverts. The Township budget does not show these more defined asset classes; instead the capital budget is broken into infrastructure projects that contain some or all infrastructure asset classes. So the report card is a generalized representation of funding gaps. With respect to the road network and the ‘A’ rating, it needs to be highlighted that the Township has traditionally included a significant amount of new assets in the Road budget. Gravel to Hardtop conversions being the most significant item. The AMP shows that the current funding level is enough to maintain what we have, but there will not be funds to continue adding new assets into the future. To satisfy the requirements of the AMP and continue with Gravel to Hardtop conversion, there will need to be additional funding in this area. The Township’s grades on the Condition vs. Performance dimension were higher, receiving a ‘B’ in both bridges & culverts, and the storm network. For the road network, a grade of ‘C’ was assigned, indicative of increasingly significant signs of deterioration and a possible compromise in function. The Township’s grades also signal a relatively substantial financial demand in the short term. Note that PSD has completed over 85 asset management plans across Ontario and not one of the municipalities have had A’s across the board on their report cards. In order for an AMP to be effectively put into action, it must be integrated with financial planning and long-term budgeting. The AMP shows scenarios that would enable East Zorra-Tavistock to achieve full funding within 5 years or 10 years for the Township’s road network (paved roads), bridges & culverts, and its storm sewer network. The performance of a community’s infrastructure provides the foundation for its economic development, competitiveness, prosperity, reputation, and the overall quality of life for its residents. The plan will also be expanded to include additional asset classes beyond

Staff Report – AMP Page 3

infrastructure, such as buildings and fleet. The main provincial focus is infrastructure at this point in time, but including other classes would be valuable.

The asset condition ratings are currently based on the asset age and going forward it will be important to incorporate actual inspection information for condition ratings, so the plan can be further fine-tuned. Since the Township has generally been progressive in maintaining our assets, inspection based condition ratings should help to give a better picture of upcoming needs. This may also free up some funds from asset management, which could be used for new asset creation. The CityWide software has this ability to incorporate this information and it will be added over 2014.

Recommendation:

1. That Council adopt the attached Asset Management Plan 2013 as the Township’s first AMP.

CAO Comments:I agree.


Jeff Carswell, AMCTChief Administrative Officer

Stacy Weicker,Capital Accounting Clerk

THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK

2013

THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK

BOX 100, 90 LOVEYS STREET

HICKSON, ONTARIO, N0J 1L0

SUBMITTED DECEMBER 2013

BY PUBLIC SECTOR DIGEST

148 FULLARTON STREET, SUITE 1410

LONDON, ONTARIO, N6A 5P3

Annual Funding Available

Annual Funding Deficit

State of the Infrastructure The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

AVERAGE ANNUAL FUNDING REQUIRED vs. AVERAGE ANNUAL FUNDING AVAILABLE

$709,000

$61,000

$0

-$180,000

-$40,000

ROAD NETWORK STORM NETWORKBRIDGES & CULVERTS

FULLY FUNDED

Total Annual Deficit: $220,000

PUBLIC SECTOR DIGEST

148 Fullarton Street, Suite 1410

London, Ontario, N6A 5P3

T: 519.690.2565 F: 519.649.2010

www.publicsectordigest.com

www.citywidesolutions.com

December 2013

The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

Box 100, 90 Loveys Street

Hickson, Ontario, N0J 1L0

We are pleased to submit the 2013 Asset Management Plan (AMP) for The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. This AMP

complies with the requirements as outlined within the provincial Building Together Guide for Municipal Asset

Management Plans. It will serve as a strategic, tactical, and financial document, ensuring the management of the

municipal infrastructure follows sound asset management practices and principles, while optimizing available resources

and establishing desired levels of service. Given the broad and profound impact of asset management on the

community, and the financial & administrative complexity involved in this ongoing process, we recommend that senior

decision-makers from across the organization are actively involved in its implementation.

The performance of a community’s infrastructure provides the foundation for its economic development,

competitiveness, prosperity, reputation, and the overall quality of life for its residents. As such, we are appreciative of

your decision to entrust us with the strategic direction of its infrastructure and asset management planning, and are

confident that this AMP will serve as a valuable tool.

Sincerely,

The Public Sector Digest Inc.

Matthew Dawe Israr Ahmad

Vice President Managing Editor

[email protected] [email protected]

INTELLIGENCE FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

PUBLIC SECTOR DIGEST

Contacts

Matthew Dawe

Vice President

[email protected]

Israr Ahmad

Managing Editor

[email protected]

Christine Beneteau

Data Analyst

[email protected]

Chad Gale

Data Analyst

[email protected]

Jona Mema

Data Analyst

[email protected]

Salman Zafar

Data Analyst

[email protected]

Tyler Sutton

Senior Research Analyst

[email protected]

Matthew Van Dommelen

Regional Director

[email protected]

Gabe Metron

Regional Director

[email protected]

Holly Jennings

Account Manager

[email protected]

LEGAL NOTICE

This report has been prepared by The Public Sector Digest Inc. (“PSD”) in accordance with instructions received from The

Township of East Zorra-Tavistock (the “Client”) and for the sole use of the Client. The content of (and recommendations)

this report reflects the best judgement of PSD personnel based on the information made available to PSD by the Client.

Unauthorized use of this report for any other purpose, or by any third party, without the express written consent of PSD,

shall be at such third party’s sole risk without liability to PSD.

This report is protected by copyright.

INTELLIGENCE FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

1

T H E A S S E T M A N AG E M E N T P L A N F O R T H E T OW N S H I P O F E A S T Z O R R A - T A V I S T O C K

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 Importance of Infrastructure....................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Asset Management Plan (AMP) - Relationship to Strategic Plan ......................................................................................... 8

2.3 AMP - Relationship to other Plans .............................................................................................................................................. 8

2.4 Purpose and Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.5 CityWide Software alignment with AMP ................................................................................................................................. 11

3.0 State of the Infrastructure (SOTI) ......................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Objective and Scope ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

3.2 Approach .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.2.1 Base Data ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.2.2 Asset Deterioration Review ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12

3.2.3 Identify Sustainable Investment Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.4 Asset Rating Criteria .................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.5 Infrastructure Report Card ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2.6 General Methodology and Reporting Approach .................................................................................................................................. 14

3.3 Road Network ............................................................................................................................................................................. 16

3.3.1 What do we own? ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.2 What is it worth? .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.3 What condition is it in? ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17

3.3.4 What do we need to do to it? .................................................................................................................................................................. 18

3.3.5 When do we need to do it? ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18

3.3.6 How much money do we need? ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

3.3.7 How do we reach sustainability? .............................................................................................................................................................. 19

3.3.8 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.4 Gravel Roads – Maintenance Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 21

3.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21

3.4.2 Maintaining a Good Cross Section ........................................................................................................................................................... 21

3.4.3 Grading Operations .................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

3.4.4 Good Surface Gravel ................................................................................................................................................................................. 22

3.4.5 Dust Abatement and stabilization ............................................................................................................................................................ 22

3.4.6 The Cost of Maintaining Gravel Roads .................................................................................................................................................... 22

3.4.7 Minnesota Study (2005) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 22

3.4.8 South Dakota study (2004) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.4.9 Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) ................................................................................................................................ 23

3.4.10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23

3.5 Bridges & Culverts ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25

3.5.1 What do we own? ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

2

3.5.2 What is it worth? .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 25







3.6 Storm Sewer Network ................................................................................................................................................................. 31

3.6.1 What do we own? ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 31

3.6.2 What is it worth? .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 31







4.0 Infrastructure Report Card ................................................................................................................................... 35

5.0 Desired Levels of Service .................................................................................................................................... 36

5.1 Key factors that influence a level of service: ......................................................................................................................... 36

5.1.1 Strategic and Corporate Goals ................................................................................................................................................................ 36

5.1.2 Legislative Requirements ........................................................................................................................................................................... 36

5.1.3 Expected Asset Performance .................................................................................................................................................................... 36

5.1.4 Community Expectations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 36

5.1.5 Availability of Finances ............................................................................................................................................................................... 37

5.2 Key Performance Indicators ..................................................................................................................................................... 37

5.3 Transportation Services .............................................................................................................................................................. 38

5.3.1 Service Description ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 38

5.3.2 Scope of Services ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 39

5.3.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually) .......................................................................................................................................... 39

5.4 Water / Sanitary / Storm Networks ........................................................................................................................................... 39

5.4.1 Service Description ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

5.4.2 Scope of services ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 40

5.4.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually) .......................................................................................................................................... 40

6.0 Asset Management Strategy .............................................................................................................................. 41

6.1 Objective ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 41

6.2 Non-Infrastructure Solutions and Requirements .................................................................................................................... 41

6.3 Condition Assessment Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 41

6.3.1 Pavement Network Inspections ................................................................................................................................................................ 42

6.3.2 Bridges & Culverts (greater than 3m) Inspections .................................................................................................................................. 43

6.3.3 Sewer Network Inspections (Sanitary & Storm) ....................................................................................................................................... 43

6.4 AM Strategy – Life Cycle Analysis Framework ....................................................................................................................... 45

6.4.1 Paved Roads ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

6.4.2 Gravel Roads ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

6.4.3 Sanitary and Storm Sewers......................................................................................................................................................................... 47

6.4.4 Bridges & Culverts (greater than 3m span) ............................................................................................................................................. 49

6.5 Growth and Demand ................................................................................................................................................................ 50

3

6.6 Project Prioritization .................................................................................................................................................................... 50

6.6.1 Risk Matrix and Scoring Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 50

7.0 Financial Strategy ................................................................................................................................................ 53

7.1 General overview of financial plan requirements ................................................................................................................ 53

7.2 Financial information relating to East Zorra-Tavistock’s AMP .............................................................................................. 54

7.2.1 Funding objective ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 54

7.3 Tax funded assets ....................................................................................................................................................................... 54

7.3.1 Current funding position ............................................................................................................................................................................. 54

7.3.2 Recommendations for full funding ........................................................................................................................................................... 55

7.4 Use of debt .................................................................................................................................................................................. 56

7.5 Use of reserves ............................................................................................................................................................................ 58

7.5.1 Available reserves ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

7.5.2 Recommendation....................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

8.0 Appendix A: Report Card Calculations ............................................................................................................. 59

4

1.0 Executive Summary The performance of a community’s infrastructure provides the foundation for its economic development,

competitiveness, prosperity, reputation, and the overall quality of life for its residents. Reliable and well-maintained infrastructure assets are essential for the delivery of critical core services for the citizens of a

township.

A technically precise and financially rigorous asset management plan, diligently implemented, will mean

that sufficient investments are made to ensure delivery of sustainable infrastructure services to current and

future residents. The plan will also indicate the respective financial obligations required to maintain this

delivery at established levels of service.

This Asset Management Plan (AMP) for the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock meets all requirements as

outlined within the provincial Building Together Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans. It will serve as

a strategic, tactical, and financial document, ensuring the management of the municipal infrastructure

follows sound asset management practices and principles, while optimizing available resources and

establishing desired levels of service. Given the expansive financial and social impact of asset

management on both a township, and its citizens, it is critical that senior decision-makers, including

department heads as well as the chief executives, are strategically involved.

Measured in 2012 dollars, the replacement value of the asset classes analyzed totaled $58 million for East Zorra-Tavistock.

Road Network,

$39,405,60468%

Bridges & Culverts,

$15,436,53727%

Storm Sewer Network,

$2,971,8045%

Replacement Cost by Asset Class in 2012 DOllarsTotal: $57,813,945

5

While the township is responsible for the strategic direction, it is the taxpayer in East Zorra-Tavistock who

ultimately bears the financial burden. As such, a ‘cost per household’ (CPH) analysis was conducted for

each of the asset classes to determine the financial obligation of each household in sharing the

replacement cost of the township’s assets. Such a measurement can serve as an excellent communication

tool for both the administration and the council in communicating the importance of asset management

to the citizen. The diagram below illustrates the total CPH, as well as the CPH for individual asset classes.

In assessing the township’s state of the infrastructure, we examined, and graded, both the current

condition (Condition vs. Performance) of the asset classes as well as the township’s financial capacity to

fund the asset’s average annual requirement for sustainability (Funding vs. Need). We then generated the

township’s infrastructure report card. The township received a cumulative GPA of ‘C’, with an annual infrastructure deficit of $220,000. While the township is full funding its road network, earning an ‘A’, it received an ‘F’ on the Funding vs. Need dimension for both the storm and bridges & culverts assets,

funding 0% for the storm network, and 25% for its bridges & culverts.

The township’s grades on the Condition vs. Performance dimension were higher, receiving a ‘B’ in both

bridges & culverts, and the storm network. For the road network, a grade of ‘C’ was assigned, indicative of

increasingly significant signs of deterioration and a possible compromise in function. The township’s grades

also signal a relatively substantial financial demand in the short term. For example, based on age data only, there is a large portion of the road network in fair, poor, and critical condition, generating a backlog

of needs totaling approximately $3.5 million in the next 5 years. Similarly, based on field condition data,

while the majority of bridges and large structures are in good condition, there are replacement

requirements, particularly with the culverts, to be addressed over the next 5 years totaling approximately $2

million.

In order for an AMP to be effectively put into action, it must be integrated with financial planning and long-

term budgeting. We have developed scenarios that would enable East Zorra-Tavistock to achieve full

funding within 5 years or 10 years for the township’s road network (paved roads), bridges & culverts, and its

storm sewer network.

Storm Sewer Network

Total Replacement Cost: $2,971,804

Cost Per Household: $1,109

Road Network (excludes gravel) Total Replacement Cost: $20,435,814 Cost Per Household: $7,628

Infrastructure Replacement Cost Per Household Total: $14,499 per household

Sanitary Sewer Network N/A

Water Network N/A

Bridges & Culverts Total Replacement Cost: $15,436,537 Cost Per Household: $5,762

6

The average annual investment requirement for paved roads, bridges & culverts, and storm sewers is

$990,000. Annual revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is $770,000 leaving an

annual deficit of $220,000. To put it another way, these infrastructure categories are currently funded at

78% of their long-term requirements. In 2013, East Zorra-Tavistock has annual tax revenues of $3,755,000.

Without consideration of any other sources of revenue, full funding would require a combined tax increase

of 5.9% over time. We recommend a 10 year which involves full funding being achieved over 10 years by:

a) increasing tax revenues by 0.6% each year for the next 10 years solely for the purpose of phasing in full funding to the tax

based asset categories covered in this section of the AMP.

b) allocating the $225,000 of gas tax revenue as outlined in table 1 in section 7.0: Financial Strategy c) increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable inflation index on an annual basis in addition to

the deficit phase-in.

The revenue options outlined in this plan allow East Zorra-Tavistock to fully fund its long-term infrastructure

requirements without further use of debt. However, as explained in sections 7.3.2, the recommended

condition rating analysis may require otherwise. The township’s reserves, totaling $752,000, are available for

use by applicable asset categories during the phase-in period to full funding. This, coupled with East Zorra-

Tavistock’s judicious use of debt in the past, allows the scenarios to assume that, if required, available

reserves and debt capacity can be used for high priority and emergency infrastructure investments in the short to medium-term.

7

2.0 Introduction

This Asset Management Plan meets all provincial requirements as outlined within the Ontario Building

Together Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans. As such, the following key sections and content

are included:

1. Executive Summary and Introduction

2. State of the Current Infrastructure

3. Desired Levels of Service 4. Asset Management Strategy

5. Financial Strategy

The following asset classes are addressed:

1. Road Network: Urban and rural, paved and gravel 2. Bridges & Culverts: Bridges and large culverts with a span greater than 3m 3. Storm Sewer Network: Storm sewer mains, catch basins, man holes

Municipalities are encouraged to cover all asset classes in future iterations of the AMP.

This asset management plan will serve as a strategic, tactical, and financial document ensuring the

management of the municipal infrastructure follows sound asset management practices and principles,

while optimizing available resources and establishing desired levels of service.

At a strategic level, within the State of the Current Infrastructure section, it will identify current and future challenges that should be addressed in order to maintain sustainable infrastructure services on a long-term,

life cycle basis.

It will outline a Desired Level of Service (LOS) Framework for each asset category to assist the development

and tracking of LOS through performance measures across strategic, financial, tactical, operational, and

maintenance activities within the organization.

At a tactical level, within the Asset Management Strategy section, it will develop an implementation process to be applied to the needs-identification and prioritization of renewal, rehabilitation, and

maintenance activities, resulting in a 10 year plan that will include growth projections.

At a financial level, within the Financial Strategy section, a strategy will be developed that fully integrates with other sections of this asset management plan, to ensure delivery and optimization of the 10 year

infrastructure budget.

Through the development of this plan, all data, analysis, life cycle projections, and budget models will be

provided through the Public Sector Digest’s CityWide suite of software products. The software and plan will

be synchronized, will evolve together, and therefore, will allow for ease of updates, and annual reporting of

performance measures and overall results.

This will allow for continuous improvement of the plan and its projections. It is therefore recommended that

the plan be revisited and updated on an annual basis, particularly as more detailed information becomes

available.

2.1 Importance of Infrastructure

Municipalities throughout Ontario, large and small, own a diverse portfolio of infrastructure assets that in

turn provide a varied number of services to their citizens. The infrastructure, in essence, is a conduit for the

various public services the township provides, e.g., the roads supply a transportation network service; the

water infrastructure supplies a clean drinking water service. A community’s prosperity, economic

development, competitiveness, image, and overall quality of life are inherently and explicitly tied to the

performance of its infrastructure.

8

2.2 Asset Management Plan (AMP) - Relationship to Strategic Plan

The major benefit of strategic planning is the promotion of strategic thought and action. A strategic plan

spells out where an organization wants to go, how it’s going to get there, and helps decide how and where

to allocate resources, ensuring alignment to the strategic priorities and objectives. It will help identify

priorities and guide how municipal tax dollars and revenues are spent into the future.

The strategic plan usually includes a vision and mission statement, and key organizational priorities with

alignment to objectives and action plans. Given the growing economic and political significance of

infrastructure, the asset management plan will become a central component of most municipal strategic

plans, influencing corporate priorities, objectives, and actions.

2.3 AMP - Relationship to other Plans

An asset management plan is a key component of the township’s planning process linking with multiple

other corporate plans and documents. For example:

� The Official Plan – The AMP should utilize and influence the land use policy directions for long-term growth and

development as provided through the Official Plan.

� Long Term Financial Plan – The AMP should both utilize and conversely influence the financial forecasts within the long-

term financial plan.

� Capital Budget – The decision framework and infrastructure needs identified in the AMP form the basis on which future capital budgets are prepared.

� Infrastructure Master Plans – The AMP will utilize goals and projections from infrastructure master plans and in turn will influence future master plan recommendations.

� By-Laws, standards, and policies – The AMP will influence and utilize policies and by-laws related to infrastructure management practices and standards.

� Regulations – The AMP must recognize and abide by industry and senior government regulations.

� Business Plans – The service levels, policies, processes, and budgets defined in the AMP are incorporated into business plans as activity budgets, management strategies, and performance measures.

9

INFRASTRUCTURE–STRATEGIC PLAN

Strategic Plan Goals, Asset Performance & Community Expectations,

Legislated Requirements

STATE OF THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE REPORTS Asset Inventory, Valuation, Current Condition/Performance,

Sustainable Funding Analysis

EXPECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE

Key Performance Indicators, Performance Measures, Public

Engagement

ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Lifecycle Analysis, Growth Requirements, Risk Management, Project

Prioritization Methodologies

F INANCING STRATEGY Available Revenue Analysis, Develop Optional Scenarios, Define

Optimal Budget & Financial Plan

AMP PERFORMANCE REPORTING

Project Implementation, Key Performance Measures Tracked, Progress

Reported to Senior Management & Council

Are levels of service achievable?

2.4 Purpose and Methodology

The following diagram depicts the approach and methodology, including the key components and links

between those components that embody this asset management plan:

It can be seen from the above that a township’s infrastructure planning starts at the corporate level with

ties to the strategic plan, alignment to the community’s expectations, and compliance with industry and

government regulations.

Then, through the State of the Infrastructure analysis, overall asset inventory, valuation, condition and

performance are reported. Also, a life cycle analysis of needs for each infrastructure class is conducted.

This analysis yields the sustainable funding level, compared against actual current funding levels, and

determines whether there is a funding surplus or deficit for each infrastructure program. The overall

measure of condition and available funding is finally scored for each asset class and presented as a star

rating (similar to the hotel star rating) and a letter grade (A-F) within the Infrastructure Report card.

From the lifecycle analysis above, the township gains an understanding of the level of service provided

today for each infrastructure class and the projected level of service for the future. The next section of the

AMP provides a framework for a township to develop a Desired Level of Service (or target service level)

and develop performance measures to track the year-to-year progress towards this established target level

of service.

10

The Asset Management Strategy then provides a detailed analysis for each infrastructure class. Included in

this analysis are best practices and methodologies from within the industry which can guide the overall

management of the infrastructure in order to achieve the desired level of service. This section also provides

an overview of condition assessment techniques for each asset class; life cycle interventions required,

including those interventions that yield the best return on investment; and prioritization techniques,

including risk quantification, to determine which priority projects should move forward into the budget first.

The Financing Strategy then fully integrates with the asset management strategy and asset management

plan, and provides a financial analysis that optimizes the 10 year infrastructure budget. All revenue sources

available are reviewed, such as the tax levy, debt allocations, rates, reserves, grants, gas tax, development

charges, etc., and necessary budget allocations are analysed to inform and deliver the infrastructure

programs.

Finally, in subsequent updates to this AMP, actual project implementation will be reviewed and measured

through the established performance metrics to quantify whether the desired level of service is achieved or

achievable for each infrastructure class. If shortfalls in performance are observed, these will be discussed and alternate financial models or service level target adjustments will be presented.

11

INFRASTRUCTURE–STRATEGIC PLAN

Strategic Plan Goals, Asset Performance & Community Expectations,

Legislated Requirements

STATE OF THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE REPORTS

Asset Inventory, Valuation, Current Condition/Performance,

Sustainable Funding Analysis

EXPECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE

Key Performance Indicators, Performance Measures, Public

Engagement

ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Lifecycle Analysis, Growth Requirements, Risk Management, Project

Prioritization Methodologies

F INANCING STRATEGY

Available Revenue Analysis, Develop Optional Scenarios, Define

Optimal Budget & Financial Plan

AMP PERFORMANCE REPORTING

Project Implementation, Key Performance Measures Tracked, Progress

Reported to Senior Management & Council

Are levels of service achievable?

2.5 CityWide Software alignment with AMP

The plan will be built and developed hand in hand with a database of municipal infrastructure information

in the CityWide software suite of products. The software will ultimately contain the township’s asset base,

valuation information, life cycle activity predictions, costs for activities, sustainability analysis, project

prioritization parameters, key performance indicators and targets, 10 year asset management strategy,

and the financial plan to deliver the required infrastructure budget.

The software and plan will be synchronized, and will evolve together year-to-year as more detailed

information becomes available. This synchronization will allow for ease of updates, modeling and scenario

building, and annual reporting of performance measures and results. This will allow for continuous

improvement of the plan and its projections. It is therefore recommended that it is revisited and updated

on an annual basis.

The following diagram outlines the various CityWide software products and how they align to the various

components of the AMP.

12

3.0 State of the Infrastructure (SOTI)

3.1 Objective and Scope

Objective: To identify the state of the township’s infrastructure today and the projected state in the future if current funding levels and management practices remain status quo.

The analysis and subsequent communication tools will outline future asset requirements, will start the development of tactical implementation plans, and ultimately assist the organization to provide cost

effective sustainable services to the current and future community.

The approach was based on the following key industry state of the infrastructure documents:

� Canadian Infrastructure Report Card

� City of Hamilton’s State of the Infrastructure reports

� Other Ontario Municipal State of the Infrastructure reports

The above reports are themselves based on established principles found within key, industry best practices

documents such as:

� The National Guide for Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure (Canada)

� The International Infrastructure Management Manual (Australia / New Zealand)

� American Society of Civil Engineering Manuals (U.S.A.)

Scope: Within this State of the Infrastructure report, a high level review will be undertaken for the following asset classes:

1. Road Network: Urban and rural, paved and gravel 2. Bridges & Culverts: Bridges and large culverts with a span greater than 3m 3. Storm Sewer Network: Storm sewer mains, catch basins, man holes

3.2 Approach

The asset classes above were reviewed at a very high level due to the nature of data and information

available. Subsequent detailed reviews of this analysis are recommended on an annual basis, as more

detailed conditions assessment information becomes available for each infrastructure program.

3.2.1 Base Data In order to understand the full inventory of infrastructure assets within East Zorra-Tavistock, all tangible

capital asset data, as collected to meet the PSAB 3150 accounting standard, was loaded into the CityWide Tangible Asset™ software module. This data base now provides a detailed and summarized

inventory of assets as used throughout the analysis within this report and the entire Asset Management Plan.

3.2.2 Asset Deterioration Review The township has supplied condition data for all large bridge structures and 90% of the culvert structures.

The condition data recalculates a new performance age for each individual asset and, as such, a far more

accurate prediction of future replacement can be established and applied to the future investment

requirements within this AMP report. For those assets without condition data, the roads, 10% of the culverts,

and storm assets, the deterioration review will rely on the ‘straight line’ amortization schedule approach

provided from the accounting data. Although this approach is based on age data and useful life

projections, and is not as accurate as the use of detailed condition data, it does provide a relatively

reliable benchmark of future requirements.

13

3.2.3 Identify Sustainable Investment Requirements A gap analysis was performed to identify sustainable investment requirements for each asset category.

Information on current spending levels and budgets was acquired from the organization, future investment

requirements were calculated, and the gap between the two was identified.

The above analysis is performed by using investment and financial planning models, and life cycle costing

analysis, embedded within the CityWide software suite of applications.

3.2.4 Asset Rating Criteria Each asset category will be rated on two key dimensions:

� Condition vs. Performance: Based on the condition of the asset today and how well performs its function. � Funding vs. Need: Based on the actual investment requirements to ensure replacement of the asset at the right time,

versus current spending levels for each asset group.

3.2.5 Infrastructure Report Card The dimensions above will be based on a simple 1–5 star rating system, which will be converted into a letter

grading system ranging from A-F. An average of the two ratings will be used to calculate the combined

rating for each asset class. The outputs for all municipal assets will be consolidated within the CityWide

software to produce one overall Infrastructure Report Card showing the current state of the assets.

Grading Scale: Condition vs. Performance What is the condition of the asset today and how well does it perform its function?

Star Rating Letter Grade Color

Indicator Description

�� A Excellent: No noticeable defects

�� B Good: Minor deterioration

�� C Fair: Deterioration evident, function is affected

�� D Poor: Serious deterioration. Function is inadequate

� F Critical: No longer functional. General or complete failure

Grading Scale: Funding vs. Need Based on the actual investment requirements to ensure replacement of the asset at the right time, versus

current spending levels for each asset group.

Star Rating Letter Grade Description

�� A Excellent: 91 to 100% of need

�� B Good: 76 to 90% of need

�� C Fair: 61 to 75% of need

�� D Poor: 46 – 60% of need

� F Critical: under 45% of need

14

3.2.6 General Methodology and Reporting Approach The report will be based on the seven key questions of asset management as outlined within the National

Guide for Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure:

� What do you own and where is it? (inventory) � What is it worth? (valuation / replacement cost)

� What is its condition / remaining service life? (function & performance)

� What needs to be done? (maintain, rehabilitate, replace)

� When do you need to do it? (useful life analysis) � How much will it cost? (investment requirements)

� How do you ensure sustainability? (long-term financial plan)

The above questions will be answered for each individual asset category in the following report sections.

15

3.3 Road Network Infrastructure

B INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT CARD GRADE

3.3 Road Network

16

3.3 Road Network

Note: The financial analysis in this section includes paved roads. Gravel roads are excluded from the

capital replacement analysis, as by nature, they require perpetual maintenance activities and funding.

However, the gravel roads have been included in the Road Network inventory and replacement value

tables. There is also further information regarding gravel roads in section 3.4 “Gravel Roads – Maintenance

Requirements” of this AMP.

3.3.1 What do we own? As shown in the summary table below, the entire network comprises approximately 221 centreline km of

road.

Road Network Inventory

Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units

Road Network

Gravel 159,410m

Base 61,586m

Surface 62,008m

Sidewalks 20,781m

Curbs 24,188m

Streetlights 469

The road network data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset and G.I.S. modules of the CityWide

software suite.

3.3.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of the road network, in 2012 dollars, is approximately $39 million. The cost

per household for the road network is $7,628 (excludes gravel) based on 2,679 households.

Road Network Replacement Value

Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units 2012 Unit

Replacement Cost

2012 Overall Replacement

Cost

Road Network

Gravel 159,410m $119 $18,969,790

Base 61,586m $119 $7,873,061

Surface - 2" HTAP 32,347m $84 $2,717,148

Surface - 4" HTAP 8,489m $168 $1,426,152

Surface - Double High & HL 21,172m NRBCPI $5,314,026

Sidewalks 20,781m $68 - $85 $1,616,139

Curbs 24,188m $40 $967,533

Streetlights 469 NRBCPI $521,755

$39,405,604

17

The pie chart below provides a breakdown of each of the network components to the overall system

value.

Road Network Components

3.3.3 What condition is it in? The majority, 70%, of the township’s road network is in fair to excellent condition, with the remaining 30% in

poor to critical condition. As such, the township received a Condition vs. Performance rating of ‘C’.

Road Network Condition by Length (m)

18

3.3.4 What do we need to do to it? There are generally four distinct phases in an asset’s life cycle that require specific types of attention and

lifecycle activity. These are presented at a high level for the road network below. Further detail is provided

in the “Asset Management Strategy” section of this AMP.

Addressing Asset Needs

Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Life Stage

Minor maintenance Activities such as inspections, monitoring, sweeping, winter

control, etc. 1st Qtr

Major maintenance Activities such as repairing pot holes, grinding out roadway

rutting, and patching sections of road. 2nd Qtr

Rehabilitation Rehabilitation activities such as asphalt overlays, mill and

paves, etc. 3rd Qtr

Replacement Full road reconstruction 4th Qtr

3.3.5 When do we need to do it? For the purpose of this report, ‘useful life’ data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data within the CityWide software database. This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of

individual assets. These needs are calculated and quantified in the system as part of the overall financial

requirements.

Asset Useful Life in Years

Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life

Road Network

Gravel 100

Base 60

Surface - 2" HTAP 15

Surface - 4" HTAP 25

Surface - Double High & HL 15

Sidewalks 50

Curbs 50

Streetlights 20

As additional field condition information becomes available, the data can be loaded into the CityWide

system to increase the accuracy of current asset age and, therefore, that of future replacement

requirements. The following graph shows the projection of road network replacement costs based on the

age of the asset only.

19

Road Network Replacement Profile (excludes gravel roads)

3.3.6 How much money do we need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following constraints

and assumptions:

1. Replacement costs are based upon the unit costs identified within the “What is it worth” section.

2. The timing for individual road replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the “When do you

need to do it?” section. 3. All values are presented in 2012 dollars.

4. The analysis was run for a 60 year period to ensure all assets went through at least one iteration of replacement,

therefore providing a sustainable projection.

3.3.7 How do we reach sustainability?

Based upon the above parameters, the average annual revenue required to sustain East Zorra-Tavistock’s

paved road network is approximately $709,000. Based on East Zorra-Tavistock’s current annual funding of $709,000, the category is fully funded. As such, the township received a Funding vs. Need rating of ‘A’. The following graph illustrates the expenditure requirements in five year increments against the sustainable

funding threshold line. Historically a significant portion, 40-70%, of the $709,000 funding has been used for

creation of new road assets; primary gravel to hard top conversion. While this analysis indicates there is

adequate funding to maintain existing assets, it does not include the creation of new road assets or

increasing the level of service from what currently exists. To continue with the creation of new assets

(gravel to hard top roads), additional funding over and above the $709,000 would be required.

Sustainable Funding Requirements (excludes gravel roads)

20

In conclusion, based on age data only, there is a significant portion of the road network in fair, poor and

critical condition, generating a backlog of needs totaling approximately $3.5 million in the next 5 years. The

implementation of a full condition assessment program for the road network should be an essential next

step to defining actual field requirements. A condition assessment program will aid in prioritizing overall

needs for rehabilitation and replacement and will assist with optimizing the long and short term budgets.

Further detail is outlined within the “asset management strategy” section of this AMP.

3.3.8 Recommendations The township received an overall rating of ‘B’ for its road network, calculated from the Condition vs.

Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly, we recommend the following:

1. A condition assessment program should be established for the entire paved road network to gain a better

understanding of current condition and performance as outlined further within the “Asset Management Strategy” section of this AMP.

2. As approximately 70% of the township’s road network is gravel roads, a detailed study should be undertaken to assess

the overall maintenance costs of gravel roads and whether there is benefit to converting some gravel roads to paved , or surface treated roads, thereby reducing future costs. This is further outlined within the “Asset Management Strategy”

section of this AMP.

3. Once the above studies are complete or underway, the condition data should be loaded into the CityWide software and an updated “current state of the infrastructure” analysis should be generated.

4. An appropriate % of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual basis. This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O & M activities and be added to future AMP reporting.

5. The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated on an annual basis.

21

3.4 Gravel Roads – Maintenance Requirements

3.4.1 Introduction Paved roads are usually designed and constructed with careful consideration given to the correct shape

of the cross section. Once paving is complete the roadway will keep its general shape for the duration of its

useful life. Gravel roads are quite different. Many have poor base construction, will be prone to wheel track

rutting in wet weather, and traffic will continually displace gravel from the surface to the shoulder area,

even the ditch, during wet and dry weather. Maintaining the shape of the road surface and shoulder is

essential to ensure proper performance and to provide a sufficient level of service for the public.

Therefore, the management of gravel roads is not through major rehabilitation and replacement, but

rather through good perpetual maintenance and some minor rehabilitation which depend on a few basic

principles: proper techniques and cycles for grading; the use and upkeep of good surface gravel; and,

dust abatement and stabilization.

3.4.2 Maintaining a Good Cross Section In order to maintain a gravel road properly, a good cross section is required consisting of a crowned driving

surface, a shoulder with correct slope, and a ditch. The crown of the road is essential for good drainage. A

road with no crown, or insufficient crown, will cause water to collect on the surface during a rainfall, will

soften the crust, and ultimately lead to rutting which will become severe if the subgrade also softens. Even if

the subgrade remains firm, traffic will cause depressions in the road where water collects and the road will

develop potholes. It is a generally accepted industry standard that 1.25cm per 12cm (one foot),

approximately 4%, on the cross slope is ideal for road crown.

The road shoulder serves some key functions. It supports the edge of the travelled portion of the roadway,

provides a safe area for drivers to regain control of vehicles if they are forced to leave the road, and finally,

carries water further away from the road surface. The shoulder should ideally meet the edge of the

roadway at the same elevation and then slope away gradually towards the ditch.

The ditch is the most important and common drainage structure for gravel roads. Every effort should be

made to maintain a minimal ditch. The ditch should be kept free of obstructions such as eroded soil,

vegetation or debris.

22

3.4.3 Grading Operations Routine grading is the activity that ensures gravel roadways maintain a good cross section or proper profile.

The three key components to good grading are: operating speed, blade angle, and blade pitch.

Excessive operating speed can cause many problems such as inconsistent profile, and blade movement or

bouncing that can cut depressions and leave ridges in the road surface. It is generally accepted that

grader speed should not exceed 8km per hour. The angle of the blade is also critical for good

maintenance and industry standards suggest the optimal angle is between 30 and 45 degrees. Finally, the

correct pitch or tilt of the blade is very important. If the blade is pitched back too far, the material will tend

to build up in front of the blade and will not fall forward, which mixes the materials, and will move along

and discharge at the end of the blade.

3.4.4 Good Surface Gravel Once the correct shape is established on a roadway and drainage matters are taken care of, attention

must be given to the placement of good gravel. Good surface gravel requires a percentage of stone

which gives strength to support loads, particularly in wet weather. It also requires a percentage of sand size

particles to fill the voids between the stones which provide stability. And finally, a percentage of plastic

fines are needed to bind the material together which allows a gravel road to form a crust and shed water.

Typical municipal maintenance routines will include activities to ensure a good gravel surface through both

spot repairs (often annually) and also re-graveling of roadways (approximately every five years).

3.4.5 Dust Abatement and stabilization A typical maintenance activity for gravel roads also includes dust abatement and stabilization. All gravel

roads will give off dust at some point, although the amount of dust can vary greatly from region to region.

The most common treatment to reduce dust is the application of Calcium Chloride, in flake or liquid form,

or Magnesium Chloride, generally just in liquid form. Of course, there are other products on the market as well. Calcium and Magnesium Chloride can be very effective if used properly. They are hygroscopic

products which draw moisture from the air and keep the road surface constantly damp. In addition to

alleviating dust issues, the continual dampness also serves to maintain the loss of fine materials within the

gravel surface, which in turn helps maintain road binding and stabilization. A good dust abatement

program can actually help waterproof and bind the road, in doing so can reduce gravel loss, and

therefore, reduce the frequency of grading.

3.4.6 The Cost of Maintaining Gravel Roads We conducted an industry review to determine the standard cost for maintaining gravel roads. However, it

became apparent that no industry standard exists for either the cost of maintenance or for the frequency

at which the maintenance activities should be completed. Presented below, as a guideline only, are two

studies on the maintenance costs for gravel roads:

3.4.7 Minnesota Study (2005) The first study is from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Road Research Board

(LRRB), where the researchers looked at historical and estimated cost data from multiple counties in

Minnesota.

The study team found that the typical maintenance schedule consisted of routine grading and re-

graveling with two inches of new gravel every five years. They found that a typical road needed to be

graded 21 times a year or three times a month from April – October, and the upper bound for re-graveling

was five years for any road over 100 ADT; lower volume roads could possibly go longer. The calculated costs including materials, labour, and hauling totaled $1,400 per year or $67 per visit for the grading activity

and $13,800 for the re-gravel activity every five years. The re-gravel included an estimate gravel cost of

$7.00 per cubic yard and a 2.5” thick lift of gravel (to be compacted down to 2”). Therefore, they

developed an average estimated annual maintenance cost for gravel roads at $4,160 per mile. This

converts to $2,600 per km of roadway and if adjusted for inflation into 2012 dollars, using the Non-

Residential Building Construction Price Index (NRBCPI), it would be $3,500.

Reference: Jahren, Charles T. et. al. “Economics of Upgrading an Aggregate Road,” Minnesota Department of

Transportation, St. Paul, Mn, January 2005.

23

3.4.8 South Dakota study (2004) This second study was conducted by South Dakota’s Department of Transportation (SDDOT). The default

maintenance program for gravel roads from SDDOT’s report includes grading 50 times per year, re-

graveling once every six years, and spot graveling once per year. The unit cost for grading was very similar

to Minnesota at $65 per mile, re-gravel at $7,036 per mile and spot graveling or pothole repair at $2,420 per

mile, totaling to an average annual maintenance cost of $6,843 per mile. Due to the frequency of the

grading activity and the addition of the spot gravel maintenance, the SDDOT number is higher than

Minnesota reported even though the re-gravel activity is reported at about half of the price in Minnesota.

This converts to $4,277 per km of roadway and if adjusted for inflation into 2012 dollars, using the NRBCPI, it

would be $5,758. Reference: Zimmerman, K.A. and A.S. Wolters. “Local Road Surfacing Criteria,” South Dakota Department of

Transportation, Pierre, SD, June 2004.

3.4.9 Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) One of the many metrics tracked through the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative is the “Operating

costs for Unpaved (Loose top) Roads per lane Km.” As referenced from the OMBI data dictionary, this

includes maintenance activities such as dust suppression, loose top grading, loose top gravelling, spot base

repair and wash out repair.

Of the six Ontario municipalities that included 2012 costs for this category, there is a wide variation in the

reporting. The highest cost per lane km was $14,900 while the lowest cost was $397. The average cost was

$6,300 per lane km. Assuming two lanes per gravel road to match the studies above, the Ontario OMBI

average becomes $12,600 per km of roadway.

Summary of Costs

Source 2012 Maintenance Cost per km

(adjusted for inflation using NRBCPI)

Minnesota Study $3,500

South Dakota Study $5,758

OMBI Average (six municipalities) 12,600

3.4.10 Conclusion As discussed above, there are currently no industry standards in regards to the cost of gravel road

maintenance and the frequency at which the maintenance activities should be completed. Also, there is

no established benchmark cost for the maintenance of a km of gravel road and the numbers presented

above will vary significantly due to the level of service or maintenance that’s provided (i.e., frequency of

grading cycles and re-gravel cycles).

East Zorra-Tavistock currently spends $337,850 (based on 2013 numbers) annually on gravel road

maintenance. With a gravel road network of approximately 159 km, the maintenance cost per km of

roadway is $2,125. This appears to be slightly less than the typical budget limits as shown above. Of course

there are many variables in this analysis, therefore it is recommended that a detailed study be undertaken

to establish different cost options associated with different levels of service and that this be included with

future updates to this AMP.

24

3.4 Bridges & Culverts

B INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT CARD GRADE


25


3.5.1 What do we own?

As shown in the summary table below, the township owns 30 bridges and 13 km (span in m) of culverts.

Bridges & Culverts Inventory

Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units

Bridges & Culverts Bridges 30

Culverts 13,252m

The bridges & culverts data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset and G.I.S. modules of the

CityWide software suite.

3.5.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of the township’s bridges & culverts, in 2012 dollars, is approximately

$15.4 million. The cost per household for bridges & culverts is $5,762 based on 2,679 households.

Bridges & Culverts Replacement Value

Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units 2012 Unit

Replacement Cost

2012 Replacement

Cost

Bridges &

Culverts

Bridges 30 User-Defined $11,593,383

Culverts (less than 1m) 12,027m NRBCPI $1,712,442

Culverts (between 1m and 3 m) 999m NRBCPI $479,432

Culverts (between 3m and 6m) 16m NRBCPI $146,388

Box Culverts 211m NRBCPI $1,504,892

$15,436,537

26

The pie chart below provides a breakdown of each of the bridges & culverts components to the overall

structures value.

Bridges & Culverts Components

3.5.3 What condition is it in? Nearly 100% of the township’s bridges & culverts are in fair to excellent condition. As such, the township

received a Condition vs. Performance rating of ‘B’.

Bridges Condition by Quantity

27

Culverts Condition by Length (m)

3.5.4 What do we need to do to it? There are generally four distinct phases in an asset’s life cycle. These are presented at a high level for the

bridge and culvert structures below. Further detail is provided in the “Asset Management Strategy” section

of this AMP.


Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Life Stage

Minor Maintenance Activities such as inspections, monitoring, sweeping, winter control, etc. 1st Qtr

Major Maintenance Activities such as repairs to cracked or spalled concrete, damaged

expansion joints, bent or damaged railings, etc. 2nd Qtr

Rehabilitation Rehabilitation events such as structural reinforcement of structural

elements, deck replacements, etc. 3rd Qtr

Replacement Full structure reconstruction 4th Qtr

3.5.5 When do we need to do it? For the purpose of this report, ‘useful life’ data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data

within the CityWide software database. This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of

individual assets, which are calculated in the system as part of the overall financial requirements.

28


Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life in

Years

Bridges & Culverts

Bridges 75

Culverts (less than 1m) 30

Culverts (between 1m and 3 m) 30

Culverts (between 3m and 6m) 30

Box Culverts 100

The following graph shows the current projection of structure replacements based on the age of the asset

only.

Structures Replacement Profile

3.5.6 How much money do we need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following constraints

and assumptions:

1. Replacement costs are based upon the “What is it worth” section above.

2. The timing for individual structure replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the “When do you

need to do it?” section above. 3. All values are presented in 2012 dollars.

4. The analysis was run for a 100 year period to ensure all assets cycled through at least one iteration of replacement,

therefore providing a sustainable projection.

3.5.7 How do we reach sustainability? Based upon the above assumptions, the average annual revenue required to sustain East Zorra-Tavistock’s

bridges & culverts is $241,000. Based on East Zorra-Tavistock’s current annual funding of $61,000, there is an annual deficit of $180,000. As such, the township received a Funding vs. Need rating of ‘F’. The following graph presents five year blocks of expenditure requirements against the sustainable funding threshold line.

29

Sustainable Revenue Requirement

In conclusion, based on field condition data, the majority of bridges and large structures are in good condition. There are, however, replacement requirements, particularly with the culverts, to be addressed

over the next 5 years totaling approximately $2 million. The condition assessment data, along with risk

management strategies, should be reviewed together to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation

and replacement and assist with optimizing the long and short term budgets. Further detail is outlined within

the “asset management strategy” section of this AMP.

3.5.8 Recommendations The township received an overall rating of ‘D’ for its bridges & culverts, calculated from the Condition vs. Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly, we recommend the following:

1. The condition assessment data, along with risk management strategies, should be reviewed together to aid in prioritizing

overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement.

2. An appropriate % of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual

basis. This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O & M activities and added to future AMP reporting.


30

3.7 Storm Sewer Network

D INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT CARD GRADE

3.6 Storm Sewer Network

31

3.6 Storm Sewer Network 3.6.1 What do we own? The inventory components of the Storm Network are outlined in the table below. The entire network consists

of approximately13km of storm sewer.

Storm Sewer Network Inventory (Detailed)

Asset Type Asset Component Quantity

Storm Sewer Network

Storm Sewers 13,170m

Catch Basins 458

Man holes 68

The storm sewer network data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset and G.I.S. modules of the

CityWide software suite.

3.6.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of the storm sewer network, in 2012 dollars, is approximately $3 million.

The cost per household for the storm sewer network is $1,109 based on 2,679 households.

Storm Replacement Value

Asset Type Asset Component Quantity 2012 Unit Replacement Cost 2012 Overall Replacement Cost

Storm

Sewer

Network

Storm Sewers 13,170m $164 $2,159,844

Catch Basins 458 $1,354 $620,132

Man holes 68 $2,821 $191,828

$2,971,804

The pie chart below provides a breakdown of each of the network components to the overall system

value. Storm Sewer Network Components

32

3.6.3 What condition is it in? The township’s entire storm network is in fair to excellent condition. As such, the township received a

Condition vs. Performance rating of ‘B’.

Storm Sewer Condition by Length (m)

3.6.4 What do we need to do to it? There are generally four distinct phases in an assets life cycle. These are presented at a high level for the

storm sewer network below. Further detail is provided in the “Asset Management Strategy” section of this

AMP.


Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Age

Minor Maintenance Activities such as inspections, monitoring, cleaning and flushing, zoom

camera and CCTV inspections, etc. 1st Qtr

Major Maintenance Activities such as repairing man holes and replacing individual small

sections of pipe. 2nd Qtr

Rehabilitation Rehabilitation events such as structural lining of pipes are extremely

cost effective and provide an additional 75 plus years of life. 3rd Qtr

Replacement Pipe replacements 4th Qtr

3.6.5 When do we need to do it? For the purpose of this report “useful life” data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data

within the CityWide software database. This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of

individual assets, which are calculated in the system as part of the overall financial requirements.

33


Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life in

Years

Storm Sewer

Network

Storm Sewers 75

Catch Basins 75

Man holes 75

As field condition information becomes available in time, the data should be loaded into the CityWide

system in order to increasingly have a more accurate picture of current asset performance age and,

therefore, future replacement requirements. The following graph shows the current projection of storm

sewer main replacements based on the age of the asset only.

Storm Network Replacement Profile

3.6.6 How much money do we need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following

assumptions:

1. Replacement costs are based upon the unit costs identified within the “What is it worth” section above. 2. The timing for individual storm sewer main replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the “When

do you need to do it?” section above.

3. All values are presented in 2012 dollars.

4. The analysis was run for a 75 year period to ensure all assets went through one iteration of replacement, therefore providing a sustainable projection.

3.6.7 How do we reach sustainability? Based upon the above assumptions, the average annual revenue required to sustain East Zorra-Tavistock’s

storm sewer network is approximately $40,000. Based on East Zorra-Tavistock’s current annual funding of $0, there is an annual deficit of $40,000. As such, the township received a Funding vs. Need rating of ‘F’.

34

Storm Network Replacement Profile

In conclusion, East Zorra-Tavistock’s storm sewer collection network, based on age data only, is in very

good condition with no immediate replacement requirements.

3.6.8 Recommendations The township received an overall rating of ‘D’ for its storm sewer network, calculated from the Condition vs.

Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly, we recommend the following:

1. A condition assessment program should be established for the storm sewer network to gain a better understanding of

current condition and performance as outlined further within the “Asset Management Strategy” section of this AMP.

2. Once the above study is complete or underway, the condition data should be loaded into the CityWide software and

an updated “current state of the infrastructure” analysis should be generated.

3. An appropriate % of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual basis. This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O & M activities and be added to future AMP reporting.


35

4.0 Infrastructure Report Card

CUMULATIVE GPA

C

Infrastructure Report Card The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

1. Each asset category was rated on two key, equally weighted (50/50) dimensions: Condition vs. Performance, and Funding vs. Need.

2. See the “What condition is it in?” section for details on the grade of each asset category on the Condition vs. Performance dimension.

3. See the “How do we reach sustainability?” section for details on the grade of each asset category on the Funding vs. Need dimension.

4. The ‘Overall Rating’ below is the average of the two ratings.

Asset Category

Condition vs. Performance

Funding vs. Need

Overall Grade

Comments

Road

Network C A B

The majority, 70%, of the township’s road network is in fair to

excellent condition, with the remaining 30% in poor to critical

condition. The average annual revenue required to sustain East

Zorra-Tavistock’s paved road network is approximately $709,000. Based on East Zorra-Tavistock’s current annual funding of $709,000, the category is fully funded.

Bridges & Culverts

B F D

Nearly 100% of the township’s bridges & culverts are in fair to

excellent condition. The average annual revenue required to

sustain East Zorra-Tavistock’s bridges & culverts is $241,000. Based on East Zorra-Tavistock’s current annual funding of $61,000, there is an annual deficit of $180,000.

Storm Sewer Network B F D

The township’s entire storm network is in fair to excellent condition.

The average annual revenue required to sustain East Zorra-

Tavistock’s storm sewer network is approximately $40,000. Based on East Zorra-Tavistock’s current annual funding of $0, there is an annual deficit of $40,000.

36

5.0 Desired Levels of Service

Desired levels of service are high level indicators, comprising many factors, as listed below, that establish

defined quality thresholds at which municipal services should be supplied to the community. They support

the organisation’s strategic goals and are based on customer expectations, statutory requirements,

standards, and the financial capacity of a township to deliver those levels of service.

Levels of Service are used: � to inform customers of the proposed type and level of service to be offered;

� to identify the costs and benefits of the services offered;

� to assess suitability, affordability and equity of the services offered; � as a measure of the effectiveness of the asset management plan

� as a focus for the AM strategies developed to deliver the required level of service

In order for a township to establish a desired level of service, it will be important to review the key factors

involved in the delivery of that service, and the interactions between those factors. In addition, it will be

important to establish some key performance metrics and track them over an annual cycle to gain a

better understanding of the current level of service supplied.

Within this first Asset Management Plan, key factors affecting level of service will be outlined below and

some key performance indicators for each asset type will be outlined for further review. This will provide a

framework and starting point from which the township can determine future desired levels of service for

each infrastructure class.

5.1 Key factors that influence a level of service:

� Strategic and Corporate Goals � Legislative Requirements

� Expected Asset Performance

� Community Expectations

� Availability of Finances

5.1.1 Strategic and Corporate Goals Infrastructure levels of service can be influenced by strategic and corporate goals. Strategic plans spell out

where an organization wants to go, how it’s going to get there, and helps decide how and where to

allocate resources, ensuring alignment to the strategic priorities and objectives . It will help identify priorities

and guide how municipal tax dollars and revenues are spent into the future. The level of importance that a

community’s vision is dependent upon infrastructure, will ultimately affect the levels of service provided or

those levels that it ultimately aspires to deliver.

5.1.2 Legislative Requirements Infrastructure levels of service are directly influenced by many legislative and regulatory requirements. For

instance, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Minimum Maintenance Standards for municipal highways,

building codes, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act are all legislative requirements that

prevent levels of service from declining below a certain standard.

5.1.3 Expected Asset Performance A level of service will be affected by current asset condition, and performance and limitations in regards to safety, capacity, and the ability to meet regulatory and environmental requirements. In addition, the

design life of the asset, the maintenance items required, the rehabilitation or replacement schedule of the

asset, and the total costs, are all critical factors that will affect the level of service that can be provided.

5.1.4 Community Expectations Levels of services are directly related to the expectations that the general public has from the

infrastructure. For example, the public will have a qualitative opinion on what an acceptable road looks

like, and a quantitative one on how long it should take to travel between two locations. Infrastructure costs

37

are projected to increase dramatically in the future, therefore it is essential that the public is not only

consulted, but also be educated, and ultimately make choices with respect to the service levels that they

wish to pay for.

5.1.5 Availability of Finances Availability of finances will ultimately control all aspects of a desired level of service. Ideally, these funds

must be sufficient to achieve corporate goals, meet legislative requirements, address an asset’s life cycle

needs, and meet community expectations. Levels of service will be dictated by availability of funds or elected officials’ ability to increase funds, or the community’s willingness to pay.

5.2 Key Performance Indicators Performance measures or key performance indicators (KPIs) that track levels of service should be specific,

measurable, achievable, relevant, and timebound (SMART). Many good performance measures can be

established and tracked through the CityWide suite of software products. In this way, through automation,

results can be reviewed on an annual basis and adjustments can be made to the overall asset

management plan, including the desired level of service targets.

In establishing measures, a good rule of thumb to remember is that maintenance activities ensure the performance of an asset and prevent premature aging, whereas rehab activities extend the life of an

asset. Replacement activities, by definition, renew the life of an asset. In addition, these activities are

constrained by resource availability (in particular, finances) and strategic plan objectives. Therefore,

performance measures should not just be established for operating and maintenance activities, but also for

the strategic, financial, and tactical levels of the asset management program. This will assist all levels of

program delivery to review their performance as part of the overall level of service provided.

This is a very similar approach to the “balanced score card” methodology, in which financial and non-

financial measures are established and reviewed to determine whether current performance meets

expectations. The “balanced score card”, by design, links day to day operations activities to tactical and

strategic priorities in order to achieve an overall goal, or in this case, a desired level of service.

The structure of accountability and level of indicator with this type of process is represented in the following

table, modified from the InfraGuide’s best practice document, “Developing Indicators and Benchmarks”

published in April 2003.

38

As a note, a caution should be raised over developing too many performance indicators that may result in

data overload and lack of clarity. It is better to develop a select few that focus in on the targets of the

asset management plan.

Outlined below for each infrastructure class is a suggested service description, suggested service scope,

and suggested performance indicators. These should be reviewed and updated in each iteration of the

AMP.

5.3 Transportation Services

5.3.1 Service Description The township’s transportation network comprises approximately 221 centreline km of road, of which

approximately 159km are gravel and 62km are paved roads. The transport network also includes 30

bridges, numerous large culverts, sidewalk, curbs, and street lights.

Together, the above infrastructure enables the township to deliver transportation and pedestrian facility

services and give people a range of options for moving about in a safe and efficient manner.

STRATEGIC

COUNCIL

CAO

CITY ENGINEER TACTICAL

TACTICAL &

OPERATIONAL

OPERATIONAL WATER

DEPARTMENT

ROAD

DEPARTMENT

WATER

MANAGER ROAD MANAGER

LEVEL OF INDICATOR MUNICIPAL STRUCTURE

39

5.3.2 Scope of Services

� Movement – providing for the movement of people and goods. � Access – providing access to residential, commercial, and industrial properties and other community amenities. � Recreation –providing for recreational use, such as walking, cycling, or special events such as parades.

5.3.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually)

Performance Indicators (reported annually)

Strategic Indicators

� percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value

� completion of strategic plan objectives (related to transportation)

Financial Indicators

� annual revenues compared to annual expenditures

� annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures

� total cost of borrowing compared to total cost of service

� revenue required to maintain annual network growth

Tactical Indicators

� percentage of road network rehabilitated / reconstructed

� value of bridge / large culvert structures rehabilitated or reconstructed

� overall road condition index as a percentage of desired condition index

� overall bridge condition index as a percentage of desired condition index

� annual adjustment in condition indexes

� annual percentage of network growth

� percent of paved road lane km where the condition is rated poor or critical

� number of bridge / large culvert structures where the condition is rated poor or

critical

� percentage of road network replacement value spent on operations and

maintenance

� percentage of bridge / large culvert structures replacement value spent on

operations and maintenance

Operational Indicators

� percentage of road network inspected within last 5 years

� percentage of bridge / large culvert structures inspected within last two years

� operating costs for paved roads per lane km

� operating costs for gravel roads per lane km

� operating costs for bridge / large culvert structures per square metre

� number of customer requests received annually

� percentage of customer requests responded to within 24 hours

5.4 Water / Sanitary / Storm Networks

5.4.1 Service Description The storm water network comprises 13 km of storm main, 458 catch basins and 68 man holes.

Together, the above infrastructure enables the township to deliver a potable water distribution service, and

a waste water and storm water collection service to the residents of the township.

40

5.4.2 Scope of services

� The removal of storm water through a collection network of storm sewer mains, and catch basins

5.4.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually)

Performance Indicators (reported annually)

Strategic Indicators

� Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value

� Completion of strategic plan objectives

Financial Indicators

� Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures

� Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures

� Total cost of borrowing compared to total cost of service

� Revenue required to maintain annual network growth

� Lost revenue from system outages

Tactical Indicators

� Percentage of network rehabilitated / reconstructed

� Overall network condition index as a percentage of desired condition index

� Annual adjustment in condition indexes

� Annual percentage of growth in network

� Percentage of mains where the condition is rated poor or critical for the network

� Percentage of network replacement value spent on operations and maintenance

Operational Indicators

� Percentage of network inspected

� Operating costs for storm water management (collection, treatment, and disposal)

per kilometre of drainage system.

� Number of customer requests received annually

� Percentage of customer requests responded to within 24 hours

41

6.0 Asset Management Strategy

6.1 Objective To outline and establish a set of planned actions, based on best practice, that will enable the assets to

provide a desired and sustainable level of service, while managing risk, at the lowest life cycle cost.

The Asset Management Strategy will develop an implementation process that can be applied to the needs identification and prioritization of renewal, rehabilitation, and maintenance activities. This will assist in the

production of a 10 year plan, including growth projections, to ensure the best overall health and

performance of the township’s infrastructure.

This section includes an overview of condition assessment techniques for each asset class; the life cycle

interventions required, including interventions with the best ROI; and prioritization techniques, including risk,

to determine which priority projects should move forward into the budget first.

6.2 Non-Infrastructure Solutions and Requirements

The township should explore, as requested through the provincial requirements, which non-infrastructure

solutions should be incorporated into the budgets for the road, water, sewer (sanitary and storm), and bridges & culverts programs. Non- Infrastructure solutions are such items as studies, policies, condition

assessments, consultation exercises, etc., that could potentially extend the life of assets or lower total asset

program costs in the future.

Typical solutions for a township include linking the asset management plan to the strategic plan, growth

and demand management studies, infrastructure master plans, better integrated infrastructure and land

use planning, public consultation on levels of service, and condition assessment programs. As part of future

asset management plans, a review of these requirements should take place, and a portion of the capital

budget should be dedicated for these items in each programs budget.

It is recommended, under this category of solutions, that the township implement holistic condition

assessment programs for their road, water, sanitary, and storm sewer networks. This will lead to higher

understanding of infrastructure needs, enhanced budget prioritization methodologies, and a clearer path

of what is required to achieve sustainable infrastructure programs.

6.3 Condition Assessment Programs

The foundation of good asset management practice is based on having comprehensive and reliable

information on the current condition of the infrastructure. Municipalities need to have a clear

understanding regarding performance and condition of their assets, as all management decisions

regarding future expenditures and field activities should be based on this knowledge. An incomplete

understanding about an asset may lead to its premature failure or premature replacement.

Some benefits of holistic condition assessment programs within the overall asset management process are

listed below:

� Understanding of overall network condition leads to better management practices

� Allows for the establishment of rehabilitation programs

� Prevents future failures and provides liability protection � Potential reduction in operation / maintenance costs

� Accurate current asset valuation

� Allows for the establishment of risk assessment programs

� Establishes proactive repair schedules and preventive maintenance programs � Avoids unnecessary expenditures

42

� Extends asset service life therefore improving level of service

� Improves financial transparency and accountability � Enables accurate asset reporting which, in turn, enables better decision making

Condition assessment can involve different forms of analysis such as subjective opinion, mathematical

models, or variations thereof, and can be completed through a very detailed or very cursory approach.

When establishing the condition assessment of an entire asset class, the cursory approach (metrics such as

good, fair, poor, critical) is used. This will be a less expensive approach when applied to thousands of

assets, yet will still provide up to date information, and will allow for detailed assessment or follow up

inspections on those assets captured as poor or critical condition later.

The following section outlines condition assessment programs available for road, bridge, sewer, and water

networks that would be useful for the township.

6.3.1 Pavement Network Inspections Typical industry pavement inspections are performed by consulting firms using specialised assessment

vehicles equipped with various electronic sensors and data capture equipment. The vehicles will drive the

entire road network and typically collect two different types of inspection data – surface distress data and

roughness data.

Surface distress data involves the collection of multiple industry standard surface distresses, which are

captured either electronically, using sensing detection equipment mounted on the van, or visually, by the

van's inspection crew. Examples of surface distresses are:

� For asphalt surfaces alligator cracking; distortion; excessive crown; flushing; longitudinal cracking; map cracking; patching; edge cracking;

potholes; ravelling; rippling; transverse cracking; wheel track rutting

Roughness data capture involves the measurement of the roughness of the road, measured by lasers that

are mounted on the inspection van's bumper, calibrated to an international roughness index.

Most firms will deliver this data to the client in a database format complete with engineering algorithms

and weighting factors to produce an overall condition index for each segment of roadway. This type of

scoring database is ideal for upload into the CityWide software database, in order to tag each road with a

present condition and then further life cycle analysis to determine what activity should be completed on

which road, in what timeframe, and to calculate the cost for the work will be completed within the

CityWide system.

The above process is an excellent way to capture road condition as the inspection trucks will provide

detailed surface and roughness data for each road segment, and often include video or street imagery. A

very rough industry estimate of cost would be about $100 per centreline km of road, which means it would

cost the township approximately $6,200 for the 62 centreline km of paved road network.

Another option for a cursory level of condition assessment is for municipal road crews to perform simple

windshield surveys as part of their regular patrol. Many municipalities have created data collection

inspection forms to assist this process and to standardize what presence of defects would constitute a

good, fair, poor, or critical score. Lacking any other data for the complete road network, this can still be

seen as a good method and will assist greatly with the overall management of the road network. The

CityWide Works software has a road patrol component built in that could capture this type of inspection

data during road patrols in the field, enabling later analysis of rehabilitation and replacement needs for

budget development.

It is recommended that the township establish a pavement condition assessment program and that a

portion of capital funding is dedicated to this.

43

6.3.2 Bridges & Culverts (greater than 3m) Inspections Ontario municipalities are mandated by the Ministry of Transportation to inspect all structures that have a

span of 3 metres or more, according to the OSIM (Ontario Structure Inspection Manual). At present, in the

township, there are 30 bridges and numerous culvert structures that meet this criterion.

Structure inspections must be performed by, or under the guidance of, a structural engineer, must be

performed on a biennial basis (once every two years), and include such information as structure type,

number of spans, span lengths, other key attribute data, detailed photo images, and structure element by

element inspection, rating and recommendations for repair, rehabilitation, and replacement.

The best approach to develop a 10 year needs list for the township’s structure portfolio would be to have

the structural engineer who performs the inspections to develop a maintenance requirements report, and

rehabilitation and replacement requirements report as part of the overall assignment. In addition to refining

the overall needs requirements, the structural engineer should identify those structures that will require more

detailed investigations and non-destructive testing techniques. Examples of these investigations are:

� Detailed deck condition survey

� Non-destructive delamination survey of asphalt covered decks

� Substructure condition survey � Detailed coating condition survey

� Underwater investigation

� Fatigue investigation

� Structure evaluation

Through the OSIM recommendations and additional detailed investigations, a 10 year needs list will be

developed for the township’s bridges.

The 10 year needs list developed could then be further prioritized using risk management techniques to

better allocate resources. Also, the results of the OSIM inspection for each structure, whether BCI (bridge

condition index) or general condition (good, fair, poor, critical) should be entered into the CityWide

software to update results and analysis for the development of the budget.

6.3.3 Sewer Network Inspections (Sanitary & Storm) The most popular and practical type of sanitary and storm sewer assessment is the use of Closed Circuit

Television Video (CCTV). The process involves a small robotic crawler vehicle with a CCTV camera

attached that is lowered down a maintenance hole into the sewer main to be inspected. The vehicle and

camera then travels the length of the pipe providing a live video feed to a truck on the road above where

a technician / inspector records defects and information regarding the pipe. A wide range of construction

or deterioration problems can be captured including open/displaced joints, presence of roots, infiltration &

inflow, cracking, fracturing, exfiltration, collapse, deformation of pipe and more. Therefore, sewer CCTV

inspection is a very good tool for locating and evaluating structural defects and general condition of

underground pipes.

Even though CCTV is an excellent option for inspection of sewers it is a fairly costly process and does take

significant time to inspect a large volume of pipes.

Another option in the industry today is the use of Zoom Camera equipment. This is very similar to traditional

CCTV, however, a crawler vehicle is not used but in it’s a place a camera is lowered down a maintenance

hole attached to a pole like piece of equipment. The camera is then rotated towards each connecting

pipe and the operator above progressively zooms in to record all defects and information about each

pipe. The downside to this technique is the further down the pipe the image is zoomed, the less clarity is

available to accurately record defects and measurement. The upside is the process is far quicker and

significantly less expensive and an assessment of the manhole can be provided as well. Also, it is important

to note that 80% of pipe deficiencies generally occur within 20 metres of each manhole. The following is a

list of advantages of utilizing Zoom Camera technology:

� A time and cost efficient way of examining sewer systems;

� Problem areas can be quickly targeted; � Can be complemented by a conventional camera (CCTV), if required afterwards;

44

� In a normal environment, 20 to 30 man holes can be inspected in a single day, covering more than 1,500 meters of pipe;

� Contrary to the conventional camera approach, cleaning and upstream flow control is not required prior to inspection; � Normally detects 80% of pipe deficiencies, as most deficiencies generally occur within 20 meters of man holes.

The following table is based on general industry costs for traditional CCTV inspection and Zoom Camera

inspection; however, costs should be verified through local contractors. It is for illustrative purposes only but

supplies a general idea of the cost to inspect East Zorra-Tavistock’s entire storm network.

Sanitary and Sewer Inspection Cost Estimates

Sewer Network Assessment Activity Cost Metres of Main / # of Man holes Total

Storm

Full CCTV $10 (per m) 13,000m $520,000

Zoom $300 (Per mh) 68 man holes $20,400

It can be seen from the above table that there is a significant cost savings achieved through the use of

Zoom Camera technology. A good industry trend and best practice is to inspect the entire network using

Zoom Camera technology and follow up on the poor and critical rated pipes with more detail using a full

CCTV inspection. In this way, inspection expenditures are kept to a minimum, however, an accurate

assessment on whether to rehabilitate or replace pipes will be provided for those with the greatest need.

It is recommended that the township establish a sewer condition assessment program and that a portion of

capital funding is dedicated to this.

In addition to receiving a video and defect report of each pipe’s CCTV or Zoom camera inspection, many

companies can now provide a database of the inspection results, complete with scoring matrixes that

provide an overall general condition score for each pipe segment that has been assessed. Typically pipes

are scored from 1 – 5, with 1 being a relatively new pipe and 5 being a pipe at the end of its design life. This

type of scoring database is ideal for upload into the CityWide software database, in order to tag each

pipe with a present condition and then further life cycle analysis to determine what activity should be done to which pipe, in what timeframe, and to calculate the cost for the work will be completed by the

CityWide system.

45

6.4 AM Strategy – Life Cycle Analysis Framework

An industry review was conducted to determine which life cycle activities can be applied at the

appropriate time in an asset’s life, to provide the greatest additional life at the lowest cost. In the asset

management industry, this is simply put as doing the right thing to the right asset at the right time. If these

techniques are applied across entire asset networks or portfolios (e.g., the entire road network), the

township could gain the best overall asset condition while expending the lowest total cost for those

programs.

6.4.1 Paved Roads The following analysis has been conducted at a fairly high level, using industry standard activities and costs

for paved roads. With future updates of this Asset Management Strategy, the township may wish to run the

same analysis with a detailed review of township activities used for roads and the associated local costs for

those work activities. All of this information can be input into the CityWide software suite in order to perform

updated financial analysis as more detailed information becomes available.

The following diagram depicts a general deterioration profile of a road with a 30 year life.

As shown above, during the road’s life cycle there are various windows available for work activity that will

maintain or extend the life of the asset. These windows are: maintenance; preventative maintenance;

rehabilitation; and replacement or reconstruction.

46

The windows or thresholds for when certain work activities should be applied to also coincide

approximately with the condition state of the asset as shown below:

Asset Condition and Related Work Activity: Paved Roads

Condition Condition Range Work Activity

Excellent condition (Maintenance only phase) 100-76 � maintenance only

Good Condition (Preventative maintenance phase) 75 - 51 � crack sealing � emulsions

Fair Condition (Rehabilitation phase) 50 -26

� resurface - mill & pave

� resurface - asphalt overlay

� single & double surface treatment (for rural roads)

Poor Condition (Reconstruction phase) 25 - 1 � reconstruct - pulverize and pave � reconstruct - full surface and base

reconstruction

Critical Condition (Reconstruction phase)

0

� critical includes assets beyond their useful

lives which make up the backlog. They

require the same interventions as the “poor” category above.

With future updates of this Asset Management Strategy the township may wish to review the above

condition ranges and thresholds for when certain types of work activity occur, and adjust to better suit the

township’s work program. Also note: when adjusting these thresholds, it actually adjusts the level of service

provided and ultimately changes the amount of money required. These threshold and condition ranges

can be easily updated with the CityWide software suite and an updated financial analysis can be

calculated. These adjustments will be an important component of future Asset Management Plans, as the Province requires each township to present various management options within the financing plan.

The table below outlines the costs for various road activities, the added life obtained for each, the

condition range at which they should be applied, and the cost of 1 year added life for each (cost of

activity / added life) in order to present an apples to apples comparison.

Road Lifecycle Activity Options

Treatment Average Unit Cost

(per sq. m)

Added Life

(Years)

Condition

Range Cost Of Activity/Added Life

Urban Reconstruction $205 30 25 - 0 $6.83

Urban Resurfacing $84 15 50 - 26 $5.60

Rural Reconstruction $135 30 25 - 0 $4.50

Rural Resurfacing $40 15 50 - 26 $2.67

Double Surface Treatment $25 10 50 - 26 $2.50

Routing & Crack Sealing (P.M) $2 3 75 - 51 $0.67

47

As can be seen in the table above, preventative maintenance activities such as routing and crack sealing

have the lowest associated cost (per sq. m) in order to obtain one year of added life. Of course,

preventative maintenance activities can only be applied to a road at a relatively early point in the life

cycle. It is recommended that the township engage in an active preventative maintenance program for

all paved roads and that a portion of the maintenance budget is allocated to this.

Also, rehabilitation activities, such as urban and rural resurfacing or double surface treatments (tar and

chip) for rural roads have a lower cost to obtain each year of added life than full reconstruction activities. It

is recommended, if not in place already, that the township engages in an active rehabilitation program for

urban and rural paved roads and that a portion of the capital budget is dedicated to this.

Of course, in order to implement the above programs it will be important to also establish a general condition score for each road segment, established through standard condition assessment protocols as

previously described.

It is important to note that a “worst first” budget approach, whereby no life cycle activities other than

reconstruction at the end of a roads life are applied, will result in the most costly method of managing a

road network overall.

6.4.2 Gravel Roads The life cycle activities required for these roads are quite different from paved roads. Gravel roads require

a cycle of perpetual maintenance, including general re-grading, reshaping of the crown and cross

section, gravel spot and section replacement, dust abatement and ditch clearing and cleaning.

Gravel roads can require frequent maintenance, especially after wet periods and when accommodating

increased traffic. Wheel motion shoves material to the outside (as well as in-between travelled lanes),

leading to rutting, reduced water-runoff, and eventual road destruction if unchecked. This deterioration

process is prevented if interrupted early enough, simple re-grading is sufficient, with material being pushed

back into the proper profile.

As a high proportion of gravel roads can have a significant impact on the maintenance budget, it is

recommended that with further updates of this asset management plan the township study the traffic

volumes and maintenance requirements in more detail for its gravel road network.

Similar studies elsewhere have found converting certain roadways to paved roads can be very cost

beneficial especially if frequent maintenance is required due to higher traffic volumes. Roads within the

gravel network should be ranked and rated using the following criteria:

� Usage - traffic volumes and type of traffic

� Functional importance of the roadway

� Known safety issues

� Frequency of maintenance and overall expenditures required

Through the above type of analysis, a program could be introduced to convert certain gravel roadways

into paved roads, reducing overall costs, and be brought forward into the long range budget.

6.4.3 Sanitary and Storm Sewers The following analysis has been conducted at a fairly high level, using industry standard activities and costs

for sanitary and storm sewer rehabilitation and replacement. With future updates of this asset management

strategy, the township may wish to run the same analysis with a detailed review of township activities used

for sewer mains and the associated local costs for those work activities. All of this information can be input

into the CityWide software suite in order to perform updated financial analysis as more detailed information

becomes available.

48

The following diagram depicts a general deterioration profile of a sewer main with a 100 year life.

As shown above, during the sewer main’s life cycle there are various windows available for work activity

that will maintain or extend the life of the asset. These windows are: maintenance; major maintenance;

rehabilitation; and replacement or reconstruction.

The windows or thresholds for when certain work activities should be applied also coincide approximately

with the condition state of the asset as shown below:

Asset Condition and Related Work Activity: Sewer Main

Condition Condition

Range Work Activity

Excellent condition (Maintenance only phase) 100-76 � maintenance only (cleaning & flushing etc.)

Good Condition (Preventative maintenance phase) 75 - 51 � mahhole repairs

� small pipe section repairs

Fair Condition (Rehabilitation phase) 50 -26 � structural relining

Poor Condition (Reconstruction phase) 25 - 1 � pipe replacement

Critical Condition (Reconstruction phase)

0

� critical includes assets beyond their useful lives which

make up the backlog. They require the same

interventions as the “poor” category above.

With future updates of this Asset Management Strategy the township may wish to review the above

condition ranges and thresholds for when certain types of work activity occur, and adjust to better suit the

township’s work program. Also note: when adjusting these thresholds, it actually adjusts the level of service

provided and ultimately changes the amount of money required. These threshold and condition ranges

can be easily updated with the CityWide software suite and an updated financial analysis can be

calculated. These adjustments will be an important component of future Asset Management Plans, as the

province requires each township to present various management options within the financing plan.

49

The table below outlines the costs, by pipe diameter, for various sewer main rehabilitation (lining) and

replacement activities. The columns display the added life obtained for each activity, the condition range

at which they should be applied, and the cost of 1 year added life for each (cost of activity / added life) in

order to present an apples to apples comparison.

Sewer Main Lifecycle Activity Options

Category Cost (per m) Added Life Condition Range 1 year Added Life Cost (Cost / Added Life)

Structural Rehab (m)

0 - 325mm $174.69 75 50 - 75 $2.33

325 - 625mm $283.92 75 50 - 75 $3.79

625 - 925mm $1,857.11 75 50 - 75 $24.76

> 925mm $1,771.34 75 50 - 75 $23.62

Replacement (m)

$475.00 100 76 - 100 $4.75

325 - 625mm $725.00 100 76 - 100 $7.25

625 - 925mm $900.00 100 76 - 100 $9.00

> 925mm $1,475.00 100 76 - 100 $14.75

As can be seen in the above table, structural rehabilitation or lining of sewer mains is an extremely cost

effective industry activity and solution for pipes with a diameter less than 625mm. The unit cost of lining is

approximately one third of replacement and the cost to obtain one year of added life is half the cost. For

East Zorra-Tavistock, this diameter range would typically account over 85% of storm mains. Structural lining

has been proven through industry testing to have a design life (useful life) of 75 years, however, it is

believed that liners will probably obtain 100 years of life (the same as a new pipe).

For sewer mains with diameters greater than 625mm specialized liners are required and therefore the costs

are no longer effective. It should be noted, however, that the industry is continually expanding its

technology in this area and therefore future costs should be further reviewed for change and possible price

reductions.

It is recommended, if not in place already, that the township engage in an active structural lining program

for sanitary and storm sewer mains and that a portion of the capital budget be dedicated to this.

In order to implement the above, it will be important to also establish a condition assessment program to

establish a condition score for each sewer main within the sanitary and storm collection networks, and

therefore identify which pipes are good candidates for structural lining.

6.4.4 Bridges & Culverts (greater than 3m span) The best approach to develop a 10 year needs list for the township’s bridge structure portfolio would be to

have the structural engineer who performs the inspections to develop a maintenance requirements report,

a rehabilitation and replacement requirements report and identify additional detailed inspections as

required. This approach is described in more detail within the “Bridges & Culverts (greater than 3m) Inspections” section above.

50

6.5 Growth and Demand

Typically a township will have specific plans associated with population growth. It is essential that the asset

management strategy should address not only the existing infrastructure, as above, but must include the

impact of projected growth on defined project schedules and funding requirements. Projects would

include the funding of the construction of new infrastructure, and/or the expansion of existing infrastructure

to meet new demands. The township should enter these projects into the CityWide software in order to be

included within the short and long term budgets as required.

6.6 Project Prioritization

The above techniques and processes when established for the road, water, sewer networks and bridges will

supply a significant listing of potential projects. Typically the infrastructure needs will exceed available

resources and therefore project prioritization parameters must be developed to ensure the right projects

come forward into the short and long range budgets. An important method of project prioritization is to

rank each project, or each piece of infrastructure, on the basis of how much risk it represents to the

organization.

6.6.1 Risk Matrix and Scoring Methodology Risk within the infrastructure industry is often defined as the probability (likelihood) of failure multiplied by the

consequence of that failure.

RISK = LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE x CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE

The likelihood of failure relates to the current condition state of each asset, whether they are in excellent,

good, fair, poor or critical condition, as this is a good indicator regarding their future risk of failure. The

consequence of failure relates to the magnitude, or overall effect, that an asset’s failure will cause. For

instance, a small diameter water main break in a sub division may cause a few customers to have no

water service for a few hours, whereby a large trunk water main break outside a hospital could have

disastrous effects and would be a front page news item. The following table represents the scoring matrix

for risk:

All of the township’s assets analyzed within this asset management plan have been given both a likelihood

of failure score and a consequence of failure score within the CityWide software.

The following risk scores have been developed at a high level for each asset class within the CityWide

software system. It is recommended that the township undertake a detailed study to develop a more

51

tailored suite of risk scores, particularly in regards to the consequence of failure, and that this be updated

within the CityWide software with future updates to this Asset Management Plan.

The current scores that will determine budget prioritization currently within the system are as follows:

All assets: The Likelihood of Failure score is based on the condition of the assets:

Likelihood of Failure: All Assets

Asset condition Likelihood of failure

Excellent condition score of 1

Good condition score of 2

Fair condition score of 3

Poor condition score of 4

Critical condition score of 5

Bridges (based on valuation): The consequence of failure score for this initial AMP is based upon the replacement value of the structure.

The higher the value, probably the larger the structure and therefore probably the higher the

consequential risk of failure:

Consequence of Failure: Bridges

Replacement Value Consequence of failure

Up to $50k Score of 1

$51 to $80k Score of 2



$201k and over Score of 5

Roads (based on classification): The consequence of failure score for this initial AMP is based upon the road classification as this will reflect

traffic volumes and number of people affected.

Consequence of Failure: Roads

Road Classification Consequence of failure

Gravel score of 1

Rural Paved score of 3

Urban Paved score of 5

52

Consequence of Failure: Storm Sewer

Replacement Value Consequence of failure

Less than 200mm Score of 1

201 – 500mm Score of 2

501 – 800mm score of 3

801 – 1200mm score of 4

1,201mm and over score of 5

53

7.0 Financial Strategy

7.1 General overview of financial plan requirements

In order for an AMP to be effectively put into action, it must be integrated with financial planning and long-

term budgeting. The development of a comprehensive financial plan will allow East Zorra-Tavistock to

identify the financial resources required for sustainable asset management based on existing asset

inventories, desired levels of service and projected growth requirements.

The following pyramid depicts the various cost elements and resulting funding levels that should be

incorporated into AMP’s that are based on best practices.

This report develops such a financial plan by presenting several scenarios for consideration and culminating

with final recommendations. As outlined below, the scenarios presented model different combinations of

the following components:

a) the financial requirements (as documented in the SOTI section of this report) for:

� existing assets

� existing service levels

� requirements of contemplated changes in service levels (none identified for this plan) � requirements of anticipated growth (none identified for this plan)

b) use of traditional sources of municipal funds:

� tax levies � user fees

� reserves

� debt (no additional debt required for this AMP)

� development charges (not applicable)

54

c) use of non-traditional sources of municipal funds:

� reallocated budgets (not required for this AMP) � partnerships (not applicable)

� procurement methods (no changes recommended)

d) use of senior government funds: � gas tax

� grants (not included in this plan due to Provincial requirements for firm commitments)

If the financial plan component of an AMP results in a funding shortfall, the Province requires the inclusion

of a specific plan as to how the impact of the shortfall will be managed. In determining the legitimacy of a

funding shortfall, the Province may evaluate a township’s approach to the following:

a) in order to reduce financial requirements, consideration has been given to revising service levels downward b) all asset management and financial strategies have been considered. For example:

� if a zero debt policy is in place, is it warranted? If not, the use of debt should be considered.

� do user fees reflect the cost of the applicable service? If not, increased user fees should be considered.

This AMP includes recommendations that avoid long-term funding deficits.

7.2 Financial information relating to East Zorra-Tavistock’s AMP 7.2.1 Funding objective We have developed scenarios that would enable East Zorra-Tavistock to achieve full funding within 5 to 10

years for the following assets:

a) Tax funded assets: Road Network; Bridges & Culverts; Storm Sewer Network

b) Rate funded assets: East Zorra-Tavistock has no Sanitary Sewer Network or Water Network infrastructure.

Note: For the purposes of this AMP, we have excluded the category of gravel roads since gravel roads are

a perpetual maintenance asset and end of life replacement calculations do not normally apply. If gravel

roads are maintained properly, they, in essence, could last forever.

For each scenario developed we have included strategies, where applicable, regarding the use of tax

revenues, user fees, reserves and debt.

7.3 Tax funded assets

7.3.1 Current funding position Tables 1 and 2 outline, by asset category, East Zorra-Tavistock’s average annual asset investment

requirements, current funding positions, and funding increases required to achieve full funding on assets

funded by taxes.

Table 1. Summary of Infrastructure Requirements & Current Funding Available

Asset Category

Average

Annual

Investment Required

2013 Annual Funding Available

Annual

Deficit/Surplus

Taxes Gas Tax Taxes to

Reserves

Total

Funding Available

Road Network 709,000 495,000 214,000 0 709,000 0

Bridges & Culverts 241,000 0 11,000 50,000 61,000 180,000

Storm Sewer Network 40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000

Total 990,000 495,000 225,000 50,000 770,000 220,000

55

7.3.2 Recommendations for full funding The average annual investment requirement for paved roads, bridges & culverts, and storm sewers is

$990,000. Annual revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is $770,000 leaving an

annual deficit of $220,000. To put it another way, these infrastructure categories are currently funded at

78% of their long-term requirements. It is important to note that full funding only covers existing

infrastructure and does not incorporate the creation of new assets or expansion to existing such as a gravel

to hardtop conversion.

In 2013, East Zorra-Tavistock has annual tax revenues of $3,755,000. As illustrated in table 2, without

consideration of any other sources of revenue, full funding would require the following tax increase over

time:

Table 2. Tax Increases Required for Full Funding

Asset Category Tax Increase Required for Full Funding

Road Network 0.0%

Bridges & Culverts 4.8%

Storm Sewer Network 1.1%

Total 5.9%

Through table 3, we have expanded the above scenario to present multiple options:

Table 3. Revenue Options for Full Funding

Tax Revenues

5 Years 10 Years

Annual tax increases required 1.2% 0.6%

Considering all of the above information, we recommend the 10 year option in table 3 that includes the

reallocations. This involves full funding being achieved over 10 years by:

a) increasing tax revenues by 0.6% each year for the next 10 years solely for the purpose of phasing in full funding to the asset categories covered in this section of the AMP.

b) allocating the $225,000 of gas tax revenue as outlined in table 1.

c) increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable inflation index on an annual basis in addition to

the deficit phase-in.

Notes: 1. As in the past, periodic senior government infrastructure funding will most likely be available during the phase-in period.

By Provincial AMP rules, this funding cannot be incorporated into the AMP unless there are firm commitments in place.

Although this option achieves full funding on an annual basis in 10 years and provides financial

sustainability over the period modeled (to 2050), the recommendations do require prioritizing capital

projects to fit the resulting annual funding available. As of 2013, age based data shows a pent up

investment demand of $3,191,000 for paved roads, $280,000 for bridges & culverts, and $0 for storm sewers.

Prioritizing future projects will require the age based data to be replaced by condition based data.

Although our recommendations include no further use of debt, the results of the condition based analysis may require otherwise.

56

7.4 Use of debt

For reference purposes, table 4 outlines the premium paid on a project if financed by debt. For example, a

$1M project financed at 3.0%1 over 15 years would result in a 26% premium or $260,000 of increased costs

due to interest payments. For simplicity, the table does not take into account the time value of money or

the effect of inflation on delayed projects.

Table 4. Total Interest Paid as a % of Project Costs

Interest Rate Number of Years Financed

5 10 15 20 25 30

7.0% 22% 42% 65% 89% 115% 142%

6.5% 20% 39% 60% 82% 105% 130%

6.0% 19% 36% 54% 74% 96% 118%

5.5% 17% 33% 49% 67% 86% 106%

5.0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 77% 95%

4.5% 14% 26% 40% 54% 69% 84%

4.0% 12% 23% 35% 47% 60% 73%

3.5% 11% 20% 30% 41% 52% 63%

3.0% 9% 17% 26% 34% 44% 53%

2.5% 8% 14% 21% 28% 36% 43%

2.0% 6% 11% 17% 22% 28% 34%

1.5% 5% 8% 12% 16% 21% 25%

1.0% 3% 6% 8% 11% 14% 16%

0.5% 2% 3% 4% 5% 7% 8%

0.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

It should be noted that current interest rates are near all-time lows. Sustainable funding models that include

debt need to incorporate the risk of rising interest rates. The following graph shows where historical lending

rates have been:

1 Current municipal Infrastructure Ontario rates for 15 year money is 3.2%.

57

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Historical Prime Business Interest Rate

As illustrated in table 4, a change in 15 year rates from 3% to 6% would change the premium from 26% to

54%. Such a change would have a significant impact on a financial plan.

Tables 5 and 6 outline how East Zorra-Tavistock has historically used debt for investing in the asset

categories as listed. There is currently $1,344,000 of debt outstanding for the assets covered by this AMP. In

terms of overall debt capacity, East Zorra-Tavistock currently has $2,109,000 of total outstanding debt and

$207,000 of total annual principal and interest payment commitments. These principal and interest

payments are well within its provincially prescribed annual maximum of $1,186,000.

Table 5. Overview of Use of Debt

Asset Category Current Debt

Outstanding

Use Of Debt in the Last Five Years

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Road Network 1,344,000 0 0 0 0 1,424,000

Bridges & Culverts 0 0 0 0 0 0

Storm Sewers 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Tax Funded 1,344,000 0 0 0 0 1,424,000

Non AMP Debt 765,000 0 0 0 0 700,000

Overall Total 2,109,000 0 0 0 0 2,124,000

Table 6. Overview of Debt Costs

Asset Category

Principal & Interest Payments in the Next Five Years

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Road Network 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000

Bridges & Culverts 0 0 0 0 0

Storm Sewer Network 0 0 0 0 0

Total Tax Funded 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000

Non Amp Debt 75,000 97,000 96,000 50,000 50,000

Overall Total 207,000 229,000 228,000 182,000 182,000

58

The revenue options outlined in this plan allow East Zorra-Tavistock to fully fund its long-term infrastructure

requirements without further use of debt. However, as explained in sections 7.3.2, the recommended

condition rating analysis may require otherwise.

7.5 Use of reserves 7.5.1 Available reserves Reserves play a critical role in long-term financial planning. The benefits of having reserves available for

infrastructure planning include:

� the ability to stabilize tax rates when dealing with variable and sometimes uncontrollable factors � financing one-time or short-term investments

� accumulating the funding for significant future infrastructure investments

� managing the use of debt

� normalizing infrastructure funding requirements

By infrastructure category, table 7 outlines the details of the reserves currently available to East Zorra-

Tavistock.

Table 7. Summary of Reserves Available

Asset Category Balance at December 31,

2013

Road Network 614,000

Bridges 138,000

Storm Sewers 0

Total Tax Funded 752,000

There is considerable debate in the municipal sector as to the appropriate level of reserves that a

municipality should have on hand. There is no clear guideline that has gained wide acceptance. Factors

that municipalities should take into account when determining their capital reserve requirements include:

� breadth of services provided

� age and condition of infrastructure

� use and level of debt � economic conditions and outlook

� internal reserve and debt policies.

The reserves in table 7 are available for use by applicable asset categories during the phase-in period to

full funding. This, coupled with East Zorra-Tavistock’s judicious use of debt in the past, allows the scenarios to

assume that, if required, available reserves and debt capacity can be used for high priority and

emergency infrastructure investments in the short to medium-term.

7.5.2 Recommendation As East Zorra-Tavistock updates its AMP and expands it to include other asset categories, we recommend

that future planning should include determining what its long-term reserve balance requirements are and a

plan to achieve such balances.

59

8.0 Appendix A: Report Card Calculations

Key Calculations

1. “Weighted, unadjusted star rating”:

(% of assets in given condition) x (potential star rating)

2. “Adjusted star rating”

(weighted, unadjsted star rating) x (% of total replacement value)

3. “Overall Rating”

(Condition vs. Performance star rating) + (Funding vs. Need star rating)

___________________________________________________________________

2

Roads

Segment replacement value $19,914,059 100.0%

Segment ConditionLetter

gradeStar rating

Quantity (m) in given

condition

% of Assets in given

condition

Weighted, unadjusted

star rating

Excellent A 5 60,133 36% 1.78

Good B 4 28,205 17% 0.67

Fair C 3 32,687 19% 0.58

Poor D 2 17,762 11% 0.21

Critical F 1 29,777 18% 0.18

Totals 168,564 100% 3.42

3.4 C

Average annual

investment required

2013 funding

availableDeficit

Category star

rating

Category letter

grade

$709,000 $709,000 $0

Average star rating

East Zorra-Tavistock

1. Condition vs. Performance

Total category replacement value $19,914,059Segment value as a % of total category

replacement value

Segment adjusted star rating

Roads and sidewalks

(excludes gravel) 3.4

Category star

rating

Category letter

grade

2. Funding vs. Need

Funding percentage

100.0%

5.0 A

3. Overall RatingCondition vs Performance star rating Funding vs. Need star rating Overall letter grade

3.4 5.0

4.2 B

Bridges & Culverts



gradeStar rating Units in given condition


condition


star rating

Excellent A 5 2 7% 0.33

Good B 4 23 77% 3.07

Fair C 3 5 17% 0.50

Poor D 2 0 0% 0.00

Critical F 1 0 0% 0.00

Totals 30 100% 3.90



gradeStar rating


condition


condition


star rating

Excellent A 5 1,061 8% 0.40

Good B 4 10,025 76% 3.03

Fair C 3 1,902 14% 0.43

Poor D 2 263 2% 0.04


Totals 13,251 100% 3.90

3.9 B

Average annual

investment required

2013 funding

availableDeficit

Category star

rating

Category letter

grade

$241,000 $61,000 $180,000

Average star rating





replacement value

Bridges2.9


replacement value


Culverts1.0

Category star

rating

Category letter

grade

2. Funding vs. Need

Funding percentage

25.3%

1.0 F


3.9 1.0

2.4 D

Storm



gradeStar rating


condition


condition


star rating

Excellent A 5 6,489 49% 2.46

Good B 4 4,936 37% 1.50

Fair C 3 1,745 13% 0.40

Poor D 2 0 0% 0.00


Totals 13,170 100% 4.36

Segment replacement value $811,960 27.3%


gradeStar rating Units in given condition


condition


star rating

Excellent A 5 160 30% 1.52

Good B 4 344 65% 2.62

Fair C 3 22 4% 0.13

Poor D 2 0 0% 0.00


Totals 526 100% 4.26

4.3 B

Average annual

investment required

2013 funding

availableDeficit

Category star

rating

Category letter

grade

$40,000 $0 $40,000

Average star rating


4.3 0.0

2.2 D

2. Funding vs. Need

Funding percentage

0.0%

0.0 F

Category star

rating

Category letter

grade


Catch basins and

manholes 1.2

Mains3.2


replacement value





replacement value

Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

Daily Investment Required Per Household for Infrastructure Sustainability

$0.73

$0.25

$0.04$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

$1.80

Road Network Bridges & Culverts Storm Sewer Network

Daily cup of coffee: $1.56

Daily infrastructure investment: $1.01

Storm Sewer Network

Total Replacement Cost: $2,971,804

Cost Per Household: $1,109

Road Network (excludes gravel) Total Replacement Cost: $20,435,814 Cost Per Household: $7,628

Infrastructure Replacement Cost Per Household Total: $14,499 per household

Sanitary Sewer Network N/A

Water Network N/A

Bridges & Culverts Total Replacement Cost: $15,436,537 Cost Per Household: $5,762

STAFF REPORT Report #PSAA2014-01 To:

His Worship the Mayor and Members of Council From:

Carla Garrett, Protective Services Administrative Assistant

Re:

CEMC Public Education – 72 Hour Club Campaign

Date:

May 23, 2014

Background: On February 24th a new public education campaign was rolled out to encourage residents to prepare a 72-hour emergency preparedness kit ahead of Emergency Preparedness Week, May 4-10. By submitting a picture of their kit, residents were entered to win a portable generator. Carolyn Jackson of Hickson won the generator when the campaign wrapped up on May 12th. A photo of her kit is attached. The campaign meets the public education requirements for compliance with Emergency Management Ontario (under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act). Discussion: Overall, the 72 Hour Club (#Iamprepared) campaign was a success by meeting several objectives; however, the level of participation from residents was disappointing. After no entries had been received by the Thursday of EP Week, the campaign was extended until Monday, May 12. Eventually three entries were received. This result raises questions about the effectiveness of current communication strategies and the indifference, or appearance thereof, of residents in regards to individual preparedness. The reach of audience that received information exceeded past public education campaigns by utilizing social media to a much greater extent. The campaign engaged and communicated messages to residents through the Township’s social media platforms, Twitter and Facebook. This was in addition to the more traditional methods such as print, website, Keep Me Informed and posters.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

6.j

Staff Report – CEMC Public Education – 72 Hour Club Campaign Page 2

Information was initially disseminated to about 200 Keep Me Informed subscribers, along with 281 followers on Twitter and 32 Facebook followers. Throughout the campaign, we attracted 50 new Twitter followers and 11 new Facebook Page Likes. The number of people subscribing to our E-Alerts also increased by a substantial number; however, we believe that number is suspect and are working with the County to correct this. Several posts about the campaign were retweeted by other Twitter users and contest Facebook posts had more than 100 views (average is 14 views.) The increased presence on Social Media and positive interaction could be a useful tool in the future. The campaign was also promoted by the Mayor in the local media (Woodstock Sentinel-Review Feb.26) and a display was set up in the Hickson office. The campaign also had a prominent article in the February newsletter. Summary Despite the widespread coverage of the campaign and what was thought to be a desirable prize, it failed to incite action by residents. At this point it is difficult to know whether the information was received and consumed, but people were not interested the effort to prepare an emergency kit or whether people didn’t know about the campaign and the prize? Staff will continue to monitor and evaluate the current communication strategies that are employed for this and other campaigns. Where appropriate and feasible we can try to make adjustments to meet the needs of residents in East Zorra-Tavistock. The 72 Hour Club will now be an ongoing initiative to encourage preparedness year round. Recommendation:

1. None at this point. For council information only.

Staff Report – CEMC Public Education – 72 Hour Club Campaign Page 3

C.A.O. Comments Good update. I thought the campaign was extensive and used all available means of getting information out to residents within our budget and resource levels. I believe part of the challenge is communication has two parts. In addition to the Township providing information, people need to do something to receive it. While there are more ways than ever to distribute information, it seems the ability or interest in receiving it is going the other way. This may be due to information overload? In any event Township staff will continue to do their best to get information out to residents.



Carla GarrettProtective Services

Administrative Assistant

Scott Alexander

Township Fire Chief

STAFF REPORT Report #TC2014-05 To:


From:

Brenda Junker, Tax Collector

Re:

2014 Election – Establish a Joint Compliance Audit Committee

Date: May 20, 2014

Background: All election candidates are required to file detailed financial statements of expenses and contributions received for their campaign (those who exceed $10,000 require audited statements). Any elector can request an audit of a candidate’s financial statements if they reasonably believe an individual has contravened the Municipal Election Act.

Since 2010, the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as amended by Bill 212, now requires that municipalities appoint a Compliance Audit Committee prior to October 1st in an election year to deal with such requests.

The Clerks/Deputy-Clerks from the municipalities within Oxford met to discuss the possibility of continuing to utilize a Joint Compliance Audit Committee as was used for the term 2010-2014. It was agreed that we would like to continue with a Joint Committee. It was also agreed that, if possible, we would continue with the same committee membership, as the members have a good range of background including municipal, accounting, legal and audit. All of the current members have been contacted and have agreed to continue to serve on the committee for the 2014 – 2018 term. Those members are Alex Piggott, Duane Malcolm, David Morris, David Hodgson and Keith Reibling.

Discussion: Committee Mandate The mandate of the Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee is to hear and determine all applications filed in accordance with Section 81 of the MEA, and in accordance with the procedures established by the Clerk under the provisions of the MEA. Any application which does not meet the

Brenda Junker

Text Box

6.k

Staff Report – Joint Compliance Audit Committee Page 2 legislative deadline for submission will not be presented to the Committee for review (being 90 days after the filing of the financial statements). Any elector can request an audit of a candidate’s financial statements if they reasonably believe an individual has contravened the election act. The audit request is to be received by the Clerk and within 10 days sent to a Compliance Audit Committee. That Committee is required to respond in 30 days if they agree that an audit request should be granted or rejected. The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice within 15 days. The Committee is required by legislation to meet the requirements of the Act, including responding to requests for audit and making determinations regarding the reasonableness of the request as outlined above. If the Committee orders an audit (the costs of which must be paid by the municipality) then an outside auditor is appointed, an audit is conducted and a report prepared. The completed report is provided to the candidate, Council and the Clerk. The Clerk has 10 days to supply the report to the Compliance Audit Committee and the Committee has 30 days to consider it.

If the report finds that the candidate contravened the MEA, then the Committee must decide what legal actions must be taken. If the report finds that the candidate did not contravene the Act, then the Committee must determine if the applicant had reasonable grounds to make a request for the audit and if not, may attribute the costs of the audit to the applicant.

Committee Composition

The Municipal Elections Act, specifically states in Section 81.1:

Compliance Audit Committee (1) a Council or local board shall, before October 1 of an election year,

establish a Committee for the purposes of section 81. Composition (2) The Committee shall be composed of not fewer than three and not

more than seven members and shall not include: (a) employees or officers of the municipality or local board; (b) members of the Council or local board; or (c) any persons who are candidates in the election for which the

Committee is established.

Staff Report – Joint Compliance Audit Committee Page 3 Nothing in the legislation prohibits different municipalities from appointing the same committee members. At least one municipality in the County of Oxford has had some difficulty soliciting members to join a possible committee in the past. As such, the Returning Officers (Clerks) of the County of Oxford have proposed that all municipalities within Oxford could appoint the same members to their respective committees. This would essentially create a joint compliance audit committee. Role of Clerk or Secretary

The Act also sets out the role of the Clerk as follows:

The Clerk of the municipality or the secretary of the local board, as the case may be, shall establish administrative practices and procedures for the Committee and shall carry out any other duties required under the MEA to implement the Committee’s decisions.

In the case of our joint committee, the Clerk for the municipality that receives a request for audit will act as the secretary to the compliance audit committee Term The Committee shall be established before October 1st of an election year. The term of appointment is the same as the new Council. The purpose is to deal with applications from each regular election and any by-elections during the term of the municipal Council. The Committee will meet as needed with meetings to be scheduled when a compliance audit application is received.

Membership, Roles and Responsibilities

Staff is suggesting that the joint committee shall be appointed by each Council and shall be composed of five (5) members. The act prohibits the following individuals from being on the committee:

(a) employees or officers of the municipality or local board; (b) members of the council or local board; or (c) any persons who are candidates in the election for which the

committee is established.

Staff is also suggesting that as was done for the last term of the Compliance Audit Committee, the only residency requirement will be that committee members must reside in Oxford County.

Staff Report – Joint Compliance Audit Committee Page 4 Qualifications Given the judicial nature of the Committee it is suggested that members have accounting and audit experience, academic qualifications (college or university professors with expertise in political science or local government administration), legal professionals and those with knowledge of campaign financing rules under the MEA, 1996. The previous membership meets this criteria. Meeting Schedule The Committee shall meet as required to consider any applications for audit that have been filed in accordance with the legislation.

Reporting Requirements and Method Meetings of the committee will be conducted in accordance with the open meeting provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001. Meeting notices, agendas and minutes shall be posted on the website of all participating municipalities.

Financial Implications

The Act specifically states that “The council or local board, as the case may be, shall pay all costs in relation to the committee’s operation and activities.” Due to the complex nature of the committee, staff is suggesting that the committee members be paid in the same manner as for the past term. We are suggesting a $400 retainer that will be split over the term and paid annually ($100/ year). The committee members would also receive a $100 per diem (plus mileage) for every day that the committee is required to meet. The committee would be required to meet at least once to participate in a re-orientation session. Thereafter, the committee would only meet if a request for audit is received. It is suggested that the retainer costs of the committee be split evenly by the municipalities, but that the per diem costs will be paid by the municipality that receives the compliance audit request. Also, any costs incurred due to the decisions of the committee will be paid by the respective municipality that receives the request.

Staff Report – Joint Compliance Audit Committee Page 5 Recommendations:

1. That Council approve the formation of a Joint Compliance Audit Committee for the County of Oxford, as set out in this report.

2. That Council pass By-law #2014-25 appointing the following persons to the Joint Compliance Audit Committee for the 2014-2018 term: Alex Piggott, Duane Malcolm, David Morris, David Hodgson and Keith Reibling.

C.A.O. Comments I agree.



Brenda JunkerClerk

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK

COUNTY OF OXFORD

BY-LAW #2014 – 25

BEING a by-law to appoint a Joint Compliance Audit Committee. WHEREAS Section 81.1 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires municipalities to appoint a Compliance Audit Committee to deal with matters regarding to election campaign finances before October 1st in an election year. AND WHEREAS the Township of Norwich, Township of Southwest Oxford, Township of Zorra, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, Township of Blandford-Blenheim, Town of Tillsonburg and Town of Ingersoll deem it expedient to establish a Joint Compliance Audit Committee. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. That a Committee, to be known as the Joint Compliance Audit Committee, is hereby established to deal with the matters provided for in Section 81 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

2. That the Joint Compliance Audit Committee shall consist of the individuals listed in Schedule “A” and will be utilized to deal with each compliance audit request in accordance with the Terms of Reference attached hereto as Schedule “B”.

3. That the business of the Joint Compliance Audit Committee be conducted in accordance with the Terms of Reference set out in Schedule “B” attached hereto, which shall form part of this By-law.

4. That this By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of passage.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

7.a

By-law #2014 – 25 Appoint Joint Compliance Audit Committee Page 2

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014. DON MCKAY, MAYOR seal BRENDA JUNKER, CLERK


SCHEDULE “A”

Alex Piggott

Duane Malcolm

David Morris

David Hodgson

Keith Reibling


SCHEDULE “B”

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR JOINT COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE

MANDATE The powers and functions of the Committee are set out in Section 81 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Within 30 days of receipt of an application requesting a compliance audit, the Committee shall consider the compliance audit application and decide whether it should be granted or rejected; If the application is granted, the Committee shall appoint an auditor to conduct a compliance audit of the candidate’s election campaign finances; The Committee will review the auditor’s report within 30 days of receipt and decide whether legal proceedings should be commenced; and If the auditor’s report indicates that there were no apparent contraventions and if it appears that there were no reasonable grounds for the application, the Committee shall advise Council accordingly and recommend cost attribution. Members of Council, staff or candidates running for office in the municipal election are not eligible to be appointed to the Committee. Should an appointed Member accept employment with any of the member municipalities or register as a candidate with any of the member municipalities, his or her appointment will be terminated. All Committee Members must agree in writing that they will not work for or provide advice to any candidate running for municipal office within the member municipalities. To avoid any potential conflict of interest, applicants with accounting or auditing backgrounds must agree in writing that they will not offer their services to any municipal election candidates. Anyone who has participated as a candidate in a municipal election conducted by any of the member municipalities, or who has conducted audits or provided financial advice in respect of such an election campaign, is disqualified from participation on the Committee.


COMPOSITION The committee shall be composed of not fewer than three and not more than seven members and shall not include: (a) employees or officers of the municipality or local board; (b) members of the council or local board; or (c) any persons who are candidates in the election for which the

committee is established. TERM The term of the Committee is coterminous with that of Council. CHAIR At the orientation meeting the Committee shall select one of its Members to act as a Chair at the first meeting. PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE The committee would be required to meet at least once to participate in an orientation session. Thereafter the Committee shall meet as needed with meetings to be scheduled by the Clerk, in consultation with the Chair, when a compliance audit application is received. STAFFING AND FUNDING Staff from the applicable member municipality shall provide administrative support to the Committee. The member municipality requiring the services of the Committee shall be responsible for all associated expenses. The retainer and orientation meeting costs as well as any advertising relating to the membership of the committee shall be shared by the member municipalities. RECORDS The records emanating from meetings of the Joint Compliance Audit Committee shall be retained and preserved by the municipality requesting the services of the Committee in accordance with that municipality’s Record Retention By-law. MEETINGS Meetings of the Committee shall be conducted in accordance with the open meeting requirements of the provisions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The websites of the member municipalities will be utilized to communicate the meeting notices and agendas. REMUNERATION FOR EACH MEMBER $400 Retainer fee split over the term and paid annually ($100/ year). $100 per diem (plus mileage) for every day that the committee is required to meet.


MEMBERSHIP SELECTION All applicants will be required to complete an application form or submit a resume outlining their qualifications and experience. The Clerks of the member municipalities will review the applications and recommend to their Councils the members that should be appointed. SELECTION CRITERIA Given the judicial nature of the committee, members should have accounting and audit experience, academic qualifications (college or university professors with expertise in political science or local government administration), legal professional experience, municipal experience and knowledge of campaign financing rules under the MEA, 1996.

2014-06-04 Council Agenda - East...

Documents

Transcript of 2014-06-04 Council Agenda - East...