agenda county of oxford council meeting …oxfordcounty.ca/portals/15/documents/news room... ·...

AGENDA

COUNTY OF OXFORD

COUNCIL MEETING

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2018 9:30 A.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBER, OXFORD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, WOODSTOCK

MEETING #3

County of Oxford ~ eAgenda Application Version 0.3.0 Agenda Version 1, Addition to Agenda➤

1. CALL TO ORDER Time ______

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Note: The motion to approve the Agenda will propose an extension of the time allowancefor the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority delegation to a requested twentyminutes.

3. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

4. ADOPTION OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

January 24 2018

5. PUBLIC MEETINGS

6. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Ian Wilcox, General Manager / Secretary TreasurerCathy Quinlan, Terrestrial BiologistTerry Chapman, GIS SpecialistUpper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA)

Re: Forest Loss in the Upper Thames Watershed – 2000 to 2010Forest Loss Oxford CC Feb 14 2018

2. Cynthia St. John, Executive DirectorDr. Joyce Lock, Medical Officer of HealthElgin St. Thomas Public Health

Re: Setting a New Path for Public Health in Our CommunitiesPublic Health Pres - 021418

7. CONSIDERATION OF DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Resolution

That the presentation given on behalf of the Upper Thames Region ConservationAuthority, regarding Forest Loss in the Upper Thames Watershed – 2000 to 2010, bereceived as information.

COUNCIL AGENDAFEBRUARY 14, 2018


Resolution

That the presentation given on behalf of Elgin St. Thomas Public Health, titled "Setting aNew Path for Public Health in Our Communities", be received as information.

8. CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE

1. Town of TillsonburgFebruary 6, 2018

Re: Appointment of an AlternateTillsonburg - 020618

Resolution

That the resolution from the Town of Tillsoburg, dated January 22, 2018, nominatingDeputy Mayor Beres as their Alternate Member of the Upper-Tier Council until December1, 2018, be received.

2. Township of NorwichFebruary 5, 2018

Re: Ontario Building Code AmendmentsNorwich Twp - 020518

Resolution

That the resolution from the Township of Norwich, dated January 30, 2018, regardingOntario Building Code amendments, be received.

9. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENTS

COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

CP 2018-22Re: Proposed Regulatory Amendments with Respect to Renewable Generation Facilities

Recommendations

1. That County Council endorse the Oxford County submission in response to the Ministry of Energy’s proposed changes to the siting and operations of renewable generation facilities (under EBR Registry No. 013-1916, 013-1915, and 013-1913), as outlined in report CP 2018-22;

2. And further, that Report No. CP 2018-22 be circulated to the Area Municipalities for their information.

CP 2018-27Re: Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision SB 17-03-8 - Thames Developments Incorporated

Recommendation

1. That Oxford County Council grant draft approval to a proposed subdivision submitted by Thames Developments Incorporated (File No. SB 17-03-8); prepared by Paul Edward, OLS; dated November 13, 2017, for lands legally described as Part of Lot 5, Concession 13 (East Zorra), City of Woodstock, subject to the conditions attached as Schedule “A” to this Report being met prior to final approval.



CORPORATE SERVICES

CS 2018-04Re: Investment Activity Report and Policy Review - 2017

Recommendation

1. That Report No. CS 2018-04 entitled “Investment Activity Report and Policy Review - 2017”, for the year ended December 31, 2017, be received as information.

CS 2018-05Re: Council Remuneration and Expenses - 2017

Recommendation

1. That Report No. CS 2018-05 entitled “Council Remuneration and Expenses - 2017”, for the year ended December 31, 2017, be received as information.

10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Pending Items

11. MOTIONS

12. NOTICE OF MOTIONS

13. NEW BUSINESS/ENQUIRIES/COMMENTS

14. CLOSED SESSION (Room 129)

Resolution Time ______

That Council rise and go into a Closed session for the purpose of considering Report No.PW (CS) 2018-02, regarding matters that have not been made public concerningproposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land.

Resolution Time ______

That Council rise and reconvene in Open session.



15. CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS ARISING FROM THE CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC WORKS

PW (CS) 2018-02

16. BY-LAWS

BY-LAW NO. 5999-2018Being a By-law to remove certain lands from Part Lot Control.

BY-LAW NO. 6000-2018Being a By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of the Councilof the County of Oxford at the meeting at which this By-law ispassed.

17. ADJOURNMENT Time ______

NOTE: A Workshop regarding Public Health and Public Health Governance in anAutonomous Board Environment will be held in Room 129 following the Councilmeeting.

MINUTES

OF THE

COUNCIL OF THE

COUNTY OF OXFORD

County Council Chamber Woodstock January 24, 2018

MEETING #2 Oxford County Council meets in regular session this twenty-fourth day of January 2018, in the Council Chamber, County Administration Building, Woodstock. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., with Warden Mayberry in the chair. All members of Council present except Councillor Tait. Staff Present: P. M. Crockett, Chief Administrative Officer L. Beath, Director of Public Health and Emergency Services L. S. Buchner, Director of Corporate Services C. Fransen, Director of Woodingford Lodge G. K. Hough, Director of Community Planning D. Simpson, Director of Public Works A. Smith, Director of Human Resources B. J. Tabor, Clerk C. J. Senior, Deputy Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: RESOLUTION NO. 1: Moved by: Trevor Birtch Seconded by: Larry Martin That the Agenda be approved. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried 3. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: NIL 4. ADOPTION OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: Council Minutes of January 10, 2018

January 24, 2018 RESOLUTION NO. 2: Moved by: Trevor Birtch Seconded by: Larry Martin That the Council Minutes of January 10, 2018 be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried 5. PUBLIC MEETINGS: RESOLUTION NO. 3: Moved by: Sandra Talbot Seconded by: Ted Comiskey That Council rise and go into a public meeting pursuant to Section 17(15) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, to consider an application for Official Plan Amendment for Application No. OP 17-07-8, and that the Warden chair the public meeting. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried (7:02 p.m.) 1. Application for Official Plan Amendment

Oxford Baptist Church - OP 17-07-8 to redesignate the subject lands from 'Low Density Residential' to 'High Density Residential' to facilitate the development of a 34-unit apartment dwelling house on the said lands - subject property is described as Part Lot 4 & 5, Plan 10, located at the southwest corner of Delatre Street and Hunter Street, municipally known as 45 Delatre Street in the City of Woodstock

The Chair asks G. Hough, Director of Community Planning, to come forward to present the application. G. Hough summarizes Official Plan Amendment Application OP 17-07-8 as is contained in Report No. CP 2018-20. The Chair opens the meeting to questions from members of Council. G. Hough responds to comments and questions from Councillors McKay, Molnar and Wearn. In response to a question from Councillor McKay regarding walkability and whether there is anything written into our plan as far as guidelines regarding distances, he explains that there is nothing specific in the plan at this point but he points to the report referencing 1 km. which he feels is a reasonable walking distance to amenities . G. Hough explains that the property was formally a school and that it is vacant in response to Councillor Molnar’s inquiry regarding its current use. Answering Councillor Wearn’s question, G. Hough indicates that the concerns expressed by neighbours regarding drainage will be addressed through the City of Woodstock site plan control process. The Chair asks if the applicant and/or agent wishes to speak. A representative speaks from the gallery saying they have nothing further to add. The Chair asks if there are any members of the public wishing to speak in favour of or in opposition to the application. Peter Croves, a resident of Hunter Street, Woodstock, comes forward and states that he is basically in favour of the application and believes it will be good for the neighbourhood in the long-run if a balance is kept. He points out easy access to the 401 as an advantage. P. Croves draws Council’s attention to the concerns of the neighbours saying some thought the three-storey addition was going on top of the building rather than behind the building; some are concerned about their view being obstructed; some are wondering whether their property values will go up or down; and others are concerned about the number of people and vehicles in the area.

January 24, 2018 RESOLUTION NO. 4: Moved by: Sandra Talbot Seconded by: Ted Comiskey That Council adjourn the public meeting and reconvene as Oxford County Council with the Warden in the chair. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried (7:16 p.m.) CP 2018-20 Re: Application for Official Plan Amendment OP 17-07-8 – Oxford Baptist Church RESOLUTION NO. 5: Moved by: Marion Wearn Seconded by: Don McKay That the recommendations contained in Report No. CP 2018-20, titled “Application for Official Plan Amendment - OP 17-07-8 – Oxford Baptist Church”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendations Contained in Report No. CP 2018-20: 1. That Oxford County Council approve the application submitted by Oxford Baptist Church, for lands legally described as Part Lot 4 & Lot 5, Plan 10, City of Woodstock, to redesignate the subject lands from ‘Low Density Residential’ to ‘High Density Residential’ to facilitate the development of a 34-unit apartment dwelling house on the said lands; 2. And further, that Council approve the attached Amendment No. 214 to the County of Oxford Official Plan; 3. And further, that the necessary by-law to approve Amendment No. 214 be raised. 6. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: NIL 7. CONSIDERATION OF DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: Not Required. 8. CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE: 1. Zero Waste Oxford Re: Response to the Government of Ontario’s Proposed Food and Organic Waste Framework RESOLUTION NO. 6: Moved by: Larry Martin Seconded by: Stephen Molnar That the County receive and support the Zero Waste Oxford response to the Government of Ontario’s proposed Food and Organic Waste Framework posted to EBR Registry No. 013-1814 on January 11, 2018. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried

January 24, 2018 2. Town of Ingersoll January 17, 2018 Re: Appointment of an Alternate RESOLUTION NO. 7: Moved by: Larry Martin Seconded by: Stephen Molnar That the resolution from the Town of Ingersoll, dated January 8, 2018, appointing the Deputy Mayor as their County Council alternate, be received and that direction be given to staff to report on the necessary County Procedure By-law amendments for enacting alternate member participation in meetings. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried 9. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENTS: COMMUNITY PLANNING CP 2018-20 Re: Application for Official Plan Amendment OP 17-07-8 – Oxford Baptist Church The Report was dealt with under Public Meetings. CORPORATE SERVICES CS 2018-02 Re: Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program – Transfer Payment Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 8: Moved by: Ted Comiskey Seconded by: Sandra Talbot That the recommendations contained in Report No. CS 2018-02, titled “Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program – Transfer Payment Agreement”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendations Contained in Report No. CS 2018-02: 1. That By-law No. 5994-2018, being a by-law to authorize the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director of Public Works to execute a Transfer Payment Agreement with the Ministry of Transportation under the Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program, be presented to Council for enactment; 2. And further, that County Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer and Director of Public Works to execute a Partnership Agreement for the development of a dedicated commuter cycling path along Ingersoll Street South with the Town of Ingersoll, in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program. CS 2018-03 Re: Vacant Unit Rebate Program Revision

January 24, 2018 RESOLUTION NO. 9: Moved by: Ted Comiskey Seconded by: Sandra Talbot That the recommendation contained in Report No. CS 2018-03, titled “Vacant Unit Rebate Program Revision”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: See Action of Council following Resolution No. 10 Recommendation Contained in Report No. CS 2018-03: 1. That By-law No. 5995-2018, being a by-law to establish a County of Oxford Vacant Unit Rebate Program, be presented to Council for enactment. RESOLUTION NO. 10: Moved by: Stephen Molnar Seconded by: Larry Martin That resolution to approve the By-law (No. 5995-2018) be deferred until the meeting of February 14, 2018. DISPOSITION: Motion Not Carried DISPOSITION ON RESOLUTION NO. 9: Motion Carried PUBLIC HEALTH AND EMERGENCY SERVICES PHES 2018-03 Re: Board of Health 2017 Financial Controls Checklist RESOLUTION NO. 11: Moved by: Stephen Molnar Seconded by: Larry Martin That the recommendation contained in Report No. PHES 2018-03, titled “Board of Health 2017 Financial Controls Checklist”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. PHES 2018-03: 1. That County Council authorize the Director of Public Health & Emergency Services to submit the necessary documentation to the Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care as required under the current Public Health Funding and Accountability Agreement as outlined in Report No. PHES 2018-03, entitled “2017 Board of Health Financial Controls Checklist”. PUBLIC WORKS PW 2018-01 Re: Proposed Food and Organic Waste Framework, MOECC EBR Registry No. 013-1814

January 24, 2018 RESOLUTION NO. 12: Moved by: Margaret Lupton Seconded by: Ted Comiskey That the recommendations contained in Report No. PW 2018-01, titled “Proposed Food and Organic Waste Framework, MOECC EBR Registry No. 013-1814”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendations Contained in Report No. PW 2018-01: 1. That County Council endorse the Oxford County submission in response to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) EBR Registry No. 013-1814 Food and Organic Waste Framework, as outlined in report PW 2018-01; 2. And further, that Report No. PW 2018-01 be circulated to Area Municipalities for information. CAO/CLERK CAO 2018-02 Re: Notice of Intent to Consider Procedure By-law Amendments - Bill 68 Updates RESOLUTION NO. 13: Moved by: Don McKay Seconded by: Marion Wearn That the recommendation contained in Report No. CAO 2018-02, titled “Notice of Intent to Consider Procedure By-law Amendments – Bill 68 Updates”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. CAO 2018-02: 1. That County Council hereby serves notice that it will consider, at its March 14, 2018 meeting, proposed amendments to Procedure By-law No. 5852-2016. CAO 2018-03 Re: Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario Program (EVCO) - Phase 1 Update RESOLUTION NO. 14: Moved by: Don McKay Seconded by: Marion Wearn That the recommendations contained in Report No. CAO 2018-03, titled “Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario Program (EVCO) – Phase 1 Update”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendations Contained in Report No. CAO 2018-03: 1. That Council approve one additional EVSE location in each of Tillsonburg (downtown) and Thamesford as outlined in Report CAO 2018-03, to be funded from remaining EVCO Phase 1 funding;

January 24, 2018 2. And further, that Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer and the Treasurer to amend and execute the Ministry of Transportation EVCO Phase 1 Transfer Payment Agreement (TPA) to reflect two additional Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) locations as outlined in Report CAO 2018-03; 3. And further, that Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director of Public Works to execute the necessary property access agreements with the Town of Tillsonburg and the Township of Zorra, as outlined in Report CAO 2018-03. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Pending Items No discussion takes place regarding the Pending Items list. 11. MOTIONS: NIL 12. NOTICE OF MOTIONS: NIL 13. NEW BUSINESS/ENQUIRIES/COMMENTS: Councillor Comiskey pays tribute and recognizes Town of Ingersoll resident, Ernie Hunt, who passed away today. He mentions that Ernie grew up in the area, he worked for CN, he was a truck driver, he was a facilities manager for the County, was a Town Councillor and was very active in the community. Warden Mayberry reiterates Councillor Comiskey’s recognition of Ernie Hunt being a valued County employee who he remembers from the landfill and who he sat with on the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 14. CLOSED SESSION: NIL 15. CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS ARISING FROM THE CLOSED SESSION: Not Required. 16. BY-LAWS: BY-LAW NO. 5994-2018 Being a By-law to authorize the execution of a Transfer Payment Agreement with the Ministry of Transportation, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, under the Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program, be presented to Council for enactment. BY-LAW NO. 5995-2018 Being a By-law to establish a County of Oxford Vacant Unit Rebate Program. BY-LAW NO. 5996-2018 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment Number 214 to the County of Oxford Official Plan. BY-LAW NO. 5997-2018 Being a By-law to repeal By-law No. 5986-2018 and to amend By-law No. 5864-2016, a By-law to amend By-law No. 5775-2016, being a By-law to remove certain lands from Part Lot Control.

January 24, 2018 BY-LAW NO. 5998-2018 Being a By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Oxford at the meeting at which this By-law is passed. RESOLUTION NO. 15: Moved by: Trevor Birtch Seconded by: Larry Martin That the following By-laws be now read a first and second time: No. 5994-2018, No. 5995-2018, No. 5996-2018, No. 5997-2018, and No. 5998-2018. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried RESOLUTION NO. 16: Moved by: Trevor Birtch Seconded by: Larry Martin That the following By-laws be now given third and final reading: No. 5994-2018, No. 5995-2018, No. 5996-2018, No. 5997-2018, and No. 5998-2018. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried 17. ADJOURNMENT: Council adjourns its proceedings until the next meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. 8:00 p.m. Minutes adopted on by Resolution No.

WARDEN

CLERK

Forest Loss

in the

Upper Thames Watershed

2000 to 2010

_________________________

For Oxford County Council

Feb 14th, 2018

Cathy Quinlan, Terrestrial Biologist

Terry Chapman, GIS Specialist

1

Background and Mapping

• UTRCA has been mapping forest cover and

other vegetation cover for years

• Modern GIS and digital air photography

(flown ~ every 5 years) allows us to better

map vegetation cover and track changes

• Our Watershed Report Cards try to relay

these changes every 5 years (2001, 2006,

2012, 2017)

• The 2010 photography provided excellent

clarity to map natural heritage features

• By overlaying the 2000, 2006 and 2010

photography, staff could see forest areas that

were cleared for urban development,

agriculture, aggregates, etc.

• These “forest loss” areas were attributed and

tallied (~80% accuracy in interpretation)

2

Definitions

• Forest / Woodland: ≥ 0.5 ha & 30 m wide

– Does NOT include windbreaks, linear

plantings

– Does NOT include individual street trees

(this is not a leaf cover analysis)

• Use SWOOP (South Western Ontario

Orthoimagery Project) digital aerial

photography

– Completed NH mapping for 2000, 2006,

2010

– 2015 currently being worked on

Forest blocks ≥0.5 ha, ≥30m wide

Leaf or Canopy Cover is not analyzed

3

Summary of Findings 2000 to 2010 for UTRCA (ha)

Area of

Forest

In 2010

Area of

Forest

Removed

2000-2010

Area of

Forest

(Equiv. to)

in 2000

% of Forest

Cover

Removed

2000-2010

Area of

Young

Plantation

in 2010

37,688 806 38,494 2.1% 466

• The total forest loss across the Upper Thames

River watershed (2000-2010) is approximately

800 ha (2,000 ac), larger than Dorchester Swamp

(566 ha).

• Area of Young Plantation visible on photos is

466 ha (1,150 ac), shows gains are (will be)

significant, but not keeping up with loss.

• From 2001-2010, UTRCA’s forestry programs

planted 324 ha on public and private land

Dorchester Swamp

5

s

Oxford County Results (UTRCA portion only)

Municipality Area of

Forest

in 2010

Area of

Forest

Removed

2000 - 2010

Area of

Forest

in 2000

% Forest

Cover

Removed

2000 – 2010

Area of

Young

Plantation

in 2010

Rural Oxford 12,810 142 12,952 1.1% 129

Woodstock 561 54 615 8.8% 5

Ingersoll 113 22 135 16.4% 1

Total Oxford 13,485 218 13,703 1.6% 134

Ha. lost to this

Landuse

% of Total

Forest Loss

Agriculture (tilled) 99 45%

Rural development (buildings) 18 8%

Aggregates , Licenced 25 11%

Urban Development 76 35%

Total 218 100%

Landuse Breakdown

Summary (ha)

6

Land Use & Forest Loss

7

Agriculture (tilled land)

• Small woodlots cleared or ‘edged’ to

put more land under cultivation.

• May or may not have been

permitted by WCB (starting to track).

• Higher commodity prices and land

values may increase pressure to

clear.

Rural Development

• Woodland cleared for buildings &

structures such as farm dwellings,

barns, parking, road allowance,

lawns.

• Includes rural non-farm buildings

and estates with extensive

landscaping.

Aggregates

• Woodland cleared within licenced

pits.

• Woodland still remaining within

licensed pit areas are/may be at risk.

• County, UTRCA have limited control.

• Rarely rehabilitated to natural

heritage, often ponds of limited

habitat quality.

Urban Development

• Forest loss from approved

development (e.g., site plans,

subdivisions).

• Generally pre-date current natural

heritage protection requirements.

Urban Forest Loss Example

2000 2010

8

Woodland loss for urban development,

probably approved back in 1990s

Stormwater

pond

Rural Woodland LossAgricultural Forest Loss Example

2000 2006 2010 2015

Infrared

9

Incremental Loss

Woodland area in red hatches is removed by 2010

Woodland area in green hatches is removed by 2015

Forest GainForest Gain – Young Plantations Maturing

UTRCA lands east of Pittock CA, planted in 1990s,

maturing to young plantation or plantation

10

2000 2010

Forest Loss Perspective

• The loss of forest cover is not always obvious, as

forests are felled a little here and a little there.

• Pressure is often highest in urban areas.

Developments approved many years ago don’t

face current restrictions/regulations.

• The loss of forest cover is also a loss in resiliency

against climate change, stormwater retention, and

habitat for native plants and animals.

• Five-year Breakdown (FC – Forest Cover):

2000 to 2006 -- 1.5% FC lost (575 ha)

2006 to 2010 -- 0.6% FC lost (230 ha)

2010 to 2015 ~ 0.6% FC lost (224 ha)*

(*MNRF data based on satellite images)

11

Loss of other habitat types (meadows, thickets) are in

addition to the forest loss.

Relaying Information – Report Cards, ONHSS

2017 Watershed Report Cards

• Letter grades have not changed, but incremental

changes based on hectares of forest loss vs. tree

planting gains are provided for first time.

• Of the 28 Upper Thames subwatersheds:

7 - decline (>3% Forest Cover loss)

18 - slight decline (0.5-2.9% FC loss)

3 - steady (<0.5% FC loss)

12

Natural Heritage Systems Studies• Tool for decision makers

• Counties have contracted UTRCA to undertake NHSSs:

Middlesex (2014), Oxford (2016 draft) and Perth (2018 draft).

• As directed by the PPS, these studies provide information on

what features are ecologically important and Significant in the

counties and should be conserved.

• Mapping updates using 2015 photography to be done by

UTRCA for Oxford County, to track change.

How do we move Forward?

• Improved monitoring/tracking by County (e.g., WCB exemptions) and

UTRCA (e.g., naturalization projects).

• Improved communication/outreach (e.g., County/Re-forest Oxford and

UTRCA) on natural heritage benefits, funding and programs.

• Build on success of existing re-forestation/naturalization programs

(e.g., CWP). CWP has funded much reforestation work since 2008, but

room to improve (e.g., achieve targets).

• Review compensation for woodland removal (e.g. location, amount,

monitoring, etc.).

• Maintain up-to-date mapping of natural heritage system and features

(e.g., ONHSS).

• Identify and protect natural heritage as development occurs (e.g.

Secondary Plans, etc.). Should greatly reduce losses seen in past.

• New County aggregates policies to encourage retention of, and

rehabilitation to, natural heritage.

• More pro-active, consultative approach and, where necessary,

enforcement.

• UTRCA Targets aim to double restoration programs, increase public

outreach and technical assistance (goal is 1,500 ha by 2037).13

Final Thoughts

The information in this presentation provides an

interesting ‘snap-shot’ as to what occurred on the

landscape since 2000.

It points to the importance of continued mapping

and monitoring and of having a proactive,

comprehensive and co-ordinated approach if we

are to successfully maintain, restore and, if

possible, improve our natural heritage system.

Planting trees to grow new forests is necessary,

but the results will never be as rich and diverse as

the old forests we have left on the landscape. Scarlet Tanager, by

Sharon Nethercott

14

Cathy Quinlan, 2018

Thank You

Cathy Quinlan, Terrestrial Biologist

Terry Chapman, GIS Specialist

15

Cynthia St. JohnDr. Joyce LockElgin St. Thomas Public HealthFebruary 14, 2018

SETTING A NEW PATH FOR PUBLIC HEALTH IN OUR COMMUNITIES

THE PAST 3MONTHS…NOV 10 Intent to merge

NOV 15Appear before Standing Committee

DEC 12Act receives Royal Assent

JAN 10 Next steps approved by Boards

FEB 14 Continued commitment agreement by OCPH and ESTPH

Regulatory amendment (late February)

Board appointments

Harmonizing people, technology and resources

Introducing our new visual identity

“Go Live Day”

THE NEXT 3 MONTHS

Aligning to new public health standards

Building new relationships: Board, MOH, CEO, Staff

Finalizing bylaws and policies

Understanding statutory obligations

Orienting Board to “new” communities and local issues

Meeting community expectations

UP TO THE CHALLENGE

OPPORTUNITIES

Greater public health impact in our communities

Stronger voice for health advocacy

New opportunities for collaboration

THE VISION:18 MONTHS FROM NOW…

Programs and services that have an even greater impact

Cohesive and inspired Board

Even stronger relationships with our community partners

Engaged employees

Community acceptance of “the new us”

A strong relationship with Oxford County’s residents, community partners, agencies and municipal councillors. To achieve this, we ask for:

Opportunities to regularly update County Council

Patience, as we work through this transition

Championship of public health as you consider your own strategic directions

OUR ASK OF YOU…

QUESTIONS?

Report No: CP 2018-22

COMMUNITY PLANNING Council Date: February 14, 2018

Page 1 of 6

To: Warden and Members of County Council

From: Director, Community Planning

Proposed Regulatory Amendments with Respect to Renewable Generation Facilities

RECOMMENDATION 1. That County Council endorse the Oxford County submission in response to the

Ministry of Energy’s proposed changes to the siting and operations of renewable generation facilities (under EBR Registry No. 013-1916, 013-1915, and 013-1913), as outlined in report CP 2018-22;

2. And further, that Report No. CP 2018-22 be circulated to the Area Municipalities for their information.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS The Ministry of Energy is undertaking consultation on proposed updates to a number of

regulations under various Provincial Acts relating to the operations, ownership structure, and siting criteria of certain types of renewable energy generation facilities

This report seeks to inform County Council of the provincial consultation process and the comments submitted by County staff to date (Attachment No. 1). The staff comments in this report were provided through the lens of their potential impacts on the County’s plans to complete future pilot projects related to virtual net metering through solar PV projects and reflect our strong commitment to preserving prime agricultural areas

The comments that have been provided to the Province were a result of discussions between various County departments (Community Planning, Public Works, and CAO Office) and reflect the County’s goals to support increased energy efficiency and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as expressed through the Future Oxford Community Sustainability Plan

Implementation Points The recommendations contained in this report will have no immediate impacts with respect to implementation. However, there could potentially be future impacts/considerations for the County and/or Area Municipalities with respect to the authorization of locational criteria for the siting of



Page 2 of 6

non-rooftop solar PV facilities, in the event the Province amends these proposed regulations based on the results of this consultation.

Financial Impact The comments in this report will have no financial impact beyond what has been approved in the current year’s budget. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.

Risks/Implications There is no risk or other implications associated with this report.

Strategic Plan (2015-2018) County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan (2015-2018) at its regular meeting on May 27, 2015. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following:

1. i. A County that Works Together – Strengthen, diversify and broaden the economic/prosperity base through:

- Strategies to retain and support existing businesses and grow our green economy

3. i. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future – Influence federal and provincial policy with implications for the County by:

- Advocating for fairness for rural and small urban communities - Advocating for human and health care services, facilities and resources, support for local

industry, etc. - Advocating for federal and provincial initiatives that are appropriate to our county

3. ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future – Implement development policies, land uses and community planning guidelines that:

- Actively promote the responsible use of land and natural resources by focusing on higher density options before considering settlement boundary expansions

- Provides a policy framework which supports community sustainability, health and well-being

- Supports and protects a vibrant and diversified agricultural industry

3. iii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future - Demonstrated commitment to sustainability by:

- Ensuring that all significant decisions are informed by assessing all options with regard to the community, economic and environmental implications including:

o Responsible environmental leadership and stewardship o Supporting the community implementation of the Community Sustainability Plan



Page 3 of 6

DISCUSSION

Background The Ministry of Energy recently initiated consultation processes for three interrelated regulatory proposals through the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR). These postings are as follows:

1. EBR 013-1913 Proposed Amendment to Ontario Regulation 541/05: Net Metering, or a new Regulation to be made under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998

2. EBR 013-1916 Proposed New Regulation to be made under the Electricity Act, 1998 3. EBR 013-1915 Proposed Amendment to Ontario Regulation 389/10: (General), to be

made under the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 These postings were combined into one document which County staff used as a template to provide comments throughout, and provide targeted feedback to the Province regarding each area of concern. As such, the contents of these postings are provided as part of Attachment No. 1 to this report. Provincial staff reached out specifically to the County of Oxford to gain insight into how these proposals could influence our planned pilot projects related to virtual net metering (VNM) of renewable energy facilities. As outlined in Report No. CAO 2017-06 and its accompanying presentation, Oxford County has been working with the Ministry of Energy (MOE) to ensure the necessary regulatory environment is established that will support our VNM demonstration projects using solar generation at larger County-owned sites (e.g. the Salford landfill) to offset facilities with limited capacity for renewable energy (e.g. County Courthouse Square in Woodstock).

Comments The comments that have been provided to the Province largely request additional clarification for some specific elements of the proposals and made suggestions for potential alternative processes that could be put in place for the siting of renewable energy projects that are municipally-supported. Our comments are outlined throughout Attachment No. 1 and summarized as follows:

Net Metering & Third-Party Agreements The Province is proposing the introduction of third-party ownership agreements under Ontario’s net metering framework. This would involve a company (third-party) owning and operating a renewable energy (RE) system and selling electricity to one or more customers under a power purchase agreement (or similar). The customer can receive bill credit for electricity delivered to the grid from the third-party owned RE system. A net metering system (virtual or otherwise) would be required to track excess electricity generated at the site. This proposal also introduces virtual net metering (VNM), which differs from conventional net metering in that generation is not necessarily sited on the same property as the load that it is intended to serve. Under a VMN arrangement, excess electricity is exported to the grid, and

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTM0MDMx&statusId=MjAzODk0&language=en

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTM0MDM0&statusId=MjAzODk3&language=en

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTM0MDMz&statusId=MjAzODk2&language=en

http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/portals/15/Documents/News%20Room/7463_0_Apr_12_2017_Agenda_version01.pdf#page=79

http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/portals/15/Documents/News%20Room/7463_3_Virtual%20Net%20Metering%20Presentation%20-%20041217.pdf



Page 4 of 6

credits accrued on the generator’s account (which are created ‘virtually’) can then be distributed to other customer accounts at different physical locations. These proposed changes to third-party agreements and VNM would remove the requirement that the building/property owner must also be the owner of a renewable generation located on their building/property. This approach provides for another mechanism to enter the renewable generation market, namely by enabling new users who may lack sufficient capital funds but have a strong interest in renewable generation. In our attached comments, the County notes support of any/all efforts to ensure that consumers are protected from potential dishonest conduct in which participating energy retailers or third party owners may become involved. It is also noted that the County supports initiatives that encourage the accessibility of renewable energy by all residents, regardless of their ability to directly invest in such facilities/operations, as residents can participate without the upfront capital cost of purchasing/installing an RE generation system themselves. Regulatory changes that introduce transparency and accountability for third-party operators, and protect the integrity of the net metering and virtual net metering programs, are fundamental to the success of the County’s future programs. The proposal also stipulated specific content to be contained within any agreement between the customer and the operator of a renewable generation facility. More specific comments were provided to the Province for particular components of the proposed Third-Party Ownership agreements, as follows:

The customer should be provided information on the capacity of the renewable generation facility (kW) in either AC or DC (or both), as applicable, in advance of installation;

The customer should be provided with estimates to potential cost savings, along with examples of similar customer reviews and a statement of ongoing tracking to ensure the customer can identify failed equipment (and any associated loss in cost savings that may result);

The customer should be provided with more clarity on the estimated cost of electricity purchased from the distribution system used (if any);

Ensuring the customer is well aware of any costs associated with operation and maintenance of the facility, and a clear identification of the ability for the operator to access the property during necessary repairs.

Additionally, the County had specific comments on the proposed provisions to permit electricity distributors to facilitate virtual net metering (VNM) demonstration projects. These include:

Providing clearer expectations for electricity distributors to enter into net metering agreements with a customer; and

Providing clarity on the licensing territory of more than one electricity distributor, if associated with a VNM demonstration project;

Siting of Renewable Energy Facilities A new regulation under the Electricity Act would serve to ensure renewable generation facilities are sited appropriately before connection to the distribution or transmission system would be permitted. The proposal focused on criteria for the siting of Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities and Wind Facilities.



Page 5 of 6

It was noted in the submission that, from Oxford County’s perspective, appropriate siting should occur whether or not the facilities are connected to a system, as our concerns with placement of such facilities are based on any potential impacts of these facilities that could apply regardless of connectivity. It was also expressed that municipalities should be provided additional context for how these siting restrictions would be expected to augment, match or override any existing environmental regulations that restrict/direct the siting of such facilities. The following are more specific comments on these proposed provisions:

For the siting of non-rooftop solar facilities, the County questions the need to comply with a 15 m (49.2 ft) property setback restriction for all cases. There may be certain circumstances (e.g. next to roadways, parking lots, etc.) where the potential negative impacts on adjacent lands would appear to be negligible.

The determination of what constitutes prime agricultural areas within a municipality should be based on written confirmation from a planner representing the local municipal authority.

Regarding the restriction on locating non-rooftop solar facilities in prime agricultural areas, there should be an ability for the municipality to provide exemptions to the general rule for circumstances where lands have little potential to be rehabilitated to workable agricultural land and solar facilities would not otherwise have a negative impact on agricultural land and operations.

The transition requirements for these siting restrictions should not apply to any facility where net-metering has already been approved.

Conclusions Conceptually, staff support the proposed actions presented in the three postings related to the various regulatory proposals, as they will serve to increase access, transparency and efficiency in the availability and delivery of renewable energy in the County by removing physical and financial barriers. Oxford County’s assessment of these postings are a reflection of our ongoing efforts to enhance renewable energy usage in County operations, through projects like our virtual net metering pilot program. Ultimately, however, our aim is to enable a greater customer sector group by removing barriers to enter the renewable energy market. Staff believe that with the continued support of the Province, we can better foster a more inclusive market environment for renewable energy production and distribution. A few minor concerns have been identified in the proposed changes and it is recommended that further consideration be undertaken by the Province in advance of adopting some of the changes outlined in these regulatory proposals, namely with respect to the siting criteria of certain types of renewable facilities within the prime agricultural area.



Page 6 of 6

County staff will continue to monitor the progress of the consultation exercise and will advise County Council of any relevant changes and/or opportunities for comment on matters that may be of particular interest or concern to the County or Area Municipalities.

SIGNATURES

Report Author: “Original Signed By” Amelia Sloan, RPP, MCIP Planner

Departmental Approval: “Original Signed By” Gordon K. Hough, RPP Director

Approved for submission:

“Original Signed By”

Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer

ATTACHMENT Attachment No. 1: EBR Response to Regulations respecting Renewable Generation

Facilities (dated January 18, 2018)

P. O. Box 1614, 21 Reeve Street Woodstock Ontario N4S 7Y3

Phone: 519-539-9800 Fax: 519-421-4712 Web site: http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/

Our File: L11 Provincial Consultation & EBR Postings

January 18, 2018

Ben Weir Senior Policy Adviser Ministry of Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy Division Conservation and Energy Efficiency Branch Renewable Energy Facilitation Office 77 Grenville Street Floor (FL) 5 Toronto Ontario M7A 2C1

Dear Mr. Weir,

Re: Proposed Regulatory Amendments with respect to Renewable Generation Facilities (EBR Postings 013-1916, 013-0915, and 013-1913)

This letter and the attached document comprise the County of Oxford’s comments with respect to the Ministry of Energy’s proposal for the above noted EBR postings with respect to Ontario’s Virtual Net Metering Framework and the appropriate siting of new Renewable Energy facilities.

Overall, the County is supportive of the efforts of the Province to support third-party ownership of net-metered renewable generation facilities and the flexibility for distributors to enable virtual demonstration projects, as well as implementing siting requirements for RE facilities. In fact, on March 1 2017, Oxford County presented a Virtual Net Metering demonstration project proposal to Ministry staff. We feel this consultation provides a good opportunity to voice minor concerns and/or comments with this proposal, as we have noted in the attachment.

In summary, our comments largely request additional clarification for the elements of the new Third Party Agreements in order to ensure transparency and accountability for all parties; more guidance on the relationship between the existing and proposed siting requirements; and, request a process for municipally supported facilities/projects that may fall in areas that are currently restricted under these draft regulations.

Attachment No. 1

Comments on Proposed Regulatory Amendments with respect to Renewable Generation Facilities Page 2 of 11

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the draft framework for these regulatory amendments. Please note that the attached comments are provided from the perspective of County staff and we welcome the opportunity to discuss any questions or concerns you may have with this correspondence. Questions should be directed to Amelia Sloan at [email protected] or 519-539-0015 x3205.

Yours Truly,

Gordon Hough

AS/as Director of Community Planning

mailto:[email protected]


EBR 013-1915: Proposed Amendment of Ontario Regulation 389/10: (General), to be made under the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010

Ensuring Appropriate Consumer Protections In accordance with commitments made in the Province’s 2017 Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP), the Ministry of Energy is proposing to amend O. Reg. 389/10 (General) to be made under Ontario’s Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 to support the introduction of third-party ownership arrangements under Ontario’s net metering framework. The Ministry of Energy is proposing to adapt and enhance the existing consumer protection framework to cover a new type of energy retailer activity related to Third Party Owners (TPO) participating in net metering. The proposed amendments would address matters arising out of TPO retailers and customers entering into electricity retail agreements for electricity generated from renewable energy generation facilities located behind a customer’s meter. The proposed amendments address only the part of the arrangement that relates to the sale of electricity by the TPO retailer to the customer.

Regulatory Requirements

With some exceptions, most of the existing provisions of the energy consumer protection legislation and regulation are suited to the activities of TPO retailers who would be generating electricity from renewable energy generation facilities located behind the meter of a customer and selling that electricity to the customer. This includes the existing, stringent disclosure requirements that apply to contracts between electricity retailers and customers for the sale of electricity. To ensure consumer protection measures are adapted to the TPO retailer activity, the following revised requirements are proposed: 1. Disclosure The retailer would be required to disclose where there are any other associated contracts, and whether cancellation of the retail agreement could trigger cancellation or termination penalties in the other contracts. Any such penalties would also be required to be disclosed. 2. Unfair Practices Failure to clearly disclose to a customer (i) if there are any contracts involving generation equipment associated with a retailing agreement and (ii) if those associated contracts have cancellation or termination penalties would be an unfair practice. 3. Cancellation Cancellation in the event of a customer moving would continue to be permitted. However, any potential penalties or fees in any associated agreement that could be triggered by the cancellation of the retailing agreement would be required to be clearly disclosed to the customer.


4. Return of Equipment Under certain circumstances, a customer who cancels a retailing agreement would not be entitled to retain any associated equipment. Stipulations of any cost associated with returning this equipment (dismantling, recovery etc.) would be required to be disclosed to the customer.

Other Proposed Regulatory Changes

The Ministry is also considering including in a separate regulatory proposal, the use of contractual provisions, additional requirements of connection agreements and additional disclosure requirements that must be complied with by TPOs, generators and others engaged in the new net metering arrangements being contemplated. Stakeholders are advised to review the associated regulatory proposal posting for amendments to O. Reg. 541/05: Net Metering, listed in the Additional Information section of this posting.

Oxford County Comments:

We agree every effort should be made to ensure the consumer is protected from potentially unscrupulous conduct by participating energy retailers or Third Party Owners. Net Metering and Virtual Net Metering offer the promise of greater access to sources of renewable energy across all demographic and income profiles. Renewable energy should be accessible by everyone regardless of the ability to directly invest.

Protecting the integrity of the program itself is also paramount. In the event that Regulation 389/10 fails to protect the consumer, the net metering and virtual net metering program will likewise be adversely affected.

In the event that a single consumer is adversely affected as a result of effective regulation, other consumers may be indirectly impacted as a result of stigma and or negative press resulting from a failed retailer/TPO/consumer relationship.

EBR 013-1913: Proposed Amendment of Ontario Regulation 541/05: Net Metering, or a new Regulation (To Be Determined), to be made under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998

Note: Oxford County comments are made throughout in italics

Enabling Third-Party Ownership of Net-Metered Generation Facilities and Virtual Net Metering Demonstration Projects In accordance with commitments made in the Province’s 2017 Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP), ENERGY is proposing to amend Ontario’s Net Metering Regulation (O. Reg. 541/05) or to provide for a new Regulation, if approved, contingent on the passage of certain legislative amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, to: • Enable third-party ownership of net-metered renewable generation facilities; and


• Provide flexibility for distributors to enable virtual net metering demonstration projects through participation in a targeted Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) administered program.

Third Party Ownership (TPO) Ontario’s existing net metering regulation centres on an eligible generator who must also be the customer. This requirement means the customer must own or operate the renewable generation facility in order to be eligible to net meter.

The Ministry of Energy is proposing to amend the net metering regulation to allow other entities to own and operate the renewable generation facility in the following manner:

a. Eligible customers could request to be billed on a net-metered basis by their distributor. An eligible customer would no longer be required to be an eligible generator. The intent would be to permit other parties (other than the customer) to own and operate the renewable generation facility, if desired by the customer.

b. A customer could enter into an agreement with a generator to purchase electricity generated from a renewable energy source. This arrangement would allow surplus electricity that is not consumed by the customer to be conveyed into the distributor’s distribution system, and the customer would receive a credit on their bill for the value of the electricity conveyed into the distribution system.

c. The renewable generation facility, owned or operated by a third party generator, would be required to be located behind the customer’s meter (i.e. electricity is conveyed directly from the point of generation to another point for the eligible customer’s consumption without relying on the distributor’s distribution system to convey electricity).

d. The customer would confirm whether an agreement between the customer and a third party generator exists for the sale/financing/leasing and installation of the generation facility.

e. If an agreement between the customer and a third party generator for the sale/financing/leasing and installation of the generation facility exists, the customer would acknowledge that the following information has been disclosed to them:

i. Name and contact information of the owner of the renewable generation facility;

ii. Type of agreement between customer and the owner of the renewable generation facility (PPA, lease, financing etc.), if any;

iii. Capacity of the renewable generation facility (kW);

We believe that AC or DC capacity, or both, should be included (or at least identified).

iv. Estimated energy output of the renewable generation facility (kWh);


v. Treatment of excess generation beyond the customer’s annual consumption, if any;

vi. All ongoing customer payments associated with the agreement including but not limited to: payments for electricity, lease payments, or loan payments;

vii. Estimated savings realized by the customer, if any;

We think this section should include an example for customer review, along with a statement suggesting ongoing tracking/monitoring by the customer to allow for identification of failed equipment or other events that could lead to less than expected savings.

viii. Estimated cost of electricity purchased from the distribution system utilized, if any;

It is our suggestion that this section be better defined. For instance, by “cost of electricity”, does this refer to TOU or Tiered pricing structure, or some other form of cost structure?

ix. Any costs for which the customer will be responsible, including but not limited to: Ongoing operation and maintenance costs, connection costs, if any;

We believe these costs must be transparent and not part of ‘fine print’. A billing/payment example that highlights all charges and credits should be provided to the customer as a point of reference.

We also believe agreements should clearly identify the process for property access during any on-site repairs or regular maintenance necessary to ensure operation (e.g. advanced notice requirements, circumstances when access can be refused, etc.).

x. Warranty provisions for the renewable generation facility, if any;

xi. Termination provisions and associated penalties, if any;

xii. Transfer/assignment provisions, if any;

xiii. If the third-party generator could put a lien on the customer’s property and under what circumstances, if any; and

xiv. Term of the agreement.

f. All other requirements prescribed in the existing net metering regulation (O. Reg. 541/05) would continue to apply (i.e. length of credit rollover period, eligibility to use energy storage etc.).

Virtual Net Metering (VNM) Demonstration Projects In a VNM arrangement, customers are billed on a net-metered basis for eligible electricity generated from a generation facility that is not connected directly to the customers’ load (i.e., not located behind the customer’s meter). The generation facility may be located behind a ‘host’


load customer meter, or directly connected to a distribution system. Credits accrued from electricity conveyed to the distribution system from the generation facility are applied to associated customer accounts to reduce their electricity bills. The Ministry of Energy is proposing provisions that will permit electricity distributors to facilitate VNM demonstration projects in the following manner: a. Electricity distributors would be permitted to enter into net metering agreements with customers to implement VNM demonstration projects, if the project is participating in a prescribed program administered by the IESO and in accordance with criteria set out in that program.

We think this section should provide clear expectations for electricity distributors. By suggesting they are ‘permitted’ implies they are not ‘required’ to participate in customer VNM requests. Are electricity distributors required to participate in customer VNM demonstration projects?

b. A generation facility utilized for a VNM demonstration project would be required to be a renewable generation facility.

Please clarify if this is meant to imply that the facility must be a renewable generation facility at the time of application.

c. A VNM renewable generation facility would be required to be connected to a distributor’s distribution system at a voltage not to exceed 50 kV, and could not be connected to the transmission system. d. Subject to the discretion of any involved distributors, customers associated with a VNM demonstration project may be located in a distributor’s distribution system other than the distribution system in which the generation facility is located.

The County would appreciate clarity as to whether this implies that VNM that spans the licensed territory of more than one electricity distributor can only occur if all affected electricity distributors agree to participate. Also, whether or not this discretion understood to be a on a case-by-case basis.

e. Distributors implementing VNM demonstration projects would be required to value credits for any electricity conveyed by the generator into a distribution system based on similar principles (affecting only volumetric charges) as currently specified in the existing net metering regulation.

Other Matters The Ministry is further considering how unit sub-meter providers could be involved in the TPO net metering activities being contemplated and in VNM demonstration projects. The Ministry is also considering the same issue for consumers in bulk-metered buildings where the units are individually metered by a licensed distributor rather than a unit sub-meter provider. Unit sub-meter providers are entities, licensed by the Ontario Energy Board, (OEB) and subject to OEB Code, and could include a distributor that works with or for the management of a multi-unit residential complex, such as an apartment or condominium, to provide invoice and other related


activities (“billing”) to consumers in bulk-metered buildings. The Ministry invites comment on these matters as well as any other matters relevant to TPO net metering and VNM.

EBR 013-1916: Proposed New Regulation to be made under the Electricity Act, 1998

Note: Oxford County comments are made throughout in italics

Ensuring Appropriate Siting of Renewable Generation Facilities The Ministry of Energy is proposing a new regulation to be made under the Electricity Act, 1998, to ensure that prescribed types of renewable energy generation facilities are sited appropriately. The proposed regulation, to be made under the Electricity Act, 1998 (EA) would specify siting restrictions for Non-Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Facilities and Wind Facilities. A facility that is captured by these regulatory restrictions would not be permitted to be connected to the distribution system or the transmission system.

Oxford County’s comments are based on the assumption that any ground-mount system (whether connected to the transmission/distribution systems or not) would be required to comply with these siting restrictions, as we would assume that, from a municipal perspective, our concerns would apply to both types of facilities (connected or not). We would appreciate clarity as to whether this is the intent of this regulatory change. It would be in the best interest of the County to minimize unnecessary additional siting criteria for those facilities that do not connect to a transmission/distribution system.

A Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facility is a renewable energy generation facility located anywhere other than on the roof or wall of a building at which one or more solar photovoltaic collector panels or devices use light to generate electricity. A Wind Facility is a renewable energy generation facility at which wind is used to generate electricity through the use of one or more wind turbines. The proposed regulation is intended to complement siting restrictions under existing environmental regulation, which would remain in force.

Oxford County’s comments are based on the assumption that the siting restrictions currently in force are those available through the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) and the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) process. If the proposal is intended to complement any additional siting restrictions, additional clarity should be provided to municipalities. To help assess this additional criteria, it would be helpful to have a summary of the existing restrictions to provide the needed context for an appropriate analysis. It is suggested that when further communication is released on this matter, the Province more specifically identifies how these siting restrictions will augment, match, or override the existing environmental regulations, as applicable, and ensure that Wind Facilities and Solar PV Facilities are separately identified for clarity.


Regulatory Requirements

1. Under the proposed regulation, the following types of renewable energy generation facilities would not be permitted to be connected to the distribution system or the transmission system. a. Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities proposed to be sited less than 15 metres from the facility property boundaries.

The County requests that clarity be provided as to whether this statement simply suggests that a non-rooftop solar PV system must be 15m or more from the property boundary to be considered for connection to the electricity distribution system. It is unclear how this differs from the current restrictions for non-rooftop solar PV facilities and, as stated above, could be presented in the context of the existing siting criteria. See our overall comments on this section.

b. Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities and Wind Facilities proposed to be connected to a residential dwelling.

We would like to request clarity as to whether this statement suggests that a non-rooftop solar PV system can be connected to the electricity distribution system so long as it does not connect to a residential dwelling. It is suggested that Section 1 a. and 1 b. be better defined/clarified in this regard.

c. Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities over 10 kW proposed to be located on properties within prime agricultural areas, as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement and designated in an official plan.

It is generally good practice to not locate non-rooftop solar PV facilities in prime agricultural areas; however, many prime agricultural areas in Ontario include sites and areas of non-workable land (e.g. closed landfills, older, poorly rehabilitated pits/quarries, and existing non-agricultural zoned and developed lands). Oxford County recommends a means or process for municipalities to consider allowing for site specific exceptions to the prime agricultural area restriction in specific circumstances, such as those noted above. See our overall comments on this section.

d. Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities over 10 kW proposed to be located on a property that is not captured by an official plan for which the prime agricultural area designation process has been completed.

As stated, avoidance of prime agricultural areas for these types of facilities would be a preferred approach. However, the County recognizes that there may be areas within these designated areas that may still be determined to be appropriate for renewable energy facilities (e.g. would not remove any agricultural land from production and would not otherwise have a negative impact on agricultural land or operations). See our overall comments on this section.

2. Generators would be required to provide confirmation to the distributor or transmitter, signed by a relevant professional (e.g. a surveyor licenced by the Association of Ontario Land


Surveyors), that the renewable energy generation facility meets the property boundary setback requirements (1a, above). 3. Generators would be required to provide confirmation to the distributor or transmitter, signed by a relevant professional (e.g. a member in good standing of the Canadian Institute of Planners who is a registered professional planner in Ontario), as evidence that a renewable energy generation facility meets the prime agricultural area siting requirements (1c and 1d, above).

Oxford County recommends that written confirmation of whether the lands are located in a prime agricultural area be provided by a planner representing the local municipal authority responsible for the Official Plan and associated prime agricultural area designation. Local planning authorities have the most detailed understanding of the local policy context, including the designation of prime agricultural areas. This is particularly important, if the ability to consider exceptions to the prime agricultural area locational restrictions is to be provided for, as previously suggested.

As such, there should be appropriate and meaningful consultation with the planning authority responsible for implementing the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the regional and/or local official plans, which are discussed in 1c and 1d above.

4. In recognition of the authority of band councils elected under the Indian Act (Canada) to make decisions regarding land use on reserves, it is the policy of the Ministry of Energy to defer to band councils in relation to the use of reserve land for power generation purposes. As a result, the proposed siting restrictions for renewable energy generation facilities would not apply to reserve land.

Oxford County Comments:

Although the County is generally in support of restricting the siting of Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities based on the above criteria, it is suggested that the municipality should have the discretion to approve the siting of renewable energy generation facilities permitted to be connected to the distribution or transmission systems only in very specific circumstances that may fall outside the general restrictions provided here.

It is recognized that a 15m buffer from the property boundary is in place to mitigate potential noise/visual impacts, although the County questions the need to comply with the setback restriction for non-rooftop solar facilities in certain circumstances, for instance, next to roadways, parking lots and other County-owned lands, where the potential negative impacts on adjacent lands would seem to be negligible.

Further, there may be areas within the prime agricultural area designation that have limited potential to be rehabilitated back to workable agricultural land and where solar would not otherwise have a negative impact on agricultural land and operations. There may be opportunities for the municipality to consider approving site specific exemptions (perhaps with OMAFRA’s input/approval) under certain circumstances that would meet local and provincial goals and objectives.

For instance, smaller Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities could potentially be permitted on existing non-agriculturally zoned and developed properties with limited potential to return to agriculture, or an a farm where they would:


Be provided based on an analysis of a need to ensure electricity generation facilities are provided in a “co-ordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner that considers impacts from climate change where accommodating projected needs”;

Not result in the loss of agricultural land or hinder surrounding agricultural lands or operations;

Be limited in size and located within the main farm building cluster; and

Comply with any other siting criteria the municipality or Province may deem to be appropriate.

Transition Requirements 5. The proposed siting restrictions would not apply to: a. Any Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facility or Wind Facility that has been constructed as of the in-force date of this regulation; and b. Any Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facility or Wind Facility that has received a microFIT, FIT, or Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) Contract (whether or not that facility has been constructed as of the in-force date of this regulation).

Oxford County staff note that point b. should also include any facility where net-metering is already in place and approved by the Local Distribution Company (LDC).



Page 1 of 3


From: Director, Community Planning

Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision SB 17-03-8 – Thames Developments Incorporated RECOMMENDATION 1. That Oxford County Council grant draft approval to a proposed subdivision submitted

by Thames Developments Incorporated (File No. SB 17-03-8); prepared by Paul Edward, OLS; dated November 13, 2017, for lands legally described as Part of Lot 5, Concession 13 (East Zorra), City of Woodstock, subject to the conditions attached as Schedule “A” to this Report being met prior to final approval.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS The purpose of this report is to consider draft plan approval by Council for a plan of

subdivision within the City of Woodstock. Implementation Points This application will be implemented in accordance with the relevant objectives, strategic initiatives and policies contained in the Official Plan. Financial Impact The approval of this application will have no financial impact beyond what has been approved in the current year’s budget. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.

Report No.: 2018-27 COMMUNITY PLANNING

Council Date: February 14, 2018

Page 2 of 3

Risks/Implications There are no risks or other implications anticipated as a result of this application beyond those that can reasonably be expected for any such proposal with respect to potential appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. Strategic Plan (2015-2018) County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan (2015-2018) at its regular meeting held May 27, 2015. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions: 3. ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future – Implement development

policies, land uses and community planning guidelines that:

- Strategically grow our economy and our community - Actively promote the responsible use of land and natural resources by focusing on higher

density options before considering settlement boundary expansions - Provides a policy framework which supports community sustainability, health and well-

being - Supports healthy communities within the built environment - Supports and protects a vibrant and diversified agricultural industry

DISCUSSION Background At the January 10, 2018 meeting of County Council, a public meeting was held pursuant to Section 51(20) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, to consider an application for draft approval of a plan of subdivision. No concerns were raised at the public meeting. Comments City of Woodstock Council, at their meeting of December 14, 2017 passed a resolution recommending the draft plan approval be given by the County. County Council is now in a position to give draft plan approval to subdivision File No. SB 17-03-8.

Report No.: 2018-27 COMMUNITY PLANNING

Council Date: February 14, 2018

Page 3 of 3

Conclusion It is the opinion of the Community Planning Office that draft approval of plan of subdivision, SB 17-03-8, is appropriate from a planning perspective, subject to the imposition of the draft plan conditions attached as Schedule “A”.

SIGNATURES “Original Signed By” Gordon K. Hough, RPP Director Approved for submission: “Original Signed By”

Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer

ATTACHMENTS Attachment No. 1: Conditions of Draft Approval (SB17-03-8)

Schedule “A”

To Report No. CP 2018-27

CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPOVAL – SB17-03-8 – Thames Developments Incorporated

1. This approval applies to the draft plan of subdivision submitted by Thames DevelopmentsInc. (SB 17-03-8) and prepared by Paul Edward, OLS dated November 13, 2017, asshown on Plate 3 of Report No. 2018-01 and comprising Part of Lot 5, Concession 13 inthe former Township of East Zorra, now in the City of Woodstock, showing 244 singledetached lots, 99 townhouse lots, a neighbourhood commercial block, woodlot block, parkblock, stormwater management block and local streets.

2. The owner agrees in writing to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Cityof Woodstock regarding the construction of roads, installation of services, including water,sewer and electrical distribution systems, sidewalks, streetlights, and drainage facilities,and other matters pertaining to the development of the subdivision in accordance with thestandards of the City of Woodstock.

3. The road allowances included in the draft plan of subdivision shall be dedicated as publichighways to the satisfaction of the City of Woodstock.

4. The owner agrees in writing that turning circles will be provided as necessary to thesatisfaction of the City of Woodstock.

5. The streets included in the draft plan of subdivision shall be named to the satisfaction ofthe City of Woodstock.

6. The owner agrees that 0.3 metre (1 foot) reserves shall be conveyed to the City asrequired, free of all costs and encumbrances, to the satisfaction of the City.

7. The owner agrees to implement the recommendations contained in the PreliminaryEnvironmental Noise Assessment by MTE, dated March 22, 2017 as amended for noisegenerated from Oxford Road 17 and the CPR line. The owner further agrees to have aqualified acoustical consultant prepare a Final Environmental Noise Assessment oncefinished grades and house locations have been established to the satisfaction of the City,CP Rail and the County. Details to be included in subdivision agreements.

8. The subdivision agreement shall contain provisions indicating that prior to grading andissuance of building permits, that a storm water management report, grading plan and anerosion and siltation control plan be reviewed and approved by the City of Woodstock andthe Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and further, the subdivision agreementshall include provisions for the owner to carry out or cause to be carried out any necessaryworks in accordance with the approved plans and reports.

9. The owner agrees in writing that fencing shall be installed adjacent to the City-ownedlands, UTRCA lands, or as otherwise required by the City to the satisfaction of the Cityand UTRCA.

Attachment No. 1

10. The subdivision agreement shall, if required by the City, make provision for the dedication of parkland or cash-in lieu thereof in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning Act.

11. Such easements as may be required for utility or drainage purposes outside of the

proposed public right-of-ways shall be granted to the appropriate authority. 12. Prior to the signing of the final plans by the County, all lots/blocks shall conform to the

zoning requirements of the City’s Zoning By-law. Certification of lot areas, frontages, and depths shall be provided to the City by an Ontario Land Surveyor retained by the owner.

13. Prior to the signing of the final plan by the County, the owner shall agree in writing that all

phasing of the plan of subdivision will be to the satisfaction of the City. 14. The owner agrees to provide the City with cash-in lieu of sidewalk to be installed in the

future along the Oxford Road 17 frontage of the subject lands. 15. The owner agrees to provide the City with cash-in lieu of streetlights to be installed in the

future along the Oxford Road 17 frontage of the subject lands. 16. The owner agrees to implement the recommendations contained in the North Woodstock

Phase 4 Transportation Impact Study prepared by Paradigm, dated May 2017, as amended.

17. The owner agrees to implement the recommendations contained in the North Woodstock

Phase 4 Environmental Impact Study Addendum prepared by Natural Resources Solutions Inc., dated May 2017, including the preparation of an updated Environmental Impact Study when stormwater management and grading designs are finalized to describe specific impacts and mitigation measures in areas where natural features are present.

18. The owner agrees to implement the recommendations contained in the Thames

Development Subdivision Phase 4 Functional Servicing Report by SCS Consulting, dated April 2017, as amended.

19. The owner agrees to construct the stormwater management pond and upon completion,

shall deed the land, Block 309, to the City, free of all encumbrances and at no cost to the City.

20. The owner agrees in writing that all foundations of existing buildings will be removed from

the lands to the satisfaction of the City and that necessary fill will be placed and compacted to the satisfaction of the City.

21. The City agrees to reimburse the owner for the 1.5 m extra road width on Upper Thames

Drive, Thompson Street and Street T. 22. The owner agrees in writing that where any staging within Phase 4 involves the

construction of more than 26 residential units on a single access (i.e. cul-de-sac or development of a street that is intended to be extended in the future but does not have connection to another point of access), a temporary emergency access shall be provided to serve the lands to the satisfaction of the City.

23. Park Block 266 shall be dedicated to as public parkland to the City, to the satisfaction of the City of Woodstock. Any grade changes to the parkland will be discussed with the City prior to any works and the park will not be used to store construction supplies, gravel, subgrade or topsoil.

24. The owner agrees in writing that the stormwater management pond will be designed by a

Landscape Architect in good standing with the AOLA. All designs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Woodstock.

25. Woodlot Block 265 shall be protected and dedicated to the City, to the satisfaction of the

City of Woodstock. 26. The owner shall agree in writing that tree compensation shall be undertaken to the

satisfaction of the City of Woodstock related to the removal of trees from lands subject to the OPA 195 and that a tree report be prepared by a qualified arborist to determine quantity and species of the trees required for compensation. This provisions shall also include details regarding the removal and replanting of Butternut trees.

27. Block 270 will be conveyed to the County of Oxford, free of all costs and encumbrances,

for the location of the existing Odour Control Facility and future Booster Pumping Station. 28. Phase 4 development will be located within the new boosted Zone 5 (Figure 4.1 – Pressure

Zones City of Woodstock Water Distribution Master Plan). Prior to the issuance of building permits, construction and commissioning of the new Booster Pumping Station is required.

29. The owner agrees in writing that a 0.3 m (1 ft) reserve along the Oxford Road 17 frontage

of the subject lands will be conveyed to the County of Oxford, free of all costs and encumbrances, to the satisfaction of the Oxford County Public Works Department.

30. The owner shall prepare and submit for the approval of Oxford County Public Works,

detailed servicing plans designed in accordance with the Oxford County Design Guidelines.

31. The subdivision agreement shall make provision for the assumption and operation by the

County of Oxford of the water and sewage system within the draft plan subject to the approval of the County of Oxford Public Works Department.

32. Prior to the final approval of the subdivision plan, the Owner shall receive confirmation

from the County of Oxford Public Works Department that there is sufficient capacity in the Woodstock water and sanitary sewer systems to service the plan of subdivision.

33. The owner agrees in writing to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise,

including payment of applicable development charges, of the County of Oxford regarding the installation of the water distribution system, the installation of the sanitary sewer system, and other matters pertaining to the development of the subdivision.

34. The owner agrees in writing that all existing wells on the subject lands will be properly

abandoned in accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 and that septic fields will be abandoned to the satisfaction of the County Public Health & Emergency Services Department and the necessary paperwork will be submitted to the City for review.

35. The owner shall agree in writing, with wording to the satisfaction of the County of Oxford Public Works Department, in all offers of purchase and sale for the lots abutting the Odour Control Facility (OCF) prospective purchasers be advised that odour and other emissions from the nearby OCF may, from time to time, interfere with residential activities.

36. The owner shall be required to construct a 15 m (49.2 ft) westbound left turn lane at the

intersection of Oxford Road 17 and future Street T at the time the Street T access is built. The design shall be completed by a Licensed Professional Engineer and subject to review and approval of the County of Oxford Public Works Department.

37. The owner shall provide a Hydrogeological study to the satisfaction of the UTRCA. 38. The subdivision agreement shall contain provisions indicating that the owner shall prepare

a Homeowner’s Information Package regarding the natural heritage features in the area to be reviewed and approved by the City of Woodstock in consultation with the UTRCA and will be distributed to landowners living adjacent to the woodland features.

39. Prior to the signing of the final plan by the County of Oxford, the owner shall submit an

archaeological assessment of the subject property and mitigate, through preservation or resources removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. No grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the issuance of a clearance letter by the Ministry of Culture confirming that all archaeological resource concerns have met licensing and resource conservation requirements.

40. Prior to the signing of the final plan by the County of Oxford, the owner shall agree in

writing to satisfy the requirements of Canada Post Corporation with respect to advising prospective purchasers of the method of mail delivery; the location of temporary Centralized Mail Box locations during construction; and the provision of public information regarding the proposed locations of permanent Centralized Mail Box locations.

41. Prior to the signing of the final plan, the County of Oxford shall be advised by the City of

Woodstock that Conditions 2 to 26 (inclusive), have been met to the satisfaction of the City. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for each condition detailing how each has been satisfied.

42. Prior to the signing of the final plan, the County of Oxford shall be advised by the County

of Oxford Department of Public Works that Conditions 7, 16, 18, 27 to 33, 35, 36 (inclusive) have been met to the satisfaction of the County. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for each condition detailing how each has been satisfied.

43. Prior to the signing of the final plan, the County of Oxford shall be advised by CP Rail that

Condition 7 has been met to the satisfaction of CP Rail. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for this condition detailing how it has been satisfied.

44. Prior to the signing of the final plan, the County of Oxford shall be advised by the Upper

Thames River Conservation Authority that Conditions 8, 9, 17, 37 (inclusive) have been met to the satisfaction of the Authority. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for this condition detailing how it has been satisfied.

45. Prior to the signing of the final plan, the County of Oxford shall be advised by the County of Oxford Public Health and Emergency Services Department that Condition 34 has been met to the satisfaction of the County. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for this condition detailing how it has been satisfied.

46. Prior to the signing of the final plan, the County of Oxford shall be advised by the Ministry

of Culture that Condition 39 has been met to the satisfaction of the Ministry. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for this condition detailing how it has been satisfied.

47. Prior to the signing of the final plan, the County of Oxford shall be advised by Canada Post

Corporation that Condition 40 has been met to the satisfaction of Canada Post. 48. This plan of subdivision shall be registered by January 10, 2021 after which time this draft

approval shall lapse unless an extension is authorized by the County of Oxford.

Report No: CS 2018-04

CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: February 14, 2018


From: Director of Corporate Services

Investment Activity Report and Policy Review - 2017 RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report No. CS 2018-04 entitled “Investment Activity Report and Policy

Review - 2017”, for the year ended December 31, 2017, be received as information. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Investment deposits and cash balances at December 31, 2017 - $182,769,036

Investment income earned in 2017 - $2,716,086

New Prudent Investor Rules for municipalities

Financial Impact Interest income for 2017 exceeded the 2017 budget estimate by $414,867

The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information. Risks/Implications There are no risks or implications that will result by adopting the recommendation contained within this report. Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan (2015-2018) at its regular meeting held May 27, 2015. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions: 4. ii. A County that Informs and Engages - Inform the public about County programs, services and

activities through planned communication that includes:

- A County Report Card that engages and informs our community and celebrates our successes and our history

Page 1 of 6



DISCUSSION Background The Oxford County Investment Policy governs the investment activities of the County in accordance with section 418 of the Municipal Act, 2001, and Ontario Regulation 438/97 as amended. The Policy states the following:

“The Treasurer will maintain an investment record and annually prepare a report for Council, outlining the investments held in each fund. The report will outline the issuer, type of instrument, par value, maturity date, the purchase price and yield of each investment. The investment report will conform to the requirements as set out in O.Reg. 438/97 of the Municipal Act, 2001.”

Further, the Policy suggests a regular review will be undertaken at the time the Treasurer prepares the annual investment report for Council. The Policy was last reviewed and updated by Council on November 25, 2015. Comments Investment Policy – Qualitative and Quantitative Restrictions The County’s Investment Policy sets out the following parameters in regard to qualitative and quantitative restrictions:

a) Maximum effective term to maturity for any security will be 10.5 years. b) The use of derivative instruments is not permitted. c) Maximum aggregate exposure to any single non-government issuer is limited to 10% of

the market value of the portfolio. d) The portfolio shall only invest in a security that carries a minimum credit rating as defined

below by any one of DBRS, Fitch, Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s. Security DBRS Fitch Moody’s S&P Treasury Bills and other securities issued or guaranteed by the federal government, provinces or municipalities of Canada including their agencies and crown corporations

No minimum rating

Bonds, debentures, promissory notes or other evidence of indebtedness issued or guaranteed by a bank listed in Schedule I, II or III to the Bank Act (Canada), a loan corporation or trust corporation registered under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act or a credit union or league to which the Credit Unions and Caisse Populaires Act 1994 or the Financial Institutions Act of British Columbia applies and is listed under the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation (CUDIC) secured by unlimited deposit insurance protection.

AA(low) AA- Aa3 AA-

Page 2 of 6



Investment Policy – Approved Investments In keeping with the Investment Policy objectives to preserve capital and minimize credit risk, the Policy limits the investment instruments to the following:

a) Treasury Bills and other securities issued or guaranteed by the federal government, provinces or municipalities of Canada including their agencies and crown corporations.

b) Bonds, debentures, promissory notes or other evidence of indebtedness issued or

guaranteed by a bank listed in Schedule I, II, or III of the Bank Act (Canada), a loan corporation or trust corporation registered under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act or a credit union or league to which the Credit Unions and Caisse Populaires Act 1994 or the Financial Institutions Act of British Columbia applies and is listed under the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation (CUDIC) secured by unlimited deposit insurance protection.

Investment returns Attachment No. 1 provides a snapshot of the cash and investments held by the County at December 31, 2017 along with comparative summary data for the years 2014 through to 2016. Total net investment income earned in 2017 was $2,716,086 as compared to $2,461,689 in 2016. Attachment No. 2 is the Details of Holdings on December 31, 2017 report prepared by Scotia Wealth Management that provides a detailed listing of the investments held in the managed portfolio. The initial deposit of $10,000,000 made in September 2004 was augmented with an additional $2,500,000 deposit in February 2005 and a further $1,500,000 in February, 2007 after receiving favourable year end reports. Late in 2010, approximately $7.7M was reverted to cash from the Scotia Wealth Management investment account. Early 2016, an additional $10,000,000 from general funds were invested the investment account. The market value of the investment portfolio on December 31, 2017 of $22,160,000 is the result of a $6,735,239 return since inception. For the 12 months ended December 31, 2017, the net investment income realized in the portfolio was 2.5%. Attachment No. 3 is the Statement of Holdings on December 31, 2017 report prepared by RBC Dominion Securities Inc. that provides a detailed listing of the investments held in the managed portfolio. The initial deposit of $5,000,000 was made in January 2017. The market value of the investment portfolio on December 31, 2017 of $5,099,133. For the 12 months ended December 31, 2017, the net investment income realized in the portfolio was 0.3%.

Page 3 of 6

aferrell

Underline

aferrell

Underline

aferrell

Underline



Investment Policy Review In 2017, Bill 68, the Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, passed which amends several Acts including the Municipal Act, Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, Municipal Elections Act, Development Charges Act and the Planning Act - some amendments are pending proclamation. One such change to the Municipal Act, pending a proclamation date, adds section 418.1 to the Act and amends all investment related Regulations under the Act. The new provisions are referred to as “Prudent Investor Rules”. The new provisions allow a municipality that meets certain requirements to invest money without any security in accordance with the section and the regulations, but must exercise the care, skill, diligence and judgment that a prudent investor would exercise in making such an investment. In addition to existing rules that remain in effect, municipalities now have the discretion to invest using the new prudent investor standard which includes:

eligibility criteria; governance framework; and investment approaches for more than one municipality investing together as a group.

The eligibility criteria allows an individual municipality or a municipality together with one or more other municipalities having a minimum investment balance of $100 million to employ the new rules. Also eligible are individual municipalities having a net financial assets balance of more than $50 million. Based on the criteria, the County is eligible considering its 2016 net financial assets balance was $87 million. For municipalities that wish to employ the new Prudent Investor Rules, they are required to establish an investment board (services board) and delegate to it control and management of the municipality’s investments who will control the day-to-day investing activity. The investment board cannot contain members of council or municipal staff, with the exception of the municipal treasurer. Council’s role would be limited to developing an investment policy outlining the municipality’s objectives for return on investment, risk tolerance, liquidity needs and other considerations and the investment board would then be required to adopt and maintain an investment plan that would outline how investments would be carried out; and prepare an annual report, including a statement by the treasurer that investments were consistent with council’s investment policy.

Included in the investment related changes to the Municipal Act are changes to existing rules, set out as follows:

no longer required to sell certain rated investments within 180 days if the investments are downgraded, if the municipality first creates a workout plan;

able to purchase and hold US dollars for purchasing goods and services from US vendors;

enter investment agreements with an expanded range of persons including: AMO, MFOA, LAS and CHUMS Financing Corporation;

lower the required credit ratings threshold for municipalities to invest in certain investment instruments issued by a Canadian bank, a loan corporation or a credit union for a term of

Page 4 of 6



two years from AA- or above to A- or above or an equivalent rating issued by certain rating agencies; and

investing in certain securities issued by a credit union for a period of more than two years subject to certain requirements.

Conclusions In spite of low interest rates prevailing in 2017, the County’s investment portfolio faired reasonably well due to its diversification and updated Investment Policy. Cash balances generated a 1.1% return, Scotia Wealth Management investment account realized an average return of 2.5%, RBC Dominion Securities investment account realized at 0.3% return, GIC Investments realized a 2.5% return and the municipal investments earned an average return of 3.7% in 2017.

It is the opinion of the County Treasurer that all investments presently held by the County are consistent with the Investment Policy statement adopted by the County and that none of the investments have fallen below the standard required for each respective investment during the period covered by this report. As for the new investment provisions to be proclaimed in the Municipal Act, the option for the County to exercise the new prudent investment rules independently would require the establishment of an investment board. Considering the value of the County’s investment balance and the costs of maintaining the required governance structure, it is staff’s opinion that it would not yield significantly more revenue than the County’s current investment policy and procedures. Nonetheless, changes to existing rules could assist in increasing investment revenues without the added complexity and costs of an investment board.

On that basis, there are no amendments to the Investment Policy Statement recommended at this time. However, in the event that anticipated regulatory amendments would necessitate amendments to the County’s Investment Policy Statement, it will be brought back to Council for consideration. SIGNATURES Report Author: Original signed by Carolyn King, CPA, CA Manager of Finance

Page 5 of 6



Departmental Approval: Original signed by

Lynn S. Buchner, CPA, CGA Director of Corporate Services Approved for submission: Original signed by

Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENTS Attachment No. 1 – County of Oxford Investment Activity Report 2017 Attachment No. 2 – Scotia Wealth Management Details of Holdings on December 31, 2017 Attachment No. 3 – RBC Dominion Securities Inc. Statement of Holdings on December 31, 2017

Page 6 of 6

aferrell

Underline

aferrell

Underline

aferrell

Underline

COUNTY OF OXFORDInvestment Activity Report - 2017

General Revenue

Reserve Fund & Other Funds Total

% of Portfolio Issuer

Maturity Date Average Yield

Net Investment

Income % of IncomeCashChartered Banks

Development Charges 16,406,893 ScotiabankReserve Funds 3,117,421 ScotiabankGeneral 50,770,132 21,766 ScotiabankNotice Investment Account 50,000,000 ScotiabankProvincial Offences 28,342 ScotiabankAffordable Housing Program 352,038 ScotiabankLibrary General 16,269 82,963 Scotiabank

Total Cash 101,166,782 19,629,043 120,795,825 66.1% 1.1% 1,274,568 46.9%

InvestmentsLoansCounty of Oxford Area Municipalities 1,105,009 0.6% County of Oxford Reserve Fund 2017-2028 3.29%-4.06% 38,796 County of Oxford 5,075,235 2.8% County of Oxford Reserve Fund 2017-2027 2.6%-6.25% 186,895 Total Loans - 6,180,245 6,180,245 3.4% 3.7% 225,691 8.3%Fixed Income InvestmentsNational Bank of Canada 2,021,212 1.1% National Bank 10-Jun-20 2.20% 44,000 CIBC - 0.0% CIBC Wood Gundy 31-Jul-17 2.16% 148,718 Bank of Nova Scotia 2,545,107 1.4% CIBC Wood Gundy 22-Jan-18 1.92% 48,030 Bank of Nova Scotia - 0.0% TD Wealth 23-Jan-17 1.77% 3,030 National Bank of Canada 2,445,097 1.3% TD Wealth 19-Aug-25 2.50% 62,510 Meridian - 0.0% Meridian 01-Dec-17 2.00% 183,576 Meridian 2,546,438 1.4% Meridian 26-Jul-18 2.00% 46,438 Meridian 2,520,959 1.4% Meridian 17-Aug-18 2.25% 20,959 Meridian 10,019,315 5.5% Meridian 01-Dec-18 2.35% 19,315 NBC Canadian Bank Deposit Notes 498,800 0.3% National Bank 30-Nov-20 Varies - NBC CDN BKS PLUS/D/N 515,471 0.3% National Bank 12-Sep-17 Varies - TD C/BL C+ 500,000 0.3% National Bank N/A Varies - National Bank of Canada 4,921,435 2.7% TD Waterhouse 05-Jun-25 2.75% 137,506 Fixed Income Investments 23,612,399 4,921,435 28,533,834 15.6% 2.5% 714,081 26.3%

Managed Investment AccountsScotia Wealth Management 10,193,600 11,966,400 12.1% Scotia Wealth Management varies 2.52% 493,221 RBC Dominion Securities Inc 5,099,133 2.8% RBC Dominion varies 0.29% 8,526 Total Managed Investment Accounts 15,292,733 11,966,400 27,259,133 14.9% 2.0% 501,746 18.5%Total Investments 38,905,132 23,068,079 61,973,212 33.9% 2.4% 1,441,518 53.1%Total Cash and Investments 140,071,914 42,697,122 182,769,036 100.0% 1.6% 2,716,086 100.0%

Report No. CS 2018-04 Attachment No. 1

COUNTY OF OXFORDInvestment Activity Report - 2017

Note: Cash and investment balances will increase each year by the realized interest of the previous year.

Cash, $115,009,359,

81%Cash,

$100,695,973,65%

Cash, $103,507,898,

62%

Cash, $120,795,825,

66%

Investments, $27,218,454,

19%


35%,


38%,


34%

-

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

160,000,000

180,000,000

200,000,000

2014 2015 2016 2017

County Cash and Investment Balance2014-2017

Total $142,227,813

Total $167,037,593

Total $182,769,036

Total $154,934,483

Cash, $1,195,844,

65%

Cash, $1,786,663,

61% Cash, $1,116,630,

45%

Cash, $1,274,568,

47%

Investments, $653,177,

35%


39%,Investments, $1,345,059,

55%,


53%

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

2014 2015 2016 2017

County Cash and Investment Income2014-2017

Total $2,925,848

Total $2,461,689

Total $2,716,086

Total $1,849,021


COUNTY OF OXFORD21 REEVE STREETPO BOX 1614WOODSTOCK ON N4S 7Y3

CANADIAN DOLLAR PIMACCOUNT STATEMENT

DEC. 292017

Your Account Number: 376-86462-1-2

Page 1 of 5

Date of Last Statement: NOV. 30, 2017

THE MACNAUGHTON LYNCH GROUPPortfolio Manager(s):JONATHAN MACNAUGHTON519-747-4368Team Member(s):LINDSAY MASSON 519-747-4926BANU KARAN 519-747-2129

Branch Address:95 King Street South 3rd FloorWaterloo, OnN2J 5A2519-747-8007

Branch Manager:Mark Hodson(519) 747-7790

ASSET SUMMARY

Cash

Preferred SharesCommon SharesMutual Funds **Foreign Securities

OtherTotal Value

MARKET VALUEAT DEC. 29

PERCENTAGE OFMARKET VALUE

$24,153.55

$5,000,168.23

$0.00

$0.00

$74,811.34

$0.00

$0.00

$5,099,133.12

0.47 %

98.06 %

0.00 %

0.00 %

1.47 %

0.00 %

0.00 %

100.00 %

Managed Assets $0.00 0.00 %

INCOME SUMMARY

DividendsInterest

Total Income

THIS MONTH YEAR-TO-DATE

$0.00 $0.00

$3,724.43 $18,271.00

$3,724.43 $18,271.00

CASH BALANCEACCOUNTTYPE

OPENING BALANCEAT NOV. 30

CLOSING BALANCEAT DEC. 29

Cash $3,172.52 $24,153.55

Fixed Income

G4B

- CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE -

Other $0.00 $0.00

RBC Dominion Securities Inc.

SARAH HODGSON 519-747-6917





From: Director of Corporate Services

Council Remuneration and Expenses - 2017 RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report No. CS 2018-05 entitled “Council Remuneration and Expenses -

2017”, for the year ended December 31, 2017, be received as information. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Total Council remuneration and expenses in 2017 was $363,832

Representing an increase from 2016 of $1,251 or 0.3%

Financial Impact Total remuneration and expenses relating to the Oxford County Council budget were under budget by $26,631. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information. Risks/Implications There are no risks or implications that will result by adopting the recommendation contained within this report. Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan (2015-2018) at its regular meeting held May 27, 2015. The initiative contained within this report supports the Values and Strategic Directions as set out in the Strategic Plan as it pertains to the following Strategic Directions: 5. i. A County that Performs and Delivers Results – Enhance our customer service focus and

responsiveness to our municipal partners and the public by:

- Regularly monitoring and reporting customer service performance

DISCUSSION Background The purpose of this report is to fulfill the statutory requirement of reporting Council remuneration and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2017.

Page 1 of 2



In accordance with subsection 284(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, “The Treasurer of a municipality shall in each year on or before March 31 provide to the council of the municipality an itemized statement on remuneration and expenses paid in the previous year to, (a) each member of council in respect of his or her services as a member of council or any

other body, including a local board, to which the member has been appointed by council or on which the member holds office by virtue of being a member of council;

(b) each member of council in respect of his or her services as an officer or employee of the municipality or other body described in clause (a); and

(c) each person, other than a member of council, appointed by the municipality to serve as a member of any body, including a local board, in respect of his or her services as a member of the body.”

Comments Attachment No.1 summarizes the remuneration, travel, conference and seminar expenses paid to Council members and local board members appointed by Council for 2017 as authorized by By-law No. 3957-99. The total expenditures for 2017 totaled $363,832 (2016 - $362,581) representing a 0.3% increase or $1,251 less than 2016. Conclusions While the 2017 remuneration and expenses represent an increase of 0.3% from 2016, expenses remained within the 2017 budget. SIGNATURES Report Author: Original signed by Carolyn King, CPA, CA Manager of Finance Departmental Approval: Original signed by

Lynn S. Buchner, CPA, CGA Director of Corporate Services Approved for submission: Original signed by

Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENTS Attachment No. 1 – Council Remuneration and Expense Report – 2017

Page 2 of 2

aferrell

Underline

aferrell

Underline

Report No. CS 2018-05Attachment No. 1

Council Remeneration and ExpensesYear Ending December 31, 2017

As stated under Section 284 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c25, the following is a breakdown of expenses paid to Council:

Council Salary

Travel & Expenses

Seminars, Training &

ConferencesLibrary Board Honouraium

Land Division

Honouraium

Accessibility Advisory

Committee Honourarium

Catfish Creek CA

Grand River CA

Long Point CA

Upper Thames

CACourt

Security TOTALTalbot, Sandra 26,219 - - - - - - - - - - 26,219 McKay, Donald 26,135 - 1,686 - - - - - - - - 27,821 Molnar, Stephen 26,135 931 2,136 - - - - - - - - 29,202 Lupton, Margaret 26,135 1,389 - - - - - - - - - 27,524 Mayberry, David 87,105 1,944 2,201 - - - - - - - - 91,250 Tait, Deborah 26,135 - - - - - - - - - - 26,135 Comiskey, Edward 26,135 363 - - - - - - - - - 26,498 Wearn, Marion 26,135 - - - - - - - - - - 26,135 Birtch, Trevor 30,401 2,551 3,998 - - - - - - 590 - 37,540 Martin, Larry 26,135 - - - - - - - - - - 26,135 Hampson, Susan - - - 240 - - - - - - - 240 Szala, Michael - - - - - 180 - - - - - 180 Gray, Kevin - - - - - 360 - - - - - 360 Parr, Leslie - - - - - 60 - - - - - 60 Allen, Sandra - - - - - 240 - - - - - 240 Dean, Ken - - - - - 180 - - - - - 180 Doucette, Melissa - - - - - 120 - - - - - 120 George, Brian - - - - 900 - - - - - - 900 Elliott, Harvey A. - - - - 1,000 - - - - - - 1,000 Rock, Thomas - - - - 700 - - - - - - 700 Brumby, Gord - - - - 1,000 - - - - - - 1,000 Hacon, Mark - - - - 900 - - - - - - 900 Tenhove, Arend - - - - 900 - - - - - - 900 Jull, Russell - - - - 900 - - - - - - 900 MacDonald, Scott - - - - 60 - - - - - - 60 Verhoef, Jim - - - 120 - - - - - - - 120 Hamel, Catharine - - - 420 - - - - - - - 420 Robertson, Lanette - - - 300 - - - - - - - 300 Vanhoucke, Anne - - - - - - 1,029 - - - - 1,029 Banbury, Bruce - - - - - - - 2,050 - - - 2,050 Beres, Dave - - - - - - - - 1,608 - - 1,608 Hayes, David - - - - - - - - 888 - - 888 Scholten, John - - - - - - - - 2,225 - - 2,225 McCall-Hanlon, Shirley - - - - - - - - - 879 - 879 Petrie, Brian - - - - - - - - - 536 - 536 Way, George - - - - - - - - - 946 - 946 Ryan, Marcus - - - - - - - - - 554 - 554 Scanlan, Larry - - - - - - - - - - 78 78

2017 Total 326,670$ 7,178$ 10,021$ 1,080$ 6,360$ 1,140$ 1,029$ 2,050$ 4,721$ 3,505$ 78$ 363,832$

PENDING ITEMS

Council Lead

Meeting Date Issue Pending Action Dept. Time Frame

24-May-17 Resolution No. 8 - Princeton Wastewater Servicing Solution Report PW Q-1 2018

24-May-17 5935-2017 - Natural Resource Gas Limited Franchise Agreement 3rd Reading PW Subject to

OEB Order

22-Nov-17 Resolution No. 3 - Obtain legal opinion regarding OPAL Alliance's Report CAO Q-1 2018

proposed motion for municipalities to call on Province for right to

approve landfill developments

10-Jan-18 Resolution No. 8 - Blandford-Blenheim resolution requesting the County Report CP Q-1 2018

initiate a lands needs assessment including the need for future

residential growth - referred to Community Planning.

24-Jan-18 Resolution No. 13 - CAO 2018-02 - Notice of Intent to Consider Report CAO/Clerk 14-Mar-18

Procedure By-law Amendments - Bill 68 Updates

COUNTY OF OXFORD

BY-LAW NO. 5999-2018 BEING a By-law to remove certain lands from Part Lot Control. WHEREAS, 2079993 ONTARIO INC., has applied to the County of Oxford to delete, by by-law, certain lands for forty-six (46) residential lots in a registered subdivision from Part Lot Control. AND WHEREAS pursuant to subsection 77(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, the County of Oxford may pass a by-law under subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the County of Oxford enacts as follows: 1. Pursuant to subsection 50(7), subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,

Chapter P.13, as amended, does not apply to:

Lots 41 to 51 and Blocks 52 to 56, Registered Plan 41M-316, City of Woodstock, County of Oxford, comprising a total of forty-six (46) parcels being PARTS 1 – 66 (inclusive) designated on a Plan of Survey deposited in the Land Registry Office for Oxford No. 41 as Reference Plan 41R-9600, and each parcel to be marketed to individual grantees in accordance with the following descriptions:

i. Part Block 53, being PARTS 1 & 2 together, together with an access easement over Part Block 53, being PART 4, in favour of PARTS 1 & 2, subject to an access easement over PART 2, in favour of Part Block 53, being PARTS 3 & 4;

ii. Part Block 53, being PARTS 3 & 4 together, together with an access easement

over Part Block 53, being PART 2, in favour of PARTS 3 & 4, subject to an access easement over PART 4, in favour of Part Block 53, being PARTS 1 & 2;

iii. Part Block 53, being PARTS 5 & 6 together, together with an access easement


iv. Part Block 53, being PARTS 7 & 8 together, together with an access easement


v. Part Lot 41, being PART 9 alone;

vi. Part Lot 41, being PART 10 alone;

vii. Part Lot 42, being PART 11 alone;

viii. Part Lot 42, being PART 12 alone;

ix. Part Lot 43, being PART 13 alone;

x. Part Lot 43, being PART 14 alone;

xi. Part Lot 44, being PART 15 alone;

xii. Part Lot 44, being PART 16 alone;

xiii. Part Lot 45, being PART 17 alone; xiv. Part Lot 45, being PART 18 alone; xv. Part Lot 46, being PART 19 alone; xvi. Part Lot 46, being PART 20 alone; xvii. Part Lot 47, being PART 21 alone; xviii. Part Lot 47, being PART 22 alone; xix. Part Block 54, being PART 23 alone; xx. Part Block 54, being PART 24 alone, together with an access easement over Part

Block 54, being PARTS 26, 28, 30 & 31;

xxi. Part Block 54, being PARTS 25 & 26 together, together with an access easement over Part Block 54, being PARTS 28, 30 & 31, subject to an access easement over PART 26 in favour of Part Block 54, being PART 24;

xxii. Part Block 54, being PARTS 27 & 28 together, together with an access easement

over Part Block 54, being PARTS 30 & 31; subject to an access easement over PART 28 in favour of Part Block 54, being PARTS 24, 25 and 26;

xxiii. Part Block 54, being PARTS 29, 30 & 31 together, subject to an access easement

over PARTS 30 & 31 in favour of Part Block 54, being PARTS 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28; subject to storm easement over PART 30;

xxiv. Part Block 55, being PARTS 32, 33 & 34 together, subject to an access easement

over Part Block 55, being PARTS 32 & 34 in favour of Part Block 55, being PARTS 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41; subject to storm easement over PART 32;

xxv. Part Block 55, being PARTS 35 & 36 together, together with an access easement

over Part Block 55, being PARTS 32 & 34 in favour of PARTS 35 & 36, subject to an access easement over PART 36 in favour of Part Block 55, being PARTS 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41;

xxvi. Part Block 55, being PARTS 37 & 38 together, together with an access easement

over Part Block 55, being PARTS 32, 34 and 36 in favour of PARTS 37 & 38, subject to an access easement over PART 38 in favour of Part Block 55, being PARTS 39, 40 and 41;

xxvii. Part Block 55, being PARTS 39 & 40 together, together with an access easement

over Part Block 55, being PARTS 32, 34, 36 and 38 in favour of PARTS 39 & 40, subject to an access easement over PART 40 in favour of Part Block 55, being PART 41;

xxviii. Part Block 55, being PART 41 alone, together with an access easement over Part

Block 55, being PARTS 32, 34, 36, 38 and 40 in favour of PART 41; xxix. Part Block 55 being PART 42 alone; xxx. Part Lot 48, being PART 43 alone; xxxi. Part Lot 48, being PART 44 alone; xxxii. Part Lot 49, being PART 45 alone; xxxiii. Part Lot 49, being PART 46 alone; xxxiv. Part Block 56, being PARTS 47 & 48 together, together with an access easement

over Part Block 56, being PART 49 in favour of PARTS 47 & 48, subject to an access easement over PART 48 in favour of Part Block 56, being PARTS 49 & 50;

xxxv. Part Block 56, being PARTS 49 & 50 together, together with an access easement


xxxvi. Part Block 56, being PARTS 51 & 52 together, together with an access easement


xxxvii. Part Block 56, being PARTS 53 & 54 together, together with an access easement

over Part Block 56 being PART 52 in favour of PARTS 53 & 54, subject to an access easement over PART 53 in favour of Part Block 56, being PARTS 51 & 52;

xxxviii. Part Lot 50, being PART 55 alone; xxxix. Part Lot 50, being PART 56 alone; xl. Part Lot 51, being PART 57 alone; xli. Part Lot 51, being PART 58 alone; xlii. Part Block 52, being PARTS 59 & 60 together, subject to an access easement over

PART 60 in favour of Part Block 52, being PARTS 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65; xliii. Part Block 52, being PARTS 61 & 62 together, together with an access easement

over Part of Block 52, being PART 60 in favour of PARTS 61 & 62, subject to an access easement over PART 62, in favour of Part Block 52, being PARTS 63, 64 and 65;

xliv. Part Block 52, being PARTS 63 & 64 together, together with an access easement

over Part Block 52, being PART 60 and 62, in favour of PARTS 63 & 64, subject to an access easement over PART 64 in favour of Part Block 52, being PART 65;

xlv. Part Block 52, being PART 65 alone, together with an access easement over Part

Block 52, being PARTS 60, 62 and 64, in favour of PART 65; xlvi. Part Block 52, being PART 66 alone.

2. Pursuant to subsection 50 (7.3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended,

this By-law shall expire on February 14, 2019, unless it shall have prior to that date been repealed or extended by the Council of the County of Oxford.

3. That after the lots or any portion thereof have been marketed to individual grantees this

By-law may be repealed by the Council of the County of Oxford. 4. That this By-law shall become effective on the date of third and final reading. READ a first and second time this 14th day of February, 2018. READ a third time and finally passed this 14th day of February, 2018.

DAVID MAYBERRY, WARDEN

BRENDA J. TABOR, CLERK

COUNTY OF OXFORD

BY-LAW NO. 6000-2018

BEING a By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Oxford at the meeting at which this By-law is passed. The Council of the County of Oxford enacts as follows: 1. That all decisions made by Council at the meeting at which this By-law is passed, in respect

of each report, resolution or other action passed and taken by the Council at this meeting, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed.

2. That the Warden and/or the proper officers of the County are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said decisions referred to in Section 1 of this By-law, to obtain approvals where required, and except where otherwise provided, to execute all necessary documents and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the corporate seal where necessary.

3. That nothing in this By-law has the effect of giving to any decision the status of a By-law

where any legal prerequisite to the enactment of a specific By-law has not been satisfied. 4. That all decisions, as referred to in Section 1 of this By-law, supercede any prior decisions

of Council to the contrary. READ a first and second time this 14th day of February, 2018. READ a third time and finally passed this 14th day of February, 2018.

DAVID MAYBERRY, WARDEN BRENDA J. TABOR, CLERK