Media Release Full Date, 4:30 P - Region of Waterloo

REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

The following are the minutes of the Regular Council meeting held at 7:00 p.m. in the Regional Council Chamber, 150 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, with the following members present: Chair K. Seiling, L. Armstrong, J. Brewer, T. Cowan, D. Craig, R. Deutschmann, T. Galloway, J. Haalboom, B. Halloran, R. Kelterborn, G. Lorentz, C. Millar, J. Mitchell, S. Strickland, J. Wideman, and C. Zehr.

DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT R. Deutschmann declared a non-pecuniary interest under Items 7 b) and d) Delegations regarding Rapid Transit due to he and his spouse being shareholders of corporations that have an interest in a property at 10 Duke Street West, Kitchener. D. Craig declared a non-pecuniary interest under Items 7 b) and d) Delegations regarding Rapid Transit due to his son recently purchasing property within the area of a proposed station on the rapid transit system. K. Seiling confirmed his pecuniary interest as disclosed at the April 12, 2011 Planning & Works Committee meeting related to Items 7 b) and d) Delegations regarding Rapid Transit due to his children owning property in the proposed corridor. DELEGATIONS a) Arthur Esdaile, London, Ontario appeared before Council with respect to Bill 22, Children’s Law Reform Act. He requested Regional Council’s support of the Private Member’s Bill, referencing the material he submitted which was included with the agenda. He advised the Bill has received first and second reading. A. Esdaile stated he has recently received letters of support from Cambridge and London. In response to an inquiry from a member of Council regarding approval from the Provincial government, A. Esdaile advised the more letters of support he can obtain, the more he can show the MPPs. A question was raised about who determines the competency of the grandparents. A. Esdaile replied a judge would rule on these matters. C. Zehr commented he supports the effort in principle but this is not within Council’s jurisdiction. Chair Seiling advised according to the Region’s Procedural By-law a motion regarding this matter is out of jurisdiction and in order to proceed a motion to suspend the rules of procedure is required with a two-thirds majority. MOVED by G. Lorentz SECONDED by D. Craig THAT Council suspend the rules of procedure in accordance with Section 1 (2) of the Procedural By-law 00-031, as amended to deal with a matter not within its jurisdiction. CARRIED (2/3 majority)

Council Minutes - 2 - 11/04/20

970420

MOVED by G. Lorentz SECONDED by R. Deutschmann THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo endorse the request from Arthur Esdaile to support Ontario Legislature Private Member’s Bill 22, to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act, to recognize the importance of children’s relationships with their parents and grandparents. CARRIED Chair Seiling vacated the Chair due to his pecuniary interest. G. Lorentz assumed the Chair for this portion of the meeting. b) Derek Satnik and Denis Pellerin, Community Renewable Energy Waterloo Region (CREW)

appeared before Council with respect to Mass Transit – LRT/Rapid Transit. They provided a presentation, a copy of which is appended to the original minutes. The presentation highlighted the overview of CREW, context of their position on why the Region should consider Aerorail, history and benefits of Aerorail, related economics, typical concerns/misconceptions, solving valid concerns and CREW recommendations.

Members of Council had questions with respect to accessibility costs and sudden stops

between platforms. D. Satnik advised accessibility has been included in the costs and the system operates with redundant motor systems and also has a backup car to pull another one off if necessary.

Further questions were raised about intensification and the potential for the company to

share costs. D. Satnik responded aerorail will assist with intensification the same as light rail will and it will be a brand new exciting version of transit in Waterloo Region. Some of the stops could be directly into mall or office spaces. He advised the company itself would not consider cost sharing but they may pursue corporate ownership.

There was discussion that the environmental assessment for rapid transit did consider

aerobus but it was screened out and there is a difference of opinion on costs. With respect to energy usage, D. Satnik advised both systems are electric and should have

comparable costs. He also noted the route would be fairly consistent to the current proposal for light rail. A calculation on ride times has not been completed but D. Satnik expected it to be faster than the proposed system.

D. Satnik urged Council to complete a feasibility study and research on the aerorail

technology. Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services stated the

Region did review this technology when they were looking at the different options but this is an unproven technology and has not been used in the type of urban environment the Region has. He also referenced the costing information that was reviewed by the consultant.

Chair Seiling resumed the Chair. c) Al Burton, lawyer representing Mac's Convenience Store Inc. and Jeffrey Grimm, property

owner of 105 Hespeler Rd appeared before Council with respect to the awarding of the tender for the Hespeler Road/CPR Grade Separation (Report F-11-022). A. Burton advised


970420

his client, along with the landlord, J. Grimm have been meeting with staff on this issue. There is still a matter of concern related to the potential for the grade differential between Mac’s Convenience Store and the reconstructed roads in this area. They have done a preliminary analysis of the material received and urged Council to direct staff and the contractor to work with Mac’s Convenience Store and the property owner to eliminate the grade differential that has been discussed since September 2009.

J. Grimm echoed the comments made by A. Burton and advised they currently have

accessibility but based on the drawings they have reviewed they are not convinced this will remain the same. They want to ensure they have the same accessibility they currently have when the project is finished.

Chair Seiling clarified that staff are continuing to meet with the delegation to find a resolution

to the concerns and it is difficult for Council to direct the outcome. It will be up to staff to determine if the contractor will be involved in discussions with the property owner and tenants. It was noted awarding of the tender does not preclude discussions going forward and potential change orders being required.

An additional delegation request was made by Tim Mollison. Chair Seiling vacated the Chair due to his pecuniary interest. G. Lorentz assumed the Chair for this portion of the meeting. d) Tim Mollison, Tri-TAG appeared before Council with respect to the Aerorail proposal. He stated this technology was eliminated more than two years ago and highlighted his concerns with the proposed technology, including the costs and lack of successful examples. He urged Council to continue with the rapid transit process and adopt the light rail system with the extension into Cambridge. Chair Seiling resumed the Chair. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS J. Haalboom requested an amendment to the spelling of her name on pages 6 and 8 of the April 12, 2011 Planning & Works Committee minutes. C. Millar noted she was opposed to the approval of the budget on March 23, 2011 but this was not requested to be recorded at the time the vote was taken. MOVED by J. Brewer SECONDED by J. Haalboom THAT the following Minutes be approved as amended: a) Budget – March 23, 2011 b) Closed Council – March 23, 2011 c) Council – March 23, 2011 d) Planning & Works – April 12, 2011 e) Administration & Finance – April 12, 2011 f) Closed Committee – April 12, 2011 g) Community Services – April 12, 2011 CARRIED


970420

MOVED by B. Halloran SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT Council go into Committee of the Whole to consider reports. CARRIED FINANCE REPORTS a) F-11-022, T2011-003 Grade Separation of Hespeler Road (250 Meters North of the

“Delta”) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) (Waterloo Subdivision, Mile 1.55), City of Cambridge

MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by C. Zehr THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the tender of Dufferin Construction Company for Grade Separation of Hespeler Road (250 Metres North of the “Delta”) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) (Waterloo Subdivision, Mile 1.55), City of Cambridge in the amount of $16,504,306.53 including all applicable taxes. CARRIED b) F-11-023, T2011-106 Rehabilitation and Testing of Municipal Supply Wells MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by C. Zehr THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the tender of Well Initiatives Limited for the Rehabilitation and Testing of Municipal Supply Wells at a total price of $527,303.20 including all applicable taxes. CARRIED c) F-11-024, T2011-111 Exhibit Fabricator - Waterloo Region Museum MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by C. Zehr THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the tender of Taylor Manufacturing Industries Inc. for the Exhibit Fabricator – Waterloo Region Museum, at a total price of $1,683,700.00 including all applicable taxes. CARRIED d) F-11-025, T2011-014 Regional Road 23 (Katherine Street) and Regional Road 22

(Northfield Drive) Bridge Rehabilitations, Township of Woolwich MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by C. Zehr


970420

THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the tender of Belor Construction Ltd. for Regional Road 23 (Katherine Street) and Regional Road 22 (Northfield Drive) Bridge Rehabilitations, Township of Woolwich, in the amount of $1,510,458.91 including all applicable taxes; AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an increase in project funds of $238,628.92 plus applicable HST, gross and net to fund the required contract work. CARRIED e) F-11-026, T2011-110 Application of Pavement Markings MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by C. Zehr THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the tender of K.D.N. Pavement Markings Ltd., for the Application of Pavement Markings in the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge for a five (5) year term commencing May 1, 2011 at a total price of $898,745.50 including all applicable taxes. CARRIED f) F-11-027, P2011-11 Supply of Fine Bubble Diffused Aeration System for Plant 1 Aeration

Tanks at Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant, City of Kitchener MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by C. Zehr THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the proposal of Aquarius Technologies Inc. for the Supply of Fine Bubble Diffused Aeration System for Plant 1 Aeration Tanks at Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), City of Kitchener at a total cost of $234,475.00 including HST. CARRIED COMMITTEE REPORTS Planning and Works

The Summary of Recommendations of the Planning and Works Committee was presented by Jim Wideman, Chair of the Committee. MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by L. Armstrong THAT the Summary of Recommendations of the Planning and Works Committee, dated April 12, 2011, Items 1 to 10, and 2 reports from the closed session, Items 11 and 12, be adopted as follows: 1. a) THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the proposed improvements on

Frederick Street (Regional Road #6) from Lancaster Street to River Road as outlined in Report E-11-024.


970420

b) Direct staff to file the Notice of Completion for this Class Environmental Assessment by means of advertisement in the local newspaper and mailings to the adjacent property owners, tenants and agencies and place the Environmental Assessment Study files on the public record for a period of 30 days.

c) THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo amend Traffic and Parking By-law 06-

072, as amended, to: Add to Schedule 24, Reserved Cycling Lanes, Anytime, on both sides of Frederick

Street (Regional Road 6) from East Avenue to Bruce Street; Add to Schedule 20, Centre Lane: Two-Way Left-Turns, on Frederick Street (Regional

Road 6) from 67m East of Edna Street to 67m West of Bruce Street; Remove from Schedule 4, No Stopping, 11:30am to 12:30pm., 4:30pm to 5:30pm.,

Monday to Friday, on both sides of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to East Avenue;

Add to Schedule 4, No Stopping, 11:30am to 12:30pm., 4:30pm to 5:30pm., Monday

to Friday, on the south side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to East Avenue;


to Friday, on the north side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to 22m east of Gordon Avenue; and


to Friday, on the north side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from 66m east of Gordon Avenue to East Avenue in the City of Kitchener as outlined in Report E-11-024 dated April 12, 2011.

2. That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo close and declare surplus a portion of Northfield

Drive East, in the Township of Woolwich described as Part Lot 32, German Company Tract, as detailed in Report No. CR-RS-11-017 dated April 12, 2011, pursuant to the Region’s property disposition by-law, to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor.

3. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the revised fees and charges for land

development at the Region of Waterloo International Airport with the new fees and charges to have effect on June 1, 2011 as set out in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011; AND THAT the Regional Clerk be directed to issue notice of intent to amend the Region’s Fees and Charges By-law to incorporate the fee and charge amendments described in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011 in accordance with the policy of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for providing notice; AND FURTHER THAT the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be authorized to enter into an agreement with the Corporation of the Township of Woolwich as may be required to facilitate the development lands at the Region of Waterloo International Airport as described in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011 with the form and content of such agreement to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor.


970420

4. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo declare a leasehold interest of greater than twenty-one (21) years in approximately 4.7 acres situate in the southeast corner of Part 1 on Registered Plan WR-70802 in the Geographic Township of Woolwich, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, being lot 4 on the plan of survey attached to Report CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042 dated April 12, 2011 as Appendix A (the Lands), surplus to its needs, in accordance with the Region’s Property Disposition By-law;

AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services to enter into a Lease with Dynasty Air Flight Services ULC, an Alberta Corporation, (the Lessee) as described in Report CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042 dated April 12, 2011 with the form of the lease to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor.

5. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo amend Traffic and Parking By-law 06-072, as

amended, to add to Schedule 24, Reserved Bicycle Lanes Anytime on both sides of Fischer-Hallman Road (Regional Road 58), between Victoria Street (Regional Road 55) and Queen’ s Boulevard in the City of Kitchener, as outlined in Report E-11-016 dated April 12, 2011.

6. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the 2011 Water and Wastewater

Monitoring Report summarized in Report E-11-043/P-11-041 as the account of water supply and wastewater treatment capacity as of December 31, 2010.

7. THAT the Region of Waterloo accept P-11-034, Monthly Report of Development Activity for

February 2011, dated April 12, 2011. 8. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve allocations totalling a maximum of

$165,721 from the Environmental Stewardship Fund as described in Report P-11-035, particularly in Attachment A, dated April 12, 2011.

9. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve a Tax Increment Grant for the

properties known as 130 and 170 Water Street North in the City of Cambridge in an amount not to exceed $4,372,514 under the Region’s Brownfield Financial Incentive Program to be financed from the remaining funds from the Brownfields Financial Incentive Pilot Program to a maximum of $930,941 and from a source to be identified as part of the Reserve and Reserve Fund Report planned for Administration and Finance Committee in May 2011 as described in Report P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023, dated April 12, 2011.

AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Region’s Commissioner of

Planning, Housing and Community Services and Chief Financial Officer to execute a multi-party Tax Increment Grant Agreement with the registered owners of 130 Water Street North, namely Cambridge Mill Development Inc, and 170 Water Street North, namely Haastown Holdings (Cambridge) Inc. and the Corporation of the City of Cambridge, as described in Report P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023, dated April 12, 2011 with the form and content of such agreement to be satisfactory to both the Regional and City Solicitors.

10. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an amendment to Controlled Access

By-law #58-87 for a temporary right-in, right-out only access on the east side of Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Boulevard) approximately 65 metres north of Block Line Road in the City of Kitchener as described in P-11-036, dated April 12, 2011.

11. THAT The Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the settlement with 1231 Shantz

Station Road Inc. and Greenhorizons Group of Farms Limited in relation to the


970420

expropriation of 1292 and 1231 Shantz Station Road, Township of Woolwich, whereby the Region pays the sum of $799,250.

12. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve, enter into Agreements for, and

execute all documentation related to, the acquisition of lands for the construction of the Grand River Transit Strasburg Road Facility Expansion described as Part Lots 5, 7 and 9 on Municipal Compiled Plan No. 1021, Part of Lot 49 GCT in the City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo being Part of PIN 22491-0295 and Part of Lot 5, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021, in the City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, being Part of PIN 22491-0818, from The Corporation of the City of Kitchener for the sum of $1,741,300.00, plus associated costs, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor;

CARRIED Administration and Finance The Summary of Recommendation of the Administration and Finance Committee was presented by Carl Zehr, Vice-Chair of the Committee. MOVED by C. Zehr SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT the Summary of Recommendations of the Administration and Finance Committee dated April 12, 2011, Items 1 to 3, and 1 report from the closed session, Item 4, be adopted as follows: 1. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo establish the following tax ratios for the 2011

property tax year: Residential 1.0000 New Multi-residential 1.0000 Multi-residential 1.9500 Commercial 1.9500 Industrial 1.9500 Pipelines 1.1613 Farm 0.2500 Managed Forests 0.2500

AND THAT the necessary tax ratio and tax rate by-laws for 2011 be introduced at the April 20th Regional Council meeting; AND FURTHER THAT the Area Municipalities be notified accordingly. [F-11-020]

2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the policy statement for the following

Human Resources policy:

Regional Social Media Sites (HR I-38) [CA-HR-11-005]

3. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo declare the Region’s existing easement

interest in Part 6, Reference Plan 58R-16677, City of Waterloo as surplus and enter into


970420

such documentation as is required to release the Region’s interest established by the easement in favour of the owner of the lands on which the easement is located, for $1.00, subject to the Region's property disposition by-law and to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor, as detailed in Report CR-RS-11-020 dated April 12, 2011.

4. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo appoint Iga Janik as the arts representative to

the Public Art Advisory Committee for the three year term commencing April 1, 2011 and expiring March 31, 2014.

CARRIED Community Services The Summary of Recommendations of the Community Services Committee was presented by Sean Strickland, Chair of the Committee. MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by J. Mitchell THAT the Summary of Recommendations of the Community Services Committee dated April 12, 2011, Items 1 to 5, be adopted as follows: 1. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo enter into an agreement with Conestoga

College Institute of Technology and Training (“Conestoga College”) for the delivery of Food Safety Training Certification programs effective May 1st, 2011 with such agreement to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor, as outlined in report PH-11-015, dated April 12, 2011.

2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo increase the 2011 operating budget for

Seniors’ Services by $59,606 gross and $0 net Regional Levy, as outlined in report SS-11-016, dated April 12, 2011.

3. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo extend the Emergency Shelter Program

Agreement with Reaching Our Outdoor Friends (ROOF) for 10 beds for May 1 to December 31, 2011; AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo extend the Domiciliary Hostel Program Agreement with Argus Residence for Young People for 5 beds for June 17 to December 31, 2011, as outlined in the report SS-11-018, dated April 12, 2011.

4. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the attached “Provincial

Homelessness Business Case to Support Additional 2011 Funding” as part of the 2011 budget submission to the Province’s Ministry of Community and Social Services, as outlined in Report SS-11-019, dated April 12, 2011.

5. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo take the following actions regarding

Community Housing capital reserve requirements, as outlined in Report P-11-018/F-11-008, dated April 12, 2011:

a) Renew the urgent request to the Province of Ontario and Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation to provide adequate and sustainable funding to Community Housing Providers in Waterloo Region, as described in Report P-11-018/F-11-008; and


970420

b) Forward a copy of this report to MPs and MPPs representing Waterloo

Region, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Public Renewal and Infrastructure, the Chair of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and all Community Housing Providers in Waterloo Region.

CARRIED OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a) Approval of Time Change for Regional Council Meeting on June 1, 2011 - 4:00 p.m. MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by J. Brewer THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the change of the start time for the Wednesday June 1, 2011 Regional Council meeting to 4:00 p.m. CARRIED MOVED by T. Cowan SECONDED by G. Lorentz THAT Committee of the Whole rise and Council resume. CARRIED MOVED by T. Cowan SECONDED by C. Millar THAT Council adopt the proceeding of the Committee of the Whole. CARRIED ENACTMENT OF BY-LAWS – (FIRST, SECOND & THIRD READINGS) MOVED by G. Lorentz SECONDED by L. Armstrong a) THAT a By-law to Establish Tax Ratios for Regional Purposes and Area Municipal Purposes

for the Year 2011 be read a first, second and third time, finally passed and numbered By-law 11-018, signed by the Regional Chair and Regional Clerk and sealed with the Regional Seal.

b) THAT a By-law to Establish and Levy the Rates of Taxation for Regional Purposes for the

Year 2011 be read a first, second and third time, finally passed and numbered By-law 11-019, signed by the Regional Chair and Regional Clerk and sealed with the Regional Seal.


970420

c) THAT a By-law to Amend By-law 58-87, as amended, Being a By-law to Designate and Regulate Controlled-Access Roads (Regional Road #28, Homer Watson Boulevard) be read a first, second and third time, finally passed and numbered By-law 11-020, signed by the Regional Chair and Regional Clerk and sealed with the Regional Seal.

d) THAT a By-law to Amend By-law 06-072, as amended, Being the Region’s Traffic and

Parking By-law (Reserved Cycling Lanes, Fischer-Hallman Road) be read a first, second and third time, finally passed and numbered By-law 11-021, signed by the Regional Chair and Regional Clerk and sealed with the Regional Seal.

e) THAT a By-law to Expropriate Certain Lands for Road Improvements to Trussler Road

(Regional Road 70), in the City of Kitchener and the Township of Wilmot be read a first, second and third time, finally passed and numbered By-law 11-022, signed by the Regional Chair and Regional Clerk and sealed with the Regional Seal.

f) THAT a By-law to Confirm the Actions of Council of April 20, 2011 be read a first, second

and third time, finally passed and numbered By-law 11-023, signed by the Regional Chair and Regional Clerk and sealed with the Regional Seal.

CARRIED ADJOURN

MOVED by J. Brewer SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT the meeting adjourn at 8:12 p.m. CARRIED REGIONAL CHAIR, K. Seiling REGIONAL CLERK, K. Fletcher

Regional Transit Should ConsiderAerorail

by

Derek Satnik, P.Eng., LEED® AP

Community Renewable Energy Waterloo

www.crewzone.ca

zone.ca

CREW

• Community Renewable Energy Waterloo

• Local non-profit, >1100 members

• a network of knowledgeable advocates, early adopters and interested citizens who initiate, resource and support local projects:

– Energy conservation and sustainable use of energy

– Green buildings

– Sustainable living (including transit, local food, etc)

zone.ca

Context

• CREW supports light rapid transit

• CREW does not support either BRT(a) or LRT as proposed

• CREW accepts that LRT is likely to move forward through KW

• CREW sees a better way for Cambridge

zone.ca

This Presentation

• CREW believes Aerorail (by Aerobus) presents great promise:

– Cheaper than BRT, yet more functional than LRT

– Most economical solution (1/2 to 2/3 BRT cost)

– Truly rapid

– Flexible, truly additional infrastructure

– Innovative: suits our region & will attract riders

– Business opportunities

zone.ca

History

• Wuppertal Schwebebahn (running since 1824)

• Aerobus founded 1970 in Switzerland

• First project ran harmlessly through an ecological reserve in Zurich, 1970

• Bought by US in 1987

• Recognized by UMTA in 1992 as “favoured suspended light rail technology”

zone.ca

Flexibility

• Can be at grade, above grade, or building integrated.

• Capacity suitable for current ridership and future growth (5,000 like BRT up to 20,000 rides/day like LRT)

• No restrictions on routing (ie: it actually is rapid)• Spans up to 2000 ft. between supports• True multiplication of infrastructure (no impact on

grade level traffic)• Simpler dedicated “lanes” to satellite nodes (eg:

townships): support pilons only, no roadwork

zone.ca

Economics

• BRT costs ~$20M/km, LRT ~$35M/km, Aerorail ~$10-15/km.

• BRT/LRT impose many additional costs now classed as externalities (eg: the $50M rail crossing upgrade at Weber to accommodate displaced traffic on King): risk of externalities is much reduced with above-grade Aerorail

• Local job creation (manufacturing, labour, … everything but the space-grade body shell)

• Tourism• Opportunity for international ownership

zone.ca

Typical Concerns/Misconceptions

Concern / Misconception

• Not safe

• Lightning protection

• Sway / sea-sickness

• View into local residences

• Public Acceptance (NIMBY?)

Truth

• Accident free @ Schwebebahn for >150yrs

• Same as LRT, but easier

• Two cables: no sway

• Too high: busses are worse (and only when in res. areas)

• 45% (>260) of the Record’s respondents say Aerobus should be considered here(enough to win maj. gov!)

zone.ca

Valid Concerns Can be Solved

• There isn’t a modern system that we can visit

• Malaysia is under construction: will be complete in ~6-12 mos.

• All subsystems have been proven (motors, structural cables, doors… fairly simple really)

• Older technology is well proven (Montreal, Mannheim Germany, Schwebebahn since 1824)

• Not done locally, so do a pilot test first(noting that it costs 50-65% of BRT, so we can spend lots of “care” and “buffer” dollars and still come in well under budget)

zone.ca

What about Cambridge?

• Insufficient ridership to justify LRT today, but how do we build ridership without it?

• Can we fairly ask them to pay for a system that only benefits others for the first several years (maybe decades)?

• Placing the pilot in Cambridge would keep them involved in a way that is justifiable

zone.ca

CREW Recommends…

• Freeze the Cambridge portion of the budget and project (hold the funds for future)

• Append the EA and add Aerorail as a form of Light Rail Transit (which it is: suspension rail)

• Allocate $150k for study of a pilot project Consider potential to leverage research funding from other

governments, in addition to transit funding support

• Pending success of the study, install a pilot project from Fairview Park Mall to the Cambridge Centre

From: Lee Ann WetzelTo: Kim HodasySubject: FW: statement to Council last nightDate: April 26, 2011 8:37:47 AM

To be appended to original council minutes for April 20, 2011.

Lee Ann

-----Original Message-----From: Tim Mollison [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:46 AMTo: Lee Ann WetzelSubject: statement to Council last night

Hi, I'm Tim Mollison, and I'm here on behalf of the Tri-CitiesTransport Action Group. We are a group dedicated to

promoting active transport and transit within Waterloo Region and haveover 1600 followers for our "I Support Light

Rail Transit In Waterloo Region" initiative.

Technologies like aerorail were eliminated 30 months ago by theplanners and engineers that you hired to do your

Rapid Transit environmental assessment. Keep in mind that the plannersand engineers you hired came up with two

preferred technologies - bus rapidway and rail rapidway, both atsurface level - neither of which bear any

resemblance to Aerorail.

With the level of fear and doubt already in the community we do notneed to promote a technology that has few

successful North American examples. Light Rail is used successfully inover 50 North American cities and widely in

areas half our size and smaller in Europe, and buses are part of thetransit ecosystem around the world.

Suspended guideway and cable transit do have their uses - primarily inmountainous parts of the world that require

conquering steep inclines. The Rapid Transit corridor will not havethe conditions that warrant the application of

such exotic technology.

A gondola system will raise the ire of homeowners who do not wanttransit riders looking down from their gondola into

their backyards. You think your blackberries are buzzing now? Imaginethe kind of public outrage people will feel

mailto:/O=REGIONOFWATERLOOORG/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=E09C1CBF-140B1A63-85256C0E-689B0B

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

about their privacy being violated in this manner.a

Finally, you know very well that bridges are expensive. Aerorail isone, long, continuous bridge with few completed

North American projects to study. How are rails in the sky lessexpensive than rails on the ground? Do we really

believe that the cost of this technology could be controlled with anunproven track record? The Scarborough Rapid

Transit line is a prime example of a technology demonstration that hasnot taken off elsewhere in the world,

resulting in operational headaches for a transit agency that hasnowhere to look for replacement parts.

The time has come..... and gone for a broad technology debate. Everytechnology has its merit and its supporters,

only a few actually have repeatedly proven results. Please continue tomove forward with the rapid transit process

you began in 2003, and continue to work with the recommendation thatPhase 2 of your Rapid Transit project be a light

rail extension into the city of Cambridge. Your citizens are waiting.

--Tim Mollisonhttp://TriTAG.catel: 226 47 61 313, x801e-mail: [email protected]

http://tritag.ca/

MEDIA RELEASE: IMMEDIATE

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO CONSOLIDATED

COUNCIL AGENDA

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:00 p.m.

Regional Council Chamber 150 Frederick Street, Kitchener, ON

*Denotes Item(s) Not Part of Original Agenda

1. MOMENT OF SILENCE

2. ROLL CALL

3. MOTION TO RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION

4. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

5. PRESENTATIONS

6. PETITIONS

7. * *

DELEGATIONS a) Arthur Esdaile, London, Ontario re: Bill 22, Children’s Law Reform Act b) Derek Satnik, Glen Woolner, and Denis Pellerin, Community Renewable

Energy Waterloo Region (CREW) re: Mass Transit – LRT /Rapid Transit c) Hespeler Road/CPR Grade Separation:

i) Jeffrey Grimm (property owner of 105 Hespeler Rd) and Roberto Aburto on behalf of John Doherty (lawyer)

ii) Jennifer Malatesta (Mac's Convenience Store Inc.) and Al Burton (lawyer)

1 6A 6C

8. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS a) Budget – March 23, 2011 b) Council – March 23, 2011 c) Planning & Works – April 12, 2011 d) Administration & Finance – April 12, 2011 f) Closed Committee – April 12, 2011 g) Community Services – April 12, 2011

9.

COMMUNICATIONS

10. MOTION TO GO INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO CONSIDER REPORTS

11. REPORTS

Council Agenda - 2 - 11/04/20

965782

Finance Reports a) F-11-022, T2011-003 Grade Separation of Hespeler Road (250 Meters North

of the “Delta”) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) (Waterloo Subdivision, Mile 1.55), City of Cambridge

b) F-11-023, T2011-106 Rehabilitation and Testing of Municipal Supply Wells

c) F-11-024, T2011-111 Exhibit Fabricator - Waterloo Region Museum

d) F-11-025, T2011-014 Regional Road 23 (Katherine Street) and Regional Road 22 (Northfield Drive) Bridge Rehabilitations, Township of Woolwich

e) F-11-026, T2011-110 Application of Pavement Markings

f) F-11-027, P2011-11 Supply of Fine Bubble Diffused Aeration System for Plant 1 Aeration Tanks at Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant, City of Kitchener

7

10

12

14

17

19

* *

Committee Reports a) Planning & Works - attached & marked PS-110412

Closed Planning & Works - attached & marked CPS-110412

b) Administration & Finance - attached & marked FS-110412 Closed Administration & Finance - attached & marked CFS-110412

c) Community Services - attached & marked SS-110412

21 24A

25

26A

27

Chief Administrative Officer

Regional Chair

Regional Clerk

12. OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a) Approval of Time Change for Regional Council Meeting on June 1, 2011 - 4:00

p.m.

13. MOTION FOR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO RISE AND COUNCIL RESUME

14. MOTION TO ADOPT PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

15. MOTIONS

16. NOTICE OF MOTION

17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

18. OTHER BUSINESS

Council Agenda - 3 - 11/04/20

965782

19. QUESTIONS

20. ENACTMENT OF BY-LAWS – FIRST, SECOND & THIRD READINGS a) A By-law to Establish Tax Ratios for Regional Purposes and Area Municipal

Purposes for the Year 2011 b) A By-law to Establish and Levy the Rates of Taxation for Regional Purposes

for the Year 2011 c) A By-law to Amend By-law 58-87, as amended, Being a By-law to Designate

and Regulate Controlled-Access Roads (Regional Road #28, Homer Watson Boulevard)

d) A By-law to Amend By-law 06-072, as amended, Being the Region’s Traffic

and Parking By-law (Reserved Cycling Lanes, Fischer-Hallman Road)

e) A By-law to Expropriate Certain Lands for Road Improvements to Trussler Road (Regional Road 70), in the City of Kitchener and the Township of Wilmot

f) A By-law to Confirm the Actions of Council – April 20, 2011

21. ADJOURN

Ms. Kris Fletcher London, Ont. Regional Clerk April 2, 2011 Region of Waterloo Dear Ms. Fletcher: Re: Children's Law Reform Act Bill 22, a private members bill by MPP Kim Craitor amends the Children's Law reform Act by emphasizing the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents. After passing 2nd reading Bill 22 was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy where it is today. This common sense Bill will reunite families in Ontario, yet it has died in three previous sessions of parliament, even though all three political parties voted unanimously in favour of it. A strong voice from The Region of Waterloo will help to ensure that Bill 22 will not be pushed aside again and allowed to die. Quebec, B.C, and Alberta already have legislated rights for grandparents and grandchildren. In the absence of a specific statue providing grandparents with legal standing to access, there are continuing difficulties in obtaining contact with grandchildren. During an era of economic downturn, joblessness, and despair; Ontario seniors are secure, stable, and they are willing and able to offer emotional and financial support to their grandchildren. Grandparents can help in providing grandchildren with opportunities that they otherwise would not have. Bill 22 will ensure that children are reunited with their family groups and that every child is given every opportunity to succeed. It was reported that there are 100,000 children living in Ontario who are blocked from seeing their grandparents. Many of these children do not have contact with an entire network of family and friends on their maternal or paternal side of the family. Mental Illness, drug use by the parents or a family rift has resulted in children being alienated from their families whom love them. A 2007 news report estimated that 70,000 Ontario grandparents are being denied access to an estimated 100,000 grandchildren. Yes, those figures are frightening, but also frightening is the fact that there is nothing in Ontario law that addresses the terrible heartache caused by this forced separation.

Separation or divorce, family disagreements, death of a spouse, whatever the reason, it sometimes drives a wedge between adult generations and separates the children from their grandparents' love and support. Should your adult child pass away and the surviving spouse remarries, you have no legal right to ever see your grandchildren again.

Of all the holiday seasons the Christmas season is the worst one for many grandparents who are denied access to their grandchildren. You avoid looking down the toy aisles, you can't watch the Santa Claus parade, and you turn your head from something as simple as seeing all the excited kids going to see Santa at the mall. (reported in 2007 by The Standard News in Cornwall Ontario) We have to date the endorsement of six cities and seven towns, including Niagara Falls and Niagara on the Lake. Unquestionably, The Region of Waterloo could make a positive difference in the lives of children by supporting Bill 22 which would reunite families and improve the lives of others, especially the lives of our youngest citizens, the children. Enclosed is a copy of Bill 22, the story of Dr. Drake from Windsor, and a copy of a letter from Ginnie Baker in London.

Sincerely Yours, Arthur Esdaile

Ai Burton416-868-3113

aburton(gthomsonrogers. com

SENT BY E-MAIL

April 19, 2011

Regional Chair and Members of CouncilRegion of Waterloo150 Frederick StreetP.O. Box 9051, Station "C"Kitchener, Ontario

N2G4J3

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Mac's Convenience Stores Inc. re: Expropriation of 105 Hespeler Road, CambridgeOur File No. 050906

We are the solicitors for Mac's Convenience Stores Inc. ("Mac's"). We write with respectto our client's location at 105 Hespeler Road in the City of Cambridge ("Property") and theimpending Regional construction project for the Hespeler Road/CPR Grade Separation("Project").

Our client has been meeting with Regional staff (together with the Property's owner,Jeffrey Grimm) from September 2009 up to the present time to address concerns with theProject. On numerous occasions, we requested CAD files, including topographicinformation, of the Project in the vicinity of the Property. The requested CAD files wereprovided on April 12, 2011.

Our preliminary analysis of the information provided by Regional staff indicates that therewil be a substatial grade differential between the edge of the Property and the new road

profile to be constructed on Brooklyne Road. This grade differential reinforces concernswhich were initially raised when our client met with Regional staff back in September2009 and have continued to raise to this day. Specifically, our client is concerned that theplaned road profile on Brooklyne Road may result in drainage problems on the Propertyand would be a danger for fuel trucks exiting the site as well as vehicles. If the Projectproceeds as planed, Mac's wil be forced to re-grade its site to match the new road profile

SUITE 3100,390 BAY STREET, TORONTO, ON, CANADA MSH 1W2 I TF: 1-888-223-0448 I T: 416-868-3100 I F: 416-868-3134

thomsonrogers.com

-2-

as it would be impractical, not to mention dangerous, to have such an extreme gradedifferential between the re-constructed road and the Property.

We also note that the planed road profile on Brooklyne Road appears to be a non-standarddesign that would violate basic principles of stadard engineering practice. This concernextends to the driveway access ramps which are also non-standard in design and wil causedifficulties and safety concerns on the site.

We urge you to direct Regional staff and the contractor selected for the Project to workwith Mr. Grimm and our client to either eliminate the grade differential or to formulate aplan that may involve some re-grading of the site to match the new road profile at theexpense of the Region. I note the second option could involve the Region's contractorcoming onto the Propert which had been previously contemplated by the Region as you

have expropriated a temporary easement on the Property.

We wil be in attendance on April 20, 2011 to speak to this matter and look forward todiscussing this fuher.

Yours very truly,~/~...Al Buron

AB/aph

cc: Mr. Richard Brookes

Mr. John StephensonMr. John DohertyClient

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO BUDGET COMMITTEE

MINUTES

Wednesday March 23, 2011 3:11 p.m.

Regional Council Chambers 150 Frederick Street, 2nd Floor, Kitchener

Present were: Chair T. Galloway, *L. Armstrong, J. Brewer, T. Cowan, D. Craig, R. Deutschmann, J. Haalboom, B. Halloran, R. Kelterborn, G. Lorentz, C. Millar, J. Mitchell, K. Seiling, S. Strickland, J. Wideman and C. Zehr DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT R. Deutschmann declared a non-pecuniary interest with respect to discussions of rapid transit, and to the Regional Transportation Master Plan owing to the numerous linkages between the Plan and development of rapid transit, due to him and his spouse being shareholders of corporations that have an interest in a property at 10 Duke Street West, Kitchener. OPENING REMARKS (T. Galloway) Chair T. Galloway provided opening remarks on the budget to the Committee, describing the general order of business to be taken up, explaining the procedure for introducing amendments to the budget, and observing that the Chairs of the Region’s Standing Committees had met and have circulated an outline of proposed budget adjustments to the Committee. The outline of proposed budget adjustments is attached to the original minutes. OPENING REMARKS (M. Murray) Mike Murray, Chief Administrative Officer, provided opening remarks recognizing and thanking Regional staff for their work on the budget which began in the summer of 2010. He observed that the staff-recommended budget accounts for healthy assessment growth, a strong effort to reduce the base budget, and uploading of social assistance costs to the province. He noted that the intent of provincial uploading is to free up resources for municipalities to deal with their own critical needs, citing examples. He asked that the Committee keep in mind the striking of a balance between short-term budget goals and a long term perspective for 2012 and beyond, that the Committee seek to connect budget decisions to the strategic priorities discussed by Council, and finally to take into account the total impact of budget decisions on residents of the Region. BUDGET UPDATE (L. Ryan) a) F-11-014 Executive Summary – Budget 2011 Received for Information. Larry Ryan, Chief Financial Officer, provided a presentation to the Committee on Budget 2011, including:

Budget Minutes - 2 - 11/03/23

950004

Overview of base budget; Fuel inflation, included budgeted amounts and economists’ projections for fuel prices; Impact of Ontario Works uploading announcement; Staff recommended service enhancements, and prioritization of new issues in each

strategic focus area; Recommended funding level of Regional Transportation Master Plan; Details of Police Services Budget approved on March 9th; Responses to Councillor’s requests included in agenda package, including projections,

historical expenditures, and requested scenarios; and Inflation data, including forecasts from major banks.

The presentation is attached to the original minutes. The Committee inquired as to whether the Region has measured the amount of fuel wasted in vehicles, due to factors such as idling. L. Ryan indicated that staff has no such estimate, and that 80-85% of the Region’s fuel is used for transit purposes. Penny Smiley, Commissioner, Human Resources, noted Regional practices that prescribe the amount of idling time before turning off vehicles and recalled the robust education campaign undertaken to support those practices. Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services, observed that transit and fleet operators are trained in the Smart Driver program to support reduced fuel consumption. The Committee indicated that a report on the issue should come back to the Planning and Works Committee. The Committee asked the source of funding for any potential over-expenditure on fuel, and L. Ryan indicated that it would be funded from any generated operating property tax surplus or, failing that, from reserve funds such as the Tax Rate Stabilization Fund. He noted that a report on reserves and reserve funds is planned for the May meeting of the Administration and Finance Committee. He observed that the major banks had wide-ranging forecasts for 2011 oil prices and that staff aimed to strike a balance between budget increases and bank forecasts in budgeting 95 cents per litre. Interim reports on budgeted vs. actual expenditures on fuel would be included in periodic financial reporting throughout 2011. The Committee discussed the budgeted increase for the Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP). L. Ryan noted that the budget amount exceeds the range stated by Council so as to lessen the impacts on the tax rate in future years. Rob Horne, Commissioner, Planning, Housing and Community Services, indicated that the budget amount for 2011 is intended to address current transit issues such as overcrowding and does not substantially grow the system, and observed that deferral of some initiatives would lessen the impact of proposed remedies to current issues in the transit system. The Committee related the wide array of feedback from the public on transit, ranging from indifference toward transit, to complaints about overcrowding, and to concerns from seeing empty buses operating on certain routes. The Committee expressed varying opinions as to the appropriateness of the proposed pace of transit system expansion, and it was noted that the RTMP has been approved by Council, as have the principles of the plan which provide guidelines for the pace of transit expansion. The Committee asked whether staff considered the increase in transit advertising revenue seen in 2010 as sustainable. L. Ryan responded that the revenue is considered partially sustainable, and that the increase was in part due to one time revenues. The Committee observed that for 2010 there was a transfer of $1.9 million to the housing capital reserve fund, and R. Horne explained this occurred as a result of a housing operating budget surplus generated by fewer rent supplements and lower housing subsidies compared to budgeted amounts. Staff had expected greater expenditures in these areas based on Ontario


950004

Works data. Angela Hinchberger, Director, Treasury & Tax Policy, explained that funds paid into the reserve fund would be used for future capital expenditure, and L. Ryan indicated that as per the policy approved for the reserve fund any surplus from the housing program is transferred to the reserve fund. L. Ryan affirmed that no cap exists for the size of the reserve fund such that the surplus would not be allocated in the prescribed manner, and that details on the reserve fund and policy can be included in the May report on reserves and reserve funds. R. Horne asserted that the required future capital expenditures on housing are between $60-70 million, which well exceeds the $40 million in the reserve fund and staff will continue its advocacy to senior orders of government for funding in that regard. The Committee discussed the $800,000 budgeted for net supplementary tax revenues in the base budget, comparing the amount to the recent and historical revenues from that source. L. Ryan explained the reasons for the budgeted amount. The Committee suggested that recent actual supplementary tax revenues could provide flexibility to budget for a higher amount. The Committee discussed the Police Services budget, as approved by the Police Services Board. The Committee obtained clarification on the cost of new officers hired in 2011, and the annualization costs for those officers in 2012. The Committee ascertained from Councillors who are members of the Police Services Board the rationale for the approved hiring levels, including affordability and the stated demand for additional resources. The Police Services Act only allows Regional Council to deal with the approved budget figure from the Police Services Board at the present point of the Regional budgeting process, and not line items within that budget. Various members of the Committee expressed a wide range of opinions as to agreeable levels of expenditure on police services and the rate of addition of new officers in August and December 2011 and future years. b) Responses to Councillors’ Requests were received for Information. c) Municipal Budget Regulations was received for Information. MOVED by J. Brewer SECONDED by J. Wideman THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the Police Services 2011 Property Tax Operating Budget with a net levy of $118,694,710 (0.75%) and the Police Services 2011 Property Tax Capital Budget and 2012-2020 Capital Forecast as amended.

CARRIED MOVED by J. Brewer SECONDED by S. Strickland

THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the 2010 Regional Budget, excluding the 1.25% provision for the Regional Transportation Master Plan, as described in report F-11-014. The Committee discussed the increase in the base budget for the RTMP, including the difference between the amount in the base budget and the amount included in the approved plan. R. Horne clarified that any reduction to the amount in the base budget would result in staff attempting to deliver the proposed program of transit enhancements except for lower priority commitments should it become necessary. Committee members debated the RTMP funding level for 2011 and the relative benefits of both maintaining the base budget amount and reducing the amount.


950004

The Committee clarified that the budget issue for Specialized Transit would be funded from the property tax levy if no change was made to the base budget. L. Ryan provided an explanation of area rating for specialized transit. J. Haalboom asked that the two elements of the motion be voted on separately. MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by G. Lorentz THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 base budget to decrease from 1.25% to 1.20% the contribution to the Regional Transportation Master Plan; CARRIED

(R. Deutschmann conflict) MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by G. Lorentz AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the budget to fund the Specialized Transit budget issue paper from the Regional Transportation Master Plan reserve fund, for a savings of $162,000 to the budget.

CARRIED (R. Deutschmann conflict)

The Committee noted that net supplementary tax revenues have averaged over $5 million for the past five years, and that the budgeted amount could be prudently increased. MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by J. Mitchell THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to increase budgeted revenues from supplementary taxes from $800,000 to $2,000,000. CARRIED The Committee discussed the function and aims of the Community Sustainability Fund, and Gary Sosnoski, Commissioner, Corporate Resources, provided a history of the funding as well as the proposed budget allocation. The Committee clarified that decisions on the specific allocation of the fund would be made at a later date. MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by J. Wideman THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to reduce the contribution to the Community Sustainability Fund to $50,000 for a savings of $100,000 to the budget. CARRIED The Committee considered the issue paper related to the Crime Prevention Supervisor Planning and Research Position. Some members of the Committee spoke in support of the issue paper, while others spoke to the priority of reducing the tax levy.


950004

MOVED by T. Cowan SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to include the budget issue paper for the Crime Prevention Supervisor Planning and Research Position for an increase of $48,000 to the budget. CARRIED The Committee examined the issue paper on Homelessness to Housing Stability, affirming the initiative’s importance and the partnerships with other organizations that have come about as a result. The Region spends $1.3 million on housing programs, and that a number of such programs have been initiated and previously funded by senior orders of government and were subsequently made the responsibility of the municipalities. Mike Schuster, Commissioner, Social Services, clarified that the $45,000 portion of the budget issue for the Domiciliary Hostel Program could feasibly be funded from one time sources. The Committee discussed the merit of the program and the savings generated elsewhere in the budget by such programs. MOVED by J. Brewer SECONDED by J. Mitchell THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to include the budget issue on Homelessness to Housing Stability for an increase to the budget of $271,000; AND THAT the portion of the budget issue related to $45,000 for the Domiciliary Hostel Program health and safety funding be funded from the Capital Levy Reserve Fund. CARRIED The Committee expressed its thanks to staff for the base budget review, and affirmed the need to balance new budget issues with taxation of the Region’s residents. MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to further increase the gapping provision in the budget by $121,000 for a total gapping provision increase of $250,000. CARRIED The Committee stated that a reduction to the Staff Recruitment and Retention budget issue is intended to either delay the issue in its implementation or implementing it in a staged manner. MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to reduce the budget issue related to Staff Recruitment and Retention to $99,000 for a savings of $50,000 to the budget. CARRIED


950004

The Committee noted that the sizable 2010 Regional surplus and the funding of the Capital Levy Reserve Fund from that surplus will provide a large amount of funds for the capital program, which would allow for a reduction in the budget issue related to Capital Financing. MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by R. Kelterborn THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to reduce the recommended budget issue related to Capital Financing to $100,000 for a savings of $100,000 to the budget. CARRIED The Committee discussed the funding request received from Opportunities Waterloo Region at the Budget Public Input Meeting on February 2nd. It was noted that the organization’s work requires long-term planning and that a review of potential long-term funding support of this and other similar initiatives should be undertaken. The Committee directed staff to bring the issue forward to the Community Services Committee prior to the 2012 budget process. MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by J. Brewer THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to grant $110,000 to Opportunities Waterloo Region, to be funded from the Capital Levy Reserve Fund. AND THAT staff be directed to liaise with Opportunities Waterloo Region to determine its long term funding requirements prior to the 2012 budget process. CARRIED *L. Armstrong left the meeting at 5:45 p.m. The Committee examined the budget issue related to Facilities Asset Management Program, and clarified that a reduction of $36,000 to the issue would be intended to delay hiring the full-time FTE to a time around October 2011 with full annualization in 2012. MOVED by J. Mitchell SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to reduce the budget issue related to Facilities Asset Management Program to $36,000 for a savings of $36,000 to the budget. CARRIED *L. Armstrong re-entered the meeting at 5:50 p.m. The Committee considered the budget issue related to Enhancement of Performance Measurement & Budget Process. L. Ryan provided a rationale for the inclusion of the issue, including the mandated changes to the budget process for tangible capital asset accounting and the re-engineering of the budget process to forge a stronger linkage to performance measurement. He noted that the Region might have difficulty in attracting a qualified person for


950004

the position if it were a contract position, rather than a full-time position. The Committee debated the merits of the budget issue. MOVED by J. Mitchell SECONDED by J. Haalboom THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to remove the issue related to Enhancement of Performance Measurement & Budget Process, for a savings of $56,000 to the budget. MOTION LOST The Committee observed that increased accountability and transparency places a responsibility on Regional Council to improve communication on the decisions being made. The Committee debated the merits of webcasting to address those issues, which included discussion of the number and size of other municipalities that webcast their meetings. The Committee was circulated past reports on webcasting from 2006 and 2009, which are attached to the original minutes. The Committee discussed past efforts to televise Council meetings and impediments to doing so. It was clarified that an allocation of funds for configuring the Council Chamber for webcasting would include direction to staff to report back to the Administration and Finance Committee on operating requirements and implementation. MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by G. Lorentz THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to allocate $120,000 from the Capital Levy Reserve Fund in 2011 toward the budget issue related to Council Chambers Webcasting, for the capital requirements of configuring Council Chambers with equipment to allow for webcasting. CARRIED The Committee spoke to the merits of the issue related to the Cultural Heritage Coordinator. MOVED by J. Haalboom SECONDED by R. Deutschmann THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to include the budget issue related to the Cultural Heritage Coordinator, for an increase of $46,000 to the budget. CARRIED The Committee spoke to the merits of the issue related to the Joseph Schneider Haus – New Wash House Programming. MOVED by J. Haalboom SECONDED by R. Deutschmann


950004

THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an adjustment to the 2011 budget to include the budget issue related to the Joseph Schneider Haus – New Wash House Programming, for an increase of $29,000 to the budget. MOTION LOST The Committee confirmed with R. Horne that the Fees and Charges by-law has been amended to remove items such as Waterloo Regional Museum charges and maps/data/publications, and the authority for those fees have been transferred outside the by-law. The Committee clarified with A. Hinchberger that based on the current budget, the 2011 net Regional levy is increased approximately 3.65% from 2010. MOVED by L. Armstrong SECONDED by J. Haalboom THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo repeal By-law Number 10-001, being a By-law to Establish Fees and Charges for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and that a new Fees and Charges By-law be passed including those fees and charges listed on the March 23, 2011 Budget Committee Agenda.

CARRIED BUDGET RESOLUTIONS a) Social Services Budget Resolutions 1. Counselling Services MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following Counselling Service Grants for 2011:

Agency AmountLutherwood Family Counselling Services $ 46,360Shalom Counselling Services 12,954Family Counselling Services of Cambridge and North Dumfries 56,739Interfaith Community Counselling Centre 14,871K-W Counselling Services Inc. 188,056Mosaic Counselling and Family Services 128,380Woolwich Interfaith Counselling Society 13,358Total $460,718

CARRIED 2. Peer Counselling Services MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by B. Halloran


950004

THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following Peer Counselling Service grants for 2011:

Agency Amount Cambridge Self Help Food Bank $ 4,663 The Working Centre – St. John’s Kitchen 14,639

Total $19,302 CARRIED 3. Community Outreach Programs MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following Community Outreach grants for 2011:

Agency AmountCambridge Family Early Years $ 39,391Cambridge Self Help Food Bank 75,407Mosaic Counselling and Family Services 107,569Family Counselling Centre of Cambridge & North Dumfries 52,625Greenway Chaplin 42,157House of Friendship 128,688K-W Counselling Services 172,751KW Multi-Cultural Centre 34,964Kinbridge Community Association 84,313Langs Farm Village Association 42,157Our Place Family & Early Years Centre 37,643Preston Heights Community Centre 42,157Wilmot Family Resource Centre 36,841Motivational Learning Groups 8,307Future Vision Ministries 1,142Total $906,112

CARRIED 4. Emergency Food Hamper Program MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following rates for the Emergency Food Hamper Program effective January 1, 2011:

Program Amount

Hamper Rate $38.75 Diaper Rate $ 5.45 Formula Rate $13.75


950004

AND THAT the 2011 expenditures for the Emergency Food Hamper program not exceed $770,000.

CARRIED 5. Dental Program MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve a 2% increase in rates for basic, emergency and discretionary dental services and denture rates effective April 1, 2011, subject to approval by the Province of Ontario. CARRIED 6. Homelessness to Housing Strategy

MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by B. Halloran

THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following Homelessness to Housing Strategy Grants for 2011:

Agency AmountHouse of Friendship $ 63,874YWCA of Kitchener-Waterloo 65,199Cambridge Shelter Corporation 72,688Lutherwood 119,224Argus Residence for Young People 8,937Reaching Our Outdoor Friends (ROOF) 15,809Shelter Capacity/Overflow 65,000

Total $410,731 CARRIED

7. Funeral Rates

MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by B. Halloran

THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve a funeral rate of $2,775 plus applicable taxes effective January 1, 2011. CARRIED Members of the Committee asked that the question of the main motion be put, as amended.

MAIN MOTION CARRIED, as amended


950004

b) General Budget Resolutions MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by J. Brewer THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo establish a Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP) Reserve Fund for the purpose of receiving and allocating funds in respect of Transit capital works and operating costs, as identified in the RTMP;

AND THAT annual contributions to the reserve fund shall be approved by Regional Council as part of annual budget deliberations;

AND THAT reserve fund balances are to be allocated annually to Transit capital projects and operating costs in the capital and operating budgets;

AND FURTHER THAT the necessary By-law be approved.

CARRIED (R. Deutschmann conflict)

MOVED by K. Seiling SECONDED by L. Armstrong THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following adjustments to be made to the 2011 Regional Budget, as described in the Budget Committee presentation of February 2, 2011:

a) GRT Fare Increase effective July 1, 2011 for $450,000; b) OW Upload Savings Allocation for Operating Budget for $257,000

for a total net savings to the base budget of $707,000. CARRIED

MOVED by K. Seiling SECONDED by T. Cowan

THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the 2011 Property Tax Operating Budget with a net levy of $262,340,383 (0.72%), excluding Police Services, and the 2011 Property Tax Capital Budget and 2012-2020 Capital Forecast, excluding Police Services, reflecting budget issues presented to Budget Committee as amended.

CARRIED MOVED by K. Seiling SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo receive Report F-11-014 for information, as required by Ontario Regulation 284/09. CARRIED


950004

c) Library Budget Resolutions MOVED by T. Cowan SECONDED by L. Armstrong THAT the Region of Waterloo Budget Committee approve the following with regard to the Region of Waterloo Library Budget as contained in Report P-LIB-11-002, dated February 15, 2011:

a) the 2011 Library Operating Budget with a net levy of $2,098,871.00; b) the 2011 Library Capital Budget; c) the 2012 - 2020 Library Capital Forecast; d) the distribution of the 2009 Library Operating Surplus.

CARRIED A number of Committee members expressed reaction to the outcome of the budget and areas of interest for upcoming budget cycles during the term of Council, including:

Council review of Regional programs prior to 2012 budget process; Initiation of long-term funding strategy deliberations through the Administration and

Finance Committee; Impact of provincial uploading on 2011 budget process; Potential for a line-by-line review of budget items over the term of Council; and Examination of funding for the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), including

analysis of residents contributing or not contributing to the GRCA levy, and funding for source water protection.

Chair T. Galloway thanked Regional staff for their efforts during the budget process. MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION MOVED by C. Millar SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT a closed meeting of Council be held on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Waterloo County Room in accordance with Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, for the purposes of considering the following subject matters:

a) potential litigation in relation to a proceeding before an administrative tribunal b) receiving of legal advice subject to solicitor-client privilege pertaining to the interpretation

of a statute in relation to a municipal project c) potential litigation and receiving of legal advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in

relation to a proceeding before an administrative tribunal d) proposed or pending acquisition of land in the City of Waterloo

CARRIED COMMITTEE CHAIR, T. Galloway COMMITTEE CLERK, M. Grivicic

REGIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES Wednesday, March 23, 2011 The following are the minutes of the Regular Council meeting held at 7:48 p.m. in the Regional Council Chamber, 150 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, with the following members present: Chair K. Seiling, L. Armstrong, J. Brewer, T. Cowan, D. Craig, R. Deutschmann, T. Galloway, J. Haalboom, B. H alloran, R. K elterborn, G. Lor entz, C. M illar, J. M itchell, S. S trickland, J. Wideman, and C. Zehr. CLOSED SESSION MOVED by T. Galloway SECONDED by L. Armstrong THAT a closed meeting of Council be held on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Waterloo C ounty Room, in accordance with Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, for the purposes of considering the following subject matters:

a) potential litigation in relation to a proceeding before an administrative tribunal b) receiving of legal advice subject to solicitor-client privilege pertaining to the interpretation

of a statute in relation to a municipal project c) potential l itigation and r eceiving of l egal adv ice su bject to so licitor-client p rivilege in

relation to a proceeding before an administrative tribunal d) proposed or pending acquisition of land in the City of Waterloo

CARRIED

MOVED by B. Halloran SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT Council reconvene in Open Session. CARRIED DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT R. Deutschmann disclosed a non-pecuniary interest with respect to Item #10 of the Budget Summary of Recommendations related to the Regional Transportation Master Plan due to he and his spouse being shareholders of corporations that have in interest in a property at 10 Duke Street West, Kitchener. PRESENTATIONS a) Gail Kaufman Carlin, Director, Seniors’ Services provided a pr esentation on the Sunnyside

Foundation. A copy of the presentation is appended to the original minutes. She highlighted the hi story and m ission st atement o f the Foun dation, acco mplishments, w ellness centre campaign, annual fundraisers, looking ahead and board of directors. G. Carlin introduced Henning Grumme, Director, Sunnyside Foundation Board of Directors, on behalf of Marilee


951176

Mark, Chair, Sunnyside Foundation Board, Heather Walden Beitz, Coordinator, Fundraising & Promotions and Mike Schmidt, Manager, Community Programs. Chair Seiling presented a recognition plaque for the Sunnyside Foundation to H. Grumme which will be installed on the donor wall at Sunnyside Home.

DELEGATIONS a) Sarah C ook, U W Federation o f S tudents, app eared be fore C ouncil i n su pport o f the

proposed GRT budget increases as outlined in the budget issue papers. She stated students experience problems with the system related to capacity and late arrivals and they need improved service. S. Cook advised some of the benefits to the proposed increases will include reduced congestion, greater evening access, faster connections to satellite campuses, connection with cycling routes, better counting and posi tioning technology. She advised students are supportive of the 20% rate increase for their UPASS provided there is commitment to i mprove t he sy stem as a w hole. S . C ook s tated C ouncil needs to hol d Grand R iver Transit acc ountable for t he service t hey pr ovide, and t he promises they ar e making with these proposed service improvements. A copy of her presentation is appended to the original minutes.

Questions were r aised r egarding t he technology use d t o det ermine bus ar rival t imes. S . Cook responded she uses the call in service on her cell phone but they are attempting to have programmers create appl ications for smart phones. Rob H orne, Commissioner Planning, Housing and Community Services advised staff is working with the input from their customers and a report will be coming forward in the next two months.

b) Maureen Innes, W aterloo appeared be fore C ouncil with r espect t o Quality of Li fe on

Residents Backing on to the Ira Needles Corridor. She stated the residents have reviewed the staff report and have tried to fully participate in the meetings related to the Ira Needles corridor. T hey have m et w ith t he developers and st aff from t he C ity and R egion on t his issue and not ed they were not aware of the 1999 process and ch anges made with respect to noi se asse ssment. M. I nnes advised t his area w as designated l ight industrial/light commercial when they bought their homes and the change in zoning has since been made. The residents have found the process for monitoring noise levels to be f rustrating and they know there will be m ore construction, more traffic and as a result, more noise. They have spent t ime and money on pl anting trees as has been r ecommended but t he noi se i s still present. M. I nnes highlighted t he pol icy for noi se bar riers, s tating this is the l argest m all being built in the Region and the barrier should be built at no cost to the residents.

E-11-035, Noise A ssessment R eview f or P roperties on Grange C ourt, Pitfield C ourt, C ardiff

Street and Heathcliffe Place Backlotting onto Ira Needles Boulevard Received for information.

S. Strickland introduced his notice of motion and provided additional information related to the amount of development charges collected for the development and the property taxes that will be generated. He noted the development is half completed and traffic and noise levels are already higher than predicted in the 2004 study. S. Strickland stated the noise attenuation pol icy does not acco mmodate the u niqueness of this particular si tuation. H e suggested the costs of installing the noise barrier be funded from the 2010 surplus and that the noise attenuation policy should be reviewed going forward.


951176

Councillors had questions related to the retainer from the home purchaser and how that is captured. Jo hn Hammer, D irector Transportation r esponded none have been done si nce the policy was implemented but a sp ecific account would be set up f or future replacement. If the Region pays for the installation of the noise barrier, the Region would be responsible for the future replacement of the noise barrier. An amendment was suggested to the motion to define this is an extenuating circumstance. This was agreed to by the mover and seconder.

MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by D. Craig WHEREAS the r ecent co mmercial dev elopment al ong Ira N eedles B lvd. known as the "Boardwalk" has been generally positive for the community; AND WHEREAS according to a r ecent noise study conducted by regional staff indicated that increased t raffic patterns along Ira N eedles Blvd. have i ncreased deci bel l evels more quickly than planned; AND WHEREAS noise levels are onl y expected t o i ncrease ov er t ime due t o expansion of commercial development to 1 million sq. ft. of retail space; AND WHEREAS a new residential development on the East side of Ira Needles immediately to the North o f t he s treets in question and al so along the East side are receiving noise bar riers funded by the developer as per Regional policy; AND WHEREAS the long term residents along Grange Crescent, Pittfield Place, Heathcliffe Place, and C ardiff St, have every much a r ight to enjoy their properties and be pr otected from unreasonable noise as those who are just moving into the neighbourhood; NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT due to the unique extenuating circumstances identified above, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo install, at the Region’s expense, a noise attenuation wall along the easterly side of Ira Needles Blvd. extending from University Ave. Northbound in such a manner to optimize noise protection for residential properties, not limited to, but including, Grange Crescent, Pittfield Place, Heathcliffe Place, and Cardiff St. CARRIED MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS MOVED by L. Armstrong SECONDED by R. Kelterborn THAT the following Minutes be approved: a) Budget – February 23, 2011 b) Budget Public Input – February 23, 2011 c) Closed Council – February 23, 2011 d) Council – February 23, 2011 e) Closed Committee – March 8, 2011 f) Planning & Works Public Input – March 8, 2011 g) Planning & Works – March 8, 2011


951176

h) Administration & Finance – March 8, 2011 i) Community Services – March 8, 2011 j) Planning & Works Public Input – March 8, 2011 k) All Council – March 10, 2011 CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS a) Grand River A ccessibility Advisory Committee to M inistry of Community and Social

Services, regarding Integrated Accessibility Standards was received for information. MOVED by T. Cowan SECONDED by J. Wideman THAT Council go into Committee of the Whole to consider reports. CARRIED FINANCE REPORTS a) F-11-015, T2011-004 St. Agatha Trunk Watermain Erb’s Road (Wilmot Line to Notre Dame

Drive) Township of Wilmot An i nquiry was m ade about the r esidents’ co ntribution t o t his project. T homas Schmidt, Commissioner Transportation and Environmental Services advised the money has been placed in a reserve fund. MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo accept t he t ender o f Sierra Construction (Woodstock) Limited for T2011-004, St. Agatha Trunk Watermain, Erb’s Road (Wilmot Line to Notre Dame Drive), Township of Wilmot, at a total price of $2,844,531.42 including all applicable taxes. CARRIED b) F-11-016, P2011-05 Control System Retrofit at 99 Regina St., Waterloo MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the proposal of Johnson Controls for P2011-05 Control System Retrofit at 99 Regina St. Waterloo, Ontario at a price of $493,561.00 including all applicable taxes. CARRIED c) F-11-017, R egional C ouncil and C ouncil A ppointee R emuneration and Expenses for t he

Year Ended December 31, 2010 was received for information.


951176

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Planning and Works

The Summary of Recommendations of the Planning and Works Committee was presented by Geoff Lorentz, Vice Chair of the Committee. MOVED by G. Lorentz SECONDED by R. Kelterborn THAT the Summary of Recommendations of the Planning and Works Committee, dated March 8, 2011 , I tems 1 to 7, and three reports from cl osed se ssion, I tems 8 t o 10 , be adopt ed as follows: 1. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo waive the sewage and water connection fee of

$20,000, as provided i n t he R egion o f Waterloo’s fees and ch arges bylaw, for t he connection to the Air Cadets Youth Development Centre at the Region of Waterloo International Airport as noted in report E-11-032 dated March 8, 2011,

AND THAT if at any time in the future the Air Cadets Youth Development Centre proposes to assign the ground lease, sell or sub-lease the building the Regional Municipality of Waterloo would require the $20,000 connection fee be paid prior to the Region of Waterloo approving of the assignment, sale or sub-lease. Alternatively, should the building be used for any purpose other than the non-profit delivery of youth programs consistent with the mandate of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, the connection fee shall be become payable.

AND THAT the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services be authorized to enter into an agreement with the 822 (Tutor) Squadron – Royal Canadian Air Cadets with respect to the waiver of connection fees and provision of water and sa nitary service to the Air Cadet facility with such agreement to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor.

2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo take the following actions with respect to

proposed i mprovements on B ridge S treet (Regional R oad N o. 52 ) from the B ridgeport Bridge to the Kitchener/Woolwich Boundary in the City of Kitchener:

a) approve t he pr oposed improvements for B ridge S treet as outlined i n R eport E -11-023; and

b) amend Traffic and Parking By-law 06-072, as amended, to provide Reserved Lanes for bi cycles on bot h sides of B ridge S treet from t he B ridgeport Bridge to t he Kitchener/Woolwich Boundary.

3. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the expropriation of the lands for the

purposes of construction o f r oad improvements t o Trussler Road, i n t he C ity of K itchener and the Township of Wilmot, in the Region of Waterloo as detailed in Report CR-RS-11-012 dated March 8, 2011 described as follows:

Fee Simple Partial Taking:

a. Part Lot 1, Concession 1, Block ‘A’, Township of Wilmot, being Part 1, on Reference

Plan 58R-16917, PIN 22186-0234(LT) (1040 Huron Road)


951176

b. Part Lot 1, Co ncession 1, Block ‘A’, Township of Wilmot, being Part 2, on Reference Plan 58R-16917, PIN 22186-0233(LT) (1465 Trussler Road)

c. Part Lot 1, Concession 1, Block ‘A’, Township of Wilmot, being Part 3, on Reference

Plan 58R-16917, PIN 22186-0232(LT) (1359 Trussler Road) d. Part Lot 136, German Company Tract, City of Kitchener, being Part 5, on Reference

Plan 58R-16917, PIN 22728-0010(LT) (1434 Trussler Road) e. Part Lot 135, German Company Tract, City of Kitchener, being Part 6, on Reference

Plan 58R-16917, PIN 22728-0009(LT) (no municipal address) f. Part Lot 1, Concession South of Bleam’s Road, Township of Wilmot, being Part 7, on

Reference Plan 58R-16917, PIN 22186-0211(LT) (1259 Trussler Road) g. Part Lot 1, Concession South of Bleam’s Road, Township of Wilmot, being Part 8, on

Reference Plan 58R-16917, PIN 22186-0210(LT) (1177 Trussler Road) h. Part Lots 129, 133 & 134, German Company Tract, City of Kitchener, being Part 9,

on Reference Plan 58R-16917, PIN 22728-0005(LT) (no municipal address) i. Part Lot 1, Concession South of Bleam’s Road, Township of Wilmot, being Part 10,

on Reference Plan 58R-16917, PIN 22186-0205(LT) (no municipal address) j. Part Lot 129, G erman C ompany T ract, C ity of K itchener, bei ng Part 1 1, on

Reference Plan 58R-16917, PIN 22727-0022(LT) (808 Trussler Road) k. Part Lot 2, Concession 3, Block ‘A’, Township of Wilmot, being Part 1, on Reference

Plan 58R-16920, PIN 22207-0377(LT) (2483 Trussler Road) l. Part Lot 13, Beasley’s New Survey, C ity of Kitchener, being Part 2, on Reference

Plan 58R-16920, PIN 22723-0015(LT) (2878 New Dundee Road) m. Part Lot 2, Concession 3, Block ‘A’, Township of Wilmot, being Parts 5, 6 and 7, on

Reference Plan 58R-16920, PIN 22207-0376(LT) (2113 Trussler Road) n. Part Lot 2, Concession 2, Block ‘A’, Township of Wilmot, being Part 8, on Reference

Plan 58R-16920, PIN 22207-0028(LT) (no municipal address) o. Part Lot 13, Beasley’s New Survey, C ity of K itchener, being Part 9, on Reference

Plan 58R-16920, PIN 22723-0036(LT) (no municipal address) p. Part Lot 13, Beasley’s New Survey, City of Kitchener, being Part 10, on Reference

Plan 58R-16920, PIN 22723-0008(LT) (no municipal address) q. Part Lot 149, G erman C ompany T ract, C ity of K itchener, bei ng Part 11, on

Reference Plan 58R-16920, PIN 22723-0007(LT) (1738 Trussler Road) r. Part Lo t 15, S outh si de o f H uron R oad, P lan 585 and P art L ot 14 9, G erman

Company Tract, City of Kitchener, being Part 12, on Reference Plan 58R-16920, PIN 22723-0006(LT) (no municipal address)


951176

s. Part Lot 1, Concession 2, Block ‘A’, Township of Wilmot, being Parts 13 and 14, on Reference Plan 58R-16920, PIN 22207-0025(LT) (1743 Trussler Road)

t. Part Lot 1, South side of Huron Road, Plan 585, City of Kitchener, being Part 15, on

Reference Plan 58R-16920, PIN 22723-0004(LT) (1698 Trussler Road)

AND THAT staff be instructed to register a Plan of Expropriation for the property within three months of the gr anting of t he app roval t o e xpropriate t he pr operty, as required by t he Expropriations Act; AND THAT the registered owners be served with a Notice of Expropriation and a N otice of Possession for the property after the registration of the Plan of Expropriation; AND THAT if no agreement as to compensation is made with an owner, the statutory Offer of Compensation and payment be served upon the registered owners of the property in the amount of the market value of the interests in the land as estimated by the Region’s appraiser in accordance with the Expropriations Act; AND FU RTHER T HAT t he R egional S olicitor be aut horized t o di scontinue ex propriation proceedings or any part thereof, in respect of the above described lands, or any part thereof, upon the registration on title of the required documentation to complete the transaction.

4. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo declare a l easehold interest of greater t han

twenty-one (21) years in the Lands described as part of Lot 111, German Company Tract of the Geographic Township of Woolwich, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, being parts 1 and 2 on the draft Reference Plan of Survey attached to Report CR-RS-11-014/E-11-026 dated March 8 , 2011 as Appendix A and forming part of Property Identifier 22254-0193 (LT) (the Lands), surplus to its needs, in accordance with the Region’s Property Disposition By-law;

AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services to enter into a Lease with IP Aviation L.P., by its general partner, IP Aviation GP Inc., (the Lessee) as described in Report CR-RS-11-014/E-11-026 d ated M arch 8, 2011 w ith t he form o f the l ease to be to the satisfaction o f t he Regional Solicitor.

5. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo declare a leasehold interest of gr eater than

twenty-one (21) years in the L ands forming part of Lot 111, German Company Tract of the Geographic Township of Woolwich, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, being lots 10 and 11 on t he pl an attached t o R eport C R-RS-11-016/E-11-037 dated M arch 8 , 2011 as Appendix A (the Lands), surplus to i ts needs, i n acco rdance w ith t he Region’s Property Disposition By-law;

AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Commissioner of Transportation and E nvironmental S ervices to e nter i nto a Lease w ith Waterloo A viation Corp . ( the Lessee) as described in Report CR-RS-11-016/E-11-037 dated March 8 , 2011 with the form of the lease to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor.

6. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve and distribute Report P-11-024, Year

End 2010 Population and Household Estimates for the Region of Waterloo, dated March 8, 2011, to interested parties, including the general public, Area Municipalities and the School Boards.


951176

7. THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo ex tend t he R oute 21 – Elmira Grand River Transit pilot service to December 31, 2011, as described in Report P-11-027, dated March 8, 2011 and that funding be provided from the Corporate Capital Levy Reserve Fund.

8. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the appointment o f Christopher Toal

and Lou Li ma t o t he Water E fficiency A dvisory Committee for a t hree y ear t erm ex piring December 31, 2013, as detailed in Closed Report E-11-029.

9. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following memberships and

associated length of terms for the Active Transportation Advisory Committee, as outlined in Report P-11-029:

Jane Mitchell, term ending November 30, 2014 Anne Crowe, term ending December 2014 Rob Martin, term ending December 2014 Patrick Gleeson, term ending December 2014 Paola Rowe, term ending December 2014 Bart Forwell, term ending December 2013 Marilyn Ivanovick, term ending December 2013 Bruce Hawkings, term ending December 2012 Jonathan Plummer, term ending December 2012 Barry Tracey, term ending December 2012 Joan McKinnon, term ending December 2011 Mark Sommer, term ending December 2011, and Sue Morgan, term ending December 2011.

10. THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo ap point t he following per sons to se rve for a

period o f t wo y ears as members of the S pecialized T ransit S ervices Advisory C ommittee (STSAC) commencing January 1, 2011 and expiring December 31, 2012:

a) Alfred Bott MobilityPLUS User b) Sharron Garrah MobilityPLUS User c) Myrna Nicholas Major Interest Group Representative d) Jay Oswald MobilityPLUS User e) Mark Urquhart Major Interest Group Representative

CARRIED J. Wideman brought an additional item forward from the closed session on March 23, 2011. MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by C. Millar THAT an additional report from the closed session, Item 11, be adopted as follows: 11. THAT t he R egional S olicitor be di rected to retain Mr. B rian D uxbury, D uxbury Law

Professional Corporation, Barristers & Solicitors, to represent the Regional Municipality of Waterloo at the Ontario Municipal Board in respect of the appeals by Suncor Products Inc. of City of Cambridge Official Plan Amendment Application No. 2/09 and Amendment to Zoning By-law 150-85 (Application No. R12/09 TM), pertaining to its property at 2310 Townline Road in the City of Cambridge (OMB File No. PL 100765 & PL100766).

CARRIED


951176

Administration and Finance

The S ummary o f R ecommendation o f the Administration and Fi nance C ommittee w as presented by Tom Galloway, Chair of the Committee. MOVED by T. Galloway SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT the Summary of Recommendations of the Administration and Fi nance Committee dated March 8, 2011, Items 1 to 3, and one report from the closed session, Item #4, be adopted as follows: 1. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo establish a policy for the term of Council that a

grant be provided to cover the cost of Regional Development Charges for housing built as a Habitat for H umanity pr oject, w ith t he co st o f the grant t o be p rovided f rom t he H ousing Reserve Fund, as described in Report F-11-013, dated March 8, 2011.

2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo:

a) Declare t he l ands described as Part Lo t 1, M unicipal C ompiled P lan of

Subdivision of Lot 6, German Company Tract, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-16677, in the City of Waterloo surplus to the needs of the Region, as detailed in Report No. CR-RS-11-015 dated March 8, 2011, and provide the standard public notification as required by the Region’s property disposition by-law; and

b) Approve and execute all documentation related to the conveyance of the lands

described as Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-16677, at the cost of the Region, to the Corporation o f the C ity o f Waterloo for road widening purposes, for the sum of $1.00, as detailed in Report No. CR-RS-11-015 dated March 8, 2011, pursuant to the R egion’s property di sposition by -law and t he sa tisfaction o f t he R egional Solicitor.

3. THAT the A dministration and Fi nance C ommittee appr ove t he m inutes of t he A udit

Committee dated February 14, 2011. 4. THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo a pprove, ent er i nto an A greement for, and

execute all documentation related to, the acquisition of:

a) Lands for improvements to the Regional Police Service North Division for an electrical transformer and appur tenances thereto, described as Part Lot 1, Municipal C ompiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 6, German Company Tract, City of Waterloo;

b) a T emporary C onstruction E asement unt il Ju ly 31, 2012 r equired for access and al l

works required for t he i nstallation of t he el ectrical t ransformer and appur tenances thereto, over the lands described as Part Lot 1, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 6, German Company Tract, City of Waterloo; and

c) a T emporary C onstruction E asement unt il J uly 31, 2012 r equired for access and al l

works required for construction of a retaining wall on t he Region’s adjacent lands, over the lands described as Part Lot 1, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 6, German Company Tract, City of Waterloo


951176

from 2203931 Ontario Inc. for the sum of $30,000.00, plus associated costs to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor.

CARRIED

Community Services

The Summary of Recommendations of the Community Services Committee was presented by Jane Mitchell, Vice Chair of the Committee. MOVED by J. Mitchell SECONDED by G. Lorentz THAT the Summary of Recommendations of the Community Services Committee dated March 8, 2011, Items 1 to 6 and one report from closed session, Item 7, be adopted as follows: 1. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo receive Report P -11-031, Proposed ‘Place of

Employment’ Survey, dated March 8, 2011 for information;

AND THAT this report be di stributed to interested parties, including the Area Municipalities and the Canada’s Technology Triangle (CTT), to advise of the initiation of this project, and to request their support in raising awareness.

2. THAT The Regional Municipality of Waterloo take the following actions to raise awareness

of the 2011 Census as described in P-11-032, dated March 8, 2011: a) Encourage all residents of the Region of Waterloo to provide a complete response to

the 2011 Census Form during May, 2011; and b) Use available channels, such as the Region of Waterloo website, to direct residents

to information about the Census. 3. THAT the R egional M unicipality of Waterloo c ontinue t o serve as host for the Waterloo

Region Immigration Partnership Council and, in its capacity as such, enter into agreements with t he Feder al G overnment o f C anada or M inistry or ag ency t here of , under t he Loca l Immigration P artnership f or t he pe riod A pril 1, 2011 t o M arch 31, 2013, upon t erms and conditions acceptable to the Regional Solicitor and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of funding the Local Immigration Partnership;

AND T HAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo appr ove ent ering i nto agr eements with agencies or consultants, as determined by the Commissioner of Social Services from time to time, to su pport t he i mplementation o f the W aterloo R egion I mmigration P artnership Strategic Plan for the period April 1 2011 to March 31, 2013, subject to receipt of Federal Government funding; AND FU RTHER T HAT t he O perating B udget for S ocial P lanning, P olicy and P rogram Administration be i ncreased by $600, 000 gross and $0 net for the period A pril1, 2011 to March 31, 2013 as outlined in report SS-11-013/CA-11-004 dated March 8, 2011.

4. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo continue to serve in the role of Community

Entity and, in its capacity as such, enter into agreements with the Federal Government of Canada or a Ministry or ag ency t hereof, under the Homelessness Partnering S trategy for the period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014, upon terms and co nditions acceptable to Legal


951176

Services, for the purposes of providing funding to projects based on t he priorities identified in the Homelessness Partnering Strategy Community Plan 2011-2014;

AND THAT the R egional Municipality of Waterloo approve t he Homelessness Partnering Strategy Community Plan 2011-2014;

AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve entering into agreements with the following agencies for the maximum amount identified for the period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014, subject to receipt of Federal Government funding;

Lutherwood $302,314 K-W Working Centre for the Unemployed $375,000 Young Women’s Christian Association of KW $180,000 Cambridge Shelter Corporation $180,000

AND T HAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo appr ove ent ering i nto agr eements with agencies or consultants, as determined by the Commissioner of Social Services from time to time, su bject t o r eceipt of Feder al G overnment f unding, t o su pport i mplementation o f t he following: • Homelessness Individual and Family Information System to a maximum of $25,389 for

the period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014; • An Aboriginal specific project(s) to a maximum of $33,900 for the period April 1, 2011 to

March 31, 2014; • STEP Home program evaluation to a maximum of $30,000 for the period April 1, 2011 to

March 31, 2014; and • Supportive Housing of Waterloo (SHOW) to a maximum $35,000 for the period January

1, 2011 to M arch 31 , 2011 ut ilizing any unex pended f unding und er t he cu rrent Homelessness Partnering Strategy ending March 31, 2011;

AND FU RTHER T HAT t he O perating B udget for S ocial P lanning, P olicy and Program Administration be increased by $331,354 gross and $0 net , for the year 2011 as outlined in Report SS-11-012, dated March 8, 2011.

5. THAT t he R egional Municipality of Waterloo appr ove ent ering i nto an ex tension of t he

funding Agreement in the additional amount of up to $57,963 with the Federal Government of Canada or a Ministry or agency thereof for continued local coordination of the Homeless Individuals and Families Information System (HIFIS) for the per iod April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012;

AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo enter into an Agreement with the House of Friendship of K itchener f or up t o $21, 326 for continued del ivery of ce rtain asp ects of t he Homeless Individuals and Families Information System (HIFIS) for the period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012; AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo enter into an Agreement(s) with consultant(s), as determined by the Commissioner of Social Services from time to time, for up t o a m aximum of $1 5,600 co llectively for co ntinued delivery of ce rtain asp ects of t he Homeless Individuals and Families Information System (HIFIS) for the period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012; AND T HAT t he R egional Municipality of Waterloo, S ocial P lanning, P olicy and P rogram Administration use the remaining $21,037 to offset the Region Staff time contribution to the Homelessness Individuals and Families Information System (HIFIS) and use this funding


951176

towards the further i mplementation o f the H omelessness to H ousing S tability S trategy a s determined by the Commissioner of Social Services from time to time for the period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012; AND FU RTHER T HAT t he 2011 O perating B udget for S ocial P lanning be i ncreased by $43,472 gross and $0 net as outlined in Report SS-11-014, dated March 8, 2011.

6. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo:

(a) enter into a mutual aid agreement with other health units, as attached as Appendix “A”;

(b) provide t he M edical O fficer o f H ealth and the A ssociate M edical O fficer o f H ealth with all necessary authority to carry out the terms and conditions of the mutual aid agreement; and

(c) enact A By-law to Appoint an Acting Medical Officer of Health, as attached as Appendix “B”,

pursuant to Report PH-11-011, dated March 8, 2011.

7. THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo appoi nt t he f ollowing per sons to t he

Employment and Income Support Community Advisory Committee as outlined in report SS-11-001:

Don Pinnell (Client member) for a four-year term expiring on December 31, 2014; Rodica Chiriac (Client member) for a four-year term expiring on December 31, 2014; Joanne Bond (client member) for a four-year term expiring on December 31, 2014; Lil-Marie Myers (Multicultural) for a four-year term expiring on December 31, 2014; Geoff Reekie (Mental Health) for a four-year term expiring on December 31, 2014; Maria Muzzi (ODSP) for a four-year term expiring on December 31, 2014; Rosann Lacalamita (Education) for a four-year term expiring on December 31, 2014; Holt S ivak ( Community E mployment Li nkages) for a one -year t erm expiring on December 31, 2011; and Fran Elliott (Youth Services) for a one-year term ending December 31, 2011

CARRIED

Budget

The Summary of Recommendation of the Budget Committee was presented by Tom Galloway, Chair of t he C ommittee. Item #1 0 was taken s eparately due t o t he pecu niary i nterest o f R . Deutschmann. MOVED by T. Galloway SECONDED by J. Wideman THAT the Summary of Recommendations of the Budget Committee dated March 23, 2011, Items 1 to 9 and 11 to 14, be adopted as follows:

General Budget Resolutions

1. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the Police Services 2011 Property


951176

Tax Operating Budget with a net levy of $118,694,710 (0.75%) and the Police Services 2011 Property Tax Capital Budget and 2012-2020 Capital Forecast as amended.

2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo repeal By-law Number 10-001, being a By-

law to Establish Fees and Charges for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and that a new Fees and Charges By-law be passed including those fees and charges listed on the March 23, 2011 Budget Committee Agenda.

Social Services Budget Resolutions

3. Counselling Services

THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo appr ove t he f ollowing C ounselling S ervice Grants for 2011:

Agency Amount

Lutherwood Family Counselling Services $ 46,360 Shalom Counselling Services 12,954 Family Counselling Services of Cambridge and North Dumfries 56,739 Interfaith Community Counselling Centre 14,871 K-W Counselling Services Inc. 188,056 Mosaic Counselling and Family Services 128,380 Woolwich Interfaith Counselling Society 13,358 Total $460,718

4. Peer Counselling Services

THAT the R egional M unicipality of Waterloo a pprove t he following P eer C ounselling Service grants for 2011:

Agency Amount

Cambridge Self Help Food Bank $ 4,663 The Working Centre – St. John’s Kitchen 14,639 Total $19,302

5. Community Outreach Programs

THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following Community Outreach grants for 2011:

Agency Amount

Cambridge Family Early Years $ 39,391 Cambridge Self Help Food Bank 75,407 Mosaic Counselling and Family Services 107,569 Family Counselling Centre of Cambridge & North Dumfries 52,625 Greenway Chaplin 42,157 House of Friendship 128,688 K-W Counselling Services 172,751 KW Multi-Cultural Centre 34,964 Kinbridge Community Association 84,313


951176

Langs Farm Village Association 42,157 Our Place Family & Early Years Centre 37,643 Preston Heights Community Centre 42,157 Wilmot Family Resource Centre 36,841 Motivational Learning Groups 8,307 Future Vision Ministries 1,142 Total $906,112

6. Emergency Food Hamper Program

THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo appr ove t he following r ates for the Emergency Food Hamper Program effective January 1, 2011:

Program Amount

Hamper Rate $38.75 Diaper Rate $ 5.45 Formula Rate $13.75


7. Dental Program

THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo ap prove a 2% i ncrease i n r ates for basi c, emergency and discretionary dent al se rvices and dent ure r ates effective A pril 1, 2011, subject to approval by the Province of Ontario.

8. Homelessness to Housing Strategy

THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo a pprove t he following H omelessness to Housing Strategy Grants for 2011:

Agency Amount

House of Friendship $ 63,874 YWCA of Kitchener-Waterloo 65,199 Cambridge Shelter Corporation 72,688 Lutherwood 119,224 Argus Residence for Young People 8,937 Reaching Our Outdoor Friends (ROOF) 15,809 Shelter Capacity/Overflow 65,000 Total $410,731

9. Funeral Rates

THAT the R egional M unicipality of Waterloo a pprove a funeral r ate of $2, 775 pl us applicable taxes effective January 1, 2011.

General Budget Resolutions

11. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following adjustments to be made


951176

to t he 2011 R egional Budget, as described i n t he B udget C ommittee pr esentation of February 2, 2011:


for a total net savings to the base budget of $707,000.

12. THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo ap prove t he 2011 P roperty T ax O perating

Budget with a net levy of $262,340,383 (0.72%), excluding Police Services, and the 2011 Property Tax Capital Budget and 2012 -2020 Capital Forecast, excluding Police Services, reflecting budget issues presented to Budget Committee as amended.

13. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo receive Report F-11-014 for information, as required by Ontario Regulation 284/09.

Library Budget Resolutions

14. THAT the Region of Waterloo Budget Committee approve the f ollowing w ith regard to the R egion o f Waterloo Li brary B udget a s contained i n R eport P -LIB-11-002, da ted February 15, 2011:


CARRIED MOVED by T. Galloway SECONDED by J. Wideman THAT the Summary of Recommendations of the Budget Committee dated March 23, 2011, Item 10, be adopted as follows: 10. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo establish a Regional Transportation Master

Plan (RTMP) Reserve Fund for the purpose of receiving and allocating funds in respect of Transit capital works and operating costs, as identified in the RTMP;

AND THAT annual contributions to the reserve fund shall be approved by Regional Council as part of annual budget deliberations; AND THAT reserve fund balances are to be al located annually to Transit capital projects and operating costs in the capital and operating budgets; AND FURTHER THAT the necessary By-law be approved.

CARRIED REGIONAL CLERK


951176

a) CR-CLK-11-006, Response to M inistry of Community and Social Services on Proposed AODA Integrated Accessibility Standard

Received for information. OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a) E-11-035, Noise A ssessment R eview f or P roperties on G range C ourt, P itfield C ourt,

Cardiff Street and Heathcliffe Place Backlotting onto Ira Needles Boulevard Dealt with under Delegations. b) Memo: Ontario Works Caseload: February 2011 Received for information. MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by J. Haalboom THAT Committee of the Whole rise and Council resume. CARRIED MOVED by T. Cowan SECONDED by C. Zehr THAT Council adopt the proceeding of the Committee of the Whole. CARRIED NOTICE OF MOTION Dealt with under Delegations. ENACTMENT OF BY-LAWS – (FIRST, SECOND & THIRD READINGS) MOVED by B. Halloran SECONDED by C. Zehr a) THAT a By-law to Establish Fees and Charges for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and

Repeal By-law 10-001, As Amended be read a first, second and third time, finally passed and numbered 11-015 signed by the Regional Chair and Regional Clerk and sealed with the Regional Seal.

b) THAT a By-law to Appoint an A cting Medical Officer of Health When the Medical Officer of

Health and A ssociate Medical Officer of Health for the Waterloo Health Unit are Absent or Unable t o Act and to Repeal By-law 0 4-008 be read a first, second and t hird t ime, finally passed and numbered 11-016 signed by the Regional Chair and Regional Clerk and sealed with the Regional Seal.


951176

c) THAT a By-law to Confirm the Actions of Council of March 23, 2011 be read a first, second and t hird time, finally passe d and num bered 11-017 signed by t he R egional C hair and Regional Clerk and sealed with the Regional Seal.

CARRIED ADJOURN

MOVED by J. Brewer SECONDED by C. Millar THAT the meeting adjourn at 8:45 p.m. CARRIED REGIONAL CHAIR, K. Seiling REGIONAL CLERK, K. Fletcher

Sunnyside Foundation 1998 - 2011

Chair Ken Seiling & Members of Regional CouncilWednesday, March 23, 2011

Achieved registered charitable status in 1998

First long term care home in Ontario to establish a registered charitable foundation

Working board of 9 community volunteers

History of the Sunnyside Foundation

Mission Statement

To secure financial support for the purpose of

enhancing the well being and quality of life for

the residents and community served by

Sunnyside Seniors' Services.

Provided funding for resident and family support groups, patient lifting devices, large screen televisions, aviary, computer station, shower chairs, music and recreation therapy, horticulture, chaplaincy and palliative care program supplies

Accomplishments Programs & Equipment

AccomplishmentsResearch

Aphasia Project – use of music therapy in partnership with KW Alzheimer Society, Grand River Hospital and Community Care Access Centre

Therapeutic interventions for residents with responsive behaviours due to dementia

Accomplishments

Campus Enhancements

3 courtyards, lawn furniture for courtyards and 10 terraces,water features, children's playground, accessible walking paths, wildflower garden and gazebos

Wellness Centre Campaign

Initiated a $600,000 campaign in April 2009 to build, equip and furnish a Wellness Centre for the community

First-of-its kind Centre opened to the public May 2010Hours of operation expanded January 2011 to meet the demand

Major Contributors to the Sunnyside

Wellness Centre

Kitchener-Conestoga Rotary 2009 Dream Home Proceeds - $100,000

Walter & Abigail Ferguson Estate - $70,000

Sunnyside Auxiliary - $30,000

Kiwanis Club Twin Cities - $25,000

Kitchener-Waterloo Community Foundation - $21,000

RAISE Foundation - $20,000

Sunnyside Fabulous Finds Gift Shop - $20,000

Annual FundraisersWalk & Roll

● Raised $400,000 in the past 12 years

Region of Waterloo staff support the tournament by either playing or volunteering

Annual FundraisersSunnyside Foundation Golf Tournament

The Sunnyside Foundation is working in conjunction with Seniors' Services to establish a strategic plan for 2011 – 2015.

Identified Focus Areas- Centre of Learning Excellence- Planned Giving- Community Programs

Looking Ahead

Board of Directors

Marilee Mark, Chair Tom Bevenborn Kelley Vnuk Randy MoreCameron Yule Henning GrummeKarin Maiterth James TaitChristine Buuck

The Sunnyside Foundation has raised $2 million in support of

seniors living in Waterloo Region.

941865 -Section 7-

MEDIA RELEASE: Friday March 18, 2011, 4:30 p.m.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO BUDGET COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Wednesday March 23, 2011 3:00 – 6:00 p.m.

Regional Council Chambers 150 Frederick Street, 2nd Floor, Kitchener

Page # 1.

DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

2.

OPENING REMARKS (T. Galloway)

3.

OPENING REMARKS (M. Murray)

4.

BUDGET UPDATE (L. Ryan) a) F-11-014 Executive Summary – Budget 2011 b) Responses to Councillors’ Requests c) Municipal Budget Regulations

1

10

18 5.

BUDGET RESOLUTIONS a) Fees & Charges Bylaw b) Social Services Budget Resolutions c) General Budget Resolutions d) Library Budget Resolutions

21

26

30

31 6.

ADJOURN

Report: F-11-014

944016 -Section 7- Page 1 of 5

The REGION OF WATERLOO

FINANCE DEPARTMENT Administration

TO: Chair T. Galloway and Members of Budget Committee DATE: March 23, 2011 FILE CODE: F05-30 SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – BUDGET 2011 RECOMMENDATION: For Information SUMMARY: Nil REPORT: 2011 Current Position Including RTMP and Service Enhancements At the Budget Meeting on February 23rd, the following summary of the 2011 budget was presented. 2011

(tax rate increase)

Preliminary Base Budget Position

2.63%

Add Increased Costs for Approved Commitments - Green Bin - History Museum Opening Base Budget Position

0.42% 0.45% 3.50%

Less: Base Budget Adjustments 0.66% Less: Other Base Adjustments Less: 2011 Upload Savings Less: Gapping

0.20% 3.21% 0.03%

Potential Base Budget Position – Direct Regional Programs -0.60%

Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP) 1.25% Essential/Critical Service Enhancements 0.55% Potential Tax Rate Increase Regional Programs (Excl. Police)

1.20%

The Region’s 2011 base budget is in a very strong current position resulting in a tax decrease of 0.60%. Since the 2011 Regional Base Budget is in good shape, the focus on the budget could be directed towards what expansion in services the Region should consider for 2011. Staff has been monitoring two base budget items, namely, provincial cost sharing for OW admin and fuel prices. An update on these areas is provided below and adjustments to the staff recommended budget positions have been made.

March 23, 2011 Report: F-11-014


Provincial Funding of Ontario Works Administration Programs The Province cost shares the administration of the Ontario Works caseload on a 50:50 basis, to a maximum amount determined by the Province. In addition to the OW Administration costs, the Province also funds the Employment Assistance Program on an 81.2/18.8 basis. The EA program is being uploaded by the Province over the 2010 – 2019 period. In January, the Province announced that the funding of these two programs was being merged effective April 1, 2011 and that funding will be provided on a cost per case basis. For the first quarter of 2011, one time funding will be provided to the Region. Funding will be based on a combined caseload of Ontario Works recipients and a supplementary caseload to represent the workload of the Employment and Income Support Division. The funding caseload will be determined by the Province every two years. The Province will continue to upload costs related to what was the Employment Assistance Program. The Region’s 2011 Base Budget included an increase in revenue of $1.7 million based on early information provided by the Province. Regional staff met with the Province on March 8th to review the new funding formula, and based on the projected 2011 costs related to Ontario Works Administration and Employment Assistance, a further reduction of $1.025 million can be incorporated into the 2011 budget. This budget reduction results in a tax rate reduction of 0.28%. 2011 Fuel Budget As reported at the February 23rd Budget Committee meeting, the Region’s 2011 base budget included a fuel price of 88 cents per litre (2010 budget 85 cents per litre). For the month of March, the Region is currently paying $1.03 per litre of fuel. Based on the current price of fuel and economic projections of fuel prices for the balance of 2011, staff is recommending that the 2011 base budget for fuel be increased to 95 cents per litre. This adjustment adds $840,000 to the base budget which equates to a 0.23% tax rate increase. Staff will provide additional information on the 2011 forecast for fuel prices on March 23rd. The net impact of the above base budget adjustments, result in a 0.05% tax rate reduction. Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP) Funding Waterloo Region is one of the fastest growing communities in Canada. In response to the projected rate of growth, Regional Council approved the new Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP) in June of 2010. The new RTMP placed a greater emphasis on public transit. The funding plan called for a 1.15% to 1.20% annual contribution beginning in 2011 to provide additional transit service capacity to meet growing demands throughout the transit service area. Staff is proposing the creation of an RTMP Reserve Fund which will be used to fund the implementation of RTMP. Initially, these funds will be allocated to transit related expansion. Should Council approve a Rapid Transit (RT) project in 2011, then this annual allocation will also be utilized to fund the RT project as well. It is imperative that Council begin to fund the RTMP plan in 2011 so that the Region is well positioned to fund transit expansion in the future. Staff is recommending a contribution to the RTMP Reserve Fund in 2011 of $4.05 million (equivalent to a 1.25% tax rate increase). If approved, a significant increase in transit service is planned for 2011 which will result in 75,550 hours of additional transit service. Please refer to the major issue paper, RTMP – Implementation and Funding, which was included in the February 2nd agenda package.

March 23, 2011 Report: F-11-014


The 2011 budget does not include additional funding for the Rapid Transit project. A process has been initiated that will include a number of options and a public consultation process. It is hoped that Council will make a decision regarding the Rapid Transit project in June 2011. 2011 Regional Service Enhancements The Region of Waterloo is a growing community with increasing demands for service improvements. Staff has prepared a package of service enhancement requests (“new budget issues”) for Budget Committee’s consideration. Budget issues are requests for program and service improvements driven by changing regulations, growth pressures and increasing demands for service. Staff has identified a number of budget issues and the details regarding these issues were mailed out with the February 2nd budget package. All of these issues are essential/critical enhancements. It is important to note, that the demand for service improvements far exceeds the requests presented this year. Based on a notional budget target for service improvements of approximately a 0.5% tax rate increase, staff has prioritized the budget issues. The highest priority issues which could be accommodated within the 0.5% tax rate increase are included on the “A list” (staff recommended). Those not able to be accommodated within the 0.5% tax rate increase are included on the “B list” (staff not recommended). It should be noted that all of these budget issues represent important service enhancements, which would be recommended by staff if greater budget capacity were available. Decisions regarding these service improvements are ultimately at the discretion of Budget Committee. At the February 2nd Budget Committee meeting, staff were directed to prioritize the new issues for 2011. These revised lists were distributed on February 23rd. Since the budget focus has traditionally been on the A list (staff recommended) and the B list (staff not recommended), these lists have been reproduced as Appendix A and B. Based on the updated information, the Staff Recommended 2011 Budget is as follows: 2011

(tax rate increase)

Preliminary Base Budget Position

2.63%

Add Increased Costs for Approved Commitments - Green Bin - History Museum Opening Base Budget Position

0.42% 0.45% 3.50%

Less: Base Budget Adjustments - -0.66% Less: Other Base Adjustments Less: Gapping Less: 2011 Upload Savings Less : Additional Upload Savings Add: Increase to Fuel Budget

-0.20% -0.03% -3.21% -0.28% +0.23%

Base Budget Position – Direct Regional Programs -0.65%

Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP) 1.25% New Issues - Essential/Critical Service Enhancements 0.55%

March 23, 2011 Report: F-11-014


Potential Tax Rate Increase Regional Programs (Excl. Police)

1.15%

2011 Police Services Budget The 2011 Police Services Budget that was presented to Budget Committee on February 23rd had a potential tax rate impact of 1.07%. This increase represents a base budget increase of 0.57% plus an amount for new issues of 0.50% for a total potential tax rate increase of 1.07%. The Police Services Board approved the 2011 Budget on March 9th. The all-in tax rate increase approved was 0.75%. The expansion component (0.18%) included 30 new officers starting in 2011 (20 starting in August and 10 starting in December) and 6 additional civilians, which was reduced from the original request of 60 officers and 18 civilians. The annualization impact for the Police expansion items in 2012 is $1.9 million (0.52% tax rate increase). The total tax rate increase for Police in 2012 will include this annualization as well as any other 2012 base budget adjustments or additional expansions. Now that the Police Services Budget has been approved, the potential “all-in” Regional tax rate increase can be quantified as follows:

Current Regional All-in Tax Rate Position: Current Position - Regional Tax Rate Increase 1.15%Police Services

0.75%

Total Tax Rate Increase 1.90% Responses to Councillors’ Requests There were a number of budget requests for additional information at Budget Committee on February 23rd, and carry forward requests from the previous budget meetings. These responses have been included in a separate information paper within this budget package. Budget Resolutions It is planned that the 2011 property tax budget (operating and capital) be approved on March 23rd. Resolutions for budget approval are included within this budget package. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The 2011 Budget will be fully integrated into the 2011-2014 Corporate Strategic Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: It is important to note that a 1% tax rate increase results in a $14.77 increase to the tax bill for the average residential property. In addition, a 1% tax rate increase generates a $3.67 million increase in tax revenues. A 1.90% tax rate increase results in a $28.06 increase for the average residential property owner. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE:

March 23, 2011 Report: F-11-014


All departments and Police Services have participated in the development of the 2011 Budget. ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A – Recommended List Appendix B – Not Recommended List PREPARED BY: L. Ryan, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED BY: M. Murray, Chief Administrative Officer

F-11-014Appendix A

Dept Page New Issues

$2011 Annualization FTE

Strategic Priorities 2011 - 2014

2011 Budget (in thousand $)

Staff Recommended - A List

Focus Area 1 - Environmental SustainabilityCR 1 Community Sustainability Fund 150 0

Total Focus Area 1 150 0 0.0

Focus Area 2 - Growth ManagementCAO 5 Arts and Culture Funding 100 0


Focus Area 3 - Healthy & Safe CommunitiesPH 9 EMS Master Plan Optimized Staffing Requirements + Capital 184 155 6.0

SS 16 Maintain Basic Benefits For Persons With Low Income 56 0

PHCS 14 Addressing Increased Waitlist Volumes Cambridge Access Centre 5 35 1.0

PH 11 Enhanced Public Health Surveillance, Reporting & Information 24 0 1.5


Focus Area 4 - Human ServicesSS 18 Child Care Fee Subsidy Funding 270 0 1.0

SS 26 Homelessness to Housing Stability 100

PH 24 Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion - Fluoride + Capital 60 0

SS 21 Christopher Children’s Centre Operating Costs 77 153 4.0

SS 30 Seniors' Services - Planning Support 31 51 1.0


947631 -Section 7- 17/03/2011

F-11-014Appendix A





Focus Area 5 - InfrastructureTES 35 Specialized Transit – Service Improvements + Capital 162 217 3.6

FIN 39 Capital Financing 200 0

CR 32 Facilities Asset Management Program + Capital 72 60 1.0

TES 37 Transportation Engineering 64 28 1.0


Focus Area 6 - Service ExcellenceHR 56 Staff Recruitment and Retention + Capital 100 83 1.5

CR 47 Implementation of ITS Program Review + Capital 100 41 1.0

CAO 43 Implementation of External Communications Program Review 51 48 1.0

FIN 51 Enhancement of Performance Measurement & Budget Processes 56 54 1.0

CR 47 Implementation of ITS Program Review + Capital 98 44 1.0

HR 56 Staff Recruitment and Retention + Capital 49 55 1.0

PH 45 Health & Safety In Public Health & Emergency Medical Services 39 0 1.0


Total CLT Recommended - A List 2,048 1,024 27.6

947631 -Section 7- 17/03/2011

F-11-014Appendix A





Staff Not Recommended - B List

Focus Area 1 - Environmental Sustainability

PHCS 79 Implementing Regional Environmental Stewardship Initiatives 50 0 0.5

CR 59 Community Sustainability Fund 200 0


Focus Area 2 - Growth Management

CAO 63 Arts and Culture Funding 42 0

PHCS 67 JSH - New Wash House Programming 29 0 0.5

SS 81 Affordable Transportation for Persons with Low Income 250 200

PHCS 83 Cultural Heritage Coordinator 46 46 1.0

PHCS 86 McDougall Cottage - Program Enhancement of Visitor Growth 42 0 0.7


Focus Area 3 - Healthy & Safe Communities

SS 88 Community Outreach Program Enhancement 185 26 0.5

CP 91 Crime Prevention Supervisor Planning and Research Position 48 47 1.0


Focus Area 4 - Human Services

SS 69 Homelessness to Housing Stability 271 0 1.0

PH 94 Positive Parenting/Access to Child and Family Health Services 52 0 2.0


947631 -Section 7- 17/03/2011

F-11-014Appendix A





Focus Area 5 - Infrastructure

FIN 75 Capital Financing 190 0


Focus Area 6 - Service Excellence

SS 96 Communications Coordinator 59 35 1.0

HR 73 Analyst (Human Resources Information Management) 52 44 1.0

SS 103 Information Management Coordinator 64 24 1.0

SS 98 Counselling Collaborative Program Enhancement 127 26 0.5

CAO 101 Funding Enhancement for Completion of Program Reviews 100 0


Total CLT Not Recommended 1,807 448 10.7

947631 -Section 7- 17/03/2011

947822 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET

2011 BUDGET INFORMATION

INFORMATION: RESPONSES TO COUNCILLORS’ REQUESTS Listed below are the responses for additional information requested at previous Budget Committee Meetings: 1) Ontario Works – OW Caseload Scenarios for Future Years Attached are 3 scenarios which forecast OW caseload over the next 5 years. Assuming that the annual surplus continues to provide $1.5 million in annual funding to the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund (TSRF), the TSRF will be sufficient to fund the annual OW expenditure shortfall until 2015. 2) Opportunities Waterloo Region

Opportunities Waterloo Region (OWR) appeared as a delegation at the Budget Public Meeting on February 2nd. A Regional funding summary for OWR is attached. 3) Estimated 5 Year Tax Rate Increase – Scenario 1 & 2 Two five year property tax budget scenarios are attached. These scenarios project tax increases over a five year period. Scenario 1 illustrates the potential tax rate impacts if conservative assumptions are utilized. Scenario 2 provides a forecast of tax impacts when slightly more optimistic assumptions are utilized. One key assumption to point out under Scenario 2 is the utilization of supplementary taxes. An increase in the supplementary tax budget of $2.5 million has been included in 2012. Another assumption under Scenario 2 which is more aggressive is the assumption for assessment growth. Assessment growth under Scenario 2 is 2.25% up from 1.75% under Scenario 1. It is important to note that the tax rates illustrated in each scenario are reasonable considering 1.25% has been included in each year for RTMP. Finally, these scenarios are provided for illustrative purposes. The intent is to only highlight these forecasts on March 23rd. These 5 year scenarios will be brought forward when the 2012 budget process report is tabled at A&F Committee this spring. In addition, these 5 year property tax scenarios will be fully discussed when developing the 5 year financial plan previously discussed at the Council strategic planning session. 4) Ten Year Surplus Summary A 10 year surplus history is provided which also outlines how the surplus was utilized during this period. The Regional surplus has been allocated based on the Region’s surplus allocation policy. The policy first allocates funding to the operating budget $600,000 and the Roads Rehabilitation Capital Program $500,000. The surplus is then used to top-up the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund and the Working Funds Reserve up to their $10.0 million cap. Any remaining balance is allocated to the Capital Levy Reserve Fund which reduces debt financing on approved capital projects. Reducing future debt issuance reduces future tax rate increases. As noted above, future surpluses are required to fund the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund, which is critical in funding future OW caseload over expenditures.

944779 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET 2011 BUDGET INFORMATION INFORMATION: ONTARIO WORKS – CASELOAD SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE YEARS Background The Ontario Works Budget has been fixed at an average monthly caseload of 6,400 cases and a cost per case of $685.95 (for both payments and benefits) since 2009. Any difference between the budgeted levy contribution and actual expenditures has been funded by the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund. At its meeting of February 23, 2011, Committee requested an analysis of the ability of the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund to continue to fund the shortfall in the Ontario Works Budget. Caseload Scenarios Based on the 2010 OW caseload profile and the caseload scenarios for 2011, staff has prepared three scenarios of the impact of OW costs for the 2011 to 2015 period. It must be stressed these are illustrations and not forecasts of caseloads or municipal costs. Based on these illustrations, the impact on the Region’s property tax levy and TSRF were determined. The first scenario (Best Case) assumes that the caseload will decline from an average of 8,551 cases per month in 2010 to 7,196 in 2015. The realistic scenario assumes caseloads will remain stable over 2011 and 2012 and then begin to decline in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The final scenario, based on the provincial forecasts for 2011 to 2013, assumes caseloads will increase to a maximum of 9,021 cases in 2013 and then begin to decline. The following graph illustrates these scenarios:

944779 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET 2011 BUDGET INFORMATION INFORMATION: ONTARIO WORKS – CASELOAD SCENARIOS CONT’D Financial Implications Based on the three illustrations, the financial impact on the Region’s operating budget and the TSRF was calculated. The following assumptions were made in the analysis:

1. The 2011 opening balance of the TSRF is $10.0 million; 2. The cost per case for payments and benefits will increase by 1% per year; 3. Over the 2011- 2015 time period there are no major changes to Social Assistance eligibility

or rates that would impact the number of OW cases or the cost per case; 4. A transfer of $1.5 million per year from Regional operating surplus will be made to the

TSRF; 5. Provincial uploading of OW costs will continue and that these savings will be included in the

Region’s budget. The following table summarizes the provincial upload savings, and the projected shortfall between the budgeted Regional levy (after taking into account the provincial upload savings) and the projected actual expenditures. The ending TSRF balance is after the shortfall has been funded.

$ in 000's 2011 2012 2013 2014 20152015

caseload Upload Savings 257 757 1,530 1,452 1,482

Best Case:

OW Shortfall 3,856 3,308 2,445 1,654 960 7,196Ending TSRF 7,890 6,265 5,473 5,472 6,192

Realistic:

OW Shortfall 4,274 3,949 3,074 2,231 1,442 7,803Ending TSRF 7,455 5,146 3,655 2,982 3,101

Provincial Forecast:

OW Shortfall 4,688 4,535 3,896 2,972 2,124 8,664Ending TSRF 7,024 4,088 1,699 228 (396)

Based on the assumption of a continued $1.5 million contribution of the surplus, the TSRF will be sufficient to cover over expenditures until 2014. In all cases except one (provincial forecast in 2015), the TSRF, based on the assumptions noted above, would be sufficient to cover the costs of the OW payments and benefits.

925734 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: OPPORTUNITIES WATERLOO REGION At the Public Input meeting of February 2, 2011, Opportunities Waterloo Region (OWR) requested the Region approve an operating grant of $110,000 per year for five years, for a total of $550,000. The 2011 Budget currently under consideration by Budget Committee does not include any provision for a grant to Opportunities Waterloo Region. No issue paper has been included in the Budget Issue Paper package. Council requested a historical summary of funding and support provided to Opportunities Waterloo Region. Since 2001, Waterloo Region has provided $998,100 in direct funding to OWR. In addition, since 2004 the agency’s offices have been located at 235 King Street East (with the Employment and Income Support Division). The cost of this space has been absorbed by the Region since September 2008. In 2011, the cost of this space is estimated to be $14,000. In prior years, there has been intermittent relief of rental costs to the agency. The following table summarizes the approvals and actual expenditures:

Year Regional Grants

2001 $77,5102002 125,8002003 213,6252004 71,1652005 45,0002006 110,0002007 110,0002008 100,0002009 90,0002010 55,000Total $998,100

The Region’s grants have been funded by a combination of one time capital funding and Consolidated Verification Process (CVP) grants. Funds from the CVP Program are no longer available as the source of funding has been discontinued. The Region’s capital levy reserve fund has been fully committed. Council also requested a breakdown of the grants received by Opportunities Waterloo Region in its 2009/10 annual report. A breakdown of the 2009 grants, provided by the agency, is appended to this paper. It should be noted that OWR uses an April to March fiscal year vs. the Region’s calendar year and as a result there is a variance between the Region’s approval shown above and the appendix. Financial Implications OWR has requested a total grant of $550,000 over five years ($110,000 per year for 2011 to 2015). The 2011 Budget under consideration by Budget Committee does not include any provision for this request. Should Budget Committee decide to provide funding to OWR, a funding source for all five years would have to be identified.

925734 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: OPPORTUNITIES WATERLOO REGION CONT’D

OPPORTUNITIES WATERLOO REGION REVENUE

APRIL 2009 THROUGH MARCH 2010

Income 4060 · Region of Waterloo Income

Operating $80,000.01 Project Revenue 17,443.16 Total Region of Waterloo $97,443.17

4070 · United Way Income 10,949.19 4110 · K-W Community Foundation 750.00 4150 · HRDC Canada 2,215.00 4152 · Ontario Financial Services 3,114.52 4155 · Heart & Stroke Income 3,435.93 Total 4229 · Trillium Foundation 83,925.23 4235 · Tamarack 50,645.90 4240 · CGN Trillium 44,788.95 4245 · Local Market Vouchers Income 1,400.00 4500 · Lunch Fees 2,807.19 4700 · Corporate Donations 583.70 4999 · Miscellaneous Income 8,099.94 Neighbourhood Market

revenue that went back into the markets

Total Income $310,158.72

Region of Waterloo Scenario 1

Estimated 5 Year Tax Rate Increase(in thousands)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Opening Levy including Police 383,000 401,004 419,854 439,590 460,254

Staffing Costs (1) 5,550 5,638 4,577 4,669 4,763 Annualization 1,024 Debt Costs 4,649 4,675 4,673 1,379 4,317 Transp. Cap. Base Program 0.3% 1,149 1,203 1,260 1,319 1,381 Inflation (Fuel, Electricity….) 2,000 2,065 2,132 2,200 2,271 Revenue Increase Transit - 5% -1,131 -1,187 -1,246 -1,309 -1,374Waste Management Contracts 816 849 883 918 955 Other 243 250 258 266 273 Increase 14,300 13,493 12,535 9,441 12,586

Preliminary Base Budget 3.73% 3.36% 2.99% 2.15% 2.73%Less Assessment Growth (1.75% total) -1.21% -1.21% -1.21% -1.21% -1.21%Opening Base Budget Position 2.52% 2.15% 1.78% 0.94% 1.52%

Less: Total Upload Savings -0.26% -0.45% -0.40% -0.39% -0.37%Less: Debt Cost Savings Admin Buildings -0.13% -0.98% -0.30%Less: Base Budget Adjustments -0.50% -0.50% -0.50% -0.50% -0.50%Revised Base Budget Position 1.63% 0.23% 0.57% 0.05% 0.66%

Service EnhancementsTransportation Master Plan/Rapid Transit 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25%Service Enhancements 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25%Annualization 0.10% 0.10% 0.10%Total Enhancements in Service 1.25% 1.50% 1.60% 1.60% 1.60%

Regional Position including Service Enhancements 2.88% 1.73% 2.17% 1.65% 2.26%

Police Services Base (after assessment of 0.54%) 0.69% 0.57% 0.37% 0.37% 0.37%Police Services Annualization for 2011 0.52% 0.07% 0.07%Police Services Expansion (2) 0.18% 0.36% 0.21% 0.06% 0.02%Police Services Court Security Upload -0.13% -0.12% -0.12% -0.11% -0.11%Police Services including Expansion 1.26% 0.88% 0.52% 0.31% 0.28%

Total Projected Tax Rate Increase 4.14% 2.61% 2.70% 1.96% 2.54%

1) Cola assumption 2% per year. OMERS rate increase of 1% in 2012 & 2013.2) Police Increase - Based on 15 officers & 6 civilians in April 2012 and 15 officers & 6 civilians in April 2013.

DOCS 948869 18/03/2011

Region of Waterloo Scenario 2

Estimated 5 Year Tax Rate Increase(in thousands)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Opening Levy including Police 383,000 401,004 419,854 439,590 460,254

Staffing Costs (1) 5,550 5,638 4,577 4,669 4,763 Annualization 1,024 Debt Costs 4,649 4,675 4,673 1,379 4,317 Transp. Cap. Base Program 0.3% 1,149 1,203 1,260 1,319 1,381 Inflation (Fuel, Electricity….) 1,709 1,750 1,793 1,836 1,879 Revenue Increase Transit - 5% -1,131 -1,187 -1,246 -1,309 -1,374Waste Management Contracts 816 849 883 918 955 Other 243 250 258 266 273 Increase 14,009 13,178 12,196 9,077 12,194

Preliminary Base Budget 3.66% 3.29% 2.90% 2.06% 2.65%Less Assessment Growth (2.25% total) -1.55% -1.55% -1.55% -1.55% -1.55%Opening Base Budget Position 2.11% 1.74% 1.35% 0.51% 1.10%

Less: Total Upload Savings -0.26% -0.45% -0.40% -0.39% -0.37%Less: Debt Cost Savings Admin Buildings -0.13% -0.98% -0.30%Less: Base Budget Adjustments -0.50% -0.50% -0.50% -0.50% -0.50%Less: Supp Taxes -0.65%Revised Base Budget Position 0.56% -0.19% 0.15% -0.37% 0.23%

Service EnhancementsTransportation Master Plan/Rapid Transit 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25%Service Enhancements 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25%Annualization 0.10% 0.10% 0.10%Total Enhancements in Service 1.25% 1.50% 1.60% 1.60% 1.60%

Regional Position including Service Enhancements 1.81% 1.31% 1.75% 1.23% 1.83%

Police Services Base (after assessment of 0.7%) 0.53% 0.41% 0.21% 0.21% 0.21%Police Services Annualization from 2011 0.52% 0.07% 0.07%Police Services Expansion (2) 0.18% 0.36% 0.21% 0.06% 0.02%Police Services Court Security Upload -0.13% -0.12% -0.12% -0.11% -0.11%Police Services including Expansion 1.10% 0.72% 0.36% 0.15% 0.12%

Total Projected Tax Rate Increase 2.91% 2.03% 2.11% 1.38% 1.95%

1) Cola assumption 2% per year. OMERS rate increase of 1% in 2012 & 2013.2) Police Increase - Based on 15 officers & 6 civilians in April 2012 and 15 officers and 6 civilians in April 2013.

Property Tax Surplus History

Roads

Year Surplus Operating Working Rehabiliation Capital Levy Tax Stabilization Housing Capital Project

Budget Funds Reserve (1) Reserve Fund Reserve Fund (2) Reserve Fund (1) Reserve Fund (3) Financing

2000 3,874,622 600,000 1,637,311 1,637,311 (4)

2001 7,602,243 600,000 2,265,613 2,000,000 998,441 1,738,189 (4)

2002 8,870,525 600,000 524,837 500,000 296,295 2,199,393 4,750,000 (5)

2003 6,370,002 600,000 500,000 2,670,002 2,600,000

2004 7,590,537 600,000 500,000 6,490,537

2005 6,777,153 600,000 500,000 5,677,153

2006 4,767,158 600,000 500,000 3,667,158

2007 5,464,429 600,000 500,000 4,364,429

2008 1,108,751 600,000 500,000 8,751

2009 2,733,920 600,000 500,000 1,633,920

2010 est. (6) 9,131,000 600,000 500,000 3,234,315 4,796,685

(1) Surplus policy requires top up of reserve or reserve fund to $10.0 million

(2) Capital Levy Reserve Fund utilized to reduce future debenturing on approved capital projects. The current balance of the Capital Levy Reserve

Fund is $0.00.

(3) Funds transferred directly to Housing Reserve Fund after 2003

(4) Capital Financing: WRESTRC financing

(5) Capital Financing: 150 Main Street, Cambridge

(6) 2010 surplus is an estimated amount. The 2010 surplus is entirely generated by supplementary taxes.

2010 Surplus Report is scheduled for the April 12th A & F Committee meeting.

938552, surplus history.xls

March 16, 2011.

Working Funds Reserve

947850 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: MUNICIPAL BUDGET REGULATIONS In June 2009, the Province amended the Municipal Act to incorporate changes to the financial reporting and budget requirements of municipalities. The Municipal Act requires that municipalities prepare balanced budgets which include all of the annual expenses of the municipality. Previously, all of these expenses were recorded on a modified-cash basis where assets, such as roads, bridges and water plants, were budgeted and expensed as purchased and long-term liabilities, such as post-closure expenses for landfills or post-employment benefits, were budgeted and funded at the amounts required to satisfy current obligations. The annual expenses of the municipality now include changes which reflect the implementation of tangible capital asset (TCA) accounting, as required by Public Sector Accounting Board Standard 3150. PSAB 3150 requires recording the historical cost of tangible capital assets and the related annual amortization expense on municipal financial statements. Amortization is the amount of a tangible capital asset which is consumed through use of that asset by a municipality during the year. For example, a road with an expected life of 50 years would have one-fiftieth of its historical cost recorded as amortization in a year. The expense for long-term liabilities, such as the post-closure expense for landfills is recorded as the change in the estimate of full future costs to maintain the landfill as calculated in the current year. These expenses, while they provide valuable information, are not the basis used by most municipalities to determine the annual budget and tax levy. In recognition of this, the amended legislation allows municipalities to continue to budget for an annual tax levy, but requiring that Council be informed of the impact of not including these expenses in the budget process. Ontario Regulation 284/09 permits municipalities to exclude the following expenses from the budget process, as follows:

Amortization expenses (related to tangible capital assets); Post employment benefits expenses (related to early retirements and disability benefits,

Workers Compensation payments, sick leave and life insurance payments); and Solid waste landfill closure and post-closure expenses.

Tangible Capital Assets For budget purposes, the Region prepares a 10-year capital program which includes expenditures and funding sources for the assets it plans to build or acquire. The funding sources include development charges, debenture debt, federal or provincial government funding (gas tax, infrastructure stimulus funds, etc.) and transfers from the operating fund (tax levy) to the capital fund reserves. The operating budget includes these transfers to capital and also the principal and interest repayments on debt issued to acquire assets. These tax levy amounts provide for the purchase and replacement of assets as required, and generally exceed the related amortization. Amortization is the expense related to historical cost of assets consumed during the year, and due to inflation, is less than the amount required to replace assets.

947850 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: MUNICIPAL BUDGET REGULATIONS CONT’D Post-Employment Benefits Post-employment benefits represent the cost to provide benefits in the future that have been earned by employees’ service-to-date and include vested sick leave, WSIB, health, dental, life insurance and long-term disability benefits. The future liability is calculated each year for financial statement purposes. For budget purposes, the Region estimates the amount of cash required to fund the current year obligations of these benefits and this amount is provided in the current year operating budget and tax levy. The amount recorded for accounting purposes is the amount that is expected to be paid out over the future benefit period and the net change in outstanding liability from year to year is included on the Income Statement. Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Costs Landfill closure and post-closure costs are the costs which will be incurred to close the active landfill and to monitor and remediate any closed landfills into the future. The future liability is calculated each year for financial statement purposes. For budget purposes, the Region budgets for the annual maintenance and monitoring of closed landfill sites on a cash basis. The amount recorded for accounting purposes is the amount that is expected to be paid out over the future period and the net change in outstanding liability from year to year is included on the Income Statement. The table which follows illustrates the amounts budgeted and included in the financial statements for the above items in the 2009 fiscal year. (The 2010 amounts for changes in the outstanding liability are determined by the Region’s actuaries and will be available when the financial statements are completed for the year.)

Table 1: Estimated Effect of Budgeting for Non-Cash Expenditures 2009 ($000’s)

2009 Budget 2009 Income Statement Difference

Transfers to Capital from Operating $66,613 Principal Repayments $17,392 Amortization $69,110 Total $84,005 $69,110 $14,895 Post-employment Benefits $2,383 $4,932 ($2,549) Landfill post-closure costs $0 ($615) $615

947850 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: MUNICIPAL BUDGET REGULATIONS CONT’D Table 1 illustrates that the amount of taxes raised through the operating budget for transfers to capital to fund capital acquisitions and major refurbishments approximates the amortization expense for accounting purposes. It is expected that the amount required to fund asset replacements would exceed amortization which is based on historical cost and does not reflect the effect of inflation on current replacement costs. Summary The Region, similar to most municipalities in Ontario and in accordance with the Municipal Act, continues to budget on a modified cash basis to determine the tax levy required to fund the operations of the Region and its 10-year capital program. With respect to the increase in the employee future benefit costs and the decrease in the landfill post-closure liability, the Region budgets in the current year to fund the actual costs of providing the benefits and does not budget for the increase in the liability. The Region will move to a full accrual basis of budgeting when required to do so by the Province. Regulation 284/09 will be reviewed by the Province during 2012 and any changes to municipal budgeting will be considered at that time. Recommendation THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo receive this report for information, as required by Ontario Regulation 284/09.

933584 -Section 7 -

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: FEES & CHARGES BY-LAW Background Section 391 of the Municipal Act permits the Region to establish and maintain a list of services subject to fees or charges. By-law Number 10-001, a By-law to Establish Fees and Charges for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, has been adopted to fulfill this requirement. This by-law is reviewed annually to incorporate new or revised fees adopted by Regional Council. 2011 Budget As part of the 2011 budget process, all departments have reviewed their fees and charges and, where appropriate, have proposed changes to the fees. Appendix A is a list of fees that are to be changed during 2011. These fees have been used in the preparation of the 2011 Operating Budget. As user rates are approved by separate by-laws, they are not included in this schedule. Recommendation THAT the Regional Municipality Waterloo repeal By-law Number 10-001, being a By-law to Establish Fees and Charges for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and that a new Fees and Charges By-law be passed including those fees and charges listed on the March 23, 2011 Budget Committee Agenda.

933584 -Section 7 -

CHANGE TO FEES AND CHARGES BY-LAW Appendix A

Description Current Fee Effective

Date

Proposed Fee

TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Waste Management – Rural Transfer Station

Bulky Items: Full Bed / Couch Vehicle rates- half full (van, pickup, trailer)

$9.00 each$9.00

Jul 1 –11 Jul 1 – 11

$10.00 each$10.00

Waste Management – Waterloo & Cambridge sites General Refuse / Garbage Pallets Surcharge Loads (stumps, wire, styrofoam, asbestos, etc)

$70/MT$70/MT

$140/MT

Jul 1 -11 Jul 1 – 11 Jul 1 - 11

$72/MT$72/MT

$144/MT

Grand River Transit* Chartering a Bus (2 hour minimum) $100.00 per

hour

Mar 24 -11 $110.00 per hour

Airport Services* Advertising Fees – Digital Media Automobile Parking Custom Fees (after hour custom fees)

New

$2.00 per hour $12.00 per day

$40 per week

$250.00

Apr 1 – 11

Apr 1 – 11 Apr 1 - 11 Apr 1 - 11

Apr 1 -11

$200 per month

$2.50 per hour$15.00 per day

$45 per week

Cost recovery based on actual costs

PUBLIC HEALTH - Emergency Medical Services Special Event Coverage Two Paramedics and Vehicle Single Paramedic and Vehicle

$115/ hour$460 minimum


Apr 1-11

Apr 1 -11


$70/ hour$ 280 minimum

Special Event Coverage –Short Notice or Full Time Staff Two Paramedics and Vehicle Single Paramedic and Vehicle

$165/ hour$660 minimum$95/hr $380 m

Apr 1-11

Apr 1-11


$95/hr $380 minSOCIAL SERVICES - Seniors’ Services

Seniors Day Program (meal) $6.00/meal* Apr 1-11 $6.50*Loaves and Fishes Program $6.00/meal* Apr 1-11 $6.50*Community Alzheimer Program (Income Based)

Regular Day Program $17.00 Apr 1-11 $17.50Lunch Visit (meal) $6.00 Apr 1-11 $6.50Extended Day Program $22.00 Apr 1-11 $22.503 Day Respite Program $100.00 Apr 1-11 Delete4 Day Respite Program $135.00 Apr 1-11 Delete

933584 -Section 7 -


Date

Proposed Fee

Respite Program – overnight stay new Apr 1-11 Rate as set by LTC

Ministry; subject to change currently

$34.63Resident Telephone $26.00 / month

+ long distanceApr 1-11 $26.50 / month +

long distance

Convalescent Care Telephone $2.25 / day + long distance

Apr 1-11 $2.30 / day + long distance

Cable Television to Residents $25.50/month* Apr 1-11 $26.00/month*

Cable Television – Convalescent Care $2.25/day* Apr 1-11 $2.30/day*

SOCIAL SERVICES - Children’s Services*

Toddler 6+ hours of care < 5.75 hours of care <3.75 hours of care

$42.50$32.50$25.60

Apr 1-11 Apr 1-11 Apr 1-11

$43.25$33.10$26.00

Pre School 6+ hours of care <5.75 hours of care <3.75 hours of care

$39.45$29.70$23.35

Apr 1-11 Apr 1-11 Apr 1-11

$40.10$30.20$23.75

PLANNING, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Waterloo Region Museum*

Education Kits - Weekly Rental Rate $20.00 May 1-11 RemovedEducation Program Admission (K-8 are HST exempt; Grade 9 and up + HST)

Groundwater Festival (per child rate, all adults free) School Fairs (full day) (per child rate, all adults free)

$5.50

$4.00

May 1-11

May 1-11

$6.00

$10.00

Wedding Photography For a two hour period

On Willow Green

$50.00N/A

May 1-11 May 1-11

Removed

$100.00

Room Rentals Complimentary for Region of Waterloo Meetings when greater than 50% of attendees are Regional employees, or group is an affiliated agency and/or event deals with a Regional issue Room set up and security fees may apply $50.00 per hour room set up charge may apply

$50.00

May 1-11

Removed

933584 -Section 7 -


Date

Proposed Fee

Waterloo Region Museum continued * For-profit groups: Rate per occasion fees $50.00 per hour room set up charge may apply Not-for-profit groups: Rate per occasion fees $50.00 per hour room set up charge may apply

WRM Lobby (evenings): Standard Base Groups (SBG) / Community Groups (CG) Curatorial Centre Meeting Room: Day: SBG / CG Evening/Weekend: SBG / CG

$50.00 / $80.00$50.00

$25.00 / $50.00$50.00

$750.00 / $500.00

N/AN/A

May 1-11 May 1-11

May 1-11 May 1-11

May 1-11

May 1-11 May 1-11

RemovedRemoved

RemovedRemoved

$1,000.00 / $600.00

$20.00/hr/No charge $30.00/hr/$22.00/hr

Site Rentals – Group Discounts Birthday Parties flat rate for a maximum of 15 children (ages 12 and under) and 2 adults, 2.5 hour program

$75.00Additional

adults $4.00 each

May 1-11 $100.00Additional adults

$5.00 each

Specialized Tour – in addition to general admission (groups up to 40 people)

$150.00 flat rate

May 1-11 $10.00per person

(no group limit)Willow Green or other outdoor space at Doon Heritage Village with living history access during regularly scheduled daytime hours

$250.00 - $950.00

Various rates based on group

size (1-799 persons)

May 1-11 $500.00Group rate

Research and Reference Requests (Historic) First 15 minutes free n/c n/cThereafter per quarter hour $7.50 May 1-11 $10.00

Summer Day Camp Per child rate for a 4 day program, age 6 to 13

$100.00 May 1-11 $150.00

Planning Information and Research Maps, Data and Publications

Applicable taxes are included

May 1-11 Note “plus applicable taxes”

Various maps, data and publications are published on the Region of Waterloo website for free download

Airphotos 1:5,000 airphotos, colour, 2006 Half-sheet airphotos, colour, 2006

$16.00$8.50

May 1-11 May 1-11

RemovedRemoved

911 Address Map Township, 11” x 17”, colour, 2 sheet set Region 1:60,000 showing townships, colour

$8.00$57.00

May 1-11 May 1-11

RemovedRemoved

933584 -Section 7 -


Date

Proposed Fee

Water Resource Protection Map, 11” x 17”, colour, per municipality

$4.00 May 1-11 Removed

Custom Maps Various per hour / resolution

/ colour etc.

May 1-11 $30.00Minimum charge

+ map costsDigital Data (taxes not included) Digital Orthophotography

Region, 30cm resolution, 2006, colour Region, 20cm resolution, 2009, colour Settlements, 10cm resolution, 2006 colour Settlements, 20cm resolution, 2009, colour

tbdN/Atbd

N/A

May 1-11 May 1-11 May 1-11 May 1-11

$80.00$80.00$80.00$80.00

Digital Base and Thematic Data (taxes not included)

Labour Per hour, 10% supervisory charge may apply

for complex requests Minimum charge: $30.00

Data includes: Road Network, Base Layers (rivers, rails) Status of Plans, and thematic data layers

Region Kitchener-Waterloo Cambridge Municipality Additional base layers such as railways,

drainage, per layer Updated data (with existing license

agreement), per update

$600.00$350.00$220.00

additional 10%

50% disc.

May 1-11

May 1-11 May 1-11 May 1-11 May 1-11

May 1-11

$60.00

RemovedRemovedRemovedRemoved

Removed

Status of Plans Plan boundaries, for registered plans, draft,

and pending $150.00

May 1-11 Removed

Thematic Data Various layers available, per layer $150.00

May 1-11 Removed

Publications Regional Official Policies Plan Regional Official Policies Plan, on CD Statistical Profile 2001, Population Statistical Profile 2001, Agriculture

$51.00$8.00$6.00$6.00

May 1-11 May 1-11 May 1-11 May 1-11

RemovedRemovedRemovedRemoved

Waterloo Region Housing Laundry Concession (coin laundry) Fees

SMART card – replacement fee for card N/A $10.00

FINANCE NSF Cheque Fees for all departments

varies Mar 24-11

$35.00

*plus applicable taxes

938999 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET RESOLUTIONS Background As part of the 2011 Budget, a number of resolutions are required for Social Services programs. The financial impact on these programs has been included in the base budget under consideration by Budget Committee. 1) Counselling Services As in past years, the Region’s 2011 base budget includes an economic adjustment for Counselling Services. The 2011 recommended grants represent a 1.9% increase over the 2010 grants. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following Counselling Service Grants for 2011:

Agency AmountLutherwood Family Counselling Services $ 46,360Shalom Counselling Services 12,954Family Counselling Services of Cambridge and North Dumfries 56,739Interfaith Community Counselling Centre 14,871K-W Counselling Services Inc. 188,056Mosaic Counselling and Family Services 128,380Woolwich Interfaith Counselling Society 13,358Total $460,718

2) Peer Counselling Services As in past years, the Region’s 2011 base budget includes an economic adjustment for Peer Counselling Services. The 2011 recommended grants represent a 1.9% increase over the 2010 grants. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following Peer Counselling Service grants for 2011:

Agency AmountCambridge Self Help Food Bank $ 4,663The Working Centre – St. John’s Kitchen 14,639

Total $19,302

938999 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET RESOLUTIONS CONT’D 3) Community Outreach Programs The Region’s 2011 base budget includes an economic adjustment for Community Outreach Programs. The 2011 recommended grants represent a 1.9% increase over the 2010 grants. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following Community Outreach grants for 2011:

Agency AmountCambridge Family Early Years $ 39,391Cambridge Self Help Food Bank 75,407Mosaic Counselling and Family Services 107,569Family Counselling Centre of Cambridge & North Dumfries 52,625Greenway Chaplin 42,157House of Friendship 128,688K-W Counselling Services 172,751KW Multi-Cultural Centre 34,964Kinbridge Community Association 84,313Langs Farm Village Association 42,157Our Place Family & Early Years Centre 37,643Preston Heights Community Centre 42,157Wilmot Family Resource Centre 36,841Motivational Learning Groups 8,307Future Vision Ministries 1,142Total $906,112

4) Emergency Food Hamper Program The overall cap for the Emergency Food Hamper Program has also been increased and the rates have been adjusted accordingly. The rates for the Emergency Food Hamper Program have been standardized across all providers. For 2011, a 2% adjustment to the rates has been provided.

938999 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET RESOLUTIONS CONT’D THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following rates for the Emergency Food Hamper Program effective January 1, 2011:

Program Amount

Hamper Rate $38.75 Diaper Rate $ 5.45Formula Rate $13.75


5) Dental Program The proposed dental rates reflect a 2% adjustment subject to approval by the Province of Ontario. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve a 2% increase in rates for basic, emergency and discretionary dental services and denture rates effective April 1, 2011, subject to approval by the Province of Ontario. 6) Homelessness to Housing Strategy The Region’s 2011 base budget includes an economic adjustment for Homelessness to Housing Strategy Programs. The 2011 recommended grants represent a 1.9% increase over the 2010 grants. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following Homelessness to Housing Strategy Grants for 2011:

Agency AmountHouse of Friendship $ 63,874YWCA of Kitchener-Waterloo 65,199Cambridge Shelter Corporation 72,688Lutherwood 119,224Argus Residence for Young People 8,937Reaching Our Outdoor Friends (ROOF) 15,809Shelter Capacity/Overflow 65,000

Total $410,731

938999 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET RESOLUTIONS CONT’D 7) Funeral Rates In 2010, the Region approved a rate of $2,700 for the cost of a funeral for Ontario Works recipients and persons with low income. This was the median for the province in 2010. For 2011, it is recommended that the rate be increased by 2%, to $2,755 plus applicable taxes. The Funeral Directors have indicated that they wish an increase of $948.33 (or 35%) in 2011 to a rate of $3,648.33. They are asking for increases in the succeeding years to a final rate of $6,240 in 2014. This reflects their position presented in last year’s budget process that they wish to see a rate which fairly reimburses their actual costs. The Funeral Directors were advised of the two public input sessions for 2011. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve a funeral rate of $2,775 plus applicable taxes effective January 1, 2011.

947305 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: GENERAL BUDGET RESOLUTIONS

1. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the following adjustments to be made to the 2011 Regional Budget, as described in the Budget Committee presentation of February 2, 2011:


for a total net savings to the base budget of $707,000.

2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the 2011 Property Tax Operating Budget with a net levy of $ ( %), excluding Police Services, and the 2011 Property Tax Capital Budget and 2012-2020 Capital Forecast, excluding Police Services, reflecting budget issues presented to Budget Committee as amended.

3. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the Police Services 2011 Property

Tax Operating Budget with a net levy of $118,694,710 (0.75%) and the Police Services 2011 Property Tax Capital Budget and 2012-2020 Capital Forecast as amended.

4. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo repeal By-law Number 10-001, being a By-

law to Establish Fees and Charges for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and that a new Fees and Charges By-law be passed including those fees and charges listed on the March 23, 2011 Budget Committee Agenda.

5. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo establish a Regional Transportation Master

Plan (RTMP) Reserve Fund for the purpose of receiving and allocating funds in respect of Transit capital works and operating costs, as identified in the RTMP; AND THAT annual contributions to the reserve fund shall be approved by Regional Council as part of annual budget deliberations; AND THAT reserve fund balances are to be allocated annually to Transit capital projects and operating costs in the capital and operating budgets; AND FURTHER THAT the necessary By-law be approved.

6. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo receive Report F-11-014 for information, as required by Ontario Regulation 284/09.

947330 -Section 7-

2011 BUDGET


INFORMATION: LIBRARY BUDGET RESOLUTIONS The Library Committee recommends as follows: 1. THAT the Region of Waterloo Budget Committee approve the following with regard to

the Region of Waterloo Library Budget as contained in Report P-LIB-11-002, dated February 15, 2011:


REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO PLANNING AND WORKS COMMITTEE

MINUTES

April 12, 2011 9:05 a.m.

Regional Council Chamber 150 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario

Present were: Chair J. Wideman, L. Armstrong, J. Brewer, T. Cowan, D. Craig, R. Deutschmann, J. Haalboom, B. Halloran, R. Kelterborn, G. Lorentz, C. Millar, *J. Mitchell, K. Seiling, S. Strickland, C. Zehr Members absent: T. Galloway DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT D. Craig declared a non-pecuniary interest under item 3a) Rapid Transit due to his son recently purchasing property within the area of a proposed station on the rapid transit system. K. Seiling announced that as Regional Council prepares to make the final decisions about the proposed rapid transit project; he felt he should seek outside legal advice on any potential conflict of interest in that two of his adult children own residential properties within the proposed corridor. The result of that inquiry is that a review of both legislation and the case law does not provide a clear enough interpretation or direction. Given the importance of this project to the wider community and not wishing to distract from the debate in any way, he has decided to err on the side of caution and declare a conflict of interest with regard to this matter (item 3a). R. Deutschmann declared a non-pecuniary interest under item 3a) Rapid Transit due to he and his spouse being shareholders of corporations that have an interest in a property at 10 Duke Street West, Kitchener. Chair J. Wideman introduced Jon Arsenault the new Director, Waste Management DELEGATIONS *J. Mitchell entered the meeting at 9:15 a.m. a) Alla Dinerman, Jeff Warren, MMM Group and Robert Bakalarczyk, Susan Wagter, MTO re: New Highway 7 Kitchener to Guelph appeared before Committee with a presentation regarding new Highway 7. They highlighted the project background, project description, the recommended plan, work completed to date, current steps, Value Engineering Study, and next steps. A copy of the presentation is appended to the original minutes.

Committee members requested the presentation be provided to them in hard copy and in colour. Committee members made several comments about the new Highway 7 being delayed and asked what is the timeline for this project and why is this project not a priority. R. Bakalarczyk highlighted that this project is not on the 5 year plan and that in Fall 2011 the Ministry of Transportation will be acquiring properties which will roughly take about 2 ½ years. He also

P&W - 2 - 11/04/12

#963215

noted that this project is a priority in this Region but that it is also competing against other projects in the Province. b) Mike Morrice, Executive Director, Sustainable Waterloo re: Yearend Report (Environmental Actions) appeared before Committee with a presentation introducing Sustainable Waterloo, 2010 Report Highlights, Looking Forward, Growing the Regional Carbon Initiative, Climate Collaborative and Working Together. A copy of the presentation is appended to the original minutes. Committee members inquired about how they are funded. M. Morrice noted that originally they received grants but now are funded by membership fees and donations. c) Ahmad Zeitoun appeared before Committee requesting a Policy for Smoking Around Buses. He noted he has been a resident of the Region of Waterloo for over 7 years and commended the Region on their work with Public Health issues. He stated that he was not against smokers but that his concerns are with second-hand smoke flowing into the buses and affecting the children, students and families using GRT buses. He highlighted that he had collected signatures of GRT riders sharing his concerns. He asked to have bus entrances second-hand smoke free. A copy of his presentation is appended to the original minutes. Committee members asked staff to prepare a report regarding this issue and report back on a later date.

REPORTS – TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RAPID TRANSIT a) E-11-044, Preliminary Preferred Rapid Transit Implementation Option Received for information. Nancy Button, Director, Rapid Transit Initiative provided a detailed presentation regarding implementation options, February-March public consultations, Peer review panel, Evaluation of options, Next steps, and April – May consultation. A copy of the presentation is appended to the original minutes. N. Button introduced John Hubbell a member of the Peer Review Panel giving a detailed description of his experience. J. Hubbell highlighted the findings of the Peer Review Panel. He noted that they had access to a significant amount of material that staff had prepared and concluded the rapid transit is the right tool and that business as usual is not an option because it will be costly and lead the Region away from achieving their Regional Objectives. The panel also discussed BRT; they stated in the long term a BRT system would not have the capacity to serve the Region and from experiences in other cities that have tried to move from a full BRT system to a rail system it is problematic. He stated that LRT is the appropriate technology, will achieve a higher ridership and will ultimately achieve one continuous rail line from Conestoga Mall to Cambridge. a) Kate Daley appeared before Committee with a few comments. She pointed out the overwhelming support for Light Rail Transit, the importance of LRT for children, grandchildren and for the future and the importance of integration of LRT with the RTMP.

P&W - 3 - 11/04/12

#963215

Some Councillors noted that they have been receiving emails with 90% not in favour of LRT and pointed out those numbers are not reflected in the report. Concerns were also expressed with the low turn out at the public consultations. N. Button noted that the public attending the public consultations have been giving positive comments and also highlighted that the turn out is very high. Mike Murray, Chief Administrative Officer also noted that the public consultations were well advertised, two way discussions with the public and that this was not a survey. In response to Committee inquiries about other City’s with LRT that are similar to the Region and to LRT systems that didn’t work. J. Hubbell responded the Region is unique with multiple nodes and suggested that Greater Vancouver was similar. He also noted that LRT systems that did not work were built for the wrong reasons, ie. getting people to sporting events and were smaller in size compared to the Region. Committee members were happy to see phase 2 included LRT to Ainslie Street in Cambridge and inquired about integrating Cambridge. J. Hubbell noted it is appropriate to stage projects by taking the best opportunity first and build on that. Some Committee members noted that if Cambridge was apart of the initial stages just like Kitchener and Waterloo there wouldn’t be an issue of fairness. Committee members asked that staff provide detailed financing information including the impact on property taxes on various property sizes as well as what impact this project has on other services. M. Murray provided clarification on the process of amending the Development Charges Act. ADMINISTRATION b) E-11-006, Consultant Selection – Transportation and Environmental Services Departmental

Asset Management Implementation Project Committee members deferred this item until the next Planning and Works meeting on May 3, 2011. c) Overview of Major Issues and Priorities (Water, Wastewater and Waste Management)

Committee members deferred this item until the next Planning and Works meeting on May 3, 2011. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Chair J. Wideman introduced Amanda Kutler the Acting Director, Community Planning while Kevin Eby is the Director, OMB Appeals and King/Victoria Gateway Hub d) E-11-024, Frederick Street Improvements, Lancaster Street to River Road, City of Kitchener

– Approval of Project Some Committee members expressed concerns with reducing the lanes on Frederick Street since it appears to be a busy road. Mike Halloran, Project Manager noted that a detailed traffic analysis shows that the reduction in lanes adequately addresses those needs. It was noted that there will be no road reconstruction that this is just a reconfiguration of the lanes.

P&W - 4 - 11/04/12

#963215

Committee members inquired about pedestrians crossing at the intersection of Frederick and Lancaster. M. Halloran indicated that the right hand turning lane onto Lancaster will be eliminated to help reduce crossing distances for pedestrians. MOVED by R. Kelterborn SECONDED by C. Millar a) THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the proposed improvements on


b) Direct staff to file the Notice of Completion for this Class Environmental Assessment by

means of advertisement in the local newspaper and mailings to the adjacent property owners, tenants and agencies and place the Environmental Assessment Study files on the public record for a period of 30 days.

c) THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo amend Traffic and Parking By-law 06-072, as

amended, to: Add to Schedule 24, Reserved Cycling Lanes, Anytime, on both sides of Frederick Street

(Regional Road 6) from East Avenue to Bruce Street; Add to Schedule 20, Centre Lane: Two-Way Left-Turns, on Frederick Street (Regional

Road 6) from 67m East of Edna Street to 67m West of Bruce Street; Remove from Schedule 4, No Stopping, 11:30am to 12:30pm., 4:30pm to 5:30pm., Monday

to Friday, on both sides of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to East Avenue;

Add to Schedule 4, No Stopping, 11:30am to 12:30pm., 4:30pm to 5:30pm., Monday to

Friday, on the south side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to East Avenue;


Friday, on the north side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to 22m east of Gordon Avenue; and


Friday, on the north side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from 66m east of Gordon Avenue to East Avenue in the City of Kitchener as outlined in Report E-11-024 dated April 12, 2011.

CARRIED

e) E-11-028, Traffic Management for 2011 Road Construction Contracts Received for information. f) University Avenue Improvements, Lincoln Road to Weber Street – Public Consultation

Centre – Information Package Received for information.

P&W - 5 - 11/04/12

#963215

TRANSPORTATION g) CR-RS-11-017, Closing and Surplus Declaration of Part of Northfield Drive East (Regional

Road 22), Township of Woolwich MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by J. Mitchell That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo close and declare surplus a portion of Northfield Drive East, in the Township of Woolwich described as Part Lot 32, German Company Tract, as detailed in Report No. CR-RS-11-017 dated April 12, 2011, pursuant to the Region’s property disposition by-law, to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor. CARRIED h) E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021, Region of Waterloo International Airport – Land Development

and Fees and Charges Update MOVED by K. Seiling SECONDED by L. Armstrong THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the revised fees and charges for land development at the Region of Waterloo International Airport with the new fees and charges to have effect on June 1, 2011 as set out in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011; AND THAT the Regional Clerk be directed to issue notice of intent to amend the Region’s Fees and Charges By-law to incorporate the fee and charge amendments described in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011 in accordance with the policy of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for providing notice; AND FURTHER THAT the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be authorized to enter into an agreement with the Corporation of the Township of Woolwich as may be required to facilitate the development lands at the Region of Waterloo International Airport as described in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011 with the form and content of such agreement to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor. CARRIED i) CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042, Region of Waterloo International Airport – Declaration of Surplus

and Lease with Dynasty Air Flight Services ULC MOVED by S. Strickland SECONDED by R. Deutschmann THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo declare a leasehold interest of greater than twenty-one (21) years in approximately 4.7 acres situate in the southeast corner of Part 1 on Registered Plan WR-70802 in the Geographic Township of Woolwich, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, being lot 4 on the plan of survey attached to Report CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042 dated April 12, 2011 as Appendix A (the Lands), surplus to its needs, in accordance with the Region’s Property Disposition By-law;

P&W - 6 - 11/04/12

#963215

AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services to enter into a Lease with Dynasty Air Flight Services ULC, an Alberta Corporation, (the Lessee) as described in Report CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042 dated April 12, 2011 with the form of the lease to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor. CARRIED j) E-11-016, Reserved Cycling Lanes, Fischer-Hallman Road (Regional Road 58) Between

Victoria Street (Regional Road 55) and Queen's Boulevard, City of Kitchener Some Committee members raised the issue of experimenting by removing the cycling lane off the road way and installing them beside the sidewalk and noted that this was a good area to experiment because of the high volume of traffic on Fischer-Hallman Road. John Hammer, Director, Transportation stated that alternatives were looked at but to stay consistent with the rest of Fischer-Hallman the cycling lanes should remain on the road way. J. Hammer did note that alternatives are being looked at in other areas where connectivity allows for it. Staff noted that the project tender is out and closing next week. Staff suggested that they could report back with alternatives perhaps providing both on road and off road cycling lanes in this area and if Council at that point would like off road cycling lanes a change order process could be done. MOVED by B. Halloran SECONDED by J. Brewer THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo amend Traffic and Parking By-law 06-072, as amended, to add to Schedule 24, Reserved Bicycle Lanes Anytime on both sides of Fischer-Hallman Road (Regional Road 58), between Victoria Street (Regional Road 55) and Queen’ s Boulevard in the City of Kitchener, as outlined in Report E-11-016 dated April 12, 2011.

CARRIED INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS k) E-11-043/P-11-041, 2011 Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report MOVED by C. Zehr SECONDED by J. Hallboom THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the 2011 Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report summarized in Report E-11-043/P-11-041 as the account of water supply and wastewater treatment capacity as of December 31, 2010.

CARRIED REPORTS – PLANNING, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMUNITY PLANNING l) P-11-034, Monthly Report of Development Activity for February 2011 MOVED by C. Millar SECONDED by C. Zehr

P&W - 7 - 11/04/12

#963215

THAT the Region of Waterloo accept P-11-034, Monthly Report of Development Activity for February 2011, dated April 12, 2011. CARRIED m) P-11-035, Allocation of Environmental Stewardship Fund for 2011 Committee members raised concerns with the guidelines or lack there of and requested staff to report back to Planning and Works Committee at a later date outlining accountability and percentage of funding. MOVED by G. Lorentz SECONDED by J. Mitchell THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve allocations totalling a maximum of $165,721 from the Environmental Stewardship Fund as described in Report P-11-035, particularly in Attachment A, dated April 12, 2011. CARRIED n) P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023, Brownfields Financial Incentive Program: Tax

Increment Grant Program Application – 130 and 170 Water Street North, City of Cambridge (Waterscape)

In response to Committee inquiries about phase 1 being substantially completed already, K. Eby noted that staff is making the exception outside of the normal grant process because this project began before the program was approved by Council. MOVED by D. Craig SECONDED by J. Brewer THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve a Tax Increment Grant for the properties known as 130 and 170 Water Street North in the City of Cambridge in an amount not to exceed $4,372,514 under the Region’s Brownfield Financial Incentive Program to be financed from the remaining funds from the Brownfields Financial Incentive Pilot Program to a maximum of $930,941 and from a source to be identified as part of the Reserve and Reserve Fund Report planned for Administration and Finance Committee in May 2011 as described in Report P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023, dated April 12, 2011. AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Region’s Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services and Chief Financial Officer to execute a multi-party Tax Increment Grant Agreement with the registered owners of 130 Water Street North, namely Cambridge Mill Development Inc, and 170 Water Street North, namely Haastown Holdings (Cambridge) Inc. and the Corporation of the City of Cambridge, as described in Report P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023, dated April 12, 2011 with the form and content of such agreement to be satisfactory to both the Regional and City Solicitors. CARRIED

P&W - 8 - 11/04/12

#963215

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING o) P-11-036, Amendment to Regional Municipality of Waterloo Controlled Access By-Law

#58-87 for a Temporary Access to Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Blvd.), City of Kitchener

MOVED by L. Armstrong SECONDED by J. Hallboom THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an amendment to Controlled Access By-law #58-87 for a temporary right-in, right-out only access on the east side of Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Boulevard) approximately 65 metres north of Block Line Road in the City of Kitchener as described in P-11-036, dated April 12, 2011. CARRIED INFORMATION/CORRESPONDENCE a) Memo re: Hespeler Road/Canadian Pacific Railway Grade Separation, City of Cambridge –

Project Update and Notice of Pre-Construction Public Open House

Received for information. OTHER BUSINESS Council Enquiries and Requests for Information Tracking List was received for information. NEXT MEETING – May 3, 2011 ADJOURN MOVED by L. Armstrong SECONDED by J. Mitchell THAT the meeting adjourn at 12:15 p.m. CARRIED COMMITTEE CHAIR, J. Wideman COMMITTEE CLERK, E.Flewwelling

1

Council Presentation – April, 2011Highway 7 New - Kitchener to Guelph

HIGHWAY 7 NEW – EA APPROVED

Provide project update

Present Value Engineering options

Seek input into VE options

Outline the next steps

2

Project Background

• Individual EA approval obtained in March 2007• MTO has protected the designated corridor• Value Engineering (VE) Study initiated in May

2007, improvements identified for further review• Initial phase of design (the current project),

commenced in Spring 2008 • Once completed, this project will provide:a more definitive configuration and footprint of the

2007 EA approved plan and will incorporate acceptable improvements

recommended by the VE study

3

New Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph, Recommended Plan

Region of Waterloo, County of Wellington, City of Kitchener, City of Guelph, Township of Woolwich, Township of Guelph-Eramosa

K

W

E Grand River

crossingR

ive

rbe

nd

Dr.

Bru

ce

St.

CITY OF

KITCHENER

CITY OF

WATERLOOWOOLWICH

TOWNSHIP

CITY OF

GUELPH

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO COUNTY OF WELLINGTON

4

Project Description - Approved EA Features

• 18 km new 4-lane divided freeway, Kitchener to Guelph

• 6 interchanges including a freeway-to-freeway IC at KWE and partial interchange at Bridgeport

• 5 grade separated sideroad crossings• 4 major water course crossings • 34 bridges, including high level Grand River bridge

crossing• Estimated cost of the project is >$400M including

both construction and property costs

5

Work Completed to Date

To date, the following work has been completed:• Horizontal and vertical design of the new highway• Extensive foundation investigation for the structures• Preliminary design of 41 structures• Environmental inventory and impact assessment of

design on aquatic and terrestrial habitat and species, archaeological and built heritage resources

• The overall property requirements identified• Consultation with First Nations, municipalities and

agencies with respect to the project and specifically the recommended VE Options

6

Current Steps

• Initial engineering work is continuing in areas not impacted by the recommended VE options

• Consultation program initiated to provide a project update and to present the recommended VE options to municipalities, stakeholders and the public.

• Meetings are scheduled during April and May

• Public Information Centres will be held on May 3 and 5 in Kitchener and Guelph respectively

7

Value Engineering (VE) Study

• VE recommends 10 options, which enhance the value, safety and function of the EA approved plan

• VE recommendations have performance and cost benefits over the original approved EA plan

• Options identified in 5 target areas from KWE to Shantz Station Rd.: 1: Kitchener-Waterloo Expressway Interchange 2: Grand River Bridge and Bridge Street 3: Regional Road 17 (Ebycrest Rd.) Interchange 4: Woolwich Road 66 (Spitzig Rd.) 5: Regional Road 30 (Shantz Station Rd.) Interchange

8

Option 1 – Move KWE ramps N-E & S-E to the north of Hwy 7

EA Approved

Combined freeway-to-freeway NB and SB to Hwy 7 E ramp bridge crossing is south of Wellington St. and is not constructible due to large skew angle

EA Plan VE Recommendation

VE Recommendation

Move this ramp crossing north of Hwy 7 to ensure constructability, reduce bridge span and improve geometry of N-E ramp

9

Options 2 & 3 - Eliminate Riverbend Drive to Hwy 7 On-ramp and

W-Shirley Ave. Off-ramp

VE Recommendation

Eliminate two direct ramps, Riverbend Dr. –Hwy 7 on ramp and exit ramp Hwy7 -Shirley Ave.

The ramps are redundant because alternate routes are available through local roads at Wellington St., same as existing condition

Alternate route

EA APPROVED

Advantages: Will eliminate weaving conflicts and reduce potential for collisions on new Hwy 7:between traffic crossing over to exit Hwy 7 and enter KWE south and

north, andbetween traffic destined to continue on Hwy 7 with traffic exiting at

Shirley Ave.

•Reduced footprint

•Maintains access

•Substantial improvement from safety, operations and human factors point of view

EA APPROVED

10

Option 4 - Shift Hwy 7 WB Off-ramp to Riverbend Further West and

off the Grand River Structure

Fill in the river valleyEA APPROVED

EA APPROVED

EA APPROVED

Advantages

Reduces flare and the associated costs on the bridgeReduces fill in the river valleyReduces impact to Walter Bean Grand River Trail

EA APPROVED VE Recommendation

Move Hwy 7 WB ramp to Riverbend Dr. off the Grand River bridge

Flare on bridge

11

Option 5 - Move and Reconfigure Direct W-S On-Ramp into Buttonhook

VE

RECOMMENDED

EA APPROVED

VE Recommendation Shift terminal of the Bridge St. ramp onto Hwy 7 WB to the east in a buttonhook configuration (intersection connection with Bridge St. replaces the direct movement)

AdvantagesEliminates flare and variable reversed pavement slopes (due to opposite direction curves)Significantly improves visibility at the bridge approachReduces potential for roll-over accidents Improves bridge constructability and Reduces potential risks and additional costs during construction

12

Option 6 - Realign Bridge Street at Ebycrest Road to provide

greater spacing

VE

RECOMMENDED

EA APPROVED

Advantages

Improves visibility and turning movements at intersection, and therefore safety and operations along sideroadImproves spacing to the interchange, and therefore potential for vehicular conflicts reduced

VE Recommendation

Move existing Bridge Street intersection further away from the interchange, improve the angle at the intersection to 900

Improvements consistent with MTO highway access management best practices

13

Option 7 - Close existing Ebycrest Road north of existing Hwy 7 and

Provide Cul-de-Sac

EMERGENCY

GATE

VE RECOMMENDED

EA

APPROVED

Advantages

Eliminates potential intra-regional traffic through residential areaReduces number of access points in proximity to the interchange, and therefore potential for vehicular conflicts reduced

Disadvantages

Loss of a direct access from/to interchange for 12 residences

VE Recommendation

Close existing Ebycrest Road and remove proposed access from the future Fountain St. extensionAdd gated entrance to facilitate emergency vehicle access

14

Option 8 - Maintain Existing Woolwich Rd 66 (Spitzig Rd) alignment

VE

RECOMMENDED

EA APPROVED

Advantages

Eliminates major sideroad realignment and major property impacts Improves road and bridge geometry, and therefore improves visibilitySafer road and major cost savings

EA Approved

Sideroad realigned due diminished sightlines at Hwy 7 intersectionResults in inferior curved road and bridge geometry, and impacts to property

VE Recommendation

Maintain existing road alignment (sightlines are same as existing condition)

15

9 - Convert North Interchange Configuration to Parclo A2 (Protect for A-4)

VE

RECOMMENDEDEA APPROVED

DEFERRED

Advantages

Results in cost savings, funds spent when warranted

Disadvantages

Left turn access may contribute to traffic congestion, but traffic volumes are low

EA Approved

Direct, free flow N-W ramp movement

VE Recommendation

Replace with a left turn lane onto the S-W loop rampDefer construction of the direct N-W Ramp (protect property for A-4), and associated costs until warranted by traffic volumes

16

Option 10 - Combine Service Road and Private Residential Access

EA APPROVED

EA Approved

New residential access in close proximity to the interchange

VE Recommendation

Combine this access with existing service road to increase spacing to interchange

Advantages

Reduces number of access points on sideroad Reduces potential for vehicular conflicts & traffic delays in close proximity to the interchange

17

Next Steps

Consider comments received on the VE options Prepare TESR to amend the 2007 approved EA with VE

recommendations, publish for review in Spring 2011 A 30-day public review period will have opportunity to

request a Part II order (‘bump-up’) Prepare Initial Design Report and submit for review If no ‘bump-up’ request, the initial design project will be

completed in August 2011 Review options for construction including:

staged construction using the design/bid/build method, or

design/build method, which may allow for an earlier project completion

Move forward with concerted property acquisition

18

Next Steps

When funded for construction:

Complete utility relocations, First Nations consultation and obtain EA permits

Complete outstanding property acquisition and expropriate property if required

Proceed to construction

19

Thank you

20

New Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph, Recommended Plan

Region of Waterloo, County of Wellington, City of Kitchener, City of Guelph, Township of Woolwich, Township of Guelph-Eramosa

K

W

E Grand River

crossingR

ive

rbe

nd

Dr.

Bru

ce

St.

CITY OF

KITCHENER

CITY OF

WATERLOOWOOLWICH

TOWNSHIP

CITY OF

GUELPH

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO COUNTY OF WELLINGTON

Sustainable Waterloo’s

2010 Report: Celebrating a Community Built on Action

Tuesday April 12th, 2011

Mike MorriceExecutive Director

AGENDA

Introduction to Sustainable Waterloo

2010 Report: Celebrating a Community Built on Action

Looking ForwardGrowing the Regional Carbon InitiativeClimate Collaborative

Working Together

SUSTAINABLE WATERLOO MISSION

To advance the environmental sustainability of organizations

across Waterloo Region through collaboration

Sustainable Waterloo 2010 Report Looking Forward Working Together

OUR APPROACH

Facilitate Collaborative Dialogue

Measure Action

Celebrate Impact

To advance the environmental sustainability of organizations across Waterloo Region through collaboration.


REGIONAL CARBON INITIATIVE

Facilitates voluntary target-setting and reductions of carbon emissions

in organizations across Waterloo Region.


REGIONAL CARBON INITIATIVE


MEMBERSHIP TYPES


CURRENT PLEDGING PARTNERS

SUSTAINING PARTNER

GOLD PLEDGING PARTNERS

BRONZE PLEDGING PARTNERS

Minimum 20% GHG Reduction Commitment and a higher financial investment

Minimum 60% GHG Reduction Commitment

Minimum 20% GHG Reduction Commitment


CURRENT OBSERVING ORGANIZATIONS


CURRENT OBSERVING ORGANIZATIONS


A COMMUNITY BUILT ON ACTION


EVENING OF RECOGNITION


2010 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

Regional Carbon Initiative Membership: Almost tripled

Total GHG reduction commitments: 1,676.95 tonnes (377 cars off the road)

Total sustainability projects reported: 115


VERIFORM INC.Gold Pledging Partner

VeriForm’s facility continues to reduce its environmental impact: Electrical usage amounts to just $0.085 per square foot

per month and the company won a 2011 Innovation Award, presented by Federal Minister of State and Technology Gary

Goodyear.

Member Since 2009

Reduction Target: 100% in 10 yearsReductions to Date: 98.66 t CO₂e (43%)Absolute Emissions in 2010: 130.49 t CO₂eGHG/empl.: 2.1 t CO₂eGHGs/ft²: 2.9 kg t CO₂e

Base Year: 2006Emissions in Base Year: 229.15 t CO₂e

Scope 3 Reporting:• Business Travel• Commuting• Waste• Water

Org Type: ManufacturingBldg. Type: Light ManufacturingTotal Employees: 40


ERNST & YOUNGBronze Pledging Partner


Ernst & Young has introduced a premium on kilometre reimbursements for carpooling, invested in video conferencing

equipment, and embraced digital holiday cards and other electronic paperless communications.

Member Since 2010

Reduction Target: 20% in 10 years

Base Year: 2009Emissions in Base Year: 184.97 t CO₂eGHG/empl.: 1.54 t CO₂eGHGs/ft²: 4.87 kg t CO₂e

Org Type: ConsultingBldg. Type: Small OfficeTotal Employees: 115

Scope 3 Reporting:• Business Travel• Waste• Water

OBSERVING ORGANIZATIONS

Region of Waterloo

Member Since 2010

Base Year: 2009Org Type: Regional GovernmentBldg. Type: Mix of Small and Large OfficesTotal Employees: 3,100

Green Team: YesGT Members: 12

Retrofitting traffic signal lights has resulted in savings of approximately 1,200 tonnes of GHGs and $500,000

per year.


Gore Mutual Insurance

Member Since 2010

Base Year: 2010Emissions in Base Year: 448.17 t CO₂eGHG/empl.: 15.9 t CO₂eGHGs/ft²: 5.98 kg t CO₂e

Org Type: InsuranceBuilding Type: Large Office (entire building)

Gore Mutual has recently replaced all of its old boilers and chillers from one part of their facility, saving an

average of 15% on their utilities.

LOOKING FORWARD

•Growing the Regional Carbon Initiative

• Climate Collaborative

• Future Initiatives


COME TO AN UPCOMING EVENT

May Educational Forum

Date: May 18th, 2011

24th Annual Energy & Environment Forum

Date: Tuesday April 19, 2011Time: 8:00am – 12:30pm Location: Wilfrid Laurier University, Paul Martin Centre, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo


STAY IN TOUCH


Mike Morrice, Executive Director

Tel. 519-772-0621 Ext. 70122 King St S, Suite 405Waterloo, ON, N2J 1N8E-Mail: [email protected]

Sign up for our Community Update: www.sustainablewaterloo.org/get-involved/stay-connected

Follow us on Twitter! www.twitter.com/sustainablewat

Check out our Blog: www.sustainablewaterloo.org/blog

Thank You!

Second-hand Smoke…GRT

Not Against

• This presentation is not intended to harm individuals who use tobacco industry products.

• I only care for the health of children, families civilians that use the GRT buses, even bus drivers who do not smoke

• ISSUE #1:

• Individuals are smoking mainly tobacco industry products outside and around public buses

• Second-hand smoke is flowing into the buses and effecting the children, students and families.

• ISSUE 2:

• Passengers are irritated by the second-hand smoke near the doors of the buses.

Signitures

• I have collected over 1,400 signatures of youth that want these issues resolved

• Irritated by the smoke.

• Some even have health conditions.

• Petition can not be shared because the petition did not include publicity.

• What, WE the youth of the future NEED

• To have bus entrances’ second-hand smoke free

• This can be accomplished by limiting where GRT bus drivers can smoke.

• We want a policy limits the distance in which specially GRT employees and general smokers can smoke from the busses.

• This will help eliminate the amount of secand-hand smoke entering the busses, and the amount of second-hand smoke near the enterence

Waterloo RegionRapid Transit

Docs 964153 April 12, 2011

Presentation Outline• Implementation options

• February-March public consultation

• Peer review panel

• Evaluation of options

• Next steps

• April-May public consultation

Implementation Options10 options

Implementation Options L1, L2, L3 & L4

36 km of rapid transitfrom Conestoga Mall

to the Ainslie St Bus Terminal

Changes from LRT to aBRT at:L1 – Ottawa StL2 – Block Line RoadL3 – Fairview Park MallL4 – Sportsworld Dr

Implementation OptionsL5, L6, L7 & L8

34 km of rapid transitfrom Northfield Dr


Changes from LRT to aBRT at:L5 – Ottawa StL6 – Block Line RoadL7 – Fairview Park MallL8 – Sportsworld Dr

Implementation OptionsL9, B10

L9, B10: rapid transitfrom St Jacobs Farmers’ Market


L9 – all LRT (39 km)B10 – all BRT (38 km)

• Rapid transit

• GRT re-orientation & expansion

• Integration with GO & VIA

• Intelligent Transportation Systems

• Smart card technology

• Transit stations

• Road improvements

• Park ‘n’ ride facilities

Moving Forward Transit Program

February-March Public Consultation

Which

rapid transit option

provides the best

value?



Number of People Signed In


Responses:

• LRT / BRT / business as usual

• LRT implementation option

• issues


705 respondents


615 respondents supportLRT, BRT or business-as-usual


LRT

only

BRT

only

business-

as-usual other

respondents 451 74 64 116

costs, taxes or value 68 52 45 64

route or stations 65 9 5 16

bus system 21 10 11 36

transit connections 56 4 1 12

fairness 39 11 7 15

children/future 64 0 0 3

February-March Public Consultation464 respondents support LRT


Of all 705 respondents:

• 78% support rapid transit

• 66% support LRT

Peer Review Panel

Expertise in:

• Transportation

• Transit

• Urban planning

• City-building

Peer Review Panel

• George Dark: Partner, Urban Strategies Inc.

• Eric Miller: Director of Cities Centre, University of Toronto

• John Hubbell: Associate VP, HDR iTrans

• Ashley Curtis: Associate, Steer Davies Gleave

• Alan Jones: Director, Steer Davies Gleave

Peer Review Panel

LRT :

a critical step

towards meeting the Region’s

growth and revitalization objectives

Peer Review Panel

aBRT

will provide excellent service

in a financially prudent manner

All transit systems

are built in

phases

Peer Review Panel

L3

has the greatest potential to build

success

Evaluation of Options

Rapid transit

is preferred

over business-as-usual

Evaluation of Technology

cost

user

envi

ronm

enta

l

land

use

soci

al

cost

user

envi

ronm

enta

l

land

use

soci

al

Evaluation of Technology

LRT

is preferred

over BRT

LRT Staging

Build LRT

in affordable

stages

Evaluation of LRT Options

2031 Annual

Ridership

(millions)

Increase in

Population

in Station

Areas

(thousands)

Increase in

Employment

in Station

Areas

(thousands)

Transit

Integration

Annual

Property

Tax Increase

for 6 Years

Annual

Incremental

Household

Impact for 6

Years

L1 12.6 19.8 12.7 fair 0.97% $16.01

L2 14.3 20.3 12.8 fair 1.27% $20.98

L3 15.0 20.3 13.1 good 1.37% $22.63

L4 15.4 20.3 13.7 good 1.90% $31.46

L5 12.2 19.3 11.6 poor 0.88% $14.63

L6 13.9 19.7 11.7 poor 1.13% $19.04

L7 14.7 19.7 12.0 fair 1.25% $20.70

L8 15.0 19.7 12.6 fair 1.78% $29.53

L9 18.0 22.6 16.9 excellent 3.71% $62.65

Stage 1Preliminary PreferredRapid Transit Implementation Option

Stage 2Rapid Transit System

Affordability

LRT

in the context of the

RTMP

Options forLRT/RTMP Implementation

L3a L3b L1a

Proportion of RTMP 65% 40% 65%

Transit Service Hours 211,000 138,000 211,000

Property Tax Increase 2.0% 1.5% 1.5%

Increase/Avg Household $33 $25 $25

Financing

Reduction in tax

rate increases

Development charges 0.15%

Retired debt services

& uploaded social

assistance costs

0.57%

Land value uplift ???

Stage 2 Implementation

• Stage 2 Transit Project Assessment 2014

• Acquire property

• Transit-supportive development & strategies

• Stage 2 Federal & Provincial funding

• Cambridge multi-modal transit facility

Next Steps

Apr-May: public consultation

July-Sept:Environmental Project Report

June: Council approval

Oct: beginTransit Project Assessment

April-May Public Consultation

• Apr 30: Kitchener Farmers Market

• Apr 30: Cambridge Centre Mall

• May 3: St. Jacobs

• May 4: Kitchener

• May 4: Waterloo

• May 5: Waterloo

• May 5: Cambridge

• May 10: Kitchener

• May 10: Cambridge

• May 12: Wilmot

• May 12: North Dumfries

• May 14: Fairview Park Mall

• May 14: Conestoga Mall

• May 18: Wellesley

April-May Public Consultation

• Public Input Meetings

– In Regional Council Chambers

– Starting at 6 p.m.

• Tuesday, May 31, 2011

• Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Questions?

964091

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

MINUTES

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:15 p.m.


Present were: Vice-Chair C. Zehr, L. Armstrong, J. Brewer, T. Cowan, D. Craig, R. Deutschmann, J. Haalboom, B. Halloran, R. Kelterborn, G. Lorentz, C. Millar, J. Mitchell, K. Seiling and J. Wideman Members absent: T. Galloway and S. Strickland DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT None declared. REPORTS – Finance a) F-11-019, Investment Position at December 31, 2010 It was noted the reference to the total book value of the holdings in the report should be December 31, 2010, not 2011. Received for Information. b) F-11-020, 2011 Tax Ratios MOVED by J. Wideman SECONDED by J. Brewer THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo establish the following tax ratios for the 2011 property tax year: Residential 1.0000 New Multi-residential 1.0000 Multi-residential 1.9500 Commercial 1.9500 Industrial 1.9500 Pipelines 1.1613 Farm 0.2500 Managed Forests 0.2500 AND THAT the necessary tax ratio and tax rate by-laws for 2011 be introduced at the April 20th Regional Council meeting; AND FURTHER THAT the Area Municipalities be notified accordingly. CARRIED

A&F Minutes - 2 - 11/04/12

964091

c) F-11-021, Periodic Financial Report for the Year Ended December 31, 2010 Larry Ryan, Chief Financial Officer, stated this in an information report. He noted the surplus generated in 2010, entirely due to supplementary taxes which indicates the balance of Regional programs are operating at a break even point. Councilors had questions with respect to some of the Notes, especially related to long term vacancies. Penny Smiley, Commissioner Human Resources advised these are due to difficult to fill positions. Mike Murray, Chief Administrative Officer further advised there was also a minor reorganization done in one of the Public Health divisions. Received for Information. REPORTS – Human Resources d) CA-HR-11-005, Addition to Human Resources Policy Manual A question was raised about the amount of staff time required to keep these sites up to date and potential embarrassment. It was noted that is the purpose of having the policy in place and this will assist in addressing the challenges of communicating with citizens. There were pilot projects for this policy and there are a number of rules in place. MOVED by J. Haalboom SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the policy statement for the following Human Resources policy:

Regional Social Media Sites (HR I-38) CARRIED REPORTS – Corporate Resources e) CR-RS-11-020, Disposal of Easement Interest, Columbia Street East, City of Waterloo MOVED by L. Armstrong SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo declare the Region’s existing easement interest in Part 6, Reference Plan 58R-16677, City of Waterloo as surplus and enter into such documentation as is required to release the Region’s interest established by the easement in favour of the owner of the lands on which the easement is located, for $1.00, subject to the Region's property disposition by-law and to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor, as detailed in Report CR-RS-11-020 dated April 12, 2011. CARRIED

A&F Minutes - 3 - 11/04/12

964091

OTHER BUSINESS a) K. Seiling polled members for a special Strategic Planning session to be held on

Wednesday, April 20th at 5:00 p.m. in advance of the Council meeting. This was agreed to by members.

b) K. Seiling inquired if members are still interested in a roads tour, possibly in September.

It was agreed to find a suitable date. c) Council Enquiries and Requests for Information Tracking Sheet was received for

information. NEXT MEETING – May 3, 2011 MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION MOVED by J. Brewer SECONDED by G. Lorentz THAT a closed meeting of the Planning & Works, Administration & Finance and Community Services Committees be held on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 immediately following the Administration and Finance Committee meeting in the Waterloo County Room in accordance with Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, for the purposes of considering the following subject matters:

a) potential litigation and receiving of legal advice and opinion that is subject to solicitor-client privilege related to a matter before an administrative tribunal

b) proposed or pending acquisition of land in the City of Kitchener c) personal matters about identifiable individuals – committee appointments d) a matter related to personal information about identifiable individuals and labour

relations e) employee relations regarding identifiable individuals f) receiving of legal advice and opinion that is subject to solicitor-client privilege related to

a contract

CARRIED ADJOURN MOVED by T. Cowan SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT the meeting adjourn at 12:30 p.m. CARRIED COMMITTEE VICE-CHAIR, C. Zehr COMMITTEE CLERK, L. Wetzel

964040

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

MINUTES


Regional Council Chambers 150 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario

Present w ere: Chair S. S trickland, L. A rmstrong, J. B rewer, T. C owan, D . C raig*, R . Deutschmann*, J. Haalboom*, B. Halloran, R. Kelterborn, G. Lorentz, C. Millar*, J. Mitchell, K. Seiling, J. Wideman* and C. Zehr Members absent: T. Galloway MOTION TO RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION MOVED by J. Brewer SECONDED by L. Armstrong THAT the meeting reconvene into Open Session. CARRIED DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT None declared PRESENTATIONS a) Dr. Fred Mather made brief comments about Report SS-11-015, Sunnyside Home Annual Medical Director’s Report 2010, stating that provincial legislation requires the annual report. * C. Millar joined the meeting at 1:15 p.m. * D. Craig and J. Haalboom left the meeting 1:15 p.m. Chair Strickland commended Sunnyside Home staff for the progressive partnership with the school pharmacy and the broader community. The report was received for information. b) Ly nda Kohler, B renda Lei s and D enise Squire, Woolwich Community H ealth C entre, addressed the Committee Re: Community Needs and Capacity Assessment Project. A copy of their presentation is appended to the original minutes. D. Squire, Executive Director, acknowledged the attendance of the Board in the audience and provided an overview of the Centre and its 12-member Board. She highlighted the primary care model and the purpose of the community assessment. * D. Craig rejoined the meeting at 1:18 p.m.

CS Minutes - 2 - 11/04/12

964040

L. Kohler, Program Coordinator, provided highlights of the community assessment, including the study process and the key determinants of health and related implications. She advised that the complete a ssessment r eport i s av ailable on t he or ganization’s website and that t he r esearch involved 1000 households and 24 focus groups over a one-year period. * R. Deutschmann joined the meeting at 1:20 p.m. * J. Haalboom rejoined the meeting at 1:22 p.m. * J. Wideman joined the meeting at 1:24 p.m. L. K ohler su mmarized t he key det erminants of heal th, i ncluding a ccess to pr ograms and services; satisfaction with the environment; rural lifestyles; injury prevention and personal health practices. L. Kohler st ated t hat the or ganization’s strategic priorities are developed based on t he r eport findings and that copies of the report have been shared with community agencies. REPORTS – Public Health a) PH-11-015, Food Safety Training Certification Program – Conestoga College Collaboration Dr. Li ana N olan, C ommissioner/Medical O fficer of H ealth, made i ntroductory co mments and introduced Chris Komorowski, Manager, Food Safety, Recreational Water and Cambridge & Area T eam and Li ndsay O gg, P ublic Health Inspector, who su mmarized the highlights of t he proposed program and provided 2010 statistics of the current program. C. Komorowski responded to Committee questions about campus location for the program and the anticipated date for an update r eport on t he co llaborative pr ogram. He st ated t hat t he program will be offered at any of the campuses, depending on the demand, and that a report will come back to Committee in September 2012, a year after the college will have run the program on its own. MOVED by J. Brewer SECONDED by R. Kelterborn THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo enter into an agreement with Conestoga College Institute o f Technology and Tr aining (“Conestoga C ollege”) for t he del ivery of Food S afety Training Certification pr ograms effective May 1st, 2011 with su ch ag reement t o be t o t he satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor, as outlined in report PH-11-015, dated April 12, 2011. CARRIED c) PH-11-017, Quarterly Charged/Closed Food Premises Report Received for information. b) PH-11-016, Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program Changes Update Andrea R eist, D irector, C hild & Fam ily H ealth, summarized t he r eport, i ndicating that t he changes will be in place by January 2012. She stated that programs for vulnerable children will be enhanced, while some components of the program, currently available to all families, will be eliminated. * J. Wideman and D. Craig left the meeting at 1:46 p.m.

CS Minutes - 3 - 11/04/12

964040

Councillors expressed t heir di sappointment t hat so me o f the su pport programs are bei ng eliminated. Received for information. REPORTS – Social Services a) SS-11-016, One Time Funding for Equipment for Sunnyside Home Resident and Staff Safety Mike S chuster, C ommissioner, S ocial S ervices, responded t o a C ommittee i nquiry about t he timing of the report and he provided details about the provincially-set timelines for the funding allocation. MOVED by J. Brewer SECONDED by B. Haalboom THAT t he R egional Municipality of Waterloo i ncrease t he 2011 oper ating budget for S eniors’ Services by $59,606 gross and $0 net Regional Levy, as outlined in report SS-11-016, dated April 12, 2011. CARRIED b) SS-11-018, Youth Housing Stability Pilot Programs M. Schuster provided an overview of the report and made brief comments about the outcome of the pilot programs. * J. Wideman rejoined the meeting at 1:54 p.m. MOVED by C. Zehr SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo extend the Emergency Shelter Program Agreement with Reaching Our Outdoor Friends (ROOF) for 10 beds for May 1 to December 31, 2011; AND T HAT the R egional Municipality of Waterloo ex tend t he D omiciliary H ostel P rogram Agreement w ith A rgus Residence for Young People f or 5 beds for June 17 t o December 31 , 2011, as outlined in the report SS-11-018, dated April 12, 2011. CARRIED c) SS-11-019, Provincial Homelessness Business Case M. Schuster made brief comments about the annual report. MOVED by L. Armstrong SECONDED by T. Cowan THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo appr ove t he at tached “ Provincial H omelessness Business Case to Support Additional 2011 Funding” as part of the 2011 budg et submission to the P rovince’s Ministry of C ommunity and S ocial S ervices, as outlined i n R eport S S-11-019, dated April 12, 2011. CARRIED

CS Minutes - 4 - 11/04/12

964040

REPORTS – Planning, Housing & Community Services a) P-11-037, Volunteer Programs at Region of Waterloo Museums – 2010 Received for information. b) P-11-040, Thirteenth Annual Report of the Kissing Bridge Trailway Advisory Board Councillor C owan i nvited C ommittee members to t he ‘ Spring on the Trail’ f undraising ev ent being held on May 14, 2011; the event passport was distributed to all Councillors. Chair Strickland recognized the Board for their successful management of the trailway. Received for information. INTERDEPARTMENTAL REPORTS a) P-11-018/F-11-008, U pdated B uilding C ondition A udit and Capital R eserve A nalysis for Community Housing Providers Deb Schlichter, Director, Housing, provided an overview of the report. She stated the need to make senior levels of government aware of the urgent funding gaps, as identified in the recent audits. Councillor Zehr stated that the R egion’s position is aligned with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and he suggested that the recommendation be am ended to include FCM in the distribution of the report. The Committee was in agreement with the amendment. MOVED by C. Zehr SECONDED by B. Halloran THAT t he R egional M unicipality of Waterloo t ake the following act ions r egarding C ommunity Housing capital reserve requirements, as outlined in Report P-11-018/F-11-008, dated April 12, 2011:

a) Renew the urgent request to the Province of Ontario and Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation t o p rovide adeq uate and su stainable funding t o C ommunity H ousing Providers in Waterloo Region, as described in Report P-11-018/F-11-008; and

b) Forward a co py o f this report to M Ps and MPPs representing Waterloo Region, t he

Ministry of M unicipal Affairs and H ousing, the M inistry of P ublic Renewal and Infrastructure, the Chair of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Association of M unicipalities of Ontario ( AMO), the Feder ation o f C anadian M unicipalities, and al l Community Housing Providers in Waterloo Region.

CARRIED, as Amended INFORMATION/CORRESPONDENCE a) Ministry of Education Re: Implementation of the New Full Day Early Learning Kindergarten Initiative M. S chuster m ade br ief co mments and co mmended st aff for es tablishing a collaborative relationship with the ministry and local school boards.

CS Minutes - 5 - 11/04/12

964040

Received for information. b) Children’s Services Invitation for the Waterloo Region Early Years System Plan Information Forum on May 13, 2011 M. Schuster encouraged Regional Councillors to attend the Information Forum. Received for information. c) Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors Newsletter: Making Seniors a National Priority Received for information. d) Memo: Free Tax Clinics at Employment Resource Areas M. Schuster acknowledged the partnership with Opportunities Waterloo Region. Received for information. e) Memo: Stress-Disease Connection Conference Received for information. f) Memo: Ontario Works Caseload – March 2011 In r esponse t o a C ommittee i nquiry about t he co mparative st atistics related t o t he current caseload and t he current local unemployment r ate, M . S chuster adv ised t hat t he i ncrease i n caseload i s potentially a result of the exhaustion o f Employment I nsurance benefits and t he seasonal trends. He advised that staff anticipate caseload reductions in April and May, depending on the local economy. In response to an inquiry about available comparative data based on population, M. Schuster advised t hat i nformation about bene ficiaries (total m embers within a house hold) is available provincially and could be incorporated into a staff report about local data compared with other municipalities of a similar size. Received for information. g) Memo: 2011 Secondary School Suspension Update Received for information. OTHER BUSINESS a) Council Enquiries and Requests for Information Tracking List was received for information. NEXT MEETING – Tuesday, May 3, 2011

CS Minutes - 6 - 11/04/12

964040

ADJOURN MOVED by J. Haalboom SECONDED by R. Deutschmann THAT the meeting adjourn at 2:09 p.m. CARRIED COMMITTEE CHAIR, S. Strickland COMMITTEE CLERK, S. Natolochny

Woolwich Community Health Centre

Woolwich Community Health CentreCommunity Assessment

Presentation to Region of Waterloo, Community Services CommitteeApril 12, 2011

Brenda Leis, Board ChairDenise Squire, Executive Director

Lynda Kohler, Program Coordinator


About WCHC• One of 75+ in Ontario• WCHC opened in 1989 – sites in St. Jacobs, Linwood, Wellesley village• Catchment area includes the rural Townships of Woolwich and Wellesley,

as well as parts of Wilmot Township and Perth County• What makes CHCs different from other primary health care models, like

fee-for-service and FHTs?: – Non-profit, community (board)-governed, all staff (including

physicians) are employees– CHCs tailor programs/services and develop partnerships to meet

unique health needs of their community through inter-disciplinary primary health care, illness prevention and health promotion programs and services

• Essential for CHC to understand its community – hence WCHC’s Community Assessment every 5 years; integral to our Board and staff as part of our continuous strategic planning cycle


Study Process• Steering committee • Background data was collected• Written survey developed and mailed• Focus groups and interviews conducted• Data analysed• Report written and reviewed


Key Determinants of Health and Implications

1. Health Literacy2. Poverty and Social Support Programs3. Access to Programs and Services4. Environment and Transportation5. Rural Lifestyles and Injury Prevention6. Personal Health Practices

Woolwich Community Health CentreHealth Literacy

Study Findings:

– The rate of those who have inadequate health literacy skills is 60% nationally

– Some population groups have lower levels of literacy i.e. Low German Speaking Mennonites from Mexico (LGSMM), seniors

Implications:

– Health literacy is a concern when providing health information i.e. brochures, public messaging and presentations, in developing systems to access programs and services, etc.

– There are more literacy demands for those with chronic conditions to self-manage and for seniors/caregivers navigating the health system and accessing support services

– Need for literacy initiatives to support the LGSMM


Education attainment – a strong indicator of literacy among adults


Poverty and Social Support ProgramsStudy Findings:

– Those who are most affected by poverty are the working poor, those on disability benefits and some seniors on a fixed income (i.e. the LGSMM are often “working poor”)

– Increase in the number of low income families with children 18 years and younger in Wellesley Township living in poverty

Implications:

– Ongoing awareness and linking families with social support programs

– Support for local food banks i.e. Woolwich Community Services

– Continue to develop affordable housing options


Where Low Income Families Live


Access to Programs and ServicesStudy Findings:

• Overall a high satisfaction with the range of programs and services in the rural community but some gaps noted i.e. recreation for youth

• Rural residents may not be aware of all programs and services available in the region i.e. seniors, LGSMM

• Transportation was often noted as a barrierImplications:

• The CAPC Rural Outreach Workers play an important role to link low income families with regional programs and other supports

• Outreach to the rural communities may reach more isolated families with greater barriers to accessing programs and services i.e. Child Health Fairs, Healthy Smiles Ontario


Satisfaction with the EnvironmentStudy Findings:

– Many residents rate their satisfaction with the environment high and also rate the quality of their drinking water as high

– The most significant concern for the environment is the growth pressures in the upcoming years

Implications:

– The Well Water Testing program is valued by rural residents.

– The ROW Water Quality Program has high participation and Woolwich Healthy Communities Clean Waterways Group have provided support for farmers to protect water supply.


Satisfaction with the Environment -Transportation

Study Findings:

– Transportation continues to be a concern especially by seniors, youth and low income families.

– Seniors value the Kiwanis Transit program and rural volunteer driving programs

– The GRT route to Elmira was well known by residents living in Woolwich Township and used primarily for shopping followed by work and lastly school.

– The Breslau community expressed their desire to have a GRT route into the village

Implications:

– The GRT is valued by Woolwich residents. Focus group participants would encourage route changes along with service extending into the evening.


Rural LifestylesStudy Findings:

– Farming sustainability is challenging and farmers continue to report high levels of stress

– “Buy Local” initiatives were reported to be highly valued by local farmers and residents

– Residents are concerned with increased traffic and increased risk of car crashes or roadway incidents with newcomers being unfamiliar with slow moving vehicles on roadways i.e. buggies and farm tractors

Implications:

– Continuation of “buy local” initiatives benefit the local farmer as well as the local economy while providing a safe and nutritious supply of fruits and vegetables

– Education on road safety


Rural Lifestyles - Injury Prevention

Study Findings:

– Farm injuries continue to be a concern among the farming population especially among children 0-5 years and seniors.

– Farmers are aging and working well into their retirement years.

Implication:

– Farm safety education is important to educate children i.e. farm safety day, partnering with public health to visit local parochial schools, Waterloo Rural Women annual farm safety day


Personal Health PracticesStudy Findings:

– 50% of the population are overweight or obese, many are inactive

– Eating 5-10 servings of fruits and vegetables is met by only 37% of the population surveyed (CFG recommendations have increased)

– People are generally more active than those in the Region of Waterloo

– The greatest barriers to improving health behaviours are motivation and lack of time

– Some populations struggle with other health behaviours such as: dental practices and smoking

Implications:

– Promoting self-management and personal behaviour change– Environmental supports to support behaviour change


Health StatusStudy Findings:

• People rate their health higher than the rate in the Region of Waterloo

• Similar rates of mortality for top 4 causes of death as the Region (cancers, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular diseases, respiratory diseases,)

• Increase in self-reported rates of chronic illness as people age and especially among those age 65 and older

• Higher rates of depression, anxiety and eating disorders in younger age groups

• Increased self reported rate of chronic illness among lower income groups


Self Reported Health StatusHealth Conditions that Increase with Decreased Income

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00%

Osteoporosis

Sleep Problem

Heart Disease

Diabetes

Stroke

Hypertension

He

alt

h C

on

dit

ion

% within income group with health condition

0-$19,999 $20,000-39,999 $40,000-59,999 $60,000-79,999 $80,000 and over


Key Themes in the Community

• Chronic Disease Prevention & Management

• Mental Health and Well-Being• Community Strengths and Vitality


Chronic DiseaseStudy Findings:

– The pace of life prevents many from making healthier lifestyle choices

– Rate of hypertension, diabetes and arthritis are high and increasing

Implications:

– Education and support to improve health behaviours and for self-management

– Environmental supports for behaviour change i.e. walkable communities, healthy choices

– Build partnerships to increase access to chronic disease prevention, education and management programs


Mental Health and Well-BeingStudy Findings:

– Community involvement, social connections, strong family relationships support mental wellness

– Pace of life, stress, restrictive cultures, bullying, etc. were reported to contribute to poor mental health

– Overall self reported level of stress is high

– Women report higher levels of stress as compared to men

– Family/relationship was the highest source of stress

Implications:

– Develop partnerships to increase mental health support

– Work with youth to identify supports to reduce anxiety and depression


Community Strengths and VitalityStudy Findings:

– Community services and resources

– Very high participation rate

– Volunteerism rate is high

– People feel that their contributions matter

– High level of trust and sense of belonging

Implications:

– Ongoing support for community organizations and recreation associations

– Volunteer recognition

– Support seniors to remain in the community


Linking FindingsTo Mandate of WCHC and our current strategic priorities re: • Populations affected by key determinants of health that

present barriers to access• Chronic Disease Prevention and Management• Mental Health and Addictions…and by informing our advocacy efforts, development of

partnerships, securing of resources, and enhancement of organizational capacity support those priorities

To Mandates of other health and human services organizations that serve same communities/populations –by sharing report widely, highlighting findings relevant to our different partners, and encouraging use of report


Conclusion

• The report is available on our website at: www.wchc.on.ca

• Questions?

• Thank you!

http://www.wchc.on.ca/�

Report: F-11-022

961241 Page 1 of 3

REGION OF WATERLOO

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

Procurement & Supply Services Division

TO: Regional Chair Ken Seiling and Members of Regional Council

DATE: April 20, 2011 FILE CODE: F18-30

SUBJECT: T2011-003 GRADE SEPARATION OF HESPELER ROAD (250 METRES NORTH

OF THE “DELTA”) AND CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY (CPR) (WATERLOO

SUBDIVISION, MILE 1.55), CITY OF CAMBRIDGE

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the tender of Dufferin Construction Company for Grade Separation of Hespeler Road (250 Metres North of the “Delta”) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) (Waterloo Subdivision, Mile 1.55), City of Cambridge in the amount of $16,504,306.53 including all applicable taxes. SUMMARY: Nil REPORT: Tenders were called for T2011-003 Grade Separation of Hespeler Road (250 metres north of the “Delta”) and Canadian Pacific Railway (“CPR”) (Waterloo Subdivision, Mile 1.55), in the City of Cambridge and were opened in the presence of L. Wilson, J. Udit, and J. Stephenson. Dufferin Construction Company Oakville, Ontario $16,504,306.53 E&E Seegmiller Limited Kitchener, Ontario $16,705,821.13 Graham Brothers Construction Limited Brampton, Ontario $18,270,293.56 Dagmar Construction Inc. Markham, Ontario $19,485,411.15 McLean Taylor Construction Limited St. Mary’s, Ontario $19,806,092.70 New Alliance Ltd. Burlington, Ontario $20,363,987.30 Capital Paving Inc. Puslinch, Ontario $20,819,061.39 Aecon Construction & Materials Limited Toronto, Ontario $20,885,946.73 Grascan Construction Limited Toronto, Ontario $21,131,000.00 Bot Engineering & Construction Limited Oakville, Ontario $22,035,000.00 Facca Incorporated Ruscom, Ontario $24,716,198.46 *One additional bid was disqualified.

The work of this contract includes the following:

Construction of a new depressed rail corridor within the existing railway right-of-way to effect a lowering of the profile of the CPR track of approximately 5 metres (maximum) at Hespeler Road, with the depression tapering out to the east and west;

Elevation of the profile of Hespeler Road by approximately 3 metres at the rail corridor (with the elevation tapering out to the north and south), including construction of an overpass bridge to carry the elevated Hespeler Road over the depressed CPR track;

Reconfiguration of the Brooklyne Road / Norfolk Avenue / Hespeler Road intersection to improve the geometry of this intersection; and

Modification or adjustment of existing driveway accesses to match the modified road profiles to preserve access to all properties within the project area.

April 20, 2011 Report: F-11-022

961241 Page 2 of 3

Construction is scheduled to commence on or about May 2, 2011. The grade separation is scheduled to be fully operational by October 31, 2012. Surface course asphalt and final restoration are scheduled to be completed by October 31, 2013. Two lanes of traffic will be maintained on Hespeler Road in each direction (4 lanes total) during peak traffic hours, from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday throughout construction. Two lanes of traffic will typically be provided in each direction (4 lanes total) at all other times; however, occasional lane restrictions will be required from time to time. A minimum of one lane of traffic in each direction will be maintained during non-peak traffic periods. All traffic movements will be maintained at the “Delta” intersection (Hespeler Road/Water Street and Coronation Boulevard/Dundas Street), and at the intersection of Hespeler Road and Avenue Road/Jaffray Street. Traffic will be maintained at the intersection of Hespeler Road and Brooklyne Road/Norfolk Avenue during construction with the exception of an eight (8) week period in late 2011 or early 2012 during which this intersection will be fully closed to traffic. During this eight (8) week period, the Region will provide a signed detour route to direct motorists. Access to residential and commercial properties will be maintained during construction, with short term disruptions where construction activities occur directly in front of these accesses. The Region will supply and erect business signage to ensure that the public is aware that these businesses are open and to inform the public of any temporary driveways or accesses. Staff is planning to host a public Open House on Thursday, April 21, 2011 at Avenue Road Public School, 40 Gail Street, Cambridge. Staff will mail or deliver notices of this Open House to area residents and businesses starting April 13, 2011. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Award of this contract is in accordance with the Region’s public tendering practices and meets Focus Area 6 (“Service Excellence”) of the Corporate Strategic Plan and specifically strategic objective 6.3 which is to ensure all Regional programs and services are responsive, efficient, effective and accountable to the public. In addition, implementation of this contract achieves Focus Area 5 (“Infrastructure”) of the Corporate Strategic Plan and strategic objective 5.1 which is to optimize the use of existing infrastructure and ensure it is adequately maintained. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Based upon the low tender submission, the estimated costs for the Region of Waterloo Transportation Division on this project are as follows: Contract 2011-003 $16,504,306.53 Land Acquisition, Utility Relocations & Site Preparation (HST on part) 5,208,050.00 Consultant Contract Administration & Inspection 1,751,500.00 Consultant Engineering Services (Design, Surveying, Specialist Engineering) 395,500.00 Materials Testing During Construction 339,000.00 Regional Engineering (Design & Contract Administration (no HST) 225,000.00 Pavement Markings & Signs (no HST) 25,000.00 Printing & Advertising (no HST) 10,000.00 Permit / Approval Fees 8,475.00 Work by CPR: Engineering, Flagging, Trackwork, Signals, Communication 2,649,850.00 Design Review by CPR Consultant 107,350.00

Sub-total $27,224,031.53 Less: Municipal Rebate of 86.46% of HST (11.24%) (2,263,480.03)

Total $24,960,551.50

April 20, 2011 Report: F-11-022

961241 Page 3 of 3

The Region of Waterloo’s approved 2011 Transportation Capital Program and Ten Year Capital Forecast includes funding of $32,980,000 gross and $4,947,000 net in 2011 for this Regional Road project (#5334). Based on the low tender result, the estimated cost of this work is $24,960,551.50 to be funded from the following sources:

1. Revenue in the amount of $21,216,468.78 to be received by the Region from CPR in accordance with Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) Decision 310-R-2009, July 16, 2009, concerning cost apportionment for the grade separation; and

2. Funding of the amount of approximately $3,744,082.72 by the Region of Waterloo to be funded from the following sources:

a) Region of Waterloo Development Charge Reserve Fund in the approximate amount of $2,059,245.50; and;

b) Region of Waterloo Road Capital Levy Reserve Fund in the approximate amount of $1,684,837.22.

Based on the low tender result, the Region’s estimated share of the project costs of $3,744,082.72 is $1,202,917.28 less than the Region’s net funding of $4,947,000 identified in the approved 2011 Transportation Capital Program. The Region funding surplus of $1,202,917.28 will remain in the Development Charge Reserve Fund and Road Capital Levy Reserve Fund and will be available for other capital projects. The cost of this work is $8,019,448.50 (approximately 24%) under budget. This budget under run is primarily attributable to significant design modifications to the grade separation made over the past several months with input from CPR in an effort to reduce the construction costs. These design changes include reducing the number of rail tracks in the new depressed corridor from two to one and increasing the maximum grade of the rail tracks from 1% to 2% to reduce the requirements for complex and expensive retaining walls. The budget under run can also be partially attributed to competitive bidding. The Region of Waterloo has obtained approvals from the Ministry of the Environment for adjustments to the watermain and storm sewers as required for completion of the Hespeler Road / CPR Grade Separation project. No other approvals are required for this project. The final date of acceptance for this tender is June 18, 2011. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Nil ATTACHMENTS: Nil PREPARED BY: C. Whitlock, Director Procurement & Supply Services APPROVED BY: L. Ryan, Chief Financial Officer

Report: F-11-023

961879 Page 1 of 2

REGION OF WATERLOO

FINANCE DEPARTMENT




SUBJECT: T2011-106 REHABILITATION AND TESTING OF MUNICIPAL SUPPLY WELLS

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the tender of Well Initiatives Limited for the Rehabilitation and Testing of Municipal Supply Wells at a total price of $527,303.20 including all applicable taxes. SUMMARY: Nil REPORT: Tenders were called for the Rehabilitation and Testing of Municipal Supply Wells and were opened in the presence of R. Wootton, M. Howlett and L. Buitenhuis. The following bids were received: Well Initiatives Limited Guelph, ON $527,303.20 Gerrits Drilling & Engineering Limited Paris, ON $566,327.75 Lotowater Technical Services Inc. Grand Valley, ON $690,520.40 The Region’s overall objectives for the replacement of municipal wells project (ref. Report E-11-002) are to increase the security of its water supplies, to optimize the water supply capability, and where feasible, to improve water quality, for each site, through the construction and testing of new wells. The Region has retained an engineering consultant (Contract C2010-07; Report E-11-002) to undertake the above assessments and to administer the well construction, rehabilitation and testing contracts. The Region has retained a well contractor to construct the new wells (Contract T2010-144; Report F-11-002) and is retaining a second contractor to complete rehabilitation of three (3) existing municipal wells and testing of five (5) new wells (Contract T2011-106; this Report) at the sites of the Region’s municipal wells P10, P11/P17, FG1/FG2, K22A and G38/G39. Subject to Council approval, it is anticipated that completion of this work is expected to be primarily in 2011. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: This project will contribute to the strategic objective to optimize the use of existing infrastructure and ensure it is adequately maintained in Focus Area 5 - Provide high quality infrastructure and asset management to meet current needs and future growth.

April 20, 2011 Report: F-11-023

961879 Page 2 of 2

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: T2011-106 – Rehabilitation and Testing of Municipal Supply Wells $527,303.20 T2010-144 – Construction of Municipal Supply Wells (previous award) 1,109,249.74 Engineering – Consultant 492,906.00 Engineering – Regional 5,000.00 Advertising and Printing 2,000.00

Sub-total $2,136,458.94 Less Municipal Rebate of 86.46% of HST (11.24%) (212,014.15)

Total $1,924,444.79 The Region’s approved 2011 Water Capital Budget and Ten Year Capital Forecast includes a total budget of $2,574,000 for the Well Optimization and Upgrades project (#04135), funded from the Water Reserve Fund and Regional Development Charges. The remaining funds will be used to equip wells that are already constructed under this project. It is expected that project funds will be expended in 2011.

The final date of acceptance for this tender is May 13, 2011. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Nil ATTACHMENTS: Nil PREPARED BY: C. Whitlock, Director, Procurement & Supply Services APPROVED BY: L. Ryan, Chief Financial Officer

Report: F-11-024

958468 Page 1 of 2

REGION OF WATERLOO

FINANCE DEPARTMENT




SUBJECT: T2011-111 EXHIBIT FABRICATOR – WATERLOO REGION MUSEUM

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the tender of Taylor Manufacturing Industries Inc. for the Exhibit Fabricator – Waterloo Region Museum, at a total price of $1,683,700.00 including all applicable taxes. SUMMARY:

Nil REPORT:

Tenders were called for the Exhibit Fabricator – Waterloo Region Museum and were opened in the presence of J. Jensen, T. Reitz and J. McCarty. There were four short listed vendors selected from Prequalification PQ 2010-06. One vendor declined to submit a bid due to time constraints. The following tenders were received: Taylor Manufacturing Industries Inc. Brampton, ON $1,683,700.00 Expographiq Gatineau, Quebec $1,754,156.97 Kubik Inc. Mississauga, ON $1,767,632.18 The Waterloo Region Museum long-term gallery will tell the story of Waterloo Region from pre-history to the present day, based on the museum’s collection of more than 43,000 artifacts. Exhibits will incorporate artifacts, photographs, hands-on and computer interactives, and videos. With ongoing input and direction from Waterloo Region Museum staff, the long term gallery exhibits are being designed by a consortium of exhibit designers and planners including Terry Heard Design, Vue Design and Museum Planning Partners, with guidance from Dr. Kenneth McLaughlin, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, St. Jerome’s University. This tender includes exhibit display cases, glass barriers, pedestals and associated millwork, platforms to support major artifact installations, graphic panels, themed environments, and delivery and installation of these components in the Long Term Gallery at the Waterloo Region Museum, and an operations and maintenance manual. Separate quotes and/or tenders, currently being prepared, will be sought for the production of additional audio visual components, hands-on and computer interactives, and one additional exhibit area. Museum exhibit galleries will open in the fall of 2011.

April 20, 2011 Report: F-11-024

958468 Page 2 of 2

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Award of this contract meets the Corporate Strategic Plan objective Implementation of the Arts, Culture, Heritage Master Plan initiatives in support of Strategic Focus Area 2 – Growth Management, particularly the objective to promote and enhance arts, culture and heritage. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: T2011-111 $1,683,700.00 Less: Municipal Rebate of 86.46% HST (11.24%) (167,476.00)

Total $1,516,224.00 The approved Waterloo Region Museum 2011 Capital Budget (project #42012) includes $3,879,000 to be funded from debentures, for exhibit design and fabrication. The remaining funds will be used for additional audio visual components, hands-on and computer interactives, and for the fabrication of one additional exhibit area not included in this tender. The final date of acceptance for this tender is May 30, 2011. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE:

Planning, Housing and Community Services staff assisted in the preparation of this report and their comments have been incorporated. ATTACHMENTS: Nil PREPARED BY: C. Whitlock, Director, Procurement & Supply Services APPROVED BY: L. Ryan, Chief Financial Officer

Report: F-11-025

963805 Page 1 of 3

REGION OF WATERLOO

FINANCE DEPARTMENT



DATE: April 20, 2011 FILE CODE: "Insert File Code"

SUBJECT: T2011-014 REGIONAL ROAD 23 (KATHERINE STREET) AND REGIONAL ROAD

22 (NORTHFIELD DRIVE) BRIDGE REHABILITATIONS, TOWNSHIP OF

WOOLWICH

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the tender of Belor Construction Ltd. for Regional Road 23 (Katherine Street) and Regional Road 22 (Northfield Drive) Bridge Rehabilitations, Township of Woolwich, in the amount of $1,510,458.91 including all applicable taxes; AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an increase in project funds of $238,628.92 plus applicable HST, gross and net to fund the required contract work. SUMMARY: Nil REPORT: Tenders were called for Regional Road 23 (Katherine Street) and Regional Road 22 (Northfield Drive) Bridge Rehabilitations, Township of Woolwich, and were opened in the presence of K. Brisbois, J. Lee, and L. Buitenhuis. The following tenders were received: Belor Construction Ltd. Mississauga, ON $1,510,458.91 Looby Builders (Dublin) Ltd. Dublin, ON $1,525,715.02 Jarlian Construction Inc. Burlington, ON $1,542,970.15 Marbridge Construction Ltd. Mississauga, ON $1,635,758.79 Carlington Construction Inc. Stoney Creek, ON $1,687,732.29 Clearwater Structures Inc. Ajax, ON $1,835,871.34

This contract includes rehabilitation to two structures as noted below: File 5512 - Reg. Rd. 23 (Katherine Street) Bridge (Over Trans Canada Trail), Township of Woolwich

Concrete removals Conversion to semi-integral abutments Concrete deck overlay Parapet wall replacement Waterproof and paving of bridge deck Guiderail replacement and end treatment upgrading

April 20, 2011 Report: F-11-025

963805 Page 2 of 3

File 5624 - Reg. Rd. 22 (Northfield Drive) Bridge (Over Canagagigue Creek), Township of Woolwich

Concrete removals Conversion to semi-integral abutments Concrete deck overlay Parapet wall replacement Waterproof and paving of bridge deck Guiderail replacement and end treatment upgrading

Construction is scheduled to commence on both structures on or about May 2, 2011 with completion expected in mid September 2011.

Both bridge rehabilitations will be staged so that only one half of the bridge width will be repaired at one time. Portable temporary traffic signals will be used to allow one direction of traffic at a time to cross the bridge during the repair work. The only full closure will be for one day at each structure to pave the deck surface in echelon. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Award of this contract is in accordance with the Region’s public tendering practices and meets Focus Area 6 (“Service Excellence”) of the Region’s Corporate Strategic Plan and specifically strategic objective 6.3 which is to ensure all Regional programs and services are responsive, effective and accountable to the public. In addition, implementation of this contract achieves Focus Area 5 (“Infrastructure”) of the Corporate Strategic Plan and strategic objective 5.1 which is to optimize the use of existing infrastructure and ensure it is adequately maintained. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: T2011-014 $1,510,458.91 Engineering – Consultant 73,453.39 Material Inspection & Testing During Construction 16,950.00 Engineering – Regional 8,000.00 Detours, Signing and Line Painting 4,000.00

Sub-total (including HST) $1,612,862.30 Less Municipal Rebate of 86.46 of HST (11.24%) (159,233.38)

Total $1,453,628.92 The Region of Waterloo’s approved 2011 Transportation Capital Program includes a budget of $1,215,000 for the work (5512 and 5624) included in this contract, all to be funded from the Roads Rehabilitation Reserve Fund. Based on the low tender result, the cost of this work is $1,453,628.92 (approximately 19.6 % over the budget source). This overrun is attributable to the fact that the deck condition surveys (completed later in the design phase) revealed significantly more repair work than was envisioned at the time of preparing the budget estimates for the 2011 Transportation Capital Program. This shortfall of $238,628.92 for this project can be funded from other capital budget transfers or from available funds in the Roads Rehabilitation Reserve Fund all of which will be identified in the mid-year review of the 2011 Transportation Capital Budget, currently scheduled to be presented to Council in June of 2011. The final date of acceptance for this tender is May 27, 2011.

April 20, 2011 Report: F-11-025

963805 Page 3 of 3

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Nil ATTACHMENTS: Nil PREPARED BY: C. Whitlock, Director, Procurement & Supply Services APPROVED BY: L. Ryan, Chief Financial Officer

Report: F-11-026

951889 Page 1 of 2

REGION OF WATERLOO

FINANCE DEPARTMENT




SUBJECT: T2011-110 APPLICATION OF PAVEMENT MARKINGS

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the tender of K.D.N. Pavement Markings Ltd., for the Application of Pavement Markings in the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge for a five (5) year term commencing May 1, 2011 at a total price of $898,745.50 including all applicable taxes. SUMMARY: Nil REPORT: Tenders were called for the application of pavement markings and were opened in the presence of C. Braan, J. Kerfoot and J. McCarty. The following bids were received: K.D.N. Pavement Markings Ltd. Rockwood, ON $ 898,745.50 Guild Electric Limited Toronto, ON $ 968,721.85 Woodbine Pavement Markings Limited Scarborough, ON $1,413,630.00 The work of this tender is for the application of hand machine work of all pavement markings on Regional roads within the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. The work includes the supply of all labour, equipment and material to paint stopbars, crosswalks and arrows in the three cities. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Award of this contract meets Focus Area 5 of the Region’s Corporate Strategic Plan by providing high quality infrastructure and asset management to meet current needs and future growth FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Based on the tender received the estimated cost to the Region is as follows: T2011-110 $898,745.50 Less Municipal Rebate of 86.46% of HST (11.24%) (89,395.75)

Total $809,349.75 The annual cost to provide this service is approximately $162,000. The Transportation Operations Budget includes sufficient funds allocated toward the provision of pavement markings on a yearly basis. Additionally, pavement markings that are project specific will be charged to the appropriate capital budgets on a project by project basis.

April 20, 2011 Report: F-11-026

951889 Page 2 of 2

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Nil ATTACHMENTS: Nil PREPARED BY: C. Whitlock, Director, Procurement & Supply Services APPROVED BY: L. Ryan, Chief Financial Officer

Report: F-11-027

958112 Page 1 of 2

REGION OF WATERLOO

FINANCE DEPARTMENT




SUBJECT: P2011-11 SUPPLY OF FINE BUBBLE DIFFUSED AERATION SYSTEM FOR

PLANT 1 AERATION TANKS AT KITCHENER WASTEWATER TREATMENT

PLANT, CITY OF KITCHENER

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the proposal of Aquarius Technologies Inc. for the Supply of Fine Bubble Diffused Aeration System for Plant 1 Aeration Tanks at Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), City of Kitchener at a total cost of $234,475.00 including HST. SUMMARY: Nil REPORT: Proposals were called for the Supply of Fine Bubble Diffused Aeration System for Plant 1 Aeration Tanks at Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), City of Kitchener and were opened in the presence of J. Ing, J. Bicudo and L. Buitenhuis. The following proposal was received: Aquarius Technologies Inc. Port Washington, WI $234,475.00 Two other proposals were received and were disqualified because both proposals were non-compliant with the proposal requirements. Both disqualified proposals included significant exceptions to the specified terms and conditions. Proposals were evaluated using pre-determined technical and financial criteria, including compliance with the terms and conditions, compliance with critical technical specifications, demonstrated experience with similar installations, and capital and operating costs. The Region’s consultant and staff are satisfied that the Aquarius Technologies equipment meets all technical and financial evaluation criteria that the proposal equipment is of high quality and that capital and life cycle costs are competitive. Aquarius Technologies Inc. has demonstrated their ability to successfully complete numerous projects across Ontario and North America. This proposal is for the supply of a fine bubble diffused aeration system for the Plant 1 aeration tanks at the Kitchener WWTP. The selected diffused aeration system will be incorporated by means of a novation agreement into a future general construction contract at the Kitchener WWTP. The upgrades currently being implemented at the Kitchener WWTP are part of a multi-year upgrade program that will include the upgrade of Plant 2, the construction of Plant 3, and the eventual decommissioning of Plant 1. The current aeration system for Plant 1 is reaching the end of its service life and the proposed aeration system upgrades at Plant 1 are absolutely essential to ensure

April 20, 2011 Report: F-11-027

958112 Page 2 of 2

reliable treatment capacity at the Kitchener WWTP during the Plant 2 upgrades and until the construction of Plant 3 is completed (estimated 2018). The Region’s engineering consultant is currently completing the detailed design of the retrofit of the Plant 1 aeration tanks and the fine bubble diffused aeration system must be purchased now in order for construction to proceed in a timely manner. An application for MOE approval for the overall Plant 1 aeration upgrades will be submitted once final design is completed. Subject to Council and MOE approvals, construction work under the general construction contract is currently expected to commence in July 2011 with completion expected in early January 2012. Delivery of the fine bubble diffused aeration system is planned for the summer of 2011. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Award of this contract meets the Corporate Strategic Plan Objective to “protect the quality and quantity of our water sources” under Strategic Focus Area 1 to “protect and enhance the environment.” FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: P2011-11 $234,475.00 Less Municipal Rebate of 86.46% of HST (11.24%) (23,323.00)

Total $211,152.00 The approved 2011 Wastewater Capital Budget and Ten-Year Capital Forecast include a budget of $304,412,000 between 2011 and 2018 for upgrading the Kitchener WWTP, including $20,912,000 in 2011 funded from the Development Charge Reserve Fund and the Wastewater Reserve Fund. The $211,152.00 cost of the aeration system is well within the amount ($300,000) allotted in the total project budget for the purchase of this equipment. Even though only one bid was received, staff is satisfied that the price is very competitive as the price is 30% less than the budget. The final date of acceptance for this proposal is May 10, 2011. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Nil ATTACHMENTS: Nil PREPARED BY: C. Whitlock, Director, Procurement & Supply Services APPROVED BY: L. Ryan, Chief Financial Officer

PS-110412

964738

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO PLANNING AND WORKS COMMITTEE

Summary of Recommendations to Council

The Planning and Works Committee recommends as follows: 1. a) THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the proposed improvements on


b) Direct staff to file the Notice of Completion for this Class Environmental Assessment

by means of advertisement in the local newspaper and mailings to the adjacent property owners, tenants and agencies and place the Environmental Assessment Study files on the public record for a period of 30 days.

c) THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo amend Traffic and Parking By-law 06-

072, as amended, to: Add to Schedule 24, Reserved Cycling Lanes, Anytime, on both sides of Frederick

Street (Regional Road 6) from East Avenue to Bruce Street; Add to Schedule 20, Centre Lane: Two-Way Left-Turns, on Frederick Street (Regional

Road 6) from 67m East of Edna Street to 67m West of Bruce Street; Remove from Schedule 4, No Stopping, 11:30am to 12:30pm., 4:30pm to 5:30pm.,

Monday to Friday, on both sides of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to East Avenue;


to Friday, on the south side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to East Avenue;


to Friday, on the north side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to 22m east of Gordon Avenue; and


to Friday, on the north side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from 66m east of Gordon Avenue to East Avenue in the City of Kitchener as outlined in Report E-11-024 dated April 12, 2011.

2. That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo close and declare surplus a portion of Northfield

Drive East, in the Township of Woolwich described as Part Lot 32, German Company Tract, as detailed in Report No. CR-RS-11-017 dated April 12, 2011, pursuant to the Region’s property disposition by-law, to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor.

3. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the revised fees and charges for land

development at the Region of Waterloo International Airport with the new fees and charges

PS-110412

964738

to have effect on June 1, 2011 as set out in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011; AND THAT the Regional Clerk be directed to issue notice of intent to amend the Region’s Fees and Charges By-law to incorporate the fee and charge amendments described in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011 in accordance with the policy of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for providing notice; AND FURTHER THAT the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be authorized to enter into an agreement with the Corporation of the Township of Woolwich as may be required to facilitate the development lands at the Region of Waterloo International Airport as described in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011 with the form and content of such agreement to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor.

4. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo declare a leasehold interest of greater than

twenty-one (21) years in approximately 4.7 acres situate in the southeast corner of Part 1 on Registered Plan WR-70802 in the Geographic Township of Woolwich, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, being lot 4 on the plan of survey attached to Report CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042 dated April 12, 2011 as Appendix A (the Lands), surplus to its needs, in accordance with the Region’s Property Disposition By-law;

AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services to enter into a Lease with Dynasty Air Flight Services ULC, an Alberta Corporation, (the Lessee) as described in Report CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042 dated April 12, 2011 with the form of the lease to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor.

5. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo amend Traffic and Parking By-law 06-072, as

amended, to add to Schedule 24, Reserved Bicycle Lanes Anytime on both sides of Fischer-Hallman Road (Regional Road 58), between Victoria Street (Regional Road 55) and Queen’ s Boulevard in the City of Kitchener, as outlined in Report E-11-016 dated April 12, 2011.

6. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the 2011 Water and Wastewater

Monitoring Report summarized in Report E-11-043/P-11-041 as the account of water supply and wastewater treatment capacity as of December 31, 2010.

7. THAT the Region of Waterloo accept P-11-034, Monthly Report of Development Activity for

February 2011, dated April 12, 2011. 8. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve allocations totalling a maximum of

$165,721 from the Environmental Stewardship Fund as described in Report P-11-035, particularly in Attachment A, dated April 12, 2011.

9. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve a Tax Increment Grant for the

properties known as 130 and 170 Water Street North in the City of Cambridge in an amount not to exceed $4,372,514 under the Region’s Brownfield Financial Incentive Program to be financed from the remaining funds from the Brownfields Financial Incentive Pilot Program to a maximum of $930,941 and from a source to be identified as part of the Reserve and Reserve Fund Report planned for Administration and Finance Committee in May 2011 as described in Report P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023, dated April 12, 2011.

PS-110412

964738

AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Region’s Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services and Chief Financial Officer to execute a multi-party Tax Increment Grant Agreement with the registered owners of 130 Water Street North, namely Cambridge Mill Development Inc, and 170 Water Street North, namely Haastown Holdings (Cambridge) Inc. and the Corporation of the City of Cambridge, as described in Report P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023, dated April 12, 2011 with the form and content of such agreement to be satisfactory to both the Regional and City Solicitors.

10. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an amendment to Controlled Access

By-law #58-87 for a temporary right-in, right-out only access on the east side of Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Boulevard) approximately 65 metres north of Block Line Road in the City of Kitchener as described in P-11-036, dated April 12, 2011.

April 14, 2011

CPS – 110412

967981

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO PLANNING AND WORKS COMMITTEE

Summary of Closed Recommendations to Council

The Planning and Works Committee recommends as follows: 1. THAT The Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the settlement with 1231 Shantz

Station Road Inc. and Greenhorizons Group of Farms Limited in relation to the expropriation of 1292 and 1231 Shantz Station Road, Township of Woolwich, whereby the Region pays the sum of $799,250.

2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve, enter into Agreements for, and

execute all documentation related to, the acquisition of lands for the construction of the Grand River Transit Strasburg Road Facility Expansion described as Part Lots 5, 7 and 9 on Municipal Compiled Plan No. 1021, Part of Lot 49 GCT in the City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo being Part of PIN 22491-0295 and Part of Lot 5, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021, in the City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, being Part of PIN 22491-0818, from The Corporation of the City of Kitchener for the sum of $1,741,300.00, plus associated costs, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor;

April 12, 2011

FS-110412

964101

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE


The Administration and Finance Committee recommends as follows: 1. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo establish the following tax ratios for the 2011

property tax year: Residential 1.0000 New Multi-residential 1.0000 Multi-residential 1.9500 Commercial 1.9500 Industrial 1.9500 Pipelines 1.1613 Farm 0.2500 Managed Forests 0.2500

AND THAT the necessary tax ratio and tax rate by-laws for 2011 be introduced at the April 20th Regional Council meeting; AND FURTHER THAT the Area Municipalities be notified accordingly. [F-11-020]

2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the policy statement for the following

Human Resources policy:

Regional Social Media Sites (HR I-38) [CA-HR-11-005]

3. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo declare the Region’s existing easement

interest in Part 6, Reference Plan 58R-16677, City of Waterloo as surplus and enter into such documentation as is required to release the Region’s interest established by the easement in favour of the owner of the lands on which the easement is located, for $1.00, subject to the Region's property disposition by-law and to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor, as detailed in Report CR-RS-11-020 dated April 12, 2011.

April 12, 2011

CFS-110412

967984

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

Summary of Closed Recommendations to Council

The Administration and Finance Committee recommends as follows: 1. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo appoint Iga Janik as the arts representative

to the Public Art Advisory Committee for the three year term commencing April 1, 2011 and expiring March 31, 2014.

April 12, 2011

SS-110412

964072

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE


The Community Services Committee recommends as follows: 1. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo enter into an agreement with Conestoga

College Institute of Technology and Training (“Conestoga College”) for the delivery of Food Safety Training Certification programs effective May 1st, 2011 with such agreement to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor, as outlined in report PH-11-015, dated April 12, 2011.

2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo increase the 2011 operating budget for

Seniors’ Services by $59,606 gross and $0 net Regional Levy, as outlined in report SS-11-016, dated April 12, 2011.

3. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo extend the Emergency Shelter Program

Agreement with Reaching Our Outdoor Friends (ROOF) for 10 beds for May 1 to December 31, 2011; AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo extend the Domiciliary Hostel Program Agreement with Argus Residence for Young People for 5 beds for June 17 to December 31, 2011, as outlined in the report SS-11-018, dated April 12, 2011.

4. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the attached “Provincial

Homelessness Business Case to Support Additional 2011 Funding” as part of the 2011 budget submission to the Province’s Ministry of Community and Social Services, as outlined in Report SS-11-019, dated April 12, 2011.

5. THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo take the following actions regarding

Community Housing capital reserve requirements, as outlined in Report P-11-018/F-11-008, dated April 12, 2011:


b) Forward a copy of this report to MPs and MPPs representing Waterloo

Region, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Public Renewal and Infrastructure, the Chair of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and all Community Housing Providers in Waterloo Region.

April 12, 2011

MEDIA RELEASE: Friday, April 8, 2011, 4:30 p.m.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO PLANNING AND WORKS COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:00 A.M.


1.


2. a) b) c)

DELEGATIONS Alla Dinerman, Jeff Warren, MMM Group and Robert Bakalarczyk, Susan Wagter, MTO re: New Highway 7 Kitchener to Guelph Mike Morrice, Executive Director, Sustainable Waterloo re: Yearend Report (Environmental Actions) Ahmad Zeitoun re: Policy Request for Smoking Around Buses

3. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h)

REPORTS – TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RAPID TRANSIT E-11-044, Preliminary Preferred Rapid Transit Implementation Option (This report is attached separately) – (staff presentation) ADMINISTRATION E-11-006, Consultant Selection – Transportation and Environmental Services Departmental Asset Management Implementation Project (staff presentation) Overview of Major Issues and Priorities (Water, Wastewater and Waste Management) (staff presentation) DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION E-11-024, Frederick Street Improvements, Lancaster Street to River Road, City of Kitchener – Approval of Project E-11-028, Traffic Management for 2011 Road Construction Contracts University Avenue Improvements, Lincoln Road to Weber Street – Public Consultation Centre – Information Package TRANSPORTATION CR-RS-11-017, Closing and Surplus Declaration of Part of Northfield Drive East (Regional Road 22), Township of Woolwich E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021, Region of Waterloo International Airport – Land Development and Fees and Charges Update

1

19

40

48

62

66

PW Agenda - 2 - April 12, 2011

916411

i) j)

CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042, Region of Waterloo International Airport – Declaration of Surplus and Lease with Dynasty Air Flight Services ULC E-11-016, Reserved Cycling Lanes, Fischer-Hallman Road (Regional Road 58) Between Victoria Street (Regional Road 55) and Queen's Boulevard, City of Kitchener

70

74

k)

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS E-11-043/P-11-041, 2011 Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report

77

l) m) n) o)

REPORTS – PLANNING, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMUNITY PLANNING P-11-034, Monthly Report of Development Activity for February 2011 P-11-035, Allocation of Environmental Stewardship Fund for 2011 P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023, Brownfields Financial Incentive Program: Tax Increment Grant Program Application – 130 and 170 Water Street North, City of Cambridge (Waterscape) TRANSPORTATION PLANNING P-11-036, Amendment to Regional Municipality of Waterloo Controlled Access By-Law #58-87 for a Temporary Access to Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Blvd.), City of Kitchener

90

93

104

123

4. a)

INFORMATION/CORRESPONDENCE Memo re: Hespeler Road/Canadian Pacific Railway Grade Separation, City of Cambridge – Project Update and Notice of Pre-Construction Public Open House

130

5. a)

OTHER BUSINESS Council Enquiries and Requests for Information Tracking List

132 6.

NEXT MEETING – May 3, 2011

7.

ADJOURN

8.

MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION THAT a closed meeting of the Planning & Works, Administration & Finance and Community Services Committees be held on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 immediately following the Planning and Works Committee meeting in the Waterloo County Room in accordance with Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, for the purposes of considering the following subject matters:

a) potential litigation and receiving of legal advice and opinion that is subject to solicitor-client privilege related to a matter before an administrative tribunal

b) proposed or pending acquisition of land in the City of Kitchener c) personal matters about identifiable individuals – committee appointments


916411

d) a matter related to personal information about identifiable individuals and labour relations

e) receiving of legal advice and opinion that is subject to solicitor-client privilege related to a contract


916411

MEETINGS

Date Time Description Location

Planning and Works Committee

May 3, 2011 9:00 A.M. Planning and Works Committee Council Chamber 2nd Floor, Regional Administration Building 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario

May 24, 2011 9:00 A.M. Planning and Works Committee Council Chamber 2nd Floor, Regional Administration Building 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario

Transportation and Environmental Services

April 14, 2011 3:00 P.M. Water Efficiency Advisory Committee

150 Frederick Street, Room 218, 2nd Floor, Regional Administration Building 150 Frederick Street Kitchener,

April 19, 2011 5:30 P.M.- 8:00 P.M.

University Avenue Improvements, Lincoln Road to Weber Street – Public Consultation Centre

Lincoln Heights Public School, 270 Quickfall Drive, Waterloo

May 12, 2011 5:30 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.

Westmount Road Improvements, Queens Boulevard to Highland Road, Information Package in Advance of PCC

Faith Lutheran Church 247 Westmount Road East Kitchener

April 30, 2011 9:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M.

Rapid Transit Information Booth

Cambridge Centre 355 Hespeler Rd., Cambridge

April 30, 2011 6:30 A.M. – 2:00 P.M.

Rapid Transit Public Consultation Centre

Kitchener Farmers’ Market, 300 King St. E., Kitchener

May 3, 2011 1:30 P.M.– 8:30 P.M.


Calvary United Church, 48 Hawkesville Rd., St. Jacobs

May 4, 2011 1:30 P.M.– 8:30 P.M.


AHQ Front Lobby 150 Frederick St., Kitchener

May 4, 2011 3:00 P.M.– 8:00 P.M.


McCormick Arena 500 Parkside Drive, Waterloo

May 5, 2011 1:30 P.M.– 8:30 P.M.


First United Church 16 William St. W., Waterloo

May 5, 2011 1:30 P.M.– 8:30 P.M.


Faith Lutheran Church, 247 Westmount Rd. E, Kitchener

May 10, 2011 1:30 P.M.– 8:30 P.M.


United Kingdom Club, 35 International Village Dr., Cambridge


916411

May 10, 2011 1:30 P.M.– 8:30 P.M.


Region of Waterloo, 150 Main Street, Cambridge

May 14, 2011 9:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M.

Rapid Transit Information Booth Fairview Park Mall, 2960 Kingsway Dr., Kitchener

May 14, 2011 9:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M.

Rapid Transit Information Booth Conestoga Mall, 550 King St. N., Waterloo

Report: E-11-044

Page 1 of 41

REGION OF WATERLOO

TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Rapid Transit

TO: Chair Jim Wideman and Members of Planning and Works Committee

DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: A02-30/PW

SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PREFERRED RAPID TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION OPTION

RECOMMENDATION: For information.

SUMMARY: The Region of Waterloo continues to pursue the development of a Rapid Transit system. Through February and March 2011, staff undertook public consultation that asked the public for their views on which rapid transit option would provide the best value to our community. Well over 1,000 people attended the public consultation centres and information booths, and over 700 submitted written comments. Of these, 78 per cent stated support for rapid transit in general and 66 per cent stated support for light rail transit (LRT) in particular. The most common comment pertained to lower costs and lower taxes while maintaining value, regardless of the preferred rapid transit technology. The most preferred LRT implementation options were option L3 (LRT from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall and adapted bus rapid transit (aBRT) from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal) and option L9 (LRT from Conestoga Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal). In evaluating the rapid transit implementation options and considering the recent public input, staff have identified that:

Rapid transit is preferred over business-as-usual;

An LRT system provides the best long-term environmentally and financially sustainable solution to help manage our community‟s future growth and transportation needs;

It is realistic and achievable for the Region to consider building an LRT system in affordable stages;

The long-term vision for rapid transit should be option L9 (LRT from Conestoga Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal);

As a Stage 1 implementation option, staff have identified option L3 (LRT from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall and aBRT from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal) as the preliminary technically-preferred rapid transit implementation option;

Option L3 is basically the same implementation option that was approved by Regional Council in June 2009. Further analysis and public input have reinforced and confirmed that original choice;

Stage 2 would add LRT from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal;

If Council considers option L3 to be too costly, option L1 (LRT from Conestoga Mall to Ottawa Street and aBRT from Ottawa Street to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal) has been identified as a second choice for LRT implementation because it provides some of the benefits of option L3 with lower tax impacts;

Implementation of option L3 (or L1) needs to include increases in conventional transit service as identified in the Region Transportation Master Plan (RTMP). To ensure that both can be implemented in an affordable way, the RTMP can be staged over a longer time

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 2 of 41

period with 40 to 65 per cent of the RTMP proposed transit service hours implemented between 2012 and 2018; and

Rapid transit can be implemented in combination with varying amounts of additional transit service. Deferral of some parts of the RTMP would result in the RTMP plan taking 22 or 23 years to complete instead of the planned 20 years.

The three most feasible options for implementing a rapid system and phasing in the Regional Transportation Master Plan identified by staff are:

1) Option L3a – building L3 and implementing 65 per cent of the RTMP between 2012 and 2018;

2) Option L3b – building L3 and implementing 40 per cent of the RTMP between 2012 and 2018; and

3) Option L1a – building L1 and implementing 65 per cent of the RTMP between 2012 and 2018.

The following table illustrates some of the differences between the options.

Options for LRT/RTMP Implementation

LRT/RTMP Implementation

Option

Approximate Proportion of

Scheduled RTMP Plan Implemented

by 2018

Additional Transit

Service Hours by 2018

Annual Property Tax Increase for 7 Years for RTMP &

Rapid Transit (2012 to 2018)

Annual Incremental

Household Impact for 7 Years

(2012 to 2018)**

L3a 65% 211,000 2.0%* $33.12*

L3b 40% 138,000 1.5%* $24.84*

L1a 65% 211,000 1.5%* $24.84*

* Annual property tax increase over seven years (2012 to 2018) assuming all costs are funded by property tax levy. Tax levy impacts may be reduced through financing options (e.g. contribution from development charges, reduction of debt charges and upload savings from the Province). ** Based on average property assessment of $225,000 ($ 2010).

Options L3b and L1a result in a 1.5 per cent annual property tax increase, or approximately $25 per year increase per average household for seven years. Option L3a results in a 2.0 per cent annual property tax increase, or approximately $33 per year increase per average household for seven years.

Staff is proposing option L3b as the preliminary preferred rapid transit implementation

option. This would result in a 1.5 per cent annual property tax increase, or about $25 increase

per year for seven years for the average household. Staff believe that this option provides the

best value. Construction and the benefits of LRT are maximized in Stage 1. An adequate

conventional transit expansion is implemented and implementation of the RTMP is extended

by three years to approximately 23 years. Regional staff will seek public input on all three options in a number of ways over the next two months including public consultation centres, information booths, public input meetings and opportunities for on-line comments. Comments should be submitted by May 27, 2011. Staff will be submitting a report with recommendations for Council‟s approval on June 15, 2011.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 3 of 41

REPORT:

1. Background The Region faces a major decision with respect to rapid transit. High-quality rapid transit has been identified as a crucial component in managing growth, facilitating intensification and minimizing/reducing future “urban sprawl”. The rapid transit system being considered in the Region has the multiple goals of providing transportation choice, meeting future transportation needs, and building a viable, vibrant and sustainable community.

2. Rapid Transit Implementation Options Staff considered 11 rapid transit implementation options, as summarized in Table 1. Each of the rapid transit options would proceed in the context of the Moving Forward Transit Program, an integrated rapid transit project that combines rapid transit with the re-oriented and expanded Grand River Transit bus system as identified in the RTMP. It includes improvements ranging from integration with GO and VIA to road improvements in support of rapid transit and park „n ride facilities.

Table 1: Rapid Transit Implementation Options

Option

Length (km)

BRT or

aBRT LRT

Total Rapid Transit

L1 LRT from Conestoga Mall to Ottawa St & aBRT from Ottawa St to Ainslie St Transit Terminal

22 14 36

L2 LRT from Conestoga Mall to Block Line Rd & aBRT from Block Line Rd to Ainslie St Transit Terminal

19 17 36

L3 LRT from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall & aBRT from Fairview Park Mall to Ainslie St Transit Terminal

17 19 36

L4 LRT from Conestoga Mall to Sportsworld Dr & aBRT from Sportsworld Dr to Ainslie St Transit Terminal

12 24 36

L5 LRT from Northfield Dr to Ottawa St & aBRT from Ottawa St to Ainslie St Transit Terminal

22 12 34

L6 LRT from Northfield Dr to Block Line Rd & aBRT from Block Line Rd to Ainslie St Transit Terminal

19 15 34

L7 LRT from Northfield Dr to Fairview Park Mall & aBRT from Fairview Park Mall to Ainslie St Transit Terminal

17 17 34

L8 LRT from Northfield Dr to Sportsworld Dr & aBRT from Sportsworld Dr to Ainslie St Transit Terminal

12 22 34

L9 LRT from St Jacobs Farmers‟ Market to Ainslie St Transit Terminal

0 39 39

B10 BRT from St Jacobs Farmers‟ Market to Ainslie St Transit Terminal

38 0 38

BU11 Business-as-Usual (road expansion) 0 0 0

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 4 of 41

3. Public Consultation Process February-March 2011 In the public consultation process in February and March 2011, staff asked the public for their views on which rapid transit option would provide the best value to our community. Staff presented and received feedback from the public on the rapid transit implementation options. Staff hosted 12 events including:

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 o PCC at Calvary United Church, 48 Hawkesville Road, St. Jacobs;

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 o Interactive webcast;

Thursday, March 3, 2011 o PCC at Albert McCormick Community Centre, 500 Parkside Drive, Waterloo;

o PCC at Waterloo Region of Waterloo, Front Lobby, 150 Frederick Street,

Kitchener;

Saturday March 5, 2011 o Information booth at Fairview Park Mall, 2960 Kingsway Drive, Kitchener;

o Information booth at Kitchener Farmers Market, 300 King Street East, Kitchener;

Wednesday March 9, 2011 o PCC at First United Church, 16 William Street West, Waterloo;

o PCC at Region of Waterloo, 150 Main Street, Cambridge;

Thursday March 10, 2011 o PCC at United Kingdom Club, 35 International Village Drive, Cambridge;

o PCC at Faith Lutheran Church, 247 Westmount Road East, Kitchener;

Saturday March 12, 2011 o Information booth at Conestoga Mall, 550 King Street North, Waterloo; and

Saturday March 19, 2011 o Information booth at Cambridge Centre, 355 Hespeler Road, Cambridge.

4. Results of Public Consultation February-March 2011 The number of people signing in at each public consultation centre ranged from 60 to 260. The number of people attending in total was well over 1,000, with 984 people signing in. In addition, staff distributed more than 500 information packages through information booths at malls and the Kitchener Farmers Market and at speaking events. In summarizing the public responses, staff looked for common themes with respect to issues mentioned and looked at whether the responses indicate:

A preference for one rapid transit option over another;

Where there is a preference for an option, whether it is for LRT, BRT, business-as-usual or other; and

Where there is support for LRT, which LRT implementation option is preferred.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 5 of 41

Staff have received and compiled written comments from 705 respondents. Full copies of the written comments are available in the library of the Regional Councillors or upon request from Regional staff. Of these 705 respondents, 615 (87 per cent) indicated support for one or more of the options including BRT, LRT or business-as-usual. The preference for the remaining 90 (13 per cent) is other or unknown. Of the 615 respondents who indicated support for LRT, BRT or business-as-usual:

451 (73 per cent) support LRT;

74 (12 per cent) support BRT;

64 (10 per cent) prefer business-as-usual; and

26 (4 per cent) are open to more than one choice. Table 2 summarizes the most frequent comments, with the 705 respondents divided into those who supported LRT only, BRT only, or business-as-usual only, and those whose preference was other, unknown, undecided or open to more than one technology. The most common comment pertained to lower costs and lower taxes while maintaining value, regardless of the preferred rapid transit technology.

Table 2: Frequent Comments

Support

LRT Support

BRT

Support Business-as-

usual

Other / Unknown / Undecided

Number of respondents 451 74 64 116

Costs, taxes or value 68 52 45 64

Rapid transit route or stations 65 9 5 16

Need to improve existing bus system 21 10 11 36

Need good feeder bus and intercity connections with rapid transit

56 4 1 12

Fairness to Cambridge and the Townships

39 11 7 15

Need to think of our children, grandchildren or the future

64 0 0 3

At the PCCs, Region staff provided the following responses to the frequent comments noted above: Costs, taxes or value: The options being considered provide a range of benefits and costs. Value and affordability will be a significant factor in the selection of an option. Implementation of the business-as-usual option (which is not considered a feasible option) would result in a property tax increase on an average household of approximately $25 per year for six years. Rapid transit route or stations: Staff responded to questions concerning station location and routing at the open houses. In some cases this addressed the concerns raised; in others the issues have not yet been resolved. Staff are reviewing the various remaining comments regarding routing and stations and will provide additional information during the upcoming public consultations.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 6 of 41

Need to improve existing bus system/Need good feeder bus and intercity connections with rapid transit: Improved existing bus/feeder system and intercity connections are vital to the success of rapid transit. All of the options being considered include expansion of the existing bus system and reconfiguring to function with the rapid transit system. The multimodal hub proposed at King and Victoria Streets will provide connections to intercity buses, GO rail and VIA. Fairness to Cambridge and the Townships: The LRT staging options are all considered a first step in implementing an LRT system between Conestoga Mall and the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal. The options match existing and projected ridership and development potential with the appropriate technology. Changing development patterns and increasing ridership in Cambridge will create the conditions required to implement LRT. The Region has and will continue to increase transit service in Cambridge and work with Cambridge to create the conditions for implementation of LRT. Implementation of a rapid transit system will benefit the Townships by limiting urban sprawl and protecting high quality farm land. The Townships are not contributing to the cost of a rapid transit system and the Region‟s GRT Business Plan will consider additional conventional transit to the outlying urban areas. Need to think of our children, grandchildren or the future: Implementation of a rapid transit system is a long-term project that will influence the Region for decades. Table 3 summarizes the number of respondents who supported each LRT implementation option. Of the 464 respondents who identified support for LRT, 106 (23 per cent) supported more than one LRT implementation option. Equal numbers, 190 respondents or 41 per cent, supported options L3 and L9 while 102 (22 per cent) supported L4. In total, 380 (82 per cent) supported one or more of L3, L4 and/or L9. Support for each of options L1, L2, L5, L6, L7 or L8 was 4 per cent or less. Another 51 (11 per cent) stated support for LRT but did not identify any specific option.

Table 3: Public Support for LRT Implementation Options

LRT Implementation Option Number of Respondents Per Cent of 464 Respondents

Who Support LRT

L1 19 4%

L2 18 4%

L3 190 41%

L4 102 22%

L5 9 2%

L6 7 2%

L7 20 4%

L8 18 4%

L9 190 41%

Any LRT option 51 11%

In summary, of all 705 respondents:

78 per cent stated support for rapid transit; and

66 per cent stated support for LRT. Based on the above response, there is strong public support for rapid transit, and in particular for

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 7 of 41

LRT. The strongest preference is for implementation options L3, L4 or L9, which all include LRT from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall or further south. There is little support for the options that include less LRT. Respondents from Cambridge in particular appear to prefer L9 because it would bring LRT to Cambridge.

5. Peer Review Panel A peer review panel consisting of third-party experts in the fields of rapid transit planning, engineering and city-building investment initiatives reviewed work completed by the rapid transit project team since 2009. The five panellists included:

George Dark, Partner at Urban Strategies Inc.;

Eric Miller, Professor of Civil Engineering and Director of the University of Toronto Cities Centre, University of Toronto;

John Hubbell, Associate Vice President with HDR iTrans and former general manager of transportation for the City of Calgary;

Ashley Curtis, Associate with Steer Davies Gleave; and

Alan Jones, Director with Steer Davies Gleave. The panel met on Monday March 7 to discuss the Region‟s rapid transit implementation options and their evaluation, as well as the refined rapid transit functional design plans. Appendix A contains biographies for the panellists and a summary of their comments and recommendations. The peer review panel concluded that:

“Overall, the Peer Review Panel felt that an investment in RT and in particular an investment in LRT represents a critical step towards meeting the Region‟s growth and revitalization objectives, increasing transit ridership and creating more liveable and economically competitive communities.” “The Region should not be surprised, or disheartened, that it is unable to deliver the full LRT system ultimately envisaged from day one. All transit systems are built in phases from areas of greatest ridership demand to areas of developing demand. The development of an LRT system in a series of phases, delivered over time and as demand and funding allow, is entirely normal and to be expected.”

6. Evaluation of Options

6.1 Rapid Transit The Region continues to plan for significant population and employment growth over the next two decades. To provide for the projected growth, the Region will have to either continue its pattern of outward growth or encourage greater intensification in existing developed areas. High-quality rapid transit has been identified as a crucial component in managing growth, facilitating intensification and minimizing/reducing future “urban sprawl”. A high-quality rapid transit system is vital for the Region to evolve into a more compact urban form, helping to prevent sprawl and protect sensitive environmental landscapes and high quality farmlands from urban encroachment. A high-quality rapid transit system will also reduce the need for the construction of new or expanded roads in existing mature neighbourhoods and reduce road congestion. The peer review panel notes that:

“Waiting to implement rapid transit or deferring in favour of the Business as Usual option is not a viable alternative and will inhibit the Region‟s ability to meet intensification objectives and jeopardize the countryside line. Without improved connectivity and alternatives to the private car for travel, the Region‟s economic attractiveness and competitiveness will suffer due to increased congestion.”

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 8 of 41

“The addition of rapid transit along the central transit corridor is seen as a key strategy towards meeting the region‟s intensification targets, accommodating employment and residential growth, while minimizing the need for urban expansion and promoting downtown revitalization.”

Staff have identified that rapid transit is preferred over business-as-usual, to provide transportation choice, to meet future transportation needs, and to build a viable, vibrant and sustainable community. This is supported by the public response, with 78 per cent of all respondents stating support for rapid transit.

6.2 Technology The evaluation of technologies addresses the issue of which rapid transit technology is preferred for the long term, LRT or BRT.

6.2.1 Multiple Account Evaluation In 2005, the Region completed a transit technology review and considered both BRT and LRT in the analysis. This involved a review of the North American experience over the past 25 years. Some of the key findings from this study included:

LRT is much more likely to achieve the objectives of the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) than BRT;

LRT has higher capital and net operating costs than BRT, but provides significantly greater benefits;

LRT has much greater potential to attract transit ridership and to shape urban form than BRT; and

LRT has a demonstrable influence on land values by stimulating intensification and development and is recognized as a planning tool that can support and encourage the development of more sustainable land use patterns.

These initial findings from the 2005 study are reinforced by the Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) analysis. The findings from the MAE were previously presented to Regional Council on June 24, 2009 (Report E-09-073). The Project Team used the MAE to compare BRT and LRT because the process provided for flexibility in measuring benefits, allowing decision makers to consider quantitative measures for benefits that were difficult or impossible to translate into dollars and a broader and more targeted representation of project benefits. The MAE examined the economic costs and benefits of the proposed transportation investment within a series of separate accounts including environmental, economic and social drivers. The MAE findings demonstrated that LRT has a higher cost to install than BRT, but delivers the greatest benefits to the community, and best accomplishes the goals of the RGMS. Figure 1 presents the MAE results incremental to the business-as-usual scenario for full implementation of the two technologies. Business-as-usual means a gradual expansion of roads and bus service. LRT was rated better than BRT for user benefits, environmental benefits, land use benefits and social and community benefits. This information was also previously presented to Council on June 24, 2009 (Report E-09-073).

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 9 of 41

Figure 1: MAE Relative Costs and Benefits

6.2.2 Costs BRT is cheaper per kilometre to install and to operate than LRT. LRT costs approximately twice as much per kilometre as BRT to install. More details about capital and net operating costs are provided in Table 4. Operating costs are shown net of fare box revenue. LRT would have higher fare box revenues than BRT given that LRT (Conestoga Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal) is expected to have higher ridership than BRT.

6.2.3 Capacity For BRT, the fleet would be a mixture of standard and articulated buses, with full standing capacity of approximately 75 and 115 passengers respectively. For LRT, the stations would be designed to accommodate two-car trains, with full standing capacity per train of up to 450 passengers, based on new vehicle designs now available. The train would have approximately four times the capacity of an articulated bus and six times the capacity of a standard bus. For the Region‟s rapid transit system, LRT would have more capacity than BRT because the trains would have more room for passengers, and more doors to quickly load and unload passengers with shorter dwell times at stations. Trains running on 5-minute frequencies could reasonably expect signal priority at intersections, so that trains would generally only stop at stations. With BRT, the number of buses required to meet passenger demand is projected to exceed road capacity north of Fairview Park Mall in the peak period within 20 years. With bus frequencies every 2 to 3 minutes north of Fairview Park Mall, the buses would likely bunch up and signal priority would be impractical. With no spare road capacity, there would be no opportunity to expand passenger capacity by adding more buses. At that point, the Region would be facing replacement of the BRT with alternate rapid transit technology such as LRT, at considerable expense and disruption.

6.2.4 Urban Form Both BRT and LRT would generate increased demand for lands near stations, increasing land values and generating new jobs. The estimated increase in land values and jobs is greater for LRT

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 10 of 41

with up to 23,000 new jobs in station areas compared to just over 11,500 for BRT, and up to $370 million in increased land values, compared to up to $75 million for BRT.

6.2.5 Transportation Benefits Transportation benefits include savings in travel time, vehicle operating cost, accident avoidance and parking cost. LRT provides a smoother, quieter, more comfortable ride than BRT with greater passenger capacity. LRT is generally preferred by riders. LRT is estimated to generate $523 million in transportation user benefits, compared to $360 million for BRT. The peer review panel notes that:

“Experience in other jurisdictions suggests that LRT has the potential to attract riders that would otherwise refuse to take bus transit.”

6.2.6 Environment and Public Health LRT is projected to result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 22,260 tonnes per year by 2031 compared to 12,210 tonnes per year for BRT. LRT is projected to result in better environmental and public health.

6.2.7 Conclusion Regarding Technology

Based on these results, the project team concluded that an LRT system provides the best long-

term environmentally-sustainable and financially responsible solution to help manage our community‟s future growth and transportation needs. This conclusion is supported by the public response. Of those 551 respondents who support rapid transit, 84 per cent support LRT. This conclusion is also supported by the Region‟s peer review panel, who noted that:

“Of the two rapid transit options, LRT has greater capacity, higher ridership development potential and a greater ability to shape growth and redevelopment patterns to support the Region‟s growth management strategy.”

6.3 LRT Stage 1 Implementation Option

6.3.1 LRT Staging In considering LRT technology, it is also important to consider a staged transit system as a cost-effective way to allow transit to grow steadily. Rapid transit projects are usually implemented in stages to:

allow for the efficient establishment of the rapid transit system and future extensions to the system as demand for public transport in the Region grows;

enable the Region to cost-effectively deliver a staging option that meets the most immediate public transport needs;

lessen the initial impact of the construction on the local community and road users by deferring the construction of certain sections; and

allow a level of flexibility so that future stages can be refined and tailored to meet the growing needs of the Region as it continues to develop.

It should be noted that there are no LRT systems in North America that were built in their entirety right at the start. Edmonton and Calgary were frontrunners in building LRT in North America, starting with 7 km and 11 km respectively. Generally LRT systems are expanded in steps, as little as one kilometre at a time. It would be unrealistic for the Region to plan construction of an entire 39-

kilometre LRT system all at once, whether that construction starts now or in the future. It is realistic

and achievable for the Region to consider building an LRT system in affordable stages .

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 11 of 41

Therefore the LRT implementation options consist of a combination of LRT and aBRT, with the intent of expanding to a full LRT system in steps. The Peer Review Panel notes:

“While the extension of LRT to Cambridge may not be viable in the short term, the addition of aBRT will provide excellent service in a financially prudent manner that is well matched to the developing nature of Cambridge‟s transit market.”

When Calgary first started building LRT in 1978, it had a population of 506,000. The population of Edmonton was just over 445,000 when the City started LRT construction in 1974. Currently, Waterloo Region has a population of 535,000. Calgary and Edmonton both started with LRT lines from their downtown to a point in the suburbs, with the major activity point being downtown. In comparison, Waterloo Region has many activity points concentrated in a linear corridor along its central transit corridor. This gives the Region the advantage of generating trips in both directions along our rapid transit route, rather than a commuter route that runs peak-direction full and off-peak direction empty. It also gives the Region the advantage of serving a much higher proportion of its population and employment than Calgary and Edmonton were able to with their first LRT lines. The LRT implementation options consider sections of LRT in the northern half of the central transit corridor, with aBRT from the south end of the LRT to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal, based on existing and projected ridership. Currently, passenger boardings per weekday in the central transit corridor include 29,200 passengers from Fairview Park Mall north and 6,400 passengers south of Fairview Park Mall. More than 80 per cent of the passenger activity is from Fairview Park Mall north and less than 20 per cent is south of Fairview Park Mall. There is four times more passenger activity from Fairview Park Mall to the north compared to the south. In the first five to ten years, GRT services would be expanded with new and more frequent routes that would provide fast, convenient connections with the rapid transit system. This improved service would translate into a broader transit user base to promote expanded LRT services. Introduction of LRT service in stages would allow the system to grow and bus services to adjust to provide the best connections. This approach would also provide the necessary time for the Region, area municipalities and private land owners to collaborate on planning initiatives for increasing densities, improving walkability, controlling parking and enhancing the overall public environment for using public transit in the planned rapid transit station areas. In areas where aBRT is implemented, initiatives to increase ridership would be implemented with a goal of converting to LRT as soon as possible.

6.3.2 Costs of LRT Implementation Options Table 4 summarizes the costs of the LRT implementation options in 2014 dollars, assuming construction inflation of 12.5 per cent from 2011 to 2014. The table includes construction costs, the level of senior government funding and the additional Regional funding required to construct the different rapid transit options, as well as the anticipated net operating and maintenance costs. Note that other related projects would be included in the Moving Forward Transit Program to optimize the available Federal funding. The net operating and maintenance costs are net of the anticipated farebox revenue, and are expected to decrease over time as rapid transit ridership increases.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 12 of 41

Table 4: LRT Implementation Option Costs (2014 $ millions)

Option Construction

Costs Provincial Funding

Federal Funding

Region‟s Share

2031 Net Operating & Maintenance Costs per

Year

2016 2031

L1 $644 $300 $215 $129 $12.4 $8.6

L2 $770 $300 $257 $213 $13.4 $9.1

L3 $818 $300 $265 $253 $13.7 $9.1

L4 $960 $300 $265 $395 $16.1 $11.6

L5 $608 $300 $203 $105 $12.0 $8.2

L6 $733 $300 $244 $189 $13.0 $8.8

L7 $773 $300 $258 $215 $13.3 $8.7

L8 $922 $300 $265 $357 $15.6 $11.2

L9 $1550 $300 $265 $985 $19.8 $15.5

6.3.3 Evaluation of LRT Implementation Options Staff have evaluated the LRT implementation options based on ridership, level of intensification, transit integration and affordability. Transit integration includes the operation and convenience of passenger transfers between rapid transit and local or express routes and between LRT and aBRT. Table 5 summarizes the evaluation factors.

Table 5: Evaluation Factors for LRT Implementation Options

Option

2031 Annual

Ridership (millions)

Increase in Population in Station Areas (thousands)

Increase in Employment in Station Areas (thousands)

Transit Integration

Annual Property

Tax Increase

for 6 Years

Annual Incremental Household Impact for 6

Years**

L1 12.6 19.8 12.7 Fair 0.97%* $16.01*

L2 14.3 20.3 12.8 Fair 1.27%* $20.98*

L3 15.0 20.3 13.1 Good 1.37%* $22.63*

L4 15.4 20.3 13.7 Good 1.90%* $31.46*

L5 12.2 19.3 11.6 Poor 0.88%* $14.63*

L6 13.9 19.7 11.7 Poor 1.13%* $19.04*

L7 14.7 19.7 12.0 Fair 1.25%* $20.70*

L8 15.0 19.7 12.6 Fair 1.78%* $29.53*

L9 18.0 22.6 16.9 Excellent 3.71%* $62.65*

* Annual property tax increase over six years (2012 to 2017) assuming all costs are funded by property tax levy. Tax levy impacts may be reduced through financing options (e.g. contribution from development charges, reduction of debt charges and upload savings from the Province). ** Based on average property assessment of $225,000 ($ 2010).

The options rank from excellent to poor for transit integration as follows:

Option L9 ranks as excellent because it connects LRT to the existing transit terminals at Conestoga Mall, Fairview Park Mall and Ainslie Street, and requires no transfer between aBRT and LRT.

Options L3 and L4 rank as good because the LRT connects to both Conestoga Mall and Fairview Park Mall, two key existing transit terminals. Option L4 has the further advantage of

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 13 of 41

connecting to GO bus service at Sportworld Drive. These options provide a transfer between LRT and aBRT at either Fairview Park Mall or at Sportsworld Drive. The peer review panel noted that ending the LRT short of Fairview Park Mall would result in a missed opportunity to capture the existing higher density apartments in and around the mall and more significantly, limit the potential for intensification in and around the LRT/aBRT transfer point. Achieving LRT to Fairview Park Mall was viewed by the panellists as a prerequisite for the extension of LRT into Cambridge at a future date. To the north, Conestoga Mall represents an important point of access to the transit system for residents north of the city. Ending LRT at Northfield Drive was viewed as a missed opportunity to serve an existing key destination and provide connectivity to the wider transit network.

Options L1, L2, L7 and L8 rank as fair because the LRT connects to only one of Conestoga Mall or Fairview Park Mall (existing transit terminals and connection points to conventional transit).

Options L5 and L6 rank as poor because the LRT does not connect to either Conestoga Mall or Fairview Park Mall. If a roundabout is constructed at the intersection of Block Line Road with Courtland Avenue, this could provide a means for buses to turn around at this transfer point. However, an LRT terminus at any of Northfield Drive, Ottawa Street or Block Line Road will provide a challenge in terms of providing a satisfactory transit terminal.

6.3.4 Long-Term Vision Option L9 would perform the best in terms of ridership, transit integration and level of intensification, however it would have a significant impact on property taxes, particularly if implemented all in one stage and fully funded over a six-year period. Public response is strong and equally supportive for

options L9 and L3. Staff support the long-term vision of implementing option L9, with LRT from Conestoga Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal.

6.3.5 Technically Preferred Implementation Option

As a Stage 1 implementation option, staff have identified option L3 as the preliminary

technically-preferred rapid transit implementation option because it provides good transit integration at the lowest cost, connecting LRT to both Conestoga Mall and Fairview Park Mall. The peer review panel notes that:

“Of the 10 choices, option L3 (LRT from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall) has the greatest integrity as a first stage in the implementation of regional rapid transit. This is based on its ability to support the wider network and catalyze redevelopment in and around the two anchoring station areas. Option L3 has the greatest potential to “build success in the first phase of development” by linking key origins and destinations along the corridor and connecting them to key existing anchor points (Conestoga Mall and Fairview Park Mall) within the Regional Transit System.”

Option L3 is basically the same implementation option that was approved by Regional Council in June 2009. Further analysis and public input (41 per cent of the respondents that supported LRT supported L3 and 41 per cent supported L9) have reinforced and confirmed that original choice. There may be concerns about the affordability of option L3 particularly in the context of the additional costs required to implement the RTMP. Appropriate integration of the rapid transit system with local and express bus routes and road improvements is essential to the overall success of the LRT. Decisions on rapid transit and the RTMP are related and impact each other. The following section provides information on the implementation of the RTMP.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 14 of 41

6.3.6 Region Transportation Master Plan (RTMP) The RTMP is a set of policy directions, priorities and plan that guides how people and goods will be moved around our community by car, truck, transit, walking and cycling for the next 20 years. The plan includes increments in conventional transit over the entire 20-year period. The reconfiguration, expansion and integration of the conventional transit system with the LRT system will contribute to the ridership potential and success of the LRT as well as serving the broader community. The RTMP includes the required expansion in conventional transit to support the rapid transit system. During the 2012 to 2018 time frame, the RTMP included transit service hour expansions totaling 328,000 hours. Implementation of the RTMP between 2012 and 2018 would have required a property tax increase of approximately 1.1 per cent per year. Implementation of the RTMP is also important for the establishment of the feeder system for the LRT. Recognizing that affordability of the rapid transit system and the RTMP are linked, Region staff feels that some deferral of the RTMP can occur without significantly impacting the rapid transit system. It would result in some increase in road congestion, initially poorer integration with LRT, possibly lower ridership and delay improvements in conventional transit. Implementing approximately 65 per cent (211,000 transit service hours) of the total additional hours proposed from 2012 to 2018 would create a conventional system that could adequately support the rapid transit system, although there may be some broader transportation system implications. Delaying the planned RTMP improvements by this amount would lengthen the time to implement the whole RTMP from 20 years to approximately 22 years. Decreasing the amount of conventional transit expansion to 40 per cent of that originally anticipated would further impact the performance of the rapid transit system. It is important to note that the amount of additional transit service required to reach the 65 per cent level is similar to the amount approved in the 2011 budget. It could take one budget cycle following the completion of the first stage of LRT to increase the level of transit service to the 65 per cent level. With this scenario, the time period to implement the whole RTMP would lengthen from 20 years to approximately 23 years. In either case, it is important to note that the decrease in additional transit service hours is a deferral of that increase and that continued RTMP implementation would result in the increases being implemented in the years following completion of the first stage of LRT. The overall impact to the 20-year RTMP would be to delay completion by approximately two or three years. To address the issue of affordability, staff are proposing that an L3 option with implementation of either 65 per cent or 40 per cent of the RTMP be considered. Staff are also proposing that an L1 option with 65 per cent of the RTMP be considered. This option provides a reasonable but significantly lower level of LRT with a higher amount of RTMP for the same cost as L3 with 40 per cent RTMP. It is also proposed that the period to implement property tax increases for rapid transit be changed to seven years to better integrate with the 20-year RTMP financing strategy. Therefore, the three implementation options considered most feasible by staff are:

4) Option L3a – building L3 and implementing 65 per cent of the RTMP between 2012 and 2018;

5) Option L3b – building L3 and implementing 40 per cent of the RTMP between 2012 and 2018; and

6) Option L1a – building L1 and implementing 65 per cent of the RTMP between 2012 and 2018.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 15 of 41

6.3.7 Financial Analysis Staff have prepared financing strategies for the three options (L1a, L3a and L3b). These financing strategies are based on tax rate increases for the next seven years, which form the basis of the ongoing contributions to the RTMP Reserve Fund and will be used to finance the capital expenditures and operating expenses of both the expansions to GRT service and the implementation of the rapid transit option selected. Table 6 presents options and financial impacts for proceeding with LRT Stage 1 and staged implementation of the RTMP.

Table 6: Options for LRT/RTMP Implementation


Option



by 2018

Additional Transit




Annual Incremental


(2012 to 2018)**

L3a 65% 211,000 2.0%* $33.12*

L3b 40% 138,000 1.5%* $24.84*

L1a 65% 211,000 1.5%* $24.84*


Table 6, above, indicates that a tax rate increase of 1.5 per cent per year, or approximately $25 per average household annually, for seven years provides sufficient funding to implement either option L3 with 40 per cent of the proposed RTMP or option L1 with 65 per cent of the proposed RTMP. If Council wishes to implement option L3 with 65 per cent of the proposed RTMP, the annual tax rate impact rises to 2.0 per cent. Each of these options maximizes the use of the Federal and Provincial funding that has been provided. The property tax impacts shown are relatively conservative estimates of the potential tax rate impacts. These property tax impacts may be mitigated by other funding allocations or mechanisms, such as development charges or upload savings. Development charges have been used by other municipalities to reduce the tax rate impacts of similar transit projects. Currently, the Region has achieved the maximum development charge collectible for transit services. Development charges could only be collected for the LRT project if the Province amended the Development Charges Act to permit the Region to calculate the development charges for the project based on the increased level of service to be provided by the rapid transit extension. The Region‟s consultants have calculated that, if a similar provision was made available to the Region, approximately $70 million of development charges could be collected over a 20-year period to offset the costs of construction of option L3, with an estimated increase in development charges of $975 per single detached dwelling (residential) and $0.78 per square foot for non-residential development. This would reduce the tax rate increases noted in Table 6, above, by approximately 0.15 per cent per year. Financial capacity also becomes available to the Region from the completion of the Region‟s debt servicing payments for the Regional buildings at 150 Frederick and 99 Regina Street in 2012 to 2014, which amounts to 1.41 per cent of the tax levy in those years. As well, the continuing uploading of social assistance costs to the Province provides capacity from 2012 to 2018 of approximately 2.55 per cent in tax levy in those years. This totals approximately 4 per cent of budget

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 16 of 41

capacity which could be utilized to offset the impact of LRT. This could reduce the tax rate increases noted in Table 6, above, by approximately 0.57 per cent per year. The financial calculations do not include the potential impacts of land value uplift. The evaluation of rapid transit systems shows that there is significant land value uplift that is projected to occur. It is difficult to model the impacts on property taxes of land value uplift. Land value uplift is assessment growth. When a property is developed so that its value increases, the taxes collected also increase. These additional taxes that are collected on the increased value could be used to reduce future tax increases.

6.3.8 Preliminary Preferred Option

Staff is proposing option L3b as the preliminary preferred rapid transit implementation

option. This would result in a 1.5 per cent annual property tax increase, or about $25 increase

per year for seven years for the average household. Staff believe that this option provides the

best value. Construction and the benefits of LRT are maximized in Stage 1. An adequate

conventional transit expansion is implemented and implementation of the RTMP is extended

by three years to approximately 23 years.

6.4 LRT Stage 2 Implementation Public support is strong for option L9, with LRT from Conestoga Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal. If the Region proceeds with implementation option L3 for Stage 1, then Stage 2 would complete option L9, with LRT from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal. As in other communities in North America, a LRT system would be implemented in stages. From Fairview Park Mall, the next stations are located at Sportsworld Drive, then Preston, followed by stations along Hespeler Road at Eagle Street/Pinebush Road, the Cambridge Centre, CanAmera Parkway, Coronation Boulevard/Dundas Street, and the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal. To facilitate the implementation of Stage 2 as soon as possible, staff propose to:

Begin the Transit Project Assessment for LRT from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal in 2014;

Acquire property for the implementation of Stage 2 as properties come on the market;

Undertake measures to encourage transit-supportive development, to enhance transit ridership throughout the urban service areas and to expedite the development of LRT south of Fairview Park Mall;

Implement transit-supportive strategies in Cambridge;

Pursue additional Federal and Provincial funding for Stage 2. With the successful implementation of LRT Stage 1, it is reasonable to expect that additional Federal and Provincial funding would become available for LRT Stage 2; and

Explore the location of a future multi-modal transit facility in Cambridge to link to future GO rail service.

7. Draft Staff Recommendations Regional staff have drafted the following recommendations, proposed to be presented to the public for their comment through the next series of public consultation, and then presented to Council in June 2011: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo take the following action regarding the Region‟s proposed rapid transit system: a) Approve Light Rail Transit (LRT) as the preferred technology;

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 17 of 41

b) Approve the LRT route as follows:

Along King Street from Conestogo Road to Northfield Drive;

Along Northfield Drive from King Street to the Region-owned Waterloo Spur rail line;

Along the Region-owned Waterloo Spur rail line from Northfield Drive to Erb Street;

Southbound along Caroline Street from Erb Street to Allen Street and along Allen Street from Caroline Street to King Street;

Northbound along King Street from Allen Street to Erb Street and along Erb Street from King Street to Caroline Street;

Along King Street from Allen Street to Victoria Street;

Southbound along Victoria Street from King Street to Charles Street and along Charles Street from Victoria Street to Benton Street;

Northbound along Benton/Frederick Street from Charles Street to Duke Street, along Duke Street from Frederick Street to Francis Street, along Francis Street from Duke Street to King Street, and along King Street from Francis Street to Victoria Street;

Along Charles Street from Benton Street to Borden Avenue;

Southbound along Borden Avenue from Charles Street to the Huron Park Spur rail line and along the Huron Park Spur rail line from Borden Avenue to Ottawa Street;

Northbound along Ottawa Street from the Huron Park Spur rail line to Charles Street and along Charles Street from Ottawa Street to Borden Avenue;

Along the Huron Park Spur rail line from Ottawa Street to Hayward Avenue;

Along Hayward Avenue from the Huron Park Spur rail line to Courtland Avenue;

Along Courtland Avenue/Fairway Road from Hayward Avenue to Wabanaki Drive (note: this section of the LRT route would change should the hydro corridor route become available);

Along Wabanaki Drive from Fairway Road to the CP Waterloo Subdivision rail line;

Along the CP Waterloo Subdivision rail line from Wabanaki Drive to Eagle Street;

Along Eagle Street from the CP Waterloo Subdivision rail line to Hespeler Road;

Along Hespeler Road from Eagle Street to Water Street;

Along Water Street from Hespeler Road to Bruce Street;

Along Bruce Street from Water Street to Ainslie Street; and

Along Ainslie Street from Bruce Street to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal; c) Approve the LRT stations along the LRT route as follows:

on King Street at Conestogo Road at Conestoga Mall;

on the Region-owned Waterloo Spur rail line at Northfield Drive, at the Research and Technology Park, at the University of Waterloo, and at Seagram Drive near Wilfrid Laurier University;

on Caroline Street at Willis Way;

on King Street at Willis Way, at the Grand River Hospital, and at the multi-modal transit hub;

on Duke Street at Young Street;

on Frederick Street at Duke Street;

on Charles Street at Gaukel Street, at Benton Street, at Cedar Street, at Borden Street, and at Ottawa Street;

on Courtland Avenue at Block Line Road;

on Fairway Road at the signalized entrance to Fairview Park Mall (note: this station location would change should the hydro corridor route become available);

on the CP Waterloo Subdivision rail line at Sportsworld Drive and at Eagle Street;

on Hespeler Road at Eagle Street/Pinebush Road, at the Cambridge Centre, at CanAmera Parkway, and at Coronation Boulevard/Dundas Street; and

along Ainslie Street at the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal;

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 18 of 41

d) Approve the implementation of option L3b as Stage 1 of the LRT system including LRT from

Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall and adapted bus rapid transit from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal (note: the description of Stage 1 would change if Council approves option L1 rather than L3). A 1.5 per cent per year increase to the annual budget would be established as a long-term funding source for LRT and RTMP over a seven-year period beginning in 2012;

e) Direct staff to pursue a Regional development charge legislative exemption in order to assist

with funding the LRT project; f) Approve an allocation of $1,000,000 annually, for a 10-year period to implement transit-

supportive strategies in Cambridge, subject to final approval during the 2012 budget process. Details of the program to be developed in conjunction with the City of Cambridge and to be presented to Regional Council for approval in a subsequent report; and

g) Direct staff to pursue the following steps to expedite Stage 2 of the LRT system including

LRT from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal (note: the description of Stage 2 would change if Council approves option L1 rather than L3), including:

Undertake measures to encourage transit-supportive development, to enhance transit ridership throughout the urban service areas and to expedite the development of LRT south of Fairview Park Mall, including (but not limited to) developing incentives for transit-oriented developments and supporting and developing transportation demand management strategies for new and existing business and residents;

Begin the Transit Project Assessment for LRT from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal in 2014;

Acquire property for the implementation of Stage 2 of the LRT system as property needs are defined and properties come on the market;

Pursue additional Federal and Provincial funding for Stage 2 of the LRT system; and

Explore the location of a future multi-modal transit facility in Cambridge to link to future GO rail service.

8. Next Steps

Regional staff are on track with and continue to follow the rapid transit project schedule adopted by Council on January 25, 2011. In February/March, staff undertook public consultation regarding implementation options. Continuing to follow that schedule, staff anticipate that steps leading up to the Transit Project Assessment for the rapid transit project will include:

April/May: public consultation regarding the preliminary preferred rapid transit implementation option and draft recommendations;

June: Council approval of the preferred rapid transit system;

July/August/September: completion of the Environmental Project Report; and

October: commencement of the six-month Transit Project Assessment (the expedited Provincial environmental assessment process for transit projects).

Following Council approval of the preferred rapid transit system in June, staff will look in more detail at procurement options for the rapid transit project, and report back to Council by the end of 2011 regarding a preferred procurement strategy.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 19 of 41

9. Upcoming Public Consultation Program Staff will hold 16 public consultation events in April and May 2011, including 10 public consultation centres, four information booths at malls and the Kitchener Farmers Market, and two public input meetings. For this round of public consultation, staff have added three more public consultation centres to provide a public consultation centre in each of the Townships. Plans for the upcoming public consultation include:

Saturday, April 30, 2011 o Information booth at Cambridge Centre, 355 Hespeler Road, Cambridge;

o Information booth at Kitchener Farmers Market, 300 King Street East, Kitchener;

Tuesday, May 3, 2011 o PCC at Calvary United Church, 48 Hawkesville Road, St. Jacobs, Township of

Woolwich;

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 o PCC at Waterloo Region of Waterloo, Front Lobby, 150 Frederick Street,

Kitchener;

o PCC at Albert McCormick Community Centre, 500 Parkside Drive, Waterloo;

Thursday, May 5, 2011 o PCC at Cambridge Centre for the Arts, 60 Dickson Street, Cambridge;

o PCC at First United Church, 16 William Street West, Waterloo;

Tuesday, May 10, 2011 o PCC at United Kingdom Club, 35 International Village Drive, Cambridge;

o PCC at Kitchener Gospel Temple, 9 Conway Drive, Kitchener;

Thursday, May 12, 2011 o PCC at Ayr Fire Hall, 501 Scott Street, Ayr, Township of North Dumfries;

o PCC at St. Agatha Community Centre, 1791 Erb‟s Road, St. Agatha, Township of

Wilmot;

Saturday, May 14, 2011 o Information booth at Fairview Park Mall, 2960 Kingsway Drive, Kitchener;

o Information booth at Conestoga Mall, 550 King Street North, Waterloo;

Wednesday, May 18, 2011 o PCC at St. Clements Community Centre, 1 Green Street, St. Clements, Township

of Wellesley;

Tuesday, May 31, 2011 o Public Input Meeting starting at 6 p.m. in Regional Council Chambers, 150

Frederick Street, Kitchener; and

Wednesday, June 1, 2011 o Public Input Meeting starting at 6 p.m. in Regional Council Chambers, 150

Frederick Street, Kitchener.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 20 of 41

Staff propose to provide information on the rapid transit project in general and the preliminary preferred rapid transit implementation option at each event. The public will be able to submit their comments in person, by mail, by email, or through the website. The public will have multiple opportunities to obtain information or to provide input to the rapid transit project. Staff will notify the public of these opportunities through television advertisements running for two weeks, through email or regular mail notices to the rapid transit contact list of more than 3,400 addresses, through roadside signs and website updates, and through newspaper advertisements placed in seven different newspapers.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The report supports several objectives of Council‟s Strategic Focus. These include: Focus Area 1: Environmental Sustainability: Protect and enhance the environment. Focus Area 2: Growth Management: Manage and shape growth to ensure a livable, healthy,

thriving and sustainable Waterloo Region. Focus Area 5: Infrastructure: Provide high quality infrastructure and asset management to meet

current needs and future growth.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital and operating and maintenance costs of the L3 rapid transit option would result in a annual property tax increases of 1.37 per cent for six years. The initial stages of the RTMP also need to be implemented at the same time. Full implementation of the RTMP would result in an additional tax rate increase of 1.1 per cent per year. Full implementation of both option L3 and RTMP over the next six years is clearly not affordable. In order to integrate rapid transit and the RTMP, staff have prepared financing strategies for the three options (L1a, L3a and L3b). The financing strategies are based on tax rate increases for the next seven years, which form the basis of the ongoing contributions to the RTMP Reserve Fund and will be used to finance the capital expenditures and operating expenses of both the expansions to GRT service and the implementation of the rapid transit implementation option selected. The financial impacts of the three options are shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Options for LRT/RTMP Implementation


Option



by 2018

Additional Transit




Annual Incremental


(2012 to 2018)**

L3a 65% 211,000 2.0%* $33.12*

L3b 40% 138,000 1.5%* $24.84*

L1a 65% 211,000 1.5%* $24.84*


Table 7 indicates that a tax rate increase of 1.5 per cent per year, or approximately $25 per average household annually, for seven years provides sufficient funding to implement either option L3 with

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 21 of 41

40 per cent of the proposed RTMP or option L1 with 65 per cent of the proposed RTMP. If Council wishes to implement option L3 with 65 per cent of the proposed RTMP, the annual tax rate impact rises to 2.0 per cent. Each of these options maximizes the use of the Federal and Provincial funding that has been provided. The property tax impacts shown are relatively conservative estimates of the potential tax rate impacts. These property tax impacts may be mitigated by other funding allocations or mechanisms, such as development charges, reductions in debt servicing costs or upload savings. If the Province changed the Development Charges Act to allow collection of a development charge for LRT, the Region could collect approximately $70 million of development charges over a 20-year period to offset the costs of construction of option L3. The estimated increase in development charges would be approximately $975 per single detached dwelling (residential) and $0.78 per square foot for non-residential development. The tax rate increases to implement option L3 would be reduced by approximately 0.15 per cent per year. Between 2012 and 2018, upload savings and completion of debt servicing payments totalling 3.96 per cent of the tax levy in those years will occur. This tax room could be used to reduce the tax rate increases for option L3b by approximately 0.57 per cent per year. Assessment growth due to intensification and development could also be used to reduce future tax increase.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: The rapid transit project team includes representatives from Regional Council, the CAO‟s office, Communications, Community Planning, Finance, Legal, Public Health, Social Services, Transit Development, Transportation and Environmental Services, Transportation Planning and Transit Services.

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A – Summary of Comments and Recommendations from the Peer Review Panel Appendix B – Rapid Transit Maps

PREPARED BY: Nancy Button, Director, Rapid Transit

APPROVED BY: Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services

APPENDIX A Report: E-11-044

Page 22 of 41

Summary of Comments and Recommendations from the Peer Review Panel

Members of Peer Review Panel

John Hubbell Mr. Hubbell is an Associate Vice President with HDR, an Adjunct Associate Professor with The University of Calgary‟s Department of Civil Engineering and has over 40 years of public sector experience in planning, building and operating multi- modal transportation systems. Mr. Hubbell was the General Manager of Transportation for the City of Calgary, and was the co-lead (2006 – 2010) of Calgary‟s Municipal Development Plan and the Calgary Transportation Plan which are the integrated land use and transportation master plans that will direct Calgary‟s future development. He has extensive experience in the planning and operation of pedestrian, cycling, taxi, paratransit, road, urban bus and light rail transit (LRT) systems, and was instrumental in establishing Calgary as a leader in LRT, creating one of the most successful LRT systems in North America. He has also managed major operating and capital budget programs. Mr. Hubbell is experienced in developing consensus-based plans that integrate land use and transportation, and incorporate the sustainability principles that are required to build strong communities today.

Eric J. Miller Eric Miller is the inaugural Director of the University of Toronto Cities Centre. He has B.A.Sc. and M.A.Sc. degrees from the University of Toronto and a Ph.D. from M.I.T. He has been a faculty member in the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto since 1983, where he served as Acting Chair in 1998-99, 2003 and 2007. Prof. Miller is Chair of the U.S. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee on Travel Behavior and Values and past-Chair of the International Association for Travel Behaviour Research. He is past-Chair of the TRB Sub-Committee on Integrated Transportation – Land Use Modeling and Member Emeritus of the TRB Transportation Demand Forecasting Committee. He served on the TRB Task Force on Moving Activity-Based Approaches to Practice and the US National Academy of Sciences Committee for Determination of the State of the Practice in Metropolitan Area Travel Forecasting as well as on numerous travel demand peer review assignments. Eric‟s research interests include: integrated land use transportation modelling; analysis of the relationship between urban form and travel behaviour; modelling transportation system energy use and emissions; and microsimulation modelling. He is the developer of GTAModel, a “best practice” regional travel demand modeling system; TASHA, a state-of-the-art activity-based travel microsimulation model; and ILUTE, an integrated land use – travel demand model system for the GTA. He is co-author of the textbook Urban Transportation Planning: A Decision-Oriented Approach, the second edition of which was published in 2001.

George F. Dark George Dark, FCSLA, FASLA, partner at Urban Strategies, is an urban designer, landscape architect and Fellow with the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects and the American Society of Landscape Architects. George has over 30 years of professional experience and, since joining the firm in 1987, has led a variety of projects including new community plans, urban regeneration strategies, campus master plans, open space master plans, streetscape designs, design guidelines and public policy documents. George‟s work focuses on the quality of urban environments and he regularly coordinates large groups of diverse professionals and excels at guiding projects through complex approval and consultation processes.

A-2 Report: E-11-044

Page 23 of 41

George was co-lead on the APA and CIP award winning Saint Paul Central Corridor LRT Development Strategy examining the city-building potential resulting from the creation of an 11-mile LRT linking downtown Minneapolis and downtown Saint Paul. He assisted the University of Ottawa and the City of Ottawa to analyze the Development Potential of the Arts Court Site to capitalize on the LRT investment while integrating with the historic buildings and surrounding. As well, he examined the long term effect of the LRT on the whole area and how it could evolve and be transformed over time.

Alan Jones Alan Jones has BSc and MSc qualifications and is Steer Davies Gleave‟s Director leading the company‟s North American Urban Transit business. Before joining Steer Davies Gleave he worked for the Netherlands Transport Research Institute in The Hague, and the Long Term Transportation Planning Dept of the City of Westminster, Central London, UK. He has over 30 years transportation/urban transit experience in the UK, Europe and North America and has extensive experience in the development and delivery of a wide range of urban transit technologies including rail, light rail transit, bus rapid transit, bus, metros, and automated people-mover systems. With his transportation planning background he has coordinated all aspects of scheme development including route identification, alignment design, ridership forecasting, financial and economic appraisal, multiple account evaluation, public consultation and stakeholder engagement, environmental assessment, urban design, systems and operations specifications, applications for approvals and powers, procurement specification and contract development. He has also appeared as an expert witness at rapid transit public inquiries. In recent years he has been Steer Davies Gleave‟s Project Director for urban transit projects in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Hamilton, Sacramento and Portland. He has presented at a range of international conferences including Rail~Volution, the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) Annual Conference and UITP‟s Light Rail Conference.

Ashley Curtis Ashley Curtis, an Associate with Steer Davies Gleave and head of their Toronto Office, is a Chartered transport planner and qualified project manager specialising in leading the development and delivery of transport strategies, urban transit projects and integrated transport solutions from inception through to construction. With 21 years‟ experience, 16 of which was spent in the public sector, Ashley is well versed in working closely with local politicians and key stakeholders leading multi-disciplinary, multi-company teams with an emphasis on project leadership, strong relationship building and communication and negotiation skills to arrive at acceptable, deliverable solutions. He has worked and advised on strategy and urban transit projects in the UK, Europe and North America with a focus on integrating land use and transport to deliver wider city and regional objectives. With his transportation planning background he has coordinated all aspects of rapid transit scheme development including route identification, alignment design, ridership forecasting, financial and economic appraisal, public consultation and stakeholder engagement, environmental assessment, urban design, systems and operations specifications, applications for approvals and powers, procurement specification and contract development. He was instrumental in developing and delivering what will be the longest guided bus system in the world, the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway which is currently under construction, the Fastrack rapid transit system in Kent and led advancement of the South Essex Rapid Transit project. He has also advised the City of Edmonton on its long term transit planning and expanding its LRT system and has led the LRT planning, design and engineering work for the City of Hamilton.


Page 24 of 41


Page 25 of 41


Page 26 of 41


Page 27 of 41


Page 28 of 41

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 29 of 41

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-044

953676 Page 30 of 41


Page 31 of 41


Page 32 of 41

A-10 Report: E-11-044

Page 33 of 41

A-11 Report: E-11-044

Page 34 of 41

A-12 Report: E-11-044

Page 35 of 41

A-13 Report: E-11-044

Page 36 of 41

A-14 Report: E-11-044

Page 37 of 41

A-15 Report: E-11-044

Page 38 of 41

APPENDIX B Report: E-11-044

Page 39 of 41

Rapid Transit Maps

Map of Option L1 with LRT from Conestoga Mall to Ottawa Street and

aBRT from Ottawa Street to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal

B-2 Report: E-11-044

Page 40 of 41

Map of Option L3 with LRT from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall and

aBRT from Fairview Park Mall to Ainslie Street Transit Terminal


Page 41 of 41

Map of Option L9 with LRT from Conestoga Mall to the Ainslie Street Transit Terminal

Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 1 of 18

REGION OF WATERLOO


Transportation

Water Services

Waste Management

TO: Chair Jim Wideman and Members of the Planning and Works Committee

DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: A02-20/TAMP/C06-60

SUBJECT: CONSULTANT SELECTION – TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES DEPARTMENTAL ASSET MANAGEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo enter into a Consulting Services Agreement with GHD Inc., of Markham, Ontario to provide consulting services for the Asset Management Implementation Project for the Transportation and Environmental Services Department, at an upset fee limit of $3,290,193.50 plus applicable taxes.

SUMMARY: The Region recognizes the importance of Asset Management (AM) as identified in one of its current Strategic Plan goals entitled Infrastructure. The goal is to “provide high quality infrastructure and asset management to meet current needs and future growth”. Asset Management is currently part of the duties of each operating Division within the Transportation and Environmental Services Department (TES). Since the infrastructure owned and operated by the Transportation and Environmental Service Department (Transportation (Roads and Airport), Water Services and Waste Management Divisions) represents the vast majority of assets owned by the Region with a current replacement value of $4.1 billion (Appendix A), the goal of this Consultant assignment is to implement a strategic infrastructure plan that includes a high standard of asset management for the Department and Divisions within TES. In 2009, the Transportation and Water Services Divisions completed separate AM Gap Analysis and Assessment studies. Based on recommendations from these studies, Region’s staff identified benefits to the TES Department to implement AM not only at a Divisional level but also at the Departmental level. This project will be undertaken in four phases; Phase 1 includes the completion of the Gap Analysis and Assessment studies for the Airport Section within the Transportation Division and the Waste Management Division; Phase 2 includes the implementation of AM best practices identified in Phase 1 of the project and the previously approved Gap Analysis and Assessment studies completed for the Transportation (Roads) and Water Services Divisions including Asset Pilot Projects and Asset Management Plan #1; Phase 3 includes the Selection, Procurement and Implementation of Asset Management Systems; and, Phase 4 includes the preparation of a Continuous Improvement Plan and Asset Management Plan #2 within TES with the goal of evolving from Basic Asset Management to Advanced Asset Management.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 2 of 18

It should be noted; Phase 3 of the Asset Management Implementation Project is not included in this Consultant assignment but will be defined further with an implementation plan, schedule and budget during Phase 2 of this project. The Region’s Consultant Selection team have concluded that GHD’s proposal and work plan has met the Region’s requirements, that it is appropriate for the scope of this project and that the upset fee is competitive. Based on this proposal, work plan and GHD’s past performance during the Gap Analysis and Assessment studies for Transportation and Water Services Divisions, the Project Team recommends that GHD be awarded this assignment for a total upset fee of $3,290,193.50 plus applicable taxes. Subject to Council’s approval of this consulting assignment, it is anticipated that the project will be completed by late 2013.

REPORT:

Background

The Region currently builds, owns and maintains transportation (road and airport), water, waste water and waste management infrastructure that supports the areas economy and quality of life (Appendix A includes a detailed listing on the TES Department infrastructure assets). For the past 25 years, the Region as well as other municipalities have been caught in a fiscal squeeze caused by growing responsibilities and reduced revenues. These responsibilities include rapid growth, more stringent environmental and regulatory requirements, public demands for high levels of service, aging infrastructure and increased exposure to liability and risk. Due to the above factors, the Region has in a number of instances deferred investment in TES assets, resulting in infrastructure deterioration, adding to the infrastructure deficit, reduced levels of service and/or increased risk. For example, the current Transportation Roads infrastructure deficit is $265 million and based on the current long term funding strategy approved by Council, the infrastructure deficit is expected to be $240 million in 2034 (assuming a 3% construction inflation factor moving forward). As this deficit continues, maintenance will continue to be delayed, assets will reach the end of their intended service life, and repair and replacement costs will escalate. It is now recognized by all municipalities that deferring investment on infrastructure assets is not sustainable over the long term. Recently, many municipalities have begun to adopt practices to set and meet required levels of service and manage assets in a more cost effective manner, at acceptable levels of risk.

Collectively known as Asset Management, the International Infrastructure Management Manual describes the key elements of this practice as:

“Taking a lifecycle approach

Developing cost-effective management strategies for the long-term

Providing a defined level of service and monitoring performance

Understanding and meeting the impact of growth through demand management and infrastructure investment

Managing risks associated with asset failures

Sustainable use of physical resources

Continuous improvement in asset management practices.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 3 of 18

The goal of infrastructure asset management is to meet a required level of service, in the most cost effective manner, through the management of assets for present and future customers. A formal approach to the management of infrastructure assets is essential in order to provide services in the most cost-effective manner, and to demonstrate this to customers, investors and other stakeholders.” Implementing asset management practices typically includes the following:

Enacting an Asset Management Policy that sets the broad framework for undertaking asset management in a structured and coordinated way across the organization as a whole;

Improving the organization’s ability to manage its assets through implementation of the

Asset Management Strategy that outlines the set of actions to be undertaken to enhance the organization’s asset management practices. Implementing the Strategy enables a better understanding of the full costs and risks to deliver the current levels of service and to compare the benefits, as perceived by the community, to these costs; and

Preparing an annual Asset Management Plan that outlines the asset lifecycle activities and resources required to provide defined levels of service in the most cost effective way.

Current Status of TES Asset Management Practice The Department has already made significant investment in developing asset management practices, including business processes, data, systems and staff competencies. In 2009, Transportation and Water Services Divisions within TES Department completed separate Asset Management Gap Analysis and Assessment studies. The output from these studies was a

2009 report: Transportation Infrastructure Management Program Review; and for the

Water Services Division a 2010 report: Water Services Division Asset

Management Assessment, which outline, the current status of asset management for these Divisions’. Through a series of workshops and interviews with Division staff and others, the consultant team developed a comprehensive understanding of the Division’s current practices related to asset management and conducted a gap analysis between current practices and best appropriate practices (BAP). The results of this assessment are shown in Figure 1 below for the Transportation Division which illustrates the Division’s current and target ratings compared to the BAP. A similar assessment was completed for Water Services. It should be noted, the acceptable target rating applicable to the Region is generally lower than the BAP, as achieving the top BAP target rating may not necessarily provide the Region with the best return on investment from a risk, cost benefit or level of service perspective.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 4 of 18

Figure 1

Highlights of current accomplishments for these two Divisions include:

Regional Council and senior management have shown support to implementing asset

management principles in accordance with, Strategic Plan Focus Area 5: Infrastructure

provide high quality infrastructure and asset management to meet current needs and

future growth;

A TES Department steering committee is in place which include members from Finance, Corporate Resources and Planning, Housing and Community Services Department;

AM strategies were developed for the Transportation and Water Services Divisions in 2009/10;

Over time, both Divisions have developed processes, supporting systems, and the roles to deliver the services for which they are responsible and to manage associated assets;

Service standards related to regulatory compliance are defined and performance is reported;

Current and future service demand and asset capacity are understood;

Compliance with Public Services Accounting Board (PSAB) Tangible Capital Asset;

Remaining life of most assets has been determined based on current condition;

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 5 of 18

Risk based approach is used to make decisions, even though applied informally;

The Capital Programming processes select and prioritize capital projects for the 10-year capital program based on needs including age and condition of assets;

The Divisions participate in Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) Performance Measures benchmarking; and

Substancial investment has been made in data collection, storage and display of some asset types.

Identified gaps include:

Asset Management Policy needs to be developed to provide the broad framework for undertaking asset management in a structured and coordinated way across the Department as a whole, including the organizational context and importance of asset management;

Gap analysis and AM strategies have not been developed for waste management and the airport, leaving these service areas without a clear understanding of asset management best practices and the set of actions to be undertaken to enhance their asset management practices;

In many cases, asset management practices have evolved intuitively and outside of a best practices framework, and are not standardized, coordinated, or formally documented;

Levels of service should be better defined, linked to business drivers, and documented, except as related to regulatory compliance;

Many assets are inventoried and valued for PSAB Tangible Capital Assets compliance at very high levels and more detail is needed for proper Asset Management;

Remaining asset life has been determined based on current condition and age which may not be the imminent failure mode and is generally not predictive;

Maintenance procedures are not optimized and are generally based on regulatory requirements or vender recommendations;

Knowledge management systems need to be developed to transfer knowledge on processes or assets among staff;

Asset Management Plans need to be prepared to outline the asset lifecycle activities and resources required to provide defined levels of service, in the most cost effective way;

The Capital Programming processes should include in the evaluation and validation of proposed projects. Risk and benefit cost lifecycle analysis and a confidence level approach;

Asset hierarchies and data standards should be more comprehensive for all assets at the level required for informed decision-making; and

A comprehensive Asset Management System Master Plan needs to be developed for the Department to guide effective procurement and management of shared data and information systems.

Recommended TES AM Practice Enhancements

Based on the gap analysis completed for the Transportation and Water Services Divisions, Region staff recognized that there are common elements in both Divisions and potential benefits to the TES Department to implement Asset Management not only at the Division level but also at the Departmental level. Some of the recognized benefits include economies of scale as well as a developing and implementing consistent processes and outputs relating to asset management within the TES Department and Divisions. The Asset Management Implementation Project, subject to Council approval of this report, consists of four phases. A summary of the AM Implementation Project work plan and schedule is shown in Figure 2 below, followed by an overview of the objectives and benefits. A summary of the scope of work is detailed in Appendix B. Note that Phase 3 (Selection, Procurement and Implementation of an AM System) is not in the scope of this Consultant assignment but will be defined further with an

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 6 of 18

implementation plan, schedule and budget during Phase 2 of this project. It should also be noted that Regional staff from all Divisions within the TES Department, Information Technology Services (ITS), Facilities and Fleet, Transportation Planning, Financial Services and Procurement and Supply Divisions and other Regional staff as required will be key participants in the project implementation project to ensure the project meets the Region’s standards and requirements.

Figure 2

PHASE 1 – Gap Analysis & Assessment for Airport & Waste Mgmt

PHASE 2 – Implementation of AM Best Practices

PHASE 3 – Selection, Procurement & Implementation of AM System

PHASE 4 – Continuous Improvement Plan & AM Plan #2

Section 1 – AM Planning & Business Process Framework

Section 2 – Data Registry & Standards

Section 3 – Organization & People

Section 4 – Asset Management Plan #1

•Gap Analysis & Assessment for Airport•Gap Analysis & Assessment for Waste Mgmt•Presentation to AM Steering Committee

•Strategic AM Planning Framework & Dept Processes•Performance Measurement & CI Framework & Dept. Processes•LoS, Failure Mode & Risk Analysis•Renewal Planning Processes & Pilots•Maintenance Planning Processes & Pilots•Capital Programming Framework, Processes & Pilots

•Data Registry & Standards•Information & Data Management Systems Review

•Organizational Roles & Responsibilities Review & Strategy•Change Management & Communication Strategy & Plan•Training & Development Strategy & Plan•Knowledge Management Strategy & Plan

•Continuous Improvement Plan•Asset Management Plan #2

•Transportation AM Plan•Waster Services AM Plan•Airport AM Plan•Waste Management AM Plan•T&ES Department AM Plan

Q1

2011Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2012Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2013Q2 Q3 Q4

PHASE 1 – Gap Analysis & Assessment for Airport & Waste Mgmt

PHASE 2 – Implementation of AM Best Practices

PHASE 3 – Selection, Procurement & Implementation of AM System

PHASE 4 – Continuous Improvement Plan & AM Plan #2

Section 1 – AM Planning & Business Process Framework

Section 2 – Data Registry & Standards

Section 3 – Organization & People

Section 4 – Asset Management Plan #1

•Gap Analysis & Assessment for Airport•Gap Analysis & Assessment for Waste Mgmt•Presentation to AM Steering Committee

•Strategic AM Planning Framework & Dept Processes•Performance Measurement & CI Framework & Dept. Processes•LoS, Failure Mode & Risk Analysis•Renewal Planning Processes & Pilots•Maintenance Planning Processes & Pilots•Capital Programming Framework, Processes & Pilots

•Data Registry & Standards•Information & Data Management Systems Review

•Organizational Roles & Responsibilities Review & Strategy•Change Management & Communication Strategy & Plan•Training & Development Strategy & Plan•Knowledge Management Strategy & Plan

•Continuous Improvement Plan•Asset Management Plan #2

•Transportation AM Plan•Waster Services AM Plan•Airport AM Plan•Waste Management AM Plan•T&ES Department AM Plan

Q1

2011Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2012Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2013Q2 Q3 Q4

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 7 of 18

Overview of Objectives and Benefits

PHASE / Section Objectives Benefits

PHASE 1

Gap Analysis and

Assessment for

Airport and Waste

Management

The objectives of this first phase of the

Project are to understand the current

status of the Airport Section’s and Waste

Management Division’s AM practices

using the principles employed in the

similar studies completed for the

Transportation and Water Services

Divisions.

Benefits include a common

understanding of asset management

best practices by the entire TES

Department, and prioritization of

enhancement of practices for the

Airport Section and Waste

Management Division.

PHASE 2

Implementation of

AM Best Practices

including Asset Pilot

Projects and Asset

Management Plan #1

The objectives of this phase are to

enhance the Department’s asset

management practices as outlined in the

Asset Management Strategy to enable a

better understanding of the full costs and

risks to deliver the current levels of

service, and enable improved decision

making considering all viable options.

Benefits include improved

governance and accountability,

enhanced service management and

customer satisfaction, improved

financial efficiency, and more

transparent and sustainable

decision-making.

Section 1

AM Planning and

Business Process

Framework

The objectives of this section of the

Project are to develop the “top down”

Department wide common frameworks

and processes for Asset Management,

and then to implement them from the

“bottom up” on three pilot asset groups

for each of the Transportation, Water

Services, Airport and Waste

Management service groups and, at the

same time, building practices to suit the

specific asset groups.

Benefits include development,

documentation and implementation

of standardized, coordinated

processes based on best practice

AM principles to set and meet

required levels of service and

manage assets in a cost effective

manner, at acceptable levels of risk.

Section 2

Data Registry and

Standards

The objectives of this section are to

gather, review, and document current

AM system processes, workflows and

data; and undertake an analysis and

definition of the users’ perceived future

needs.

A procurement and implementation plan

will be prepared to provide

recommendations for acquiring and

implementing a solution, including

proposed budget , process impacts, data

management strategies, and project

management requirements.

Benefits include enabling support for

asset management through

technology, including the ability to

store, manipulate and retrieve timely,

accurate, valid, reliable and complete

data through enterprise systems.

This enterprise system will create

efficiencies by ensuring the correct

number of systems that need to be

maintained by the Region.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 8 of 18

PHASE / Section Objectives Benefits

Section 3

Organization and

People

The objectives of this section of the

Project are to identify required

organizational and staffing changes to

support asset management best

practices, to develop a change

management and communication

strategy and plan for staff, Council and

the community to build a common

understanding of principles and ensure

consistent implementation of asset

management practices across the

Department, develop an asset

management training and development

program, and a knowledge management

strategy.

Benefits include a more successful

and sustainable implementation of

the enhanced asset management

practices.

Section 4

Asset Management

Plan #1

The objective of this section of the

Project is to develop an initial asset

management plan for managing the

Department’s transportation, water

services, waste management and airport

assets based on existing information and

basic asset management practices, and

including strategic goals, asset portfolio,

performance standards, demand

forecast, asset lifecycle activities, and

cash flow forecasts.

Benefits include more transparent

and sustainable decision-making that

considers the entire asset portfolio

and all viable options, and provides

higher confidence that the solutions

guide investment in the right work, at

the right time, at the lowest lifecycle

cost.

PHASE 4

Continuous

Improvement Plan

and AM Plan #2

The objectives of this final phase of the

Project are to develop a continuous

improvement process for ongoing

development of asset management

capacity within the Department, and to

develop the second asset management

plan for managing the Department’s

transportation, water services, waste

management and airport assets based

on an expanded set of assets and the

more advanced asset management

practices implemented since

commencement of the Project.

Benefits include more transparent

and sustainable decision-making that

considers the entire asset portfolio

and all viable options, and provides

higher confidence that the solutions

guide investment in the right work, at

the right time, at the lowest lifecycle

cost.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 9 of 18

In summary, the expected benefits of the multi-year Asset Management Implementation Project are

as follows:

Cost Savings

Improved Governance

and Accountability

Enhanced Service

Management and

Customer Satisfaction

Improved Risk

Management

Improved Financial

Efficiency

- Optimisation of maintenance expenditure and asset

lifecycle activities

− Demonstrating Sustainable service delivery

− Transparently balancing service/price/quality trade-offs

− Published performance and financial measures

− Clear audit trail for decisions taken and risk accepted

− Improved performance and control of service delivery

− Improved understanding of service requirements

− Formal agreement with users on the service levels

− A holistic approach to business and asset management

− Knowing the probability and consequences of asset failure

− Knowing the criticality and priority of assets

− Having formal risk management strategies in place

− Improved decision-making based on costs and benefits of

alternatives

− Prioritization of investments and lifecycle activities

- Justification for long term funding requirements

− Recognition of all costs of owning/operating assets

Su

sta

ina

ble

De

cis

ion

Ma

kin

g

Consultant Selection Due to the complexity and new concepts involved in the Implementation of Asset Management for public utilities, TES staff agreed in discussion with staff from the Procurement and Supply Services Division of the Finances Department to split the Consultant selection in two phases. The first phase consisted of Pre-Qualification of Consultants with the pre-qualified Consultants required to meet minimum technical criteria in order to be short listed. The second phase consisted of submission of detailed proposals by the pre-qualified Consultants including submission of a detailed work plan and schedule, and upset fee budget for completion of the project. A two envelope approach was used for the second phase submission. The first envelope consisted of the work plan and schedule, and the second envelope consisted of the upset fee budget, which would only be opened upon completion of the detailed review and evaluation of the proposals based on Quality and Equity Factors. In July 2010, a Request for Pre-Qualification was advertised in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, Ontario Public Buyers Association, Biddingo, and the Region’s Procurement and Supply Services web site.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 10 of 18

In September 2010, three Consultants submitted a proposal for the Request for Pre-Qualification. All Consultants met the Pre-Qualification requirements, and were requested to submit detailed proposals for the second phase of the Consultant selection process. The three pre-qualified Consultants were:

Associated Engineering Limited;

GHD Inc.; and

Stantec Consulting Limited. The staff project team involved in the review of the proposals and upset fee budget consisted of: Katrina Howald, Project Manager, Information Technology David Peplinski, Business Analyst, Information Technology Robert Gallivan, Manager, Transportation Program Development, Transportation Shawn Buckley, Senior Transportation Infrastructure Engineer, Transportation Kevin Campbell, Manager, Airport Operations, Transportation Jon Arsenault, Manager, Engineering and Programs, Waste Management Richard Pinder, Senior Project Manager, Asset Management, Water Services Jorge Cavalcante, Manager, Engineering and Planning, Water Services Charles Whitlock, Director, Procurement and Supply Services (Observer), Finance Consultants were initially evaluated on their proposal based on Quality and Equity Factors listed below. Upon evaluation of the Quality and Equity Factors it was the intent of Region staff to open the second envelope and evaluate the Price Factor. Consultants were evaluated based on the following weighted evaluation factors: 1. Quality Factors (80%)

Project Understanding and Approach 25%

Project Director and Project Managers 25%

Project Support Staff 20%

Firm's Experience on Similar Projects 10% 2. Equity Factors (5%)

Current Regional Workload 3%

Local Office 2% 3. Price Factor (Upset Fee Budget) 15% The number of hours proposed by each Pre-Qualified Consultant for undertaking this assignment was within ±5% of the average number of hours for all three submissions. Based on the results of the Quality and Equity Factors for the three Pre-Qualified Consultants, the Consultant Selection Project Team unanimously agreed that the project team, approach and work plan presented by GHD was clearly superior to the submissions from the other two Consultants. The hourly price provided by GHD for its team was compatible with the price provided by GHD on previous Consultant assignments with Transportation (Roads) and Water Services Divisions. GHD’s upset fee for the Transportation and Environmental Department Asset Management Implementation project is $3,290,193 plus applicable taxes (Appendix B includes a detailed breakdown of the Consultants upset fee).

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 11 of 18

Scope of Work For this assignment the Consultant will perform the following:

Phase 1: complete Gap Analysis and Assessment Studies for the Airport Section and Waste Management Division similar to the work already completed for Transportation (Roads) and Water Services Divisions;

Phase 2: develop and implement Asset Management Best Practices for TES including implementation of asset pilot projects for three assets in each Division and preparation of the initial Asset Management Plan for TES;

Phase 4: prepare a Continuous Improvement Plan for Asset Management within TES with the goal of evolving from Basic Asset Management to Advanced Asset Management, preparation of a subsequent Asset Management Plan for TES and planning for the completion of future Asset Management Plans for TES.

Phase 3 requirements will be set in Phase 2 of this work; however; implementation will be part of a separate assignment.

Schedule

Subject to Council’s approval of this consulting assignment, it is anticipated that the project will begin in early 2011 and be completed by late 2013.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN:

The project meets the Corporate Strategic Plan Focus Area 5: “Provide high quality infrastructure and asset management to meet current needs and future growth” regarding the following Strategic Objectives: 1) Optimize the use of existing infrastructure and ensure it is adequately maintained; and 2) Provide infrastructure needed to accommodate planned growth.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Ten Year Capital Programs for the Transportation and Environmental Services Department Divisions prior to 2011 included funds for infrastructure inspections, for completing preliminary work for the implementation of Asset Management such as PSAB Tangible Capital Assets compliance, Gap Analysis and Assessment studies, and other related work. Based on the results of the Gap Analysis and Assessments for the Transportation (Roads) and Water Services Divisions in 2009 and 2010 and the Airport Section and Waste Management Division requirements as part of this project, funds have been allocated for the implementation of Asset Management in the Council approved 2011 Ten Year Capital Programs. The 2011 Ten Year Capital Programs for the Transportation, Water Services and Waste Management Divisions includes a combined total funding of $3,400,000 for this project over the years 2011 to 2013 and will be funded from the Roads Rehabilitation, Water and Development Charge Reserve Funds and debentures. This will be adequate funding to cover GHD’s upset fee of $3,290,193.50 plus applicable taxes (Appendix C includes a detailed breakdown of the Consultants upset fee).

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 12 of 18

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: NIL

ATTACHMENTS Appendix A – TES Departmental Infrastructure Assets Appendix B – Detailed Summary of the Scope of Work Appendix C – Breakdown of Consultant’s Upset Fee

PREPARED BY: Robert Gallivan, Manager, Transportation Program Development Richard Pinder, Senior Project Engineer, Asset Management


APPENDIX A Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 13 of 18

Detailed Listing of TES Department Infrastructure Assets

Transportation and Environmental Services Department

Asset Management Implementation Project In the Region infrastructure assets are considered stationary systems (or networks) that serve the community where the system as a whole is intended to be maintained indefinitely to a specified level of service by the continuing replacement and refurbishment of its components. The infrastructure assets in the TES Department consist of the following (excluding land and fleet):

Water Services ($1.9 billion) • 116 wells • 17 water treatment plants • 36 storage facilities • 38 pumping stations

• 13 waste water treatment plants • 6 sewage pumping stations • 2 biosolids storage lagoons • 1 biosolids transfer facility

• 218 km of Regional water mains

• 73 km of co-owned water mains

Waste Management ($0.1billion) • 2 waste management facilities • Recycling centre • Maintenance buildings • 2 landfill gas collection system • Retention ponds • WRESTRC

Transportation ($2.1billion)

Roads ($2.05 billion) • Approximately 700 kilometres of road • 169 bridges • 478 signalized intersections • 7,543 street lights • Approximately 15 kilometres of noise walls

• 11 maintenance operations buildings

Airport ($0.05 billion) • Approximately 360,000 square meters of asphalt which consists of 2 runways, 5 taxiways,

5 Aircraft parking aprons and a series of groundside roads and vehicle parking lots • 49,000 metres storm sewer piping network • 500 edge lights, 40 guidance signs, 4 precision approach path indicator (PAPI) systems,

2 approach lighting systems, 8 constant current regulators including approximately 28,392 metre of underground cabling including 2 emergency generators and a computerized control system located in a dedicated field electric centre

• Approximately 2,233 metres of overhead and 442 metres of underground 3 phase hydro distribution including 13 pole mount transformers, 5 pad mount transformers, 3 load break switches and 46 hydro consumption meters

• 32 street lights and light standards including underground cabling • Approximately 2,258 meters of underground fibre optic


890087 Page 14 of 18

• Telecommunication cabling. • 5 administration and maintenance operations buildings • 32 camera CCTV security system including cabling and digital video recording system • 24,000 metre security / wildlife fencing network including 50 security gates • 2,600 metre water pipeline network including 22 gate valves, 8 curb stops and

13 fire hydrants. • 1,700 metre sanitary pipeline including 21 sanitary manholes and 1 pumpingstation.

APPENDIX B Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 15 of 18

PHASE 1: Gap Analysis and Assessment for Airport and Waste Management The scope of work includes separate gap analysis and assessments for the Airport Section and Waste Management Division, including:

Definition of business drivers;

Identification of current practices through workshops and interviews;

Conducting a gap analysis between current and best practices;

Determining and documenting enhancement roadmaps; and

Presentation to the AM Steering Committee.

PHASE 2: Implementation of AM Best Practices The scope of work includes enhancing TES asset management practices including:

Developing an Asset Management Policy;

Building Department-wide frameworks and processes;

Building and piloting asset specific processes;

Building data registries;

Making recommendations on systems for implementation in Phase 3;

Developing the supporting organization and people;

Developing the initial asset management plan for managing the Department’s assets; and

Documentation and presentation to the AM Steering Committee at key decision points. This phase comprises the bulk of the work on the Project and has been subdivided into four sections. Section 1: AM Planning and Business Process Framework

The scope of work includes both developing top down Department-wide frameworks and processes, and developing and piloting bottom up asset specific processes including documenting asset attribute information.

Developing the top down Department-wide frameworks and processes for Strategic AM Planning, Performance Measurement and Continuous Improvement, and Capital Programming includes: o Reviewing existing documents and information, developing the frameworks; o Reviewing and finalizing the framework with stakeholders by consensus; o Developing Department-wide processes at a series of four workshops; o Documenting the work; and o Reviewing and revising it throughout the Project as more detailed bottom up processes

are developed and piloted.

Developing and piloting the bottom up asset specific processes for each of the Transportation, Water Services, Airport and Waste Management service groups includes developing, piloting, reviewing and finalizing the bottom up asset specific processes for Levels of Service, Failure Mode and Risk Analysis, Renewal Planning, Maintenance Planning and Capital Programming.


890087 Page 16 of 18

Section 2: Data Registry and Standards

The scope of work includes both developing a data registry and data standards, and conducting an information and data management systems review.

The development of the data registry and data standards for each of the Transportation, Water Services, Airport and Waste Management service groups includes: o Reviewing existing documents and information; o Developing an asset data map and outlining responsibilities; o Developing asset hierarchy structures; o Developing data standards; o Assessing asset gaps and developing a data strategy; and o Developing the asset register for pilot assets.

The information and data management systems review includes:

o Assessing asset management information practices and system architecture; o Assessing asset management systems including developing a systems functional

requirements table; and o Developing an asset management systems procurement and implementation plan.

Section 3: Organization and People The scope of work includes:

Conducting an organizational roles and responsibilities review and developing a strategy;

Developing a change management and communication strategy and plan;

Developing a training and development strategy and plan; and

Developing a knowledge management strategy and plan.

Section 4: Asset Management Plan #1 The scope of work includes preparation of asset management plans for each of the service groups, plus a Department-wide summary Plan. Specific tasks include:

Requesting, gathering and reviewing existing asset information for the asset register including: o PSAB PS 3150 TCA inventories, useful lives, and valuations; o Levels of service including goals and objectives, customer feedback from surveys and

call centers, and current and future levels of service; o Growth and demand including future demand of services related to growth; o Lifecycle analysis including failure predictions, risk assessments, and asset

remaining life; and o Lifecycle management strategies including treatment types and timing to renew

the assets.

Computation of long term (100 year) funding and short term (10 year) investment needs;

Determination of a confidence level rating, documentation;

Review of the resultant AM Plans with each of the service groups; and

Review and modification of the Strategic AM Planning Framework and Processes for development of Asset Management Plans, including roles and responsibilities.


890087 Page 17 of 18

PHASE 4: Continuous Improvement Plan and AM Plan #2 The scope of work includes:

Development of a continuous improvement framework and continuous improvement plans for each of the Transportation, Water Services, Airport and Waste Management service groups; and

Preparation of the Department’s second set of asset management plans as described above.

APPENDIX C Report: E-11-006

890087 Page 18 of 18

GHD Inc. – Upset Fee Breakdown

Transportation and Environmental Services Department

Asset Management Implementation Project

Project Initiation $ 196,344.58

Phase 1 – Gap Analysis and Assessment of the Airport Section and Waste Management Division $ 102,157.65

Phase 2 - Asset Management Implementation - Project Management $ 71,462.39

Phase 2 - Section 1 - Asset Management Planning and Business Process Framework $ 1,350,374.32

Phase 2 - Section 2 - Data Registry and Standards $ 476,507.32

Phase 2 - Section 3 - Organization and People $ 439,908.25

Phase 2 - Section 4 - Initial Asset Management Plan $ 287,790.87

Phase 3 - Not Part of this Consultant Assignment $

Phase 4 - Continuous Improvement Plan for Asset Management and 2nd Asset Management Plan $ 365,648.11

Total Consultant Upset Fee $ 3,290,193.50

DOCS #903835 Page 1 of 21

Report: E-11-024

REGION OF WATERLOO


Design and Construction

TO: Chair Jim Wideman and Members of the Planning and Works Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: T04-20, 5250, 5542 SUBJECT: FREDERICK STREET IMPROVEMENTS, LANCASTER STREET TO RIVER

ROAD, CITY OF KITCHENER – APPROVAL OF PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION: a) THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the proposed improvements on


b) Direct staff to file the Notice of Completion for this Class Environmental Assessment by means of advertisement in the local newspaper and mailings to the adjacent property owners, tenants and agencies and place the Environmental Assessment Study files on the public record for a period of 30 days.

c) THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo amend Traffic and Parking By-law 06-072, as amended, to:

Add to Schedule 24, Reserved Cycling Lanes, Anytime, on both sides of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from East Avenue to Bruce Street; Add to Schedule 20, Centre Lane: Two-Way Left-Turns, on Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from 67m East of Edna Street to 67m West of Bruce Street; Remove from Schedule 4, No Stopping, 11:30am to 12:30pm., 4:30pm to 5:30pm., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to East Avenue; Add to Schedule 4, No Stopping, 11:30am to 12:30pm., 4:30pm to 5:30pm., Monday to Friday, on the south side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to East Avenue; Add to Schedule 4, No Stopping, 11:30am to 12:30pm., 4:30pm to 5:30pm., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from Weber Street (Regional Road 8) to 22m east of Gordon Avenue; and Add to Schedule 4, No Stopping, 11:30am to 12:30pm., 4:30pm to 5:30pm., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Frederick Street (Regional Road 6) from 66m east of Gordon Avenue to East Avenue in the City of Kitchener as outlined in Report E-11-024 dated April 12, 2011.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024


SUMMARY: The Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener are planning roadway improvements on Frederick Street between Lancaster Street and River Road in the City of Kitchener. The project is being undertaken as a Schedule „B‟ project under the provincial “Municipal Class Environmental Assessment” Act. Frederick Street is an arterial Regional Road from the Highway 7/85 interchange ramps at Bruce Street and Edna Street into the Kitchener downtown core. From Bruce Street to River Road, Frederick Street is under City of Kitchener jurisdiction. (Please refer to the Key Plan in Appendix A for project limits.) Frederick Street between Lancaster Street and Bruce Street is in need of resurfacing/reconstruction to replace the deteriorated pavement surface. As part of this project, a change to the existing 4 lane configuration is being recommended on Frederick Street between East Avenue and River Road. Since traffic volumes are relatively low on this section of Frederick Street and since the traffic projections for the future show minimal growth adding to the traffic demand, it is recommended to reduce the number of lanes between East Avenue and River Road from the current four lanes to three lanes of traffic (two through lanes with left turn lanes at intersecting roadways and a two-way left turn lane from Edna Street to River Road). The addition of cycling lanes is also recommended as the existing roadway platform width supports the ability to provide cycling lanes if converted from 4 to 3 traffic lanes. A Public Consultation Centre (PCC) was held on September 22nd, 2010 to present the afore-mentioned Project Team‟s recommended improvements on Frederick Street. Comments received at the Public Consultation Centre included: general support for the Project Team‟s recommended alternative, support for maintaining the existing westbound right turn lane at Gordon Avenue (which acts as a drop-off area for senior citizens), support for the removal of the eastbound right turn lane at Lancaster Street, questioning the effectiveness and use of pedestrian refuge islands, concern about the ending of the cycling lane at East Avenue and the need for signage to warn cyclists accordingly, reduced snow storage in the reduced boulevard area near the East Avenue intersection, and both support and concern for the lane reduction from 4 lanes to 3 lanes. The Project Team responses to these comments are included in the body of this report. Based on the public comments received and the technical considerations for this project, the Project Team is recommending that the previously described plans as presented at the September 22, 2010 PCC be approved by Regional Council for construction in 2012 at an estimated cost of $2.8 million. In addition, the following resolution was passed at the November 15, 2010 City of Kitchener Council meeting: "That the Region of Waterloo's execution of a Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment on behalf of the City of Kitchener for a road diet on Frederick St between Bruce Street and River Road be endorsed." A road diet is a term that describes removing travel lanes from a roadway and utilizing the space for other uses and travel modes. Potential benefits include reduced vehicle speeds; improved mobility and access for pedestrians and cyclists; reduced collisions and injuries; and improved livability and quality of life.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024


REPORT: 1.0 Background The Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener are planning roadway improvements on Frederick Street (Regional Road #6) between Lancaster Street and River Road in the City of Kitchener. The project is being undertaken as a Schedule „B‟ project under the Class Environmental Assessment process. Frederick Street is an arterial Regional Road from the Highway 7/85 interchange ramps at Bruce Street and Edna Street into the Kitchener downtown core. The section of Frederick Street between Lancaster Street and Bruce Street is scheduled for roadway improvements in 2012. From Bruce Street to River Road, Frederick Street is under City of Kitchener jurisdiction. The City of Kitchener does not require any improvement works on its section of Frederick Street in 2012. (Please refer to the Key Plan in Appendix “A” for project limits.) Frederick Street between Lancaster Street and East Avenue is a two lane roadway. The section of Frederick Street between East Avenue and River Road is a four lane roadway. Frederick Street, between Lancaster Street and Edna Street requires improvements to replace the existing deteriorated asphalt pavement, concrete curb repairs and localized sidewalk repairs. The section of Frederick Street between Edna Street and Bruce Street requires full roadway reconstruction, replacement of the concrete curbs and gutters and sidewalks on both sides of the road and replacement/repair of some key sections of underground infrastructure (sanitary sewers and storm sewers). At this time the City of Kitchener does not have roadway improvements scheduled on its section of Frederick Street between Bruce Street and River Road. Staff from the City of Kitchener advises that any lane re-striping on the City section of roadway would be done in conjunction with any future City roadway improvements. A Project Team was established to direct this project and includes staff from the Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener as well as former City of Kitchener Councillor John Smola. 2.0 Project Issues

2.1 Traffic Volumes, Collisions and Operational Issues Traffic counts conducted by the Region of Waterloo in 2008 /2009 at the Frederick Street at East Avenue and Frederick Street at River Road intersections reveal that the existing 2010 two- way traffic (in both directions - eastbound and westbound) are approx 1260 vehicles in the PM peak hour east of East Avenue to Bruce Street and 900 vehicles in the PM peak hour west of River Road to Bruce Street. The section of Frederick Street from East Avenue to River Road, with four lanes, has a capacity that is far greater (approx 2600 vehicles/hour) than needed for the existing and future traffic flow. The Project Team reviewed a change to the existing 4 lane configuration on Frederick Street between East Avenue and River Road since traffic volumes are relatively low on this section of Frederick Street and since the traffic projections for the future show minimal growth adding to the traffic demand. The intersections of Frederick Street at Edna Street and Frederick Street at Bruce Street currently experience higher than usual rear-end type collisions. The provision of dedicated opposing left turn lanes at these two intersections will help to reduce this collision problem.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024


2.2 Cycling, Pedestrian and Transit Needs In 2004, Regional Council approved the Regional Cycling Master Plan. Frederick Street was not identified as a core or long term on-road cycling facility in this plan. However, provision of an on-road cycling facility on Frederick Street between East Avenue and River Road would provide a convenient link to the City of Kitchener‟s proposed future cycling networks on East Avenue and on River Road. Frederick Street is recognized as providing a key connection to the downtown core of Kitchener. The Project Team considered options to address both pedestrian and cyclists needs. The addition of cycling lanes between East Avenue and River Road was also reviewed as the existing roadway platform width supports the ability to provide cycling lanes if converted from 4 to 3 traffic lanes. There is also a need to provide for improved pedestrian crossings on Frederick Street to enhance the pedestrian environment. Also, GRT staff has identified a need for upgraded bus stops and added bus shelters along the corridor where possible. 3.0 Alternative Design Concepts Based on the project issues and needs, the Project Team developed two Alternative Design Concepts to address the identified project needs. Both design alternatives include the complete reconstruction of the Frederick Street road platform between Edna Street and Bruce Street and removing and replacing the entire asphalt pavement between Lancaster Street and Edna Street. Alternative Design Concept “A” – comprises no change to existing lane configuration within the entire project limits. Alternative Design Concept “B” – includes two through vehicle lanes with a two-way left turn lane between Edna Street and River Road. To address the high number of left turn collisions, the Project Team proposed exclusive opposing left turn lanes on Frederick Street at the Edna Street and Bruce Street intersections. These left turn lanes would reduce higher than usual left turn collisions at these two signalized intersections. Concept “B” also includes a westbound right turn lane at Edna Street. Region traffic analysis indicates the Concept “B” lane reconfiguration will provide acceptable levels of service for all movements at the Frederick Street at Edna Street and Frederick Street at Bruce Street intersections as well as for the mid-block areas. Concept “B” also includes cycling lanes between East Avenue and River Road. The only proposed changes to the existing lane configuration between Lancaster Street and East Avenue is the removal of the eastbound right turn lane at Lancaster Street and the removal of the westbound right turn lane at Gordon Avenue. 4.0 Preferred Alternative Design Concept Both Alternative Design Concepts were evaluated with respect to the traffic capacity, operations and safety in comparison to their potential environmental impacts on the natural environment, and the social environment and costs. Based on this evaluation, the Project Team has identified Alternative Design Concept “B” - Two through vehicle lanes with a two-way left turn lane between Edna Street and River Road, exclusive opposing left turn lanes at Edna Street and Bruce Street intersections, cycling lanes between East Avenue and River Road and no change to the existing lane configuration between Lancaster Street and East Avenue as the Preferred Design Alternative. Please see Appendix “B” for the typical cross-sections proposed under the Preferred Design Concept.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024


Public Consultation Centre Issues and Project Team Response 5.1 Public Consultation Centre (PCC) – September 22, 2010 A Public Consultation Centre (PCC) for this project was held at the Regional Headquarters Building, 150 Frederick Street in the City of Kitchener on Wednesday September 22nd, 2010. A plan showing the Project Team‟s Preferred Design Alternative Concept was on display and Project Team representatives were present to answer questions and receive feedback. 5.2 Issues Raised by the Public at the PCC Approximately twenty six (26) members of the public attended the PCC and twenty one (21) comment sheets/emails were received. Please refer to Appendix „C‟ for a summary of the written comments received from the public. Eleven (11) responses supported the Project Team‟s Alternative Design Concept “B” - Two through vehicle lanes with a two-way left turn lane between Edna Street and River Road, exclusive opposing left turn lanes at Edna Street and Bruce Street intersections, cycling lanes (reduction in the number of driving lanes from four lanes to two) between East Avenue and River Road and no change to the existing lane configuration between Lancaster Street and East Avenue. Six (6) responses supported Alternative Design Concept “A” - No change to existing lane configuration within the entire project limits. The main issues and concerns raised by the public and the Project Team responses are as follows: a) Concern with Removing the Existing Westbound Right Turn Lane at Gordon Avenue Public Comments Four residents commented that they would like to retain the existing westbound right turn lane on Frederick Street at Gordon Avenue. They indicated that this right turn lane provides for a drop-off for residents that dwell at the existing apartment building at the corner of Frederick Street at Gordon Avenue (250 Frederick Street) and that it also is used for GRT buses, taxis and Mobility Plus drop offs and pick ups. One resident noted their support for the removal of this right turn lane. Project Team Response: Regional engineering staff reviewed this request and, in consultation with City of Kitchener engineering staff, reviewed this existing right turn lane requirement. It was discovered that the existing westbound right turn lane on Frederick Street at Gordon Avenue had at one time provided an alternative access to Lancaster Street prior to the closing of Gordon Avenue at Lancaster Street. As a result of the closing of Gordon Avenue at Lancaster Street the Project Team determined that the existing right turn lane is now redundant. To address the concerns raised, Regional engineering staff studied this situation and has prepared a design that would remove the right turn lane on Frederick Street at Gordon Avenue but would provide at this location a taxi and Mobility Plus drop-off bay in addition to providing an area for the installation of a new bus shelter.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024


b) Concern with Ending Bike Lanes at East Avenue Public Comments Three residents expressed concern that the proposed westbound bike lane will end at East Avenue and not continue for cyclists travelling into the downtown area. Project Team Response: Although this section of Frederick Street is not designated as an on-road cycling route the Project Team has proposed adding cycling lanes on Frederick Street between East Avenue and River Road to provide a connection to the City of Kitchener‟s future cycling network on both East Avenue and River Road. The existing Frederick Street asphalt width between East Avenue and River Road provides the necessary space to convert from four through lanes to two vehicle lanes with a two-way left turn lane and cycling lanes with only a minor road widening required in the East Avenue vicinity. Because Frederick Street is not a designated on road cycling route, the Project Team is not proposing adding cycling lanes between East Avenue and Lancaster Street as the required road widening would have a major impact on existing properties and trees. c) Concern with Reducing Frederick Street from Four Lanes to Three Lanes Public Comments Three residents expressed concern about the proposed reduction from four lanes to three lanes between East Avenue and River Road. They are of the opinion that the existing lane configuration is not problematic and that four lanes are necessary to handle traffic volumes. Project Team Response: Regional engineering staff undertook a detailed traffic capacity analysis of the Frederick Street corridor. The results indicated that the proposed lane reconfiguration between East Avenue and River Road (two vehicle lanes with a two-way left turn lane and cycling lanes) would adequately handle the existing and proposed traffic volumes on this section of Frederick Street. In addition, intersection improvements proposed at Edna Street, which involves the addition of a separate westbound right turn lane is expected to improve overall traffic operations and reduce delays.

5.0 Recommendation Based on a technical assessment of the two Alternative Design Concepts and a thorough review of all public input received, the Project Team recommends Alternative Design Concept “B” - Two through vehicle lanes with a two-way left turn lane between Edna Street and River Road, exclusive opposing left turn lanes at Edna Street and Bruce Street intersections and a separate westbound right turn lane at Edna Street and cycling lanes between East Avenue and River Road. Between Lancaster Street and East Avenue the Recommended Design Alternative also includes leaving Frederick Street as a two lane road and involves entirely removing and replacing the asphalt pavement on this section of Frederick Street. Furthermore, staff is recommending the removal of the eastbound right turn lane at Lancaster Street as well as the westbound right turn lane at Gordon Avenue. It also includes the addition of two pedestrian refuge islands to assist pedestrians to cross Frederick Street. The locations for the pedestrian refuge islands are just east of Dunham Street and also between Filbert Street and East Avenue.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024


The Recommended Design will also implement upgraded bus stops and added bus shelters along the corridor where possible. Please see Appendix “B” for typical cross-sections under the Recommended Design. 6.0 Project Cost

The estimated preliminary cost of the project is broken down as follows: Region of Waterloo (Road and storm sewer improvements) $2,700,000 City of Kitchener (Sidewalk repairs, sanitary sewer repairs, share of storm sewer repairs) $100,000 Total Estimated Project Cost $2,800,000 7.0 Next Steps All members of the public who have expressed an interest in this project have been notified directly of the opportunity to comment before a final decision is made for this project. Subject to Regional Council approval of the Recommended Design Alternative, the Notice of Completion for this Class Environmental Assessment will be advertised in the local newspaper and mailed to the adjacent property owners, tenants and agencies. The Environmental Assessment Study files will be available for review for a period of 30 days. If someone feels that the study did not fully address all of the issues, they can request that the Minister of Environment order the Project to a more detailed environmental assessment, referred to as a Part II Order request. The Minister of Environment must receive such requests in writing, with a copy sent to the Region‟s Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services. The Minister will determine if a more detailed environmental assessment is required and the Minister‟s decision will be final. If there are no significant unresolved objections following the 30 day review period, the project will proceed to detailed design and construction. 8.0 Project Schedule

Subject to project approval at the April 20, 2011 Regional Council meeting, the recommended road improvements from Lancaster Street to Bruce Street would occur in 2 stages during 2012. Stage 1 – Edna Street to Bruce Street (approximately April to June, 2012)

Stage 2 – Lancaster Street to Edna Street (approximately June to August, 2012) Final surface asphalt in the fully reconstructed section (between Edna Street and Bruce Street) would be placed in 2013. Lane re-striping on the City of Kitchener‟s section of Frederick Street between Bruce Street to River Road would be done in conjunction with future City of Kitchener roadway improvements on this section of Frederick Street. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN:

This project is consistent with the development of Strategic Focus Area 2 (Growth Management) in terms of:

Enhancing, developing, promoting and integrating sustainable and active forms of transportation (cycling, and walking).

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024


It is also consistent with the development of Strategic Focus Area 5 (Infrastructure) in terms of:

Optimizing the use of existing infrastructure and ensure it is adequately maintained. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Region‟s 2011 Ten-year Transportation Capital Forecast includes funding of $3,007,000 in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 for the Frederick Street Improvements, all to be funded from the Roads Rehabilitation Reserve Fund. The City of Kitchener portion of the work is estimated to be $100,000 and the City of Kitchener has asked the Region to proceed with the work on their behalf and have allotted funding for their portion of the project costs in 2012.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE:

NIL ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A Key Plan Appendix B Typical Cross-Sections Appendix C Written Comments received from September 22nd, 2010 Public Consultation

Centre

PREPARED BY: Michael Halloran, Project Manager, Design & Construction Division


April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024


APPENDIX A Key Plan

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 10 of 21

APPENDIX B

Typical Cross-Sections

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 11 of 21

Appendix C

PCC Comments

Name Preferred Design

Comment Project Team Response

Norman Schwegel B Seems OK

Douglas Bentley B I definitely endorse changing the road to two lanes with a dedicated turn lane. I have often had problems with cars racing down Frederick and I find it dangerous as it currently stands. Also the removal of the right turn lane at Lancaster in front of Tim Horton's is far friendlier to pedestrians.

Laura Bentley B I think it's a great project that will alleviate many existing traffic concerns along Frederick St. in the study area. The left and right turn lanes at Edna St. will be especially welcome and reduce racing and some backup that currently occurs. It's also great to see the Region implementing bike lanes where they don't have to. Thanks for repairing Frederick St.!

Valerie McIntyre B Please remove parking cars from Mansion Street during reconstruction. Thanks.

Parking on all City of Kitchener side-streets will be addressed prior to construction in consultation with City of Kitchener Traffic & Parking staff.

Sara Pilkey A I live on the corner of Ephraim St. and Ann St. We have a terrible problem with cars using our 2 streets to beat the lights at Bruce and Frederick. As well the Driver Training Centre use our end of Ephraim St. to practice on - (3 pt turns and parallel parking) even though the MTO moved the test to the other end of Ephraim St. over a year ago. If you reduce the lanes on Frederick, this will only intensify our problem. The solution then is to dead end Ann and Ephraim so this can't happen.

This will be addressed in consultation with Region and City Traffic engineering staff for possible signage to discourage this activity. Police enforcement may also be requested. The Project Team believes that dedicated left turn lanes at the Bruce Street intersection (with dedicated left turn traffic signal phasing) will also deter this sort of driver behaviour.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 12 of 21



Derwyn Stilling B Hi Michael, Thank you for your time & honesty. I look forward to working with you on the Frederick Street Improvements and your contractor. Was Hydro (KW) doing any work as far as replacing old concrete poles? Would like to see right hand turn lane stay at 250 Frederick (keeps traffic moving past bus). Would like to see more plantings along Frederick St.

Kitchener Wilmot Hydro staff has advised that they do not have any needs to replace these poles. It is customary on all Region of Waterloo road improvement projects that plantings and/or street trees be considered. Region of Waterloo staff will work with City of Kitchener staff to prepare a landscaping plan for the Frederick Street corridor.

Mary Ann Wasilka A This proposal is still based on automobile traffic. I recommend just resurfacing and design when the traffic engineers are prepared to design for cycling and pedestrian traffic as well. Thanks for not widening Frederick from Lancaster to Lydia. Cycling lanes just end!! are a problem for everyone but cyclists are at the greatest risk. I attended the Public Information night at 150 Frederick St. I have concerns that a significant number of people there were strongly supportive of only one transportation mode - cars. They didn't want any kind of restrictions and were disrespectful of walkers and cyclists. This is not new and is a pattern in Kitchener. Please forward to the cycling committee. I don't know where or how Kitchener residents came to be intolerant of cyclists, public transit users and walkers, but it affects political decision makers. Less protection is provided for walking and cycling and the status quo remains perhaps because the Region of Waterloo is so dependant on cars and there aren't enough people to sustain a convenient bus system and walking and cycling are still predominantly, recreational and demographic related.

Pedestrian needs are being provided with the installation of a pedestrian refuge island just east of Dunham Street and also between Filbert Street and East Avenue. In 2004, Regional Council approved the Regional Cycling Master Plan. Frederick Street was not identified as a core or long term on-road cycling facility in this plan. However, the introduction of dedicated on-road cycling lanes on Frederick Street is being recommended as the existing roadway platform width, with a reduction from 4 to 2 through lanes, would easily support the ability to provide cycling lanes. The addition of an on-road cycling facility on Frederick Street between East Avenue and River Road will provide a convenient link to the City of Kitchener‟s proposed future cycling networks on East Avenue and on River Road. The section of Frederick Street between Lancaster Street and East Avenue will not accommodate the addition of cycling lanes because of the existing narrow traffic lanes. The addition of cycling lanes in this section would involve substantial property acquisitions and the removal of many mature trees.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 13 of 21



Cycling lanes that stop and start are dangerous for cyclist who aren't aware this is going to happen. Sign should indicate cycling lanes end "like merging on the 401" cars are warned the lane will end.

It is the Region‟s practice to sign both the beginning and ending of cycling lanes both through signage as well as pavement markings.

Harold Siefken B I agree with slowing traffic, green spaces, and bike lanes. Looks like a good plan to me! There are not a lot of opportunities to cross Frederick St. People going for walks in the neighbourhood for instance.

The Project Team recognized the need to provide for pedestrian crossings on Frederick Street. Therefore the Project Team has recommended the addition of two pedestrian refuge islands to assist pedestrians to cross Frederick Street. The proposed location for the pedestrian refuge islands are just east of Dunham Street and also between Filbert Street and East Avenue.

Denis Pellerin Not Noted Bus shelters are needed and need seats for the elderly. Crosswalks where heavier traffic is present and larger pedestrian use. If there are concerns over graffiti engage the youth allowing them to paint approved art.

It is customary on all Region of Waterloo roadway improvement projects to undertake a review of the existing Grand River Transit (GRT) bus stops and shelter needs. Region of Waterloo Design & Construction staff and GRT staff have met and have decided to recommend the addition of a bus shelter with seats at two existing bus stops where property availability permits.

Con Papenhuyzen B Looks OK I understand that existing tree in front of my house will be removed and replaced on my property by another tree at a location of my choosing.

It is customary on all Region of Waterloo road improvement projects that any boulevard trees removed to accommodate roadway improvements would be replaced on a two for one replacement basis. Replacement trees would be provided for any trees that would be removed on this Frederick Street project.

Dave & Leanne Lobe

B We love the plans to reduce Frederick St. to one lane and add the medians and pedestrian islands. We think it will help to make our street safer for our children walking to school and crossing the street. We can't wait a welcome and fabulous improvement!

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 14 of 21



Ron Heimpel B After viewing the plan for the above project on Sept 22 at Region offices it would seem that most of the changes will be positive. We would suggest consideration of the following. The elimination of the right turn lanes at Gordon west bound and at Lancaster eastbound be re-evaluated. Their use for vehicle traffic turns is agreeably pretty redundant. They do however as a bus stop area provide a very valuable break to allow traffic to flow past the bus instead of bunching up behind it. These areas also provide a place out of traffic flow for the busses to idle in order to maintain scheduling. Consideration might also be given to moving the Frederick street bus stop westbound at Edna street across the street at the Weber park corner. This would allow traffic to flow making right hand turns onto Edna even if the light is red. At present many times this flow is stalled while the bus picks up passengers or waits for the green light to proceed. Your eventual response to these items once they are evaluated would be appreciated.

Regional engineering staff reviewed this request and, in consultation with City of Kitchener engineering staff, reviewed this existing lane configuration. It was discovered that the existing westbound right turn lane on Frederick Street at Gordon Avenue provided an alternative access to Lancaster Street prior to the closing of Gordon Street at Lancaster Street. The Project Team determined that the existing right turn lane was therefore redundant. Regional engineering staff studied this situation and has prepared a design that would provide a drop-off bay and still provide an area for the installation of a new bus shelter. This design satisfies both needs. City of Kitchener staff also supports this design alteration. Bus stops are strategically placed throughout the Region by Grand River transit Planning Staff. The bus stop located at Edna Street travelling westbound on Frederick Street provides pick up of passengers on route 15 prior to heading northbound on Edna Street and cannot be moved to the Weber Park corner.

Lindaree Matthews A Comments on the Frederick Street Improvements: Having lived on Frederick Street for over 15 years, I do not see a need to change things. Comments: Pedestrian islands might make it safer for people to cross. Will they work? Do people use them? Bike lanes with “dead ends”? The core of the city needs to have safe ways to navigate the city on bikes. Why not start implementing

The Project Team believes that pedestrian refuge islands are a safe and effective measure to assist pedestrians to cross the road. Further, the City of Kitchener has recently installed a school crossing with an adult school crossing guard at the East Avenue intersection. The proposed pedestrian refuge island at East Avenue will further assist school children when crossing Frederick Street. The second proposed pedestrian refuge island in front of the A. R. Goudie Eventide Residence will assist pedestrians crossing Frederick Street to and from Weber Park.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 15 of 21



them downtown and move out to edges of the city. To me it is a lot of money to put them in only to have them end just as one really needs it. I understand the policy to have bike lanes on regional roads where possible, is a good idea in principle, but not very practical if it stops where you most need it. Snow: We presently have 2 lanes of traffic in front of our home. When it snows we often have to “relocate” the snow to the front of our property so it stays off the sidewalk. With this change, we will have 2 lanes of snow plus a bike lane to fit on half the boulevard we presently have. Where will we put the snow? And when the snow melts, we have “Lake Frederick” in front of our home as it is, so we will have even more water/ice to contend with. Trees: It is always sad to lose mature trees. A 2 for 1 deal does not feel like a good deal to me. Road Signs: We have an Auditorium sign in the middle of our boulevard, right in front of our living room window. With a bike lane, it will be even closer. Why can‟t signs in boulevards be placed at the property line between 2 properties so is does not impact the view?

The Frederick Street recommended design alternative involves a minor road widening in the vicinity of the East Avenue intersection to provide the required width between the curbs and the pedestrian refuge islands for City of Kitchener snow plowing equipment. This minor road widening will slightly reduce the existing boulevard width in the vicinity of the Frederick Street at East Avenue intersection. The City of Kitchener advises they provide boulevard snow removal in downtown areas on as as-need basis which should address this concern. It is customary on all Region of Waterloo road improvement projects that any boulevard trees removed to accommodate roadway improvements would be replaced on a two for one replacement basis. Replacement trees would be provided for any trees that would be removed on this Frederick Street project. This will be addressed prior to construction in consultation with Region of Waterloo Traffic Operations staff.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 16 of 21



Ted Matthews Alternative "B" without the cycling lanes. 1. Maintaining snow removal from our side walk is very hard work under the current configuration. Snowplows turn from Dunham and we are the 1st property to get that pushed onto our place. With 2 feet less of boulevard they will be throwing the extra snow onto our sidewalk. It is very difficult as it is to maintain the driveway and sidewalks as it is. 2. I don't see the justification for cycling lanes when they will end past Filbert. People will continue to use the sidewalk as they currently do.

The Frederick Street recommended design alternative involves a minor road widening in the vicinity of the East Avenue intersection to provide the required width between the curbs and the pedestrian refuge islands for City of Kitchener snow plowing equipment. This minor road widening will slightly reduce the existing boulevard width in the vicinity of the Frederick Street at East Avenue intersection. The City of Kitchener advises they provide boulevard snow removal in downtown areas on as as-need basis which should address this concern. The Project Team decided to recommend the lane reconfiguration alternative since the lane configuration would fit within the existing asphalt width. Removing the cycling lanes would allow the narrowing of the roadway between Edna Street and River Road but the Project Team recommends maintaining the existing asphalt width should the need to revert to four lanes materialize in the future.

Peter Kaudewitz A Street Improvements in this area do not currently appear warranted. Replacing asphalt in this area is similar to the unnecessary work carried out on Victoria Street from Breslau to Frederick Street. There are streets which are far worse. The Transportation Capital Program should be adjusted accordingly, with tax dollars better allocated. Current lane configurations are not problematic, and traffic flow in this area is superior. Reducing Frederick street to two lanes will increase traffic congestion, and make returning to the current profile more difficult. No documentation of public complaint or demand was presented, nor was traffic study

The Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener have reviewed the current underground infrastructure on Frederick Street and have determined that replacement and/or upgrades are required between East Avenue and Bruce Street.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 17 of 21



info available for viewing. Surface conditions should only be updated when below grade infrastructure requires repair. Since no changes to service north of Edna Street are required, the surface conditions should not be altered. No further modifications should occur in this area until the extension of Highway 7 has been finalized.

This section of Frederick Street between Edna Street and Bruce Street requires full reconstruction because of the poor condition of the pavement structure. The timing for the extension of Highway 7 has not been determined by the MTO and the deteriorated asphalt on Frederick Street requires the Region to proceed by 2012.

Lena and Ted Matuszek

A

Mary Bartlett Not noted Hello, Just a few comments about the upcoming project. I find that there is enough traffic flow during the day, therefore I disagree with your comment "… traffic volumes are relatively low on this section of Frederick St….", the section between East Ave. and River Rd. What determines that traffic volumes are low or high in a specific area? The intersection of Bruce and Edna can experience delays before 9 am, not just in the afternoon, as indicated in the report. The roadway between East Ave and Edna St. only part of that drive is four lanes. Drivers moving westward seem to switch lanes into the right thru lane at the last minute as they approach the left turn lane onto East Ave. Maybe the construction of the two lanes and middle left/right turn lanes would solve this problem. Or if you are going to keep the four lanes of traffic between Edna St. and Bruce St. consider a left/straight lane and a right only lane. As you cross the

This section of Frederick Street, with four lanes, has a capacity that is far greater (approx 2600 vehicles for four lanes/hour = 650 vehicle/lane) than needed for the existing and future traffic flow. The Project Team therefore recommended to change the lane configuration (reducing the number of through lanes from 4 to 2 and adding a two-way left turn lane) as the traffic flow is considered relatively low compared to the existing capacity. Reducing the number of the lanes will have minimal effect on the capacity and will have safety benefits such as reducing vehicle speeds and improved pedestrian and bike safety.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 18 of 21



intersection at Edna St. only one lane for straight thru traffic westward and two lanes eastward up to East Ave. Only problem then would be rush hour traffic eastward delaying westward traffic on East Ave. The traffic flow between Edna St. and Bruce St. I think needs to have the two lanes in either direction. Not sure if you agree, but I would assume the right turn lane at Gordon Ave. maybe beneficial for Grand River Transit to linger a few minutes longer to allow a resident (from the apartment) with a special need to board the bus, without delaying traffic. Why such a high price tag for these improvements? Can there be a chart showing the breakdown of monies? Thanks for taking time to red my email.

Regional engineering staff reviewed this request and, in consultation with City of Kitchener engineering staff, reviewed this existing lane configuration. It was discovered that the existing westbound right turn lane on Frederick Street at Gordon Avenue provided an alternative access to Lancaster Street prior to the closing of Gordon Street at Lancaster Street. The Project Team determined that the existing right turn lane was therefore redundant. Regional engineering staff studied this situation and has prepared a design that would provide a drop-off bay and still provide an area for the installation of a new bus shelter. This design satisfies both needs. City of Kitchener staff also supports this design alteration.

Harold Williams B I am in favour of Alternative "B" with the exception of the changes proposed for Gordon Ave. which should not be altered. Many people pick-up and discharge passengers at 250 Frederick (ie: buses, taxis, ambulance, fire trucks, vehicles turning left onto Samuel). Reducing Frederick to 2 lanes in this area would seriously allow the flow of traffic and cause severe back-ups.

Regional engineering staff reviewed this request and, in consultation with City of Kitchener engineering staff, reviewed this existing lane configuration. It was discovered that the existing westbound right turn lane on Frederick Street at Gordon Avenue provided an alternative access to Lancaster Street prior to the closing of Gordon Street at Lancaster Street. The Project Team determined that the existing right turn lane was therefore redundant. Regional engineering staff studied this situation and has prepared a design that would provide a drop-off bay and still provide an area for the installation of a new bus shelter. This design satisfies both needs. City of Kitchener staff also supports this design alteration.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 19 of 21



Henry Walser B But I would like to talk with someone about "B". I am concerned about the back up of cars getting onto Edna toward the expressway.

Region staff met with Mr. and Mrs. Walser to review the recommended alternative drawing shown at the PCC. After the review, Mr. and Mrs. Walser indicated they support the recommended Alternative B.

Dan Riley & Marilyn Williamson

B Good day Mr. Halloran I have, just today, had enough time to read through the information package of September 22, 2010. On the off chance that the deadline for comment has been extended, I offer that of my household. I agree with the preferred alternative. Alternative "B". Even agreeing, I can't help but wonder if a three lane solution might speed traffic along in the area between Edna and River. Traffic already moves way too fast in that area and it is not policed as it once was. Removing the right turn lane in front of Horton's is way over due and a very good idea. The extra lane (where the bus stops) in front of 250 Frederick should have been removed years ago. It is more of a hazard than most people ever see. I live on the corner of Frederick and Gordon. Cars have been thru our fence countless times believing they are entering another lane of traffic. Twice I have seen cars ride the sidewalk in front of our house, narrowly missing children on one occasion. Mostly, that wider area of the street is simply used for vehicles making illegal U turns to head back toward downtown. It is a totally useless and dangerous peace of blacktop. I work at the corner of Frederick and Lancaster (209), and

The Project Team decided to defer this existing traffic concern to Regional traffic engineering staff for review and response. Any possible remedial actions would then be taken accordingly.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 20 of 21



would like to bring to your attention one more serious accident waiting to happen. Several near miss traffic accidents per day happen when a vehicle is turning left from Frederick and going onto Ellen Street. The near miss happens when another vehicle is trying to turn right from Lancaster to Frederick at the same time. The Lancaster vehicle is watching to his right, not left, and expecting the other car to turn onto Lancaster, not Ellen. You almost have to go look at the intersection to see how it happens. They both have a chance to turn at the same time, but one is crossing the other path, unrepentantly. I would not guess as to how to solve that. A turn and don't turn, separate signal maybe? I would also like to add that the intersection is one of the best candidates for a "Red light Camera" that I have ever seen. Sooner the better. It's a school zone and people blow the light in every direction, at every opportunity. Taxis slow down and look both ways at the red light before proceeding, after one o'clock in the morning. Nice place to live! All in all I believe the Region is on the right track with plan B... Thank you.

Jessica Romero Hello Mr. Michael Halloran, C.E.T I currently live on Gordon Avenue in Kitchener, I received the notice about the Frederick Street improvements but was not able to attend the Public Consultation Centre

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-024

DOCS #903835 Page 21 of 21



on Wednesday, September 22, 2010. I would like to know what the proposed time line is for this project and the estimated finish date. I am an avid cyclist and use my bicycle to commute to and from work, to run errands and for recreation. I ride along Frederick daily and would like to know if a bicycle lane will be included in this project. I know that the city of Kitchener has a master cycling plan which included increasing the number of designated bike lanes on major roads throughout the city. It would be beneficial to me and to others who live in the Central Frederick neighbourhood if a bike lane was added. Cars are often travelling above the speed limit and it would be more safe for cyclists if there was a designated bike lane. I would also like to know if the proposed improvements will increase traffic on Frederick Street in between Lancaster and River Street. As stated above, as a cyclist the increased traffic in this area would present more hazards to cyclists, pedestrians, and increased noise and air pollution in the neighbourhood. I would like to see the speed limit drop from 50 km/h to 40 km/h, because cars are already travelling above the speed limit. I took forward to learning more about this project. Thank you in advance for your response.

Construction on Frederick Street is scheduled to occur in 2 stages during 2012. Stage 1 – Edna Street to Bruce Street (approximately April to June, 2012) Stage 2 – Lancaster Street to Edna Street (approximately June to August, 2012) In 2004, Regional Council approved the Regional Cycling Master Plan. Frederick Street was not identified as a core or long term on-road cycling facility in this plan. However, the introduction of dedicated on-road cycling lanes on Frederick Street is being recommended as the existing roadway platform width, with a reduction from 4 to 2 through lanes, would easily support the ability to provide cycling lanes. The addition of an on-road cycling facility on Frederick Street between East Avenue and River Road will provide a convenient link to the City of Kitchener‟s proposed future cycling networks on East Avenue and on River Road.

Report: E-11-028


REGION OF WATERLOO


Design and Construction


DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: T04-20, 5555

SUBJECT: TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FOR 2011 ROAD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

RECOMMENDATION:

For Information Only

SUMMARY:

NIL

REPORT:

As has been customary in recent years, staff has produced this report for information purposes to provide details on the major road construction activity in the Region of Waterloo in the current year. The attached tables provide information on projects greater than one month in duration that will be undertaken in 2011 on major arterial Regional roads or on major Area Municipal streets. The tables also include the on-going construction work on provincial highways within the Region of Waterloo that is being undertaken by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO).

Each year, Region staff meets with representatives of the three Cities to plan and coordinate the next year’s collective road construction programs. At these meetings staff:

• Confirm respective priorities and needs; • Consider combining construction contracts to reduce costs and minimize public

inconvenience; • Coordinate the proposed work to optimize the number of key major roads that are open and

available to traffic; • Organize the sequence of construction and detours to minimize public disruption; and • Coordinate public notifications

Region and City staff acknowledge that any road construction on an existing road will involve lane restrictions and a certain amount of disruption to traffic. In order to minimize the disruption while efficiently completing the required work, a number of basic traffic management principles are applied in the design of each individual construction project. All designs take into account the following traffic management principles:

• Accommodation of emergency services; • Ensuring the safety of construction staff; • Maintenance of safe passage through construction; • Minimizing disruption (motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, transit); • Maintaining accesses; • Minimizing lane restrictions; • Providing for Municipal garbage collection; and • Minimizing overall construction duration.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-028


As a result of the joint efforts of staff at the Region and the three Cities, the collective construction programs are planned and coordinated with the objective of minimizing overall public disruption while delivering the transportation needs of the broader community.

A list of the major construction activity for 2011 is contained in Appendix A. The list identifies construction contracts that affect major arterials or major Area Municipal streets and that are greater than one month in duration.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The Region’s coordination of construction programs with City staff is in harmony with Strategic Focus Area 5: “Infrastructure” of the Corporate Strategic Plan and Strategic Objective 5.1 which is to optimize the use of existing infrastructure and ensure it is adequately maintained.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: NIL


ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - 2011 Construction on Major Roads

PREPARED BY: Marcos Kroker, Head, Transportation Rehabilitation Program


Report: E-11-028


APPENDIX A-1

2011 Construction on Major Roads in the City of Kitchener

Project Managed by Limits Traffic Restrictions Timing

Major projects (more than one month duration)

Highway 8 Widening MTO Fairway Road to Sportsworld Drive Evening lane restrictions only Summer 2009 to Summer 2012

Highway 7/8 reconstruction and widening (4 to 6 lanes)

MTO 1.9 km West of Fischer-Hallman Road to Courtland Avenue

Temporary closure of ramps, lane restrictions and short duration closures of some local roads (more information to be provided by MTO later)

Spring 2011 to Fall 2013

Fairway Road Extension and Bridge over the Grand River

Region Zeller Drive to Grand River New Road (not open during construction)

Fall 2010 to Fall 2012

Fischer-Hallman Road Resurfacing and Bike Lanes

Region Queens Boulevard to Victoria Street Lane closure Spring 2011 to early Summer 2011

Courtland Avenue Reconstruction

Region Queen Street to Stirling Avenue Full closures by block, business access

Spring 2011 to Fall 2012

Roundabout – Homer Watson Boulevard at Block Line Road

Region N/A

Full closures on Block Line Road Lane closures on Homer Watson Boulevard

Summer 2011

Note: Other reconstructions managed by City staff are occurring on local City streets at various locations and MAY include full closures

Report: E-11-028


APPENDIX A-2

2011 Construction on Major Roads in the City of Kitchener



Spadina Road Reconstruction City Mill Street to Highland Road Full Closure Spring 2011

Kent Avenue Reconstruction City Charles Street to Schneider Creek Full closure Spring 2011

Greenbrook Drive/Stirling Avenue Reconstruction

City Homer Watson Boulevard to Lakeside Drive

To Be Determined by the City Fall 2011

Morrison Road City Sims Estate Drive Full Closure Fall 2011

Hayward Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation

City N/A Full Closure Summer 2011

Park Street Reconstruction City Union Street to City of Waterloo Full Closures by block Spring/Summer 2011

Huron Road reconstruction (Phase One)

City Strasburg Road to Plains Road Full Closures Spring /Fall 2011

Note: Other reconstructions managed by City staff are occurring on local City streets at various locations and may include full closures

Report: E-11-028


APPENDIX A-3

2011 Construction on Major Roads in the City of Waterloo




Laurel Trunk Sewer City

Crossing at University Ave at Laurel Creek Culvert (west), Marshall to Waterloo Waste Water Treatment Plant

Lane Closures Tentative start Spring/Summer 2011

Uptown Allen, Esson & Severn Street Reconstruction

City Esson from Allen to Union Blvd, Allen from Belmont to Park St., Severn from John to Union Blvd.

Full Closures Spring/Summer 2011

Park Street Reconstruction Kit/Wat Kitchener City limit to Allen St. Full Closure Spring/Summer 2011

Davenport, Phase 2 City Lexington to Anndale Crt, and Old Abbey to Northfield

Lane closures Spring 2011

University Avenue East - Final Asphalt

City Bridge Street to Lexington Road Lane Closures Summer 2011

Millenium Boulevard Extension City New Road -Adjacent to Rim Park New Road (not open during construction)

Spring to Fall 2011

Sundew Drive City New Road - West side of Columbia Street

New Road (not open during construction)

Spring to Fall 2011

Report: E-11-028


APPENDIX A-4

2011 Construction on Major Roads in the City of Cambridge



Hespeler Road Grade Separation Region Dundas Street to Avenue Road

Short-term lane restrictions off-peak and during transitions


Fairway Road Extension and Bridge over the Grand River

Region Grand River to Fountain Street New Road (not open during construction)


Dundas Street Reconstruction including City Sanitary and Watermain

Region Branchton Road to Franklin Boulevard

Northbound closed; one southbound lane only

Spring to Fall 2011

Pinebush Road, turn lanes, bike lanes

Region Hespeler Road to Wayne Avenue Lane restrictions Summer 2011

Townline Road Reconstruction Region Avenue Road to Can-Amera Parkway

Full closure of partial sections in stages


Fifth Avenue City Tait Street to Glenmorris Street Road closure May - October

Tait Sreet City First Avenue to Third Avenue and Fifth Avenue to Gordon Street

Road closure May - October

Park Avenue City Parkhill Road to James Street Road closure May - October

James Street City George Street North to Blair Road Road closure May - October

Oak Street City Rich Avenue to McNaughton Street Road closure April - August

Ball Avenue City Oak Street to Lincoln Avenue Road closure April - August

Concession Street City Water Street to Chisholm Street Lane closure April - July

Report: E-11-028


APPENDIX A-5

2011 Construction on Major Roads in the City of Cambridge



Hamilton Street City Beck Street to Montrose Street Road closure May – September

Queenston Road City Brower Street to Dead end Road closure May – September

Main Street City Water Street to Ainslie Street Lane closure May – Aug

Boxwood Subdivision City Maple Grove Road, Boxwood Drive, Royal Oak Road, Speedsville Road.

Lane closures expected on Boxwood Drive, Royal Oak Road and Speedsville Road.

May – Nov


Report: E-11-028


APPENDIX A-6

2011 Construction on Major Roads - Townships



Scheifele Bridge Rehabilitation Region Northfield Drive at Conestoga River Short term lane restrictions with temporary signals

Spring to Fall 2011

Bridge Rehabilitation Region Northfield Drive at Canagagigue Creek

Short term lane restrictions with temporary signals

Summer to Fall 2011

Bridge Rehabilitation Region Katherine Street at Trans Canada Trail

Short term lane restrictions with temporary signals

Spring to Summer 2011

Watermain Installation – Erb’s Road

Region St. Agatha to 300 m East of Wilmot Line

Full closure in Village of St. Agatha & lane restrictions with flagpersons on remainder

Spring 2011

Note: Other reconstructions managed by Township staff are occurring on local streets at various locations and may include full closures

Regional Municipality of Waterloo

UNIVERSITY AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS LINCOLN ROAD TO WEBER STREET

CITY OF WATERLOO

INFORMATION PACKAGE

Public Consultation Centre Tuesday April 19, 2011 5:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

at

Lincoln Heights Public School 270 Quickfall Drive, Waterloo

There is a Comment Sheet at the back of this package. If you wish, please fill it

out and deposit it in the designated box provided at this Consultation Centre.

DOCS # 944817 Page 1 of 13

1. What is the Purpose of this Public Consultation Centre?

The Region of Waterloo is currently considering improvements to University Avenue from Lincoln Road to Weber Street in the City of Waterloo. Please refer to Appendix ‘A’ for a Key Plan. Within the Study Area, University Avenue and Weber Street are arterial roadways under the jurisdiction of the Region of Waterloo. Marsland Drive, Carter Avenue, Mayfield Avenue, Glenridge Drive and Lincoln Road are local roadways under the jurisdiction of the City of Waterloo.

This project has been initiated to address the poor pavement condition on the section of University Avenue from Lincoln Road to Weber Street.

Improvements currently under consideration include:

Reconstruction of University Avenue from Lincoln Road to Weber Street;

Modifications to some intersections within the project limits to improve traffic operations; and

Construction of on-road cycling facilities and enhanced pedestrian facilities within the project limits.

We encourage you to provide comments on the improvements under consideration by filling out the Comment Sheet attached to the back of this Information Package and either placing it in the box at this Public Consultation Centre or sending it to the address indicated on the Comment Sheet. Your comments will be considered by the Project Team, in conjunction with all of the other relevant information, in establishing a recommended design for improvements to University Avenue.

2. Who is Directing the Planning of These Improvements?

The planning of these infrastructure improvements is being undertaken by a “Project Team” consisting of staff from the Region of Waterloo, the City of Waterloo and City of Waterloo Ward 5 Councillor, Mark Whaley. The engineering consulting firm IBI Group has been retained by the Region to undertake the engineering design for these improvements.

3. How Does this Project Relate to the Objectives of the Regional Official Plan, the

Regional Transportation Master Plan and the Regional Transportation Corridor Design Guidelines?

The Project Team is planning these improvements to address both the deteriorated roadway condition as well as to include enhancements to the roadway corridor consistent with Regional Bylaws, policies plans and practices. The Regional Official Plan gives the direction to balance new and retrofitted roads for all modes of transportation including walking, cycling, autos and transit. This project supports the Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP) goals of optimizing our transportation system, promoting transportation choice and supporting sustainable development. This project will support the cycling environment by providing for reserved on-road cycling lanes on each side of University Avenue within the project limits. Additionally, this project includes measures to improve transportation operations along this section of University Avenue, as well as enhanced boulevard landscaping to improve the walking environment. Improving the walking environment is a key objective of the RTMP and will support its Transit Modal Share targets. In addition, Regional Council also approved the Regional Transportation Corridor Design Guidelines in 2010 that supports the integration of active and sustainable transportation on all Regional Roads.

Information Package University Avenue Improvements Region of Waterloo

DOCS # 944817 Page 2 of 13

4. What Improvements are being Considered?

Based on technical studies and investigations completed, as well as the objectives of the Regional Official Plan, Transportation Master Plan and Transportation Corridor Design Guidelines described in Section 3 of the Information Package, the Project Team has identified the following Preferred Design for the proposed improvements on University Avenue:

Complete replacement of the pavement structure on University Avenue from Lincoln Road to Weber Street;

Construction of new designated left-turn lanes on University Avenue at Carter Avenue and Mayfield Avenue;

Replacement of the existing storm sewer system on University Avenue from Lincoln Road to Weber Street;

Increased storage capacity for all existing left-turn storage lanes within the project limits on University Avenue;

Improved signal timing at all intersections within the project limits currently controlled by traffic control signals;

Construction of 1.25 metre reserved on-road cycling lanes on each side of University Avenue from Lincoln Road to Weber Street;

Construction of a pedestrian refuge island on University Avenue at Carter Avenue in order to facilitate pedestrian crossings for the Hillside Park Trail;

Enhanced boulevard landscaping where feasible; and

Street lighting upgrades at all signalized intersections within the project limits.

Please refer to Appendix ‘B’ for drawings of the Project Team‟s Preferred Design for University Avenue.

5. What are the Impacts to the Natural Environment?

There are 94 existing trees located within the University Avenue road allowance from Lincoln Road to Weber Street. Laurel Creek, which crosses University Avenue just west of Carter Avenue, is a permanent warm water system that is located within a well-vegetated corridor.

It is expected that approximately four (4) trees will have to be removed during construction to accommodate the proposed improvements. The plans presented at this Consultation Centre show trees that likely will require removal. It is the Region‟s practice to plant two replacement trees for each tree removed as a result of any road projects.

The proposed improvements to University Avenue do not require any modifications to the existing Laurel Creek culvert on University Avenue or any need to undertake construction within the watercourse limits. The construction will include measures to protect the Creek through the use of erosion and sediment control measures.

6. Were Roundabouts Considered for this Project?

The implementation of modern roundabouts was considered by the Project Team to replace


DOCS # 944817 Page 3 of 13

the existing traffic control signals on University Avenue at its intersections with Lincoln Road, Glenridge Drive and Marsland Drive. The completed evaluations found that taking into account the estimated capital and operating costs of traffic control signals and roundabouts, collision histories at these intersections and property constraints, roundabouts are not recommended over traffic control signals at these intersections.

7. When will Construction Occur?

Construction on University Avenue is tentatively scheduled to occur in 2013. The Region‟s Transportation Capital Program is reviewed annually and the timing of projects may change depending on several factors. This proposed 2013 timing is also subject to property acquisition, utility relocations and technical approvals required to implement the improvements.

8. How Will Vehicular Traffic, Pedestrian Access and Grand River Transit Service be Maintained During Construction?

It is tentatively proposed that construction be completed in two (2) separate stages in order to minimize disruption to traffic. These two (2) stages of construction are described as follows: Stage 1 – University Avenue from Lincoln Road to Glenridge Drive; and Stage 2 – University Avenue from Glenridge Drive to Weber Street. Through traffic will be maintained on University Avenue at all times during construction and no detours for University Avenue are planned. It may be necessary to detour traffic on local intersecting side streets for short periods of time during construction. Traffic will be restricted to one lane in each direction during each stage of construction. Existing left turn lanes will be maintained on University Avenue at Lincoln Road, Glenridge Drive, Marsland Drive and Weber Street during construction. As is customary when Regional Roads are under construction, motorists will be advised of the construction timing and traffic restrictions through advance signage, the Region‟s web site, and radio and newspaper notices. The Fire Department, Waterloo Regional Police and Ambulance Services will all be advised of all traffic restrictions during the construction period. Grand River Transit Service will be maintained during construction through the implementation of temporary bus stop locations as required. Pedestrian access will be maintained on one side of University Avenue (as a minimum) for the duration of the construction. Signage will be erected in order to direct pedestrians through the project area.

9. How will Access be Maintained to Properties during Construction?

Access to individual properties and businesses will be maintained at all times except for short durations when work is concentrated in the immediate vicinity of each driveway. A minimum of 48 hours advance notification will be provided for driveway/access interruptions. If necessary, alternate parking arrangements will be made, such as provision for temporary parking on adjacent side streets.


DOCS # 944817 Page 4 of 13

For commercial properties within the work zone, additional signage will be provided during construction to direct customers to the business. If only one driveway exists, the Contractor will complete the work across your driveway in two stages. Special attention will also be given to ensure access is maintained for emergency vehicles during and after construction hours.

10. How will Trees, Driveways and Lawns be Affected?

It is expected that approximately four (4) trees will have to be removed during construction to accommodate the proposed improvements. The plans presented at this Consultation Centre show trees that likely will require removal. It is the Region‟s practice to plant two replacement trees for each tree removed as a result of any road projects. Any grassed areas disturbed during construction will be repaired to equal or better condition with topsoil and sod. In addition to replacing any removed trees on a 2-for-1 basis, new boulevard landscaping, including salt resistant trees and shrubs, will be included as part of the project where feasible. Driveways will be regraded as necessary in order to blend smoothly with the newly constructed roadway.

11. Will Property Acquisition be Required for this Project?

Implementation of the Project Team‟s Preferred Design requires a widening of the paved roadway of approximately 1.20 metres in order to accommodate reserved on-road cycling lanes on each side of University Avenue. Due to this minor road widening, the Region will need to acquire property from nine (9) property owners. These proposed property purchases consist of small strips of land immediately adjacent to the existing right-of-way. In areas where property is required, the property owner will be contacted directly by the Region of Waterloo‟s Land Purchasing Officer. Compensation will be provided at fair market rates based on recent similar area sales. The plans presented at this Consultation Centre show the proposed property acquisition that will likely be required. Please refer to Appendix ‘C’ for further information on the property acquisition process.

12. How will Garbage / Recyclables be Collected During Construction?

For residential properties on University Avenue, garbage and blue boxes will continue to be picked up at the end of your driveway as usual. When work is occurring in front of your property and garbage collection vehicles do not have access to your driveway on garbage collection day, our Contractor will deliver your garbage and recyclables to an adjacent side street and return the empty containers afterwards. We ask that all residents mark their containers with their address for easy identification. For properties with private garbage collection, driveway access will be maintained during each stage of construction to provide access for private garbage collection as noted in Section 9 of this Information Package.

13. What about Dust During Construction? The Region will be monitoring the amount of dust generated by construction activities on a daily basis. When necessary, the Region will ensure that the contractor uses proper dust suppression measures (i.e. the application of water and/or calcium chloride) in accordance with the Region‟s standard practice.


DOCS # 944817 Page 5 of 13

14. How will the Proposed Improvements Enhance the Pedestrian Environment on this

Project?

Currently, 1.50 metre wide sidewalks exist on both sides of University Avenue within the project limits. These existing sidewalks will require removal in some locations in order to accommodate the road reconstruction; however, any sections removed will be fully reinstated. In addition, a pedestrian refuge island will be constructed on University Avenue at Carter Avenue in order to facilitate pedestrian crossings for the Hillside Park Trail. Enhanced boulevard landscaping will also be provided where feasible to improve the pedestrian environment within the project limits.

15. What are the expected Working Hours during Construction?

In general, construction working hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, although the contractor may also work on Saturdays from time to time. There may also be occasions where the contractor is required to complete a critical work item outside of these normal working hours. Work outside normal working hours must be approved by the Region and the City of Waterloo.

16. Will the Posted Speed Limit on University Avenue be Changed?

Following construction, the Region will retain the posted speed limit of 50 km/hr on University Avenue.

17. Are any Upgrades to the Watermain or Sanitary Sewer Planned?

The City of Waterloo owns and operates the watermain and sanitary sewer on University Avenue within the project limits. The City of Waterloo has advised the Region that it has no plans to replace or upgrade their watermain or sanitary sewer on University Avenue at this time.

18. Can my Existing Water Service be Upgraded?

If property owners wish to replace their water service from the watermain to the property line with a larger diameter service they are encouraged to have this work included in this project. Undertaking these improvements in conjunction with the proposed construction typically results in cost savings to the property owner as compared to undertaking the work independently at another time in the future. Subject to a mutual agreement between the City of Waterloo and the property owner, existing water services may be upgraded from the mains under the road to the property line at the property owner‟s expense. If you wish to discuss an increase in the size of your water service to a size greater than the standard of 25mm diameter, please indicate so on your comment sheet. From this information, staff will contact you at a later date to discuss your plans and to provide a cost estimate for your desired improvements. Additionally, property owners may wish to consider replacing their water service between the property line and their building at the same time as this construction. If property owners wish to pursue this additional work, please indicate so on the comment sheet and staff will contact you later to discuss how you can make arrangements to have this work completed. The property owner will be responsible for all the costs to replace the water service on private property.


DOCS # 944817 Page 6 of 13

19. Can my Existing Sanitary Service be Upgraded?

If property owners wish to replace their sanitary service from the sewer main to the property line with a larger service they are encouraged to have this work included in this project. Undertaking these improvements in conjunction with the proposed construction typically results in cost savings to the property owner as compared to undertaking the work independently at another time in the future. Subject to a mutual agreement between the City of Waterloo and the property owner, existing sanitary services may be upgraded in size from the sanitary sewers under the road to the property line at the property owner‟s expense. If you wish to discuss an increase in the size of your sanitary service to a size greater than the standard of 100mm diameter, please indicate so on your comment sheet. From this information, staff will contact you at a later date to discuss your plans and to provide a cost estimate for your desired improvements. Additionally, property owners may wish to consider replacing their sanitary service between the property line and their building at the same time as this construction. If property owners wish to pursue this additional work, please indicate so on the comment sheet and staff will contact you later to discuss how you can make arrangements to have this work completed. The property owner will be responsible for all the costs to replace the sanitary service on private property.

20. What is the Estimated Cost of this Project and how will it be Funded?

The Region of Waterloo is funding the cost of the road improvements on this project through its approved 2011 Transportation Capital Program. The estimated total project cost for the proposed University Avenue improvements is $4,500,000.

21. What are the Next Steps?

Prior to finalizing the recommended design concept for University Avenue for Regional Council„s approval, the Project Team is asking for the public‟s input on the Preferred Design. This Public Consultation Centre is your opportunity to ask questions, provide suggestions, and make comments. Once your input is received, it will be used by the Project Team, in conjunction with all other relevant information, to finalize the recommended design for the University Avenue improvements.

22. When Will Final Decisions be Made for this Project?

The Project Team will review the public comments received from this evening‟s Consultation Centre and use them as input for recommending a final Design Concept for the University Avenue project. This Final Recommendation will be presented to Regional Planning and Works Committee and Council in June 2011 for approval. In advance of these meetings, letters will be sent to all adjacent property owners and tenants (as well as to all members of the public specifically registering at this Public Consultation Centre) so that anyone wishing to speak to Committee or Council about this project can do so before final approval.


DOCS # 944817 Page 7 of 13

23. How Can I Voice My Comments At This Stage?

In order to assist us in addressing any comments or concerns you might have regarding this project, we ask that you please fill out the attached Comment Sheet and leave it in the box provided at the registration table. Alternatively, you can mail, fax or e-mail your comments to the Region of Waterloo not later than April 29, 2011 We thank you for your involvement and should you have any questions or concerns, please contact the following:

Mr. Jim Ellerman, A.Sc.T. Project Manager, Capital Projects Regional Municipality of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street, 6th Floor Design and Construction Division Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 Phone: 519-575-4757 ext. 3757 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Don Drackley, MCIP, RPP Senior Associate IBI Group 379 Queen St. S. Kitchener, ON N2G 1W6 Phone: 519-745-9455 ext. 1302 Fax: 519-745-7647 Email: [email protected]


DOCS # 944817 Page 8 of 13

Appendix A

Key Plan


DOCS # 944817 Page 0 of 13

Appendix B-1

Typical Cross Section – Existing Conditions


DOCS # 944817 Page 0 of 13

Appendix B-2

Typical Cross Section – Preferred Design Alternative


DOCS # 944817 Page 0 of 13

Appendix C

Property Acquisition Process Information Sheet

The following information is provided as a general overview of the property acquisition process

and is not legal advice. Further, the steps, timing and processes can vary depending on the

individual circumstances of each case.

Once the Recommended Design Concept has been approved, the property acquisition process

and the efforts of Regional Real Estate staff will focus on acquiring the required lands to

implement the approved design. Regional staff cannot make fundamental amendments or

changes to the approved design concept.

Property Impact Plans

After the project has been approved and as it approaches final design, the project planners will

generate drawings and sketches indicating what lands and interests need to be acquired from

each affected property to undertake the project. These drawing are referred to as Property

Impact Plans (PIP).

Initial Owner Contact by Regional Real Estate Staff

Once the PIPs are available, Regional Real Estate staff will contact the affected property

owners by telephone and mail to introduce themselves and set-up initial meetings to discuss the

project and proposed acquisitions.

Initial Meetings

The initial meeting is attended by the project engineer and the assigned real estate staff person

to brief the owner on the project, what part of their lands are to be acquired or will be affected,

what work will be undertaken, when, with what equipment, etc and to answer any questions.

The primary purpose of the meeting is to listen to the owner and identify issues, concerns,

effects of the proposed acquisition on remaining lands and businesses that can be feasibly

mitigated and/or compensated, and how the remaining property may be restored. These

discussions may require additional meetings. The goal of staff is to work with the owner to

reach mutually agreeable solutions.

Goal – Fair and Equitable Settlement for All Parties

The goal is always to reach a fair and equitable agreement for both the property owner and the


DOCS # 944817 Page 1 of 13

Region. Such an agreement will provide compensation for the fair market value of the lands

and address the project impacts (such as repairing or replacing landscaping, fencing, paving) so

that the property owner will receive the value of the lands acquired and the restoration of their

remaining property to the condition it was prior to the Project.

The initial meetings will form the basis of an initial offer of settlement or agreement of purchase

and sale for the required lands or interests.

Steps Toward Offer of Settlement or Agreement of Purchase and Sale

The general steps towards such an offer are as follows;

1) the Region will obtain an independent appraisal of the fair market value of the lands and

interests to be acquired, and an appraisal of any effect on the value of the rest of the property resulting from the acquisition of the required lands and interests;

2) compensation will be estimated and/or works to minimize other effects will be defined and agreed to by the property owner and the Region;

3) reasonable costs of the owner will be included in any compensation settlement; 4) an offer with a purchase price and any other compensation or works in lieu of

compensation will be submitted to the property owner for consideration; and 5) an Agreement will be finalized with any additional discussion, valuations, etc as may be

required.

Depending on the amount of compensation, most agreements will require the approval of

Council. The approval is undertaken in Closed Session which is not open to the public to

ensure a level of confidentiality.

Expropriation

Due to the time constraints of these projects, it is the practice of the Region to commence the

expropriation process in parallel with the negotiation process to insure that lands and interests

are acquired in time for commencement of the Project. Typically, over 90% of all required lands

and interests are acquired through the negotiation process. Even after lands and interests have

been acquired through expropriation an agreement on compensation can be reached through

negotiation, this is usually referred to as a „settlement agreement‟.

Put simply, an expropriation is the transfer of lands or an easement to a governmental authority

for reasonable compensation, including payment of fair market value for the transferred lands,

without the consent of the property owner being required. In the case of expropriations by

municipalities such as the Region of Waterloo, the process set out in the Ontario Expropriations

Act must be followed to ensure that the rights of the property owners provided under that Act

are protected.


DOCS # 944817 Page 2 of 13

COMMENT SHEET

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO

UNIVERSITY AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS

City of Waterloo

PUBLIC CONSULTATION CENTRE

Please complete and hand in this sheet so that your views can be considered for this project. If you cannot complete your comments today, please take this home and mail, fax or e-mail your comments by April 29th, 2011 to:

Mr. Jim Ellerman, A.Sc.T. Project Manager, Capital Projects Regional Municipality of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street, 6th Floor Design and Construction Division Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 Phone: 519-575-4757 ext. 3757 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Don Drackley, MCIP, RPP Senior Associate IBI Group 379 Queen St. S. Kitchener, ON N2G 1W6 Phone: 519-745-9455 ext. 1302 Fax: 519-745-7647 Email: [email protected]

Are you interested in upgrading your water service? Yes __ No __ Are you interested in upgrading your sanitary service? Yes __ No __

Comments or concerns regarding this project:

Name: Address: Postal Code:

COLLECTION NOTICE

Personal information requested on this form is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act and will be used to assist Regional staff and the Regional Planning and Works Committee in making decisions on this project.

Report: CR-RS-11-017

Page 1 of 4

REGION OF WATERLOO

CORPORATE RESOURCES

Legal Services


DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: L07-40

SUBJECT: CLOSING AND SURPLUS DECLARATION OF PART OF NORTHFIELD DRIVE

EAST (REGIONAL ROAD 22), TOWNSHIP OF WOOLWICH

RECOMMENDATION: That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo close and declare surplus a portion of Northfield Drive East, in the Township of Woolwich described as Part Lot 32, German Company Tract, as detailed in Report No. CR-RS-11-017 dated April 12, 2011, pursuant to the Region‟s property disposition by-law, to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor.

SUMMARY:

NIL

REPORT: The Region assumed ownership of this road from the Corporation of the Township of Woolwich in 1973. The road bed in this located was shifted in the late 1950s to the west. The original road bed was left to provide access to the abutting property. The Region has been approached by the owner of 911 Northfield Drive East with a request to purchase the road bed in front of his property as a lot extension. Transportation and Environment Services staff have advised that the subject lands are not required for road purposes and will not be required in the future. The proposed disposition would eliminate the Region‟s maintenance and liability obligation for the lane access. The land area is .037 acres. The subject lands do not have „stand alone‟ development potential. When the portion of road has been closed and the requirements of the Region‟s property disposition by-law have been met the lands will be offered for sale to the abutting land owner at fair market value. There is only one possible purchaser of the property who has an interest in obtaining the lands to form a lot addition to 911 Northfield Drive East property. The subject lands are shown attached as Appendix “A”

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: One of the focus areas of the Corporate Strategic Plan is to foster a culture of citizen/customer service that is responsive to community needs.

April 12, 2011 Report: CR-RS-11-017

DOCS No. 945156v1 Page 2 of 4

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The future purchaser of the subject lands will be responsible for all associated costs of the road closing and conveyance.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Transportation and Environmental Services Department and Planning, Housing and Community Services Department have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

ATTACHMENTS

Appendix “A” – location map of lands.

PREPARED BY: Joan Moore, Property Agent

APPROVED BY: Gary Sosnoski, Commissioner, Corporate Resources



Appendix “A” Page 1 of 2



Appendix “A” Page 2 of 2

Report: E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021

957326 Page 1 of 4

REGION OF WATERLOO

TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Transportation CORPORTATE RESOURCES Legal Services

TO: Chair Jim Wideman and Members of the Planning and Works Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: T18-01 SUBJECT: REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT – LAND

DEVELOPMENT AND FEES AND CHARGES UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the revised fees and charges for land development at the Region of Waterloo International Airport with the new fees and charges to have effect on June 1, 2011 as set out in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011; AND THAT the Regional Clerk be directed to issue notice of intent to amend the Region’s Fees and Charges By-law to incorporate the fee and charge amendments described in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011 in accordance with the policy of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for providing notice; AND FURTHER THAT the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be authorized to enter into an agreement with the Corporation of the Township of Woolwich as may be required to facilitate the development lands at the Region of Waterloo International Airport as described in Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 dated April 12, 2011 with the form and content of such agreement to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor. SUMMARY: In 2010, Regional Council approved the servicing of additional lands for airport related development in the northwest corner of the Airport lands fronting Fountain Street. The work of making these lands ready for development is underway with the construction of access roads, a taxiway and the installation of utilities and services. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the progress of this development and to recommend several changes to the fees and charges applicable to new development at the Airport. REPORT: In the fall of 2010, Regional Council approved the installation of services to accommodate new aviation development at the Airport within an area of approximately 40 acres in the northwest corner of the Airport. This area is referred to as Leased Land Development Area 4 (LL4) in the Master Plan approved for the Airport in 2000 and also in the five year business plan approved for the Airport in 2009 (see report E-09-064 dated June 16, 2009). The purpose of LL4 is intended to attract commercial aviation related undertakings which will enhance opportunities for existing businesses at the Airport and within the Region and provide permanent employment opportunities at the Airport. Both the lot sizes for development and the facilities that will be constructed within the LL4 development area are anticipated to be larger than existing facilities

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021

860360 Page 2 of 4

at the Airport. The minimum size of aviation facilities to be constructed within the LL4 area is anticipated to be 20,000 square feet with lot sizes to range from between 4 acres up to 9 acres depending upon the requirements of a prospective tenant. Existing commercial facilities at the airport have typically been less than 20,000 square feet with lot sizes less than one acre. A diagram of the LL4 development area is attached to this Report and marked as Appendix A. Servicing of the LL4 lands is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2011 which includes the construction of a new taxiway, vehicular access roads and the installation of water, sewer and other utilities to accommodate new development. Regional staff has entered into an offer to lease subject to Regional Council approval with Dynasty Air Flight Services ULC, an Alberta corporation, to construct a commercial fixed base aviation facility which will be located in the southeast corner of the LL4 lands (see Report CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042 dated April 12, 2011 for additional information). Regional staff is in discussions with a proponent proposing to construct a second aviation related facility – a commercial maintenance facility – which could be located in the northwest corner of the development in or about the area marked as Lot 1 on Appendix A. Amendment to Fees and Charges By-law As a result of the nature of the commercial undertakings in the LL4 development area, several changes to the Region’s Fees and Charges by-law (By-law 10-001, as amended) are recommended, namely,

Currently, the Region’s Fees and Charges by-law provides for a Development Fee in the amount of $1.43 per square foot of leased lands for a new facility to be constructed at the Airport and an additional fee of $20,000 to enable a connection to the water and sewer infrastructure at the Airport. Given the considerably larger lot sizes that are being proposed for the LL4 development area, a fee calculated on the basis of total area of leased land would not make the leasing of the LL4 lands economically viable having regard to facilities and lands available at other airports within the Province. As a result, it is recommended that a new development fee for the LL4 area (as described in the next paragraph) be calculated on the same basis as Regional Development Charges, namely on the basis of the gross floor area of the facility to be constructed versus the area of land to be leased.

In respect of development outside of the Airport lands, the cost of providing municipal services would be partially recouped through the imposition of development charges. For the LL4 development area only, it is proposed that an airport specific development fee be implemented in the amount of $7.43 per square foot of base floor area of the proposed commercial development and collected pursuant to leases with tenants of these lands. This proposed fee is equivalent to the existing Regional development charge applicable to non-residential development (excluding wastewater service as the Airport operates a communal wastewater collection system) outside of the Airport. It is recommended that this fee be amended in like manner to any changes in the Regional Development charges as may occur from time to time for development outside of the Airport.

Prospective new tenants at the Airport have expressed interest in taking an option to lease additional lands in the future should their success of their respective undertakings demand additional facility space. As an alternative to leasing vacant lands which does not provide any incentive for timely development and to facilitate the expansion plans of new prospective tenants, it is recommended that the Region adopt an annual option fee for Airport development lands which would be calculated on the basis that half of the optioned lands would be assessed at the base fee for vacant lands with the balance of

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021

860360 Page 3 of 4

the area to be assessed at the applicable building lease rate. The Region’s fees and charges by-law has established several classes of lease rates for airport property depending upon whether the property is used for private or commercial use. As an example, an option to lease commercial land would assess half of the optioned lands at $0.04 per square foot, the base rate for vacant land, with the balance of the lands to be assessed at the building rate of $0.22 per square foot.

Agreement to Facilitate Development of LL4 Airport staff has worked with staff at the Township of Woolwich and other stakeholders in relation to the proposed development of the LL4 development area. As a requirement of entering into a lease with the Region of Waterloo, for example, new prospective tenants at the Airport will be contractually required to apply for and receive a building permit for their proposed undertaking. As well, the Region and Township propose to enter an agreement setting out the basis for collaborating with one another in respect of the LL4 development. The Township proposes to enter into an agreement that would outline the process for collaborating with the Region with respect to issues affecting airport development such as drainage, erosion control, noise abatement and site planning. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The Region of Waterloo International Airport is one of the essential infrastructure components needed to create and support a climate that encourages prosperity in the Region. The provision of adequate leasehold facilities for corporate aviation will enhance business in the Region of Waterloo. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The proposed changes to the airport fees noted in this report will essentially result in the same amount of fees collected for the LL4 lands however the changes will make it clear to prospective tenants what development fees are applicable at the airport. The amount of fees collected will depend on the amount of land leased and the size of building constructed. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Representatives from the Finance department have been involved in the preparation of this Report. ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A – Leased Land Development Area 4 PREPARED BY: John F. Hammer, Director, Transportation Jeff Schelling, Solicitor (Corporate) APPROVED BY: Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services Gary Sosnoski, Commissioner, Corporate Resources

APPENDIX A Report: E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021

957326 Page 4 of 4

Report: CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042

952326 Page 1 of 4

REGION OF WATERLOO

CORPORATE RESOURCES

Legal Services TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Transportation

TO: Chair Jim Wideman and Members of the Planning and Works Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: T18-01 SUBJECT: REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT – DECLARATION OF

SURPLUS AND LEASE WITH DYNASTY AIR FLIGHT SERVICES ULC

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo declare a leasehold interest of greater than twenty-one (21) years in approximately 4.7 acres situate in the southeast corner of Part 1 on Registered Plan WR-70802 in the Geographic Township of Woolwich, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, being lot 4 on the plan of survey attached to Report CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042 dated April 12, 2011 as Appendix A (the Lands), surplus to its needs, in accordance with the Region’s Property Disposition By-law; AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services to enter into a Lease with Dynasty Air Flight Services ULC, an Alberta Corporation, (the Lessee) as described in Report CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042 dated April 12, 2011 with the form of the lease to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor. SUMMARY: NIL REPORT: Introduction The Region of Waterloo has entered into a conditional offer to lease lands located within the LL4 development area of the airport. LL4 refers to the leased land area so-called in the Master Plan undertaken for the airport in 2001. Construction of the servicing infrastructure, taxiway and access roads to enable development on these lands is currently underway and expected to be completed later this year to accommodate new commercial development at the airport including the development described in this report. The land that is intended to be leased is in the southeast corner of the LL4 area (depicted as Lot 4 on Appendix A attached to this report and comprising approximately 4.7 acres). A Reference Plan of Survey will be been prepared for the lands once the construction intended for the Lands is completed and the dimensions and area of the Lands may change pending final development approval of the new facility proposed for the Lands. The lands will be leased to Dynasty Air Flight Services ULC, an Alberta corporation (the Lessee). The Lessee intends to construct a “fixed base operation” facility (“FBO”) that will be utilized for commercial aviation purposes and, in particular, the sales and distribution of fuel and storage and servicing of commercial business aircraft. The proposed lease will contain a number of terms and conditions relating to fuel handling and storage consistent with the Region’s source water protection mandate. The Lessee submitted an Expression of Interest to build this facility at the airport in response to a request for submittal of expressions of interest in the Lands issued by the airport. In addition to the response submitted by the Lessee, one other expression of interest was received from Airbiz Inc..

April 12, 2011 Report: CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042

936737 Page 2 of 4

Based upon a number of criteria, including availability of financing/funding to construct the facility, an offer of lease has been signed with the Lessee. The Lessee requires a lease with a term of twenty (20) years with an option to renew for an additional period of up to twenty (20) years. Pursuant to the provisions of the Region’s Property Disposition By-law, a lease of municipal property for a period of more than twenty-one years (including a renewal period) is deemed to be a disposition of property and accordingly such a leasehold interest must first be declared surplus to the needs of the Region of Waterloo. The Property Disposition By-law also requires that the disposal of surplus interest in land be advertised in the local newspaper. A ground lease with the Lessee will be executed by the Region of Waterloo after the requirements of the Region’s Property Disposition By-law have been met. It is anticipated that the lease will take effect on August 1, 2011. The building of the FBO facility will commence in the Summer of 2011 subject to final site plan and Nav Canada approval. The proposed lease rates would be in accordance with the Region’s Fees and Charges By-law which provides for a special commercial lease rate of $0.38 per square foot for land used for buildings and a rate of $0.10 for vacant and parking lands. The combined lease revenue per year will depend upon the final approved site plan and building dimension. The area of the building is anticipated to be in excess of 20,000 square feet subject to final design. These rates will increase annually by a nominal amount taking into consideration changes in the cost of living index. The lease rates are identical to rates paid by existing operators of FBO facilities at the airport. The total amount of space that will be leased is approximately 5.1 acres, subject to confirmation once the construction of the facility is completed and registration of the final reference plan for the Lands. The Lands are fully serviced and the Lessee will pay a fee of $7.43 per square foot of building area plus HST (see Report E-11-033/CR-RS-11-021 “Region of Waterloo International Airport – Land Development and Fees and Charges Update” dated April 12, 2011) or approximately $150,000 subject to the final design of the building which fees are intended to contribute to the overall cost of providing services for the LL4 area. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The Region of Waterloo International Airport is one of the essential infrastructure components needed to create and support a climate that encourages prosperity in the Region. The provision of adequate leasehold facilities for corporate aviation will enhance business in the Region of Waterloo. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In addition to the lease revenue that is received from these Lands (which is estimated to be approximately $27,000 per year subject to approval of final building design), the Lessee’s clients will pay landing fees in accordance with the Region’s Fees and Charges by-law. The airport will also receive a fuel surcharge from fuel sold by the Lessee and a maintenance fee of $0.08 per square foot of leased land area. As noted in this report, the tenant will pay a one-time development fee estimated at $150,000 plus HST. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: NIL

April 12, 2011 Report: CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042

936737 Page 3 of 4

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A – lot plan depicting the Lands to be leased within the LL4 lease area of the Airport. PREPARED BY: John Hammer, Director of Transportation Jeff Schelling, Solicitor (Corporate) APPROVED BY: Gary Sosnoski, Commissioner, Corporate Resources

Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services

APPENDIX A Report: CR-RS-11-022/E-11-042

952326 Page 4 of 4

Leased Land Area 4 – Region of Waterloo International Airport – Lands to be leased will include Lot 4

Report: E-11-016

Page 1 of 3

REGION OF WATERLOO


Transportation


DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: T01-20/58

SUBJECT: RESERVED CYCLING LANES, FISCHER-HALLMAN ROAD (REGIONAL ROAD 58)

BETWEEN VICTORIA STREET (REGIONAL ROAD 55) AND

QUEEN’S BOULEVARD, CITY OF KITCHENER

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo amend Traffic and Parking By-law 06-072, as amended, to add to Schedule 24, Reserved Bicycle Lanes Anytime on both sides of Fischer-Hallman Road (Regional Road 58), between Victoria Street (Regional Road 55) and Queen’s Boulevard in the City of Kitchener, as outlined in Report E-11-016 dated April 12, 2011.

SUMMARY: NIL

REPORT: Fischer-Hallman Road (Regional Road 58) between Victoria Street (Regional Road 55) and Queen’s Boulevard is scheduled in the 2011 Transportation Capital Program for minor widening on both sides of the road to accommodate 3.35 m through lanes and 1.25 m bike lanes. The works will also include installation of sidewalk on the east side of Fischer-Hallman Road between Highland Road and Victoria Street and resurfacing of the entire section of Fischer-Hallman Road from Victoria Street to Queen’s Boulevard. As such, Transportation Division staff is recommending reserved cycling lanes on both sides of Fischer-Hallman Road between Victoria Street and Queen’s Boulevard. This section of Fischer-Hallman Road is identified as an on-road core route for cycling in the Regional Cycling Master Plan. Currently, reserved cycling lanes are installed on Fischer-Hallman Road between Columbia Street and Victoria Street and from Queen’s Boulevard to Bleams Road. Installing reserved cycling lanes on this section of Fischer-Hallman Road will provide for continuous reserved cycling lanes from Columbia Street to Bleams Road. Fischer-Hallman Road from Victoria Street to Queen’s Boulevard currently prohibits parking anytime on the east and west side of the road. Parking therefore will not be affected following the installation of the proposed reserved cycling lanes.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-016

945105 Page 2 of 3

From February 2, 2011 to February 16, 2011, Transportation staff placed information signs along Fischer-Hallman Road requesting comments on the proposed changes from the public through the Region’s website or via telephone; an internet questionnaire was setup to receive comments and a phone number was provided. Only two responses were received which were in favour of installing reserved cycling lanes on both sides of the road. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed reserved cycling lanes.

Figure 1 – Existing and Proposed Reserved Cycling Lanes on Fischer-Hallman Road

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: This report addresses the Region’s goal to optimize the use of existing infrastructure (Strategic Objective 5.1).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This project includes funding for $2,470,000 in the 2011 Transportation Capital Program and will be funded from the Roads Rehabilitation Reserve Fund. The cost of installing the reserved cycling lanes along Fischer-Hallman Road between Victoria Street and Queen’s Boulevard is included in the budget for this project.

April 12, 2011 Report: E-11-016

945105 Page 3 of 3

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: The Council and Administrative Services Division will be required to prepare the amending by-law.

ATTACHMENTS: NIL

PREPARED BY: Ashfaq Rauf, Engineering Technologist (Traffic)


Report: E-11-043/P-11-041

947187 Page 1 of 13

REGION OF WATERLOO


Water Services

PLANNING, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Community Planning


DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: C06-60/E02-30/WWWMR.11

SUBJECT: 2011 WATER AND WASTEWATER MONITORING REPORT

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the 2011 Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report summarized in Report E-11-043/P-11-041 as the account of water supply and wastewater treatment capacity as of December 31, 2010.

SUMMARY: The 2011 Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report (2011 WWWMR) outlines the ability of the Regional water supply and wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate the current, short to medium term demands to 2021. The full report is available on the Region’s Water Services website and at the Water Services administration office. Copies of the report have been circulated to the cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo and also to the Townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich. Firm or system water supply capacities were adequate to meet actual maximum demands in all communities supplied by a Regional system in 2010. Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) capacities were sufficient at all Regional plants to treat actual average flows in 2010. Firm or system water supply and wastewater capacities in 2021 are based on the implementation of works from the Region's current capital program; the10-year and longer term (2021) forecasts for water and wastewater capacities are anticipated to be adequate to accommodate all current development commitments. Through the Water and Wastewater Master Plans, the water and wastewater capacities are planned for the next 30 years based on the “Places to Grow” forecasts for population and employment. The allocation of remaining capacity to new development is determined by Region of Waterloo staff in cooperation with the local area municipalities. Historically, the available capacity at each wastewater treatment plant was determined by using adjusted wastewater flows which were calculated by using an 85% confidence level on the 5-year average flows. This methodology accounts for seasonal variations in flow and trending planning commitments at the treatment plants. Adjusted flows continue to be used to evaluate the impact of seasonal variations at the WWTPs, especially in systems subject to elevated I/I contributions. A major change in the 2011 WWWMR is that the five year average will now be used for development planning and approvals. The remaining capacity at each plant will be determined by using the average flow, as outlined in the MOE guidelines for the calculation of uncommitted capacity. This change in methodology is brought about by a number of factors: Success of the Regions water efficiency programs which is contributing to a downward trend in water usage which provides some

April 12, 2011 E-11-043/P-11-041

947187 Page 2 of 13

stability, Increased efforts of I&I reduction which is responsible for reducing the peak wet weather flows seen at the treatment plants, and Consistency with MOE Guidelines and Master Planning methodology. Prior to the registration of a plan of subdivision has traditionally been the point at which the capacity of water and wastewater systems is committed to new subdivisions in accordance with MOE policies. However, since 2004, an increasing portion of all residential development has occurred outside of plans of subdivision. This includes development on previously existing lots of record both within the built up areas and within the greenfield areas. These units are typically townhouse or apartment units and are often registered as plans of condominium. This number is expected to increase, particularly in the City of Waterloo in the short term, as there is little remaining designated greenfield area and a large number of applications for site plans and plans of condominiums already in process. With the adoption of the “Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,” municipalities are now required to provide for a minimum of 40% of new residential units (phased in with full implementation by 2015) within the existing built-up areas. As a result, in future, the Region will develop a methodology to take into consideration reserving capacity for infill development. Under the current capacity allocation procedure, no servicing capacity is explicitly reserved for lands that are not within a residential plan of subdivision, including lands that have zoning in place that would otherwise allow development to proceed without additional planning approvals. However, intrinsic to the per capita flow are a number of contributing factors above and beyond the simple residential usage. These additional factors include; Inflow and Infiltration (I/I), Industrial Commercial and Institutional (ICI) flows, and flow from developments that are not currently explicitly tracked (site plans). It is assumed that the ratio of residential population to a) employment (equivalent population), and b) non-planning act approvals such as site plans, will remain consistent in each service area from the previous year (2010) to the current year (2011). The available capacity expressed in this report is the capacity available to service all future Planning Act approvals (subdivisions, condominiums, consents, zoning bylaw amendments and minor variances) and/or any building permits issued for development outside of residential plans of subdivision that complies with existing zoning. The current procedure for the allocation of water and wastewater capacity will be revised in future to include all greenfield development and infill development Planning Act approvals. This issue will be examined by regional and area municipal staff and is scheduled to be addressed prior to the 2012 WWWMR report.

REPORT: Water Services produces the annual Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report with input from the Region's Planning, Housing and Community Services (PHCS). The purpose of this report is to: 1. Document actual water use and wastewater flows; 2. Provide a basis for water use and wastewater flow forecasts required in preparing the capital

budgets and user rates; 3. Document water production and wastewater treatment capacities; 4. Update Regional Council with respect to remaining uncommitted capacities of water supply and

wastewater treatment infrastructure; and 5. Provide a basis for engineering staff to provide comment on the water and wastewater aspects of

development applications.

April 12, 2011 E-11-043/P-11-041

947187 Page 3 of 13

In addition, the 2011 WWWMR report will be one of the inputs used in preparing the 2012 water and wastewater capital budget, longer term water and wastewater capital forecast, and in formulating responses to development applications.

Main Changes from the 2010 WWWMR

The main changes from the 2010 WWWMR are as follows:

At a City of Cambridge Council Meeting on February 8, 2010, a council resolution was passed that wastewater allocation be formally reserved for the Boxwood Industrial Subdivision in the Preston Wastewater Service Area. Further analysis was conducted and a commitment of 1,860 m3/d will be included in the 2011 commitments for the Preston WWTP. The committed flow will be reviewed annually and adjusted according to the rate of build-out of the subdivision, respective of the council resolution.

Historically, the available capacity at each wastewater treatment plant was determined by using adjusted wastewater flows which were calculated by using an 85% confidence level on the 5-year average flows. This methodology accounts for seasonal variations in flow and trending planning commitments at the treatment plants. Adjusted flows continue to be used to evaluate the impact of seasonal variations at the WWTPs, especially in systems subject to elevated I/I contributions. A major change in the 2011 WWWMR is that the five year average will now be used for development planning and approvals. Both the average flow and the adjusted average flow are shown on the charts in Appendix B, but remaining capacity at each plant will be determined by using the average flow, as outlined in the MOE guidelines for the calculation of uncommitted capacity.

Water consumption patterns and wastewater flows are a function of yearly weather fluctuations. In 2010, the annual precipitation through the year was generally close to the average amount. However, the snow melt that typically occurs around March was less than average due to low levels of precipitation in the winter of 2009-2010.

2011 Water Supply Capacity and Commitments Firm or system water supply capacities were adequate to meet actual maximum demands in all communities supplied by a Regional system in 2010. The 10-year and longer forecasts are anticipated to adequately accommodate all current development commitments based upon the implementation of the Region’s current capital program. Table 1, attached, summarizes the remaining water capacity as of December 31, 2010. The Integrated Urban System (IUS) (Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo, Elmira and St. Jacobs water systems) has 51,996 m3/d of remaining capacity, which is equivalent to 129,800 people. The Baden/New Hamburg water system has 6,888 m3/d of remaining capacity, which is equivalent to 12,100 people. The Ayr water system has 2,764 m3/d of remaining capacity, which is equivalent to 5,800 people. The Wellesley water system has 1,905 m3/d of remaining capacity, which is equivalent to 5,800 people.

A major change in the 2011

WWWMR is that the five year

average will now be used for

development planning and

approvals.

April 12, 2011 E-11-043/P-11-041

947187 Page 4 of 13

The St. Clements water system has 1,308 m3/d of remaining capacity, which is equivalent to 3,900 people.

Small Water Supply Systems There are 12 small water supply systems owned and operated by the Region. These systems include: Conestogo (Conestoga Golf Course and Conestoga Plains), Maryhill (Maryhill and Village Heights) and West Montrose in Woolwich; Linwood and Heidelberg (reported as one system including that portion of Heidelberg in Woolwich) in Wellesley; Foxboro Green, New Dundee and St. Agatha in Wilmot; and Roseville and Branchton Meadows in North Dumfries. All numbers reported, excluding actual average and maximum day demand figures, are design numbers based on MOE water usage guidelines for small communal water supply systems. Most of these systems were designed to only service specific subdivisions in the respective settlement areas and have no additional capacity to service units beyond those subdivisions. Given the complexity of calculating available capacity for the small systems, available system capacity will be evaluated on an individual basis prior to commenting on development applications. Table 2 summarizes the data on small water systems.

2011 Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Commitments WWTP capacities were sufficient at all Regional plants to treat actual average flows in 2010. The 10-year and longer forecasts are anticipated to adequately accommodate all current development commitments based upon the implementation of the Region’s current capital program. Table 3 summarizes the remaining wastewater capacity as of December 31, 2010. Historically, the available capacity at each wastewater treatment plant was determined by using the adjusted flow per capita. The adjusted flow is an adjusted average flow, which corresponds to a flow with an 85% probability of not being exceeded. The 85% flow reflects seasonal impacts on the wastewater flows such as inflow and infiltration (I&I), largely caused by rainfall and snow thawing. A major change in the 2011 WWWMR is that the five year average will now be used for development planning and approvals, while the adjusted flow will still be used to evaluate the impact of seasonal variations at the WWTPs. This change in methodology was brought about by a number of factors:

Success of the Regions water efficiency programs which is contributing to a downward trend in residential water usage which provides some stability;

Increased efforts of I&I reduction which is responsible for reducing the peak wet weather flows seen at the treatment plants; and

Consistency with MOE guideline and Master Planning methodology. The Preston WWTP has a rated capacity of 16,820 m3/d. The treatment capacity had previously been limited to 14,520 m3/d due to the additional organic loading from the Industrial Road Service Area (IRSA). Beginning in the summer of 2009, the effluent from the IRSA has been gradually diverted from Preston WWTP to Galt WWTP, as recommended in the 2007 Wastewater Master Plan. At year end 2010, approximately 75% of the effluent was being diverted to Galt. The benefit to Preston WWTP is twofold: the reduction for the organic loading will no longer be required and the actual hydraulic loading to Preston will be reduced. The rated capacity of the Preston WWTP is no longer restricted by the organic loading, and the rated capacity is 16,820 m3/d. Due to the robust nature of the Galt WWTP there will be no reduction in rated capacity at Galt.

April 12, 2011 E-11-043/P-11-041

947187 Page 5 of 13

City of Cambridge Council approved a staff report recommending that wastewater allocation be reserved for the Boxwood Industrial Subdivision in the Preston Wastewater Service Area. Through consultation with the City and their consultant Dillon, the capacity that is to be reserved for Boxwood is 1,860 m3/d. This number will be assessed annually and adjusted according to the rate of build out of the subdivision. In 2008, the Region and the Township of Wilmot met to discuss the wastewater treatment capacity at the Baden-New Hamburg Wastewater Treatment Plant. Capacity at the time was very low due to the observed flows during wet seasons and the large number of development commitments. Since that time, the Township has been conducting I/I improvement work which is reflected in lower seasonal flows being observed at the plant. It was suggested in the meeting that once treatment capacity became available at the plant, consideration could be given to reserving some of that capacity for the Wilmot Employment Lands. With the observed benefits from the I/I work, and by using the MOE approved 5-year average flows for determining available capacity, the available capacity at the plant at year end 2010 is 525 m3/d, or 1,556 people. The Township of Wilmot may want to consider reserving capacity for the employment lands. The Region will be open to discussing this option further with Township staff. In 1998, the Township of Woolwich and the Region entered into a 10-year agreement to address I/I issues in Elmira and St. Jacobs, which ended on December 31, 2008. The Region has initiated a Wastewater Master Plan, to be completed summer 2012, to optimize wastewater treatment in these two communities. Recommendations in this master plan will be considered in future WWMRs. The Region has completed an I/I study for the Village of Wellesley, in the Township of Wellesley in early 2008. This study identified deficiencies in the collection system and makes recommendations for improvements. The Region has completed work to improve the I/I in the Wellesley collection system in 2009. Flow monitoring at the Wellesley WWTP indicates that the repairs generally resulted in a decrease in I/I related flows at the plant. By using the average flow, the corrective work completed to reduce the I/I issues is being realized and it is reflected in the available capacity at the treatment plant. Implementation of the Region's wastewater capital program is anticipated to provide adequate wastewater treatment to accommodate all planned development until 2021 and beyond. Therefore, the Region's overall water supply and wastewater treatment commitments are provided for, given the accomplishment of projects now in the Region's capital budgets and longer term capital forecasts.

Servicing Agreements Servicing commitments are made through separate servicing agreements between the Region and the developer, which are executed once a draft approved plan of subdivision or a consent is ready to proceed to registration/final approval. Developers seek an agreement for servicing just prior to registration of the plan of subdivision or final approval. The servicing agreement expires within six to 18 months of being signed, at which time the developer would be required to seek a new commitment for servicing if registration of the plan of subdivision or final approval of the consent has not taken place. Since 1996, the time of the registration of a plan of subdivision has traditionally been the point at which the capacity of water and wastewater systems is committed to new subdivisions in accordance with MOE policies. However, since 2004, a significant portion of all residential development has occurred outside of plans of subdivision. This includes development on previously existing lots of record both within the built up areas and within the greenfield areas. These units are typically townhouse or apartment units and are often registered as plans of condominium. This number is expected to increase particularly in the City of Waterloo as there is little remaining designated greenfield area and a large number of applications for site plans and plans of condominiums already in process.

April 12, 2011 E-11-043/P-11-041

947187 Page 6 of 13

Section 51 (24) (i) of the Planning Act obliges the Region to ensure the “adequacy of utilities and municipal services.” In addition ROP Policy 5.D.1 states that the “servicing requirements for planned development and projected growth will be monitored to ensure that the total system capacities are not exceeded, and to provide sufficient lead time for the planning, design, approval, financing and construction of new facilities.” In 1996, Regional Council by Report PC-96-061/ E-96-138 revised the conditions of draft approval for plans of subdivision to include a new condition requiring an Agreement for Servicing. However, before future, unbuilt service capacity is considered, three criteria must be met:

1. The capacity expansion project must be imminent for construction and thereby included within the first five years of the 10 Year Capital Forecast;

2. There must be a sound technical basis for the anticipated new capacity associated with the project, as a result of completion of the Environmental Assessment, a suitable master plan or other Regional engineering evaluation; and,

3. Approval of new draft plans of subdivision will be guided by Area Municipal Staging of Development programs and will not exceed 50% of the estimated capacity of major planned service capacity projects or 75% of minor planned projects.

It is important to note that the actual service capacity of a water or wastewater facility to be delivered from a future project cannot be guaranteed until a Certificate of Approval is issued by the MOE. The Region is near completion of a Water and Wastewater Treatment Master Plan for the New Hamburg/Baden service area. This study will determine the best wastewater treatment alternative to service this community in the long term. The Region has begun a similar study for the Elmira and St. Jacobs service areas. Funds for the implementation of projects identified in these studies will be included in future Water and Wastewater Capital Programs. The 2010 Wastewater Capital Program already includes funds to ensure adequate future capacity for servicing the Hespeler service area.

With the adoption of the “Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,” municipalities are now required to provide for a minimum of 40% of new residential units (phased in with full implementation by 2015) within the existing built-up areas. As a result, consideration needs to be given to reserving capacity for infill development. Under the current water and wastewater capacity allocation procedure, no servicing capacity is reserved for lands that are not within a residential plan of subdivision, including lands that have zoning in place that would otherwise allow development to proceed without additional planning approvals. The available capacity expressed in this report is the capacity available to service all future Planning Act approvals (subdivisions, condominiums, consents, zoning bylaw amendments and minor variances) and/or any building permits issued for development outside of residential plans of subdivision that complies with existing zoning. To address this issue, Regional staff will undertake research over 2011 and will consult with the area municipalities and the development industry to develop a potential revised servicing allocation procedure for the allocation of water and wastewater capacity.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The Water and Wastewater Monitoring Report supports “Focus Area 2: Growth Management - Manage and shape growth to ensure a livable, healthy, thriving and sustainable Waterloo Region.”

April 12, 2011 E-11-043/P-11-041

947187 Page 7 of 13

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial implications of this report will be addressed in the preparation of the 2012 water and wastewater capital programs.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE The Information & Research Group in the Planning, Housing and Community Services Department has been consulted in the preparation of this report.

ATTACHMENTS: Table 1: Remaining Water and Wastewater Capacity as of December 31, 2010 Table 2: Small Rural Water System Summary as of December 31, 2010 Table 3: Commitments as of December 31, 2010 Table 4: Remaining Water and Wastewater Capacity as of December 31, 2010 (IMPERIAL) Table 5: Small Rural Water System Summary as of December 31, 2010 (IMPERIAL) Table 6: Commitments as of December 31, 2010 (IMPERIAL)

PREPARED BY: Nathan Morris, Coordinator, Servicing and Development Planning Kevin Dolishny, Senior Project Engineer, Servicing and Development Planning Kevin Eby, Director of Community Planning

APPROVED BY: Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services Rob Horne, Commissioner, Planning, Housing and Community Services

April 12, 2011 ATTACHMENTS E-11-043/P-11-041

947187 Page 8 of 13

TABLE 1: REMAINING WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2010

A B C D = A - (B+C) E F = D / E * 1,000

2010 AVERAGE COMMITTED REMAINING AVERAGE REMAINING

CAPACITY MEASURED FLOW FLOW CAPACITY FLOWS PER CAPACITY

(1,000 m3/d) (1,000 m3/d) (1,000 m3/d) (1,000 m3/d) CAPITA (m3/d/c) (PEOPLE)

WA

TE

R

INTEGRATED URBAN WATER SYSTEM 269.32 194.57 22.76 52.00 0.4006 129,781

BADEN-NEW HAMBURG 12.10 4.33 0.88 6.89 0.3681 18,715

AYR WATER SYSTEM 5.53 2.02 0.74 2.76 0.4793 5,766

WELLESLEY 3.00 0.92 0.17 1.91 0.3269 5,828

ST. CLEMENTS 1.77 0.45 0.01 1.31 0.3331 3,928

WA

ST

EW

AT

ER

KITCHENER WWTP 122.70 73.88 10.61 38.21 0.3268 116,948

WATERLOO WWTP 56.05 45.99 6.37 3.68 0.3649 10,097

GALT WWTP 56.80 35.63 2.45 18.72 0.4329 43,240

PRESTON WWTP 16.82 11.20 1.99 3.63 0.5530 6,562

HESPELER WWTP 9.32 8.30 0.22 0.81 0.3410 2,369

ELMIRA WWTP 7.80 4.12 0.06 3.62 0.4312 8,399

BADEN-NEW HAMBURG WWTP 5.20 3.87 0.81 0.52 0.3373 1,556

AYR WWTP 3.00 1.32 0.64 1.03 0.3144 3,290

ST. JACOBS WWTP 1.45 1.00 0.00 0.45 0.5768 779

WELLESLEY WWTP 1.10 0.73 0.13 0.24 0.2564 921

(A) See Water Distribution Master Plan and Wastewater Treatment Master Plan for capacity details of each system

(B) See section 2.4 and 2.6 and appendix B & C of report for details of how average flow is calculated for individual systems

(C) See Table 3 for details about how committed flow is calculated

(D) Both Water systems and Wastewater systems average flow equals the average of the previous 5 years per capita flow

(E) See Section 2.4 and 2.5 of report for an explanation of average flows per capita

(F) Remaining Capacity divided by Average Flow Per Capita multiplied by 1000. Any new service in the small rural systems must be reviewed by the Region of Waterloo Water Services staff and will be evaluated on a case by case basis


947187 Page 9 of 13

TABLE 2: SMALL RURAL WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2010

A B C D = A - B E F

2010 ADJUSTED COMMITTED REMAINING ADJUSTED REMAINING


(m3/d) (m3/d) (m3/d) (m3/d) CAPITA (m3/d/c) (PEOPLE)

WO

OL

WIC

H

CONESTOGA GOLF COURSE 601 540 N/A 61 1.0437 Case by Case

CONESTOGA PLAINS 786 194 N/A 592 0.5207 Case by Case

MARY HILL 157 115 N/A 42 0.7194 Case by Case

MARY HILL VILLAGE HEIGHTS 820 107 N/A 713 0.7254 Case by Case

WEST MONTROSE 238 154 N/A 84 0.8682 Case by Case

WE

L

HEIDELBERG 829 455 N/A 374 0.4513 Case by Case

LINWOOD 605 345 N/A 260 0.4078 Case by Case

WIL

MO

T FOXBORO 527 146 N/A 381 0.3631 Case by Case

NEW DUNDEE 983 427 N/A 556 0.3754 Case by Case

ST AGATHA SA3/SA4 518 66 N/A 452 0.8720 Case by Case

ND

ROSEVILLE 358 195 N/A 163 0.6742 Case by Case

BRANCHTON 130 114 N/A 16 0.9486 Case by Case








947187 Page 10 of 13

TABLE 3: COMMITMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2010

A B C = A x B

COMMITTED AVERAGE

POPULATION FLOWS PER COMMITMENTS

(PEOPLE) CAPITA (m3/d/c) (m3/d)

WA

TE

R

INTEGRATED URBAN WATER SYSTEM 56,799 0.4006 22,756

BADEN-NEW HAMBURG 2,393 0.3681 881

AYR WATER SYSTEM 1,552 0.4793 744

WELLESLEY 521 0.3269 170

ST. CLEMENTS 37 0.3331 12

WA

ST

EW

AT

ER

KITCHENER WWTP 32,458 0.3268 10,606

WATERLOO WWTP 17,457 0.3649 6,371

GALT WWTP 5,655 0.4329 2,448

PRESTON WWTP 235 0.5530 130

HESPELER WWTP 631 0.3410 215

ELMIRA WWTP 146 0.4312 63

BADEN-NEW HAMBURG WWTP 2,393 0.3373 807

AYR WWTP 1,552 0.3144 488

ST. JACOBS WWTP 0 0.5768 0

WELLESLEY WWTP 521 0.2564 134

(A) See appendix D for a detailed breakdown of committed population from known development

(B) See Section 2.4 and 2.5 for an explanation of the Average Flow Per Capita Per Day in Column 'B'

(C) Column 'A' multiplied by column 'B'


947187 Page 11 of 13

TABLE 4: REMAINING WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2010 (IMPERIAL)

A B C D = A - (B+C) E F = D * 1,000,000/ E

2010 ADJUSTED COMMITTED REMAINING ADJUSTED REMAINING


(mg/d) (mg/d) (mg/d) (mg/d) CAPITA (g/d/c) (PEOPLE)

WA

TE

R

INTEGRATED URBAN WATER SYSTEM 59.24 42.80 5.006 11.44 88 129,781

BADEN-NEW HAMBURG 2.66 0.64 0.194 1.82 55 18,715

AYR WATER SYSTEM 1.22 0.34 0.164 0.71 81 5,766

WELLESLEY 0.66 0.17 0.037 0.45 61 5,828

ST. CLEMENTS 0.39 0.14 0.003 0.24 105 3,928

WA

ST

EW

AT

ER

KITCHENER WWTP 26.99 16.25 2.333 8.41 72 116,948

WATERLOO WWTP 12.33 10.12 1.401 0.81 80 10,097

GALT WWTP 12.49 7.84 0.538 4.12 95 43,240

PRESTON WWTP 3.70 2.46 0.438 0.80 122 6,562

HESPELER WWTP 2.05 1.83 0.047 0.18 75 2,369

ELMIRA WWTP 1.72 0.91 0.014 0.80 95 8,399

BADEN-NEW HAMBURG WWTP 1.14 0.85 0.178 0.12 74 1,556

AYR WWTP 0.66 0.29 0.141 0.23 69 3,290

ST. JACOBS WWTP 0.32 0.22 0.000 0.10 127 779

WELLESLEY WWTP 0.24 0.16 0.029 0.05 56 921








947187 Page 12 of 13

TABLE 5: SMALL RURAL WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2010 (IMPERIAL)

A B C D = A - B E F

2010 AVERAGE COMMITTED REMAINING AVERAGE REMAINING


(1,000 g/d) (1,000 g/d) (g/d) (1,000 g/d) CAPITA (g/d/c) (PEOPLE)

WO

OL

WIC

H

CONESTOGA GOLF COURSE 132 119 N/A 13 230 Case by Case

CONESTOGA PLAINS 173 43 N/A 130 115 Case by Case

MARY HILL 35 25 N/A 9 158 Case by Case

MARY HILL VILLAGE HEIGHTS 180 23 N/A 157 160 Case by Case

WEST MONTROSE 52 34 N/A 19 191 Case by Case

WE

L

HEIDELBERG 182 100 N/A 82 99 Case by Case

LINWOOD 133 76 N/A 57 90 Case by Case

WIL

MO

T FOXBORO 116 32 N/A 84 80 Case by Case

NEW DUNDEE 216 94 N/A 122 83 Case by Case

ST AGATHA SA3/SA4 114 15 N/A 99 192 Case by Case

ND

ROSEVILLE 79 43 N/A 36 148 Case by Case

BRANCHTON 29 25 N/A 3 209 Case by Case








947187 Page 13 of 13

TABLE 6: COMMITMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2010 (IMPERIAL)

A B C = A x B

COMMITTED ADJUSTED

POPULATION FLOWS PER COMMITMENTS

(PEOPLE) CAPITA (g/d/c) (1,000 g/d)

WA

TE

R

INTEGRATED URBAN WATER SYSTEM 56,799 88 5,006

BADEN-NEW HAMBURG 2,393 81 194

AYR WATER SYSTEM 1,552 105 164

WELLESLEY 521 72 37

ST. CLEMENTS 37 73 3

WA

ST

EW

AT

ER

KITCHENER WWTP 32,458 72 2,333

WATERLOO WWTP 17,457 80 1,401

GALT WWTP 5,655 95 538

PRESTON WWTP 235 122 29

HESPELER WWTP 399 75 47

ELMIRA WWTP 146 95 14

BADEN-NEW HAMBURG WWTP 2,393 74 178

AYR WWTP 1,552 69 107

ST. JACOBS WWTP 0 127 0

WELLESLEY WWTP 521 56 29

(A) See appendix D for a detailed breakdown of committed population from known development

(B) See Section 2.4 and 2.5 for an explanation of the Average Flow Per Capita Per Day in Column 'B'

(C) Column 'A' multiplied by column 'B'

Report: P-11-034

949870 Page 1 of 3

REGION OF WATERLOO


Community Planning


DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: D18-01

SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY FOR FEBRUARY 2011

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Region of Waterloo accept P-11-034, Monthly Report of Development Activity for February 2011, dated April 12, 2011.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Regional By-law 01-028, as amended, the Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services has:

1. Approved the following part lot control exemption by-law; 2. Accepted the following plan of condominium; 3. Draft approved the following plan of condominium; 4. Released for registration the following plans of subdivision.

REPORT:

City of Cambridge 1. Plan of Condominium Application 30CDM-11101 Date Accepted: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Processing Fee:

February 9, 2011 Haastown Holdings (Cambridge) Inc. 130-170 Water Street North To permit the development of 113 condominium units. Paid January 31, 2011

2. Registration of Plan of Subdivision 30T-07104 Draft Approval Date: Phase: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Processing Fee: Commissioner’s Release:

August 6, 2010 Entire Plan Cook Homes Ltd. Bismark Drive To permit the development of 29 single detached units. Paid December 21, 2010 February 4, 2011

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-034

949870 Page 2 of 3

City of Waterloo 1. Draft Approval of Plan of Condominium 30CDM-10404 Applicant: Location: Proposal: Processing Fee: Commissioner’s Approval: Came Into Effect:

1568532 Ontario Limited and 1266267 Ontario Limited 80 Churchill Street To permit the development of 39 townhouse units. Paid January 24, 2011 February 15, 2011 March 8, 2011

2. Registration of Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-09404 Draft Approval Date: Phase: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Processing Fee: Commissioner’s Release:

July 8, 2010 Phases 2 and 3 Kenmore Developments Inc. 555 Chablis Drive To permit the development of 16 townhouse units. Paid February 4, 2011 February 18, 2011

Township of Woolwich

1. Part Lot Control Exemption By-law 5-2011 Applicant: Location: Proposal: Processing Fee: Commissioner’s Approval:

Empire Communities (Riverland) LP Trowbridge Street To permit the creation of 8 townhouse units. Paid January 27, 2011 February 4, 2011

Residential Subdivision Activity January 1, 2011 to February 28, 2011

Area Municipality Units in Residential Registered Plans

Residential Units Draft Approved

Pending Plans (Units Submitted)

*Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge Woolwich Wilmot North Dumfries Wellesley

30 16 57 64 0 0 0

N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0

N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region of Waterloo 167 0 0

*The acceptance and/or draft approval of plans of subdivision and condominium processed by the City of Kitchener under delegated approval authority are not included in this table. For comparison, the following table has also been included:

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-034

949870 Page 3 of 3

Residential Subdivision Activity January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2010

Area Municipality Units in Residential Registered Plans

Residential Units Draft Approved

Pending Plans (Units Submitted)

*Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge Woolwich Wilmot North Dumfries Wellesley

0 0 99 38 0 0 0

N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0

N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region of Waterloo 137 0 0

*The acceptance and/or draft approval of plans of subdivision and condominium processed by the City of Kitchener under delegated approval authority are not included in this table.

Area Municipal Consultation/Coordination These planning approvals, including associated consultation with Area Municipalities, have been completed in accordance with the Planning Act. All approvals contained in this report were supported by the Area Municipal councils and/or staff.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: This report reflects actions taken by the Commissioner in accordance with the delegation By-law adopted by Council consistent with the streamlining objectives reflected in Focus Area 1: Manage Regional Growth to Enhance Quality of Life in the Corporate Strategic Plan.



PREPARED BY: Andrea Banks, Program Assistant

APPROVED BY: Rob Horne, Commissioner, Planning, Housing and Community Services

Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 1 of 11

REGION OF WATERLOO


Community Planning


DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: D03-80/ESF

SUBJECT: ALLOCATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP FUND FOR 2011

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve allocations totalling a maximum of $165,721 from the Environmental Stewardship Fund as described in Report P-11-035, particularly in Attachment A, dated April 12, 2011.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Stewardship Fund was established by Council in the 2008 budget to fund environmental projects throughout the Region with special emphasis on enhancing natural areas and Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes (ESLs). An interim framework for administering the fund was endorsed by Regional Council on April 29, 2009, and amended in 2010 to accommodate an unexpected number of schoolyard greening projects in the initial batch of applications. On February 23, 2010, Council approved the allocation of approximately $182,000 to fund 25 projects. Following approval of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), staff sent out Environmental Stewardship Fund Application packages to all the registered landowners within the newly-designated Dumfries Carolinian and Beverly Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes (ESLs). The application form was also posted on the Regional website. By the deadline of March 24, 2011, 28 applications had been received. Staff has reviewed the applications submitted to date, and followed up with applicants to further clarify the items for which financial support was requested. Staff is now recommending that the 27 projects listed in Attachment A be funded at this time. One application has been deferred due to insufficient detail and difficulty in contacting the applicant. The projects cover a range of stewardship-related activities, and are anticipated to involve many of the Region’s citizens, and in particular significant numbers of elementary and secondary students. The individual projects are summarized in Attachment A. The total value of the projects is calculated to be $621,506, of which $165,721 is recommended to be funded from the Environmental Stewardship Fund. Thus, for every dollar recommended from the Stewardship Fund, another $2.75 is to be contributed to environmental stewardship projects from other funding sources, from the applicants themselves, or in volunteer labour.

REPORT: The Environmental Stewardship Fund was established by Council to fund environmental projects throughout the Region with special emphasis on enhancing natural areas and Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes (ESLs). As of March 31, 2011, nine of the 25 projects approved in 2010 are complete, and $104,692 has been disbursed.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 2 of 11

On April 29, 2009, Council endorsed an interim framework for the administration of the Environmental Stewardship Fund.1 Due to the fact that seven of the 25 submissions in the initial round of applications involved schoolyard greening projects, the framework had to be amended to set rules for this unanticipated type of project.2 The current framework contains seven categories of projects that may be considered for funding. The seven categories are: 1. Enhancement and restoration of natural areas and the linkages and corridors among them 2. Naturalization of roadsides, trails, the grounds of educational facilities, or Regional facilities

where such projects are directly related to Regionally-supported interests. 3. Acquisition of ecologically significant natural areas within Environmentally Sensitive Policy

Areas, Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes, or adjacent to Regional Forests 4. Public education and awareness initiatives on some aspect of environmental sustainability

with particular relevance to Waterloo Region 5. Environmental or sustainability-based research being carried out at post-secondary

institutions within the Region 6. Environmental stewardship–related research being carried out by a student at a high school

or post-secondary institution or by a member of a recognised naturalist, agricultural, or environmental organisation.

7. Demonstration projects promoting waste reduction, water conservation, energy conservation, remediation of contamination

Each category has a main objective that must be achieved by the project. In addition, a qualifying project proposal must fulfill at least two of several criteria in each category in order to be considered for funding. It was anticipated that the second round of funding applications would be announced in the summer or fall of 2010 following Provincial approval of the new Regional Official Plan (ROP) which designates the Dumfries Carolinian and Beverly Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes (ESLs). As this approval did not occur until the very end of 2010, however, the second round was considerably delayed. Application packages were sent to over 1,200 registered landowners in the two ESLs in mid-February, 2011. Packages were also sent to others who had earlier expressed an interest in applying for a project. The package was posted on the Region’s website. Over the ensuing weeks, numerous applicants contacted staff by phone, e-mail, or requested visits to the properties to discuss potential projects. By the closing date of March 24, 2011, 28 applications had been received. Staff have reviewed the proposed projects, and recommend that the 27 listed in the attachment to this report be funded from the Environmental Stewardship Fund. Of the applications submitted, only one is not recommended for funding at this time because there is insufficient detail in the application, and staff were unable to contact the applicant prior to the submission date for this report. Staff will send a letter to the individual requesting a follow up discussion. Total value of projects is $621,506 excluding H.S.T. but including the dollar value assigned to volunteer labour. Of this total, $165,721 is being recommended for funding from Environmental Stewardship Fund. Thus, for every dollar recommended from the Stewardship Fund, another $2.75 is to be contributed to environmental stewardship projects from other funding sources, from the applicants themselves, or in volunteer labour. The applications fall into various categories. These include:

1. Report P-09-036, dated April 21, 2009. 2 . Reports P-10-006, dated February 16, 2010 and P-10-040, dated May 18, 2010.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 3 of 11

Eight schoolyard greening projects with recommended funding totalling $20,016 (12.1% of total).

Nine projects are located entirely within three of the ESLs with a total value of $272,935, and recommended funding of $100,530 or 60.9% of the recommended disbursements. More specifically, three projects fall in the Beverly ESL totalling $152,114 of which $44,089 is recommended for funding from the Environmental Stewardship Fund; four in the Dumfries Carolinian ESL with a total value of $46,730, of which $35,941 is recommended for funding,

and two at the rare Charitable Research Reserve in the Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston ESL total $74,085 of which $20,500 is recommended for funding. Six of those applicants responded to the mailing to all the landowners in the new ESLs.

Seven projects with an educational component. Apart from the schoolyard greening projects, there are two for interpretive signage ($13,000), two to help sponsor events ($3,000), two to help publish educational brochures for property owners ($3,700), and one to continue an important research project ($5,000).

Most of the projects are relatively modest in scale. They fall into the following size categories.

Amount Requested Number of Projects

≤ $1,000 5

$1,001 - $2,500 5

$2,501 - $5,000 10

$5,001 - $10,000 3

$10,001 - $20,000 2

$20,001 - $35,000 2

The largest application is for a $35,000 contribution to a purchase of ecologically significant land in the Beverly ESL by the GRCA. One of the projects funded in 2010 is a technical study for the rehabilitation of the upper reaches Monastery Creek which have been experiencing severe channel erosion for many years. This project has been identified as a priority project by the Laurel Creek Headwaters Environmentally Sensitive Landscape Public Liaison Committee. The study was nearing completion by the closing date for applications. Following this, it will be necessary to meet with the three most affected landowners to discuss how to proceed with the report’s recommendations. If this entails an additional outlay from the money remaining in the Fund, a report to that effect will be brought forward at a later date.

Area Municipal Consultation/Coordination

As some applications affect Area Municipal interests, Regional staff have reviewed them with appropriate Area Municipal staff. A copy of this report will be sent to all Area Municipalities.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The implementation of the Environmental Stewardship Fund will hep achieve the Strategic Objective of preserving sensitive environmental features by providing tangible support to assist landowners with the stewardship of their properties.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The recommended grants totalling $165,721 will be funded from the Environmental Stewardship Fund account. Of the $181,928.10 allocated in 2010, $104,692 has been disbursed as of March 31,

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 4 of 11

2011 for completed projects. The recommended disbursements of $165,721 will be drawn from funds remaining in this account.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Transportations and Environmental Services staff is assisting with the production of the ESL signage mentioned in Item 24, Attachment A. Finance staff will assist with processing receipts and issuing cheques to successful applicants under the Environmental Stewardship Fund, and will be involved in the paying of invoices submitted by successful applicants upon the successful completion of their projects.

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Summary of Projects Recommended for Approval - April 12, 2011

PREPARED BY: Chris Gosselin, Manager of Environmental Planning Albert Hovingh, Principal Planner, Environmental Stewardship


April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 5 of 11

ATTACHMENT A

Summary of Environmental Stewardship Fund Projects Recommended for Approval -

April 12, 2011

1. Ayrshire Meadows (Categories 7 and 1): $2,750 Quiet Nature (formerly Naturally Maintained) is a locally-owned business specialising in the creation of sustainable private, institutional, industrial and commercial landscapes. The applicant is proposing to create a demonstration site on his property near Ayr using a variety of native species. This is intended to encourage other landowners to attempt similar naturalisation on their properties He is also to use the site for research purposes using different methods for seeding and site treatment. He is also planning to encourage local post-secondary students to establish research plots on the property. The total estimated cost of the project, including significant in-kind contributions, is $10, 217. It is recommended that Up to $2,750 be allocated to Quiet Nature for the purchase of prairie/meadow seed mixtures and nurse crop, trees and shrubs, weed prevention disks, tree guards, and fertilisers.

2. Branchton Land Trust Forest Enhancement (Category 1): $2,000 The Branchton Village Land Trust has applied to hire qualified specialists to assist with the stewardship of the woodland obtained by the Land Trust some years ago. First, the Land Trust wishes to hire a qualified arborist to fell some lodged trees which constitute a hazard to visitors to the forest. Secondly, the Land Trust proposes to hire a botanist to do a comprehensive botanical survey of the property as input to an environmental management plan for the woodland. The total estimated cost of the project, including in-kind contributions, is $3,000. It is recommended that up to $2,000.00 (exclusive of taxes) be allocated to the Branchton Land Trust for these purposes. In addition, the members of the land Trust will contribute an estimated $1,000 in volunteer time to assist with these projects and the suppression of Garlic Mustard within the woodland.

3. Cambridge Pollinator Preserve (Category 4): $3,000 The Ancient Mariners Canoe Club is collaborating with the City of Cambridge to create a 2.5 acre pollinator preserve in Riverbluffs Park on the Grand River. The site is on the Blair Trail/ Trans Canada Trail. Quite apart from benefiting pollinator insects, the site is also intended to serve an educational function to teach youth and the public at large about the importance of pollinating insects. The project has received or applied for funding from ma variety of private and N.G.O. funders in addition to substantial in-kind contributions from the City of Cambridge. The Ancient mariners have applied to the Environmental Stewardship Fund for funding for interpretive signage to be installed on site. The total estimated cost of the project, including significant in-kind contributions, is $45,383. It is recommended that up to $3,000 be allocated to the City of Cambridge acting on behalf of the Ancient Mariners to purchase a permanent outdoor display unit for the Pollinator Preserve in Riverbluffs Park.

4. 2011 Champion Tree Hunt (Category 4): $2,000 A local group of arborists, landscaper, and naturalists is organising a Champion Tree Hunt. The purpose is to involve the general public, various environment-oriented voluntary organisations, and agency staff in a search for the largest trees in Waterloo Region. A similar “Great Tree Hunt” took place in 1990. A tree hunt involves a wide cross-section of regional residents and promotes public appreciation and knowledge of trees. The total estimated cost of the project, including significant in-kind contributions, is $20,119, to be funded from divers sources. It is recommended that up to $2,000 be allocated to fund the production of booklets for the event.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 6 of 11

5. Elmira District Secondary School Greening of EDSS (Categories 2, 4): $2,200 The goal of the project is to increase environmental awareness and foster stewardship among members of the school community by planting a garden of native, drought tolerant species in a at the front of the school. Students will be invited to do at least some of the work in order to create a sense of ownership of the garden. The total estimated cost of the project, including in-kind contributions, is estimated to be about $10,000. It is recommended that up to $2,200 be allocated to the Elmira District Secondary School for the purchase of required building supplies, native plant materials, the rental of an excavator, and miscellaneous supplies.

6. Elmira Public Library Garden Restoration (Categories 2, 4): $700 The purpose of this project is to restore part of the butterfly garden that was established at the Elmira Library in 1993 which has deteriorated to some extent. The project is intended to showcase an attractive, low-maintenance, chemical-free and drought-resistant landscaping option for home gardeners as well as beautify the Library grounds on Arthur Street in the heart of Elmira. The total estimated cost of the project, including significant in-kind contributions, is $5,775. It is recommended that up to $700 be allocated to the Township of Woolwich on behalf of the Township of Woolwich Environmental Enhancement Committee (TWEEC) for the purchase of materials for this project.

7. Emerald Ash Borer Woodlot Brochure (Categories 4, 7): $3,000 Last year, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) announced the presence of Emerald Ash Borer in Waterloo Region. More recently, it has been identified in most of Southern Ontario, where it poses a long-term and widespread threat to woodlands and street trees alike. As most landowners do not yet understand the potential effects of Emerald Ash Borer on their ash trees, they need practical assistance to assess the situation of their woodlands and make informed choices about how to manage their ash trees. It is also proposed to host a landowner workshop on the subject. The purpose of this project is to develop a brochure which will assist woodlot owners to make informed decisions regarding management of ash trees in woodlots in light of the presence of Emerald Ash Borer. The total estimated cost of the project, including contributions from other relevant agencies, is $11,172. It is recommended that up to $3,000 be allocated to Williams & Associates Forestry Consulting for the production of the brochure.

8. Grand River Conservation Authority Beverly Swamp Acquisition (Category 3): $35,000 The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has the opportunity to purchase two parcels of land totalling 40 hectares of Provincially Significant Wetland located along the North Dumfries Township-City of Hamilton boundary. The properties have high ecological significance in that they constitute part of the Beverly Swamp Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area [ESPA 69], the newly designated Beverly Environmentally Sensitive Landscape (ESL), and the Natural Heritage System of the Ontario Greenbelt. They also abut some smaller parcels of similar habitat owned by the Authority in the City of Hamilton. Acquisition of these parcels will bring them under the informed stewardship of GRCA forestry staff. The total cost of the land is $150,000. Based on an ad hoc decision made in the previous round of Environmental Stewardship Fund allocations to limit grants for land purchases to about 10% of available funds, it is recommended that up to $35,000 be allocated to the GRCA for the purchase of these lands.

9. Grand River Conservation Authority Dickson Wilderness Area Prairie Grass

Prescribed Burn (Categories 1, 4): $5,681 The GRCA is proposing to carry out a prescribed burn of the tallgrass prairie habitat in the northern part of the F.W.R. Dickson Wilderness Area. This forms part of the Dickson Wilderness Area [ESPA

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 7 of 11

47] and lies within the new Dumfries Carolinian ESL. Since the first prescribed burn carried out in the area in the 1990s, the rare tallgrass prairie habitat has improved significantly in quality and vigour because it is dependent upon fire to suppress competing woody vegetation including invasive non-native Common Buckthorn. Apart from being good environmental management of the tallgrass prairie habitat, the prescribed burn will educate the general public about how such systems are managed. This is especially import in that some local landowners are considering restoring portions of their properties to tallgrass prairie. The total estimated cost of the project, including in-kind contributions, is $10,719. It is recommended that up to $5,681 be allocated to the GRCA for the prescribed burn operation.

10. Heritage River Birch Clump Planting (Categories 2): $1,174 The applicant has recently had to remove cedar trees along the southern boundary of his property on Main Street (Highway 97) on the east side of Cambridge and on the western edge of the Beverly ESL. The cedars had been badly damaged by salt spray from the road, and had become unhealthy and unsightly. He is now proposing to plant the edge of his property with birch trees, which, in his experience, have withstood salt spray in one part of the area. The trees will help to naturalise this segment of Main Street and provide a screen of trees between the road and his residence. The total estimated cost of the project is $1,904. It is recommended that up to $1,174 be allocated to Geoff Whitehead for the purchase of birch trees, topsoil, mulch, fertiliser, and stakes

11. Highland Public School Yard Greening Project (Category 2): $3,000 A group of parents and teachers is planning to enhance the schoolyard by installing armourstone blocks to check an eroding slope and serve as a seating area. In addition, it is proposed to plant three native Hackberry trees and other low-maintenance, drought-tolerant locally indigenous vegetation to enhance the quality of the schoolyard. Teachers, parents and children will work together to prepare, plant and maintain the area for the benefit of students and the community. The total estimated cost of the project, including significant in-kind contributions, is $4,080. It is recommended, pursuant to the guidelines for schoolyard greening projects, that up to $3,000 be allocated to Highland Public School, up to $1,200 for the purchase of three hackberry trees and up to $1,800 for the purchase of armourstone blocks.

12. Kirby’s Gore Road Lot Environmental Project (Category 1): $940 Te property owners have recently purchased a newly-created lot on Gore Road in the extreme north-east corner of the Beverly ESL. The lot is former pastureland, and is at present almost devoid of natural vegetation. The owner wishes to plant a treed buffer or small corridor consisting of native trees along the eastern boundary of the lot in proximity to a woodland and Core Environmental Feature on the adjoining property. The total estimated cost of the project, including in-kind contributions, is $1,437. It is recommended that up to $940 be allocated to Kirby Singh for the purchase and delivery of the trees listed on his application form as well as mulch.

13. Knight Family Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Restoration (Categories 1, 7): $9,960 The Knight family are proposing to restore a 1.15 hectare corner of their property in the Dumfries Carolinian ESL to tallgrass prairie-savanna habitat. The area is a steep-sided kettle feature surrounding a groundwater-fed pond characteristic of the ESL. It was formerly pastured, and is now a mixture of non-native pasture grasses and weeds. The soils are sandy and droughty and marginal for agricultural production, but eminently suited to drought-tolerant prairie grasses. It is also located a short distance to the west of the tallgrass prairie remnant in the Dickson Wilderness Area. The Knights propose to retain a local landscaping firm with expertise in this field to perform much of the

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 8 of 11

work in order to increase the chances for a successful operation. Because the site is located right on the Brant-Waterloo Road, it will be quite visible, and the Knights are considering the possibility of explanatory signage in order to inform passersby of the nature of the project. The total estimated cost of the project, including in-kind contributions, is $13,828. It is recommended that up to $9,960 be allocated to Ron and Laura Knight for carrying out this project.

14. Mother Teresa Catholic School: Green Scene, Growing Together in Spirit.

(Categories 2, 4): $2,946 Students and teachers at Mother Teresa Catholic School in Cambridge have been working together to imagine a school yard that makes use of vegetation to provide shaded gathering areas. These areas will be used for quiet as well as physical activities. Mother Teresa School is located adjacent to a rare natural oak savanna woodland associated with the Portuguese Swamp ESPA, and the intent is to plant species that are appropriate for this woodland type. The total estimated cost of the project, including significant in-kind contributions, is $3,329. It is recommended that up to $2,946 be allocated to Mother Teresa Catholic School for the purchase of trees, armourstone, and soil amendments.

15. Northlake Woods Public School – Plan-it Green (Category 2): $2,450 The objective of this project is to maintain and rejuvenate the woodlot on the school property. The woodlot continues from the school grounds into a municipal park. The woodlot is being used as an education for the elementary grades, but requires some improvement and control of non-native invasive species. It is proposed to replace Manitoba Maples with six native trees and also rejuvenate the pollinator garden. Northlake applied for funding in 2010 and was allocated $1,700. In 2010, staff prepared guidelines for funding schoolyard greening projects at Council’s request. The requested amount of $2,450 exceeds the maximum of $2,000 for a second phase schoolyard application as specified in the guidelines, but as the initial request for $1,700 falls well short of the maximum of $3,000 for an initial application, the combined total of $4,150 is less than the possible maximum amount of $5,000 in two sequential applications. It is recommended, therefore, that up to $2,450 be allocated to Northlake Public School for the purchase and planting of three maple trees, three armourstone rocks and mulch.

16. rare Environmental Management Plan (Category 1): $16,000

Located at the heart of the Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston ESL, the rare Charitable Research Reserve is now in its tenth year, and is planning to prepare a new Environmental Management Plan to guide the organisation’s operations in the coming years. The plan will identify and map the various habitats and prescribe conservation actions to maintain or restore these areas, including the 93 acre parcel purchased in late 2010 with assistance from the Environmental Stewardship Fund. One of the initial components of the Environmental Management Plan is detailed mapping and species inventory

using the widely-accepted Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system. rare is applying to the Environmental Stewardship Fund for assistance with this aspect of the larger project. The total estimated cost of the project, including in-kind contributions, is $63,843. It is recommended that up

to $16,000 be allocated to rare for the purchase of expert ELC consulting services.

17. rare Native Tree and Shrub Interpretive Loop (Categories 1, 2, 4, 7): $4,500

The rare Charitable Research Reserve is proposing to develop a loop trail on the Springbank area of the reserve for the purpose of educating the many visitors to the site on the ecological, cultural, and aesthetic values of about 60 species of indigenous plant species. It is proposed to include every tree and shrub group native to the Region of Waterloo in a permanent exhibition unique to the area. Signage and literature will inform visitors of the properties and significance of the respective plants.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 9 of 11

The total estimated cost of the project, including significant in-kind contributions, is $12,725. It is recommended that up to $4,500 be allocated to rare for the purchase of planting stock, tree guards, signage, and the production of literature.

18. Urban Turtle Conservation and Stewardship: City of Kitchener (Categories 6, 4):

$5,000 In 2010, the City of Kitchener initiated a study of the status of turtle populations in the Huron Natural Area and the Laurentian Wetland. Turtles are highly vulnerable to human impacts; at present seven of the eight species native to Ontario are considered to be at risk to some degree. The 2010 study was quite informative, and indicated some of the problems faced by turtles with respect to habitat destruction, juvenile survival, poaching, migration, and breeding. It is now proposed to continue the study at the existing sites and extend it to Lakeside Park. In addition to informing the C ity’s parks staff as to how best to care for turtle populations in urban parks, it has also involved significant numbers of citizen volunteers and students who monitor the sites and protect turtle nesting habitat. The information collected will identify conservation priorities and inform a management strategy to ensure the viability of the City’s turtle populations. Such a study is also expected to assist other municipalities in similar endeavours. The total estimated cost of the project, including contributions from at least five other funding organisations and significant in-kind contributions, is $115,155. It is recommended that up to $5,000 be allocated to the City of Kitchener to assist with staff-related costs for this project.

19. St. Dominic Savio Catholic School Greening Project – Operation Dragon’s Den

(Category 4): $3,000 The school community is proposing to rejuvenate a rather barren kindergarten outdoor play area by planting trees, adding some seating, and a butterfly garden in addition to other improvements intended to green the school yard and provide staff and students with opportunities for education, conservation and stewardship. The project includes bird boxes, a no-mow area, and a butterfly garden, and will involve the entire school community in the on-going maintenance and stewardship activities. The total estimated cost of the project, including in-kind contributions, is $12,188. It is recommended that up to $3,000 be allocated to St. Dominic Savio Catholic School for the purchase of three trees, two armourstone rocks, two bench planters, as well as mulch and topsoil and plants for the butterfly garden.

20. St. Luke School Greening Project, (Categories 2, 4): $3,000 This project is intended to begin a transformation of a playground described as having “minimal shade and virtually no seating for our students.” to one with a grove of trees with mulch cover on the ground and an assortment of rocks for seating. In addition some rocks will be placed and trees will be planted along a community pathway that enters the school property. The areas will provide students and teachers with opportunities for outdoor instruction, creative play, observation and conversation. The total estimated cost of the project, including significant in-kind contributions, is $15,504. It is recommended that up to $3,000 be allocated to St. Luke School for the purchase of five trees, stakes, four armourstone rocks, and soil amendments.

21. St. Margaret Catholic School – Operation Recreation (Categories 1, 2): $900 Operation Recreation is the second phase of St. Margaret’s schoolyard greening. This phase will see the development of a pathway through the existing woodlot on the property and the installation of an outdoor classroom and a pathway from the school. Low-maintenance, drought-tolerant native species will be used. In 2010, the school received an allocation of $4,032 from the Environmental Stewardship Fund which is well over the maximum amount of $3,000 later established in the funding guideline for a first phase application. The current request for $2,000

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 10 of 11

for the second phase is consistent with the second phase maximum, but would put the total allocations to St. Margaret Catholic School at over $6,000. In order to keep the aggregate allocations to the school consistent with the approved schoolyard funding guideline, it is recommended that up to $900 be allocated to St. Margaret Catholic School for the purchase of mulch for the construction of the forest path.

22. Shade Policy Forum (Category 4): $1,000 Shade has emerged in recent years as an area where public health and broader environmental issues converge. On November 5, 2010, the Region’s Public Health Department cancer prevention group hosted an initial conversation involving school boards, Area Municipal parks and engineering staff, and citizen volunteers to explore the potential to develop policies and practices in a variety of local government organisations to promote shade in public places. The next step is a shade forum to be held in June which is proposed to feature staff from other jurisdictions who have successfully become to implement shade promotion policies. Apart from the public health benefits, shade policies resulting in enhancing the urban forest can also be expect to help counter the urban heat island effect and improve air quality. The total estimated cost of the project, including in-kind contributions, is $2,550. It is recommended that $1,000 be allocated to the Tobacco and Cancer Prevention section of the Regional Public Health Department to help defray the costs of this forum.

23. Van der Heyden Prairie Savanna Restoration (Category 1): $ 18,300 The Van der Heyden property is located in the southwestern corner of the Dumfries Carolinian ESL. The front part of the property on Wrigley Road is rolling abandoned pastureland punctuated by two shallow kettle pond features characteristic of the North Dumfries landscape. Mr. van der Heyden hopes to restore portions of this area to natural habitat reflective of the pre-settlement tallgrass prairie savanna vegetation. The property is a short distance from the Dickson Wilderness Area prairie and the Knight family property referred to in item 13 above, and so this treatment is ecologically appropriate. The present proposal is to convert approximately 1.5 hectare of the abandoned pasture to native prairie/ meadow/savanna habitat. In addition, it is also proposed to restore portions of the shoreline of the two ponds to a representative mix of native wetland shrubs, trees, and herbaceous vegetation. The pond edges are thought to have been degraded by being trampled by cattle under previous landowners. Pond edge habitat will complement the drier upland prairie and savanna habitat and in time attract a diversity of native wildlife to the site. Ornithologists have noted an alarming decline in grassland bird species in recent decades. This is believed to be due to the reforestation of marginal farmland and to the conversion of pastureland to intensive cropland. The restoration of some areas of marginal pasture to tallgrass prairie and savanna in association with natural shallow ponds and wetlands can be expected to benefit these species of birds as well as frogs and turtles. Mr. van der Heyden proposes to retain a local landscaping firm with expertise in this field to perform much of the work in order to increase the chances for a successful operation. It can reasonably be expected that, once established, the native vegetation will begin to spread to adjoining areas on the property. The total estimated cost of the project including in-kind contributions is $24,758. It is recommended that up to $ 18,300 be allocated to Peter van der Heyden over the 2011-12 growing seasons, for carrying out this project.

24. Waterloo Stewardship Network – Natural Corridors Program (Categories 1, 2, 6):

$24,000 The Natural Corridors program will build on the success of’ the initial roadside planting project carried out in 2010. The goal of this project is to create natural corridors on the landscape using appropriate locally indigenous plant materials. Plantings will include roadside plantings, living snow fences, wind breaks, and riparian plantings on private, non-farm rural lands. The total estimated cost of the project, including in-kind contributions, is $48,265. It is recommended that

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-035

949340 Page 11 of 11

up to $24,000 be allocated to the Waterloo Stewardship Network for the purchase of plant material and plant protection products as well as for producing printed materials.

25. Wellesley & District Public School – Reduce, Reuse, Replant (Categories 2, 4):

$2,520

This project will see the introduction of a greater variety of trees on the Wellesley & District Public School property with the intention of increasing the shade on the grounds and creating seating areas for students involved in passive play pursuits. This project involves the participation of staff, students and members of the larger community. The total estimated cost of the project, including significant in-kind contributions, is $12,333. It is recommended that up to $2,520 be allocated to the Wellesley & District Public School for the purchase of native species of trees, tree guards, armourstone, and soil amendments.

26. Ontario Invasive Plant Council “Grow Me Instead” Brochure (Category 4): $700

The Ontario Invasive Plant Council (OIPC) was established in 2008 to coordinate efforts by various levels of government, voluntary sector organisations, and the private sector to address the growing problem of invasive non-indigenous plant species in woodlands, wetlands, waterways, and parklands. Regional weed inspection and environmental planning staff have been collaborating with the OIPC. Recognising that a number of invasive plant species have been intentionally planted by home gardeners and landscapers, the OIPC recently published an illustrated brochure titled “Grow Me Instead: Beautiful Non-Invasive Plants for your Garden - A Guide for Southern Ontario.” Due to popular demand, the brochure must be reprinted at an estimated cost of $7,000. As at least some of the brochures will benefit Regional residents, it is recommended that up to $700 be allocated to the Ontario Invasive Plant Council to help defray printing costs.

27. Waterloo Region Environmentally Sensitive Landscape Signage (Category 4): $10,000 The previous round of grants allocated $5,000 to the production of the first ESL roadside signs, six of which are now ready to be installed ON Regional and Township roads around the perimeter of the Laurel Creek Headwaters ESL. By arrangement with Transportation and Environmental Services staff, the cost of manufacturing and installing the signs is to be borne by the Planning, Housing and Community Services Department. It is recommended that up to $10,000 be allocated to the production and installation of the first signs in the three other ESLs.

Report: P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023

800572 Page 1 of 19

REGION OF WATERLOO


Community Planning

FINANCE

Treasury Services

CORPORATE RESOURCES

Legal Services


DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: F-25-20/HAAS

SUBJECT: BROWNFIELDS FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM: TAX INCREMENT GRANT

PROGRAM APPLICATION – 130 AND 170 WATER STREET NORTH, CITY OF

CAMBRIDGE (WATERSCAPE)

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve a Tax Increment Grant for the properties known as 130 and 170 Water Street North in the City of Cambridge in an amount not to exceed $4,372,514 under the Region’s Brownfield Financial Incentive Program to be financed from the remaining funds from the Brownfields Financial Incentive Pilot Program to a maximum of $930,941 and from a source to be identified as part of the Reserve and Reserve Fund Report planned for Administration and Finance Committee in May 2011 as described in Report P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023, dated April 12, 2011. AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo authorize the Region’s Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services and Chief Financial Officer to execute a multi-party Tax Increment Grant Agreement with the registered owners of 130 Water Street North, namely Cambridge Mill Development Inc, and 170 Water Street North, namely Haastown Holdings (Cambridge) Inc. and the Corporation of the City of Cambridge, as described in Report P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023, dated April 12, 2011 with the form and content of such agreement to be satisfactory to both the Regional and City Solicitors.

SUMMARY: In October 2006, Regional Council approved the framework for a Regional Brownfields Financial Incentive Pilot Program (Pilot Program). The goals of this Pilot Program are to encourage the remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites, to promote reurbanization, and to reduce the outward movement of the urban area in support of the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) and the Province’s Places to Grow Growth Plan. In June 2007, the joint Tax Increment Grant (TIG) Program, as described in Report F-07-046/P-07-079, was approved by the Region. A TIG acts as a financial incentive for brownfield redevelopment and is based on the property tax increase resulting from remediation and redevelopment of a contaminated site. Grant payments are determined by calculating the difference in municipal (Region and City) taxes paid before remediation and redevelopment and the taxes generated after the redevelopment is complete (the tax increment). Payments are made in annual installments until all eligible remediation costs (minus other brownfield-related assistance granted) are recouped subject to limits set out in an agreement between the parties. TIGs are only used to offset

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023

800572 Page 2 of 19

remediation costs and are not intended to cover redevelopment costs. In June 2008, this joint program was implemented through amendments to the local Community Improvement Plans in the City of Kitchener (on a city-wide basis) and in the City of Cambridge (core areas only). The joint TIG program was later expanded, in 2010, to include the whole city of Cambridge. On March 11, 2009 Regional Council approved a joint TIG with the City of Kitchener for 36 Francis Street South (The Lang Tannery) for a total grant of $891,136. The Regional portion of this grant is capped at $537,410 (see Report F-09-016/P-09-018). All TIG agreements are implemented through a Multi-Party legal agreement between the Region, the respective Area Municipality and the applicant. The TIG application for 130 and 170 Water Street North, received on July 29, 2009, is the second application under this program. The application is for a maximum total grant of $7,310,557, of which approximately 60% ($4,372,514) would be provided by the Region and the remaining 40% ($2,938,041) would be provided by the City of Cambridge. The TIG proportions are determined by each municipality’s share of the municipal taxes levied on the property. The City of Cambridge’s proportionate contribution to the tax increment grant was approved by Cambridge Council on March 28th, 2011. This report describes the TIG Program requirements, the application received and recommends approval of the application based on the proposed phased TIG framework. The principles of this framework were approved on March 28, 2011 by the City of Cambridge (see Report CAO 2011-R11) and are also supported by the applicant. The TIG framework includes a flexible, three-phased approach that allows for the remediation and redevelopment of both parcels over a maximum timeframe of fifteen (15) years from the date of the first TIG payment. The TIGs will not be paid until the remediation and redevelopment associated with each phase on the north parcel is complete, and in the case of the south parcel, remediation of the whole site is fully complete. There is also a one-year waiting period after each respective phase is reassessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). The first TIG payment related to the first building on the north parcel, “Waterscape 1” is anticipated to occur no earlier than 2012. A portion of non-hazardous material may be received at the Region’s landfill in Waterloo in accordance with pre-established criteria set forth by both the Ministry of the Environment and the Region and at a tipping fee consistent with the Region’s Fees and Charges by-law in order to reduce overall costs. The details of the joint TIG will be outlined in a Multi-Party legal agreement between the Region, the City of Cambridge and the applicants. The Pilot Program was allocated an overall budget of $2.5 million. Total expenditures and commitments to date are $845,580 while pending expenditures for ESA grants and assistance with Township Community Improvement Plans total $390,000. The amount spent, committed and pending is $1,235,580 leaving a balance of $1,264,420. It is recommended that the balance of the pilot program funding be used to fund the Region’s share of the costs for the proposed TIG for 170 Water Street North (the north parcel), Cambridge with a potential maximum cost of $930,941. A source of funding for the proposed TIG at 130 Water Street North (the south parcel) to the potential maximum of $3,441,573 will be identified as part of the Reserve and Reserve Fund Report planned for Administration and Finance Committee in May. Further, as part of the review of the Pilot Program, Regional Staff are reviewing funding options for the TIG program and will report back to Regional Council with recommendations for an ongoing funding source. As approved by Regional Council in the fall 2009 (Report P-09-058), funding sources for any future TIG applications will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis until the long-term funding strategy is in place.


800572 Page 3 of 19

REPORT: In October 2006, Regional Council approved the framework for a Regional Brownfields Financial Incentive Pilot Program (Pilot Program). The goals of this Pilot Program are to encourage the remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites, to promote reurbanization, and to reduce the outward movement of the urban area in support of the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) and the Province’s Places to Grow Growth Plan. This Pilot Program contains four components: 1. A grant program which funds up to 50 percent of eligible costs associated with the completion of

a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), to a maximum of $40,000; 2. Changes to the Regional Development Charges By-law to provide for development charge

exemptions up to the total eligible remediation costs associated with the clean up of contaminated sites outside of core areas;

3. Development of a joint Tax Increment Grant (TIG) Program to further help off-set remediation costs of brownfield sites; and

4. Funding for Area Municipalities to assist in amending or developing Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) to provide for the implementation of the joint TIG Program.

Tax Increment Grant (TIG) Program Implementation In June 2007, the joint TIG Program was approved by the Region as outlined in Report F-07-046/P-07-079. In order to be eligible for the TIG Program, the following criteria apply:

- The site must be located within the designated Area Municipal Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Project Area where the CIP allows for implementation of the Regional Brownfields Financial Incentive Program;

- The applicant must be the registered owner of the site or an assignee of the owner; - The applicant cannot be responsible for causing the on-site contamination that requires

remediation; - The remediation and redevelopment undertaken must result in a minimum increased

property assessment value of $100,000; - The Environmental Site Assessments must be completed by a “Qualified Person” (as per

Ontario Regulation 153/04); - Redevelopment plans must meet all approved policy and should comply, where feasible and

appropriate, with applicable design guidelines; - The site must not be in a position of tax arrears or have any outstanding municipal financial

obligations; - Application for a TIG must be made prior to issuance of building permit(s) for the

redevelopment. (Exceptions will be considered in cases where a building permit was issued after March 1, 2008 but before the corresponding Area Municipal Community Improvement Plan authorizing the joint TIG Program was established).

As noted above and previously discussed in Report F-07-046/P-07-079, Area Municipal Community Improvement Plans allowing Regional participation in the CIP for purposes of a joint TIG Program must be in place for the Regional TIG Program to apply. To date, only the cities of Kitchener and Cambridge have such plans in place. In November 2009, Council approved the TIG Program funding structure whereby the TIG application approval and funding source are determined on a case-by-case basis by Regional


800572 Page 4 of 19

council as described in Report P-09-058.

Application Details

On July 29, 2009, the Region of Waterloo, through the City of Cambridge, received the second application for the joint City/Region TIG Program for Brownfield Remediation and Redevelopment. The applicants, Haastown Holdings (Cambridge) and Cambridge Mill Development Inc, own two adjacent parcels located at 130 & 170 Water Street North in the City of Cambridge (Downtown Galt). The two parcels, originally acquired by Haastown Holdings in January 2006, are also known as the Waterscape project. There are three (3) potential development phases for the two parcels.

170 Water Street North, Cambridge 170 Water Street North (north parcel) is approximately 0.87 hectares (2.1 acres) in size and is bounded by Water Street North and the Grand River. Since the early 1900s, the three-storey multi-tenant building on the northern part of the site housed several different uses including: a new and used machinery and supplies showroom; automotive supply parts warehouse; residential, and a lawyer’s office. This site is currently being used as a sales centre for the Waterscape project. As part of the Phase I & II Environmental Assessment work done on the site, the following contaminants were identified: heavy metals, poly aromatic hydrocarbons, and petroleum hydrocarbons. It is anticipated that redevelopment of the north parcel owned by Haastown Holdings will occur in two phases. The first phase or “Waterscape 1”, is currently underway and includes the ongoing risk management1 of the north parcel and the construction of a 14 story residential condominium with 113 units. Acknowledgement of Filing of Record of Site Condition by the Ministry of Environment was received on October 21, 2008. The Building Permit was issued for the north parcel in December 2008 and Site Plan Approval was granted on June 19, 2009. Construction is substantially complete with occupancy ongoing since December 2010. The second phase of redevelopment on the north parcel or “Waterscape 2” includes another multi-unit residential condominium. Construction is anticipated to begin following the completion of Waterscape 1, with the exact timing depending on market conditions. Further risk mitigation and remediation for this phase will also be required.

130 Water Street North, Cambridge 130 Water Street North (south parcel) is approximately 0.63 hectares (1.5 acres) in size and is bounded by Water Street North, Park Hill Rd West and the Grand River. The Galt Gas Company operated a coal gasification plant on the southern most portion of the site from 1886 to 1910. Other uses on the site included a textile mill (Galt Robe Co. and Stauffer Dobbie Limited), an auto garage, and a lumberyard. The site remained relatively unchanged from 1941 to 1985 when it was demolished in anticipation of the redevelopment of the property into condominiums in 1987. The condominium development did not occur due to the discovery of soil impacts in the form of coal tar residual under and to the west of the former coal gasification plant. The Phase I and II Environmental Assessments on this site identified the following contaminants; petroleum hydrocarbons, xylenes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic hydrocarbons and heavy

1 Risk Management Measures refer to both the administrative (Certificate of Property Use, Health and Safety Requirements and Inspection and Maintenance Program) and physical controls (construction of a cap, use of clean fill material and specialized liners to contain the soil ) to prevent adverse impacts upon the identified receptors from the contaminants of concern.


800572 Page 5 of 19

metals. The third phase of the project includes the risk assessment, remediation and redevelopment of the south parcel now owned by Cambridge Mill Developments. The preliminary plan for the south parcel is that it be redeveloped into a hotel and conference centre to complement the existing mill structure adjacent to the site (and also owned by the same party). A summary of the estimated remediation costs for each phase is as follows while more detailed information is shown in Attachment 1:

Phase Remediation

Estimates

Waterscape 1 $700,559

Waterscape 2 $921,000

South Parcel $5,230,984

Total $6,852,543

Following discussions with the Region’s Waste Management staff , the applicants and their consultants, it was determined that the potential for significant cost savings could be achieved if the Region were to accept impacted but non-hazardous soils from both the north and south parcels for disposal at the Regional landfill facility. To this effect, the applicant’s consultants provided revised estimates that suggested the overall total eligible remediation costs on the south parcel could be reduced by approximately $2.2 million to a total of $3,022,760. The process as to how such materials will be accepted at the Regional landfill is described below.

Specific Joint TIG Program Application Considerations Given the substantial contamination issues of the south parcel, the applicants have indicated that it is not financially feasible to complete remediation of the south parcel before the first phase of the north parcel (Waterscape 1) is complete. They have requested that their application for the TIG Program be considered in light of the phased nature of their remediation and development approach. In consultation with City of Cambridge staff, three key areas have been identified where an alternative approach may be warranted, while still meeting the intent and objectives of the joint TIG Program.

1. Eligibility Criteria – Application and Timing The TIG application for 130 & 170 Water St. North was received on July 29, 2009, following the issuance of a building permit in December 2008. The administrative requirement of both the Regional and City remediation programs require an application to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. While the applicant does not strictly meet the above criteria based on the date of its application, staff at both the Region and the City were aware of the applicant’s intent to apply for the TIG Program as soon as they were in a position to do so and discussions with the developers of the affected properties have been ongoing since early 2008. Further, the applicant was required to obtain a building permit by the end of 2008 as a condition of the City of Cambridge relative to property tax issues for the site. Given the need to recognize that development timelines do not always coincide with the administrative requirements of such a program, Regional staff recommends that the TIG application not be deemed ineligible on the basis of this requirement.


800572 Page 6 of 19

2. Eligible Remediation Costs

The TIG framework approved by Regional Council on a pilot basis lists a series of eligible remediation costs including “environmental remediation work identified in a remediation work plan, excluding work completed prior to 12 months of filing of an application.” As well, the framework provides that “the costs of any work undertaken more then 12 months prior to an application are generally ineligible for the grant.” As such, the applicant has voiced concern that this condition renders a substantial portion of the remediation work–to-date ineligible for inclusion since it was completed prior to the July 2008 cut off date (approximately $155,000). Costs include those related to the Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment, other environmental investigation work, as well costs related to the risk assessment for the site undertaken after ownership for the site was assumed by the applicant in 2006. Given the nature and complexity of the contamination on the parcels, the lengthy development timeframe, the ongoing consultation with the applicant and the fact that these costs were incurred in anticipation of the implementation of the Region’s Pilot Program (approved in October 2006), staff recommend that the remediation costs incurred on the site between 2006 and 2008 also be considered eligible for inclusion in the TIG.

3. TIG Payment Structure and Schedule The Proposed TIG Program for Brownfield Redevelopment Report approved by Regional Council June 26, 2007 (see report F-07-046/P-07-079), notes:

“For sites of exceptional size or complexity, or for those that involve very lengthy remediation, the terms of a TIG could, at the discretion of Regional Council, be set on a case by case basis”.

This stipulation was also reflected in the Community Improvement Plan approved for the Joint TIG Program by the City of Cambridge under “Program Description” which states that:

“The terms of the TIG are at the discretion of City of Cambridge and/or Regional Council. For sites deemed to be of exception size or complexity, involve phased development, or for those that will involve very lengthy remediation, the TIG payments and schedule may be set on a case by case basis. Council also has the right to include a “Sunset Clause” on the TIG payment schedule.”

While the TIG Program was designed to facilitate the remediation and redevelopment of a site in a consequent manner, it was recognized that some projects would require a more flexible approach in order to meet the same overall objectives. Based on the information provided by the applicant, staff is of the opinion that the Waterscape project warrants such a case-by-case approach. The applicant has requested the following:

That 170 Water Street North and 130 Water Street North be considered one “site” for the purposes of the TIG application;

That the applicant be allowed to remediate and redevelop the north parcel in advance of completing remediation and redevelopment of the south parcel;

That the TIG payments for the remediation of both the north and south parcels be based on the increased assessment value of any development that occurs on the north parcel and south parcel, depending on the timing of those developments;

That the TIG payments be “phased” over time allowing a gap between the redevelopment of


800572 Page 7 of 19

the north parcel and completion of the remediation and redevelopment of the south parcel;

That the overall timeframe from the first TIG payment to the last TIG payment be extended to allow for an uncertain remediation schedule (though a maximum of 10 total TIG payments for each the north and south parcels would still be in effect);

That the applicant have the ability to defer payments if deemed appropriate within the context of the overall framework; and

That the applicant be able to assign their interest in the agreement subject to the approval of the Councils of each of the City and the Region and any potential assignees willingness to fulfill all of the requirements of the multi-party legal agreement.

To this end Regional staff, in consultation with the City of Cambridge and the applicants, considered a number of approaches to develop an appropriate TIG framework. On March 28, 2011 Cambridge Council approved/endorsed a recommendation to treat the two parcels as one site with a three-phased TIG payment schedule based on the remediation and redevelopment timelines. As part of this approach, the north parcel will be remediated and redeveloped and the TIG associated with this parcel will be paid out in phases upon completion, occupancy and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) assessment of any buildings. The first two phases of the TIG would cover costs associated with the remediation of the north parcel (Waterscape 1 and 2) and some of the limited environmental assessment costs for the whole site. The third phase of the TIG will depend upon the timing of remediation and redevelopment of the south parcel. Once key milestones are achieved, the TIGs payable will be based on the increases in tax assessment on both the north and south parcels. Payments related to the remediation costs of the south parcel but associated with the tax assessment increase of the north parcel (Waterscape 1) would begin as soon as the Record of Site Condition for the south parcel was acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment (given the condition of a one-year waiting period has already been satisfied as part of the first phase of the TIG). Payments associated with the redevelopment and tax assessment increase of Waterscape 2 (north parcel) and the south parcel would begin one year following the MPAC reassessment of those redevelopments as per the specifications of the joint TIG Program. While this approach provides for more flexibility, it also provides a reasonable framework and incentive to encourage the developer to proceed with the remediation and redevelopment of the south parcel as soon as possible. Furthermore, the sooner the north and south parcels are fully remediated and redeveloped, the sooner the expected environmental, economic and social benefits will be realized by the community. These benefits include:

The redevelopment of an extremely challenging brownfield site that has been vacant for several decades and that has failed to redevelop in the absence of such a TIG program;

The clean-up and risk mitigation of a site that has posed an environmental threat to the Region’s groundwater supplies (including the Middleton Well located downstream of the site);

Assistance in the rejuvenation of the downtown Galt Core, providing for the possibility of approximately 230 new residential units and a new hotel/conference centre and providing possible spin-off effects;

The increase in municipal taxes generated on the site including an estimated $338,220 per year from Waterscape 1, $345,660 per year from Waterscape 2 and $892,583 per year from the South parcel, if redeveloped as proposed.


800572 Page 8 of 19

Recommended Approach Upon careful consideration of the Waterscape TIG application, the complexity of the remediation and the long term benefits of the redevelopment project, Regional staff recommend that the approach outlined above and endorsed by City of Cambridge be approved by Regional Council as an appropriate framework to determine the case-by-case TIG structure and payment schedule. Provision of the multi-party legal agreement would include;

A flexible timeframe allowing for a period of discontinuity between the TIG payments related to the remediation costs for the north parcel and any subsequent TIG payments related to the remediation costs of the south parcel. Under no circumstances would the total TIG exceed the monetary limits set in the agreement and payments will be limited to 10 per parcel (north and south);

The timeframe from the first TIG payment to the last TIG payment, regardless of whether for the north or south parcels, would be no longer than 15 years;

That the development of Waterscape 2 be required to be commenced on or before January 1, 2016, as evidenced by the issuance of a building permit, in order to be considered for inclusion in the overall TIG framework;

That the applicants be required to provide status updates regarding the project upon request by the City or the Region;

That the applicants must obtain the approval of both the Region of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge Councils if they seek to assign payments to a third party;

That the applicants provide an updated remedial work plan and revised estimates for the south parcel as they become available;

That the City and Region obtain the right to have the remedial work plan for the south parcel submitted for peer review;

That the developers collaborate with the Region to determine whether suitable non-hazardous materials may be disposed of at the Regional landfill; and

That the applicants work with the Region and City to look for opportunities to reduce and manage costs appropriately.

In determining 15 years as the appropriate timeframe, Regional staff considered several factors. First, the preliminary remedial work plan submitted indicates that remediation of the south parcel could take several years. While the applicant had originally requested a timeframe of more than 20 years, it was felt that there needed to be some incentive for the applicant to complete the remediation as soon as reasonably possible. It should also be noted that both Waterscape 1 and 2 received Site Plan Approval by the City of Cambridge on June 19, 2009. While Waterscape 1 is currently underway, the applicant has no obligation to obtain a Building Permit for Waterscape 2 until on or before January 1, 2016. The development proposed on the south parcel is still conceptual in nature with no site plan approvals in place.

TIG Calculations and Payment Schedule Given the phased approach recommended above, TIG estimates were calculated for each phase of the remediation and redevelopment. Details of the TIG calculation and the Regional and City portions are shown in Attachment 2. TIG Calculation Steps:


800572 Page 9 of 19

1) The first step included the preparation of the anticipated assessment increment(s). These are based on the pre-remediation MPAC assessment values and the estimated post-remediation and redevelopment assessment values for each phase of development as provided by the applicant.

Phase Assm’t Value

“Pre”

Assm’t Value

“Post”*

Assm’t

Increment*

Waterscape 1 $ 331,173 $30,000,000 $29,668,827

Waterscape 2 $N/A $30,000,000 $30,000,000

South Parcel $272,827 $40,000,000 $ 39,727,173 *These values are based on estimates and will be confirmed by MPAC upon completion of each phase of development.

2) Estimates were then prepared to identify the anticipated increase in municipal (Region and

City) taxes (tax increment) that would be generated by the remediation and redevelopment for each phase.

Phase Mun. Taxes

“Pre”

Mun. Taxes

“Post”

Tax Increment

Waterscape 1 $ 7,440 $345,660 $338,219

Waterscape 2 $N/A $345,660 $345,660

South Parcel $6,129 $898,713 $892,583 Note: All pre-remediation assessment and taxation allocated to Waterscape 1

3) The final step was to determine the estimated total eligible remediation costs for each phase

as per the specifications of the joint TIG program which allows for a 10 per cent allowance for indirect remediation costs to be applied to estimates but also requires reductions for any government financial assistance previously received as part of a brownfield project. Other assistance received for Waterscape 1 includes both funding from the Phase II ESA Grant program as well as funding through Cambridge’s Contaminated Sites Grant program.

Phase Estimated

Rem. Costs

Indirect Rem.

Allowance

Less: Other

Assistance

Total Eligible

Rem. Costs

Waterscape 1 $700,559 $70,056 ($227,240) $543,375

Waterscape 2 $921,000 $92,100 TBD $1,013,100

South Parcel $5,230,984 $523,098 TBD $5,754,082

The following table summarizes the maximum TIG and estimates of the Regional and City portions.

Phase Maximum

TIG

Regional

Portion

City

Portion

Waterscape 1 $543,375 $324,997 $218,378

Waterscape 2 $1,013,100 $605,944 $407,156

South Parcel $5,754,082 $3,441,573 $2,312,507

Total $7,310,557 $4,372,514 $2,938,041

Payments related to Waterscape 1 and 2 would not commence until at least one (1) year following the re-assessment of the development by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). Payments related to the remediation costs of the south parcel (but based on the Tax Increments


800572 Page 10 of 19

generated by the north parcel) would commence only once the remediation of the south parcel is complete. TIG payments arising from the increase in assessment value generated on the south parcel would begin one year following MPAC re-assessment of that development. It should be noted that the south parcel estimates are based on the high end remediation costs noted earlier in this report. If the soil disposal arrangement and other cost saving/management approaches are successfully implemented to lower overall costs, the total TIG received will also be reduced accordingly. For each of the phases of this project, the applicant is required to pay all applicable property taxes for the property at all times during and after remediation and redevelopment until such time as ownership is transferred to the intended end-user (if applicable). The TIG is not an exemption from the property taxes levied, but a grant payable to the owner according to the payment schedule in accordance with an agreement between the parties. The joint TIG Program applies only to the municipal portion of the tax bill (not education portion that is remitted to the Province). Further, the final amounts of the TIG payments will be determined by the actual MPAC assessment value and classification and the final net eligible remediation costs, thus the final schedule of payments is subject to change. As outlined above, this approach provides the applicant with the flexibility to complete remediation and redevelopment of both parcels within a reasonable timeframe. This flexibility is provided within a framework that still requires the applicant to meet certain milestones or risk a reduction in the ability to have the various phases included within the agreement.

For a summary of the overall TIG framework, please see Attachment 3.

Interim Multi-Party Remediation and Redevelopment Agreement One of the requirements of the TIG Program is an Interim Multi-party Remediation and Redevelopment Agreement (the “Interim Agreement”) between each of the land owners , the Region of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge. This agreement will include the conditions outlined in this report and establish to whom the TIG payments will be made given that there are separate owners of the properties. Under the TIG Program, the owner must demonstrate that all of the requirements and conditions of the Interim Agreement have been met before any payments are made. A draft of the proposed Interim Agreement has been prepared by the Region’s Legal Services Division and can be made available for review. This Interim Agreement will be also be updated as additional financial information (including new assessment values and actual remediation costs or updated estimates for the south parcel) become available. Once the remediation, redevelopment and reassessment of the north parcel (Waterscape 1 and 2) and the remediation of the south parcel have been completed, actual costs, through invoice review, will be verified and the Interim Agreement will be superseded by the Final Agreement. This Final Agreement will include the final TIG payments and payment schedule. The final TIG payments will be dependent upon the actual net eligible remediation costs and the actual MPAC reassessment

value and classification. It is important to note that although the annual TIG payments and

schedule could change, the maximum total amount eligible for the TIG remains capped. In the case of the Region’s TIG, this maximum or capped amount is $4,372,514 subject to any savings realized through use of the Regional Landfill as described in the report. The legal agreement also sets out the requirements and process by which certain non-hazardous


800572 Page 11 of 19

materials may be accepted for disposal at a Regional landfill. In short, any such materials must be proved to meet pre-determined criteria established by the provincial Ministry of Environment pursuant to regulations under the Environmental Protection Act. A tipping fee consistent with the Region’s Fees and Charges by-law will be charged for such disposal. This will result in savings to the developer in terms of transport costs and other fees. Since the tax increment grant operates on the basis of a re-imbursement of funds expended by the property owners to remediate their respective property, these developer savings will ultimately benefit the Region of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge.

Status of other Brownfield Financial Incentive Pilot Program Elements

Two additional Tax Increment Grant applications in the City of Cambridge have been received and are currently being reviewed for eligibility. Give these two additional applications and the interest and inquiries that the Region has received to date from the development community, it is expected that additional applications for the Program will be received in 2011. Further, it should be noted that the Townships of Wellesley, Wilmot, Woolwich and North Dumfries have initiated discussions to develop a Request for Proposal to retain a consultant to help develop the required Brownfields Community Improvement Plans to implement the joint TIG Program in each respective municipality. This would expand the geographic area where the joint TIG Program is available to six out of seven municipalities in the region. While Regional staff generally supports this expansion in the scope of the program, it does increase the potential for additional TIG applications and resulting requests for funding. Staff anticipates undertaking a review and evaluation of the Pilot Program in the Summer of 2011. Results and recommendations will be brought back to Regional Council for their consideration in fall 2011. Further, as part of the review of the Pilot Program, Regional Staff are reviewing funding options for the TIG program and will report back to Regional Council with recommendations for an ongoing funding source.

Area Municipal Consultation/Coordination Regional and City of Cambridge staff has reviewed the noted application and their respective TIG Application Review Committees have approved the application in principle. Both review committees are satisfied that the application meets eligibility and application requirements with the exceptions noted above. On March 28, 2011, Cambridge Council approved the above TIG agreement as outlined in Report CAO 2011-R11.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The Regional Brownfields Financial Incentive Pilot Program directly addresses the Focus Area 2 - Growth Management: Manage and shape growth to ensure a liveable, healthy, prosperous and sustainable Waterloo Region - strategic objective which states: “Encourage compact urban form, reurbanization and mixed use development consistent with the goals of the Regional Growth Management Strategy.”

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The primary principle of the joint TIG program is that the financial assistance received by the developer is essentially “paid for” by the increased tax assessment generated by the new developments. In the case of 130 &170 Water Street North, the total increase in municipal taxes (Regional and City) once both parcels are fully remediated and redeveloped is estimated at this time


800572 Page 12 of 19

to be approximately $1,576,462 per year. Over ten years, this represents an additional $15.7 million dollars in tax revenues received by the Region and City that would not otherwise have been generated if the site had remained in its 2008 state. The Tax Increment Grant recommended for 130 & 170 Water Street North, City of Cambridge would result in a maximum contribution from the Region of $4,372,514 over the years 2012 to 2016 and beyond. The actual contribution for the Region could be less depending on final net remediation costs, final MPAC assessed values for the redevelopment and the actual timing of remediation and redevelopment. One-time funding for the Brownfields Financial Incentive Pilot Program in the amount of $2.5 million was provided for in the 2006 approved budget. Of that amount, $845,580 has been spent or committed while a further $390,000 will likely be required for pending expenditures for ESA grants and to assist the Townships in developing CIPs to allow for a joint TIG program with the Region. Spent, committed and pending expenditures total $1,235,580 or approximately half of the program budget. The balance, in the amount of $1,264,420, is sufficient to fund the Region’s portion of the TIG for 170 Water Street (north parcel) of $930,941 (maximum). A small balance of the initial program budget, $333,479, would be available for other pending TIGS. For 130 Water Street North, (south parcel), a funding source for this portion of the TIG in the amount of $3,441,573 (maximum) will be identified as part of the Reserve and Reserve Fund report planned for Administration and Finance Committee in May. Given that the south parcel is anticipated to be the last phase of development, the short delay in confirming the funding source will not be an issue. It should also be noted that the Region’s contribution would be recovered after approximately 4.6 years of receiving the full increase in Regional taxes generated by the full redevelopment of the north and south parcels (as proposed here). Further, even if the south parcel is only remediated but not developed within the timeframe proposed, the Region’s contribution would be recovered after approximately 10 years of increased tax assessment generated by the north parcel (Waterscape 1 and 2) alone. A longer term strategy to provide on-going funding for TIGs is currently being developed by Finance staff and will be addressed over the next several months, potentially in conjunction with the next Development Charges By-law update in 2012 or 2013.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Staff from Transportation and Environmental Services (Water Services and Waste Management), Finance and Legal Services have and continue to be involved in the development of the Regional Brownfield Financial Incentives Program.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Remediation Cost Estimates Attachment 2 - Details of TIG Calculations Attachment 3 - Summary of Waterscape TIG Framework

PREPARED BY: Brooke Lambert, Principal Planner, Brownfields Coordinator Angela Hinchberger, Director of Financial Services, Treasury & Tax Policy Jeff Schelling, Solicitor, Legal Services

APPROVED BY: Rob Horne, Commissioner, Planning, Housing and Community Services Larry Ryan, Chief Financial Officer Debra Arnold, Regional Solicitor

Report: P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023

800572 Page 13 of 19

Attachment 1

Remediation Cost Estimates

170 Water Street N. (“North Parcel”) Remediation and Redevelopment

In early 2008, a severance of the larger property comprising both what is now 170 Water Street and 130 Water Street was permitted by the City of Cambridge to allow for the phased remediation and redevelopment of the two parcels due to the complex nature of the contamination on the south parcel noted above. It is anticipated that redevelopment of the north parcel owned by Haastown Holdings will occur in two phases. The first phase or “Waterscape 1”, is currently underway and includes the ongoing risk management2 of the north parcel and the construction of a 14 story residential condominium with 115 units. Acknowledgement of Filing of Record of Site Condition by the Ministry of Environment was received on October 21, 2008. The Building Permit was issued for the north parcel in December 2008 and Site Plan Approval was granted on June 19, 2009. Construction is substantially complete with occupancy ongoing since December 2010. The second phase of redevelopment or “Waterscape 2” includes another multi-unit residential condominium. Construction is anticipated to begin following the completion of Waterscape 1, with the exact timing depending on market conditions. Further risk mitigation and remediation for this phase will also be required. As part of this application, several pieces of information were submitted including a summary of remediation costs already incurred and yet to be incurred as part of Waterscape 1 and those anticipated to be incurred related to the redevelopment of Waterscape 2. Watters Environmental Group Inc. (Watters Environmental) was retained by Haastown Holdings (Cambridge) Inc. to assist in the preparation of the remedial estimates, based on the remedial work plan and the results of the Risk Assessment and associated Certificate of Property Use (CPU) for the site. Costs include those related to:

Implementing a cap across the entire site to block exposure to impacted soil and/or groundwater;

Site preparation activities related to the construction of the cap; and

Off-site disposal of impacted soils. The estimates are as follows:

North Parcel Remediation Estimates

Waterscape Phase 1 $700,559

Waterscape Phase 2 $921,000

Total $1,621,559

130 Water St. N. (“South Parcel”) Remediation and Redevelopment

The third phase of the project includes the risk assessment, remediation and redevelopment of the south parcel owned by Cambridge Mill Developments. The preliminary plan for the south parcel is that it be redeveloped into a hotel and conference centre to complement the existing mill structure adjacent to the site (and also owned by the same party).

2 Risk Management Measures refer to both the administrative (Certificate of Property Use, Health and Safety Requirements and Inspection and Maintenance Program) and physical controls (construction of a cap, use of clean fill material and specialized liners to contain the soil) to prevent adverse impacts upon the identified receptors from the contaminants of concern.


800572 Page 14 of 19

As part of the TIG application pertaining to the south parcel, a technical memorandum (prepared by AECOM) was submitted. This memorandum outlined the estimated remediation costs relating to the south parcel based on existing environmental information and current redevelopment plans. It should be noted that these estimates do not reflect any changes to the remedial work plan and risk assessment that may result from any new information garnered as a result of this process. Estimates for the remediation of the south parcel included a low and high end and are broken into several components.

South Parcel Remediation Estimates

Expense Low End High End

1. Impacted Soil and Groundwater $1,452,832 $1,716,634

2. Managing Excess Impacted Soils $2,873,200 $3,232,350

3. Risk Assessment & RSC $90,000 $120,000

4. Phase 1 & 2 ESA $133,000 $162,000

Total $4,549,032 $5,230,984

Following discussions with the Region’s Waste Management staff , the applicants and their consultants, it was determined that the potential for significant cost savings could be achieved if the Region were to partner with the developers and agree to accept impacted but non-hazardous soils from both the north and south parcels for disposal at the Regional Landfill facility. To this effect, Aecom provided revised estimates that suggested the overall total eligible remediation costs on the south parcel could be reduced by approximately $2.2 million to a total of $3,022,760. Further, revised estimates are expected to be provided as additional site characterization work is done to delineate the extent of the contamination on the south parcel.


800572 Page 15 of 19

Attachment 2

Joint TIG Calculation Details

Pre-Remediation Assessment Values In the 2008 taxation year (the year in which the Building Permit was issued), the site - both north and south parcels - was assessed at a total value of $604,400. The assessed value of the north parcel was $331,173. The south parcel was assessed at a value of $272,827. The 2008 municipal property taxes levied on the north parcel were approximately $2,990 for the City portion and $4,450 for the Regional portion (total municipal taxes of $7,440). On the south parcel, the City portion of taxes was approximately $2,463 and the Region’s was approximately $3,666 (total municipal taxes of $6,129). Overall, the total municipal taxes on both the north and south parcels were $13,569.

North Parcel – “Waterscape 1” The applicant has projected post-remediation and redevelopment assessment value on the north parcel to be estimated at $30,000,000. Municipal property taxes levied after redevelopment would be approximately $138,918 for the City portion and $206,742 for the Region portion. This represents an increment of approximately $135,928 for the City portion and $202,292 for the Region portion and a total tax increment of $338,220.

Table 1 – Municipal Taxes & Increment Calculations (Waterscape 1)

Property Tax Pre-Remediation Est. Post-Redevelopment* Est. Increment

Area Municipal $2,990 $138,918 $135,927

Region $4,450 $206,742 $202,291

Total $7,440 $345,660 $338,219

*Based on 2008 taxation rates

Based on the phased approach recommended, the applicant would receive a TIG equal to the increment between the pre-remediation and redevelopment municipal property taxes payable and the post-remediation and redevelopment municipal property taxes. The maximum amount of the grant related to Waterscape 1 would be based on the estimated eligible remediation costs related to the Waterscape 1 plus a 10% allowance for indirect costs (as outlined by the TIG Program), less any brownfield related financial assistance received to date from the municipality or the Region. In 2007, the applicant received Phase II ESA grants in the amount of $17,740.31 and $40,000 for the north and south parcels respectively. In addition, the applicant anticipates receiving additional assistance in the form of the City of Cambridge’s Contaminated Sites Grant Program for a total of $1500/unit. With an estimated 113 units, the total of this assistance from the City of Cambridge is $169,500. The final estimated net eligible remediation costs are:

North Phase Cost Estimate 10% Admin Total Other Asst, Eligible

Waterscape 1 $700,559 $70,056 $770,615 ($227,240) $543,375

The maximum TIG related to the eligible remediation costs of Waterscape 1 equals $543,375 of which the Region would pay $324,997 (approximately 60%) and the City would pay $218,378 (approximately 40%).


800572 Page 16 of 19

It should be noted that payment of the TIG would not commence until at least one (1) year following the re-assessment of the site by Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) - in this case Waterscape 1. Thus, it is expected that the remediation costs related to Waterscape 1 would be recouped by the applicant within approximately two TIG payments, expected to occur in 2012 and 2013 respectively. The applicant is required to pay all applicable property taxes for the property at all times during and after remediation and redevelopment, until ownership of the condominiums is fully transferred to the new owners. The TIG is not an exemption from the property taxes levied, but a grant payable to the owner according to the payment schedule in accordance with an agreement between the parties. The joint TIG Program applies only to the municipal portion of the tax bill (not education portion that is remitted to the Province). Further, the final amounts of the TIG payments will be determined by the actual MPAC assessment value and the final net eligible remediation costs, thus the final schedule of payments is subject to change. Total net eligible remediation costs for Waterscape 1, however, are capped at $543,375 taking into consideration other financial assistance provided to the applicant.

North Parcel – “Waterscape 2” The projected post-remediation and redevelopment assessment value on the north parcel is estimated to be $30,000,000. Municipal property taxes levied after redevelopment would be approximately $138,918 for the City portion and $206,742 for the Region portion. This represents an increment of approximately $138,918 for the City portion and $206,742 for the Region portion and a total tax increment of $345,660. Because the “pre-remediation” taxes for the north parcel are fully accounted for within the calculation for Waterscape 1, the value of the pre-remediation taxes for the Waterscape 2 development are assumed to be zero.

Table 2 – Municipal Taxes & Increment Calculations (Waterscape 2)


Area Municipal 0 $138,918 $138,918

Region 0 $206,742 $206,742

Total 0 $345,660 $345,660


Thus, for this phase, the applicant would receive a TIG equal to the increment between the pre-remediation and redevelopment municipal property taxes payable and the post-remediation and redevelopment municipal property taxes. The maximum amount of the TIG related to Waterscape 2 would be based on the estimated eligible remediation costs related to the Waterscape 2 plus a 10% allowance for indirect costs (as outlined by the TIG Program), less any brownfield related financial assistance received to date from the municipality or the Region. The applicant may also be eligible for the Contaminated Sites Grant offered by the City of Cambridge ($1500/unit). Any funding that is received under this program would be subtracted from the total eligible costs. If no additional financial assistance for Waterscape 2 is received, then the full amount of estimated remediation costs would be considered eligible. The final estimated net eligible remediation costs are:

North Phase Cost Estimate

10%

Admin Total

Other Asst.

Eligible

Waterscape 2 $921,000 $92,100 $1,013,100 TBD $1,013,100


800572 Page 17 of 19

For Waterscape 2, the maximum TIG related to the eligible remediation costs equals $1,013,100 of which the Region would pay $605,944 (approximately 60%) and the City would pay $407,156 (approximately 40%). It should be noted that payment of the TIG for Waterscape 2 would not commence until at least one (1) year following the re-assessment of the site by MPAC. Further, the applicant will be required to ensure a building permit for the construction of Waterscape 2 is obtained prior to January 1, 2016 or it will lose the ability to include this phase of the redevelopment within the overall TIG framework outlined herein. Based on these estimates, it is anticipated that the eligible remediation costs associated with Waterscape 2 would be paid within a four (4) year time frame. Further, similar to Waterscape 1, the applicant is required to pay all applicable property taxes for the property at all times during and after remediation and redevelopment, until ownership of the condominiums is fully transferred to the new owners. Further, the final amounts of the TIG payments will be determined by the actual MPAC assessment value and final net eligible remediation costs, thus the final schedule of payments is subject to change. Total eligible net remediation costs for Waterscape 2, however, are capped at $1,013,100. Similarly to Waterscape 1 above, it is also contemplated, that any residual TIG payments related to Waterscape 2 be applied to the eligible remediation costs incurred on the south parcel once the remediation and redevelopment of the south parcel is complete. If no remediation and redevelopment of the south parcel occurs within the specified time-frame, no transfer of TIG payments will be permitted.

130 Water Street North - South Parcel The projected post-remediation and redevelopment assessment value on the south parcel is estimated to be $40,000,000. At the 2008 tax rate, municipal property taxes levied after redevelopment would be approximately $361,184 for the City portion and $537,529 for the Region portion. This represents an increment of approximately $358,720 for the City portion and $533,862 for the Region portion and a total tax increment of approximately $ 892,583.

Table 3 – Municipal Taxes & Increment Calculations (South Parcel)


Area Municipal $2,463 $361,184 $358,720

Region $3,666 $537,529 $533,862

Total $6,129 $898,713 $892,583


The third phase of the TIG payments relates to the total eligible remediation costs associated with the remediation and redevelopment of the south parcel and would commence only once the remediation and redevelopment of the south parcel is complete. Tax increments generated from the Waterscape 1 and 2 would be applied (if there is left-over tax assessment room) and could begin as soon as the remediation is complete (for Waterscape 1 assessment) and remediation and redevelopment is complete (for Waterscape 2). TIG payments arising from the increase in assessment value generated on the south site would begin one year following MPAC assessment. As outlined above, the City and Region would establish a fixed maximum time frame of 15 years for the TIG schedule. In total the applicant would have a total of 15 years after the issuance of the first TIG payment under the legal agreement to complete the remediation and redevelopment and recoup all or a portion of their total remediation costs (with a maximum of 10 payments on each of the north and south parcels available). After 15 years, all payments will cease, regardless of whether


800572 Page 18 of 19

or not all eligible costs have been recouped. The maximum amount of the TIG related to the south parcel would be based on the estimated eligible remediation costs related to the south parcel plus a 10% allowance for indirect remediation costs (as outlined by the TIG Program), less any brownfield related financial assistance received to date from the municipality or the Region (including any assistance received in the form of property tax write offs benefiting the applicant after the date of transfer of ownership in connection with the south parcel). As noted above, the Region anticipates partnering with the developer and allowing for the disposal of impacted (but non-hazardous) soils related to the south parcel at a Regional Landfill facility. It is expected that this arrangement has the potential to significantly reduce the total eligible remediation costs on the south parcel (as can be seen by the “revised” estimates below). Thus the final estimated net eligible remediation costs are:

South Phase Estimates 10% Total Other Asst. Eligible

High End / Max $5,230,984 $523,098 $5,754,082 $0 $5,754,082

Revised $3,022,760 $302,276 $3,325,036 $0 $3,325,036

For the south parcel, the maximum TIG related to the eligible remediation costs equals $5,754,082 of which the Region would pay $3,441,573 (approximately 60%) and the City would pay the balance of $2,312,507 (approximately 40%). It should be noted that the south parcel estimates are based on the high end remediation costs noted earlier in this report. If the soil disposal arrangement and other cost saving/management approaches are successfully implemented to lower overall costs, the total TIG received will also be reduced accordingly. As outlined above, this approach provides the applicant with the flexibility to complete remediation and redevelopment of both parcels within a reasonable timeframe. This flexibility is provided within a framework that still requires the applicant to meet certain milestones or risk a reduction in the ability to have the various phases included within the agreement.

Report: P-11-038/F-11-018/CR-RS-11-023

800572 Page 19 of 19

Attachment 3

Summary of Waterscape TIG Framework

TIG Eligible Remediation

Costs

Redevelopment

Assessment Initiation of Payments * Max Pay. Funding Cap Region Portion** City Portion**

Waterscape 1 Waterscape 1 & Whole Site Investigation Costs

Waterscape 1 Payments begin 1 year after MPAC Assessment and invoices

verified. TBD $543,375 $324,997 $218,378

Waterscape 2 Waterscape 2 Costs Waterscape 2 Payments begin 1 year after MPAC Assessment and invoices

verified. TBD $1,013,100 $605,944 $407,156

South South Parcel Costs

South and Waterscape 1 & 2

(if applicable)

Payments from Waterscape 1 begin after RSC on South. Payments from Waterscape 2 begin after RSC and Redevelopment on South. Payments

on South begin 1 year after MPAC Assessment. 10 $5,754,082 $3,441,573 $2,312,507

ALL Waterscape 1, 2 and

South Waterscape 1, 2 and

South Payments begin after remediation and redevelopment

10 North +

10 South $7,310,557 $4,372,514 $2,938,041

* Payments may be deferred to a later starting date if requested by applicant.

** Estimate based on the 2008 tax split (Region = 59.811 %, City= 40.189%).

North Site - Remediation Estimates

South Site - Remediation Estimates

Estimates* 10% Total Eligible

Estimates 10% Total Eligible

Waterscape 1 $700,559 $70,056 $770,615 $543,375

Original $5,230,984 $523,098 $5,754,082 $5,754,082

Watercape 2 $921,000 $92,100 $1,013,100 $1,013,100

Revised* $3,022,760 $302,276 $3,325,036 $3,325,036

Both $1,621,559 $162,156 $1,783,715 $1,556,475

Difference $2,208,224 $220,822 $2,429,046 $2,429,046

* Costs related to Risk Management Measures (RMMs) will be subject to further review. Initial costs related to the implementation of RMMs will be considered eligible. Operating and Maintenance costs will not be considered eligible. All other RMMs will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

* Revised estimates reflect the reduced soil disposal costs associated with the disposal of impacted and contaminated soils at the Regional Landfill.

Report: P-11-036

949390 Page 1 of 7

REGION OF WATERLOO


Transportation Planning


DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: T15-40/28/C13-20/CA

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO CONTROLLED

ACCESS BY-LAW #58-87 FOR A TEMPORARY ACCESS TO REGIONAL ROAD

#28 (HOMER WATSON BOULEVARD), CITY OF KITCHENER

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve an amendment to Controlled Access By-law #58-87 for a temporary right-in, right-out only access on the east side of Regional Road #28 (Homer Watson Boulevard) approximately 65 metres north of Block Line Road in the City of Kitchener as described in P-11-036, dated April 12, 2011.

SUMMARY: The Region of Waterloo will be constructing a roundabout at the intersection of Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road in the spring of 2011 which will result in the temporary closure of the east leg of Block Line Road at this intersection for approximately a three month period commencing late May or early June of 2011. Block Line Road will be closed from Homer Watson Boulevard easterly to the existing access to the Country Park Shopping Centre on the northeast corner of Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road. The Block Line Road access to the Country Park Shopping Centre will remain open, however, traffic from Homer Watson Boulevard will be unable to access the property directly from Block Line Road. The Tim Hortons restaurant in the plaza has expressed a concern with the potential loss of business caused by the temporary closure of Block Line Road at the intersection. Tim Hortons has requested consideration of a temporary access to Homer Watson Boulevard approximately 65 metres to the north of the Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road intersection for the duration of the intersection closure. Region of Waterloo Transportation Planning staff have reviewed the request for the temporary access and can support a temporary right-in, right-out only traffic movement access at this location. Right-in, right-out only traffic movements from the plaza will be controlled by delineators placed on Homer Watson Boulevard at the temporary access to prohibit left turn movements from the plaza and from Homer Watson Boulevard. The delineators will be maintained by the roundabout contractor. The temporary access will be removed when the east leg of Block Line Road is opened to traffic at which time the plaza parking area and adjacent boulevard will be restored to their original condition. City of Kitchener staff has been notified of the temporary right-in, right-out only access to Homer Watson Boulevard and had initial concerns with delivery/garbage truck access to the site, restoration of the plaza parking area, grading and temporary lighting on Homer Watson Boulevard at the access. These concerns have been addressed and Kitchener staff is now satisfied with the proposal. Both the Tim Hortons restaurant and the plaza owner, Country Park Shopping Centre Incorporated has no objections to the temporary access.

April 12, 2010 Report: P-11-036

949390 Page 2 of 7

As Homer Watson Boulevard is designated as a Controlled Access – Prohibited Road under the Regions Controlled Access By-law 58-87, an amendment to this by-law is required to permit the temporary access.

REPORT: By-law #58-87, “A By-law to Designate and Regulate Controlled – Access Roads” was enacted to control the construction or alteration to the geometric design of any private means of access to a Regional road. All Regional roads are included in either Schedule “A” or Schedule “B” of the By-law. Regional roads included in Schedule “A” (Controlled Access-Prohibited) include arterial roads and freeways where access to these roads must be restricted due to high traffic speed and volume. The main function of a Controlled Access – Prohibited Road is to move through traffic. All requests for changes to existing accesses or for new accesses on these roads require an amendment to the By-law. All remaining Regional roads are included in Schedule “B” (Controlled Access – Regulated). The function of a Controlled Access – Regulated Road is to move through traffic and provide access to adjacent lands. Typically, these roads are front-lotted with access available only to the Regional road or are comparatively lower volume rural roads. Country Park Shopping Centre Incorporated owns a plaza on the northeast corner of Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road in the City of Kitchener. Access to the plaza is from Block Line Road and Hanover Street. The plaza contains a Tim Hortons restaurant and other retail/commercial uses. The Region of Waterloo will be constructing a roundabout at the intersection of Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road in the spring of 2011. In order to reduce the staging complexity and minimize the duration of the roundabout construction, it is anticipated that the east leg of Block Line Road will be closed for approximately three months commencing in late May or early June of 2011. While the Block Line Road and Hanover Street accesses to the Country Park Shopping Centre will remain open, traffic from Homer Watson Boulevard will be unable to directly access the plaza due to the closure of the east leg of Block Line Road for this period. Vehicular traffic will be able to access the plaza from the Block Line Road access via Fallowfield Drive and the access to Hanover Street. Tim Hortons has expressed a concern over the potential loss of business they anticipate will occur with the closure of the east leg of Block Line Road at Homer Watson Boulevard and have requested a temporary access to Homer Watson Boulevard for the duration of the closure. Transportation Planning staff have reviewed the request for a temporary access to Homer Watson Boulevard and can support a right-in, right-out only access. Left turn traffic movements from Homer Watson Boulevard and from the plaza will be restricted through the installation of delineators placed on Homer Watson Boulevard at the temporary access. The delineators will be maintained by the roundabout contractor. The temporary access will be removed when the east leg of Block Line Road is opened to traffic at which time the plaza parking area and adjacent boulevard will be restored to their original condition. Staff has reviewed the temporary right-in, right-out only access to Homer Watson Boulevard and has no concerns.

Area Municipal Consultation/Coordination

City of Kitchener staff expressed concerns related to delivery/garbage pick up vehicle access to the plaza. It was determined that these vehicles would still be able to access the plaza from Hanson Avenue and Lennox Lewis Way using the Hanover Street and Block Line Road accesses. These vehicles would not be permitted to use Fallowfield Drive.

April 12, 2010 Report: P-11-036

949390 Page 3 of 7

In addition, city staff raised concerns with restoration of the plaza parking area, grading and drainage and temporary lighting on Homer Watson Boulevard at the temporary access. These items will be considered in the planning process for the construction of the temporary access and Kitchener staff is now satisfied with the proposal.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Focus Area 5: Infrastructure: Provide high quality infrastructure and asset management to meet current needs and future growth.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: All costs for the installation of the temporary right-in, right-out only access to Homer Watson Boulevard for the Country Park Shopping Centre will be included with the roundabout construction contract and can be accommodated in the $2.3 M budget for this project.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Corporate Resources will be required to amend Controlled Access By-law #58-87. Design and Construction will be required to include the temporary right-in, right-out only access to Homer Watson Boulevard in the roundabout contract at Homer Watson Boulevard and Block Line Road.

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A – Map showing the location of the subject property. Appendix B – Conceptual plan showing the location of the proposed temporary right-in, right-out,

only access to Homer Watson Boulevard. Appendix C - Letter from Country Park Shopping Centre Incorporated indicating no objection to the

temporary right-in, right-out only access to Homer Watson Boulevard. Appendix D - Letter from Tim Hortons indicating no objection to the temporary right-in, right-out

only access to Homer Watson Boulevard.

PREPARED BY: Bruce Erb, Transportation Planner


April 12, 2010 Report: P-11-036

949390 Page 4 of 7

April 12, 2010 Report: P-11-036

949390 Page 5 of 7

April 12, 2010 Report: P-11-036

949390 Page 6 of 7

April 12, 2010 Report: P-11-036

949390 Page 7 of 7

949149 1 / 2

To: Chair Jim Wideman and Members of the Planning and Works Committee From: John Stephenson, Senior Project Manager Signature: ___________________________________ Subject: HESPELER ROAD / CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY GRADE SEPARATION, CITY OF CAMBRIDGE PROJECT UPDATE AND NOTICE OF PRE-CONSTRUCTION PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE File No: 5334

Project Background The Hespeler Road / Canadian Pacific Railway Grade Separation project was initiated to address delays to Hespeler Road traffic associated with the existing at-grade Canadian Pacific Railway (“CPR”) crossing approximately 250 metres north of the “Delta” intersection.

The project was initially directed by a Project Team consisting of Region of Waterloo and City of Cambridge staff, as well as City of Cambridge Councillors Ted Fairless (to end of 2006), Pam Wolf (2007 to present) and Ben Tucci, and Regional Councillor Jane Brewer (Cambridge). The Region’s engineering consultant for this project is IBI Group Limited.

The Project Team identified a grade separation as the preferred solution. A grade separation is an overpass or underpass structure that permits road and rail traffic to operate at separate elevations so that each can operate without interfering with the other. This solution was supported by a majority of those persons who submitted comments at the Public Information Centres conducted by the Region of Waterloo.

The key components of the Hespeler Road / CPR Grade Separation project are as follows:

Construction of a new depressed rail corridor within the existing railway right-of-way to effect a lowering of the profile of the CPR track of approximately 5 metres (maximum) at Hespeler Road, with the depression tapering out to the east and west;

Elevation of the profile of Hespeler Road by approximately 3 metres at the rail corridor (with the elevation tapering out to the north and south), including construction of an overpass bridge to carry the elevated Hespeler Road over the depressed CPR track;

Reconfiguration of the Brooklyne Road / Norfolk Avenue / Hespeler Road intersection to improve the geometry of this intersection; and

Modification or adjustment of existing driveway accesses to match the modified road profiles to preserve access to all properties within the project area.


Design and Construction Date: April 12, 2011

MEMORANDUM

949149 2 / 2

Construction Tender Detailed engineering design for the Hespeler Road / CPR Grade Separation was completed in January 2011. The Region advertised the tender for construction on February 9, 2011 and competitive bids were received on March 18, 2011. Staff will present a report to Council on April 20, 2011, to recommend award of the contract to the successful bidder. Public Open House: Thursday, April 21, 2011 In February 2011, the Region sent a project update notice to area residents and businesses. This notice provided details of the upcoming construction schedule, as well as the many benefits of the project. The notices also indicated that subject to Regional Council award of the construction contract, the Region would host a pre-construction public Open House for interested residents and businesses later in April 2011, prior to the start of construction in May 2011. Staff has now scheduled the public Open House for Thursday, April 21, 2011, from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at the Avenue Road Public School, 40 Gail Street, Cambridge. On April 13, 2011, staff will deliver notification of the date, time and location of the public Open House to area residents and businesses.

Meeting date Requestor Request Assigned Department Anticipated Response Date

01-Dec-09 P&WStaff report on obtaining changes to Highway Traffic Act to give right of way to pedestrians

Transportation and Environmental Services May-2011

PLANNING AND WORKS COMMITTEE

COUNCIL ENQUIRIES AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

122904

959484


REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:30 a.m.

(Time is approximate; meeting follows Closed Session) Regional Council Chamber

150 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario

1. MOTION TO RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION 2.


3.

DELEGATIONS

4. a) b) c)

REPORTS – Finance F-11-019, Investment Position at December 31, 2010 + Appendix 1 F-11-020, 2011 Tax Ratios F-11-021, Periodic Financial Report for the Year Ended December 31, 2010

1 5

11 d)

REPORTS – Human Resources CA-HR-11-005, Addition to Human Resources Policy Manual

17 e)

REPORTS – Corporate Resources CR-RS-11-020, Disposal of Easement Interest, Columbia Street East, City of Waterloo

23 5.

INFORMATION/CORRESPONDENCE

6. a)

OTHER BUSINESS Council Enquiries and Requests for Information Tracking Sheet

26

7.

NEXT MEETING – May 3, 2011

8.

ADJOURN

Report: F-11-019

950509 Page 1 of 3

REGION OF WATERLOO

FINANCE DEPARTMENT Treasury Services Division

TO: Chair T. Galloway and Members of the Administration and Finance Committee

DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: F12-20 SUBJECT: INVESTMENT POSITION AT DECEMBER 31, 2010

RECOMMENDATION: For Information

SUMMARY: This report describes the Region’s investment position at December 31, 2010. The portfolio, which had a value of $329.7 million at that date, was held in eligible investments of various terms. The annualized average yield on the portfolio to December 31st was 4.01% and the portfolio was in compliance with the General Investment Policy throughout the year and on December 31st.

REPORT: The Region’s general investment portfolio is comprised of reserves, reserve funds and operating funds. Provincial regulations establish the type of investments the Region can hold while the Region’s General Investment Policy establishes limits for the allowable investments. The Region’s portfolio is currently comprised of holdings ranging from daily money market instruments to long term bonds and debentures. The total book value of the holdings at December 31, 2011 was $329.7 million while the annualized average yield to that date is 4.01%. This compares to a book value of $307.7 million at December 31, 2009 and an annualized average yield of 3.95%. The higher annualized yield for 2010 is due to higher short term interest rates in 2010. The investments at December 31, 2010 are summarized by term (based on earliest applicable call dates) as follows:

Term Book Value % of Portfolio Yields * Short term (< 1 year, including cash) $ 134.5 m 40.8 % 0.42% - 7.34%

Medium term (1 to 5 years) 111.4 m 33.8 % 2.95% - 6.70%

Long term (> 5 years) 83.8 m 25.4 % 3.91% - 8.60%

Total $ 329.7 m 100.0 % 4.01% ** * Yields for individual holdings vary based on the timing of purchase and the issuer. ** Annualized average yield to December 31,

2010.

The largest cumulative investment holdings at December 31st were with the Toronto Dominion Bank (TD) for $115 million or 35% of the portfolio. This included TD general investment funds, essentially cash holdings, of $98.7 million (29.94% of the portfolio) and TD bonds of $16.3 million (4.94% of the portfolio). Other significant holdings include:

• Province of Ontario for $25.8 million (7.81% of the portfolio);

• Royal Bank for $23.1 million (6.99% of the portfolio);

April 12, 2011 Report: F-11-019

950509 Page 2 of 3

• Bank of Montreal for $21.7 million (5.58% of the portfolio);

• CIBC for $20.3 million (6.16% of the portfolio);

• Region of Waterloo for $18.9 million (5.74% of the portfolio);

• Region of York for $18.6 million (5.65% of the portfolio);

• Province of New Brunswick for $16.6 million (5.04% of the portfolio).

The large holdings at TD are required to fund daily operations and anticipated payments for capital construction and other pending obligations. Additionally, net property tax expenditures generally average $30 million per month and operational funds were required at year end to cover expenses between January 1 and April 1, 2011. The Region does not receive any property tax revenue from the Area Municipalities until April 1st. The balance in the Region’s general account is essentially nil by March 31st. The rates the Region receives from TD on its cash holdings are slightly higher than short term rates offered by other financial institutions and T-bill rates. In addition, holdings at TD are completely liquid which aligns with the principles of the Region’s General Investment Policy of minimizing risk, maintaining liquidity and achieving yield.

The policy limits for bank investment funds and Province of Ontario bonds are each 50% while the limit for Schedule I bank bonds in total is 35% (increased from 25% per Report F-10-063 dated June 22, 2010). At December 31st, 28.04% of the portfolio was held in bank bonds as the investment returns on bank bonds has been higher than federal and provincial bonds for most of the year. The limits for certain provinces such as New Brunswick and for individual Schedule I banks are both 10%.

The investment portfolio has been in compliance with the Region’s Consolidated Investment Policy throughout the year and at December 31, 2010 as demonstrated on Appendix 1. The Region did not purchase any of its own debentures nor did it dispose of any Region of Waterloo debentures in 2010. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN:

Service Excellence is one of the Focus Areas of the Corporate Strategic Plan and one of the objectives within this focus area is to ensure all Regional programs and services are responsive, efficient, effective and accountable to the public.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Bank of Canada target rate was 0.25% at the start of 2010 increasing steadily during the third quarter of 2010 to 1.00% in September where it remained for the balance of the year. Global economic recovery is proceeding as expected while economic recovery in Canada is proceeding slightly faster than expected. The Bank has announced that it will continue to maintain the target rate at 1.00% to provide continued monetary stimulus consistent with achieving the 2% inflation target. The next rate setting is scheduled for April 13th. Continued low interest rates and a pattern of increased expenditures in the early part of the year will impact the Region’s portfolio through decreased interest income and interest income attributable to the tax levy. Interest income attributable to the tax levy is approximately $1,500,000 less than budget for 2010 and the 2011 budget has been partially adjusted to reflect the reduced interest income. Staff are reviewing the timing of debenture issues and financing for capital projects to assist with cash flow. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Nil

April 12, 2011 Report: F-11-019

950509 Page 3 of 3

ATTACHMENTS:

Appendix 1 – Portfolio Compliance with the Investment Policy at December 31, 2010

PREPARED BY: T. Alpaugh, Manager, Treasury Services A. Hinchberger, Director of Financial Services, Treasury & Tax Policy

APPROVED BY: L. Ryan, Chief Financial Officer

Report: F-11-020

957128 Page 1 of 5

REGION OF WATERLOO

FINANCE DEPARTMENT Financial Services Division



SUBJECT: 2011 TAX RATIOS

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo establish the following tax ratios for the 2011 property tax year: Residential 1.0000 New Multi-residential 1.0000 Multi-residential 1.9500 Commercial 1.9500 Industrial 1.9500 Pipelines 1.1613 Farm 0.2500 Managed Forests 0.2500 AND THAT the necessary tax ratio and tax rate by-laws for 2011 be introduced at the April 20th Regional Council meeting; AND FURTHER THAT the Area Municipalities be notified accordingly.

SUMMARY: Under the Municipal Act, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo is required to pass a by-law to establish its tax ratios on an annual basis even if the ratios do not change from year to year. As part of the 2006 tax ratio review, Regional Council approved, in principle, a long term tax ratio strategy to reduce the multi-residential and industrial tax ratios to 1.95, equal to the tax ratio for the commercial class over the years 2006 to 2010 subject to the annual tax ratio and tax capping review. The strategy was completed in 2010. This report recommends that the Region establish its 2011 tax ratios at the same level as those approved for 2010. Although the Region has until April 30th to establish tax ratios and tax rates for 2011, early passage of the tax ratios assists with the 2011 capping program and final tax billing for the non-capped property classes.

REPORT:

Tax Ratios

Tax ratios determine the municipal tax burden for the various property classes relative to that of the residential class. The residential class is the “benchmark” class with an established tax ratio of 1.00 and all other property class ratios are expressed in relation to the residential ratio. The Region’s ability to adjust tax ratios and redistribute the tax burden between the property classes is limited by the “fairness ranges” established by the Province. In general, legislation does not allow municipalities to move tax ratios away from the fairness ranges. Tax ratio adjustments can only be made if the ratios move towards the fairness ranges although exceptions have been made for

April 12, 2011 Report: F-11-020

957128 Page 2 of 5

reassessment years. Tax ratios established by the Region also apply to the area municipalities. A history of the Region’s tax ratios and the fairness ranges are shown below.

Table 1: History of Region of Waterloo Tax Ratios

Property Class

1998 – 2000

2001-02

2003

2004-05

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Fairness Ranges

Residential 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 -- New Multi-Res n/a 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 -- Multi-Res 3.2146 2.7400 2.5250 2.5800 2.3400 2.2400 2.1500 2.0500 1.9500 1.0 to 1.0 Commercial 2.0148 1.9800 1.8910 1.9500 1.9500 1.9500 1.9500 1.9500 1.9500 0.6 to 1.0 Industrial 3.2175 2.6300 2.5730 2.6100 2.6100 2.4500 2.2800 2.1000 1.9500 0.6 to 1.0 Farm 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 -- Mgd. Forest 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 -- Pipeline 1.1613 1.1613 1.1613 1.1613 1.1613 1.1613 1.1613 1.1613 1.1613 0.6 to 0.7

It is important to note that reductions to any of the ratios for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial and pipeline classes do not increase the ratios for the other classes but such reductions

do increase the amount of taxes to be collected from the other classes. The use of tax ratios to redistribute the taxes among the classes does not change the total amount of taxes collected.

Tax Ratios as a Tax Tool

Tax ratios are used as a “tax tool” to change the distribution of taxes among the property classes. Tax ratio changes can be used to ensure that there are no capping shortfalls, better align the Region’s existing ratios or align with provincial averages, adjust the tax burden for the various property classes or offset reassessment impacts. Reductions in tax ratios for the capped classes can be used to reduce capping costs and ensure that the capping costs can be funded from within the class. Funding capping shortfalls from within the class is a key element of the annual capping program as capping shortfalls, including the education portion, must be funded by the Region and the Area Municipalities. The Region’s tax ratios, particularly the multi-residential (MR) ratio, were among some of the higher ratios in the province since the inception of tax ratios. Reductions in certain tax ratios can move the Region’s ratios towards provincial averages and can reduce the tax burden for that class. Reductions in the MR and industrial tax ratios over the past 5 years have moved the Region’s ratios from the higher end towards the average. For 2010, the Region’s MR and industrial ratios were lower than the provincial average while the commercial ratio was above the average. Appendix 1 shows the 2010 tax ratios for various municipalities in Ontario including the Region’s upper tier and single tier comparators. By changing the tax ratio for a particular class, the Region can change the distribution of taxes among the property classes and offset the impacts of a reassessment. Reductions in tax ratios would be used to offset reassessments where there has been a shift onto a particular class while increases in ratios would be used to counter reassessments where there has been a shift of taxation off of a particular class provided the ratio adjustments are in accordance with provincial legislation as noted above. Year 2011 is the third year of a province-wide four year phase-in of assessment increases. Just as the reassessment and phase-in for the first two years (2009 and 2010) did not require any mitigating tax ratio changes, the third year of the phase-in does not require any changes either.

April 12, 2011 Report: F-11-020

957128 Page 3 of 5

Reassessment Phase-In Impacts for 2011

A province-wide reassessment was conducted during 2008 for the 2009 taxation year with properties valued as of January 1, 2008. The preceding reassessment had been done in 2005 for the 2006 tax year with properties valued as of January 1, 2005. Reassessments planned for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years were cancelled. Given the extended time between the two reassessments, the Province adopted a four (4) year phase-in program effective 2009 for all property classes. Under this program, assessment increases are being phased-in over 4 years (2009-2012) while assessment decreases were effective immediately in 2009. Reassessments can impact tax bills in two ways. Shifts within a property class (market value changes) and shifts between property classes. The impact to taxpayers for shifts within property classes depends on the change in the assessed value for their property relative to the average for the class. If the assessed value has increased by more than the average, the taxpayer will likely see an increase in taxes. Conversely, if the assessed value has increased by less than the average, the taxpayer is likely to see a decrease in taxes. Shifts between

classes will occur if the total assessed value for the various property classes increase or decrease at different rates in a reassessment or phase-in year. Table 2 shows, by property class, the change in assessed value and resultant shift in taxation arising from the third year of the assessment phase-in.

Table 2: 2011 Reassessment Phase-in – Shifts Between Classes

Property Class Assessed Value Change Shift in Taxation

Residential 4.97% (0.24%)

New Multi-Res 4.45% (0.73%)

Multi-Residential 4.38% (0.79%)

Commercial 6.20% 0.93%

Industrial 5.74% 0.50%

Farm 7.64% 2.30%

Pipelines 3.46% (1.67%)

Managed Forest 8.82% 3.43%

The shift between the property classes resulting from the third year of the phase-in mirror those for the first and second years. The phase-in results in shifts in taxation from the residential, multi-residential and pipeline classes to the commercial, industrial, farm and managed property classes. The impact to the residential class is a reduction of 0.24% for the Regional portion of the tax bill. This equates to a reduction of approximately $3.55 for an average residential property (2010 value of $225,000). The impact of the reassessment phase-in provides some offset to the 2011 tax rate impact. The Area Treasurers group is currently reviewing the value of the average residential property to be used for tax impacts in 2011. The methodology of adjusting the average residential property value by reassessment or phase-in impacts has resulted in a difference between the actual average residential value in the region and the average residential value used in tax impact calculations. A report updating the average residential property value is planned for Administration and Finance Committee in May. It is important to note that like tax ratio changes, reassessments and phase-ins do not generate additional taxes or change the amount of taxes collected. Reassessments simply redistribute the tax burden between property classes and between property owners.

April 12, 2011 Report: F-11-020

957128 Page 4 of 5

Current Tax Ratios and Tax Ratio Strategy

As part of the 2006 tax ratio review, the Region initiated its long term tax ratio strategy with a reduction in its MR tax ratio. The ratio reduction was required to offset the impacts of the 2006 reassessment and to ensure that there was no capping shortfall for 2006. In addition, the reduction in the MR ratio brought it closer to the provincial average and to that of its comparators. The reduction was also a move towards tax equity for the residential and MR classes as identified by local Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) staff. MPAC staff noted that when MR apartment property is converted to residential property, the value generally doubles. This implied that a tax ratio of 2.00 for the MR class was a reasonable level for tax equity. The lower MR tax ratio also reduced the tax ratio gap between MR properties and properties in the class for new multi-residential development which has a tax ratio of 1.00. The Region was required to establish the new MR property class with a tax ratio of 1.00 in order to receive senior level of government funding for new affordable housing. Equalizing the MR and new MR tax ratios at 1.00 would increase average regional taxes for a residential property by 3.8% (based on 2010 assessment). Area municipal impacts would be additional. At that time, Council also recognized the need for a longer term tax ratio strategy based on tax equity. Tax equity for the multi-residential and residential classes appeared to be achieved with a MR tax ratio of 2.00 while tax equity for the commercial and industrial classes would be achieved with a common ratio. Consequently, Council approved in principle a long term tax ratio strategy which resulted in a ratio of 1.95 for the commercial, industrial and multi-residential classes over the following four years from 2007 through 2010. The difference in the tax ratios for the commercial and industrial classes is generally historical due to higher business occupancy taxes for industry under the previous assessment and taxation system. However, commercial and industrial operations are both businesses and with the 1998 elimination of the business occupancy tax, there is no real rationale to tax these classes differently. Closing the gap between these two ratios resulted in greater equity within the business community and having the same ratio for both classes resolved the issue of how research and development and “high tech” properties are classified and assessed and provided efficiencies for MPAC in dealing with classification issues. During the same time, the Province was taking the same approach by establishing a common education tax rate for both the commercial and industrial classes. The long term tax ratio strategy was completed in 2010 and the tax ratios for all three business classes (multi-residential, commercial and industrial) are all at 1.95. The common ratios approximates tax equity for the MR and residential classes as noted above and taxes both the commercial and industrial classes at the same rate for municipal purposes. Further, both multi-residential and commercial properties are businesses and both classes are assessed based on income so a tax ratio of 1.95 for the MR class is quite appropriate relative to the ratio for the commercial class. In addition to the tax equity impacts noted above, the strategy simplified the assessment classification process and eliminated the need for industrial properties to appeal for a class change; provided tax relief to the industrial sector; and provided simplicity for non-residential property owners. The strategy was accomplished with a minimal impact to the residential property of approximately 1.0% in each of the 5 years of the strategy for the Regional portion of the tax bill. Given the successful implementation of the long term tax ratio strategy over the years 2006 to 2010 and current tax ratios that have established tax equity for the MR and residential classes and for the business classes, it is recommended that the 2011 tax ratios be set at the same level as 2010. The recommendation has been addressed with the Area Treasurers and they are in agreement.

April 12, 2011 Report: F-11-020

957128 Page 5 of 5

2011 Capping Program

Capping program recommendations are currently being developed and it is anticipated that the recommended 2011capping program will be presented to Administration and Finance Committee in May. The recommended tax ratios for 2011 are not expected to adversely impact capping for 2011.

Next Steps

Once the 2011 tax ratios are approved, the Region and the Area Municipalities can pass their 2011 tax rate by-laws and Area Municipalities can prepare their final bills for the non-capped classes. The 2011 tax ratios can also be used to model the 2011 capping program.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The implementation of the Long Term Tax Ratio Strategy is one of the actions noted in Focus Area Two (Growth Management) of the Corporate Strategic Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Tax ratios determine the distribution of taxes between the property classes not the amount of taxes collected and tax ratio decisions by the Region impact the municipal portion of the tax bill including the area municipal share. Any tax ratio changes currently allowed under legislation would result in a shift of taxation onto the residential class and an increase in municipal taxes paid by the residential taxpayer. The recommended ratios for 2011, which are the same ratios established for 2010, do not result in any shifts of taxation between the property classes.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Nil

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix 1 – Comparison of 2010 Tax Ratios

PREPARED BY: A. Hinchberger, Director of Financial Services, Treasury & Tax Policy


954209

COMPARISON OF 2010 TAX RATIOS – APPENDIX 1 (F-11-020)

Municipality Multi- Residential

Commercial (Residual)

Industrial (Residual)

Industrial (Large)

Barrie 1.0590 1.4331 1.5163

Belleville 2.5102 1.9191 2.4000

Brantford 2.1355 1.9360 2.8678

Brockville 1.7800 1.9580 2.6276

Bruce 1.0000 1.2331 1.7477

Central Elgin 2.3458 1.6376 2.2251 2.8318

Chatham-Kent 2.1488 1.9671 2.4349

Dufferin 2.6802 1.2200 2.1984

Durham 1.8665 1.4500 2.2598

Essex 1.9554 1.0820 1.9425 2.6861

Greater Sudbury 2.2088 2.0275 2.8594 3.2410

Grey 1.4412 1.3069 1.8582

Guelph 2.4530 1.8400 2.6300

Haldimand 2.3274 1.6929 2.3274

Halton 2.2619 1.4565 2.3599

Hamilton 2.7400 1.9800 3.2918 3.8601

Kawartha Lakes 1.9797 1.2775 1.2775

Kingston 2.5473 1.9800 2.6300

Lambton 2.4000 1.6402 2.0535 3.0122

London 2.1027 1.9800 2.6300

Middlesex Centre 1.7697 1.1449 1.7451

Mississauga 1.7788 1.4098 1.5708

Muskoka 1.0000 1.1000 1.1000

Niagara 2.0600 1.7586 2.6300

North Bay 2.2054 1.8822 1.4000

Northumberland 2.2160 1.5152 2.6300

Orillia 1.6000 1.9800 1.9037

Ottawa 1.7000 1.9421 2.6518 2.2772

Oxford 2.7400 1.9018 2.6300

Peel (Brampton & Caledon) 1.7050 1.2971 1.4700

Perth 1.8293 1.5463 2.4812

Peterborough (City) 1.9472 1.7804 2.4604

Prince Edward County 1.4402 1.1125 1.3895

Quinte West 2.1300 1.5385 2.4460 2.6147

Sault Ste. Marie 1.2667 1.8097 2.3049 3.2843

Simcoe 1.6000 1.9800 1.9037

St. Thomas 2.4987 1.9475 2.2281 2.6774

Stratford 2.1539 2.0359 3.1335

Thunder Bay 2.7400 1.9527 2.4300 2.4650

Timmins 1.6816 1.7501 2.1783 2.7114

Toronto 3.3799 3.2500 3.4400

Waterloo Region 1.9500 1.9500 1.9500

Windsor 2.5122 1.9520 2.3635 3.1110

York 1.0000 1.1800 1.3575

Average 2.0193 1.6985 2.2258 2.8977

Lowest 1.0000 1.0820 1.1000 2.2772

Highest 3.3799 3.2500 3.4400 3.8601

Provincial Threshold 2.7400 1.9800 2.6300 2.6300

Source: BMA Management Consulting Inc.

Report: F-11-021

952851 Page 1 of 4

REGION OF WATERLOO

FINANCE DEPARTMENT Financial Services Division



SUBJECT: PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010

RECOMMENDATION: For Information

SUMMARY: Nil

REPORT: Regional Council has passed the Financial Management By-law (By-law 05-008) to establish the financial management framework for the Region. The By-law requires that a report to Administration and Finance Committee be prepared periodically on the Budget to Actual variances in appropriations under the Operating and Capital Budgets. This report covers the twelve months ended December 31, 2010. For the full year ended December 31, 2010, the Region is reporting a surplus of $8.28 million or 2.22% on net budget expenditures of $373 million. Staff from all departments has provided an explanation for significant variances which are included in this report.

Operating Budget Appendix A includes the net budget, net actual, and variance (dollar and percentage) information for the 2010 Operating Budget appropriations. The net of all operating budget appropriations is the tax levy which is recovered through tax collections. The majority of variances are positive for the full year 2010. Any negative variances which occurred were accommodated within these positive variances. In reporting actual expenditures, all year end adjustments have been made to the general ledger accounts and the preliminary surplus for the year is $8,284,962. This surplus represents 2.22% of the regional levy for 2010. The surplus is generated entirely by the $8.4 million positive variance for supplementary taxes. Regional programs generally run on a breakeven basis. The 2010 surplus is preliminary and will not be finalized until the year end audit is complete and the audit results are presented to Audit Committee. The corporate surplus, in accordance with the policy approved by Council, will be allocated as follows: $600,000 to the Operating Budget, $500,000 to the Roads Rehabilitation Reserve Fund, $4,500,435 to the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund and the balance ($2,684,527) to the Capital Levy Reserve Fund. The 2010 surplus has been reduced by $550,000 as a result of Council’s decision to fund the noise abatement wall on Ira Needles Blvd.

April 12, 2010 Report: F-11-021

952851 Page 2 of 4

Program Variances The variances reported in Appendix A under the “2010 Variance” column present the actual results for the Region for year end 2010. Further detail on significant variances is provided in the following notes:

Note 1 – Corporate Resources

The favourable variance of $179,785 is due to temporary gapping.

Note 2 - Provincial Offences

The overall favourable variance of $1,057,907 is due to higher than anticipated revenues for Red Light Camera of $820,000 and collection revenues of $45,000. In addition, there were lower than expected expenditures for adjudication fees, computer equipment and software and equipment rental.

Note 3 – Waste Management

For 2010, there was an overall deficit of $2,868,658. This was a result of lower revenues from the commercial tipping fees (economy driven) and recyclable materials (slower market price recovery) were partially offset by an unanticipated one-time cost recovery from Hydro One. Higher site security, property taxes, building and equipment maintenance costs, as well as collection and processing costs for garbage and diverted materials (primarily due to the HST and higher volumes) were off-set by lower contract costs for the hauling and processing of green bin waste and fuel consumption by the Waste Management fleet. The 2011 budget assumes a modest recovery of recycling materials and commercial tipping fees (2010 volume, with rate increase from $70 to $72/tonne).

Note 4 – Transit

The 2010 surplus of $739,624 was a result of significant savings in staffing costs due to continued improvements in manpower utilization in transit operations along with some gapping and fringe benefit savings. Staffing cost savings, where sustainable, have been factored into the 2011 GRT operating budget. Ridership revenue exceeded plan by approximately 1.5%, however, vehicle maintenance and fuel costs were marginally overspent along with communication costs associated with GRT’s Easy Go initiative.

Note 5 – Transportation

The favourable variance of $1,167,241 is due to lower than expected winter maintenance costs from the Cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo. In addition, the Region’s direct winter maintenance costs were lower than expected due to favourable winter weather.

Note 6 – Airport

Overall, a surplus of $236,399 was due to revenues exceeding budget as a result of the April 2010 fee increases and the additional Bearskin flights added subsequent to budget approval. In addition, $188,000 expense savings were achieved due to service reductions and the mild winter.

April 12, 2010 Report: F-11-021

952851 Page 3 of 4

Note 7 – Social Planning

Additional Ontario Works Administration funding received in December, coupled with staff vacancies resulted in a positive variance of $111,511.

Note 8 – Seniors’ Services

One time revenues for long term care operations, coupled with lower expenditures for supportive housing resulted in a favourable variance of $256,418.

Note 9 – Income Support

At year end 2010, the overall negative variance for Income Support was $9,255. Ontario Works expenditures exceeded the 2010 budget due to the current economic environment. The average monthly caseload of 8,551 cases exceeded the budgeted caseload of 6,400 cases. The Region’s share of over expenditure on income support payments and benefits was $4.43 million. In December 2010, the Province announced a one-time grant for its share of the costs related to the administration of the OW caseload. This resulted in a surplus in the Ontario Works Administration budget, which was applied to the Income Support Payments and Benefits. The balance of the shortfall was funded by a transfer of $694,767 from the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund (TSRF). The balance of the TSRF at year end was $10 million.

Note 10 - Public Health

Under-expenditures in Vector Borne Disease Program and significant number of long term vacancies resulted in a positive variance of $308,451.

Note 11 – Emergency Medical Services

EMS was over budget by $220,855 due to staffing costs resulting from increased off load delays in the second half of 2010. In addition, vehicle maintenance and fuel costs were higher than budget.

Note 12 – Other Financial

The over expenditure of $2,330,515 is due to continued significant reductions in net interest income and a funding allocation for a prior Council approval. The reduction in interest income is largely due to greater than anticipated expenditures and cash flow in the first three quarters of the year. A budget adjustment has been made for 2011 and staff are reviewing the timing of debenture issues and financing for capital projects to assist with cash flow. As part of the 2006 budget, Council approved one-third funding for the Brownfield Pilot program from surplus. The funding allocation was not done in 2006 as the funding was not required at that time. The approved funding allocation was booked during 2010 to ensure funds for the project are in place as expenditures and

commitments are incurred.

Note 13 – Associated Agencies

The under expenditure of $364,372 is due to lower than expected RDC exemptions. RDC exemptions for general services are included in the Economic Development program area.

Note 14 - Supplementary Taxes

Net Supplementary taxes, including capping adjustments, exceeded budget by $8,357,034 and a budget adjustment has been made for 2011.

April 12, 2010 Report: F-11-021

952851 Page 4 of 4

Note 15 – Payments in Lieu

Payments in lieu of taxes, which were finalized as part of the year end process, exceeded budget by $502,789 due to increases in current value assessment for PIL properties, additional PIL properties and increased enrolments in the local universities and college. Staff will be reviewing PILs during the year to determine a sustainable budget adjustment for 2012.

Note 16 – Water Supply

The water supply user rate revenue is lower than anticipated due to overall decreased consumption. The variance in water supply user rate expenditures is due to a reduction in winter chemicals. The combined impact of these changes was the contribution to capital being $2 million less than budget.

Note 17 – Waste Water Treatment

The wastewater treatment user rate revenue is lower than anticipated due to much drier winter conditions. The positive variance in wastewater expenditures is due to staffing vacancies and lower than anticipated costs for sludge disposal, maintenance and repairs. The combined impact of these changes was the contribution to capital being $2 million less than budget.

Capital Budget All capital projects are expected to be completed within budget. Capital projects which require approval for increases in funding were reported to Council either by special reports, mid-year capital reviews or when the tender was approved. The capital budget was under spent at year end as many projects were not able to be completed during the year and project funds were carried forward to 2011.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The financial reporting process supports the Strategic Plan Focus Area 6 - Service Excellence: Foster a culture of citizen/customer service that is responsive to community needs.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: For 2010, the Region posted an operating surplus of $8.28 million. This surplus, in accordance with the policy approved by Council, will be allocated as $600,000 to the Operating Budget, $500,000 to the Roads Rehabilitation Reserve Fund, $2,684,527 to the Capital Levy Reserve Fund and $4,500,435 to the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund. Over the next five years, surplus of $2.6 million per year will be required to fund existing commitments of $1.1 million and $1.5 million to the TSRF to fund OW Caseload expenditures.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: All departments reviewed the financial information for the reporting period and provided input to Finance for inclusion in this report.

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A – Periodic Financial Report PREPARED BY: L. Parent, Manager, Financial Services


THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO Appendix APERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTFor the year ended December 31, 2010

2010 2010 2010Budget Actual Variance % Variance Note

TAX SUPPORTED PROGRAMS

Elected Offices 1,413,763$ 1,316,869$ 96,894$ 6.85%

General SupportChief Administrative Officer 1,411,225$ 1,391,789$ 19,436$ 1.38%Finance 4,610,735 4,548,407 62,328 1.35%Human Resources 3,481,205 3,544,281 (63,076) -1.81%

Corporate Resources 15,909,654 15,729,869 179,785 1.13% 1POA and Prosecution (3,671,500) (4,729,407) 1,057,907 -28.81% 2Total Corporate Resources 12,238,154$ 11,000,462$ 1,237,692$ 10.11%Total General Support 21,741,319$ 20,484,939$ 1,256,380$ 5.78%

Planning, Housing and Community Services Planning 5,229,480$ 5,144,967$ 84,513$ 1.62%Housing 31,652,985 31,652,985 - 0.00%Community Services 5,087,023 5,017,255 69,768 1.37%Total Planning, Housing, & Community Services 41,969,488$ 41,815,207$ 154,281$ 0.37%

Transportation and Environmental Services

Design & Construction and Administration 19,000$ (11,973)$ 30,973$ 163.02%Waste Management 22,480,336 25,348,994 (2,868,658) -12.76% 3Transit 44,402,314 43,662,990 739,324 1.67% 4Engineering Planning Admin. & Construction 24,850,129 24,820,660 29,469 0.12%Transportation 18,543,802 17,376,561 1,167,241 6.29% 5Airport 5,915,212 5,678,813 236,399 4.00% 6Total Transportation & Environmental Services 116,210,793$ 116,876,045$ (665,252)$ -0.57%

Social Services

Social Planning 3,601,025$ 3,489,474$ 111,551$ 3.10% 7Senior's Services 7,118,413 6,861,995 256,418 3.60% 8Children's Services 7,467,631 7,419,456 48,175 0.65%Ontario Works Admin 13,417,728 9,617,505 3,800,223 28.32% 9Income Support Programs 19,482,993 23,646,698 (4,163,705) -21.37% 9Benefits and Social Assistance 2,004,000 2,344,540 (340,540) -16.99% 9Transfer from Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund (694,767) 694,767 9Total Social Services 53,091,790$ 52,684,901$ 406,889$ 0.77%

Public Health

Public Health 6,727,480$ 6,419,029$ 308,451$ 4.58% 10Emergency Medical Services 8,753,142 8,973,997 (220,855) -2.52% 11Total Public Health 15,480,622$ 15,393,026$ 87,596$ 0.57%

Other Financial 871,403$ 3,201,918$ (2,330,515)$ -267.44% 12Associated Agencies 7,458,120 7,093,748 364,372 4.89% 13Crime Prevention Council 573,857 570,589 3,268 0.57%Arts, Culture and Community Organizations 1,062,000 1,054,184 7,816 0.74%Total Direct Regional 259,873,155$ 260,491,426$ (618,271)$ -0.24%

POLICE 113,439,168$ 113,395,759$ 43,409$ 0.04%

NET BEFORE TAX REVENUE 373,312,323$ 373,887,185$ (574,862)$ -0.15%

Finance DOCS_ADMIN‐#959723‐v1‐F‐11‐021_(PFR_DECEMBER_‐_APPENDIX_A).XLSXPrinted 9:21 AM 08/04/2011

Page 1 of 2

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO Appendix APERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTFor the year ended December 31, 2010

2010 2010 2010Budget Actual Variance % Variance Note

TAX REVENUE Tax Revenues 367,624,004$ 367,624,005$ 1$ 0.00%Supplementary Taxes 800,000 9,157,034 8,357,034 1044.63% 14Appropriation from Reserves & Reserve Funds 600,000 600,000 - 0.00%Payment-in-Lieu 4,288,319 4,791,108 502,789 11.72% 15Total Tax Revenue 373,312,323$ 382,172,147$ 8,859,824$ 2.37%

NET REGIONAL LEVY -$ 8,284,962$ 8,284,962$ 2.22%

USER RATE SUPPORTED BUDGETS

WATER SUPPLY Expenses 30,024,660$ 29,649,927$ 374,733$ 1.25%Revenue (43,301,324) (40,890,692) (2,410,632) 5.57%Contribution to/from Capital 13,276,664 11,240,765 2,035,899 15.33% 16Total Water Supply -$ -$ -$

WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Expenses 26,371,999$ 25,083,533$ 1,288,466$ 4.89%Revenue (44,238,775) (40,971,141) (3,267,634) 7.39%Contribution to/from Capital 17,866,776 15,887,608 1,979,168 11.08% 17Total Wastewater Treatment -$ -$ -$

Finance DOCS_ADMIN‐#959723‐v1‐F‐11‐021_(PFR_DECEMBER_‐_APPENDIX_A).XLSXPrinted 9:21 AM 08/04/2011

Page 2 of 2

Report: CA-HR-11-005

#916634 v2 Page 1 of 2

REGION OF WATERLOO

HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Employee and Organizational Effectiveness Division

TO: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Administration and Finance Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: C04-50 SUBJECT: ADDITION TO HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY MANUAL

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the policy statement for the following Human Resources policy:

Regional Social Media Sites (HR I-38)

SUMMARY: NIL

REPORT: In November of 1994, Regional Council approved the Human Resources Policy Manual. As new policies are developed or existing policy statements are revised, they are presented for approval. The Region of Waterloo promotes the use of social media as a tool for delivering effective and accessible internal and external communication about Regional programs and services. The attached Regional Social Media Sites HR Policy (HR I-38) is a new policy which outlines the protocols for employees participating in social media in an official Regional capacity. The policy defines the meaning of social media, when social media sites can be used, and the protocols for employees using these sites. It also provides guidelines for the Regional social media sites and the responsibilities of the Site Moderator. Employees wishing to use social media sites are required to work within their programs/services to create specific goals and objectives for using the sites. The goals and objectives of the Regional social media site must be clearly defined and must not conflict with the Region’s Mission, Vision and Values, policies or other stated program goals and objectives. Employees must have written approval from their Department Head and are required to attend mandatory training prior to creating a social media site. The policy also reminds employees that they must comply with the Region’s applicable HR policies while participating as a private individual on non-regional social media sites.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Effective human resources policies contribute to the Region’s strategic objective to recruit, retain and develop skilled, motivated and citizen-centred employees.

April 12, 2011 Report: CA-HR-11-05

#916634v2 Page 2 of 2


OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Consultation regarding the development of this policy has occurred with all departments, and the representatives of the various bargaining units.

ATTACHMENTS Human Resources Policy: Regional Social Media Sites (HR I-38)

PREPARED BY: Peggy Mellor, Director, Employee & Organizational Effectiveness

APPROVED BY: Penny Smiley, Commissioner, Human Resources

#647322 V4 Page 1 of 4

POLICY STATEMENT: The Region of Waterloo promotes the use of social media as a tool for delivering effective and accessible internal and external communication about Regional programs and services.

DEFINITIONS:

Social media means - web-based technologies and sites and includes blogging, microblogging (twitter), photosharing (flickr), video sharing (YouTube), webcasting (blogtv), and networking (Linkedin, Facebook, wikis, discussion boards) which allow users to interact with each other by sharing information, opinions, knowledge and interests.

OPERATING DETAILS:

Participation in Non-Regional Social Media Sites: This policy is intended to apply to work-related Regional social media activities. Employees are reminded; however, that they must comply with the Region’s applicable HR policies while participating as a private individual on non-regional social media sites.

Participation in Regional Social Media Sites:

The participation in social media by employees acting in an official Regional capacity should be viewed in the same way as participating in other media or public forums such as speaking at conferences. Employees must have written approval from their Department Head prior to establishing a social media site on behalf of the Region and are required to attend mandatory training prior to creating a social media site. Employees must use the “Communication Initiation and Approval Forms” to initiate a request to establish a social media site with their departmental communication representative (or discuss with a representative of corporate communications if the department does not have a departmental representative). Employees wishing to use social media sites should work within their programs/services to

HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES

Section #

I

Policy #

38

Approval Date: NEW

Revision Date: March 2011

Title: REGIONAL SOCIAL MEDIA SITES

Applies To: All Employees

#647322 V4 Page 2 of 4

create specific goals and objectives for using the sites. These goals and objectives must be clearly defined and understood by the communicator, manager and director, and must not conflict with the Region’s Mission, Vision and Values, policies, or other stated program goals and objectives, and are subject to change based on change or updates made to the Region’s Mission, Vision, and Values, policies, goals and objectives. Social media sites can be used for Regional programs and services for the following purposes:

Raising awareness;

Sharing information;

Stimulating discussion;

Encouraging public involvement and comment;

Recruiting volunteers;

Promoting Regional events, programs, and services;

Increasing access to information for specific audience segments. Priority should be given to social media projects that can provide information to the public in program/services areas that receive a high volume of public contact. Employees who use social media tools are required to be aware of and comply with all laws of Ontario and Canada, and applicable Regional practices, policies, procedures and guidelines related to social media use. Employees should also have acquired a full understanding of the resources required to use them effectively. Employees who post information to social media sites must ensure that all content is in keeping with Regional values, and does not violate Regional guidelines concerning the use of social media. As a representative of the Region, employees are expected to support the policies, programs and decisions of the Region and not publicly criticize the Region or Regional partners including public agencies and other levels of government. Employees posting confidential information and/or comments of an inappropriate nature to a social media site may be subject to discipline.

Employee Protocol for Regional Social Media Sites: On-line participation in a social media site must be job-related and fit into the employee’s work schedule and duties. Employees will disclose their position with the Region when participating in a social media site. Employee comments that are made in a social media site are permanently available for viewing and printing, and can be republished in other media without the employee’s permission. Even content on a limited access (password protected) site, may be accessed by a wider audience than originally intended. As a result, employees must ensure that privacy, confidentiality, copyright and data protection laws are adhered to, and must not make comments that are considered defamatory or libelous.

#647322 V4 Page 3 of 4

Employees will not disclose information, make commitments or engage in activities on social media sites on behalf of the Region of Waterloo unless authorized by their Director to do so. Employees will consult with Corporate Communications and the Region’s legal department prior to using sound recordings, images or copyrighted materials on-line to ensure that the Region has the right to make lawful use of such information. Employees will not give out personal details like home address and telephone numbers on a social media site. In order to be effective when using a social media site it is important that employees listen to people’s comments and avoid becoming defensive. Negative comments should be responded to using constructive feedback rather than censorship.

Guidelines for Regional Social Media Sites: Each site will have a staff person assigned as a site moderator who will monitor comments once each workday to ensure information is appropriate, respectful and true. Login and password information will be made accessible to program supervisors and staff responsible for monitoring the site. Sites will include only approved Region of Waterloo logos and program identifiers. An appropriate disclaimer, or other terms and conditions, similar to the sample provided, (see Docs #671395), must be posted on any social media group or site prior to its use. Approval from the Region’s legal department is required to ensure that the appropriate terms and conditions are included in the social media site. In the event that social media is used as an open forum for discussion and could:

Involve input from one or more Regional Councillor, or

Be used as a means of discussing the undertakings of a Regional committee (either a formal standing committee or an advisory committee, or a Regionally affiliated board, agency or corporation),

then legal advice shall first be obtained from the Region’s legal department to ensure that the discussion forum complies with the legal requirements for public engagement.

Site Moderator Responsibilities: The Site Moderator is responsible for:

Correcting misinformation and ensuring content is up-to-date;

Ensuring responses to wall posts and in-box messages and discussion comments are made within the week they are posted or received;

Denying access to users who post inappropriate or offensive comments;

Removing any post that is considered to be false, disrespectful, abusive, hateful, obscene, sexually oriented, threatening or invasive of someone else’s privacy;

Removing any commercial postings made by any company or business that has not received prior approval;

pcdocs://DOCS_ADMIN/671395/R

#647322 V4 Page 4 of 4

Responding to any concern or objection concerning the site within 48 hours of receiving the communication;

Closing/removing the site upon completion of its intended purpose, in keeping with the Region’s Records Retention/Disposal Policy and the Information Retention Disposal Schedule – By-law 93-076.

SEE ALSO:

The Communications Protocol (Approvals and Initiation Process)

Code of Ethics & Conflict of Interest (I-8)

Confidential Information (I-4)

Public Criticism of Employer (I-31)

Use of Info Technology Systems (I-6)

Protection of Proprietary Information (I-29)

Protection of Employee Personal Info (I-22)

External Complaints (I-19)

Interpersonal Conduct (I-14)

Workplace Harassment Prevention (1-13)

Workplace Violence Prevention (IV-15)

Records Retention/Disposal Policy (By-law 93-076)

Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

Director, Employee Relations Human Resources

Director, Corporate Communications Chief Administrator’s Office

Report: CR-RS-11-020

Page 1 of 3

REGION OF WATERLOO

CORPORATE RESOURCES Legal Services

TO: Chair Tom Galloway and Members of the Administration and Finance Committee

DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: SUBJECT: DISPOSAL OF EASEMENT INTEREST, COLUMBIA STREET EAST, CITY OF

WATERLOO

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo declare the Region’s existing easement interest in Part 6, Reference Plan 58R-16677, City of Waterloo as surplus and enter into such documentation as is required to release the Region’s interest established by the easement in favour of the owner of the lands on which the easement is located, for $1.00, subject to the Region's property disposition by-law and to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor, as detailed in Report CR-RS-11-020 dated April 12, 2011.

SUMMARY: Nil

REPORT: On June 24, 2009, Regional Council approved, under Report CR-FM-09-016, the acquisition of a two acre parcel of land for the construction of the new Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) North Division. This acquisition included an access easement over the adjacent property. The lands are located on the south-east corner of Weber Street North and Columbia Street East in the City of Waterloo and front onto Columbia Street. As the new WRPS North Division site will have its own access to Columbia Street the easement the Region has over the entrance to 55 Columbia Street, being Part 6, on Reference Plan 58R-16677 and registered as Instrument Number WR511036 on December 18, 2009, will be released and the access reconfigured to be incorporated into the parking area of 55 Columbia Street. This easement was for a future shared, common use driveway (if required) and was transferred at no cost to the Region. The purpose of the easement was to facilitate the proposed severance of the Region’s parcel by ensuring an access to Columbia Street. The value of such an easement is nominal as it would have little measurable impact on the value of the vendor’s lands given that it was for mutual use and does not impact the vendor’s proposed development. The release of the easement, if not required by the Region, was included in the negotiations when purchasing the WRPS North Division lands. The Region's property disposition by-law requires that the disposal of surplus interest in land be advertised in the local newspaper. The release of easement as it affects the Owner’s lands will be finalized only after all requirements of the Region’s property disposition by-law are met. The Region will be responsible for all related costs of the release of easement, such as public notification and registration of documentation. The subject lands are shown attached as Appendix “A”.


950544v1 Page 2 of 3

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommendation does not directly fall under one or more of the objectives of the five focus areas; however, it does support the Region’s Vision, Mission and Values in that it provides good citizen service.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Costs associated with the release of the easement is included within the approved $18.8 million capital budget for the development and construction of the new North Division Facility.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Planning, Housing and Community Services Department staff have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

ATTACHMENTS Appendix “A” – location map of lands.

PREPARED BY: Joan Moore, Property Agent

APPROVED BY: Gary Sosnoski, Commissioner of Corporate Resources


950544v1 Page 3 of 3

Appendix “A”

Meeting date Requestor Request Assigned Department Anticipated Response Date04-Mar-08 P&W Best Value Bidding Finance/Purchasing Jan-2011

09-Dec-09Budget

CommitteeComparison of reserves, expenditures and debt-per-capita between Region and comparator municipalities Finance May-2011

26-Jan-10 Committee

Report on a policy related to development chargegrants, exemptions and deferral requests, to includepast history/practice, implications, and options. Finance May 2011

08-Jun-10 A&FReview current funding for the tax increment grantprogram, with full range of funding options. Finance Spring 2011

23-Nov-10 A&F

Assess the application of the prequalification guidelines (both generals and sub contractors) and report back to A & F after one years experience Finance Nov-2011

COUNCIL ENQUIRIES AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATIONADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

960080


REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

AGENDA


Regional Council Chambers 150 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario

1.


2.

DELEGATIONS

3. a) b)

PRESENTATIONS Dr. Fred Mather Re: SS-11-015, Sunnyside Home Annual Medical Director’s Report 2010 Lynda K ohler, B renda L eis and D enise S quire, Woolwich C ommunity H ealth Centre Re: Community Needs and Capacity Assessment Project

1

4. a) b) c)

REPORTS – Public Health PH-11-015, Food Safety Training Certification Program – Conestoga College Collaboration PH-11-016, Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program Changes Update PH-11-017, Quarterly Charged/Closed Food Premises Report

6

12

17 5. a) b) c)

REPORTS – Social Services SS-11- 016, One Time Funding for Equipment for Sunnyside Home Resident and Staff Safety SS-11- 018, Youth Housing Stability Pilot Programs SS-11- 019, Provincial Homelessness Business Case

19

21

24 6. a) b)

REPORTS – Planning, Housing & Community Services P-11-037, Volunteer Programs at Region of Waterloo Museums – 2010 P-11-040, Thirteenth Annual Report of the K issing Bridge Trailway Advisory Board

36

40

CS Agenda - 2 - 11/04/12

960080

7. a)

INTERDEPARTMENTAL REPORTS P-11-018/F-11-008, Updated Building Condition Audit and Capital Reserve Analysis for Community Housing Providers

53

8. a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

INFORMATION/CORRESPONDENCE Ministry of Education Re: Implementation of the New Full Day Early Learning Kindergarten Initiative Children’s Services Invitation for the Waterloo Region Early Years System Plan Information Forum on May 13, 2011 Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors Newsletter: Making Seniors a National Priority (Distributed separately) Memo: Free Tax Clinics at Employment Resource Areas Memo: Stress-Disease Connection Conference Memo: Ontario Works Caseload – March 2011 (To be distributed at meeting) Memo: 2011 Secondary School Suspension Update

59

61

62

64

66 9. a)

OTHER BUSINESS Council Enquiries and Requests for Information Tracking List

67 10.

NEXT MEETING – Tuesday, May 3, 2011

11.

ADJOURN

Report: SS-11-015

DOCS#953457 Page 1 of 5

REGION OF WATERLOO

SOCIAL SERVICES Seniors’ Services

TO: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: S06-80 SUBJECT: SUNNYSIDE HOME ANNUAL MEDICAL DIRECTOR’S REPORT 2010 RECOMMENDATION: For information. SUMMARY: The Long Term Care Home Act 2007 (LTCHA), which came into effect on July 1, 2010, requires the Medical Director to report on improvements of the previous twelve months and goals and objectives for the next twelve months. This continues the tradition of the Sunnyside Home Annual Medical Director’s Report to the Community Services Committee. This report summarizes the improvements made through inter-disciplinary care, education and research activities at Sunnyside Home over the past year, as well as goals and objectives for 2011. Dr. Fred M ather’s leadership as Medical Director and as Chair of the Professional Advisory Committee continues to set a high standard of care and quality of life for Sunnyside Home residents. In the past year, the role of the physicians and ot her disciplines has expanded to also include tenants of the Supported Living expansion and clients of the Wellness Centre. REPORT: Dr. Mather’s report is attached as Appendix A. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The service provided by the Medical Director and the other physicians at Sunnyside Home supports the Region’s Corporate Strategic Plan, Focus Area 3: Healthy and Safe Communities: (to) Support safe and caring communities that enhance all aspects of health. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Nil

April 12, 2011 Report: SS-11-015

953457 Page 2 of 5

ATTACHMENTS Appendix A Sunnyside Home Annual Medical Director’s Report 2010 PREPARED BY: Helen Eby, Administrator, Resident Care APPROVED BY: Michael Schuster, Commissioner, Social Services


953457 Page 3 of 5

Appendix A

Sunnyside Home Medical Director’s Report 2010

This report summarizes the improvements for the past year and the goals and objectives for the coming year as required in the Long Term Care Homes Act (LTCHA). Areas of improvement in 2010 included leadership enhancement in the community in providing education and training for health professionals, improving pain management for residents, use of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) to evaluate care, counselling of residents and families in end-of-life decisions, and providing optimal pain and symptom management for residents requiring palliative care. Goals and objectives for 2011 include participating in the development of the electronic health record to collect meaningful information for quality improvement, pursuing movement from a least restraint to a no restraint philosophy, advancing research to improve care for seniors in long-term care, pr ovision of continuing pr ofessional development, not only at the Professional A dvisory Committee, but also by electronic and web resources and enrolling physicians with the Long-Term Care Physicians of Ontario. Sunnyside H ome c ontinues to support education for medical and pharmacy students. Family Medicine residents join the heath care team for one m onth of their integrative family medicine residency. A second year resident is a licensed physician who works both independently and collaboratively with the inter-disciplinary team. Sunnyside Home also provides regular “Care of the Elderly” tutorials for Clinical Clerks, who are medical students in their final year. Each term, a fourth year co-op student from the School of Pharmacy of the University of Waterloo spends a four-month rotation under the supervision of the consultant pharmacist, Sally Ebsary. These final year students have done a number of research projects including:

• Anticoagulation monitoring for residents on warfarin • Cytochrome P450-mediated drug interactions • Effects of cholinesterase inhibitors on heart rate • Safety of atypical antipsychotics in the elderly • Calcium supplementation from nutritional supplements.

As pain and depression are symptom complexes that affect many in long-term care over a variety of diagnoses, a new protocol was introduced with a goal of reducing pain experienced by residents. Using a scale from zero to ten, residents are screened for pain twice a day. The tool is customized for individuals who cannot verbalize their pain. Better pain management follows this measure of pain patterns and intensity. A joint pharmacy student and nursing student project implemented and reviewed the acceptability of this surveillance by the residents. The response by the residents was favourable. This regular s creening f or pai n has resulted in significant reductions of r esidents experiencing pain as measured through the Resident Assessment Instrument of the Minimum Data Set, Version 2.0 (RAI-MDS 2.0). A Study released by the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) in May 2010 found that 44% of seniors in Canada living in residential care facilities (long-term care, nursing or personal care homes) had symptoms of depression according to the Depression Rating Scale (DRS) of the RAI-MDS 2.0. At Sunnyside Home, a review of the RAI-MDS data showed that forty-five per cent of residents are found to have symptoms of depression. Eight per cent of residents are found to have symptoms without treatment. Ontario data reports 31.1% with symptoms and 13.3% with symptoms and no treatment. Data on depression in long-term care requires critical interdisciplinary analysis. Depression is multi-factorial and not necessarily curable. Pharmacological treatment needs to be balanced against its adverse effects. There is an awareness of the high incidence of depression in


953457 Page 4 of 5

the elderly and this is reflected by a marked increase in antidepressant prescriptions. Individuals in long-term c are enc ounter s ignificant grief due to loss of friends, independence, function and intellect, as well as approaching the end-of-life. As discussed in previous reports, the length-of-stay in long term care has become shorter. Individuals with chronic diseases or the frailty of old age, live in the community longer. Preparation for end-of-life care is integral to the holism of long-term care. The Waterloo Region-Wide Advance Directive, developed by many s takeholders, i s the s tandard for adv anced care planning with residents and families. The Sunnyside Palliative Care Team developed a counselling resource to assist r esidents and families with advance heal th care planning. I n the ev ent of severe l ife-threatening illness, seventy-five per cent of the residents are choosing to continue to receive their care at Sunnyside Home, rather than being transferred to acute care. Ahead of most long-term care homes, Sunnyside Home has used an electronic medical record for nearly two decades. The utility of this electronic health record should be improved in order to be (i) web-based, (ii) interfaced with the pharmacy, (iii) integrate and i nterpret RAI-MDS data and ( iv) promote quality improvement. Physicians at Sunnyside Home are interested in participating in this quality improvement. The use of physical restraints is controversial. Long-term care homes practise policies of least restraint. Substantial evidence links physical restraints to harm. Although a restraint- free environment is possible, it requires education and institutional buy-in. Sunnyside Home will strive to become a no restraint facility. In addition to the projects of pharmacy and nursing students and the potential information management of the el ectronic health r ecord project, Sunnyside will continue to participate in research. At present, we are participating in the Heart Failure Management Project, sponsored by the Ontario Heart and Stroke Foundation. Last year began in the shadow of the H1N1 outbreak, which fortunately did not affect long-term care as much as feared. Through the vigilant surveillance and infection prevention practices supported by the Home, there have not been any infection control outbreaks at the Home in 2010. T he implementation of the “Just Clean Your Hands” program requiring hand washing participation by everyone in the home has significantly improved hand washing compliance and spread of disease. Consistent with all health care facilities, there is a continuing increase of antibiotic resistance evident in the residents admitted to Sunnyside H ome w hich c an be best managed t hrough infection prevention and control practices. The physicians continue to provide medical care in the following areas:

Physician Care Area Type of Care Team Leader Dr. Fred Mather Buttonworks

Laurel Creek Special Care (dementia)

Coral Bradshaw

Greenfield (10 beds) Short Stay Convalescent Care

Marion Tschirhart

Dr. Jonathan Peet Cider Mill Woodside

Complex Physical and Palliative Care

Ruth Bremner

Castle Kilbride Shantz Hill

Psychogeriatric Care Judy MacKay

Dr. Kent McKinnon Greenfield Riverside


Marion Tschirhart

Dr. Pat Landy Pioneer Tower Three Bridges


Sophie Matern


953457 Page 5 of 5

Medical care in long-term care requires regular rounds and meetings with the residents and their families. Excellence in medical care is promoted by provincial and national organizations such the Ontario Long Term Care Physicians and the Long Term Medical Directors Association of Canada. Most importantly, the physicians at Sunnyside Home work with an excellent inter-disciplinary team to meet the needs and challenges of the residents.

Report: PH-11-015

934001

REGION OF WATERLOO

PUBLIC HEALTH Health Protection and Investigation

TO: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: A02-40 SUBJECT: FOOD SAFETY TRAINING CERTIFICATION PROGRAM – CONESTOGA COLLEGE COLLABORATION RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo enter into an agreement with Conestoga College Institute of Technology and Training (“Conestoga College”) for the delivery of Food Safety Training Certification programs effective May 1st, 2011 with such agreement to be to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor, as outlined in report PH-11-015, dated April 12, 2011. SUMMARY: This report provides an overview of the Food Safety Training Certification program offered by the Region of Waterloo Public Health and outlines the rationale for a proposal to enter into a collaborative agreement with Conestoga College to designate it as a delivery agent of the Region of Waterloo Food Safety Training Certification program. The goal of the partnership is to increase access to food safety training certification courses in the Region in a cost effective and efficient manner. The collaboration would also assist Public Health in re-allocating resources to increase its compliance with other mandated programs under the Ontario Public Health Standards such as inspection completion rates. An update will be provided on the progress of this collaboration after a year of implementation. REPORT:

Overview

Region of Waterloo Public Health currently provides food safety training that leads to certification for food handlers in the Region of Waterloo. As outlined in the Ontario Public Health Standards 2008, Food Safety Protocol, public health units are required to ensure food handlers in all food premises have access to training in safe food-handling practices and principles. Health units are also required to promote that a minimum of one food handler be certified in food safety at all times of operation in all high and moderate risk food premises. In Waterloo Region, the food safety training program currently delivered by Regional Public Health Inspectors provides food handlers with the knowledge to identify conditions that could result in foodborne illness, and teaches them appropriate corrective actions. The purpose of the course is to assist in the prevention and reduction of food-borne illness and enhance compliance with the Ontario food premises regulation in the food service industry. To ensure students have an enhanced understanding of course materials, a minimum grade of 70% on the final examination is required to achieve the Food Handler Certificate. The certificate is recognized for 5 years. A total of 1,315 people successfully earned the certificate in 2010, which is the most significant number since the Region commenced delivery of the program.

April 12, 2011 Report: PH-11-015

934001 Page 2 of 6

The demand for food safety training certification in the Region of Waterloo has increased consistently over the last decade putting increased pressure on Public Health Department resources. The number of clients who were certified in 2010, was eight times greater than in 1999. Figure 1 illustrates the demand for training since 1999. Courses are presently offered in four formats: 1. In-class courses taught by Public Health Inspectors at Public Health offices (either one

full day or two half-days), 2. Offsite courses taught by Public Health Inspectors at a worksite/food premise, 3. Self directed home study course, 4. On-line course. Participants taking the home study or on-line options are required to take the exam at Public Health offices. A challenge exam is also offered on a one time basis per participant to clients who have knowledge of food safety and would like to be certified without taking the course. The Regional on-site in-class training is currently offered 15 times throughout the year. In addition, off site courses are accommodated as requested by clients in the food service industry. In 2010 Public Health Inspectors accommodated 15 courses at offsite locations throughout the Region. Courses are normally 6 – 7 hours in length. The Home Study option consists of an exam that is available to clients every two weeks throughout the year and proctored by Public Health Inspectors who are available to answer any questions. In addition, Public Health Inspectors offer assistance and a verbal oral exam component to clients with English as a second language or those with identified learning disabilities. The course has also been offered in French upon request and the Home Study Manual is available in English and Cantonese. The program material is also supplied to area high schools. Figure #1

Number of Certified Food Handlers

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year

Number of Certified Food Handlers

2010


934001 Page 3 of 6

Food Safety Certification Training Program Demands

The demand for food safety training certification in the Region of Waterloo is increasing and outstripping the capacity for Public Health to respond and accommodate effectively within current resources. As noted, the number of food handlers becoming certified annually has increased steadily. As demand for food safety training rises, the costs, resources, and time associated with providing this program also rise. In terms of resources required to provide the program on an annual basis, it has been calculated that approximately 0.5 Full Time Equivalent Public Health Inspector position and 1.35 Full Time Equivalent support staff position are required to meet the current demands in 2011. It is expected that demands on our current resources will continue to rise and put increasing pressure on the Food Safety program and other mandated, competing demands within the Health Protection & Investigation Division in the future. Due to the increased demand for the course, the current waiting time for clients planning to register and attend prescheduled classes is two – three months. Turn around time for awarding certificates is up to 6 weeks from the time the exam is written. In addition, the course is restricted to food handlers currently employed in the food service industry which is in accordance with Public Health’s mandate to make the course available to food handlers in all food premises in the Region. Region of Waterloo Public Health and The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care also recognize courses offered by other agencies that meet the requirements for food safety training and certification as specified in the Ontario Public Health Standards. Agencies that currently provide recognized training include: Sault College FoodSafe FoodWise Ontario Independent Meat Processors TrainCan (Basic and Advanced) ServeSafe (American version of TrainCan) Canadian Restaurant Foodservices Association (CRFA) Any Health Unit in Ontario The cost of privately run courses can range from $300 - $900 per group and can be a financial deterrent to training. The Region of Waterloo fee structure for the Food Safety Training Certification program is based on cost recovery of materials and does not include the cost of Public Health Inspector or Support Staff time associated with the course. The current fee structure is as follows:

1) Regional Onsite courses, Offsite courses and Home study option: $40 (includes manual, Certificate, wallet card certificate, probe thermometer)

2) Challenge Exam: $10 (includes certificate, wallet card) 3) Online course: $30 4) Vulnerable groups receive 50% discount on courses and home study option: $20

(this subsidy has traditionally been provided to non-profit, charitable or philanthropic organizations organized for relief of persons in need that serve or prepare food as part of their mandate, for example, a food bank, church or emergency shelter)


934001 Page 4 of 6

Program Challenges

Region of Waterloo Public Health considered increasing the number of courses offered to clients in 2011. While increasing the number of courses would be a temporary solution to the current demand for food safety certification training, this option would continue to put pressure on existing mandated programs within our current complement of Public Health Inspectors and Program Support staff. The Health Protection and Investigation Division has 27 Public Health Inspectors that provide service in a multi-program delivery model which consists of the Food Safety , Safe Drinking Water, Infection Control, Health Hazard, Rabies, Vector-borne Disease, Outbreak Management, Communicable Disease Control and Recreational Water programs as mandated by the Ontario Public Health Standards 2008. Increasing the number of courses offered internally by Public Health would require the diversion of staff resources from other mandated activities and programs.

Proposed Conestoga College Collaboration & Rationale

In order to offset demands for food safety certification training and enable the Public Health’s Health Protection and Investigation Division to meet our multi-program mandates, Public Health is proposing to enter into an agreement with Conestoga College to deliver the Region of Waterloo Food Safety Training Certification program. This partnership would enable Public Health to ensure the increasing community demand can be accommodated in a timely manner. Conestoga College is able to provide regular pre-scheduled courses on campus and offsite based on public demand. The college can also provide regular pre-scheduled Home Study sessions and Challenge exam options as outlined by Region of Waterloo. In addition, the College would also be equipped to manage the administrative, delivery and rewarding of co-branded certificates, which would include communication of classes through its Continuing Education catalogue and on-line through its website. The program would be offered to the public and food handlers through the Continuing Education Program and would be a part of the course curriculum in the Hospitality and Business programs for students enrolled at the College. Onsite delivery of the course could take place at a variety of Conestoga College campuses throughout the Region with a commitment to add extra classes based on public demand thereby increasing access to the course. In addition, courses would be open and accessible to all individuals including non-food handlers (such as persons seeking employment in the food service industry), thereby further reducing barriers to food safety certification training. The cost of the program would be determined by the College and approved by the Region as outlined in the following proposal: Estimated Cost Year #1: $59 for a 7 – hour course (plus HST) Estimated Cost Year #2: $65 for a 7 – hour course (plus HST) Estimated Cost Home Study: $40 (plus HST) Estimated Cost Challenge Exam: $20 (plus HST) Estimated Cost Online Course: $60 (plus HST) * Note: Consistent with Public Health’s past practise, a 50% cost reduction subsidy would be provided to Food Handlers affiliated with non-profit, charitable or philanthropic organizations organized for relief of persons in need that prepare or serve food as part of the organization’s mandate.


934001 Page 5 of 6

These costs are considered accessible as well as accommodating to these above mentioned groups through a 50% cost reduction subsidy. Conestoga would continue to honour the subsidized delivery of food safety certification training to these groups, as described above, subject to an agreed upon annual limit which will be reviewed annually. Public Health would cover the subsidy for the number of participants from these groups that were in excess of the agreed to limit. Region of Waterloo Public Health would provide oversight of course curriculum, and delivery of the program through an Advisory Committee that would consist of Region of Waterloo Public Health Inspectors and College instructors. At a minimum, the program would comply with the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Food Safety Protocol in the Ontario Public Health Standards. Conestoga College would be responsible for costs of reproducing program materials, administration of the program, marking exams, proctoring exams, issuance of certificates, maintaining a database of participants, providing updates to Public Health and providing courses at a variety of times and locations including weekday, weekend and night time courses based on public demand and need.

Conclusion

The proposed collaboration with Conestoga College would commence May 1st, 2011 following the signing of an agreement including the matters outlined in this report. All certificates awarded would be co-branded and promotion of the program would be the responsibility of both Conestoga College and Region of Waterloo Public Health. An implementation and transition plan would be included in the agreement to ensure a smooth transition of services. An update will be provided on the progress of this collaboration after a year of implementation. The proposal outlined in this report is part of an ongoing effort to identify efficiencies within the Food Safety program and break down barriers to services in order to meet multi-program mandates with current resources. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Supports Focus Area 3 – Healthy and Safe Communities: Support safe and caring communities that enhance all aspects of health Supports Focus Area 6 – Service Excellence: Foster a culture of citizen/customer service that is responsive to community needs FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff resources currently utilized in the delivery of Public Health Department food safety training courses are funded within the base budget. Approximately 0.5 Public Health Inspector FTE and 1.35 Program Support FTE will be re-allocated to support program demands and increase Public Health’s compliance with its other mandated programs under the Ontario Public Health Standards such as inspection completion rates and related customer service and administrative functions. The base budget also includes revenues of $36,000 and expenses of $30,000 (related to material costs) for food safety training certification. Both of these items would be removed from the base budget in 2012 with a resulting gross increase of $6,000 annually ($1,500 net levy) to the bottom line of the Public Health Department budget as a result of loss of revenue in excess of expenses.


934001 Page 6 of 6

In the event that the number of Food Handlers affiliated with non-profit, charitable or philanthropic organizations that prepare or serve food as part of the organization’s mandate surpasses the agreed upon limit in any given year, Public Health’s commitment to offset the cost of the 50% subsidy for additional spots will be absorbed within the department’s base budget. For demonstration purposes, if there were twice as many participants from this group as the agreed to limit, the estimated cost to be absorbed within Public Health would be approximately $2,300. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Representatives from the Legal Services division and the Human Resources department have been consulted in connection with this report. ATTACHMENTS: NIL PREPARED BY: Chris Komorowski, Manager Food Safety, Recreational Water and Cambridge & Area Team Lindsay Ogg, Public Health Inspector APPROVED BY: Dr. Liana Nolan, Commissioner/ Medical Officer of Health

Report: PH-11-016

Page 1 of 5

REGION OF WATERLOO

PUBLIC HEALTH Child & Family Health

TO: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: P09-40 SUBJECT: HEALTHY BABIES HEALTHY CHILDREN PROGRAM CHANGES UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: For information. SUMMARY: Changes to the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program have recently been out lined by the Ministry of Children and Y outh Services. The changes will significantly impact what families in Waterloo Region are offered through the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program. These changes will also impact our local system of supports for young children and families, particularly during the postpartum period. Additional information is still needed and will be forthcoming from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services in order to plan for upcoming changes to the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program and other public health services within the context of our local system of services and supports for young children and their families. Some components of Healthy Babies Healthy Children currently available to al l families will be eliminated. Components of Healthy Babies Healthy Children supporting vulnerable children will be enhanced. REPORT: The Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program is a voluntary prevention/early intervention initiative designed to help families promote healthy child development and help their children achieve their full potential. Introduced in 1998, the program is delivered by Public Health Units across Ontario as mandated in the Ontario Public Health Standards (2008). The program is 100% funded by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. Over time, modifications to the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program in Waterloo Region have been made (e.g. reduction in number of families being offered a postpartum home visit) in order to stay within the funding envelope. On March 22, 2011, Region of Waterloo Public Health received a memorandum from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services entitled “Strengthening Early Years Programs: Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program Improvements” (See Appendix A). The Ministry of Children and Youth Services indicates that changes are being made to the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program as part of the province’s work to strengthen programs in support of the integrative vision of the Best Start initiative and the goal of improving outcomes for children and their families. The main focus for the changes being introduced by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services is to aid at risk families in accessing the Healthy Babies Healthy Children home visiting program more quickly.



Description of Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program Changes

The changes to the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program outlined by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services will significantly impact what families are offered through the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program and will also impact our local system of supports for young children and families, particularly during the postpartum period. The Ministry of Children and Youth Services indicates that the timeline for full implementation of the changes is January 2012. Some components of the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program available to all families will be eliminated. The universal post-partum contact within 48 hours of hospital discharge and post-partum home visit will no longer be requirements of the program. The only remaining universal components will occur prior to hospital discharge. T hey will include the of fer of a s creening oppor tunity to families and the provision of an information package (containing child development information, a description of programs available to support children and families and contact numbers for new parents). Families identified at risk by the screening tool will be offered the Healthy Babies Healthy Children home visiting program. The proportion of families who will meet the criteria for the home visiting program and the ex pected t imeframe w ithin w hich f amilies are to be contacted once identified at risk are not yet known. The Healthy Babies Healthy Children home visiting program will be s trengthened through investment in t raining. Province-wide best practice guidelines will be introduced and are still under development. A new, more detailed Healthy Babies Healthy Children screening tool (still to be v alidated) will replace the currently-used Larson (prenatal) and Parkyn (postpartum) screening tools to identify vulnerable families. The new screen, once validated, will be completed postpartum by hospital nurses prior to a mother and baby leaving the hospital. The new screen will also be used prenatally and during early childhood, although it is unclear if this screening will continue to be funded through the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program. The Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program in W aterloo Region is well integrated within the system of services and supports for young children and their families. The upcoming changes to this program will, therefore, have an impact on partners in our system of supports for families with a new baby. Community networks (i.e. Healthy Babies Healthy Children Advisory Committee, Region of Waterloo Children and Parents Services Committee, Children and Youth Services Planning Council) and organizations (eg. hospitals, child welfare, children’s services, children’s treatment centres, other publ ic heal th programs) who s erve young children and their families are currently being informed of the changes. The Healthy Babies Healthy Children program contributes to the Region of Waterloo Public Health’s achievement of a num ber of the mandated Ontario Public Health Standards (eg. breastfeeding support, healthy growth and development, healthy family dynamics, health teaching on public health topics). Changes to the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program will, therefore, require Public Health to identify and seek to address gaps in meeting Ontario Public Health Standards requirements that may result.

Next Steps

Region of Waterloo Public Health will: • Submit a Healthy Babies Healthy Children service plan and budget for 2011 that contains

the same program components as in previous years, at a level that can be delivered within the program funding envelope for 2011.

• Participate in provincial work groups for the development of the Healthy Babies Healthy

Children program changes as di rected by the Ministry of Children and Y outh Services.



(Education Work Group, New Screen Validation Study Work Group, Healthy Babies Healthy Children Protocol and Guidance Document Consultation Work Group, Information Package Work Group).

• Participate, in partnership with Grand River Hospital and Cambridge Memorial Hospital, in

the validation of the new Healthy Babies Healthy Children screen being conducted in twelve Public Health Units over the next four months.

• Plan for upcoming Healthy Babies Healthy Children program changes in consultation and

collaboration with community partners within the context of the Early Years System Planning Framework being utilized by the Region of Waterloo Children and Parents Services Committee.

• Bring forward a report about planned revisions for the Region of Waterloo Public Health Healthy Babies Healthy Children and Child Health programs to Community Services Committee prior to implementation of Healthy Babies Healthy Children and Child Health program changes.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The Healthy Babies Healthy Children program contributes to the Region’s strategic focus areas of: • #3 Healthy and Safe Communities – support safe and caring communities that enhance all

aspects of health • #4 Human Services – promote quality of life and create opportunities for residents to develop to

their full potential FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Ministry of Children and Youth Services indicates that there are no plans to reduce funding from current levels for the 100% provincially funded Healthy Babies Healthy Children program as a result of Healthy Babies Healthy Children program changes. It is unclear at this time if there will be any changes to funding levels for individual Public Health Units. Healthy Babies Healthy Children funding for Waterloo Region has remained unchanged at $2,764,743 for the last four years, despite an increasing number of births and increasing costs for program delivery. The specific requirements of the program changes and their financial impacts are still unknown at this time. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Social Services and Public Health departments work in collaboration with community partners on planning f or children`s services i n W aterloo R egion. C hanges to t he system of s upports and services for young children and their families as a result of Healthy Babies Healthy Children program changes will be done in consultation with Region of Waterloo Children and Parent Services, within the Early Years System Planning Framework. ATTACHMENTS Appendix A: Memorandum from Darryl Sturtevant, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of

Children and Youth Services dated March 22, 2011 re: Strengthening Early Years Programs: Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program Improvements

PREPARED BY: Andrea Reist, Director, Child & Family Health APPROVED BY: Dr. Liana Nolan, Commissioner/Medical Officer of Health



APPENDIX A



Report: PH-11-017


REGION REGION OF WATERLOO

PUBLIC HEALTH Health Protection and Investigation

TO: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: P10-80 SUBJECT: QUARTERLY CHARGED/CLOSED FOOD PREMISES REPORT RECOMMENDATION: For information SUMMARY: This report is a summary of food premises enforcement activities conducted by Public Health Inspectors in the Health Protection and Investigation Division for the first quarter of 2011. REPORT: During the first quarter of 2011, six establishments were charged under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, Ontario Food Premises Regulation 562 (See Table 1: Food Safety Enforcement Activity). Food premises charges and closures can be viewed on the Food Premises Inspection Reports website Enforcement Actions Page for a period up to 6 months from the date of the charge or closure. Every food premises charged has the right to a trial and every food premises ordered closed, under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, has the right to an appeal to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Healthy and Safe Communities: Support safe and caring communities that enhance all aspects of health. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: NIL OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: NIL ATTACHMENTS Table 1: Food Safety Enforcement Activity PREPARED BY: Chris Komorowski, Manager, Health Protection and Investigation APPROVED BY: Dr. Liana Nolan, Commissioner/ Medical Officer of Health

Report: PH-11-017


Table 1: Food Safety Enforcement Activity Name of establishment Date of Charges or Closure Charges or Closure Total

Charge Val’s Restaurant 6A-209 Pinebush Road Cambridge

Provincial Offences Notice issued for an infraction observed on February 1, 2011

Store hazardous foods at an internal temperature between 5 degrees Celsius and 60 degrees Celsius ($455)

$455

Marsdale Retirement Residence 25 Linwood Avenue Cambridge

Two Provincial Offences Notices issued for infractions observed on March 1, 2011

Operator fail to ensure equipment surface washed as necessary ($55) Operator fail to ensure floor of food handling room kept clean ($55)

$110

The Grasshopper 868 King Street East Cambridge

Provincial Offences Notice issued for an infraction observed on March 11, 2011

Fail to sanitize utensils after rinsing ($295)

$295

Fireside Deli & Family Restaurant 800 Ottawa Street South Kitchener

Two Provincial Offences Notices issued for infractions observed on March 21, 2011

Use dirty cloth for cleaning utensils ($120) Fail to protect food from contamination and adulteration ($300)

$420

Kentucky Fried Chicken 331 Lancaster Street West Kitchener


Operate food premise not maintained with smooth floor surface where food handled ($60)

$60

Janet Lynn’s Bistro 92 King Street South Waterloo


Mechanical equipment not maintained to provide sufficient chemical solution rinse ($120)

$120

Report: SS-11-016

DOCS# 953466 Page 1 of 2

REGION OF WATERLOO

SOCIAL SERVICES Seniors’ Services

TO: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: S07-20 SUBJECT: ONE TIME FUNDING FOR EQUIPMENT FOR SUNNYSIDE HOME

RESIDENT AND STAFF SAFETY RECOMMENDATION: THAT t he Regional M unicipality of Waterloo i ncrease the 2011 operating budget for S eniors’ Services by $59,606 gross and $0 net Regional Levy, as outlined in report SS-11-016, dated April 12, 2011. SUMMARY: On March 8, 2011, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care announced $18 million of one-time funding for the purchase of new equipment to improve resident comfort and safety in long-term care homes. Sunnyside Home received an allocation of $59,606, which as a condition of acceptance, had to be expended by March 31, 2011. This deadline required that the equipment be purchased and delivered by March 31, 2011. As no addition Regional funding is required, the one-time funding was used to purchase 4 portable floor lifts, 4 sit to stand mini lifts, 4 ceiling lift tracking systems and 2 ceiling lift motor systems at a cost of $59,606. REPORT: The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has announced one-time funding of $18 million in fiscal year 2010-2011 to support the purchase of new equipment to improve resident comfort and safety. Sunnyside Home received $59,606 as its allocation of this funding. Research indicates that the equipment being funded by this special investment improves resident safety, decreases the use of restraints, reduces injuries due to falls and assists in preventing falls. The quality of care and safety for residents and staff will be enhanced through this provincial initiative. To be eligible for this one-time funding by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, the long-term care home was required to agree to purchase and receive all goods and services between March 8, 2011 (the date of this announcement) and March 31, 2011. Any unspent funds will be recovered and a full accounting and reconciliation of funding will be required as part of the Annual Reconciliation Report for the 2011 calendar year. In reviewing the eligible uses of this funding, staff decided to purchase new floor model lifts and sit to stand lifts and to continue with an ongoing project to install ceiling lifts in all resident rooms at Sunnyside Home. These purchases are consistent with the funding criteria and also support the Sunnyside Home’s musculoskeletal program, a health and safety initiative which aims to reduce staff injuries and lost time. The one-time funding of $59,606 has been used to purchase 4 portable floor lifts, 4 sit-to-stand mini lifts, 4 ceiling lift tracking systems and 2 ceiling lift motor systems. Lift motors can be moved from one room to another as the needs of residents change, while the ceiling lift tracking is a permanent installation.



Many residents at Sunnyside Home require mechanical assistance to change their position in order to t ransfer or s tand. Li fting equipment provides mechanical assistance to s taff i n t ransferring residents who cannot safely weight bear. Ceiling lifts are more comfortable than floor models for residents and reduce the risk of staff and resident injury. The Home also utilizes some floor model lifts for specific transfers, such as transferring residents from a sitting to standing position. Staff and residents are enthusiastic about the safety and comfort benefits of these lifts. Over the past year and a half, in response to community need, Sunnyside Home has converted two of its Special Care home areas (units for those with Alzheimer’s or a related dementia) to Continuing Care home areas to serve those with advanced physical impairments, with or without a dementia. With this change, additional lifting equipment is required to meet the needs of this population. Since 2004, through substantial support by the Foundation and targeted Provincial funds, Sunnyside has installed 80 ceiling lifts in the Home. To complete this long-term project, there is an imminent need for an additional 90 ceiling lift tracking systems, and a further 106 required to complete the project. The Foundation has designated pr oceeds from 2011 W alk and Roll and the fall Golf Tournament for this purpose. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The purchase of equipment to allow for safe and c omfortable resident transfers addresses the Region’s Corporate Strategic Focus Area 3, Healthy and Safe Communities: (to) Support safe and caring communities that enhance all aspects of health. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2011 operating budget for Seniors’ Services will increase by $59,606 gross and $0 net. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Finance has been consulted in the preparation of this report. ATTACHMENTS: Nil PREPARED BY: Helen Eby, Administrator, Resident Care APPROVED BY: Michael Schuster, Commissioner, Social Services

SS-11-018


REGION OF WATERLOO

SOCIAL SERVICES Social Planning, Policy, and Program Administration

TO: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee

DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: S13-80

SUBJECT: YOUTH HOUSING STABILITY PILOT PROGRAMS

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo extend the Emergency Shelter Program Agreement with Reaching Our Outdoor Friends (ROOF) for 10 beds for May 1 to December 31, 2011; AND THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo extend the Domiciliary Hostel Program Agreement with Argus Residence for Young People for 5 beds for June 17 to December 31, 2011, as outlined in the report SS-11-018, dated April 12, 2011.

SUMMARY: NIL

REPORT:

1.0 Background In April 2010, Social Planning, Policy and Program Administration released the report Promising Principles and Practices in Housing Options for Youth Experiencing Homelessness in Waterloo Region (the Youth Housing Options Report). This report addressed Action 4.8 of the Homelessness to Housing Stability Strategy, to “Explore best practices of youth-specific housing options for youth experiencing homelessness or at-risk of homelessness, where reconciliation with parents or guardian is not immediate or possible”. The Youth Housing Options Report included the following recommendations:

• Create youth-specific emergency shelter services for youth 16 and over in Kitchener/Waterloo, taking into consideration existing resources, impact to surrounding emergency shelters, and implementation/promotion of the six promising principles and practices.

• Develop longer term housing options for youth, taking into consideration specific needs of youth with complex issues.

Two programs were piloted and reviewed over the past year, tailored to meet the unique needs and developmental challenges of youth experiencing or at-risk of homelessness. One program was a youth-specific Emergency Shelter at ROOF (located in Kitchener), and the other was a youth-specific longer-term housing option for male youth with complex needs at Argus Residence for Young People (located in Cambridge). These agencies were identified as appropriate agencies in the community to undertake these programs, given their extensive experience providing youth-specific services to youth experiencing or at risk of homelessness.



2.0 ROOF – Providing a Roof (PAR) To address recommendation #3 of the report, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo entered into an Emergency Shelter Agreement with ROOF on a trial basis for the period of March 25, 2010 – April 30, 2011 for 10 beds. During this time ROOF underwent regular monitoring against the Emergency Shelter Guidelines and at the conclusion of the pilot is found to be in substantial compliance. Monitoring consisted of monthly check-in visits to the facility, where Region staff observed the progression of the program, policies and space and measured compliance against the Emergency Shelter Guidelines. Mid-point check-ins were also conducted with stakeholders, including EIS Caseworkers, neighbours, the City of Kitchener, other shelters and youth-specific housing stability programs. ROOF is a regular attendee of the Emergency Shelter and Social Services meetings as well as the Homeless Individuals and Family Information System (HIFIS) working group meetings. The shelter has had an average capacity of 82% over the year and had regular peaks where they have been full and even had a waiting list, indicating a significant need in the community for this service. The program has also adhered to the Six Promising Practices and Principles identified in the Promising Principles and Practices in Housing Options for Youth Experiencing Homelessness in Waterloo Region (the Youth Housing Options Report), which include providing a continuum of accessible supports that are youth-specific; establishing trusting relationships; adopting a low demand approach to housing stability programs; linking education, income and housing supports, providing opportunities for youth engagement; and promoting collaboration between agencies.

2.1 Argus Residence for Young People - Five Beds to Home Program To address recommendation #5 of the report, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo entered into a Domiciliary Hostel Agreement with Argus Residence for Young People on a trial basis for the period of June 16, 2010 to June 16, 2011 for 5 beds. During that time Argus underwent regular monitoring against the Domiciliary Hostel Standards and prior to the conclusion of the pilot is found to be in substantial compliance. The program has been monitored with check-in visits to the facility throughout the year, where Region staff observed the progression of the program, policies and space and measured compliance against the Domiciliary Hostel Standards. The program has consistently been at full capacity and has successfully stabilized young men with complex needs who had previously been cycling in-and-out of the emergency shelter program. The Five Beds to a Home program has aided in filling a gap by providing one longer-term housing option for male youth with complex needs in this community. The program has also adhered to the Six Promising Practices and Principles identified in the Promising Principles and Practices in Housing Options for Youth Experiencing Homelessness in Waterloo Region (the Youth Housing Options Report), which include providing a continuum of accessible supports that are youth-specific; establishing trusting relationships; adopting a low demand approach to housing stability programs; linking education, income and housing supports, providing opportunities for youth engagement; and promoting collaboration between agencies.

3.0 Next Steps Subject to Council approval, Agreements with the agencies for these programs will be extended to the end of the 2011 calendar year at the conclusion of their pilot time frames. ROOF-PAR and Argus Five Beds to a Home may then participate in the regular annual Agreement processes associated with the Emergency Shelter and Domiciliary Hostel Programs.



CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Working to strengthen the housing stability system and build the community’s capacity to address issues of homelessness is consistent with the Region’s Corporate Strategic Plan, Focus Area 4: Human Services: (to) Promote quality of life and create opportunities for residents to develop to their full potential; and specifically, Strategic Objective 4.2 (to) Enhance services to people experiencing or at-risk of homelessness.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Emergency Shelter per diem is cost shared with the Province of Ontario on an 81.2:18.8 basis. As emergency shelters are funded under the Ontario Works program, there is no maximum expenditure for the program. The current maximum cost-shared per diem rate is set by the Province at $43.00. The Domiciliary Hostel per diem is also cost shared with the Province of Ontario on an 80:20 basis. There is capacity to include Argus’ Five Beds to Home within the maximum budget set by the Province. The current maximum cost-shared per diem rate is set by the Province at $47.75.

OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Finance has reviewed this report. Legal Services will assist in preparing Agreements.

ATTACHMENTS N/A

PREPARED BY: Lisa-Dawn Brooks, Social Planning Associate Marie Morrison, Manager, Social Planning

APPROVED BY: Michael Schuster, Commissioner of Social Services

REPORT: SS-11-019


REGION OF WATERLOO

SOCIAL SERVICES Social Planning, Policy and Program Administration

TO: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: S13-80 SUBJECT: PROVINCIAL HOMELESSNESS BUSINESS CASE RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the attached “Provincial Homelessness Business Case to Support Additional 2011 Funding” as part of the 2011 budget submission to the Province’s Ministry of Community and Social Services, as outlined in Report SS-11-019, dated April 12, 2011. SUMMARY: NIL REPORT: Each year the Region is required to submit a budget request to the Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) for homelessness funding, including: Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) (100% Provincial dollars), Provincial Emergency Energy Fund (PEEF) (100% provincial dollars) and the Domiciliary Hostel Program (80/20 cost-shared). Over the past three years (2008-2010), the Region has included a business case with the budget submission to provide further information and rationale regarding the request for additional dollars (SS-10-012). As a result of the business case submissions, MCSS provided the Region additional one-time CHPP funding of $200,000 in 2008 and $150,000 in 2009. No additional dollars were provided in 2010. As with last year’s submission, the 2011 Business Case presents information and r ationale for a request regarding all MCSS funded homelessness programs (see 2011 Business Case attached as Appendix A). The Region anticipates receiving $722,744 for the CHPP but is requesting an additional $698,245 in order to sustain and enhance existing programs and to fund additional longer term housing with supports. The Region anticipates receiving $75,210 for the PEEF and is requesting twice that amount in order to better address current demand. The Region is requesting that MCSS maintain the existing Domiciliary Hostel Program base budget at $2,309,066. Overall, the Business Case requests an additional $773,455 above the anticipated funding of $3,107,020 for a total request of $3,880,475. The current and requested funding is outlined in the following chart.

Program Current Funding Requested Additional Funding

Total 2011 Request

CHPP (100% Province)

$722,744 $698,245 $1,420,989

PEEF (100% Province)

$75,210 $75,210 $150,420

Domiciliary Hostel (80/20 cost-shared)

$2,309,066 $0 $2,309,066

TOTAL $3,107,020 $773,455 $3,880,475



CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Working to strengthen the housing stability system and build the community’s capacity to address issues of homelessness i s consistent w ith the Region’s Corporate Strategic P lan, Focus Area 4: Human Services: (to) Promote quality of life and create opportunities for residents to develop to their full potential; and specifically, Strategic Objective 4.2 (to) Enhance services to people experiencing or at-risk of homelessness. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Region's 2011 approved operating budget includes a provision of $3,107,020 for the existing CHPP, PEEF and Domiciliary Hostel programs. The 2011 Business Case request is for an additional $773,455 to be funded entirely by the Province of Ontario. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Nil ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Provincial Homelessness Business Case to Support Additional 2011 Funding PREPARED BY: Van Vilaysinh, Social Planning Associate Marie Morrison, Manager, Social Planning APPROVED BY: Michael Schuster, Commissioner, Social Services



ATTACHMENT A PROVINCIAL HOMELESSNESS BUSINESS CASE

Regional Municipality of Waterloo

Provincial Homelessness Business Case

to Support Additional 2011 Funding

Prepared For: Province of Ontario

Ministry of Community and Social Services

March 2011

DRAFT



1.0 INTRODUCTION The Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the Region) has been serving as the Consolidated Municipal Service System Manager (CMSM) for Homelessness since 1999. This business case provides further information and rationale for the Region’s 2011 budget request for homelessness programs funded through the Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) including the Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP), Provincial Emergency Energy Fund (PEEF), and Domiciliary Hostel Program. 2.0 CONSOLIDATED HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM Since 2006, the Region has been implementing the Province’s Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) (refer to Appendix A for further background information and to Appendix B for a 2010 list of accomplishments). The Region submitted a business case with the 2010 Provincial budget submission to the Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) requesting additional funding to sustain and enhance existing CHPP programs and to fund Supportive Housing of Waterloo (SHOW), a new longer term housing with supports (SS-10-012). The business case requested an additional $1,033,209; however, no additional funding above the annual allocation of $722,744 was provided. 2.1 Rationale for Additional CHPP Funding The Region’s current C HPP annual al location of $722,744 is appreciated and is efficiently and effectively applied towards addressing and ending homelessness in Waterloo Region (see Appendix B for a 2010 list of accomplishments and Appendix C for a summary of current CHPP funded programs). However, the allocation is insufficient to implement the Province’s CHPP Guidelines (2006) and does not recognize increased program operating costs and service demands. In 2007, Waterloo Region released, “All Roads Lead to Home: A Homelessness to Housing Stability Strategy for Waterloo Region” (the Strategy). The Strategy (2007-2010) served as the Region’s system plan for addressing issues of homelessness and its implementation was identified as an action within the Region’s 2007-2010 Strategic Plan. The Strategy is currently being updated with the timeline for implementation spanning the next term of Regional Council (2011-2014). The Strategy provides evidence of existing gaps and direction towards the actions required to ensure every community member in Waterloo Region has housing stability. The Strategy demonstrates that ending homelessness through the provision of hous ing and s upports is not only a m ore humane approach; it is roughly 10 times less expensive on a per diem basis. Yet, it is recognized that the Strategy cannot be fully implemented without additional funding from the federal and provincial governments. The Region has committed an additional $749,225 on an annual basis towards implementing the Strategy and is requesting the Province provide additional funding as well. There is a need t o support the full range of services within the housing stability system including prevention activities, shorter term programs (e.g., emergency shelters, outreach, time-limited housing), and longer term housing with support programs (e.g., supportive housing). As such, there is a need to support activities under all three objectives of CHPP: 1. To improve access to and connect hous eholds t hat are experiencing homelessness w ith the

system of community services;



2. To support households experiencing homelessness to obtain and keep longer-term housing; and 3. To assists households at risk of homelessness to maintain housing. However, it is highlighted through the research and in the Strategy that housing with supports is the most ef fective route t o ending hom elessness for those requiring assistance to maintain housing stability. In 2006, Regional Council approved a policy regarding CHPP to support all three objectives of CHPP with particular emphasis on hous ing with supports (SS-06-053). As outlined in Appendix C, CHPP funded programs adhere to this approved policy direction by addressing all three objectives of the CHPP with a particular emphasis on housing with supports (e.g. in 2010, housing with supports accounted for 50% of the CHPP programs and 72% of CHPP expenditures). Nevertheless, the demand for this type of supportive housing far outstrips available funding. In 2009, there were 608 people in Waterloo Region on a waitlist for general supportive housing (formerly the Supports to Daily Living Program), a 17% increase from 2008. There are no ot her funding sources available from the Province for general supportive housing. If funding for the support component of the Supportive Housing of W aterloo (SHOW) project is not received, it risks an inability to support its intended purpose to serve as supportive housing for people experiencing persistent homelessness and simply serving as an affordable housing program. SHOW is a non-profit group formed by thirteen Waterloo-based churches and faith groups to create general supportive housing for people experiencing persistent homelessness. In 2010, SHOW began operating a f ive story 30 unit building, with 24 hour support. The support component of SHOW is currently being partially funded through the Domiciliary Hostel Program. SHOW has identified the need for an additional $275,000 to maintain current levels of support. In addition, existing CHPP programs require further funding in order to maintain and stabilize service levels. Beyond that, one CHPP program has identified a need for enhanced funding to meet increased service demands (see Appendix C for program descriptions). Despite the 6% increase to the CHPP base budget over the past four years, funding for agencies has not kept pace with inflation and does not recognize increased operating costs in areas such as utilities and insurance. Additionally, with the impact of the economic downturn, community need is even higher. 2.2 Request for Additional 2011 CHPP Funding The Region’s 2011 CHPP budget submission is $1,420,989, representing an additional allocation of $698,245 beyond the expected annualized base allocation of $722,744. This reflects the results of the Strategy which highlight the urgent need to both sustain and enhance existing CHPP programs and to create additional units of general longer term housing with supports (e.g., supportive housing). Additional amounts required for each program are detailed in Appendix C.

Area 2011 CHPP Funding

Approved by Regional Council*

2011 Requested Funding to Sustain and Enhance

Programs

Programs $650,470 $1,291,808

Cost of Administration** $72,274 $129,181

TOTAL $722,744 $1,420,989

ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUEST*** - $698,245 *Contingent on Ministry funding **MCSS allows up to 10% of total allocation for the cost of administration ***Calculated as: (TOTAL) – ($722,744)



If additional funding was made available to existing CHPP programs, it would allow each to: • Continue sustainable operations and maintain services levels; • Retain qualified and experienced staff; • Increase ability to meet and increase service targets and outcomes; and • Increase ability to participate in connecting as part of the larger system of services to address

and end homelessness. 3.0 PROVINCIAL EMERGENCY ENERGY FUND The Region has been providing energy assistance through 80/20 cost-shared discretionary benefits for many years. The Region was asked and agreed to support a local energy assistance program with additional community funding in 2001. The Provincial Emergency Energy Fund (PEEF) (100% Province funded) was announced in March 2004 with one-time funding of $75,210 and was integrated into the local energy assistance program for the 2004/2005 heating season. The PEEF became annualized in 2005/2006. In 2006, t he P rovince announced addi tional one-time f unding through P EEF for the 2006/2007 fiscal year. The annual allocations for 2008, 2009, and 2010 have remained at $75,210. For the last three years, PEEF funding has been exhausted within the first quarter

of our fiscal year (January to March). However, there is a year round need for energy assistance, particularly during the months of September to December.

Based on past usage of PEEF funding and demand for assistance in the colder months, the Region is requesting an additional $75,210 for a total annual request of $150,420.

Area 2011 PEEF Funding

Approved by Regional Council*

2011 Requested Funding

Energy Assistance $67,689 $135,378

Cost of Administration** $7,521 $15,042

TOTAL $75,210 $150,420

ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUEST*** - $75,210 *Contingent on Ministry funding **MCSS allows up to 10% of total allocation for the cost of administration ***Calculated as: (TOTAL) – ($75,210) 4.0 DOMICILIARY HOSTEL PROGRAM The Region is seeking to have its Domiciliary Hostel Program budget of $2,309,066 maintained for 2011. Waterloo Region continues to be an underfunded area with respect to supported housing for seniors and those with mental health and addiction issues, all populations which are served by the Domiciliary Hostel Program in Waterloo Region. Demand for the Domiciliary Hostel Program has further increased with the Tier II Divestment of specialized mental health services to Waterloo Region that took place in October 2010. We are working closely with the Waterloo-Wellington LHIN, Grand River Hospital and other partners as the Domiciliary Hostel Program is considered an essential supportive housing resource in the community. As such, we are seeking to at least maintain capacity within this program for 2011 and will seek opportunities for increases in the future.



5.0 SUMMARY Through the Strategy, the Region has clearly identified what is needed to address and end homelessness in Waterloo Region. We have identified housing stability as a priority area and have committed 100% Regional dollars to begin taking action. The provincial government needs to commit additional dollars as well. As a part of this commitment, we are seeking the following for CHPP, PEEF and Domiciliary Hostel through MCSS ($1,420,989 + $150,420 + $2,309,066) beyond the ex pected annualized base allocation of ($722,744 + $75,210 + $2,309,066) for a total 2011 requested allocation of $3,880,475.

Program Current Funding Requested Additional Funding

Total 2011 Request

CHPP (100% Province)

$722,744 $698,245 $1,420,989

PEEF (100% Province)

$75,210 $75,210 $150,420

Domiciliary Hostel (80/20 cost-shared)

$2,309,066 $0 $2,309,066

TOTAL $3,107,020 $773,455 $3,880,475 Providing additional funding to the Region to address and end homelessness is a wise investment. For every dollar spent, research has proven or estimates that there will be a four to ten dollar savings to the emergency health, social services, and correctional systems. We hope you will look favorably upon our business case and thank you for considering our request.

April 12, 2011 SS-11-019


APPENDIX A CHPP BACKGROUND IN WATERLOO REGION

Until 2005, the Region administered four of the five provincial homelessness programs (that were to become the CHPP). These four programs included Supports to Daily Living, the Provincial Homelessness Initiative Fund, Off the Street – Into Shelter, and the Emergency Hostel Redirection Fund ( the fifth, t he C ommunity P artners P rogram, was nev er f unded i n Waterloo R egion). The following table summarizes the history and funding arrangements for these programs. Provincial Homelessness Programs Administered by the Region

Program Year Program Began

Year Region Began

Administering

Funding Arrangement

2005 Funding (Provincial)

2005 Funding (Gross)

Supports to Daily Living

1990 1999 100% Provincial

$405,820 $405,820

Provincial Homelessness Initiative Fund

1999 1999 100% Provincial

$185,400 $185,400

Off the Street – Into Shelter

2001 2001 80/20 cost-share

$23,155 $28,100

Emergency Hostel Redirection Fund

1999 2003 80/20 cost-share

$38,904 $47,786

TOTAL - - - $653,279 $667,106 As of January 1, 2005, the Province identified that the various homelessness programs would be consolidated. On December 8, 2005, the Province released the Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program Implementation Guidelines and Performance Measures (CHPP Guidelines) effective January 1, 2006. The CHPP Guidelines identify the following objectives: • To improve access to and connect households that are experiencing homelessness with the system

of community services; • To support households experiencing homelessness to obtain and keep longer-term housing; and • To assist households at risk of homelessness to maintain housing. CHPP was funded 100% by the Province based on an amount equal to the 2005 provincial allocation ($653,279 for the Region of Waterloo). The Region of Waterloo continues to provide its former 20% share of the programs at $15,514 (now rolled into the Region’s annualized Homelessness to Housing Stability Strategy Fund totaling $749,225 for 2011). In July 2006, a pro-rated 2% base budget increase was applied to the CHPP. In 2007, MCSS announced another 2% increase to CHPP, compounded annually over three years, and an addi tional base budget administrative allocation effective July 1, 2007 ($2,666 for the 2007 fiscal equating to $5,331 annually for the Region of Waterloo). In 2008 and 2009, with the 2% increases provided, the annual allocations received were $698,703 and $722,744, respectively. Through submission of a Business Case, the Region requested additional CHPP funding and as a result, received a one-time allocation of $200,000 in 2008 and $150,000 in 2009. However, in 2010, the annual allocation remained at $722,744, with no increases or additional funds provided. While the Ministry recognized and allowed for administrative costs at 10%, these are largely funded from within the overall allocation, thereby reducing funding available for Waterloo Region community programs.

April 12, 2011 SS-11-019


APPENDIX B IMPLEMENTING CHPP – ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2010

The Region has accomplished the following in 2010 as it relates to expectations outlined in the CHPP Guidelines:

Expectations Identified Within CHPP Guidelines

Region’s Accomplishments in 2010

Develop and document informed policies and system plans, and manage available funding for the delivery of homelessness prevention services.

• Continue to utilize Region of Waterloo’s housing stability systems plan, “All Roads Lead to Home: A Homelessness to Housing Stability Strategy for Waterloo Region”, developed in November 2007. This report was created through the synthesis of ten background documents created by the Region (see website: www.regionofwaterloo.ca, search “strategy publications”).

• Published the Youth Housing Options Report (2010). • These documents are used to inform policies, funding

requests and funding allocations. Submit proposed budget and program description and negotiate service contract with MCSS Regional Office.

• Submitted a 2010 proposed budget of $1,755,953 supported by a 2010 Business Case submission.

• Received an approved 2010 annual allocation of $722,744.

Establish and maintain/manage contracts with CHPP agencies and/or establish and maintain/manage direct-delivered programming.

• Identified and entered into purchase of service agreements with eight community-based programs for funding in 2010.

Collect required data, as requested by MCSS (e.g. to support MCSS performance measures); provide quarterly reports and year-end reconciliation reports.

• Provided quarterly and year end reports to MCSS.

Monitor services, ensure outcomes are met, and adjust services (when necessary) to meet local needs.

• Services monitored and adjustments made to several CHPP programs to ensure outcomes and local needs met.

• Undertook a program review to identify CHPP funding level needs for 2011.

Undertake, document, and report a regular count of local homeless populations.

• The Region of Waterloo, through its annual inventory of housing stability programs, identifies an annual prevalence count based on use of local emergency shelter services. The count of individuals for 2007 was 2,831, 2008 was 2,783, 2009 was 2,841 and in 2010 was 2,859. The percentage of emergency shelter residents returning for shelter within the same year in 2007 was 24%, in 2008 was 27% and in 2009 was 20% (data currently not available for 2010).

• In 2007, it was estimated that approximately 50-70 people are experiencing persistent homelessness at any given time. While over 150 people experiencing or at-risk of persistent homelessness were supported to find and maintain housing from 2008 to 2010, it is currently estimated that there are still 200 people across the Region requiring support at this level.

Provide information as required. • Provided data on number of emergency shelters and emergency shelter beds to MCSS.

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/�

April 12, 2011 SS-11-019


The Region’s additional 2010 CHPP and CMSM accomplishments in the area of homelessness to housing stability include:

• Continued to provide an annualized amount of funding totaling $415,628 for 2010 to implement the Homelessness to Housing Stability Strategy (this figure includes the Region’s continued commitment to provide its former 20% share of the OSIS program at $15,514).

Homelessness to Housing Stability Strategy

• The first Homelessness to Housing Stability Strategy (2007-2010) was implemented successfully, with 90% of the actions either complete or in-progress.

• Expanded Streets to Housing Stability program (1 FTE at Working Centre, 1 FTE in Cambridge). Persistent Homelessness

• The Supportive Housing of Waterloo (SHOW) building was completed and began housing people in June 2010.

• STEP Home brochure was updated. • Targets to house 150 people approaching or experiencing persistent homelessness were achieved.

• Implemented six community programs through the federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) funding 2009-2011.

Homelessness Partnering Strategy

• HPS funding announced for another 3 years (2011-2014), initiated Community Planning process.

• Added a new youth-specific emergency shelter and completed monitoring. Emergency Shelter Program

• Continued to utilize Emergency Shelter Guidelines as a quality assurance tool. • Implemented 1% Per Diem increase. • Updated the Emergency Shelter Referral Protocol and the Cold Weather Plan

• Completed third year monitoring process for compliance with Domiciliary Hostel Standards. Domiciliary Hostel Program

• Added five new homes under the Domiciliary Hostel Program, two with traditional models (Trinity Village Studios and Kaljas Homes) and three with alternative models (SHOW, Argus, Saginaw House).

• Created the first Domiciliary Hostel Program Annual Report. • Updated a number of tools and documents for the Domiciliary Hostel program.

• Added a new Families and Transition (FIT) house, for a total of 4 FIT homes. Transitional Housing Program

• Implemented the Homelessness Individual and Family Information System (HIFIS) at two new sites (Safe Haven and ROOF).

Data and information

• Continued to support HIFIS at nine sites through seven Service Providers. • Year 2 (of 3) implementation of the Data Integration Project. Created data guide, data templates,

and monitored variables. • Supported the local Homelessness to Housing Umbrella Group (HHUG) to release their third

annual Housing Stability Report Card and c ontinued to support the Housing Stability Training Centre.

• Updated the Region’s Social Planning, Homelessness website. • Updated and released annual housing stability system brochures. • Completed and released 13 two-page Strategy Summary Sheets.

April 12, 2011 SS-11-019


APPENDIX C DESCRIPTIONS OF CURRENT CHPP FUNDED PROGRAMS

The following program descriptions are grouped under longer term housing stability programs (e.g., supportive housing) and shorter term housing stability programs. E ach description s ummarizes information about the program, i ts funding history, and i ts needs. The particular CHPP objectives addressed by each program are also identified: 1. To improve access to and connect hous eholds t hat are experiencing homelessness w ith the

system of community services; 2. To support households experiencing homelessness to obtain and keep longer-term housing; and 3. To assists households at risk of homelessness to maintain housing.

Longer Term Housing Stability Programs

Cambridge Shelter Corporation – Supportive Housing (Meeting Objectives #2 & #3) This program was previously funded through the Provincial Homelessness Initiative Fund. Supportive housing is provided through 20 units at the Bridges for adults 16 years and older. Landlords are also recruited from the private rental market to transition residents (as they are ready) to more independent living situations. The program is currently funded through CHPP at $37,070 and they are seeking an additional $29,919

to maintain current levels of programming.

House of Friendship – Supportive Housing (Meeting Objectives #2 & #3) This program was originally funded through Supports to Daily Living. The House of Friendship provides 95 units of supportive housing through Cramer House, Eby Village, and Charles Village. Cramer House was established in 1985 and provides supportive housing to nine s ingle men in a shared living environment. Eby Village opened in May 1990 designed to serve 64 single male and female adults. Charles Village opened in 2005 designed to serve 22 single male and female adults (including two barrier-free units). The program is currently funded through CHPP at $257,738 and they are seeking an additional $41,462

to maintain current levels of support.

K-W YWCA – Supportive Housing (Meeting Objectives #2 & #3) This program was originally funded through Supports to Daily Living. Lincoln Road is an innovative non-profit housing project for women and their children established in 1989. Lincoln Road provide supportive housing for single women and women-led families who have experienced persistent difficulty finding and maintaining adequate housing. It is comprised of 45 units, four of which are wheelchair accessible. They were seeking an addi tional $45,864

to their existing CHPP allocation of $171,863 to hire one additional Community Support Worker for children’s programming. The housing typically serves twenty resident children in need of additional support.

Shorter Term Housing Stability Programs

Argus Residence for Young People – Shelters to Housing Stability (Meeting Objectives #2 & #3) The Shelters to Housing Stability program is a component of STEP Home (support to end homelessness) and was originally modeled on learnings from the Provincial “Hostels To Homes” pilot (operated in five other Ontario communities from 2007-2010), and T oronto’s successful “Street to Homes” program. Staff at the emergency shelter provides intensive, flexible support to shelter residents approaching or experiencing persistent homelessness to find and maintain housing (for a minimum of one year) with a ratio of one staff to ten participants. Currently, there are three emergency shelters in Waterloo Region that receive Regional HHSS funds for the Shelters to Housing Stability program. This is the first year Argus is incorporating the Shelters to Housing Stability program and they have been allocated CHPP funding in the amount of $24,886 and have requested an additional $15,114 to provide the level of support required for this position.

April 12, 2011 SS-11-019


Cambridge Shelter Corporation – Welcome Aboard (Meeting Objectives #1, #2 & #3) This program was originally funded through the Provincial Homelessness Initiative Fund. The Welcome Aboard drop-in is open seven days a week providing a safe indoor place each day for over 100 people experiencing or at-risk of homelessness. Programs include a daily meal program, showers, laundry facilities, weekly medical and foot care clinic, literacy counseling, addiction support groups, identification clinics, assistance with accessing drug and alcohol treatment, job and volunteer placements, assistance with accessing and maintaining housing, mailbox, dedicated phone l ines, message centre as well as assistance with food, clothing and furniture. Welcome Aboard is the only centre in Cambridge offering daily services to this population. CHPP funding currently assists with 11% ($15,857) of the operating expenses for this program. They are seeking $52,473

additional funding to sustain current level of programming, representing approximately 40% of operating expenses.

Lutherwood – Families in Transition Program (Meeting Objectives #1 & #2) This program was originally funded through the Emergency Hostel Redirection Fund. The Families in Transition (FIT) Program provides support to families experiencing homelessness across the Region of Waterloo in accessing safe affordable housing and comprehensive social services. A Support Worker assists families to identify and achieve goals t owards gaining stability and developing skills for independent living. The FIT Program not only provides program participants with support in housing but also works with family members on education, parenting, employment, work preparation, childcare, transportation and health issues. Their current CHPP allocation is $50,723. Lutherwood – Rent Bank and Eviction Prevention Program (Meeting Objective #3) This program was previously funded through the Region and the Provincial Homelessness Initiative Program. The Rent Bank and Eviction Prevention Program was established in 2001 with a goal of preventing homelessness through the provision of information, advocacy, and a fund to assist tenants with rent and rental arrears. Eligible applicants can access up to two months arrears in the form of an interest-free loan with a lenient repayment strategy. Beyond arranging loans, the Rent Bank Coordinator spends a significant amount of time linking tenants to available resources in the community, supporting clients in financial literacy, follow-ups, and advocating with landlords, property management companies and other community par tners to prevent homelessness. CHPP funding supports a por tion of the program operating costs while t he l oan fund is s upported t hrough the Provincial Rent Bank program and loan repayments. The program currently receives $69,529 through CHPP and is seeking an additional $92,310

to maintain service at two locations.

Reaching Our Outdoor Friends (ROOF) Youth Street Outreach (Meeting Objectives #1, #2 & #3) This program was originally funded through Off the Street – Into Shelter. The OSIS Youth Outreach Program first began in October 2001 and offers street outreach services across the Region of Waterloo in order to assist youth in moving from the street into emergency, time-limited or permanent housing. Originally, CHPP also funded the Direct Support Program; however, CHPP funding for this program was lost in 2006. In 2010, they received funding from the National Crime Prevention Council to enhance the Youth Street Outreach program to two FTE. They are currently funded through CHPP at $22,804 and have requested an additional $79,196

to maintain the current level of support for two FTE. For safety reasons, two rather than one outreach staff is required and staff resources need to be enhanced in order to retain qualified and experienced staff.

Report: P-11-037

950788 Page 1 of 4

REGION OF WATERLOO Pla PLANNPPPPPLJKLJNLAN

PLANNING, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Community Planning

TO: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: H18-70 SUBJECT: VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AT REGION OF WATERLOO MUSEUMS - 2010 RECOMMENDATION: For information. SUMMARY: The volunteer opportunities available at the Waterloo Region Museum, Joseph Schneider Haus and McDougall Cottage encourage community engagement in these museums, and enhance the visitor experience. In 2010, 540 volunteers contributed 12,362 hours to the Waterloo Region Museum, 195 individuals contributed 5,668 hours at Joseph Schneider Haus, and 2,202 hours were contributed at McDougall Cottage. In addition, 603 volunteers contributed 4,263 hours to the Waterloo Wellington Children’s Groundwater Festival and 385 volunteers contributed 2,742 hours to Doors Open Waterloo Region. In to tal, more than 1700 volunteers contributed more than 27,200 hours to the Region’s museums and related events. Although museum volunteer statistics remain fairly constant, national trends indicate that volunteer recruitment and retention is becoming more difficult and competitive across Canada. The most recent research shows that the volunteer experiences individuals are looking for are changing significantly. Individuals are looking for group opportunities, use of their professional skills, clearly defined positions, flexible schedules, short term commitments and two way relationships that meet their needs and goals. The museums’ volunteer programs will need to adapt to these changes in order facilitate these shifts and to optimize volunteer recruitment and retention. Fostering meaningful volunteer engagement is not just a c apacity issue, but a s trategic one t hat must evolve with the trends to meet the needs of the museums and the volunteers themselves. The Region and its museums are partners in the National Volunteer Week activities planned in the community from April 10 to April 16, 2011. Each year, communities across Canada set aside this week to honour and celebrate the efforts of individuals who generously donate their time and talents to make their communities a better place to live. The Region will place “thank you” ads in the Cambridge Times, Waterloo Chronicle and the Record during National Volunteer Week. The Waterloo Region Museum will also host the annual Volunteer Appreciation Breakfast for volunteers of the three museums, Region of Waterloo Library, and the Waterloo-Wellington Children’s Groundwater Festival, on Wednesday, April 20 from 7:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. REPORT: Waterloo Region Museum The Waterloo Region Museum has a very strong and diverse volunteer base. Volunteers provide a pool of experience, knowledge and expertise that complements staff resources. They also provide a critical

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-037

950788 Page 2 of 4

link to the community by actively promoting and supporting the museum. Volunteer efforts are visible in many aspects of museum programs and services. Visitors can stroll through the living history village and watch volunteers aged 16 to 85 bring history to life. They may appreciate the stunning hand knitted sweaters or perfectly sewn skirts created by Kerstin Reaume, or watch Alison Jackson and Rebecca Gillian demonstrate the fine art of handwork. Along the way they can immerse themselves in the sights and scents of beautiful historic gardens maintained by a team of more than 20 dedicated volunteers. Others enjoy the simple sound of a clock keeping perfect time thanks to Gerry Kraak or enjoy musical performances lead by Shalagh Cassidy and Marie Skelding. During the Christmas season visitors delight in shortbread and fig pudding. Volunteers Belle Beaudette, Patricia Butler, Pam Cressman, Lois Edwards and Diane McHutchion spent four months baking more than 8,000 cookies and other historic treats. Since 1990, a small group of adults from K-W Rehabilitation Services have been keeping the community up to date on the latest museum events by assisting with the mailing of promotional materials. During the winter season another team of volunteers has been working to inventory and repair the museum’s extensive reproduction costume collection. As well, in preparation for the opening of the exhibit gallery several new conservation volunteers joined our team. These are just a few of the experiences made possible through the efforts of hundreds of volunteers. Public interest in the new museum resulted in an overwhelming number of requests to volunteer. More than 200 application packages were mailed out and 90 new volunteers were placed. Staff anticipate this trend will continue as the exhibit galleries open and the museum operates year round. Community s upport and i nvolvement f or t he W aterloo Wellington Children’s Groundwater Festival continues t o gr ow. Partnerships with more t han 14 local hi gh schools, two local universities and environmental organizations result in more than 500 hundred enthusiastic and knowledgeable volunteers par ticipating at t he Fes tival each year. Since 1996, more than 7,500 volunteers have contributed more than 50,000 voluntary hours! The Friends of the W aterloo R egion M useum made s ignificant c ontributions t o t he s ite i ncluding launching a successful Storytelling Series, of fering a s eries of popular heritage c raft and garden workshops, and hosting another very successful Starry Night. Joseph Schneider Haus Museum Volunteers have been an essential element in the success of the Joseph Schneider Haus for almost 30 years. In 2010, JSH volunteers continued to perform their regular responsibilities, along with many ‘one-off’ events and envelope stuffing sessions. Volunteers contributed time weekly, participated in monthly committee m eetings or as sisted w ith ev ents s uch as t he Quilting Bee, Easter E gg Hunt, and the Heritage Showcase. The museum’s successful Junior Interpreter Program, which is comprised of a dedicated group of 24 boys and girls between the ages of eight and 17, continues to be an important part of the living history interpretation offered at the museum. Not only do the Junior Interpreters complete their monthly shifts, they also assist at special events throughout the year, such as the Egg Hunt and March Break. The JIs contributed 488 hours in 2010. Volunteers continue to work at the reception desk, assisting staff with general reception duties, greeting visitors and making gift shop sales. One dedicated individual has volunteered for the last 13 years to assist with collections management projects. T he museum is also fortunate to have two retired teacher/librarians who have taken on the task of cataloguing the museum’s library holdings.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-037

950788 Page 3 of 4

The Friends of Joseph Schneider Haus continue to make a s ignificant contribution to the life of the museum. The programs they support and administer annually include the Folk Artist Residency, the Edna Staebler Research Fellowship, the Quilt Block Contest and the Museum Gift Shop. In any given year, however, it is the resident Folk Artist who commits and delivers the greatest number of individual hours to the museum; the 2010 resident artist was Basket Maker, Wendy Durfey of Rockwood. McDougall Cottage The base of support for and aw areness of McDougall Cottage is steadily growing; each year more individuals participate in and assist with programming. A volunteer group has been helping with the presentation and adjudication of the Annual Wee Quilt Challenge, now in its seventh year, and a group of more than 25 m usicians regularly takes par t in the popular k itchen ceilidhs and Scottish music sessions gat hering from as f ar a way as Elora and Burlington. In 2010, t wo pi pers from t he l ocal community volunteered to pipe down the sun from the banks of the Grand River each Thursday in July, August and September, reminding Cambridge residents of the presence of McDougall Cottage in the cultural landscape. They received a generous amount of support and attention on each of the evenings and will be repeating their mini-performances this summer. Our Scotsman-in-the–garden, John Tennant, was assisted again this year by master gardener Irene Thurston and collectively, they contributed more than 320 hours of love and attention to the wee Cottage gardens. Other volunteers have performed a variety of services to advance the programmes of the Cottage including photography, special event delivery, demonstrations and gardening. Toward the end of the McDougall year, a group of supporters from Cambridge and elsewhere in the region, clients of a wide variety of Cottage offerings over the years, gathered as a focus group. The event was designed to provide an opportunity for these individuals to brainstorm programming ideas and to give staff feedback on programmes and promotions. This initiative provided extremely positive feedback, and resulted in a core group forming a Friends of McDougall Cottage. This fledgling group, though small, is in scale with the Cottage itself and it will go forward into 2011 when a more definite mission will be developed and its supporting role more clearly defined. Volunteer hours contributed to McDougall programmes and services in 2010 exceeded 2,200 hours, surpassing 2009 totals and indicating again that McDougall support continues to grow. Doors Open Waterloo Region In 2010, Doors Open Waterloo Region hosted more than 45 historic sites. Each site is responsible for providing volunteers for the day. The 2010 event attracted a record number of 385 volunteers who contributed 2,742 hours Volunteer Recognition and Support Celebrating volunteer achievements is essential to attracting and retaining dedicated volunteers. Museum staff recognizes the importance of recognition, and it is an ongoing and integral part of the volunteer management process. T he s taff seek to notice and value individual contributions both informally and formally. The annual Volunteer Appreciation Event f or volunteers in al l Regional programs was held at the Waterloo Region Museum on Sunday, December 5, 2010, International Volunteer Day. More than 500 volunteers and their family members enjoyed an af ternoon of entertainment, t reats and t raditional Christmas celebrations.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-037

950788 Page 4 of 4

In 2010, seven individuals from the Waterloo Region Museum received Provincial Volunteer Service Awards. They were: Angie Felgendreher-5 years, Sharon Thornton-5 years, Ross Edwards-10 years, and Harriet Schaefer-10 years. Rachel Pringle, Adam Benninger and V ictoria Roth received Youth Awards. Five v olunteers from J oseph S chneider Haus received P rovincial Volunteer Service Awards: Joy Bettschen–five years; Karl Kessler–10 years; Linda Lantz–10 years; Sharon Spall–30 years; Amelia Hankins–Youth-5 years. Also, Joy Bettschen received the Provincial Senior of the Year Award in recognition of her outstanding dedication and contributions to Joseph Schneider Haus. In January 2010, several new volunteer management software features were implemented. Regional volunteer programs and Waterloo Region Police S ervices began using the new online Volunteer Information Centre. Sunnyside Senior’s Services, Joseph Schneider Haus and the Waterloo Region Museum introduced kiosks that allow volunteers to sign in and record their hours electronically and receive program updates. The Waterloo Region Museum is in the process of testing a new onl ine volunteer application process. Area Municipal Consultation/Coordination The Coordinator of Volunteer Services at the Waterloo Region Museum provides expert advice to Area Municipal Volunteer coordinators on request. This report will be shared with Area Municipal staff. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The volunteer opportunities and recognition programs provided through the Region’s museums support the Region’s values of Service, Respect, Innovation and Collaboration. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: NIL OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: The Regional Volunteer Advisory Committee with Department representatives from across the corporation, and with the support of the Directors of Employee & Organizational Effectiveness and Community S ervices, continue working toward the development and i mplementation of c onsistent volunteer management practices and standards. ATTACHMENTS: NIL PREPARED BY: Antoinette Duplessis, Assistant Curator, Joseph Schneider Haus Susan Burke, Manager/Curator, Joseph Schneider Haus/McDougall Cottage Deborah Young, Coordinator of Volunteer Services, Waterloo Regional Museum

APPROVED BY: Rob Horne, Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services

Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 1 of 13

REGION OF WATERLOO

PLANNING, HOUSING & COMMUNITY SERVICES Community Planning

TO: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: D12-40/KBT/ANNREP SUBJECT: THIRTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE KISSING BRIDGE TRAILWAY

ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: For information. SUMMARY: When the County of Wellington and Regional Municipality of Waterloo jointly created the Kissing Bridge Trailway Advisory Board in May 1998, the Terms of Reference required the Board to report to both Councils each year on its activities. At its meeting of February 24, 2011, the Board adopted the attached report to be submitted as its Thirteenth Annual Report for the year 2010 (Attachment 1). REPORT: The Kissing Bridge Trailway runs through parts of the County of W ellington and t he Region of Waterloo from Guelph to Millbank. Currently there are three discontinuities in the Trailway due to missing bridges across the Grand and Conestogo Rivers and a tributary of the Nith River east of Millbank. In 2010, t he Steward Groups r esponsible f or t he operation and m aintenance of t he Trailway continued on with work from previous years as they conducted a variety of projects and activities including trail resurfacing, maintenance and beautifying the Trailway. These improvements have had a positive impact on the profile and use of the trail, particularly among local residents. Use of the Kissing Bridge Trailway continues to increase as it becomes better known and recognized as an accessible route for walkers and cyclists. The Village of Millbank Association, which was added as a sixth Trailway Steward Group in 2009, continues to work with Perth County, Perth East Township, and Region of Waterloo staff to replace the bridge east of Millbank. The following are highlights from the Thirteenth Annual Report of the Kissing Bridge Trailway. The full report is attached to Report P-11-040. The Trailway Advisory Board met three times in 2010. For the most part, the meetings focused on activities involving development of infrastructure and maintenance required to ensure that Trailway users are provided with a safe and enjoyable experience. Mike Curtis, representative of the Guelph Hiking Trail Club was re-elected Chair of the Trailway Advisory Board for 2010. Bill Strauss the representative of Waterloo Region was re-elected to serve as Vice Chair.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 2 of 13

Trails Open Ontario

The Kissing Bridge Trailway was featured twice in 2010 Trails Open Ontario, which is a province-wide nature heritage program promoting trail use. The Guelph Hiking Trail Club offered a six hour guided tour on April 24, 2010 and t he advisory board hosted a two hour tour on September 12, 2010.

Millbank Village

In 2010, t he T ownship of Perth East donated $15,000 toward the c ost of the M illbank br idge replacement. The Village of Millbank Association is covering the cost of replacing the deck using railway t ies, installing railings, and pay ing part of the engineering fees. Local contractors have offered to as sist with t he installation of dec king. Funding opt ions to c over t he costs of bridge installation are being pursued, including Trillium and TD Friends of the Environment. When the bridge is installed, there will be a good opportunity to hold a local event to celebrate.

Distance Marker Signage

Most well-developed trails have mileposts or distance markers as a convenience to trail users. A prototype distance marker sign was approved by the Board. The Region’s sign shop fabricated the markers on aluminum s ign blanks to be mounted on p osts driven into the ground nex t to the Trailway. By the end of 2010, most steward groups had installed distance marker signage, based upon locations determined using GPS.

Benches

The prototype of the standard benches to be used along the trail was installed in 2010 by the Elmira Lions Club.

Boomer Creek Bridge

After Regional Design and Construction staff identified some weather-related deterioration of the abutments of the small bridge over Boomer Creek near Linwood, the Linwood Lions Club had an engineering firm carry out a detailed inspection. This is the only original railway bridge left on the Trailway. The br idge was deemed suitable for winter snowmobile use, but repairs are needed. Drawings have been prepared detailing the required repairs for review by Regional Transportation and Environmental Services staff. The Golden Triangle Snowmobile Club has a proposal to work with the Linwood Lions Club on the necessary repairs to the bridge.

Brochure

Interest in t he K issing B ridge Trailway continues t o grow, but t he Trailway r emains r elatively unknown across the Waterloo-Wellington region. The Trailway brochure which was redone in colour in 2008 has been popular and has been reprinted several times. The brochures can be obtained at any of the Regional and County libraries and information centres as well as at some area Bed and Breakfasts.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 3 of 13

Fundraising

The completion of the Trailway depends in large measure upon successful fundraising by the individual Trailway Steward Groups. Each group has held activities to generate moneys for trail construction. T he B oard has dev eloped a brochure for us e by steward groups in fundraising initiatives. Experience to date has shown that fundraising is more effective when members of the community gr oups appr oach ot hers i n their respective social and bus iness networks t o s olicit contributions to their group’s Trailway project rather than seek a donat ion to the Kissing Bridge Trailway as such. The brochure assists the fund-raisers in setting the larger context of each group’s work. A donation form was also created in 2008 to assist steward groups in their fundraising efforts. Other means by which funds can be r aised for T railway ac tivities include applying f or gr ants designated for trail development. Funding opportunities are available f rom a v ariety of sources including the TD Friends of the Environment Fund, O ntario T rillium Foundation, Recreational Infrastructure Canada, Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Unilever through Tree Canada. Projects eligible for such grants include the construction of boardwalks and kiosks. Activities Planned for 2011

Bridge Construction

Regional staff will continue to work with the Trans Canada Trail Foundation to explore financial and engineering options to replace the Grand River and Conestogo River bridges.

Access to Katherine Street

The completion of the Cox Creek bridge is forcing the Board and the Guelph Hiking Trail Club in particular to consider creating an 850 metre access trail or ramp from the Trailway up to the east side of Katherine Street because this intersection is grade separated, and the side slopes of the Trailway are very steep and densely treed with cedar. The access trail will permit users easy access between the Trailway and Katherine Street which is the designated detour route on the east bank of the Grand River. Such a trail will also likely be associated with a small staging area and parking lot off Katherine Street. Even after the anticipated replacement of the Grand River br idge a s hort distance to the west, however, a staging area will be required at this location to permit easy access to the Grand River.

Kiosks

In 2011, the installation kiosks is expected to be completed with the inclusion of section-specific Trailway information including local points of interest and local advertising. Three kiosks remain to be installed at appropriate locations in the westernmost sections of the Trailway.

Fundraising

In 2010, Trailway Advisory Board member Doug Cerson put forward a proposal to organize an annual rail event. A subcommittee (Mike Curtis, Denise Boyd-Dunlop and Sarah Wilhelm) met to explore possibilities for such an event. The “Spring on the Trail” event is scheduled for May 14, 2011. The event is intended to promote activities along the length of the trail. It is hoped that the event will be successful in attracting participants and sponsors, and help to raise the local profile of the Trailway. The priority for the event is to raise funds for the two major bridges required across the Conestogo River (near Wallenstein) and the Grand River (near West Montrose).

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 4 of 13

Inspection of Trailway for Hazards

During 2011, Trail Condition Reports will be completed by each of the steward groups. Trailway inspections enable the various steward groups to take the required actions in a timely fashion in order that all Trailway users will be able to enjoy themselves safely. In conclusion, the Trailway Advisory Board expects 2011 to be another activity filled year along the entire length of the Trailway. The Advisory Board is confident that the enthusiasm generated by the addition of the Village of Millbank Association community group and the planned “Spring on the Trail” event will provide increased overall support for the Kissing Bridge Trailway. Area Municipal Consultation/Coordination: Staff liaise with the Townships of Wellesley and Woolwich as required. The Township of Woolwich trails co-ordinator attends Trailway Advisory Board meetings on a regular basis, and the Mayor of Woolwich is the Regional representative on the Board. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Focus Area Two of the Region of Waterloo's Strategic Plan (Strategic Focus 2007-2010) speaks to managing and s haping growth to ensure a liveable, healthy, thriving and s ustainable W aterloo Region. One of the Strategic Objectives is to "Enhance, develop, promote and integrate sustainable and active forms of transportation (public transit, cycling and walking)." The Kissing Bridge Trailway provides 44 k ilometres of readily accessible w alking and cycling trail through W oolwich and Wellesley Townships and adjoining areas of Wellington County. The Trailway has been identified as a major bicycle route in the Regional Cycling Master Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: NIL OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: Structural engineers in the Transportation and Environmental Services Department provide invaluable technical advice on br idges along the Trailway. Legal Services also advises on legal matters pertaining to the operation of the Trailway. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Thirteenth Annual Report of the Kissing Bridge Trailway Advisory Board for the Year 2010 PREPARED BY: Albert Hovingh, Principal Planner, Environmental and Stewardship Planning APPROVED BY: Rob Horne, Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 5 of 13

Thirteenth Annual Report of the Kissing Bridge Trailway Advisory Board

for the Year 2010

Submitted to the Councils of

The County of Wellington and

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo

February, 2011

Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 6 of 13

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7 2 Trailway Advisory Board ............................................................................................ 7

2.1 Renewal of Trailway Lease ................................................................................. 8 3 Trans Canada Trail .................................................................................................... 8 4 Trailway Usage .......................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Trails Open Ontario ............................................................................................. 2 4.2 Trail Use Complaints ........................................................................................... 8

5 Capital Improvements ................................................................................................ 9

5.1 Millbank Village ................................................................................................... 2 5.2 Information Kiosks .............................................................................................. 9 5.3 Trail Surfacing ..................................................................................................... 9 5.4 Distance Marker Signage.................................................................................... 6 5.5 Benches .............................................................................................................. 6 5.6 Boomer Creek Bridge ......................................................................................... 2 5.7 Fencing ............................................................................................................. 10

6 Other Concerns ....................................................................................................... 11

6.1 Brochure .............................................................................................................. 2 6.2 Finances ............................................................................................................ 11 6.3 Costs to Complete the Trailway ........................................................................ 11 6.4 Fundraising ......................................................................................................... 3 6.5 Motorized vehicles ............................................................................................ 12

7 Activities for 2010 .................................................................................................... 12

7.1 Bridge Construction ............................................................................................ 3 7.2 Access to Katherine Street ................................................................................. 3 7.3 Kiosks .................................................................................................................. 3 7.4 Fundraising ......................................................................................................... 3 7.5 Inspection of Trailway for Hazards ..................................................................... 9

8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 9

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 7 of 13

Thirteenth Annual Report

of the Kissing Bridge Trailway Advisory Board for 2010

Introduction In September 1997, the County of Wellington and Region of Waterloo jointly leased a 44.5 kilometre stretch of abandoned rail right-of-way from the Province for development as a multi-use recreational trailway between the outskirts of the City of Guelph and the Village of Millbank. Since then, the lease has been renewed and currently runs until 2012. During the winter and spring of 1998, the County and Region concluded Trailway Steward agreements with five community groups to develop and operate sections of the Trailway. They are as follows:

Segment Trailway Steward Group Guelph to Grand River → Guelph Hiking Trail Club

Grand River to East Limit of Elmira → Conestogo-Winterbourne Optimist Club East Limit of Elmira to Wallenstein → Lions Club of Elmira

Wallenstein to Linwood (Ament Line) → Linwood Lions Club Linwood (Ament Line) to Millbank → Golden Triangle Snowmobile Association

In May 1998, the County and Region jointly approved Terms of Reference for the Trailway Advisory Board, and appointed fifteen persons and four alternate representatives to the Board. Section 1.8 of the Terms of Reference states that the Board "will prepare an annual report to the Councils of the County of Wellington and Regional Municipality of Waterloo on its activities, initiatives, and proposals for the coming year." This is the twelfth such annual report, and covers the year 2009. In 2009, the Village of Millbank Association signed a co-stewardship agreement with the Golden Triangle Snowmobile Association and the County and Region to become steward of the segment between the Perth W aterloo boundary and R oad 121 in Millbank. The Association now has a representative and alternate on the Board like the other Trailway Steward Groups. During 2010 the s teward groups carried out a range of activities including trail maintenance, installation of di stance m arkers, c onstruction of a prototype bench, and i mproving the overall appearance of the Trailway. The Village of Millbank Association has been working with Perth East Township and the County of Perth to replace a bridge over a tributary of the Nith River in Millbank. These activities have had a positive impact on the profile and use of the trail, particularly among local residents.

Trailway Advisory Board The Trailway Advisory Board met three times in 2010. For the most part, the meetings focused on activities involving development of infrastructure and maintenance required to ensure that Trailway users are provided with a safe and enjoyable experience. With the knowledge and enthusiasm of board member Doug Cerson, the development of an annual trail event is in the works. Mike Curtis, representative of the Guelph Hiking Trail Club was re-elected Chair of the Trailway Advisory Board for 2010. Bill Strauss the representative of Waterloo Region was re-elected to serve as Vice Chair. The term of the Linwood Lions Club alternate expired at the end of 2010 and a replacement was nominated to replace Mel Herrfort of the Village of Millbank Association, who passed away in 2009.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 8 of 13

New appointments were approved by the County and the Region for a three-year term beginning in 2011.

Renewal of Trailway Lease

The Trailway Lease is currently set to end in 2012. Both the Region and the County intend to seek a more permanent arrangement with the Province in light of the investment that would be involved in constructing a bridge over the Grand River. The Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) has at different times indicated that it is satisfied with the maintenance of the property to date. During the lease negotiation, the Trans Canada Trail will be addressed.

Trans Canada Trail A major gap in the Kissing Bridge Trailway continues to be the Grand River near West Montrose in Woolwich Township. The missing br idge results in a s ignificant detour for t rail users travelling between Guelph and Elmira and has been identified as a major gap in the Trans Canada Trail in Southern Ontario. Regional Transportation and Environmental Services staff are providing technical advice on potential design solutions which address the configuration of the century-old abutments and piers which remain from the original bridge. The County of Wellington has been working with adjoining landowners and local communities to align a section of the Trans Canada Trail along a portion of the former CN right-of-way between the eastern end of the Kissing Bridge T railway and E lora. This is an essential l ink to connect the Waterloo-Wellington segment of the Trans Canada Trail to the route further east. In addition, the City of Guelph is preparing the southern approach to the Trailway as well as the connection to the Kissing Bridge Trailway. This will link the eastern terminus of the Trailway with the River Run Centre in downtown Guelph. In 2002, it was determined to link the two trailways through the G.R.C.A.-owned Marden Tract. Ongoing negotiations of County and City of Guelph staff have not secured necessary user lease agreements with Hydro One. Due to a prohibition of snowmobiling in the corridor by Hydro One, the Fergus/Elora/Belwood Snowmobile Club has withdrawn its earlier offer to steward this section. New steward group support will need to be secured to help build and maintain the trail. When user lease agreements are in place for this 17 km trail, consideration will be given to bringing it under the aus pices of t he Kissing B ridge Trailway Advisory Board. The Board has already supported this concept in principle.

Trailway Usage

Trails Open Ontario

The Kissing Bridge Trailway was features twice in 2010 Trails Open Ontario, which is a province-wide nature heritage program promoting trail use. The Guelph Hiking Trail Club offered a 6 hour guided tour on April 24, 2010 and the advisory board hosted a 2 hour tour on September 12, 2010.

Trail Use Complaints

The Region received complaints of farm equipment being moved back and forth across and along the trail. The concerns related to a farm just east of Elmira, which is on the portion of the trail under stewardship by the Conestogo-Winterbourne Optimists Club. Based upon inspection, it appeared that there was no obvious damage to the trail in the area. The Board determined that no further action would be required at this time. An additional complaint was received regarding a tent along the trail at Arthur Street and Snyder Avenue in Elmira. The tent was dismantled by police and hasn’t been re-installed.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 9 of 13

Capital Improvements

Millbank Village

The f irst p riority f or the Village of M illbank Association i s t he installation of a bridge over the stream east of Millbank (Figure 1) in order that the trailway connection can be completed into Millbank. An old rail bridge in the County of Perth is being evaluated as it is of generally suitable length. As the br idge was engineered to handle rail traffic, it would be sufficiently strong for trail use, but would require a new deck. Technical studies are being carried out by P erth C ounty to determine what al terations would be r equired, and Region of Waterloo Design and Construction staff has provided valuable technical advice. In 2010, t he T ownship of P erth-East donat ed $15, 000 t oward t he cost of t he Millbank bridge replacement. The Village of Millbank Association is covering the cost of replacing the deck using railway t ies, installing railings, and pay ing part of the engineering fees. Local contractors have offered to as sist with t he installation of dec king. Funding opt ions to c over t he costs of bridge installation are being pursued, including Trillium and TD Friends of the Environment. When the bridge is installed, there will be a good opportunity to hold a local event to celebrate.

Information Kiosks

In 2009 f our i nformation k iosks ( Figure 2) were completed, t hree i n W ellington County and one in the Region of Waterloo. General trail maps were mounted on one side of the display panel. The intention is to complete the kiosks with the inclusion of section-specific Trailway information including l ocal poi nts of i nterest and local advertising. Three kiosks remain to be installed at appropriate locations in the westernmost sections of the Trailway. The kiosks will be painted using Korzite paint, manufactured in Guelph.

Trail Surfacing

When the railway was abandoned, the ties were removed leaving t he track ballast loose. Over the years, some sections of the Trailway have been heavily used by pedestrians and vehicles from neighbouring farms. This has packed the ballast t o t he poi nt t hat i t is r elatively comfortable for walking and generally acceptable for

Figure 2 Information Kiosk at Ariss Image: A. Hovingh

Figure 1 Old rail bridge abutments at Millbank Village Image: A. Hovingh

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 10 of 13

mountain bike use. In other sections, however, the ballast remains almost as loose as it was when the ties were pulled. Walking is unpleasant and cycling virtually impossible in such sections. Grading and packing and surfacing with fine material such as stone dust continue to be required in these sections in order to make the entire trail surface conducive to easy and comfortable use by walkers and cyclists (Figure 3). As has been the case in previous years, s ome of the Steward Groups appl ied stonedust to parts of their section, most often to fill holes and hazards (low wet spots and ruts). The Elmira Li ons Club has dec ided t o s top actively grooming t he t rail surface as they have found that ov er t ime grooming causes a separation of the coarser s tones and finer gravel r esulting i n a slippery walking surface. The Guelph Trail Hiking Club is hoping to raise funds to construct an access route up from the Trailway to the side of the overpass on Katherine St. North just east of the Grand River.

Distance Marker Signage

Most well-developed trails have mileposts or distance markers as a convenience to trail users. A prototype distance marker sign was approved by the Board. The Region’s sign shop fabricated the markers on aluminum sign blanks (see left) to be mounted on posts driven into the ground next to the Trailway. By the end of 2010, most steward groups had installed distance marker signage, based upon locations determined using GPS.

Benches

The prototype of the standard benches to be used along the trail was installed in 2010 by the Elmira Lions Club.

Boomer Creek Bridge

After Regional Design and Construction staff identified some weather-related deterioration of the abutments of the small bridge over Boomer Creek near Linwood, the Linwood Lions Club had an engineering firm carry out a detailed inspection. This is the only original railway bridge left on the Trailway. T he br idge w as gi ven the okay f or w inter snowmobile use, but repairs are needed. Drawings have been prepared detailing the required repairs for review by Regional engineering staff. The Golden Triangle Snowmobile Club has a proposal to work with the Linwood Lions Club on the necessary repairs to the bridge.

Fencing

The Fencing Sub-committee is headed by Glen Martin, agricultural community representative from

Figure 3 Well packed trail surface near Linwood Image: A. Hovingh

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 11 of 13

Woolwich Township, who is very knowledgeable about fencing. In a number of cases, high-tensile wire fencing has been used in place of the standard paige-wire fencing on which the 1997 cost estimates were based. This is marginally less expensive than the paige wire fencing, and is actually preferred by most of the landowners. In recent years, the requests for fencing have been few indicating that in general there are few problems being experienced by landowners adjacent to the Trailway. There were no fence requests in 2010.

Other Concerns

Brochure

Interest in the Kissing Bridge Trailway continues to grow, but it still remains relatively unknown across the extent of the Region and the County. The Trailway brochure which was redone in colour in 2008 has been popular and has been reprinted several times. The brochures can be obtained at any of the Regional and County libraries and information centres as well as at some area Bed and Breakfasts.

Finances

The cost of developing recreational t rails can be hi gh. W hen the K issing Bridge T railway was established, it was intended that most of the cost would be borne by the community groups who are jointly developing the Trailway. To date, the majority of the funds expended on the Trailway have come from the Trailway Steward Groups or private donations. The Region contributed $38,000 to the Kissing Bridge Trailway in 1999, and a further $20,000 in 2000. The Board has developed a formula to allocate this money among Trailway Steward Groups based on infrastructure development costs within Regional boundar ies. In addi tion, W ellington County provided $10,000 in 2001 t o assist the Guelph Hiking Trail Club install barrier gates at intersections along its section. The County provided $25,000 in each of 2004, 2005 and 2006 to grade and apply stonedust to the Trailway. The County continues to fund ongoing maintenance (mowing and weed control) in Guelph/Eramosa.

Costs to Complete the Trailway

Planning to complete the development of the Trailway necessitates an accurate identification and estimation of costs. As conditions on the Trailway have become better understood, and as Trailway Steward Groups develop a better understanding of the costs of gates, bridges, and re-surfacing, we are now able to estimate the remaining expenditures to complete the Trailway. Estimated costs are set out in Table 1. The portion of the trail and planned parking areas within Wellington County are now complete.

Table 1. Estimated Costs of Trailway Completion

*Note: The cost of bridges excludes the large bridges at the Grand and Conestogo Rivers

Infrastructure No. Cost No. Cost

Signposts 51 $1,785 0 $0 Barrier Gates 50 $40,000 0 $0 Parking Lots 9 $9,000 6 $6,000 Bridges 10 $167,000 1 $60,000 Ramp at Reg. Rd. 23 1 $21,000 1 $21,000 Grading 43.35 $43,350 15.23 $15,230 Stonedust 43.35 $281,775 21.19 $137,735 Kiosks 5 $4,500 3 $2,700 TOTAL $568,410 $242,665

Original Requirement Required for Completion

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 12 of 13

Fundraising

The completion of the Trailway depends in large measure upon s uccessful fundraising by the Trailway Steward Groups. Each group has held activities to generate moneys for trail construction. The Board has developed a brochure for use by steward groups in fundraising initiatives. Experience to date has shown that fundraising is more effective when members of the community groups approach others in their respective social and business networks to solicit contributions to their group’s Trailway project rather than seek a donation to the Kissing Bridge Trailway as such. The brochure assists the fund-raisers in setting the larger context of each group’s work. A donation form was also created in 2008 to assist steward groups in their fundraising efforts. Other means by which funds c an be r aised for T railway ac tivities include applying f or gr ants designated for trail development. Funding opportunities are available f rom a v ariety of sources including the TD Friends of the Environment Fund, O ntario T rillium Foundation, Recreational Infrastructure Canada, Walmart, Home Depot and Unilever through Tree Canada. Projects eligible for such grants include the construction of boardwalks and kiosks.

Motorized vehicles

Electric Bikes (E-bikes) are becoming a c oncern on T rails throughout the province. After some discussion, the Board concluded that these sorts of vehicles would be considered a m otorized vehicle and t herefore, not be al lowed. It was also noted that a motorized wheel chair would be allowed for accessibility purposes. No action is being taken at this t ime, but t he i ssue w ill be discussed further as needed.

Activities for 2011

Bridge Construction

Regional staff will continue to work with the Trans Canada Trail Foundation to explore financial and engineering options to replace the Grand River and Conestogo River bridges.

Access to Katherine Street

The completion of the Cox Creek bridge is forcing the Board and the Guelph Hiking Trail Club in particular to consider creating an 850 metre access trail or ramp from the trailway up to the east side of Katherine Street because this intersection is grade separated, and the side slopes of the trailway are very steep and densely treed with cedar. The access trail will permit users easy access between the Trailway and Katherine Street which is the designated detour route on the east bank of the Grand River. Such a trail will also likely be associated with a small staging area and parking lot off Katherine Street. Even after the anticipated replacement of the Grand River bridge a short distance to the west, however, a staging area will be required at this location to permit easy access to the Grand River.

Kiosks

In 2011, the kiosks will be c ompleted with the inclusion of section-specific Trailway information including local points of interest and l ocal adv ertising. Three k iosks remain t o be installed at appropriate locations in the westernmost sections of the Trailway. The kiosks will be painted using Korzite paint, manufactured in Guelph.

Fundraising

The amount of money raised to date by the respective Trailway Steward Groups from private and corporate donors in the community is impressive. It demonstrates that local individuals value the Trailway i n t heir c ommunity, and are pr epared to provide financial s upport for its completion. Further, the Trailway has also attracted contributions from larger fundraising organizations such as

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-040

951251 Page 13 of 13

the Trillium Foundation, TD Friends of the Environment, RInC, Wellington County and Waterloo Region. Providing signage at all intersections and k iosks at strategic locations is anticipated to further motivate additional giving. In 2010, Doug Cerson put forward a proposal to organize an annual trail event. A subcommittee (Mike Curtis, Denise Boyd-Dunlop and S arah Wilhelm) met to explore possibilities for such an event. The “Spring on the Trail” event is scheduled for May 14, 2011. The event is intended to promote activities along the length of the trail. It is hoped that the event will be successful in attracting participants and sponsors, and help to raise the local profile of the Trailway. The priority for the event is to raise funds for the two major bridges required across the Conestogo River (near Wallenstein) and the Grand River (near West Montrose).

Inspection of Trailway for Hazards

During 2011, trail Condition Reports will be completed by each of the steward groups. Trailway inspections enable the various steward groups to take the required actions in a timely fashion in order that all trailway users will be able to enjoy themselves safely.

Conclusion In conclusion, the Trailway Advisory Board expects 2011 to be another activity filled year along the entire length of the Trailway. The Advisory Board is confident that the enthusiasm generated by the addition of the Village of Millbank Association community group and the planned “Spring on the Trail” event will provide increased overall support for the Kissing Bridge Trailway.

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Curtis, Chair (2010) Trailway Advisory Board

February 24, 2011

Building Bridges Connecting Communities Wellington • Waterloo • Perth

Kissing Bridge Trailway Spri

ng o

n th

e tr

ail…

Report: P-11-018/F-11-008

801580 Page 1 of 6

REGION OF WATERLOO

PLANNING, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Housing FINANCE DEPARTMENT Treasury Services TO: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee DATE: April 12, 2011 FILE CODE: D26-01 SUBJECT: UPDATED BUILDING CONDITION AUDIT AND CAPITAL RESERVE ANALYSIS

FOR COMMUNITY HOUSING PROVIDERS RECOMMENDATION: THAT the R egional M unicipality of Waterloo take the f ollowing actions regarding Community Housing capital reserve requirements, as outlined in Report P-11-018/F-11-008, dated April 12, 2011:


b) Forward a copy of this report to MPs and MPPs representing Waterloo Region, the Ministry

of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Public Renewal and Infrastructure, the Chair of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), and all Community Housing Providers in Waterloo Region.

SUMMARY: When the transfer of Community Housing from the Province of Ontario to the Region of Waterloo was completed in 2001, it was clear that capital reserve funds for all Community Housing Providers were less than what was needed to address necessary capital repair issues. The degree of the shortfall and how long it would take to address the funding gap was unclear. In 2002, the Region undertook a Building Condition Audit (BCA) and Reserve Fund Study (RFS) in order to quantify the capital repair needs and financial shortfall for Community Housing Providers. One of the recommendations in this report was a direction to staff to conduct a major review and update of the capital reserve plan every three to five years (Report P-02-038/F-02-029). Accordingly, the RFS that quantifies the financial shortfall was updated (Report P-07-046) in 2007 and in 2010 both the BCA and RFS studies were updated. The deficiency of capital reserves for housing in Waterloo Region is substantial and shared by most Service Managers. In August 2006, the Social Housing Services Corporation (SHSC) released a summary of findings related to the issue of “Preservation of Housing Stock in Ontario.” S HSC identified the magnitude of underfunded reserves associated with aging housing stock to be in the order of approximately $1.3 billion in the Province of Ontario. In many instances, the ability of municipalities to address the need for capital repairs to Community Housing developments, in their respective capacities as Service Managers, is quite limited. The current Housing Reserve Fund, after al lowing for ex isting commitments, is not sufficient to meet al l the capital needs of aging housing stock within the Region.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-018/F-11-008

801580 Page 2 of 6

The BCA/RFS in 2002 determined that a $35.4 million investment would be required at that time, to address the identified long term capital repair need of $71.9 million over the next fifteen years. The updated 2010 BCA/RFS has now determined that a $44.1 million investment today (net present value) is required to address the identified long term capital repair need of $75.1 million over the next fifteen years (including the financial benefits already received from Social Housing Renovation and Retrofit Program – SHRRP). A table summarizing the results is on page 4 of this report. In 2008 and 2009, two capital repair funding programs were implemented by the Region of Waterloo through funding provided by the Federal and Provincial governments. I n total, the Region has received over $24 million in funding for capital repairs in Community Housing; this funding has been fully allocated. The funding assisted Community Housing Providers to complete over 250 capital projects and energy efficiency improvements and has made a positive contribution to the physical asset of the buildings in Waterloo Region, but a substantial funding gap remains. The purpose of this report is to share the results of the 2010 BCA and RFS, and recommend that Regional Council renew their request to senior levels of government to provide adequate funding to Community Housing Providers in W aterloo Region. This report does not include the Waterloo Region Housing (WRH) units. Building Condition Audits for those units are being conducted by Facilities staff over three years, 2010 – 2012, with projected capital needs to be considered by Council, as part of an updated capital budget. Financing for WRH is provided from three sources of funding: federal grants, tax levies and contributions from the Housing Reserve Fund where needed. REPORT: The Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 ( SHRA), and its associated regulations, designated the Region of Waterloo as Service Manager responsible for the funding and administration of local Community Housing programs transferred from the Province. The Region assumed ownership of 2,558 Community Housing units (now managed by Waterloo Region Housing) and full responsibility for overseeing over 50 ‘Prescribed Housing Providers’. Prescribed Providers are legislated in the SHRA and include former Local Housing Authorities (WRH), Provincial Co-operatives, Private Non-Profits, and Municipal Non-Profits such as Region of Waterloo Community Housing Inc. (ROWCHI). Prescribed Providers account for approximately 7,500 Community Housing units and are accountable to the Region for their operations, including governance, financial reporting and overall compliance with the SHRA. Of significant concern at the time of transfer was the adequacy of the capital reserve funds for Community Housing Providers, which was difficult to assess at the time due to lack of information. Deficiency of Capital Reserves Capital reserves are typically established to fund the repair and replacement of major components of Community Housing sites throughout Waterloo Region. Contributions to the capital reserves of the Region’s Community Housing Providers are included in the annual subsidy that each Non-Profit or Co-operative Housing Provider receives from the Region. These contributions are calculated in accordance with a funding formula legislatively mandated by the Province of Ontario. In April 2002, Regional Council received a report (Report P-02-038/F-02-029) outlining the immediate need for up to $35.4 million in funding from senior levels of government for the purpose of making necessary repairs to the approximately 5,000 units of Community Housing operated by various Non-Profit and Co-operative Housing C orporations throughout W aterloo Region. The financial analysis component of the audi t was based on the condition of the housing stock, anticipated expenses over the next 15 years, the expected contributions to the reserve fund and the balance i n t he c apital r eserves at t he t ime of t he t ransfer of administration. T he 2002 report determined that the immediate funding of $35.4 million was required to fund the projected shortfall of $71.9 million needed to fund required capital repairs over the next fifteen (15) years.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-018/F-11-008

801580 Page 3 of 6

Staff undertook a f urther financial review in April 2007 (Report P-07-046) to update the funding shortfall. Using a series of assumptions, including most current capital reserve fund balances, interest rates on reserve funds, spending patterns of housing providers, capital work deferrals and an overall increase in construction cost, the long-term need was then estimated to be $134.9 million over the next 15 years (to 2022). An immediate contribution of $78 million was required to meet the long-term funding need. This shortfall amount did not include the additional 2,558 units of Community Housing owned and operated directly by the Region of Waterloo (former Local Housing Authorities), as this program has an annual budget for capital costs. The deficiency of capital reserves for housing in Waterloo Region is significant and is a concern shared by many Service Managers. In August 2006, the Social Housing Services Corporation (SHSC) released a summary of findings related to the issue of “Preservation of Housing Stock in Ontario.” SHSC identified the magnitude of underfunded reserves associated with aging housing stock to be in the order of approximately $1.3 billion in the Province of Ontario. In many instances, the ability of municipalities to address the need for capital repairs to Community Housing developments, in their respective capacities as Service Managers, is quite limited. The current Housing Reserve Fund, after allowing for existing commitments such as the projected capital needs for WRH, is not sufficient to meet all the capital needs of aging housing stock within the Region (see Financial Implications). Capital Funding Programs Since the transfer i n 2001, the Region of Waterloo and Community Housing Providers have requested the Province provide financial assistance for necessary capital work, as the Community Housing developments transferred had current and future capital repair needs. The first funding specifically directed at capital repairs for Community Housing Providers was made available in 2008 as part of the 2008 Ontario Budget. The Provincial Government announced a $100 million “Social Housing Capital Repair Fund.” The funding was a one-time payment to be divided amongst all 47 Service Managers and was allocated based on eac h S ervice Manager’s current s hare of t he Community Housing stock. The Region of Waterloo’s allocation under this program was $3,269,668. The funding was allocated, as a loan, to Community Housing Providers through a Business Case submission process. The purpose of the provincial funding was to respond to emergency capital repairs, health and safety repairs and energy efficiency improvements that would achieve tangible results and deliver positive impacts on Community Housing residents. In total nine (9) Community Housing Providers completed eighteen (18) projects, including mould remediation, flat and sloped roof replacements, window replacement and bathroom renovations. In addition, a portion of this funding was used to complete the BCA/RFS addressed in this report (per Report P-08-088). A second stream of funding became available in 2009 as the Provincial and Federal governments jointly i nvested more than $1.2 bi llion in affordable housing as par t of the Economic S timulus Funding. Of this amount, $704 million has been invested in the Provincial Social Housing Renovation and Retrofit Program (SHRRP). Funding allocated to Service Managers mirrored the “Social H ousing Capital Repair Fund” allocation process. T he Region’s allocation under this program was $19.04 million (including anot her $19,179 received i n February 2011), plus an additional $2.4 million to provide funding for the regeneration of Kitchener Housing Inc.’s 16 units located on David Street in Kitchener. The funding provided through these two programs has been f ully al located to over 250 capital projects throughout Waterloo Region. The funding has had a positive impact in Waterloo Region through the completion of necessary capital repairs and energy efficiencies. The successful delivery of these programs was grounded in the funding commitment from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), and the spirit of collaboration with the Community Housing Providers, MMAH and the Region of Waterloo.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-018/F-11-008

801580 Page 4 of 6

Projects ranged from emergency capital repair items like flat roof replacement and elevator modernizations to energy ef ficient upgrades l ike high ef ficiency natural gas f ired furnaces and insulated glazed windows. From the overall allocation, $2.5 million was committed to the replacement of 2,450 fridges and 2,200 13L toilets with more energy efficient models. Some of the capital projects completed from this capital funding not only alleviated funding restraints to capital reserves, but have also reduced utility bills which the Community Housing Providers will benefit from on an annual basis. 2010 Building Condition Audit, Energy Audit and Reserve Fund Study In September 2008 ( Report P-08-088), Regional Council approved funding to update the 2001 Building Condition Audits (BCA), utilizing funding provided through the Provincial “Social Housing Capital Repair Fund”. The purpose of these BCA updates was to identify the current capital needs of each individual Community Housing Provider and assist the Providers in developing a responsive strategy that includes a practical capital reserve plan and preventative maintenance program. The updated building condition audits included a building assessment study, a reserve fund study, and an energy audit of each existing Community Housing Provider that is subject to the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 (SHRA) or eligible under the Social Housing Agreement (SHA), not including the 2,558 Waterloo Region Housing (WRH) units. The building condition audits, energy audit and capital reserve fund study was completed by an external engineering consultant (IRC) in late 2009. The consultant provided a r eport for each Community Housing building, including current condition of individual building components, remaining useful life, and an analysis of the impact of capital repairs on capital reserve funds. The consultant also included findings relating to energy use and opportunities to realize some energy efficiencies. Reports have been reviewed with each Community Housing Provider’s Board and each Board will use this report as a planning tool for future capital repairs. The updated 2010 study has now identified that immediate funding of $44.1 million is required to fund the projected shortfall of $75.1 million needed for capital repair needs over the next fifteen (15) years. On average, the identified funding shortfall has increased from $15,105/unit to $15,642/unit. This increase is not as significant as expected. Factors impacting the results include deferred capital work resulting in higher capital reserve funds, infusion of capital repair funding from senior levels of government and fewer units under Region administration. The Operating Agreement of one Federal Community Housing Provider with 50 units expired in 2008 and is not included in the 2010 BCA. In addition, six other Providers with adequate reserve balances were not included in the 2010 BCA. The following table summarizes the results of studies. Year of Report Net Present Value Shortfall over next

15 years Shortfall per unit basis

Comments

2002 $35.4 million $71.9 million

$15,105 Based on 6% discount rate

2010 $44.1 million

$75.1 million

$15,642

including SHRRP funding; 5 % discount rate

2010 $47.5 million

$80.1 million

$16,679

excluding SHRRP funding; 5% discount rate

Notes : 2007 results not included as the results are not comparable. The 2007 included only a financial review of the

RFS and not a full BCA process. Discount rates changed from 6%in 2002 to 5% in 2010 to reflect current market rates.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-018/F-11-008

801580 Page 5 of 6

Additional Benefits of the BCA/RFS The primary purpose of the BCA/RFS is to identify the current capital needs of each individual Community Housing Provider, to assist the Providers in developing a r esponsive s trategy that includes a pr actical capital reserve plan and pr eventative maintenance program; and to assist Providers in understanding the existing and future financial contributions to their Capital Reserve Fund that will be needed to complete the necessary work. This purpose has been achieved. One of t he a dditional benefits t o t his process is an electronic planning tool f or eac h Housing Provider to prepare annual capital budgets, identified t imeframes of when individual Providers’ capital reserve funds may be exhausted and to explore funding options beyond that timeframe (i.e. leveraging assets, fund raising, external grant or loan programs or accessing the Housing Reserve Fund). Other benefits include an enhanced understanding of the Region-wide need for additional capital reserve funding, and a process to validate our requests to senior levels of government to provide adequate funding to Community Housing Providers in Waterloo Region. Stabilization Planning for Housing Providers As a whole, Housing Providers, including Prescribed Providers and those developed under the AHS, have continued to provide well-managed, safe and affordable housing in Waterloo Region. Housing staff continue to provide support and oversight to ensure that this is the case. However, some Providers have faced a num ber of challenges in the delivery of affordable housing, specifically around meeting their financial obligations and completing necessary capital repairs. Although the infusion of capital repair has provided relief, a f ew providers continue to have difficulty. Staff is developing a proposed Stabilization Planning Model, including an Asset Management Strategy, for Regional Council’s consideration at a future date that will help identify “Providers at Risk” (PAR) and create a strategy to assist Boards in stabilizing their Community Housing. The intention of proposed Bill 140 – Strong Communities through Affordable Housing Act (outcome of the Provincial Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy) is to change legislation to give Service Managers more tools to manage Housing Providers in difficulty. Next Steps Staff recommends that Regional Council reiterate its request to senior levels of government for a financial contribution to address the historic underfunding of capital reserves that occurred when responsibility for Community Housing was transferred to the Region of Waterloo in 2001. T his request should note that the updated amount of funding needed now to address the identified capital repair shortfall over the next 15 years is now estimated to be $44.1 million. Provincial and Federal government funding has had a positive impact and reduced the funding now needed (net present value) to complete necessary capital repairs over the next 15 years from $47.5 million to $44.1 million. Regional staff will continue to work with other Service Managers in urging the Province of Ontario and the Federal Government to properly fund capital repairs associated with Community Housing developments, which should have been provided at the time of transfer. Area Municipal Consultation and Coordination Area Municipal staff will be provided a copy of this report and Regional staff will continue to notify Community Housing Providers funded through these programs of the need to obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Area Municipalities and associated agencies and utilities.

April 12, 2011 Report: P-11-018/F-11-008

801580 Page 6 of 6

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: Council’s Strategic Focus Five includes “Optimize the use of existing infrastructure and ensure it is adequately maintained.” Although the Region does not own the Community Housing sites, they are considered an asset to the Region in providing safe affordable housing. Focus Area Six includes actions to continue to ensure all Regional programs and s ervices are responsive, efficient, effective and accountable to the public. This report seeks to both maintain and, where possible, enhance this focus area by ensuring that the Region of Waterloo and its Housing Providers operate sustainably. Focus Area One includes actions to effectively use and manage energy resources. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The initial building condition audit and reserve fund study for housing providers, presented in 2002, determined that the reserves held by the providers would not be adequate to undertake the capital repairs required for the next fifteen years. An amount of $35.4 million was required in 2002 to meet the projected $71.9 million shortfall through 2015. Based on the updated BCA and RFS completed in 2009/2010, a contribution of $44.1 million is required now to meet the reserve fund shortfall of $75.1 million projected for the next fifteen years. There is still a significant shortfall in capital reserve funds to adequately address capital needs for Community Housing Providers, even with the 2008 and 2009 injections of capital repair funding from senior levels of government. The Region’s Housing Reserve Fund was established to 1) maintain the existing housing stock; 2) replace any lost units; and 3) increase the supply of affordable housing. The Housing Reserve Fund balance is $45.4 million at year end 2010. Of that amount, $2.7 million is committed to Non-Profits and Co-operatives, and $23.0 million will be required for Waterloo Region Housing capital needs over the next ten years. As noted previously, the BCA/RFS does not include the WRH units. Audits on those units are being done over three years - 2010-2012. The results of those audits could increase the need f or capital funding for W RH beyond what is currently included in the capital forecast. In addition, Regional Council may consider contributions from the Housing Reserve Fund to assist with meeting the remaining commitments to the Affordable Housing Strategy. While the Housing Reserve Fund m ay be of some assistance, generally through a l oan ar rangement, in helping the Providers with reserve fund shortfalls, it is not sufficient to meet all the capital needs of the aging housing stock within the Region. There continues to be a clear and increasing need for funding from senior levels of government. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONS/CONCURRENCE: NIL ATTACHMENTS: NIL PREPARED BY: Jennifer Murdoch, Manager, Housing Program Alba Michelucci, Financial Analyst Deb Schlichter, Director, Housing Angela Hinchberger, Director Financial Services, Treasury & Tax Policy APPROVED BY: Rob Horne, Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services Larry Ryan, Chief Financial Officer

Document Number: 953979

March 28, 2011 Dear Community Partner,

The launch of the Provincial Early Learning Framework in 2009 following the vision set out in, "Our Best Future in Mind" is creating some exciting opportunities for young children and families. In Waterloo Region under the guidance of our Best Start Network, Region of Waterloo Children and Parent Services Committee (ROWCAPS), Children's Services is beginning to develop an Early Years System Plan. This plan will focus on how we can develop a system of services in our community that supports the developmental health of children prenatal to twelve years of age. As a community partner who provides services to children and families I would like to invite you to an information forum. The purpose of the forum is to provide an overview of system planning, service integration and to seek your input to shape a vision for Waterloo Region.

The forum will be held on Friday, May 13th, 2011 from 10:00 - 3:30 at the Holiday Inn, Fairway Road, Kitchener. Lunch will be provided, please register by May 01, 2011 by clicking on the on-line registration form link in the covering email.

I look forward to meeting with you in May and working together to develop a collaborative vision for children in Waterloo Region.

Sincerely,

Nancy Dickieson, Director Children's Services Region of Waterloo 519-883-2177 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�

End Notes

i According to Statistics Canada published data 86.5% of seniors voted in the last federal election compared to 44.2% aged18 to 24 and 70.6% aged 25 to 55.

7,054,000 people 18 and over said they voted in the last provincial election. Of those people who responded that theyvoted, 2,680,000 were aged 55 and over, thus individuals over 55 make up approximately 38% of all ballots cast.According to Statistics Canada (2008), individuals over 55 account for approximately 38% of all ballots cast

ii Canadian Healthcare Association. 2009. New Directions for Facility-Based Long Term Care.http://www.cha.ca/documents/CHA_LTC_9-22-09_eng.pdf

iii According to the 2010 report of the Ontario Health Quality Council, depression is a significant problem among frail orelderly individuals with 22% of those living in long term care homes showing increasing symptoms of depression or anxietyin the three months preceding the study. Other reports indicated that 50-70% of those living in long term care homes havea form of dementia (Intervention for Neuropsychiatric Symptoms of Dementia in Long-Term Care: A Knowledge SynthesisProject; http://www.ccsmhevents.ca/admin/sources/editor/assets/A7b.pdf ).

December 2010

Inter-Provincial VariationServices and housing options for seniors vary from province to province andterritory with a high degree of inconsistency in availability, accessibility, andcosts. Because a significant proportion of caregiving is provided by familymembers, seniors may move from one jurisdiction to another to be closer tofamily to receive the support and advocacy that they need. However,services are not portable, costs vary, levels of care are inconsistent and insome cases are not even comparable.

A good example of a significant inconsistency between provinces/territoriesis related to long term care and each jurisdiction’s long term care residencyrequirements for eligibility. The Canadian Healthcare Association’s NewDirections for Facility-Based Long Term Careii states that, for example, theeligibility criteria for admission to long term care in Ontario does notinclude a residency requirement, while in BC, Alberta, and Manitoba (andothers) there are provincial residency requirements. This clearly affects theability of a long term care resident to move to another province or territory.Too many of Canada's seniors are living in situations where services do notmatch their needs. This is particularly the case in rural and remote areas.

Seniors’ Services and Housing OptionsMost seniors prefer to live in their homes for as long as they can and whenthey need supports to do so, the supports and services are often difficult tofind; there are long waiting lists; and services are prioritized as a budgetingmeasure and are therefore limited.

Affordable seniors’ housing options are insufficient, have long wait lists anddo not meet the existing demographic need. Housing strategies do notfoster assessment of current and future need and long term planning tomeet the needs of communities and their senior residents.

Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors

Making Seniors aNATIONAL PRIORITY

The Current Context

OANHSS Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors7050 Weston Road, Suite 700, Woodbridge, ON L4L 8G7(905) 851-8821 | www.oanhss.org

14


OANHSS is the provincial Association representing not-for-profit providers of long term care, services and housing forseniors. Members include municipal and charitable providersof long term care homes, non-profit nursing homes, seniors'housing projects and community service agencies.

Through the delivery of a full continuum of not-for-profitservices, OANHSS members recognize the diverse andvarying needs of seniors and attempt to meet these needs.

Member organizations operate over 27,000 long term carebeds and over 5,000 seniors' housing units across theprovince.

The Ontario government has already noted in legislation itscommitment to the promotion of long term care services bynot for profit organizations, and Ontario residents havedemonstrated a preference for not-for-profit long term careservices.

Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homesand Services for Seniors (OANHSS)

SupportiveSeniors’ Policy

Canada's seniors, despite being alarge and fast-growing part of ourpopulation, have not receivedattention from public policy makerscommensurate with theircontribution to society, theirnumbers or their political clouti.

Across Canadian provincial andterritorial jurisdictions, significantdisparities exist with respect toaccessibility of services, the costsand availability of services toseniors and appropriate andaffordable seniors’ housing options.

While Canada is in a position tolead a transformation of seniors’care across the country, Canadianseniors and their caregivers arecurrently being shortchanged.

The purpose of this PositionStatement is to inform seniors’policy direction for the next federalgovernment.

Seniors’ DemographicsBy 2015, for the first time in our nation’s history, Canadians over 65 years of age will outnumber children. By 2056 the proportion ofseniors aged 80 years and over will triple to about 1 in 10, compared with about 1 in 30 in 2005.

Mental HealthAn absence in the diagnosis of mental illness in seniors is a significant problem – it is estimated that two thirds of seniors’ mentalillnesses are not diagnosed and are therefore not treated. There is also a significant lack of resources, accessible expertise, and servicesspecific to seniors or even available to seniors. Combined with stigma and ageist programs and services, access to the right care at theright time to improve or maintain mental health is far from a reality.

According to the 2010 Report of the Ontario Health Quality Council, depression is a significant problem among frail or elderlyindividuals with 22% of those living in long term care homes showing increasing symptoms of depression or anxiety in the threemonths preceding the study. Further, aggressive (responsive) behaviours, agitation or wandering, are common among long term careresidents. Dementia is another prevalent mental illness affecting seniors, with 50 to 70 percent of long term care residents sufferingfrom a form of dementia.

The Solutions

Background

OANHSS

32


Mental Health and AddictionsThe documented incidence of dementia and other mentalillnesses is reaching epidemic proportions among seniors.The actual incidence is much higher because best evidenceindicates that two thirds of seniors' mental illnesses are notdiagnosediii and therefore are untreated. Depression is asignificant mental illness within the seniors’ population, yetit receives very little recognition and is thereforemisunderstood, under-diagnosed and largely untreated.

Older adults are negatively impacted by a combination ofageism and the stigma associated with mental illness andaddictions, plus a lack of trained and knowledgeable healthcare and social service providers and significant gaps inmental health services along the entire continuum of care.

Financial BarriersFinancial barriers that hinder the development of housingand services for seniors are significant. One such barrier ishow GST rates are treated differently among various typesof health care providers. Long term care currently does notqualify for the same GST rate as the hospital sector as anexample, although the long term care resident populationis increasing in acuity and exhibiting a higher incidence ofchronic disease and disability.

The solutions proposed for the federalgovernment will support the provinces andterritories in better meeting the needs of seniorsacross the country. Our recommendations aim toachieve more consistency and portability acrossjurisdictions and improve seniors’ housing andmental health options and services, as these arecurrently the most pressing issue areas thatnegatively impact seniors across the country.These are also the areas in which we see thefederal government having an opportunity tomake a significant improvement by taking astrong leadership role.

If implemented, our recommendations will resultnot only in better outcomes and higher qualityof life for older adults and their caregivers, butalso in improved efficiencies leading to a moreeffective health care system.

Mental HealthDevelop a national policy on seniors’ mental health thatfocuses on health promotion, education and awareness, andaccessibility of mental health programs and services for allolder Canadians.

Seniors’ Services and Housing OptionsCanadian seniors need the federal government to take aleadership role in housing and to facilitate cooperativeworking relationships between federal departments andprovincial/territorial and municipal governments, particularlyin the area of long term planning and strategies.As part of its leadership role, the federal government shouldlead the development of a framework and funding process(e.g. incentives) for seniors’ housing to encourage andsupport provinces and territories to develop full seniors’housing continuums to ensure seniors may remain in theircommunities while accessing the most appropriate level ofcare when they require it, and to move along the continuumof care as their needs change.

Further, to address the problem of inadequate affordablehousing, a long range affordable housing strategy withongoing, multi-year funding commitments that would enablehousing providers, provincial/territorial governments andmunicipalities to plan for the future is a priority.

Financial Strategies to Improve CareIn order to support better care delivery for seniors, developstrategies that reduce the financial barriers to seniors’ careproviders. One example would be to apply the same GST/HST rates to charitable and not-for-profit long term carehomes as currently apply to public hospitals. This changewould not only conserve more dollars for bedside care andact as an incentive to service providers, it is also rationalpublic policy.

Inter-Provincial DisparitiesLead the development of a federal/provincial/territorialagreement focused on developing consistency acrossjurisdictions on availability of publicly funded seniors’services along with levels of service, portability of publiclyfunded services and consistency of terminology. Ensure thataccountability and incentive systems are put in place.

Seniors’ DemographicsBy 2015, for the first time in our nation’s history, Canadians over 65 years of age will outnumber children. By 2056 the proportion ofseniors aged 80 years and over will triple to about 1 in 10, compared with about 1 in 30 in 2005.

Mental HealthAn absence in the diagnosis of mental illness in seniors is a significant problem – it is estimated that two thirds of seniors’ mentalillnesses are not diagnosed and are therefore not treated. There is also a significant lack of resources, accessible expertise, and servicesspecific to seniors or even available to seniors. Combined with stigma and ageist programs and services, access to the right care at theright time to improve or maintain mental health is far from a reality.

According to the 2010 Report of the Ontario Health Quality Council, depression is a significant problem among frail or elderlyindividuals with 22% of those living in long term care homes showing increasing symptoms of depression or anxiety in the threemonths preceding the study. Further, aggressive (responsive) behaviours, agitation or wandering, are common among long term careresidents. Dementia is another prevalent mental illness affecting seniors, with 50 to 70 percent of long term care residents sufferingfrom a form of dementia.

The Solutions

Background

OANHSS

32


Mental Health and AddictionsThe documented incidence of dementia and other mentalillnesses is reaching epidemic proportions among seniors.The actual incidence is much higher because best evidenceindicates that two thirds of seniors' mental illnesses are notdiagnosediii and therefore are untreated. Depression is asignificant mental illness within the seniors’ population, yetit receives very little recognition and is thereforemisunderstood, under-diagnosed and largely untreated.

Older adults are negatively impacted by a combination ofageism and the stigma associated with mental illness andaddictions, plus a lack of trained and knowledgeable healthcare and social service providers and significant gaps inmental health services along the entire continuum of care.

Financial BarriersFinancial barriers that hinder the development of housingand services for seniors are significant. One such barrier ishow GST rates are treated differently among various typesof health care providers. Long term care currently does notqualify for the same GST rate as the hospital sector as anexample, although the long term care resident populationis increasing in acuity and exhibiting a higher incidence ofchronic disease and disability.

The solutions proposed for the federalgovernment will support the provinces andterritories in better meeting the needs of seniorsacross the country. Our recommendations aim toachieve more consistency and portability acrossjurisdictions and improve seniors’ housing andmental health options and services, as these arecurrently the most pressing issue areas thatnegatively impact seniors across the country.These are also the areas in which we see thefederal government having an opportunity tomake a significant improvement by taking astrong leadership role.

If implemented, our recommendations will resultnot only in better outcomes and higher qualityof life for older adults and their caregivers, butalso in improved efficiencies leading to a moreeffective health care system.

Mental HealthDevelop a national policy on seniors’ mental health thatfocuses on health promotion, education and awareness, andaccessibility of mental health programs and services for allolder Canadians.

Seniors’ Services and Housing OptionsCanadian seniors need the federal government to take aleadership role in housing and to facilitate cooperativeworking relationships between federal departments andprovincial/territorial and municipal governments, particularlyin the area of long term planning and strategies.As part of its leadership role, the federal government shouldlead the development of a framework and funding process(e.g. incentives) for seniors’ housing to encourage andsupport provinces and territories to develop full seniors’housing continuums to ensure seniors may remain in theircommunities while accessing the most appropriate level ofcare when they require it, and to move along the continuumof care as their needs change.

Further, to address the problem of inadequate affordablehousing, a long range affordable housing strategy withongoing, multi-year funding commitments that would enablehousing providers, provincial/territorial governments andmunicipalities to plan for the future is a priority.

Financial Strategies to Improve CareIn order to support better care delivery for seniors, developstrategies that reduce the financial barriers to seniors’ careproviders. One example would be to apply the same GST/HST rates to charitable and not-for-profit long term carehomes as currently apply to public hospitals. This changewould not only conserve more dollars for bedside care andact as an incentive to service providers, it is also rationalpublic policy.

Inter-Provincial DisparitiesLead the development of a federal/provincial/territorialagreement focused on developing consistency acrossjurisdictions on availability of publicly funded seniors’services along with levels of service, portability of publiclyfunded services and consistency of terminology. Ensure thataccountability and incentive systems are put in place.

End Notes

i According to Statistics Canada published data 86.5% of seniors voted in the last federal election compared to 44.2% aged18 to 24 and 70.6% aged 25 to 55.

7,054,000 people 18 and over said they voted in the last provincial election. Of those people who responded that theyvoted, 2,680,000 were aged 55 and over, thus individuals over 55 make up approximately 38% of all ballots cast.According to Statistics Canada (2008), individuals over 55 account for approximately 38% of all ballots cast

ii Canadian Healthcare Association. 2009. New Directions for Facility-Based Long Term Care.http://www.cha.ca/documents/CHA_LTC_9-22-09_eng.pdf

iii According to the 2010 report of the Ontario Health Quality Council, depression is a significant problem among frail orelderly individuals with 22% of those living in long term care homes showing increasing symptoms of depression or anxietyin the three months preceding the study. Other reports indicated that 50-70% of those living in long term care homes havea form of dementia (Intervention for Neuropsychiatric Symptoms of Dementia in Long-Term Care: A Knowledge SynthesisProject; http://www.ccsmhevents.ca/admin/sources/editor/assets/A7b.pdf ).

December 2010

Inter-Provincial VariationServices and housing options for seniors vary from province to province andterritory with a high degree of inconsistency in availability, accessibility, andcosts. Because a significant proportion of caregiving is provided by familymembers, seniors may move from one jurisdiction to another to be closer tofamily to receive the support and advocacy that they need. However,services are not portable, costs vary, levels of care are inconsistent and insome cases are not even comparable.

A good example of a significant inconsistency between provinces/territoriesis related to long term care and each jurisdiction’s long term care residencyrequirements for eligibility. The Canadian Healthcare Association’s NewDirections for Facility-Based Long Term Careii states that, for example, theeligibility criteria for admission to long term care in Ontario does notinclude a residency requirement, while in BC, Alberta, and Manitoba (andothers) there are provincial residency requirements. This clearly affects theability of a long term care resident to move to another province or territory.Too many of Canada's seniors are living in situations where services do notmatch their needs. This is particularly the case in rural and remote areas.

Seniors’ Services and Housing OptionsMost seniors prefer to live in their homes for as long as they can and whenthey need supports to do so, the supports and services are often difficult tofind; there are long waiting lists; and services are prioritized as a budgetingmeasure and are therefore limited.

Affordable seniors’ housing options are insufficient, have long wait lists anddo not meet the existing demographic need. Housing strategies do notfoster assessment of current and future need and long term planning tomeet the needs of communities and their senior residents.

Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors


The Current Context

OANHSS Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors7050 Weston Road, Suite 700, Woodbridge, ON L4L 8G7(905) 851-8821 | www.oanhss.org

14


OANHSS is the provincial Association representing not-for-profit providers of long term care, services and housing forseniors. Members include municipal and charitable providersof long term care homes, non-profit nursing homes, seniors'housing projects and community service agencies.

Through the delivery of a full continuum of not-for-profitservices, OANHSS members recognize the diverse andvarying needs of seniors and attempt to meet these needs.

Member organizations operate over 27,000 long term carebeds and over 5,000 seniors' housing units across theprovince.

The Ontario government has already noted in legislation itscommitment to the promotion of long term care services bynot for profit organizations, and Ontario residents havedemonstrated a preference for not-for-profit long term careservices.

Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homesand Services for Seniors (OANHSS)

SupportiveSeniors’ Policy

Canada's seniors, despite being alarge and fast-growing part of ourpopulation, have not receivedattention from public policy makerscommensurate with theircontribution to society, theirnumbers or their political clouti.

Across Canadian provincial andterritorial jurisdictions, significantdisparities exist with respect toaccessibility of services, the costsand availability of services toseniors and appropriate andaffordable seniors’ housing options.

While Canada is in a position tolead a transformation of seniors’care across the country, Canadianseniors and their caregivers arecurrently being shortchanged.

The purpose of this PositionStatement is to inform seniors’policy direction for the next federalgovernment.


To: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee From: Cathy Bossenberry, Manager, Income Support David Dirks, Director, Employment and Income Support Copies: Michael Schuster, Commissioner, Social Services File No.: S09-01 Subject: FREE TAX CLINICS AT EMPLOYMENT RESOURCE AREAS

Background Employment and Income S upport (EIS) began participating as a co mmunity t ax cl inic site i n 2008. This came forward as a result of a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) policy to no longer host tax clinics at their office on Frederick Street; they asked if we would be willing to fill this gap in the community. CRA provided trained tax clinic volunteers and software; EIS hosted clinics in the E mployment R esource Areas in bot h C ambridge and K itchener. 670 t ax f illings were completed i n 2008; app roximately 80% of those were f or Ontario Works or O ntario D isability Support Program participants. 2011 Approach In 2011, EIS expanded the clinics to include all EIS ERAs: Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo. EIS provides the workspace and the staff in the ERAs support the volunteers with the scheduling and receiving of individuals. The same volunteers have supported these tax cl inics since 2008. This year, the service of Opportunities Waterloo Region (OWR) was engaged to act as the umbrella organization for the coordination of all the Waterloo Region community tax clinics. All clinics are now l isted on t he acce sswaterlooregion.ca w ebsite. Also new t his year i s the collection of additional s tatistics on t he an ticipated r efund o r bal ance o wing, pos tal co des to determine l ocations served as well as the num ber o f dependent s. In t he Waterloo t ax cl inic alone, m ore than 60 i ndividuals and families have been assi sted w ith t heir r eturns and w ill receive m ore t han $36 ,000 i n r efunds. The cl inic assisted si ngles, families and se niors from both the cities and the townships. With many government tax credits being linked directly to the completion of annual tax returns this is a key service for many in the community who are unable to complete their tax returns or cannot a fford to hav e ot hers complete t hem on t heir behal f. The Ontario Ch ild Benefit, G ST rebates, Guaranteed Annual Income System, Property Tax credits and others are only issued if

SOCIAL SERVICES Employment and Income Support Date: April 12, 2011

MEMORANDUM

Memo to Community Services Committee April 12, 2011

Document #: 958378 Page 2 of 2

a r eturn i s completed. The su ccess of t he clinics and t he 2011 ex pansion of t hese services indicate that this is a valuable service that EIS would look to continue in future years. Strategic Focus Hosting tax cl inics and engaging OWR in t he organization of al l R egional non -profit cl inics addresses the Region’s Corporate Strategic Focus Area Six: Service Excellence, Objective 6.1 (to) Ensure all Regional programs and services are citizen/customer focused in order to meet the needs and expectations of the community. For further information please contact David Dirks, Director, Employment and I ncome Support at Phone: 519-883-2179 or [email protected]



To: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee From: David Dirks, Director, Employment and Income Support Copies: Michael Schuster, Commissioner, Social Services File No.: A02-20 Subject: STRESS-DISEASE CONNECTION CONFERENCE

Personal Services Coordinating Committee The Personal Services Coordinating Committee is a committee of Social Services. It is chaired and resourced by Regional staff. Members include representatives from community agencies in such areas as” crisis intervention, mental health, counseling, faith and spiritual needs, emergency services and first aid. The Committee plays a very important role in the development of the Waterloo Region Emergency Support Team (WREST). The Committee’s purpose is the provisions of advice, direction and support during and after an emergency. The focus is upon the ongoing and psychological needs of those impacted by a catastrophe. An important activity is the annual conference to promote professional awareness and development in the provision of personal services in an emergency. 2011 Conference: Stress-Disease Connection This will be the Committee’s 17th workshop. The Conference theme, Stress-Disease Connection “When the Body Says No” will be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Sunshine Centre, Luther Village on the Park. The conference will address a number of topics including: the nature of stress and its physiological impact; three major stressors (loss of control, uncertainty and conflict) ; our stressful work environment; the recognition and prevention of stress; and the way an understanding of others can inform and enhance the professional role. Speaker Dr. Gabor Mate, MD will lead the conference. He is a bestselling author of “When the Body Says No”, “Scattered Minds” and “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts”. He also co-authored “Hold on to Your Kids”. As well he has written many articles and commentaries and presented at numerous conferences. Dr. Mate is presently staff physician at a clinic in Vancouver’s

SOCIAL SERVICES Employment and Income Support Date: April 12, 2011

MEMORANDUM

Memo to Community Services Committee April 12, 2011


Downtown Eastside, where many of his patients deal with drug addictions, HIV and other related challenges. The professionals who will attend provide services to a varied and changing population experiencing loss, trauma and a variety of environmental health and economic challenges. This connection will impact both the client being served and the professional providing service. The fact that the conference is fully subscribed at 173 attendees suggests this is a topic of great interest to our caregiving community. Strategic Focus This conference and the work of the Personal Services Coordinating Committee addresses the Region’s Corporate Strategic Focus Area Three: Healthy and Safe Communities, Objective 3.4 (to) Coordinate and implement emergency management initiatives. For further information please contact David Dirks, Director, Employment and Income Support at Phone: 519-883-2179 or email [email protected]

mailto:email%[email protected]�

961552

To: Chair Sean Strickland and Members of the Community Services Committee From: Chris Harold, Supervisor, Information and Planning Linda Black, Manager, Vaccine Preventable Diseases File No.: P14-20 Subject: 2011 SECONDARY SCHOOL SUSPENSION UPDATE

______________________________________________________________________________

Background Public Health is required to collect and maintain the immunization records of all students attending school in Waterloo Region, as per the Immunization of School Pupils Act (ISPA). The Act requires students to be immunized against tetanus, diphtheria, polio, measles, mumps and rubella. If students do not provide an immunization record or legal exemption, they face suspension from school for up to 20 days or until documentation is received. On April 5, 2011, Public Health enforced the ISPA legislation within the secondary school population in Waterloo Region. Suspension Process Since receipt of the recommendations of the internal audit of the annual suspension process (refer to Report CA-08-002/PH-08-011), Public Health has strived to reduce the number of students suspended. To work towards this goal, the program recently implemented two initiatives to improve our client’s ability to submit their immunization information:

• Call centre technology to ensure all calls are answered between 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. • Online immunization reporting website (https://e-immunization.regionofwaterloo.ca/)

Data comparing this year’s (2011) process to 2010 is as follows:

Number of students eligible for suspension or suspended

2011 2010

End of January (reminder notices printed) 4,921 4,491 Number of suspension orders delivered 1,864 2,248 Suspension Day 795 987 End of suspension day 290 405 From March 31 to April 5, staff in the program answered over 1,300 phone calls. In addition, over 500 individuals were immunized at Public Health’s walk-in immunization clinics in Cambridge and Waterloo. For further information please contact Linda Black, Manager, Vaccine Preventable Diseases, at [email protected] or 519-883-2006 ext. 5251.

PUBLIC HEALTH Infectious Diseases, Dental and Sexual Health Vaccine Preventable Diseases and Information and Planning Programs Date: April 12, 2011

MEMORANDUM

https://e-immunization.regionofwaterloo.ca/�


Meeting date Requestor Request Assigned Department Anticipated Response Date

07-Sep-10 S. Strickland

Staff report regarding the impact of the Public Health Needle Exchange Program on the incidence of blood-borne infections Public Health

As part of Harm Reduction program report due in March 2011

28-Sep-10 Committee

Staff report regarding the impact of revised technology for Delivery of Social Assistance on applicants. Social Services early 2011

COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

COUNCIL ENQUIRIES AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

122904CS Summary

Page 1 of 2 Please turn over ………

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO CORPORATE RESOURCES Council and Administrative Services Date: Friday, April 15, 2011

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Regional Councillors & Senior Staff FROM: Kris Fletcher, Director, Council and Administrative Services/Regional Clerk SUBJECT: Council Correspondence – For Information Attached are responses to resolutions, requests for Regional Council endorsements, and general information. If any member of Council wishes to include any of this information on the next Council agenda, please contact Kris Fletcher at 575-4029 or Lee Ann Wetzel at 575-4410. Responses to Council Resolutions Attached are copies of correspondence received in response to Council Resolutions on various matters listed below: Page a) Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Re: Moving Forward 2031: Region of Waterloo Long-Term Transportation

Plan, dated March 24, 2011 1

b) Planning, Housing and Community Services Re: Bill 140, Strong Communities through Affordable Housing Act, 2011,

dated March 31, 2011 2

Resolutions From Other Municipalities Attached are copies of resolutions from the following Councils, which are forwarded for Regional Council endorsement: a) City of Kitchener Re: Support of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Request Regarding

the Federal Government’s Release of Regulations, dated March 31, 2011 4

b) Region of Halton Re: Harmonized Sales Tax Revenue and a New Funding Mechanism for

Transportation Infrastructure, dated March 31, 2011 6

General Information a) Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Re: 2011 Federal Budget Tabled, dated March 22, 2011 8 Re: Provincial Budget to be Tabled on March 29, 2011, dated March 25, 2011 10 Re: 2011 Provincial Budget Preserves Upload Schedule, dated March 28,

2011 12

b) Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA)

Re: Link to Agendas and Minutes for the Grand River Conservation Authority 14 c) Ministry of the Environment Re: Taking Care of Your Drinking Water: A Guide for Members of Municipal

Councils, dated March 4, 2011 (full report available through C. Sargeant x4581)

15

d) Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Re: Public Health Funding for Nursing Positions, dated March 8, 2011 17 e) Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) Re: CAA South Central Ontario and OGRA Proposal to have H.S.T. Gas Tax

Revenue Dedicated to Transportation Infrastructure and Maintenance, dated March 15, 2011

19

f) Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs (OAFC) Re: OAFC Municipal Politicians Seminar (To Register Contact C. Sargeant

x4581) 22

TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE CLERK AND COUNCIL

March 22, 2011

2011 Federal Budget Tabled Issue: The 2011 Federal Budget was tabled in the House of Commons today. Background: Among the measures of significance to Ontario municipalities, the 2011 Budget reaffirmed the 2008 commitment to make the Gas Tax Fund a permanent source of long-term infrastructure financing. In 2010, Ontario municipalities received $746 million through this Fund. The federal gas tax is allocated to municipalities in Ontario on a formula basis and provides significant flexibility for municipalities to invest in infrastructure priorities including roads and bridges, water and waste water systems, community energy, solid waste management, transit and capacity building. AMO is again pleased that the government has reaffirmed this commitment. The government also announced that it will work with provincial and territorial governments, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and other stakeholders to build a long-term plan for investing in public infrastructure. AMO has long advocated for long-term sustainable infrastructure funding. AMO had hoped that the federal budget would include a continuation of existing affordable housing agreements and a commitment to renew the Canada Ontario Immigration Agreement. Other Budget measures include:

- The Budget announced the creation of a non-refundable Volunteer Firefighters Tax Credit. There are over 20,000 Ontario volunteer firefighters who could benefit from this change in over 200 fire departments. Volunteer firefighters with over 200 hours of service annually will qualify for this $3,000 tax credit. AMO supported a petition to the federal government on this issue.

- It also includes measures to attract doctors and nurses to rural parts of the

province with student loan forgiveness. This should assist the efforts of municipal councils to attract medical practitioners to their communities.

- The government is also making investments in the forestry sector which will

benefit many Ontario communities.

- In addition, the government is providing $20 million over two years to renew the Eastern Ontario Development Program.

AMO Contact: Matthew Wilson, Senior Policy Advisor, email: [email protected], telephone: (416) 971-9856 ext. 323

PLEASE NOTE AMO Breaking News will be broadcast to the member municipality's council, administrator and clerk. Recipients of the AMO broadcasts are free to redistribute the AMO broadcasts to other municipal staff as required. We have decided to not add other staff to these broadcast lists in order to ensure accuracy and efficiency in the management of our various broadcast lists.

DISCLAIMER These are final versions of AMO documents. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with the electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official record.


March 25, 2011

Provincial Budget to be Tabled on March 29, 2011 Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan will deliver the 2011 Ontario Budget on Tuesday, March 29, at 4 pm. AMO will be in the Budget Lock-up. In January, AMO President Peter Hume presented the Association’s Pre-Budget Submission. Its highlights included: Continue to honour the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery

Review agreement As in previous years, we are counting on the phased uploading of social service costs and court security to continue. Municipal financial planning and capital investments are based on the Review’s uploading. The Province will have reduced its reliance on municipal property taxes to pay for its programs by $947 million as of 2011. Infrastructure Investment Fund AMO is calling on the Province to create a new Infrastructure Investment Fund. Such a fund should provide predictable and sustained levels of support over a long period of time with special emphasis on rural and northern roads and bridges and legislative permanency of provincial transit fund. The submission also called for infrastructure funding to help meet the needs of municipal social housing stock and the extensive infrastructure modifications required in order to meet the accessibility needs of Ontarians. Household Waste Policy AMO believes responsibility for waste management appropriately belongs with producers and consumers. In the absence of this, the already limited landfill capacity will be quickly depleted. Municipal Liability and Insurance Costs Municipal liability exposure has led to ever increasing insurance bills. AMO hopes the government would agree that there are much better ways to spend property tax dollars than paying to insure against the negligence regime of joint and several liability. Together we need to find a better way forward. Policing Costs and the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) AMO argued now is the time to take another look at the policing component of the OMPF to ensure it is truly reflective of, and responsive to, policing in small and rural communities including the cost of recent OPP settlements.

The submission also made recommendations for changes to: the Development Charges Act, the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program and the Farmland Tax Program, and the Heads and Beds levy, among others. AMO will send a Breaking News update to the membership as soon as possible after the budget’s release and will include detailed budget analysis.

AMO Contact: Matthew Wilson, Senior Policy Advisor at [email protected] or ext. 323.


DISCLAIMER These are final versions of AMO documents. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with the electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official record.


March 28, 2011

2011 Provincial Budget Preserves Upload Schedule

Today Finance Minister Dwight Duncan delivered the 2011 Provincial Budget. It preserves the 2008 Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review Agreement to upload $947 million in provincial costs from the municipal property tax base this year.

AMO had been hoping infrastructure funding details for the Province’s new 10 year infrastructure program, however further information is now expected in the coming months. The 2011-12 budget papers show a $12.8 billion figure for all infrastructure investment in the broader public sector (including hospitals, post-secondary institutions, and municipalities).

There are a series of small announcements and allocations made in the budget, which will affect some municipalities. They include:

$30 million will be provided over three years to assist with municipal and First Nations projects that demonstrate innovative water and wastewater operating practices. Details of this program will be announced in the future.

The government is proposing to increase the basic adult allowance and maximum shelter allowance by another 1% for people on the Ontario Disability Support Program and Ontario Works in the fall of 2011.

Moderate Insurance Act reforms are proposed to help protect municipal transit systems from fraudulent insurance claims. Also, a general review of the Insurance Act will be undertaken to promote further harmonization with other Canadian jurisdictions. These changes will not address concerns about skyrocketing municipal insurance rates, the need to harmonize the Negligence Act with other jurisdictions, and the need to reform joint and several liability.

Ontario’s tourism regions will receive transitional funding to support coordinated marketing and festival support.

An additional $10 million has been dedicated to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund bringing the total 2011-12 investment to $100 million.

The budget references the need for federal-provincial intergovernmental cooperation on two areas of importance to municipalities - immigration and affordable housing.

It was confirmed that the Emergency Department Triage Nurse program to assist the speed of the offloading of ambulances will be continued.

The budget also calls for realigning federal/provincial responsibilities to avoid policy decisions at one level of government imposing costs on another. This is important to municipal government too.

AMO will continue to update the membership as further details are provided.

AMO Contact: Matthew Wilson, Senior Policy Advisor, email: [email protected], (416) 971-9856 ext. 323


DISCLAIMER These are final versions of AMO documents. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with the electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official re

To Members of Council, The members of the Grand River Conservation Authority have directed staff to forward a copy of the full minutes of their meetings to all Grand River watershed Municipal Clerks in order that Municipal Councils have ready access to them. minutes, agendas and reports can be found at: http://www.grandriver.ca/index/document.cfm?Sec=13&Sub1=0&sub2=0

Documents

Media Release Full Date, 4:30 P - Region of Waterloo