regular council - 04 dec 2019

Township of Whitewater Region

Regular Council Meeting

Agenda

Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.

Council Chamber – 44 Main Street (Cobden)

Page

1. Call to Order

2. Prayer

2.1 Prayer 8

3. Declaration of Interest

4. Presentations

5. Announcements

6. Standing Committees

6.1 Development & Planning Committee

6.2 Environmental Services Committee

a. Drinking Water Quality Management System

Endorsement

12-04 Drinking Water Quality Management

System Endorsement

Recommendation: That Environmental

Services Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region authorize

the Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer to sign the Whitewater Region Drinking Water

Quality Management System (DWQMS) Operational Plan Commitment and

Endorsement.

9 - 11

b. Ontario Clean Water Agency (2019) Q3 12 - 16

of 368

Financial Report

12-04 Ontario Clean Water Agency 2019-Q3

Financial Report

Recommendation: That Environmental Services receive the Ontario Clean Water

Agency (2019) Q3 Financial Report for

information purposes.

c. Blue Box Program Transition Update

12-04 Ontario Blue Box Program Transition

Recommendation: That Environmental Services Committee receive this report for

information purposes as it relates to the

Ontario Blue Box Program Transition.

17 - 19

6.3 General Government Committee - 6:00 p.m.

a. 2020 Budget Public Meeting

2020 PUBLIC MEETING BUDGET

PRESENTATION

Curbside Pickup Poster

Provisional Budget

2020 USER FEE SCHEDULE v.3 December 4

Recommendation: That General Government Committee recommend that

Council of the Township of Whitewater Region enact by-laws for the 2020 Budgets

and the 2020 User Fee and Charges.

20 - 84

b. County Council Verbal Update - Reeve Cathy

Regier

Recommendation: That General

Government Committee receive the County

Council verbal update.

c. Minister Delegation Requests at the ROMA

Conference

12-04 Minister Delegation Requests at ROMA

Conference

Recommendation: That General Government Committee receive this report

for information purposes as it relates to

85 - 86

of 368

delegation requests for meetings with Ministers of the Provincial Government at the

Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) Conference to be held in Toronto from

January 19-21, 2020.

d. Collaboration with Other Municipalities –

Efficiencies & Modernization

12-04 Collaboration with Other Municipalities

Efficiencies Modernization

Recommendation:

That General Government Committee

recommend Council of the Township of

Whitewater Region approve:

1. Participation in the Local Efficiency

Group (LEG) comprised of the municipalities of Admaston/Bromley,

Horton, Greater Madawaska, Renfrew, McNab/Braeside and Arnprior;

2. Participation in a Municipal

Modernization Program Expression of Interest with the LEG partners for a

service delivery review to include all partners to seek out cross border

opportunities to improve services and achieve efficiencies; and

3. Appointment of the Chair and Co-Chair of General Government Committee as

the Council liaisons for this initiative.

87 - 92

e. Recruitment & Organizational Structure

Policies

12-04 Recruitment & Organizational

Structure Policies

Recommendation: That General

Government Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region enact

by-laws to adopt the Recruitment & Employment Policy and Organizational

Structure Policy.

93 - 108

f. Accounts Receivable, Tax and Utilities Billing

& Collection Policies

109 -

123

of 368

12-04 AR, Tax and Utilities Billing &

Collection Policies

Recommendation: That General Government Committee recommend Council

of the Township of Whitewater Region enact

by-laws to adopt amended financial policies.

6.4 Protective Services Committee

6.5 Recreation & Tourism Services Committee

6.6 Transportation Services Committee

7. By-laws

7.1 December 4, 2019

19-12-1228 Curbside Collection (Miller)

19-12-1229 Customer Service, Complaint &

Compliment Policy

19-12-1230 Accessible Customer Service Policy

19-12-1231 Unreasonable Customer Behaviour

Policy

Recommendation: Be it resolved that the

following by-laws be taken as read and passed:

• By-law 19-12-1228, being a by-law to

authorize the execution of a Service Contract for the Collection and Transportation of

Garbage and Recyclable Material (Miller Waste Systems Inc.).

• By-law 19-12-1229, being a by-law to establish a Customer Service, Complaint &

Compliment Policy. • By-law 19-12-1230, being a by-law to

establish a Accessible Customer Service Policy.

124 -

181

8. Resolutions

8.1 October 16, 2019 Standing Committee

2020 Calendar of Meeting Dates

Recommendation: That Council of the Township

of Whitewater Region approve the 2020 Meeting

182

of 368

Calendar, including the all-staff training day on

October 22, 2020.

8.2 November 6, 2019 Standing Committee Motions

Recommendation: That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region receive the 2019-2020

Beachburg Drinking Water System Inspection Report, prepared by the Ministry of Environment,

Parks and Conservation (MECP).

Recommendation: That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region receive the 2019-2020 Haley

Drinking Water System Inspection Report, prepared by the Ministry of Environment, Parks and

Conservation (MECP).

8.3 November 20, 2019 Standing Committee Motions


of Whitewater Region approve the award of RFQ 2019-25 for Janitorial Services from Generations

Janitorial Services in the amount of $15,600.00

plus HST.

8.4 December 4, 2019 Standing Committee Motions


of Whitewater Region approve:

• Participation in the Local Efficiency Group (LEG) comprised of the municipalities of

Admaston/Bromley, Horton, Greater Madawaska, Renfrew, McNab/Braeside and

Arnprior; • Participation in a Municipal Modernization

Program Expression of Interest with the LEG partners for a service delivery review to

include all partners to seek out cross border opportunities to improve services and

achieve efficiencies; and • Appointment of the Chair and Co-Chair of

General Government Committee as the Council liaisons for this initiative.

8.5 Notice of Motion - Mayor Moore

Recommendation: Whereas, the Township of Whitewater Region was informed of the impending

of 368

closure of the Beachburg Scotiabank Branch; and

Whereas, access to banking services is essential to

the community;

Therefore be it resolved that Council of the Township of Whitewater Region call upon

Scotiabank to reconsider its decision regarding the imminent closure of the Beachburg Branch due to

the negative impacts the closure will have on the

community; and

Further that the Township work with other partners

in its advocacy efforts, including the County of Renfrew and Whitewater Bromley Community

Health Centre.

9. Notice of Motion

10. Minutes

10.1 Regular Minutes

Regular Council - 06 Nov 2019 - Minutes - Pdf

Regular Council - 20 Nov 2019 - Minutes - Pdf

Recommendation: That the Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approve the

Regular minutes of November 6, 2019 and

November 20, 2019.

183 -

202

10.2 Special Minutes

Special Council - 13 Nov 2019 - Minutes - Pdf

Recommendation: That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approve the Special minutes

of November 13, 2019.

203 -

204

10.3 Closed Session Minutes


of Whitewater Region approve the closed session

minutes of November 6, 2019, understanding that

they remain confidential.

11. Correspondence

11.1 Letter of Support for Granting Access to Broadband Internet and Telecommunication Services in the

205 -

206

of 368


Cogeco Network Expansion Letter of Support -

Whitewater Region

11.2 An Independent Review of the 2019 Flood Events

in Ontario - Douglas McNeil, P.Eng.

mnrf-english-ontario-special-advisor-on-flooding-

report-2019-11-25

207 -

363

11.3 Environmental Registry Notice (019-0732) -

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Letter to Mayor Moore

364 -

367

12. Closed Session

12.1 Human Resources


of Whitewater Region move into closed session at _:__ p.m. as permitted under Section 9.1 of the

Procedural By-law with CAO/Deputy Clerk remaining in the room to discuss the CAO's

performance appraisal (personal matters about an identifiable individual including municipal or local

board employees).

13. Confirming By-law

13.1 December 4, 2019

19-12-1232 Confirmatory Dec 4

Recommendation: Be it resolved that By-law 19-

12-1231, being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council at its Regular Meeting of

December 4, 2019, be taken as read and passed.

368

14. Adjournment

of 368

Prayer

Almighty God, we give thanks for the great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity, and peace that we enjoy. Guide us in our deliberations as Township Councillors, and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities. Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessing of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions.

Amen

of 368

Drinking Water Quality Management System Endorsement

Recommendation:

That Environmental Services Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region authorize the Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer to sign the Whitewater Region Drinking Water Quality Management System (DWQMS) Operational Plan Commitment and Endorsement.

Background:

The DWQMS compliments the legislative and regulatory framework, under Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (SDWA), by endorsing a proactive and preventive approach to assuring drinking water quality.

The DWQMS ensures long-term sustainability of a Drinking Water System (DWS) including: management processes employed within the system; the maintenance of infrastructure used to supply drinking water, and identification of potential risks and risk mitigation strategies for items such as system security, water treatment, and the impacts of climate change.

The SDWA requires Owners and Operating Authorities to have an accredited Operating Authority. In order to become accredited, through a third party accreditation body, an Operating Authority must establish and maintain a Quality Management System (QMS).

The DWQMS requires an Operating Authority to document a QMS for each Subject System that it operates in an Operational Plan which must be accepted by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. In the case of Whitewater Region, the Subject System is used in the DWQMS to refer to a Municipal Residential Drinking Water System. Where an Operating Authority is operating multiple Subject Systems for a single Owner, the Operating Authority may choose to develop QMS components that are common.

Meeting Date: December 4, 2019

Contact: Janet Collins Asset Management Coordinator

613-646-2282 [email protected]

of 368

The basis of the DWQMS is:

Plan – establish the objectives, policy, and procedures necessary to deliver the results

Do – implement the procedures

Check – monitor and measure procedures and report the results

Improve – take action to continually improve performance

Analysis:

The last Commitment and Endorsement for the Operational Plan under the DWQMS was in 2013. Due to changes / revisions within the plan, as well as legislative changes, the Municipality, as Owner, is endorsing the Operational Plan and committing to work with Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA), the accredited operating authority, to facilitate the goal(s) of the plan.

It should be noted that the DWQMS document is an internal document and is not required to be made public in order to safeguard the drinking water systems (i.e. essential supplies and services, identified threats & hazards, etc.).

Attachments:

Attachment #1: DWQMS Operational Plan Commitment and Endorsement

Financial Implications:

n/a

Next Steps:

Obtain required signatures and provide to OCWA for insertion in the plan.

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Janet Collins, Asset Management Coordinator Robert Tremblay, Chief Administrative Officer

of 368

Ontario Clean Water Agency

OPERATIONAL PLAN Whitewater Region Drinking Water Systems

QEMS Doc: Rev Date: Rev No: Pages:

OP-03A 2018-10-03 0 1 of 1

SIGNED COMMITMENT AND ENDORSEMENT This Operational Plan sets out the framework for OCWA’ Quality & Environmental Management System (QEMS) that is specific and relevant to your drinking water system(s) and supports the overall goal of OCWA and the Township of Whitewater Region (Owner) to provide safe, cost-effective drinking water through sustained cooperation. OCWA will be responsible for developing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving its QEMS with respect to the operation and maintenance of the Whitewater Region Drinking Water Systems and will do so in a manner that ensures compliance with applicable legislative and regulatory requirements.

Through the endorsement of this Operational Plan, the Owner commits to work with OCWA to facilitate this goal. OCWA Top Management Endorsement

Owner Endorsement

Ashley Pilgrim Senior Operations Manager, Madawaska Cluster

Date Mike Moore, Mayor Authorized municipal representative of The Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region

Date

Vanessa Greatrix Safety, Process and Compliance Manager, Eastern Regional Hub

Date Robert Tremblay, CAO Authorized municipal representative of The Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region

Date

The endorsement above is based on the Operational Plan that was current as of the revision date of this document (OP-03A).

of 368

Ontario Clean Water Agency (2019) Q3 Financial Report

Recommendation:

That Environmental Services receive the Ontario Clean Water Agency (2019) Q3 Financial Report for information purposes. Background:

Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) is the Township’s accredited operating authority. They provide an annual forecasted budget per the Operating & Management Agreement, as well as quarterly reports of financial position.

Analysis:

The attached letter and reports provide financials for the 3rd Quarter (July to September, 2019). These are specific to operating, which includes salary, electricity, chemicals, sludge haulage, supplies, equipment and services. Management fee implications are also presented. Of note, sludge haulage for the Cobden Wastewater Treatment Plant is high as a result of recurrent hauls to Mississippi Mills Plant for disposal. Solids have significantly increased over the past few years, requiring the clarifier to be monitored and desludged, resulting in increased sludge haulage. The increase sludge also affects staffing costs due to operations.

Water & wastewater facilities continue to effect staffing costs due to a high number call-outs / alarms.

Attachments:

Attachment #1 Beachburg WTP and Distribution Attachment #2 Cobden WTP and Distribution Attachment #3 Cobden WWTP and Collection Attachment #4 Haley WTP and Distribution


Q3 reports indicate that sludge haulage and salaries/benefits have exceeded 2019 budgeted values.

Next Steps:

Continue to monitor trending costs throughout Q4.

Prepared by: Steven Hodson, Environmental Services Superintendent Reviewed by: Janet Collins, Asset Management Coordinator

Robert Tremblay, Chief Administrative Officer

Meeting Date:

Contact:

613-646-2282

December 4, 2019 Steven Hodson, Environmental Services Superintendent [email protected]

of 368

Quarterly Cost Plus

Facility: 1276 Beachburg WTP

2019 Budget 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter

Project: WHIREM1276W-001 Cost Plus Client Report

Date: 10/30/2019 For the Period of January 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019

3rd Quarter 4th Quarter YTD Budget YTD Actuals Variance

Salaries & Benefits

Operating Charges

20,770.92 21,869.23 26,848.59 0.00 64,789.92 69,488.74 (4,698.82)

Chemicals

86,386.56

11,200.04 1,775.51 1,918.16 2,393.38 0.00 8,900.03 6,087.05 2,812.98

Sludge Haulage 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 (50.00)

Electricity 20,600.04 3,707.12 3,264.45 3,326.44 0.00 15,450.03 10,298.01 5,152.02

Services 31,427.20 7,967.35 6,663.03 6,825.09 0.00 23,814.68 21,455.47 2,359.21

Supplies & Equipment 5,397.60 1,118.71 1,357.35 228.25 0.00 4,348.20 2,704.31 1,643.89

Total Operating Costs 155,011.44 35,389.61 35,072.22 39,621.75 0.00 117,302.86 110,083.58 7,219.28

Management Fee 28,476.00 7,119.00 7,119.00 7,119.00 0.00

183,487.44Total Operating Charges 42,508.61 42,191.22 46,740.75 0.00 138,659.86 131,440.58 7,219.28

21,357.00 21,357.00 0.00

of 368

Quarterly Cost Plus

Facility: 1274 Cobden WTP and Distribution





Salaries & Benefits

Operating Charges

36,804.99 35,793.82 45,731.31 0.00 119,764.35 118,330.12 1,434.23

Chemicals

159,685.80

17,000.12 11,721.84 2,135.73 3,481.25 0.00 13,250.09 17,338.82 (4,088.73)

Sludge Haulage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Electricity 24,000.00 3,999.35 4,831.91 5,492.03 0.00 18,000.00 14,323.29 3,676.71

Services 51,686.80 13,362.39 10,887.05 10,890.78 0.00 39,265.10 35,140.22 4,124.88

Supplies & Equipment 8,277.00 1,577.89 727.84 432.90 0.00 6,770.25 2,738.63 4,031.62

Total Operating Costs 260,649.72 67,466.46 54,376.35 66,028.27 0.00 197,049.79 187,871.08 9,178.71

Management Fee 28,476.00 7,119.00 7,119.00 7,119.00 0.00

289,125.72Total Operating Charges 74,585.46 61,495.35 73,147.27 0.00 218,406.79 209,228.08 9,178.71

21,357.00 21,357.00 0.00

of 368

Quarterly Cost Plus

Facility: 1275 Cobden WWTP and Collection


Project: WHIREM1275S-001 Cost Plus Client Report



Salaries & Benefits

Operating Charges

28,437.25 32,075.01 31,367.94 0.00 70,442.01 91,880.20 (21,438.19)

Chemicals

93,922.68

16,500.08 2,152.33 2,339.96 6,231.57 0.00 14,375.06 10,723.86 3,651.20

Sludge Haulage 65,000.04 21,672.06 17,270.27 26,556.63 0.00 48,750.03 65,498.96 (16,748.93)

Electricity 45,500.04 11,007.69 14,101.39 9,951.21 0.00 34,125.03 35,060.29 (935.26)

Services 33,354.24 8,826.03 10,530.67 7,226.10 0.00 25,015.68 26,582.80 (1,567.12)

Supplies & Equipment 7,399.52 1,637.59 1,593.81 1,063.91 0.00 6,049.64 4,295.31 1,754.33

Total Operating Costs 261,676.60 73,732.95 77,911.11 82,397.36 0.00 198,757.45 234,041.42 (35,283.97)

Management Fee 35,052.00 8,763.00 8,763.00 8,763.00 0.00

296,728.60Total Operating Charges 82,495.95 86,674.11 91,160.36 0.00 225,046.45 260,330.42 (35,283.97)

26,289.00 26,289.00 0.00

of 368

Quarterly Cost Plus

Facility: 1277 Haley WTP





Salaries & Benefits

Operating Charges

8,196.57 4,521.15 4,552.40 0.00 10,719.90 17,270.12 (6,550.22)

Chemicals

14,293.20

2,000.04 123.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.03 123.55 1,376.48

Sludge Haulage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Electricity 6,000.00 2,256.36 1,318.21 736.12 0.00 4,500.00 4,310.69 189.31

Services 7,657.92 2,254.11 1,665.18 1,844.21 0.00 5,743.44 5,763.50 (20.06)

Supplies & Equipment 2,044.80 395.28 275.95 155.09 0.00 1,646.10 826.32 819.78

Total Operating Costs 31,995.96 13,225.87 7,780.49 7,287.82 0.00 24,109.47 28,294.18 (4,184.71)

Management Fee 6,576.00 1,644.00 1,644.00 1,644.00 0.00

38,571.96Total Operating Charges 14,869.87 9,424.49 8,931.82 0.00 29,041.47 33,226.18 (4,184.71)

4,932.00 4,932.00 0.00

of 368

Ontario Blue Box Program Transition Update

Recommendation:

That Environmental Services Committee receive this report for information purposes as it relates to the Ontario Blue Box Program Transition.

Background:

The previous Ontario government passed legislation in 2016 (i) Waste Free Ontario Act, and (ii) the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, respective to the blue box program and other waste specific programs. The underlying concept being to make the brand owners and first importers of packaging 100% responsible for funding and operating the blue box program.

The current Ontario government has supported the legislation and is moving forward with draft regulation, anticipated to be finalized in 2021, under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act. Producers, waste management industries, non-profit organizations, and municipalities will have interest in the transition to full-producer responsibility and must work collectively to ensure that the affordability, workability and accessibility of the blue box program does not diminish.

The Regulation to be drafted will comprise the “rules” for the full-producer program such as:

• What materials will be captured; who is responsible; who must register (e.g. producer responsibility organization);

• What are the collection responsibilities (e.g. common system with standardized list of materials);

• What are the management responsibilities (e.g. targets & standards); • What promotion and education are required; and • What reporting and auditing will be required.

Following regulation adoption, the transition from municipal-run blue box programs is set to occur in a three-phase process between 2023-2025, with 1/3 of municipalities transitioning to the program at a time, with full-producer program initially covering residential only.


Contact: Steven Hodson, Environmental Services Superintendent


of 368

Analysis:

Key dates associated with Provincial revamping of the blue box program are shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1:

Blue Box Program Key Dates Action Date

Regulation development 2020 to early 2021 Regulation adoption 2021 Producer procurement and preparation 2020 to 2022 Selection of transition model by Municipality

Prior to January 1, 2023

Municipality to select transition year 2023, 2024 or 2025 Three phase transition (1/3 of municipalities over the three phases)

January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2025

Whitewater Region will have the option to continue its municipally-run blue box program or engage in a full-producer run program during the transition.

Prior to January 1, 2023, Council will be required to make several decisions related to the transition, including the model, when to transition, and other criteria.

1.0 Transition Model

Self-Nomination: Municipalities would be provided a window of time (e.g. 6-12 months) to provide a council resolution to the Province’s Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority regarding when they would want to transition, and include a rationale along with the resolution (e.g. contract info., assets, political considerations, etc.).

Expert Selection: Alternatively, allow an expert to provide to the Province a recommendation when respective municipalities should transition based on an assessment of contracts, economies of scale, etc.

2.0 When to Transition

• Transition occurs between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2025; • Select transition year – 2023, 2024 or 2025; • Consider whether collection, transfer, transportation, processing, marketing all

transition at the same time or separately; o IF the municipality decides they wish the producer manage all or part of the

services, they must determine a date that they will no longer provide the services.

of 368

o OR the municipality wishes to continue providing blue box services on behalf of the producers, they must determine if it will occur in-house or by sub-contractor.

3.0 Transition Considerations

• Assets – land, building, capital infrastructure, human resources • Contracts – existing contract terms & expiry dates • Waste Services – what waste services will a municipality continue to provide.

With a full producer-run program within Ontario following the transition period, municipalities will no longer be funding 100% of the up-front costs for the blue box programs.

Currently, Whitewater Region receives blue box funding from Stewardship Ontario which is determined through the annual data call reporting. It recovers roughly 50% of the Township’s cost to provide the service.


n/a

Next Steps:

Staff will continue to monitor the program and associated regulations.

Prior to January 1, 2023 the Municipality will commence discussions regarding a proposed transition date and program service providers (i.e. in-house, sub-contractor, or full producer).

Prepared by: Steven Hodson, Environmental Services Superintendent Reviewed by: Janet Collins, Asset Management Coordinator Robert Tremblay, Chief Administrative Officer

of 368

2020 BUDGETPUBLIC MEETING

DECEMBER 4, 2019

of 368

BUDGET SCHEDULE

October 2, 2019 (Regular Meeting)

Budget Timeframe

Background in Municipal Budgeting

October 30, 2019 (Special Meeting)

Tabling of Operating & Fees and Charges, Overview of Net Costs per Service

November 13, 2019 (Special Meeting)

Operating, Fees & Charges and Capital

November 20, 2019 (Regular Meeting)

Water/Waste Water

December 4, 20149 (Regular Meeting)

Public Meeting

December 11, 2019 (Rescheduled Regular Meeting from December 18, 2019

By-law Adoption

of 368

YOUR TAX DOLLAR (2019)

30%

19%

41%

10%

CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR COLLECTED

County (30%) Education (19%) Municipal (41%) Policing (10%)

of 368

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

Public Meeting: Input from Members of the Public

Comprehensive Budget Proposal

Tax Supported – 3.55% Levy Increase

▪ Policing 0.5% Increase

▪ Salary Cost of Living Adjustment of 1.5% (Below Consumer Price Index)

▪ Ontario Municipal Partnership Funding – 1.75% decrease

▪ Elimination of yellow garbage bag program with introduction of waste/recycling collection fee

Total Capital/Special Project Investment in 2020 including Water & Wastewater - $2,807,567

2020 reserves ending balance (including water & wastewater) - $1,356,239

Debt Servicing Costs in 2020 including Water & Wastewater - $565,055

of 368

GENERAL FUND REVENUE

Taxation 52.59%

User Fees

16.14%Federal Grants 2.00%

Ontario

Grants

13.26%

ORPC /Solar Panel

0.63 %

Reserves 15.38%

Taxation (52.59%) Ontario Grants (13.26%) Federal Grants (2.00%)

User Fees (16.14%) ORPC/Solar Panel (0.63%) Reserves (15.38%)

of 368

GENERAL FUND EXPENSES

General Government 14.15%

Building, Animal Control & By-

law Enforcement 1.59%

Planning & Economic

Development 2.50%

Fire & Emergency

Services 7.07%

Arenas 7.11%

Parks & Recreation 4.36%Roads 39.73%

Environmental Services 12.66%

Policing 9.92% Library/Museum

General Government (14.15%) Building, Animal Control & By-law Enforcement (1.59%)Planning & Economic Development (2.50%) Fire & Emergency Services (7.07%)Arenas (7.11%) Parks & Recreation (4.36%)Roads (39.73%) Environmental Services (12.66%)Policing (9.92%) Library/Museum (0.90%)

of 368

FEES & CHARGES

Building, Planning & Arenas

▪ Building Permits, Planning Applications, and Ice Rental fees increased based on County average and neighbouring

municipalities

Water Rates

▪ Harmonized rates between Haley Townsite, Cobden & Beachburg

▪ Significant investment in capital projects

Wastewater

Increase in rate due to carrying cost of borrowing to fund sewer plant project

Waste/Recycling Collection Fee

▪ Introduction of Waste/Recycling collection fee to fund collection contract

▪ Yellow bags will only be required for third and subsequent bags per week

of 368

CURBSIDE WASTE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2020

EVERY UNIT* GETS:

$156 annually per unit

(Every other week) (Weekly - Max 50 lbs each)

If you require

more than 2 bags, you will need to purchase a yellow

township bag at a cost of $5 per bag.

W

*Unit means a residential home, apartment, or property used for commercial, industrial or institutional purposes. The fee does not apply to land with no structures.

of 368

CURBSIDE WASTE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION

CURBSIDE COLLECTION COSTS

$281,000

recycling

49%

$11,000

2% contribution to reserve

pick up 8%

$240,000

garbage

pick up

41%

$48,000

recycling

material

processing

of 368

Water Users / Units

Class Water

Residential 836

Small Commercial 53

Medium Commercial 24

High Commercial 17

Mult-Residential Units 91

Metered Units 3

Total 1,024 of 368

Wastewater Users / Units

Class Wastewater

Residential 353

Small Commercial 35

Medium Commercial 16

High Commercial 11

Mult-Residential Units 81

Metered Units 3

Total 499 of 368

Water & Wastewater Comparisons

Water Rates Cobden

2019 Monthly Residential/Small Commercial Rate 61.26


2019 Metered Rate (per cubic metre) 5.81


Monthly Impact $12.87

Wastewater Cobden





Monthly Impact $15.35

Haley

146.53

74.13

-$72.40

Beachburg

61.26

74.13

$12.87

of 368

CAPITAL

Capital & Special

Projects

of 368

2020 DEPARTMENTAL CAPITAL/SPECIAL PROJECT SUMMARY

$-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

General

Government

Arenas Parks &

Recreation

Planning &

Economic

Development

Building, Animal

Control &

Enforcement

Fire &

Emergency

Services

Roads Environmental

Services

Library/Museum Water

$30,000

$154,500 $105,000

$75,000

$1,000

$135,000

$1,770,567

$235,000

$7,500

$294,000

of 368

2020 CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY

DEPARTMENT CAPITAL/SPECIAL PROJECT TAXATION RESERVE GRANT DEBENTUREUN-

FUNDED TOTAL

General Gov. Computer Replacement 10,000 10,000

General Gov. Energy Audits 20,000 20,000

Arena Cobden: Heat Exchanger 8,000 8,000

Arena Beachburg: Ice Resurfacer 103,000 103,000

Arena Beachburg: Furnace & Heaters 15,000 15,000

Arena Westmeath: Compressor Overhaul 8,500 8,500

Arena Westmeath: Abandoned Well & Roof Coating 20,000 20,000

Parks & Recreation Arena Structural Review 25,000 25,000

Parks & Recreation Lending Hub Trailer 12,000 12,000

Parks & Recreation Scrubber 6,000 6,000

Parks & Rereation Cobden Boat Launch Improvements 62,000 62,000

Planning & Economic Development Streetscaping & Sings 30,000 30,000

Planning & Economic Development Benches 25,000 25,000

Planning & Economic Development BR&E Study 20,000 20,000

Building, Animal Control & Enforcement Animal Control Partnerships 1,000 1,000

Fire & Emergency Services Half-ton Truck 45,000 45,000

Fire & Emergency Services Dry Hydrant 15,000 15,000

Fire & Emergency Services Personal Protective Equipment 60,000 60,000

Fire & Emergency Services Flood Management 15,000 25,000

of 368

2020 CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY Continued

DEPARTMENT CAPITAL/SPECIAL PROJECT TAXATION RESERVE GRANT DEBENTUREUN-

FUNDED TOTAL

Roads Slip In Water Tank 31,000 31,000

Roads Mower 100,000 100,000

Roads Excavator 315,000 315,000

Roads Brushead 60,000 60,000

Roads Lacroix Bay Road Repairs 104,866 504,701 609,567

Roads Olmstead/Jeffrey Engineering 75,000 75,000

Roads Powers Road 80,000 280,000 360,000

Roads Street Lights LED Project 190,000 190,000

Environmental Services Site Plan Improvements 25,000 25,000

Environmental Services 1 Ton Truck 85,000 85,000

Environmental Services Storm Water Review 35,000 35,000

Library/Museum Museum Gazebo 7,500 7,500

Environmental Services Industrial Park Decomissioning of Water 90,000 90,000

Roads & Water Cameron Engineering 30,000 30,000

Roads/Water Crawford Engineering 30,000 30,000

Water Filter Bed Replacement 115,000 115,000

Water Pressure Tanks 92,000 92,000

Water Diesel Generator 57,000 57,000

TOTAL 300,500 2,002,366 504,701 0 0 2,807,567

of 368

CAPITAL ROAD DESIGN PROJECTS (ENGINEERING)

Cameron Street (Earl Intersection) Crawford Street (at Astrolabe)

of 368

OLMSTEAD-JEFFREY LAKE ROAD (ENGINEERING)

of 368

LACROIX BAY AREA

of 368

POWERS ROAD

of 368

INCREASED FOCUS ON GRAVEL ROADS

of 368

RESERVES

Reserves

of 368

2020 RESERVE SCHEDULE

Reserve2019 Credit(addition)

2019 Debit(withdrawal) 2020 Start

2020 Contribution to

2020 Contribution from 2021 Start

Working Capital -10,000.00 541,170.78 -130,500.00 410,670.78

ORPC 23,000.00 62,608.60 23,000.00 -85,608.60 0.00

Building Renovations 12,000.00 12,000.00

Computers -5,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

Elections 8,000.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 16,000.00

Sick Leave 44,820.00 44,820.00

Community Health Care 19,438.00 19,438.00

Cogeco Billboard 13,472.48 13,472.48

Industrial Park 113,125.00 -90,000.00 23,125.00

Persons & Property 5,000.00 5,000.00

Planning & Property (Zoning) 27,000.00 27,000.00

Accessibility -65,000.00 3,578.00 3,578.00

Protection to Property (Truck) 3,000.00 21,500.00 3,000.00 24,500.00

Cemetery Care & Maintenance 100.00 100.00

Fire Purposes 10,000.00 -85,000.00 128,990.30 -120,000.00 8,990.30

Emergency Plan 10,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00

Tourist Booth 2,000.00 2,000.00

of 368

2020 RESERVE SCHEDULE Continued





Taste of the Valley 4,951.25 4,951.25

Westmeath Park -500.00 0.00 0.00

Park (Parkland) -8,500.00 0.00 0.00

Westmeath Park 22,997.45 22,997.45

Recreation 30,864.10 60,000.00 90,864.10

Park Purposes 6,382.59 6,382.59

Capital Reinvestment 354,180.00 -48,200.00 354,180.00 156,930.00 -332,391.40 178,718.60

Equipment Replacement -86,800.00 349.86 349.86

Road Purposes 38,770.00 146,157.24 10,000.00 -145,000.00 11,157.24

Waste Management 229,000.00 11,000.00 -210,000.00 30,000.00

Sewer Upgrading -63,406.54 139,106.29 45,535.00 184,641.29

Truck Sewer/Water 2,125.00 2,125.00

Sewage System Debenture Fund 24,982.50 24,982.50

Champlain Village 10,512.38 10,512.38

Landfill - Post Closure 0.00 20,000.00 20,000.00

MMAH 292,133.00 -250,000.00 42,133.00

TOTAL 436,950.00 -372,406.54 1,984,411.82 357,465.00 -1,363,500.00 1,208,376.82

of 368

2020 RESERVE SCHEDULE Continued





Gas Tax Revenue 433,067.12 -328,200.24 104,866.88 212,626.00 -317,492.00 0.88

OCIF Funds 240,284.00 0.00 240,284.00 -240,000.00 284.00TOTAL 433,067.12 -328,200.24 104,866.88 212,626.00 -557,492.00 284.88

Reserve 2019 Contribution To

2019 Contribution From

2019 Ending Balance

2020 Contribution To

2020 Contribution From

2020 Ending Balance

Waterworks 24,039.16 290,716.96 150,860.00 -294,000.00 147,576.96TOTAL 24,039.16 0.00 290,716.96 150,860.00 -294,000.00 147,576.96

TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE 1,356,238.66

of 368

DEBENTURES

Debentures

of 368

2020 DEBENTURE SCHEDULE#

Pro

jec

t

Pri

nc

ipa

l

Am

ou

nt

An

nu

al

Inte

res

t

Ra

te

Lo

an

Te

rm

De

be

ntu

re

Da

te

Ma

turi

ty

Da

te

1 Haley WTP $219,354.12 4.94% 30 years 06/01/2010 06/01/2040 Date

Total

Payment Principal Interest

Principal

Balance

06/01/2020 $7,048.42 $2,591.94 $4,456.48 $177,832.35

12/01/2020 $7,048.42 $2,655.96 $4,392.46 $175,176.39

TOTAL $14,096.84 $5,247.90 $8,848.94

2 Haley Distribution $189,104.40 3.90% 30 years 12/01/2011 12/02/2041 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

06/01/2020 $5,374.48 $2,297.73 $3,076.75 $155,484.53

12/01/2020 $5,374.48 $2,342.53 $3,031.95 $153,142.00

TOTAL $10,748.96 $4,640.26 $6,108.70

3 Beachburg WTP $171,396.30 4.02% 10 years 06/01/2010 06/01/2020 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

06/01/2020 $10,492.15 $10,285.51 $206.74 $0.00

TOTAL $10,492.15 $10,285.51 $206.74 $0.00

4

Beachburg Distribution

(Morris St) $160,660.60 3.59% 20 years 12/01/2011 12/01/2031 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

06/01/2020 $5,663.98 $3,695.62 $1,968.36 $105,962.46

12/01/2020 $5,663.98 $3,761.95 $1,902.03 $102,200.51

TOTAL $11,327.96 $7,457.57 $3,870.39

of 368


Pro

jec

t

Pri

nc

ipa

l

Am

ou

nt

An

nu

al

Inte

res

t

Ra

te

Lo

an

Te

rm

De

be

ntu

re

Da

te

Ma

turi

ty

Da

te

5 Cobden WTP $1,102,393.86 4.94% 30 years 06/01/2010 06/01/2040 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

06/01/2020 $35,422.80 $13,026.16 $22,396.64 $893,720.23

12/01/2020 $35,422.80 $13,347.91 $22,074.89 $880,372.32

TOTAL $70,845.60 $26,374.07 $44,471.53

6

Cobden Sewer

(Hwy. 17 Sewer) $120,090.98 3.59% 20 years 12/01/2011 12/01/2031 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

06/01/20120 $4,233.73 $2,762.41 $1,471.32 $79,205.00

12/01/2020 $4,233.73 $2,812.00 $1,421.73 $76,393.00

TOTAL $8,467.46 $5,574.41 $2,893.05

7 Solar Panel $334,263.07 2.64% 10 years 9/15/2014 9/16/2024 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

3/15/2020 $18,913.24 $16,713.15 $2,200.09 $150,418.42

9/15/2020 $18,714.99 $16,713.15 $2,001.84 $133,705.27

TOTAL $37,628.23 $33,426.30 $4,201.93

8

Truelove, John &

Crawford Streets $1,600,000.00 3.42% 20 years 02/06/2019 02/06/2039 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

02/15/2020 $55,406.17 $28,765.62 $26,640.55 $1,542,948.21

08/15/2020 $55,406.17 $29,253.20 $26,152.97 $1,513,695.01

TOTAL $110,812.34 $58,018.82 $52,793.52

75% Roads $83,109.26 $43,514.12 $39,595.14

20% Water $22,162.46 $11,603.76 $10,558.70

5% Sewer $5,540.62 $2,900.94 $2,639.68

of 368


Pro

ject

Pri

ncip

al

Am

ou

nt

An

nu

al

Inte

rest

Rate

Lo

an

Term

Deb

en

ture

Date

Matu

rity

Date

9

Anderson Drive &

Watchorn Drive $230,489.00 3.08% 10 year 02/06/2019 02/06/2029 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

02/15/2020 $13,431.60 $10,112.69 $3,318.91 $210,413.15

08/15/2020 $13,431.60 $10,264.88 $3,166.72 $200,148.27

TOTAL $26,863.20 $20,377.57 $6,485.63

10

Backhoe & Freightliner

Tandem Truck $380,419.00 2.77% 5 year 02/06/2019 02/06/2024 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

02/15/2020 $40,901.54 $36,283.70 $4,617.84 $308,331.26

08/15/2020 $40,901.54 $36,769.90 $4,131.64 $271,561.36

TOTAL $81,803.08 $73,053.60 $8,749.48

11

Fire Rescue Truck & Fire

Pumper Truck $504,000.00 2.80% 5 years 05/08/2019 05/08/2024 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

Estimated Payment 11/08/2019 $54,361.71 $47,305.71 $7,056.00 $456,694.29

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

12 Fire Tanker $347,271.35 2.71% 25 years 01/01/2020 01/01/2045 Date

Total


Principal

Balance

Estimated Payment 07/01/2020 $9,607.05 $4,901.52 $4,705.53 $342,369.83

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TOTAL $9,607.05 $4,901.52 $4,705.53

13 Cobden WWTP Date

Total


Principal

Balance

1st Payment 2021 $118,000.00 $0.00 $118,000.00 $0.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TOTAL $118,000.00 $0.00 $118,000.00 $0.00

TOTAL 1 - 13 $565,054.58 $296,663.24 $268,391.44 $0.00

of 368

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVES

Asset Management/Infrastructure

Coordinator Contract (6 months)

Data Collection

Policy Development

Speed Limits

Parking Requirements

Roads Standards

Fleet Review

Energy Audits

Environment

Community Improvement Plan Funding

Muskrat Watershed Council

Municipal Drains

Storm Water Review

Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre

Updated Waste Management Communications

Landfill Site Plan Improvements

of 368

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVES

Economic Development

CIP Grants

Benches for Villages & Hamlets

Business Retention and Expansion Study

Zoning By-law Planning Student

Bathroom Repairs/Tourist Booth

Event Support

Recreation

Continued Signage Program

Structural Review –Arenas

Continued Community Grants

Continued Support – Museum & Library

Continued Swim Program

Lending Hub Trailer

Boat Launch Investments

of 368

NEXT STEPS

December 11, 2019 (Rescheduled Regular Meeting from December 18, 2019)

By-law Adoption

May 2020

Set Tax Rates

Determine if additional contribution to reserves are required

of 368

QUESTIONS

of 368

Please note: collection schedules remain the same for recycling and garbage pick up until September 30, 2020.

(613) 646-2282

P.O. Box 40, 44 Main Street, Cobden

[email protected]

www.WhiteWaterRegion.ca

EVERY UNIT* GETS:

CURBSIDE COLLECTION COSTS

+ =$156 annually per unit

(Every other week) (Weekly - Max 50 lbs each)

DID YOU KNOW?

Each municipality with a population of 5,000 people or more must provide a curbside recycling program.

SORT IT!

The cost of recycling processing jumps from $90/tonne to $375/tonne when non-recyclables are put in your blue box.

If you require more than 2 bags, you will need to purchase a yellow township bag at a cost of $5 per bag.

W

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2020

49%

41%

8%

2%$281,000recycling

pick up

$240,000garbagepick up

$11,000contributionto reserve

$48,000recycling material processing

CURBSIDE WASTE ANDRECYCLING COLLECTION

*Unit means a residential home, apartment, or property used for commercial, industrial or institutional purposes. The fee does not apply to land with no structures.

of 368

TOWNSHIP OF WHITEWATER REGION GL5220 Page : 1Date : Nov 29, 2019 Time : 12:39 pmProvisional Budget Report

Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019

Account Code Account Description CC1 CC2 2019 2020BUDGETVALUES(FINAL

COUNCILPRESENTATION

TAXATION1-3-1000-3100 TAXATION - Residential & Farm -4,580,139 -5,760,057

1-3-1000-3110 TAXATION - Multi Residential -28,276 0

1-3-1000-3120 TAXATION - Commercial Taxes -269,839 0

1-3-1000-3125 TAXATION - Commercial New Construction -37,147 01-3-1000-3126 TAXATION- New Commerical Vacant Land -172 0

1-3-1000-3130 TAXATION - Commercial Taxes Vacant Unit -2,003 0

1-3-1000-3140 TAXATION - Commercial Taxes Vacant Land -7,295 0

1-3-1000-3150 TAXATION - Industrial Taxes -15,059 0

1-3-1000-3155 TAXATION - Industrial Taxes Vacant Unit -1,812 0

1-3-1000-3160 TAXATION - Industrial Taxes Vacant Land -5,746 0

1-3-1000-3165 TAXATION - Industrial New Construction -16,439 0

1-3-1000-3170 TAXATION - Industrial Large Taxes -109,200 0

1-3-1000-3175 TAXATION - Industrial Large Taxes Vacant -2,028 01-3-1000-3180 TAXATION - Farmland -268,075 0

1-3-1000-3185 TAXATION - Pipeline -150,316 0

1-3-1000-3190 TAXATION - Managed Forest -3,232 0

Total TAXATION -5,496,778 -5,760,057SPECIAL CHARGES

1-3-1200-3150 SPECIAL - Supplementaries -25,000 -25,000

Total SPECIAL CHARGES -25,000 -25,000GRANT IN LIEU OF TAXES

1-3-1300-3210 PIL - Federal - Post Office -2,372 0

1-3-1300-3220 PIL - Ontario - LCBO -2,069 0

1-3-1300-3230 PIL - Landfill -637 0

1-3-1300-3240 PIL - Ontario - Miscellaneous -43,697 0

1-3-1300-3250 PIL - Waterworks -5,340 0

1-3-1300-3280 PIL - Hydro -61,446 -58,000

1-3-1300-3290 PIL - Sewer -2,447 0

Total GRANT IN LIEU OF TAXES -118,008 -58,000ONTARIO GRANTS

1-3-1400-3310 ONTARIO - Municipal Partnership Fund -1,132,600 -1,112,900

1-3-1400-3315 Ontario - Court Security & Trans -200 -200

1-3-1400-3323 ONTARIO - Ontario Infrastructure Grants -240,284 0

1-3-1400-3336 ONTARIO - Modernization 0 -40,000

1-3-1400-3337 ONTARIO - OMAFRA 0 -28,000

1-3-1400-3340 ONTARIO - Miscellaneous -604,888 -292,075

Total ONTARIO GRANTS -1,977,972 -1,473,175FEDERAL GRANTS

1-3-1500-3400 FEDERAL - Gas Tax -212,626 -212,626

1-3-1500-3410 FEDERAL - Summer Student Grant -7,500 -9,510

Total FEDERAL GRANTS -220,126 -222,136ADMINISTRATION REVENUE

1-3-2000-3510 ADMIN - Penalty & Interest on Taxes -190,000 -200,000

1-3-2000-3520 ADMIN - Tax Certificates -11,000 -11,000

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-3-2000-3521 ADMIN - Burial Permits -500 -500

1-3-2000-3530 ADMIN - Tax Sale Revenue -3,000 -3,0001-3-2000-3540 ADMIN - Interest on Bank Account -12,000 -16,000

1-3-2000-3550 ADMIN - Investment Income -500 -500

1-3-2000-3560 ADMIN - Penalty on Water/Sewer -25,000 -15,000

1-3-2000-3570 ADMIN - Water Connect/Disconnect Fees -300 -1,500

1-3-2000-3575 ADMIN - Late Payment Fees on Accts Rec -2,000 -3,000

1-3-2000-3580 ADMIN - Payroll Refunds -500 0

1-3-2000-3585 ADMIN - Licenses 0 -3,500

1-3-2000-3590 ADMIN - Miscellaneous -15,000 -15,000

1-3-2000-6000 Transfers from Reserves 0 -10,000

Total ADMINISTRATION REVENUE -259,800 -279,000SERVICES & RENTS

1-3-2200-3610 SERVICES - Building Rental 0 -1,000

1-3-2200-3620 SERVICES - Commissioning Documents -600 -1,000

1-3-2200-3625 SERVICES - Marriage Ceremony -1,500 -2,000

Total SERVICES & RENTS -2,100 -4,000MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE

1-3-2300-3720 MISC - ORPC (Beachburg Hydro) Revenue -23,000 -23,000

1-3-2300-3725 MISC - Solar Panel Revenue -47,500 -47,500

Total MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE -70,500 -70,500SALES

1-3-2400-3810 SALES - Copies, Faxes, etc. -100 -100

1-3-2400-3820 SALES - Sale of Land 0 -75,0001-3-2400-3830 SALES - Sale of Equipment -5,000 -10,000

1-3-2400-3890 SALES - Miscellaneous -400 -300

Total SALES -5,500 -85,400ARENA MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE

1-3-2600-3766 MISC-WESTMEATH Arena - Donations -500 0

1-3-2600-3767 MISC - COBDEN Arena-Registration fees -2,000 -2,000

1-3-2600-3768 MISC-BEACHBURG Arena-Registration fees -500 0

Total ARENA MISCELLANEOUS REVE -3,000 -2,000ARENA SALES

1-3-2700-3850 SALES - Bar -18,000 -7,500

1-3-2700-3854 SALES COBDEN Arena- Vending -1,000 0

1-3-2700-3855 SALES - BEACHBURG Arena - Vending -500 -500

1-3-2700-3857 SALES - COBDEN Arena - Miscellaneous -500 0

Total ARENA SALES -20,000 -8,000ARENA RENTALS

1-3-2800-3866 RENTALS - COBDEN Arena - Ice -135,000 -124,000

1-3-2800-3867 RENTALS - BEACHBURG Arena - Ice -130,000 -120,000

1-3-2800-3868 RENTALS - WESTMEATH Arena - Ice -60,000 -56,000

1-3-2800-3869 RENTALS - COBDEN Arena - Slab -1,000 -1,000

1-3-2800-3870 RENTALS - BEACHBURG Arena - Slab -1,000 -1,000

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-3-2800-3871 RENTALS - WESTMEATH Arena - Slab -1,000 -1,000

1-3-2800-3872 RENTALS - COBDEN Arena - Ballfield -1,500 -1,0001-3-2800-3875 RENTALS - COBDEN Arena - Signs -7,500 -7,000

1-3-2800-3876 RENTALS - BEACHBURG Arena - Signs -20,000 -18,000

1-3-2800-3877 RENTALS - WESTMEATH Arena - Signs -7,500 -6,000

1-3-2800-3878 RENTALS - Arena Halls -5,000 -4,000

1-3-2800-3879 RENTALS - COBDEN Arena -Canteen space 0 -750

1-3-2800-3880 RENTALS - BEACHBURG Arena -Canteen Space -5,500 -5,500

1-3-2800-3882 RENTALS-Westmeath Arena-Canteen space -1,000 -400

1-3-2800-6000 RENTALS - Transfers from Reserve -65,000 -103,000

Total ARENA RENTALS -441,000 -448,650FIRE DEPARTMENT REVENUE

1-3-3000-3910 FIRE - MTO Fire Revenue -5,000 -1,500

1-3-3000-3915 FIRE - Fire Fees MNR -1,500 -2,000

1-3-3000-3920 FIRE - Fire Fees -9,000 -9,000

1-3-3000-3930 FIRE - Insurance Revenue -2,500 -1,500

1-3-3000-3935 FIRE - Burn Permits 0 -500

1-3-3000-3940 FIRE - Inspection Fees -500 -150

1-3-3000-3950 FIRE - Miscellaneous -500 0

1-3-3000-5000 FIRE - Debenture proceeds -350,000 01-3-3000-6000 Transfer from reserves -85,000 -120,000

Total FIRE DEPARTMENT REVENUE -454,000 -134,650EMERGENCY MEASURES

1-3-3200-4000 EMERGENCY - 911 Signs -1,500 -3,000

Total EMERGENCY MEASURES -1,500 -3,000BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVENUE

1-3-4100-4010 BUILD - Building Permits -65,000 -65,000

1-3-4100-4020 BUILD - Septic Permits -11,000 -14,000

1-3-4100-4030 BUILD - Septic File Search -600 -600

1-3-4100-4040 BUILD - Pool Permits -300 -600

1-3-4100-4050 BUILD - Miscellaneous -100 -100

Total BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVE -77,000 -80,300ANIMAL CONTROL

1-3-4200-4110 ANIMAL CONTROL - Dog Licenses -14,000 -13,000

1-3-4200-4120 ANIMAL CONTROL - Pound Fees -50 -100

1-3-4200-4130 ANIMAL CONTROL - Livestock Refund -10,000 -10,000

1-3-4200-4140 ANIMAL CONTROL - Miscellaneous -50 0

Total ANIMAL CONTROL -24,100 -23,100BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT

1-3-4300-4210 ENFORCE - Set Fines -500 -500

Total BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT -500 -500LOTTERY LICENSE

1-3-4400-4310 LOTTERY - License Fees -3,000 -3,000

Total LOTTERY LICENSE -3,000 -3,000

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

PLANNING REVENUES1-3-4500-4410 PLAN - Compliance Report -3,000 -4,500

1-3-4500-4420 PLAN - Zoning & OP Amendment Fees -9,000 -12,000

1-3-4500-4430 PLAN - Consent Fees -3,000 -6,500

1-3-4500-4440 PLAN - Committee of Adjustment Fees -1,500 01-3-4500-4450 PLAN - Miscellaneous -900 -5,000

1-3-4500-4545 ZONING - Minor Variance Fees 0 -2,000

1-3-4500-6000 PLAN - Transfer from Reserves 0 -20,000

Total PLANNING REVENUES -17,400 -50,000ROADS REVENUE

1-3-5000-4510 ROADS - Equipment Rental -3,500 0

1-3-5000-4540 ROADS - Aggregate License Income -13,500 -17,0001-3-5000-4550 ROADS - Miscellaneous -3,000 -3,000

1-3-5000-4555 ENTRANCE PERMITS -1,500 -1,500

1-3-5000-5000 ROADS - Debenture proceeds -475,000 0

1-3-5000-6000 Transfer from Reserves -165,000 -935,867

Total ROADS REVENUE -661,500 -957,367STREET LIGHT REVENUE

1-3-5100-6000 STREET LIGHTS - Transfer from Reserves 0 -190,000

Total STREET LIGHT REVENUE 0 -190,000SEWER/WATER REVENUE

1-3-6100-4610 SEWER - User/Billing Charges -494,542 -605,515

Total SEWER/WATER REVENUE -494,542 -605,515RECYCLING REVENUE

1-3-7000-4700 RECYCLING - Collection Fee 0 -580,000

1-3-7000-4710 RECYCLING - Sale of Blue Boxes -500 -1,0001-3-7000-4720 RECYCLING - Recycling Funding -57,500 -70,000

Total RECYCLING REVENUE -58,000 -651,000WASTE MANAGEMENT REVENUE

1-3-7100-4810 WASTE - Tipping Fees -260,000 -160,000

1-3-7100-4820 WASTE - Sale of Garbage Bags -145,000 -20,000

1-3-7100-4830 WASTE - Hazardous Waste Funding -6,000 -7,000

1-3-7100-4831 WASTE - Tire Funding -2,500 -1,0001-3-7100-4832 WASTE - Electronic Waste Funding -2,000 -1,000

1-3-7100-4833 WASTE - Scrap Metal -2,000 -1,000

1-3-7100-6000 WASTE - Transfer from Reserves 0 -110,000

Total WASTE MANAGEMENT REVENUE -417,500 -300,000PARKS

1-3-8000-4910 PARKS - Park Fees 0 -2,000

1-3-8000-6000 Transfer from Reserves -9,000 -87,000

Total PARKS -9,000 -89,000BEACH

1-3-8200-5010 BEACH - Registration Fees -2,500 -3,000

Total BEACH -2,500 -3,000

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

BOAT LAUNCHES1-3-8300-5012 BOAT LAUNCHES - Contributions -1,000 -1,000

Total BOAT LAUNCHES -1,000 -1,000TOURISM

1-3-8400-5011 TOURISM - Taste of the Valley Vendor Fee -5,000 -5,000

Total TOURISM -5,000 -5,000RECREATION

1-3-9100-5030 RECREATION- Streetstrut -60,000 0

1-3-9100-6000 RECREATION - Transfer from Reserve -10,000 0

Total RECREATION -70,000 0INDUSTRIA PARK

1-3-9200-6000 INDUSTRIAL PARK - Transfer from Reserve 0 -90,000

Total INDUSTRIA PARK 0 -90,000DRAINS

1-3-9400-5110 DRAINS - Tile Drain Inspector Fee -400 01-3-9400-5115 DRAINAGE - Apportionment 0 -7,500

1-3-9400-5130 DRAINS - Tile Drain Charges -32,000 -22,000

1-3-9400-5140 DRAINS - Tile Drain Payment from Provinc -90,000 -22,000

1-3-9400-6000 DRAINS - Transfer from Reserves 0 -35,000

Total DRAINS -122,400 -86,500CAPITAL REVENUES

1-3-9500-6000 Transfers from Reserves 0 -7,500

Total CAPITAL REVENUES 0 -7,500

Total Revenue -11,058,726 -11,716,350

ExpensesCOUNCIL

1-4-1000-1010 COUNCIL - Salary 140,000 142,000

1-4-1000-1110 COUNCIL - Benefits 2,000 2,800

1-4-1000-1210 COUNCIL - Payroll Deductions 3,500 6,100

1-4-1000-1310 COUNCIL - Travel & Expenses 6,000 5,500

1-4-1000-1320 COUNCIL - Subscriptions and Memberships 3,500 4,000

1-4-1000-1330 COUNCIL - Education, Seminars & Workshop 1,000 0

1-4-1000-1340 COUNCIL - Conferences/Tradeshows 28,000 28,0001-4-1000-2230 COUNCIL- Insurance 3,500 3,800

1-4-1000-2510 COUNCIL - phone/fax Machines 1,750 1,750

1-4-1000-2530 COUNCIL - Public Relations 4,000 4,000

1-4-1000-2550 COUNCIL - Bursary 1,750 1,750

1-4-1000-2555 COUNCIL - Community Initiatives 30,000 0

1-4-1000-5010 COUNCIL - Miscellaneous 5,000 5,000

Total COUNCIL 230,000 204,700AD-HOC COMMITTEES

1-4-1100-5110 Muskrat Lake Sub-Committee 0 5,000

Total AD-HOC COMMITTEES 0 5,000ADMINISTRATION

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-4-2000-1010 ADMIN - Salary 512,000 587,000

1-4-2000-1110 ADMIN - Benefits 88,000 112,6501-4-2000-1210 ADMIN - Payroll Deductions 26,500 31,800

1-4-2000-1220 ADMIN - WSIB 16,500 19,600

1-4-2000-1310 ADMIN - Travel & Expenses 1,500 1,500

1-4-2000-1320 ADMIN - Subscriptions and Memberships 4,000 4,000

1-4-2000-1330 ADMIN - Education, Seminars & Workshops 15,000 14,000

1-4-2000-1340 ADMIN - Conferences/Tradeshows 7,000 6,000

1-4-2000-2110 ADMIN - Office Supplies 10,000 7,500

1-4-2000-2120 ADMIN - Postage 14,000 20,000

1-4-2000-2130 ADMIN - Computer Expenses 30,000 35,000

1-4-2000-2140 ADMIN - Photocopier Expenses 8,000 9,0001-4-2000-2150 ADMIN - Courier Charges 500 500

1-4-2000-2210 ADMIN - Audit 60,000 50,000

1-4-2000-2220 ADMIN - Legal 13,000 15,000

1-4-2000-2230 ADMIN - Insurance 30,000 45,000

1-4-2000-2310 ADMIN - Advertising 10,000 20,000

1-4-2000-2320 ADMIN - Services & Rents 0 4,500

1-4-2000-2330 ADMIN - Health & Safety Expenses 5,000 3,500

1-4-2000-2340 ADMIN - Asset Management 4,255 31,000

1-4-2000-2360 ADMIN - Website 7,500 6,0001-4-2000-2365 ADMIN - TOMRMS 500 500

1-4-2000-2366 ADMIN - ICompass 12,500 12,500

1-4-2000-2370 ADMIN - Christmas Levy 3,000 3,000

1-4-2000-2610 ADMIN - Bank Charges 1,000 1,000

1-4-2000-2710 ADMIN - Tax Sale Expenditures 3,000 3,000

1-4-2000-2720 ADMIN - Tax Write-offs 25,000 25,000

1-4-2000-5010 ADMIN - Miscellaneous 2,000 2,000

1-4-2000-5015 ADMIN - Human Resources 2,000 2,500

1-4-2000-6010 ADMIN - Capital Expenditures 23,500 10,000

1-4-2000-7010 ADMIN - Transfer to Reserves/Reserve Fun 474,113 174,9301-4-2000-8020 ADMIN - Debt Charges - Principal 33,500 33,430

1-4-2000-8030 ADMIN - Debt Charges - Interest 5,100 4,210

Total ADMINISTRATION 1,447,968 1,295,620ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

1-4-2100-2010 ADM BLDG - Materials/Supplies 1,000 1,000

1-4-2100-2015 ADM BLDG - Cleaning Supplies 1,000 800

1-4-2100-2020 ADM BLDG - Hydro 7,000 7,000

1-4-2100-2030 ADM BLDG - Gas/Heating 6,000 5,5001-4-2100-2040 ADM BLDG - Water/Sewer 5,000 5,000

1-4-2100-2050 ADM BLDG - Telephone 8,000 8,000

1-4-2100-2070 ADM BLDG - Security 250 250

1-4-2100-2430 ADM BLDG - Building Repairs & Maintenanc 5,000 3,500

1-4-2100-2435 ADM BLDG - Electricial Inspection 3,500 3,500

1-4-2100-4010 ADM BLDG - Contract Cleaning 4,000 13,500

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-4-2100-5010 ADM BLDG - Miscellaneous 1,000 1,000

Total ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 41,750 49,050FIRE DEPARTMENT

1-4-3000-1010 FIRE - Salary 300,000 300,000

1-4-3000-1110 FIRE - Benefits 18,000 17,700

1-4-3000-1210 FIRE - Payroll Deductions 3,000 4,000

1-4-3000-1220 FIRE - WSIB 25,000 2,800

1-4-3000-1230 FIRE - VFIS Insurance 9,600 8,500

1-4-3000-1310 FIRE - Travel and Expenses 1,000 1,0001-4-3000-1320 FIRE - Subscriptions and Memberships 1,000 1,000

1-4-3000-1330 FIRE - Education, Seminars & Workshops 8,000 8,000

1-4-3000-1340 FIRE - Conferences/Tradeshows 2,000 2,000

1-4-3000-1350 FIRE - Licenses 5,000 0

1-4-3000-2010 FIRE - Material/Supplies 10,000 10,000

1-4-3000-2020 FIRE - Hydro 8,500 8,500

1-4-3000-2030 FIRE - Gas/Heating 14,000 13,000

1-4-3000-2040 FIRE - Water/Sewer 2,000 2,000

1-4-3000-2050 FIRE - Telephone 8,500 8,000

1-4-3000-2060 FIRE - Fuel and Oil 12,000 14,000

1-4-3000-2110 FIRE - Office Supplies 1,000 1,0001-4-3000-2130 FIRE - Computer Expenses 1,000 2,000

1-4-3000-2230 FIRE - Insurance 22,000 22,000

1-4-3000-2409 FIRE - Uniforms 0 22,000

1-4-3000-2410 FIRE - Equipment Repairs & Maintenance 12,000 11,000

1-4-3000-2411 FIRE - P.P.E. Repairs & Maintenance 5,000 9,000

1-4-3000-2412 FIRE - Radios 10,000 11,000

1-4-3000-2413 FIRE - Hydrant Repairs & Maintenance 5,000 5,000

1-4-3000-2414 FIRE - Motorized Equipment 1,000 4,000

1-4-3000-2420 FIRE - Truck Expenses 13,000 14,000

1-4-3000-2430 FIRE - Building Repairs & Maintenance 6,000 6,0001-4-3000-2810 FIRE - Public Education 2,000 2,000

1-4-3000-2820 FIRE - Dispatch Fees 7,000 7,500

1-4-3000-5010 FIRE - Miscellaneous 10,000 5,000

1-4-3000-6010 FIRE - Capital Expenditures 435,000 120,000

1-4-3000-7010 FIRE - Transfer to Reserves 10,000 0

1-4-3000-8020 FIRE - Debt Charges Principal 48,000 50,000

1-4-3000-8030 FIRE - Debt Charges Interest 7,500 18,000

Total FIRE DEPARTMENT 1,023,100 710,000POLICING

1-4-3100-5030 POLICING - Requisition 1,096,500 1,102,102

Total POLICING 1,096,500 1,102,102EMERGENCY MEASURES

1-4-3200-1010 EMERGENCY - Salary 11,000 13,900

1-4-3200-1110 EMERGENCY - Benefits 0 2,500

1-4-3200-1210 EMERGENCY - Payroll Deductions 0 633

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-4-3200-1220 EMERGENCY - WSIB 0 500

1-4-3200-1330 EMERGENCY - Education, Seminars & Worksh 1,500 2,0001-4-3200-2010 EMERGENCY - Materials/Supplies 1,500 2,000

1-4-3200-3910 EMERGENCY - Flood Management 3,000 15,000

1-4-3200-3920 EMERGENCY - 911 Signs 1,500 1,500

1-4-3200-5010 EMERGENCY - Miscellaneous 20,500 500

1-4-3200-7010 EMERGENCY - Transfer to Reserves 0 10,000

Total EMERGENCY MEASURES 39,000 48,533BUILDING ADMINISTRATION

1-4-4000-1010 BUILD ADMIN - Salary 81,000 77,100

1-4-4000-1110 BUILD ADMIN - Benefits 15,000 13,900

1-4-4000-1210 BUILD ADMIN - Payroll Deductions 5,300 3,800

1-4-4000-1220 BUILD ADMIN - WSIB 2,700 2,500

1-4-4000-1310 BUILD ADMIN - Travel & Expenses 100 0

1-4-4000-1330 BUILD ADMIN - Education, Seminars & Work 3,000 1,500

1-4-4000-1340 BUILD ADMIN - Conferences/Tradeshows 2,000 1,500

1-4-4000-2010 BUILD ADMIN - Materials/Supplies 2,000 1,000

1-4-4000-2050 BUILD ADMIN - Telephone 1,000 1,000

1-4-4000-2060 BUILD ADMIN - Fuel and Oil 0 4,500

1-4-4000-2220 BUILD ADMIN - Legal 15,000 10,0001-4-4000-2230 BUILD ADMIN - Insurance 1,500 1,500

1-4-4000-2420 BUILD ADMIN - Truck Expenses 2,500 3,000

1-4-4000-5010 BUILD ADMIN - Miscellaneous 3,500 2,000

1-4-4000-7010 BUILD ADMIN - Transfer to Reserves 3,000 3,000

Total BUILDING ADMINISTRATION 137,600 126,300BUILDING DEPARTMENT

1-4-4100-1320 BUILD - Subscriptions and Memberships 1,000 750

Total BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1,000 750ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT

1-4-4200-1010 ANIMAL CONTROL - SALARY 4,500 4,300

1-4-4200-1110 ANIMAL CONTROL - BENEFITS 0 815

1-4-4200-1210 ANIMAL CONTROL - PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 0 200

1-4-4200-1220 ANIMAL CONTROL - WSIB 0 143

1-4-4200-2010 ANIMAL CONTROL - Materials/Supplies 600 5001-4-4200-2220 ANIMAL CONTROL-LEGAL 1,500 0

1-4-4200-3210 ANIMAL CONTROL - Livestock Killed 10,000 10,000

1-4-4200-3220 ANIMAL CONTROl - Pound Charges 500 500

1-4-4200-4010 ANIMAL CONTROL - Contract 3,420 4,100

1-4-4200-4020 ANIMAL CONTROL - Sale of Dog Tags 1,500 1,000

1-4-4200-5010 ANIMAL CONTROL - Miscellaneous 500 1,000

1-4-4200-5030 ANIMAL CONTROL - Requisition - Vet Unit 1,950 1,700

Total ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMEN 24,470 24,258BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT

1-4-4300-1010 ENFORCE - SALARY 4,500 13,200

1-4-4300-1110 ENFORCE - BENEFITS 0 2,500

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-4-4300-1210 ENFORCE - PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 0 600

1-4-4300-1220 ENFORCE - WSIB 0 4001-4-4300-1320 ENFORCE - Subscriptions and Memberships 50 250

1-4-4300-2010 ENFORCE - Materials/Supplies 200 200

1-4-4300-2220 ENFORCE - Legal 1,000 1,000

1-4-4300-3310 ENFORCE - Property Standards Committee 1,000 1,000

1-4-4300-4010 ENFORCE - Contract 6,200 6,200

1-4-4300-5010 ENFORCE - Miscellaneous 1,500 300

Total BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT 14,450 25,650PLANNING

1-4-4500-1010 PLAN - Salary 75,000 102,710

1-4-4500-1110 PLAN-Benefits 12,000 17,000

1-4-4500-1210 PLAN-Payroll Deductions 5,800 4,700

1-4-4500-1220 PLAN-WSIB 2,300 3,400

1-4-4500-1310 PLANNING - Travel & Expenses 0 500

1-4-4500-1320 PLANNING - Subscriptions & Memberships 800 1,500

1-4-4500-1330 PLAN - Education, Seminars & Workshop 3,000 3,000

1-4-4500-1340 PLANNING - Conferences/Tradeshows 0 3,000

1-4-4500-2010 PLAN - Materials/Supplies 1,000 400

1-4-4500-2220 PLAN - Legal 7,500 4,0001-4-4500-3410 PLAN - County of Renfrew Prep Costs 1,500 0

1-4-4500-3415 PLANNING - Statutory Notices 0 1,000

1-4-4500-3420 PLAN - Official Plan/Zoning Bylaw Review 25,000 0

1-4-4500-3430 PLAN - Committee of Adjustment 400 0

1-4-4500-3435 PLANNING - Contracted Services 0 22,000

1-4-4500-3440 PLANNING - CIP 0 25,000

1-4-4500-3445 PLANNING - Streetscaping & Sings 0 30,000

1-4-4500-5010 PLAN - Miscellaneous 130,000 500

1-4-4500-6010 PLAN - Capital Expenditures 0 25,000

Total PLANNING 264,300 243,710TRANSPORTATION

1-4-5000-1010 ROADS - Salary 833,705 904,300

1-4-5000-1110 ROADS - Benefits 138,000 138,500

1-4-5000-1120 ROADS - Boot Allowance 4,500 4,800

1-4-5000-1210 ROADS - Payroll Deductions 64,000 55,200

1-4-5000-1220 ROADS - WSIB 27,000 30,100

1-4-5000-1310 ROADS - Travel & Expenses 500 5001-4-5000-1320 ROADS - Subscriptions and Memberships 2,000 3,000

1-4-5000-1330 ROADS - Education, Seminars & Workshops 10,000 5,000

1-4-5000-1340 ROADS - Conferences/Tradeshows 0 1,500

1-4-5000-1350 ROADS - Licenses 22,000 22,000

1-4-5000-2010 ROADS - Garage Supplies 55,000 58,000

1-4-5000-2015 ROADS - Cleaning Supplies 1,000 1,000

1-4-5000-2020 ROADS - Hydro 15,000 15,000

1-4-5000-2030 ROADS - Gas/Heating 24,000 20,000

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-4-5000-2040 ROADS - Water/Sewer 1,300 1,300

1-4-5000-2050 ROADS - Telephone 8,500 8,5001-4-5000-2060 ROADS - Fuel and Oil 175,000 175,000

1-4-5000-2110 ROADS - Office Supplies 1,000 1,000

1-4-5000-2130 ROADS - Computer Expenses 4,000 13,000

1-4-5000-2150 ROADS - Courier Charges 500 500

1-4-5000-2220 ROADS - Legal 5,000 3,500

1-4-5000-2230 ROADS - Insurance 30,000 30,000

1-4-5000-2330 ROADS - Health & Safety Expenses 0 3,500

1-4-5000-2410 ROADS - Equipment Repairs & Maintenance 225,000 200,000

1-4-5000-2430 ROADS - Building Repairs & Maintenance 20,000 20,000

1-4-5000-2440 ROADS - Equipment Rental 50,000 58,0001-4-5000-3710 ROADS - Tools 6,000 6,000

1-4-5000-3715 ROADS - Signs 13,000 13,000

1-4-5000-3720 ROADS - Culverts 20,000 20,000

1-4-5000-3730 ROADS - Line Painting 15,000 15,000

1-4-5000-3735 ROADS - Cold Mix Asphalt 70,000 80,000

1-4-5000-3740 ROADS - Tree Trimming 13,500 7,500

1-4-5000-3750 ROADS - Salt 175,000 160,000

1-4-5000-3755 ROADS - Sand 35,000 35,000

1-4-5000-3760 ROADS - Gravel 100,000 100,0001-4-5000-3770 ROADS - Dust Control 95,000 95,000

1-4-5000-3785 ROADS - Beaver Control 1,000 1,500

1-4-5000-3790 ROADS - Storm Sewers 10,000 7,000

1-4-5000-3795 ROADS - Engineering 0 105,000

1-4-5000-5010 ROADS - Miscellaneous 13,000 8,000

1-4-5000-6010 ROADS - Capital Expenditures 241,666 506,000

1-4-5000-6030 ROADS - Road Construction Major 927,910 969,567

1-4-5000-7010 ROADS - Transfer to Reserves 38,770 10,000

1-4-5000-8020 ROADS - Debt Charges Principal 67,000 133,946

1-4-5000-8030 ROADS - Debt Charges Interest 30,000 54,831

Total TRANSPORTATION 3,588,851 4,100,544STREET LIGHTS

1-4-5100-2010 STREET LIGHTS - Material/Supplies 162,695 0

1-4-5100-3110 STREET LIGHTS - Lapasse 6,000 5,000

1-4-5100-3120 STREET LIGHTS - Westmeath 13,000 12,500

1-4-5100-3130 STREET LIGHTS - Industrial Park 1,000 1,000

1-4-5100-3140 STREET LIGHTS - Foresters Falls 6,500 6,500

1-4-5100-3150 STREET LIGHTS - Robert Colin Lane 750 7501-4-5100-3160 STREET LIGHTS - Haley Station 12,000 12,000

1-4-5100-3170 STREET LIGHTS - Beachburg 25,000 15,000

1-4-5100-3180 STREET LIGHTS - Cobden 45,000 40,000

1-4-5100-3190 STREET LIGHTS - Haley Townsite 5,000 5,000

1-4-5100-3195 STREET LIGHTS - Springfield Drive 1,200 1,200

1-4-5100-6010 STREET LIGHTS - Capital Expenditures 0 190,000

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

Total STREET LIGHTS 278,145 288,950CROSSING GUARDS

1-4-5200-1010 GUARDS - Salary 25,000 23,900

1-4-5200-1110 GUARDS - Benefits 1,000 450

1-4-5200-1210 GUARDS - Payroll Deductions 1,300 1,700

1-4-5200-1220 GUARDS - WSIB 800 800

1-4-5200-1330 GUARDS- Education, Seminars, Workshops 1,000 0

1-4-5200-5010 GUARDS - Miscellaneous 900 500

Total CROSSING GUARDS 30,000 27,350AIRPORT

1-4-5300-5030 AIRPORT - Requisition 17,500 25,000

Total AIRPORT 17,500 25,000SEWER - DISTRIBUTION

1-4-6000-1010 SEWER DIST - Salary 4,350 5,900

1-4-6000-1110 SEWER DIST - Benefits 610 1,0501-4-6000-1210 SEWER DIST - Payroll Deductions 300 300

1-4-6000-1220 SEWER DIST - WSIB 140 200

1-4-6000-1330 SEWER DIST - Education, Seminars & Works 25,000 0

1-4-6000-2010 SEWER DIST - Materials/Supplies 2,500 2,500

1-4-6000-2440 SEWER DIST - Equipment Rental 2,500 0

1-4-6000-2464 SEWER DIST - Sanitary Main/Line Repairs 0 2,500

1-4-6000-2465 SEWER DIST - Sewer Line Maintenance 75,000 60,000

1-4-6000-5010 SEWER DIST - Miscellaneous 0 15,000

Total SEWER - DISTRIBUTION 110,400 87,450SEWER - TRANSMISSION

1-4-6100-1010 SEWER TRANS - Salary 4,350 5,900

1-4-6100-1110 SEWER TRANS - Benefits 610 1,050

1-4-6100-1210 SEWER TRANS - Payroll Deductions 300 300

1-4-6100-1220 SEWER TRANS - WSIB 140 200

1-4-6100-1330 SEWER TRANS - Education, Seminars & Work 500 500

1-4-6100-2230 SEWER TRANS - Insurance 5,042 5,200

1-4-6100-2410 SEWER TRANS - Equipment Repairs & Mainte 10,000 9,500

1-4-6100-2430 SEWER TRANS - Building Repairs & Mainten 2,500 5001-4-6100-4010 SEWER TRANS - Contract Operating Charges 300,000 270,000

1-4-6100-4015 SEWER TREAT - Contract Management 0 36,000

1-4-6100-5010 SEWER TRANS - Miscellaneous 10,500 10,500

1-4-6100-5020 SEWER TRANS - PIL Sewer Plant 1,400 1,400

1-4-6100-6010 SEWER TRANS - Capital Expenditures 15,000 0

1-4-6100-7010 SEWER TRANS - Transfer to Reserves 0 45,535

1-4-6100-8020 SEWER TRANS - Debt Charges Principal 6,800 8,480

1-4-6100-8030 SEWER TRANS - Debt Charges Interest 42,000 123,000

Total SEWER - TRANSMISSION 399,142 518,065RECYCLING

1-4-7000-2310 RECYCLING - Advertising 0 2,000

1-4-7000-4010 RECYCLING - Contract Recycling Pickup 173,000 281,000

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-4-7000-4047 RECYCLING - Processing 0 48,000

1-4-7000-4245 RECYCLING - Blue Boxes/Bins 1,500 1,5001-4-7000-4246 RECYCLING - Trucking expenses 9,000 6,000

1-4-7000-5010 RECYCLING - Miscellaneous 500 500

Total RECYCLING 184,000 339,000WASTE - GENERAL

1-4-7100-1310 WASTE - Travel & Expenses 1,000 1,000

1-4-7100-1320 WASTE - Subscriptions and Memberships 400 500

1-4-7100-1330 WASTE - Education, Seminars & Workshops 2,000 2,0001-4-7100-2110 WASTE - Office Supplies 200 200

1-4-7100-2230 WASTE - Insurance 1,400 1,500

1-4-7100-2330 WASTE - Health & Safety Expenses 0 1,500

1-4-7100-2420 WASTE - Truck Expenses 1,000 1,000

1-4-7100-4010 WASTE - Contract Garbage Pickup 108,000 240,000

1-4-7100-4210 WASTE - Freon Removal 3,000 3,000

1-4-7100-4220 WASTE - Signs 1,000 1,800

1-4-7100-4240 WASTE - Garbage Bags 11,000 0

1-4-7100-4250 WASTE - Hazardous Waste Expenses 22,000 23,000

1-4-7100-5010 WASTE - Miscellaneous 500 500

1-4-7100-7010 WASTE - Transfer to Reserves 0 11,000

Total WASTE - GENERAL 151,500 287,000LANDFILL - COBDEN

1-4-7200-4340 LANDFILL COBDEN - Monitoring 15,000 15,000

1-4-7200-5020 LANDFILL COBDEN - PIL County Share 175 175

Total LANDFILL - COBDEN 15,175 15,175LANDFILL - WESTMEATH

1-4-7300-4340 LANDFILL WESTMEATH - Monitoring 15,000 15,000

1-4-7300-5020 LANDFILL WESTMEATH - PIL County Share 225 225

Total LANDFILL - WESTMEATH 15,225 15,225LANDFILL - ROSS

1-4-7400-1010 LANDFILL ROSS - Salary 140,000 127,400

1-4-7400-1110 LANDFILL ROSS - Benefits 20,000 19,500

1-4-7400-1210 LANDFILL ROSS - Payroll Deductions 9,500 8,1001-4-7400-1220 LANDFILL ROSS - WSIB 4,500 4,200

1-4-7400-2010 LANDFILL ROSS - Materials/Supplies 1,000 1,000

1-4-7400-2020 LANDFILL ROSS - Hydro 2,500 2,500

1-4-7400-2050 LANDFILL ROSS - Telephone 2,700 2,700

1-4-7400-2060 LANDFILL ROSS - Fuel and Oil Excavator 11,000 8,500

1-4-7400-2410 LANDFILL ROSS - Equipment Repairs & Main 7,500 7,500

1-4-7400-2470 LANDFILL ROSS - Chipper/Grinder Rental 13,000 20,000

1-4-7400-4340 LANDFILL ROSS - Monitoring 32,000 32,000

1-4-7400-4355 LANDFILL ROSS - Development 2,500 3,0001-4-7400-5010 LANDFILL ROSS - Miscellaneous 1,000 500

1-4-7400-5020 LANDFILL ROSS - PIL County Share 450 400

1-4-7400-6010 LANDFILL ROSS - Capital Expenditures 0 210,000

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-4-7400-7010 LANDFILL ROSS - Transfer to Reserves 0 20,000

Total LANDFILL - ROSS 247,650 467,300PARKS

1-4-8000-1010 PARKS - Salary 72,000 192,600

1-4-8000-1110 PARKS - Benefits 13,500 30,920

1-4-8000-1210 PARKS - Payroll Deductions 5,000 10,750

1-4-8000-1220 PARKS - WSIB 2,500 3,100

1-4-8000-1330 PARKS - Education, Seminars & Workshops 3,000 6,420

1-4-8000-2010 PARKS - Materials/Supplies 8,000 8,0001-4-8000-2020 PARKS - Hydro 6,000 5,000

1-4-8000-2050 PARKS - Telephone 1,000 1,000

1-4-8000-2060 PARKS - Fuel & Oil 0 1,000

1-4-8000-2220 PARKS - Legal 25,000 0

1-4-8000-2230 PARKS - Insurance 25,000 27,000

1-4-8000-2310 PARKS - Advertising 0 2,500

1-4-8000-2380 PARKS - Christmas Lights 12,000 0

1-4-8000-2420 PARKS - Truck Expenses 0 6,000

1-4-8000-2430 PARKS - Repairs & Maintenace 0 11,100

1-4-8000-3435 PARKS - Contracted Services 0 40,000

1-4-8000-3740 PARKS - Tree Removal 0 3,0001-4-8000-3795 PARKS - Engineering 0 25,000

1-4-8000-5010 PARKS - Miscellaneous 1,000 1,000

1-4-8000-5210 PARKS - Grants 0 20,000

1-4-8000-6010 PARKS - Capital Expenditures 45,000 80,000

1-4-8000-7010 PARKS - Transfers to Reserves 0 10,000

Total PARKS 219,000 484,390TOURIST BOOTH

1-4-8100-1010 TBOOTH - Salary 10,500 9,828

1-4-8100-1110 TBOOTH - Benefits 250 200

1-4-8100-1210 TBOOTH - Payroll Deductions 650 550

1-4-8100-1220 TBOOTH - WSIB 350 300

1-4-8100-2010 TBOOTH - Materials/Supplies 1,300 1,500

1-4-8100-2050 TBOOTH - Telephone 1,500 1,500

1-4-8100-2230 TBOOTH - Insurance 350 400

1-4-8100-2310 TBOOTH - Advertising 1,000 1,000

1-4-8100-2430 TBOOTH - Building Repairs & Maintenance 2,000 2,500

1-4-8100-5010 TBOOTH - Miscellaneous 1,100 1,1001-4-8100-5210 TBOOTH - Grants 0 5,000

Total TOURIST BOOTH 19,000 23,878BEACH PROGRAM

1-4-8200-1010 BEACH - Salary 19,000 0

1-4-8200-1110 BEACH - Benefits 400 0

1-4-8200-1210 BEACH - Payroll Deductions 1,100 0

1-4-8200-1220 BEACH - WSIB 600 0

1-4-8200-2010 BEACH - Materials/Supplies 2,500 0

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-4-8200-2310 BEACH - Advertising 500 0

1-4-8200-6010 BEACH-Capital Expenditures 8,500 0

Total BEACH PROGRAM 32,600 0TOURISM

1-4-8400-1010 TOURISM - Salary 22,600 0

1-4-8400-1110 TOURISM - Benefits 1,500 0

1-4-8400-1210 TOURISM - Payroll Deductions 1,200 0

1-4-8400-1220 TOURISM - WSIB 700 0

1-4-8400-2310 TOURISM - Advertising 3,000 01-4-8400-2321 TOURISM-Events 2,000 0

1-4-8400-5010 TOURISM - Miscellaneous 1,000 0

1-4-8400-5019 TOURISM - Streetstrut 60,000 0

1-4-8400-5040 TOURISM - Taste of the Valley Expenses 5,000 5,000

Total TOURISM 97,000 5,000ARENA - COBDEN

1-4-8500-1010 COBDEN Arena - Salary 121,000 118,700

1-4-8500-1110 COBDEN Arena- Benefits 11,200 12,4001-4-8500-1120 COBDEN Arena - Boot Allowance 1,000 600

1-4-8500-1210 COBDEN Arena - Payroll Deductions 7,300 8,700

1-4-8500-1220 COBDEN Arena - WSIB 3,800 3,900

1-4-8500-1310 COBDEN Arena - Travel & Expenses 100 0

1-4-8500-1330 COBDEN Arena - Education,Seminars & Work 2,000 0

1-4-8500-2015 COBDEN Arena - Cleaning Supplies 2,000 2,000

1-4-8500-2020 COBDEN Arena - Hydro 55,000 55,000

1-4-8500-2030 COBDEN Arena - Gas/Heatinng 5,000 5,000

1-4-8500-2040 COBDEN Arena - Water/Sewer 10,000 10,000

1-4-8500-2050 COBDEN Arena - Telephone 3,000 3,0001-4-8500-2061 COBDEN Arena - Propane 3,000 2,000

1-4-8500-2410 COBDEN Arena - Equipment repairs/supplie 12,000 10,000

1-4-8500-2430 COBDEN Arena - Building repairs & Mainte 9,000 10,000

1-4-8500-2431 COBDEN Arena - Ice Making & Maintenance 15,000 20,000

1-4-8500-2432 COBDEN Arena - Repairs to Ice Plant 8,000 0

1-4-8500-4420 COBDEN Arena - Bar Purchases 12,000 5,000

1-4-8500-4440 COBDEN Arena - Canteen admin 1,700 0

1-4-8500-5010 COBDEN Arena - Miscellaneous 900 1,700

1-4-8500-6010 COBDEN Arena - Capital Expenditures 0 8,000

Total ARENA - COBDEN 283,000 276,000ARENA - BEACHBURG

1-4-8600-1010 BEACHBURG Arena - Salary 92,000 77,100

1-4-8600-1110 BEACHBURG Arena - Benefits 8,000 8,500

1-4-8600-1120 BEACHBURG Arena - Boot Allowance 1,000 350

1-4-8600-1210 BEACHBURG Arena - Payroll Deductions 5,000 5,600

1-4-8600-1220 BEACHBURG Arena - Wsib 2,600 2,500

1-4-8600-1310 BEACHBURG Arena - Travel & Expenses 100 0

1-4-8600-1330 BEACHBURG Arena - Education,Seminar&work 2,000 0

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-4-8600-2010 BEACHBURG Arena - Materials & Supplies 1,000 0

1-4-8600-2015 BEACHBURG Arena - Cleaning Supplies 2,000 2,0001-4-8600-2020 BEACHBURG Arena - Hydro 40,000 40,000

1-4-8600-2030 BEACHBURG Arena - Gas/Heating 6,000 6,000

1-4-8600-2040 BEACHBURG Arena - Water/Sewer 5,000 5,000

1-4-8600-2050 BEACHBURG Arena - Telephone 1,800 1,800

1-4-8600-2060 BEACHBURG Arena - Propane 3,500 3,500

1-4-8600-2410 BEACHBURG Arena - Equipment repairs/supp 8,000 8,000

1-4-8600-2430 BEACHBURG Arena - Building repairs & mai 16,500 16,500

1-4-8600-2431 BEACHBURG Arena - Ice Making & Maintenan 15,000 20,000

1-4-8600-5010 BEACHBURG Arena - Miscellaneous 1,000 1,700

1-4-8600-6010 BEACHBURG Arena - Capital Expenditures 0 118,0001-4-8600-7010 BEACHBURG Arena - Transfer to reserve 0 50,000

Total ARENA - BEACHBURG 210,500 366,550ARENA - WESTMEATH

1-4-8700-1010 WESTMEATH Arena - Salary 52,000 50,500

1-4-8700-1110 WESTMEATH Arena - Benefits 4,000 2,000

1-4-8700-1120 WESTMEATH Arena - Boot Allowance 500 300

1-4-8700-1210 WESTMEATH Arena - Payroll Deductions 3,500 3,500

1-4-8700-1220 WESTMEATH Arena - Wsib 1,200 1,5001-4-8700-1310 WESTMEATH Arena - Travel & Expenses 100 0

1-4-8700-1330 WESTMEATH Arena - Education, Seminar& Wo 2,000 0

1-4-8700-2010 WESTMEATH Arena - Material & Supplies 750 0

1-4-8700-2015 WESTMEATH Arena - Cleaning Supplies 2,200 1,600

1-4-8700-2020 WESTMEATH Arena - Hydro 40,000 40,000

1-4-8700-2050 WESTMEATH Arena - Telephone 700 700

1-4-8700-2061 WESTMEATH Arena - Propane 2,000 2,000

1-4-8700-2410 WESTMEATH Arena - Equipment repairs/supp 5,000 3,000

1-4-8700-2430 WESTMEATH Arena - Building Repairs/Maint 10,500 20,000

1-4-8700-2431 WESTMEATH Arena - Ice Making & Maintenan 15,000 12,5001-4-8700-5010 WESTMEATH Arena - Miscellaneous 550 1,700

1-4-8700-6010 WESTEMATH Arena - Capital Expenditure 65,000 8,500

Total ARENA - WESTMEATH 205,000 147,800LIBRARIES

1-4-9100-5210 LIBRARY - Grant 77,000 83,000

1-4-9100-6010 LIBRARY - Capital 10,000 2,000

Total LIBRARIES 87,000 85,000RECREATION

1-4-9110-1010 RECREATION - Salary 110,000 0

1-4-9110-1110 RECREATION - Benefits 21,000 0

1-4-9110-1210 RECREATION - Payroll Deductions 6,500 0

1-4-9110-1220 RECREATION - WSIB 3,500 0

1-4-9110-1310 RECREATION - Travel & Expenses 1,200 0

1-4-9110-1330 RECREATION - Education, Seminars & Works 4,500 0

1-4-9110-2015 RECREATION-HEALTHY KIDS 5,000 0

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

1-4-9110-2130 RECREATION - Software/computers 3,000 0

1-4-9110-2131 RECREATION - Programming 1,000 01-4-9110-2420 RECREATION - Truck Expense 6,000 0

1-4-9110-5010 RECREATION - Miscellaneous Expenses 2,300 0

1-4-9110-6010 RECREATION - Capital Expenditure 175,000 0

Total RECREATION 339,000 0MUSEUM

1-4-9120-2020 MUSEUM - Hydro 1,400 0

1-4-9120-2230 MUSEUM - Insurance 900 01-4-9120-5010 MUSEUM - Miscellaneous Expenses 5,000 0

1-4-9120-5210 MUSEUM - Grant 0 7,500

1-4-9120-6010 MUSEUM - Capital Expenditures 0 7,500

Total MUSEUM 7,300 15,000INDUSTRIAL PARK

1-4-9200-2010 IND PARK - Materials/Supplies 500 0

1-4-9200-2020 IND PARK - Hydro 7,500 7,500

1-4-9200-2060 IND PARK - Fuel and Oil 250 01-4-9200-2220 IND PARK - LEGAL & SURVEY 5,000 5,000

1-4-9200-2410 IND PARK - Equipment Repairs & Maintenan 750 0

1-4-9200-2430 IND PARK - Building Repairs & Maintenanc 2,000 65,000

1-4-9200-5010 IND PARK - Miscellaneous 0 5,000

1-4-9200-6010 IND PARK - Capital Expenditures 0 20,000

Total INDUSTRIAL PARK 16,000 102,500DRAINAGE

1-4-9300-1010 DRAINAGE - Salary 0 21,300

1-4-9300-1110 DRAINAGE - Benefits 0 3,9001-4-9300-1210 DRAINAGE - Payroll Deductions 0 1,100

1-4-9300-1220 DRAINAGE - WSIB 0 700

1-4-9300-1330 DRAINAGE - Education, Seminars & Worksho 500 3,500

1-4-9300-2010 DRANAGE - Materials/Supplies 100 0

1-4-9300-2012 DRAINAGE-Catch Basins clearing&repairs 5,000 0

1-4-9300-3435 DRAINAGE - Contracted Services 0 56,000

1-4-9300-5010 DRAINAGE - Miscellaneous 35,000 35,000

1-4-9300-8110 DRAINAGE - Loans paid to Province 32,000 22,0001-4-9300-8120 DRAINAGE - Loans paid to Borrowers 90,000 22,000

1-4-9300-8130 DRAINAGE - Municipal Drains 0 15,000

Total DRAINAGE 162,600 180,500INTERNAL/EXTERNAL TRANSFERS

1-4-9400-7050 TRANSFER to Beachburg Hydro 23,000 23,000

Total INTERNAL/EXTERNAL TRANSF 23,000 23,000

Total Expenses 11,058,726 11,716,350

Total GENERAL FUND 0 0

2 WATER FUND

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

RevenueWATER - ADMINISTRATION

2-3-1302-3324 ONTARIO - OCIF top-up -35,000 0

2-3-1302-3540 WATER - Interest on Bank Account -493 -500

Total WATER - ADMINISTRATION -35,493 -500COBDEN - USER CHARGES

2-3-2304-4610 COBDEN WATER - User/Billing Charges -408,254 -992,520

Total COBDEN - USER CHARGES -408,254 -992,520COBDEN - CAPITAL REVENUES

2-3-2305-6000 COBDEN WATER - Transfer from Reserve -69,762 -294,000

Total COBDEN - CAPITAL REVENUE -69,762 -294,000BEACHBURG - USER CHARGES

2-3-3304-4610 BEACHBURG WATER - User/Billing Charges -369,379 0

Total BEACHBURG - USER CHARGES -369,379 0BEACHBURG - CAPITAL REVENUES

2-3-3305-6000 BEACHBURG WATER - Transfer from Reserve -44,792 0

Total BEACHBURG - CAPITAL REVE -44,792 0HALEY - USER CHARGES

2-3-4304-4610 HALEY WATER - User/Billing Charges -58,026 0

Total HALEY - USER CHARGES -58,026 0

Total Revenue -985,706 -1,287,020

ExpensesCOBDEN - ADMINISTRATION

2-4-2401-1330 COBDEN WATER - Education, Seminars & Wor 500 1,500

2-4-2401-2230 COBDEN WATER - Insurance 7,700 16,950

2-4-2401-4010 COBDEN WATER - Contracts 255,000 461,000

2-4-2401-4015 COBDEN ADMIN - Contract Management 0 67,000

2-4-2401-5020 COBDEN WATER - PIL 1,300 8,000

2-4-2401-8020 COBDEN WATER - Debt Charges - Principal 30,760 65,620

2-4-2401-8030 COBDEN WATER - Debt Charges - Interest 51,200 74,120

Total COBDEN - ADMINISTRATION 346,460 694,190COBDEN - TRANSMISSION

2-4-2402-1010 COBDEN WATER TRANS - Salary 5,045 15,360

2-4-2402-1110 COBDEN WATER TRANS - Benefits 707 2,850

2-4-2402-1210 COBDEN WATER TRANS - Payroll Deductions 340 900

2-4-2402-1220 COBDEN WATER TRANS - WSIB 55 600

2-4-2402-2410 COBDEN WATER TRANS - Equipment Repairs & 25,000 40,450

2-4-2402-2430 COBDEN WATER TRANS - Building Repairs & 2,000 14,000

2-4-2402-5010 COBDEN WATER TRANS - Miscellaneous 5,500 11,2502-4-2402-6010 COBDEN WATER TRANS - Capital Expenditure 55,000 264,000

2-4-2402-7010 COBDEN WATER TRANS - Transfer to Reserve 0 150,860

Total COBDEN - TRANSMISSION 93,647 500,270COBDEN - DISTRIBUTION

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

2-4-2403-1010 COBDEN WATER DIST - Salary 5,045 15,360

2-4-2403-1110 COBDEN WATER DIST - Benefits 707 2,8502-4-2403-1210 COBDEN WATER DIST - Payroll Deductions 340 900

2-4-2403-1220 COBDEN WATER DIST - WSIB 55 600

2-4-2403-2010 COBDEN WATER DIST - Materials/Supplies 2,500 4,600

2-4-2403-2440 COBDEN WATER DIST - Equipment Rental 7,500 0

2-4-2403-2455 COBDEN WATER DIST - Watermain Line Repai 0 27,500

2-4-2403-5010 COBDEN WATER DIST - Miscellaneous 7,000 10,750

2-4-2403-6010 COBDEN WATER DIST - Capital Expenditures 32,150 30,000

Total COBDEN - DISTRIBUTION 55,297 92,560BEACHBURG - ADMINISTRATION

2-4-3401-1330 BEACHBURG WATER - Education, Seminars & 500 0

2-4-3401-2230 BEACHBURG WATER - Insurance 7,465 0

2-4-3401-4010 BEACHBURG WATER - Contracts 245,000 0

2-4-3401-5020 BEACHBURG WATER - PIL 6,700 0

2-4-3401-8020 BEACHBURG WATER - Debt Charges - Princip 27,200 0

2-4-3401-8030 BEACHBURG WATER - Debt Charges - Interes 5,150 0

Total BEACHBURG - ADMINISTRATI 292,015 0BEACHBURG - TRANSMISSION

2-4-3402-1010 BEACHBURG WATER TRANS - Salary 4,890 0

2-4-3402-1110 BEACHBURG WATER TRANS - Benefits 685 0

2-4-3402-1210 BEACHBURG WATER TRANS - Payroll Deductio 330 0

2-4-3402-1220 BEACHBURG WATER TRANS - WSIB 55 0

2-4-3402-2410 BEACHBURG WATER TRANS - Equipment Repair 10,000 0

2-4-3402-2430 BEACHBURG WATER TRANS - Building Repairs 6,500 0

2-4-3402-5010 BEACHBURG WATER TRANS - Miscellaneous 6,000 0

2-4-3402-6010 BEACHBURG WATER TRANS - Capital Expendit 46,000 02-4-3402-7010 BEACHBURG WATER TRANS - Transfer to Rese 2,974 0

Total BEACHBURG - TRANSMISSION 77,434 0BEACHBURG - DISTRIBUTION

2-4-3403-1010 BEACHBURG WATER DIST - Salary 4,890 0

2-4-3403-1110 BEACHBURG WATER DIST - Benefits 685 0

2-4-3403-1210 BEACHBURG WATER DIST - Payroll Deduction 330 0

2-4-3403-1220 BEACHBURG WATER DIST - WSIB 55 02-4-3403-2010 BEACHBURG WATER DIST - Materials/Supplie 1,000 0

2-4-3403-2440 BEACHBURG WATER DIST - Equipment Rental 3,000 0

2-4-3403-5010 BEACHBURG WATER DIST - Miscellaneous 5,000 0

2-4-3403-6010 BEACHBURG WATER DIST - Capital Expenditu 46,625 0

Total BEACHBURG - DISTRIBUTION 61,585 0HALEY - ADMINISTRATION

2-4-4401-1330 HALEY WATER - Education, Seminars & Work 500 0

2-4-4401-2230 HALEY WATER - Insurance 550 02-4-4401-4010 HALEY WATER - Contracts 19,000 0

2-4-4401-8020 HALEY WATER - Debt Charges - Principal 9,470 0

2-4-4401-8030 HALEY WATER - Debt Charges - Interest 15,400 0

of 368


Account Code : 1-?-????-???? To 2-?-????-????

Fiscal Year : 2019


COUNCILPRESENTATION

Total HALEY - ADMINISTRATION 44,920 0HALEY - TRANSMISSION

2-4-4402-1010 HALEY WATER TRANS - Salary 365 0

2-4-4402-1110 HALEY WATER TRANS - Benefits 55 0

2-4-4402-1210 HALEY WATER TRANS - Payroll Deductions 25 0

2-4-4402-1220 HALEY WATER TRANS - WSIB 5 0

2-4-4402-2410 HALEY WATER TRANS - Equipment Repairs & 4,500 0

2-4-4402-2430 HALEY WATER TRANS - Building Repairs & M 2,500 0

2-4-4402-5010 HALEY WATER TRANS - Miscellaneous 1,000 02-4-4402-6010 HALEY WATER TRANS - Capital Expenditures 1,225 0

2-4-4402-7010 HALEY WATER TRANS - Transfer to Reserves 3,723 0

Total HALEY - TRANSMISSION 13,398 0HALEY - DISTRIBUTION

2-4-4403-1010 HALEY WATER DIST - Salary 365 0

2-4-4403-1110 HALEY WATER DIST - Benefits 55 0

2-4-4403-1210 HALEY WATER DIST - Payroll Deductions 25 0

2-4-4403-1220 HALEY WATER DIST - WSIB 5 02-4-4403-5010 HALEY WATER DIST - Miscellaneous 500 0

Total HALEY - DISTRIBUTION 950 0

Total Expenses 985,706 1,287,020

Total WATER FUND 0 0

of 368

Schedule “A”

Building & Planning Services *V.3 December 4, 2019

Building & Planning

Description 2020 Fee

Official Plan Amendment Application $900.00

Zoning By-law Amendment/Temporary $800.00

Holding Zone Removal $200.00

Minor Variance $400.00

Severance $200.00

Site Plan Control Approval $800.00

Plan of Subdivision/Condominium $1,300.00

Professional Services (once the deposit has been depleted, additional deposit is required)

Cost Recovery ($5,000.00 deposit required)

Pre-servicing Agreement $350.00

Part-Lot Control $300.00

Lifting of One-Foot Reserves $200.00

Zoning Compliance Report $100.00 per roll number

Development/Road/Other Agreements $200.00

County Official Plan (Copy of document) $50.00

Zoning By-law (Copy of document) $50.00

Multiple Applications 10% off/Application

Building Permits

• Base Rate (plus below)

• If construction commences prior to issuance of permit

$100.00 + (see below)

Fee x 2

• Residential (New, Additions or Extensive Renovations (plumbing permit included)

$0.52/sq. ft.

• Residential (Accessory Buildings) $0.47/sq. ft.

• Commercial, Industrial, Institutional (New, Additions or Extensive Renovations)

$0.58/sq. ft.

• Commercial, Industrial, Institutional (Accessory Buildings/Deck)

$0.52/sq. ft.

• Agriculture (New Construction, Additions or Extensive Renovations)

$0.18/sq. ft.

• Agriculture (Accessory Buildings & Storage Containers (Silos)

$0.18/sq. ft.

Agriculture (Dry Storage Containers – Grain Silos)

$100.00

Residential patio decks less than 400 sq. ft. without a roof

$100.00

Pool Permit $100.00

Installation of Solid Fuel Burning Appliance

(outdoor wood burning appliance)

$100.00

Inspections

• All required inspections are included in the building permit fee (exceptions see below)

Included in permit fee

• Additional Inspection, as required $30.00

• Fee for each inspection following a non-issued Occupancy Permit

• Liquor License (SOP)

$75.00

$75.00

Occupancy Permit

• If building permit is open, no additional fee for Occupancy Permit

No Charge

• If building permit is closed, Occupancy Permit fee required

$75.00

• Fee for each additional inspection Refer to Inspections

of 368

following a non-issued Occupancy Permit (see Inspections)

• Change of Use Permit $175.00

• Transfer of Permit $30.00

Deferral of Revocation of Permit $30.00

Transmission

• INCLUDES: Transmitter, Telecommunications towers, Pumping stations, Hydro stations and sub-stations, Related appurtances/plant

$6.00 per thousand dollars construction value

Demolition Permits

• 600 sq. ft. or less $30.00 + (see below)

• For each additional 100 sq. ft. or portion thereof

$2.00/100 sq. ft. or portion thereof

File Search Fee (Building/Septic Permit) $50.00 per roll number

Sewage System


For approval of a plan of subdivision under the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 CH. 13

$75.00 for each lot or block shown on the proposed plan of subdivision

For approval of a condominium $125.00 for each on-site sewage system that is proposed for installed up to 10,000L

For Approval For Consents Under the Planning Act

$100.00 for each severance application

Septic Permit for a class 2 sewage system $100.00


Septic Permit for a class 4 sewage system – Leaching Bed

$400.00

Septic Permit for a class 4 sewage system – Filter Bed

$450.00


File search fees $50.00 per roll number

Investigations $30.00 per hour

Septic Permit for a tank change only $100.00 per tank

If application is received after work has begun

20% Surcharge

of 368

Animal Control


Dog License

• Sterilized Dogs (Before March 31st) $15.00

• Sterilized Dogs (After March 31st) $30.00

• Unsterilized Dogs (Before March 31st)

$25.00

• Unsterilized Dogs (After March 31st) $40.00

Replacement Tags $5.00

Impoundment Fee’s

• First day of impoundment of part thereof or all costs incurred whichever is greater

$50.00

• Each additional day of impoundment or all costs incurred, whichever is greater

$10.00

Kennel License $75.00 per year

Live Trap Rental

• Per Week $20.00

• Additional Week (4 weeks maximum)

$10.00

of 368

Schedule “B”

Recreation and Tourism

Parks & Boat Launches


Boat Launch Fee (excludes ice fishing tournaments)

• Organized Fishing Tournament (between May and October long weekends)

• Organized Fishing Tournament (before May or after October long weekends)

$250.00 per event

$10.00 per boat

• Daily Launch Fee No Charge

Programming (not listed above) Market Rate

Arenas (Ice Rentals Effective August 1, 2020)


Ice Rental

• Minor – Prime/Tournament $121.20 per hour

• School – Weekday $ 85.85 per hour

• Adult – Prime $183.48 per hour

• Adult – Weekday/Tournament $138.40 per hour

• Jr. B – Game $155.00 per hour

• Jr. B – Prime Practice

• Jr. B – Weekday

$137.00 per hour

$ 90.00 per hour

• Holiday Rate $195.80 per hour

Slab Rental

• Basic Rental $700.00 per event

• Auctions $330.00 per event

• Hourly $50.00 per hour

Cobden Ball Diamond

• Minor Use $32.00 per game

• Minor Use with Lights $38.00 per game

• Adult Use $45.00 per game

• Adult Use with Lights $55.00 per game

Cobden Hall Rental

• Basic Hall Rental

• Basic Hall Rental with kitchen

$25.00 per hour

$30.00 per hour

• Basic Day (with bar only)

• Basic Day (with bar and kitchen)

$300.00 per day

$325.00 per day

Programming (not listed above) Market Rate

of 368

Definitions:

“Day” means a rental consisting of four or more hours, but less than 10 and approved by the Manager of

Parks & Recreation or his/her designate.

“Event” means one (1) event pre-arranged and approved with the Manager of Parks & Recreation or his/her designate.

“Game” means, for the purposes of ball diamond rental, the time to play one (1) game, typically taking between 1 – 2 hours in length.

“Holiday Rate” means, any day defined by the Township or by the province as the recognized holiday including but not limited to: New Year Day, Family Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Victoria Day Canada Day, Civic Holiday, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day. The Township

reserves the right to select which arenas remain open during holidays.

“Hour” means, for the purposes of ice rental, 50 minutes of on-ice time. For all other services “Hour” shall mean 60 minutes.

“Market Rate” means the rate determined by the market (i.e. rate charged for a service at a particular time) rather than a calculated rate such as cost recovery.

“Prime” means 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Monday to Friday, Saturday and Sundays, and includes holidays.

“Season” means September to April, for the purposes of Public Skating, when the ice surface is being maintained.

“Weekday” means 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, except holidays.

of 368

Schedule “C”

General Government

Administrative Charges


Commissioning Documents & Certified True Copies

$10.00 per document

Administrative Research $7.50 per 15 minutes

Burial Permits $10.00

Photocopies $0.20 per page

Faxes $1.00 per document for local or toll free

$1.00 per page for long distance

Tax Certificates (per roll #) $50.00

Community Hall (at Municipal Office)

Free of charge for community use (if approved)

$30/hr all other

NSF Cheques $50.00

Township Apparel At cost

Township Map $8.00

County Map $8.00

MFOI Application Fee $5.00

MFOI Search and Preparation Time $7.50 per 15 minutes

MFOI Disc $10.00

MFOI associated costs Per invoice

MFOI costs to develop a computer program to provide a readable record

$15.00 per 15 minutes

Civil Ceremony

In Office (during office hours)

Offsite

Witnesses

Cancellation Fee/Deposit

$200.00

$300.00 + mileage

$25.00 per person

$100.00

Lottery Licenses


All eligible lottery events

(replaces below)

3% of prize value

Wheels - $10 per wheel of fortune per day

Municipal Tax Sales


All Municipal Tax Sale Events (replaces below)

$150.00 Admin Charge plus cost recovery for all other fees & charges by Real Tax

of 368

Schedule “D”

Fire & Emergency Services

Fire & Emergency Services


Burn Permits:

Recreational Burn

Open Air Burn

Special Permit

Commercial Campsite

No Charge

No Charge

$75.00/Event

$150.00/Season

Request for Property Information $50.00

Letter to Insurance &/or Lawyer $50.00

Inspections, upon request

(incl. special occasion permit)

$75.00

Fire Vehicle (incl. equipment)

• Fire Vehicle - to attend incident Per MTO rate in force and effect.

• Fire Vehicle Refurbishment - post incident

Per MTO rate in force and effect.

• Additional vehicles &/or equipment (outside fleet)

Cost Recovery

Firefighters Cost Recovery

of 368

Schedule “E”

Public Works

Roads


Entrance Permit $100.00

Civic address sign (installed) $150.00

Private Road Sign Cost Recovery

Tile Drain Road Crossing Approval $100.00

Utility Road Crossing Permit $100.00

Sale of Used Culverts Cost Recovery

Private Road & Driveway Grading NOT Provided

Winter Sand

• Residential Use No Charge – limited to 3yd3 annually

• Commercial Use NOT provided

Equipment/Operator (Township use only)

Cost Recovery based on MTO Rates + Operator

All Operator and cost recovery rates are subject to the following:

1. “Regular Hours of Work” shall mean Monday to Friday 7:00 am to 3:30 pm excluding Statutory Holidays as stated in Township Policy.

2. “Outside Regular Hours of Work” shall mean any hours worked beyond those hours defined as Regular Hours of Work. Outside Regular Hours of Work is one and a half (1 ½) times Regular Hours of Work

rate.

3. “Emergency Rate” means a serious, unexpected, or unforeseen combination of circumstances and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action, need for assistance or relief. Emergency rate is

three (3) times the Regular Hours of Work rate.

of 368

Waste Management


Special Opening Closing of Site -

Tuesday to Friday 8:30 am to 3:30 pm (no holidays), subject to attendant availability

$50.00 per opening/closing

Waste Collection Fee

(2 Bags/week + unlimited recycling)

$156.00/unit

Garbage Bags

• WWR yellow garbage bags $5.00 each

• WWR yellow garbage bag distributer

$4.50 each

• Landfill Site $5.00/bag

Appliances

• Refrigerated appliances (with or without Freon), includes refrigerator, freezer, air-conditioner, dehumidifier, and water coolers

$25.00 each

• All non-refrigerated appliances No Charge

Scrap Metal No Charge

Furniture $15.00 per item

Leaf & Yard Waste No Charge

Brush No Charge

Stumps & Logs NOT Accepted

Tires (all sizes – with or without rims) No Charge

Batteries No Charge

Recyclables (accepted in Blue Box Program)

No Charge

Cardboard No Charge

Residential & IC&I Solid Waste

• Sorted Minimum charge of $15.00 per vehicle or $15.00/yd3

whichever is greater.

• Unsorted Minimum charge of $20.00 per vehicle or $20.00/yd3


Construction & Demolition (C&D) Solid Waste

• Sorted or Mechanically ground Minimum charge of $15.00 per vehicle or $15.00/yd3


• Unsorted Minimum charge of $20.00 per vehicle or $20.00/yd3


Contaminated Soil – subject to submission of acceptable testing

$50.00/yd3 plus equipment and operator fee to manage (e.g. turn/roll) material and relocate as required

Asbestos NOT Accepted

Hazardous Material NOT Accepted

Boats $5.00 per foot

Vehicles (whole) NOT Accepted

Equipment/Operator (Township Use Only)

Cost Recovery based on MTO Rates + Operator

Blue Boxes – 16 gallon $15.00 each

of 368

All Operator and cost recovery rates are subject to the following:



rate.

3. “Emergency Rate” means a serious, unexpected, or unforeseen combination of circumstances and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action, need for assistance or relief. Emergency rate is

three (3) times the Regular Hours of Work rate.

of 368

Water


Water Rates Billed every other month

• Residential $148.26

• Multi-Residential (1st unit) $148.26

• Multi-Residential (2nd & subsequent units)

$118.60

• Small Commercial $148.26

• Medium Commercial $222.38

• High/Large Commercial $296.48

• Metered $7.03/1000 gallons or minimum of 1 small residential or commercial rate, whichever is higher

• Vacancy 20% of regular water rate per unit

Wastewater

Sewer Rates Billed every other month

• Residential $184.22

• Multi-Residential (1st unit) $184.22

• Multi-Residential (2nd & subsequent units)

$147.38

• Small Commercial $184.22

• Medium Commercial $276.34

• High/Large Commercial $368.44

• Metered $12.98/1000 gallons or a minimum of 1 small residential or commercial rate, whichever is higher

• Vacancy 20% of regular sewer per unit

Water Service Turn-on/Turn-off

• Water Service Turn-on (during regular hours)

$50.00

• Water Service Turn-off (during regular hours)

$50.00

• Water Service Turn-on (outside regular hours)

$100.00

• Water Service Turn-off (outside regular hours)

$100.00

Bulk Water – A WWR employee/contractor must be in attendance and a backflow preventer must be in place.

$10.00 per 1000 gallons + $20.00 loading fee per load

Water Line Steamer $30.00 per day

Sewer Snake Rental $20.00 per day

Service Installations

• Water &/or Sanitary &/or Storm

Owner shall install from main to property line (rehabilitate cut/trench to existing or better condition) plus OCWA inspection fee $100.00 per connection

RV Waste Discharge NOT Accepted

Contaminated Ground Water NOT Accepted

Sewage Holding Tank Transfer NOT Accepted

of 368

Definitions:



rate.

of 368

Minister Delegation Requests at the ROMA Conference

Recommendation: That General Government Committee receive this report for information purposes as it relates to delegation requests for meeting with Ministers of the Provincial Government at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) Conference to be held in Toronto from January 19-21, 2020.

Background: The Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) takes pride in promoting, supporting and enhancing strong and effective rural governments. ROMA is the rural arm of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). AMO works to make municipal governments stronger and more effective, representing Ontario’s 444 municipalities. The ROMA conference is held on an annual basis with an opportunity to request delegations with Provincial Ministers to discuss issues of importance.

Analysis: The following provides a summary of proposed delegation requests by Ministry.

The Honourable John Yakabuski, Minister of Natural Resources & Forestry

• 2017 and 2019 Flooding Public Inquiry

The Honourable Lisa McLeod, Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries

• Whitewater Tourism Industry, day use at Ottawa River Provincial Park • Cobden Astrolabe Arena/Community Centre Project • Tourism-Oriented Directional Signing Program – McDonald Burying Grounds –

War of 1812 Veterans

The Honourable Laurie Scott, Minister of Infrastructure

• Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Beachburg Water Tower Project • Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Cobden Astrolabe Arena/Community

Centre Project • Ontario Communities Infrastructure Fund – Formula-Based Component

The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing

• Disaster Recovery Assistance and Post Recovery Activities • Areas of Non-Decision in Official Amendment #11 • Efficiency and Effectiveness Activities undertaken by the Township

The Honourable Caroline Mulroney, Minister of Transportation

• Future Planning for Highway 17/417 Expansion in Whitewater Region

Meeting Date:

Contact:

613-646-2282

December 4, 2019

Robert Tremblay, CAO

[email protected]

of 368

mailto:[email protected]


Costs associated with conference attendance are budgeted. Members of Council will be in attendance with the assistance of the CAO.

Next Steps:

Delegation requests will be submitted by the deadline.

Prepared by: Robert Tremblay, Chief Administrative Officer

of 368

Collaboration with Other Municipalities – Efficiencies & Modernization

Recommendation:

That General Government Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approve:

1. Participation in the Local Efficiency Group (LEG) comprised of the municipalities of Admaston/Bromley, Horton, Greater Madawaska, Renfrew, McNab/Braeside and Arnprior;

2. Participation in a Municipal Modernization Program Expression of Interest with the LEG partners for a service delivery review to include all partners to seek out cross border opportunities to improve services and achieve efficiencies; and

3. Appointment of the Chair and Co-Chair of General Government Committee as the Council liaisons for this initiative.

Background:

On March 20, 2019 Minister Steve Clark announced that the Provincial Government was giving a one-time unconditional investment to Ontario’s small and rural municipalities. The investment is meant to aid small and rural municipalities in improving service delivery to their communities. The Township received $629,888. In May 2019 Council approved the allocation of funding received by the Province. Council also generally supported regional efforts for efficiency. The County of Renfrew hosted a session on October 23, 2019 with representatives of each municipality in the County and the City of Pembroke to discuss existing and potential shared services. The session was attended by the Reeve and CAO. In November 2019, the Minister announced additional funding for the Municipal Modernization Program with program guidelines for the new application-based initiative. The Township will be submitting its own Expression of Interest for a review of parks & recreation services. Analysis:

Municipalities to our east have been meeting to review opportunities for cross border collaboration to improve service delivery and achieve efficiencies. The group welcomes the participation of Whitewater Region. In addition, other opportunities for collaboration may exist with other non-participating municipalities. Based on the results of the County organized meeting, the three top areas identified for collaboration include policy development, capital purchasing and protective services.


Contact: Robert Tremblay, CAO


of 368


The Municipal Modernization Program provides 100% funding for third-party reviews. Should the LEG be successful in its $200,000 application, an RFP for professional services will be issued.

Next Steps:

The Township of Admaston/Bromley will submit the required Expression of Interest form by the deadline for the LEG proposal.

Attachments:

Attachment #1: County of Renfrew Meeting Summary Attachment #2: Greater Madawaska Staff Report

Prepared by: Robert Tremblay, Chief Administrative Officer

of 368

Shared Services October 23, 2019

Shared Service Interest

1. Municipal Policy Working Group – Common Policies 8

2. Capital purchasing – County led tender process (ie. sand/salt/gravel) 8

3. By‐law Officers, CBO, Fire Chiefs, Program Supervisors 7

4. Common Communication Plan – landline, web, email, text 6

5. IT/HR/Economic Development 5

6. Asset Management System 5

7. Training – County‐wide training Program – Construction Lien Act 5

8. Insurance 4

9. Finance (Common Accounting System Managed Centrally) 4

10. Library Services‐Head Library with satellites 3

11. Parks and Recreation Facilities/Costs ‐ Local Coordination 2

12. Plowing 2

13. How do we address turf? Attrition 2

14. Mutual Aid Fire Services – extraction 2

15. Social Media – Local Coordination 1

16. Discuss areas where we can reduce red tape / Regulatory requirements 1

17. Lobby Province eg. AMP 1

18. Legal Services 1

19. Recruitment 0

20. Operation of landfill site 0

21. Planning 0

22. Centralized Taxation 0

23. Leasing of Office Equipment – Local Coordination 0

24. Joint Funding and Grant Applications 0

25. Municipal Letters of Support for Mutually Beneficial Programs 0

26. Waste management 0

27. Road maintenance agreements 0

28. Physician recruitment 0

of 368

29. Seniors Support Programs 0

30. OCWA

31. ORPC

32. Water Management Plan

33. Community Safety Plan

34. Joint CEMC group

35. Volunteers – shared

36. Funding support for Service Clubs

37. Integrity Commissioner

38. Next Steps - Take messages from today back to AMO/ROMA - Share info with all participants - Get meetings together for various programs ie fire, roads - Identify areas where there needs to be coordinated lobby efforts - Public Works Meetings – County

of 368

November 28, 2019 Special Council

Report

To: Mayor & Council

From: Allison Holtzhauer

Date: November 20, 2019

Subject: Expression of Interest Municipal Modernization Program - Joint Application

Recommendation

That Council approves proceeding with the joint submission of the Expression of Interest for the Municipal Modernization Program with some or all of the partners of the Local Efficiency Group (LEG);

And furthermore, Council instructs staff to commence drafting an RFP (Request for Proposal) for the following:

• An individual Service Delivery Review for all participating municipalities

• Service Delivery Review for the Local Efficiency Group

The purpose is to seek out opportunities to improve service levels and efficiencies across border levels, with all municipalities included on the Expression of Interest.

Background

After receiving notification from Minister Clark, in March of 2019, that municipalities would be receiving one-time Modernization Funding, Greater Madawaska reached out to neighbouring municipalities who are in close proximity and/or they are already working as partners in various efforts to provide services in the most efficient manner feasible. The municipalities include Towns of Renfrew and Arnprior, Townships of Admaston/Bromley, Greater Madawaska, Horton, McNab/Braeside and Whitewater Region. The municipalities included have tentatively named the group the Local Efficiency Group or LEG.

At the initial meeting the Head of Councils and staff representatives from each municipality met to discuss and review each discipline and determine if there were opportunities for efficiencies and/or modernization. It was decided that each Mayor would take the lead on a discipline and meet with staff from each municipality. Mayor Donohue lead Public Works/Operations, Mayor Eady lead Library, Recreation and Economic Development, Mayor Bennett lead Fire and Mayor Hunt, lead Finance and Administration. After the individual meetings were completed a follow-up meeting was called to review the outcomes and opportunities.

The minutes of the various meetings were accumulated and discussed at a follow up meeting such that a complete list of the departments reviewed could be discussed. From the information gathered a presentation was prepared and presented by Mayor Hunt at the County Wide Shared Services Meeting in Eganville.

of 368

November 28, 2019 Special Council

As a result of the County wide meeting, County staff prepared and circulated a document outlining the top areas where it was felt that there was an opportunity for modernization and/or efficiencies.

At a LEG meeting on November 18, 2019 the County list was further discussed by the participants to determine if the items were either a County-Wide initiative or a LEG initiative. The meeting then focused in on the LEG initiatives as there is a funding opportunity, called the Municipal Modernization Program, announced on November 12, 2019. The program is focused on obtaining a service delivery review to be completed by third-party reviewers. The timeline for the project is as follows:

• November 22, 2019 Advise Municipal Services Office of your municipality’s intention to apply

• December 6, 2019 – Submit your Expression of Interest

• January – February 2020 Learn whether your application is approved

• June 15, 2020 – Submit your third-party reviewer’s draft report to the ministry

• June 30, 2020 Post the third-party reviewer’s final report online and submit your final report to the ministry.

Furthermore, staff followed up with Municipal Service Staff and determined that a municipality can submit multiple applications. The intention to apply is simply advising the Municipal Service Office that your municipality and/or municipalities intends to apply, no details on the project need to be provided at this time.

Discussion

After much discussion on next steps, those in attendance agreed upon the following:

• There is no issue if any municipality wishes to submit an Expression of Interest independent of the LEG

• Admaston Bromley staff would be advising the Municipal Services Office of the LEG’s intention to apply on behalf of all or some of the members of the LEG, as some municipalities need to discuss and obtain approval from their respective Councils.

• Greater Madawaska staff would be preparing a report to be circulated and shared to outline what the application would entail.

• Admaston Bromley would be completing and submitting the Expression of Interest. The amount being requested is $200,000.

The application is for a service delivery review of each participating member of the LEG, if their respective Council approves inclusion on the application, as well as a cross border review to seek out opportunities to improve service levels and efficiencies included on the Expression of Interest.

Financial Implications

The application being submitted is for $200,000. At this time there are no further financial implications, however in the event the LEG is successful, the RFP may exceed the $200,000 and some financial contributions may be necessary. In the event the RFP exceeds the budget staff will advise Council with a recommendation on how to proceed.

Respectfully Submitted,

Allison Holtzhauer

of 368

Recruitment & Organizational Structure Policies

Recommendation:

That General Government Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region enact by-laws to adopt the Recruitment & Employment Policy and Organizational Structure Policy.

Background:

The Township adopted the County of Renfrew Human Resources Policies at the time of amalgamation in 2001. Some periodic updates have occurred over the years. The 2019 CAO Workplan identified a general update of human resources policies as a priority.

Analysis:

Staff are reviewing all human resources policies to ensure currency and applicability. Two policies are included in this report.

The Organizational Structure Policy deals with the non-union grid, organizational chart and job evaluation process. The Recruitment & Employment Policy deals with the hiring process, as well as dress code, accessibility and equity & diversity matters related to employment.

Additional policies will be presented at upcoming meetings, including Pay & Benefits, Employee Wellness & Return to Work, Progressive Discipline & Termination, Training & Development, Violence & Harassment Prevention, Health & Safety, as well as Employee Code of Conduct.


None at this time. Attachments: Draft Policies Next Steps:

By-laws will be prepared for the December 11, 2019 meeting. Prepared by: Marsha Hawthorne, Pay & Benefits Coordinator

Robert Tremblay, Chief Administrative Officer


Contact: Robert Tremblay, CAO


of 368

Corporate Policy

Recruitment & Employment Policy | 1

Policy: Recruitment & Employment Policy

Main Contact: Chief Administrative Officer

Last Revision: December 2019

Policy Statement

Purpose

Definitions

Policy Requirements

Monitoring

Authority

Contact

Change History

Policy Statement The Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region ensures appropriate policies are in place to facilitate consistent and fair recruitment practices.

Purpose This policy provides guidance on the recruitment process to ensure that the Township maintains transparency and accessibility for anyone who wishes to apply to any position. It outlines the process on the following:

• Hiring • Staffing • Dress Code • Probation • Equality & Diversity • Accessibility.

of 368

Corporate Policy


Definitions “The Township of Whitewater Region” or the terms ‘Township’, ‘Whitewater Region’, ‘Whitewater’ or ‘Municipality’ are defined as pertaining to ‘The Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region’.

“Hiring Panel” is defined as an internal ad hoc working team comprised of staff selected by the CAO and Council Members selected by the Mayor to conduct recruitment for staffing positions.

“Medical Practitioner” is defined as an individual who is licensed or otherwise authorized to provide health care services. This can include a doctor, surgeon, health-care practitioner and a nurse practitioner, chiropractor, physiotherapist.

“Officer” is defined as, and applies to and includes, all employees designated by the following titles: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Clerk, Treasurer/Deputy CAO, Fire Chief/CEMC and Chief Building Official. The term ‘officer’ also means Managers, Planner/EDO and Superintendents.

“Full-Time Employee” is defined as, and applies to, any employee who has been appointed to a full-time permanent position as provided for in the departmental staff complement.

“Part-Time Employee” is defined as, and applies to, any employee employed to work for a short term and/or whose hours of work are consistently less than the standard workweek for the appropriate full-time classification.

“Contract Employee” is defined as an employee with whom the Township of Whitewater Region enters into a contract of service for a specified term, and with specific terms of employment or on a project basis and outside of a current classification.

“Casual Employee” is defined as an employee who has no preset scheduled hours of work and is called in on a ‘as needed’ basis.

“Student Employee” is defined as those attending school on a regular full-time basis and who are generally employed on weekends, evenings, and during school holidays.

“Volunteer” is defined as those who offer their services of their own free will, without monetary reimbursement.

of 368

Corporate Policy


Policy Requirements 1.0 Hiring 1.1 Interview Expenses

Applicants selected for interviewing purposes may, at the discretion of the CAO, be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred to attend the interview.

1.2 Employment in more than One Department The Township does encourage participation on the Fire Department. Should an employee be on the roster for the Fire Department, leave to attend a fire call is generally granted, when safe to do so, and without negatively impacting operations with notification of the supervisor.

1.3 Driver’s Abstract (a) The Township will request a Ministry of Transportation Driver’s Abstract for

all prospective employees. This is a cost that will be absorbed by the Township.

(b) All employees whose job description requires use of municipal insured vehicles must hold a valid Ontario Driver’s Licenses in the class/classes required for the responsibilities of their position.

1.4 Reference Checks (a) Reference checks are conducted to obtain additional or substantiating

information concerning an applicant. (b) Personal and professional reference checks shall be undertaken on all new

and prospective employees by the Pay & Benefits Coordinator or designate prior to any formal offer of employment.

1.5 Medical Certification – Physical Requirements For new employees, following the offer of employment but as a condition of employment, each new employee must: (a) Certify that in their view, they are physically able to perform the essential

duties of the position.

(b) Based on the nature of the job offer, provide certification from a legally qualified medical practitioner that the employee is physically able to perform the essential duties of the position. The certification should be returned to the Pay & Benefits Coordinator prior to the reporting date. However, if the employee’s services are required before the doctor’s appointment can be made, then it is permissible to have the certificate submitted within thirty days of the reporting date.

of 368

Corporate Policy


1.6 Criminal Reference Checks (a) Prospective employees are required to obtain and provide a criminal record

check/police record check from the police force responsible for the jurisdiction of their current place of residence.

(b) Any costs associated with obtaining a criminal record check/police record check are the sole responsibility of the prospective employee.

(c) The offer of employment is conditional upon successful completion of a criminal record check/police record check at the discretion of the CAO.

1.7 Moving Expenses (Full-Time Employees) (a) On the recommendation of the CAO, new recruits may be eligible for moving

expense assistance, if they reside outside of the Township of Whitewater Region, subject to the approval of the Hiring Panel.

(b) Up to three credible quotes from moving companies must be submitted and reimbursement is limited to a maximum of $2,000. Claims must reflect the individual’s, and/or immediate family’s personal and household effects only.

(c) The maximum amount may be increased by Council for the position of CAO. (d) Claims are submitted (with copies of invoices and the three quotes) to the

Treasurer/Deputy CAO for approval. 1.8 Employee Confidentiality Statement

(a) All Township of Whitewater Region employees must sign an Employee Confidentiality Statement as a condition of a written offer of employment to ensure the security and confidentiality of records and personal information under the control of the Township of Whitewater Region.

(b) The Employee Confidentiality Statement is signed, dated, witnessed, and placed in the individual’s personnel file.

(c) A new employee’s refusal to complete an Employee Confidentiality’ Statement after signing a written offer of employment could void and nullify the written offer of employment.

1.9 Employee Code of Conduct and Other Policies (a) All Township of Whitewater Region employees must sign the Employee Code

of Conduct Acknowledgement as a condition of a written offer of employment to ensure understanding of Whitewater Region’s corporate values and expected conduct.

(b) The Employee Code of Conduct Acknowledgement is signed, dated, witnessed, and placed in the individual’s personnel file.

of 368

Corporate Policy


(c) All new Township of Whitewater Region employees must also acknowledge any other policies deemed necessary and complete mandatory training in a timely fashion.

(d) A new employee’s refusal to complete the required acknowledgement after signing a written offer of employment could void and nullify the written offer of employment.

2.0 Staffing 2.1 Each manager is responsible for recruiting staff in accordance with budgeted

hours, expenditures and pay rates approved by Council and in keeping with Human Resources policies and procedures. Consult the CUPE Local 4353 Collective Agreement for any deviations to the following requirements: (a) Written applications for employment are kept on file for three months. (b) All vacancies for permanent positions are posted internally for a minimum of

one week. (c) External postings, when required, are to be undertaken concurrently with

internal postings. (d) If an advertisement is required, it must state the position title, hours of work,

duties, qualifications and experience desired, salary, and location. (d). The CAO or designate will review the applications and select those

applicants to be interviewed. (e) The Hiring Panel will conduct the interview and any additional components

deemed required, such as a presentation or written exercise. (f) A verbal offer of employment, confirming salary and start date shall be made

to the successful candidate by the CAO or designate on the recommendation of the Hiring Panel.

(g) The CAO or designate will ensure a written offer of employment is completed. A formal employment agreement is required for all non-union full-time continuous positions.

3.0 Dress Code 3.1 The Township of Whitewater Region adopts a ‘Dress for Your Day’ approach.

Employees are considered to be responsible and able to assess appropriate work attire. The Township’s competency of professionalism is to be adhered to.

3.2 Township required uniforms, items of clothing and personal protective equipment are to be worn as directed.

3.2 Any disagreement on work attire shall be discussed with the employee, brought to the attention of the supervisor, and reviewed for direction by the CAO.

of 368

Corporate Policy


4.0 Probation 4.1 All newly hired employees are subject to a probationary period from the date of

hiring. Permanent appointment as an employee of the Township shall be subject to a satisfactory performance during the formal probationary period.

4.2 Union Employees (full-time and part-time) Consult the Collective Agreement for any deviations to the items below: (a) A first probationary assessment is completed by the supervisor on or before

50% of the probationary period has been completed. (b) The final probationary assessment is completed by the supervisor prior to the

completion of the probationary period. The supervisor advises the CAO of the employment continuation decision.

4.3 Non-Union Employees: (a) The probationary period for non-union employees is three months. (b) Within the first four weeks of employment, the employee and their supervisor

will establish performance expectations for the position. (c) After eight weeks, a preliminary probationary assessment is completed by

the supervisor. (d) Should the employee not be a good fit, termination can occur prior to the

three-month mark at the discretion of the CAO. (e) Prior to completion of the probationary period, the supervisor reviews the

probationary period and assesses the performance with the employee and advises the CAO of the employment continuation decision.

(f) At the discretion of the CAO, the probationary period may be extended to a maximum of one year at the time of hire or after the initial three-month period.

(g) During the probationary period, employees are entitled to all rights and privileges except with respect to discharge.

(h) Employment of employees may be terminated at any time during the formal probationary period without recourse to an appeal procedure.

4.4 It is the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure that the performance of a probationary employee is monitored, and that proper documentation is completed.

4.5 The decision to dismiss a probationary employee is to be made by the CAO in consultation with the supervisor. Council will be informed of any termination.

4.6 If a decision is made to dismiss a probationary employee, notice, if applicable, shall be in accordance with the policy on termination.

of 368

Corporate Policy


4.7 After completion of the probationary period, seniority (when applicable), is effective from the employees last date of hire.

5.0 Equality and Diversity 5.1 The Township of Whitewater Region is committed to promoting equality and

diversity and promoting a culture that actively values difference and recognizes that people from different backgrounds and experiences can bring valuable insights to the workplace and enhance the way we work.

5.2 The Township is committed to ensuring that every employee is entitled to a working environment that promotes dignity, equality and respect for all. The Township will not tolerate any acts of unlawful or unfair discrimination (including harassment) committed against an employee, contractor, job applicant, elected official or visitor because of a protected characteristic, specifically sex, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race (including ethnic origin, colour, nationality and national origin), disability, sexual orientation, religion and or belief, and age.

5.3 No form of intimidation, bullying or harassment will be tolerated. If a person believes that they may have suffered discrimination because of any of the above protected characteristics, they should consider the appropriateness and feasibility of attempted informal resolution by discussion in the first instance with their supervisor, manager. They may decide in the alternative to raise the mater through the Township of Whitewater Region’s Workplace Violence & Harassment Policy or grievance procedure.

5.4 Allegations regarding potential breaches of this policy will be treated in confidence and investigated in accordance with the appropriate procedure. The Township of Whitewater Region will ensure that individuals who make such allegations in good faith will not be victimized or treated less favourably by the Township as a result. However, false allegations of a breach of this policy which are found to have been made in bad faith will be dealt with under the Township of Whitewater Region’s discipline and dismissal procedures. Employees may also be personally liable for any acts of discrimination prohibited by this policy that they commit, meaning that they may be held accountable through judicial or quasi-judicial legal processes by the victim.

5.5 There are various types of discrimination prohibited by this policy. The main types are: (a) Direct discrimination which occurs where one person is treated less

favourably than another because of a protected characteristic set out in this policy.

(b) Indirect discrimination occurs when an unjustifiable requirement or condition is applied, which appears to be the same for all, but which has a disproportionate, adverse effect on one group of people.

of 368

Corporate Policy


(c) Victimization/Reprisal occurs where an employee is treated less favourably than others because they have asserted legal rights against the Township of Whitewater Region or assisted a colleague in doing so.

6.0 Accessibility 6.1 Accessibility is a normal part of the recruitment and hiring process. Applicants are

to be notified that accommodation is available through the job posting and/or advertisement.

6.2 Applicants must be informed that they may ask for accommodations for the interview or assessment.

6.3 If a selected applicant makes a request, the Township must consult with the applicant to provide the accommodation. This consultation is a great chance to get first-hand information about making the workplace accessible. Candidates with disabilities will know what accommodations are best for them.

6.4 All job offers must notify the successful candidate to make any request for an accommodation to the CAO with encouragement to do so at the earliest opportunity to allow suitable accommodations to be implemented prior to start date.

6.5 All workers will be informed whenever there is a change to the workplace policy on accommodation.

6.6 Individual accommodation plans for employees with disabilities must be documented based on a clearly written process: (a) An employee requesting accommodation can take part in developing the

plan; (b) The employee will be assessed on an individual basis; (c) An employee can request that a representative from the workplace or union

can take part in developing the plan; (d) The employer can request an evaluation by an outside medical or other

expert, at the employer’s expense, to assist the employer in determining if or how accommodation can be achieved.

6.7 The process for creating plans should also include: (a) Steps to protect the confidentiality of the worker’s personal information; (b) How and how often the plan will be reviewed and updated; (c) An explanation of why the individual accommodation plan was denied, if

applicable; (d) How the plan will be given in a format accessible to the worker.

6.7 Performance management and career development processes are to be accessible.

of 368

Corporate Policy


6.8 If an employee requires help in an emergency, the Township and employee must create an individualized emergency response plan outlining how this help will be provided.

Monitoring The Chief Administrative Officer shall be responsible for receiving complaints and/or concerns related to this policy.

Authority This policy is established pursuant to Sections 227, 228 and 229 of the Municipal Act, 2001 which defines the roles of the Administration, officers and employees. This policy is also in pursuant to Sections 270 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 which requires council to adopt and maintain policies with respect to hiring employees.

Contact Robert Tremblay Chief Administrative Officer P.O. Box 40, 44 Main Street Cobden ON K0J 1K0 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (613) 646-2282 Ext. 126

Change History

Policy Name Effective Date Significant Changes By-law No.

Recruitment & Employment Policy

December 2019 New policy (combination of various policies)

19-12-XXXX

of 368

Corporate Policy

Organizational Structure Policy | 1

Policy: Organizational Structure Policy

Main Contact: Chief Administrative Officer


Policy Statement

Purpose

Definitions

Policy Requirements

Monitoring

Authority

Contact

Change History

Policy Statement The Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region employs officers and staff to efficiently and effectively provide municipal services.

Purpose This policy provides guidance on the organizational structure.

Definitions “The Township of Whitewater Region” or the terms ‘Township’, ‘Whitewater Region’, ‘Whitewater’ or ‘Municipality’ are defined as pertaining to ‘The Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region’.

“Officer” is defined as, and applies to and includes, all employees designated by the following titles: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Clerk, Treasurer/Deputy CAO, Fire Chief/CEMC and Chief Building Official. The term ‘officer’ also means Managers, Planner/EDO and Superintendents.

“Full-Time Employee” is defined as, and applies to, any employee who has been appointed to a full-time permanent position as provided for in the departmental staff complement.

of 368

Corporate Policy


“Part-Time Employee” is defined as, and applies to, any employee employed to work for a short term and/or whose hours of work are consistently less than the standard workweek for the appropriate full-time classification.

“Contract Employee” is defined as an employee with whom the Township of Whitewater Region enters into a contract of service for a specified term, and with specific terms of employment or on a project basis and outside of a current classification.

“Casual Employee” is defined as an employee who has no preset scheduled hours of work and is called in on a ‘as needed’ basis.

“Student Employee” is defined as those attending school on a regular full-time basis and who are generally employed on weekends, evenings, and during school holidays.

Policy Requirements 1.0 Organizational Structure 1.1 The approved organizational chart comprising Officers and Full-Time, Part-Time,

and Casual and Student Employees, is as set out in Appendix “A”. 1.2 The CAO has the authority to approve organizational changes which do not impact

the Council-approved mandate of each department and maintain or improve the current service level to the public provided that: (a) the total cost of the changes is available within the total annual compensation

budget approved by Council; and (b) the number of full-time positions within the corporation is not increased.

2.0 Non-Union Salary Grid 2.1 The approved Non-Union Salary Grid with classifications is as set out in

Appendix “B” effective January 1, 2020. 2.2 The Non-Union Salary Grid will be updated annually by the Treasurer/Deputy CAO

based on the annual cost of living increase approved by Council through the budget process.

2.2 During the budget process, each department shall forecast their area’s human resource requirements for the upcoming year.

2.3 A classification evaluation for a new or altered position must be accompanied by the following written information:

of 368

Corporate Policy


(a) Revised job description with fact sheet signed by all parties, and (b) Supporting documentation outlining any changes in job duties,

responsibilities, and titles. 2.4 The submitted documentation must be reviewed and approved by the CAO, Mayor

and Reeve prior to evaluation. 3.0 Classification Review 3.1 The Township of Whitewater Region utilizes a Job Evaluation System to determine

the relative ranking of positions within the organization by means of a systematic and detailed analysis of job content.

3.2 Requests for a Job Classification Review may be initiated by an incumbent, supervisor or department head, subject to approval by the CAO.

3.3 Job Classification Reviews shall normally be conducted annually. Each position will be subject to a full review at least once every five years.

3.4 A classification review request must be accompanied by the following written information: (a) Revised job description with fact sheet signed by all parties, and (b) Supporting documentation outlining any changes in job duties and

responsibilities 3.5 The submitted documentation must be reviewed and approved by the CAO, Mayor

and Reeve prior to evaluation. 3.6 An employee reclassified to a higher level will normally be placed on the new

salary range ay a step which gives them a minimum 5% increase provided the new salary does not exceed the maximum salary range.

3.7 Any appeals of a Job Classification Review will be heard by the CAO, Mayor and Reeve for final decision.

3.8 January 1 shall be the anniversary date for the purposes of Performance Appraisals and Merit Increments.

Monitoring The CAO shall be responsible for receiving complaints and/or concerns related to this policy.

Authority This policy is established pursuant to Sections 227, 228 and 229 of the Municipal Act, 2001 which defines the roles of the Administration, officers and employees.

of 368

Corporate Policy


This policy is also in pursuant to Sections 270 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 which requires council to adopt and maintain policies with respect to hiring employees.

Contact Robert Tremblay Chief Administrative Officer P.O. Box 40, 44 Main Street Cobden ON K0J 1K0 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (613) 646-2282 Ext. 126

Change History


Organizational Structure Policy

December 2019 New policy 19-12-XXXX

of 368

Whitewater Region Organizational Chart – 2020

Black frame: Full-Time (Non-union) Orange frame: Union (Full-Time with the exception of Seasonal) Casual/Part-Time/Seasonal: Green Students: Yellow Fire Department: Purple

Council

Chief Administrative

Officer

Parks & Recreation

Manager

Arena Operator III(3)

Arena Operator II (3)

Arena Operator I (6)

Student Arena Attendants (6)

Summer Parks Student

Summer Student Lifeguard (2)

Public Works

Manager

Transportation Services

Roads Superintendent

Driver/Operator (11)

Mechanic

Seasonal D/O (2)

Summer Roads Student (2)

Environmental Services

Superintendent

Landfill/Facility Operator

Part-Time Landfill Attendant (2)

Development & Planning

Planner/EDO

Planning Intern (Summer)

Tourism Summer Student

General Government

Clerk Treasurer/Deputy CAO

Finance Clerk (3)

Pay & Benefits Coordinator

Protective Services

Fire Chief/CEMC

Crossing Guard(3 locations)

Deputy Fire Chief

Captain (5)

Lieutenant (12)

Firefighter (65)

Senior Officer (2)

Chief Building Official

Assistant Summer Student

of 368

GROUP POSITION STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 JOB RATE11 Chief Administrative Officer $105,530 $108,695 $111,955 $115,315 $118,775 $122,337

2000+ $57.98 $59.72 $61.51 $63.36 $65.26 $67.22$50.74 $52.26 $53.82 $55.44 $57.10 $58.82

10 Treasurer/Deputy CAO

$85,028 $87,578 $90,204 $92,913 $95,699 $98,5711400 - 1499 Manager of Public Works $46.72 $48.12 $49.56 $51.05 $52.58 $54.16

$40.88 $42.10 $43.37 $44.67 $46.01 $47.399 Fire Chief/CEMC $80,121 $82,524 $84,999 $87,550 $90,177 $92,882

1100 - 1199 Manager of Parks & Recreation $44.02 $45.34 $46.70 $48.10 $49.55 $51.03Chief Building Official $38.52 $39.68 $40.86 $42.09 $43.35 $44.65Planner/EDO

8 Environmental Services Superintendent $73,714 $75,926 $78,204 $80,550 $82,969 $85,4591000 - 1099 Roads Superintendent $40.50 $41.72 $42.97 $44.26 $45.59 $46.96

$35.44 $36.50 $37.60 $38.73 $39.89 $41.097 Clerk $66,742 $68,744 $70,807 $72,933 $75,120 $77,373

900 - 999 Pay & Benefits Coordinator $36.67 $37.77 $38.90 $40.07 $41.27 $42.51Deputy Fire Chief, Senior Fire Officer $32.09 $33.05 $34.04 $35.06 $36.12 $37.20Library CEO

6 Fire Captain $61,182 $63,016 $64,909 $66,854 $68,862 $70,925800 - 899 $33.62 $34.62 $35.66 $36.73 $37.84 $38.97

$29.41 $30.30 $31.21 $32.14 $33.11 $34.105 $57,409 $59,185 $61,016 $62,904 $64,848 $66,854

700 - 799 $31.54 $32.52 $33.53 $34.56 $35.63 $36.73$27.60 $28.45 $29.33 $30.24 $31.18 $32.14

4 Finance Clerk $55,620 $57,286 $59,006 $60,776 $62,598 $64,477600 - 699 Fire Lieutenant $30.56 $31.48 $32.42 $33.39 $34.39 $35.43

$26.74 $27.54 $28.37 $29.22 $30.10 $31.003 Landfill/Facility Operator $50,058 $51,558 $53,105 $54,697 $56,339 $58,032

500 - 599 Arena/Park Operator III $27.50 $28.33 $29.18 $30.05 $30.96 $31.89Firefighter $24.07 $24.79 $25.53 $26.30 $27.09 $27.90Branch Librarian

2 Arena Operator II $42,264 $43,377 $44,682 $46,020 $47,401 $48,825400 - 499 $23.22 $23.83 $24.55 $25.29 $26.04 $26.83

$20.32 $20.85 $21.48 $22.13 $22.79 $23.471 Crossing Guard $36,096 $37,180 $38,294 $39,443 $40,626 $41,845

300 - 399 Arena Operator I $19.83 $20.43 $21.04 $21.67 $22.32 $22.99Landfill Attendant $17.35 $17.88 $18.41 $18.96 $19.53 $20.12*Two hourly rates of pay identified based on 35 hrs or 40 hrs per week.

TOWNSHIP OF WHITEWATER REGION - 2020 Non-Union Grid

of 368

Accounts Receivable, Tax and Utilities Billing & Collection Policies

Recommendation:

That General Government Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region enact by-laws to adopt amended financial policies.

Background:

The Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Tax Sales Rules (O. Reg 181/03) set parameters in which property tax may be collected by a municipality.

The Municipal Act, 2001, Section 398 (2) allows the Treasurer of a municipality to add fees and charges imposed by the municipality to the tax roll and collect those fees in the same manner as municipal taxes.

The current Accounts Receivable, Tax and Utilities Billing & Collection Policies were updated in 2019.

Analysis:

To ensure that the Township of Whitewater Region is staying consistent with financial billing and collection policies, minor changes to each policy were made. Reminder notices will generally be sent out every month to accounts that have arrears or unpaid accounts receivable invoices. Utility charges will be billed every other month. The due dates will be the last business day of March, May, July, September, November and January. Where possible unpaid accounts receivable balances that are 90 days in arrears and no payment arrangements have been made will either be sent to a third-party collection agency or transferred to a tax roll and collected in the same manner as taxes. Any unpaid utility arrears from a previous fiscal year will be transferred to the tax roll and collected in the same manner as taxes. Financial Implications:

By updating the due dates for utility arrears, the Township will have consistent cash inflow from taxes and utilities every month except June and December. Attachments: Revised policies Prepared by: Sean Crozier, Treasurer Reviewed by: Robert Tremblay, Chief Administrative Officer


Contact: Sean Crozier, Treasurer


of 368

Corporate Policy

Tax Billing &Collection Policy| 1

Policy: Tax Billing & Collection Policy

Main Contact: Treasurer/Deputy CAO


Policy Statement

Purpose

Definitions

Policy Requirements

Monitoring

Authority

Contact

Change History

Policy Statement This policy serves to supplement the provincial legislation that governs taxation.

Purpose Provide guidance to staff for effective and efficient collection of property taxes and to ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly and equitable with respect to the collection of property taxes.

Definitions In this policy, the following terms have the meanings set out below:

“Municipal Tax Sale” means the sale of land for Tax Arrears according to the proceedings prescribed under the Municipal Act, 2001 and Ontario Regulation 181/03.

“Penalties and Interest” means amounts applied by the Municipality to unpaid Property Tax Accounts, in accordance with Section 345 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

“Property Taxes” means the total amount of taxes for municipal, county and school board purposes levied on a property and includes other amounts added to the tax roll as may be permitted by applicable Provincial legislation.

“Tax Arrears” means any portion of Property Taxes that remain unpaid after the due date on which they are due.

of 368

Corporate Policy


“Cancellation Price” means an amount equal to all the tax arrears owing at any time in respect of land together with all current real property taxes owing, interest and penalties thereon and all reasonable costs incurred by the municipality after the Treasurer becomes entitled to register a tax arrears certificate.

Policy Requirements 1.0 Billing

1.1 There are two billings produced each year with two installments as follows:

A. Interim Tax Billing – produced in February with installment due dates in February and April.

B. Final Tax Billing – produced in August with installment due dates in August and October.

1.2 A levying by-law passed by Council is required in advance of either an Interim or Final tax billing.

A. Interim Tax Billings are produced in February based on the Municipal Act, 2001. The tax billing will be calculated to produce a tax bill no more than fifty percent (50%) of the previous year’s total taxes billed for each property. The tax billing may include fifty percent (50%) of any local improvement charges, area charges and any special charges levied by the Municipality. Tax bills must be post marked and mailed not later that twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of the first installment due date. The tax bill will clearly identify the municipality, roll number, property owner, state the demand date, the calculated amount of taxes, and any arrears owing against the property. Arrears are included solely in the first installment due date amount. Installment due dates will be indicated on the payment stubs.

B. Final Tax billings are produced on tax rates established by by-law from the budget requirements of the Township of Whitewater Region. The tax billings will be calculated to produce a tax billing equal to the current assessed value and the appropriate tax rate, all local improvement charges, area charges and any special charges levied by the municipality. Tax bills must be post marked and mailed not later than twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of the first installment due date. The tax billing will clearly identify the municipality, roll number, property owner, state the demand date, the current assed value, the tax class, the tax rate, the calculated taxed levied for each levying body and any arrears owing against the property. Arrears are included solely in the first installment due date amount. Installment due dates will be indicated on the payment stubs.

1.3 Tax bills will only be sent to the registered owners of the property. The Municipality will not take responsibility to send tax bills to tenants.

of 368

Corporate Policy


2.0 Penalty & Interest Charges

2.1 In accordance with Section 345 of the Municipal Act, 2001, interest at a rate of 1.25% is added to the previous years’ arrears. Penalty at a rate of 1.25% may be added to over-due current taxes on the day after the due date and is added on the first day of each month thereafter.

2.2 Penalty and interest charges are adjusted only in accordance with the following situations:

A. Tax adjustments made under section 357/358 of the Municipal Act, 2001

B. Assessment Review Board Decisions

C. Payments that have been received before month end but have not been processed through the tax system prior to penalty and interest being added

D. Approved by the Treasurer or his/her designate as a gross manifest clerical error.

3.0 Payments

3.1 Payments of taxes must be received in the Municipality’s administrative office, or be post marked, on or before the due date. Payments not received on time are subject to penalties and interest.

3.2 The following are modes of payments available for the property owner’s use:

A. Telephone or internet banking – using the roll number as the account number (the number of digits used depends on the bank). Please note that property owners must allow at least 3 business days in order for payment to reach the Township of Whitewater Region’s financial institution)

B. One of the municipality’s preauthorized payment plans (installment based or monthly)

C. Post-dated cheque(s) D. In person – at the counter by cash, cheque, debit or money order. E. In the secure drop box located at the Main Street entrance door. F. Payments by a mortgage holder. G. Other alternatives approved by the Treasurer or his/her designate.

3.3 Receipts will be provided for all cash, cheque or debit payments at the counter

at the time of the payment and may be requested by the registered owner for all other payment methods. Requests must be made in writing either by mail, email, or through a web submission. The owner must provide the roll number and/or the property address if requesting a receipt in writing. To registered owners whose payments are made on their behalf by a mortgage company, a copy of the tax bill will be sent out with a “paid” stamp once the payment has been received.

of 368

Corporate Policy


3.4 In accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 Section 347 payments shall be

applied as follows:

1) To the oldest and all penalty and interest charges

2) To the taxes, starting with the oldest up to the current taxes

3) Then to other charges that have been added to the roll

3.5 Payments that have been returned by the bank will be subject to an NSF fee as set out in the Township of Whitewater Region’s User Fees and Charges By-Law.

4.0 Tax Arrears Collection

4.1 Realty taxes are a secured special lien in priority to any other claim (except a claim by the Crown). Taxes may be recovered (with costs) as debt to the Municipality from a registered owner and/or any subsequent owner of the property.

4.2 The Municipality will primarily use the following methods to collect tax arrears:

A. Verbal communications B. Tax arrears statements (sent out in the month following a tax installment

due date by regular mail) C. Annual auditor verification letters D. Personalized reminder to those approaching two years in arrears E. Arrangement of a satisfactory term of payment that significantly reduces the

previous and current taxes F. Municipal tax sale proceedings.

4.3 To remind property owners that their tax account is not in good standing, the Treasurer or their designate shall generally send a reminder notice to each property owner whose account is in arrears at the beginning of each month.

4.4 At least once per year the Municipality shall review its property aged trial balance for owners whose taxes are approaching two (2) years in arrears. A personalized letter will be sent to the affected properties providing them with their options and giving them the opportunity to bring their account into good standing. If the letter is “Final Notice”, a deadline date will be given and nor further notices will be sent after that date has passed.

4.5 Payment arrangements may be entered into by the Treasurer or their designate with a property owner who is in tax arrears prior to the file being forwarded to a third party to commence proceedings under the Municipal Tax Sales Rules.

of 368

Corporate Policy


4.6 Payment arrangements must include all tax arrears, current taxes, accruing estimates of future taxes as well as penalties and interest and be sufficient to ensure payment in full is realized within a reasonable period of time. Penalties and interest may continue to accrue during all such payment arrangements until full payment on the account has been made.

4.7 If acceptable payment arrangements are negotiated, the account will be monitored for compliance. If two payments are returned within six months, the payment arrangement will be deemed void and the taxpayer will be advised that payment in full by certified cheque or money order is required or the account will be sent to a third party to commence the tax sale proceedings.

5.0 Municipal Tax Sale Proceedings

5.1 If acceptable payment arrangements are not negotiated prior to the deadline date provided in the Final Notice, then all properties in excess of two (2) years in arrears shall be subject to the Municipal Tax Sale Process.

5.2 The Township of Whitewater Region will use a third party to carry out the tax sale process as outlined in the Municipal Tax Sales Rules.

5.3 If a Tax Arrears Certificate has been registered against a property, no partial payments can be accepted by the Municipality unless the registered owners have entered into a signed Arrears Payment Agreement with the Municipality. Payment of the cancellation price will include all and any fees incurred by the Municipality during the collection process.

5.4 Failure to provide payment in full within 365 days (one year) of the registration of the Tax Arrears Certificate will result in the property being advertised for public sale.

6.0 Miscellaneous

6.1 From time to time property tax accounts may experience credit balances for various reasons such as reduction in assessment, tax class change, duplicate payment or payment in error. Credit balances may be refunded if the registered owner makes the request in writing and as long as all installments billed have been cleared.

6.2 If an owner of a property fails to notify the Municipality of a change in mailing address, resulting in the return of their mail, no further action will be taken by the Municipality to locate the whereabouts of the owner.

Monitoring The Treasurer shall be responsible for the monitoring and execution of this policy.

of 368

Corporate Policy


Authority The Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Tax Sales Rules provide parameters in which a municipality may collect property tax.

Contact Sean Crozier, Treasurer P.O. Box 40, 44 Main Street Cobden ON K0J 1K0 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (613) 646-2282 Ext. 138

Change History


Tax Billing & Collection Policy

May 1, 2019 New Policy 2019-04-1167

December 11, 2019 Amendment regarding reminder notices

2019-12-XXXX

of 368

Corporate Policy

Utilities Billing & Collection Policy| 1

Policy: Utilities Billing & Collection Policy



Policy Statement

Purpose

Definitions

Policy Requirements

Monitoring

Authority

Contact

Change History

Policy Statement This policy will establish fair and equitable processes for the billing and collection of utility accounts.

Purpose Provide a formal procedure for billing and collection, past due utility charges, accrued interest and other allowable fees on behalf of the Municipality. The policy will help to manage utility aging and keep administrative costs low.


“Utility Invoice” means the quarterly invoice that is issued for water and wastewater charges as per the Township of Whitewater Region’s User Fees and Charges By-law.

“Penalties and Interest” means amounts applied by the Municipality to unpaid utility accounts.

“Utility Arrears” means any portion of Utility accounts that remain unpaid after the due date on which they are due.

of 368

Corporate Policy


Policy Requirements 1.0 Utility Billing

1.1 Utility charges will be billed every other month based on the rates established through by-law. Due dates are as follows:

A. Last business day of March, May, July, September, November and January.

B. All billings will be sent out to the registered owner by regular mail at least twenty-one (21) days in advance of the due date.

C. Invoices will be sent to registered owner only. The Municipality does not take responsibility to ensure a tenant has a copy of the invoice.

1.2 Utility charges for new construction shall commence in the month after the Chief Building Official, Township Official or the Agency in charge of water and sewer connection notifies the Finance Clerk that the connection has been made. The utility charge shall commence on the 1st day of the following month that the connection has been made.

1.3 If an owner requests that the water be shut off or turned on the turn off/turn on fee will be billed on the next utility invoice.

2.0 Penalty & Interest Charges

2.1 Interest will be charged at a rate of 1.25% on current year’s arrears. Penalty will be charged at a rate of 1.25% on previous years arrears.

3.0 Payments 3.1 Payments of utility accounts must be received in the Municipality’s

administrative office, or be post marked, on or before the due date. Payments no received on time are subject to penalties and interest. The following are modes of payments available for the property owner’s use:

A. Telephone or internet banking – using the roll number as the account number (the number of digits used depends on the bank). Please note that property owners must allow at least 3 business days in order for payment to reach the Township of Whitewater Region’s financial institution)

B. One of the municipality’s preauthorized payment plans (installment based or monthly)

C. Post-dated cheque(s) D. In person – at the counter by cash, cheque, debit or money order. E. In the secure drop box located at the Main Street entrance door. F. Other alternatives approved by the Treasurer or their designate.

3.2 Receipts will be provided for all cash, cheque or debit payments at the counter at the time of the payment and may be requested by the registered owner for all other payment methods. Requests must be made in writing either by mail, email, or through a web submission.

of 368

Corporate Policy


3.3 The owner must provide the roll number and/or the property address if

requesting a receipt in writing. Payments will be applied as follows. 1) To the oldest and all penalty and interest charges. 2) To the oldest invoice up to the current invoice. 3) Then to other charges that have been added to the utility account.

3.4 Payments that have been returned by the bank will be subject to an NSF fee as set out in the Township of Whitewater Region’s User Fees and Charges By-Law.

3.5 Preauthorized payment plans may only apply to accounts that are in good standing (i.e. no arrears)

4.0 Utility Arrears Collection

4.1 All fees charged under the current Fees and Charges By-law are deemed to represent the cost of providing water and wastewater services.

4.2 The Municipality will primarily use the following methods to collect Utility Arrears:

A. Verbal communications

B. Utility arrears statements (generally sent out monthly)

C. Annual auditor verification letters

D. Personalized reminder to those approaching one year in arrears;

E. Arrangement of a satisfactory term of payment that significantly reduces the previous and current utility charges;

F. Final notice at the beginning of a fiscal year outlining the arrears from the previous fiscal year. The owner will have 30 days past the due date of the final notice to pay the arrears in full. Any arrears not paid will be transferred to the tax roll in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 398 and collected in the same manner as taxes. These additions will have priority lien status pursuant to Ontario Regulation 581/06.

5.0 Miscellaneous

5.1 From time to time property utility accounts may experience credit balances for various reasons such as duplicate payment or payment in error. Credit balances may be refunded if the registered owner makes the request in writing and as long as all invoices billed have been cleared.

5.2 If an owner of a property fails to notify the Municipality of a change in mailing address, resulting in the return of their mail, no further action will be taken by the Municipality to locate the whereabouts of the owner.

of 368

Corporate Policy



Authority The Municipal Act, 2001 and Ontario Regulation 581/06 provide parameters in which a municipality may invoice and collect utility services.


Change History


Utilities Billing & Collection Policy

May 1, 2019 New Policy 2019-04-1168

December 11, 2019 Amendments 2019-12-XXXX

of 368

Corporate Policy

Accounts Receivable Policy| 1

Policy: Accounts Receivable



Policy Statement

Purpose

Definitions

Policy Requirements

Monitoring

Authority

Contact

Change History

Policy Statement This Policy will establish fair and equitable processes for the billing and collection of accounts receivable.

Purpose The purpose of the policy is to establish responsibilities, internal controls, authorizations and procedures for the accurate and timely preparation of customer invoices for goods and services rendered by the Township of Whitewater Region and the management of the accounts receivable created by these invoices including the authority to write-off uncollectable accounts. This policy does not include property taxes, water and wastewater services or Provincial Offences Fines which are subject to separate policies and/or legislation.


“Receivables” means the claims for money, goods, services and other non-cash assets.

“Accounts Receivable” is generally represented by a sales invoice or some other form. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, accounts receivables are assets that are to be recognized when the revenue is earned. Accounts receivable include but are not limited to: Sales, interest penalties, facility rentals and tipping fees.

of 368

Corporate Policy


“Write-off” means a cancellation of a bad debt.

Policy Requirements 1.0 Invoicing and Collections

1.1 The Finance Department is responsible for issuing all invoices, managing accounts receivable and collections management.

1.2 Other departments shall provide the finance department with the relevant information for which to make an invoice.

2.0 Terms

2.1 All invoices will generally be issued with terms of net 30 days.

2.2 Unpaid invoices will be subject to a late payment charge of 1.25% simple interest (15% per annum) to be calculated based upon the balance owing after 30 days.

2.3 Invoices sent to senior levels of government will generally not be subject to interest.

3.0 Management of Accounts Receivable 3.1 The Treasurer or their designate shall:

A. Send statements on a monthly basis indicating the amount owing on each account.

B. If an account is 90 days in arrears and no payment arrangement has been made to clear the balance, a notice will be sent stating that their account will be sent to a collection agent if payment or payments are not made by the date stated.

C. If after the given date on the notice the account will be forwarded to a third-party collection agent.

3.2 The Treasurer or their designate may approve payment arrangements to allow for the outstanding portion to be collected.

3.3 Relief shall not be given for penalty and interest on arrears except in the following circumstances:

A. A grace period to allow for the delivery of mail or payments made at the bank before the due date but not delivered to the Township until after the due date.

B. In the event the calculation of interest/penalty has been made in error by the Township.

3.4 Where possible, any arrears not paid will be transferred to the tax roll in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 398 and collected in the same manner as taxes.

of 368

Corporate Policy


4.0 Returned Payments 4.1 Payments returned by the bank will result in the customer being re-invoiced

along with an NSF charge as established by the Township’s Fees and Charges By-law.

4.2 Repeated payment returns may result in the customer being required to pay in advance of services or goods being rendered.

5.0 Write-Offs

5.1 Debts that are deemed uncollectable shall be written-off with the following approvals

A. Balances of less than $250 may be written off under the Treasurer’s authority.

B. Balances in excess of $250 up to $1,000 may be written off under the Treasurer’s authority with approval from the Department Head responsible for the invoice.

C. Balances in excess of $1,000 up to $5,000 may be written off under the Treasurer’s authority with the approval of the Department Head responsible for the invoice and with approval of the Chief Administrative Officer.

D. Balances in excess of $5,000 may be written off under direction from Council.


Authority The Municipal Act, 2001 Section 286 states that the Treasurer is responsible for the invoicing, collection and reconciliation for all accounts receivable.


of 368

Corporate Policy


Change History


Accounts Receivable Collection Policy

July 17, 2019 New Policy 2019-07-1195

December 11, 2019 Amendments 2019-12-XXX

of 368

By-law 19-12-1228 Page 1 of 1

The Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region

By-law Number 19-12-1228

A by-law to authorize the execution of a Service Contract for the Collection and Transportation of Garbage and

Recyclable Material (Miller Waste Systems Inc.)

Whereas, Section 11(3)(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended provides jurisdiction to lower-tier municipalities in the area of waste management; and

Whereas, Section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended states that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority; and

Whereas, Council of the Township of Whitewater Region deems it necessary to enter into a Service Contract for curbside pick up; Now therefore Council of the Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region enacts as follows:

1. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute the Service Contract with Miller Waste Systems Inc. on behalf of the Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region.

2. That the Service Contract attached forms part of this by-law.

3. That this by-law shall come into force and take effect on April 1, 2020.

4. That By-Law 19-07-1192 is hereby repealed effective April 1, 2020.

Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 5th day of December, 2019.

Michael Moore, Mayor

Carmen Miller, Clerk

of 368

SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE COLLECTION AND

TRANSPORTATION OF GARBAGE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIAL

BETWEEN

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WHITEWATER REGION

AND

MILLER WASTE SYSTEMS INC.

December 4, 2019

of 368

Table of Contents

1. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... 3 2. INTERPRETATION .......................................................................................................... 7 3. ENTIRE AGREEMENT .................................................................................................... 7 4. PRIORITY OF DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................... 8 5. CONTRACT DURATION ................................................................................................ 8 6. SERVICES ......................................................................................................................... 8 7. OBLIGATIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT DATE ............................................... 9 8. GOVERNANCE ................................................................................................................ 9 9. CHANGE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 10 10. LEGISLATIVE CHANGE RISK .................................................................................... 12 11. CONTRACTOR’S PERSONNEL/SUPERVISORS ....................................................... 13 12. HEALTH & SAFETY ...................................................................................................... 15 13. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS & REGULATIONS ....................................................... 16 14. QUALITY OF SERVICE ................................................................................................ 16 15. INSURANCE ................................................................................................................... 16 16. CONTRACTOR’S INDEMNITY ................................................................................... 17 17. MUNICIPALITY’S LIMITATION ON DAMAGES ..................................................... 18 18. CONTRACTOR’S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES ................................ 18 19. MUNICIPALITY’S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES .............................. 19 20. VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 19 21. REPORTS ........................................................................................................................ 21 22. PILOT PROJECTS .......................................................................................................... 22 23. CO-OPERATION WITH OTHERS ................................................................................ 22 24. CHARGES AND PAYMENT ......................................................................................... 22 25. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES ...................................................................................... 23 26. ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................................................. 24 27. NON-PERFORMANCE .................................................................................................. 24 28. EXPIRY OF CONTRACT ............................................................................................... 25 29. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE ....................................................................................... 25 30. FORCE MAJEURE ......................................................................................................... 27 31. PUBLICITY ..................................................................................................................... 27 32. ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................... 27 33. AUDIT RIGHT OF THE MUNICIPALITY ................................................................... 27 34. ASSIGNMENT AND SUB-CONTRACTING ................................................................ 28 35. SEVERABILITY ............................................................................................................. 28 36. THIRD PARTY RIGHTS ................................................................................................ 29 37. LAW AND JURISDICTION ........................................................................................... 29 38. MUNICIPALITY’S FUNCTIONS .................................................................................. 29 39. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION .................................................................................... 29 SCHEDULE 1 SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 31 SCHEDULE 2 CHARGES .......................................................................................................... 37 SCHEDULE 3 LIST OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS....................................................... 38

of 368

- 3 -

1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 In this Contract the following words and phrases shall where the context so admits, have

the following meaning:

“Additional Services” means those services requested by the Municipality under Section 27.

“Anniversary Date” means the day that follows any twelve month period starting from the Commencement Date of the Contract.

“Applicable Laws” includes the common law and any and all statutes, by-laws, regulations, permits, approvals, certificates of approval, licenses, judgments, orders, injunctions, authorizations, directives, whether federal, provincial or municipal including, but not limited to all laws relating to occupational health and safety matters, fire prevention and protection, health protection and promotion, land use planning, Building Code, or workers’ compensation matters and all Environmental Laws that apply to the Services, the operation of the Services and the land on which the Services are provided.

“Business Day” means any day from Monday to Friday inclusive, excluding statutory or civic holidays observed in Ontario.

“Change in Law” includes the coming into effect after the Commencement Date of any legal change, including directive, statute, statutory instrument, regulation or by-law through: • A draft bill as part of any government departmental consultation paper; • A government bill or white paper; • A draft statutory instrument; • Any applicable judgment of a relevant court of law that may affect the Services; or • Any guidance provided from any ministerial authority, circular or best practice

note with which the Contractor is legally bound to comply.

“Collectible Waste” is defined in the applicable Waste Collection By-laws as may be amended from time to time. For the purposes of this contract, Collectible Waste is also defined to include Garbage and Recyclable Material. “Collection” means the collection of Collectible Waste and includes delivery to the Waste Management Site, or any other facility designated by a Designated Municipal Official.

“Collection Route” means those routes that have been approved by the Designated Municipal Official for use by the Contractor to perform the Services.

“Collection Vehicles” means any vehicles used by the Contractor for the collection of Collectible Waste.

“Commencement Date” means the date specified in Section 5.2.

“Container” means a garbage bag or rigid container such as a garbage bag, or any other container deemed suitable by the Designated Municipal Official for Collectable Waste.

of 368

- 4 -

“Contract” means this Contract, including all Schedules, and all Contract Documentation.

“Contract Document” means this Contract, including all Schedules and all Contract Documentation.

“Contract Documentation” means the documents described in Section 4.1.

“Contract Period” means the period specified in Section 5.2.

“Contract Price” means the sum remitted to the Contractor for the Services payable per calendar month by the Municipality in accordance with Section 25.

“Contractor” means Miller Waste Systems Inc.

“Customers” means those properties within the municipalities whose Waste is required

to be collected under the Contract.

“Day” means the period from midnight to midnight.

“Designated Collection Area” means that area within the municipal limits that is designated to receive the collection of garbage and recyclable material, either singularly or in total.

“Designated Municipal Official” means the municipal representative designated by the municipality to manage the contractor, or person(s) designated by them.

“Environmental Laws” means, any and all statutes, by-laws, regulations, permits,

approvals, certificates of approval, licenses, judgments, orders, judicial decisions, injunctions, and authorizations related to environmental matters and which are applicable to the regulation of the Collectible Waste.

“Equipment” means the Collection Vehicles, and other tools and materials used by the

Contractor to perform the Services.

“Execution Date” means the time at which an authorized representative of the Contractor and an authorized representative of the Municipality has signed the Contract.

“Expiry Date” means the date set out in Section 5.1.

“Garbage” is defined in the municipal Waste Collection By-laws under the definition for Refuse, and as may be amended from time to time.

“Good Industry Practice” means that degree of skill and care prudence and foresight

and operating practice which would reasonably be expected from time to time of a skilled and experienced contractor engaged in the same type of undertaking as the Contractor under the same or similar circumstances.

“Health and Safety Obligation(s)” means any obligation imposed on the Contractor by the Applicable Laws or compliance with Good Industry Practice or the Contract

of 368

- 5 -

Documents in respect of health and safety at work, including all applicable requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.1, and regulations, as these may be amended from time to time.

“IC&I” means industrial, commercial and institutional.

“Indemnified Party” or “Indemnified Parties ” means the municipalities and their

employees, elected representatives, advisors and agents prior to, during, and after the Contract Period.

“Liquidated Damages” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 28.3 of the Contract.

“Municipality” means the Township of Whitewater Region.

“OCC” means old corrugated cardboard which is a recyclable material as defined in the applicable Waste Collection By-laws as amended from time to time.

“Operating Hours ” means the hours for collection of Collectible Waste between 7:00 am

and 5:00 pm on the scheduled collection days of the weekly five-day collection cycle, as such hours may be amended by the Municipality from time to time, and includes being reachable between the hours of 6:00 am and 9:00 pm to the Designated Municipal Official.

“OVWRC” means Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre.

“Parties” means the Municipality and the Contractor.

“Personal Information” means personal information as defined in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M.56.

“Primary Collection Vehicles” means the Collection Vehicles that are used daily to provide the Services.

“Prohibited Act” means:

(a) offering, giving or agreeing to give any employee and/or any elected

representative of the Municipality any gift or consideration of any kind for any reason, including as an inducement or reward:

(i) for doing or not doing (or for having done or not having done) any act in

relation to the performance of the terms of this Contract or any other contract with the Municipality; or

(ii) for showing or not showing favour or disfavour to any person in relation

to this Contract or any other contract with the Municipality;

(b) entering into this Contract or any other contract with the Municipality in connection with which commission has been paid or has been agreed to be paid by the Contractor or on its behalf, or to its knowledge, unless before the relevant contract is entered into particulars of any such commission and of the terms and conditions

of 368

- 6 -

of any such contract for the payment thereof have been disclosed in writing to the Municipality; or

(c) committing any offence under any Applicable Laws, including:

(i) under the Criminal Code of Canada; or

(ii) under any legislation creating an offence in respect of fraudulent acts; or

(iii) at common law in respect of fraudulent acts in relation to this Contract or

any other contract with the Municipality; or

(d) defrauding or attempting to defraud or conspiring to defraud the Municipality.

“Qualifying Change of Law” means any change in law that specifically affects the Services or any part thereof or imposes a general statutory obligation on the Municipality, their employee or the public generally, that may lawfully and properly be discharged by the Contractor under the terms of the Contract.

“Recyclable Material” is defined in the municipal Waste Collection By-laws as amended from time to time.

“Regulations” means all rules or regulations having force of law.

“Services” means the services required to be provided by the Contractor for the benefit of the Municipality and the Customers, as described in this Contract.

“Shall” and “Will” used in this document denotes imperative.

“Submission” means Contractor’s bid submission.

“Term” means the Contract Period.

“Waste Collection By-Laws” means the By-law passed by the Municipality providing for and governing the collection of waste within the Municipality.

“Waste Management Site” means the Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre or the Township of Whitewater Region Ross Landfill Site.

“Week” means, for the purpose of defining a payment period, seven consecutive days, starting on Monday and ending on the following Sunday.

“Work” means the performance of the Collection services and all related services including, but not limited to the supply of all materials, vehicles, labour, facilities, supervision, services, permits, licenses or approvals required to complete the Contractor’s obligations under the Contract Documents including any changes to the Work which may be ordered by a Designated Municipal Official as provided herein.

“Working Days” means, for the purposes of this Contract, Monday to Friday inclusive, except statutory holidays observed in the Province of Ontario.

of 368

- 7 - 2. INTERPRETATION 2.1 Words importing one gender shall include the other gender. 2.2 Words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. 2.3 Headings are for ease of reference only and shall not affect the construction of the

Contract or be deemed to be part of the Contract. 2.4 In this Contract, the word ‘persons’ includes corporations, limited liability companies,

partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, associations, individuals, unincorporated organizations, or governmental agencies; references to statutes, sections, or regulations are to be construed as including all statutory or regulatory provisions consolidating, amending, replacing, succeeding, or supplementing the statute, section, or regulation referred to.

2.5 The words “including,” “includes,” and “include” shall be deemed to be followed by the

words “without limitation” or “but not limited to” or words of similar import; and words importing only the singular include the plural and vice versa when the context requires.

2.6 Each party to this Contract has participated in the drafting of the Contract which, in the

event of any dispute over its meaning or application, shall be interpreted fairly and reasonably, and neither more strongly for or against either party.

2.7 References to the personnel, staff and managers of the Contractor shall include references

to all persons engaged by the Contractor in the performance of the Services and shall (if the context so permits) include references to the personnel and managers of any sub-contractor of the Contractor.

2.8 References to the personnel, staff and managers of the Municipality shall include

references to all persons engaged by the Municipality and shall (if the context so permits) include references to the elected representatives of the Municipality.

2.9 References to any enactment, order, regulation or other similar instrument shall be

construed as a reference to such enactment, order, regulation or instrument as amended or re-enacted by any subsequent enactment, order regulation or instrument.

2.10 Unless expressly stated otherwise in the Contract, the cost of performing the Services,

including all of the related requirements and obligations set out in this Contract, and including performance by the Contractor in accordance with any direction, instruction or request from the Designated Municipal Official, shall be the responsibility of the Contractor.

3. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 3.1 This Contract constitutes the understanding and agreement between the parties relating to the

subject matter of this Contract and save as may be expressly referred to or referenced herein, supersedes all prior representations, documents, negotiations or understandings with respect hereto. If any ambiguity arises in the interpretation of the Contract Documents and such ambiguity cannot reasonably be resolved using the interpretative guidelines

of 368

- 8 -

described in Section 2, above, the parties shall have recourse to the dispute mechanism set out in Section 26.

4. PRIORITY OF DOCUMENTS 4.1 In the event of any inconsistency or ambiguity between the various parts of the Contract

documents (“Contract Documentation”), the inconsistency or ambiguity shall be resolved in the following order: • The Contract; • Any modifications to Contractor’s Proposal acceptable to both parties; and • The Contractor’s Proposal dated June 28, 2019.

5. CONTRACT DURATION 5.1 This Contract shall come into force on the date of execution (the “Execution Date”) and

shall continue in force until March 31, 2025 (the “Expiry Date”) or until varied, reviewed, or terminated in accordance with the provisions hereunder.

5.2 The Services shall be provided from April 1, 2020 (“Commencement Date”) and shall

continue to be provided until the Expiry Date, or such earlier date as the Contract is terminated in accordance with this Contract (the “Contract Period”).

5.3 The parties retain the option to extend the term of the contract, on agreement of the

Contractor, for Two (2) Additional One (1) Year Terms based on satisfactory performance and the continuing competitiveness of pricing and services, upon mutual agreement on the terms.

6. SERVICES 6.1 During the Contract Period, the Contractor shall provide to the Municipality the Services

in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 1 hereto (the “Services”). 6.2 The parties agree that they will make efforts to update, modify and amend the Contract

from time to time to reflect the changing nature of the Services and the requirements of the Municipality. Subject to the provisions of the Contract, including the Schedules, the parties acknowledge that where such activities are not documented they will deal with each other in good faith to resolve all issues that may arise as a consequence.

6.3 In the event that the Municipality requests the Contractor to provide services not included

within the scope of Schedule 1, the parties will settle the terms of, and document the terms of such new services in a separate agreement, which will include, at a minimum, such matters as project scope, staffing, scheduling and costs.

6.4 Any changes to the services by either party is to be reflected in a separate written

amending agreement, signed by both parties in order to be effective.

of 368

- 9 - 7. OBLIGATIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT DATE 7.1 As soon as reasonably practicable and in any event (unless otherwise agreed by the

parties) prior to the Commencement Date, the Contractor shall comply with the transition activities for the Contract start up, and shall:

• Provide the Municipalities with a telephone customer call number;

• Submit confirmation of (i) all insurance policies as are required in Section 15 hereof,

(ii) WSIB certificates, and (iii) the Contractor’s health and safety policy;

• submit a certified copy of a Certificate of Approval or Environmental Compliance Approval for a Waste Management System issued by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, to the Municipality;

• Obtain all permits or licenses necessary to perform the requirement of the Contract

in accordance with all Applicable Laws and provide evidence to the Designated Municipal Official that it has done so;

• Submit the make, model year and serial number of each Collection Vehicle that will

be used by the Contractor; and 7.2 The Municipality and the Contractor shall:

• Comply with such other obligations as are necessary for the Services to commence; and

• Provide to the other all other information and documents which they are required

to provide in accordance with the Contract Documentation. 8. GOVERNANCE 8.1 The Parties agree that to ensure a successful contractual relationship between them and to

optimize the quality of the Services as frequently as the parties may determine throughout the Contract Period to review the delivery of the Services, and all related matters as described in the Contract, including how they intend to work with each other co-operatively in discharging their respective responsibilities.

8.2 The Parties shall each accept the following governance principles:

(i) Make a sincere effort to understand the other Parties obligations, goals, expectations, duties and objectives in entering and performing their obligations under the Contract.

(ii) Work at all times within a spirit of co-operation to ensure the delivery of the

Services to the standard stipulated in the Contract.

(iii) Resolve differences that may arise in relation to this Contract by discussion and negotiation, wherever possible.

of 368

-10-

(iv) Communicate clearly and effectively, and in a timely manner, on all matters relating to the Contract.

(v) Make the most efficient use of resources, and seek to achieve cost-effective

savings, where possible.

(vi) Make reasonable efforts to ensure that all persons engaged on the Contract diligently strive to perform the Services in accordance with the standard stated in the Contract.

(vii) Give an early warning to the other party of any mistake, discrepancy or omission of

which either party becomes aware within the Contract, and offer fair and reasonable solutions, where practicable.

(viii) Give an early warning to the other party of any matter that they become aware of

that could affect the achievement of any objective, obligation, or the like contained in the Contract.

(ix) Build trust and confidence with the community and council.

(x) Have a high regard to service delivery and customer service expectations.

9. CHANGE MANAGEMENT 9.1 The Municipality shall be entitled to make changes to the Service in accordance with this

Section. If the Municipality requires a change in the Services, the Designated Municipal Official shall notify the Contractor of the change in the Services describing the required change in the Services in sufficient detail so as to enable the Contractor to calculate and provide a change in costs estimate (the “Estimate”), if any, and requiring the Contractor to provide the Municipality with the Estimate within fifteen (15) Working Days of receipt of the Municipality’s notification.

9.2 As soon as practicable and in any event within fifteen (15) Working Days after having

received notification from the Designated Municipal Official, the Contractor shall deliver the Estimate to the Municipality. The Estimate shall include the opinion of the Contractor on:

• Whether relief from compliance with obligations is required during

the implementation of the change in the Services; • Any impact on the provision of the Services;

• Any amendment which may be required to be made to the Contract Documents as

a result of the change in the Services;

• Any change in Contractor costs that may result from the change in the Services;

• Any loss of revenue that may result from the change in the Services; and

• Any gain in revenue that may result from the change in the Services.

of 368

-11- 9.3 As soon as practicable after the Municipality receives the Estimate, the parties shall

discuss and agree to the issues set out in the Estimate, including providing evidence that the Contractor has used best efforts, including (where practicable) the use of competitive quotes to oblige its Sub-Contractors to minimise any increase in costs and maximise any reduction in costs, and demonstrating that any expenditure to be incurred or avoided has been measured in a cost effective manner.

9.4 If the Contractor does not intend to use its own resources to implement any change in the

Services, it shall comply with Good Industry Practice with the objective of ensuring that it obtains best value for money when procuring any work, services, supplies, materials or equipment required in relation to the change in the Services.

9.5 If the parties cannot agree on the contents of the Estimate then the dispute will be

determined in accordance with Section 26 (Settlement of Disputes). 9.6 As soon as practicable after the contents of the Estimate have been agreed or otherwise

determined pursuant to Section 26 (Settlement of Disputes), the Municipality shall: • Confirm in writing and signed by a person authorized to bind the company, the

Estimate (as such may have been modified); or

• Withdraw the proposed change in the Services. 9.7 If the Municipality accepts the Estimate (with or without modification), the relevant

change in the Services shall be implemented within sixty (60) Working Days of acceptance of the Estimate by the Municipality, unless the parties agree to a different implementation timeframe, in writing. All changes to the Services and/or the Contract shall be documented in writing.

9.8 If the Designated Municipal Official does not confirm in writing the Estimate (as such

may have been modified) within ninety (90) Working Days of the contents of the Estimate having been agreed or determined pursuant to Section 9.6, above, then the Municipality’s proposed change shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.

9.9 If the Contractor wishes to propose a change in the Services, it must notify the

Designated Municipal Official. The Contractor must:

• Set out the proposed change in the Services in sufficient detail to enable the Municipality to evaluate it in full;

• Specify the Contractor’s reasons for proposing the change in the Services;

• Request the Municipality to consult with the Contractor with a view to deciding

whether to agree to the change in the Services and, if so, what consequential changes the Municipality requires as a result;

• Indicate any implications of the change in the Services, including any anticipated

change in the costs of providing the Services by the Contractor and any gain or loss in revenue to the Contractor potentially associated with the proposed change;

of 368

-12-

• Indicate, in particular, whether a variation to the Contract Price is proposed (and, if so, provide a detailed cost estimate of such proposed change); and

• Identify any timeframe, if applicable, by which a decision by the Municipality is

critical, explaining the reasons why. 9.10 The Municipality shall evaluate the Contractor’s proposed change in the Services in good

faith, taking into account all relevant issues, including whether:

• A change in the Contract Price will occur;

• The change affects the quality of the Services or the likelihood of successful delivery of the amended Services;

• The financial strength of the Contractor is sufficient to perform the changed the Services; and

• The change materially affects the risks or costs to which the Municipality is exposed.

9.11 As soon as practicable after being notified of a change proposal, the parties shall meet

and discuss the matter referred to in it. During their discussions the Municipality may propose modifications or accept or reject the Contractor’s proposal.

9.12 If the Municipality accepts the Contractor’s change proposal (with or without

modification), the relevant change in the Services shall be implemented within sixty (60) Working Days of acceptance of the proposal by the Municipality, unless the parties agree to a different implementation timeframe, in writing. All changes to the Services and/or the Contract shall be documented in writing.

9.13 If the Municipality rejects the Contractor’s change proposal, the Municipality shall

provide reasons in writing for such a rejection. 9.14 Unless the Municipality specifically agrees in writing to an increase in the Contract Price,

there shall be no increase in the Contract Price as a result of a change in the Services proposed by the Contractor.

10. LEGISLATIVE CHANGE RISK 10.1 If a Qualifying Change in Law occurs or is about to occur, then either party may notify the

other to express an opinion on its likely effects, providing details of its opinion of:

• Any necessary change in the Services;

• Whether any changes are required to the terms of the Contract to deal with the Qualifying Change in Law;

• Whether relief from compliance with any contract obligation is required

during implementation of any relevant Qualifying Change in Law;

of 368

-13-

• Any loss of income that may result from the relevant Qualifying Change in Law;

• Any estimated change in the costs of the Contract that directly results from the Qualifying Change in Law; and

• Any expenditure that is required or may no longer be required as a result of

a Qualifying Change in Law taking effect during the Contract Period,

In each case providing full details of any proposed procedure for implementing the resulting change in the Services, confirming to the other party its opinion as to which party should have responsibility for the costs of implementation. Any resulting variation to the Contract Price shall be dealt with in accordance with Section 10.2 below.

10.2 As soon as practicable after receipt of any notification from either party under Section 10.1 above, the parties shall discuss and agree on the issues referred to in Section 10.1, above, and shall review how the Contractor can mitigate the effect of the Qualifying Change of Law, including:

• Providing evidence that the Contractor has used best efforts, including (where

practicable) using competitive quotes to oblige its sub-contractors, if any, to minimise any increase in costs and maximise any reduction in costs;

• Demonstrating how any expenditure to be incurred or avoided is being measured in a

cost-effective manner, including showing that when such expenditure is incurred or would have been incurred, any foreseeable Changes in Law at that time have been taken into account by the Contractor;

• Providing evidence in respect of how the Qualifying Change in Law has affected

prices charged by any similar businesses, including similar businesses in which the Contractor’s shareholders or Contractor’s affiliates carry on business; and

• Demonstrating that any expenditure that has been avoided, which was anticipated to

be incurred to replace or maintain assets that have been affected by the Qualifying Change in Law concerned, has been taken into account in the amount which in either party’s opinion has resulted or is required under Section 10.1. 5 and/or 10.1.6 above.

10.3 Where the Municipality agrees the Qualifying Change of Law under this Section 10 has

affected prices, such change in prices shall constitute a change under Section 9 (Change Management).

10.4 Notwithstanding anything else contained in this Contract, any early termination of the

recycling collection portion of this Contract owing to EPR legislation shall be subject to the early cancelation costs found in Schedule 2.

11. CONTRACTOR’S PERSONNEL/SUPERVISORS 11.1 The Contractor shall ensure that the Services are provided by sufficient persons of

sufficient abilities, skills, knowledge, training, qualifications and experience, and shall ensure that sufficient reserve personnel are available to provide the Service at all times.

of 368

11.2 The Contractor shall ensure that all employees involved in providing the Services, whether employees of the Contractor, its sub-contractors, or agents, shall be at all times properly and sufficiently trained and instructed in the task or tasks that must be performed and the

of 368

-14-

need to maintain the highest standards of courtesy and consideration to the public to promote and enhance the image and/and reputation of the Municipality. Where, in the opinion of the Municipality, acting reasonably, the performance or conduct of any employee, sub-contractor or agent undermines the image and/or reputation of the Municipality, the Contractor shall agree to remove such employee from the provision of the Services.

11.3 The Contractor shall ensure that its employees at all times wear clean and presentable

uniforms while providing the Services. 11.4 The Contractor shall provide a full training program to ensure that its employees, its sub-

contractors, or agents are familiar with the Contractor’s and the Municipality’s operations, complaint procedures, all applicable Health and Safety Obligations, Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, hazardous spills response and all traffic laws, including all applicable Municipal by-laws.

11.5 The Contractor shall ensure that neither it, nor any of its agents or employees, solicits or

accepts any gratuity for providing the Services. Where appropriate, the Contractor shall discipline any of its employees who breach any term of this Contract or any Applicable Law while providing the Services.

11.6 The Contractor shall also ensure that skilled and qualified and competent, as defined in

Section 1 in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, supervisors (“Supervisors”) are available daily to supervise other personnel in providing the Services and shall be responsible to follow up all complaints, spills and accidents, etc., that may occur during the term of the Contract. The Contractor shall ensure that, at a minimum, one Supervisor is available at all times during the Operating Hours. When the regular supervisor is not available, the Contractor must notify the Designated Municipal Official as soon as this absence is known, of the replacement supervisor for that time period.

11.7 The Supervisors shall thoroughly understand all of the requirements of the Contract and

shall be fully experienced in the Services. The Supervisors shall represent the Contractor and shall be authorized to accept any notice, consent, order, decision or other communication on behalf of the Contractor.

11.8 The Contractor shall equip the Supervisors with a cellular phone capable of taking

photos, sending and receiving electronic mail and having a toll free telephone number valid for calls made within the Municipality so that the Supervisors may be contacted by municipal staff during operating hours.

11.9 The Contractor shall remove from the Services any Supervisor who, upon the written

request of a Designated Municipal Official, acting reasonably, fails to meet any Good Industry Practice. The Contractor shall forthwith designate a replacement Supervisor that meets the requirements of Section 11.

11.10 The Contractor supervisor shall be available on all collection days during the hours of 7:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. to record complaints as well as record a description of corrective action taken. The supervisor shall be equipped with cell phone and electronic mail capability. The Contractor shall provide the Designated Municipal Official with an e-mail address for the

of 368

-15-

purpose of facilitating electronic communication between the Contractor, its Supervisor and the Municipality. The Contractor shall have designated staff capable of accepting calls from the public on multiple phone lines.

11.11 The Contractor will inspect Collection routes daily to ensure the following:

i. 100% of Collectible Waste has been collected in the manner required by the Contract

ii. All containers are being returned to the correct location.

iii. Employees are wearing appropriate safety equipment and otherwise observing all applicable Occupational Health and Safety laws.

iv. Collection vehicles are not speeding and are obeying all traffic laws and otherwise being operational in accordance with Applicable Law.

v. Claims of damage to containers are resolved within two working days.

vi. Claims of damage to property have been appropriately responded at the earliest reasonable opportunity, and no time later than within two weeks.

vii. The Designated Municipal Official is informed of all incidents,

problems, complaints and corrective actions taken. viii. Non-collectible waste and containers are tagged with non-compliance tags by the

collection crews. 11.12 When the Contractor observes that the performance of the Work is not being performed

in compliance with the Contract Document and Applicable Law, the Contractor will immediately notify the Designated Municipal Official of the non-compliance and the corrective measures that will be taken to remedy the situation.

11.13 The Contractor supervisor shall be available on all collection days during the hours of

7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. to record complaints as well as record a description of corrective action taken. The supervisor shall be equipped with cell phone and electronic mail capability. The Contractor shall provide the Designated Municipal Official with an e-mail address for the purpose of facilitating electronic communication between the Contractor, its Supervisor and the Municipality.

11.14 Once the customer service staff are finished for the day all calls will be forwarded to a

designated staff person who will be equipped to receive calls and effectively respond to these calls. The receipt of these calls will be recorded and if the service issue is due to incomplete collection the on-call Supervisor will be dispatched with a collection vehicle to remedy the incomplete collection area on the following day.

12. HEALTH & SAFETY 12.1 Without prejudice to the generality of Section 11, above, the Contractor shall be

responsible for the observance by itself, its employees, agents and sub-contractors of its Health and Safety Obligations.

of 368

-16- 12.2 The Contractor expressly agrees to act as the ‘constructor’ as defined in Section 1 of the

Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.1 and shall be responsible for the construction health and safety of all individuals as described in Section 23 of the statute within the working areas where the Services are provided.

12.3 If at any time the Designated Municipal Official considers, acting reasonably, that the

Contractor’s Health and Safety Obligations are not being complied with s/he shall instruct the Contractor to take specific steps to secure such compliance and/or to comply with advice or requirements of the relevant health and safety enforcement authority or a proper officer thereof.

13. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS & REGULATIONS 13.1 The Contractor shall ascertain and at all times shall provide the Services in accordance

with all Applicable Laws. 13.2 For certainty, the Contractor shall be responsible to inform itself and comply with all

regulations governing the acceptance of Collectible Waste at the OVWRC and the Township’s Landfill Site.

14. QUALITY OF SERVICE 14.1 The Contractor shall provide the Services in complete accordance with all of its

obligations contained in the Contract. 14.2 In providing the Services, the Contractor shall:

• Provide the Services in accordance with Good Industry Practice;

• Strive for continued improvement of services; and

• Ensure that any goods, equipment, materials, facilities, and workmanship employed or supplied in undertaking the Services are consistent with the requirements of the Contract and are otherwise appropriate to the Services being performed.

15. INSURANCE 15.1 For the Contract Period, the Contractor shall maintain, and shall ensure that its sub-

contractors maintain, with a reputable insurance company previously notified in writing to the Municipality, the following minimum insurance arrangements:

General Liability Insurance from an insurer licensed in the province of Ontario, for FIVE (5) Million Dollars ($5,000,000), per occurrence with an annual aggregate limit of no less than TEN (10) Million Dollars ($10,000,000), to the Township of Whitewater Region against liability for property damage or personal injury, negligence including death, which may arise from the Contractor’s operations under this Contract. In addition, the Commercial General Liability shall contain Cross Liability and Severability Clauses, Products & Completed Operations and Standard non-owned automobile coverage including a standard contractual liability endorsement.

of 368

-17-

Automobile Liability Insurance, Ontario Standard Vehicle Liability Insurance from an insurer licensed in the province of Ontario, (for all licensed vehicles & equipment) for FIVE (5) Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00), per occurrence for and against claims for bodily injury and/or property damage in respect of motor vehicles both owned or leased vehicles.

15.2 In accordance with the requirements of Section 7 (Obligations Prior to Commencement

Date), above, and as may be requested by the Designated Municipal Official, the Contractor shall produce a Certificate of Insurance with respect to the insurance referred to in Section 15.1, together with documentary evidence that such insurance policies are properly maintained.

15.3 Both the Contractor and its sub-contractors shall, ensure that all policies required under

Section 15.1, include the Township of Whitewater Region as additional insured and the policies shall be endorsed to prevent any exercise of rights of subrogation against the Municipality, its other contractors and their personnel. The Municipality shall be entitled to the proceeds of such insurance policies to the extent of the Contractor’s liability in respect of the risks covered by such insurance.

15.4 The Designated Municipal Official shall be entitled to notify the Contractor in writing that in

its opinion any such policy of insurance does not provide sufficient coverage to comply with the requirements of this provision and to require the Contractor to provide such insurance as will so comply. Upon receipt of such notice, the Contractor shall forthwith procure and maintain such insurance as the Municipality shall reasonably require.

15.5 Where the Contractor fails to forthwith procure and maintain such insurance as the

Municipality reasonably require, the Municipality may cause such insurance to be effected and the Municipality shall be entitled to deduct the cost of procuring and maintaining such insurance from the monthly invoices to be provided by the Contractor to the Municipality under Section 25, as may be directed by the Designated Municipal Official.

15.6 The Contractor shall ensure that each and any policy of insurance required under this

Section 15:

• Provides that a notice of claim to the insurer by the Municipality shall, in the absence of manifest error, be accepted by the insurer as a valid notification of claim; and

• Contains provisions which require the insurer to send copies of all notices of early

cancellation or any adverse change in relation to the policy given under or in relation to the policy, to the Designated Municipal Official.

16. CONTRACTOR’S INDEMNITY 16.1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Contract, the Contractor shall accept full

responsibility for and shall release, and indemnify on demand and save harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against all liability for:

of 368

-18-

• All actions, claims, demands, costs, charges, losses and expenses (including legal costs on a full indemnity basis), which may arise out of or in consequence of the performance or non performance by the Contractor (including its agents and subcontractors) of its obligations under the Contract, or the presence of the Contractor (including its agents and subcontractors) in any premises or property belonging to the Municipality; and

• All actions, claims, demands, costs, charges, losses and expenses (including legal

costs on a full indemnity basis), which are related to or are caused by the negligence or wilful misconduct of the Contractor and which, for certainty, shall include all actions, claims, demands, costs, charges, losses and expenses related to bodily injury, death and loss or damage to property.

16.2 Such indemnity shall not apply to any action, claim, demand, cost, charge, loss and

expense if such action, claim, demand, cost, charge, loss and expense are caused by any negligent act, wilful misconduct, error or omission, default, breach of warranty or misrepresentation of the Municipality.

17. MUNICIPALITY’S LIMITATION ON DAMAGES 17.1 The Contractor agrees that the Municipality, which for the purposes of this section 17,

includes their employees, elected representatives, advisors and agents shall not be liable for any property damage, bodily injury, death or personal injury to the Contractor, its subcontractors or their respective directors, officers, agents, employees and independent contractors or for any proceeding by any third party against the Contractor, its subcontractors or their respective directors, officers, agents, employees and independent contractors arising in the course of the performance of the Contractor's obligations under this Contract or arising otherwise in connection with this Contract for any reason, excepting where such property damage, bodily injury, death or personal injury is caused, in whole or in part, by any negligent act, error or omission, default, or wilful misconduct of the Municipality.

17.2 For certainty, the Contractor acknowledges and agrees that, except as otherwise indicated in the Contract, the Municipality shall be solely responsible for its obligations to the Contractor for the Services provided within its own geographic jurisdiction under this Contract and the Contractor further expressly acknowledges and agrees in particular that it shall have no claim, for any reason, against any elected representative, personnel or agent of the Municipality in respect of any aspect of this Contract.

18. CONTRACTOR’S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 18.1 The Contractor represents and warrants to the Municipality that the following are true and

correct as at the Execution Date:

• The Contractor has full power and authority and has taken all necessary steps to enter into and perform its obligations under the Contract.

• The Contractor represents and warrants that the Contractor’s personnel assigned to

provide the Services shall be fully qualified, with sufficient abilities, skills, knowledge, training, qualifications and experience.

• The execution and delivery of the Contract does not violate any order, writ,

injunction, decree, statute, rule or regulation applicable to the Contractor.

of 368

-19-

• The Contractor is duly incorporated, organized and subsisting under, and in

compliance with, the laws of the province of Ontario. 18.2 The Contractor makes the additional following representations and warranties in respect

of the Contract Period:

• The Contractor will use an adequate number of qualified personnel to perform the Services, and the Contractor covenants that the Contractor’s employees utilized in the provision of Services to the Municipality will possess suitable training, education, experience and skill to perform the Services.

• The Contractor will make its own inquiries and will obtain all necessary regulatory

approvals applicable, obtain any necessary permits, including in respect of Waste Management facilities, except for those environmental authorizations and permits that are the responsibility of the Municipality.

• The Contractor will comply in all respects with all Applicable Laws.

• The Contractor and all subcontractors will hold an applicable Provincial Certificate

of Approval or Environmental Compliance Approval from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment from the Commencement Date, for the collection of solid waste.

19. MUNICIPALITY’S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 19.1 The Municipality represents and warrants to the Contractor that the following are true and

correct as at the Commencement Date:

• The Municipality has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided by the Municipality comprises all such information of which the Municipality is aware and which the Municipality in its reasonable opinion regards as relevant or material to the Services and the Contractor acknowledges and confirms that it has conducted its own analysis and review of such information.

• The Municipality has the full power and authority to enter into and perform their

obligations under the Contract.

• The Municipality has passed all of the necessary by-laws and have obtained all necessary authorizations and permits to enable them to enter into and perform their obligations under the Contract.

20. VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 20.1 The Contractor shall at all times provide the number of Collection Vehicles as may be

determined by the Contractor from time to time to be necessary to provide the Services in accordance with the requirements set out in Section 14 (Quality of Service), and shall advise the Designated Municipal Official of the number of Collection Vehicles used in the Municipality. Where necessary, the Contractor shall increase the number of Collection Vehicles dedicated to the performance of the Services to ensure, at all times, the adequate performance of all requirements of the Contract. Similarly, all Collection Vehicles shall be

of 368

-20-

maintained in such order at all times and equipped so that the Contractor may provide at least the level of service specified in the Contract.

20.2 The Collection Vehicles shall have fully enclosed steel bodies, which shall be properly

sealed to prevent leakage, and shall be of sufficient capacity and strength, capable of loading, compacting and mechanically unloading all Collectible Waste, which shall be mounted on an adequate truck chassis.

20.3 All primary vehicles used for the collection of Garbage, Recyclable Material shall be painted

in the Contractor’s company colours. A permanent numbering system (painted on all four (4) sides), the Contractor’s Ministry of Environment permit number, and the Contractor’s company name will be stencilled on the cab of all collection vehicles to accommodate the necessary accounting system for vehicles entering the designated Waste Management Sites.

20.4 In the event of equipment break down the Contractor will supply, at its own expense and

without any unreasonable delay, sufficient alternative equipment to complete the required Work, to be acceptable to the Designated Municipal Official.

20.5 The Contractor shall keep the side body panels of all Primary Collection Vehicle free of

advertising. The Municipality may require the Contractor to post signs or logos proclaiming messages of public interest as approved by the Designated Municipal Official, or to promote any aspect of the solid waste programs. Any such signage or logo shall be provided by a Designated Municipal Official and installed by the Contractor. The Contractor will provide the installation at Contractor’s expense.

20.6 Where the Contractor proposes to use an automated method to unload waste containers

into the vehicle, the contractor’s equipment shall be designed so as not to damage waste containers. Automated equipment to be used by the Contractor is to be acceptable to the Designated Municipal Official.

20.7 The Contractor shall ensure that all Collection Vehicles are washed at least once weekly

with a proper cleaning solution and that all Collection Vehicles are disinfected inside and out at least once weekly.

20.8 All vehicles which co-collect more than one Waste Stream shall be designed/constructed

to ensure that the Waste Streams do not become cross-contaminated by each other. 20.9 The Contractor shall not allow or cause any Collection Vehicle to be loaded beyond the

legal limits as may be specified under the Highway Traffic Act (Ontario) from time to time, in the manufacturer’s specifications or in any other regulation. The Contractor shall be responsible for all consequences resulting from vehicle overloading.

20.10 Where in the opinion of any Designated Municipal Official, Equipment used by the

Contractor is causing or is likely to cause damage to any public or private property, or roadway, or persons, a Designated Municipal Official may direct the Contractor to make changes or substitutions for such Equipment at the Contractor’s own expense, and may direct how such Equipment is to be operated by the Contractor.

20.11 The Contractor shall maintain all licenses and permits necessary to perform the

requirements of the Contract throughout the Contract Period and shall provide copies of

of 368

-21-

same to each Designated Municipal Official on each Anniversary Date. 20.12 In addition to all legally required safety equipment, each Collection Vehicle shall be

equipped with Ministry of Transportation-approved back up alert signals, flashing amber caution lights mounted on the rear, and a two-way radio.

20.13 The Contractor shall ensure that Collection Vehicles are equipped to protect workers

from any pinch point during the packing cycle operation. A Ministry of Labour-approved system shall be installed and permanently maintained on all Collection Vehicles.

20.14 The Contractor shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and all other costs of the

Equipment, including but not limited to, fuel, licensing, insurance, washing and storage. 20.15 The Contractor will maintain a number of spare collection vehicles as may be specified

by the Designated Municipal Official from time to time for use in the event of vehicle breakdown. Spare vehicles may not be older than 10 years at any time during the Term of Contract. Prior to commencement of the Work, the Contractor will provide the Designated Municipal Official with documentation showing that the spare vehicles have been maintained to a standard satisfactory to the Designated Municipal Official.

20.16 At any time during the Contract Period, the Municipality shall be entitled to carry out or

procure the carrying out of inspections of all or any of the Collection Vehicles and Equipment to assess their condition and whether or not they have been maintained by the Contractor in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the Contract, and the Contractor shall assist the Municipality in performing any such inspection. Where any inspection reveals that the Contractor is in breach of any of its obligations under the Contract, the Contractor shall take immediate steps to remedy such breach(es), and shall immediately thereafter provide evidence to the Municipality that all breach(es) have been remedied.

20.17 Where an inspection reveals that the Contractor is in breach of any of its obligations

under the Contract, the Contractor shall reimburse the Municipality for the cost of carrying out or procuring inspection, and the Municipality shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such inspection from the Contract Price, as may be directed by the Designated Municipal Official. Where an inspection reveals that the Contractor is not in breach of any of its obligations under the Contract, the cost of carrying out or procuring such inspection shall be assumed by the Municipality.

21. REPORTS 21.1 The Contractor shall provide the following data reports by e-mail to the Designated

Municipal Official, on the stated frequency:

• In a format determined by the Designated Municipal Official, daily incident or break-down reports by email or telephone which shall include an explanation for the delay and an approximate time for when the route will be completed (“Monitoring Reports”);

of 368

-22-

• Monthly invoices for all Collectible Waste (Recycling) and a breakdown of individual weights of each material within the co mingle stream; and

• Annual collection vehicle safety inspection reports, proof of insurance, and proof of

Ministry of Environment approvals. 21.2 The Contractor shall ensure that detailed records are kept for the handling of the Collectible

Waste, including a record of the number of Collection Vehicles emptied per day, the weight in metric tonnes of each load (recycling), and the location of load disposal.

22. PILOT PROJECTS 22.1 The Municipality is committed to minimizing and diverting waste from disposal. For this

purpose, the Municipality will continue to explore new methods and technologies for waste diversion, and may from time to time undertake a pilot demonstration project(s) within the Municipality.

22.2 In the event the Municipality implements a pilot project, the Designated Municipal

Official may alter the way the Services are provided temporarily in a specified geographic area, without incurring any additional cost to the Contractor.

22.3 The Designated Municipal Official may require the Contractor to operate the pilot

project, in which case the parties shall agree on any payment, in accordance to Section 9 “Change Management” of this Contract, to be made to the Contractor.

22.4 The Municipality reserves the right to contract or partner with any person, agency or firm,

for the purposes of conducting a pilot project, without involving the Contractor. 23. CO-OPERATION WITH OTHERS 23.1 While continuing to provide the Services, the Contractor shall co-operate with the

Municipality’s other contractors and those other contractors’ sub-contractors, and all statutory officers, auditors of the Municipality, and residents and businesses operating within the jurisdiction of the Municipality. For certainty, the Contractor shall co-operate with others in relation to activities involving construction projects within the Municipality.

24. CHARGES AND PAYMENT 24.1 The Contract Price shall be as stated in Schedule 2. The Contract Price shall be deemed to

include all costs of providing the Services as provided for under this Contract. Except where provided for under the Contract, the Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in charges based on unforeseen circumstances or contingencies howsoever arising.

24.2 The Contract Price shall be payable from the Commencement Date. 24.3 The Contract Price shall accrue from day-to-day and shall be payable by ten (10) monthly

instalments in arrears in accordance with this provision. Within ten (10) Working Days from the end of each month, the Contractor shall provide to the Municipality invoices which shall set out the total net figure payable by the Municipality.

of 368

-23- 24.4 Following receipt by the Municipality of the invoice outlined in section 24.3 above, the

Municipality shall pay to the Contractor within thirty (30) Working Days (in Canadian dollars) all such sums referred to in the invoice, less any amount that is disputed, provided that the Municipality shall not be required to pay any late interest charges where delay of payment is due to administrative processing.

24.5 In the event that the Municipality wishes to dispute any amount, the Municipality shall

notify the Contractor in writing within fifteen (15) Working Days of receipt of the relevant invoice and the reasons why the amount is disputed. For the avoidance of doubt the Municipality may withhold payment of any amount disputed.

24.6 Within five (5) Working Days following receipt by the Contractor of any notice served by the

Municipality pursuant to Section 24.5, above, the Contractor shall respond by notifying the Municipality as to whether or not it agrees with the statements made in or the supporting evidence supplied with that notice. If the Contractor indicates that it does agree, or if the Contractor fails to make such a response within that time limit, the Municipality shall be entitled to retain on a permanent basis any amounts withheld pursuant to Section 24.5 and to reclaim from the Contractor the amount of any over-payment which may have been made to the Contractor.

24.7 If the Contractor responds pursuant to Section 25.8 that it does not agree with all or any

of the statements made in any notice served by the Municipality, the matter or matters in question shall be determined under Section 26 (Settlement of Disputes). Any payment amounts in dispute will be held by the Municipality until the matter is resolved.

25. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES 25.1 Until the Contract has been terminated, the Contractor must at all times continue to

provide the Services. 25.2 If there is a dispute or difference concerning the Services or the interpretation of this

Contract then either party may notify the other that it wishes the dispute to be referred to a meeting of the Contractor and Designated Municipal Official to resolve, negotiating in good faith.

25.3 If the dispute has not been resolved, the unresolved dispute shall be referred to and finally

settled by arbitration, in which case the parties shall mutually agree on the selection of a single arbitrator, within a period as both parties may agree, who shall be qualified by education and training to pass upon the particular matter to be decided. The arbitrator shall render a decision in accordance with the terms of the Ontario Arbitration Act. For the purposes of the Contract, the arbitrator’s decision shall be binding on the parties.

25.4 Neither party shall be precluded by this Section 26 from taking such steps in relation to

court proceedings as either party may deem necessary or desirable to protect its position, which shall normally be limited to issuing or otherwise pursuing proceedings to prevent limitation periods from expiring and applying for interim relief.

of 368

-24- 26. ADDITIONAL SERVICES 26.1 The Contractor shall provide such additional services at any time and at any place and in

such manner as the Designated Municipal Official may specify to enable the Municipality to respond to or deal with or to carry out its functions in relation to a situation which, in the opinion of the Designated Municipal Official is a possible, potential or actual emergency or disaster provided that such services shall be similar to the Services provided hereunder (“Additional Services”).

26.2 Where the Contractor provides Additional Services under this Section 27, such

Additional Services shall constitute a change under Section 9 (Change Management). 26.3 Where temporary services are provided by the Contractor under conditions the

Designated Municipal Official deems to be an emergency situation, then the Contractor shall invoice for any direct and variable costs incurred by them for that temporary emergency service that are considered by the Designated Municipal Official to be over and above the unit charges outlined in Schedule 2.

27. NON-PERFORMANCE 27.1 In no event shall the Contractor be relieved of its obligations set out in the Contract,

except as otherwise stipulated in the Contract. For reasons that without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the contractor shall not be relieved of strict performance of its obligations under the Contract due to: strike, staff shortages, collection vehicle breakdown, collection vehicle shortage, quantity of materials to be collected, or weather conditions, unless the obligations of the Contractor is determined to be relieved by the Designated Municipal Official.

27.2 If collection must be cancelled due to weather conditions, collection will be delayed by

one day for the remainder of the week with Friday’s collection occurring on a Saturday, and if weather conditions prevent collection for 2 or more consecutive days, the parties will arrange a collection schedule for those days of missed collection.

27.3 In the event of non-performance by the Contract, the Municipality shall be authorized,

acting reasonably and in accordance with the spirit of the Contract:

• To require the Contractor to repeat the Services not performed in accordance with the Contract at no cost to the Municipality; or

• To withhold payment and make arrangements for the Municipality to provide and

perform by its own forces or those of another contractor the Services and deduct the extra cost incurred by the Municipality in so doing from any payment due to the Contractor.

27.4 For the avoidance of doubt, the rights and remedies referred to in Section 27.3 shall be

considered without prejudice to any other right or remedy the Municipality, or any one of them, may have under this Contract or in law nor shall they relieve the Contractor of any obligations under the Contract in respect of the Services.

of 368

-25- 28. EXPIRY OF CONTRACT 28.1 At all times the Contractor shall use its best efforts and shall take all reasonable steps to

co-operate fully with the Municipality and, where applicable, any successor Contractor, providing all information reasonably required by the Municipality prior to expiry, removing such Collection Vehicles and Equipment from the Municipality’s property, and transferring all of its rights, title and interest in any Collection Vehicle and Equipment to any successor Contractor, in accordance with the Contract Documents.

29. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE 29.1 Without prejudice to the exercise of any alternative or additional remedy or of any

accrued rights of the Municipality, the Municipality shall be entitled forthwith upon the occurrence of any of the following events to terminate the Contract: • The Contractor becoming bankrupt, or making a composition or arrangement with its

creditors, or having a proposal in respect of its company for voluntary arrangement for a composition of debts or a scheme of arrangement approved in accordance with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ( R.S., 1985, c. B-3 );

• The appointment of an administrative receiver over the assets of the Contractor;

• The Contractor having a winding-up order made or (except for the purposes of

amalgamation or reconstruction) a resolution for voluntary winding-up passed;

• The Contractor having a provisional liquidator, or receiver or manager of its business or undertaking duly appointed;

• The Contractor being in circumstances which entitle a creditor to appoint, or have

appointed a receiver, a manager or administrative receiver, or which would entitle the court to make a winding-up order;

• There is a change in control of the Contractor or of any company which is a holding

company (direct or indirect) of such holding company unless the Municipality has approved the same in writing, with such approval to be withheld at the sole discretion of the Municipality;

• Discovery of a material misrepresentation by the Contractor during the tendering

process;

• The Contractor has committed any Prohibited Act;

• Assignment of the contract by the Contractor or amalgamation of the Contractor; or

• The Contractor has committed a material breach of the Contract, including failure to maintain or renew the Performance Bond or the receipt by the Municipality of any notice of cancellation, provided the Municipality has fulfilled any of the Municipality’s obligations in relation thereto under the contract.

of 368

-26-

29.2 If the Contractor has committed persistent minor breaches of the Contract, whether or not any event of non-performance has been assessed against the Contractor pursuant to Section 30.1, above, the Municipality may serve a notice on the Contractor:

• Specifying that it is a formal warning notice;

• Giving reasonable details of the event of non-performance; and

• Stating that such non-performance is a breach of the Contract which, if it recurs

frequently or continues, may result in a termination of the Contract. 29.3 If following service of such above-noted warning notice, the breach specified has

continued beyond twenty (20) Working Days from the date of service of the notice, or recurred within that time, then the Municipality may serve another on the Contractor:

• Specifying that it is a final warning notice;

• Stating that the event of non-performance specified has been the subject of a

warning notice served within the twelve-month period prior to the date of service of the final warning notice; and

• Stating that if such event of non-performance continues or recurs within the six-

month period after the date of service of the final warning notice, the Contract may be terminated forthwith.

29.4 A warning notice may not be served in respect of any event of non-performance in respect of

which a separate warning notice has already been served until a period of six (6) months has elapsed since the date of service of the previous warning notice or final warning notice.

29.5 Upon such termination, in addition to such consequences as are set out in other

conditions, the Contractor shall be deemed to be in breach of this Contract;

• The Contractor shall forthwith cease to perform all of the Services;

• The Contractor shall be liable forthwith to compensate the Municipality for any loss or damages it has sustained as a consequence of any breaches of Contract by the Contractor;

• The Contractor shall fully and promptly indemnify and compensate the Municipality in respect of the cost of causing to be performed such Services as would have been performed by the Contractor during the remainder of the Contract Period to the extent that such costs exceed such sums as would have been lawfully payable to the Contractor for performing such Services (such costs to include all costs of closing up this Contract and entering into a new Contract with a replacement contractor). The Municipality shall be free to have such services performed by any person (whether or not employees of the Municipality) as the Municipality may within their sole discretion determine;

• The Municipality shall be under no obligation to make any further payment to the

Contractor and shall be entitled to retain any payment which may have fallen due to the Contractor before termination until the Contractor has paid in full to the Municipality

of 368

-27-

all sums due under or arising from the Contract or to deduct there from any sum due from the Contract; and

• The Municipality shall have the authority to deduct from any monies owing to the

Contractor such sums as are due to the Municipality and may thereafter become due to the Municipality under this or any other contract between the parties.

30. FORCE MAJEURE 30.1 In the event of the cessation or delay of or substantial interference with the performance

of the Services owing to Force Majeure, the duty of the Contractor to perform the Services so affected shall be suspended until such circumstances have ceased. The Municipality shall not be liable to make any payment to the Contractor in respect of such suspension and any such sum already paid in respect of any part of the Service not yet performed shall be held to the credit of the Municipality and returned to the Municipality.

30.2 For the purposes of this Contract, Force Majeure means occurrences beyond the control

of the Contractor and which, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, the Contractor is unable to prevent, including but not limited to the decrees of Governments, acts of God, fires, floods, abnormal weather events, explosions, riots, war, rebellions, sabotage and atomic or nuclear incident, or terrorist activities. For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby expressly agreed that industrial relations difficulties, change of law, change in currency, failure to provide adequate premises, equipment, materials, consumables and/or staff or similar matters are not to be considered as events of Force Majeure.

30.3 If the period of suspension under Section 30.1 above lasts for longer than three (3) months,

without incurring any liability, either party may serve upon the other one (1) month’s written notice of termination of the Contract. Unless the Services have been resumed before the expiration of such notice, the Contract shall terminate in accordance with such notice.

31. PUBLICITY 31.1 The Contractor shall not by itself, its employees, agents or sub-contractors communicate

with representatives of the press, television, radio or other communications media on any matter concerning the Contract without the prior approval of the Designated Municipal Official.

32. ADVERTISING 32.1 No advertisement of any description will be allowed on the premises, equipment,

materials or consumables utilised in the performance of the Services without the prior written consent of the Designated Municipal Official.

33. AUDIT RIGHT OF THE MUNICIPALITY 33.1 The Municipality may arrange for periodic audits of (i) the Contractor’s performance

throughout the Contract Period for the purpose of verifying that the Contractor is performing all of the Services, in compliance with the requirements and obligations set out in the Contract.

of 368

-28-

33.2 The Contractor shall co-operate fully and in a timely manner with any reasonable request

for any audit by the Municipality (whether conducted by internal or external auditor), including providing access to work sites, and shall provide documents, or procure the provision of documents, relating to the Services.

33.3 Where an audit determines that the Contractor has not complied with any requirement or

obligation of the Contract, the Contractor shall immediately remedy such non-compliance and acknowledges that the Municipality may exercise any right in connection with the Contract.

33.4 Where an audit determines that the Contractor has not complied with any requirement or

obligation under the Contract, the Contractor shall reimburse the Municipality for the cost of conducting such audit and the Municipality shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such audit from invoices submitted by the Contractor to the Municipality under Section 25 (Charges and Payment), as may be directed by the Designated Municipal Official.

33.5 Where an audit determines that the Contractor has complied with all requirements or

obligations under the Contract, the cost of conducting such audit shall be assumed by the Municipality.

34. ASSIGNMENT AND SUB-CONTRACTING 34.1 The Contractor shall not assign nor create any third-party interest in the Contract without

the prior written consent of the Municipality, which consent the Municipality shall be absolutely entitled to withhold.

34.2 The Contractor may only sub-contract the performance of this Contract or any part

thereof with the prior written consent of the Designated Municipal Official, which consent the Designated Municipal Official shall be absolutely entitled to withhold, and shall cease to so sub-contract if the Designated Municipal Official in writing withdraws his/her consent. Such consent (if given) shall not relieve the Contractor from any liability or obligation under the Contract and the Contractor shall be responsible for the acts, defaults or neglect of any sub-contractor or its agents or employees in all respects as if they were the acts, defaults or neglect of the Contractor or its agents or employees, notwithstanding that the Municipality may require as a condition of giving any consent to sub-contract a direct warranty and undertaking from the sub-contractor concerning the provision of the Services and compliance with the Contract in all respects.

34.3 The Municipality reserves the right to impose such conditions as they see fit in giving any

consent pursuant to this provision. Such conditions may include payment to the Municipality of such reasonable administrative and legal costs as may be incurred by the Municipality and/or the posting of such additional security as the Municipality may consider appropriate.

35. SEVERABILITY 35.1 If one or more of the provisions of this Contract are to any extent invalid or unenforceable

under any Applicable Law, the remainder of this Contract shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law. The invalid

of 368

-29-

provision shall be deemed replaced by that legally valid provision which most closely approximates the economic intent of the invalid provision.

36. THIRD PARTY RIGHTS 36.1 Save as expressly provided in this Contract, it is not intended that any party who is not a

party to this Contract shall have the right to enforce any of the obligations rights or provisions contained in this Contract.

37. LAW AND JURISDICTION 37.1 This Contract shall be considered as a contract made under the laws of Ontario and the

federal laws of Canada applicable therein and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Ontario to which the parties hereby submit.

37.2 This Contract is binding on the Municipality, their successors and assignees and on the

Contractor and the Contractor’s successors and permitted assignees. 38. MUNICIPALITY’S FUNCTIONS

Nothing in the Contract shall prejudice or affect the Municipality’s rights, powers, duties and obligations in relation to the exercise of their functions as waste collection authorities under all applicable legislation.

39. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 39.1 The parties acknowledge and agree that this Contract and any materials or information

provided to the Contractor through the performance of the Services, including the Confidential Information, may be subject to disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, (“MFIPPA”) as amended, or as otherwise required by law.

39.2 The Contractor shall co-operate and assist the Municipality with disclosures under MFIPPA

and the Municipality shall have the right to determine the manner, timing and terms under which such disclosure shall be made, except that nothing in this provision shall impose an obligation to disclose information that is not required to be disclosed under MFIPPA.

39.3 For clarity, the Municipality shall provide notice of, and give the Contractor opportunity

to respond to, any request for information made by a third party in accordance with MFIPPA, and shall not release any information to a third party in contravention of the Municipality’s obligations under MFIPPA.

of 368

-30- IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or approved this agreement on the dates below their signatures.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WHITEWATER REGION

MAYOR – MICHAEL MOORE

MUNICIPAL CLERK – CARMEN MILLER

Date

THE CONTRACTOR Miller Waste Systems Inc.

Signature

Print Name

Print Title

Date

of 368

-31-

SCHEDULE 1 SERVICES

Attached to and forming an integral part of the Contract. 1. SUMMARY OF SERVICES 1.1. The Contractor shall collect all Collectible Waste as defined in the applicable waste By-

law for the Municipality, as may be amended from time to time. 1.2 The Contractor hereby agrees to pick-up residential waste contained within Township

Yellow Bags marked with a black “W” on routes that are publicly maintained by the Township of Whitewater Region and transport to the Municipal landfill located at 990 Kohlsmith Rd. for disposal.

1.3 Uncontaminated residential recyclable materials placed in blue boxes (16 gal) left at curb-side on the routes that are publicly maintained by the Township of Whitewater Region.

1.4 Uncontaminated commercial recyclable materials placed in blue boxes (16 gal) or bins (95 gal) from commercial establishments (see Schedule 2) shall be picked up from upon the premises of the commercial establishment or at curbside. The Contractor shall be required to enter upon the premises of specific commercial establishments (ie. some campgrounds) to collect recyclable materials situated within their depot area. It is the sole responsibility of the Contractor to determine, coordinate and arrange the collection needs of these specific commercial establishments

1.5 All uncontaminated residential & commercial collected shall be transported by the Contractor to the Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Center for disposal at their MRF.

1.6 The Contractor acknowledges and agrees that there may be additions or deletions to items deemed as Collectible Waste during the Term of the Contract. The contractor agrees to accept any such deletions or additions which shall be included and shall form part of these Specifications and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly.

1.7 The Contractor shall provide at their own expense, all materials, personnel and equipment as required for the mandatory collection, transportation and unloading of Collectible Waste.

1.8 By no later than May 30, 2020, the Contractor shall submit to the Designated Municipal Official for approval, a complete list of their proposed Collection days and detailed route maps for the designated collection area. Each Collection route shall be identified by a number and the list shall cover a normal week’s operation showing the number of collection vehicles and employees per route for all designated Collection area. The Designated Municipal Official may at anytime during the Contract modify or amend the daily Collection routes and the Contractor shall implement and adhere to such changes within 4 calendar weeks.

of 368

-32- 1.9 After the commencement date of this Contract, no change in collection days may be made

without the written approval of the Designated Municipal Official. Where the Contractor requests changes to the collection days, the Contractor will notify, all persons affected at least 4 weeks prior to any changes, by door to door delivery of a notice and by an advertisement placed in all newspapers local to the Municipality. This notice shall be at the Contractor’s expense.

1.10 The Contractor shall collect 100 percent of the Collectible Waste on each scheduled collection route on the scheduled collection day. The Contractor will ensure that non-compliance notices are placed on all non-collectible waste. Non -compliance notices shall be supplied by the Municipality. The Contractor shall be deemed to have failed to complete 100 percent of a day's collection if the Contractor misses any, or all, of a designated collection route and does not return to rectify the situation on the day such collection was missed.

1.11 In no event shall the Contractor be relieved of its obligations due to:

• Strike • Staff shortages • Collection vehicle breakdown • Collection vehicle shortage • Quantity of materials to be collected • Weather conditions, unless determined to be unsafe by the Designated

Municipal Official. 1.12 If the Contractor encounters any impassable obstruction including without limitation,

utilities or other contractors working on the traveled portion of the Collection route, they will notify the Designated Municipal Official immediately of the location and will return at least once that day at a mutually agreeable time, to collect Collectible Waste.

1.12.1 The following deemed not to be impassable obstructions:

• Parked vehicles • Moving vans • Snow banks • Ditches • Roads under construction

1.13 The Contractor will collect Collectible Waste from garbage enclosures, the premises of

some commercial establishments, one-way streets (must be collected on the left hand side) or any other location that may be designated by the Designated Municipal Official from time to time. Where for any reason Collection cannot be made from the locations specified, items for Collection shall be placed at alternate locations that maybe designated by the Designated Municipal Official from time to time.

1.14 The Contractor, where required by the Designated Municipal Official, shall drive safely onto private property to an exterior ground level refuse, fibre recyclables and container recyclables storage area located on, or at the edge of the road system, turn around and return to the public highway, the Contractor can provide this service if so requested by the private property owner and approved by the Designated Municipal Official.

of 368

-33- 1.15 The Contractor shall return all emptied containers to the addresses from which they were

retrieved for Collection and return as per the existing Waste Management By- laws. Care shall be used not to damage any containers during Collection. The Contractor shall be responsible for replacing any containers damaged as a result of Collection.

1.16 Where a Municipality replaces Containers due to negligence of the Contractor, the cost of the replacement Containers will be deducted from the Contractor’s monthly payment.

1.17 The Contractor shall ensure that all Collection vehicles are equipped with a broom, shovel, and supply of absorbent agents for the purpose of cleaning spills. The Contractor will immediately clean-up all spills of liquid or debris caused by the Collection operation, at their own expense and notify the Designated Municipal Official.

1.18 The Contractor assumes responsibility for Collection from any new residential developments and IC&I locations, where applicable to the Contract, within the Municipality when directed by the Designated Municipal Official. For greater certainty, there shall be no increase to the unit price(s) set out in Schedule 2 for these added collection responsibilities.

1.19 The Contractor shall ensure that its collection and supervisory staff providing the services for this contract participate in an annual one (1) hour to (3) hour orientation and safety training session held at the Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre. In addition, any new staff will have to attend this training prior to working under this contract. New staff will also attend the Ross Landfill Site for tipping face direction.

1.20 The Contactor shall provide curbside collection services for Collectible Waste to single and applicable multi-residential dwellings (including apartments/condominiums and townhouse complexes on private roadways) in the designated Collection area. The Contractor shall provide Collection services for Garbage and Recyclable Material for the designated IC&I collection areas.”

1.21 The Contractor shall collect only yellow bags specified in this Schedule, from any one single residential, municipal or commercial unit, unless directed otherwise by a Designated Municipal Official.

1.22 The Contractor shall provide unlimited collection of Recyclable Material from all designated single family residential, multi-residential, designated IC&I, and municipal locations in the collection area.

1.23 The Contactor shall supply to the Designated Municipal Official a list of all collection vehicle numbers and corresponding license plate numbers for the collection vehicles used under this Contract. Should any vehicle breakdown occur during the day, the Contractor shall immediately replace the disabled vehicle and shall immediately notify the appropriate Designated Municipal Official immediately of the vehicle number and license plate of the replacement vehicle.

1.24 The Contractor is required to weigh material collected in one Municipality separate from any material collected in any other Municipality.

1.25 The Contractor shall not be paid for any Collectible Waste disposed at any Waste Management Site, Compost Facility, or Material Recovery Facility if the license number of those collection vehicles has not been provided to the appropriate Designated Municipal

of 368

-34-

Official and OVWRC in advance. The Contractor will co-operate fully with the Designated Municipal Official in implementing and operating projects and programs that the Municipality, and/or Provincial and/or Federal Government develop and legislate to divert waste from disposal.

2. WORKING DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATION 2.1. The Contractor shall undertake the collection and disposal of Collectible Waste for all

residential, municipal and commercial locations in the designated Collection area and exit of the OVWRC between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on the scheduled collection day unless otherwise authorized by the Designated Municipal Official.

2.2. The Contractor shall collect all Garbage, Recyclable Material, in the designated Collection areas on the days proposed in their Submission. Regular Collection days shall not occur on Saturday or Sunday with the exception of Clause 2.5 or as requested by the Designated Municipal Official.

2.3. The Contractor will adhere to the hours of operation, as may be amended from time to time, for the Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre, 900 Woito Station Road, Pembroke as follows:

April 1st - September 30th

Monday to Friday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Saturday 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

October 1st - March 31

Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Saturday 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

The Contractor shall take all reasonable measures to comply with the conditions set out in the Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre’s Waste Management Site Environmental Compliance Approval as well as the Township’s Ross Landfill Site.

2.4. Should the regular Collection day occur on a holiday, the Collection shall take place as follows: i. the collection days affected after the holiday shall be one day later than usual; ii. during a week in which two (2) holidays occur, the Designated Municipal Official

shall determine the Collection Schedule and communicate it to the Contractor, so that all Collections are made in that week.

2.5. The following days are statutory holidays. The Contractor will adhere to any other statutory holidays declared by Parliament during the term of the Contract. There shall be no Collection of Collectible Waste by the Contractor on statutory holidays unless the Contractor is otherwise directed to do so by a Designated Municipal Official:

of 368

-35-

• New Year’s Day • Family Day • Good Friday • Victoria Day • Canada Day • Civic Holiday • Labour Day • Thanksgiving Day • Christmas Day • Boxing Day

2.6. The Contractor shall bear, at its own expense, any additional or unforeseen costs

including, but not limited to, such overtime, rates for extra forces, and cost any additional requirement or services as may be necessary to ensure continuous and uninterrupted service in accordance with Contractors obligations.

3. COLLECTION OF GARBAGE 3.1 The Contractor shall provide collection of Garbage (yellow Township bags) once every

week on the scheduled collection days for all single-family, designated multi-residential locations and ICI locations within the designated collection area.

3.2 Non-collectible Garbage is to be tagged by the Contractor and these tag notices will be used to advise the owner that their Garbage was not collected for, but not limited to, any of the following reasons:

a. Material set out on wrong collection week. b. Material exceeds weight or size limits. c. Hazardous Waste / Electronics not collected curbside d. Blue Box contains non-recyclable materials and must be sorted correctly.

3.3 Non-compliance notices will be supplied by the Municipality. Notwithstanding that

yellow bags of Garbage may have been tagged with a non compliance notice, the Designated Municipal Official reserve the right to direct the Contractor to collect tagged garbage bags or containers.

3.4 The Contractor will not mix or contaminate Recyclable Material or Garbage with each other.

3.5 The Contractor will not collect more than the quantity of bags, containers and material as set out in the Municipality’s Waste By-law as may be amended.

3.6 The Contractor will abide by the restrictions placed on the type of material suitable for collection as set out in the Municipality’s Waste By-law as may be amended.

3.7 The Contractor will transport and dispose of Garbage at the Ross Landfill Site, unless otherwise directed by the Designated Municipal Official. The Contractor will not be responsible to pay for disposal fees for Garbage delivered to the Ross Landfill Site.

of 368

-36- 4. COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL 4.1 The Contractor shall provide unlimited curbside Collection of Recyclable Material with

the collection of fibre material and containers, on the scheduled Collection days for all residential, municipal and ICI locations.

4.2 The Contractor will not collect more than the quantity of bags, containers and material as set out in the Municipal Waste By-law as may be amended.

4.3 The Contractor will collect Recyclable Material from the designated Central Business Districts on the same day as collection for residential units.

4.4 The Contractor will ensure that vehicles used to collect Recyclable Material will not compact the material to a greater ratio then 2:1. Container and Fibre Recyclables may be moderately compacted during collection and transportation to the Waste Recovery Centre, subject to the review by the Owner to determine if the state of the recyclables is acceptable. The Owner is the final arbiter of the acceptability of the material, and no claim is to be made if the Owner was to decide to reduce the amount of compaction or to eliminate compaction of the recyclables.

4.5 The Contract will accommodate the use of lids and nets used by residents to cover Recyclable Material.

4.6 The Contractor will transport Recyclable Material to the Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre located at 900 Woito Station Rd, Pembroke.

4.7 Non-collectible material will be tagged by the Contractor with a non-compliance notice and these tag notices will be used to advise the owner that material was not collected for, but not limited to, the following reasons: a. Container contains non-recyclable material or materials not properly sorted; b. Recycling container is not suitable; c. Cardboard is oversized.

4.8 Notwithstanding that containers of Recyclable Material have been tagged with a non-

compliance notice, the Designated Municipal Official reserves the right to direct the Contractor to collect tagged containers.

4.9 Where multi-residential complexes, ICI locations and municipal locations place their Recyclable Materials in roll carts (totes) that are designed to be collected mechanically, the Contractor shall provide collection of Recyclable Material from these locations o those units including those using Roll Carts (120L or 240L) for Collection of Garbage and Recyclables.

4.10 The Contractor will be responsible for making arrangements with all multi- residential locations for determining suitable collection points for Recyclable Material at each property. The Contractor will notify the Designated Municipal Official in writing of the collection point locations. The location of the collection points must meet the approval of the Designated Municipal Official.

4.11 In the event a recycling collection vehicle collecting roll carts is unable to empty the containers due to an obstruction, the Contractor will notify the owner of the complex and return at least once that day to empty the containers.

of 368

-37-

SCHEDULE 2 CHARGES

Attached to and forming an integral part of the Contract

Charges shall be as follows:

Year Annual Cost Monthly Cost 1 $478, 046.64 $39, 837.22 2 $489, 997.81 $40, 833.15 3 $502, 247.15 $41, 853.98 4 $514, 803.94 $42, 900.33 5 $527, 674.04 $43, 833.15

6 (year 1 extension) $540, 865.89 $45, 072.16 7 (year2 extension) $554, 387.54 $46, 198.96

**plus applicable taxes Attached pricing is based on co-collection of waste and alternating bi-weekly recycling. Co-collection would commence upon arrival of the new equipment. As per EPR legislation early recycling collection contract termination agreement would be subject to the following early cancellation costs.

Year Cost 3 $279, 780.00 4 $223, 824.00 5 $167, 868.00

**plus applicable taxes Roll Off bins can either be purchased or rented at the Townships discretion. Price per bin to purchase would be $194.82 plus HST monthly over a 5-year term. The rental cost would be $97.41 plus HST monthly over the same term. Price per lift predicated on existing dumping facility OVWRC.

Year Price Per Lift 1 $288.37 2 $295.56 3 $302.95 4 $310.52 5 $318.28

**plus applicable taxes

of 368

-38-

SCHEDULE 3

Commercial Establishments Utilizing the 95 gal Blue Bins and/or 16 gal Blue Boxes, Respectively

Delicious Steak House LCBO’s The Hen House Annie’s Gas Bar Logos Land Zion Hill Camp Agricultural Hall Milanos Cobden Cobden Curling Club Canada Post Offices McLaren Systems Studio 646 Scotia Bank Cobden Oaks of Cobden E.A. Ted Barron Scotia Bank Beachburg Civitan Club Municipal Office Helferty Restoration Bona Vista Campground Wilderness Tours Cobden Animal Center Owl Rafting Whitewater Brewery Conway’s Pharmacy O’Reilly’s Treasures Whitewater Welding Country Kitchen Pentacostal Camp Co-Op Insurance Cobden Freshmart Pinewood Park Simple Things Sugar & Spice Bakery Redman Auction Chip Pit Gibson’s Garage River Run Rafting Shell 17 West Motel Magellan Aerospace Rooney’s Gas Bar / Stinson Dan’s Pizza Helferty Insurance Fire Departments Faughts Steel Huckabone’s Sear’s / My Sisters Closet Beachburg Arena Schaeur’s Home Hardware Beachburg Freshmart Country Haven Gourlay Performance Products JR’s Country Store G&S Farm Equip. Westmeath Rec. Center Dean Faught Accounting Lakeview Deli Lacroix Grocery Whitewater Rafting Caldwell Banker Spotswood’s Landing Woody’s Auto Repair Carressant Care The Scoop / Coffee Shop Yonder Hill Campground Inner Strength Candlewick Gifts (Cobden) The Corner Store Hydro One Gailee Bible Camp Beachburg Restaurant TD Products Lakeside Cottages George’s TV John’s Repair Service Cobden Flower & Gif Shop Cobden Bus Lines Schools Cobden Medical Center Millar’s Feed The Imporium Cobden Legion BR. 550 Cobden Arena LAD’s Autowreckers IDA Pharmacy (Beachburg) Kenny’s Store Glasshouse Botanics Store Next Door Village Restaurant Cedar Haven Tent & Trailer Park Four Corners Chip Wagon Whitewater Service Center Sky Hill B & B Coleman’s Garage G.M. Jackson Dental Office Beachburg Ag Hall Beachburg Deli / Pronto Cobden Tourist Information The Cutting Room Yolkowski Monuments Cedar Grove Cottages

of 368

By-law 19-12-1229 Page 1 of 1



A by-law to establish a Customer Service, Complaint & Compliment Policy

Whereas, section 224 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended states the role of Council includes the development and evaluation of the policies and programs of the municipality; and

Whereas, the Council of the Township of Whitewater Region deems it expedient and necessary to provide a formal policy for customer service, complaints & compliments; Now therefore Council of the Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region enacts as follows:

1. That the Customer Service, Complaint & Compliment Policy is hereby established.

2. That the Customer Service, Complaint & Compliment Policy attached shall form a part of this by-law.

3. This by-law shall come into force and take effect upon the

date of the final passing thereof.




of 368

Corporate Policy

Customer Service, Complaint and Compliment Policy 1

Policy: Customer Service, Complaint & Compliment Policy

Main Contact: Clerk

Last Revision: 2019

Policy Statement

Purpose Definitions

Policy Requirements

Monitoring

Authority

Contact

Change History

Policy Statement The Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region strives to provide excellent service to the public, which contributes to continuous improvement of operations.

Purpose This policy enables the Township of Whitewater Region to provide continuous improvement and open communication with the public in a method and by a process where comments whether positive or negative are dealt with fairly, in a respectful manner, and addressed as quick as possible.


“CAO” means the Chief Administrative Office (CAO) or their designate;

“Complainant” means the individual filing the complaint with the Township of Whitewater Region;

“Complaint” means an expression of dissatisfaction relating to a Township of Whitewater Region program, service or facility;

“Compliment” means an expression of approval for a Township of Whitewater program, service or facility;

“Council” means the Council of The Township of Whitewater Region;

“Department Head” means manager or their designate;

of 368

Corporate Policy


“Employee” means the employee of the Township;

“Feedback and Suggestions” means an expression of interest in a Township of Whitewater Region program, service or facility or an idea submitted to the Township with the aim of improving programs, services or facilities;

“Township” means the Township of Whitewater Region;

“Ombudsman” means the Ontario Office of the Ombudsman.

Policy Requirements 1.0 In Person/Face to Face Interactions 1.1 Greeting Members of the public will be greeted in a polite, friendly manner upon entering any service area. 1.2 Waiting Members of the public will be notified of expected waiting times, if a member of the public is looking for an out-of-office or unavailable staff member, staff will provide an email to contact the employee if no other staff member is able to assist. 2.0 Phone Interactions 2.1 Business Hours Phone calls coming in during regular business hours (Monday to Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) can be expected to be answered before reaching voicemail. If a voicemail message is left, it can be expected to be generally answered within two business days.

2.2 After Hours/Holidays Voice messages left when the office is closed will be generally responded to during business hours within two business days.

2.3 Out of Office Phone calls directed to a staff member who is out-of-office can be expected to be told the length of their absence in their voicemail recording if it is longer than one business day.

“You have reached the office of (name), (position) at extension (XXX). I will be out of office from (date) to (date), and will be unavailable during this time. Please leave your name, contact information and a reason for your call, or for immediate assistance press zero. Thank you.” 2.4 Put on Hold Members of the public will not be on hold for longer than two minutes without having the option to speak with another staff member or ask for a call back.

of 368

Corporate Policy


3.0 Transfers 3.1 Reasons for a Transfer Members of the public will be transferred if they have contacted the main phone line but need to speak to someone from a specific department in order to have their question or concern properly addressed. Upon being transferred, the standards for response time apply.

3.2 Number of Transfers Members of the public should only be transferred once. However, depending on the situation more transfers may be necessary.

3.3 Reasons for Redirection to External Phone Lines Members of the public can expect to be given contact information to other municipalities, other government agencies or organizations if they are calling for a service provided by another level of government or agency.

4.0 Email Transactions 4.1 Business Hours: During regular business hours, members of the public can generally expect an email response generally within two business days.

4.2 After Hours/Holidays: Emails received when the office is closed will be generally responded to during business hours within two business days.

4.3 Out of Office: Emails sent directed to a staff member who is out-of-office can be expected to be notified that they are not checking emails, and told the length of their absence if the staff member is out of the office for more than one business day. The Out of Office notification will also give contact information to another staff member who might be able to assist them.

5.0 Social Media Interactions 5.1 Responses: All responses to social media posts and inquiries will be forwarded to the appropriate department for response, if necessary.

6.0 Written Interactions - Letter 6.1 Responses Members of the public can expect a written acknowledgement within one week with follow-up correspondence as necessary.

of 368

Corporate Policy


7.0 Submitting a Complaint, Compliment, Feedback or Suggestion All public comments shall generally be submitted in writing and shall include:

• The name phone number and mailing address of the individual • The nature of the complaint • Background leading to the issue(s) • Date(s), time(s), and location(s) of any incident(s) and • Name(s) of any employee(s) previously contacted regarding the issue(s) • Any action(s) being requested from the Township.

8.0 Receipt and Knowledge 8.1 All complaints, compliments, feedback and suggestions received by the Township

should receive acknowledgment within two business days.

8.2 All compliments, feedback, and suggestions are acknowledged and forwarded to Department Heads.

9.0 Record 9.1 The Department Head shall file a copy of the complaint and resolution with the

Clerk. The Clerk shall maintain a file of the complaint in accordance with the Township’s record retention by-law. If a municipal employee was the subject of the complaint, a copy of the record shall be retained in their personnel file.

10.0 Investigation 10.1 A Department Head may not delegate the authority to investigate a complaint to an

employee who is or may be named in the complaint.

10.2 If a complaint is made against the Department Head, the CAO or designate shall conduct the investigation.

10.3 If a complaint is made against the CAO, the Chair of General Government Committee shall consult with Council and may designate the municipal solicitor, or other qualified individual at arms-length from the Township, to investigate, or conduct the investigation internally.

10.4 The designated investigator shall review the issues identified by the complainant and in doing so may:

• Review relevant municipal and provincial legislation; • Review the Township’s relevant policies and procedures; • Review any existing file documents; • Interview employees or member of the public involved in the issue; • Identify actions that may be taken to address the complaint or improve municipal

operations;

of 368

Corporate Policy


11.0 Decision

Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of a complaint, the Department Head shall provide a response in writing to the complainant.

The response shall include:

• Whether the complaint was substantiated, • If the complaint is not substantiated, provide reason(s) for their decision; and, • Any actions the Township has or will take as a result of the complaint. • If the Department Head is unable to provide a response within thirty (30)

calendar days, they shall notify the complainant of the delay and provide an estimate of when a response will be provided.

12.0 Appeal Process Once the Township has communicated the decision to the complainant, there is no appeal process at the municipal level. The decision can be appealed to the Ontario Ombudsman for investigation

13.0 Process Clerk

• Receives written complaint; • Logs complaint; • Forwards to appropriate department head; • Acknowledges receipt to complainant within 7 days; • Files a copy of the decision; • Report to General Government Committee annually.

CAO/Mayor:

• Investigate the complaint • Make a decision • Notify the complainant of the outcome within fifteen days of the filing of the

complaint

Monitoring All complaints, compliments, feedback and suggestions will be recorded and tracked upon receipt by individual departments, and forwarded to the Clerk for filing.

Authority Section 224 of the Municipal Act, 2001 states the role of Council includes the development and evaluation of the policies and programs of the municipality.

of 368

Corporate Policy


Contact Carmen Miller, Clerk P.O. Box 40, 44 Main Street Cobden ON K0J 1K0 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (613) 646-2282 Ext. 123

Change History


Customer Service, Complaint & Compliment Policy

December 1, 2019 New Policy 19-12-1229

of 368

By-law 19-12-1230 Page 1 of 1



A by-law to establish an Accessible Customer Service Policy


Whereas, the Council of the Township of Whitewater Region deems it expedient and necessary to provide a formal policy for accessible customer service; Now therefore Council of the Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region enacts as follows:

1. That the Accessible Customer Service Policy is hereby established.

2. That the Accessible Customer Service Policy attached shall form a part of this by-law.






of 368

Corporate Policy

Accessible Customer Service Policy 1

Policy: Accessible Customer Service Policy Main Contact: Clerk Last Revision: 2019

Policy Statement Purpose Definitions Policy Requirements Monitoring Authority Contact Change History

Policy Statement The Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region delivers services that are focused on the customer. We are committed to providing excellent customer service in every aspect of our business.

Purpose This policy is to provide general guidelines as to the level of customer service expected from the Township of Whitewater Region staff to supply the most efficient and effective service delivery.

Definitions In this policy, the following terms have the meanings set out below: “Alternative Service” means a service generally intended to be temporary that approaches the desired result until such time as the barrier is removed or an equivalent service is put in place; “Assisted Device” means an auxiliary aid such as communication aids, cognition aids, personal mobility aids and medical aids (i.e. canes, crutches, wheelchairs or hearing aids); “Disability” means the same as the definition of disability found in the Ontario Human Rights Code; “CAO” -means the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) or designate; “Department Head” includes managers or their designate; “Employee” means the employees of the Township;

of 368

Corporate Policy


“Support Animal” means an animal for a person with disability if: (a) the animal can be readily identified as one that is being used by the person for

reasons relating to the person’s disability, as a result of visual indicators such as the vest or harness worn by the animal; or

(b) the person provides documentation from one of the following regulated health professionals as listed in Section 80.45 (4) (b) of the Integrated Accessibility Standards, Ontario Regulation 191/22, confirming that the person requires the animal for reasons relating to the disability;

“Support Person” means another person who accompanies them in order to help with communication, mobility, personal care or medical needs or with access to goods, services or facilities. Support persons may be employed by a person with a disability to provide assistance to them in the form of communication, mobility, personal care, or medical needs, or with access to the receipt of goods or services. Support persons may be a paid professional, a volunteer, a family member, or friend of the person with a disability.

“Township” means the Township of Whitewater Region;

Policy Requirements 1.0 Policies Practices and Procedures

1.1 Goods or services will be provided in a manner that respects the dignity and

independence of persons with disabilities; 1.2 Persons with disabilities will be given an opportunity equal to that given to others to

obtain, use and benefit from the goods or services; 1.3 The Township will communicate with people with disabilities in ways that take into

account their disability including accessible notifications and response to questions; 1.4 That the Township employees will be trained to communicate, provide appropriate

assistance and services in a manner that takes into account the person’s disability; 1.5 Where fees for goods and services are advertised or promoted by the Township, it will

provide advance notice of the amount payable, with no additional charge, in respect of the support person.

2.0 Notice of Temporary Disruptions The Township will provide customers with notice in the event of a planned or unexpected disruption in the facilities or services usually used by people with disabilities.

of 368

Corporate Policy


3.0 Use of Assistive Devices, Support Persons and Support Animals 3.1 The Township will provide customers with assistance in the use of assistive devices. 3.2 Support persons and/or support animals may accompany a person with disabilities in

the access of goods and services. 4.0 Documentation 4.1 When required by Regulation, any documentation requested by a person with a

disability shall be given in a format that takes into account the person’s disability upon request.

5.0 Training 5.1 Township training will include the following:

a) The purposes of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 and the requirements of the customer service standard;

b) How to provide goods and services in a manner that respects the dignity and independence of persons with disabilities;

c) How to interact and communicate with persons in a manner that takes into account their disabilities;

d) The process for people to provide feedback to the Township about its’ provision of goods and services to persons with disabilities, and how the Township responds to the feedback and takes action on any complaint;

e) How to interact with persons with disabilities who use an assistive device or require the assistance of a guide dog service animal or a support person to access goods and services.

6.0 Feedback Process:

The Township shall establish a process for receiving and responding to feedback about the manner in which it provides goods and services to persons with disabilities and shall make information about the process readily available to the public.

Monitoring The Clerk is responsible for ensuring compliance with this policy.

of 368

Corporate Policy


Authority Ontario Regulation 429/07 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 sets out requirements for Municipalities to establish a policy for governing provisions of its goods and services to people with disabilities.

Contact Carmen Miller, Clerk P.O. Box 40, 44 Main Street Cobden ON K0J 1K0 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (613) 646-2282, Ext. 123

Change History

Policy Name Effective Date Significant Changes

By-law No.

Accessible Customer Service Policy

December 1, 2019 New Policy 19-12-1230

of 368

By-law 19-12-1231 Page 1 of 1



A by-law to establish an Unreasonable Customer Behaviour Policy


Whereas, the Council of the Township of Whitewater Region deems it expedient and necessary to provide a formal policy for unreasonable customer behaviour; Now therefore Council of the Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region enacts as follows:

1. That the Unreasonable Customer Behaviour Policy is hereby established.

2. That the Unreasonable Customer Behaviour Policy attached shall form a part of this by-law.






of 368

Corporate Policy

Unreasonable Customer Behaviour Policy 1

Policy: Unreasonable Customer Behaviour Policy Main Contact: CAO Last Revision: 2019

Policy Statement Purpose Definitions Policy Requirements Monitoring Authority Contact Change History

Policy Statement The Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region strives to provide excellent service to the public, which contributes to continuous improvement of operations. As an employer the Township takes steps to ensure the health and safety of its employees.

Purpose This Policy guide staff to identify situations that meet the criteria of vexatious, frivolous and/or unreasonable and the associated actions that may be undertaken in such circumstances. The aim of this policy is to contribute to the overall intent of dealing with individuals or groups in ways which are consistent, fair and reasonable while acknowledging that there may be a need to shield staff from unreasonable behaviour.

Definitions In this policy, the following terms have the meanings set out below: “CAO” - means the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) or designate; “Department Head” includes managers or their designate; “Employee” means the employees of the Township; “Frivolous” means not having any serious purpose or value. “Township” means the Township of Whitewater Region; “Vexatious” means causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry.

of 368

Corporate Policy


Policy Requirements 1.0 Examples of Unreasonable Behaviour

1.1 Refusing to specify the grounds of a complaint. 1.2 Changing the basis of the complaint/request as the matter proceeds. 1.3 Denying or changing statements made at an earlier stage. 1.4 Covertly recording meetings and conversations. 1.5 Submitting falsified documents from themselves or others. 1.6 Making excessive demands on the time and resources of staff with lengthy

phone calls, number of emails to a single or numerous staff, or voluminous requests.

1.7 Refusing to accept the decision; repeatedly arguing points with no new evidence.

1.8 Persistently approaching the Township through different routes about the same issue.

1.9 Interactions that are initiated with the intent to embarrass, delay or annoy, or is part of a pattern of conduct by an individual or group.

1.10 Causing distress to staff. This could include use of hostile, abusive or offensive language, or an unreasonable fixation on an individual member of staff.

1.11 Making unjustified complaints about staff who are attempting to deal with issues, and seeking to have them replaced.

2.0 Examples of Vexatious or Frivolous Requests 2.1 Submission of requests with very high volume and frequency of

correspondence. 2.2 Requests for information the requester has already seen, or clear intention to

reopen issues that have already been considered. 2.3 Where complying with the request would impose significant burden on the

Township in terms of expense, and negatively impacting the ability of staff to provide service to others.

2.4 Where it appears that the requestor seeks to cause inconvenience, disruption or annoyance through the request.

2.5 Where the request lacks any serious purpose or value, an apparent lack of value would not usually be enough on its own to make a request vexatious, but may when considered with other examples.

2.6 Harassing the Township and/or staff. This could include very high volume and frequency of correspondence, or combining requests with accusations and complaints.

These examples are not exhaustive, nor does one single feature on its own necessarily imply that the request will be considered unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous.

of 368

Corporate Policy


3.0 Identifying the Problem 3.1 Before deciding to apply any restrictions, the Township must ensure that:

• The request has been dealt with properly and in line with the relevant procedures and statutory guidelines.

• Staff has made reasonable efforts to satisfy and resolve the request.

• The individual is not presenting new material or information about the situation or that it is not a new request.

3.2 Each case will be considered on an individual basis. The decision to classify behaviour as unreasonable or to classify the request as vexatious or frivolous will be made by the CAO.

4.0 Employee 4.1 If an Employee believes that a request or behaviour is unreasonable, frivolous or

vexatious, the Employee should consult with their Department Head, provide any supporting materials and advise the Department Head of the steps that have been taken in attempting to resolve the issue, including as appropriate:

• the length of time that staff has been in contact with the individual or, group, history of the interactions (if applicable) and the amount of correspondence that has been exchanged with the individual or group

• the number of requests that the individual or group has brought forward and the status of each

• the nature of the individual or group’s behaviour • the amount of time that has been consumed and the impact.

5.0 Department Head 5.1 The Department Head is responsible for reviewing the information provided by staff

in a timely manner and confirming if this policy should apply. The Department Head shall:

• review the information provided by staff and determine if the request is unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous; contact other Department Heads to determine if the individual or group is contacting multiple departments and/or staff;

• work with staff to determine the appropriate restrictions, how to inform the individual or group of the restrictions and determine a review date;

• meet with the CAO to outline the situation, review recommendations and the appropriate method of informing the individual or group.

6.0 CAO 6.1 The CAO will review all information provided by staff and/or Department Head and

will make a final determination to classify an individual or group’s behaviour as unreasonable or to classify a request as vexatious or frivolous.

of 368

Corporate Policy


Determining factors include:

• The request has been properly investigated; • Communication with the individual or group has been adequate; and • The individual or group is not attempting to provide new information when

contacting staff.

6.2 Following a decision by the Department Head, in consultation with the CAO, that an individual or group’s behaviour is unreasonable or a request is vexatious or frivolous, the individual or group (where appropriate and possible) will receive written notification that:

• explains what action(s) staff has taken and why; • indicates what restrictions have been applied and how long they will be in

effect; • advises how the individual or group can appeal the restrictions.

7.0 Council Notification If restrictions are placed on an individual or group, the CAO will inform Council of the issue and the details of the restrictions applied.

8.0 Application of Restrictions Restrictions will be tailored to deal with the individual circumstances and may include one or more of the following (the list is not exhaustive):

• Placing limits on the number and duration of contacts with staff per week or month;

• Offering a restricted time slot for necessary calls; • Limiting the individual or group to one method of communication (ex. Phone,

letter, email, etc.); • Requiring any personal contacts to take place in the presence of a witness and

in a suitable location; • Requiring the individual or group to make contact by telephone only through a

third party (ex. solicitor, counsellor, friend acting on their behalf); • Limiting or regulating the individual or group’s use of the Township’s services; • Refusing the individual or group access to any municipal buildings except by

appointment; • Informing the individual or group that further contact on the matter of the

complaint/request will not be acknowledged or replied to; • Pursuing legal actions (ex. Issuance of Notice of Trespass); • Where efforts to resolve matters with the individual or group have not been

successful, the case or request may be closed; • Other actions as deemed appropriate;

of 368

Corporate Policy


9.0 Review of Restrictions 9.1 When restrictions are put in place, a review date will be set. This will be based on the

circumstance of the case and could be for a period of three months or longer depending on the severity of the situation. The status of the individual or group will be reviewed by the relevant Department Head on or before the review date. The individual or group, where possible, shall be informed of the outcome of the review.

9.2 Where the CAO feels the restrictions should continue, the individual or group will be notified of the reasons and given another date for review.

10.0 Dispute Once the Township has communicated the decision, there is no appeal process at the Township level. In the event complaints cannot be resolved through the Township’s complaint process and/or this policy, they may be submitted to the Provincial Ombudsman’s office in accordance with the provisions of Bill 8, Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014.

Monitoring The CAO is responsible for ensuring compliance with this policy.

Authority Section 224 of the Municipal Act, 2001 states the role of Council includes the development and evaluation of the policies and programs of the municipality.

Contact Robert Tremblay, CAO P.O. Box 40, 44 Main Street Cobden ON K0J 1K0 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (613) 646-2282, Ext. 126

Change History


Unreasonable Customer Behaviour Policy

December 1, 2019 New Policy 19-12-

of 368

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 1

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28* 29


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

29 30 31** 26 27 28 29 30*


1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

24 25 26 27 28 29** 30 28 29 30

31


1 2 3 4 1

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

26 27 28 29 30 31** 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31*


1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

27 28 29 30** 25 26 27 28^ 29 30* 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9^ 10 11 12

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

22 23 24 25^ 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

29 30** 27 28 29 30 31

Ontario Small Urban Municipalities (May TBC)

Federation of Canadian Municipalities (May 4-7)

Association of Clerks & Treasurers (June 7-10)

Rural Ontario Municipalities Association (January 19-21)

Ontario Good Roads Association (February 23-26)July & August: meetings to occur at call of the Mayor. Committee of Adjustment when necessary.

Ontario East Municipal Conference (Sept. 16-18)

Assoc. of Ontario Municipalities (August 16-19)

Office Closed (Staff Training Day October 22)

Due Dates *Taxes **Water

NOVEMBER DECEMBER

Council Meetings (^Budget Meetings)

SEPTEMBER OCTOBER

2020 Council Meeting CalendarJANUARY FEBRUARY

MARCH APRIL

MAY JUNE

JULY AUGUST

of 368

Regular Council Minutes November 6, 2019



Minutes

November 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.


Attendance:

Mayor Michael Moore, Reeve Cathy Regier,

Councillor Dave Mackay, Councillor Daryl McLaughlin,

Councillor Chris Olmstead, and Councillor Neil Nicholson

Regrets:

Councillor Charlene Jackson

Staff:

Ivan Burton, Janet Collins, Sean Crozier, Carmen Miller, and

Robert Tremblay

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m.

2. Prayer

The Mayor gave thanks to those who served our country. The

prayer was recited.


None declared.

4. Presentations

No items.

5. Announcements

A Remembrance Day Ceremony will be held on November 10 in

Beachburg and on November 11 in Westmeath and Cobden.

Page 1 of 11

of 368



6.1 Development & Planning Committee- Co-Chair Councillor

Dave Mackay a) Consent Application B27/19 - Perry Hill Road (Stoop)

Staff addressed questions regarding an environmental impact

study, restricting development, and requirements regarding the

private road agreement.

Moved by: Mayor Michael Moore

Seconded by: Reeve Cathy Regier

That Development & Planning Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region support

Consent File B27/19 to allow the creation of one new

residential lot, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the Owner provides the Township with two

original copies of a registered reference plan (survey plan) that identifies the severance and the proposed

private road.

2. That the Owner enters into a Development Agreement, registered against the severed and retained parcels, to

satisfy the following requirements: • implement the mitigation measures from

Environmental Impact Study; • implement private road standards and

improvements (incl. berm); • implement the floodproofing measures for future

septic systems; • indemnify the Township/County of Renfrew from

future flooding; • advise purchasers that studies and agreement(s)

apply to the lands purchased.

3. That the Owner obtains an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 98-13, in order to prohibit any future

residential uses on the retained parcel as well as reduce the minimum lot frontage of the severed and

retained lots.

Carried - Motion prepared

Page 2 of 11

of 368


b) Site Plan Control Application D-11-104 - 9 Pembroke Street

Council asked about light pollution, car idling and egress.

Moved by: Reeve Cathy Regier

Seconded by: Councillor Daryl McLaughlin

That Development and Planning Committee receive this report for information purposes relating to the

redevelopment of 9 Pembroke Street (17 West/Shell).

Carried - Received

6.2 Environmental Services Committee - Chair Councillor Dave

Mackay a) 2019-2020 Beachburg Drinking Water System Inspection Report

Moved by: Councillor Neil Nicholson


That Environmental Services Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region receive the 2019-

2020 Beachburg Drinking Water System Inspection Report, prepared by the Ministry of Environment, Parks and


Carried - Motion prepared for December 4, 2019 b) 2019-2020 Haley Drinking Water System Inspection Report

Moved by: Councillor Daryl McLaughlin

Seconded by: Councillor Chris Olmstead

That Environmental Services Committee recommend Council

of the Township of Whitewater Region receive the 2019-2020 Haley Drinking Water System Inspection Report,

prepared by the Ministry of Environment, Parks and


Carried - Motion prepared for December 4, 2019

6.3 General Government Committee - 6:00 p.m.- Chair Reeve

Cathy Regier a) Strategic Plan Public Meeting

Councillor Nicholson arrived at 6:22 p.m.

The CAO provided a powerpoint presentation.

Page 3 of 11

of 368


Mr. Deer: water access, sea gulls and the aeration at the Cobden Beach, phosphorous levels in Muskrat Lake, Industrial Park location,

and municipal drains.

Mr. Cottell: cell service, no access to the river, little public land to

enjoy, few public washrooms facilities, by-law enforcement, a lack

of diversity, culture and a diminishing quality of life.

Mr. Grylls: tourism, the active living and rest station project;

fundraising, waterways, boat launches, and a barrier free and

accessible washroom.

Mrs. Burns: sustainability, regulation, waste issues, and fees for

curb site collection.

Ms. Patterson: accessibility issues, green space, place space, seniors, safe sidewalks, accessible communities and going beyond

borders.

Mr. Borado: climate change, entrepreneurship, working from home, ease of accessibility to the river and public access, economic

incentives.

Ms. Stinson-Hill: access to the river opportunities.

Mrs. Jessup: advertising, cost of water access.

Ms. Williamson: Township's vision, water levels and flooding.

Mr. Mason: volunteers and water access.

Ms. Boule: summer visitors, freestyle kayaks, and resident tourism

attraction.

Ms. Young: climate change, electric vehicles, and inflatables using

public water access.

Mr. Romeskie: health and recreation activities for youth and seniors, inoperative parks, building relations and facilitate with

other governments to improve access to lands, access to provincial

parks, and survey.

A break was called at 7:29 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:39 p.m.

Moved by: Councillor Dave Mackay


That General Government Committee receive this report for information purposes as it relates to the Strategic Plan

Public Meeting.

Carried - Received b) Beachburg Union Cemetery



Page 4 of 11

of 368


That General Government Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approve a grant to the

Beachburg Union Cemetery in the amount of $233.78 through the Community Partnership and Sponsorship Grant

program to cover the utility bill for July-September and direct staff to proceed to cap the water line to the cemetery

in 2020.

Carried - Motion as amended prepared c) Section 357 Property Tax Refunds

Questions were received regarding tax class, percentage of flooding

assessment, and apportionment of taxes.


Seconded by: Councillor Neil Nicholson

That General Government Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region confirm the cancellation,

reduction or refunds to properties through Section 357/358

applications.

Carried - Motion prepared for November 20, 2019


No items.

6.5 Recreation & Tourism Services Committee - Councillor Neil

Nicholson a) Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Recreation Grant

Application

Council expressed support for a reciprocal letter of support for

Admaston/Bromley.



That Recreation & Tourism Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region support the Investing in

Canada Infrastructure Program in Ontario Recreation Grant Application for the accessibility and dressing room renewal

project at the Astrolabe Community Centre with confirmation that the Township will continue to support the operation of

the facility.

Page 5 of 11

of 368



6.6 Transportation Services Committee - Councillor Daryl

McLaughlin a) Municipal Road Lengths

Staff responded to questions on driveways, seasonally maintained roads, winter maintenance, and the length of County Roads

traveled.


Seconded by: Councillor Dave Mackay

That Transportation Services Committee receive this report

for information purposes as it relates to road lengths within

the Township of Whitewater Region.

Carried - Received b) Snow Disposal Dump Site

Questions were received regarding Beachburg fair grounds,

emergency conditions considerations, regulating private dumping,

policing and charitable organizations.



That Transportation Services Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region enact a by-law to

establish a policy to refuse acceptance of snow for disposal at the Mineview municipal garage or any municipal property

by private and commercial entities.

For Against Absent

Councillor Dave Mackay x

Councillor Chris Olmstead x

Mayor Michael Moore x

Reeve Cathy Regier x

Councillor Daryl McLaughlin x

Councillor Neil Nicholson x

5 1 0

Carried - By-law prepared for December 11, 2019 c) Private Road Standard Policy

Page 6 of 11

of 368


Questions were received regarding severances and standards,

private road allowances, and cost of private roads.



That Transportation Services Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region enact a by-law to

establish a Private Road Standard for private road

construction within the Township.

Carried - By-law prepared for December 11, 2019



That the Council of Township of Whitewater Region extend

the meeting beyond 9 p.m.

Carried - Resolution #2019-4100

7. By-laws

No items.

8. Resolutions

a) October 16 Standing Committees Motions



That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approve

the following changes to the Waste Management Program

effective January 1, 2020:

1) Permit residents to place two bags of garbage for

weekly curbside pickup (yellow bags not required);

2) Any additional bags to be placed at curbside must be the

purchased WWR yellow bags;

3) Increase the cost of the yellow bag for residents from

$3.00 to $5.00;

4) Increase the cost of the yellow bag for distributors from

$2.75 to $4.50; and

5) Place a Waste Collection Fee on all residential, IC&I, and

multi-use units to be determined.


Page 7 of 11

of 368




That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approve

the following Municipal Office Holiday Hours:

1. 2019: Closed on December 24-27 and January 1, 2020;

2. 2020: Closed on December 24, 25 & 31 and January 1,

2021.

Carried - Resolution #2019-4103 b) November 6, 2019 Standing Committee Motions

Moved by: Councillor Chris Olmstead


That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region support

Consent File B27/19 to allow the creation of one new

residential lot, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the Owner provides the Township with two

original copies of a registered reference plan (survey plan) that identifies the severance and the proposed

private road. 2. That the Owner enters into a Development Agreement,

registered against the severed and retained parcels, to satisfy the following requirements:

• implement the mitigation measures from Environmental Impact Study;

• implement private road standards and improvements (incl. berm);

• implement the floodproofing measures for future septic systems;

• indemnify the Township/County of Renfrew from

future flooding; • advise purchasers that studies and agreement(s)

apply to the lands purchased.

3. That the Owner obtains an amendment to Zoning By-

law No. 98-13, in order to prohibit any future

residential uses on the retained parcel as well as reduce the minimum lot frontage of the severed and

retained lots.




Page 8 of 11

of 368


That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region support the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program in Ontario

Recreation Grant Application for the accessibility and dressing room renewal project at the Astrolabe Community

Centre with confirmation that the Township will continue to

support the operation of the facility.




That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approve a grant to the Beachburg Union Cemetery in the amount of

$233.78 through the Community Partnership and Sponsorship Grant program to cover the utility bill for July-

September and direct staff to proceed to cap the water line

to the cemetery in 2020.


9. Notice of Motion

Councillor Mackay would like a report on Public Skating Programs.

Mayor Moore would like clarification on Senior Skates and age

restrictions.

10. Minutes

a) October 16, 2019



That the Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approve the following minutes That the Council of the

Township of Whitewater Region approve the following

minutes:

1. The regular minutes of October 16, 2019;

2. The special minutes of October 30, 2019; and 3. The closed minutes of October 30, 2019, understanding

that they remain confidential.


11. Correspondence

Page 9 of 11

of 368


a) Regional Government Review - Municipal Affairs and Housing b) 2020 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund Allocations - AMO c) Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) - Minister of Infrastructure d) Major Speed Limit Update - County Roads - County of Renfrew e) Notice of Preliminary Construction Works - Ministry of

Transportation f) Letter of Support for New Area Aquatic Fitness & Community Centre

- City of Pembroke



That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region support the City of Pembroke Investing in Canada Infrastructure

Program (ICIP) Grant for a new pool facility.

Carried - Resolution #2019-4108 g) Coroners Inquest - Township of Greater Madawaska h) Renfrew County Official Plan - Donald Deer Muskrat Lake

Association

Noted and filed

12. Closed Session

a) Moved by: Councillor Dave Mackay


That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region move into closed session at 9:07 p.m.as permitted under Section

9.1 of the Procedural By-law with staff remaining in the room to discuss a Human Resources Update (personal

matters about an identifiable individual including municipal

or local board employees).


Human Resources Update

The meeting opened at 9:26 p.m. with the Clerk reporting out that

Council was informed of a new hire and changes to the org chart.

Page 10 of 11

of 368



a) November 6, 2019



Be it resolved that By-law 19-11-2019, being a by-law to

confirm the proceedings of Council at its Special Meeting of

October 30, 2019 and Regular Meeting of November 6, 2019,

be taken as read and passed.


14. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m.

Mayor Michael Moore Clerk Carmen Miller

Page 11 of 11

of 368




Minutes



Attendance:

Mayor Michael Moore, Reeve Cathy Regier,

Councillor Charlene Jackson, Councillor Daryl McLaughlin,

Councillor Neil Nicholson, and Councillor Chris Olmstead

Regrets:

Councillor Dave Mackay

Staff:

Councillor Dave Mackay, Ivan Burton, Janet Collins, Sean Crozier, Jordan Durocher, Steven Hodson, Carmen Miller,

and Robert Tremblay

1. Call to Order

The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

2. Prayer

The prayer was recited.


None.

4. Presentations

a) Fishing Derby/Local Improvements - John Cull, Cobden Civitan

John Cull and Miriam Hunt of the Civitan Club attended to discuss

donation to the Township with funds raised from the fishing derby that will take place on Saturday February 1, 2020. Mr. Cull noted

that the Civitan Club would like to donate up to $5000 for improvements with the beneficiary to match the amount. The Club

would be interested in helping with repairs to the Cobden boat

Page 1 of 9

of 368


launch and the completion of the Algonquin Trail to Turcotte Road.

Mr. Cull also commented on lack of parking at the boat launch.

5. Announcements

• Santa Clause Parades are occurring November 23 in Cobden,

December 5 in Beachburg and December 6 in Westmeath. • WDRA will be hosting a big breakfast and craft sale November

30.


6.1 Development & Planning Committee - Chair Councillor

Charlene Jackson a) Zoning By-law Amendment - Pt. Lt. 27, Westmeath Conc. EF B,

Grants Settlement Road (File D-14-115)

If any person or public body does not make an oral submission at the public meeting or make written submissions to the Township of

Whitewater Region before the by-law is passed, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of Council of the

Township of Whitewater Region to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. The person or public body may not be added as a party to

the hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds

to do so.

Under Section 34(11) of the Planning Act, if Council decides to refuse an application or refuses or neglects to make a decision on

an application within 120 days of the Municipal Clerk receiving the application, the applicant or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing, may appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal by filing

an appeal with the Clerk of the municipality.

Under Section 34(19) of the Planning Act states that not later than

20 days after giving of notice of passing of the by-law, the applicant, any person or public body who made oral submission at

the public meeting or made a written submission to Council, before the by-law was passed, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing, may appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal by filling

an appeal with the Clerk of the municipality.

No one was present to speak on the item.

Page 2 of 9

of 368




That Development & Planning Committee recommend

Council of the Township of Whitewater Region enact a by-law for the property described as Part of Lot 27, Westmeath

Concession EF B, Grants Settlement Road, in order to

prohibit all residential uses.

Carried - By-law prepared b) Recreational Vehicles - Zoning By-law Amendment & Licensing By-

law

Staff responded to questions regarding generators, noise

mitigation, flood plain, and grandfathering.



That Development & Planning Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region enact by-

laws:

1. To modify and add applicable provisions to the Westmeath and Ross Zoning Bylaw’s No. 98-13 and 23-

92 to permit:

• the use of one (1) recreational vehicle on vacant properties within the Rural(RU), Waterfront Vicinity

(WV) and Limited Service Residential (LSR) Zones, provided it is licensed by the municipality; and

• accessory buildings or structures such as sunrooms, decks and porches attached to any trailer not

exceeding the ground floor area of the trailer and accessory buildings or structures such as a shed not

exceeding 11.25 square metres.

2. To adopt a Recreational Vehicle Licensing By-law.

Carried - By-laws prepared

6.2 Environmental Services Committee - Co - Chair Councillor

Daryl McLaughlin a) Solar Panels


Seconded by: Mayor Michael Moore

Page 3 of 9

of 368


That Environmental Services Committee receive this report for information purposes as it relates to solar panels on

municipal buildings and associated revenue and expenses.

Carried - Received b) Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre Appraisal

Staff addressed buy-in, organics, processing fees, visit to the site,

date of completion of appraisal, and shipping costs.


Seconded by: Councillor Charlene Jackson

That Environmental Services Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approve proceeding

with an appraisal for potential buy-in at Ottawa Valley Waste

Recycling Centre (OVWRC) at an estimated cost of $35,000.

Carried - Motion prepared c) Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Green Stream

Staff responded to questions regarding the grant application, grant

criteria, development charges, water reserves, capacity/growth,

and pressure tanks.

A break was called at 7:04 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:13

p.m.



That Environmental Services Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region direct staff to

complete an application under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP): Green Stream to complete

engineering, design and construction of a water tower in

Beachburg.


6.3 General Government Committee - Chair Reeve Cathy Regier a) Final Draft Strategic Plan



Page 4 of 9

of 368


That General Government Committee recommend Council of the Township of Whitewater Region enact a by-law to adopt

the 2020-2030 Strategic Plan with the associated workplan

to be updated as a living document on an annual basis.

Carried - By-law prepared for December 11, 2019 b) Janitorial Services RFQ 2019-25



That General Government Committee recommend Council of

the Township of Whitewater Region approve the award of RFQ 2019-25 for Janitorial Services from Generations

Janitorial Services in the amount of $15,600.00 including.

Carried - Motion prepared for December 4, 2019 c) Municipal Modernization Program Grant Application




the Township of Whitewater Region direct the Chief Administrative Officer to make application to the Province of

Ontario’s Municipal Modernization Program for a review of

recreation operations.

Carried - Motion as amended prepared d) Arena User Fee Comparison

Staff addressed questions regarding effective date, comparisons,

minor and adult prime rates, grants, holiday rates, plant checks, reservations, geographic locations, tournaments, broom ball, and

subsidization.

Moved by: Councillor Charlene Jackson


That General Government Committee consider the following

changes to arena user fees beginning for the 2020/21

season:

1. Harmonize fees across all three arenas;

2. Adopt the average user fee of ice rentals for adult prime

($183.48) and weekday rates ($138.40) of other municipal

operating arenas within Renfrew County;

Page 5 of 9

of 368


3. Set the holiday rate as 7% higher than the adult prime

rate ($195.80) due to staffing costs;

4. Harmonize the adult tournament rate ($138.40) with

weekday rate; and

5. Harmonize minor tournament rate with minor user fee

($121.20).

Carried - By-law prepared for December 11, 2019 e) 2020 Revised Tax Supported Budgets



That General Government Committee receive the updated

draft 2020 tax supported budgets in advance of the Public

Meeting scheduled for December 4, 2019.

Carried - Received f) 2020 Draft Water & Wastewater Budgets

Questions were received regarding reserves, definition of classes,

residential rates, debt repayment, and billing.



That General Government Committee consider the 2020

Draft Water & Wastewater Budgets as presented on

November 20, 2019.

Carried - Received g) Customer Service-Related Policies

Councillor Jackson noted some errors regarding office hours and

making the service level response time consistent.




the Township of Whitewater Region enact by-laws to adopt the Customer Service, Complaint and Compliment Policy,

Accessible Customer Service Policy and Unreasonable

Customer Behaviour Policy.

Carried - By-laws as amended prepared for December 4, 2019


Page 6 of 9

of 368


No items.

6.5 Recreation & Tourism Services Committee

No items.

6.6 Transportation Services Committee

No items.

7. By-laws

a) November 20, 2019



Be it resolved that the following by-laws be taken as read

and passed:

• By-law 19-11-1224, being a by-law to amend By-law

Number 98-13 of the former Corporation of the Township of Westmeath and amend By-law Number 23-92 of the former

Corporation of the Township of Ross as amended (Recreational Vehicles/Trailers).

• By-law 19-11-1225, being a by-law to license

Recreational Vehicles/Trailers in the Township of Whitewater Region.

• By-law 19-11-1226, being a by-law to amend By-law Number 98-13 of the former Corporation of the Township of

Westmeath as amended (Grants Settlement Road).


8. Resolutions

a) November 6, 2019 Standing Committees



That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region confirm

the cancellation, reduction or refunds to properties through

Section 357/358 applications.

Page 7 of 9

of 368



b) November 20, 2019 Standing Committees



That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region approve proceeding with an appraisal for potential buy-in at Ottawa

Valley Waste Recycling Centre (OVWRC) at an estimated

cost of $35,000.




That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region direct the Chief Administrative Officer to make application to the

Province of Ontario’s Municipal Modernization Program for a

review of recreation operations.

Carried - Resolution # 2019-4116



That Council of the Township of Whitewater Region direct staff to complete an application under the Investing in

Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP): Green Stream to complete engineering, design and construction of a water

tower in Beachburg.


9. Notice of Motion

Mayor Moore requested a letter regarding the closing of ScotiaBank

at Beachburg.

10. Minutes

No items.

11. Correspondence

Page 8 of 9

of 368


a) Radon Action Month - Dr. Robert Cushman, Action Medical Officer of

Health b) Ontario Electricity Rebate (OER) - Ministry of Energy, Northern

Development and Mines c) Public River Access - Provincial Whitewater Kayak and Canoe Sports

Association d) Development and Public Access to Ottawa River Provincial Park in

Whitewater Region Township - Alastair Baird - Economic

Development and Tourism e) Notice of Hearing 2020 Rate Application-Enbridge Gas Inc.

Noted and filed.

12. Closed Session

No items.


a) November 20, 2019



Be it resolved that By-law 19-11-1128, being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council at its Regular Meeting of

November 20, 2019, be taken as read and passed.


14. Adjournment



Page 9 of 9

of 368

Special Council Minutes November 13, 2019


Special Council Meeting

Minutes



Attendance:

Mayor Michael Moore, Reeve Cathy Regier, Councillor

Charlene Jackson, Councillor Dave Mackay, Councillor Daryl McLaughlin, Councillor Chris Olmstead, and Councillor Neil

Nicholson

Staff:

Randy Buckwalt, Ivan Burton, Janet Collins, Sean Crozier,

Jordan Durocher, Steven Hodson, Carmen Miller, Doug

Schultz, Robert Tremblay, and Jonathan Wilker

1. Call to Order

The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.


None declared.

3. General Government Committee - Reeve Cathy Regier

a) Draft 2020 Tax Supported and Waste Collection Budgets

Staff presented the 2020 draft budget fees. The following direction

was received:

• lower agriculture building permit fees to $0.18 sq ft. from the proposed $0.24 sq ft.,

• raise late fees on dog licenses up $5.00 more for sterilized and non sterilized pets;

• review the ice rental rates,

• hire a second summer student for parks.

A break was called at 8:09 p.m. the meeting resumed at 8:17 p.m.

Page 1 of 2

of 368

Special Council Minutes November 13, 2019


Seconded by: Mayor Michael Moore

That the Council of Township of Whitewater Region extend

the meeting beyond 9 p.m.


Moved by: Councillor Charlene Jackson


That General Government Committee consider the Draft

2020 Tax Supported and Waste Collection Budgets.


4. Adjournment



Page 2 of 2

of 368

(613) 646-2282

P.O. Box 40, 44 Main Street

Cobden, ON K0J 1K0

www.whitewaterregion.ca

Council Members

Mayor Michael MooreReeve Cathy Regier

Councillors:Charlene Jackson

Dave MackayDaryl McLaughlin

Neil NicholsonChris Olmstead

November 25, 2019Cogeco Connexion950 Syscon RoadBurlington, ONL7R 4S6

Re: Letter of Support - Collaboration for Granting Access to Broadband Internet and Telecommunication Services in The Township of Whitewater Region

Dear Mr. Shiu,

We are writing to confirm the support of The Township of Whitewater Region for Cogeco Connexion’s project(s) and Governmental funding application(s) intended to ensure that all residents of our community have access to Broadband connectivity.

Cogeco Connexion has demonstrated its:

interest in Whitewater Region by seeking meaningful consultation to proactively discuss opportunities for providing broadband internet within our community;

desire for mutual collaboration by sharing data, maps, speed test facilities and project relevant information;

understanding of Whitewater Region’s connectivity gap and proposing a plan to address it;

interest to provide the necessary broadband access to the Whitewater Region’s anchor institutions.

As a municipality, we seek to collaborate with private operators, like Cogeco Connexion, to improve access to broadband services at affordable rates for our residents and ensure they can access essential services at any time. The economic development of our township depends on the availability of the services that Cogeco has proposed. Specifically, we support Cogeco Connexion to:

propose projects to significantly increase the overall connectivity within the Whitewater Region;

jointly identify key anchor institutions, currently underserved or unserved, to be prioritized within our community;

submit these projects for funding to all relevant broadband and/or infrastructure funding programs; and

actively collaborate with the Whitewater Region and its residents, to improve access to telecommunication services in our community, to high speed internet services.

of 368

(613) 646-2282

P.O. Box 40, 44 Main Street

Cobden, ON K0J 1K0

www.whitewaterregion.ca

Council Members

Mayor Michael MooreReeve Cathy Regier

Councillors:Charlene Jackson

Dave MackayDaryl McLaughlin

Neil NicholsonChris Olmstead

Whitewater Region strongly encourages the governments of Canada and Ontario, including the CRTC, through funding programs such as the Universal Broadband Fund, the CRTC Broadband Fund and the Broadband and Cellular Infrastructure Program, to consider Cogeco Connexion’s proposed projects as a means for our community to fully engage with other municipalities, the rest of Canada, and the global economy.

We look forward to working in mutual collaboration with Cogeco Connexion.

Michael Moore, MayorThe Township of Whitewater Region

of 368

Ontario’s Special Advisor on Flooding Report to Government

An Independent Review of the 2019 Flood Events in Ontario

A Report to the Hon. John Yakabuski, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry

Douglas McNeil, P.Eng. McNeil Consulting Inc. – Winnipeg, Manitoba

of 368

1

An Independent Review of the 2019 Flood Events in Ontario

Douglas McNeil, P.Eng. McNeil Consulting Inc. – Winnipeg, Manitoba

of 368

2

Executive Summary

Ontario has a long history of taking actions to keep people and property safe from the impacts of flooding through land use planning policies and mitigative activities. The development of the modern floodplain policy in Ontario, the watershed approach, the conservation authority model, and the flood standards have been extremely effective at reducing flood risks, especially in new greenfield development areas.

However, during the spring of 2019, heavy rains paired with melting snow and a sudden temperature increase led to devastating flooding across many areas throughout northern and southern Ontario. Emergency declarations were made by 23 municipalities and one First Nation, with significant flooding impacting households, commercial properties, roads and other key infrastructure, such as bridges. Emergencies were first declared starting in early April and lasted through July in many cases. Even through the fall and heading into winter, the Great Lakes continue to experience high-water levels that have been underway since early 2017, and many people and properties continue to be at risk.

In response to these flood events, the provincial government announced that it would undertake consultation on the province’s current flood mitigation and land use planning policies. Their first step was to host three regional listening sessions held by provincial leaders with municipal, Indigenous and industry leaders in Muskoka, Pembroke and Ottawa in May 2019. These sessions allowed the Province to hear directly from areas most devastated by the spring floods. Acknowledging that these sessions did not cover all areas that experienced flooding, nor provided the public with an opportunity to engage on the topic, the Province invited comments regarding flooding and suggestions to make Ontario more resilient to flooding through an online survey from May 16 to June 28, 2019.

Following this initial engagement in the spring, I was appointed by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Honourable John Yakabuski, on July 18, 2019, to review the province’s current flood management framework. In addition to considering policies and activities which influenced spring flooding, I was also asked to consider both Great Lakes and urban flooding.

As Special Advisor on Flooding, I was appointed by the government to provide expert advice to the Minister, and to make recommendations to the government on opportunities to improve the existing flood policy framework.

Despite having worked in Manitoba on flooding issues throughout my career, I was unfamiliar with the complex policy framework for flood management in Ontario.

of 368

3

Understanding the various roles of agencies involved, including the federal government, municipalities, conservation authorities and individual provincial ministries, along with the policies and technical guidance, was of utmost importance to the review process. The Ministry provided a number of documents to enable an understanding of the current policy framework for flood management in Ontario and a listing of the documents is included in Appendix A.

While information provided by the Ministry was helpful in providing context for my evaluation, further engagement was warranted to ensure a full review.

I first met with Minister Yakabuski to ensure a clear understanding of my mandate and the importance of this review to the people of Ontario. He underscored the devastating impacts being felt across the province from flooding and the need for the Province to help citizens and ensure their safety in the future.

Working with the Ministry, a nine-day community tour over two weeks in early September 2019 was developed to highlight the variance in issues, geographies and responsibilities. Tour stops included a mix of provincial department meetings; agency meetings; municipal and conservation authority roundtables; and guided tours of locally impacted areas. The first set of community tours took place in the Ottawa, Pembroke and North Bay areas. During the second week of my community tours, I visited Toronto, Muskoka, Cambridge and London.

I have segmented my report into six chapters: 1) Introduction; 2) The Review Process; 3) Background and the 2019 Flooding in Ontario; 4) Region Specific Situations; 5) Ontario’s Approach to Managing Flood Risk; and 6) Challenges and Opportunities to Managing Flood Risk.

In Chapter 3, I wanted to set the stage and explain all of the reasons behind the 2019 flooding, such as the above average snowfall in winter 2018/19, above average snow water equivalent, low temperatures going well into the spring, and significant rainfall during snow melt.

I prepared Chapter 4 to try to provide the reader with explanations as to what happened during the flooding in each of the watersheds that I visited or heard about. Too often I heard people say they didn’t understand how systems worked, or if they did, they felt that operations could have been done differently for a better result. I asked for and am grateful for the significant amount of detailed information from the various conservation authorities, municipalities, agencies and provincial departments. A lot of this information is included in this report, but was first reviewed and edited by me.

of 368

4

In Chapter 5, I talk about the core components of emergency management—prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. I also identify the Acts, regulations, policies and technical guidelines regarding floods. Lastly, I write about the roles and responsibilities of provincial ministries, municipalities, conservation authorities, the federal government, and other agencies involved in flood management.

It is not hard to see that flooding, whether it is as a result of spring freshet, urban flooding or high Great Lakes water levels, is having a growing effect on Ontarians, and has reminded us that there is always room to improve. In Chapter 6, I write about the challenges and opportunities to managing flood risk, and include my numerous recommendations to the Ontario Government and recommendations to the other parties discussed in Chapter 5.

Based on an analysis of the information available for all of the systems that experienced flooding in 2019, nothing points to human error or the negligent operation of water control structures as the cause of the flooding. The sheer amount of water (snow and rainfall) on the landscape directly contributed to the flooding. Measures taken by water managers everywhere were effective in reducing the magnitude of flooding and associated damages throughout the drainage basins.

My work was supported by, and I am very much indebted to, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, which provided background materials, logistic support for meetings and tours, and facilitated the transfer of information and correspondence from the public and stakeholders related to my review.

of 368

5

Recommendations

Author’s note: Implementation of many of the recommendations in this report are focused on agencies outside the jurisdiction or control of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). In those cases, I would expect that the MNRF can initiate discussions with the particular agency to try and seek agreement for implementation, in full or in part.

Recommendation #1

That the MNRF proceed as expeditiously as possible to finalize its proposed regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act and submit it to Cabinet for approval.

Recommendation #2

That the MNRF consult with the conservation authorities on their application of the hazards-based approach and the risk-based approach to managing flooding.

Recommendation #3

That the following be incorporated into the Provincial Policy Statement:

• The reference to “impacts of a changing climate” throughout the Provincial Policy Statement helps to bring it to everyone’s attention and should be included in the Preamble as well.

• Either in the body of the PPS or in the definitions section, reference should be made specifically to the requirement for conservation authorities to regulate development activities in hazardous lands as required in the Conservation Authorities Act.

• That “d) Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors, Airports, Solid and Liquid Waste Management” be added to Section 3.1.5 of the Provincial Policy Statement.

Recommendation #4

That the MNRF update floodplain mapping technical and implementation guidelines recognizing new technology and approaches for flood hazard and flood risk mapping, and that the MNRF collaborate with conservation authorities on this initiative.

of 368

6

Recommendation #5

That the Province update its technical guides pertaining to floods and natural hazards. This should include undertaking a review of the flood event standards (e.g. 1%, Timmins storm, Hurricane Hazel), with a view to providing for current science and climate change, such as a specified minimum freeboard. This should also include reviewing the floodplain areas (floodway, floodway fringe, shoreline setbacks) as well as reviewing and updating, where appropriate, Great Lakes flood level values and shoreline erosion hazard methodologies and allowances.

Recommendation #6

That the Province establish a working group with provincial departments, conservation authorities and municipalities to prepare a multi-year approach to floodplain mapping.

Recommendation #7

That the federal government be encouraged to extend the National Disaster Mitigation Program or develop a successor program, so that municipalities, conservation authorities, and Ontario and Quebec (in consideration of the Ottawa River) can undertake or update floodplain mapping in all critical areas.

Recommendation #8

That the Province consider the establishment of a provincial Elevation Mapping Program and commit to the annual funding requirements.

Recommendation #9

That the Province consider establishing a provincial custodian for floodplain mapping information and make the necessary updates to policies, regulations and legislation.

Recommendation #10

That the Ministry of the Solicitor General implement the Auditor General’s recommendations regarding a governance framework for emergency management and updating continuity of operations programs as soon as possible.

Recommendation #11

That the Province consider whether the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act needs to be amended with a view to clarifying roles and responsibilities of identifying hazardous areas.

of 368

7

Recommendation #12

That the MNRF consider working with Conservation Ontario and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to determine how the experience and information developed by municipalities and conservation authorities of identifying hazardous areas can be transferred to municipalities without a conservation authority.

Recommendation #13

That the Province consider legislative amendments that clarify the permissions under the Conservation Authority Act and the land use approvals in accordance with the Planning Act as they relate to development in hazardous areas.

Recommendation #14

That the Province consider new legislation to improve the existing flood policy framework by having a lead minister responsible for all flood-related policy, standards, regulations and legislation.

Recommendation #15

That the Province consider adopting legislation that will require flood risk properties to be identified in some way that is publicly accessible, at the very least on the property title, to ensure that prospective buyers are aware.

Recommendation #16

That municipalities consider utilizing local improvement charges to help finance and install (or upgrade) shoreline protection works, and if necessary, that the Province provide municipalities with enhanced authority to do so.

Recommendation #17

That the Province support municipalities and conservation authorities to ensure the conservation, restoration and creation of natural green infrastructure (i.e. wetlands, forest cover, pervious surfaces) during land use planning to reduce runoff and mitigate the impacts of flooding.

Recommendation #18

That the MNRF North Bay District facilitate a meeting between the Sturgeon-Nipissing-French watershed group and the Upper Ottawa River Watershed group to help the latter group establish a collaborative arrangement for future flood events. It is important that all parties involved in the flood be present at the meeting.

of 368

8

Recommendation #19

That the City of North Bay in particular, and any other municipalities in a similar situation, install appropriate treatment plant bypass piping to improve resiliency of key infrastructure and limit the impacts of flooding on this infrastructure and associated impacts to public health and safety.

Recommendation #20

That the Province, the federal government (Public Service and Procurement Canada) and the North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority review the Lake Nipissing Operational Guidelines.

Recommendation #21

That the MNRF establish a communication protocol to inform and involve key stakeholders (i.e. municipalities) on watershed conditions and operations throughout the fall and winter leading into and throughout the spring freshet, commencing in early 2020.

Recommendation #22

That the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) use the results of the Muskoka Watershed Conservation and Management Initiative to inform any potential future amendments to the Muskoka River Water Management Plan by working with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and in the meantime, that the MECP consider whether to encourage the municipalities to establish a conservation authority or request the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to restrict development in the floodplains (e.g. Ministerial Order).

Recommendation #23

That Haliburton County document how their collaborative model worked for the 2019 flood and share this information with, and for the benefit of, other counties, municipalities and conservation authorities.

Recommendation #24

That provincial, federal and municipal governments work with the Essex Region Conservation Authority and the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority to undertake a coordinated short- and long-term strategy to address the existing and expected impacts to Chatham-Kent, Windsor-Essex and Pelee Island as a result of current and future water

of 368

9

levels, flood and erosion hazards, and climate change on Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River.

Recommendation #25

That the MNRF review and update the appropriate technical guides, with consideration of a new category permitting development in hazardous lands along large inland lakes, rivers and streams, and along the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River, utilizing flood protection land forms and/or other forms of flood protection and floodproofing methods with very strict requirements and conditions. Further, consideration should be given to enshrining this concept in legislation or in a regulation along with other structural methods that are now permitted in non-hazard lands or Special Policy Areas.

Recommendation #26

That, due to the increased use of the regional flood control facilities, the MNRF review whether the Province should take steps to regulate the use of these structures or let municipalities decide their use.

Recommendation #27

That the Province create a working group of all pertinent ministries to define their respective roles as they pertain to pluvial flooding.

Recommendation #28

That the Province consider whether it should take steps to regulate drainage standards in urban areas, such as the requirement to restrict runoff flows to pre-development rates and flood protection measures for private property, and if so, what is the most appropriate legislation.

Recommendation #29

That the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks reach out to the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation, as part of their commitment to consult with the insurance and real estate industry under the 2018 Environment Plan, to work collaboratively to raise awareness among homeowners about the increasing risk of flooding and to disseminate the basement flooding protection information to homeowners.

Recommendation #30

That the Ministry of Infrastructure ensure that the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund supports municipalities in enhancing and implementing asset management plans (which includes stormwater management and consideration of climate change adaptation and mitigation activities), which will

of 368

10

help municipalities make the best possible investment decisions for their infrastructure assets.

Recommendation #31

That the Ministry of Infrastructure work specifically with the MNRF on the design of future intakes of the Green stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program to ensure flood-related projects are eligible.

Recommendation #32

That the Province continue to fund the Water Erosion Control Infrastructure program and consider adopting a multi-year budget.

Recommendation #33

That the Province continue to issue Green Bonds in 2020 and beyond to help finance extreme-weather resistant infrastructure.

Recommendation #34

That the Province continue its financial commitment and partnership arrangement with the federal government through the hydrometric network agreement.

Recommendation #35

That the Province continue to monitor the effectiveness and location of gauges to ensure that there is appropriate coverage and consider repositioning gauges if necessary.

Recommendation #36

That, where appropriate and where funding permits, the Province consider the installation of GOES telemetry at key locations where more frequent access to information is required (areas of higher risk/watersheds that react quickly to changes in precipitation or snowmelt) and where current landline telecommunication technology is less secure and not as reliable in transmitting information.

Recommendation #37

That, where appropriate and where funding permits, the Province consider the use of automated alarms at those stations in watersheds of higher risk/quick response to precipitation and snowmelt to alert when water levels have exceeded a threshold of concern.

Recommendation #38

That the Province explore whether there would be value toward additional manual snow course locations in those watersheds where snow cover and snow water content are

of 368

11

factors in spring flooding, and seek to involve the citizens in the collection and reporting of that data.

Recommendation #39

That the Province explore the feasibility of remote sensing products to better estimate the spatial distribution of snow and snow patterns.

Recommendation #40

That the MNRF work with federal, provincial and local partners as well as industry toward an Open Data model where information is shared and consolidated into the existing Surface Water Monitoring Centre hydrometric monitoring database.

Recommendation #41

That the Province investigate the return on investment of utilizing the new satellite imagery and resourcing with the necessary staff additions to provide better flood forecasting and monitoring.

Recommendation #42

That the Province update the flood forecasting and warning guidelines, providing clarity on roles and responsibilities (conservation authorities, MNRF district offices, municipalities) and provide examples of the systems, from simple to complex, with recognition that each system should be designed to reflect the local watershed characteristics and resources.

Recommendation #43

That the Ministry of the Solicitor General implement emergency operations initiatives in response to the recommendations of the Auditor General as soon as possible.

Recommendation #44

That Emergency Management Ontario improve its processes for interacting with municipalities and clearly lay out the processes on their website.

Recommendation #45

That Emergency Management Ontario clearly lay out the process for municipalities to request assistance during emergencies and provide field support to help determine the assistance that is required.

Recommendation #46

That the Province have a central website for flooding issues that provides answers (for conservation authorities, municipalities and the public) to a myriad of typical and

of 368

12

frequent questions, or at the very least, a link to the agency (provincial department, power company, etc.) that provides the answers to the questions.

Recommendation #47

That the Province review the funding formula for eligibility of municipalities under the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance program.

Recommendation #48

That the “build back better” pilot under the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance program move from a “pilot” to a full program. The Province should consider raising the 15% cap where it makes economic sense. The program should be tied to legislated flood protection levels and floodproofing criteria. For example, a bridge damaged by a flood can only be replaced if it is raised to the design flood.

Recommendation #49

That the Province consider including a “build back better” component under the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians program.

Recommendation #50

That the Province approach Indigenous Services Canada about expanding their disaster assistance program to include houses that are leased on First Nation reserve land by non-status individuals.

Recommendation #51

That the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians program be flexible enough to allow for removal of the structure from the floodplain (buyout) if it is the only technically and financially feasible option.

Recommendation #52

That the Province continue the dialogue with the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the federal government on the steps needed to make flood insurance more available to more Ontarians.

Recommendation #53

That the Province ensure that municipalities have all the information regarding eligible items under the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance program, including costs for disposal of waste materials from a flood.

of 368

13

Recommendation #54

That the Province consider special or expedited approvals for new or expanded landfills if significant capacity is used up from the disposal of flood-related waste materials.

Recommendation #55

That the International Joint Commission, the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board, and Ontario Power Generation make their detailed information about their flood operations readily available on their respective websites.

Recommendation #56

That the International Joint Commission consider meeting with interested stakeholder groups and individuals to explain in considerable detail how their structures are operated.

Recommendation #57

That the International Joint Commission consider creating specific “2017 Flood” and “2019 Flood” buttons for their home webpage and populating those pages with detailed information on the floods and their operations, as well as providing direct links to related reports.

Recommendation #58

That the supporting agencies of the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board (Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the dam operators) consider reviewing the original agreement, recommendations and guiding principles, and board policies given they are almost 40 years old.

Recommendation #59

That the supporting agencies of the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board (Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the dam operators) consider removing “Regulation” from the title, as it implies that the Board can actually manage large floods when, in fact, they cannot because of the limited storage capacity of the generating station reservoirs, which were designed for electric power generation and not flood control.

of 368

14

Recommendation #60

That a communications officer be assigned to the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board to help with messaging during flood events or any public meetings and free up the staff engineers to concentrate on their duties. At least two communications officers should be assigned as needed and well trained in the technical operations. The officers should be from another government department as opposed to Ontario Power Generation or another non-government dam owner, since the public believes the dam owners only care about generating electricity.

Recommendation #61

That a communications person with marketing experience work with the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board to prepare more easily understood materials for publication. The approach to managing the Ottawa River by the Board is not well understood by the public or government officials. Also, the materials should not be confusing. In one example I saw, a line graph showed a water level difference of 1.0 metres but the text below it stated “> 50 cm or 20 in.”

Recommendation #62

That the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board work with Ontario Power Generation and consider installing staff gauges at critical settled locations along the river, and engage residents to read and report on these gauges. These residents have a vested interest in getting accurate information and so their “buy-in” could be to volunteer their time to provide the data.

Recommendation #63

That two municipal officials, one from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and one from the Quebec counterpart, sit on the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board. The intent is to provide contact persons on the Board trusted by municipalities in both provinces, and for the municipal representatives on the Board to help disseminate correct and accurate information back to municipalities. Consideration could also be given to adding municipal representatives to the Ottawa River Regulating Committee, in addition to or instead of the Board. It is recognized that the three signatories to the Agreement (Canada, Ontario and

of 368

15

Quebec) would have to agree to amending the Agreement for this purpose.

Recommendation #64

That Ontario Power Generation create a dynamic illustration regarding the dry section at Deux-Rivieres that “walks” the observer through the changes in water levels during low to normal to high flows, with voice-over explanation of water level changes, and that this video be included on their website.

Recommendation #65

That Ontario Power Generation identify options to address their concern about refill dates and provide greater flexibility on how refill is determined, taking into consideration the range of potential impacts, to support potential amendment proposals to relevant Water Management Plans.

Recommendation #66

That the Province maintain, at a minimum, the current level of funding in departmental budgets and programs related to everything flood (i.e. existing approval processes and associated policies and technical requirements, floodplain mapping, maintenance of flood infrastructure, satellite imagery, etc.).

of 368

16

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 21 1.1 Preface ........................................................................................................... 21 1.2 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................ 23

2. The Review Process 25

2.1 Documents and Other Information .................................................................. 25 2.2 Engagement and Site Tours ........................................................................... 25

3. Background and the 2019 Flooding in Ontario 29

3.1 Watershed and Meteorological Conditions leading up to the Spring Freshet .. 29 3.1.1 Flow Generating Mechanisms in Ontario ............................................. 29 3.1.2 Summary of General Meteorological and Watershed Conditions ......... 30

3.2 Climate Change – A Recent History ............................................................... 31

4. Region Specific Situations 34 4.1 Flooding Along the Ottawa River .................................................................... 34

4.1.1 Ottawa River Basin and Ontario Power Generation Facilities .............. 34 4.1.2 Spring Freshets – Comparison of 2019 to 2017 and 2018 ................... 36

4.1.2.1 Weather and Watershed Conditions ....................................... 36 4.1.2.2 Watershed Conditions in 2019 ................................................ 36 4.1.2.3 Watershed Conditions in 2017 ................................................ 36 4.1.2.4 Watershed Conditions in 2018 ................................................ 37

4.1.3 Reservoir and Station Operations in Spring 2019 ................................ 37 4.1.4 The May 6 Flow Increase from Otto Holden Affecting Mattawa ........... 38 4.1.5 Explanation of Conditions at Des Joachims and the Dry Section at Deux-Rivieres ....................................................................................... 39

4.2 Flooding in The North Bay-Mattawa Area ....................................................... 41 4.2.1 Sturgeon-Nipissing-French Watershed ................................................ 41 4.2.2 Upper Ottawa River Watershed ........................................................... 42 4.2.3 Spring 2019 Flooding ........................................................................... 43

4.3 Flooding in the Muskoka River Watershed ..................................................... 44 4.3.1 Physical Characteristics and Municipal Governance ............................ 44 4.3.2 Water Management Structures and Operations ................................... 45 4.3.3 Land Use Planning and Flood-prone Development in the Muskoka River Watershed ............................................................................................ 46 4.3.4 Spring 2019 Watershed Conditions, Flood Mechanisms and Water Management Activities ......................................................................... 48

4.4 Flooding in the Magnetawan River Watershed ............................................... 49

of 368

17

4.5 Flooding in the County of Haliburton ............................................................... 50 4.6 Flooding along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River ............................... 50

4.6.1 Flooding Conditions in 2019 ................................................................. 50 4.6.2 Comparison to Flooding Conditions in 2017 ........................................ 52

4.7 Flooding along Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair Shorelines ................................. 53 4.7.1 2019 Flooding ...................................................................................... 53 4.7.2 Erosion ................................................................................................. 55 4.7.3 Recent Severe Rain Events ................................................................. 56

4.8 Other Notable Recent Flooding Events ........................................................... 56 4.8.1 Recent Flood Events in the City of Toronto .......................................... 56 4.8.2 Recent Flood Events in the Grand River Watershed ............................ 58

5. Ontario’s Approach to Managing Flood Risk 60

5.1 The Five Core Components of Emergency Management ............................... 60 5.1.1 Prevention ............................................................................................ 60 5.1.2 Mitigation .............................................................................................. 60 5.1.3 Preparedness ....................................................................................... 61 5.1.4 Response ............................................................................................. 61 5.1.5 Recovery .............................................................................................. 61

5.2 Acts, Regulations, Policies and Technical Guidelines .................................... 62 5.2.1 The Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement ......................... 63 5.2.2 The Conservation Authorities Act ......................................................... 64 5.2.3 Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and Water Management Planning 68 5.2.4 The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act ........................ 70 5.2.5 The Environmental Assessment Act .................................................... 71 5.2.6 Natural Hazard Technical Guides ........................................................ 71

5.3 Organizational Roles and Responsibilities ...................................................... 73 5.3.1 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry ......................................... 73

5.3.1.1 Mapping and Geomatics Services .......................................... 74 5.3.1.2 Flood Forecasting and Warning Services ............................... 75 5.3.1.3 Remote Sensing Science Group ............................................. 76

5.3.2 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing ............................................ 77 5.3.3 Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks ................................ 78 5.3.4 Ministry of Infrastructure ....................................................................... 79 5.3.5 Office of the Fire Marshall and Emergency Management .................... 80 5.3.6 Municipalities ........................................................................................ 80 5.3.7 Conservation Authorities ...................................................................... 82 5.3.8 The Federal Government ..................................................................... 82 5.3.9 Other Agencies .................................................................................... 83

5.3.9.1 International Joint Commission ............................................... 83

of 368

18

5.3.9.2 Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board ............................... 84 5.3.9.3 Ontario Power Generation ...................................................... 84

6. Challenges and Opportunities to Managing Flood Risk 86

6.1 Prevention ....................................................................................................... 86 6.1.1 Gaps in Policy and Technical Guidance ............................................... 86

6.1.1.1 Lack of Guidance for Considering Climate Change ................ 86 6.1.1.2 Climate Change Resiliency of Existing Flood Standards ........ 88 6.1.1.3 Outdated Guidance on Floodproofing Standards .................... 88 6.1.1.4 Outdated Guidance on Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modelling ... 89 6.1.1.5 Outdated Guidance on Surveying and Mapping Standards .... 90 6.1.1.6 Other Policy or Technical Gaps .............................................. 91 6.1.1.7 Limited Training, Outreach and Awareness ............................ 91

6.1.2 Policies, Standards, Regulations and Legislation ................................. 91 6.1.2.1 Consideration of Risk in Floodplain Management Policies ..... 93 6.1.2.2 Provincial Policy Statement Review – Proposed Policies ....... 94

6.1.3 Floodplain and Flood Risk Mapping ..................................................... 94 6.1.3.1 Limitations of Existing Geomatic Data and Mapping ............... 95 6.1.3.2 Updates to Floodplain Data and Mapping ............................... 95 6.1.3.3 Expanding Regulatory Flood Lines ......................................... 96 6.1.3.4 Technical Guidance That Governs Floodplain Mapping ......... 97 6.1.3.5 Costs Associated with Updating Floodplain Mapping ............. 99 6.1.3.6 Proposed Elevation Mapping Program ................................. 100 6.1.3.7 Provincial Custodian for Floodplain Mapping Information ..... 101

6.1.4 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................. 102 6.1.4.1 Unclear Roles in Emergency Management ........................... 102 6.1.4.2 Unclear Roles and Responsibilities for Identifying Hazardous Areas .................................................................. 103 6.1.4.3 Conflicting Policy Direction and Technical Advice ................ 105 6.1.4.4 Conflicts Between Planning and Permitting Decisions .......... 105 6.1.4.5 Perceived Conflicts of Interest .............................................. 106 6.1.4.6 Role of the Provincial One Window Planning Service ........... 106 6.1.4.7 The Federal Government ...................................................... 107 6.1.4.8 Provincial Watchdog ............................................................. 107 6.1.4.9 Lack of Awareness of Property Owners ................................ 108

6.2 Mitigation ...................................................................................................... 109 6.2.1 Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River Shorelines ...................................... 109 6.2.2 Ottawa River ...................................................................................... 111

6.2.2.1 Meteorological and Hydrological Conditions ......................... 111 6.2.2.2 Existing Development in the Floodplain and Floodway ......... 112

of 368

19

6.2.3 Riverine, Lake .................................................................................... 113 6.2.3.1 Maintaining Natural and Pervious Surfaces .......................... 113 6.2.3.2 North Bay/Mattawa Area ....................................................... 114 6.2.3.3 The Muskoka/Magnetawan Rivers/Lakes ............................. 115 6.2.3.4 County of Haliburton/Trent Severn Waterway ....................... 117 6.2.3.5 Southwestern Ontario ........................................................... 118 6.2.3.6 Flood Protection Land Forms ................................................ 119

6.2.4 Urban/Flash Flooding (Pluvial Flooding) ............................................ 121 6.2.4.1 Use of Regional Flood Control Facilities ............................... 122 6.2.4.2 Municipal By-laws – Pre-Development Rates of Runoff ....... 124 6.2.4.3 Municipal By-laws – Flood Protection Measures for Private Property .................................................................... 124 6.2.4.4 Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation ...................................... 125

6.2.5 Funding for Permanent Works ........................................................... 125 6.3 Preparedness ............................................................................................... 127

6.3.1 Monitoring and Data Management ..................................................... 127 6.3.1.1 The Hydrometric Agreement ................................................. 127 6.3.1.2 Climate (Weather) Monitoring ............................................... 128 6.3.1.3 Data Management ................................................................ 128 6.3.1.4 Satellite Radar Imagery ........................................................ 129

6.3.2 Flood Forecasting and Warning ............................................................ 129 6.4 Emergency Response ................................................................................... 130

6.4.1 Emergency Operations ...................................................................... 130 6.4.2 Communications ................................................................................ 132

6.5 Recovery ....................................................................................................... 132 6.5.1 Compensation for Damages and Rebuilding ...................................... 132

6.5.1.1 Compensation Programs ...................................................... 132 6.5.1.2 Relocation and Buyouts ........................................................ 134

6.5.2 Insurance ........................................................................................... 135 6.5.3 Waste Materials and Landfills ............................................................ 137

7. Recommendations to External Agencies 139

7.1 International Joint Commission ..................................................................... 139 7.2 Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board ...................................................... 140 7.3 Ontario Power Generation ............................................................................ 143

8. Fiscal Pressures and Capacity Issues 145

8.1 Ontario’s Deficit ............................................................................................ 145 8.2 MNRF Capacity ............................................................................................ 145 8.3 Conservation Authority Capacity ................................................................... 145

of 368

20

8.4 Municipal Capacity ........................................................................................ 146 Appendices

A. List of Documents Reviewed ........................................................................ 147 B. Community Tours .......................................................................................... 151 C. Engagement Session Participation ............................................................... 152 D. Written Submissions to the Special Advisor on Flooding .............................. 155

of 368

21

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Preface

Flooding is a natural phenomenon. In the scientific context, a natural phenomenon is something that is observed to occur or to exist without human input. But of course, there is human input in the form of activities, such as deforestation, rapid drainage of rural land, urbanization, and the existence of structures and the operational procedures of those structures. The problem with a year like 2019 is that the natural events (snow, rain, melting, wind) that caused the flooding were so much larger than what we have measured to be average, that the human inputs have had very little impact, positive or negative. The most ideal human input has been ensuring people and property are out of harm’s way.

As a natural phenomenon, major storm events that contribute to significant flood events will happen again, but with climate change we can expect that they will be more frequent and/or more significant. There is no one level of government that can be expected to deal with floods before, during and after they happen, but rather every level of government (federal, provincial, municipal, county), agencies of government (conservation authorities), and every individual, has a role and responsibility.

Ontario has a long history of trying to keep people and property safe from the impacts of flooding through land use planning policies and mitigative activities.

The development of the modern floodplain policy in Ontario, the watershed approach, the conservation authority model, and the flood standards have been extremely effective at reducing flood risks, especially in new greenfield development areas. Strong provincial legislation and policy, including the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement, the Conservation Authorities Act, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, and natural hazard technical guides, have collectively gone a long way to reducing and mitigating flood risks in Ontario. Historic investment in flood mitigation infrastructure, such as dams, dikes, flood channels and shoreline protection, has delivered structural solutions to reduce flood risk to existing and new developments in floodplains. This broad approach has served the province well.

While these policies and mitigative activities have made Ontario a leader across Canada, it is clear that Ontarians continue to be significantly impacted by flood events and the costs associated with these impacts continue to mount.

of 368

22

During the spring of 2019, heavy rains paired with melting snow and a sudden temperature increase led to devastating flooding across many areas throughout northern and southern Ontario. Emergency declarations were made by 23 municipalities and one First Nation with significant flooding impacting households, commercial properties, roads and other key infrastructure such as bridges. Emergencies were first declared starting in early April and lasting through July in many cases. Homeowners, municipal and provincial emergency response personnel, and countless volunteers including the Canadian Forces worked tirelessly for weeks defending against the high water, reminiscent of a similar scene only two years earlier.

In response to these flood events, the provincial government announced that it would be undertaking consultation on the province’s current flood mitigation and land use planning policies. Their first step was to host three regional listening sessions held by provincial leaders with municipal, Indigenous and industry leaders in Muskoka, Pembroke and Ottawa, in May. These sessions allowed the Province to hear directly from areas most devastated by the spring floods. Acknowledging that these sessions did not cover all areas that experienced flooding, nor provided the public with an opportunity to engage on the topic, the Province invited comments regarding flooding and suggestions to make Ontario more resilient to flooding through an online survey from May 16 to June 28.

Following this initial engagement in the spring, I was appointed by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Honourable John Yakabuski (Minister) on July 18, 2019, to review the Province’s current flood management framework. In addition to considering policies and activities which influenced spring flooding, I was also asked to consider both Great Lakes and urban flooding.

Throughout the Great Lakes, a period of high-water levels has been underway since early 2017. Businesses, resource management, recreational activities and shipping have all been affected by unprecedented high-water levels, and many residents have been displaced from their homes, as shoreline erosion and road access affect public safety. Agricultural centres along the shore of Lake Erie have been threatened and emergency declarations continue to plague shoreline communities, in some cases built below current lake levels.

Urban flooding is becoming a more frequently occurring public safety hazard. This type of flooding occurs when excessive runoff from a storm event exceeds infrastructure capacity and capabilities, thereby increasing urban stream erosion and flooding, and potentially causing sewers to back up into basements and overflows of raw sewage into lakes and natural watercourses. In 2018, two individuals were caught in a Toronto elevator, narrowly escaping rising waters. Isolated intense storm events have caused

of 368

23

significant flood damages to major infrastructure in urban areas and occur with little to no warning.

It is not hard to see that flooding, whether it is as a result of spring freshet, urban flooding or high Great Lakes water levels, is having a growing effect on Ontarians, and has reminded us that there is always room to improve.

Based on an analysis of the information available for all of the systems that experienced flooding in 2019, nothing points to human error or the negligent operation of water control structures as the cause of the flooding. The sheer amount of water (snow and rainfall) on the landscape directly contributed to the flooding. Measures taken by the water managers everywhere were effective in reducing the magnitude of flooding and associated damages throughout the drainage basins.

1.2 Terms of Reference

As Special Advisor on Flooding, I was appointed by the government to provide expert advice to the Minister and to make recommendations to the government on opportunities to improve the existing flood policy framework.

Specifically, I was asked to focus my review on and provide recommendations regarding:

• Current roles and responsibilities among agencies involved in flood management;

• Increasing awareness among homeowners about the growing risk of flooding and living in flood-prone areas;

• The Province's current legislative, land use planning and flood mitigation policy framework, including guidance, approaches and opportunities for improvement;

• Potential additional mitigation approaches that could help address impacts to existing development in floodplains; and

• Opportunities to improve community resilience in the face of ongoing threats.

To conduct the work, I was tasked with reviewing and building on what was heard during the targeted listening sessions held in Muskoka, Pembroke and Ottawa in May 2019, as well as comments received through the online survey. I was also afforded the opportunity to conduct additional consultations to hear and learn about the flood experiences across many areas of Ontario.

My report, to be submitted by October 31, 2019, would draw from my personal expertise and knowledge as well as additional available resources from the Province to provide

of 368

24

my best advice to the government based on my review. My report and recommendations would consider the array of local issues as well as the roles played by municipal and federal governments in flood management, and ensure my recommendations could be feasibly implemented within the province.

My work was supported by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, which provided background materials and logistical support, and facilitated the transfer of information and correspondence from the public and stakeholders related to my review.

of 368

25

Chapter 2

The Review Process

Despite having worked in Manitoba on flooding issues throughout my career, I was unfamiliar with the complex policy framework for flood management in Ontario. Understanding the various roles of agencies involved including the federal government, municipalities, conservation authorities and individual provincial ministries as well as the policies and technical guidance was of utmost importance to the review process.

2.1 Documents and Other Information

The Ministry provided a number of documents to enable an understanding of the current policy framework for flood management. These included:

• Provincial acts, regulations and policies associated with flood management;

• Technical guidelines prepared by the Province to support municipalities and conservation authorities in managing flooding and other natural hazards;

• Information related to floodplain mapping, disaster relief, funding, insurance, and natural infrastructure; and

• Information on water management in the Muskoka River and Ottawa River watershed and Great Lakes Basin.

I was also provided with a summary of feedback received from both the spring listening sessions and the online flood survey. The Minister’s office provided me with correspondence that he received that was directed at my review. A detailed listing of materials reviewed can be found in Appendix A.

2.2 Engagement and Site Tours

While information provided by the Ministry was helpful in providing context for my evaluation, further engagement was warranted to ensure a full review.

I first met with Minister Yakabuski to ensure a clear understanding of my mandate and the importance of this review to the people of Ontario. He underscored the devastating impacts being felt across the province from flooding and the need for the Province to help citizens and ensure their safety in the future.

I also met with Conservation Ontario, Ontario Power Generation, the Ministries of Environment Conservation and Parks, and Municipal Affairs and Housing to get a better understanding of their roles in water management. The purpose of these meetings was

of 368

26

to provide additional background and context to the current policies and responsibilities for flood management within the province.

Through these dialogues, and in reviewing the background information provided by the Ministry, I realized the importance of visiting some of the areas hardest hit by flooding. This was necessary to appreciate the diversity in geographies and issues, and to hear firsthand from people in those areas about the impacts experienced and potential solutions.

Working with the Ministry, a nine-day community tour over two weeks in early September was developed to highlight the variance in issues, geographies and responsibilities. Tour stops included a mix of:

• Agency meetings;

• Municipal and conservation authority roundtables; and

• Guided tours of locally impacted areas.

In selecting the tour locations, it was acknowledged that the size of the province and the number of communities that experienced flooding would make it impossible to visit every area that has been impacted. Representative locations were chosen to provide a mix of riverine, lake, urban and Great Lakes flooding context, with the clear understanding that impacts are being felt across the province, not just in these areas specifically. In the vast majority of cases, meeting locations were chosen within a two-hour drive of the municipalities targeted for engagement.

Participation in municipal engagement sessions targeted municipalities that:

• Declared flood-related states of emergencies in 2019;

• Represented areas that had been approved for provincial disaster recovery assistance;

• Had requested meetings with the Minister to discuss flooding and/or high-water levels;

• Had contacted the Ministry asking for an opportunity to meet with the Special Advisor; or

• Were known to have experienced major flood events in the last few years.

The first set of community tours took place in the Ottawa, Pembroke and North Bay areas.

of 368

27

During the two-day visit to Ottawa, I met with the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board, the International Joint Commission, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and the local MPP for Kanata—Carleton. I hosted a municipal roundtable meeting with Ottawa area MPPs, municipal officials and staff, and conservation authority general managers. I toured the areas of Britannia, Constance Bay, Rhoddy’s Bay, Westmeath and Braeside, all significantly impacted by flooding in the spring of 2019.

In Pembroke, I held a municipal roundtable discussion with a wide area of eastern Ontario municipal officials and met with a concerned citizens group. I toured the flood-impacted areas of Pembroke, Deux-Riviere and Mattawa, and discussed the characteristics of the Ottawa River at Klock with Ontario Power Generation, which contributes to the highly complex management challenges of the river.

In North Bay, I met with the local conservation authority and hosted a roundtable meeting with local municipal officials, the MPP for Nipissing, the federal government and local First Nation representatives to discuss the challenges associated with managing the river systems in their area.

During the second week of my community tours, I visited Toronto, Muskoka, Cambridge and London.

In Toronto, I spent a day with one of the local conservation authorities. They provided me with an overview of the issues they deal with in their highly urbanized watershed, and we toured the high flood risk neighbourhood of Rockcliffe and the projects under way along the lower Don River floodplain. While in Toronto, I also hosted a day of meetings with stakeholders, agencies, ministers and MPPs. I met with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Hon. Steve Clark; the Minister of Environment Conservation and Parks, the Hon. Jeff Yurek; and a Greater Toronto Area MPP. I met with two branches from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry—Mapping and Surface Water Monitoring as well as Emergency Management Ontario, which falls under the purview of the Office of the Fire Marshall and Emergency Management within the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I also met with representatives from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Collaborative, the Regional Public Works Commissioners, and the Electrical Safety Authority.

In the Muskoka area, I met with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry District of Parry Sound and Bracebridge Area staff to understand their role in managing water in the Muskoka and Magnetawan watersheds, and held a municipal roundtable meeting in Huntsville with central Ontario municipal officials, the local MPP for Parry Sound—Muskoka, and a stakeholder group.

of 368

28

In Cambridge, I met with the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation out of the University of Waterloo, and hosted a municipal roundtable meeting with municipal officials, area conservation authority management and local MPP staff from the surrounding area. I met with the local conservation authority, and toured flood-prone areas in and around Cambridge and Brantford.

In London, I toured the area of Port Stanley, along the shoreline of Lake Erie, to get an appreciation of the height of the lake, but unfortunately was not able to see firsthand any shoreline erosion. I met with local conservation authority staff to discuss their role in local water management and hosted a municipal roundtable with southwestern Ontario municipal officials and area conservation authority managers.

of 368

29

Chapter 3

Background and the 2019 Flooding in Ontario

3.1 Watershed and Meteorological Conditions leading up to the Spring Freshet

3.1.1 Flow Generating Mechanisms in Ontario

The main causes of riverine and lake flooding are snow and ice melt, intense and/or long-lasting precipitation, rain on snow, riverine ice jams, or a combination of these causes. The risk of flooding is also influenced by conditions within the drainage basin, such as pre-flood water levels, presence of snow and ice, the soil moisture content, how early and deep the frost, and land use change, including more efficient rural drainage and urbanization. Some of the largest notable floods in Ontario have occurred as a result of major rainstorms. For this reason, riverine flood hazards limits are generally defined based on the flood resulting from the actual rainfall experienced during a major rain storm, such as the Hurricane Hazel storm (1954) or the Timmins storm (1961), transposed over a specific watershed or the 100-year flood, whichever is greater.

In Ontario, streamflow regimes are generally classified as snowmelt-dominated, whereby most of the winter precipitation falls as snow and melts during the spring. Temperature affects the type of precipitation (i.e. rain versus snow), the accumulation of a snowpack, and the timing and amount of ice and snowmelt runoff, while influencing the snow water equivalent of the snowpack. Snow water equivalent defines the amount of liquid water in the snowpack that would be formed if it were completely melted. Precipitation determines the potential magnitudes of flow generated during different times of the year. The timing of high spring flows in snowmelt regimes are also affected by geographic location, whereby snowmelt occurs later further north and at higher elevations, and is affected by the size of the drainage basin and the amount of storage within the drainage basin as affected by the size and number of lakes and wetlands. In more southerly areas of the province, streamflow regimes, while influenced by snowmelt, can be less defined by it.

The amount of snow on the ground, or the water that it contains, can often be a driver or indicator of the potential for flooding. The amount of this water that becomes runoff for the river depends on the timing and rate of snowmelt. For example, a very rapid melt of an average snowpack could lead to flooding. Conversely, a slow melt of a very heavy snow pack may not result in flooding. This becomes challenging for water managers as the impact of the snow on the river is heavily driven by the weather, which is difficult to predict. This provides a rationale as to why in some years with higher than average

of 368

30

snow on the ground, flooding may not be experienced, whereas years with an average snowpack significant flooding may be observed.

3.1.2 Summary of General Meteorological and Watershed Conditions

A series of noteworthy, atypical and synergistic factors contributed to the severity of the flooding in the spring of 2019. Environment and Climate Change Canada has characterized the 2018/19 winter as very long and extremely cold, including higher than normal snowfall across northern, central and eastern Ontario. Furthermore, this year’s winter did not experience the one or more significant thaws that has come to characterize winters in south-central Ontario. The result was a well above average snowpack on the ground in early April, with the snowpack experiencing a rapid melt by mid-April, and a considerable depth of snowpack remaining past mid-April in those areas experiencing flooding. This melt was intensified by a series of strong large-scale storms that resulted in significant rainfall amounts in the latter portions of April, whose occurrence was widespread across the portion of the province experiencing spring flooding.

While April’s temperatures in the northwest, the far north and southern Ontario were in the normal range, most of the province, including those areas that experienced the most notable flooding in the spring of 2019, also experienced temperatures 1 to 2 degrees Celsius below normal, with the greatest temperature anomalies—up to 3 degrees Celsius below normal—observed in northern Ontario. These trends towards lower than average temperatures contributed to the maintenance of widespread snowfall distributions later into the spring and extended the duration of conditions that would support frozen soils into the spring compared to an average year. The effect of these temperature and snowfall trends contributes to a greater snowpack later in the season, and frozen or partially frozen soils with a limited ability to absorb runoff water.

More specifically, across central and eastern Ontario, April experienced some extremely active weather, owing in part to a west to east jet stream pattern over southern Canadian latitudes that supported frequent weather disturbances, including above average precipitation. Above average precipitation was observed throughout the spring months of March, April and May across many of the areas affected by flooding in 2019, receiving 50 to 100 millimetres or more precipitation than on average across the three months with the latter half of April 2019 representing above average to 200% of normal values. A low-pressure system developed over the southern U.S. on April 25 and moved northeastward bringing heavy rain on April 26 to 27, focused on southwestern and central Ontario and the upper Ottawa River catchment region of Quebec, with amounts ranging from 32 to 43 millimetres. While a portion of the snowpack had or was beginning to melt by this time, the soil would have remained partly frozen and where

of 368

31

thawed, would have exceeded its capacity to support meltwater infiltration. A significant fraction of the rain that fell during this period would have reached surface water features that were already at or exceeding their capacity to contain water.

This rainfall contributed greatly to the flooding in the affected portions of Ontario in addition to the high-water levels experienced on the Great Lakes, in particular Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and the downstream St. Lawrence River system. The Great Lakes in particular received significant inputs of water from both sides of the border, as the U.S. tributaries experienced the wettest 12-month period on record, from May 2018 to May 2019.

In summary, key drivers leading up to the flooding of spring 2019 included: a colder than average winter without a significant winter thaw, contributing to a larger than average snow pack and higher than average snow water equivalents. These conditions were enhanced by colder than usual spring temperatures that maintained the snowpack further into the spring period than usual, and the melt of this snowpack was accelerated and exacerbated by numerous rain-on-snow events that occurred as temperatures began to rise significantly in mid-April.

3.2 Climate Change – A Recent History

It is particularly difficult to distinguish natural variability from the effects of climate change. The abundance of water in Ontario’s numerous rivers and lakes, including within the Great Lakes, tends to oscillate in a cyclical fashion. Research has shown that the periods of these cyclical oscillations can be linked to changes in the global water cycle, including alignments with large scale cyclical patterns of water movement driven by oceanic (e.g. North Atlantic Multidecadal Cycle, Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and other related processes (El Nino/La Nina/Southern Oscillation). Regardless of the mechanisms, history has shown that flows and levels within Ontario’s streams, rivers and lakes, including within the Great Lakes, are well established to increase and decrease over a range of temporal and spatial scales.

Recent climate change reports have suggested that Canada’s climate is warming twice as fast as the global average. Temperature and precipitation are fundamental climate variables that directly affect natural and human systems. Changes in temperature can affect the timing and extent of snowpack development, soil freezing, snow and ice melt, and rainfall potential during colder seasons, as well as the timing, intensity, duration, amount and phase of precipitation events (rain vs. snow). A recently published MNRF study documenting results for the period 1980 to 2010 has confirmed a significant decreasing trend in maximum snow water equivalent of 6.4% per decade, or approximately minus 9 millimetres, across Ontario, representing a reduction of 5 to 10% of the annual precipitation in affected watersheds.

of 368

32

With climate change, alterations in the global water cycle are expected to bring a range of variability affected by increasing water content of the atmosphere, strengthening of climatological precipitation/evaporation patterns, a more pronounced spatial structure, and sharp gradients in precipitation change. While precipitation is generally projected to increase in the future, summer precipitation, particularly in parts of southern Canada, is projected to decrease. The most serious impacts of climate change are expected to be the changes in climate extremes. Extreme precipitation is projected to increase in the future; however, the observational record has not yet shown evidence of consistent changes in short duration, high intensity precipitation across the province.

For instance, although not backed by a wealth of empirical evidence, recent history in Ontario suggests that hydrological extremes may be increasingly affected by so-called “ninja” storms/rainfall events that are sporadically observed across the province. These rain events are not usually forecast, and are often defined by short duration, high intensity rainfall that can result in extreme rainfall amounts often over a relatively short period of time, generally distributed over a small area and not adequately captured by the rainfall gauge network. There is also growing evidence to suggest that the assumption of climate stationarity, which is fundamental to traditional flood frequency analysis, may no longer be assumed. In other words, under a changing climate, we should perhaps not be relying on hydrologic extremes that are based on an analysis of data from the past to predict the magnitude of future hydrological events, including design storms.

The changing frequency and intensity of precipitation can be expected to lead to a changing likelihood of extreme events, such as floods and droughts. Over the Great Lakes Basin, evidence suggests that climate change is leading towards an increase in precipitation. At the same time, climate change has also shown trends in increasing air temperatures and increasing lake temperatures across the basin, which naturally leads to higher rates of evaporation. These two processes act as competing forces on water levels. Higher precipitation and/or lower evaporation at times will lead to more water on the landscape and higher water levels, but at other times, higher evaporation and/or lower precipitation will lead to lower water levels. With these two competing dynamic forces at odds with each other, some have alluded to this as a “tug-of-war” between stronger climatic forces. The higher water levels in the Great Lakes in 2014 was a change from record low water levels in 2012 and 2013. It was believed to be initiated by a combination of increased precipitation, but more importantly a slowdown in the rate of evaporation triggered by the very cold winter of 2014, which was caused by a polar vortex that sent cold air southward and froze the Lakes. This reduced evaporation and increased precipitation resulted in water levels that have risen in the Great Lakes to the record extremes observed in 2017 and 2019. Climate experts believe that this swing of the pendulum, going from one extreme of low water to one of high water, is in fact a

of 368

33

consequence of climate change across the Great Lakes Basin and at continental scales.

Although one cannot unequivocally say that climate change is causing the flooding that has been observed over the last number of years or the last decade in Ontario, we do, however, know that water levels and flows are affected by a combination of temperature, precipitation and solar inputs that affect changes in precipitation and evaporation. Changes that have been observed at a global scale and a continental scale in North America, including changes in temperature and precipitation, are affecting water levels and flows in a way that would make them different from what would have otherwise been in the past. The potential exists that flooding may become increasingly more prevalent and the swing from wet to dry more volatile, making the flooding hazard more pronounced under a changing climate and its associated swings in variability.

of 368

34

Chapter 4

Region Specific Situations

The section below provides an overview of flooding that occurred in various parts of the province in 2019.

As I was not able to visit or investigate the flooding that occurred in every part of the province, the information included below provides only a partial picture of the flooding that occurred and the associated impacts. While there may be some parallels between the areas discussed below and other parts of the province, it may also be more likely that the situation in other parts of the province are equally as unique.

4.1 Flooding along the Ottawa River

4.1.1 Ottawa River Basin and Ontario Power Generation Facilities

The Ottawa River Basin is located on the border between eastern Ontario and southern Quebec, with 35% of the basin in Ontario and 65% in Quebec. The river has a length of more than 1,130 kilometres and a total basin area of 146,300 square kilometres. There are 13 principal reservoirs on the Ottawa River as defined by the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board (i.e. > 200 million cubic metres of storage capacity). Ontario Power Generation operates three of the principal reservoirs, namely Bark Lake, Lady Evelyn Lake and Des Joachims Generating Station.

The vertical and horizontal profile of the Ottawa River varies considerably throughout the river, creating hydraulic constrictions throughout. Generally, the easiest place to create a dam and reservoir is at a natural restriction in the river or natural lake area. By selecting narrow river sections, the cost of building the dam is lower. There are also several natural shallow sections in the river. These create the rapids that many tourist companies rely on. Under high flow conditions, narrow or shallow sections of the river create natural restrictions that limit the amount of water that can pass through the section, in effect backing up the river. This is called a backwater effect. If the river flow is large enough, these natural restrictions may lead to flooding.

There is little significant storage available in the lower portion of the Ottawa River; in fact, over 60% of the basin is essentially uncontrolled due to lack of storage capability. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) operates four hydroelectric generation facilities on the lower portion of the Ottawa River, which consists of one or more dams and a powerhouse (Otto Holden, Des Joachims, Chenaux and Chats Falls). These stations operate under the authority of Water Power Leases with the Province of Ontario and with An Act Respecting the Water Powers of the River Ottawa (1943). During normal

of 368

35

flow conditions, OPG has the legal ability to raise the water level to the limit prescribed in the license for the respective facility for the purposes of power generation. Under high flow conditions, OPG operates its dams and stations to minimize the impacts of flooding and to at least do no more harm than would occur under natural conditions.

Each station has known water level impacts related to flooding thresholds. For instance, the Des Joachims Generating Station has a known backwater affect on the Town of Mattawa when the combined Otto Holden Generating Station and Mattawa River flows are greater than 2,000 cubic metres per second. The operating strategy during the freshet is predicated on ensuring that Mattawa and Pembroke should not suffer unduly during high water periods, and that a balance must be sought between flows and levels at either site, despite the fact that balancing flooding at these sites reduces depth of water or flow at the generating station and thus energy production.

Reference is often made in this section to OPG’s facilities being operated as “run-of-river” facilities (i.e. facilities that have no storage capacity whatsoever and generate electricity by whatever flow is running in the river and through the generating station) during periods of flooding. Understanding what this term means conceptually is critical to understanding why water management approaches were used during periods of high flow and flood flow experienced in the spring of 2017 and 2019. OPG’s facilities are not normally operated as run-of-river, nor are they classified as run-of-river facilities. It must be highlighted that, outside of high flow or flood conditions, all of OPG generating stations operate on a daily peaking cycle as peaking or cycling facilities. Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator incentivizes power production to meet the needs of the Ontario energy market. Under normal operating conditions, outside of high flow or flooding events, OPG has significant control over the flows and levels to support power production, including daily ramping cycles that move water through the facilities in response to energy market demands, all within the licensed requirements approved for each facility. While some OPG generating stations on the Ottawa river have a minimum flow requirement, generating stations, including Otto Holden, completely shut flows off at night to store water for power production the next day. For transparency and full disclosure, the above facts must be emphasised as they can affect public perception of flow and level management regimes on the river and OPG’s ability to control flooding. OPG does have a heightened level of control and storage on flows and levels on the Ottawa River when flows are considered normal outside of freshet periods. However, OPG generating stations do not have the ability to store enormous amounts of water and manipulate levels that would prevent extreme high water and flooding in conditions experienced in spring 2017 and 2019.

of 368

36

4.1.2 Spring Freshets – Comparison of 2019 to 2017 and 2018

4.1.2.1 Weather and Watershed Conditions

During my tour along the Ottawa River and the sessions held with municipal and other representatives along the way, there were many questions posed regarding the differences in flooding between 2017 and 2019. Others asked why flooding didn’t occur in 2018, as many perceived that snow conditions were similar in 2018 to this past spring (2019) and to 2017.

Despite the occurrence of two large events in relatively close proximity to one another, the driving factors between the spring floods of 2017 and 2019 were different and impacted the basin in different ways.

4.1.2.2 Watershed Conditions in 2019

The snow on the ground as of April 1, 2019, was significantly higher than normal and higher than experienced in 2017 and 2018. Snow surveys showed the upper portion of the basin had 150 to 188% of the normal Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) for that time of year. Most of the watershed had an excess of 200 millimetres of SWE during the peak of the snowpack. The total precipitation throughout the watershed was also higher than normal, although not as high as in 2017. The accumulated April to May precipitation was approximately 125 to 175% of normal in 2019 for that time of year. While this precipitation was distributed more broadly over the basin than it was in 2017, major rainfall events coincided with the peak of the snowmelt period in 2019. Together, this led to historic flooding seen in much of the Ottawa River watershed in 2019.

The return period for the 2019 flood is estimated to be a 1:100-year to a 1:120 to 1:130-year flood depending on location and local factors affecting flows and levels.


Leading up to the freshet of 2017, the snow conditions in the Ottawa River basin were considered to be average. A review of the 2017 winter and spring period showed a relatively average snow pack compared to 2016, in which there was not significant flooding. The major driver of this spring flood event was precipitation. In April and May of 2017, the precipitation over the entire basin totaled 257 millimetres, which is considerably higher than the 150- millimetre average (1981-2010) for those months. Local precipitation accumulation varied between 240 and 380 millimetres, with most precipitation falling in the central and southern portion of the basin. Much of this precipitation came during two events between April 30 and May 6, when 70 to 140 millimetres of rain fell on the lower unregulated portion of the basin. Receiving

of 368

37

approximately two months of rainfall in a period of seven days in the uncontrolled portion of the basin was the major trigger for the flood that occurred in 2017.


In contrast, in 2018, the snow survey campaigns indicated that SWE was above normal in the Quebec region of the basin upstream of Lac des Quinze and near normal for the rest of the watershed. The month of March was slightly warmer than normal, but the month of April was much colder than normal. The cold spell persisted until the third week of April, which resulted in very little snowmelt throughout the month. As a result, the Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) in mid-late April was considerably higher than normal for that time of year. From April 20 to 24, there was a strong warming event with temperatures reaching as high as 20 degrees Celsius. This resulted in a relatively sudden snowmelt in the basin. During the period of March to May, the accumulated amount of precipitation and its distribution was approximately normal. The peak flow on the Ottawa River in 2018 occurred relatively suddenly due to the quick snow melt, but the magnitude of the peak was mitigated with the storage in the principal reservoirs and flows were only slightly above a typical year.

4.1.3 Reservoir and Station Operations in Spring 2019

At the beginning of the 2019 freshet season (the end of March), Ontario Power Generation’s strategy was to continue to pass the inflow coming to its facilities in order to maintain low reservoir levels, with the exception of Bark Lake, which is the most southern principal reservoir on the watershed. Early in the week of April 15, the weather forecast showed a large precipitation event of 40 to 70 millimetres approaching for the end of the week. At this time, outflow from Lake Timiskaming and other principal reservoirs in the upper Abitibi-Timiskaming area was being decreased, as was the outflow from Otto Holden and Des Joachims.

This strategy would place water in storage as the snowmelt and a heavy rain event could significantly increase flow on the lower Ottawa River. Bark Lake was filling and expected to rise as much as 50 centimetres per day. The discharge from Bark Lake was allowed to increase as the lake level rose in order to maintain some storage space for later events. By the middle to end of April there was flooding on the Madawaska River, particularly around Kamaniskeg Lake. This was due to very high unregulated flow to Kamaniskeg Lake from the York and other rivers, and increasingly limited storage at upstream Bark Lake. Also, on April 15, the high flows prompted a strategy change at Chats Falls to begin following the high flow curve. Under high flows, the restriction upstream of the station becomes an important hydraulic control and the guide curve provides information on the relationship between Chats Lake water levels and the Chats Falls Generating Station headwater elevation. By April 21, the weather forecast,

of 368

38

now with a shorter lead time, had decreased (20 to 30 millimetres) and inflow being passed at Otto Holden and Des Joachims was continuing a slow build rate.

4.1.4 The May 6 Flow Increase from Otto Holden Affecting Mattawa

At the end of April, another significant rainstorm was forecast to bring up to 60 millimetres of precipitation to the upper portion of the basin. The principal reservoirs in the upper basin at the end of April were continuing to fill, and more specifically Lake Timiskaming was filling rapidly. The strategy at the Des Joachims Generating Station switched to passing inflows so that the reservoir level would not continue to rise. By the beginning of May, the flow on the lower Ottawa was expected to slowly decline; however, inflows to the upper portions of the Ottawa River were continuing to increase. Model results and inflow forecasts for May 5 continued to project that inflows within Lake Timiskaming and Otto Holden would remain well below 3,000 cubic metres per second. It was not until the following day, May 6, that conditions changed significantly, and model results projected inflows to exceed the 3,000 cubic metres per second threshold. As Lake Timiskaming was continuing to rapidly approach its maximum operating level, with significant further increases in inflows now being forecast, a strategic decision to further increase discharge from Lake Timiskaming was made. Over the course of May 6, there were two significant flow increases from the Timiskaming reservoir, one having been completed in the morning and another performed in the afternoon. This was to account for projected increases to come. The travel time from Lake Timiskaming to Otto Holden is approximately three to four hours, therefore any flow changes from Lake Timiskaming arrives at Otto Holden within a very short timeframe.

In response to the increased discharge from the Timiskaming reservoir, Otto Holden staged flow increases accordingly throughout the day to ensure that all adjustments corresponded with the changes upstream. Otto Holden performed seven flow adjustments throughout the day as inflows climbed, with the subsequent releases upstream. This was intentionally completed during daylight hours. The flow increases from the Timiskaming reservoir and Otto Holden were significant enough to result in the Ottawa River elevation rising approximately 65 centimetres within the Town of Mattawa throughout the day. Over the following five days, flows and elevations continued to increase within the upper Ottawa River basins, as the inflows and discharges at Lake Timiskaming and Otto Holden rose accordingly until they finally peaked at 3,316 cubic metres per second on May 10 and 3,355 cubic metres per second on May 11. At all times throughout freshet, flow changes were performed strategically with regard for impacted areas and ultimately, with a mindset of providing as much flood mitigation as possible. As flows stabilized and declined towards the end of May, the strategy at all Ontario Power Generation reservoirs changed to begin increasing reservoir and forebay

of 368

39

water levels. This allowed the flow of water on the Ottawa River to decrease more quickly than would have occurred under natural conditions. The reservoirs and forebays continued to rise to their normal operating levels, with the Des Joachims reservoir reaching its normal summer operating range in mid-June.

4.1.5 Explanation of Conditions at Des Joachims and the Dry Section at Deux-Rivieres

When Des Joachims was originally constructed, in order to maximize the potential for electricity generation, the license granted in 1946 allowed for the elevation of the water upstream of Des Joachims to be artificially elevated to the natural high-water mark. This serves as the reservoir for the Des Joachims generating station and can be used to store water for power generation or other purposes, such as flood relief. This portion of the artificially elevated water levels can be seen from the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 17) in the vicinity of Deux-Rivieres. A review of media articles has identified the observation of the de-watered section of the reservoir in other years (including 2017), which again was a significant topic of discussion during sessions with municipal representatives.

A complicating factor for providing flood relief at the Des Joachims Generating Station is the hydraulic conditions upstream of the generating station. The Ottawa River has several reaches that are naturally shallow, narrow or have changes in gradient, which leads to the development of the rapids for which the river is famous. There is a flat shallow region between the upstream Otto Holden Generating Station and Des Joachims Generating Station. This area, around the old village of Klock several kilometres upstream of Des Joachims, is known as the Rocky Farm Rapids. This section of the river becomes an important control point under high flow conditions. The two analogies below may be useful to help the reader understand the situation:

Analogy 1 – Multi-lane Highway

Think of a multi-lane highway. If there were a two-lane highway that had no more than two lanes worth of traffic travelling across it, all cars could move uninhibited at the proper speed. During rush hours, more traffic would be trying to merge onto the highway than the two lanes could handle. As a result, traffic would be backed up. The more cars, the worse the traffic jam and the further up the highway it would extend. At Rocky Farm Rapids, not only is the river narrower but it is also shallower, which amplifies the traffic analogy, for not only is the traffic backed up in distance and extending further back, it is also as if there are multiple cars piled upon each vying to get through the traffic back-up.

of 368

40

Analogy 2 – Kitchen Funnel

Picture a funnel, as you would use in a kitchen. The rate the water is able to pass through the funnel is limited by the size of the narrow section of the funnel. If water is slowly poured in at a rate that the narrow section can pass, then water will not build up into the funnel. If it is poured in more quickly, the funnel will begin to fill. When the rate of flow exceeds that rate of flow at which can pass through the funnel, the water will begin to overflow as it backs up.

The rapids section at Klock has a similar impact on the Ottawa River. Where the analogies become imperfect is the fact that there is also a connection in the gradient or slope of the river. This is related to the elevation of the water downstream and the ability of the channel to pass water. During normal flow conditions, the Des Joachims reservoir can be maintained at a higher level for energy production, because the flow does not exceed the capacity of the channel and the rapids do not create an appreciable backwater effect. When the flow is high (and typically when the Des Joachims reservoir is low), the rapids become a hydraulic control and begin to cause a backwater effect creating a higher water elevation upstream at the Town of Mattawa. Even if the water level was raised at Des Joachims, it would have a muted influence at Mattawa and Otto Holden. As flow continues to increase, differences in water level between the two sites becomes larger, and the restriction at Klock becomes a more powerful control. High flow weakens but does not eliminate the influence of Des Joachims on the upstream water level.

Because of the geography of the Ottawa River, there are two distinct strategies that can be employed at Des Joachims to alleviate flooding. If the flooding is occurring mainly downstream of the station (for example due to heavy rain) and storage capacity is available, water can be retained in the reservoir to decrease the amount of water in the lower reaches of the Ottawa River. However, if the combined flow out of the Otto Holden Generating Station and the Mattawa River is greater than 2,000 cubic metres per second, the rapids at Klock can begin to create backwater flooding. This is when there is a lot of water coming from the upper portion of the Ottawa River. In these circumstances, the water level in Mattawa can be influenced but not fully controlled by the elevation at Des Joachims Generating Station. As flow increases, the reservoir at Des Joachims is maintained at a lower elevation to avoid backwater flooding. This can be achieved either by not refilling the reservoir after the winter drawdown or by releasing more water from the reservoir. A draw down must be timed to avoid releasing an amount of water that would generate or worsen flooding downstream. Typically, the Des Joachims reservoir will be refilled in two stages. The water level will be built up to a level that is known to not increase flooding in Mattawa. Once this risk subsides, the second stage begins and the reservoir is built up to its summer operating level.

of 368

41

In most years, including 2019, the Ottawa River tends to experience two flow peaks. The first is generated by snowmelt and rain in the lower portion of the watershed. The second occurs if/when the primary reservoirs in the upper portion of the watershed have filled and are forced to pass inflowing water downstream. In 2019, there was substantial snowmelt in the upper reservoirs leading to the second peak being larger than the first. Leading up to the first spring peak, water was slowly stored at Des Joachims Generating Station bringing the reservoir up to the first refill stage. As the second peak approached, driven by the upper reservoirs becoming full and having to pass their inflow, the elevation at Des Joachims Generating Station was held low with the goal of not subjecting the Town of Mattawa and other upstream communities to worse flooding than would have occurred under natural conditions. As upstream flow decreased toward the end of the event, Des Joachims Generating Station was filled, reducing the flow downstream.

A criticism during the 2019 flood event was that the reservoir was empty and could have been used to alleviate flooding at Pembroke. This would have made the overall impact from the event worse, as the Des Joachims reservoir has a finite storage capacity. If the Des Joachims reservoir had been at the top of its operating range, the water level in Mattawa would have been approximately half a metre higher. If the Des Joachims reservoir had been filled, the only option would have been to pass the flow coming into it, having no downstream benefit during a prolonged event. At peak flow, the Des Joachims reservoir would have filled from an empty state in less than half a day. A refill rate that could have had a meaningful impact on flooding in Pembroke could not have been sustained for the multi-week duration of the 2019 event. Therefore, using the storage capacity at Des Joachims Generating Station to alleviate downstream flooding would have had a large impact on Mattawa and provided negligible to no benefits at Pembroke.

4.2 Flooding in The North Bay-Mattawa Area

The North Bay-Mattawa area is one of the most densely populated districts in northern Ontario and is home to more than 83,000 people, with the major population centres of North Bay (51,553), Callander (3,900) and Mattawa (2,000). The region includes two distinct watersheds, the Sturgeon-Nipissing-French and the Upper Ottawa River.

4.2.1 Sturgeon-Nipissing-French Watershed

Lake Nipissing is a Provincially Significant Inland Fishery, which receives water from Lake Temagami in the north through the Sturgeon River and flows west to the Great Lakes Basin (Georgian Bay of Lake Huron) through the French River. The Lake Nipissing and French River system is part of a 19,000 square kilometre watershed. Lake Nipissing is the fourth largest inland lake in Ontario, covering over 850 square

of 368

42

kilometres. From it, the French River runs 105 kilometres to Georgian Bay. The headwaters of the Sturgeon River-Lake Nipissing-French River (SNF) watershed are the northern portions of the Sturgeon and Wanapitei Rivers, with the Sturgeon River watershed flowing directly into Lake Nipissing. The Wanapitei River joins the French River System in the last reach of the French River below Lake Nipissing. The SNF system is quite complicated, being comprised of several large lakes, numerous rivers and more than 40 control structures and power stations. Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) operates four dams that effectively control the outflow from Lake Nipissing.

There is no Water Management Plan (WMP) in place for the SNF watershed; however, there is a WMP for the South River subwatershed, which flows into Lake Nipissing. PSPC operates the dams that effectively control the outflow from Lake Nipissing at the French River. PSPC operates the dams according to guidelines that were published in 1992. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) supports integrated water management decisions on this watershed by holding daily or as needed calls during freshet with other dam operators, known as the “SNF Technical Committee.” The MNRF also coordinates daily or as needed calls with elected or emergency management representatives from local and Indigenous communities, known as the “SNF Stakeholder Committee,” to share information on water management decisions and foster a shared understanding of water-related impacts.

During freshet 2019, the Technical Committee, with consensus from the Stakeholder Committee, took the approach of incrementally increasing outflows from the French River dams in order to avoid exceeding the flood allowance on Lake Nipissing. Water was also stored in Lake Temagami’s flood allowance during a time when Lake Nipissing was vulnerable to exceeding its flood allowance. The whole watershed experienced significant flooding during freshet 2019.

4.2.2 Upper Ottawa River Watershed

The Upper Ottawa River watershed’s primary reservoir is Lake Temiskaming in the north. It also receives water flowing east from North Bay through the Mattawa River at Mattawa, which means “meeting of the waters” in Algonquin. The Ottawa River flows southeast to the St. Lawrence River, with many other uncontrolled inflows from Quebec and Ontario on the way down. The Mattawa River watershed typically flows into the Ottawa River at the Town of Mattawa. The lower Mattawa River portion of the watershed (below the Hurdman Dam) is hydraulically dominated by backwater effects from the Ottawa River. The Ottawa River drainage basin is 146,300 square kilometres, including regions of Ontario and Quebec. It is twice the size of New Brunswick. More

of 368

43

than 3,000 people live within the three municipalities and townships that border the lower Mattawa River, with 2,000 people living in the Town of Mattawa.

Water Management Plans are in place for many of the subwatersheds in the Upper Ottawa River, including Hurdman Dam, the Matabitchuan River and the Montreal River, with each flowing into the Upper Ottawa River. The Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board is responsible for water management on the Ottawa River (see more detail in Section 4.1).

4.2.3 Spring 2019 Flooding

An above average winter snowpack and slow start to the melt, with cool temperatures in the first three weeks of April, combined with substantial precipitation over the Easter weekend, resulted in substantial flooding throughout both watersheds. The April 15 snow pack readings within the region averaged 517% of the long-term average for that time of year, and water equivalence averaged 425% of the long-term average. April’s precipitation was 215% of normal and May was 150.8% of normal, according to the North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority (NBMCA). Northern watersheds outside of NBMCA’s jurisdiction, which flow into Lake Nipissing and the Ottawa River basin above Mattawa River, also experienced above average snow packs and high amounts of precipitation. Adding to the problem, the Sturgeon-Nipissing- French (SNF) watershed received between 50 to 75 millimetres more precipitation than normal in May 2019, with several large rain events causing spikes in inflows throughout the month.

On April 17, the NBMCA and MNRF North Bay District office each issued the first Flood Watch of the freshet event. The last bulletin issued by the MNRF North Bay District was issued on June 17 and expired June 21. The flood message status for all watersheds within NBMCA’s jurisdiction did not return to normal until on July 2.

The Municipality of Mattawa declared a State of Emergency on May 6, 2019. The Ottawa River rose 4.25 metres between April 17 and May 11, a significant portion of which occurred within 48 hours of the Emergency Declaration due to incoming runoff water from upstream reservoirs on the Ottawa River (see explanation in Section 4.1.4). Transport Canada issued a navigational warning for the Ottawa River near Mattawa that prohibited boat travel.

On May 9, the City of North Bay undertook precautions to protect the wastewater treatment plant by installing pumping equipment and temporary piping as part of a contingency plan. In addition, a lift station bypass plan was established to provide system relief where possible in order to limit flow to the wastewater treatment plant. While it was a worst case scenario, a failure at the wastewater treatment plant could have resulted in large volumes of untreated wastewater being released onto the shores

of 368

44

of Lake Nipissing, damage to plant operations that would have likely led to weeks if not months of reduced wastewater treatment capabilities, sewer backups in low-lying areas of the City of North Bay, and the possible evacuation of city residents.

Nipissing First Nation experienced very high water levels and was preparing to evacuate residents if the lake level exceeded 196.59 metres. In the Jocko Point and Beaucage areas, high water levels and high winds damaged many properties. Approximately 60,000 sandbags were deployed in this area.

The Municipality of Callander and Nipissing Township all experienced very high water levels in low-lying areas along the Lake Nipissing lakeshore, impacting local businesses, roads and infrastructure.

The Municipality of West Nipissing declared a State of Emergency on May 9 due to damaging winds and damage to municipal infrastructure. All boat launches were closed until June.

Residents along the Upper French River began to see an increase in water levels, as local inflows peaked and increased discharges were made from the Chaudière Dam (together with Portage, Little Chaudière and Okikendawt Dams) to mitigate lake level rise on Lake Nipissing. On May 26, a State of Emergency was declared in the Municipality of French River, which remained in effect past June 17.

4.3 Flooding in the Muskoka River Watershed

4.3.1 Physical Characteristics and Municipal Governance

The Muskoka River watershed is located in south-central Ontario’s lake and cottage country, within the southern Boreal Ecozone of the Precambrian Shield. The main population centres include Huntsville, Bracebridge and Gravenhurst. The drainage basin encompasses an area of approximately 5,100 square kilometres and extends in a southwesterly orientation for a distance of approximately 210 kilometres, descending 345 metres in elevation from the western slopes of Algonquin Provincial Park, to its mouth at Georgian Bay of Lake Huron. The watershed originates along the height of land known as the Algonquin Dome and is comprised of three drainage systems, including the North and South Branches of the Muskoka River and the Lower Muskoka subwatershed, and includes 200 lakes covering an area of approximately 78,000 hectares. The Muskoka River is comprised of 19 quaternary basins that form its subwatersheds. The three largest lakes in the watershed include Lake Rosseau, Lake Muskoka and Lake Joseph.

of 368

45

The Muskoka River watershed is a complex, cascading system. There are a series of notable constrictions or pinch points that impede the flow of water and cause water to back up, creating what is referred to as a backwater effect, as affected by the hydraulic conditions. (As described in an analogy in Section 4.1.5, think of it like a funnel, where discharging a large volume of water is limited by the narrowest and/or shallowest point in the river. Putting water into the funnel at a larger volume than can pass through the tip of the funnel causes it to rise up the funnel and overflow.) Lake Muskoka is the last major lake in the system before water enters the Moon and Musquash rivers that flow into Georgian Bay, which represents the outlet of the funnel. All water from both branches of the Muskoka River and Lakes Rosseau and Joseph flow into Lake Muskoka, and the only outflow for Lake Muskoka is through the two dams at Bala. The MNRF Bala dams control the water levels on Lake Muskoka; however, during periods of high flows and levels, a difference in water levels develops between Lake Muskoka and what is known locally as Bala Bay. This is caused by three constrictions at Bala Park Island and Wanilah Island that restrict flow into Bala Bay, affecting how much water can be discharged from the Bala dams. During periods of flooding, a significant difference in water surface elevation (≥1 metre) is observed between Bala Bay and Lake Muskoka, which further exacerbates efforts to move water through the dams at Bala.

Muskoka is governed by a two-tier municipal system with the District Municipality of Muskoka as the regional municipality forming the upper-tier, working with the six area municipalities including the Towns of Bracebridge, Huntsville and Gravenhurst, and the Townships of Lake of Bays, Georgian Bay and Muskoka Lakes making up the lower tier. The drainage basin also includes components of other municipalities including the Township of Algonquin Highlands and Haliburton County, among slivers of others. Of the approximate 150,000 people populating the watershed, approximately 58% are seasonal residents according to the 2011 Canadian census. The majority of the big three lakes—Muskoka, Joseph and Rosseau—are located within the Township of Muskoka Lakes. The Wahta Mohawk and Moose Deer Point First Nations are also located within Muskoka’s boundaries.

There is extensive development with high value infrastructure within the main Muskoka Lakes (Lake Muskoka, Lake Rosseau, Lake Joseph, etc.) spread over approximately 14,000 lake lots, including 5,300-5,500 boathouses, greater than 6,500 docks, and approximately 41 marinas and 131 resorts.

4.3.2 Water Management Structures and Operations

There are 42 water management structures within the Muskoka River drainage basin, including dams and/or dam-powerhouse combinations in addition to three navigation locks. The MNRF operates 29 of these structures, all of which are manually operated

of 368

46

using stop logs or valves. Most MNRF dams were originally constructed to facilitate the transport of logs to sawmills, divert water to power the mills, and aid in commercial navigation. Over the intervening years, the operations emphasis of the dams has transitioned from commerce and transportation to the provision of a balance of social/recreational, environmental and economic interests.

It must be emphasised that dams in central Ontario, including those in the Muskoka River watershed, are not flood control structures. Flood control structures require a large lake or reservoir and associated drawdown capacity to store or hold back flood waters. Analyses have confirmed that lakes in the Muskoka River watershed that are regulated by dams have a limited capacity to drawdown water to affect flooding, and during periods of large volume rapid runoff, the available drawdown capacity is insufficient to reduce peak flood water levels. In this sense, the greater the magnitude of the flood event, the less ability the MNRF has on affecting or mitigating flooding through operation of its dams. Once the dams are fully open, the MNRF does not have the ability to increase the rate of flow, as it is then based on the amount of water in the system and the natural rate of flow and elevation as it moves through the wide-open dam sluice ways.

To the extent possible, the MNRF operates dams to maintain water levels within the ranges identified in the established dam operating plan. For the Muskoka River, these ranges were formalized in the Muskoka River Water Management Plan in 2006. The range of operations is based on a range of factors, including recreational and environmental considerations. The plan applies to normal water conditions, while there is recognition that unusually high rainfall or snowmelt can result in high water and flooding. Water Management Plans can help regulate flows to ensure that one activity does not take primacy over another (e.g. waterpower generation over recreational use); however, they do not and cannot prevent flooding. The goal of water management planning, in the context of Section 23 of the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, is to contribute to the environmental, social and economic well being of the people of Ontario through the sustainable development of waterpower resources, and to manage these resources in an ecologically sustainable way for the benefit of present and future generations. The management of floods and flooding is not explicitly a goal of water management planning, and Water Management Plans are not designed to manage floods.

4.3.3 Land Use Planning and Flood-prone Development in the Muskoka River Watershed

Floodplain mapping for most of the area was originally completed in the late 1980s and early 1990s under the Canada-Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program (FDRP).

of 368

47

Areas mapped include the Big East River in Huntsville and the Muskoka River, including the major lakes in the Muskoka River Watershed. This exercise identified that a considerable number of cottages and associated docks and boathouses were located within the floodplain of rivers and lakes. In the intervening time since these studies were undertaken, development in the area, particularly related to recreational properties, has increased dramatically.

Recommendations included in FDRP mapping reports from the late 1980s and early 1990s include vertical water levels and horizontal setback criteria to give potential developers a choice in floodproofing criteria: either 1) build dwellings above a minimum vertical water level described in a table; or 2) build dwellings beyond a horizontal setback, also described in a table within the report. Further, this included recommendations that no encroachment be allowed where the depth of flooding during the regulatory event would exceed 1.0 metres, and no encroachment be allowed within 20 metres of either riverbank. More explicitly, the FDRP program, which focused on the identification of high flood risk designated areas in the province, included strong policies to encourage the authority, where the zoning authority is neither provincial or federal, to impose land use restrictions that will prohibit all further projects in a designated area that are vulnerable to flood damage. Furthermore, assistance under any federal or provincial disaster assistance program shall not extend to costs or losses incurred as a result of a flood with respect to any project commenced or any moveable property placed within an area after its designation or interim designation as a flood risk area.

The District Municipality of Muskoka is in the process of updating its floodplain mapping using matched funding from the Federal National Disaster Mitigation Program. It must be emphasised that such mapping only adds value when used to inform development, with the intention of keeping people and property out of the floodplain. The available information suggests that land use planning and development approvals have not been proceeding in this fashion, particularly within the Township of Muskoka Lakes, which has seen significant numbers of boathouses constructed every year. For instance, between 2013 and 2016, the Township of Muskoka Lakes issued building permits for 267 new boathouses with a total value of construction of $46,263,584. As boathouses are situated atop the water, at or near the high-water mark, boathouses are always within the floodplain (or floodway) and add to the impacts during a high-water event.

There is significant concern that the construction of new boathouses within Muskoka Lakes are being approved without regard for the potential damage from flood and ice heaving. Designs presented to Council include first floor plans with utility rooms, games rooms, elevators and washrooms, which are much more than a basic boathouse, and there appears to be no direction or regard for incorporating floodproofing measures into the construction plans. As these structures continue to be built in harm’s way, flooding

of 368

48

and ice damage will only increase as will costs associated with the inevitable damage from these natural phenomena. It is unreasonable to expect that water levels can be controlled within a finite range and be kept below the damage level of docks and boathouses, or other structures, when dealing with a large river system with limited means to mitigate the magnitude and extent of flooding. With a changing climate, damages to these boathouses and other infrastructure in the floodplain as a result of flooding and ice movement will continue to occur, and most likely at increased frequency. It is not a question of if these lakes and river systems will flood again, it is only a question of when.

4.3.4 Spring 2019 Watershed Conditions, Flood Mechanisms and Water Management Activities

The Muskoka River Watershed has experienced flooding on numerous occasions in the past, including in 1976, 1980, 1985, 1998, 2008, 2013 and most recently, in 2019. Throughout the winter, MNRF staff monitor snowpack across the Muskoka River watershed to determine snow depths and snow water equivalents at which time they also evaluate soil conditions. During winter/spring 2018/2019, as in other years, the MNRF monitored the snowpack beginning in December and over the winter. In anticipation of the snowmelt and spring rainfall, the MNRF commenced the drawdown of lakes within the watershed in late fall 2018 and continued through the winter to help mitigate runoff. At this time, the MNRF took an aggressive approach, targeting the lower limit of the operating zone for the lakes.

Over the winter, the MNRF continued to monitor weather conditions. To help mitigate the anticipated spring runoff, the MNRF continued to draw down water levels at the dams. There were several rain events that caused water levels to rise over the winter period and the MNRF took measures to continue the drawdown. Lake Muskoka was drawn down to one of its lowest levels in preparation for the rain, snowmelt and warmer weather expected through April. Complaints from the public about low water levels were received in late March 2019.

By mid-March, the amount of water contained within a snowpack in the Muskoka River watershed was on average 171 millimetres, which is above average for this time of year but not as high as in some prior years. It is important to highlight that above average snow water equivalent does not mean flooding will occur and is one of many factors that water managers must consider when making decisions related to water management. By the beginning of April, the snow water equivalent in the snowpack had increased to 192 millimetres, representing 208% of average, with an average snowpack depth of 66 centimetres and depths exceeding 80 centimetres in the upper headwaters of the watershed within Algonquin Provincial Park. The snow survey conducted on April 15

of 368

49

showed that the snowpack depth had been reduced by approximately one-third (to 43 centimetres) with an average snow water equivalent of 134 millimetres, representing 148.5% of the historic average.

The Muskoka Airport weather station received 129.5 millimetres of precipitation in the month of April, exceeding the monthly average by 164%. Temperatures in April were lower than the long-term average for the month, affected by values considerably lower than average for a little over the first half of the month. Notable increases in maximum temperature on April 7 (12.2 degrees Celsius) and April 12 (14.5 degrees Celsius) accompanied by overnight temperatures above 0 degrees Celsius were important in increasing runoff and sustaining snowmelt and runoff generation. Water levels on Lake Muskoka began to rise on April 7 with the warmer weather and melting snow, as runoff entered the river system. (Once inflows to the lakes are more than the maximum capacity of the dams, with all logs out, water levels will rise.)

From April 10 through April 23, daily average temperatures exceeding 5 degrees Celsius and maximum temperatures ranging from 8.3 to 17.2 degrees Celsius, combined with overnight temperatures above 0 degrees Celsius, were important in sustaining runoff increases, particularly when combined with the 114 millimetres of rainfall that was recorded in the latter half of the month. The existing snowpack and associated snow water equivalents present at the middle of the month, combined with the significant rain on snow, moved considerable water volumes to rivers and lakes draining these areas. On April 17, Parry Sound District MNRF issued a Flood Watch that was upgraded to a Flood Warning on April 19, given the significant rainfall (60 to 70 millimetres), temperature increases and snowmelt that had occurred in the intervening period. Between April 7 and April 28, water levels on Lake Muskoka rose by 1.59 metres, eventually peaking on May 3. Flows in the north and south branches of the Muskoka River peaked on April 26 and April 29, experiencing the highest flows on record.

Actions taken to operate the dams in spring 2019 were consistent with the Muskoka River Water Management Plan, including specific triggers to further draw down water levels when snow water content is high. Specifically, March 15 and April 1 are the key dates identified in the plan.

4.4 Flooding in the Magnetawan River Watershed

The Magnetawan River watershed is situated immediately north of the Muskoka River watershed and also experienced significant flooding in spring 2019. While measured snowpack and snow water equivalent values in the Magnetawan basin were lower than in the Muskoka watershed, they remained considerably higher than average at 260% of normal (for snow water equivalent) in the upper portion of the watershed at the

of 368

50

beginning of April. While the Magnetawan River is less developed than the Muskoka River watershed, defined areas of the Township of Armour, the Township of Ryerson, and the Village of Burks Falls were significantly affected by flooding in the spring of 2019. The small village of Katrine, one of the areas hardest hit in the Township of Armour, is built on a floodplain at the mouth of Doe Lake, where approximately 50 homes were flooded.

4.5 Flooding in the County of Haliburton

The County of Haliburton includes the headwaters of the Trent Severn Waterway (TSW) system, which controls water flows and levels for more than 18,000 square kilometres of the Trent Severn Watersheds. The Trent River basin encompasses 218 lakes in the Haliburton Highlands region, 37 of which are directly controlled by TSW dams. There are some 600 named lakes in Haliburton County with significant waterfront property ownership, including a notable number of water-access only properties.

Watersheds represented in Haliburton County include—the Black River watershed that flows south and west to the Muskokas; the Burnt River watershed; the Gull River watershed (which encompasses the Burnt River system); and the Nogies Creek, Eels and Jack Lake watershed.

As experienced in other regions of Ontario, Haliburton County has been experiencing significant flooding, most notably in 2013, 2016, 2017 and 2019. Declarations of Emergency were declared in 2013, 2017 and 2019, with near misses in 2016 and 2018.

4.6 Flooding along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River

4.6.1 Flooding Conditions in 2019

Following an extended period of below average water levels from 1999 to about 2013, all Great Lake water levels were well above their average in 2019. Lake Superior, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario all exceeded record highs in May, while Lake Huron rose to within one centimetre of the previous record in July.

Significant precipitation and snowmelt around the Lake Ontario basin, combined with record inflows from Lake Erie, set a new record for total water inflows, or supply, to Lake Ontario for the month of May, exceeding the previous record set in 2017. Total inflows in May 2019 were the second highest inflows of any month of the year dating back to 1900. Total inflows to Lake Ontario in June were the second highest on record. From January to June 2019, the six-month combined total inflows were the wettest January to June period on record due to a combination of record inflows from Lake Erie and wet conditions on and around Lake Ontario itself. Downstream of the lake, flows

of 368

51

from the Ottawa River emptying into the lower St. Lawrence River also set a new record high during the spring freshet 2019. The flows in May 2019 exceeded the previous monthly record in 1974 by more than 1,000 cubic metres per second.

As described by the International Joint Commission’s (IJC) International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence Board, Lake Ontario was caught between a flooding Lake Erie upstream and a flooded lower St. Lawrence River downstream. Upstream, Lake Erie water levels were exceeding historic record highs by the beginning of May. Downstream, several months of wet weather followed by heavy rains and snowmelt over late April and early May caused record Ottawa River flows, resulting in severe flooding along the Ottawa and lower St. Lawrence River. This combination of record high inflows from Lake Erie and above average precipitation across the Lake Ontario and Ottawa River basins was the main driver of Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence record high water levels in 2019. Lake Ontario water levels ultimately reached 75.92 metres in early June, exceeding the record daily peak of 75.88 metres reached previously in late May 2017.

Water levels of Lake Ontario change in response to the difference between the supply (total inflow) it receives and its outflow. While outflows are controlled by the Moses-Saunders Dam, inflows are uncontrolled. While the IJC’s Plan 2014, brought into effect in 2017, regulates flows through the Moses-Saunders Dam (outflows), inflows are uncontrolled. While increasing outflows through the Moses-Saunders dam can help reduce water levels in Lake Ontario, the amount of control this structure has over water levels in Lake Ontario is very limited, as there are physical limits to the amount of water that can be released. Larger releases, while they may reduce flooding in Lake Ontario, can have drastic impacts downstream. Increasing outflows enough to reduce flood levels in Lake Ontario by one centimetre in a week will result in increasing flood levels below the dam in Montreal by 10 centimetres.

Throughout April and May 2019, the IJC’s International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence Board continued to regulate Lake Ontario outflows by the maximum flow limits prescribed by Plan 2014. In June, as Ottawa River flows began to moderate below their record highs, the Board rapidly increased outflows from the Moses-Saunders Dam to provide relief from shoreline flooding on Lake Ontario. Outflows were ultimately increased to the maximum sustained flow on record, as the Board was now undertaking major deviations from the plan to provide relief from shoreline flooding on Lake Ontario. These outflows reached 10,400 cubic metres per second, equivalent to the record high outflows released for several weeks in the summer of 2017. These major deviations of flow are significant departures from the outflows prescribed in Plan 2014; however, the IJC was doing so in response to extremely high Lake Ontario levels and in accordance with IJC policies. In Ontario, flooding occurred around Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River, especially during periods of active weather.

of 368

52

From media reports, Prince Edward County, the Bay of Quinte, Toronto Island, Municipality of Clarington, Brighton, and the Thousand Islands shoreline area in the upper river, among other areas, experienced flooding.

4.6.2 Comparison to Flooding Conditions in 2017

The causes of record high Lake Ontario water levels in 2017 and regulation of outflows under Plan 2014 were studied and reported on by the Board (see the IJC report titled: “Observed Conditions and Regulated Outflows in 2017,” May 25, 2018, https://ijc.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/ILOSLRB_FloodReport2017.pdf). The Board attributed the extreme high levels mainly to record precipitation received across the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River basin, noting that wet weather was also experienced upstream in the Lake Erie watershed. Lake Ontario water levels rose rapidly, setting record highs by the end of May. In response, in all but three weeks of the year, outflows from the lake were determined by either the maximum flow limits set by Plan 2014 or by deviations from Plan 2014. The Board concluded that Plan 2014 did not cause the high levels in 2017 or contribute to them in any significant way.

Flooding in 2017, among other impacts, were reported on by the IJC’s Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Committee as part of their ongoing evaluation of the IJC’s regulation of lake outflows in the Great Lakes (see the IJC report titled: “Summary of 2017 Great Lakes Basin Conditions and Water Level Impacts to Support Ongoing Regulation Plan Evaluation,” November 13, 2018, https://ijc.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/GLAM_2017_MainReport_FINAL-20181129_2.pdf). The Committee evaluated the impacts on multiple interests, including flooding, from a variety of sources. They noted, however, that much of the quantitative economic and environmental data was not available at the time of reporting.

Impacts to coastal properties in 2017 were reported as widespread, with reports of flooded homes, roads, driveways, trails, lawns, emergency response, and extensive sandbagging efforts to protect houses and properties. In Ontario, flooding of residential property and buildings along the Lake Ontario shoreline was observed with particularly hard-hit areas including portions of Toronto Island, Clarington, Brighton, and Prince Edward County. On the upper St. Lawrence River, shoreline flooding was observed particularly in the Thousand Islands area. From the IJC’s report, Figure 5-25 highlights the percent of shoreline survey respondents that indicated flooding impacts. In Ontario, along the lake shoreline, a local State of Emergency was declared for a portion of the Municipality of Clarington shoreline as well as all of Prince Edward County. The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte also declared an emergency for their territory in response to high water levels.

of 368

https://ijc.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/ILOSLRB_FloodReport2017.pdf

https://ijc.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/GLAM_2017_MainReport_FINAL-20181129_2.pdf


53

4.7 Flooding along Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair Shorelines

Since March 2019, water levels in Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair have remained above locally determined Flood Watch thresholds, with monthly mean lake levels in Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair reaching all time highs in July 2019. Lake Erie is approximately 84 centimetres above long-term monthly average lake levels (or 13 centimetres above previous highs in 1986 and 35 centimetres higher than July 2018). Lake St. Clair is approximately 86 centimetres above long-term monthly average lake levels. This is 10 centimetres above previous 1986 highs and 35 centimetres higher than July 2018.

These record levels have resulted in the Windsor Essex region being under an Extended Flood Watch for more than six months. Similarly, the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority has issued 50 flood bulletins (Watershed Conditions Statements/Flood Watches/Flood Warnings) warning shoreline residents of potential flood events so far this year (2019).

Portions of Essex Region, in the Southeast Leamington area between Hillman Marsh and Point Pelee, lie behind earthen dikes built in the late 1800s that have been “spot-repaired” sporadically over time as emergencies required. Approximately 400 homes and 2,100 hectares of farmland are, in some instances, 3 to 3.35 metres below Lake Erie water levels.

While lake levels are currently undergoing seasonal decline, they remain above previous 1986 record levels, meaning these declines have not resulted in any reduction in the level of flood/erosion risk in the region. Making matters worse, fall rain events, wind and winter ice is expected to result in further flooding and erosion.

4.7.1 2019 Flooding

Flooding and erosion along the Lake Erie shoreline resulting from high water levels has had, and in most cases continues to have, significant impacts on residents, businesses and infrastructure.

Three sections of roads have been closed along Lake Erie in Chatham-Kent (total length of road closed is 9.6 kilometres). Similarly, LaSalle and Kingsville have closed sections of road due to high water levels.

High water levels have closed marinas in Windsor and Lakeshore, closed waterfront trails in Windsor, and closed sections of the Holiday Beach Conservation Area and Tremblay Beach Conservation Area.

Residents along the Lake Erie Shoreline between Point Pelee National Park and the Town of Wheatley experienced 10 flood events between March 2019 and August 2019.

of 368

54

This area was developed on a naturally eroding clay shoreline. Therefore, even without the existing development, they would continue to erode. Under the current condition (high lake level), wave action is causing erosion at the shore. Under low lake levels, the erosion is happening on the clay bottom as the waves attack the surf zone.

Shoreline protection structures (sheet pile walls and armour stone breakwalls/revetments) have been used in some areas to try and slow down erosion rates in front of the shoreline protection. However, these structures do not stop erosion of the lake bottom in front of the structures, which results in a deeper and deeper nearshore lake bottom slope. This has allowed larger waves and waves with greater energy to impact the shoreline. In the end, the shoreline protection constructed to reduce the hazard is progressively making it worse. As a result, the flood hazards are getting worse with each passing storm.

Numerous homes and properties have suffered and continue to suffer from flooding with limited access into and out of the community. Some of these areas are not municipally serviced and are sitting in water, which results in failing septic systems, mould and related health and safety and structural concerns, in addition to the physical and mental health effects associated with these conditions.

Current high water conditions have caused significant damage across the shoreline. High waters have also prevented many repairs leaving existing development exposed to both erosion and flood hazards.

With high water levels, lake waves have created a 100+ metre breach in Hillman Marsh Barrier Beach, posing significant risk to inland dikes, which are now exposed to direct wave attack. The inland dikes are now holding back high water levels and over an extended period of time, which they were not constructed to withstand. Inland communities protected by the flood protection dike are also at risk of flooding under this condition.

The Marentette breakwater breached and exposed the interior dikes to open lake wave conditions, which this system was not designed to withstand. Some nominal repairs have proceeded through the provisions of the Drainage Act, but these repairs are essentially a temporary fix.

Large blocks of peat continue to be eroded out of the marsh areas in Leamington and Rondeau Bay, with the most recent evidence of this occurring in late summer 2019.

Due to sediment balance issues—a result of shoreline hardening—the barrier beach that forms the southwestern barrier within Rondeau Bay has now been removed for approximately 100 metres. This allows Lake Erie waves to enter Rondeau Bay, putting

of 368

55

the low-lying community of Shrewsbury and 470 homes at risk. Continuing and long-term future flooding is anticipated based on present conditions and climate change forecasts.

A State of Emergency was declared along Erie Shore Drive on August 27, 2019, due to significant flooding caused by high winds (peaked at 35 kilometres per hour) and rain. There are 123 homes at risk along Erie Shore Drive, with 35% being permanent residents. The event resulted in significant damage to 12 homes, the roadway, supporting slope, drain and three breakwalls.

A voluntary evacuation took place in a localized area of Erie Shore Drive, comprising 50 homes. Electricity and natural gas services were shut off where there was a safety risk. The water pressure in the water main (under Erie Shore Drive) that provides drinking water to the community of Erieau was reduced due to fears of failure. In the short time period during and around the event, the municipality shored up the roadway and drainage works.

4.7.2 Erosion

While the flood issues are significant, they cannot be isolated from erosion on the Great Lakes. Many of the areas with the highest flood risks also feature a significant long-term erosion rate. This includes Marentette to Wheatley and Erie Shore Drive and many high bluff areas. In keeping with the 1990s Technical Guide, new development has been allowed to be located as close as possible to shoreline hazards, once the landward limit of the erosion hazard is applied. However, due to climate change, the risk profile is changing. Reductions in lake ice have already and will continue to expose the shorelines to higher amounts of wave energy/erosion. Landowners who thought they were 100 years away from erosion hazards might now only be 50 years away, and significant lengths of municipal infrastructure (roads and utilities) are at risk of failure.

Shoreline erosion on Pelee Island is particularly concerning because it has washed out sections of roadway that provide ingress/egress for residents. Bluff failures have occurred in 2019 related to the erosive effects of the high waters. These failures have impacted existing development with at least one home within 1.5 metres from the precipice. These types of failures are expected soon even as water recedes in the region, as the erosive effects have already occurred at the toe of these bluffs.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent has closed a significant portion of Talbot Trail (West) (length of road closed is 3.8 kilometres). The road was closed due to erosion on the south side of the road (rotational failure). The solution will require a high level of investment estimated at $640 million up front and $12 million per year in maintenance costs.

of 368

56

4.7.3 Recent Severe Rain Events

Risks of flooding in southwestern Ontario are not only a result of high lake levels.

In September 2016, Windsor, Tecumseh and Lakeshore were impacted by a severe and isolated rain event that tracked from the northwest, dumping over 200 millimetres of rainfall in six hours, causing flooding in thousands of urban area basements.

In August 2017, a similar system tracked out of the southwest that formed two distinct storms dumped 146 millimetres of rainfall in less than three hours, which followed a 100-millimetre rainfall earlier. The storm total of 246 millimetres in less than six hours surpasses all accepted design standards. This event exceeded $300 million in insurable losses.

Because both Essex Region and Lower Thames Valley are low lying, high lake/river levels mean that water from stormwater and drainage systems has no place to go.

For example, 30,000 residents living in parts of the Town of Lakeshore, the Town of Tecumseh and the City of Windsor are fully urbanised centres that exist within Lake St. Clair’s historic flood extent. Pumping systems that provide for drainage are now regularly overcome by rainfalls that exceed acceptable design standards. These areas have protection systems to prevent lake flooding (either berms or pumping schemes); however, record lake level elevations are challenging the existing protection systems. Any measurable rainfall, such as those events that happened in 2016 and 2017, will cause significant flooding, especially in the urban centres.

4.8 Other Notable Recent Flooding Events

While flooding in spring 2019 resulted in significant damages to many parts of Ontario, several other recent flood events were also brought to my attention during the review. I’ve noted some of these other recent flood events in this section for the purpose of demonstrating that the flooding that occurred in 2019 does not appear to be an isolated event. Again, this section is not meant to provide an exhaustive account of notable flooding events in Ontario’s recent history— an account of that nature was outside the scope of my assignment. However, I felt it important to include some of these events to help demonstrate that flooding is a common occurrence in Ontario and something that can occur at any time of the year.

4.8.1 Recent Flood Events in the City of Toronto

Over 2.7 million people live in the City of Toronto with nearly six million people living in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). While 2019 was not a significant year for flooding in

of 368

57

Toronto when compared to other areas, significant events and associated impacts have occurred there in the past and are worth noting as part of this report.

With drainage areas ranging from 38 square kilometres for the Carruthers Creek to 900 square kilometres for the Humber River, watersheds within the City of Toronto tend to be relatively small. These small drainage areas, with short stream lengths and highly urbanized (impervious) surfaces, leave little lead time between rainfall and flood impacts. Year-round flood threats include ice jams in the winter, snowmelt in spring, unpredictable thunderstorms in the summer, and hurricane remnants in the fall.

While land use planning has effectively reduced risk in greenfield areas, many neighbourhoods were historically settled near rivers prior to floodplain management. Examples include old downtowns in Brampton, Bolton, Unionville and Stouffville. There are 41 Flood Vulnerable Clusters (areas where there is a high concentration of buildings in the floodplain) within the jurisdictional area managed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) alone.

The most severe flooding on record in Ontario occurred in October 1954, when Hurricane Hazel passed over the Toronto area. Eighty-one lives were lost and damages were estimated at $25 million (in 1954 dollars). TRCA’s recent Flood Risk Assessment study estimates that if Hurricane Hazel were to occur today, it could result in almost $3 billion in property damages, business disruption and population displacement. While Hurricane Hazel-type storms remain a possibility that must be prepared for, recent events have shown that significant damages and disruption can also occur from significantly smaller events.

On July 8, 2013, a severe thunderstorm dropped more than 120 millimetres of rain over parts of the GTA during the afternoon rush hour, causing roughly $1 billion in insurable losses and stranding thousands of commuters, including over 1,400 passengers who needed to be rescued from a GO train marooned in floodwaters from the nearby Don River.

In the spring of 2017, water levels in Lake Ontario reached levels higher than ever recorded. The impact was significant on Toronto Islands, home to over 800 residents, almost 30 businesses and two schools. The islands’ parks experienced significant shoreline erosion, damage and debris accumulation. Direct and indirect damages to the City of Toronto due to the closing of Toronto Island Park were estimated to be $8 million for the 2017 event. In 2019, water levels rose even higher than in 2017, though preventative measures helped to keep the islands open. In 2019, the newly reached record levels were maintained for nearly four weeks. A full accounting of damages from the 2019 levels is still underway.

of 368

58

On August 8, 2018, a highly localized “ninja” storm dumped over 100 millimetres of rain in less than two hours. This storm was not forecast and was so localized that its track evaded detection by TRCA’s real-time precipitation gauges. Flows in Black Creek in the Rockcliffe neighbourhood, a highly flood vulnerable area, rose over two metres in 75 minutes, spilling into nearby properties and stranding two men in an elevator when they attempted to retrieve their vehicles from underground parking. They were rescued by first responders just in time.

On March 15, 2019, as late winter rainfall and snowmelt raised flows in rivers, an ice jam developed in the Town of Caledon, spilling into the Bolton Core neighbourhood. As floodwaters rose through the evening, over 80 homes were evacuated, of which 30 experienced direct flood impacts. The jammed ice had to be manually removed using excavators.

4.8.2 Recent Flood Events in the Grand River Watershed

The Grand River lies at the heart of one of the fastest growing regions in Ontario; however, the watershed faces challenges brought on by intensive population growth, extensive agriculture and climate change. Warmer air and water temperatures, bigger rainstorms and dramatic changes in weather patterns pose new challenges in managing floods, improving water quality and securing water supplies for municipalities, farmers, industry and the natural environment.

Flooding in the Grand River watershed has many causes including:

• Rapid snowmelt over a short period of time;

• Combined rainfall and snowmelt;

• Localized ice jam flooding;

• Moderate rainfall on saturated or frozen ground;

• Extreme localized rain (severe cellular storms, convective thunderstorms or lake breeze events);

• Severe widespread rain (tropical storm remnants or large low pressure systems); and

• Lake Erie surge (shoreline).

While there is seasonality associated with certain types of flooding in the watershed, the risk of riverine flooding remains relatively consistent throughout the year. Compounding challenges associated with riverine flooding, Lake Erie presents additional challenges through lake surge flooding, shoreline erosion and the influence of lake breezes (wind blowing from the water to the shore).

of 368

59

Large floods tend to happen on a cyclical basis in the watershed and trends show they occur in clusters. Data indicates there were clusters of large floods in the late 1940s, mid-1970s, early 2000s, late 2000s, and more recently 2017 and 2018.

In June of 2017, an unforecasted rainfall event caused significant flooding in the communities of Grand Valley, Drayton, West Montrose, Conestogo Cambridge-Preston and Glen Morris. More than 125 millimetres of rain fell across the northern portion of the watershed in the span of a few hours, resulting in the highest flows seen in the Grand River through Cambridge since the May 1974 benchmark flood event. Reports (unconfirmed) of several million dollars in damage resulted from this event.

The highest single-day rainfall event ever recorded in the Grand River watershed occurred in February 2018 and resulted in near floods of record that were further complicated by major ice jams in multiple communities. More than 5,000 residents in Brantford were evacuated due to overtopping of the dike system due to ice jams in that community. Dams owned and managed by the Grand River Conservation Authority helped reduce flows in the order of 40 to 50% downstream of the major reservoirs; however, significant transportation disruptions (road/bridge closures) still occurred due to ice impact. Municipal flood damages in Cambridge and Brantford associated with this event were reported to be in excess of $5 million. Damage incurred by individual property owners and businesses is unknown.

Snowmelt and ice jams in February 2019 resulted in the second highest community ice jam (West Montrose) identified in records dating back to 1967. This event was only exceeded by an event in February 1981.

of 368

60

Chapter 5

Ontario’s Approach to Managing Flood Risk

Ontario’s current approach to managing risks associated with flooding is based on the five core components of emergency management: 1) Prevention; 2) Mitigation; 3) Preparedness; 4) Response; and 5) Recovery. Management is achieved through the use of a series of provincial acts, regulations, policies and technical guides that are implemented through partnerships with a number of provincial ministries, municipalities, First Nations and conservation authorities.

The objectives with this approach are to save lives and money, protect property, public health and the environment, maintain economic stability, help assure the continuance of critical infrastructure, and reduce social disruption associated with emergencies.

5.1 The Five Core Components of Emergency Management

5.1.1 Prevention

Prevention includes actions taken to prevent flood-related emergencies or disasters from occurring, and includes land use planning and regulatory restrictions to keep development out of the floodplains and other hazardous areas. While we cannot prevent flooding from occurring, keeping people and property out of flood-prone areas helps ensure naturally occurring flood events do not result in local emergencies.

As an overall principle for flood management, the MNRF prioritizes the use of non-structural and land use planning measures as its preferred approach to manage flood risks. This includes the identification of hazardous areas, including floodplains. Municipalities can then plan to prohibit/limit activities, including development, in these areas. The main legislative tools used to support this approach include the Planning Act together with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Conservation Authorities Act.

5.1.2 Mitigation

Mitigation includes actions taken to reduce the effects of flooding, and includes the use of structural measures and floodproofing standards to protect development. Structural measures can include dams, dikes, channels, diversions and other flood control works. Floodproofing standards can include a combination of measures incorporated into the basic design and/or construction of buildings, structures or properties to reduce or eliminate flooding hazards, wave uprush and other water-related hazards, such as constructing the lowest occupancy floor of dwellings, water shut off and electrical control panel above the design flood level, and having water resistant electrical systems.

of 368

61

5.1.3 Preparedness

Preparedness includes the use of flood forecasting and warning to assess the potential for flooding, predict when and where flooding will occur, and help ensure an effective response (e.g. any required evacuations or mitigative activities).

The Province conducts flood forecasting and warning via the MNRF’s Surface Water Monitoring Centre, which monitors weather, rainfall and stream flows, and provides advisories and a suite of products and tools (e.g. weather panels, snow survey reports) to conservation authorities (CAs), municipalities and MNRF district offices on flood potential. The monitoring of flood conditions occurs seven days a week, and the Province is able to contact CAs and other stakeholders immediately with updates.

Local scale flood forecasting and warning is provided by MNRF district offices and conservation authorities. Many of the CAs conduct more detailed flood forecasting and warning for their respective jurisdictions.

5.1.4 Response

Response includes actions taken to respond to flood emergency, such as the use of emergency services (e.g. providing sandbags, community evacuations, etc.) to protect people and property during flood events. Response can also include training for emergency response staff and meeting with stakeholders/partners to ensure an effective response. It also includes providing logistical support and social and health services.

The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA) establishes Ontario’s legal basis and framework for managing emergencies (see Section 5.2.4). It does this by defining the authority, responsibilities and safeguards accorded to provincial ministries, municipalities and specific individual appointments, such as the Commissioner of Emergency Management.

5.1.5 Recovery

Recovery includes actions taken to recover from a flood emergency, such as the use of disaster financial assistance to restore property to pre-flood conditions.

Provincially, financial assistance is delivered through two programs—the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians (DRAO) program for homeowners, tenants, small owner-operator businesses and farms, and not-for-profit organizations; and the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance (MDRA) program for municipalities. These programs provide funds for eligible expenses following a natural disaster to help Ontarians and municipalities recover from extraordinary costs. The DRAO program

of 368

62

covers 90% of eligible costs (subject to a $500 deductible and a cap of $250,000). Since the program launched in 2016, it has been activated for 28 events in 68 municipalities, with $11 million in assistance paid. The MDRA program is based on a sliding-scale cost-sharing formula. Since the program launched in 2016, it has been activated for 16 municipalities, with assistance payments of $4 million.

Municipalities can access the MDRA program when eligible disaster-related costs reach 3% of the municipality’s Own Purpose Taxation levy. Due to the eligibility threshold based on municipal financial capacity, the program is accessed most frequently by small municipalities with a correspondingly small tax base.

The federal government provides funding to provinces and territories for disaster response and recovery costs under its Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) program. Under this program, the federal government shares costs with provinces and territories based on a sliding-scale per capita formula. Ontario, as the largest province, has the highest threshold for federal funding and consequently is eligible for the DFAA much less frequently than most other provinces. Based on the current formula (which is adjusted for inflation each year), Ontario could access federal funding under DFAA only in the event of a disaster costing the province in excess of $46.2 million.

Ontario has only qualified for DFAA three times in the relatively recent past—for the 1998 ice storm, the 2004 Peterborough flood and the 2013 ice storm. As a result, disaster financial assistance costs associated with recovery are funded almost entirely by provincial coffers, although the overall financial burden for disasters is borne to a great extent by municipalities and property owners as well.

5.2 Acts, Regulations, Policies and Technical Guides

Ontario’s preventative approach of directing development away from floodplains and other hazardous areas is highly effective in preventing property damage. Property damage associated with the same storm event are often exponentially lower in Ontario than they are in Great Lakes states, with the differences in losses primarily attributed to differences in floodplain management policies and approaches.

Provincial policies have been shown to reduce capital and operating costs associated with managing flooding and other natural hazards, reducing pressure on provincial and municipal infrastructure debts. The existing policies have been estimated to reduce costs associated with ongoing flood and natural hazard management, including costs associated with the operation and maintenance of flood and erosion control infrastructure by 20 to 80% depending on differences in urban density and property values.

of 368

63

These policies have been credited with keeping losses associated with flooding in Ontario lower than losses seen in other Canadian provinces. Responsibility for keeping development out of floodplains is a shared responsibility between municipalities (enforced through municipal planning) and conservation authorities (enforced through regulations made under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act).

These policies will be increasingly valuable in protecting Ontarians from flooding and other natural hazards. Losses associated with flooding and other natural hazards continue to increase because of increasing property values and income levels, urbanization, ongoing loss of wetlands and other green infrastructure, and the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events. As these losses rise, so does the value of Ontario’s floodplain and broader hazard management policies.

5.2.1 The Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement

The Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are the primary provincial tools used to guide local land use planning decisions made by municipalities in Ontario. The PPS is the primary provincial land use policy document guiding municipal decision-making. The Planning Act requires that decisions on land use planning matters be “consistent with” the PPS, and the PPS policies provide the foundation for regulating development.

Municipalities are the primary implementers of the PPS through incorporation of policies into their local official plans, zoning by-laws and other planning-related decisions.

The PPS is administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), and provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development, sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land, and supports the provincial goal of enhancing the quality of life of all Ontarians. The focus of the PPS is on guiding municipal decision making regarding new development and redevelopment.

While this Act and Policy is led by MMAH, the MNRF has the lead in developing the natural hazard policies, including policy direction related to flooding/flood hazards, in Section 3.0 of the PPS. The MNRF works with partners and experts in the development of these policies, which are reviewed every 10 years. These policies require municipalities to identify areas subject to natural hazards in order to consider public safety when planning for new development. To support implementation of policies in the PPS, subject area specific guidance is developed by ministries having the lead for those specific policies in collaboration with other applicable ministries. A series of natural hazard technical guides have been developed by the MNRF to support

of 368

64

implementation of Section 3.0 of the PPS, and are further outlined in Section 5.2.6 below.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing conducted consultations from July 22 to October 21, 2019, on proposed changes to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) to help increase the supply of housing, support jobs and reduce barriers and costs in the land use planning system (see the Ontario Government website at https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-0279 and titled: “Provincial Policy Statement Review – Proposed Policies”). Specifically related to flooding, the proposed policies would enhance direction to prepare for impacts of a changing climate; enhance stormwater management policies to protect water and support climate resiliency; and maintain current policies related to natural and human-made hazards, which directs development away from hazardous areas including flood-prone areas in order to protect public health and safety. Given the direct correlation between the policies in Section 3.0 of the PPS and the Special Advisor on Flooding review, a placeholder was put on these policies in the draft PPS being consulted, until the government has an opportunity to consider the recommendations made in relation to potential policy changes.

5.2.2 The Conservation Authorities Act

The purpose of the Conservation Authorities Act is to provide for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario through the establishment of conservation authorities (CAs) organized on a watershed scale. A CA is a municipal public sector organization whose governing structure of members (similar to a Board of Directors) are appointed representatives from the municipalities that established or may have joined the CA and who mostly fund the CA. Many members, for reasons of fiscal accountability, are elected municipal officials. A CA provides programs and services in local resource management within its jurisdiction to both the Province and municipalities.

In 1956, in response to severe economic and human losses associated with Hurricane Hazel (1954), amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act empowered CAs to make regulations to prohibit filling in floodplains. These regulations were broadened in 1960 to prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill in defined areas where, in the opinion of the CA, the control of flooding, pollution or the conservation of land may be affected. In 1968, amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act further extended the regulations to prohibit or control construction and alteration to waterways. In 1983, the Minister of Natural Resources delegated to CAs the commenting responsibilities for floodplain management matters. CAs would have the authority to review planning

of 368

https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-0279

65

documents and provide comments to federal, provincial ministries and agencies, municipalities and private landowners, including developers.

In 1988, the Minister delegated commenting responsibilities to CAs for matters related to flooding, erosion and dynamic beaches along the shoreline of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River System.

In 1995, the Minister confirmed CAs as lead commenting agencies for riverine erosion, slope and soil instability matters, such as areas of high water tables, organic or peat soils, and Leda or sensitive (unstable) marine clay soils.

The regulatory scope of CAs was broadened again in 1998, giving them the authority to regulate development activities adjacent to Great Lakes shorelines, interconnecting channels and inland lakes, and the authority to regulate activities that may interfere with the hydrologic function of wetlands.

With the advent of the provincial One Window Planning Service, an agreement was developed in 2001 with the MNRF, MMAH and Conservation Ontario to define the roles and relationships between CAs, the MNRF and MMAH in planning for implementation of CA delegated responsibilities under this system. The Agreement focuses on MNRF delegated responsibilities to CAs for the PPS Section 3.1 – Natural Hazard Policies. The CA delegated role does not extend to other portions of the PPS unless specifically delegated in writing by the Province. CAs, as public bodies under the Planning Act, can comment on official plans or development applications on other portions of the PPS but not with the same authority as the delegated commenting role.

Each of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities currently administer an individual conservation authority “Development and Interference” regulation approved by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, conforming to the requirements prescribed under Ontario Regulation 97/04 – Content of Conservation Authority Regulations Under Section 28 (1) of the Act: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. A key provincial responsibility that CAs have within their jurisdiction is the regulatory authority under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act—the regulating of development and activities through the permitting process in hazard-prone areas set out in regulation for purposes of public safety and natural hazard management. These regulations are a critical component of Ontario’s broader natural hazard management framework and are designed to achieve the following policy objectives:

• Preventing loss of life, minimizing property damage and social disruption;

of 368

66

• Reducing public and private expenditure for emergency operation, evacuation, restoration and protection measures;

• Regulating development which, singularly or collectively, impact upon existing flood levels, and increasing potential risks to upstream and downstream landowners;

• Control interference with natural storage areas such as wetlands;

• Conserving land through the control of development on existing or potentially unstable valley slopes or shoreline bluffs; and

• Controlling development impacts as they relate to pollution (including erosion & sedimentation) or other degradation of existing and water resources, including groundwater.

Section (4) of the regulation requires that CAs geographically describe the hazardous lands and areas susceptible to flooding based on the design flood event that is applicable (i.e. Hurricane Hazel, the Timmins event, the 100 year, etc.), and details of rain intensity, duration and impacted area are included in an appendix. This geographical description of the regulatory limits can include reference to maps filed at the head office and the regulations specific to each CA identifies that, where there is a conflict in the description of areas identified in maps, the text description of the regulated areas prevails. Floodplain and other hazard mapping and related studies provide a support for implementing the conservation authority regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act and for the conservation authority commenting role on official plan review activities delegated under the Planning Act.

Conservation authority activities are funded through a combination of shared provincial and municipal funding, municipal levy and self-financing. Floodplain mapping and technical studies for delineation of hazard areas for municipal planning (not the authority regulations) are among the items eligible for the cost-shared provincial and municipal funding.

The MNRF continues as lead administrative ministry having overall government responsibility for natural hazard management policies/programs.

The MNRF has proposed changes to regulations administered by CAs and the public was consulted between April 5 and May 21, 2019. The following excerpts are from the Ontario Government’s website titled: “Focusing conservation authority development permits on the protection of people and property” (refer to https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4992).

of 368


67

The MNRF is proposing a regulation that outlines how conservation authorities permit development and other activities for impacts to the control of natural hazards and public safety. The proposed regulation will make rules for development in hazardous areas more consistent to support faster, more predictable and less costly approvals.

Prohibited activities set out in the un-proclaimed provisions of Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act as amended by Schedule 4 of the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 include:

• Development in areas related to natural hazards such as floodplains, shorelines, wetlands and hazardous lands (i.e. lands that could be unsafe for development because of naturally occurring processes associated with flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or unstable soil or bedrock); and

• Interference with or alterations to a watercourse or wetland.

The Ministry is proposing to create a regulation further defining the ability of a conservation authority to regulate prohibited development and other activities for impacts to natural hazards, including flooding and to public safety.

The Ministry is proposing to consolidate and harmonize the existing 36 individual conservation authority-approved regulations into one Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry approved regulation to help ensure consistency in requirements across all conservation authorities while still allowing for local flexibility based on differences in risks posed by flooding and other natural hazards.

Of note, the Ministry is also proposing under this regulation to:

• Allow conservation authorities to exempt low-risk development activities from requiring a permit provided in accordance with conservation authority policies;

• Require conservation authorities to develop, consult on, make publicly available and periodically review internal policies that guide permitting decisions; and

• Require conservation authorities to notify the public of changes to mapped regulated areas such as floodplains or wetland boundaries.

Ensuring conservation authority permitting decisions focus and deliver on their core mandate of protecting people and property from flooding and other natural hazards is part of the government’s Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan to help communities and families prepare and respond to climate change. The proposed changes will also provide the business sector with a clear and consistent

of 368

68

regulatory environment in which to operate and will help to make approval processes faster, more predictable and less costly.

As more extreme weather events occur that threaten homes, businesses and infrastructure, it’s important to ensure conservation authorities deliver on their core mandate for protecting people and property from flooding and other natural hazards. Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of these regulations is a critical component of this government’s strategy for strengthening Ontario’s resiliency to extreme weather events.

The MNRF believe this regulation is a critical component of Ontario’s approach to reducing risks posed by flooding and other natural hazards and strengthening Ontario’s resiliency to extreme weather events.

At the same time as the MNRF public review period for proposed changes to regulations, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks consulted with the public on proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act, which, if passed, would help conservation authorities focus and deliver on their core mandate, and improve governance. More information can be found on the Ontario Government’s website titled: “Modernizing conservation authority operations - Conservation Authorities Act” (refer to https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-5018).

One of the stated areas of focus for conservation authorities will be providing programs and services related to managing risks posed by natural hazards, including flooding. The specific programs and services to be provided by conservation authorities related to flooding and other natural hazards are set to be outlined in regulation.

5.2.3 Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and Water Management Planning

The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) provides the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry with the legislative authority to govern the design, construction, operation, maintenance and safety of dams in Ontario. The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and Ontario Regulation 454/96 require dam owners to obtain approval from the MNRF for the construction of new dams, certain repairs and alterations to existing dams, and certain water crossings and channelization works.

The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act Administrative Guide and supporting technical bulletins and best management practices have been prepared to provide direction to MNRF staff responsible for application review and approval, and guidance to applicants who are seeking approval under the LRIA.

of 368


69

Normal operating ranges for dams authorized under the LRIA are described in Water Management Plans or site-specific operating plans for dams located outside the geographical boundary of a water management plan.

The LRIA was amended in 2002 to create a regulatory framework for existing dam operations. The amendments established the statutory authority for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to order an owner of an existing dam to prepare or amend a management plan for the operation and maintenance of the dam, consistent with Minister approved guidelines.

To implement this legislative amendment, the Water Management Planning Guidelines for Waterpower 2002 (WMPG) were approved by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. The goal of water management planning was to contribute to the environmental, social and economic well-being of the people of Ontario through the sustainable development of waterpower resources, by managing these resources in an ecologically sustainable way. The WMPGs established a planning process for defining goals, objectives, scope and criteria for the preparation of Water Management Plans (WMP). WMPs are owned by the primary waterpower producer and must be prepared with the input of stakeholders along the river to which it is situated.

Existing waterpower facilities on rivers in provincial jurisdiction were ordered to prepare plans for the management of flows and levels at their generating stations. In some instances, owners of non-power producing water control structures within the same river were required to participate in water management planning for rivers in which their dams were situated, if their dams were integral to the regulation of flows and levels.

“Complex” WMPs were generally prepared for rivers with multiple waterpower facilities or control structures with significant control over water levels and flows. Complex plans typically had more than one plan proponent (dam owner or waterpower facility owner) and/or significant competing interests.

“Simplified” WMPs were prepared for sections of rivers where there were one or more waterpower facilities or water control structures that generally had limited control of water levels and flows.

WMPs describe the normal range of operating conditions, defined in terms of seasonal flows and levels for each dam within a WMP. The provisions of a WMP do not apply in the event of a declared flood, low water condition or emergency situation.

In 2016, the Ministry approved the Maintaining Water Management Plans Technical Bulletin, which replaces the 2002 Water Management Planning Guidelines and its appendices.

of 368

70

5.2.4 The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act

The overall legal framework for emergency management in Ontario is addressed primarily in the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, which, along with powers contained in other ministry-specific legislation, allows the government to take necessary steps to deal with a provincial emergency or any emergency in the province. The purpose of the legislation is to promote the public good by protecting the health, safety and welfare of the people of Ontario in times of emergencies.

Ontario Regulation 380/04 establishes the minimum standards for emergency management programs required by municipalities and provincial ministries and supports the requirement in the Act for mandatory emergency management programs.

The Act and Regulation require provincial ministries to develop an emergency management program consisting of:

• An emergency plan;

• Training programs and exercises for public servants;

• Public education on risks to public safety and on public preparedness for emergencies;

• Any other element required by the standards for emergency management programs;

• Identify and assess the various hazards and risks to public safety that would result in an emergency, and identify the facilities and infrastructure that are at risk of being affected by emergencies; and

• Develop a continuity of operations plan.

The Act and Regulation require municipal programs to address two core components of emergency management—preparedness and response:

• Appoint an Emergency Management Program Committee;

• Develop an Emergency Response Plan for types of emergencies assigned pursuant to Order-in-Council 1157/2009, conduct a Hazard Identification Risk Assessment, and identify critical infrastructure;

• Identify an Emergency Operations Centre;

• Appoint an information officer and conduct public education;

• Conduct training for the Community Emergency Management Coordinator (CEMC), Alternate CEMC, and Emergency Control Group;

of 368

71

• Conduct an exercise for the Emergency Control Group to test Emergency Operations Centre protocols, procedures and response plans; and

• Undertake an annual review of the Emergency Management program.

5.2.5 The Environmental Assessment Act

The environmental assessment (EA) process is established to ensure that governments and public bodies consider potential environmental effects before an infrastructure project begins. Consideration of impacts in and around hazardous lands is primarily through the Provincial Policy Statement and permissions issued under the Conservation Authorities Act.

In this context, the Provincial Policy Statement is a planning tool which applies only to “new development” proposals that require approval under the Planning Act, and from an infrastructure lens, applies only to infrastructure that forms the foundation for development. Permits issued under the Conservation Authorities Act apply to both new development and alteration to existing development, as well as the placement of fill, in defined areas of regulatory control.

Flood mitigation activities that fall outside the scope of these two legislative authorities may be subject to the Environment Assessment Act, either as an individual EA or a streamlined EA through the Conservation Authority Class EA for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects or the Class EA for Municipal Infrastructure Projects. Class Environmental Assessments set out a standardized planning process for classes or groups of activities. It applies to projects that are carried out routinely and have predictable environmental effects that can be readily managed. An evaluation of activities under the EA process provides an opportunity for the MNRF to review proposed infrastructure activities, such as flood protection works, including the creation or maintenance of a berm or dike. Various infrastructure works proposed through this process may also be subject to additional approval requirements, such as under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) or the Public Lands Act (PLA) or subject to Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks permissions, such as Environmental Compliance Approvals for any discharges to the air, land or water under the Environmental Protection Act, or a Permit to Take Water under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

5.2.6 Natural Hazard Technical Guides

To support municipal implementation of the natural hazard policies of Section 3.1 of the PPS, a series of natural hazard technical guides were developed and approved by the MNRF. These documents also assist in the municipal land use planning approval

of 368

72

process and in explaining, or if necessary, defending technical methodologies when challenged.

The Province strongly discourages deviations from technical guidance; however, because technical guidance is not in regulation, the MNRF cannot ensure municipal compliance with provincial policy and can only point to technical guidance for direction on the appropriate use of policies, methods and protocols.

The natural hazards technical guides are represented by the following documents:

I. Understanding Natural Hazards (2001), which provides the planning concepts to address natural hazards.

II. Technical Guide – River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit (2002), which documents standardized approaches to manage flood susceptible lands across the province. It outlines the three flood event standards used in Ontario and outlines hydrologic and hydraulic work needed to conduct floodplain analysis and delineate flood-prone areas.

III. Procedures for Approval of New Special Policy Areas (SPAs) and Modifications to Existing SPAs Under the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS, 2005), Policy 3.1.3 – Natural Hazards – Special Policy Areas. The procedural document that supersedes and replaces the information in Part B of Appendix 5 of the Technical Guide – River & Streams: Flooding Hazard Limit (2002).

IV. Technical Guide – River & Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit (2002) which has the purpose of providing a consistent and standardized procedure for the identification and management of riverine erosion hazards in Ontario.

V. Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Shorelines: Flooding, Erosion and Dynamic Beaches (2001), which focuses on documenting standardized approaches to shoreline management and land use planning and management to address shoreline flooding, erosion and dynamic beaches, with a focus on the need to better understand the system, particularly its formation, evolution and potential impacts.

VI. Technical Guide for Large Inland Lakes Shorelines: Flooding, Erosion and Dynamic Beaches (1996), which addresses effective shoreline management and land use management approach for addressing shoreline natural hazards.

VII. Hazardous Sites – Technical Guide (1996), which provides technical support in identifying areas of unstable soils, including sensitive marine clays and organic soils as well as unstable bedrock, including karst bedrock.

of 368

73

5.3 Organizational Roles and Responsibilities

In Canada, flood management is the responsibility of the provinces and territories, and is often delegated to municipalities through legislation. Therefore, most flood management activities including mapping, planning, preparation, response and recovery are executed at the local rather than provincial, territorial or federal levels. The management of flooding hazards, including the prevention and mitigation of impacts, is a coordinated approach by the province, municipalities and conservation authorities. The federal government can become involved if federal disaster assistance is triggered. Management is achieved through a series of provincial acts, regulations, policies, and technical guides (see Section 5.2), which together enable local decision making to protect people and property from the impacts of flooding. These individual tools are managed by various agencies in the province based on expertise, creating a network of policies which together implement the flood management program.

5.3.1 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Since 1975 and re-affirmed by Order-in-Council 1157/2009 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, the MNRF is the provincial lead for seven hazards, including floods.

While the MNRF plays a major role in flood response and response support, the MNRF’s current approach focuses on prevention—keeping people out of harm’s way and minimizing loss of human life, injury, damage to property and the environment, and mitigation of economic and social disruption through a range of legislative, policy and technical mechanisms. As part of this approach, regulatory and land use restrictions are developed by the MNRF and put in place by municipalities through the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) land use planning policies, with their implementation supported by a series of technical guidelines produced by the MNRF. Also, under the Planning Act, conservation authorities have a delegated responsibility through the MNRF to provide plan input on matters of provincial interest relating to Section 3.1 of the PPS focusing on the Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment stages as well as site plan applications, on a site-by-site basis. In combination, these actions work to prevent new or intensified development in areas prone to flooding and other natural hazards, and regulate activities that can create or increase hazards (e.g. alterations to watercourses and wetlands). The MNRF does not have its own piece of legislation to implement the hazard program and uses a series of tools to enable flood management. These program tools include:

• The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement (see Section 5.2.1 above);

• The Conservation Authorities Act (see Section 5.2.2 above);

of 368

74

• Natural Hazard Technical Guides (see Section 5.2.6 above);

• Mapping and Geomatics Services (see Section 5.3.1.1 below); and

• Flood Forecasting and Warning Services (see Section 5.3.1.2 below).

5.3.1.1 Mapping and Geomatics Services

Geospatial data is critical to flood mapping as it serves as authoritative data for the entire flood mapping process. The two main types of geospatial datasets used in flood mapping are: 1) Imagery, for two-dimensional feature positions (e.g. roads, rivers and buildings); and 2) Elevation, for three dimensional heights (e.g. height of riverbank, height of road).

The Mapping and Geomatics Services Section (MGSS) of the Mapping and Information Resources Branch in the MNRF is responsible for capturing, creating and maintaining Ontario’s foundation geospatial data/base data for government, academia and the general public.

The MGSS acquires, maintains and distributes authoritative, open, provincial-scale geospatial data by coordinating provincial acquisition projects (imagery, elevation, LiDAR, bathymetry, roads, water, wetlands, etc.); developing mapping guidelines and standards; providing leadership and guidance in the management of geospatial data; establishing data sharing agreements and funding partnerships between local, provincial and national agencies; and making data discoverable and accessible as Open Data.

Besides its responsibilities for provincial-scale mapping and MNRF geomatics, the MGSS also coordinates the Land Information Ontario program (LIO) on behalf of all Ontario ministries. LIO improves geospatial service delivery for Ontario Public Service (OPS) ministries and partners by:

• Coordinating governance for collective decision making and leadership;

• Engaging with geospatial communities to identify needs;

• Delivering services and products that meet common needs and realize collective benefits; and

• Sharing geospatial knowledge to establish and review best practices.

LIO’s core principles include the value of collaboration for geospatial data and services and the principle of “do once, use many times.” A good example of this is the LIO Imagery Program, which acquires high-resolution imagery for the provincial government

of 368

75

and numerous partners across the private, public and academic sectors. The success of the LIO Imagery Program is defined by:

• Leveraging internal and external partnerships across multiple sectors;

• Meeting multiple business needs;

• Achieving financial cost sharing; and

• Establishing a predictable, 5-year imagery acquisition cycle.

5.3.1.2 Flood Forecasting and Warning Services

Flood forecasting and warning services are delivered by the MNRF through its Surface Water Monitoring Centre (SWMC) in cooperation with conservation authorities where they have been established and local MNRF district offices, which provide local level expertise and information through flood warning and watch messages to municipal responders.

The ability to provide this service rests with information provided through the hydrometric network, a federal/provincial partnership, and its 600 gauges across the province, more heavily concentrated in those watersheds of greatest population and therefore greatest risk of harm.

The agreement requires a monetary investment by the Province, most recently in the amount of $4.6M for 2019/20. It is expected that the cost of the agreement will increase at an annual inflationary rate of 2% per year. The agreement ensures that the gauges are monitored and maintained to provide the “eyes on the ground” toward flood forecasting.

While there are a number of recommendations in Section 6.3 to improve preparedness, the SWMC advises that it is committed to and continues to learn from each event, and has undertaken numerous steps toward continuous improvement. These actions include:

• Implemented a new Kisters WISKI data environment and developed multiple new products for scripting custom products to improve operations.

• Developed a new early warning system for static (calm) water levels on the Great Lakes and consolidated working relationships with federal government for Great Lakes Briefing products.

• Developed new tools for communicating Ottawa River Secretariat forecasts to conservation authorities and district offices of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

of 368

76

• Initiated updates to provincial flood forecasting and warning guidelines (scheduled for completion in 2020).

• Sponsored transfer payment funding to multiple conservation authorities for new flood communication tools on the Ottawa River, GAWSER snowmelt modelling routine in WISKI, and HEC-HMS model development. The Province can evaluate and use these products now that they have been developed.

• Sponsored multiple knowledge transfer and training sessions for internal and external clients—After Action reviews, modelling and technology transfer, flood forecasting and warning community workshops, annual internal training, and collaboration with hydrometric network partners.

• Restructured business practices with Water Surveys Canada to improve field responses to gauge maintenance and field measurements for record events.

• Implementing a new communications plan, including webpage refreshes and web usage statistics.

5.3.1.3 Remote Sensing Science Group

The hub of remote sensing expertise in the provincial government is housed within the MNRF’s Provincial Services Division (PSD), Science and Research Branch (SRB), Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) Unit. The Remote Sensing Science Group is primarily focused on Provincial Land Cover and Disturbance mapping and, as provincial data custodians, they support a wide range of users and applications. They also possess the skills and experience necessary to support Emergency Management Near Real Time image processing, interpretation, automation and publishing. Operationally, to support provincial emergency management flooding efforts, the Remote Sensing Science Group works closely with the Surface Water Monitoring Centre and Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) Canada Centre for Remote Sensing and Emergency Geomatics Services Offices.

Two remote sensing products are primarily used by the group—the Canadian Space Agency’s RADARSAT-2 and NASA’s MODIS. These products provide more spatial information on water, ice and watershed conditions, information between stream gauges, information in remote areas, quantify conditions that cannot be determined from stream gauges, and are used to assess risk, inform flood messaging and emergency operations. They add to the body of knowledge available about flood, ice and more, and supplement human efforts on the ground (i.e. reconnaissance flights, snow surveys, ice observations). In short, these products help to make better, more informed decisions about a flood.

of 368

77

RADARSAT imagery allows for the accurate mapping of ice conditions through inclement weather and night time hours (as opposed to major limitations with optical imagery and local reconnaissance flights). With frequent revisit times, RADARSAT images can be acquired several times per week for each river, which improves the ability for the early detection of ice jamming.

RADARSAT is also used to provide near real time flood maps and information (extent, severity and progression); greatly improves situational awareness during flood events; facilitates better decision making and flood forecasting; creates documentation and increases knowledge that supports future flood management; and supports the development of accurate floodplain maps.

MODIS Optical Imagery is used to monitor river ice breakup in Ontario’s far north coastal rivers. Acquisition, interpretation and communication used to be an entirely manual process; however, in-house tool enhancements from 2016 to 2019 have resulted in an entirely automated process.

The Canadian Space Agency is replacing the RADARSAT-2 satellite with three small identical satellites under the RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM), which were launched on June 12, 2019. The RCM will capture images of the earth’s water, land, ice and atmosphere during the day and night and in all types of weather, including heavy cloud cover, smoke and haze, which is a huge improvement in optical products. The new RADARSAT Constellation will provide near real time data for all of Ontario and provide more information to support the assessment of flood risk, effective flood messaging and emergency operations.

5.3.2 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), in their role as lead agency for the administration of the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), plays a critical role in supporting the MNRF through inclusion of hazard policies in the PPS for new development and redevelopment, as previously discussed in Section 5.2.1 above.

MMAH also delivers the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians (DRAO) program (for private property owners) and at the municipal level, the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance (MDRA) program for eligible expenses following a natural disaster (see Section 5.1.5 above).

In addition to these programs, and in response to flooding in the spring of 2019, MMAH created a $1 million pilot project designed to help municipalities repair flood damaged roads, bridges and other infrastructure to a higher standard, meaning they can better withstand extreme weather. As part of a $1 million pilot project, the Province will

of 368

78

provide municipalities that qualify for MDRA funding with up to 15% above the estimated cost of rebuilding damaged public infrastructure to make it more resilient to extreme weather. Examples include raising roads to provide better protection from overland flow of water, improving the columns or footings of bridges, or increasing the size of ditches and catch basins to increase their capacity to hold water. Communities that were affected by spring flooding that occurred after March 1, 2019, are eligible for the enhanced funding under the pilot.

5.3.3 Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks

The Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), with priority on protection of public safety and the environment, is the provincial lead for a number of water-related initiatives including:

• Protecting the Great Lakes;

• Protecting waterways and inland waters;

• Ensuring sustainable water use and water security for future generations;

• Providing provincial oversight of municipal and private wastewater and stormwater; and

• Enhancing data, information and knowledge sharing.

MECP also has overall responsibility for the Conservation Authorities Act and non-natural hazard related programs and services developed and delivered by CAs.

Ontario’s 2018 Environment Plan outlines the government’s intention to undertake a comprehensive, multi-sectoral assessment of climate change-related impacts, including vulnerabilities, risks and opportunities, to help provide a detailed understanding of how and where climate change will affect Ontario’s economy, infrastructure, communities, public health and safety and ecosystems, and what the likely challenges and opportunities associated with those impacts would be. The draft plan commits to working with industry, such as real estate and insurance, to raise awareness among homeowners about the increasing risk of flooding as more frequent extreme weather events are being experienced. This initiative is also being led by MECP.

MECP develops municipal guidance documents to support stormwater management planning and design, which assists municipalities in developing stormwater servicing master plans as well as planning for infrastructure that provide protection of public safety and the environment.

of 368

79

5.3.4 Ministry of Infrastructure

The Ministry of Infrastructure’s connection to flood management and prevention is:

• MOI is responsible for making recommendations on priorities for infrastructure and effective coordination of infrastructure across provincial ministries within the government.

• MOI works with partner ministries and Infrastructure Ontario to design, implement and administer public infrastructure programs.

• MOI manages the Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure Regulation, O. Reg. 588/17, which guides asset management and provides tools and support for municipalities in Ontario to meet their current and future infrastructure needs (see https://www.ontario.ca/page/municipal-asset-management-planning).

• MOI leads the design and implementation of federal-provincial infrastructure programs, working with partner ministries and the federal government.

Resilient infrastructure that helps communities cope with the intensifying effects of climate change and floods has become a key area for targeted investment for MOI in recent years.

MOI administers the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) which, since 2014, has provided application- and predictable formula-based funding to help build and repair core infrastructure (e.g. road, bridge, water, wastewater infrastructure) in more than 420 small, rural and northern communities. The Province is currently reviewing the design of the OCIF to ensure that it continues to support municipalities to improve and implement asset management plans.

The Green stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) consists of up to $7.12 billion in combined federal ($2.85 billion), provincial ($2.3 billion), and other partner ($1.92 billion) funding for projects that improve outcomes under one of the three federal sub-streams—Climate Change Mitigation, Environmental Quality, and Disaster Mitigation.

MOI launched the first intake of the Green stream on October 25, 2019 (see https://news.ontario.ca/moi/en/2019/10/ontario-investing-in-green-infrastructure-to-help-smaller-communities.html). The focus of this first intake is to address critical health and safety issues in small municipalities and First Nations communities with populations under 100,000 for water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.

of 368

https://www.ontario.ca/page/municipal-asset-management-planning

https://www.ontario.ca/page/municipal-asset-management-planning

https://news.ontario.ca/moi/en/2019/10/ontario-investing-in-green-infrastructure-to-help-smaller-communities.html

https://news.ontario.ca/moi/en/2019/10/ontario-investing-in-green-infrastructure-to-help-smaller-communities.html

80

MOI will be working with other government departments, including the MNRF, to design additional intakes of the Green stream that could support innovative natural infrastructure and green technology solutions to address current and future challenges in environmental quality, climate change and disaster mitigation.

5.3.5 Office of the Fire Marshall and Emergency Management (Ministry of the Solicitor General)

The Office of the Fire Marshall and Emergency Management, Emergency Management Branch—better known as Emergency Management Ontario (EMO)—is the overall provincial emergency management organization and is responsible for monitoring, coordinating and assisting in the development and implementation of effective emergency management programs throughout Ontario, and for the coordination of these programs with the federal government. In fulfilling this special coordination role, EMO coordinates the provincial emergency response through the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre, when required; provides advice and assistance to communities and ministries in all areas of emergency management; and maintains two provincial level emergency response plans—the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Response Plan and the Provincial Emergency Response Plan (PERP).

The PERP is the plan that is used to coordinate overall provincial emergency response and outlines how EMO and the ministries respond to widespread or large-scale emergencies.

Key initiatives of EMO related to flooding include hosting an annual flood and forest fire symposium, publishing and holding workshops on Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment; conducting a review of national and international best practices to evolve the program; updating the Provincial Emergency Response Plan; and updating the Incident Management System.

For flood events, the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC) outreaches to Community Emergency Management Coordinators potentially impacted by flooding to determine anticipated resource requests; develops GIS mapping and incident information products for situational awareness; deploys field officers to provide advice to municipalities and liaise between the PEOC and on-site responders; and develops and circulates flood resource materials (lists of flood-related resources and materials and a Flood Recovery Guide).

5.3.6 Municipalities

In the MNRF technical guides, municipalities are delegated the responsibility under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act of identifying areas subject to natural

of 368

81

hazards and to develop management plans (i.e. flood contingency plans) to limit exposure to public health and safety risks. This includes identifying floodplains in municipal plans and incorporating policies to address new development consistent with the PPS policy. It is up to the municipality to determine how best to achieve this requirement and the use of floodplain mapping is one tool available to demonstrate hazard areas. Municipalities can choose to involve their conservation authority in preparing floodplain mapping on the municipality’s behalf, but are not required to do so.

Any updated or new mapping is generally funded on an as-needed priority basis by municipalities, or through proponent driven development applications. Neither the MNRF nor the Province provides funding for new or updated flood hazard mapping, nor approves new or updated mapping; however, the Province has provided small transfer payments for pilot projects related to mapping technologies in the last few years.

Maps are retained at the municipality and are used for specific land use planning purposes. It is up to the municipality to update their maps when required, which usually is development driven, including updates or amendments to official plans. The MNRF does not track or monitor the development of mapping locally and cannot report on its status or progress.

Municipalities are responsible for municipal stormwater management (e.g. planning, standards, design, establishment, operation and maintenance). Municipal stormwater management deals with the component of the urban surface runoff that is or would be collected by means of separate municipal storm sewers and, in some areas, by combined sewers.

Municipal stormwater management can include green infrastructure that captures (partially or fully) where snow melts or rain falls, reducing stormwater runoff that enters municipal storm sewers.

Municipalities also have an important role for managing surface runoff in rural areas. They, along with landowners, have responsibility for municipal drains that drain and convey surface runoff under the Drainage Act. Tile drains, which are important to agricultural productivity, collect and convey surface runoff to natural waterways directly or indirectly via municipal drains. Surface runoff from municipal roads are also conveyed and release to natural waterways. The cumulative drainage of the vast rural areas and rapid conveyance contributes to downstream urban (fluvial) flooding risk.

In emergencies, municipalities undertake first response activities and are responsible for recovery efforts in their jurisdiction.

of 368

82

5.3.7 Conservation Authorities

Conservation authorities are public sector bodies established by municipalities through the Conservation Authorities Act (see Section 5.2.2. above) that deliver programs and services, and regulate development and activities set out in regulations within their jurisdiction through a permitting process if the development may impact the control of natural hazards, including riverine and shoreline flooding, or if activities interfere with a watercourse or wetland. Conservation authorities also have a delegated role from the MNRF in reviewing municipal planning documents and applications under the Planning Act for consistency with the natural hazard policies in the PPS, including how the development may impact the control of natural hazards. These responsibilities include policy interpretation and the transfer of data, information and science to municipalities. The delineation of hazard areas through mapping and supporting hydrologic/hydraulic studies provides important information and science to support these delegated responsibilities. Regulatory mapping may be updated by a conservation authority from time to time, sometimes when municipalities update their official plans and their floodplain mapping or, as a requirement of a permit application, a proponent may be required to update authority regulatory mapping.

Where they have been established, conservation authorities are delegated with the responsibility for flood forecasting and warning. Where no CA exists, the local MNRF district is responsible. Supporting both CAs and MNRF districts is the MNRF’s Surface Water Monitoring Centre, whose main function is to monitor water flows and levels, assess conditions across the province, and provide communications and ongoing knowledge of the provincial flood potential. The scope and complexity of a flood forecasting and warning program for a particular jurisdiction is contingent on a variety of considerations, including the level of risk within flood-prone areas. Some conservation authorities may operate and maintain an additional network of streamflow, snowpack, rain gauges and climate stations throughout their geographical jurisdictions that can also serve as data inputs to their hydrologic models to address the specific needs within their jurisdiction.

5.3.8 The Federal Government

Water management and flood hazard management more specifically are not referenced in the Canadian Constitution Act. Provincial water management authority is derived from the authority to legislate over property and civil rights, over matters of local and private nature, over local works and over natural resources. Some federal departments such as Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) also have a role in flooding and other natural hazards. NRCan monitors natural hazards (including flooding and landslides) and provides information about hazards events, as well as information to help

of 368

83

Canadians understand and prepare for natural hazards, and to reduce the losses from hazards events. NRCan develops and distributes geospatial data, topographic and geoscience maps, images and scientific publications associated with flooding and landslides. (See also the discussion on remote sensing in Section 5.3.1.3.)

Public Safety Canada administers the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) program, which reimburses provincial and territorial governments for eligible disaster response and recovery costs.

With flooding being the single largest draw on DFAA, NRCan initiated the Federal Flood Mapping Guidelines Series (in partnership with Public Safety Canada) to provide critical support to areas in Canada that didn’t necessarily have robust guidance related to floodplain mapping. While well intentioned, this initiative has added to confusion in Ontario, with practitioners not necessarily understanding that Ontario’s existing guides take precedence.

Public Safety Canada also provides funding for cost-shared projects related to the management of flooding and other natural hazards through programs like the National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) and Infrastructure Canada provides funding through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF). Flood-related infrastructure projects may also be eligible for funding under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) under the Green stream administered jointly by Infrastructure Canada and Ontario.

5.3.9 Other Agencies

5.3.9.1 International Joint Commission

Canada and the United States are parties to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 (the Treaty), under which the International Joint Commission (IJC) is created. Under the Treaty, IJC has the jurisdiction over cases involving the use, obstruction or diversion of boundary waters shared between Canada and the U.S. For instance, the regulation of water flow through the Moses-Saunders Dam on the St. Lawrence River fall under the jurisdiction of the IJC.

Ontario works closely with the IJC and federal, state and provincial governments to ensure Great Lakes regulation strategies account for sustainable water resources management. While Ontario is not responsible for managing outflows from the Great Lakes, the Province does have responsibilities for lands, tourism, land use planning, water use and natural hazard management (erosion, flooding), all of which are affected by water levels and flows.

of 368

84

The MNRF advises the International Joint Commission through IJC Boards of Control and short-term task forces and studies.

5.3.9.2 Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board

In 1983, Canada, Quebec and Ontario approved the Agreement Respecting Ottawa River Basin Regulation. Under its terms, a board was constituted to plan and recommend regulation policies and criteria leading to integrated management of the 13 principal reservoirs of the basin, taking into account flood protection, hydroelectric power production and other interests. Supported by a Regulating Committee composed of the four agencies that own and operate the reservoirs and Secretariat, the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board endeavours to ensure that the integrated management of the reservoirs provides as much protection as possible (the generating stations on the main stem of the Ottawa River were not designed for flood protection) against flooding along the Ottawa River and its tributaries, and along its channels in the Montréal region. The term "integrated management" means that the four principal dam operators in the basin operate their facilities with knowledge of what the other operators are doing and the consequences of operational decisions elsewhere in the Ottawa River basin.

The Board consists of seven members, each with an alternate, who represent Canada (three members), Ontario (two members), and Quebec (two members). The two Ontario agencies represented include the MNRF (co-chair of the board) and Ontario Power Generation (OPG).

On the Ottawa River, the responsibility and authority to manage dams in accordance with established operating plans rest with dam owners (e.g. Hydro-Québec, Ontario Power Generation and the federal government through Public Services and Procurement Canada). The Ministry’s application of the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act on existing Ottawa River facilities is limited to reviews and approval of repairs/upgrades per associated work permits.

5.3.9.3 Ontario Power Generation

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has been of member of the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board (ORRPB) since its inception and is a full member of the Ottawa River Regulating Committee (ORRC) of the ORRPB. As part of the Regulating Committee, OPG collaborates with other operators of principal reservoirs to optimize the use of the storage they manage in view of reducing the river flows downstream, thereby minimizing flooding. In the spring, OPG and other operators follow river condition forecasts provided through the Regulating Committee very closely in order to make appropriate decisions at their facilities.

of 368

85

As agreed by Canada, Ontario and Quebec, the Board is the administrative and policy branch of the organization and the Regulating Committee and Secretariat are the operational arms. The purpose of the ORRPB and ORRC is to ensure integrated management, or the collaborative management, of the 13 principal reservoirs of the Ottawa River to minimize the impact of flooding and droughts along the Ottawa River. The original language in the ORPPB/ORRC agreement from the early 1980s states that the goal of the integrated management is to “provide protection against flooding.” The term “protection” is a misnomer, as the location of existing reservoirs and their physical storage capacity does not provide the ability to fully protect against flooding. Integrated management on the Ottawa River does not prevent the impact of flooding, but reduces the impact of flooding to the greatest extent possible given physical constraints.

Integrated management does not mean that the ORRPB or ORRC dictate or control flows in the river. Instead, the ORRPB mandate is to ensure that all operators are sharing information and forecasts when making decisions and that all decisions are made with the full knowledge of what other operators are doing. Being involved in the management of the principal reservoirs in the Ottawa River basin, OPG communicates and exchanges information at least daily with other members of the Regulating Committee (Hydro-Québec, Québec and Canada) throughout the spring flood season to assess together current and forecast river conditions, and what actions may be required to minimize flood impacts.

The daily process starts with the ORRC members examining the current water level and flow conditions at their facilities and submitting hydrometric data and initial reservoir release decisions. Hydro-Quebec produces a hydrological forecast of inflows along the river, which is shared with the Secretariat and ORRC members. This information is used as input to the reservoir routing model for forecasting flows and levels throughout the river system to aid ORRC members in planning operations (i.e. storage/discharge decisions). Members of the ORRC review the results and discuss the current operational strategy on a conference call. If at this time OPG decides it best to modify their reservoir operation strategy, they will inform the ORRC and the reservoir routing model will be modified to examine the impact of the change in this decision. This process will occur until a final strategy is established. At all times, OPG is responsible for the operation and strategy relating to its facilities. The ORRPB/ORRS/ORRC structure ensures that the operators’ decisions are transparent, consistent and share a common understanding of the watershed conditions with other members.

of 368

86

Chapter 6

Challenges and Opportunities to Managing Flood Risk

Although Ontario has a well-established approach to managing flood risk, the reality is that there have been significant property and casualty losses associated with extreme weather events in the past several years. According to Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer, the estimated annual DFAA costs resulting from floods are the largest of the weather events (others being hurricanes, convective storms and winter storms) representing 75% of all weather-related expenditures (refer to https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2016/DFAA/DFAA_EN.pdf).

The public should understand that the risk of flooding cannot be eliminated, but it can be reduced. There are considerable challenges to managing flooding especially when governments are having fiscal challenges. However, there are many opportunities to improve on the current approaches to managing flood risk.

6.1 Prevention

6.1.1 Gaps in Policy and Technical Guidance

Components of the current technical guides and associated standards are outdated and need to be updated to reflect emerging environmental concerns and new land use policies.

Beginning in 2016, the MNRF initiated work to better understand and start to address current gaps in policy, and document issues and concerns with technical guidance, including many of the components highlighted in sections below. In some circumstances, specific conservation authorities have developed and adopted their own policies and technical guides which may not be consistent with MNRF’s guidance or the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).

This section is included specifically to highlight the gaps in policy and technical guidance. Subsequent sections get into more detail and result in specific recommendations.

6.1.1.1 Lack of Guidance for Considering Climate Change

Changes made to the PPS in 2014 direct municipalities to consider the potential impacts of climate change that may increase the risk associated with flooding and other natural hazards. Furthermore, draft proposed edits to the PPS released for consultation

of 368

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2016/DFAA/DFAA_EN.pdf

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2016/DFAA/DFAA_EN.pdf

87

in 2019 suggest the need for municipalities to “prepare for the impacts of a changing climate” (see Section 5.2.1).

Climate change has the potential to alter watershed hydrology, such that existing hydrologic procedures, analyses and modelling may require adjustments or adaptations to adequately represent the range of potential hydrologic effects and to support modelling of affected flows and levels using hydraulic analyses to inform floodplain mapping. The MNRF’s Technical Guide – River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit, which is used to help implement the PPS, was approved in 2002 and does not include the latest information on climate change. In recent years, there have been substantive changes in technology and an enhanced understanding of climate change considerations with regards to hydrologic modelling and associated influences on the hydraulic analyses required to develop floodplain mapping.

Existing policies and technical guidelines provide very little guidance on how to incorporate climate change consideration into planning and permitting decisions. Background work to derive options for integrating climate change considerations into the MNRF’s technical guidance has been ongoing since 2016 and would be integral to an update of the flooding technical guidance.

In 2017, the MNRF commissioned a study that produced a report titled: “Flooding Hazard Climate Change Advisory and Option Report.” The report identified ways in which climate change considerations can be integrated into the Technical Guide - River and Stream Systems: Flood Hazard Limit. Deliverables from this project will make significant contributions to ensuring that a range of options for addressing climate change and climate change adaptation that are consistent with provincial policy are available for consideration as the MNRF works towards enhancing implementation of Ontario’s existing flood hazard policies, while best addressing future climate considerations.

The MNRF (Water Resources Section) currently sits on the Steering Committee of a Natural Resources Canada funded study that will develop climate change information on future ice conditions and storm extremes for use in coastal infrastructure development, policies, programs and practices on the Great Lakes. Findings and data generated by this study will help inform updates to the MNRF’s technical guidance for the Great Lakes and connecting channels related to flooding, erosion and dynamic beach. Recent high levels and associated erosion on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario (specific areas of focus for the study), make the results of this study particularly timely.

of 368

88

6.1.1.2 Climate Change Resiliency of Existing Flood Standards

Flood standards specified in the MNRF’s technical guidance for rivers and streams are based on the greater of the 100-year flood (which forms the minimum standard), floods produced by a specified meteorological event (e.g. Hurricane Hazel or Timmins Storm) or an observed flood greater than the 100-year flood level. Presently, little guidance exists for developing future climate informed flood standards, particularly for river and streams. While some have suggested incorporating arbitrary freeboard in floodplain mapping to account for uncertainty as a qualitative approach for assessing the uncertainties of flood impacts from climate change, little substantive information is available in the published literature, or in use by other jurisdictions to support this approach from a scientific perspective. Acknowledging this gap, the Flooding Hazard Climate Change Advisory and Options Report commissioned by the MNRF in 2017 also included considerations of a range of options for integrating climate change considerations to inform Ontario’s flood standards.

6.1.1.3 Outdated Guidance on Floodproofing Standards

Floodproofing standards are currently addressed in the MNRF’s Technical Guide – River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit. Floodproofing information and standards identified therein are based on science and approaches from the 1980s. Floodproofing as addressed in the Technical Guide includes considerations of types of floodproofing, sound engineering practice related to construction and structural integrity, vehicular access considerations, and additional aspects related to flooding as a threat to life, including general rules regarding independent and combined functions of depth and velocity to support safe access and egress, and safe movement for most individuals in flood waters.

Work is wrapping up on an investigation and synthesis of current best practices, procedures, methodologies and technical considerations related to the field of floodproofing to protect people and property from flooding related natural hazards. This includes an evaluation of guidance presented in “Appendix 6 – Floodproofing” of the MNRF’s Technical Guide – River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit in the context of current and up-to-date protocols, procedures, methodologies and technical considerations. The evaluation will further include flooding as a threat to life to identify gaps and/or areas in the Technical Guide to highlight where the currency of the existing document would benefit from modifications and/or updates. A key deliverable is the development of considerations outlining appropriate options for updating the floodproofing guidance to support a revised Appendix 6.

Based on findings of background research and evaluation relative to the existing Technical Guide, the MNRF is considering producing a report proposing technical

of 368

89

information requirements, specifications and standards related to floodproofing to enhance the currency of techniques and technical considerations, and promote consistency in the application of floodproofing measures across the province.

This floodproofing review has implications for other MNRF natural hazard technical guides that refer to floodproofing (i.e. Great Lakes St. Lawrence flooding, erosion and dynamic beach) and has linkages to aspects of other policies and legislation such as the Ontario Building Code and the PPS documentation. Endorsement of newer methods could provide an additional range of options for Ontarians to manage and mitigate the impacts of flooding on dwellings.

6.1.1.4 Outdated Guidance on Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modelling

The hydrology and hydraulic chapters of the Technical Guide – River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit are considerably dated. This includes reference to obsolete modelling software and to a lesser extent, standard practices.

The MNRF has completed initial research to identify methods and options for updating the sections associated with hydrology and hydraulics in the Technical Guide to account for technological and methodological advancements. With regards to hydrologic modelling, this includes an assessment of technologies and modelling protocols, practices and platforms for informing water level computations and flood line delineation, addressing the types of hydrologic models, model selection and calibration.

With regards to hydraulics, efforts included analyses to support improving the suitability of hydraulic analyses for estimating water levels throughout a wide range of rivers and river characteristics within Ontario. This involved guidance around choosing a hydraulic modelling technique, and direction around the use and applicability of 2-dimensional (2D) modelling, including guidance and standards for its use and interpretation. Guidance and requirements related to hydraulic model calibration, testing and sensitivity analysis were included, as were additional guidance on evaluating uncertainty in model parameters and the resulting impacts on model simulations and the associated range of error in modelled results.

While the above focus is on the riverine flooding guidance, the Great Lakes St. Lawrence and Large Inland Lakes guidance suffers from similar issues. Less effort has been placed on these documents.

of 368

90

6.1.1.5 Outdated Guidance on Surveying and Mapping Standards

In 1986, the MNRF adopted flood-related survey and mapping standards based on guidelines developed by the federal government under the cost shared Federal/Provincial Flood Damage Reduction Program, which ran from 1977 to 1992.

In 2002, to support municipal implementation of the PPS, the MNRF consolidated, developed and approved a series of natural hazards technical guides including the Technical Guide – River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit.

In the Flooding Hazard Limit Guide, there is a placeholder: Section J, “Surveys and Mapping”, for new provincial direction on mapping standards and techniques.

Given the MNRF 1986 guidance is out of date, current mapping practice by municipalities and conservation authorities is to use best professional engineering judgement. Substantive advancements continue to be made rapidly in surveying and mapping standards and data acquisition, including in the areas of remote sensing, geomatics and mapping technologies and practices as discussed in other sections of this report.

With the recent release of the Federal Geomatics Guidelines for Flood Mapping, as part of the Federal Flood Mapping Guidelines Series, there is an opportunity to glean information from this document which may serve Ontario well and align, where suitable, the geospatial data requirements for flood modelling and mapping (go to https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/dsstr-prvntn-mtgtn/ndmp/fldpln-mppng-en.aspx).

Updated standards are required to ensure consistency and adequacy of floodplain mapping across the province. The MNRF commissioned a review of jurisdictional surveying and mapping standards for flood mapping in 2016 and is in the process of evaluating options for updates to the appendix. A document titled: “Survey and Mapping Specifications and Standards Report” produced in 2018 for the MNRF was reviewed internally by the Ontario Public Service Elevation Coordination and Consultation Committee. This Committee brings together elevation experts from all relevant ministries and partner agencies to provide coordination and expertise on elevation data-related projects, acquisitions and issues. Feedback, technical comments and edits provided by this group are being incorporated into a final draft document, including considerations noted above related to the federal geomatics guidelines.

of 368

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/dsstr-prvntn-mtgtn/ndmp/fldpln-mppng-en.aspx

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/dsstr-prvntn-mtgtn/ndmp/fldpln-mppng-en.aspx

91

6.1.1.6 Other Policy or Technical Gaps

Other gaps in provincial policies and technical guidelines include:

• Lack of policy direction/technical guidance regarding drought. While the topic of drought is outside the scope of this review, it needs to be considered in the context of lowering reservoirs to capture more water and reduce the impacts of flooding, and whether a subsequent drought will prevent the reservoir from being refilled.

• Direction around the use of 2-dimensional (2D) and/or combined 1-dimensional/2-dimensional (1D/2D) hydraulic models. For example, is it necessary to consider floodplain storage in flood hazard mapping, and if so, which is the appropriate model.

Filling some of these gaps could help streamline approval processes by providing greater clarity and certainty around how to address these issues.

6.1.1.7 Limited Training, Outreach and Awareness

Limited provincial resources are currently directed towards training, outreach and awareness of the MNRF’s policies, technical standards and guidelines. Such outreach is typically limited to ad hoc requests for presentations to various groups or events (e.g. annual conferences, workshops).

Limited training, outreach and awareness can contribute to misunderstanding, competing interpretations, and a lack of clarity and consistency in standards and policy requirements. Some stakeholders, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, have requested increased training and outreach with municipalities, developers and conservation authorities on the basis that it would help ensure services were undertaken more consistently across the province.

6.1.2 Policies, Standards, Regulations and Legislation

In her 2017 report, Ontario’s Auditor General raised the following concerns:

“The provincial emergency management program does not focus on all five components of emergency management: prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Currently, the focus of the emergency management program in Ontario is mainly on only two of the five components—preparedness and response—with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs also undertaking activities related to recovery through the disaster financial assistance programs”, (2017 Annual Report Volume 1, Office of the Auditor General of Ontario,

of 368

92

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en17/v1_304en17.pdf).

While these concerns apply to the province’s overall approach to emergency management, they may also apply to the province’s approach to flooding.

Prevention-based approaches have been repeatedly shown to be more effective in reducing the impacts of flooding and other natural hazards. As outlined within the five core components of emergency management, flood prevention relies on the use of non-structural measures, such as land use planning and permitting and building controls to keep people and property out of hazardous areas. In Ontario, land use restrictions are put in place by municipalities to prevent new or intensified development in areas prone to flooding and other natural hazards. Land use restrictions are also put in place by conservation authorities who are required to regulate development (in areas prone to natural hazards) for impacts to the control of natural hazards as set out in regulation (i.e. flooding and erosion) and for interference with a watercourse or a wetland.

While regulations and land use restrictions have been in place for a few decades in Ontario, concerns have been raised noting that these policies and associated technical requirements may not be adequately enforced and too easily ignored in response to the financial incentives or other incentives (such as infill development in historic communities) that encourage new and intensified development in or adjacent to flood-prone areas. These incentives often encourage greater reliance on tools contained within other core components of the emergency management framework, such as the use of mitigation measures (e.g. flood protection berms, floodproofing), preparedness systems (e.g. flood warning systems), and response (e.g. temporary sandbag dikes) and recovery programs (e.g. disaster assistance and/or insurance) that do not require strict adherence to a prevention-first approach to managing the impacts of flooding.

Clearly, more focus on prevention is needed, and strengthening existing policies and standards by enshrining them in legislation (or by regulation) is required.

As mentioned in Section 5.2.2, the MNRF is proposing a regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act that outlines how conservation authorities regulate development and other activities for impacts to the control of natural hazards and public safety. The proposed regulation will make rules for development in hazardous areas more consistent to support faster, more predictable and less costly approvals.

of 368

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en17/v1_304en17.pdf


93

Recommendation #1

That the MNRF proceed as expeditiously as possible to finalize its proposed regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act and submit it to Cabinet for approval.

6.1.2.1 Consideration of Risk in Floodplain Management Policies

There are two main approaches to managing flooding and other natural hazards: a hazards-based approach and a risk-based approach.

A hazards-based approach focuses on determining where hazards exist and then taking steps to prevent activities from occurring in those areas. A risk-based approach focuses on determining the risks posed by natural hazards, and then taking steps to further reduce those risks to acceptable levels. In the case of flooding, a hazards-based approach seeks to delineate the floodplain and prevent development from occurring within it. A risk-based approach seeks to identify the risks associated with development in a floodplain and find ways to reduce those risks through enhanced floodproofing, flood forecasting and warning, and other measures. Adopting a risk-based approach allows individuals to proceed with a given activity (e.g. development within a floodplain) provided that sufficient measures can be put in place to keep risks as low as reasonably achievable.

While there is some support for a risk-based approach, developing and successfully rolling out a risk-based planning and/or permitting framework would be a complex and resource-intensive task requiring new provincial policy direction in several areas including defining acceptable levels of risk.

The MNRF’s current approach to managing flooding and other natural hazards straddles these two approaches by taking a hazards-based approach to limiting new development and taking a risked-based approach to reduce risks associated with existing development located in hazardous areas (e.g. as with Special Policy Areas). Risk-based flexibility is also provided for development in the flood fringe in areas where the two-zone concept is applied, subject to floodproofing consistent with MNRF standards. This seems to be at odds with what some conservation authorities believe, as they have advocated for taking a risk-based approach to mitigate urban food risk. They recommend that the Province contemplate how to incorporate a consideration of risk when updating floodplain implementation guidelines.

of 368

94

Recommendation #2

That the MNRF consult with the conservation authorities on their application of the hazards-based approach and the risk-based approach to managing flooding.

6.1.2.2 Provincial Policy Statement Review – Proposed Policies

Overall, I am in agreement with the existing polices under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) Review, in particular with Section 3.0 Protecting Public Health and Safety. This Special Advisor on Flooding report covers some of the content in the PPS Review, which is based on my review of a considerable amount of background information, what I heard while meeting with municipalities and conservation authorities, and from submissions received by municipalities, CAs and other agencies. The proposed PPS policies are supported by some of the recommendations I’ve made in this report, such as the need for updated technical guidelines; entrenching elements of the technical guides (such as standards) in legislation; and reviewing and updating the MNRF’s technical guides to support the use of flood protection landforms.

Recommendation #3

That the following be incorporated into the Provincial Policy Statement: • The reference to “impacts of a changing climate” throughout the Provincial

Policy Statement helps to bring it to everyone’s attention and should be included in the Preamble as well.

• Either in the body of the PPS or in the definitions section, reference should be made specifically to the requirement for conservation authorities to regulate development activities in hazardous lands as required in the Conservation Authorities Act.

• That “d) Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors, Airports, Solid and Liquid Waste Management” be added to Section 3.1.5 of the Provincial Policy Statement.

6.1.3 Floodplain and Flood Risk Mapping

Having accurate floodplain maps help communities make efficient and effective planning decisions. The Office of the Auditor General suggests that up-to-date floodplain maps would allow municipalities to better plan for future growth in areas of low flood risk, and build infrastructure and resiliency in high-risk flood areas.

of 368

95

6.1.3.1 Limitations of Existing Geomatic Data and Mapping

The management of floodplains and other hazardous areas begins with their identification. Knowing the location of these areas can help streamline approval decisions and ensure areas not subject to flooding and other natural hazards can be developed.

Several issues exist associated with data and mapping used to delineate floodplains and other areas. CAs report that a large percentage of their floodplain mapping require some form of an update. This takes into consideration all elements of floodplain mapping, including the age, limitations and accuracy—not just the currency of existing mapping alone. It is important to note that particularly in areas of the province where development pressures are low, age of mapping is not necessarily an indicator that mapping is out-of-date or “outdated.”

6.1.3.2 Updates to Floodplain Data and Mapping

The cost of updating floodplain mapping can be prohibitive to municipalities and CAs, as it requires high resolution elevation data.

Recent base data acquisitions funded by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and in partnership with the MNRF, including the use of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology, have significantly reduced the cost burden to CAs and municipalities associated with base data acquisition, particularly in south-central and southwestern Ontario.

Considerable work has been undertaken by municipalities and conservation authorities in the province over the last several years to update floodplain mapping with matched federal funding provided through the federal government’s competitive, merit-based National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP). Flood mapping was a specific funding stream of NDMP. Under NDMP, only applications related to the municipal land use planning and mitigation were eligible, and projects related to CA regulatory limit mapping to support the implementation of conservation authority regulations made under the Conservation Authorities Act were not eligible. The Province included a specific requirement for conservation authority proposals— that municipal support for the project be demonstrated through a letter of support from the affected municipality or municipalities (including regional governments). Furthermore, if the conservation authority planned to use a municipal levy to cover project costs, that the letter of support must also reference the municipalities support for the levy funding mechanism. By way of the letter of support, municipalities were also required to commit to the flood mapping being integrated into Official Plans to guide future development outside of flood-prone areas.

of 368

96

From 2015 to 2019, municipalities and conservation authorities received approximately $9 million towards updating flood maps across Ontario, for a total investment of at least $18 million in flood mapping.

Across all five NDMP intakes and all four funding streams, a total of $40.58 million in federal funding was secured by Ontario applicants. Including applicant matched funding, this means that no less than $81 million in total funding has been secured for flood-related initiatives through all five intakes of NDMP.

6.1.3.3 Expanding Regulatory Flood Lines

Many factors can contribute to the expansion of regulatory flood lines. These lines are dynamic in nature and can expand and move as development in the watershed changes, altering rainfall-runoff characteristics and associated flood generation. Land use change can contribute to larger amounts of water being more quickly delivered to streams and rivers. The larger volume of water in rivers and streams acts to expand flood lines, covering larger areas of land adjoining streams and rivers with water under the flood standard. In addition, acquisition of new and more accurate survey and mapping data combined with revised hydrologic and hydraulic modelling can result in considerable differences in the extent of regulatory flood lines between current and updated flood hazard mapping, particularly when based on full build-out projections related to a 20-year official plan.

Regulatory flood lines and associated floodplains are expanding or are expected to expand, bringing more existing development, and areas targeted for new development, into flood-prone areas. This can be particularly true in areas using a 1:100-year storm event to delineate regulatory flood lines; however, areas currently using a 1:250-year storm event (e.g. areas within the Upper Thames River watershed) are also finding significant expansions in regulatory flood lines. Areas using a regional regulatory storm (i.e. Hurricane Hazel or the Timmins Storm) are less likely to see significant increases in the size of regulated floodplains as these events have higher return periods (lower chance of occurring).

Regulatory flood lines and floodplain mapping should be updated along with updates to municipal official plans. It is important that flood hazard identification incorporated into municipal planning documents, through mapping or otherwise, reflect a full build-out condition of the upstream watershed based on the current official plan. This level of rigour is intended to provide people and property downstream a level of assurance that flood hazards are accounted for, and that the influence of future land development on flooding is considered. As this mapping is used by municipalities for land use planning purposes, mapping is generally current until the next Official Plan update and based on a (+/-) 20-year planning horizon.

of 368

97

Many areas of southern and southwestern Ontario have experienced and continue to experience rapid urban development. Many municipalities have been highlighting the need to update flood hazard mapping to capture the effects of land use development occurring since mapping was last completed and to use the most current data and technologies (i.e. LiDAR, 2D hydraulic modelling where appropriate, etc.).

Expansion of regulatory flood lines can be a concern for municipalities, developers and existing homeowners regarding the impacts of expanded lines on future growth opportunities, the ability to invest in and protect existing homes, and property values. To date, 73 flood mapping projects across southern Ontario have been funded by the federal National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) with the aim of updating existing floodplain mapping across more than 30 municipalities. These studies could result in expanded regulatory flood lines, and associated concerns from the development community and others regarding the potential impacts of updated flood lines on existing and planned development within these municipalities.

Increased urbanization, exacerbated by the influences of a changing climate, can create a situation whereby areas that were considered to be outside of the floodplain, and managed and developed without specific consideration of the flood hazard, may be subject to a greater flood hazard and associated flood inundation. To better understand how this issue is being addressed internationally to provide context on how Ontario may approach them in the future, the MNRF commissioned a jurisdictional analysis of expanding floodplains in a policy and planning context. A scan of the literature conducted early in the project revealed that most jurisdictions have moved beyond a regulatory hazard-based approach to defining and managing regulatory flood lines, and instead now focus on managing floods in-line with a risk-based approach. Most international jurisdictions, rather than using a single likelihood of flood hazard to define flood lines and the flooding hazard limit, have transitioned to consideration of multiple likelihoods, and also of the number and type of exposed elements in the floodplain.

The project therefore focused on considerations for supporting the adoption of a risk-based management approach for riverine and lake flooding in Ontario, including approaches and opportunities for managing changing flood lines, with a view to understanding and managing flood risks in the context of Ontario’s policy and planning landscape.

6.1.3.4 Technical Guidance That Governs Floodplain Mapping

While the Mapping and Geomatics Services Section of the Mapping and Information Resources Branch of the MNRF has been able to provide guidance on LiDAR acquisitions and the management of legacy datasets to other provincial agencies, recent projects under the National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) have supported

of 368

98

LiDAR acquisitions by municipalities and CAs on a project-by-project basis. Ontario does not have defined flood survey and mapping guidance or standards available to support consistent survey data acquisition and mapping by conservation authorities, municipalities and developers. Updated technical guidance is needed to determine what level of detail is required for floodplain mapping and how these expectations may differ in rural or urban areas.

This lack of coordination has led to gaps in coverage for many areas of the province; duplication of effort; inconsistent data standards and data access; and increased costs.

Technology, tools and approaches to deliver modern digital floodplain mapping have changed since the most recent update of floodplain mapping technical and implementation guidelines was last completed in 2002. Work recently commissioned by the MNRF to develop surveying and mapping specifications, and standards for flood hazard mapping (in support of an update to the natural hazard technical guides), will make considerable headway in advancing mapping consistency across the province.

A couple of conservation authorities have reported that new technologies and approaches have been piloted or developed amongst the conservation authority community along with CA guidelines for developing new digital floodplain mapping. Case studies and CA guidelines can be provided by the CA community to assist the Province with assessing the new approaches and developing the new provincial guidelines for hazard and flood risk mapping. They have even offered secondments of CA personnel to the MNRF to help transfer knowledge and experience, and to create a collaborative approach to updating the technical guidelines.

Recommendation #4

That the MNRF update floodplain mapping technical and implementation guidelines recognizing new technology and approaches for flood hazard and flood risk mapping, and that the MNRF collaborate with conservation authorities on this initiative.

Recommendation #5

That the Province update its technical guides pertaining to floods and natural hazards. This should include undertaking a review of the flood event standards (e.g. 1%, Timmins storm, Hurricane Hazel), with a view to providing for current science and climate change, such as a specified minimum freeboard. This should also include reviewing the floodplain areas (floodway, floodway fringe, shoreline setbacks) as well as reviewing and updating, where appropriate, Great Lakes flood level values and shoreline erosion hazard methodologies and allowances.

of 368

99

6.1.3.5 Costs Associated with Updating Floodplain Mapping

In 2013, Conservation Ontario estimated that a one-time investment of $24.8 million was required to update floodplain mapping and modelling in Ontario for areas where CAs have been established. A study on floodplain mapping commissioned by Public Safety Canada estimated that the costs of mapping currently unmapped floodplains in Ontario could be as high as $119.6 million (2014). More recently, in 2017, Conservation Ontario estimated the cost of an update being approximately $136 million; however, it is not clear if this cost only includes areas of the province where conservation authorities have been created.

The National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) was an effective federal program that provided 50% funding to complete updated floodplain mapping. That program ends in March 2020. Either a new federal or provincial, or combination of a federal/provincial program could provide the necessary funding.

The federal government continues to advocate and encourage adaptation and preparedness for climate variability. One of the most practical adaptations is emergency preparedness and response plans, which help make communities more resilient to climate change. Floodplain mapping and the associated models supporting floodplain mapping are fundamental to the creation of effective emergency preparedness plans for floods. A case could be made to the federal government to fund the creation of modern digital floodplain mapping as adaptation and preparedness for climate change and severe weather events.

It has been suggested that the Province discuss the opportunity to take a strategic, multi-year, multi-agency planning approach to an extended program, in order to address known gaps in floodplain mapping. As currently established, the National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) is based on interested parties applying for funding. It has also been suggested that the Province advocate to the federal government for continued funding of the NDMP or development of a successor program, recommending the end date of the program be extended for 10 years, from March 2020 to March 2030. As such, the federal government investment in floodplain mapping would help achieve its goal of encouraging adaptation in preparation for climate change and extreme weather events.

Recommendation #6

That the Province establish a working group with provincial departments, conservation authorities and municipalities to prepare a multi-year approach to floodplain mapping.

of 368

100

Recommendation #7

That the federal government be encouraged to extend the National Disaster Mitigation Program or develop a successor program, so that municipalities, conservation authorities, and Ontario and Quebec (in consideration of the Ottawa River) can undertake or update floodplain mapping in all critical areas.

6.1.3.6 Proposed Elevation Mapping Program

Regardless of whether the federal government extends the NDMP, there is a need to establish an Elevation Mapping Program within the MNRF’s Mapping and Geomatics Services Section. This program will ensure more complete coverage of the province; centrally manage a cross-agency funding model; leverage existing multi-ministry governance and budgeting capacity of the Land Information Ontario (LIO) program; reduce total costs and bureaucracy for all provincial agencies; consider cross-discipline business requirements; allow for consistent standards to be collected; align with other provincial, state and national elevation programs (Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick, Canada and the United States); centrally manage elevation data procurement, quality control, data management and data distribution; and leverage staff knowledge and skills to address future changes in acquisition requirements and technology (e.g. bathymetric LiDAR).

Establishing an Elevation Mapping Program will align with current government priorities:

• Ontario’s Open Data Directive by maximizing access to government data;

• Ontario’s Data Integration Initiative by supporting standards for data management, and releasing non-sensitive government data to promote transparency, spur innovation and economic growth; and

• Ontario’s Digital and Data Task Force driving innovation using emerging data technologies.

This program would require net-new annual funding for data acquisition and for data storage and distribution.

Recommendation #8

That the Province consider the establishment of a provincial Elevation Mapping Program and commit to the annual funding requirements.

of 368

101

6.1.3.7 Provincial Custodian for Floodplain Mapping Information

LiDAR data is a modern approach and an important component of producing floodplain maps. It is expensive but can be affordable if two or more agencies team up to acquire the data. The Mapping and Geomatics Services Section (MGSS) of the Mapping and Information Resources Branch of the MNRF has a multi-year program for planned topographic LiDAR data acquisitions within southern Ontario. The program is intended to assist with identification of priority areas for future data collection, and to reduce duplication of effort by identifying where data may have already been collected or is planned to be collected by other government agencies.

Engagement with municipal, conservation authorities, and provincial and federal agencies has identified that flood mapping information (geospatial data, reports, and flood maps) created through the historic Federal Damage Reduction Program (FDRP) and National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) projects are not seamlessly and centrally managed or accessible. On the latter point, some mapping has been acquired on the vendor’s condition of restricted access only by the client.

The lack of a consolidated data management solution for flood mapping data is resulting in: 1) inability for provincial programs to incorporate data into their operations, including emergency management and response; 2) increased risk of data loss; 3) inconsistent data standards; and 4) inability to reference the data for LiDAR acquisition planning. Accordingly, there is a need to identify a provincial custodian for flood mapping information in order to clarify data ownership; determine requirements for data management, storage and access; and leverage Land Information Ontario’s existing geospatial infrastructure to support data maintenance, access and dissemination at minimized costs.

If a single provincial custodian is to be established, consideration would need to be made for ownership (intellectual property) of the flood mapping information, as it is mainly held by municipalities. Policy, regulations and legislation would likely need to be updated to identify a requirement for all provincial agencies to provide flood mapping information up to the provincial custodian. Some municipalities and CAs are moving to new Open Data standards and publishing regulatory flood lines on their websites. Policy, regulations and legislation would also likely need to be updated to require that floodplain maps produced at the local level are provided to and integrated into a common provincial floodplain map repository.

of 368

102

Recommendation #9

That the Province consider establishing a provincial custodian for floodplain mapping information and make the necessary updates to policies, regulations and legislation.

6.1.4 Roles and Responsibilities

Several different agencies share roles and responsibilities for the management of flooding and other natural hazards. The reality is that some prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response roles have to be shared between municipalities and multiple ministries by nature of the services they provide.

However, it was pointed out at some of the municipal engagement sessions, that when roles and responsibilities are shared amongst several different agencies, it diffuses control, expertise, and ultimate decision-making and accountability among the agencies.

6.1.4.1 Unclear Roles in Emergency Management

Chapter 3 of the 2017 Auditor General’s Annual report raised concerns regarding the current governance structure for emergency management noting that:

“The current governance structure for emergency management in Ontario is not effective for overseeing a province-wide program. Oversight of emergency management in Ontario is the responsibility of the Cabinet Committee on Emergency Management. However, this committee has not met for several years. Concerns about the overall oversight of emergency management in the province were brought to the government’s attention as far back as 2005 in an internal review report, Emergency Management Processes in the Ontario Public Service. The report concluded: At the enterprise level, processes are not currently sufficient to ensure that Ontarians and the resources of the Province are adequately protected against emergencies and disasters.” (2017 Annual Report Volume 1, Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en17/v1_304en17.pdf).

While the report focused on the broader umbrella of emergency management, similar concerns could apply specifically to the management of flooding and other natural hazards.

The Office of the Fire Marshall and Emergency Management (OFMEM) within the Ministry of the Solicitor General is taking action to address the Auditor General’s

of 368



103

recommendations and other reviews. Following is a summary of some of the initiatives planned or currently underway:

• AG recommendation to strengthen Emergency Management and Oversight – Emergency Management Ontario (EMO) will establish inter-ministerial and a multi-level governance framework (e.g. Cabinet Committee on Emergency Management) to support decision-making, collaboration and information sharing.

• AG recommendation to update all risk assessments and response plans – EMO to review existing provincial risk assessments and the provincial emergency response plan; and re-establish province-wide Continuity of Operations Program and directly support development of municipal continuity programs.

Recommendation #10

That the Ministry of the Solicitor General implement the Auditor General’s recommendations regarding a governance framework for emergency management and updating continuity of operations programs as soon as possible

6.1.4.2 Unclear Roles and Responsibilities for Identifying Hazardous Areas

While the MNRF generally takes the position that municipalities are exclusively responsible for identifying hazardous areas, provincial policy is unclear and at times contradictory, and has created some confusion over who is responsible for identifying hazardous areas.

The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, 2009 (EMCPA) requires both provincial ministries and municipalities to identify and assess the various hazards and risks to public safety that could give rise to emergencies.

Section 2.1(3) regarding municipalities states: “In developing its emergency management program, every municipality shall identify and assess the various hazards and risks to public safety that could give rise to emergencies and identify the facilities and other elements of the infrastructure that are at risk of being affected by emergencies.” 2002, c.14, s.4.

Section 5.1(2) regarding provincial ministries states: “In developing an emergency management program, every minister of the Crown and every designated agency, board, commission and other branch of government shall identify and assess the various hazards and risks to public safety that could give rise to emergencies and identify the facilities and other elements of the

of 368

104

infrastructure for which the minister or agency, board, commission or branch is responsible that are at risk of being affected by emergencies.”

Provincial guidelines direct municipalities to identify floodplains and other hazardous lands to incorporate these areas into their Official Plans, plan amendments, zoning bylaws and associated approvals. Municipal planning authorities, under Section 3 of the PPS (2014), are to direct development to areas outside of hazardous lands (including the floodplain identified by the limit of the flooding hazard). As per the preface of the MNRF’s Technical Guide – River and Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit (2002), the Province has empowered municipalities to assume responsibilities for the management of flood risk areas, and the associated liability and the risk relative to planning for new land uses in and around these areas.

Conservation authorities also invest with provincial and municipal funding in identifying hazardous areas for carrying out their delegated role in reviewing municipal planning documents for consistency with the PPS and to support administering their regulation. While the MNRF is responsible for identifying hazardous areas in areas where no municipalities or CAs have been established, some municipalities advocate that this responsibility should extend to any area where a CA has not been established and that expecting municipalities to identify hazardous areas places an unrealistic burden on small, rural municipalities.

Municipalities can choose to rely on the services of CAs to undertake floodplain mapping but are not required to do so. While some municipalities and conservation authorities partner together to create maps, others do not. In these cases, municipalities contract consulting engineering firms to complete the floodplain mapping work, as do CAs in some instances.

Recommendation #11

That the Province consider whether the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act needs to be amended with a view to clarifying roles and responsibilities of identifying hazardous areas.

Recommendation #12

That the MNRF consider working with Conservation Ontario and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to determine how the experience and information developed by municipalities and conservation authorities of identifying hazardous areas can be transferred to municipalities without a conservation authority.

of 368

105

6.1.4.3 Conflicting Policy Direction and Technical Advice

Shared roles and responsibilities can lead to conflicts over provincial policy direction when multiple agencies have differing perspectives on a given issue, and where other agencies are creating and disseminating guidance materials that are not consistent with MNRF endorsed policy or technical guidelines.

The MNRF provides policy direction and technical guidelines to municipalities and conservation authorities to support their planning and regulatory roles. Many CAs have their own policies in place that, at times, are used to supersede or are seen to contradict provincial policy and technical guidelines.

Some conservation authorities and municipalities view technical guidance provided by the MNRF as simply guidance to be used by engineers and other professionals to help guide their decisions, and allowing them to apply their own policies or professional judgement to decide.

Additional technical guidelines concerning the management of flooding and other natural hazards, although not necessarily provincially endorsed are also prepared and released by academia, the Standards Council of Canada, and the National Research Council.

There is no specific recommendation to deal with this issue as other recommendations provided in this report, such as enshrining flood hazard policies and technical standards in legislation, if adopted, should take care of the conflicting policy direction and technical advice.

6.1.4.4 Conflicts Between Planning and Permitting Decisions

While municipal planning and conservation authority permitting processes are related, they are distinct processes with distinct requirements.

Differences between planning and permitting requirements were noted by some stakeholders as causing conflicts between regulatory and municipal planning decisions. Some stakeholders commenting during the review questioned the ability of a CA to refuse an approval for projects previously approved under the Planning Act. Similar concerns have been raised regarding the pressures placed on municipalities, the Province and CAs in balancing growth and the management of hazards, particularly in municipalities with very specific growth targets.

of 368

106

Recommendation #13

That the Province consider legislative amendments that clarify the permissions under the Conservation Authority Act and the land use approvals in accordance with the Planning Act as they relate to development in hazardous areas.

6.1.4.5 Perceived Conflicts of Interest

Municipalities are ultimately responsible for making local planning decisions. Some stakeholders have raised concerns that this creates a conflict of interest for municipalities, as there is a perceived financial incentive not to limit development in areas prone to flooding and other natural hazards, despite potential future recovery and relief costs.

Some sectors have raised concerns that members of a conservation authority, who are primarily municipal officials, were pressured to approve projects that are deemed to be “in the interest of” municipalities, and that the lack of clarity and consistency in requirements made it difficult for a CA to say no to proposals that member municipalities want, particularly if they feel as though that decision may risk future funding.

Again, there is no specific recommendation to deal with this issue as other recommendations provided in this report, such as enshrining flood hazard policies and technical standards in legislation, if adopted, should take care of the perceived conflict of interest.

6.1.4.6 Role of the Provincial One Window Planning Service

The provincial One Window Planning Service is the organizational structure and process established to support the move to a policy-led land use planning system. It entails the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), in consultation with partner ministries and, where applicable, conservation authorities under their MNRF delegated role, providing municipalities, planning boards, development applicants and the public with “one-stop” access for provincial land use planning services, with a focus on where MMAH exercises its statutory functions under the Planning Act.

Under the provincial One Window Protocol and an associated memorandum of understanding, MMAH consults with conservation authorities regarding natural hazard impacts of policy and development proposals for which it is the decision maker. Where no conservation authority has been established, the MNRF undertakes this review. Municipal planning documents approved by MMAH include all upper-tier and single-tier Official Plans (OPs), and some upper-tier and single-tier Official Plan Amendments

of 368

107

(OPAs). MMAH is also the decision-maker for applications from territory without municipal organization where there is no planning board. Under the provincial One Window Protocol, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the only provincial minister who can appeal municipal planning decisions to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. In some circumstances, public bodies, including conservation authorities, that provided comments before a municipal decision was made can also appeal municipal planning decisions.

6.1.4.7 The Federal Government

The release of the Federal Flood Mapping Guideline Series has created confusion on the flood modelling and mapping landscape of Ontario and other provinces/territories, related to roles and responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government. The incorrect assumption among some practitioners is that the federal “guidelines” supersede those of the province. However, this series of federal documents does not replace or supersede any provincial legislation, technical standards, policy or assigned roles and responsibilities of provincial and municipal governments and their agencies in natural hazard management and mitigation. The development and implementation of flood management legislation, regulation, standards, policy and flood mitigation measures is primarily a provincial/territorial responsibility.

The federal government may intend these federal guidelines as a basis for further specification as defined by a province. However, Ontario already has its “specifications” and will adopt what is pertinent to the province, through any subsequent updates that the MNRF makes to existing guidance. The overall confusion which seems to be exacerbated by each subsequent federal guideline release has resulted in engineering staff in MNRF’s regional offices needing to reaffirm the precedence of the MNRF’s natural hazard technical guides when working with proponents and consultants.

6.1.4.8 Provincial Watchdog

In many jurisdictions, there is a “provincial watchdog” role by a minister over a specific subject, area or discipline. The Ontario Great Lakes Protection Act legislative framework is a good example of what new legislation could be considered by the Province to improve the existing flood policy framework. As examples, the legislation could:

• Establish a lead minister for all flood related policy, standards, regulations and legislation.

of 368

108

• Establish the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, as the lead Minister given that the MNRF is already lead administrative ministry having overall government responsibility for hazard management policies/ programs.

• Direct that the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to work with the ministers responsible for the other Acts that touch on flooding (as identified in Section 5.2) on issues raised above and re-listed here:

o Clarifying roles in emergency management;

o Clarifying roles and responsibilities for identifying hazardous areas;

o Clarifying policies;

o Clarifying technical advice;

o Eliminating conflicts between planning and permitting decisions;

o Eliminating conflicts of interest;

o Reviewing the role of the provincial One Window Planning Service and the appeal mechanism; and

o Reinforcing that provincial guides, standards, etc., take precedence.

• Provide the lead minister with the authority to amend flood hazard related planning policies.

• Provide the lead minister with the authority to direct public bodies (including other ministries, municipalities, CAs, etc.) to carry out defined actions.

Recommendation #14

That the Province consider new legislation to improve the existing flood policy framework by having a lead minister responsible for all flood-related policy, standards, regulations and legislation.

6.1.4.9 Lack of Awareness of Property Owners

Often when floodplain properties are sold the seller isn’t aware of, or doesn’t openly disclose, the fact that the property is located in the floodplain nor the risk of flooding that is associated with the property. Disclosure is not required during real estate transactions. However, it was reported that financial institutions are now looking at the risk of providing mortgages to flood risk properties, and some real estate agents are disclosing the risk to protect their own liability. Even if this was being done everywhere,

of 368

109

it is too late in the process and potential home buyers should know up front before making an offer and applying for a mortgage.

Recommendation #15

That the Province consider adopting legislation that will require flood risk properties to be identified in some way that is publicly accessible, at the very least on the property title, to ensure that prospective buyers are aware.

6.2 Mitigation

As Ontario metropolitan areas continue to grow, they face increasing pressures to develop—by growing outward, through the construction of new communities at the urban fringe, and growing upward, by accommodating more residents in existing urban areas. Provincial policies such as those contained within “Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe” (2006) as well as within the Provincial Policy Statement, include density targets and other policies designed to limit outward growth and the creation of urban sprawl, and to promote greater densification and infill development within existing built-up areas.

Across larger scales, limiting sprawl helps to mitigate increased flooding caused by development by maintaining natural and pervious surfaces within a watershed that help to reduce and slow stormwater runoff. At the same time, targets for increased densification and infill development places additional pressure on municipalities to utilize currently undeveloped areas in existing settlement areas, including floodplains and other hazardous areas, and increase densities in already developed areas that are located in hazardous areas due to historic settlement patterns, such as designated Special Policy Areas. In some instances, urban areas targeted for further intensification and growth may be partially, or wholly, within flood-prone areas.

6.2.1 Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River Shorelines

As discussed in Sections 4.6 and 4.7, the shorelines of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River have and continue to be significantly impacted by very high lake levels and erosion.

It would be ideal if everyone lived, carried on a business or installed infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.) far away from the edge of the shoreline, as shoreline erosion is a natural event, and occurs under both high and low water situations and in between. However, legacy development and conversions of quaint little cottages into primary residences has resulted in a very large number of properties being at risk. This is

of 368

110

exacerbated by the fact that there are neighborhoods with ground elevations below the shoreline and the current lake level.

Mitigation of shoreline erosion is a very complicated challenge. For areas of intense development, the common mitigation option is shoreline protection, such as dikes, erosion protection and shoreline stabilization. There are many different examples of these structures that exist today and some are more resilient than others. Of course, removing or moving structures further away from the shoreline is another option.

These mitigative measures are extremely expensive and sometimes can’t protect to the water levels seen recently. Property owners are responsible for covering the cost of these works on private property, which is the same in many jurisdictions across Canada.

In Ontario (and similarly in other jurisdictions), municipalities may consider using local improvement charges (see Ontario Regulation 586/06 under the Municipal Act, 2001) to: first, assist with the construction and financing of a shoreline protection project for a group of private property owners (that may provide economy of scale for the design and construction of the works); and second, imposing a local improvement charge which may help make the financial commitment of the overall cost of the shoreline protection works on their property easier for the private property owner by spreading it out over 20 years or more.

Further, in the case of low-lying neighborhoods inland that rely on the protection works, the municipality could consider if charges might be included as part of the calculation of a larger benefitting area and therefore the cost of the works might be spread out among all benefitting properties, and not just the properties along the shoreline.

In my review of Ontario statutes, I discovered a piece of older legislation that is not currently used titled: The Shoreline Property Assistance Act. Under this legislation, the province may offer a Shoreline Property Assistance Program under which municipalities may issue debentures (subsequently purchased by the Treasurer of Ontario) to fund loans to private property owners to construct works such as retaining walls, dikes, breakwaters, groynes, cribs and other structures for the rehabilitation or protection of shorelines, including repairs and improvements to existing works. The funds may also be used by private property owners for raising, relocation or repairs to buildings. The Shoreline Property Assistance Program was cancelled by the Province in 2010 and not currently available to municipalities.

Municipalities may still consider offering loans to private property owners. One municipality in southwestern Ontario, the Town of Essex, has recently approved a new loan program for shoreline residents.

of 368

111

Recommendation #16

That municipalities consider utilizing local improvement charges to help finance and install (or upgrade) shoreline protection works, and if necessary, that the Province provide municipalities with enhanced authority to do so.

6.2.2 Ottawa River

6.2.2.1 Meteorological and Hydrological Conditions

The meteorological and hydrological conditions during the spring freshet period in the Ottawa River basin can vary widely and the inability to forecast, with any precision, mid-to-long term conditions presents an ongoing challenge. The storage capacity within the basin is finite and the goal of integrated management of the reservoirs is to effectively apply the use of reservoir storage to reduce downstream flows at the most critical periods of spring flooding. The appropriate use of the available storage is typically applied by reducing reservoir discharges during the periods when flows from the uncontrolled sectors of the basin are high (first peak) and then increasing discharges as this flow in the lower tributaries begins to decrease. The challenge then becomes one of increasing reservoir discharges, to prevent overfilling the storage reservoirs, but at the same time not causing downstream flow to exceed the initial peak.

Due to the topography of the Ottawa River basin, the use of reservoir storage in the upper part of the river has an exaggerated effect on reducing the first peak in the upper sections of the river (Mattawa-Pembroke) because of their proximity to the reservoirs. In years where the spring runoff in Abitibi-Timiskaming greatly exceeds the storage capacity of the principal reservoirs, a second peak along the lower river reach can occur. The area of the highest constriction on the river is below Pembroke in the Westmeath/Lac Coulonge area, and the effective use of reservoir storage in the Abitibi-Timiskaming area can be seen by two peaks that are close in size but both significantly lowered due to the use of reservoir storage. The basin topography and use of reservoir storage then often results in a second peak that is lower in the southern sections of the basin but higher in the more northerly sectors even though under natural conditions, without reservoir storage, the first peak would have been higher throughout. These are broad operational strategies that are impacted by the specific meteorological and hydrological conditions that vary significantly from year to year.

The uncontrolled/unregulated portion of the drainage basin contributed significantly to the flooding in both the 2017 and 2019 floods. For instance, in 2019, the Water Survey of Canada streamflow gauge on the Petawawa River, in operation since 1915, experienced its highest flow on record in April 2019, with a peak flow 46% higher than

of 368

112

its previous historic peak value recorded in April 1995. An analysis of flood magnitudes in the absence of existing water management structures and reservoirs (which regulate the other 40% of the drainage basin) was undertaken by the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board following the 2017 flood. For example, results showed that under the 2017 flood at Lac Deschenes, water levels would have been approximately one metre higher had there been no dams or reservoirs within the Ottawa River drainage basin.

6.2.2.2 Existing Development in the Floodplain and Floodway

Many areas affected by flooding in 2019 (and 2017) were legacy development or development that predates Ontario’s floodplain planning policies. Some of the more significantly affected areas in the vicinity of Westmeath, Rhoddy’s Bay, Braeside and Constance Bay, among other areas, are generally situated within the floodplain of the Ottawa River under the 1% flood (pursuant to mapping prepared under the Canada-Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program during the 1980s and early 1990s) and updated mapping completed by the municipalities and or a conservation authority (where available). Many of these areas are also mapped to be in the floodway, where flood depths exceed one metre and/or flow velocities above one metre per second can create significant hazards for developments.

Many of the dwellings that dot the landscape along the Ottawa River in the above noted villages and hamlets were once modest camps that were transitioned into seasonal cottages, and now many exist as permanent year-round residences. Significant investments have been made to these residences throughout the years; however, for the most part they are not flood proofed to the flood standard (1% flood).

While clearly unfortunate, it was not a surprise to see in person that many of the areas affected by flooding were very close to the river and there was a relatively small difference in elevation between the foundations (main floors) of many residences and the elevation of the river under normal water conditions in early September 2019. A tour of some areas provided evidence that some property owners were already in the process of raising their residences to a higher level and possibly some included moving their structures further from the river’s edge.

Recommendations in other sections of this report can also apply to this section on the Ottawa River.

of 368

113

6.2.3 Riverine, Lake

6.2.3.1 Maintaining Wetlands and Pervious Surfaces

Estimates suggest that 68% of the wetlands originally present in southern Ontario were lost by the early 1980s (State of Ontario’s Biodiversity Report, 2010). An additional 4% has been lost since this time (State of Ontario’s Biodiversity Report, 2015). However, a recent assessment has shown that the rate of loss appears to be decreasing (State of Ontario’s Biodiversity Report, 2015). While land conversion is the primary cause of wetland loss in southern Ontario, pollution, invasive species, alteration to natural water levels, and climate change also pose serious threats.

Ontario’s Great Lakes coastal wetlands have experienced similar historical losses and degradation over the past 200 years. It is estimated that by 1984, 35% of wetlands along the Canadian shores of Lakes Erie, Ontario and St. Clair had been lost, with the greatest losses occurring between Toronto and the Niagara River. Loss and degradation continue today, largely resulting from shoreline alteration, water level control, nutrient and sediment loading, invasive species, dredging and development. Upstream land use practices also have an impact, particularly through runoff from urban and industrial development, agricultural lands and impervious surfaces. Despite some localized loss and degradation, wetlands in the northern part of Ontario (Hudson Bay Lowlands and Ontario Shield ecozones) remain largely intact.

Wetlands act as natural stormwater management ponds, slowing the speed of flood waters and storing large quantities of surface water. Maintaining, restoring or constructing wetlands can be a cost-effective way of reducing flood risks and associated costs. A study commissioned in part by the MNRF in 2017 found that maintaining wetlands can reduce flood damages and costs by 29% in rural areas and by 38% in urban areas. The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) has also recently issued a report documenting the ability of wetlands to reduce flood damages, and promoting wetlands and other natural infrastructure as “a viable alternative to grey infrastructure option[s] for flood mitigation” and “a cost-effective way to mitigate material financial losses that would otherwise result from flooding.” (Combatting Canada’s Rising Flood Costs, September, 2018: http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Resources/IBC-Natural-Infrastructure-Report-2018.pdf).

of 368

http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Resources/IBC-Natural-Infrastructure-Report-2018.pdf


114

Recommendation #17

That the Province support municipalities and conservation authorities to ensure the conservation, restoration and creation of natural green infrastructure (i.e. wetlands, forest cover, pervious surfaces) during land use planning to reduce runoff and mitigate the impacts of flooding.

6.2.3.2 North Bay/Mattawa Area

As discussed in Section 4.2, there are two distinct watersheds in the MNRF North Bay District—the Sturgeon-Nipissing-French and the Upper Ottawa River. In the engagement session, it was quite apparent from representatives from both areas, that each area had their own distinct experience through the spring freshet.

In general, there was much more collaboration between all interested parties in the Sturgeon-Nipissing-French area, and although difficult decisions needed to be made regarding what area would see more water and when, at the end of the day everyone had the opportunity for input, everyone was well informed of the situations in the entire watershed, and everyone signed off on the final decisions. This resulted in a successful outcome in the sense that they did the best they possibly could in a bad situation.

Recommendation #18

That the MNRF North Bay District facilitate a meeting between the Sturgeon-Nipissing-French watershed group and the Upper Ottawa River Watershed group to help the latter group establish a collaborative arrangement for future flood events. It is important that all parties involved in the flood be present at the meeting.

Also as discussed in Section 4.2, the City of North Bay undertook a contingency plan to protect the wastewater treatment plant. However, if Lake Nipissing had reached a critical elevation, the wastewater treatment capabilities would have been severely limited, and there was no ability to bypass the plant and temporarily discharge (during the extreme flood event scenario) directly to the lake, which meant that a huge area of the City of North Bay would experience sewer backup and a few thousand residents would have needed to be evacuated.

of 368

115

Recommendation #19

That the City of North Bay in particular, and any other municipalities in a similar situation, install appropriate treatment plant bypass piping to improve resiliency of key infrastructure and limit the impacts of flooding on this infrastructure and associated impacts to public health and safety.

Based on their experience with the 2019 flood, but also events in previous years, the North Bay/Mattawa session participants suggested that the Lake Nipissing operational guidelines be reviewed.

Recommendation #20

That the Province, the federal government (Public Service and Procurement Canada) and the North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority review the Lake Nipissing Operational Guidelines.

6.2.3.3 The Muskoka/Magnetawan Rivers/Lakes

The Muskoka and Magnetawan Rivers are both complex systems with many factors impacting water levels, including physical geography, rainfall, snowpack and temperatures. They are both cascading systems and both originate on the western slopes of Algonquin Provincial Park. Dam operations are guided by the Muskoka Water Management Plan and Dam Operations Manual, and the Magnetawan Dam Operations Manual. There are no conservation authorities in either watershed, meaning the MNRF Parry Sound District Office and other dam owners are responsible for water management operations.

The public and residents have high expectations that the dam operations will maintain relatively static water levels and prevent floods. However, the dams are not flood control structures and have very limited capacity to store or hold back flood waters, as they have little to no lake or reservoir capacity. As a result, in a large volume, rapid runoff flood, the dams have limited capacity to reduce peak water levels. The greater the flood event, the less ability the MNRF/dam operators have to mitigate the impacts.

The dams were originally constructed to facilitate the transport of logs to sawmills and aid in commercial navigation. Over time, the operational emphasis has evolved from commerce and transportation to the provision of a balance of social/recreational, environmental and economic interests. To meet these interests, and to the extent possible, the MNRF operates the dams to maintain water levels within ranges identified in the established dam operating plan. These plans were formalized in the Water

of 368

116

Management Plans, and are based on normal conditions. The general public and stakeholders have been critical of how the dams are operated, not only with high water conditions but low water conditions as well.

Recommendation #21

That the MNRF establish a communication protocol to inform and involve key stakeholders (i.e. municipalities) on watershed conditions and operations throughout the fall and winter leading into and throughout the spring freshet, commencing in early 2020.

While there is growing development along the shorelines within the Magnetawan River watershed, there is significant development along the shorelines within the Muskoka River watershed. Accordingly, there is keen interest from local stakeholders and municipalities in the Muskoka River Water Management Plan.

In August 2018, the Province announced a $5 million Muskoka Watershed Conservation and Management Initiative to better identify risks and issues facing the Muskoka Region. The government also committed to matching tax-deductible donations up to an additional $5 million. By protecting this particular watershed and working with the local community, this initiative will help the Province develop a comprehensive approach to watershed management, which can inform current actions and future development.

On August 7, 2019, the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks announced the appointment of nine members to the Muskoka Watershed Advisory Group. The Advisory Group is tasked with providing advice and recommendations to the Minister on measures to protect the health of the watershed and support the economic growth in the region. An effective watershed management approach is important to the residents of the Muskoka, especially as the watershed faces pressures and stresses from increased development, increasing contaminants and nutrient loads, and intense and frequent flooding caused by extreme weather events.

of 368

117

Recommendation #22

That the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) use the results of the Muskoka Watershed Conservation and Management Initiative to inform any potential future amendments to the Muskoka River Water Management Plan by working with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and in the meantime, that the MECP consider whether to encourage the municipalities to establish a conservation authority or request the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to restrict development in the floodplains (e.g. Ministerial Order).

6.2.3.4 County of Haliburton/Trent Severn Waterway

Haliburton County is a large geographic area with multiple municipalities and infrastructure jurisdictions, including the Trent Severn Waterway (Parks Canada), the Province of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation, MNRF), the Crowe Valley Conservation Authority, the County of Haliburton, and the four local municipalities of Algonquin Highlands (Dysart et al, Highlands East and Minden Hills). This situation is somewhat unique with the number of watersheds and federal dams.

Six watersheds are represented in Haliburton County, but the majority of the County is located outside the jurisdiction of a conservation authority. The municipality of Highlands East is located within the jurisdiction of the Crowe Valley Conservation Authority.

Water originating in Haliburton County supplies water to the Trent Severn Canal but also for 47 downstream drinking water systems for communities such as Bobcaygeon Fenelon Falls, Lindsay, Peterborough and Trenton. There are 28 Trent-Severn Waterway (TSW) controlled dams above the village of Minden and the agency leads its own processes associated with dam operations and water level management. During high water conditions and flooding, TSW convenes conference calls to advise the MNRF and conservation authorities of current and predicted short-term dam operations strategies. Within the area, the MNRF operates four dams with specific operation plans, but these are operated in conjunction and collaboration with TSW operations.

As a result of the Haliburton County experiences with flooding over the last few years, there are now regular “spring freshet” conference calls held by staff of the MNRF and Trent-Severn Waterway, along with elected officials and administrative officials from emergency services, public works, etc. This collaboration has been reported as a success for helping disseminate information to the front-line people working to combat the flooding impacts, including municipal staff, conservation authority staff and the public.

of 368

118

A collaborative agency called the Upper Trent Water Management Partnership (UTWMP) was formed among the municipalities of Algonquin Highlands, Dysart et al, Minden Hills, Highlands East, North Kawartha, Trent Lakes, and the Coalition for Equitable Water Flow. The mission of UTWMP is to speak as a single voice for all stakeholders on water management issues affecting the reservoir and flow-through lakes, and to provide local water management leadership.

The County has partnered with Trent Severn Waterway, Kawartha Region Conservation Authority, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, and the Upper Trent Water Management Partnership to form a steering committee to oversee the completion of LiDAR, hydrology and mapping.

The County was successful in receiving National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) funding for airborne LiDAR survey data for the Burnt and Gull River Watersheds; however, additional funding to complete data analysis, hydrologic and hydraulic models and floodplain maps was denied as this work wouldn’t be complete before the program end date of March 2020. It is the intent of the County to apply for funding to complete this work if the program is extended.

Recommendation #23

That Haliburton County document how their collaborative model worked for the 2019 flood and share this information with, and for the benefit of, other counties, municipalities and conservation authorities.

6.2.3.5 Southwestern Ontario

As mentioned in Section 6.2.1 above, the shorelines of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River have and continue to be significantly impacted by very high lake levels and erosion. The focus in that section is mainly on mitigation methods using typical infrastructure solutions and associated funding mechanisms. However, municipalities are looking for bigger picture solutions as they acknowledge that these are not affordable.

The municipalities and conservation authorities in southwestern Ontario held a Roundtable Information meeting on September 19, 2019, in London, Ontario. The meeting was attended (in person or by phone) by municipalities (Chatham-Kent, Leamington, Windsor, Essex, Kingsville. Tecumseh, Pelee Island, Amherstburg, LaSalle, Elgin), conservation authorities (Lower Thames, Essex Region, St. Clair Region, and Kettle Creek), provincial departments, federal departments, the Great

of 368

119

Lakes St. Lawrence Collaborative and Zuzek, Inc. (consultant). A summary from the meeting resulted in the following statements:

High water levels and floods of 2019 must be viewed as a warning/wake up call. Change is needed – maintaining the status quo in policy and practice cannot continue. Municipalities cannot afford the infrastructure problems our current development approach creates, let alone future costs associated with climate change. There is an opportunity for the Provincial Government to work with Conservation Authorities and the Federal Government to lead a revolution on shoreline management. The shorelines, the ecosystems they support, the biodiversity, and ecosystem goods and services are simply too valuable to treat them like undeveloped subdivisions.

The Roundtable also resulted in a number of recommendations, some of which have been captured in other areas of this report, but I am highlighting one here:

Recommendation #24

That the provincial, federal and municipal governments work with the Essex Region Conservation Authority and the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority to undertake a coordinated short- and long-term strategy to address the existing and expected impacts to Chatham-Kent, Windsor-Essex and Pelee Island as a result of current and future water levels, flood and erosion hazards, and climate change on Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River.

6.2.3.6 Flood Protection Land Forms

Some municipalities are considering the use of “flood protection landforms” to open hazardous areas up to new or intensified development. This is the approach currently being taken by the City of Toronto to open lands east of the Don River to development—a $1.25 billion development project supported by all three levels of government. The approach taken was permitted as a “one-off” and represents a considerable deviation from the MNRF’s natural hazard technical guides and the Provincial Policy Statement, as documented in a protocol signed by the City of Toronto, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the MNRF.

Existing ministry policies do not support using flood protection landforms to open new areas for development. Specifically, the MNRF’s Technical Guide – River and Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit (2002) does not support the use of flood protection landforms (e.g. berms, dikes, flood walls, and other such structural methods) as permanent flood control structures or to facilitate development in hazardous areas.

of 368

120

Flood protection landforms can result in increases in upstream flood levels, increases in downstream flows and increases in downstream velocities. The construction of flood protection landforms can create new or aggravate existing hazards and would therefore not be consistent with Section 3.0 of the Provincial Policy Statement. Flood protection landforms and other structural measures can be overtopped making flooding worse, and they often inspire a false sense of security thereby encouraging further development in hazardous areas. Structural measures are associated with high costs, during construction and in perpetuity afterwards. Inspection, certification, maintenance, operation and repair are ongoing, often unaffordable for local communities. New construction adds to the existing municipal infrastructure deficit.

Increasing development pressures and high-profile projects, such as the Lower Don Development project, is forcing the Ministry to defend its current approach to hazard management and how best to balance the use of prevention versus protection to manage flooding and other natural hazards.

While prevention-based approaches have been repeatedly shown to be more effective in reducing the impacts of flooding and other natural hazards, flood protection landforms do have a role to play in certain situations, and the approach taken to develop the lower Don area is an excellent example. The value of the proposed real estate development has justified the great expense of ensuring that all the issues and concerns of a permanent landform and the intense development behind it in the floodplain were appropriately dealt with, including being adaptive to climate change by building higher than the design flood. While flooding will always be potentially a risk, the risk has been reduced.

There is a strong possibility that the protocol for the lower Don area and the City of Toronto’s flood protection infrastructure projects will set a precedent for other areas in the province. To ensure that developers, municipalities and conservation authorities adhere to strict requirements and conditions to permit such a development in the hazard lands, this new category, the requirements and conditions should all be enshrined in legislation (regulation).

of 368

121

Recommendation #25

That the MNRF review and update the appropriate technical guides, with consideration of a new category permitting development in hazardous lands along large inland lakes, rivers and streams, and along the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River, utilizing flood protection land forms and/or other forms of flood protection and floodproofing methods with very strict requirements and conditions. Further, consideration should be given to enshrining this concept in legislation or in a regulation along with other structural methods that are now permitted in non-hazard lands or Special Policy Areas.

6.2.4 Urban/Flash Flooding (Pluvial Flooding)

There are many examples of pluvial flooding in urban areas that have resulted in major disruptions of service and significant impacts on property, businesses, homes and people.

This type of flooding occurs during heavy rainfall events independent of an overflowing river or stream. The ground cannot absorb the water as quickly as it falls, especially in urban areas with a lot of hard surfaces like pavement. Drainage systems (such as human-made and natural channels, roadways, storm and combined sewers) can quickly become overwhelmed, causing water to pond in parking lots, flow into streets and nearby homes and structures, or back up into basements.

Floodplain mapping is not really practical, as overland and sewer flooding can occur anywhere in the urban area. This is partly because of the spatial variability of the “eye” of the rainstorm, but also due to the local topography, unique development (legacy and new), and the type of drainage systems in each neighborhood.

Challenges with pluvial flooding include increased imperviousness over time; inadequate surface drainage plan; private property being lower than the streets (either the grade at the house or reverse slope driveways); reliance on storms sewers that are designed for smaller rainstorm events; sedimentation of channels and sewers; blocked culverts or curb inlets; inflow and infiltration; sewer and channel design capacity limitations in older neighborhoods; deteriorated sewers; reduced sewer or wastewater treatment plant capacity due to high water levels in the receiving stream (and lack of proper gates); and failures of pumping stations or wastewater treatment plants.

There is a substantial difference between managing floods in newer greenfield development and historically developed areas, and some of the latter areas are subject to intensification or infill development pressures. In the greenfield areas, non-structural

of 368

122

and structural mitigation methods, including green infrastructure, can be incorporated as part of the development. In older areas, municipalities are faced with significant costs to rehabilitate, enhance or build new flood protection infrastructure for drainage systems. There are also challenges for municipalities when a newer greenfield development must utilize an existing drainage system downstream through an existing development.

Stormwater management in Canada has been evolving over the years, and system components are not only dealing with the quantity of stormwater but the quality as well (pollution reduction and erosion protection). Installation of regional stormwater management (retention or detention) ponds or linear naturalized channels has achieved both objectives, although quality improvement to a lesser degree.

6.2.4.1 Use of Regional Flood Control Facilities

Development practices are also changing and exposing potential regulatory gaps.

Stormwater management facilities are regulated in Ontario by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). Under the Environmental Protection Act, an approval is issued for the purpose of stormwater management works to provide for an enhanced level of water quality control, erosion protection, and attenuation of post-development storm flows up to and including the 100-year storm event. Regional Flood Control Facilities (RFCFs) are increasingly being constructed in some areas to help mitigate flooding in urban areas. RFCFs are stormwater management ponds that are designed to control flooding associated with much larger regional storm events (e.g. Hurricane Hazel for GTA communities) exceeding the 1% storm and well above and beyond the capacity of traditional stormwater management (SWM) ponds.

While traditional SWM ponds are considered to pose a relatively low risk to downstream landowners, the risks associated with the increased use of RFCFs are largely unknown, and they are not regulated by the MNRF. RFCFs retain significant volumes of stormwater runoff and could cause significant flood damages if they were to fail, raising concerns that the use of these facilities creates new, or aggravates existing, flood hazards, particularly when built immediately upstream of residential areas.

Due to their design, RFCFs function more like dams than traditional SWM ponds (i.e. they provide flood control function). Unlike dams, there are no provincially approved structural design standards for RFCFs.

The construction of these structures can be viewed as creating new hazards and thereby conflicting with provincial policy direction which states that “planning for stormwater management shall not increase the risks to human health and safety and property damage.” In addition, the MNRF’s Technical Guide specifies that stormwater

of 368

123

management facilities are not to be used to provide any reduction in flood flows, and accounting for their storage in flood hazard mapping artificially reduces the extent of regulatory flood lines and is non-compliant with the MNRFs Technical Guide.

While many of these RFCFs are being constructed to support greenfield development, they are also being used in existing developments, often in highly urbanized landscapes. In some instances, RFCFs are being constructed for the purpose reducing flood flows and freeing up flood hazard lands for intensified development by artificially reducing the size of floodplains (i.e. redrawing flood lines) downstream of RFCFs, through amendments to existing flood hazard maps (i.e. floodplain maps) used to guide land use planning decisions. The MNRF views this as putting people and property in harm’s way and contrary to the MNRF’s Technical Guide and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).

While the construction of these structures has been limited, they are becoming more common (more than 50 of these structures within 46 Ontario communities) as determined by a study commissioned by the MNRF. Apparently, many of them are being built larger than their original design specifications with the aim of holding back even larger volumes of water. A prevalent perception observed when collecting data for the study was that RFCFs protect downstream landowners and these larger ponds contribute to safety rather than increased risk. The study documented that one-third of the RFCFs examined represented an increased risk to downstream communities in the event of a failure. Furthermore, the risks and consequences of failure of these facilities is not typically a design consideration. Important factors determining risk of RFCFs included the size of the pond and the embankment height, with the most influential factor in determining the risks of these facilities being the pond configuration and landscape setting (e.g. elevation of pond relative to downstream receptors) specifically in relation to populated areas.

Recommendation #26

That, due to the increased use of the regional flood control facilities, the MNRF review whether the Province should take steps to regulate the use of these structures or let municipalities decide their use.

The above issue raises the point that there is a lack of clarity around the MNRF’s role in urban flooding. To date, the MNRF’s focus has been on flooding from waterbodies (rivers, streams and lakes), suggesting that “urban flooding”—owing to its linkage with stormwater management and development infrastructure—should be borne by ministries with mandates related to those components (i.e. MECP, MOI, MMAH, etc.).

of 368

124

Recommendation #27

That the Province create a working group of all pertinent ministries to define their respective roles as they pertain to pluvial flooding.

6.2.4.2 Municipal By-laws – Pre-development Rates of Runoff

One of the methods to reduce the impact of intense rainstorm events on drainage systems is to limit new development to “pre-development” rates of stormwater runoff. All the new hard surface means that rain or snowmelt water will runoff at a much greater rate than previous agricultural use or natural habitat. By limiting the runoff to the pre-development rate, the drainage system downstream will see no more water after development than before development.

For a new subdivision, restricting to pre-development rates may be achieved with a combination of conventional stormwater management techniques (i.e. dry or wet pond) and other low impact development practices. For multi-residential or commercial situations, such as a high-rise tower or shopping mall, detention of the stormwater can be achieved by on-site storage (roof-top, underground tank, open retention basin or parking lot storage) and/or by using permeable surfaces.

6.2.4.3 Municipal By-laws – Flood Protection Measures for Private Property

Flood protection of private property is not just a municipal responsibility but also a property owner responsibility. We put locks on our doors because we can’t expect that the police service will protect our houses from intruders. Neither can we expect that the drainage system will protect us from all storm events. Accordingly, residents and other property owners have a responsibility to protect from pluvial flooding by the installation of backwater valves, sump pits and pumps, sealing doors and windows, disconnecting downspouts from the sanitary sewer, and building up the earth around the foundation and window wells, etc.

Recommendation #28

That the Province consider whether it should take steps to regulate drainage standards in urban areas, such as the requirement to restrict runoff flows to pre-development rates and flood protection measures for private property, and if so, what is the most appropriate legislation.

of 368

125

6.2.4.4 Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation

The Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation (Intact Centre) is an applied research centre with a national focus located within the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. The Intact Centre was founded with a gift from the Intact Financial Corporation. The Intact Centre works with homeowners, communities, governments and businesses to identify the impacts of extreme weather and climate change, and to develop the practical tools needed to help communities adapt to these changes and minimize impacts.

A particular focus of the Intact Centre over the last three years has been the development and testing of a variety of tools that have advanced flood risk reduction in Canada. From 2016 to 2018, the Intact Centre’s Home Flood Protection Program developed a home flood risk assessment tool and assessor training program, and delivered over 500 flood risk assessments to residents in Ontario and Saskatchewan. Learnings from the program delivery contributed to the publication of a national guideline for basement flooding protection (CSA Z800-18) in 2018. Additionally, in April 2019, a report titled: “Water on the Rise: Protecting Canadian Homes from the Growing Threat of Flooding” was released by the Intact Centre summarizing the top flood risks associated with residential homes and the best practices for motivating action in order to reduce risk.

The Intact Centre is committed to working with municipal and provincial governments to educate residents. The Intact Centre has also published several other reports on flooding, all of which can be found on their website (https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca).

Recommendation #29

That the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks reach out to the Intact Centre for Climate Adaptation, as part of their commitment to consult with the insurance and real estate industry under the 2018 Environment Plan, to work collaboratively to raise awareness among homeowners about the increasing risk of flooding and to disseminate the basement flooding protection information to homeowners.

6.2.5 Funding for Permanent Works

Following significant events, there is always a demand for funding for more permanent works (infrastructure such as a dam, bridge, shoreline protection work, erosion control infrastructure, etc. that will be designed, used and remain in place over the long term)

of 368

https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/

126

by local officials and the general public. Given the financial pressures that governments are facing currently, a potential immediate source would be existing programs, such as the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) program, the Federal Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP), the Ontario Water Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) program, and the Ontario Financing Authority green bond program.

Recommendation #30

That the Ministry of Infrastructure ensure that the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund supports municipalities in enhancing and implementing asset management plans (which includes stormwater management and consideration of climate change adaptation and mitigation activities), which will help municipalities make the best possible investment decisions for their infrastructure assets.

Recommendation #31

That the Ministry of Infrastructure work specifically with the MNRF on the design of future intakes of the Green stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program to ensure flood-related projects are eligible.

The Province’s Water Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) program is an effective provincial-municipal cost-share program for maintenance of water control infrastructure that reduces flooding, mitigates flood damages and disruption to the economy. Currently, the program is funded through the MNRF capital program budget on a fiscal year basis, and it is suggested that a multi-year budget be established for some larger maintenance projects that may span many years to provide flexibility for future potential fluctuations in funding requests.

Recommendation #32

That the Province continue to fund the Water Erosion Control Infrastructure program and consider adopting a multi-year budget.

The Ontario Financing Authority runs a green bond program that includes five categories— Clean Transportation; Energy Efficiency and Conservation; Clean Energy and Technology; Forestry, Agriculture and Land Management; and Climate Adaption and Resilience. Under the last category, the following projects will generally be considered eligible—flood protection and stormwater management; extreme weather resistant infrastructure and municipal infrastructure for clean and/or drinking water;

of 368

127

wastewater treatment; sustainable urban drainage systems; and other forms of flooding mitigation. (See more details at www.ofina.on.ca/greenbonds.)

Recommendation #33

That the Province continue to issue Green Bonds in 2020 and beyond to help finance extreme-weather resistant infrastructure.

6.3 Preparedness

6.3.1 Monitoring and Data Management

6.3.1.1 The Hydrometric Agreement

There is always an argument for better hydrometric data; however, the fiscal realities likely mean that there will be no significant increase in funding for the hydrometric network.

Recommendation #34

That the Province continue its financial commitment and partnership arrangement with the federal government through the hydrometric network agreement.

Recommendation #35

That the Province continue to monitor the effectiveness and location of gauges to ensure that there is appropriate coverage and consider repositioning gauges if necessary.

Recommendation #36

That, where appropriate and where funding permits, the Province consider the installation of GOES telemetry at key locations where more frequent access to information is required (areas of higher risk/watersheds that react quickly to changes in precipitation or snowmelt) and where current landline telecommunication technology is less secure and not as reliable in transmitting information.

of 368

http://www.ofina.on.ca/greenbonds

128

Recommendation #37

That, where appropriate and where funding permits, the Province consider the use of automated alarms at those stations in watersheds of higher risk/quick response to precipitation and snowmelt to alert when water levels have exceeded a threshold of concern.

6.3.1.2 Climate (Weather) Monitoring

While there is heavy reliance on the hydrometric network, it is recognized that weather “inputs” are critical to understanding and predicting events. Citizen science is an effective tool in gaining additional precipitation information (such as through the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow Network or CoCoRAHS), typically at a lower cost and at low risk.

Recommendation #38

That the Province explore whether there would be value toward additional manual snow course locations in those watersheds where snow cover and snow water content are factors in spring flooding, and seek to involve the citizens in the collection and reporting of that data.

Recommendation #39

That the Province explore the feasibility of remote sensing products to better estimate the spatial distribution of snow and snow patterns.

6.3.1.3 Data Management

Beyond the MNRF, there are a number of other organizations or agencies that collect or have data that would be beneficial toward enhancing flood forecasting.

Recommendation #40

That the MNRF work with federal, provincial and local partners as well as industry toward an Open Data model where information is shared and consolidated into the existing Surface Water Monitoring Centre (SWMC) hydrometric monitoring database.

of 368

129

6.3.1.4 Satellite Remote Sensing

Although currently operationally working in an emergency management environment, the MNRF’s Remote Sensing Science Group is not an emergency management tasked group. The recent launch of the three RADARSAT Constellation Mission satellites highlights a significant opportunity to improve flood and ice monitoring, but will require additional provincial resources to coordinate, process, interpret and disseminate information in near real time. The portfolio of satellite imagery products and services the Remote Sensing Science Group supports to aid the emergency management products and services is growing year upon year.

Currently the Remote Sensing group supports emergency management flood monitoring only during the spring flooding season.

Additional remote sensing satellite monitoring opportunities (e.g. snow extent and snow water equivalent) remain unexplored/unexploited provincially due to resourcing.

Recommendation #41

That the Province investigate the return on investment of utilizing the new satellite imagery and resourcing with the necessary staff additions to provide better flood forecasting and monitoring.

6.3.2 Flood Forecasting and Warning

Flood forecasting and warning plays an important role in achieving the provincial objective of reducing risk to life and reducing property damages. It is particularly important to residents located in a floodplain where permanent mitigation works do not exist. The flood forecasting and warning system is very reliant on the provincial hydrometric network (stream gauges), from which the data is used to make decisions of when to issue flood warnings, operate infrastructure (such as dams), and provide real-time status reports on flooding on different reaches of a river. The stream gauge networks also provide an important history of flooding.

Flood forecasting and warning requires integration with municipal emergency response. However, there is inconsistent resourcing for flood forecasting and warning across the province. Conservation authorities are not present in all areas of the province. In areas without conservation authorities, flood forecasting and warning is the responsibility of the local MNRF district office. Not all conservation authorities and districts are consistently equipped or resourced in order to provide flood forecasting and warning services.

of 368

130

Updated floodplain mapping provides the opportunity to produce new products to aid in flood forecasting and warning, and emergency response. Floodplain maps can provide a fundamental base for designing and developing response plans for a range of floods. Updated hydrology modelling for floodplain mapping can be leveraged to create new up-to-date flood forecasting models. Flood forecasting and warning systems can be designed to reflect the local watershed characteristics and be risk-based. More sophisticated complex warning systems can be implemented where the risk is highest, and less complex systems where there is lower risk and more lead time.

An ideal system would include developing real-time flood forecasting models that merge hourly forecasts with radar and real-time gauge data, the use of machine learning algorithms for data assimilation, and ensemble forecasting for areas where flood vulnerability has been identified. Flood messages should target people within affected geographic areas and consider the use of Common Alerting Protocol – Canadian Profile format. This would increase coordination, interoperability and efficiency between agencies. Over the long term, this could integrate with the Canadian Alert Ready platform and mobile telephone public safety apps.

Recommendation #42

That the Province update the flood forecasting and warning guidelines, providing clarity on roles and responsibilities (conservation authorities, MNRF district offices, municipalities) and provide examples of the systems, from simple to complex, with recognition that each system should be designed to reflect the local watershed characteristics and resources.

6.4 Emergency Response

6.4.1 Emergency Operations

As first discussed above in Section 6.1.4.1, Chapter 3 of the 2017 Auditor General’s report raised concerns regarding the current governance structure for emergency management in Ontario.

The Office of the Fire Marshall and Emergency Management (OFMEM) within the Ministry of the Solicitor General, is taking action to address the Auditor General recommendations and other reviews. The following are two additional initiatives planned or currently underway that will improve emergency operations around floods:

1) AG recommendation to enhance Emergency Management program capacity – Emergency Management Ontario (EMO) to enhance readiness for large-scale

of 368

131

emergencies; adopt and meet international/national best practices; mandate use of the Incident Management System; and enter into mutual assistance agreements with neighbouring jurisdictions.

2) AG recommendation to increase support to municipalities and emergency management partners – EMO to enable the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC) to more quickly deploy resources to supplement local capacity; implement emergency management software to support provincial-municipal information and resource sharing; enhance capacity to deploy humanitarian aid; and implement emergency management supply chain/logistics program.

Recommendation #43

That the Ministry of the Solicitor General implement emergency operations initiatives in response to the recommendations of the Auditor General as soon as possible.

During my engagement sessions, I did receive a lot of feedback from municipalities about improvements they would like to see implemented by EMO. In short, once they declare an emergency and request assistance from the Province, they want the Province to be more involved in coordinating a response and ensuring that the municipality has access to the resources and expertise it needs. Municipalities also request that the Province condense their requirements for reporting during an event, as it distracts from the actions needed to fight a flood, including reducing the amount of paperwork and daily reporting during a flood to multiple people at EMO.

Recommendation #44

That Emergency Management Ontario improve its processes for interacting with municipalities and clearly lay out the processes on their website.

Another complaint of municipalities was how the Canadian Forces (CF) were deployed. Municipalities do not understand the process as to how the Province engages the CF, and more importantly what activities the CF are approved to implement. In one municipality, the CF was distributing potable water when the municipality needed their help building sandbag dikes.

However, the focus should be on how the municipalities ask for assistance with specific needs rather than how to ask for a specific group’s assistance. The Province should determine best how to support the request and whether it can be done without federal support.

of 368

132

Recommendation #45

That Emergency Management Ontario clearly lay out the process for municipalities to request assistance during emergencies and provide field support to help determine the assistance that is required.

6.4.2 Communications

A better job could be done with communication and information dissemination before, during and after a flood, but most critically during a flood. Municipalities and residents demand good information so they can make informed decisions. Timely information is also key, such as forecast peak water levels, to allow appropriate preparations to be made to protect people and property.

Many smaller municipalities and CAs don’t have the resources to hire technical and communications specialists (either full-time or part-time) to answer public inquiries during a flood event. They get questions such as: “Who do I approach to ask for assistance with sandbagging?” or “What is the forecast peak water level at X location?” or “How do I build a sandbag dike?”

Recommendation #46

That the Province have a central website for flooding issues that provides answers (for conservation authorities, municipalities and the public) to a myriad of typical and frequent questions, or at the very least, a link to the agency (provincial department, power company, etc.) that provides the answers to the questions.

6.5 Recovery

6.5.1 Compensation for Damages and Rebuilding

6.5.1.1 Compensation Programs

In many of the municipal engagement sessions, many smaller municipalities advised me that achieving the damage threshold of 3% of their total own purpose taxation (revenue) to be eligible for financial assistance is difficult. Further, if a municipality did not meet the 3% threshold, they were also excluded from the “build back better” pilot.

of 368

133

Recommendation #47

That the Province review the funding formula for eligibility of municipalities under the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance program.

As discussed in Section 5.3.2, partly in response to flooding in spring 2019, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing created a $1 million pilot project designed to help municipalities repair flood damaged roads, bridges and other infrastructure to a higher standard so they can better withstand extreme weather. As part of a $1 million pilot project, the province will provide municipalities that qualify for MDRA funding with up to 15% above the estimated cost of rebuilding damaged public infrastructure to make it more resilient to extreme weather. This is a very important program, as the investment to “build back better” will reduce flood damage in future events and therefore provides a return on the investment.

Recommendation #48

That the “build back better” pilot under the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance program move from a “pilot” to a full program. The Province should consider raising the 15% cap where it makes economic sense. The program should be tied to legislated flood protection levels and floodproofing criteria. For example, a bridge damaged by a flood can only be replaced if it is raised to the design flood.

There is no “build back better” component under the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians (DRAO) program. Under that program, assistance is based on the cost of returning a property to a functional level, which includes meeting building code requirements. Eligible costs may include floodproofing as required to obtain a building permit. Under the applicable provisions of the Building Code Act, the municipality must not issue a building permit in a regulated flood zone unless the conservation authority (or the MNRF in areas with no CA) has issued the required permit, which would include floodproofing requirements. DRAO does not cover floodproofing that is not required to obtain a building permit.

However, in municipal engagement sessions I heard several stories of individuals who repaired their houses after the 2017 flood only to be flooded again in the 2019 flood, and who claimed that had they been able to “build back better” after the 2017 flood that their damages in 2019 would have been eliminated or reduced. It is not clear if the damages were caused by flooding that exceeded the design flood or designated flood protection level for the area.

of 368

134

Recommendation #49

That the Province consider including a “build back better” component under the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians program.

At another municipal engagement session, I was advised that a home on leased land on a First Nation reserve and leased by a “non-status” person is not eligible under either the federal or provincial disaster assistance programs. The DRAO does not have any eligibility restrictions on leased land except if it is on First Nation reserve land. Indigenous Services Canada offers disaster assistance programs on First Nation reserves but only “status” residents are eligible. There are two possible ways to address this—the federal government could expand its program to include non-status individuals leasing on reserve land, or the province could expand its program to include reserve land. There would be a number of considerations that would come into play with the latter, including that provincial planning and building regulation policies do not apply on reserve land.

Recommendation #50

That the Province approach Indigenous Services Canada about expanding their disaster assistance program to include houses that are leased on First Nation reserve land by non-status individuals.

6.5.1.2 Relocation and Buyouts

A number of individuals and groups who participated in the review were interested in a buyout program being made available to residents living in floodplains whose homes were severely damaged by the 2019 flood events.

Buyouts can be beneficial when it is anticipated that the cost of more frequent emergency response activities and disaster assistance costs will outweigh the cost of providing those homeowners with fair market value for their homes. Also, buyouts are sometimes necessary when it is not technically feasible to meet floodproofing criteria, although this situation is not common. These programs can be highly contentious depending on how market value is determined and whether these programs are optional or forced onto residents in high-risk areas.

of 368

135

Recommendation #51

That the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians program be flexible enough to allow for removal of the structure from the floodplain (buyout) if it is the only technically and financially feasible option.

6.5.2 Insurance

Section 5.1.5 discussed that financial assistance for most flooding events in Ontario is largely provided by the Province or costs are borne by the property owner.

The flooding costs borne by property owners in Ontario are due to the limited insurability of flood risk areas. However, insured catastrophic losses in Canada (mostly related to water damage) are significantly increasing. Accordingly, the Insurance Bureau of Canada has been conducting research and producing reports on this issue.

“Overland flood insurance is available from a number of insurance companies active in the Ontario marketplace, however it is not available for high-risk properties, or if it is available, it is prohibitively expensive or available with a limited cap, and as a consequence virtually all high-risk zones remain uninsured or underinsured. Overland flood insurance premiums for high risk flood zones can average over $10,000, while the average premium for all other perils combined in these areas is in the order of $1,000.”1

“The limited insurability of flood risk places the burden for post disaster reconstruction and recovery on homeowners and taxpayers who are funding disaster relief spending from federal and provincial governments.”2

1 Insurance Bureau of Canada (2019). Options for Managing Flood Costs of Canada’s Highest Risk Residential Properties: A report of the National Working Group on Financial Risk of Flooding. June 2019, http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Studies/IBC-Flood-Options-Paper-EN.pdf. 2 IBC (2015) The financial management of flood risk - An international review: Lessons learned from flood management programs in G8 countries, http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Natural%20Disasters/The_Financial_Management_of_Flood_Risk.pdf.

of 368

http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Studies/IBC-Flood-Options-Paper-EN.pdf

http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Natural%20Disasters/The_Financial_Management_of_Flood_Risk.pdf

136

“Currently, for every dollar of insured losses borne by insurers in Canada, three to four dollars are borne by governments and home and business owners.”3

Although the market is now starting to change, residential coverage for overland flooding has historically not been available in Canada on the basis that it lacks economic viability. However, this is starting to change.

“As of spring 2019, 16 insurers offer overland flood products available to approximately 77% of Canadian property owners, with approximately 34% of Canadians having at least some insurance for overland flood risk.”1

Residential insurance for overland (pluvial and fluvial) flooding started to become available in Canada in 2015. The emergence of private flood insurance represents a significant redistribution of the financial risks associated with flooding. Despite significant costs to governments (who are typically compelled to provide disaster relief to flooded areas), individual private home and business owners also bear significant costs as disaster relief in Ontario is limited and only covers costs for the restoring “essential property” to a basic standard, up to a limit. Insurance will help to pool individual costs across broader society (who in the future will manage their own financial risks through flood insurance). Further on the concept of pooling costs, the Insurance Bureau of Canada recently released a report in June 2019 titled: “Options for Managing Flood Costs of Canada’s Highest Risk Residential Properties” (http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Studies/IBC-Flood-Options-Paper-EN.pdf) with input from a members of a private-public sector working group on financial management of flood risk. The report focuses on ways to better manage costs of overland flooding for high risk properties across Canada and advances three potential options: 1) Pure Market Solution: risk borne by homeowners; 2) Evolved Status Quo: risk borne by blend of homeowners and governments; and 3) Create a High-Risk Flood Insurance Pool. Option 3, the creation of a high-risk insurance pool for properties otherwise not able to access affordable flood insurance to cover losses and which would include capping or subsidizing premiums, was advanced as a preferred option. Work is continuing on this option; however, it is postulated that this “pool” could be capitalized through a fund

3 IBC, INTACT, etc. (2018). Combatting Canada’s Rising Flood Costs: Natural Infrastructure is an underutilized option, http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Resources/IBC-Natural-Infrastructure-Report-2018.pdf.

of 368

http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Studies/IBC-Flood-Options-Paper-EN.pdf



137

contributed by governments, and then be supported by insurance premiums paid into the pool and levies assessed on all homeowners or municipal rate payers.

There may be opportunities for the Province and the federal government to work with the insurance market to make flood insurance more available to more Ontarians (and Canadians) through increased investments in the identification and management of flood risks. Effective hazard maps are a pre-condition for establishing an effective flood insurance program. The risks associated with offering flood insurance cannot be adequately assessed without accurate, up-to-date mapping.

Recommendation #52

That the Province continue the dialogue with the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the federal government on the steps needed to make flood insurance more available to more Ontarians.

6.5.3 Waste Materials and Landfills

Smaller municipalities raised the issue of how the significant waste materials from a flood can negatively impact the capacity of a local landfill. Used dirty sandbags, flooded contents from a house or cottage (such as furniture, appliances, etc.) and if the house or cottage is destroyed, all the material from the structure’s demolition, can quickly use up landfill capacity. These municipalities claim that even if the waste can be accepted at an alternative landfill, it would most likely have to be hauled further away and the costs of hauling were a concern. And finally, municipalities expressed concern over the time period for the permitting process for establishing a new landfill (or expanding an existing landfill), which may exceed the time remaining before an existing landfill has reached capacity.

Disposal costs are in fact eligible costs under the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance (MDRA) program, but there has to be an actual cost incurred by the municipality. For example, if the municipality uses a private landfill and pays the tipping fees, those would be eligible. If the municipality does more runs with their garbage trucks, the overtime costs and additional fuel costs, etc., would be eligible. However, the MDRA is oriented to actual paid expenditures, meaning if a municipality has their own small landfill, there is nothing in the MDRA program to compensate them for the “room” or capacity of the landfill that is used up from flood-related waste materials and reduces the future lifespan of the landfill site, because there is no “out-of-pocket” cost incurred.

of 368

138

Recommendation #53

That the Province ensure that municipalities have all the information regarding eligible items under the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance program, including costs for disposal of waste materials from a flood.

Recommendation #54

That the Province consider special or expedited approvals for new or expanded landfills if significant capacity is used up from the disposal of flood-related waste materials.

of 368

139

Chapter 7

Recommendations to External Agencies

Implementation of the following recommendations are focused on agencies outside the jurisdiction or control of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). In those cases, I would expect that the MNRF can initiate discussions with the particular agency to try and seek agreement for implementation of a recommendation, in full or in part.

All three agencies below provided me with a considerable amount of material either in written form or in PowerPoint presentations, including very descriptive pictures, graphs and charts, during the review. A lot of the information is technical, but goes into considerable detail about their operations before, during and after the flood, including decisions that were made. Some of this information has already been presented to citizens in public meetings.

Recommendation #55

That the International Joint Commission, the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board, and Ontario Power Generation make their detailed information about their flood operations readily available on their respective websites.

7.1 International Joint Commission

Part of the general public and some stakeholder groups seem to misunderstand how the structures on the St. Lawrence River work and what effect the operation of those structures has during extreme floods. In particular, some believe that the International Joint Commission’s (IJC) operation of the structures has a negative impact on Lake Ontario or even Ottawa River flooding. However, it is important to understand that while the IJC’s responsibilities include the regulation of outflows at the Moses-Saunders Dam on the St. Lawrence River, they cannot fully regulate the water levels of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, and they have absolutely no bearing on flows of the Ottawa River. The Moses-Saunders Dam can allow for a higher outflow of waters from Lake Ontario to the St. Lawrence River than the natural conditions before its construction, and the 2017 and 2019 flood peaks on Lake Ontario were lower than those that would have occurred under natural conditions (refer to IJC’s website at www.ijc.org for more information).

The IJC has a tremendous amount of good information on their website, but unless you know what you are looking for, it is hard to navigate and you can spend a lot of time

of 368

http://www.ijc.org/

140

searching through reports to find specific information. The general public should have easy direct access to current issues such as the floods of 2017 and 2019. Having a “2017 Flood” button on the main webpage with links to related reports would be helpful, but illustrations on the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River system or how the operation of their structures impacted water levels in 2017 should be pulled out of the reports and be prominent on the “2017 Flood” page. For example, Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of the IJC report titled: “Summary of 2017 Great Lakes Basin Conditions and Water Level Impacts to Support Ongoing Regulation Plan Evaluation,” November 13, 2018 (https://ijc.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/GLAM_2017_MainReport_FINAL-20181129_2.pdf), are excellent illustrations of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River system. Figure 2.6 of the IJC report titled: “Observed Conditions and Regulated Outflows in 2017,” May 25, 2018 (https://ijc.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/ILOSLRB_FloodReport2017.pdf) is an excellent illustration of the water surface profile of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River showing the effects that a release of water needed to achieve a one centimetre drop over a period of one week on Lake Ontario would have on water levels at critical areas of the St. Lawrence River, such as Montreal. There are probably many other illustrations that could be pulled from the reports and prominently displayed.

Recommendation #56

That the International Joint Commission consider meeting with interested stakeholder groups and individuals to explain in considerable detail how their structures are operated.

Recommendation #57

That the International Joint Commission consider creating specific “2017 Flood” and “2019 Flood” buttons for their home webpage and populating those pages with detailed information on the floods and their operations, as well as providing direct links to related reports.

7.2 Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board

Likewise, with the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board (ORRPB), the general public and stakeholder groups misunderstand how water control structures on the Ottawa River are operated and what effect the operation of those structures has during extreme floods. A common complaint was that the information was too technical for the general public. As a result of the flooding damages in 2017 and 2019, residents

of 368





141

questioned whether more can be done to better plan for and reduce the impacts of flooding in the future.

On July 11, 2019, the Hon. John Yakabuski, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, sent a letter to his provincial and federal counterparts requesting their support in conducting an independent review of how the Ottawa River system is managed. The letter requested each counterpart to name an individual within their respective ministries that the MNRF could work with to set out the specific details of the review.

The ORRPB suggested that it may be time to review the actual 1983 Agreement that governs the Board and their roles and responsibilities to determine if the conclusions from 1980 still hold true almost 40 years later. The review could repeat the original process of studying the coordination between generation station operators and exploring reservoir expansion and related costs.

Recommendation #58

That the supporting agencies of the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board (Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the dam operators) consider reviewing the original agreement, recommendations and guiding principles, and board policies given they are almost 40 years old.

Recommendation #59

That the supporting agencies of the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board (Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the dam operators) consider removing “Regulation” from the title, as it implies that the Board can actually manage large floods when, in fact, they cannot because of the limited storage capacity of the generating station reservoirs, which were designed for electric power generation and not flood control.

Recommendation #60

That a communications officer be assigned to the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board to help with messaging during flood events or any public meetings and free up the staff engineers to concentrate on their duties. At least two communications officers should be assigned as needed and well trained in the technical operations. The officers should be from another government department as opposed to Ontario Power Generation or another non-government dam owner, since the public believes the dam owners only care about generating electricity.

of 368

142

Recommendation #61

That a communications person with marketing experience work with the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board to prepare more easily understood materials for publication. The approach to managing the Ottawa River by the Board is not well understood by the public or government officials. Also, the materials should not be confusing. In one example I saw, a line graph showed a water level difference of 1.0 metres but the text below it stated “> 50 cm or 20 in.

Hydrological forecasts should include better information about water levels all along the Ottawa River. People rarely care about flows, but they want to know what level the river will rise to, so they can prepare accordingly. Most of the information is right at or near a hydro structure, but there are a lot of houses and cottages along the river in between the gauges. Since this is a complicated river, it is recognised that it is difficult to interpolate between two gauges (it’s not a straight-line relationship).

Recommendation #62

That the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board work with Ontario Power Generation and consider installing staff gauges at critical settled locations along the river, and engage residents to read and report on these gauges. These residents have a vested interest in getting accurate information and so their “buy-in” could be to volunteer their time to provide the data.

Recommendation #63

That two municipal officials, one from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and one from the Quebec counterpart, sit on the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board. The intent is to provide contact persons on the Board trusted by municipalities in both provinces, and for the municipal representatives on the Board to help disseminate correct and accurate information back to municipalities. Consideration could also be given to adding municipal representatives to the Ottawa River Regulating Committee, in addition to or instead of the Board. It is recognized that the three signatories to the Agreement (Canada, Ontario and Quebec) would have to agree to amending the Agreement for this purpose.

of 368

143

7.3 Ontario Power Generation

As with the above two agencies, the general public and stakeholder groups do not understand how the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) stations work and what effect the operation of those power generating structures has during extreme floods. I included considerable discussion and explanation on the issues that were raised by stakeholders about the Ottawa River in Section 4.1.

Further to that, I must emphasize that while Ontario has many different waterpower producers operating throughout the province, my focus on OPG has been in relation to their operations on the Ottawa River, as they are the only Ontario-based waterpower provider operating on the Ottawa River proper. The recommendations below may also be relevant to other waterpower producers operating throughout Ontario.

Regarding Section 4.1.5, Explanation of Conditions at Des Joachims and the Dry Section at Deux-Rivieres, OPG had originally provided me with two diagrams showing operating levels during normal and high flow conditions to try and illustrate the situation. However, I did not include the diagrams in this report, as I think they would confuse the reader. What would greatly assist the reader would be additional illustrations of how the river goes through the changes from normal to high and back to normal conditions.

Recommendation #64

That Ontario Power Generation create a dynamic illustration regarding the dry section at Deux-Rivieres that “walks” the observer through the changes in water levels during low to normal to high flows, with voice-over explanation of water level changes, and that this video be included on their website.

I also discussed the issues in the upper Ottawa River watershed (Mattawa) in Section 4.2 and recommended a more collaborative approach with better communication in Section 6.2.3.2, which OPG supports.

OPG has made several recommendations to me on other matters and most are covered in other sections of this report.

One operational recommendation that OPG has raised that could reduce flooding impact would be a change of the reservoir refill date in the Water Management Plans for each power dam. It is suggested that the refill date be flexible depending on the watershed conditions, such as size and speed of the freshet in the region. Water Management Plans were not designed to manage floods. Balancing the constraints of the plan with the potential for flooding can sometimes be challenging. The Victoria Day refill constraints have been set primarily for recreational purposes; however, they cause

of 368

144

water management staff to make a trade-off between flood resilience and recreation. The refill date should not be based on a set trigger (or series of potential triggers), but allowed to be based on the unique conditions of each given year.

Recommendation #65

That Ontario Power Generation identify options to address their concern about refill dates and provide greater flexibility on how refill is determined, taking into consideration the range of potential impacts, to support potential amendment proposals to relevant Water Management Plans.

of 368

145

Chapter 8

Fiscal Pressures and Capacity Issues

The efficiency and effectiveness of the existing approval processes and associated policies and technical requirements could be limited by Ontario’s overall fiscal reality and capacity issues facing provincial ministries, municipalities, and conservation authorities.

8.1 Ontario’s Deficit

Ontario’s deficit was estimated to be as high as $15 billion in 2018 leading to the government committing to taking necessary steps towards restoring Ontario's fiscal health. Ontario’s deficit places pressure on the Province to further reduce costs and promote economic growth to help balance the budget and sustainably fund essential public services for current and future generations.

8.2 The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Capacity

Some stakeholders and other groups have raised concerns regarding the capacity of the MNRF to support approval processes and associated policies and technical requirements.

The MNRF has not assessed internal capacity needs required to support provincial natural hazard management policies and programs or assessed how such programs are resourced in other jurisdictions. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has also raised concerns that reductions in budgets, staffing and in-house expertise has hampered the effectiveness of the MNRF.

8.3 Conservation Authority Capacity

Many MNRF policies and programs associated with protecting Ontarians from flooding and other natural hazards are delivered by conservation authorities. Reliance on conservation authorities to administer permit applications and decisions, and to comment on municipal planning policies reduces costs for the MNRF but increases costs for conservation authorities and the municipalities that fund them.

Capacity levels among conservation authorities are very diverse with annual budgets ranging from less than $1 million to more than $100 million. This divergence in capacity affects the extent to which any given conservation authority can support hazard management policy objectives. Increases to conservation authority roles and responsibilities disproportionately impact smaller conservation authorities with limited

of 368

146

tax bases within their jurisdictions to support program and service delivery. Conservation Ontario and municipalities have repeatedly requested increases to provincial funding levels to conservation authorities, which have not been increased in over 20 years, and this year they have requested that the 2018 funding level be reinstated.

8.4 Municipal Capacity

The MNRF relies on municipalities to implement natural hazard policies contained within the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).

As with conservation authorities, capacity levels among municipalities are also quite diverse. Small, rural municipalities typically have a much smaller tax base than larger urban municipalities, and may be less able to support the effective management of flooding and other natural hazards.

Some municipalities rely on conservation authorities to support the management of flooding and other natural hazards, and would not have the resources to take on these responsibilities.

Recommendation #66

That the Province maintain, at a minimum, the current level of funding in departmental budgets and programs related to everything flood (i.e. existing approval processes and associated policies and technical requirements, floodplain mapping, maintenance of flood infrastructure, satellite imagery, etc.).

of 368

147

Appendix A – List of Documents Reviewed

A number of reports and additional background information was reviewed in developing recommendations included in this report, many of which were provided by stakeholders and individuals via email or during in-person meetings. A listing of publicly available documents received and reviewed has been provided below. Information on current flood-related initiatives being undertaken by the Province of Ontario • A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan • ERO#013-4992: Focusing conservation authority development permits on the

protection of people and property • ERO#019-0279: Provincial Policy Statement Review – Proposed Policies • The Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance (MDRA) pilot program (news release) • Provincial Flooding Task Force (news release) • Helping Protect the Muskoka Watershed (news release) Information on the International Joint Commission • Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River Plan 2014 • IJC GLAM (2017) Great Lakes Basin Conditions and Water Level Impacts to Support

Ongoing Regulation Plan Evaluation Provincial acts, regulations and policies associated with flood management • Provincial Policy Statement 2014 • The Planning Act (1990) • Ontario Regulation 97/04 – Content of Conservation Authority Regulations Under

Section 28 (1) of the Act: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses

Technical guidelines prepared by the province to support municipalities and conservation authorities in managing flooding and other natural hazards • Understanding Natural Hazards (2001) • Special Policy Areas Technical Guide (2009) • Technical Guide for Large Inland Lakes (1996) • Hazardous Sites Technical Guide (1996) • Technical Guide - River and Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit (2002) • Technical Guide - River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit (2002) • Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System Tech Guide (2001) Information on federal funding programs • National Disaster Mitigation Program

of 368

https://prod-environmental-registry.s3.amazonaws.com/2018-11/EnvironmentPlan.pdf




https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2019/06/ontario-helping-protect-communities-from-disasters.html

https://news.ontario.ca/mnr/en/2019/05/taking-action-to-better-plan-and-reduce-the-impacts-of-flooding.html

https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2018/08/ontario-helping-protect-the-muskoka-watershed.html

https://legacyfiles.ijc.org/tinymce/uploaded/LOSLR/IJC_LOSR_EN_Web.pdf



http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10463

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/040097



https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/dsstr-prvntn-mtgtn/ndmp/index-en.aspx

148

Studies, reports and presentations prepared by non-OPS entities • Intact Centre (2018) After the Flood: The Impact of Climate Change on Mental

Health and Lost Time from Work • Intact Centre (2018) Too Small to Fail: Protecting Canadian Communities from

Floods • Muir, Robert J. (2018) Reducing Flood Risk from Flood Plain to Floor Drain:

Developing a Canadian Standard for Design Standard Adaptation in Existing Communities

• Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. March 2015. Metadata Inventory of Existing Conservation Authority Flood Mapping

• Intact Centre (2016) Climate Change and the Preparedness of Canadian Provinces and Yukon to Limit Potential Flood Damage

• Insurance Bureau of Canada (2015) The Financial Management of Flood Risk • Insurance Bureau of Canada (2018) Combatting Canada’s Rising Flood Costs:

Natural Infrastructure is an Underutilized Option • Conservation Ontario (2013) Dodging the Perfect Storm: Conservation Ontario’s

Business Case for Strategic Reinvestment in Ontario’s Flood Management Programs, Services and Structures

• Ontario (2008) Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review: Facing the Future Together

• Making the Most of Floodplain Buyouts • Kenosha County Fox River Floodplain Acquisition Program • Are Floodplain Buyouts A Smart Investment for Municipalities? • Urban Flood Homeowners Hazard Perception & Climate Change (2009) • Urban Flood Resilience in Ontario – Ready Set Rain (2019) • Canadian Voices on Changing Flood Risk, 2017 Information provided to the Special Advisor during the community tour, section 1 • Limits to the Regulation of the Ottawa River – 2019 Spring Flood Overview (ORRPB) • Agreement Respecting Ottawa River Basin Regulation, 1994 (ORRPB) • Recommendations and Guiding Principles, 1989 (ORRPB) • Board Policies, 1990 (ORRPB) • The Quebec government unveils its flood action plan (news release) • 18 homes evacuated as Ottawa River floods, Chaudiere Bridge closing due to ‘high

water levels’ (news article) • Some in flooded Quebec town angry new dike will block their waterfront views (news

article) • Longitudinal Profile of the Lower Ottawa River • Ottawa River Nomination Document – Chapter 3 – Natural Heritage Values • Britannia’s berm faces its greatest test yet (news article) • Floods: Critical berm in Britannia showing signs of leaking (news article) • Flooding adds urgency to disaster planning and damage mitigation (news article) • Under water, again (news article) • Flood Warning – Ottawa River-Arnprior to L’Original (news release) • Ottawa River Flood Activation Area Map (Alfred and Plantagenet)

of 368

https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/After-The-Flood.pdf

https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/After-The-Flood.pdf

https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Climate-Change-Adaptation-Projects-FINAL.pdf

https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Climate-Change-Adaptation-Projects-FINAL.pdf

http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2018/02/reducing-flood-risk-from-flood-plain-to.html



https://conservationontario.ca/resources/?tx_fefiles_files%5Bfile%5D=461&tx_fefiles_files%5Baction%5D=download&tx_fefiles_files%5Bcontroller%5D=File&cHash=e994902ea09c9995d876827698107b44

https://conservationontario.ca/resources/?tx_fefiles_files%5Bfile%5D=461&tx_fefiles_files%5Baction%5D=download&tx_fefiles_files%5Bcontroller%5D=File&cHash=e994902ea09c9995d876827698107b44

https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Intact-Centre-Climate-Change-and-the-Preparedness-of-Canadian-Provinces-and-Yukon-Oct-2016.pdf

https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Intact-Centre-Climate-Change-and-the-Preparedness-of-Canadian-Provinces-and-Yukon-Oct-2016.pdf

http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Natural%20Disasters/The_Financial_Management_of_Flood_Risk.pdf

https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IBC_Wetlands-Report-2018_FINAL.pdf

https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IBC_Wetlands-Report-2018_FINAL.pdf

https://conservationontario.ca/fileadmin/pdf/policy-priorities_section/Flood_FloodBusinessCaseFactSheet.pdf





https://www.nationaladaptationforum.org/sites/default/files/FloodplainBuyouts_RebeccaK.pdf

https://www.nationaladaptationforum.org/sites/default/files/presentation_documents/KenoshaCounty_Buehler.pdf

https://www.nationaladaptationforum.org/sites/default/files/presentation_documents/Salvesen_MunicipalBuyouts.pdf

https://www.iclr.org/wp-content/uploads/PDFS/urban-flooding-homeowner-hazard-perceptions-and-climate-change-public-sector-digest.pdf

http://www.raincommunitysolutions.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ReadySetRainApril2019.pdf

https://uwaterloo.ca/climate-centre/sites/ca.climate-centre/files/uploads/files/canadian_voices_on_changing_flood_risk_fnl.pdf

http://ottawariver.ca/docs/2019/2019-06-23-WestmeathPublicMeeting.pdf

http://www.ottawariver.ca/_documents/agreement.pdf

http://www.ottawariver.ca/_documents/guidingprinciples.pdf

http://www.ottawariver.ca/_documents/policies.pdf

https://www.securitepublique.gouv.qc.ca/accueil.html

https://globalnews.ca/news/5211800/city-of-ottawa-to-provide-saturday-update-on-flood-operations/?utm_expid=.kz0UD5JkQOCo6yMqxGqECg.0&utm_referrer=

https://globalnews.ca/news/5211800/city-of-ottawa-to-provide-saturday-update-on-flood-operations/?utm_expid=.kz0UD5JkQOCo6yMqxGqECg.0&utm_referrer=

https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/some-in-flooded-quebec-town-angry-new-dike-will-block-their-waterfront-views/wcm/a689d438-60aa-4ee1-bf4e-d6e846fb88dd?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1567677897

http://www.ottawariver.org/pdf/N-0-ORHDC.pdf

http://www.ottawariver.org/pdf/N-0-ORHDC.pdf

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/britannia-berm-facing-greatest-test-1.5118789

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/floods-critical-berm-in-britannia-showing-signs-of-leakage

https://obj.ca/article/flooding-adds-urgency-disaster-planning-and-damage-mitigation

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-river-flooding-2019-recap-1.5119980

https://www.rvca.ca/media-releases/flood-warning-ottawa-river-arnprior-to-l-original-2?tmpl=component&print=1

https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2019/05/ontario-government-activates-disaster-recovery-assistance-to-support-residents-in-the-ottawa-river-a.html

149

• Ottawa River Flood Activation Area Map (Champlain) • Ottawa River Flood Activation Area Map (Clarence-Rockland) • Ottawa River Flood Activation Area Map (City of Ottawa, east) • Ottawa River Flood Activation Area Map (City of Ottawa, west) • Lanark County Flood Activation Area Map • This new mapping tool helped Ottawa handle 2019 floods (news article) • Ottawa River Flood Risk Map – Constance Bay – Map 25 • Ottawa River Flood Risk Map – Constance Bay – Map 31 • Ottawa River Flood Risk Map – Constance Bay – Map 32 • Ottawa River Flood Risk Map – Constance Bay – Map 33 • Ottawa River Flood Risk Map – Constance Bay – Map 34 • Townships of McNab/Braeside and Horton declare states of emergency due to

flooding (news article) • ‘You guys are responsible’: Anger, frustration in Westmeath at flood meeting (news

article) • ‘The 500-year flood’: Dozens forced from homes in Whitewater Region (news article) • Westmeath Spatial Context Map – 1/2 • Westmeath Spatial Context Map – 2/2 • Residents displaced from nearly 40 properties in Laurentian Valley (news article –

Pembroke Observer) • Update on the current state of flooding in County of Renfrew (news article) • Renfrew County Flood Activation Area Map • County of Hastings Flood Activation Area Map – Municipality of Hastings Highlands • District of Nipissing Flood Activation Area Map – Town of Mattawa • High and dry – the maddening story of the upper Ottawa River (news article) • Flood damage in the millions – Backer (news article) • Flooding’s worst still to come (news article) • OPG gives reasons for high water levels near Mattawa (news article) • North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority Jurisdictional Map • District of Nipissing Flood Activation Area Map – Town of Mattawa • Municipality of French River Flood Activation Area Map • French River state of emergency, province needs more flood funding (news article) • Several areas in northeastern Ontario declare a state of emergency (news article) Information provided to the Special Advisor during the community tour, section 2 • After the flood: can Toronto Islands be saved from the next disaster? (news article) • Environmental Impact of 2017 – Flooding At Toronto Islands (news article) • Humber River flood waters force 200 people from their homes in Bolton (news

article) • Major Flooding: Rising flood waters force residents from homes in Caledon (news

article) • Members of Ontario’s Muskoka Watershed Advisory Group (OPS news release) • Ontario Helping Protect the Muskoka Watershed (OPS news release) • Ontario Takes Next Steps to Protect Muskoka Watershed (OPS news release)

of 368





https://files.ontario.ca/lanark_county_drao_activation_map_en.pdf

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/flood-mapping-ottawa-2019-1.5174359

http://mvc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Ottawa-Floodplain-Map_25.pdf





https://www.pembrokeobserver.com/news/local-news/township-of-mcnab-braeside-latest-renfrew-county-municipality-to-declare-state-of-emergency-due-to-flooding

https://www.pembrokeobserver.com/news/local-news/township-of-mcnab-braeside-latest-renfrew-county-municipality-to-declare-state-of-emergency-due-to-flooding

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/westmeath-public-meeting-flooding-1.5186849

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/flooding-whitewater-region-township-ontario-forced-out-of-homes-1.5133118

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Westmeath,+ON+K0J+2L0/@45.827179,-76.9154683,4509m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4cd13f361299bbf3:0x8f0051760c15b1f2!8m2!3d45.819764!4d-76.890234

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Westmeath,+ON+K0J+2L0/@45.8314252,-77.0312539,18035m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4cd13f361299bbf3:0x8f0051760c15b1f2!8m2!3d45.819764!4d-76.890234

https://www.pembrokeobserver.com/news/local-news/residents-displaced-from-nearly-40-properties-in-laurentian-valley

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/update-on-the-current-state-of-flooding-in-county-of-renfrew

https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2019/04/ontario-government-activates-disaster-recovery-assistance-to-support-residents-in-the-county-of-renf.html

https://files.ontario.ca/drao/mmah-hastings-highlands-flood-activation-area-en-2019-may-21.pdf

https://files.ontario.ca/drao/mmah-nipissing-district-mattawa-flood-activation-area-en-2019-may-21.pdf

https://ottawasun.com/2017/05/11/high-and-dry--the-maddening-story-of-the-upper-ottawa-river/wcm/c27ba033-efbc-4127-b53c-085f4f9aaf73

https://www.nugget.ca/news/local-news/flood-damage-in-millions-backer

https://www.nugget.ca/news/local-news/floodings-worst-still-to-come

https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/opg-gives-reasons-for-high-water-levels-near-mattawa-1441536

https://www.nbmca.ca/about-us/areas-of-jurisdiction-maps/

https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2019/05/ontario-government-activates-disaster-recovery-assistance-to-support-residents-in-the-town-of-mattaw.html

https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-river-flood-activation-area-drao-en-2019-07-02.pdf

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/flood-funding-cuts-french-river-1.5155963

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/flood-warnings-northeastern-ontario-1.5130090

https://nowtoronto.com/news/after-the-flood-toronto-island-preservation-climate-change/

https://torontostoreys.com/2017/12/environmental-flooding-toronto-islands/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/flooding-bolton-humber-ice-jams-1.5059413

https://www.caledonenterprise.com/news-story/9224934-major-flooding-rising-flood-waters-force-residents-from-homes-in-caledon/

https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2019/08/members-of-ontarios-muskoka-watershed-advisory-group.html

https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2018/08/ontario-helping-protect-the-muskoka-watershed.html

https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2019/08/ontario-takes-next-steps-to-protect-muskoka-watershed.html

150

• District of Parry Sound Flood Activation Area Map • District of Muskoka Flood Activation Area Map • Drone footage shows extent of flooding in Ontario cottage country as further rain

looms (news article) • Kingdom of the Netherlands Water Management • Great Lakes Action Plan, Full Report • Great Lakes Action Plan, Summary • Work on Brantford dike to resume on August 19 (news release) • Preparing for Flooding – A Guide for Residents of Ayr • City proceeding with dike land expropriation (news article) • Ice jam, rain forecast has Chatham bracing for possible widespread flooding (news

article) • Helping Canadians Adapt to Extreme Weather • Agriculture minister visits flood damage in Chatham-Kent (news article) • Chatham-Kent mayor declares localized state of emergency amid flood fears (news

article) • Lake Erie Shoreline (news article) • Erosion, flooding trigger revision of Erie shoreline development policy (news article) • New floodplain map may stall south London development (news article) • Strong winds could bring more flooding to Erie Shore Drive (news article)

of 368

https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2019/05/ontario-government-activates-disaster-recovery-assistance-to-support-residents-in-parry-sound-distri.html

https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2019/05/updated-ontario-government-expands-activation-area-for-disaster-recovery-assistance-to-the-township.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-cottage-country-rainfall-warning-environment-canada-1.5116321

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-cottage-country-rainfall-warning-environment-canada-1.5116321

https://www.hollandtradeandinvest.com/key-sectors/water

https://westbrookpa.com/documents/glslcollab/reports/great-lakes/Great-Lakes-Action-Plan-Full-Report.pdf

https://westbrookpa.com/documents/glslcollab/reports/great-lakes/Great-Lakes-Action-Plan-Promo.pdf

https://www.grandriver.ca/Modules/News/index.aspx?newsId=2879f3f2-26bd-4dd9-b567-064d394352e2

https://www.grandriver.ca/en/our-watershed/resources/Documents/Flooding/Flooding_brochure_Ayr.pdf

https://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/news/local-news/city-proceeding-with-dike-land-expropriation

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/ice-jam-rain-forecast-has-chatham-bracing-for-possible-widespread-flooding

https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Intact-Centre-Brochure-2018.pdf

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/agriculture-minister-eyes-flood-damage-in-chatham-kent-mulls-solutions

https://www.chathamdailynews.ca/news/local-news/ice-jam-moves-but-stops-at-lighthouse-cove

https://video.snapstream.net/View/Transcript/58ufosUgViC324qAXzbwWE?accessToken=d3upxmmnrsxbm

https://www.chathamdailynews.ca/news/local-news/erosion-flooding-prompt-ltvca-to-revise-development-policy

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/new-floodplain-map-may-stall-south-london-development

https://www.chathamdailynews.ca/news/local-news/strong-winds-could-bring-more-flooding-to-erie-shore-drive-area

151

Appendix B – Community Tours

Community tours were held from September 4 – 14, 2019. The tour was broken into two sessions as noted below. The sessions were designed to allow municipal leaders and other stakeholders to share their experiences with flooding and their ideas as to how the province can be better prepared in the future. Feedback provided during the tour was used to assist in developing recommendations. Of note, both sessions included engagement sessions (held in groups), targeted engagement session (one-on-one meetings), and area-specific tours to help gain a complete understanding of the issues and impacts Ontarians are facing as a result of this spring’s flooding. Community Tour Session #1 – Eastern Ontario

• Wednesday September 4, 2019 – Ottawa (targeted session and tour) • Britannia

• Thursday September 5, 2019 – Ottawa (engagement session and tour) • Constance Bay, Braeside, Rhoddy’s Bay and Westmeath

• Friday September 6, 2019 – Pembroke (engagement session and tour) • Pembroke, Deux Rivieres, Klock and Mattawa

• Saturday September 7, 2019 – North Bay (engagement session) Community Tour Session #2 – Central and Southwestern Ontario

• Tuesday September 10, 2019 – Toronto (targeted meeting and tour) • Rockcliffe neighbourhood and Port Lands

• Wednesday September 11, 2019 – Huntsville (engagement session and tour) • Bracebridge

• Thursday September 12, 2019 – Toronto (targeted sessions)

• Friday September 13, 2019 – Cambridge (engagement session and tour) • Cambridge Flood Walls, Brantford Flood Works and Eagle Place

• Saturday September 14, 2019 – London (engagement session)

of 368

152

Appendix C – Engagement Session Participation The following is a list of organizations that participated in Regional Engagement Sessions. Thursday September 5, 2019 – Ottawa Engagement Session City of Clarence-Rockland City of Ottawa MPP, Carlton MPP, Constance Bay / Kanata-Carlton Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority Rideau Valley Conservation Authority South Nation Region Conservation Authority Town of Mississippi Mills Township of Champlain Township of Alfred and Plantagenet Friday September 6, 2019 – Pembroke Engagement Session City of Pembroke Municipality of Hastings Highlands MP, Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke Town of Arnprior Town of Deep River Township of Admaston/Bromley Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan Township of Greater Madawaska Township of Laurentian Valley Township of Madawaska Valley Township of McNab/Braeside Township of North Algona Wilberforce Township of Whitewater Region Saturday September 7, 2019 – North Bay Engagement Session City of North Bay City of Temiskaming Shores MPP, Nipissing Municipality of East Ferris Municipality of French River Nipissing First Nation North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority Public Services and Procurement Canada

of 368

153

Town of Mattawa Township of Chisholm Township of Mattawan Wednesday September 11, 2019 – Huntsville Engagement Session Armour Township MPP, Parry Sound-Muskoka Muskoka Watershed Advisory Group Muskoka Watershed Council Town of Bracebridge Town of Gravenhurst Town of Huntsville Town of Lake of Bays Town of Muskoka Lakes Township of Algonquin Highlands Ryerson Township Village of Burk’s Falls Friday September 13, 2019 – Cambridge Engagement Session City of Brantford City of Cambridge City of Kitchener City of St. Catharines County of Brant Grand River Conservation Authority Halton Region Conservation Authority MPP, Cambridge (Office of) MPP, Haldimand-Norfolk (Office of) Region of Waterloo Saturday September 14, 2019 – London Engagement Session City of Sarnia County of Essex Essex Region Conservation Authority Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority Municipality of Chatham-Kent Town of Essex Town of Kingsville Township of Pelee St. Clair Region Conservation Authority

of 368

154

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

The following is a list of the individuals and groups who met directly with the Special Advisor. Wednesday September 4, 2019 Ottawa River Regulation and Planning Board Thursday September 5, 2019 Insurance Bureau of Canada International Joint Commission Friday September 6, 2019 Westmeath Citizens Group Saturday September 7, 2019 North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority Tuesday September 10, 2019 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Thursday September 12, 2019 Association of Municipalities of Ontario City of Toronto Electrical Safety Authority Emergency Management Ontario Great Lakes Collaborative Kingdom of the Netherlands MPP Lindsey Park, Durham Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario Friday September 13, 2019 Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation Grand River Conservation Authority Saturday September 14, 2019 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

of 368

155

Appendix D – Written Submissions to the Special Advisor on Flooding

Written submissions were also received from a number of different groups over the course of the review. The submissions covered an array of issues including introductory comments, follow up materials, invitations/requests to meet with Mr. McNeil, detailed comments about flooding, water management and recent flood experiences or ideas of recommendations that should be put forward to government.

The list below identifies who submitted comments. A number of submissions were also received from members of the public whose names are not included below.

• Aquanty Inc. • Association of Municipalities of Ontario • Blue Mountain Watershed Trust • Boating Ontario Association • Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority • Cheryl Gallant, MP Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke • City of Ottawa • Community Living Upper Ottawa Valley • Conservation Ontario • County of Essex • Electrical Safety Authority • Emergency Management Ontario • Great Lakes Collaborative • Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario • International Joint Commission • International Joint Commission, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Adaptative

Management Committee • Kingdom of the Netherlands • Marit Stiles, MPP, Davenport • McMaster University • Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks • Ministry of Infrastructure • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing • Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry • Municipality of Chatham-Kent • Municipality of Clarington • Municipality of Leamington • Muskoka Lakes Association

of 368

156

• Muskoka Watershed Council • North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority • Ontario Association of Home Inspectors • Ontario Power Generation • Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board • Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • Township of Champlain • Township of Laurentian Valley • Township of Madawaska Valley • Upper Thames River Conservation Authority • Upper Trent Water Management Partnership • Westmeath Citizens Group • World Wildlife Fund

of 368

Re: Environmental Re ist notice 019-0732 b the Minist of Natural Resources andForest re ardin ro osal to amend three statutes and make a new re ulation

Greetings,

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is proposing legislativechanges to seven statutes and to make a new regulation under the Lakes and RiversImprovementAct. The legislative changes are part of the proposed Better for People,

1

Mike MooreMayor

auoj DING - Environmental Registry notice: 019-0732 , Ministry of Natural Resources andForestry proposal to amend three statutes and make a new regulation

The following message is being sent on behalf of Tosh Gierek

Ministry of Natural Ministre des Richesses <image002.png>Resources and Forestry naturelles et des Foréts

Strategic and Indigenous Direction des politiques relatives auxPolicy Branch stratégies et aux affaires

autochtonesPolicy Division

Divisionde la politique300 Water Street3" Floor North 300, rue WaterPelerborough ON K9J 3C7 3e étage NordTel: 705-755-1727 Peterborough (Ontario) K9J 3C7

Té|.: 705-755-1727

October 29, 2019

of 368

'I _l.-. -I_.-.|.u.I- - 'I - I-I-I -u. I.-.I.IJ.|I.-.I.I|.|_M-—

J‘-l'l'l'l'-'Il'l'l'l'I'l"l'I'-'-' ”l'l'H"I'I'In'l""I' ‘--

III-HJH u?fI_'I d?ln -u"IuJu'—f-f-I- III-Iu1'uI_fII1If—?1 I'll-"I:I£fIIJIu'IZ1'ZPu'I—'I"ffEI—I—

nu-.._r .-|_-|-|-_ur—|.|.Ia|.-.l.|.| J-_- I L1--II-IrII'-Iu-I‘:-II-.6 '-'. . .'I-I.I-‘I-I.I-|.I-I.I-—'|:.-J.Hi

I! I"-I-'I'.I-I-I-I-.I-I'I__...-.'I_. ..J..-..J Ir.' 1.: |.|.-Ia._.J.-a:h-II

'fI'XE;ffI'I'fI 'I—Ii'I:ZI—In'I-'I:f

I FIZIJ-I-'Jn'Ju'Iuf'Iu-'u'I' ‘-1-XI‘. ' I ""5-

iju"-'—-—I-Iul '--—IJ' ulxq u£f— -ZI:.'I'-'T'——fX

I-I I'I'Iu1-J—'fu {J I-Ej?l-I

I-‘bf ‘hh?-PIF-India‘: I'I'JIfI

-._.I._Ir..[r.|'|'I.-.|.

"-ILFJIEPE I I —"“I"u'fI'IIPEI-II

. r-.:._-J- -|..q.|.|--I. lrI.I."I'—I'IuIuI-'IuI.IJI-£I—I-—.|_..|_._._|,I.-."~_=-a_.,|_q.;|-..|.||:|n_n .-._._..-I _._...- r.-... .__.,,|._--..|_

I-P-'-u'— 'u'1I “-‘I1 —uiF—Iu'—'I 'I"I_—‘I”I I1fJ—

‘FA: '— I IuI— -f—'Iu"u'f'I --I In'I-‘-'-‘III-I-I

H n_.u' ‘+l u:'—'u J!-II-I til uxful I I-—I-'f'fI—

-...I,r_ ._ .‘.|._.|._ .|..--.--_|_.-|.|_.I|.n.Inr.I.-.|... .-_|

. |..-_,:.—.- ..._......,..-_.|..._.._.|. -._....-I'_—..-

:.—u_._.|.;|_|.--_|_ -.-..-l,..|-.|_.-.-I_|....=."..._|..- ..___I._|.-. |'I.'.I.' .-- .1_n_. ._I.|.|.I-.l-III— -.l-I-I—I-I-I-I -I— 1 -—'-P ' -"'1-IrI.n.|-.-j -jun-I-‘I-.

.r.-!

Smarter for Business Act, 2019. if passed, these changes are intended to support thegovernment’s commitment to reduce unnecessary red tape and regulatory burden andmodernize government to be simpler, faster and more cost-effective, while ensuring thesustainable use of natural resources and public health and safety are not compromised.

A proposal to amend the following three Acts and propose a new regulation is postedon the Environmental Registry.

1. Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994

2. Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act

3. Lakes and Rivers ImprovementAct and new Minister’s regulation under theAct

of 368

of 368

By-law 19-12-1232 Page 1 of 1



A by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council at its regular meeting of December 4, 2019

Whereas, Section 5 of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended states that the powers of a municipality shall be exercised by its Council and generally through by-law; and

Whereas, Council deems it expedient and necessary to confirm and adopt through by-law the proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region at its regular meeting held on December 4, 2019.

Now therefore Council of the Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region enacts as follows:

1. That the actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region in respect of each recommendation contained in the reports, and each motion and resolution passed and other actions taken by Council, its regular meeting held on December 4, 2019 is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law.

2. That the proper officials of the Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region are hereby authorized and directed to do all the things necessary to give effect to the action of the Council referred to in all proceeding sections hereof.

3. That the Mayor and Clerk are authorized and directed to execute all documents in that behalf and to affix thereto the seal of the Corporation of the Township of Whitewater Region.

4. That this by-law shall come into force and take effect upon being passed by Council.




of 368