agenda county of oxford council meeting wednesday, august ... room... · county of oxford council...

AGENDA

COUNTY OF OXFORD

COUNCIL MEETING

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2015 9:30 A.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBER, OXFORD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, WOODSTOCK

MEETING #20

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

1. CALL TO ORDER Time ______

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

3. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

4. ADOPTION OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

July 8 2015

5. PUBLIC MEETINGS

6. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

7. CONSIDERATION OF DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

8. CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE

1. Township of ZorraJuly 21, 2015

Re: Membership - Community Schools AllianceTwp of Zorra - 072115

Resolution

That the correspondence from the Township of Zorra, dated July 21, 2015, advising of theTownship's 2015 Community Schools Alliance membership and 2016 new initiative forbudget consideration, be received as information.

2. Township of NorwichRe: Support of Application for Draft Plan of Condominium and Exemption from Draft Plan Approval - 487223 Ontario Limited (Gabriel Kirchberger), File No. CD 15-02-3

Twp of Norwich - 072115

COUNCIL AGENDAAUGUST 12, 2015


Resolution

That the correspondence from the Township of Norwich, supporting the application fordraft plan of condominium and exemption from draft plan approval - 487223 OntarioLimited (Gabriel Kirchberger), File No. CD 15-2-3, be received and referred forconsideration under CASPO Report No. 2015-160.

3. Randy Pettapiece, MPP, Perth-WellingtonJuly 21, 2015

Re: Requesting Support of Private Member's Resolution for Fairness in Provincial Infrastructure Funds

R Pettapiece- 072115

Resolution

Link to Resolution

9. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENTS

PUBLIC WORKS

PW 2015-37Re: Oxford Road 12 Parking Report

Recommendation

That Schedule E within By-law No. 4897-2007 be amended to include, and staffauthorized to implement, a “No Parking” designation on Oxford Road 12 (Mill Street), asincluded within the approved Oxford Road 12 Class Environmental Assessment.

PW 2015-43Re: Trans Canada Trail

Recommendations

1. That County Council authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with the Township of Norwich and the Town of Tillsonburg for the construction and operation of the Trans Canada Trail (TCT) from the existing TCT in Tillsonburg easterly to Norfolk County and the proposed trail under the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program from Tillsonburg to Springford, including County financing of the project subject to final approval of County Council;

2. And further, that County staff work with Norwich and South-West Oxford Townships and the Town of Tillsonburg to undertake Public Consultation for the proposed trails on County owned lands including the TCT extension and those seeking partnership funding through the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program in Norwich and South-West Oxford Townships.

PW 2015-41Re: Drumbo Wide Area Network Tower Relocation and Replacement

Recommendation

1. That County Council authorize Public Works to proceed in 2015 with the unanticipated relocation and replacement of the Drumbo wide area network tower at a cost of $225,000, to be financed from the Facilities Reserve.



COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

CASPO 2015-159Re: Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision SB 15-01-2; 1187688 Ontario Limited

Recommendation

1. That Oxford County Council grant draft plan approval to a proposed plan of subdivision submitted by 1187688 Ontario Limited (File No. SB 15-01-2), prepared by Ricor Engineering Limited, dated April 22, 2015, as shown on Plate 3 of Schedule “A” of Report No. CASPO 2015-159, for lands described as Part of Lots 9 & 10, Concession 17 (East Zorra), in the Village of Innerkip, subject to the conditions attached as Schedule “A” to this Report being met prior to final approval.

CASPO 2015-160Re: Application for Draft Plan of Condominium and Exemption from Draft Plan Approval CD 15-02-3: 487223 Ontario Limited (Gabriel Kirchberger)

Recommendations

1. That Oxford County Council grant draft plan approval of a proposed plan of condominium submitted by 487223 Ontario Limited (Gabriel Kirchberger), (File No. CD 15-02-3); prepared by J.H. Cohoon Engineering Ltd. and dated June 3, 2015, for lands described as Part Lot 677, Plan 955, in the Village of Norwich.

2. And further, that Oxford County Council approve the application for exemption from the draft plan of condominium approval process submitted by 487223 Ontario Limited (Gabriel Kirchberger), (File No. CD 15-02-3) for lands described as Part Lot 677, Plan 955, in the Village of Norwich, as all matters relating to the development have been addressed through the Site Plan Approval process and a registered site plan agreement.

CORPORATE SERVICES

CS 2015-27Re: Business Plan and Budget Review – 2nd Quarter

Recommendation

1. That Report No. CS 2015-27 entitled “Business Plan and Budget Review – 2nd Quarter” be received for information.

CS 2015-26Re: Multi-Residential Tax Ratio Review Consultant Presentation

Recommendations

1. That based on the results of the multi-residential ratio review as described in Report No. CS 2015-26 entitled “Multi-Residential Tax Ratio Review” no action is to be taken at this time;

2. And further, that a follow-up multi-residential tax ratio review be undertaken in 2019, unless new information arises in the interim that may significantly alter the findings or interpretations of the review contained in this report.



CS 2015-28Re: Receivables Management Policy Amendments

Recommendation

1. That the Receivables Management Policy be amended as set out in Attachment No. 1 to Report No. CS 2015-28, effective August 12, 2015.

10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Pending Items

11. MOTIONS

12. NOTICE OF MOTIONS

Deputy Warden Comiskey gives notice that at the September 9, 2015 meeting he willintroduce the following motion:

Link to Zero Waste Oxford Motion

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 consideringReports No. HR (CS) 2015-03, No. HR (CS) 2015-04, No. PW (CS) 2015-31,No. PW (CS) 2015-42 and a CASPO Verbal Report and associated correspondence fromGiffen Lawyers LLP, dated July 9, 2015, regarding matters that have not been madepublic concerning labour relations or employee negotiations, personal matters about anidentifiable individual, proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land, litigation orpotential litigation and the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege,including communications necessary for that purpose.

Resolution Time ______

That Council rise and reconvene in Open session.

15. CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS ARISING FROM THE CLOSED SESSION

HUMAN RESOURCES

HR (CS) 2015-03

HR (CS) 2015-04

PUBLIC WORKS

PW (CS) 2015-31

PW (CS) 2015-42



COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

Verbal Report regarding matters that have not been made public concerning litigation orpotential litigation and the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege,including communications necessary for that purpose.

Associated Correspondence

1. Giffen Lawyers LLPJuly 9, 2015

Re: OMB Matter No.: PL130846[Closed Session Document]

16. BY-LAWS

BY-LAW NO. 5725-2015Being a By-law to repeal By-law No. 3742-98 and to enact a new By-law to provide for speed limits on County Roads.

BY-LAW NO. 5726-2015Being a By-law to repeal By-law No. 3755-98.

BY-LAW NO. 5727-2015Being a By-law to amend By-law No. 5616-2014, being aBy-law to remove certain lands from Part Lot Control.

BY-LAW NO. 5728-2015Being a By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of the Councilof the County of Oxford at the meeting at which thisBy-law is passed.

17. ADJOURNMENT Time ______

MINUTES

OF THE

COUNCIL OF THE

COUNTY OF OXFORD

County Council Chamber Woodstock July 8, 2015

MEETING #19 Oxford County Council meets in regular session this eighth day of July 2015, in the Council Chamber, County Administration Building, Woodstock. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 a.m., with Warden Mayberry in the chair. All members of Council present. Staff Present: P. M. Crockett, Chief Administrative Officer L. Beath, Director of Public Health and Emergency Services P. D. Beaton, Director of Human Services L. S. Buchner, Director of Corporate Services C. Fransen, Director of Woodingford Lodge G. K. Hough, Director of Community and Strategic Planning A. Smith, Director of Human Resources R. G. Walton, Director of Public Works B. J. Tabor, Clerk Warden Mayberry welcomes Dave MacKenzie, MP, Oxford, who is in the gallery today. D. MacKenzie brings greetings on behalf of the Federal Government. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: RESOLUTION NO. 1: Moved by: Trevor Birtch Seconded by: Deborah Tait 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 June 24, 2015

July 8, 2015 RESOLUTION NO. 2: Moved by: Trevor Birtch Seconded by: Deborah Tait That the Council Minutes of June 24, 2015 be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried 5. PUBLIC MEETINGS: RESOLUTION NO. 3: Moved by: Deborah Tait Seconded by: Trevor Birtch 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 15-03-8, and that the Warden chair the public meeting. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried (9:32 a.m.) 1. Application for Official Plan Amendment 751485 Ontario Inc. - OP 15-03-8

to redesignate subject lands from "Low Density Residential" to "High Density Residential" - subject lands are described as Block 117, Plan 41M-98, located on the southwest corner of Lansdowne Avenue and Nellis Street, municipally known as 1180 Nellis Street in the City of Woodstock

The Chair asks G. Hough, Director of Community and Strategic Planning, to come forward to present the application. G. Hough summarizes Official Plan Amendment Application OP 15-03-8 as is contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-138. The Chair opens the meeting to questions from members of Council. There are none. The Chair asks if anyone on behalf of the proponent wishes to speak. Steve Hunt, the owner of the property in question, states that he has nothing further to add. The Chair asks if there are any members of the public wishing to speak for or against the application. No one indicates such intent. RESOLUTION NO. 4: Moved by: Deborah Tait Seconded by: Trevor Birtch That Council adjourn the public meeting and reconvene as Oxford County Council with the Warden in the chair. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried (9:37 a.m.) CASPO 2015-138 Re: Application for Official Plan Amendment OP 15-03-8: 751485 Ontario Inc.

July 8, 2015 RESOLUTION NO. 5: Moved by: Deborah Tait Seconded by: Trevor Birtch That the recommendations contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-138, titled “Application for Official Plan Amendment - OP 15-03-8: 751485 Ontario Inc.”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendations Contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-138: 1. That Oxford County Council approve the application submitted by 751485 Ontario Inc. to redesignate the subject lands from ‘Low Density Residential’ to ‘High Density Residential’ with a special development policy to facilitate the development of a 5-storey residential apartment building on lands described as Block 117, 41M-98, City of Woodstock; 2. And further, that Council approve the attached Amendment No. 190 to the County of Oxford Official Plan; 3. And further, that the necessary by-law to approve Amendment No. 190 be raised. RESOLUTION NO. 6: Moved by: Sandra Talbot Seconded by: Margaret Lupton That Council rise and go into a public meeting pursuant to Section 51(20) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, to consider an application for approval of a draft plan of subdivision, and that the Warden chair the public meeting. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried (9:39 a.m.) 2. Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision

1187688 Ontario Limited - SB 15-01-2 - subject lands are described as Part of Lots 9 & 10, Concession 17 (East Zorra), in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, located east of Blandford Street, bound by George Street to the south and Main Street to the north and municipally known as 77 Main Street in the Village of Innerkip

The Chair asks G. Hough, Director of Community and Strategic Planning, to come forward to present the application. G. Hough summarizes the application for Approval of Draft Plan of Subdivision as is contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-139. The Chair opens the meeting to questions from members of Council. There are none. The Chair asks if anyone on behalf of the proponent wishes to speak. Rick Dykstra, Ricor Engineering Ltd., states that they are in support of the recommendation before Council. The Chair asks if there are any members of the public wishing to speak for or against the application. No one indicates such intent. RESOLUTION NO. 7: Moved by: Sandra Talbot Seconded by: Margaret Lupton That Council adjourn the public meeting and reconvene as Oxford County Council with the Warden in the chair. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried (9:41 a.m.)

July 8, 2015 CASPO 2015-139 Re: Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision SB 15-01-2 – 1187688 Ontario Limited RESOLUTION NO. 8: Moved by: Sandra Talbot Seconded by: Margaret Lupton That the recommendation contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-139, titled “Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision - SB 15-01-2 – 1187688 Ontario Limited”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. CASPO 2015-139: 1. That Oxford County Council refer Application File No. SB 15-01-2 submitted by 1187688 Ontario Limited for draft approval of a residential plan of subdivision prepared by Ricor Engineering Limited, dated April 22, 2015, as shown on Plate 3 of Report No. CASPO 2015- 139, for lands described as Part of Lots 9 & 10, Concession 17 (East Zorra), in the Village of Innerkip to Council’s regular meeting of August 12, 2015 for final consideration. 6. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: 1. Oxford Drug Awareness Committee Stacey Smith, Chairperson, Oxford Stage for Change Event (Spokesperson) Re: Stage for Change Live Concert/Event to create Awareness about the Possible Campaign - proposed free event to be held in Woodstock on Friday, November 20th during Addiction Awareness Week Stacey Smith, Chairperson, Oxford Stage for Change Event, comes forward and informs Council regarding a proposed “Stage for Change” free event to be held at Woodstock Collegiate Institute (WCI) on the recently revised date of Friday, November 20th, during Addiction Awareness Week. She explains that it is a live concert/event to create awareness about the “Possible Campaign” as it relates to addiction awareness. She elaborates on information contained in correspondence from the Oxford Drug Awareness Committee which was provided as an attachment to Council’s electronic Agenda. During her presentation, S. Smith requests a financial contribution from the County in support of the event which focuses on a County problem. She stresses the importance of the community backing the event as it is possible to make changes by coming together. The Warden opens the meeting to questions from Council. S. Smith responds to questions and comments from Councillors Molnar and Talbot. 7. CONSIDERATION OF DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: RESOLUTION NO. 9: Moved by: Ted Comiskey Seconded by: Sandra Talbot That the request for a financial contribution to the Possible Campaign, regarding a free Stage for Change live concert/event to create awareness about addiction and recovery, proposed to be held in Woodstock on Friday, November 20th during Addiction Awareness Week, be received with a Report back to Council from Public Health regarding opportunities for funding. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried

July 8, 2015 8. CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE: NIL 9. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENTS: COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING CASPO 2015-138 Re: Application for Official Plan Amendment OP 15-03-8: 751485 Ontario Inc. Report dealt with under Public Meetings. CASPO 2015-139 Re: Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision SB 15-01-2 – 1187688 Report dealt with under Public Meetings. PUBLIC WORKS PW 2015-38 Re: Road Improvements – Part of Oxford Road 8 Construction Contract RESOLUTION NO. 10: Moved by: Ted Comiskey Seconded by: Sandra Talbot That the recommendations contained in Report No. PW 2015-38, titled “Road Improvements – Part of Oxford Road 8 Construction Contract”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendations Contained in Report No. PW 2015-38: 1. That County Council awards a contract to Steve Smith Construction, in the amount of $1,715,855 plus HST for road improvements on part of Oxford Road 8 (west limit of Hickson to the 10th Line); 2. And further, that a by-law be raised authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to sign all documents related thereto. PW 2015-39 Re: Disposal of Oxford County Owned Lands at Balsam Street, Innerkip (Designated as Part 9 on Plan 41R-2592) RESOLUTION NO. 11: Moved by: Stephen Molnar Seconded by: Larry Martin That the recommendations contained in Report No. PW 2015-39, titled “Disposal of Oxford County Owned Lands at Balsam Street, Innerkip (Designated as Part 9 on Plan 41R-2592)”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried

July 8, 2015 Recommendations Contained in Report No. PW 2015-39: 1. That Oxford County Council declare County owned land on Balsam Street, Innerkip (designated as Part 9 on Plan 41R-2592) as surplus and authorize the disposal of the land. 2. And further, that staff be authorized to enact a by-law to declare the lands surplus. PW 2015-36 Re: Oxford County Applications to Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Feed-in Tariff Program RESOLUTION NO. 12: Moved by: Stephen Molnar Seconded by: Larry Martin That the recommendations contained in Report No. PW 2015-36, titled “Oxford County Applications to Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Feed-in Tariff Program”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendations Contained in Report No. PW 2015-36: 1. That County Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to submit an application to the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Feed-in-tariff program for the project as outlined in Report PW 2015-36; 2. And further, that the Township of South-West Oxford be requested to support by Council Resolution the proposed Oxford County SmallFIT project at the County of Oxford’s Landfill in Salford. PW 2015-40 Re: 75 Graham Street Limited License Agreement for the Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) RESOLUTION NO. 13: Moved by: Larry Martin Seconded by: Stephen Molnar That the recommendation contained in Report No. PW 2015-40, titled “75 Graham Street Limited License Agreement for the Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP)”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. PW 2015-40: 1. That a by-law be raised to authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to execute a short term license Agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure, for 8,586 square feet of space at 75 Graham Street, Woodstock Ontario for a term not to exceed September 30, 2015. PW 2015-35 Re: Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project

July 8, 2015 RESOLUTION NO. 14: Moved by: Larry Martin Seconded by: Stephen Molnar That that the recommendation contained in Report No. PW 2015-35, titled “Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension Project”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. PW 2015-35: 1. That By-law No. 5718-2015, being a by-law to authorize the funding sources and mandatory connection for the Ingersoll Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension be presented to Council for enactment. CORPORATE SERVICES CS 2015-23 Re: Tax Recoveries By-law - 2015 RESOLUTION NO. 15: Moved by: Marion Wearn Seconded by: Stephen Molnar That that the recommendations contained in Report No. CS 2015-23, titled “Tax Recoveries By-law - 2015”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendations Contained in Report No. CS 2015-23: 1. That Council approves funding of the Maximum Tax Protection Mechanism for the County’s portion of taxes for the Year 2015 to be recovered within the same tax class by clawing back from decreasing properties; 2. And further, that By-law No. 5719-2015, being a by-law to establish decrease limits for certain property classes for the Year 2015, be presented to Council for enactment. CS 2015-24 Re: 2016 Draft Budget Schedule RESOLUTION NO. 16: Moved by: Marion Wearn Seconded by: Stephen Molnar That that the recommendation contained in Report No. CS 2015-24, titled “2016 Draft Budget Schedule”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. CS 2015-24: 1. That the 2016 draft budget schedule as set out in Report No. CS 2015-24 be approved. CS 2015-25 Re: OILC Financing Application – Woodstock

July 8, 2015 RESOLUTION NO. 17: Moved by: Margaret Lupton Seconded by: Ted Comiskey That that the recommendation contained in Report No. CS 2015-25, titled “OILC Financing Application – Woodstock”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. CS 2015-25: 1. That By-law No. 5722-2015, being a by-law to authorize the submission of an application to the Ontario Infrastructure Lands Corporation for temporary and long-term borrowing through the issue of debentures for the purposes of the City of Woodstock, be presented to Council for enactment. HUMAN SERVICES HS 2015-08 Re: 10 Year Shelter Plan Annual Progress Report RESOLUTION NO. 18: Moved by: Margaret Lupton Seconded by: Ted Comiskey That that the recommendation contained in Report No. HS 2015-08, titled “10 Year Shelter Plan Annual Progress Report”, be adopted. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried Recommendation Contained in Report No. HS 2015-08: 1. That County Council receive the 2014 Annual Progress Report of the Oxford County 10 Year Shelter Plan as attached to Report 2015-08. 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: Deputy Warden Comiskey gives Council an update on the Canterbury Folk Festival to be held in Ingersoll this weekend. He thanks the many volunteers and extends an invitation to all to attend. 14. CLOSED SESSION: NIL

July 8, 2015 15. CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS ARISING FROM THE CLOSED SESSION: Not Required. 16. BY-LAWS: BY-LAW NO. 5718-2015 Being a By-law to mandate connection to and impose the cost of the water and sanitary sewage system to the area designated and referred to as the South Ingersoll (Kirwin Dr., Pine St., Elm St. and Royland Cres.) Sewer and Watermain Extension Project. BY-LAW NO. 5719-2015 Being a By-law to Establish Decrease Limits for Certain Property Classes for the Year 2015. BY-LAW NO. 5720-2015 Being a By-law to authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to execute contract documents between the County of Oxford and Steve Smith Construction Corporation for road improvements on part of Oxford Road 8 (west limit of Hickson to the 10th Line). BY-LAW NO. 5721-2015 Being a By-law to authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to execute a License Agreement, No. L12253, with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure, for space at 75 Graham Street, Woodstock. BY-LAW NO. 5722-2015 Being a By-law to authorize the submission of an application to Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation ("OILC") for financing certain ongoing capital works of the Corporation of the City of Woodstock; and to authorize long term borrowing for such works through the issue of debentures by County of Oxford (The "Upper-tier Municipality") to OILC. BY-LAW NO. 5723-2015 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment Number 190 to the County of Oxford Official Plan. BY-LAW NO. 5724-2015 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. 19: Moved by: Don McKay Seconded by: Margaret Lupton That the following By-laws be now read a first and second time: No. 5718-2015, No. 5719-2015, No. 5720-2015, No. 5721-2015, No. 5722-2015, No. 5723-2015 and No. 5724-2015. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried

July 8, 2015 RESOLUTION NO. 20: Moved by: Don McKay Seconded by: Margaret Lupton That the following By-laws be now given third and final reading: No. 5718-2015, No. 5719-2015, No. 5720-2015, No. 5721-2015, No. 5722-2015, No. 5723-2015 and No. 5724-2015. DISPOSITION: Motion Carried 17. ADJOURNMENT: Council adjourns its proceedings until the next meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. 10:15 a.m. Minutes adopted on by Resolution No.

WARDEN

CLERK

July 21, 2015

Ms. Brenda Tabor County Clerk County of Oxford 21 Reeve Street P.O. Box 1614 Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3

Dear Ms. Tabor

TOWNSHIP OF ZORRA 274620 271h Line, PO Box 306 Ingersoll , ON, N5C 3K5

Ph. (519) 485-2490 • 1-888-699-3868 •Fax (519) 485-2520

Re: Township of Zorra Resolutions

Please be advised the Township of Zorra passed the following resolution at the July 14, 2015 Council meeting :

"WHEREAS the Community Schools Alliance continues to advocate for a closer working relationship between school boards and municipal councils; AND WHEREAS both municipalities and school boards represent the same residents, both should regard our schools as critically important components of our public infrastructure and both should work together to ensure our communities are well served by those schools; AND WHEREAS the Community Schools Alliance advocates for changes that are needed to protect our schools and to protest changes that threaten them; AND WHEREAS in order to be effective with its advocacy, it requires needed research, resources and municipal support; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Zorra Township become a member of the Community Schools Alliance for 2015 at a rate of $250 supported from the Township general funds budget and this membership be brought forward to the 2016 Township budget as a new initiative for further consideration and forwarded to Oxford County Council and all Oxford County Municipalities for consideration." Disposition: Carried

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Yours truly.

~~~ ~artin Clerk

Internet: www.zorra.on .ca Email: zorra@zorra .on.ca

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORWICH

February 6, 2014

County of Oxford PO Box 1614 Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3

Dear Warden McKay and County Councillors

COUNTY OF OXFORD CAO/CLERK'S OFFICE

RECEIVED

JUL 2 1 2015

REFER TO _,_ft.,_,,,.11""Al,..d=<>=' ~---File/EDMS: ______ _

Please be advised that at their meeting held July 14, 2015, the Council of the Township of Norwich adopted the following resolution:

"That the Council of the Township of Norwich advise County Council that the Township supports the application for draft approval of a proposed condominium submitted by 487223 Ontario Limited (Garbriel Kirchberger), File No. CD 15-02-3; prepared by J.H. Cohoon Engineering Limited, and dated June 3, 2015, for lands described as Part Lot 677, Plan 955, in the Village of Norwich.

And further, that the Council of the Township of Norwich advise County Council that the Township supports the application for exemption from draft plan of condominium approval process submitted by 487223 Ontario Limited, (Gabriel Kirchberger), File No. CD15-02-3; prepared by J.H. Cohoon Engineering Limited, and dated June 3, 2015, for lands described as Part Lot 677, Plan 955, in the Village of Norwich, as all matters relating to the development have been addressed through the Site Plan Approval process and a registered site plan agreement."

Should ·you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours truly

'1)~'\1J~4\, ~· Kimberley Armstrong 0 Deputy Clerk

cc. Community & Strategic Planning Department

The Corporation of The Township of Norwich 285767 Airport Road, Norwich, ON, NOJ 1 PO

Phone (519) 468-2410 Fax:(519) 468-2414 www.norwich.ca

. .Randy Pettapiece, MPP

COUNTY OF OXFORD CAO/CLERK'S OFFICE

RECEIVED

JUL 2 4 2015 Perth-Wellington Constituency Office Perth-Wellington • ;J

Stratford, Ontario REFERT0.1.fC.1.J2JLIALld<:&JJ"""-' -----

July 21, 2015 File/EDMS: ______ _

Brenda). Tabor Clerk County of Oxford 21 Reeve St PO Box 1614 Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3

Dear Ms. Tabor:

Re: Resolution for Fairness in Provincial Infrastructure Funds

I am writing to inform you of my upcoming private member's resolution in the Ontario legislature and to formally request your support. It reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should guarantee thatgovernmentheld ridings and opposition-held ridings be given equal and transparent consideration on infrastructure funding, and that when funding decisions are made, should guarantee that all MPPs, whether in government or opposition, be given fair and equal advance notice of the official announcement.

The basis for my resolution is simple: When municipalities apply for provincial infrastructure funding, you should expect that your application would be evaluated based on merit. You should expect that it would be evaluated promptly, based on well-defined and transparent criteria. Finally, you should expect that the decision to approve your application would never depend on your MPP's political stripe.

There is, after all, no such thing as Liberal, PC or NDP infrastructure money; there is only public money. That money comes from taxes that we all pay; everyone in the province should expect a similar quality of infrastructure and services, regardless of where they live.

Because municipalities rely on provincial partnerships to fund critical infrastructure projects, the consequences of provincial funding decisions can be far-reaching. The provincial government must respect this partnership and ensure that government and opposition-held ridings are given equal consideration when it comes to infrastructure investment decisions. Too often, however, there is at least a persistent perception that public infrastructure dollars have, in at least some cases, been directed according to politics and not according to need.

. .. /2

Constituency Office • 55 Lorne Avenue East • Stratford, Ontario N5A 6S4 •Tel. (519) 272-0660 •Toll-free: 1-800-461-9701 • Fax (519) 272-1064 E-mail: [email protected]

Having served as a municipal councillor, I know that the process to apply for infrastructure funding is a major-and sometimes frustrating-undertaking. It often entails significant red tape and investments of staff time and resources. Before making those investments, municipalities need some assurance that, based on clear criteria, your application has a reasonable chance of success. You also need to know that your MPP will advocate on your behalf and, most importantly, decision-makers will be receptive to that advocacy no matter if the MPP serves in government or opposition.

The final section of my resolution deals with infrastructure announcements themselves. These announcements must, I believe, be depoliticized irt order to address the perception that opposition-held ridings are disadvantaged-or worse yet, being punished-for voting against the government.

If your municipality supports the intent of my resolution, I would encourage you to consider passing a formal resolution to support it. If your Council decides to proceed in this way, I would appreciate receiving a copy of your resolution as soon as possible. Debate on this resolution is scheduled for October 8, 2015.

I would appreciate your views on this matter, and your own experience in your municipality concerning access to provincial infrastructure funds. If you have any feedback on this issue, or if you require any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at 519-272-0660 or by email: [email protected].

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely, {/)

1::v,,?/7wl! £/;;:7 '···.") j[/;l () £,<'t>"~~~.,-c

Randy Pettapiece, MPP Perth-Wellington

That the July 21, 2015 letter from Randy Pettapiece, MPP Perth-Wellington regarding his request for support of a proposed Resolution for Fairness in Provincial Infrastructure Funds be received as information; And further, that the County of Oxford envisions the proposed Moving Ontario Forward program for infrastructure investment outside of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) as an opportunity for strategic infrastructure investment and that, in partnership with the Federal Government, could stimulate and strengthen the provincial and national economy while addressing significant deficits and needs in key infrastructure outside of the GTHA; And further, that the County of Oxford expects Southwestern Ontario to receive its fair and non-partisan share of the Moving Ontario Forward infrastructure investment in a manner which:

advances Southwestern Ontario’s key infrastructure needs and priorities;

optimizes the strategic and transformational potential of the investment program; and

strengthens strategic federal, provincial, and municipal partnerships; And further, that significant attention be given to the strategic and transformational value of investment in Southwestern Ontario’s mobility, connectivity, vitality, and inclusivity through strategic investments in:

the proposed SWIFT ultra high-speed fibre network;

the provincial network of highways, interchanges, and bridges;

the major municipal road and bridge network;

Network Southwest and ongoing enhancements to the VIA passenger rail system and a fully integrated bus feeder (motor coach) network connecting communities across Southwestern Ontario to the rail corridor and each other;

municipal (urban) transit systems;

current Go Transit service areas;

municipal community infrastructure; and

quality of life investments in social housing And further that the Warden write Mr. Pettapiece, the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, the Honourable Deb Matthews and the Honourable Brad Duguid regarding this resolution.

Report No: PW 2015-37 PUBLIC WORKS

Council Date: August 12, 2015

Page 1 of 3

To: Warden and Members of County Council

From: Director of Public Works

Oxford Road 12 Parking Report

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Schedule E within By-law No. 4897-2007 be amended to include, and staffauthorized to implement a “No Parking” designation on Oxford Road 12 (MillStreet), as included within the approved Oxford Road 12 Class EnvironmentalAssessment.

REPORT HIGHLIGHT

Seeking Council approval for the implementation of a “No Parking” designation on the east side of Oxford Road 12 between Park Row and Spencer Street and the west side between Fifth Avenue and Spencer Street. The Oxford Road 12 roadway is outlined in Attachment 1.

Implementation Points

Implementation of the recommended removal of on-street parking will allow cycling lanes to be constructed and improve roadway safety.

Signage would be placed in the ”No Parking” designated area in accordance with the Ontario Traffic Manual and roadway paint markings revised accordingly.

Financial Impact

The cost to install signs is estimated to be $300. The cost of line painting is estimated to be $3,000. Funding is available within the approved 2015 Roads Operations Budget.

The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.

Risks/Implications

Risks and implications of the removal of paving on Mill Street was considered during the Class EA conducted in 2014.



Page 2 of 3

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:

1. ii. A County that Works Together – Enhance the quality of life for all of our citizens by:

- Maintaining and strengthening core infrastructure, including affordable housing and fibre optic systems infrastructure

5. ii. A County that Performs and Delivers Results - Deliver exceptional services by:

- Regularly reviewing service level standards to assess potential for improved access to services / amenities

DISCUSSION

Background

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Oxford Road 12 (Mill Street), Report PW 2014-63, outlines the requirement to eliminate on-street parking. The removal of on-street parking provides the physical space to safely accommodate bike lanes.

Comments

Existing on-street parking on the east side of Oxford Road 12 from Park Row to Spencer Street and on the west side from Fifth Avenue to Spencer Street are the only on-street parking currently permitted along Oxford Road 12.

On-street parking in both areas along Oxford Road 12 is not required for residential properties, as all homes in these areas have adequate driveways to facilitate parking. On-street parking is a sensitive issue and could cause concern with adjacent residents. Through the Class EA process for Oxford Road 12, directly affected property owners and the City of Woodstock were engaged during the study.

Elimination of the on-street parking improves the overall safety for the travelling motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Funding for the installation of the “No Parking” signs and paint markings would be funded through the approved 2015 Roads Operations budget.

Staff have been in discussion with City of Woodstock Engineering regarding the removal of on-street parking and they are in agreement. City staff will be reporting on changes to the City parking by-law to accommodate this change at the August 13, 2015 City Council Meeting.

http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/portals/15/Documents/News%20Room/3409_0_Nov_26_2014_Agenda_version01.pdf#page=13

http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/portals/15/Documents/News%20Room/3409_0_Nov_26_2014_Agenda_version01.pdf#page=13



Page 3 of 3

Conclusions

Staff are of the opinion that the proposed amendments to By-law 4897-2007, are required to implement the measures outlined in the Mill Street Class EA and to implement the cycling lanes on Mill Street and Parkinson Road as per the County Transportation Master Plan and the City of Woodstock Cycling Master Plan.

SIGNATURES

Report Author:

Original signed by:

Melissa Abercrombie, P.Eng. Manager of Roads and Facilities

Departmental Approval:

Original signed by:

Robert Walton, P.Eng. Director of Public Works

Approved for submission:

Original signed by:

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

ATTACHMENT

Attachment 1 Oxford Road 12 Woodstock, June 22, 2015 (MA/DA)

0 50 100 150 20025Meters

KEY PLAN

SITE

Woodstock

Attachment 1 to PW 2015-37August 12, 2015

Report No: PW 2015-43

PUBLIC WORKS Council Date: August 12, 2015

Page 1 of 4



Trans Canada Trail

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That County Council authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with the Township

of Norwich and the Town of Tillsonburg for the construction and operation of the Trans Canada Trail (TCT) from the existing TCT in Tillsonburg easterly to Norfolk County and the proposed trail under the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program from Tillsonburg to Springford, including County financing of the project subject to final approval of County Council;

2. And further, that County staff work with Norwich and South-West Oxford

Townships and the Town of Tillsonburg to undertake Public Consultation for the proposed trails on County owned lands including the TCT extension and those seeking partnership funding through the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program in Norwich and South-West Oxford Townships.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Total cost of the trail is estimated at $870,000, and $510,000 in funding has been secured

from the TCT and the Pan Am Games Legacy Funding.

Tillsonburg and Norwich Councils are considering the proposed partnerships at their August 10 and 11, 2015 meetings respectively.

It is important that Public Consultation start as soon as practical such that funding deadlines set out in the grant programs can be achieved.

Implementation Points This section of the TCT is identified in the County of Oxford Trails Mater Plan. The proposed project follows the trails development model in the Master Plan including partnerships in this case with two area municipalities, with the County assisting to facilitate the inter-municipal project on County owned lands. Public Consultation will be essential to identify public needs and concerns with respect to the trail design, construction and operations.



Page 2 of 4

Financial Impact The 2015 County Budget anticipated the staff time and bridge improvements required for the TCT project. The money required to fund the area municipal portion of this project, estimated at $360,000, will be financed through the County. The agreements with the area municipalities will detail the repayment program. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.

Risks/Implications This project has numerous risks and implications. Many of these will be identified and dealt with through the Public Consultation and through the agreements with the area municipalities. One major risk is in losing the grant funding if the project does not proceed soon.

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:

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

2. i. A County that is Well Connected – Improve travel options beyond the personal vehicle by:

- Creating, enhancing and promoting the use of an integrated trail and bike path system - Promoting active transportation

4. i. A County that Informs and Engages - Harness the power of the community through conversation and dialogue by:

- Understanding and addressing public aspirations for a more livable community

DISCUSSION

Background Attachment 1 is a map showing the proposed TCT and the proposed trails applied for under the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program. Reports PW 2014-67 of December 10, 2014 and PW 2013-75 of December 11, 2013 and the Oxford County Trails Master Plan (adopted by County Council September 10, 2014) provide much of the background information for this report.

http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/portals/15/Documents/News%20Room/3437_0_Dec_10_2014_Agenda_version01.pdf#page=135

http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/portals/15/Documents/News%20Room/2134_0_Dec_11_2013_Agenda_version01.pdf#page=207



Page 3 of 4

Since December 2014 the following actions or issues have arisen: 1. Grants in the amount of $310,000 from the TCT and $200,000 from the Pan Am/Para Pan

Am Games Legacy Funding have been approved. The funding deadlines are March 2016 for the Pan Am Funding and 2017 for TCT funding.

2. On May 27, 2015 County Council approved Resolution No. 10 to apply for funding under the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program for expansion of the trail system. The expansion as shown on Attachment 1 includes trails in the Townships of South-West Oxford and Norwich and the Town of Tillsonburg. The funding for these projects is to be from long term financing through the County paid over time by the area municipalities involved.

3. At their respective Council Meetings on August 10 and 11, 2015 the Town of Tillsonburg and the Township of Norwich will be considering staff reports for a partnership agreement on the TCT and the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program extension from Tillsonburg to Norwich (subject to funding approval). Attachment 2 is a letter from Tillsonburg confirming this.

4. The Township of South-West Oxford has agreed to complete the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program extension from Tillsonburg to Brownsville subject to funding approval.

5. Approval of the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program Fund timing is not yet known.

Comments The previous reports outlined all the tremendous benefits of these projects including exercise, tourism, active transportation and healthy living. At this time, the trail extensions proposed by the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program have not received funding approval but planning and Public Consultation towards eventual implementation could commence along with the TCT Public Consultation. The proposed agreement between the Town of Tillsonburg and Township of Norwich for construction of the TCT (to be ratified by each Council meeting August 10 and 11, 2015 respectfully) and Public Consultation are the remaining items to be completed to allow this project to proceed. Time is of the essence to proceed with the Public Consultation to meet the project funding deadlines.

http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/portals/15/Documents/News%20Room/4232_1_Minutes%20May%2027%202015.pdf#page=5



Page 4 of 4

Conclusion The project to construct the TCT and the planned extensions considered by the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program are important projects identified in the County of Oxford Trails Master Plan. The partnerships established to execute these projects are exactly as envisioned in the Trails Master Plan. It is hoped that the next steps to move forward with this project are realized so that Public Consultation and construction follow very soon.

SIGNATURES

Report Author: Original signed by: Robert Walton, P.Eng. Director of Public Works

Approved for submission: Original signed by:


ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Proposed TCT and proposed trails Attachment 2 Correspondence from Tillsonburg regarding upcoming Council Meeting

KEY PLAN

Attachment 1 for PW 2015-43August 12, 2015

0 5.5 112.75Kilometers

OXFORD COUNTY

Proposed Trails for Canada 150Community Infrastructure

Proposed Trans-Canada Trail

Existing Trans-Canada Trail

TOWNSHIP OFSOUTH-WEST

OXFORD

TOWNSHIP OFNORWICH

Attachment 2 for PW 2015-43August 12, 2015





Drumbo Wide Area Network Tower Relocation and Replacement

RECOMMENDATION

1. That County Council authorize Public Works to proceed in 2015 with the unanticipated relocation and replacement of the Drumbo wide area network tower at a cost of $225,000, to be financed from the Facilities Reserve.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

To obtain County Council approval to undertake construction of the new tower that was notanticipated during preparation of the 2015 Capital Budget.

Implementation Points

If Council approves this report, staff will proceed to undertake this work.

Financial Impact

The cost for this work was not included in the 2015 Budget and is estimated to be $225,000. If approved the construction would be funded from the Facilities Reserve. The Facilities Reserve is estimated to have a 2015 ending balance of $3,261,637.

The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.

Risks/Implications

If this report is not approved the County would be in a position of liability exposure as the tower’s structural integrity has diminished. There is also the issue of diminished connectivity due to the growing canopy which presents operational difficulty to clients/staff that require network access.

Page 1 of 3



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:

1. ii. A County that Works Together – Enhance the quality of life for all of our citizens by:

- Adapting programs, services and facilities to reflect evolving community needs - Working with community partners and organizations to maintain / strengthen public safety

2. iii. A County that is Well Connected – Strengthen community access and Internet connectivity

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 Life cycle costs and benefit/costs, including debt, tax and reserve levels andimplications

DISCUSSION

Background

The County has and continues to partner with area municipalities, sharing communications infrastructure to better the programs in helping the citizens of Oxford County. The County’s shared municipal wide area network towers are a crucial and valuable, point to point infrastructure for communications. These towers provide a desirable location for our municipal and community partners to mount important communication strategies such as the Township Fire Communications Network.

Comments

The five Townships are currently upgrading their Public Safety Emergency Radio Communication System. Part of the upgrade will require a microwave dish on the Drumbo wide area network tower located at the Drumbo County Works Yard. A structural assessment and subsequent report was completed as per County procedures when reviewing requests to add devices to County owned communications towers. The report summary stated the condition of the Drumbo tower foundation is not acceptable creating an overload condition. Consequentially, the tower cannot support any additional load from communication devices such as requested by the Townships until this structural issue is corrected.

The recommended repair will require the antennas/devices currently fixed on the tower removed, the tower relocated, on site, a new engineered footing and structural base installed with the antennas remounted to the tower, please refer to Attachment 1.

Page 2 of 3



Further, the Drumbo tower has been experiencing connectivity issues due to the ongoing growing canopy. Staff is recommending installing a new 185’ tower to replace the existing 150’ tower which will correct any connectivity issues stemming from the current canopy growth and for years to come.

Repairs to correct the towers current condition falls under the County purview and should be followed through to ensure the structural integrity of the tower is sound are keeps the County out of a position of liability. Addressing the connectivity issues with the installation of a new taller tower will eliminate the need to revisit this tower for remediation in the future to compensate for the uncontrolled growth of canopy avoiding anticipated escalated construction costs. Once a new tower has been erected and structural needs corrected the additional devices requested for installation by the Townships would be allowed.

Conclusions

If approved by Council, staff will proceed with the design and construction of a new Drumbo shared municipal wide area network tower in 2015.

SIGNATURES

Report Author:

Original signed by:

Sam Pennisi Supervisor of Facilities

Departmental Approval:

Original signed by:

Robert Walton P.Eng. Director of Public Works


Original signed by:


ATTACHMENT

Attachment #1: Existing and New Location of Drumbo Network Tower

Page 3 of 3

EXISTING NETWORK TOWER

7.62m+/-

NEW NETWORK TOWERLOCATION PERIMETER

EMS

OXFORD ROAD 3

895939

DrumboPatrolYard

Attachment 1 to PW 2015-41 August 12, 2015

Oxford Road 29

Oxford Road 3

KEY PLAN

InnerkipDrumbo

Tower

Report No: CASPO 2015-159 COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING


Page 1 of 2


From: Director of Community and Strategic Planning

Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision SB 15-01-2; 1187688 Ontario Limited

RECOMMENDATION 1. That Oxford County Council grant draft plan approval to a proposed plan of

subdivision submitted by 1187688 Ontario Limited (File No. SB 15-01-2), prepared by Ricor Engineering Limited, dated April 22, 2015, as shown on Plate 3 of Schedule “A” of Report No. CASPO 2015-159, for lands described as Part of Lots 9 & 10, Concession 17 (East Zorra), in the Village if Innerkip, 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 of a residential plan of

subdivision within the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

Implementation Points This application will be implemented in accordance with the relevant 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 agrees with this financial impact statement.

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 County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan (2015-2018) at its regular meeting of May 27, 2015. The initiatives contained in this report support the Values and Strategic Directions set out in the Strategic Plan as they pertain to the following:



Page 2 of 2

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 County Council held a public meeting pursuant to Section 51(20) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, on July 8, 2015 to consider an application for draft approval of a residential plan of subdivision. No concerns were raised at the public meeting.

Comments Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Council, at their regular meeting of June 17, 2015, passed a resolution recommending that 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 15-01-2.

Conclusions It is the opinion of the Community and Strategic Planning Office that draft approval of the residential plan of subdivision, SB 15-01-2, is appropriate from a planning perspective, subject to the draft plan conditions attached as Schedule “A”.

SIGNATURES original signed by Gordon K. Hough, MCIP, RPP Director

Approved for submission: original signed by Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer

ATTACHMENTS Schedule “A” – Conditions of Draft Approval (SB 15-01-2: 1187688 Ontario Limited)

Schedule “A” To Report No. CASPO 2015-159

Page 1 of 5

CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL – 1187688 ONTARIO LIMITED 1. This approval applies to the draft plan of subdivision submitted by 1187688 Ontario

Limited (File No. SB 15-01-2) and prepared by Ricor Engineering Limited, dated April 13, 2015, shown on Plate 3 of Report No. 2015-139 and comprising Part Lots 9 & 10, Concession 17 (East Zorra) in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, showing 92 lots for single detached dwellings, a 1.96 ha (4.84 ac) townhouse block, a 1.14 ha (2.82 ac) stormwater management block and 5 internal streets.

2. The owner agrees in writing to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock regarding the construction of roads, installation of services, including the water, sewer and electrical distribution systems, sidewalks and drainage facilities, and other matters pertaining to the development of the subdivision, in accordance with the standards of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

3. The subdivision agreement shall make provision for phasing of the subdivision, to the

satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock and that 0.3 m (1 ft) reserves shall be included at the road stubs corresponding to the phasing.

4. The subdivision agreement shall be registered by the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock against the land to which it applies at the developer’s expense.

5. The subdivision agreement shall contain a condition whereby the developer shall be responsible for the preparation of new assessment schedules for municipal drains affected by subdivision lands, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

6. The subdivision agreement shall make provision for the dedication of 5% cash-in lieu of parkland to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning Act.

7. The subdivision agreement shall contain the following items specific to this development,

to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock:

i. that the noise provisions providing a maximum of 59 dBA for Outdoor Living Areas and all other noise provisions contained within the Noise and Vibration Feasibility Study that are in accordance with the Ministry of Environment guidelines, prepared by HGC Engineering, dated December 18, 2008, shall be incorporated into the agreement;

ii. that the acoustic barriers required by the Noise and Vibration Feasibility Study shall be

located and installed to satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock; iii. that once floor plan is available for Lot 71, a Professional Engineer qualified to perform

acoustical engineering services in the Province of Ontario should determine and/or refine the glazing construction to meet the minimum requirements specified in the Noise & Vibration Study;

iv. prior to the issuance of building permits, a Professional Engineer qualified to perform

acoustical engineer services in the Province of Ontario shall review the grading plans to certify that the noise control measures as recommended in the Noise & Vibration Study have been incorporated;


Page 2 of 5

v. prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, a Professional Engineer qualified to perform acoustical engineer services in the Province of Ontario should certify that the noise control measures have been properly installed and constructed.

8. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision for the fencing of the rear lot lines of

Lots 1 – 10 inclusive and the northerly interior side yard of Lot 10 at the developer’s expense, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

9. The subdivision agreement shall contain a cost sharing agreement between the developer

and the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock for the reconstruction of Main Street and George Street to an urban cross-section as per the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock’s design standards, as follows:

i. Main Street: from Queen Street to existing intersection with George Street to the east; ii. George Street: from the proposed Queen Street extension to future Jonker Street to

the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. 10. The subdivision agreement shall contain provisions for landscaping the street-fronting side

of the acoustic barrier located on Lot 71 to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

11. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision directing the owner and all future

owners of properties within the draft plan to include the following warning in all offers to purchase, agreements of purchase and sale or lease and in the title deed or lease of each dwelling within 300 m (984 ft) of the railway right-of-way:

“Purchasers are advised of the existence of a Railway right-of-way within 300 m (984 ft) and there is a possibility of alterations including that the Railway may expand its operations, which may affect the living environment of the residents notwithstanding the inclusion of noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the subdivision and individual units, and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from the use of its facilities or operations.”

12. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision directing the owner and all future owners of properties within the draft plan to include the following warning in all offers to purchase and sale or lease, and be registered on title, or included in the lease for each dwelling affected by any noise and vibration attenuation measures:

“Any berm, fencing or vibration isolation features implemented are not to be tampered with, or altered, and further that the owner shall have the sole responsibility for and shall maintain these features.”

13. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision directing the owner and all future owners of properties within the draft plan to include the following warning clauses in all purchase and sale agreements and be registered on title:

“Purchasers are advised that dust, odour and other emissions from agricultural activities conducted in the periphery of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock may be of concern and may interfere with residential activities.” “Purchasers are advised that the municipal water system is not designed or capable of providing fire flow service.”


Page 3 of 5

14. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision directing the owner and all future owners of Lot 10 within the draft plan to include the following warning clause in all purchase and sale agreements and be registered on title:

“Purchasers are advised that dust, noise, odour and other emissions from industrial activities conducted in the immediate vicinity may be of concern and may interfere with residential activities.”

15. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision directing the owner and all future owners of Lots 1-10 inclusive within the draft plan to include the following warning clause in all purchase and sale agreements and be registered on title:

“Purchasers are advised that noise, odour and other emissions from commercial activities conducted in the immediate vicinity may be of concern and may interfere with residential activities.”

16. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision directing the owner and all future owners of Lots 1, 2, 72 – 82 inclusive and 91 and 92 inclusive within the draft plan to include the following warning clause in all purchase and sale agreements and be registered on title:

“This dwelling unit has been fitted with a forced air heating system and the ducting was sized to accommodate central air conditioning. Installation of central air conditioning will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the criteria of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment.”

17. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision directing the owner and all future owners of Lot 71 within the draft plan to include the following warning clause in all purchase and sale agreements and be registered on title:

“This dwelling has been supplied with a central air conditioning system which allows windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the noise criteria of the Municipality and Ministry of the Environment.”

18. Prior to final approval of the plan, the subdivision agreement shall contain provisions indicating that prior to grading and issuance of building permits, that a storm water management report, grading plan and an erosion and siltation control plan be reviewed and approved by the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and further, the subdivision agreement shall include provisions for the implementation, monitoring and maintenance of stormwater management works in accordance with the approved plans and reports.

19. The road allowances included in the draft plan of subdivision shall be dedicated as public

highways. 20. The streets included in the draft plan of subdivision shall be named to the satisfaction of

the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. 21. All 0.3 m (1 ft) reserves as indicated on the revised draft plan of subdivision shall be

conveyed to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock free of all costs and encumbrances.


Page 4 of 5

22. Prior to the final approval of the plan, the owner shall submit to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock detailed road alignment design for the following street alignments:

i. Existing Queen Street with the proposed Queen Street extension; ii. Proposed Queen Street extension with existing Thompson Place; iii. Existing James Street with the recent James Street extension to the satisfaction of the

Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. 23. Prior to the final approval of the plan, the owner shall provide to the Township of East

Zorra-Tavistock road widenings along Main Street and George Street where they abut the subdivision, to bring the road allowance to the standard 20 m (66 ft) road width, which are to be conveyed to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

24. Prior to the final approval of the plan, all lots and blocks shall conform to the zoning

requirements of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-Law. Certification of lot areas, lot frontages and lot depths shall be obtained from an Ontario Land Surveyor retained by the developer.

25. Prior to final approval of the plan, all existing buildings and structures on the lands, except

for the dwelling located in Block 93, shall be removed prior to the registration of the first phase of the subdivision, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The existing dwelling located in Block 93 shall be removed prior to the registration of the phase which includes Block 93, to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

26. Prior to final approval of the plan, the owner shall obtain permission from the Township of

East Zorra-Tavistock to maintain one existing access to the existing dwelling located on Block 93 until such time that the dwelling is removed.

27. The owner agrees in writing that, prior to final registration of the plan, Block 94 shall be

conveyed to the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock for storm water management purposes free of all encumbrances, financial or otherwise, and this block shall be landscaped, graded, seeded with grass and fenced to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

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

including payment of applicable development charges, of the County of Oxford Department of Public Works 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.

29. The subdivision agreement shall make provision for the assumption by the County of

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

30. Prior to final approval of the plan, the owner shall receive confirmation from the County of

Oxford Public Works that there is sufficient capacity in the sanitary and water services to service the plan of subdivision.

31. Prior to final approval of the plan, such easements as may be required for utility or

drainage purposes shall be granted to the appropriate authority.


Page 5 of 5

32. Prior to final approval of the plan, any proposed utilities under or over railway property to serve the development must be approved prior to their installation and be covered by the Canadian Pacific Railway’s standard agreement.

33. Prior to final approval of the plan, detailed stormwater management design plans as well

as grading and sediment and erosion plans be submitted to the satisfaction of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

34. 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 28 – 31 inclusive have been met to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for each condition detailing how each has been satisfied.

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

Thames River Conservation Authority that Conditions 18 and 34 have been met to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for this condition detailing how it has been satisfied.

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

Canadian Pacific Railway that Conditions 18 and 32 have been met to the satisfaction of the Railway. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for each condition detailing how each has been satisfied.

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

Township of East Zorra-Tavistock that Conditions 1 - 27 inclusive, 29 and 31 have been met to the satisfaction of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement for each condition detailing how each has been satisfied.

38. This plan of subdivision shall be registered by August 12, 2018, after which time this draft

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

Plate 3: Proposed Draft Plan of SubdivisionSB 15-01-2 - 1187688 Ontario Inc. - 77 Main Street, Innerkip

of 5



To: Warden and Members of County Council From: Director, Community and Strategic Planning

Application for Draft Plan of Condominium and Exemption from Draft Plan Approval CD 15-02-3: 487223 Ontario Limited (Gabriel Kirchberger)

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That Oxford County Council grant draft plan approval of a proposed plan of

condominium submitted by 487223 Ontario Limited (Gabriel Kirchberger), (File No. CD 15-02-3); prepared by J.H. Cohoon Engineering Ltd. and dated June 3, 2015, for lands described as Part Lot 677, Plan 955, in the Village of Norwich.

2. And further, that Oxford County Council approve the application for exemption from the draft plan of condominium approval process submitted by 487223 Ontario Limited (Gabriel Kirchberger), (File No. CD 15-02-3) for lands described as Part Lot 677, Plan 955, in the Village of Norwich, as all matters relating to the development have been addressed through the Site Plan Approval process and a registered site plan agreement.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS The purpose of this report is to consider the approval of a draft plan of condominium and

exemption from the draft approval process to facilitate the development of a 20-unit condominium on the subject property.

The proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, the County’s Official Plan and the provisions of the Township of Norwich Zoning By-law.

The Council of the Township of Norwich supported the request for approval of the draft plan

of condominium and the exemption from the draft approval process at its regular meeting on July 14, 2015.

Implementation Points This application will be implemented in accordance with the relevant policies contained in the Official Plan.



Page 2 of 5

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 agrees with this financial impact statement.

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.

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:

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 Owner: Gabriel Kirchberger 487223 Ontario Limited P.O. Box 4647 Brantford, ON N3T 6J7 Applicant: Bob Phillips J.H. Cohoon Engineering Ltd. 440 Hardy Road, Unit 1 Brantford, ON N3T 5L8 Location: The subject lands are described as Part Lot 677, Plan 955, West Side of Dufferin Street, Village of Norwich. The lands are located on west side of Dufferin Street, south of Carman Street, and are municipally known as 10 Dufferin Street in Norwich.



Page 3 of 5

County of Oxford Official Plan:

Schedule “C-3” County of Oxford Settlement Strategy Plan Serviced Village Schedule “N-2” Village of Norwich Land Use Plan Medium Density Residential Township of Norwich Zoning By-law No. 07-2003-Z:

Existing Zoning: Special Residential Type 3 Zone (R3-1) Application Review (a) Proposal and Background An application has been received for approval of a plan of condominium and exemption from the draft approval process to facilitate the development of 16 townhouse dwelling units, and 4 street fronting townhouse dwelling units.

A condominium development differs from a plan of subdivision in that the roads and other ‘common’ features within the plan are typically owned privately by the condominium corporation. Further, services such as water and sanitary sewers are often held in private ownership by the corporation. The consideration of these matters, along with others (including, but not limited to parking design, site grading and drainage, building layout and landscaping) were considered through the Site Plan Approval process, which was undertaken by the Township in May of 2014, and a final Site Plan agreement was established in August of 2014 between the Township and the property owner.

Comments (a) 2014 Provincial Policy Statement

The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Under Section 3 of the Planning Act, where a municipality is exercising its authority affecting a planning matter, such decisions “shall be consistent with” all policy statements issued under the Act. Policies within the PPS direct municipalities to provide for a range of housing types and densities to meet the needs of current and future residents as well as promoting compact built forms of development. The policies also advise municipalities to permit and facilitate all forms of housing to meet the social, health and wellbeing of current and future residents and to promote residential intensification where it can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock, efficient use of infrastructure and public service facilities, providing there are no negative impacts on natural environmental features. (b) Official Plan The subject property is located within the Medium Density Residential designation, according to the Village of Norwich Land Use Plan, as contained in the County Official Plan. Medium Density Residential areas are those lands within the Serviced Village designation that are primarily



Page 4 of 5

developed or planned for low profile multiple unit development that exceed densities established for Low Density Residential areas. Permitted uses within the Medium Density Residential designation include all forms of townhouse development, cluster houses, converted dwellings and low rise apartment buildings. These areas are to be developed to a maximum net density of 50 units/ha (20 units/ac) and no building shall exceed four storeys in height at grade, and further, development shall be subject to Site Plan approval. (c) Zoning By-Law The subject property is zoned ‘Special Residential Type 3 Zone (R3-1)’ according to the Township of Norwich Zoning By-Law. The ‘R3-1’ zone permits the development of multiple unit dwellings and establishes a number of development standards, including minimum lot area and lot frontage, as well as minimum interior and rear yard requirements. For Council’s information, a minor variance was passed with respect to the subject property to permit the development of 20 townhouse dwelling units, as well as a reduction from the minimum required lot area provisions from 280 m2 (3014 ft2)/unit to 234 m2 (2526 ft2)/unit. This minor variance was granted by the Norwich Committee of Adjustment in February, 2014. (d) Agency Comments The County of Oxford Source Water Protection Coordinator, the Township of Norwich Public Works Department, the Township of Norwich Director of Protective Services and the Ontario Provincial Police have indicated that they have no concerns regarding this application. (e) Township of Norwich Council Township of Norwich Council recommended support of both the proposed draft plan of condominium and the exemption from the draft approval process at the Township’s regular meeting of July 14, 2015.

Planning Analysis

An application for condominium approval can be dealt with in one of two ways. The first method involves a process similar to subdivision approval where an applicant receives a ‘draft’ approval which is contingent on the applicant satisfying a number of conditions prior to final approval and registration. The Condominium Act also permits a second process whereby the approval of the condominium is exempt from the draft or ‘conditional’ approval stage and proceeds directly to final approval. The exemption process is intended to apply to proposals that have previously undergone a complete evaluation (i.e. site plan approval) and no further conditions of approval are required by the municipality regarding the development. The subject lands received Site Plan approval in August, 2014 and are subject to the terms and conditions of a development agreement entered into with the Township of Norwich as part of the Site Plan approval process. The development also complies with the relevant provisions of the ‘R3-1’ Zone, as contained in the Township of Norwich Zoning By-law and the subsequent minor variance.



Page 5 of 5

Conclusions It is staff’s opinion that the application is consistent with the policies of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement as the proposal supports an alternative form of housing to meet the long term needs of current and future residents of the Township of Norwich. The development also represents an efficient use of municipal services on lands designated Medium Density Residential within the Village of Norwich. Further, staff are of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the relevant Official Plan policies regarding the establishment of a condominium development on residentially designated land. The development also meets the relevant provisions of the ‘R3-1’ zone as contained in the Township’s Zoning By-law. The Township recently approved the related Site Plan and the required development agreement has been registered on title. Therefore, the application for draft plan of condominium and the requested exemption from the draft approval process can be supported.

SIGNATURES

Report Author: original signed by Heather St. Clair Development Planner

Departmental Approval: original signed by Gordon K. Hough, MCIP, RPP Director


original signed by Peter M. Crockett, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer

ATTACHMENTS Attachment No. 1: Report Mapping

Plate 1 – Location Map & Existing Zoning Plate 2 – Close-up of Subject Property with 2010 Air Photo Plate 3 – Applicant’s Proposed Condominium Plan

June 10, 2015

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

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

Legend

650

Notes

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N

32 Meters

Environmental Protection/Flood Overlay

Flood Fringe

Floodway

Environmental Protection (EP1)

Environmental Protection (EP2)

Zoning Floodlines/Regulation Limit

100 Year Flood Line

30 Metre Setback

Conservation Authority Regulation Limit

Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines

Zoning (Displays 1:16000 to 1:500)

hstclair

Text Box

Plate 1: Location Map & Existing Zoning File No. CD15-02-3: 487223 Ontario Limited (Cohoon Engineering Ltd.) Part Lot 677, Plan 955 (North Norwich), 10 Dufferin Street, Norwich

hstclair

Polygon

hstclair

Line

hstclair

Text Box

Subject Property

hstclair

Text Box

Dufferin Street

hstclair

Text Box

Palmer Street West

hstclair

Text Box

South Street

hstclair

Text Box

Cayley Street

June 29, 2015

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

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

Legend

510

Notes

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N

26 Meters

hstclair

Text Box

Plate 2: Close-up of Subject Property with 2010 Air Photo File No. CD15-02-3: 487223 Ontario Limited (Cohoon Engineering Ltd.) Part Lot 677, Plan 955 (North Norwich), 10 Dufferin Street, Norwich

hstclair

Text Box

Palmer Street West

hstclair

Text Box

Dufferin Street

hstclair

Polygon

hstclair

Text Box

Subject Property

lbuchanan

Text Box

Plate 3: Applicant's Proposed Condominium Plan File No. CD15-02-3: 487223 Ontario Limited (Cohoon Engineering Ltd.) Part Lot 677, Plan 955 (North Norwich), 10 Dufferin Street, Norwich

Report No: CS 2015-27

CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: August 12, 2015


From: Director of Corporate Services Business Plan and Budget Review – 2nd Quarter RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report No. CS 2015-27 entitled “Business Plan and Budget Review – 2nd

Quarter” be received for information. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Delivery of the 2015 goals and objectives is progressing as planned

Operating and program revenues and expenses are on target for core services and completion of the annual goals and objectives

Capital expenses are reported at an approximate 93% variance from total budget which is higher than the past Q2 completion levels five year average of 87.8% increase in variance this year is the cumulative effect of several major projects

having delayed expenditures

Financial Impact This report is based on information Finance staff have compiled from the financial systems and input received from each of the respective departments. The year to date financial activity as presented in this report anticipates positive year-end financial results. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact statement.

Risks/Implications There are no risks or implications that could result by adopting the recommendation contained within this report.

Page 1 of 3



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. ii. A County that Performs and Delivers Results - Deliver exceptional services by:

- Developing and tracking key performance indicators against goals and report results DISCUSSION Background In accordance with the reporting provisions contained within the Long Term Financial Sustainability Plan, staff have prepared progress updates for each of the approved goals and objectives within their business plans, accompanied by budget variance reports annotated to explain significant variances as of June 30, 2015. Comments Attachment No.1 is the “2nd Quarter 2015 Business Plan Update” including comments prepared by the respective departments. Attachment No. 2 is the “Budget to Actual – 2nd Quarter 2015” variance reports with comments explaining any significant variances as at June 30, 2015. The first page of Attachment No. 2 is a consolidation of all of the departments indicating that there is 73.57% (2014 – 70.02%) of the budget remaining which seems reasonable considering the report date is June 30th, at 50% of the County’s fiscal year. This indicator should not be viewed in isolation, however, as is evidenced by the variance in capital projects which is somewhat offset by the variance in “Other” – represented mostly by capital project funding (transfers to/from reserves and debenture proceeds). Capital expenses are reported at an approximate 93% variance from total budget which is higher than the past Q2 completion levels which averaged 87.8% over five years. The increase in variance this year is the result of delays in construction starts and by a significant lag in receipt of payment certificates for major capital projects that are getting underway at June 30th. The construction projects contributing to this year’s variance include:

Project Explanation

Ingersoll Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade

Delay due to Phase 1 completion delay - will have an impact on the total year cashflow

County Road 36 Region of Waterloo is the lead on their section of this boundary Road project – work is underway, no invoices received to date County of Brant shared section is not proceeding in 2015

County Road 8 and 20 Projects have been tendered, no invoices received to date

Page 2 of 3

lbuchner

Underline

lbuchner

Underline



Of the variance in capital projects, there are approximately $3 million identified to date related to project costs that will not be expended in 2015 - $1.25 million of this forecast is due to cancellation of the biosolids transfer station as a result of the waste management strategy selected by Council subsequent to budget approval. An additional $1.0 million is due to the Brant County shared portion of County Road 36 not proceeding in 2015 at Brant County’s request. Conclusions Overall, the reports indicate that the County is positively positioned to remain within budget over the balance of the fiscal year. The next quarterly report will be prepared as of September 30th and will include year end forecast figures that will also serve to assist in preparing for the 2016 budget planning process. SIGNATURE Report Co-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 – 2nd Quarter 2015 Business Plan Update (CK) Attachment No. 2 – Budget to Actual – 2nd Quarter 2015 (CK)

Page 3 of 3

Report No. CS 2015-27 Attachment No. 1

2nd QUARTER 2015 BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE

2015 Goals/Objectives Strategic Plan Alignment Expected Completion Quarter Achieved/Comments

Page 1 of 22

CAO/CLERK Strategic Plan Update to guide 2014-2018 Term of Council

A County that Works Together A County that is Well Connected A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future A County that Informs and Engages A County that Performs and Delivers Results A County that is an Employs People Who Make a Positive Difference

Q4 Completed. The Strategic Plan (2015-2018) was adopted by Council at its regular meeting on May 27, 2015 (Report CAO 2015-04)




Page 2 of 22

Work with Council to define priorities and directions for 2014-2018 Term of Council

A County that Works Together A County that is Well Connected A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future A County that Informs and Engages A County that Performs and Delivers Results A County that is an Employs People Who Make a Positive Difference

Q2 Completed. With the adoption of the Strategic Plan (2015-2018) on May 27, 2015 (Report CAO 2015-04), Council also confirmed their priorities for the 2014-2018 term of Council.

Southwestern Landfill Proposal A County that Works Together A County that is Well Connected A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future A County that is an Employs People Who Make a Positive Difference

Q4 Ongoing. The County of Oxford, its Area Municipalities and its residents await for a decision from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change regarding the submitted Terms of Reference.




Page 3 of 22

TOURISM Enhance tourism market readiness and development in desired market segments including culinary, outdoors & touring

1.i. A County that Works Together

Q4 Ongoing. Hosted Cheese Tasting & Talk and Culinary Workshops. Plan to relaunch Cheese Trail in for 4th quarter. Member of Oxford Business Builders committee which is planning a series of workshops throughout Oxford County related to Email marketing, social media, and online advertising.

Increase awareness of Oxford County as a visitor destination: Ontario & US Markets


Q4 Ongoing. Increased brochure distribution in Southwestern Ontario, participated in trade shows and events reaching GTA market.

Increase digital presence through use of video, social media, digital advertising & web development


Q3 Ongoing Integrated video into new Tourism Oxford website. Received partnership funding for more video for Tourism and partners ( Q3 completion planned). Digital advertising in 3rd Quarter with TripAdivisor.




Page 4 of 22

Increase local awareness of attractions in Oxford County

1.ii. A County that Works Together

Q4 Ongoing Developed a Maple in March promotion with a social media reach of 20,000 plus a radio contest. Restaurants & retailers participated by providing prizes and featuring maple menus and retail items. Increased local distribution of Tourism Oxford guides with new countertop boxes. Merged Oxford Buy Local and Oxford Fresh and launched a new map and integrated website.

Review Tourism Oxford office/kiosk lease


Q3 Ongoing Moved tourism Oxford administrative offices to OCAB. A seasonal booth, staffed Wednesday-Sunday, will remain at the Quality Hotel until Thanksgiving. Reviewing plans for a seasonal presence in 2016.




Page 5 of 22

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION AND ENGAGEMENTSupport 2015 Vision to Action campaign. Directly support new activities that continue to advance strategic priorities, including service review, community sustainability, service excellence strategy

4.i. A County that Informs and Engages

Q4 Ongoing Released 2014 Annual Report on June 10, 2014. Wrap-up of Future Oxford community engagement campaign in April followed by release of the Draft Community Sustainability Plan. Supported roll-out of the Future Ready Leadership Program and ACE (Service Excellence Awards and Long Service Awards). Developed comm strategy documents (swimlane and audience analysis) for consideration of community engagement needs for Services That Work.

Develop County “report card” publication. Refresh annual report and tax ad while establishing regular reporting cycle for Vision to Action achievements

4.ii. A County that Informs and Engages

Q2 Completed 2014 Annual Report featured a new report card section that shared progress on the County’s six strategic directions. The report card featured an interactive component that allowed people to vote “thumbs up” or thumbs down on progress under each direction. The annual “tax ad” update is completed for publication in early Q3.




Page 6 of 22

Support implementation of “Inform & Engage” strategy at program level. Increase number of coordinated engagement campaigns supported by implementing newly developed guidelines and templates

4.i. A County that Informs and

Q4 Ongoing Full SCE team is supporting communication roll-out for waste management program changes. Support provided for the 100% RE goal and Beachville area air quality assessment. Working with the Web Team to establish a process to refresh County website content section by section. Coordinated refresh of the public 2015-2018 Strategic Plan document and web section. Coordinated development of Oxford72hours.ca website and launch contest. Supported several other external campaigns.

Implement recommendations from internal communication strategy (2014) on SMT approval

6.i. A County that is an Employs People Who Make a Positive Difference

Q3 Completed Implementation planning for a bi-weekly bulletin for more timely and engaging “tier 2” news (Connections this Week) and internal communication protocol.

Review and identify measures for communication and engagement effectiveness

5.ii. A County that Performs and Delivers Results

Q4 Ongoing Research in preparation for Service That Work review of SCE and 2016 Business Plan.




Page 7 of 22

HUMAN RESOURCES Total Compensation Statements distributed to each full time employee


Q1 Issued to each full time employee in Q1

Develop and implement a variety of career development tools for all staff


Q3 On target

Explore the feasibility of an Alternative Work Arrangement Program


Q4 On target

Implement a succession management and leadership development policy and program


Q4 Completed and launched program in Q2. Leadership development program set to commence in Q3




Page 8 of 22

CORPORATE SERVICES FINANCE Review merit for centralized purchasing for the County


Q2 Subject to service delivery review process – Expected completion Q4

Facilitate the completion of the WSIB actuarial report

5.i. A County that Performs and Delivers Results

Q1 Expected completion Q3

Utility billing/customer service review


Q4 - 2015 implementation of improvements in

2016

Expected completion Q4

ARCHIVES Provide a special event to announce the acquisition and availability of the Donald Sutherland fonds


Q1 Archivist vacancy from Q1 – Q2 due to retirement and service delivery review –deferred to 2016

Update the Archives portion of the website






Page 9 of 22

Work with Tourism to enhance guidebooks and informational handouts



Submit 10 descriptions to the Archives Association of Ontario Archeion database, including 7 Record Group 2 County of Oxford series


Q4 Complete Q2

INFORMATION SYSTEMS Support corporate-wide service review process - project management and business analysis


2014 – 2016 In progress – expected completion Q1 - 2016

Spatial data collaboration / data warehouse

3.ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future

Q4 On target

IT/COIN Strategy 5.i. A County that Performs and Delivers Results

2014 Q4 -2015 Q3 Complete Q2

CUSTOMER SERVICE Utility billing/customer service review


Q4 - 2015 implementation of improvements in

2016

On target




Page 10 of 22

POA Consider political influence to incent province to develop improvements to computer software

3.i. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future

Q4 Complete Q1 – briefing note to Ministry of Attorney General

Early resolution implementation and review


Q3

Complete Q2

LIBRARY Increase library reach and usership – conduct community consultations to determine community needs

4.i. A County that Informs and Engages

Q4 On target

Complete Provincial Accreditation process


Q3 In progress – expected completion Q4

Board Orientation and Training 5.ii. A County that Performs and Delivers Results

Q2 Complete Q2

Gain meaningful data through implementation of Metrics as developed through Services That Work exercise – develop and implement tracking tools


Q4 On target




Page 11 of 22

PUBLIC WORKS ROADS AND BRIDGES Road Needs Study 3.ii. A County that Thinks

Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future

•

2015 Consultant selected.

Oxford Road 8, from Rd 59 to EZT 10th Line – construction


$2,500,000 Total 2015-2016

Tender Awarded. Construction scheduled to start the week of July 27, 2015.

Oxford Road 16 Improvements, from Kintore to Zorra 31st Line – EA


•

$4,200,000 Total 2016 - 2018

Class EA not yet completed. Study ongoing.

Oxford Road 20 (North St., Tillsonburg) Phase B & C – design and construction


$7,525,000 Total 2015-2016

Tender Awarded. Construction scheduled to start the week of July 27, 2015.

Oxford Road 36 – Shared with Waterloo Region and Brant County


$5,450,000 Total 2015 – 2018

North half shared with Waterloo Region – Phase 1 under construction. South half shared with Brant County – under design. No construction work in 2015.




Page 12 of 22

Bell St (Rd 119) Ingersoll, Upgrade Study


$1,660,000 Total 2015 - 2019

Proposals for Geotechnical Investigation closes on July 30, 2015.

FACILITIES Building Condition Assessment 1.ii. A County that Works

Together $650,000 Total

2015-2016 On Schedule. Report to Council PW 2015-30.

Woodingford Woodstock Building Management System update


Q2 Contract awarded, completion anticipated Q4 2015.

FLEET GPS Implementation of New Provider


Q2 2015 Q4 2015.

GREEN ENERGY PLAN Green Energy Fleet Plan 4.ii. A County that Informs

and Engages Q4 2015 Completed.

Alternative Heating – Highland Patrol Yard

3.iii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future

Q3 2015 In progress.

Electrical Car – Fleet 3.iii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future





Page 13 of 22

Woodstock WWTP/Tillsonburg WWTP Energy Efficiency Projects


Q4 2015 Study in progress.

Installation of LED fixtures at all WFL parking lots


Q3 In progress.

Install an Ozone generating system in Woodingford Lodge laundry


Q1 Completed.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – WASTE MANAGEMENT Curbside Collection Contract and Recycling Processing Contract


Q1 2015 Completed Q1 2015.

Update of Property uses bylaw including Hunting


Q1 2015 Report to Council Q3 2015.

Recycling Transfer Station 1.ii. A County that Works Together

Q3 2015 Not required as part of selected curbside contract.

Oxford County owned Properties assessment






Page 14 of 22

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – WASTEWATER TREATMENT Ingersoll WWTP Upgrade -Phase 1 - Design/Construction


$19,737,000 Total 2015-2016

Contract A Construction completed. Contract B issued for tender, completion date: June 2017.

Woodstock WWTP-Receiving Station-Construction


Q4 2015 Design 95% complete. Need to reduce construction cost before deciding to proceed.

Drumbo WWTP Upgrade -Design


$1,450,000 Total 2015-2016

Class EA in progress. Design will follow.

WATER SERVICES (INCLUDES WASTEWATER COLLECTION) Mt. Elgin new well – design and construction


$1,185,000 Total 2015-2016

Treatment technology selected. Design underway for 2016 construction.

Water/Wastewater Servicing Study (Beachville or Sweaburg)

3.ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and

Wisely Shapes the Future

$120,000 Total 2015-2016

Project will start in Q4 2015. Report to Council to select the community.

Development of Source Protection Funding Model

3.ii. A County that Things Ahead and


Q2 2015 Report to Council Q3 2015.

Climate change 3.ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and

Q3 2015 Background review in progress.




Page 15 of 22


Universal Metering in Township Systems and meter reading technology replacement in Tillsonburg and Ingersoll


$4,278,000 Total 2015-2017

Ongoing tender for installation anticipated Q4 2015.

Completion of South Ingersoll Sanitary Servicing


Q4 2015 Construction ongoing.

Modifications to Embro and Innerkip odour control facilities


Q3 2015 Embro in progress. Innerkip to follow.




Page 16 of 22

WOODINGFORD LODGE Seek provincial regulatory reform with a goal to achieve efficiencies

3.i. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future

Q4 In progress, continuing to work to efficiencies.

Upgrade phase two door operators to prevent and remove barriers under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA)


Q1 In progress, installation scheduled.

Optimized scheduling trial for a focus group of part time staff


Q2 Achieved with the RPN Part time staff schedule

Targeting resident quality of life and safety; identify two to four qualitative and quantitative measurable outcomes per department that are aligned with the South West LHIN Integrated Health Service Plan (IHSP) and that will mark our collective progress to the identified Big Dot (Major) Outcomes of the IHSP


Q2 Achieved June 10 2015

Staffing model review with a goal of staff retention and staff development


Q1 In progress, continuous attention to identifying opportunities.




Page 17 of 22

HUMAN SERVICES Facilitate County of Oxford Affordable Housing Development

1.ii. A County that Works Together 3.ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future

Q4 Indwell Phase 1 completed Tavistock project in progress Woodstock project underway

Develop business plan for the integration of the ODSP program. (FSW/ERO Pilot)


Q4 Business case in development

Implement and evaluate new funding model for Child Care services


Q4 Completed

Investigate and implement new computerized systems (one window)


Q4 In progress

Asset management strategy of existing Social Housing Stock


Q4 In progress

Update to Council re Workplan Feb, 11, 2015

Public meeting held Feb 11, 2015 in conjunction with landfill update

2nd phase of PHO Air quality monitoring commenced in May




Page 18 of 22

PUBLIC HEALTH AND EMERGENCY SERVICESComplete Beachville Area Air Shed Work Plan & develop plan for next steps


Q4 Update to Council re Workplan Feb, 11, 2015

Public meeting held Feb 11, 2015 in conjunction with landfill update

2nd phase of PHO Air quality monitoring commenced in May

Enhance the health status of the overall population by adopting a health equity framework (SDoH) to guide policy and service delivery planning and implementation.


Q4 Work continues in this area for all public health program & services

Client/ Customer Service: • Identify and implement

opportunities to expand normal office hours to better service clients who need to access PH services

• Identify strategies that enable PH & HS staff to work better together in meeting the complex needs of their mutual clients

5.i. A County that Performs and Delivers Results

Q3 Continue to work with HS and other partners to identify opportunities for working together.

Developing plan and strategy for enhancing client services across all programs and services (including clinic services)




Page 19 of 22

Appropriate Space & Technology: Better support the PH workforce who spend majority of their workweek in community settings by providing:

• appropriate technology • appropriate workspace

within assigned geographic work area


Q3 Office space rented in Tillsonburg Multi-Service Centre for staff to use when working in the area. Assigned PHIs and home visiting PHNs laptops with VPN access, and blackberries to access to email. Initial discussions with community partners re opportunities for shared work space in Ingersoll.

Enhance the PHES identify, credibility and reputation –strengthen awareness and understanding of PHES initiatives and issues through development of a PHES annual infographic


Q2 Deferred to Q4

Client Record Management System: Develop recommendations for a comprehensive record management system to support professional practice in the provision of client care including documentation of client care provided, scheduling of clinic appointments, CQI metrics, logistics, and auditing features


Q3

Hired temporary staff (using gapped FTE/Sal) with expertise in Health Informatics to assess current processes, identify immediate opportunities for efficiencies, make recommendations for furture electronic client record management system and support the implementation of the new inventory module for the provincial Panorama immunization database.




Page 20 of 22

Examine options for reducing workplace injuries incurred when lifting heavy patients on stretcher into ambulance-develop options for 2016 budget


Q3 In progress




Page 21 of 22

CASPO Official Plan Review

1.ii. A County that Works Together 3.ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future

Council consideration of

some draft amendments may

extend to Q2

Assessed policy impacts of new draft provincial guidelines and conducted Council workshops on key policy areas in Q2. In process of drafting proposed policies based on review of draft guidance and workshop feedback.

Woodlands Conservation By-law Update

3.ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future 4.i. A County that Informs and Engages

Q2 Draft By-law completed and discussed at Council workshop; undertaking further review prior to initiating public consultation and presentation to Council for approval

Source Protection Planning ● Source Protection Plan development ● Source Protection Plan implementation (Amendments to Official Plan Policies and Zoning Provisions and updating Development Review Process)

3.ii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future 3.iii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future

On-going consultation with MOE expected until all SPPs approved by

Province – late Q4

Targeting Q2 for draft OP policies and identifying

required updates to development

review processes

On-going consultation with MOE on draft SPPs essentially completed. Awaiting announcement of Provincial of SPPs. Draft OP policies underway, but will require Provincial approval of SPPs before they can be finalized. Interim updates to the development review process have been completed and will continue to be refined.

Children’s Groundwater Festival 3.ii. A County that Thinks Q2 Q2




Page 22 of 22

Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future 3.iii. A County that Thinks Ahead and Wisely Shapes the Future

Continue/complete preliminary review of lands surrounding Large Urban Centres (Ingersoll, Tillsonburg)


Q2 Constraints mapping largely completed for Ingersoll

REVENUES (125,781,785) (50,619,554) (75,162,231) 59.76%

SALARIES AND BENEFITS 57,407,971 25,020,895 32,387,076 56.42

OPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES 90,366,927 42,321,358 48,045,569 53.17

DEBT REPAYMENT 14,970,836 4,714,352 10,256,484 68.51

INTERDEPARTMENTAL ALLOCATIONS (16,095,297) (8,062,036) (8,033,261) 49.91

CAPITAL 59,373,536 4,227,758 55,145,778 92.88

OTHER (24,622,120) (2,900,182) (21,721,938) 88.22

TOTAL County of Oxford 55,620,068 14,702,591 40,917,477 73.57

2015

BUDGET

2015

ACTUAL VARIANCE % VARIANCE

County of OxfordFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015

Run Date: 28-Jul-2015


1 of 14

SALARIES AND BENEFITS 329,510 147,588 181,922 55.21%

OPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES 305,986 103,421 202,565 66.20

OTHER (140,848) 0 (140,848) 100.00

TOTAL COUNCIL 494,648 251,009 243,639 49.26

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationOPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES WOWC SWIFT Project expenses just starting

OTHER Reserve entries to be completed at year-end

COUNCILFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



2 of 14



OTHER (200,000) 0 (200,000) 100.00

TOTAL CAO 692,459 392,006 300,453 43.39

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationOTHER Reserve entries to be completed at year-end

CAOFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



3 of 14

REVENUES (59,000) (53,259) (5,741) 9.73%

SALARIES AND BENEFITS 151,622 66,630 84,992 56.06


CAPITAL 0 9,561 (9,561) 0.00

TOTAL TOURISM 329,687 125,233 204,454 62.01

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationREVENUES Membership fees received early in the year

TOURISMFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



4 of 14



CAPITAL 5,000 0 5,000 100.00

TOTAL STRATEGIC COMM. & ENGAGEMENT 232,903 90,533 142,370 61.13

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationOPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES

Tax ad/annual report expenses and Intranet/Web Design update to occur in Q3/Q4

CAPITAL Capital costs expected to occur in Q3/Q4

STRATEGIC COMM. & ENGAGEMENTFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



5 of 14



INTERDEPARTMENTAL ALLOCATIONS (769,292) (384,636) (384,656) 50.00

OTHER (48,900) (9,800) (39,100) 79.96

TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES 0 (31,939) 31,939 0.00

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationOPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES Leadership Training to occur in Q3/Q4


HUMAN RESOURCESFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



6 of 14

REVENUES (2,107,169) (932,713) (1,174,456) 55.74%



DEBT REPAYMENT 201,301 0 201,301 100.00


CAPITAL 268,000 5,373 262,627 98.00

OTHER (162,535) 0 (162,535) 100.00

TOTAL CORPORATE SERVICES 2,195,362 899,279 1,296,083 59.04

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationOPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES Timing of Conservation Authority payments

DEBT REPAYMENT Timing for debenture paymentsCAPITAL Computer equipment to be purchased in Q3 and Q4OTHER Reserve entries to be completed at year-end

CORPORATE SERVICESFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



7 of 14

REVENUES (8,001,657) (784,391) (7,217,266) 90.20%

OPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES 3,249,823 870,574 2,379,249 73.21

DEBT REPAYMENT 5,778,156 0 5,778,156 100.00

OTHER 664,455 142,509 521,946 78.55

TOTAL GENERAL 1,690,777 228,692 1,462,085 86.47

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationREVENUES Payments In-Lieu and Supplementary tax revenues are not recorded until the

end of the year

OPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES Tax write-offs are not recorded until the end of the year

DEBT REPAYMENT Debenture payments for area municipalities; Offset against revenue varianceOTHER Reserve entries to be completed at year-end

GENERALFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



8 of 14

REVENUES (59,025,935) (19,698,284) (39,327,651) 66.63%



DEBT REPAYMENT 6,129,665 3,271,513 2,858,152 46.63


CAPITAL 57,107,323 4,057,262 53,050,061 92.90

OTHER (22,913,364) (3,032,891) (19,880,473) 86.76

TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 21,488,757 2,324,333 19,164,424 89.18

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationREVENUES Capital project revenues are not billed until the completion of the

project; Gas Tax Grant and Stewardship Ontario Revenues not received until Q3 and Q4; Development charges have not be received from some area municipalities

CAPITAL Many capital projects are just getting underway while others are in the process of being tendered. At this point in the year, this is normal cash flow for capital.

OTHER Represents some reserve transfer and debenture issuances that have not yet occurred

PUBLIC WORKSFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



9 of 14

REVENUES (16,348,595) (8,261,301) (8,087,294) 49.47%



DEBT REPAYMENT 2,340,107 1,194,610 1,145,497 48.95

CAPITAL 849,623 50,304 799,319 94.08

OTHER (858,918) 0 (858,918) 100.00

TOTAL WOODINGFORD LODGE 8,125,819 3,080,447 5,045,372 62.09

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationCAPITAL Capital expected to be spent by the end of the year. Many

project are in the process of being quoted.OTHER Reserve entries to be completed at year-end

WOODINGFORD LODGEFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



10 of 14

REVENUES (26,739,810) (14,163,413) (12,576,397) 47.03%



CAPITAL 745,000 105,258 639,742 85.87

OTHER (840,000) 0 (840,000) 100.00

TOTAL HUMAN SERVICES 7,790,653 2,862,601 4,928,052 63.26

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationREVENUES Continued variances with SAMS reports; unknown of the full

impact this will have until the system has been reconciled. This is expected to occur when the Province has resolved the reconciliation functionality within the system.

OPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES

CAPITAL Some capital projects are currently underway while others are in the process of being quoted.


HUMAN SERVICESFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



11 of 14

REVENUES (12,950,314) (6,564,964) (6,385,350) 49.31%



DEBT REPAYMENT 300,139 115,868 184,271 61.40

CAPITAL 398,590 0 398,590 100.00

OTHER 111,410 0 111,410 100.00

TOTAL PUBLIC HEALTH & EMERGENCY SERVICES 7,820,502 2,283,978 5,536,524 70.79

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationDEBT REPAYMENT Timing for debenture paymentsCAPITAL Emergency vehicles not purchased until later in the yearOTHER Reserve entries to be completed at year-end

PUBLIC HEALTH & EMERGENCY SERVICESFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



12 of 14

REVENUES (214,458) (60,633) (153,825) 71.73%

SALARIES AND BENEFITS 1,324,128 564,160 759,968 57.39


OTHER (270,220) 0 (270,220) 100.00

TOTAL PLANNING 1,365,691 640,644 725,047 53.09

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationREVENUES Land Division revenues - Application numbers are downOPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES

Legal - hasn't been needed Consultant Fees - Ingersoll Secondary Plan and Growth Related Studies has been delayed and may not be completed by Q4 ($75,000); Remaining consultant fees expected to occur in Q3/Q4


PLANNINGFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



13 of 14

REVENUES (334,847) (100,595) (234,252) 69.96%

SALARIES AND BENEFITS 2,185,865 911,540 1,274,325 58.30

OPERATING AND PROGRAM EXPENSES 1,283,524 612,474 671,050 52.28

DEBT REPAYMENT 221,468 132,361 89,107 40.23

OTHER 36,800 0 36,800 100.00

TOTAL LIBRARY 3,392,810 1,555,780 1,837,030 54.14

2015

BUDGET

2015


Item ExplanationREVENUES Provincial Grant not received until Q4DEBT REPAYMENT Timing for debenture paymentsOTHER Reserve entries to be completed at year-end

LIBRARYFOR PERIOD ENDING June 30, 2015



14 of 14




From: Director of Corporate Services

Multi-Residential Tax Ratio Review RECOMMENDATION

1. That based on the results of the multi-residential ratio review as described in

Report No. CS 2015-26 entitled “Multi-Residential Tax Ratio Review” no action is to be taken at this time;

2. And further, that a follow-up multi-residential tax ratio review be undertaken in

2019, unless new information arises in the interim that may significantly alter the findings or interpretations of the review contained in this report.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS County’s current multi-residential tax ratio is 2.74

Provincial range of fairness upper limit for multi-residential tax ratio is 1.1000

Regional average multi-residential tax ratio in 2009 was 2.0717 compared to 2.0173 in 2015

In 2015, a multi-residential tax ratio of 2.440127 would have resulted in an equalization of taxes between the average residential unit within the multi-residential property class and the average condominium unit in the residential property class

Based on research and analysis conducted for the purpose of this report, the Area Municipal Treasures have determined that there are no proven or guaranteed financial benefits to the County that would result at this time by reducing the multi-residential tax ratio

Implementation Points Staff will continue to review the impacts of the County’s tax ratios as part of the annual tax policy review process and will bring forward any new information that may trigger a re-assessment of the multi-residential tax ratio, otherwise the next formal review will take place in 2019. Financial Impact There are no financial impacts with respect to the County or property taxpayers that would result from adoption of the recommendations contained in this report.

Page 1 of 10



The Treasurer has prepared this report with input from the Area Municipal Treasurers. Risks/Implications Considering the County’s multi-residential tax ratio is higher in comparison to its county/regional peers, if a developer were to look at tax ratios and/or tax rates in isolation of tax burden and other development related costs, the County may be by-passed for development investment in a municipality with a lower tax ratio and/or tax rate. Another risk of having a perceived inflated multi-residential tax ratio is that it may result in further condominium conversions of units that will continue to be rented for the purpose of securing a one-time and potential on-going tax break. Strategic Plan County Council adopted the County of Oxford Strategic Plan at its regular meeting held March 27, 2013. 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: 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. 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 Life cycle costs and benefit/costs, including debt, tax and reserve levels and implications

5. ii. A County that Performs and Delivers Results - Deliver exceptional services by: - Identify best practices and appropriate benchmarking

DISCUSSION Background In 2012, County Council received Report No. A-3 2012-08, entitled “Multi-Residential Tax Ratio Review”. The report was requested by Council in response to receiving comparative data compiled by Municipal Tax Equity Consultants (MTE) as part of the 2011 tax policy review, entitled “Municipal Tax Ratio, Tax Rate and 2010 Phased Assessment Growth Survey”. The survey identified Oxford County as employing the highest multi-residential tax ratio at 2.74 compared to the average of 2.07 and a median of 2.14. Further, the Staff Report identified potential impacts of various tax ratio reduction plans for the existing multi-residential ratio and adopting a new multi-residential property class. In response, Council decided to maintain the current multi-residential ratio of 2.74. Considering the significance of the variance between the County’s multi-residential ratio and that of its municipal peers, the County Treasurers felt it was prudent to inform the newly formed Council to determine if there is a desire for change. In response to the Treasurers

Page 2 of 10



recommendation, at County Council’s regular meeting held March 11, 2015, the recommendations contained in Report No. CS 2015-10 entitled “2015 Tax Policy” were adopted as follows:

“…And further, that Council directs staff to prepare further analysis and report the impacts of reducing the multi-residential tax ratio in future years’ tax policy.”

Due to the complexity inherent in assessing the implications of reducing a tax ratio, Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc. prepared a report entitled “Review and Discussion of Property Taxation and the Treatment of Multiple-Unit Residential Properties” dated July 7, 2015. Table 1 provides a summary of the County’s current ratios compared to the provincially prescribed ‘ranges of fairness’: Table 1 – Current Tax Ratios

Property Class Lower Limit Range of Fairness

Upper Limit Range of Fairness

2014 Adopted Ratios

% Over Upper Limit

Residential 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0

Multi-residential 1.0000 1.1000 2.7400 149.1

Commercial 0.6000 1.1000 1.9018 72.9

Industrial 0.6000 1.1000 2.6300 139.1

Large industrial 0.6000 1.1000 2.6300 139.1

Pipeline 0.6000 0.7000 1.2593 79.9

Farmland 0.0000 0.2500 0.2500 0.0

Managed forest 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.0

Comments Attachment No. 1 to this Report is the report prepared by MTE dated July 7, 2015, entitled “Review and Discussion of Property Taxation and the Treatment of Multiple-Unit Residential Properties”. The following considerations were assessed as part of their analysis: Part 1- Overview and background related to the treatment of multi-unit residential properties within Ontario’s overall property tax system and within Oxford, including a discussion and examination of how various residential property types are assessed for taxation purposes. Part 2 - Unit level assessment and tax comparisons of multi-unit residential complexes.

Page 3 of 10

lbuchner

Underline

lbuchner

Underline



Part 3 - Compilation and consideration of key indicators related to the County’s multi-residential tax ratios in comparison with regional peers and the broader municipal community. Part 4 – Quantitative analysis modeling the potential impacts of various ratio change scenarios, including the impact that may be realized by tenants through the Province’s automatic reduction policies. It is important to note that the intent of the report prepared by MTE is to enhance the understanding of the issues relevant in establishing a fair and equitable tax ratio for the multi-residential property class for the purpose of assisting Council in making a fully informed decision. In addition to the analysis conducted and reported by MTE, the County’s Planning and Human Services’ offices were consulted with respect to the following: Planning office consideration of condominium conversion applications; and Human Services (social services and housing) comments.

The following provides a more detailed description of the analysis and/or findings through the course of this exercise. Qualitative Issue Overview The MTE report begins by distinguishing among different types of multi-residential complexes, categorized into one of the three property classes and their respective assessment and/or taxation treatment – briefly summarized in Table 2: Table 2 – Types of Multi-residential Complexes

Multi-unit Residential Complexes

Identifier Assessment Approach Calculated by MPAC

Residential Six or fewer units and condominiums, regardless of number in a complex

Based on comparative residential sales comparison approach within the property’s proximity

Multi-residential Complex contains seven or more residential units under single ownership

Treated like business class properties using the income stabilization approach to valuation

New multi-residential

Optional class to provide differential treatment to new properties that would otherwise be captured under the traditional class

Same as traditional multi-residential class

It is important to note that the two differing approaches to determining assessment do result in different values for properties that may be similar or converted from multi-residential to

Page 4 of 10



condominium. MTE’s report page 10 provides an “Illustrative Market Matrix” presenting a comparative example. The intended purpose for introducing a ‘new’ multi-residential property class is to allow differential treatment to new properties being added to the assessment roll that would otherwise fall under the traditional multi-residential class. It can also serve the purpose of segregating properties that fall under an Affordable Housing Agreement that are eligible for a ratio equivalent to the residential ratio of 1.0. Once a property has been in the new multi-residential class for 35 years it will automatically revert back to being in the traditional multi-residential property class. Effectively, municipalities may choose to adopt the new multi-residential class, which allows for newly constructed or converted multi-residential properties to be taxed at the residential rate, or another rate (between current multi-residential tax ratio and residential tax ratio), for a period of 35 years. The new class does not impact the tax ratio or tax treatment of properties in the traditional multi-residential class but will apply to all new multi-residential properties for 35 years even if Council passes a by-law to discontinue the class for subsequent years. Since only new multi-residential properties being added to the assessment roll would be included in a new multi-residential property class, municipalities do not experience any real shifts in taxation among property classes as no assessment, revenue or tax burden is being transferred from one class to another. The impact of a new multi-residential class on the municipality’s tax base can be quantified by comparing the taxes that would have been paid if the property were subject to full multi-residential rate versus a lower new multi-residential rate. If a municipality intends to make a change to the class structure, for example introducing a new multi-residential property class, a by-law must be passed before the tax rate or ratio by-laws are passed. It is also important to provide the Province with all appropriate notifications as required under the Act and to confirm the formal transition ratio for the new class. Measuring Relative Tax Burden: Unit Level Analysis Considering the aforementioned differences in taxation and assessment treatment that exist, MTE’s report provides detailed quantitative results that include the following:

1. Average per-unit assessment and tax liabilities, and differentials among the various property types – Tables 3 to 5, pages 12 to 16 of the MTE report;

2. Assessment ratios to illustrate any value differenced among multi-residential and condominium properties on a per-unit basis – Table 6, page 17 of the MTE report; and

3. Effective tax ratios to achieve per-unit tax parity – Table 7, page 17 of the MTE report. The results as presented in Table 6 – Unit Level CVA and Tax Summary All Sample Properties, of the MTE report, illustrates that the lower multi-residential per-unit assessments are offset by the higher effective tax rates applied to that class. Table 7 is based on the County per-unit comparison and determines that a ratio of 2.440127 would result in equalization of the per-unit taxes in 2015 This is the ratio that would neutralize the CVA tax difference between per-unit condominium and per-unit multi-residential properties. Multi-Residential Property Class and Tax Ratios in Context This section of the MTE report includes a survey of multi-residential tax ratios from a sampling of single and upper-tier municipalities across the Province. The survey results indicate that Oxford’s current multi-residential tax ratio of 2.74 is markedly higher than the average ratio applied by the sample of Ontario municipalities – Figure 4 on page 20 of the MTE report. The

Page 5 of 10



County’s multi-residential tax ratio is matched only by the City of Hamilton’s traditional multi-residential class at 2.74, however Hamilton also has a new multi-residential class with a ratio of 1.0. Other observations from the survey suggest that the average multi-residential tax ratio has shown a slight downward trend over time – the regional average in 2009 was 2.0717 and 2015 is 2.0173, while the provincial sample average was 2.0006 in 2009 and is 1.9237 in 2015. MTE cautions the reader that comparing tax ratios does not necessarily translate into a relative comparison of tax burden, therefore the use of this analysis should be limited to trends and how ratios have changed over time. Tax Ratio Sensitivity Analysis The fourth section of the MTE report begins on page 24 and offers sensitivity analysis to assist in identifying the potential impact of any change to the multi-residential tax ratio. Considering the multi-residential property class in Oxford currently represents a relatively small proportion of the County tax levy even a sizable reduction to the ratio will not significantly change the tax distribution, however those municipalities with a higher proportion of multi-residential assessment will experience greater shifts in tax burden. For the purpose of illustrating the impacts, MTE has prepared three possible scenarios based on direction of the Area Municipal Treasurers and are described in Table 3. Table 3 – Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios

Scenario No. Description 2016 Multi-residential Ratio

Base-line Status quo ratios 2.740

Scenario one Equalized with residential 1.000

Scenario two Migrate to 1.00 over 5 years 2.392

Scenario three 2016 parity of average units Estimated at 2.351 Note 1 – based on the current anticipated assessment change patterns The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in Tables 14 through to 17 on pages 28 to 33 of the MTE report. Table 4 summarizes the impact on the residential class in each of the three scenarios examined. Table 4 – Sensitivity Analysis Impact on Residential Tax Burden

Scenario No. Ratio Tax Burden Shift from Multi-

Residential Class

Tax Burden Shift to Residential Class

Scenario one 1.000 -$1,278,702 $852,361

Scenario two – year one only

2.392 -250,630 167,076

Scenario three Parity of avg -281,053 187,278

Page 6 of 10



In addition to the shift of tax burden from the multi-residential tax class largely to the residential tax class, there are shifts of tax burden between municipalities. The potential inter-municipal tax shifts can be found in Tables 14C through to 17C on pages 29 to 33. An addendum to the report presents the inter-class shift for each of the Area Municipalities – pages 37 to 44. The final influencing factor considered prior to concluding comments in the MTE report is the impact that a reduction in the multi-residential ratio and resulting tax burden could have on automatic rent reductions. Automatic rent reduction is a legislated requirement under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. It requires reductions in rent to be provided to tenants of properties that experience a property tax reduction of greater than 2.49% from one year to the next. The reduction amount passed on to the tenant is based on a prescribed formula set out in the Act. To illustrate potential effects of applying the three scenarios of multi-residential tax ratio reductions, MTE has summarized the results of the following rent reduction parameters in Tables 18 through to 20 on pages 34 to 36 of their report:

1. The tax ratio applied to the multi-residential class; 2. The difference between the multi-residential class levy for the year and what the levy

would have been in the absence of a ratio change; 3. The year-over-year tax change for the multi-residential class inclusive of all local and

upper-tier levies estimated Provincial education levy; 4. The estimated incidence of eligible rent reduction properties and units; and 5. The average rent reduction percentage and dollar amount per $1,000 of rent.

Conclusions – Summary from MTE Report In considering the contents of their report, MTE makes the following observations:

1. The County`s current multi-residential tax ratio is at the high end of the spectrum when compared to other jurisdictions with the gap widening as others decrease their ratio.

2. At the class level, the average unit within a complex assessed as multi-residential is subject to a lower assessment, which mitigates a higher effective tax rate.

In closing, the report author encourages the reader and decision maker to consider the details of the entire report and ensure the implications of any proposed or possible tax policy change is quantified and understood prior to any decision being made. Planning Office Consideration of Condominium Conversion Applications As part of their analysis, the Treasurers considered the planning process that is followed in Oxford County when an application is submitted to convert a property from multi-residential to condominium classification. The conversion of rental housing to condominium or other forms of ownership are undertaken in accordance with the policies of the County’s Official Plan. The Plan generally encourages the creation of housing opportunities in each of the large urban centres (Tillsonburg, Ingersoll and Woodstock) that may result in a range of housing tenures. As rental housing generally forms an important element of each community’s supply of affordable housing, the Official Plan directs that County and local Councils are to be guided by the following criteria when considering an application for permission to convert a residential rental building to condominium ownership:

Page 7 of 10



Vacancy Rate - for similar unit types which are available at a similar level of rent, as determined by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) or by a supplementary vacancy rate survey conducted by the County of Oxford Community and Strategic Planning Office, is 3% or greater. The vacancy rate will be defined as the average of the latest two vacancy surveys conducted in the Town/City by CMHC and/or the County of Oxford Community and Strategic Planning Office. Affordability - whether the proposal will add to the affordable housing stock and the proportion of similarly priced ownership housing in the housing market. The affordability of ownership housing will be determined by using local income data, a 10% down payment, the current mortgage interest rate, and a 30% gross annual household income allocation for housing. Impact on Tenants – the potential for displacement and the measures proposed to minimize hardship for existing tenants. Site Plan Control - the proposal complies with all residential development standards, the local property maintenance and occupancy by-law, and design standards. In this regard, proposals to convert rental residential buildings to ownership tenure may be subject to site plan control to ensure that consistent standards are established for both new development and conversion throughout the Town/City. Building and Fire Codes - the proposal complies with the Ontario Building and Fire Codes or is proposed to be upgraded in accordance with such standards or requirements. The Town/City may require a building condition report to be submitted by a qualified professional engineer for this purpose.

With respect to the potential impact of conversion on tenants and the potential for displacement, the Residential Tenancies Act (formerly the Tenant Protection Act) includes a number of provisions intended to prohibit displacement and hardship to existing tenants resulting from the conversion of rental units to condominium ownership. Specifically, the Act provides the following protections for existing tenants where conversion has occurred:

“A landlord is prohibited from evicting an existing tenant to give vacant possession to a prospective purchaser of the condominium unit and is prohibited from termination based on possession by the landlord for the purpose of personal occupation by the landlord or member of the immediate family.

Any purchaser of the condominium unit will not be able to obtain vacant possession while the tenant remains in the unit. Tenants of a converted residential unit are guaranteed the right of ‘first refusal’ to purchase the condominium unit.”

County Council is the approval authority with respect to the conversion of existing residential rental units to condominium units, however, the approval process includes a report that is presented to the affected local Council. The recommendation of the local Council, including any

Page 8 of 10



relevant conditions, is considered by County Council when making a final determination regarding a particular application. A common condition of approval is the submission of a ‘building condition report’ by the applicant to the local municipality. The vacancy rate and average rent utilized in the consideration of an application for conversion is normally obtained from CMHC, which publishes this data every 6 months. Each application for conversion is assessed on its merits in accordance with the criteria listed above. Applications are typically recommended for approval where the vacancy rate for the particular type of unit proposed for conversion exceeds 3%. However, conversions may also be considered for lower vacancy rates where the rent being collected is clearly above what would be considered ‘affordable’. Further, notwithstanding the vacancy rate criterion, a conversion may also be considered favourably where it is clear that the units being converted to condominium ownership will continue to be rented for similar rates, thereby effectively providing a continued source of affordable rental housing after the conversion is completed. Human Services Comments Comments were sought from the Human Services Department with respect to tax ratios’ influence on the creation of affordable housing. It is the Director’s opinion that “there is some advantage to a reduced rate, however, the tax reduction alone is not enough to stimulate the development of affordable housing”. In addition, the Director’s comments included the following:

“Affordable housing by definition in the rental market has been defined as having rents set at 80% of market. The social housing needs analysis determined that people in the 60th percentile of the income bracket could afford to contribute 30% of their income to shelter. The report further recommended that the County of Oxford would need to create at minimum 100 units per year to keep pace with the growing demand. This target has never been achieved although there have been affordable housing units developed as a result of the Canada Ontario Affordable Housing program. As previously mentioned, tax considerations are part of the solution but they must be combined in a multi-faceted approach to stimulate affordable housing development. The following suggestions come to mind such as: waiving development charges; reducing building application fees; use of surplus municipal lands; direct per unit grants; and, direct unit rental subsidies.”

Conclusions In addition to the information provided in the MTE report, through anecdotal discussion based on MTEs experience in conducting similar research and analysis for other municipalities within the Province, there is no proven correlation between lowering the multi-residential tax ratio and growth in multi-residential development/assessment. It is possible and again not proven, that a reduction in the multi-residential tax ratio may assist in sustaining these developments over time.

Page 9 of 10



Federal and provincial tax policy also provides a mechanism that effectively mitigates the multi-residential property owners’ financial burden by allowing property taxes to be included as an expense in reducing their taxable income. Due to the complexity of the various scenarios, multi-tiered taxable incomes for instance, estimates of these reductions have not been prepared for the purpose of this review. The tax ratio reduction scenarios provided within the MTE report were limited to three as suggested by the Area Municipal Treasurers to give Council a sampling of the impacts of various ratio reduction programs. These scenarios are not to be considered the only options, but are intended to provide a broad range for considering additional modelling if desired. For instance, if Council were to consider reducing the multi-residential ratio, the reduction could be phased-in to reach the ultimate goal over a number of years. It is important to note that any phase-in plan that straddles a re-assessment year has the potential of experiencing an elimination of the mitigating measures set in place by the plan. In conclusion, based on the information presented in this report, inclusive of the attached MTE report, the Treasures have determined that there is no compelling financial reason at this time to reduce the multi-residential tax ratio. If Council desires to reduce the multi-residential tax ratio closer to that of its peer municipalities, it is important to realize that this course of action would be based on perception and would not necessarily translate into increased assessment or housing units on its own. Also, any reduction in the ratio will be permanent as the legislation only allows movement toward or within a range of fairness and not further from the upper limit of the range of fairness. SIGNATURE 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 – “Review and Discussion of Property Taxation and the Treatment of Multiple-Unit Residential Properties”, prepared by Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc., dated July 7, 2015

Page 10 of 10

CONFIDENTIAL

© 2015 Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc.

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND THE TREATMENT OFMULTIPLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES

Prepared For:The County of Oxford

Prepared By:Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc.

12005 Steeles Avenue,Georgetown, ON L7G 4S6

www.mte.ca

Published On:Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Replaces version dated June 22, 2015


CONFIDENTIAL


Disclaimer and Caution

The information, views, data and discussions in this document and related material areprovided for general reference purposes only.

Regulatory and statutory references are, in many instances, not directly quoted excerptsand the reader should refer to the relevant provisions of the legislation and regulations forcomplete information.

The discussion and commentary contained in this report do not constitute legal advice orthe provision of legal services as defined by the Law Society Act, any other Act, orRegulation. If legal advice is required or if legal rights are, or may be an issue, the readermust obtain an independent legal opinion.

Decisions should not be made in the sole consideration of or reliance on the informationand discussions contained in this report. It is the responsibility of each individual in eitherof a decision-making or advisory capacity to acquire all relevant and pertinent informationrequired to make an informed and appropriate decision with regards to any matter underconsideration concerning municipal finance issues.

MTE is not responsible to the municipality, nor to any other party for damages arisingbased on incorrect data or due to the misuse of the information contained in this study,including without limitation, any related, indirect, special or consequential damages.

CONFIDENTIAL


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................4

Overview............................................................................................................ 4

General Outline and Report Structure ................................................................... 4

Scope Limited to Municipal Policy Options ............................................................. 4

PART ONE: QUALITATIVE ISSUE OVERVIEW .................................................................6

Distinguishing Among Different Types of Multi-Unit Residential Complexes............... 6

Differential Tax Treatment – Municipal Tax Ratios ................................................. 7

Multi-Residential Tax Rates for Municipal vs. Education Purposes ............................ 8

Differing Assessment Methodologies and Value Considerations ............................... 8

PART TWO: MEASURING RELATIVE TAX BURDEN: UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS ........................11

Methodological Considerations ........................................................................... 11

Per Unit Assessment Analysis ............................................................................. 12

Per Unit Taxation Analysis ................................................................................. 15

Condominium Conversions................................................................................. 18

PART THREE: OXFORD’S MULTI-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CLASS AND.............................19

TAX RATIOS IN CONTEXT ........................................................................................19

Inter-Municipal Comparison ............................................................................... 19

Observations and Discussion.............................................................................. 23

PART FOUR: TAX RATIO SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.........................................................24

Moving Tax Ratios............................................................................................. 24

Automatic Rent Reductions ................................................................................ 33

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................36

ADDENDA: LOCAL RESULTS TABLES

CONFIDENTIAL

© 2015 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. 4

INTRODUCTION

OverviewUpper-tier municipalities in the Province of Ontario are charged with the task ofestablishing a host of property tax policies to apportion the tax burden within and betweentax classes. Of the myriad challenges created by this responsibility, the County of Oxfordhas, for several years, been particularly interested in the tax treatment of multi-residentialclass properties and also that applied to multi-unit residential properties not captured bythe multi-residential property class.

In 2011 the County enlisted the assistance of Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc.to augment the body of research surrounding this issue, and to prepare quantitativemodels for the purpose of understanding the potential tax implications associated with avariety of tax ratio adjustments. While no policy changes have been made in theintervening years, the issue of the ratio treatment for these properties has remained onthe agenda of various decision makers and stakeholders.

As part of the response to the persistent levels of interest in the treatment of the multi-residential tax class, staff tasked MTE with the preparation of this report in order toconsider and explore a broad range of quantitative and qualitative questions in respect ofthe issues at hand.

General Outline and Report StructureBased on the priorities and requirements conveyed by County finance staff, MTE hasstructured our analytical efforts to focus on seven distinct avenues of enquiry. The resultsof these efforts are presented in each of the following sections, which comprise this report.

Part 1: Overview and background related to the treatment of multi-unit residentialproperties within Ontario’s overall property tax system and within Oxford.Including a discussion and examination of how various residential property typesare assessed for taxation purposes.

Part 2: Unit level assessment and tax comparisons of multi-unit residential complexes.

Part 3: Compilation and consideration of key indicators related to the County’s multi-residential tax ratios in comparison with regional comparators and the broadermunicipal community.

Part 4: Quantitative analysis modeling the potential impacts of various ratio changescenarios, including the impact that may be realized by tenants via the Province’sautomatic rent reduction policies.

Scope Limited to Municipal Policy OptionsThe purpose and mandate of this study is to further advance an understanding of theissues that are relevant to establishing a fair/equitable tax ratio for the multi-residentialclass. The ultimate goal is to support County Council in making enlightened decisionsregarding the elements of the property tax regime that fall under the purview of the upper-tier government. It has been designed and drafted to examine the prevailing issues in thecontext and scope of local decision making responsibilities and powers. It does not, and is

CONFIDENTIAL


not intended to address more fundamental questions regarding the appropriateness ofproperty taxation in general, nor does it attempt to question the appropriateness ofassessment values, or assessment methodologies.

Many advocates of the radical reform or abolition of property tax assert that it is aregressive form of taxation and an inappropriate tool to meet the funding needs of moderngovernment. While the examination of these issues is worthwhile, such investigation oranalysis does not fall within the mandate of this report. The sole intention of thisundertaking is to provide the background and analysis required for Council to fulfill itsdecision making responsibilities with respect to the tax policy landscape within Ontario’scurrent property tax regime.

CONFIDENTIAL


PART ONE: QUALITATIVE ISSUE OVERVIEW

Distinguishing Among Different Types of Multi-Unit Residential ComplexesMulti-unit residential properties can be considered all those made up of multiple, self-contained units used for residential purposes; they may take the form of townhouses, row-houses, converted or divided single family homes, or more traditional apartment buildings.All such properties are taxed based on their current value assessment (CVA), multiplied bythe applicable tax rates for municipal and education purposes,1 however, the manner inwhich each property’s CVA will be arrived at, and what rates it attracts, will depend onhow the property is classified. Properties are classified for assessment and taxationpurposes based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, how the land is zoned;the state and nature of assessable improvements; ownership and occupancy models andhow these and other relevant variables fit within the classification parameters set outunder the Assessment Act and supporting regulations.

Multi-unit residential complexes will be categorized into one of three property classes andwill receive different assessment and/or taxation treatment depending whether they areclassified as residential (RT), multi-residential (MT) or new multi-residential (NT). Multi-unit residential buildings with six or fewer units fall into the residential property class;condominiums, regardless of the size of the building, nature of the development or theownership model are also classified as residential because title to each unit is individuallyheld. For a residential complex to be placed in the multi-residential property class it mustcontain seven or more residential rental units under single ownership. The new multi-residential class is an optional property class that each upper or single-tier jurisdiction mayemploy in order to provide differential treatment to new properties that would otherwisebe captured by the traditional multi-residential property class. Once a municipality adoptsthe new multi-residential class, and a building is designated as such, that property retainsthe NT designation for a period of 35 years.

Within Ontario’s property tax system, the distinction between buildings assessed and taxedas multi-residential and those classified as condominiums is intended to reflect the typicalownership and occupancy patterns of these two types of property. That is, in a perfectworld the multi-residential building is owned by an entity, which is engaged in the businessof renting residential units, while condominiums are individually owned and normallyowner-occupied. This is reflected in the current Provincial policy regime under which multi-residential properties are treated more like business class properties, while condominiumsare treated in the same manner as other residential properties, both in terms ofassessment and taxation.

1 Properties classified as Multi-Residential may be subject to adjustments under the Province’smandatory tax “capping” program.

CONFIDENTIAL


Differential Tax Treatment – Municipal Tax RatiosProperty taxes are based on the assessed value of a property multiplied by the applicabletax rates for municipal and education purposes. While education rates for properties in themulti-residential, new multi-residential and residential classes are equalized, tax rates formunicipal purposes can and do vary by class based on a system of tax ratios. The tax ratiofor a class expresses the relationship of the class’ rate to the tax rate for the residentialclass, which is the base for determining all other rates.

The tax ratio for the residential class is legislated at 1.0, while the farm and managedforest classes have a prescribed tax ratio of 0.25. The farm ratio may be reduced to a levelof 0.0, however, any reduction only applies to the municipal portion of the tax bill. Insetting tax ratios for all other property classes, municipalities must do so within theguidelines prescribed by the Province. Council may choose to adopt: (1) either the statusquo tax ratio for any class; (2) establish a new tax ratio for the year that is closer to orwithin the Range of Fairness, as shown in Table 1; or (3) utilize restated revenue neutraltransition ratios to mitigate reassessment related tax shifts between classes in accordancewith the regulated calculations2.

Table 12015 Oxford County Tax Ratios and Provincial Limits

Table 1 also includes a comparison of the municipality’s 2015 tax ratios to the currentProvincial Threshold Ratios. Where the ratio for a class exceeds the prescribed threshold,municipal levy increases borne by that class are constrained. As can be seen, the Countyis not currently subject to levy restriction for any class of property.

The County of Oxford’s tax ratio for the multi-residential class has remained very stableover time with only one adjustment being made since the County’s original transition ratiowas regulated by the Province in 1998. This change occurred for the 2001 taxation yearwhen it was reduced from 2.8392 to 2.740000 and has since remained unchanged.

Specific options and implications related to the movement of tax ratios will be addressedlater in this report.

2 The option to utilize class neutral transitions ratios is not a default option under The Act. If theProvince fails to regulate this option for any tax year, the options would be limited to 1 or 2.

Class2015Tax

Ratios

Ranges of Fairness Threshold Ratios

LowerLimit

UpperLimit

ThresholdSubject to

LevyRestriction

Residential 1.000000 1.00 1.00 - -

Farm 0.200000 0.00 0.25 - -

Managed Forest 0.250000 0.25 0.25 - -

Multi-Residential 2.740000 1.00 1.10 2.74 No

Commercial 1.901800 0.60 1.10 1.98 No

Industrial 2.630000 0.60 1.10 2.63 No

Pipeline 1.259300 0.60 0.70 - -

CONFIDENTIAL


Multi-Residential Tax Rates for Municipal vs. Education PurposesAs previously noted, the tax rate for education purposes is constant across the residential,multi-residential and new multi-residential classes. These classes are subject to theuniform residential education rate that applies province-wide. Table 2 below illustrates thedifferential in tax treatment in terms of the municipal tax rates that are applied toproperties in each of the residential and multi-residential constituent classes.

Table 22015 Effective Municipal and Education Tax Rate Ratios

Levy Type2015 Tax Rates

Effective RatiosResidential Multi-Residential

Upper-Tier General 0.00384977 0.01054837 2.740000

Average Local General 0.00623687 0.01708901 2.740000

Education 0.00195000 0.00195000 1.000000

Total 0.01203664 0.02958738 2.458111

As can be seen, the 2015 local and upper-tier rates for the multi-residential class are 2.74times higher than for residential. As the education rate for both classes remains constant,the overall net ratio is 2.458111. Therefore, every dollar of multi-residential assessmentwill attract approximately 246% of the taxes raised by a dollar of residential CVA; thisrepresents the final ratio of tax rates between the two classes.

Differing Assessment Methodologies and Value ConsiderationsIn addition to the differential in tax treatment among these classes, the manner in whichthe properties are assessed must be considered. Multi-residential and new multi-residentialproperties (i.e. with 7 or more rental units) are assessed by the Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation (MPAC) using the income capitalization approach. This practiceinvolves evaluating the income stream, or revenue generated from rents paid by occupantsof the building. Location, building age and condition are also considered.

Condominiums and residential properties with fewer than seven units are assessed byMPAC using the sales comparison approach to valuation. That is, sales data of similarproperties are used to determine the assessment of a property; this is consistent with thepractice employed to estimate the value of single unit residential properties.

The two differing approaches can and do result in different values for properties that maybe similar or nearly identical in terms of physical characteristics. This approach is stronglysupported by the appraisal community, which maintains that purchasers of multiple unitbuildings are very different from those looking to buy an individual unit, hence theappropriateness of a different valuation technique. In the latter instance, because of thegreater number of buyers possible for a single unit than an entire building, the marketvalue/purchase price for condominiums will be higher. Moreover, potential purchasers

CONFIDENTIAL


would require “discounts” if purchasing blocks of units.3 A court decision in Alberta withrespect to this issue (City of Calgary v. Lougheed & Company, 2001, ABOB 371), whichmaintained that differences in valuation treatment for assessment purposes should not bepermitted between these two types of property, has been hotly refuted by the appraisalcommunity, which argues that analogous assessment treatment of apartments andcondominiums is in “contradiction with standard assessment practice of a fair andequitable burden of taxation”.4

In sum, the methodology used for each is regarded, theoretically, as the appropriatemeans of determining what these properties would exchange for between a willing sellerand a willing buyer. That is, the income approach is not used for multi-residentialproperties in order to arrive at a lower value; rather it is used because it is a more reliablemeans of determining what such buildings would in fact exchange for in the marketplace.

Ultimately the assessment methodology used to determine the CVA of any property isintended to arrive at what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller in exchange for thesubject property. In order to do this, the methodology must be able to approximate a saleprice in the absence of an actual transaction for the subject property.

At their simplest level, the sales comparison and income capitalization methodologiesleverage the same information, influences and factors that would affect what an actualbuyer would pay for the property. To illustrate this in a very general manner, it is usefulto consider how a buyer of condominium might arrive at the price they were willing to payand contrast that with how a landlord might determine what they would pay for a multi-residential building.

For the condominium buyer shopping for a home, their search would likely begin with theidentification of a geographic area and would then progress to focus on buildings andultimately units of interest. Once they find their new home, they become the willing buyerand enter into negotiations with the willing seller. The question is, assuming affordabilityis not an issue, how does the buyer decide what they are willing to pay for the property?Similarly, how does the seller arrive at what they will sell the property for?

If the buyer and seller are both well informed and prudent, they will endeavour to learnwhat similar or comparable properties have sold for. While exact comparables may not beavailable, the urban condominium market provides a large pool of similar units andbuildings from which comparisons can be drawn.

Based on this information, the buyer and seller establish their opinions of value and whilethey may not be identical, and accounting for the emotions, etc… that may be involved,they should be similar. The basic foundation of the sales comparison approach to valuationreplicates this. It considers actual transactions in great enough volume that theassessment authority is able to estimate what a property would transact for based on whata willing buyer would pay for a similar property.Similarly, the Income Capitalization approach is intended to replicate, or estimate themarket forces and considerations that ultimately determine the exchange price of income

3 Wyton, Randy. “Assessment of multi-family condominium and rental property”. CanadianAppraiser, 2003, pages 42-45.4 Ibid.

CONFIDENTIAL


producing properties. The potential buyer of a multi-residential property will obviously beconscious of what a similar building would cost to purchase, but they must pay particularattention to the relationship between what a building generates in income (rent) vs. thecapital, carrying and operating costs.

The following simplified and hypothetical example of two identical multi-unit buildings canassist in further clarifying how these two methodologies have been designed to replicatethe transaction values that might be derived from two different market places.

Looking at this hypothetical comparison of two fictitious buildings, we can conceptualizehow identical buildings might command very different sale prices depending on the marketplace within which they will transact. While the motivated and qualified homeowner mightbe willing to pay $150,000 for a unit in light of the knowledge that any similar alternativewill cost them the same amount, the landlord must consider the revenue model.

Illustrative Market MatrixResidential/Condominium Multi-Residential

Building Identical 50 Unit Buildings. No differences in terms of location, construction, unit size,finishes, amenities, etc…

HypotheticalTransaction Price/CVA

$150,000 Per Unit$7,500,000 Total for All Units

$80,000 Per Unit$4,000,000 Consolidated Parcel

Parcel Conveyance Unit by Unit Consolidated Building

Buyer Interests Personal AccommodationSingle Unit Rental Suite

Rental IncomeReal Estate Investment

Primary Market PriceInfluence

Cost to acquire physically andgeographically similar unit

Ratio of Revenue to Holding and OperatingCosts

Primary BuyerConsiderations

I want to live here; Units are selling for $150,000; The carrying and operating costs

fall within my budget for housing

I want to earn $200 per unit/per month Units Rent for $1,000; - Operating Costs of $300 = $500 $500 per unit/per month supports

acquisition price of $4,000,000.

General Methodology Assessment derived from actualexchange price of physically andgeographically similar units

Considers what a “typical” investor might payto acquire the revenue stream in light of bothcapital and operating costs

Strength of Approach Sales and property characteristics aregenerally plentiful, particularly inurban areas where data can beacquired from a fairly homogeneoushousing stock

Simulates the financial evaluation/model anactual purchaser might undertake indetermining what they were willing to pay agiven building/property to acquire

Regardless of the appraisal technique employed, assessed values have been shown to bea moving target. Looking at trends over the last several reassessment campaigns bolstersthis and clearly demonstrates that multi-residential and residential properties are distinctin the market place. Although not always simple to quantify, the different assessmentmethodologies used for the valuation of multi-residential properties and residentialproperties do serve to offset differences in tax rates.

CONFIDENTIAL


PART TWO: MEASURING RELATIVE TAX BURDEN: UNIT LEVEL ANALYSIS

Acknowledging that differences in both taxation and assessment treatment exist,comparing the relative tax burden between traditional multi-residential properties andother multi-unit residential properties is not an easy task. Because of the distinct treatmenteach type of property receives, differences in taxation between multi-residential andcondominium properties cannot simply be evaluated based on the effective tax rate appliedto each type of property. Rather, it is the actual, final tax liability of the properties inquestion that must be considered using a unit of measurement that is consistent acrossall types of property under discussion. For the purposes of this report, per-unit tax liabilitieshave been utilized in order to facilitate comparison.

The quantitative results presented in this section include the following:1. Average per-unit assessment and tax liabilities, and differentials among the various

property types;2. Assessment ratios to illustrate any value differences among multi-residential and

condominium properties on a per-unit basis; and3. Effective tax ratios to achieve per-unit tax parity.

The central analytical models set out below are based on 2015 actual tax rates andassessments.

Methodological ConsiderationsPrevious attempts have been made to examine these issues in a variety of ways acrossmany jurisdictions. Earlier efforts have included trying to identify properties in both classesthat are sufficiently similar to validate direct comparison of relative tax burdens, however,this approach has proven problematic. Analysts have also tried to establish proxyassessment values for rented condominium units based on the methodology used to assessmulti-residential properties. In both cases because of the difficulties associated withidentifying equivalent buildings and units that are sufficient in number to form a robustand representative sample group, these types of comparisons have not proven to be fullyeffective or compelling.

While MTE acknowledges that significant challenges exist in establishing a protocol forcomparison between these two different types of property, there are measures that canprove to be effective for the purposes of property tax comparisons both within the Countyand other taxing jurisdictions. For the purposes of this report, comparisons will be madeon the basis of actual taxes paid on a per unit basis; this approach can be applied andsubstantiated for both types of property in question.

Additionally, because of the County’s unique access to a complete and comprehensivedatabase containing relevant information for all property potentially affected by Council’stax policy decisions – namely, the assessment roll – it has been possible to quantifyproperty tax liabilities and differences in tax burden, if any, for virtually all properties inthe County of Oxford coded as multi-residential and condominium for tax purposes, ratherthan select a limited sample group. The availability of, and capacity to, analyze such acomprehensive dataset has allowed this study to overcome some of the analyticalchallenges or obstacles faced by other stakeholders with more restricted informationaccess and/or limited analytical capacity.

CONFIDENTIAL


For the purposes of this analysis, MTE has calculated average values for both multi-residential properties and condominiums on the basis of current value assessment by unit.We then calculated the taxes attributable to these properties on a per-unit unit basis forboth municipal and education tax purposes. To appropriately measure the relative propertytax burden of properties that are similar in nature and character, it was necessary to limitthe myriad of property types being examined. After careful review and consideration, theproperties included in this study have been refined to those with the property codes of340 (multi-residential, with more than six self-contained units, excluding row housing),352 (multi-residential row housing with more than six self-contained units) and 370(residential condominium) on the assessment roll as returned for each year underexamination. To further ensure appropriate comparison of similar complexes, we haveutilized the structure codes for Condominiums to distinguish between traditional apartmentstyle buildings and town/row house complexes.

In reviewing the data statistics set out in Table 3, it becomes clear that this analysis ismore akin to an examination of empirical data, rather than an exercise of statistical analysisand inference.

Table 3Unit Levy Analysis Data Statistics

Category Sub-Category RTCProperty

CodeStructure

CodeProperty

CountUnit

Count

Multi-Residential Apartment Style M 340 All 86 2,446

Multi-Residential Row/Town House M 352 All 14 282

Condominium Apartment Style (LR) R 370 352 475 475

Condominium Apartment Style (M/HR) R 370 353 1,288 1,288

Condominium Row/Town House R 370 354 1,733 1,733

These criteria provide a uniquely robust sample on which to base this analysis. Utilizingthis method circumvents the challenges posed by using a data set that has been generatedby selecting specific properties based on a random sampling method, or a qualitativejudgment regarding comparability.

Per Unit Assessment AnalysisThe first step in understanding and overcoming the differential in assessmentmethodologies and tax ratios/rates to facilitate a comparison between traditional multi-residential properties and condominiums is to calculate the per unit current valueassessment (CVA) for both types of properties. For the condominiums classed asresidential, this is accomplished by dividing the sum of the CVA for all sample condominiumproperties by the total number of property units in the data set. For the multi-residentialclass, the average CVA by unit has been similarly weighted and calculated by determiningthe number of residential units in each sample and dividing that by the total CVA for eachsample.

CONFIDENTIAL


The results of this exercise are set in Table 4, which sets out the per unit CVA for bothcondominium and multi-residential properties broken down by those characterized as moretypical apartment style buildings and row/town house complexes.

Table 4Per Unit CVA by Class and Property Type

Category Sub-CategoryProperty

CountUnit

Count

Per Unit CVA

2015Phased

2016 Full

Multi-Residential

Apartment Style 86 2,446 57,472 61,314

Row/Town House 14 282 68,582 76,344

All 100 2,728 58,621 62,867

Condominium

Apartment Style 1,763 1,763 119,660 122,093

Row/Town House 1,733 1,733 143,984 145,823

All 3,496 3,496 131,718 133,856

Utilizing these per unit results, we proceeded to calculate the ratio of CVA, which is anexpression of the relationship between the differently treated unit types. The differentialof CVA has been calculated by dividing the average condominium CVA by the averagemulti-residential CVA. To provide an additional layer of information and insight, Figures 1and 2 set out the results of this exercise based on 2015 Phased CVA and 2016Full/Destination CVA respectively.

Figure 1Average Per-Unit CVA (2015 Phased CVA)

Property Type2015 Phased CVA

DifferentialCondomimium Multi-Residential

All 131,718 58,621 2.25:1

Apartment Style 119,660 57,472 2.08:1

Row / Townhouse 143,984 68,582 2.10:1

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

All Apartment Style Row/Townhouse

Condominium Multi-Residential

CONFIDENTIAL


Figure 2Average Per-Unit CVA (2016 Full CVA)

In reviewing these results and comparing the differential ratios for the different propertytypes, and across the two assessment years, the reader will note that there is no single,static relationship between properties classified as multi-residential and those classified asresidential/condominium. These relationships would vary further if the results werestratified by local jurisdiction.

Property Type2015 Phased CVA


All 133,856 62,867 2.13:1

Apartment Style 122,093 61,314 1.99:1

Row / Townhouse 145,823 76,344 1.91:1

Interpretive Note:The “Differential” represents the relationship between the average per-unitcondominium CVA and the average per-unit multi-residential CVA for the samplesbeing considered. For Example; the per-unit CVA of the average condominium (All)is 2.13 times the per-unit CVA for the multi-residential class.

Expressed another way, in order to balance the tax burden on a per-unit basis, thetotal property tax rate for multi-residential (including education) would have to be2.13 times the rate being applied to the condominiums for 2016.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000



CONFIDENTIAL


The results demonstrate that the difference in the assessment methodologies applied tothese properties does indeed have a mitigating effect on the higher multi-residential taxrate. Based on the full 2016 destination CVA, the average condominium unit is assessedapproximately 2.13 times higher than the average multi-residential unit. Thus, becausethe average assessed value of a multi-residential unit tends to be less than half of thatassigned to the average condominium unit, this may effectively offset the higher effectivetax rate applied to multi-residential property. This differential is more pronounced whenconsidering only traditional apartment style complexes and less pronounced with respectto town homes.

The condominium to multi-residential CVA differential ratios calculated can be employedto model a tax parity scenario under which the average condominium would be subject tothe same level of municipal taxation as the average multi-residential property. By applyingthis assessment ratio as a hypothetical tax ratio to the multi-residential class, it isinteresting to note that the average of the units for each property type would raise anequivalent amount of municipal tax. This balance, however, is achieved on a point-in-timebasis, and at the County-wide level only. Differentials will continue to exist at the propertylevel and the degree to which local average units achieve parity, will vary by lower-tier.

Per Unit Taxation AnalysisAs the County and its lower-tiers maintain a number of general purpose and special areatax rates, calculation of the average taxes per unit required that an actual tax calculationbe undertaken for each property in the data set. Once this was completed, the averagetaxes per unit were calculated using the same methodology employed for calculatingaverage CVA’s per unit, with the exception that the total tax amount was used as thenumerator in the equation rather than total CVA.

The results of this exercise are reported as average taxes per unit for municipal (upper-tier and local) and education tax purposes. Table 5 contains the comparisons between themulti-residential and condominium samples.

Table 5Average Per Unit Tax by Class and Property Type

Category Sub-CategoryAverage Per

Unit CVAAverage Per Unit Tax

County Local Education Total Tax

Multi-Residential

Apartment Style 57,472 $641 $1,285 $112 $2,038

Row/Town House 68,582 $749 $1,658 $134 $2,541

All 58,621 $652 $1,323 $114 $2,090

Condominium

Apartment Style 119,660 $471 $1,045 $233 $1,750

Row/Town House 143,984 $566 $1,271 $281 $2,118

All 131,718 $518 $1,157 $257 $1,933

These results are further elucidated by considering the tax per unit differential ratio, whichhas been calculated by dividing the average per unit tax for condominiums by the averageper unit tax for multi-residential. This is an effective demonstration of the relationship

CONFIDENTIAL


between the taxes paid on a multi-residential unit in comparison to a condominium unit.These results appear in Figure 3.

Figure 3Average Per-Unit Tax (Municipal + Education)

A consolidated listing of average assessment tax values has been included in Table 6. Theaverage assessments per unit contained in Figures 1 and 2 have also been included forease of reference to highlight the manner in which the higher multi-residential tax ratioserves to offset the lower average CVA.

Property Type2015 Average Tax Per Unit


All $1,933 $2,090 0.92:1

Apartment Style $1,750 $2,038 0.86:1

Row / Townhouse $2,118 $2,541 0.83:1

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000



Interpretive Note:When we move from assessment to tax, the Differential ratio shows how the highermulti-residential ratio and hence rate, compensates significantly for the lower per unitCVA attributable to that class.

CONFIDENTIAL


Table 6Unit Level CVA and Tax Summary

All Sample Props

Property Type Per Unit Measures CondominiumMulti-

ResidentialDifferential

All Types

2016 Full CVA 133,856 62,867 2.13:1

2015 Phased CVA 131,718 58,621 2.25:1

2015 County Tax $518 $652 0.79:1

2015 Local Tax $1,157 $1,323 0.87:1

2015 Education Tax $257 $114 2.25:1

Total 2015 Tax $1,933 $2,090 0.92:1

ApartmentStyle

2016 Full CVA 122,093 61,314 1.99:1

2015 Phased CVA 119,660 57,472 2.08:1

2015 County Tax $471 $641 0.73:1

2015 Local Tax $1,045 $1,285 0.81:1

2015 Education Tax $233 $112 2.08:1

Total 2015 Tax $1,750 $2,038 0.86:1

Row /Townhouse

2016 Full CVA 145,823 76,344 1.91:1

2015 Phased CVA 143,984 68,582 2.10:1

2015 County Tax $566 $749 0.76:1

2015 Local Tax $1,271 $1,658 0.77:1

2015 Education Tax $281 $134 2.10:1

Total 2015 Tax $2,118 $2,541 0.83:1

The results summarized in Table 6 do show that the lower multi-residential per-unitassessments are offset by the higher effective tax rates applied to that class for municipalpurposes. Based on the County per-unit comparison, however, it would be necessary toapply a ratio of 2.440127 to the municipal portion of the levy in order to achieve anequalization of the per-unit taxes. This ratio would compensate for the differential in CVAbetween our per-unit condominium CVA and per-unit multi-residential CVA as well as thefact that the education rate remains constant. This is further illustrated in Table 7.

Table 7Hypothetical Equalization of Per-Unit CVA and Tax

All Sample Properties

Per Unit Measures CondominiumMulti-

ResidentialEffective Tax

RatioDifferential

2015 Phased CVA 131,718 58,621 2.25

2015 Municipal $1,675 $1,819 2.440127 0.92

2015 Education Tax $257 $114 1.000000 2.25

Total 2015 Tax $1,933 $1,933 2.248654 1.00

CONFIDENTIAL


Condominium ConversionsAs part of developing and executing an investigation into the relative tax treatment ofmulti-residential and multi-unit condominium properties, it can be beneficial to add a layerof analysis and review to examine the manner in which the Municipal Property AssessmentCorporation is treating properties that are converted from traditional multi-residentialbuildings to condominiums. Reviewing the circumstances surrounding such conversionscan allow the analyst to consider the actual assessment treatment of a single property,under the two differing assessment methodologies. Specifically, the value relationshipbefore and after conversion can explicitly demonstrate how the difference in assessmentmethod utilized for properties coded as condominium vs. multi-residential will producedifferent values for taxation purposes that may offset or exacerbate the disparity betweenthe tax rate for municipal purposes.

The sample set of condominium conversions that MTE identified as part of our previousefforts was more robust than what was available for the purposes of this study. Those thatconverted prior to the current reassessment cycle no longer present as reliablecomparators due to distorting effects of market value updates. As such, we were not ableto identify a sufficiently robust or appropriate sample on which to establish reliablequantitative results.

CONFIDENTIAL


PART THREE: OXFORD’S MULTI-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CLASS AND

TAX RATIOS IN CONTEXT

One of the objectives of this report is to set out a host of qualitative concepts andconsiderations relevant to setting tax policy in respect of multi-unit residential properties.It will also serve to document a range of quantitative outcomes that might result fromvarious policy choices, including adherence to status quo options. Having this theoreticaland quantitative background is critical to those charged with an advisory or decisionmaking role in respect of such tax policies. It is, however, also important to have a broadercontext within which to consider the County’s historical and current tax circumstances, aswell as any adjustments or changes that might be suggested or contemplated for futuretaxation years.

In order to support the development of this broader context within which currentcircumstances and potential policy adjustments are to be considered, MTE has endeavoredto summarize a number of critical variables that speak to the County’s tax policies relatedto the multi-residential tax class.

Inter-Municipal ComparisonA survey of multi-residential tax ratios from other single and upper-tiers across theProvince demonstrates that Oxford’s current multi-residential tax ratio of 2.7400 ismarkedly higher than the average ratio applied around its geographic region and across abroader sampling of Ontario municipalities.

While Oxford’s multi-residential ratio does not exceed the Provincial Threshold Ratio forthe class; at 2.74 it is at the threshold. In 2012 there were two other municipalities inOntario with multi-residential ratios at the threshold5 and one with a ratio exceeding thethreshold, being the City of Toronto. As of 2015 the City of Toronto remains above thethreshold at 2.9995, and only the City of Hamilton and the County of Oxford remain at2.74. All other municipalities have ratios below that level.

This is demonstrated in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 provides a comparison with municipalitieswithin relatively close proximity to Oxford County, while Figure 5 benchmarks the County’sratio in relation to a broader cross-section of municipalities from across the province.Regardless of whether or not a differential should exist between the residential and multi-residential tax ratios, when the County’s tax ratio circumstance is compared to otherjurisdictions, its multi-residential tax ratio does stand out as a definite outlier. Of furtherinterest may be the fact that the average ratio for each group has shown a slight downwardtrend over time.

In addition to considering current multi-residential ratios, Table 8 expands on Figure 5 byexamining how each municipality in this sample has managed their multi-residential ratiosover the past several taxation years. From this we can begin to gather an understandingof general trends, magnitude and approach to change, etc…

5 City of Hamilton and the Municipality of Temagami.

CONFIDENTIAL


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

Figure 4Regional Multi-Residential Tax Ratio Comparison

(Ratios rounded to 4 decimal places for ease of reference and comparison)

Multi-Res

New Multi-Res

CONFIDENTIAL


0.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

Toronto: 2.9995

Hamilton: 2.7400

Oxford Co: 2.7400

Windsor: 2.5403

Lambton Co: 2.4000

Cornwall: 2.3492

Haldimand Co: 2.3274

Halton R: 2.2619

Kingston: 2.2278

North Bay: 2.2054

Stratford: 2.1539

Perth Co: 2.1505

Quinte West: 2.1300

Brantford: 2.0472

Niagara R: 2.0440

Guelph: 2.0399

2009 Average: 2.0006

London: 1.9800

Essex Co: 1.9554

Wellington Co: 1.9537

Waterloo R: 1.9500

2013 Average: 1.9482

Peterborough City: 1.9472

2015 Average: 1.9237

Durham R: 1.8665

Peterborough Co: 1.7802

Mississauga: 1.7788

Middlesex Co: 1.7697

Brampton: 1.7050

Brant County: 1.700

Norfolk Co: 1.6929

Caledon: 1.6843

Orillia: 1.6424

Simcoe Co: 1.5385

Ottawa: 1.4724

St. Marys : 1.3084

Huron Co: 1.1000

Barrie: 1.0000

Bruce Co: 1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

2.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.5000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.1000

1.0000

Figure 52015 Multi-Residential Tax Ratio Comparison: Provincial Sampling

(Ratios rounded to 4 decimal places for ease of reference and comparison)

Multi-Res

New Multi-Res

Multi-Res Averages

CONFIDENTIAL


Table 8Multi-Residential Ratio Trends

Municipality 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Barrie 1.0787 1.0590 1.0395 1.0197 1.0197 1.0000 1.0000

Bruce Co 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

York R 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Huron Co 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000 1.1000

St. Marys 1.9335 1.8293 1.7251 1.6210 1.5168 1.4126 1.3084

Ottawa (N) 1.7500 1.7000 1.7000 1.7000 1.7000 1.5316 1.4724

Simcoe Co 1.5385 1.5385 1.5385 1.5385 1.5385 1.5385 1.5385

Orillia (N) 1.6000 1.6000 1.6424 1.6424 1.6424 1.6424 1.6424

Caledon 1.7050 1.7050 1.7050 1.7050 1.7050 1.6843 1.6843

Norfolk Co 1.6929 1.6929 1.6929 1.6929 1.6929 1.6929 1.6929

Brant County 1.8200 1.8200 1.7900 1.7900 1.7900 1.7900 1.7000

Brampton 1.7050 1.7050 1.7050 1.7050 1.7050 1.7050 1.7050

Middlesex Co 1.7697 1.7697 1.7697 1.7697 1.7697 1.7697 1.7697

Mississauga 1.7788 1.7788 1.7788 1.7788 1.7788 1.7788 1.7788

P’borough Co (N) 1.7802 1.7802 1.7802 1.7802 1.7802 1.7802 1.7802

Durham R 1.8665 1.8665 1.8665 1.8665 1.8665 1.8665 1.8665

Average 2.0065 1.9868 1.9727 1.9611 1.9541 1.9358 1.9237

P’borough C. (N) 2.0111 1.9472 1.9472 1.9472 1.9472 1.9472 1.9472

Waterloo R (N) 2.0500 1.9500 1.9500 1.9500 1.9500 1.9500 1.9500

Wellington Co 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000 1.9537 1.9537 1.9537

Essex Co 1.9554 1.9554 1.9554 1.9554 1.9554 1.9554 1.9554

London 2.1240 2.1027 2.0877 2.0700 2.0475 1.9800 1.9800

Quinte West 2.1300 2.1300 2.1300 2.1300 2.1300 2.1300 2.1300

Niagara R 2.0600 2.0600 2.0440 2.0440 2.0440 2.0440 2.0440

Brantford (N) 2.1355 2.1355 2.1355 2.0649 2.0649 2.0472 2.0472

Guelph (N) 2.5965 2.4530 2.3094 2.1659 2.1239 2.0819 2.0399

Perth Co 2.1505 2.1505 2.1505 2.1505 2.1505 2.1505 2.1505

Stratford (N) 2.1539 2.1539 2.1539 2.1539 2.1539 2.1539 2.1539

North Bay 2.2054 2.2054 2.2054 2.2054 2.2054 2.2054 2.2054

Halton R (N) 2.2619 2.2619 2.2619 2.2619 2.2619 2.2619 2.2619

Haldimand Co 2.3274 2.3274 2.3274 2.3274 2.3274 2.3274 2.3274

Kingston (N) 2.6112 2.6112 2.4834 2.4195 2.3556 2.2917 2.2278

Cornwall 2.3492 2.3492 2.3492 2.3492 2.3492 2.3492 2.3492

Lambton Co (N) 2.5014 2.4000 2.4000 2.4000 2.4000 2.4000 2.4000

Windsor 2.5500 2.5122 2.4681 2.4589 2.5715 2.5403 2.5403

Hamilton (N) 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400

Oxford Co 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400

Threshold Ratio 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400 2.7400

Toronto (N) 3.4689 3.3799 3.3164 3.3164 3.2235 3.0831 2.9995

CONFIDENTIAL


Observations and DiscussionComparing solely on the basis of raw multi-residential tax ratios, observations as to howOxford’s multi-residential ratio compares to the sample group may be summarized asfollows: The County’s ratio is set at Provincial threshold ratio for the class and is only exceeded

by the City of Toronto; Oxford shares the second highest multi-residential tax ratio in the Province with the

City of Hamilton, however, Hamilton does maintain the new multi-residential class witha ratio of 1.00, which applies to any new growth in the market;

The average ratio of the sample has decreased over time, which has resulted inOxford’s static ratio being positioned further from the average each year. That is, ona comparative basis, the County’s ratio is in relative incline.

In terms of considering general trends and ratio change patterns, we can further gleanthe following: Sixteen, or almost forty-five percent, of the sample municipalities have moved their

ratios during this time frame with the overwhelming majority of adjustments beingratio decreases;

Only two increasing ratio adjustments were made within the sample group for theyears shown. In accordance with Provincial tax policy, these adjustments could onlyhave been made to offset a significant reassessment related tax shift off of the multi-residential class. As such, these increases would not have represented an increase tothe class’s tax burden, but rather the negating of a decrease that would have otherwiseoccurred;

The majority of the ratio adjustments were made where the ratios in questionexceeded the sample average for the year; and

A number of municipalities reduced their ratios incrementally over multiple taxationyears.

Again, an examination of tax ratios does not constitute and is not a basis upon which tocompare relative tax burden. A review of ratios alone does not account for the myriad ofother factors and variables that influence the property tax system and the burden it placeson individual properties. The reader is reminded that any conclusions drawn from thesetrends and observations should be limited to those relating specifically to how ratios haveand are changing. That said, it does appear reasonable to conclude that there is a definitedownward trend to multi-residential tax ratios, and that this trend is being driven more bythose municipalities with above average ratios than those with lower ratios.

CONFIDENTIAL


PART FOUR: TAX RATIO SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Moving Tax RatiosAs noted in Part One of this report, Tax Ratios represent a critical and fundamental elementof Ontario’s property tax system with the ratio for each class dictating the rate at which aproperty will be taxed6 in relation to the tax rate applied to residential properties formunicipal purposes within any given jurisdiction. For this reason, and due to theiroutwardly simple function, it is often a municipality’s choice of tax ratios that attract themost attention from stakeholders attempting to critique or influence a municipality’s taxlandscape.

When considering any tax ratio change, it is absolutely critical to be cognisant of the factthat a change to the tax ratio for any one class will impact the tax burden for propertiesin all other classes. Therefore, if a ratio reduction for the multi-residential class were to beapproved, any tax savings passed onto that class will result in higher tax rates and taxshifts to the ratepayers in other classes. In a two-tier system, it is also important to beaware that depending on the relative location of multi-residential properties across theCounty, the upper-tier levy may be redistributed between the area municipalities accordingto their individual assessment demographics. Because of this, both the inter-class andinter-municipal shifts must be quantified in order to fully understand the scope andmagnitude of impacts associated with a ratio change for the multi-residential propertyclass.

The actual impact that a tax ratio adjustment for any one class will have on theapportionment of taxes to other classes is dependent on both the quantum of the actualchange and the proportion of the overall tax levy carried by the subject class. A ratiochange for a class that shoulders a large share of the overall tax burden is going to havea greater impact than the same change made in respect of a class that only carries amodest share of the total burden. As shown in Table 9, the multi-residential property classin Oxford currently represents a relatively small proportion of the County tax levy andhence, even a sizable alteration to the ratio is unlikely to fundamentally change the taxdistribution landscape. Table 10 has been prepared to show how the upper-tier multi-residential is distributed among the local municipalities, which is a good representation ofthe relative concentration of the class at the local level. As with the upper-tier, those localmunicipalities with a greater proportion of multi-residential assessment will be moresensitive to tax ratio changes for that class.

6 Final tax rates may also be impacted by levy restriction rules and/or a property’s inclusion in adiscounted sub-class.

CONFIDENTIAL


Table 9Distribution of CVA and 2015 General Municipal Levies by Class

Realty TaxClass

2015 Assessment 2015 Local General Levy2015 County General

Levy

Phased CVA% ofTotal

CombinedStart Levies

% ofTotal

Start Levy% ofTotal

Residential 8,735,145,999 63.50% $62,260,798 63.58% $33,625,211 64.38%

Farm 3,072,809,820 22.26% $3,795,136 3.85% $2,957,389 5.66%

Managed Forest 7,455,892 0.05% $10,061 0.01% $7,177 0.01%

Multi-Residential 186,206,601 1.35% $4,186,246 4.25% $1,964,176 3.76%

Commercial 962,779,923 6.97% $14,449,562 14.67% $6,985,409 13.38%

Industrial 208,131,994 1.51% $4,005,412 4.07% $2,048,435 3.92%

Large Industrial 357,033,329 2.59% $7,834,567 7.95% $3,541,460 6.78%

Pipeline 226,444,465 1.64% $1,389,743 1.41% $1,097,809 2.10%

Total Taxable 13,756,008,023 100.00% $97,931,525 100.00% $52,227,066 100.00%

Table 10Distribution of Multi-Residential Levy by Local Jurisdiction

2015 Multi-Residential Assessment and County Tax

Local Municipality Phased CVACounty

General Levy % of Total

Blandford Blenheim 3,174,388 $33,485 1.70%

East Zorra Tavistock 8,732,157 $92,110 4.69%

Ingersoll 22,937,769 $241,955 12.32%

Norwich 2,273,750 $23,985 1.22%

South West Oxford 343,893 $3,628 0.18%

Tillsonburg 50,800,920 $535,867 27.28%

Woodstock 95,054,474 $1,002,669 51.05%

Zorra 2,889,250 $30,477 1.55%

Multi-Residential Total 186,206,601 $1,964,176 100.00%

CONFIDENTIAL


Sensitivity AnalysisTo assist in evaluating the impact of any change to the multi-residential tax ratio, MTE hasprepared a series of sensitivity models to highlight the potential impacts of altering thecurrent tax ratio scheme. For the purposes of this analysis, MTE has utilized 2015 startinglevy amounts and assessment values for 2016 as contained on the roll as originallyreturned for 2015. The tax ratios utilized for each model can be summarized as follows:

Scenario Number Description2016 Multi-

Residential Ratio

Base-Line Status Quo Ratios 2.740000

Scenario One Equalized with Residential 1.000000

Scenario Two Migrate to 1.00 Over 5 Years 2.392000

Scenario Three 2016 Parity of Average Units 2.350000

In order to understand the impact of any potential policy change, it is necessary toestablish a base-line against which to measure all alternate models. As part of this base-line foundation, we have calculated how the County’s upper-tier general levy using a statusquo policy scheme and making no change to year-over-year revenue requirements. The2016 general levy rates calculated on a status quo basis are set out in Table 11, the year-over-year inter-class and inter-municipal tax shifts associated with these rates aresummarized in Tables 12 and 13 respectively.

Table 112016 County Tax Rates

(Revenue Neutral / Status Quo Policy)

Realty Tax Class2015 ActualTax Ratios

Upper-Tier General Rates

Status Quo Base Line % Change

Residential 1.000000 0.00384977 0.00374237 -2.79%

Farm 0.250000 0.00096244 0.00093559 -2.79%

Managed Forest 0.250000 0.00096244 0.00093559 -2.79%

Multi-Residential 2.740000 0.01054837 0.01025409 -2.79%

Commercial 1.901800 0.00732149 0.00711724 -2.79%

Industrial 2.630000 0.01012490 0.00984243 -2.79%

Large Industrial 2.630000 0.01012490 0.00984243 -2.79%

Pipeline 1.259300 0.00484802 0.00471277 -2.79%

CONFIDENTIAL


Table 122016 County General Levy and Phase-In Related Inter-Class Shifts


Realty TaxClass

Upper-Tier General Levy Difference

20152016 Base

Line$ %

Residential $33,625,463 $33,454,114 -$171,349 -0.51%

Farm $2,957,395 $3,128,124 $170,729 5.77%

Managed Forest $7,176 $7,298 $122 1.70%

Multi-Residential $1,964,176 $2,043,511 $79,335 4.04%

Commercial $6,985,388 $6,880,839 -$104,549 -1.50%

Industrial $2,048,438 $2,013,882 -$34,556 -1.69%

Large Industrial $3,541,461 $3,611,668 $70,207 1.98%

Pipeline $1,097,807 $1,087,924 -$9,883 -0.90%

Taxable Total $52,227,304 $52,227,360 $56 0.00%

Table 132016 County General Levy and Phase-In Related Inter-Municipal Shifts


Realty Tax Class


2015 2016 BaseLine $ %

Blandford Blenheim $4,061,777 $4,107,639 $45,862 1.13%

East Zorra Tavistock $3,519,733 $3,548,530 $28,797 0.82%

Ingersoll $5,449,534 $5,420,718 -$28,816 -0.53%

Norwich $4,472,709 $4,523,732 $51,023 1.14%

South West Oxford $3,552,620 $3,589,619 $36,999 1.04%

Tillsonburg $6,959,020 $6,883,620 -$75,400 -1.08%

Woodstock $19,403,569 $19,271,700 -$131,869 -0.68%

Zorra $4,808,342 $4,881,802 $73,460 1.53%

County Total $52,227,304 $52,227,360 $56 0.00%

For each alternate scenario the upper-tier general levy has been calculated under a revisedset of ratios and the results of that exercise are compared against the taxes and taxdistribution calculated under the base-line model. This method of comparison provides asolid basis for analysis as it eliminates the influence of any other variables, such asassessment changes, growth, or levy differences from impacting the results.

CONFIDENTIAL


Summary result tables have been prepared and are included for each scenario todemonstrate both the potential inter-class and inter-municipal tax shifts that could resultfrom the tax ratio changes being contemplated by the model. The core results of eachmodel are set out in labeled with the suffix A through C.

A Tables demonstrate the difference between the County’s status quo tax ratios and thoseassociated with each scenario. Also included in these tables, are the County’s general leveltax rates associated with the application of each ratio set, and the rate of change betweenthem.

B Tables provide an estimate of the inter-class tax shifts of the County’s general levy ifthe policy approach were to be adopted for taxation in 2016.

C Tables display the inter-municipal shift of the upper-tier levy that could be expected for2016.

Scenario 1: Immediate Equalization of Residential and Multi-ResidentialRatiosThis is the most dramatic scenario and is intended to illustrate the impact of moving themulti-residential ratio directly to the residential ratio of 1.0000. It is anticipated that apolicy change of this magnitude would result in an immediate shift of almost $1.3 millionin upper-tier general levy dollars with approximately $850,000 being funded by theresidential class.

Table 14-AScenario 1: 2015 Ratio and County General Levy Rate Change

Realty TaxClass

Tax Ratios Upper-Tier General Rates

StatusQuo

Scenario1

%Change

StatusQuo

Scenario 1%

Change

Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00374237 0.00383772 2.55%

Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00093559 0.00095943 2.55%

Managed Forest 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00093559 0.00095943 2.55%

Multi-Residential 2.740000 1.000000 -63.50% 0.01025409 0.00383772 -62.57%

Commercial 1.901800 1.901800 0.00% 0.00711724 0.00729858 2.55%

Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.00% 0.00984243 0.01009320 2.55%

Large Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.00% 0.00984243 0.01009320 2.55%

Pipeline 1.259300 1.259300 0.00% 0.00471277 0.00483284 2.55%

CONFIDENTIAL


Table 14-BScenario 1: Inter-Class Shifts of County General Levy

Table 14-CScenario 1: Inter-Municipal Shifts of County General Levy

Local MunicipalityUpper-Tier General Levy Difference

2016 Base-Line

Scenario 1 $ %



Ingersoll $5,420,718 $5,393,115 -$27,603 -0.51%

Norwich $4,523,732 $4,622,779 $99,047 2.19%


Tillsonburg $6,883,620 $6,706,766 -$176,854 -2.57%

Woodstock $19,271,700 $19,073,789 -$197,911 -1.03%

Zorra $4,881,802 $4,985,425 $103,623 2.12%

County Total $52,227,360 $52,227,278 -$82 0.00%

Realty TaxClass


2016 BaseLine

Scenario 1 $ %

Residential $33,454,114 $34,306,475 $852,361 2.55%

Farm $3,128,124 $3,207,832 $79,708 2.55%

Managed Forest $7,298 $7,484 $186 2.55%

Multi-Residential $2,043,511 $764,809 -$1,278,702 -62.57%

Commercial $6,880,839 $7,056,156 $175,317 2.55%

Industrial $2,013,882 $2,065,192 $51,310 2.55%


Pipeline $1,087,924 $1,115,642 $27,718 2.55%

Taxable Total $52,227,360 $52,227,278 -$82 0.00%

CONFIDENTIAL


Scenario 2: Year-One of a Five Year Migration of Multi-Residential Ratio to 1.0


Realty Tax Class


Status Quo Scenario 2%

ChangeStatus

QuoScenario

2%

Change

Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00374237 0.00376106 0.50%

Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00093559 0.00094026 0.50%

Managed Forest 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00093559 0.00094026 0.50%


Commercial 1.901800 1.901800 0.00% 0.00711724 0.00715278 0.50%

Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.00% 0.00984243 0.00989159 0.50%


Pipeline 1.259300 1.259300 0.00% 0.00471277 0.00473630 0.50%


Realty Tax ClassUpper-Tier General Levy Difference

2016 Base-Line Scenario 2 $ %

Residential $33,454,114 $33,621,190 $167,076 0.50%

Farm $3,128,124 $3,143,738 $15,614 0.50%

Managed Forest $7,298 $7,334 $36 0.49%

Multi-Residential $2,043,511 $1,792,881 -$250,630 -12.26%

Commercial $6,880,839 $6,915,199 $34,360 0.50%

Industrial $2,013,882 $2,023,940 $10,058 0.50%


Pipeline $1,087,924 $1,093,356 $5,432 0.50%

Taxable Total $52,227,360 $52,227,345 -$15 0.00%

CONFIDENTIAL




2016 Base-Line Scenario 2 $ %



Ingersoll $5,420,718 $5,415,309 -$5,409 -0.10%

Norwich $4,523,732 $4,543,145 $19,413 0.43%


Tillsonburg $6,883,620 $6,848,957 -$34,663 -0.50%

Woodstock $19,271,700 $19,232,913 -$38,787 -0.20%

Zorra $4,881,802 $4,902,110 $20,308 0.42%

County Total $52,227,360 $52,227,344 -$16 0.00%

Scenario 3: Hypothetical “Balance of Tax” Between Average Condominiumand Multi-Residential Units

This scenario is based on the analysis contained in Part Two of this report and the 2016tax ratio of 2.35 has been set to approximate a balanced tax differential between theaverage condominium unit and the average multi-residential unit. Because the “averageunit” does not actually exist, the balance achieved is tested by applying the averagegeneral levy local rate, the County’s general rate and a proxy education tax rate7 to theaverage assessments calculated earlier.

Table 16Hypothetical Equalization of Per-Unit CVA and Tax

Per Unit Measures CondominiumMulti-

ResidentialEffective Tax

RatioDifferential

2016 Phased CVA 133,856 62,867 2.13

Local General8 $814 $899 2.3500 0.91

2015 Municipal $504 $556 2.3500 0.91

2015 Education Tax $250 $118 1.0000 2.13

Total 2015 Tax $1,568 $1,573 2.1345 0.997

7 A proxy education tax rate of 0.00187 has been applied for this illustration. This rate has beenderived by extending the Province’s rate reduction pattern over the past 3 years forward to 2016.8 Local General tax is based on an average of all local general rates calculated for 2016 underScenario 3.

CONFIDENTIAL



Realty Tax Class


Status Quo Scenario 3 % Change Status Quo Scenario 3 % Change

Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00374237 0.00376332 0.56%

Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00093559 0.00094083 0.56%

Managed Forest 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00093559 0.00094083 0.56%


Commercial 1.901800 1.901800 0.00% 0.00711724 0.00715708 0.56%

Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.00% 0.00984243 0.00989753 0.56%


Pipeline 1.259300 1.259300 0.00% 0.00471277 0.00473915 0.56%


Realty Tax Class


2016 Base Line Scenario 3 $ %

Residential $33,454,114 $33,641,392 $187,278 0.56%

Farm $3,128,124 $3,145,643 $17,519 0.56%

Managed Forest $7,298 $7,339 $41 0.56%


Commercial $6,880,839 $6,919,356 $38,517 0.56%

Industrial $2,013,882 $2,025,156 $11,274 0.56%


Pipeline $1,087,924 $1,094,014 $6,090 0.56%

Taxable Total $52,227,360 $52,227,245 -$115 0.00%

CONFIDENTIAL




2016 Base Line Scenario 3 $ %



Ingersoll $5,420,718 $5,414,641 -$6,077 -0.11%

Norwich $4,523,732 $4,545,494 $21,762 0.48%


Tillsonburg $6,883,620 $6,844,735 -$38,885 -0.56%

Woodstock $19,271,700 $19,228,163 -$43,537 -0.23%

Zorra $4,881,802 $4,904,570 $22,768 0.47%

County Total $52,227,360 $52,227,246 -$114 0.00%

Automatic Rent ReductionsIf any of the reduction scenarios set out above were adopted for the 2016 taxation year,it is likely that a number of tenanted properties would be subject to an automatic rentreduction in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. This program dictatesthat tenants of residential properties are entitled to reduce their rents when the propertytax liability of their building decreases from one year to the next by greater than 2.49%.

It should be noted that a number of properties, property types and tenants are excludedfrom eligibility under this program for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to:seasonal residences, student residences, subsidized buildings, units or tenants, etc…

If a property becomes eligible, the landlord must pass through a rent reduction based onthe prescribed formula. The reduction takes effect for the year following the year that thetax reduction is realized. Therefore, if a landlord experiences a tax reduction for 2016, theassociated rent reduction would not be applicable until 2017.

For illustrative purposes, the following has been prepared to demonstrate how a reductionin tax translates into a reduction in rent under this program. This is a hypothetical exampleunder which the property has been subject to a year-over-year reduction in taxes of 10%.

9The Rent Reduction Factor multiplier is regulated at 20% for all properties in the Multi-Residentialproperty class and 15% for all other rental properties captured under this program.

Formula Element CalculationHypothetical

Property

Tax Reduction % Tax Reduction as % of Previous Year’s Tax 10.00%

Rent Reduction Factor % Tax Reduction % Multiplied by 20%9 2.00%

Rent Monthly Rent $850.00

Rent Reduction $ Rent X 0.20% $17.00

CONFIDENTIAL


In reviewing this illustration it is important to note that it is based on a purely hypotheticalunit, and the actual tax change experience at the individual property level will vary.

Although the general concept behind this program is fairly simple, and the formulasrelatively straight forward, it can be difficult to project or anticipate exactly how a changein tax policy will ultimately impact tenants. Because each property’s assessment, andhence tax will change at a unique rate, the degree to which a ratio reduction will triggerrent reductions cannot be gleaned from municipal or class level analysis.

To assist the County in understanding the scope and magnitude of rent reductions thateach of the preceding ratio scenarios could trigger, we have endeavored to apply theparameters derived from each of the three alternate tax models on a property-by-propertybasis. Based on this exercise, we have been able to create the Tables 18 through 20, whichsummarized the following relevant rent reduction parameters:

1) The tax ratio applied to the multi-residential class;2) The difference between the multi-residential class levy for the year, and what that

levy would have been in the absence of a ratio change;3) The year-over-year tax change for the multi-residential class inclusive of all local

and upper-tier levies and estimated Provincial education levy;4) The estimated incidence of eligible rent reduction properties and units; and,5) The average rent reduction percentage and dollar amount per $1,000 of rent.

Table 18Speculative Rent Reduction Projections

Scenario 1: Equalize Multi-Residential Ratio with Residential for 2016

Multi-Residential Tax RatioStatus Quo 2.740000

Alternate 1.000000

Levy Difference for Multi-Residential vs. Status Quo

% -58.92%

$ -$3,517,460

Year-Over-Year Tax Change forMulti-Res Class

$ -56.98%

% -$3,247,940

Eligible Rent Reduction PropertiesFrom Sample Group

% 100.00%

# 100

Eligible Rent Reduction Units FromSample Group

% 100.00%

# 2,728

Average Rent Reduction for EligibleProperties

% -11.38%

Per $1,000 Rent -$114

CONFIDENTIAL



Scenario 2: Year-One of Five Year Migration of Multi-Residential Ratio to 1.0


Alternate 2.392000

Levy Difference for Multi-Residentialvs. Status Quo

% -11.47%

$ -$684,964


$ -7.29%

% -$415,444


% 95.00%

# 95


% 96.48%

# 2,632


% -1.52%

Per $1,000Rent

-$15


Scenario 3: 2016 Multi-Residential Ratio of 2.35


Alternate 2.350000

Levy Difference for Multi-Residential vs. Status Quo

% -12.87%

$ -$768,245


$ -8.75%

% -$498,724


% 100.00%

# 100


% 100.00%

# 2,728


% -1.75%

Per $1,000Rent

-$18

CONFIDENTIAL


CONCLUSION

As noted in the introduction of this report, the primary impetus for this investigation wasto add an additional layer, or layers of information to the discussion surrounding theCounty of Oxford’s multi-residential tax ratio. While it is not possible, or appropriate tosuggest what that ratio should be, we have aimed to provide a host of information thatwill support that decision making process.

In considering the contents of this report, it should be clear that the material containedherein can be categorized into two broad-themed elements. In the first order we have therealm of property taxation and assessment; in the second, we have the more observationalinquiries wherein we have taken a look at how various jurisdictions have managed theirmulti-residential tax treatment. While the line between these two general themes is nothard and fast, however it is a useful distinction and can be of assistance in drawing somegeneral conclusions of this report together.

While there is certainly some room for interpretation in regards to the conclusions to bedrawn from the unit level analysis in Part Two, most of the information and quantitativeresults contained in the first half of this report are fairly finite. As such, we can makeassertions in respect of the County’s current tax ratio such as the fact that it does fall tothe high end of the spectrum when compared to other jurisdictions and it is in relativeincrease within that sample as others decrease. There is a downward trend in multi-residential tax ratios across the Province and by not following suit, the County’s ratio willcontinue to move up the ranks without actually moving.

We are also able to say with some certainty that at the class level, the average unit withina complex assessed as multi-residential is subject to a lower assessment, which does agreat deal to mitigate the higher effective tax rate. That said, we but must qualify this byconsidering that some of this differential may be related to the difference in age, quality,condition and size between the two types of housing units.

We encourage the reader, and the decision maker to consider and digest this informationin detail as it will allow for a more informed and measured tax policy discussion. What wesuggest most strongly, however, is for all those in an advisory or decision making capacityto ensure that the precise implications of any proposed or possible tax policy change isquantified and understood prior that any decision being made.

The mathematics behind our property tax system produces a “closed loop” in respect ofthe tax levy and its distribution. Any change in the multi-residential, or the new multi-residential ratio will result in a rebalancing of the County and local property tax burdensamong classes, and across geographic areas. It is imperative that these phenomena arequantified with precision in advance of finalizing any new tax policy approach.

CONFIDENTIAL


LOCAL RESULTS ADDENDUM

Blandford Blenheim

Scenario 1: Immediate Equalization of Residential and Multi-Residential Ratios

Blandford Blenheim Local General Levy Difference

Realty Tax Class 2016 Base Line Scenario 1 $ %

Residential $2,715,596 $2,730,173 $14,577 0.54%

Farm $481,322 $483,900 $2,578 0.54%

Managed Forest $1,391 $1,399 $8 0.58%

Multi-Residential $33,913 $12,444 -$21,469 -63.31%

Commercial $341,593 $343,427 $1,834 0.54%

Industrial $59,510 $59,830 $320 0.54%

Large Industrial $25,093 $25,227 $134 0.53%

Pipeline $373,983 $375,990 $2,007 0.54%

Taxable Total $4,032,401 $4,032,390 -$11 0.00%

Scenario 2: Year 1 of a 5 Year Migration of Multi-Residential Ratio to 1.0



Residential $2,715,596 $2,718,494 $2,898 0.11%

Farm $481,322 $481,835 $513 0.11%

Managed Forest $1,391 $1,393 $2 0.14%


Commercial $341,593 $341,958 $365 0.11%

Industrial $59,510 $59,574 $64 0.11%


Pipeline $373,983 $374,382 $399 0.11%

Taxable Total $4,032,401 $4,032,393 -$8 0.00%

Scenario 3: Hypothetical “Balance of Tax” Between Average Condominium andMulti-Residential Units



Residential $2,715,596 $2,718,849 $3,253 0.12%

Farm $481,322 $481,898 $576 0.12%

Managed Forest $1,391 $1,393 $2 0.14%


Commercial $341,593 $342,003 $410 0.12%

Industrial $59,510 $59,581 $71 0.12%


Pipeline $373,983 $374,431 $448 0.12%

Taxable Total $4,032,401 $4,032,399 -$2 0.00%

CONFIDENTIAL


East Zorra Tavistock


East Zorra Tavistock Local General Levy Difference


Residential $2,941,507 $2,992,411 $50,904 1.73%

Farm $586,173 $596,318 $10,145 1.73%

Managed Forest $763 $776 $13 1.70%


Commercial $344,377 $350,337 $5,960 1.73%

Industrial $52,306 $53,211 $905 1.73%

Large Industrial $64,076 $65,185 $1,109 1.73%

Pipeline $252,841 $257,216 $4,375 1.73%

Taxable Total $4,358,796 $4,358,802 $6 0.00%




Residential $2,941,507 $2,951,547 $10,040 0.34%

Farm $586,173 $588,178 $2,005 0.34%

Managed Forest $763 $765 $2 0.26%


Commercial $344,377 $345,553 $1,176 0.34%

Industrial $52,306 $52,485 $179 0.34%


Pipeline $252,841 $253,704 $863 0.34%

Taxable Total $4,358,796 $4,358,800 $4 0.00%




Residential $2,941,507 $2,952,763 $11,256 0.38%

Farm $586,173 $588,417 $2,244 0.38%

Managed Forest $763 $765 $2 0.26%


Commercial $344,377 $345,695 $1,318 0.38%

Industrial $52,306 $52,506 $200 0.38%


Pipeline $252,841 $253,808 $967 0.38%

Taxable Total $4,358,796 $4,358,793 -$3 0.00%

CONFIDENTIAL


Ingersoll


Ingersoll Local General Levy Difference


Residential $8,347,667 $8,604,171 $256,504 3.07%

Farm $2,102 $2,167 $65 3.09%


Commercial $1,951,305 $2,011,263 $59,958 3.07%

Industrial $478,804 $493,517 $14,713 3.07%


Pipeline $44,452 $45,818 $1,366 3.07%

Taxable Total $13,160,759 $13,160,764 $5 0.00%




Residential $8,347,667 $8,397,739 $50,072 0.60%

Farm $2,102 $2,115 $13 0.62%


Commercial $1,951,305 $1,963,009 $11,704 0.60%

Industrial $478,804 $481,676 $2,872 0.60%


Pipeline $44,452 $44,719 $267 0.60%

Taxable Total $13,160,759 $13,160,763 $4 0.00%




Residential $8,347,667 $8,403,821 $56,154 0.67%

Farm $2,102 $2,117 $15 0.71%


Commercial $1,951,305 $1,964,431 $13,126 0.67%

Industrial $478,804 $482,025 $3,221 0.67%


Pipeline $44,452 $44,751 $299 0.67%

Taxable Total $13,160,759 $13,160,762 $3 0.00%

CONFIDENTIAL


Norwich


Norwich Local General Levy Difference


Residential $5,068,995 $5,086,771 $17,776 0.35%

Farm $931,355 $934,616 $3,261 0.35%

Managed Forest $880 $883 $3 0.34%


Commercial $501,805 $503,565 $1,760 0.35%

Industrial $208,806 $209,538 $732 0.35%

Pipeline $58,433 $58,638 $205 0.35%

Taxable Total $6,807,741 $6,807,733 -$8 0.00%




Residential $5,068,995 $5,072,542 $3,547 0.07%

Farm $931,355 $932,003 $648 0.07%

Managed Forest $880 $880 $0 0.00%


Commercial $501,805 $502,156 $351 0.07%

Industrial $208,806 $208,952 $146 0.07%

Pipeline $58,433 $58,474 $41 0.07%

Taxable Total $6,807,741 $6,807,739 -$2 0.00%




Residential $5,068,995 $5,072,965 $3,970 0.08%

Farm $931,355 $932,083 $728 0.08%

Managed Forest $880 $881 $1 0.11%


Commercial $501,805 $502,198 $393 0.08%

Industrial $208,806 $208,970 $164 0.08%

Pipeline $58,433 $58,479 $46 0.08%

Taxable Total $6,807,741 $6,807,735 -$6 0.00%

CONFIDENTIAL


South West Oxford


South West Oxford Local General Levy Difference


Residential $2,981,462 $2,983,496 $2,034 0.07%

Farm $735,326 $735,829 $503 0.07%

Managed Forest $699 $700 $1 0.14%


Commercial $279,024 $279,215 $191 0.07%

Industrial $145,767 $145,866 $99 0.07%


Pipeline $38,588 $38,614 $26 0.07%

Taxable Total $4,484,546 $4,484,538 -$8 0.00%




Residential $2,981,462 $2,981,864 $402 0.01%

Farm $735,326 $735,426 $100 0.01%

Managed Forest $699 $700 $1 0.14%

Multi-Residential $4,830 $4,217 -$613 -12.69%

Commercial $279,024 $279,062 $38 0.01%

Industrial $145,767 $145,786 $19 0.01%


Pipeline $38,588 $38,593 $5 0.01%

Taxable Total $4,484,546 $4,484,538 -$8 0.00%




Residential $2,981,462 $2,981,915 $453 0.02%

Farm $735,326 $735,439 $113 0.02%

Managed Forest $699 $700 $1 0.14%

Multi-Residential $4,830 $4,143 -$687 -14.22%

Commercial $279,024 $279,067 $43 0.02%

Industrial $145,767 $145,789 $22 0.02%


Pipeline $38,588 $38,594 $6 0.02%

Taxable Total $4,484,546 $4,484,542 -$4 0.00%

CONFIDENTIAL


Tillsonburg


Tillsonburg Local General Levy Difference


Residential $8,813,909 $9,276,820 $462,911 5.25%

Farm $11,365 $11,962 $597 5.25%

Multi-Residential $1,027,788 $394,806 -$632,982 -61.59%

Commercial $2,089,934 $2,199,698 $109,764 5.25%

Industrial $653,889 $688,232 $34,343 5.25%


Pipeline $43,002 $45,261 $2,259 5.25%

Taxable Total $13,080,013 $13,080,021 $8 0.00%




Residential $8,813,909 $8,902,753 $88,844 1.01%

Farm $11,365 $11,480 $115 1.01%


Commercial $2,089,934 $2,111,001 $21,067 1.01%

Industrial $653,889 $660,480 $6,591 1.01%


Pipeline $43,002 $43,436 $434 1.01%

Taxable Total $13,080,013 $13,080,008 -$5 0.00%




Residential $8,813,909 $8,913,598 $99,689 1.13%

Farm $11,365 $11,494 $129 1.14%


Commercial $2,089,934 $2,113,572 $23,638 1.13%

Industrial $653,889 $661,285 $7,396 1.13%


Pipeline $43,002 $43,488 $486 1.13%

Taxable Total $13,080,013 $13,080,008 -$5 0.00%

CONFIDENTIAL


Woodstock


Woodstock Local General Levy Difference


Residential $27,213,694 $28,196,618 $982,924 3.61%

Farm $37,301 $38,649 $1,348 3.61%

Managed Forest $2,494 $2,584 $90 3.61%

Multi-Residential $2,514,502 $950,848 -$1,563,654 -62.19%

Commercial $8,524,077 $8,831,956 $307,879 3.61%

Industrial $1,999,643 $2,071,868 $72,225 3.61%


Pipeline $123,475 $127,935 $4,460 3.61%

Taxable Total $45,806,187 $45,806,176 -$11 0.00%




Residential $27,213,694 $27,404,753 $191,059 0.70%

Farm $37,301 $37,563 $262 0.70%

Managed Forest $2,494 $2,512 $18 0.72%


Commercial $8,524,077 $8,583,924 $59,847 0.70%

Industrial $1,999,643 $2,013,683 $14,040 0.70%


Pipeline $123,475 $124,342 $867 0.70%

Taxable Total $45,806,187 $45,806,182 -$5 0.00%




Residential $27,213,694 $27,428,005 $214,311 0.79%

Farm $37,301 $37,595 $294 0.79%

Managed Forest $2,494 $2,514 $20 0.80%


Commercial $8,524,077 $8,591,205 $67,128 0.79%

Industrial $1,999,643 $2,015,391 $15,748 0.79%


Pipeline $123,475 $124,448 $973 0.79%

Taxable Total $45,806,187 $45,806,195 $8 0.00%

CONFIDENTIAL


Zorra


Zorra Local General Levy Difference


Residential $3,826,131 $3,842,060 $15,929 0.42%

Farm $1,182,102 $1,187,025 $4,923 0.42%

Managed Forest $3,895 $3,911 $16 0.41%


Commercial $261,497 $262,586 $1,089 0.42%

Industrial $346,294 $347,735 $1,441 0.42%


Pipeline $430,000 $431,790 $1,790 0.42%

Taxable Total $6,201,078 $6,201,073 -$5 0.00%




Residential $3,826,131 $3,829,303 $3,172 0.08%

Farm $1,182,102 $1,183,086 $984 0.08%

Managed Forest $3,895 $3,898 $3 0.08%


Commercial $261,497 $261,714 $217 0.08%

Industrial $346,294 $346,581 $287 0.08%


Pipeline $430,000 $430,357 $357 0.08%

Taxable Total $6,201,078 $6,201,076 -$2 0.00%




Residential $3,826,131 $3,829,689 $3,558 0.09%

Farm $1,182,102 $1,183,206 $1,104 0.09%

Managed Forest $3,895 $3,898 $3 0.08%


Commercial $261,497 $261,741 $244 0.09%

Industrial $346,294 $346,616 $322 0.09%


Pipeline $430,000 $430,400 $400 0.09%

Taxable Total $6,201,078 $6,201,081 $3 0.00%




From: Director of Corporate Services

Receivables Management Policy Amendments RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Receivables Management Policy be amended as set out in Attachment

No. 1 to Report No. CS 2015-28, effective August 12, 2015. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Receivables Management policy is a responsible fiscal management policy established

primarily for the collection of accounts receivable in order to maximize retention of user fees and charges

Water and wastewater specific collection policy will further enhance the effectiveness of corporate Receivables Management

Its purpose is to set out guidelines for the County and its billing agents to follow when pursuing past due water and/or wastewater accounts

Clearly sets out the collection efforts to be undertaken prior to shutting off supply water service and adding outstanding user fees to the property tax account

Implementation Points The provisions of this amended Policy will become effective upon Council’s adoption of the recommendation contained in this Report. The amended Policy will be signed by the CAO and registered in the County’s General Policy Manual.

County staff will work with billing agents to ensure that appropriate procedures and processes are in place prior to implementation.

Financial Impact Net savings are anticipated once the proposed water/wastewater receivables collection policy provisions are fully implemented. Although there will be additional costs incurred by the billing agents through additional processes and procedures to implement the policy, savings in revenue retention are expected to exceed those costs and be significantly less than the fees of a private collection agency. The Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.

Page 1 of 4



Risks/Implications As is inherent with any enforcement law and penalties imposed for non-compliance, the introduction of this proposed policy is not likely to be popular with the users of water and wastewater municipal services who are frequently delinquent in paying their accounts. Alternatively, it will be well received by those who are conscientious customers and consistently pay for their use of services within the payment period particularly since it will assist in revenue retention within the systems and result in containing user fees/rates over the long term. Certain measures are included in the proposed policy to ensure that users who are not responsible for the past due account are not negatively impacted. Similarly, there are exceptions to certain actions to be undertaken, for instance when there is demonstrated financial hardship being experienced by the user. In this situation, a more effective way of dealing with the outstanding fees and charges may be considered by the County Treasurer in accordance with subsection 3.2.9 – Responsibilities of this Policy. 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. ii. A County that Performs and Delivers Results - Deliver exceptional services by:

- Conducting regular service reviews to ensure delivery effectiveness and efficiency - Developing and tracking key performance indicators against goals and report results - Identify best practices and appropriate benchmarking

DISCUSSION Background The Receivable Management Policy No. 6.3 was approved for inclusion in the County General Policy Manual on November 14, 2007. Periodic revisions have occurred over the ensuing years to ensure the Policy continues to serve its purpose and intent and in response to changes in the economy as well as service levels delivered by the County. The last revision of the Policy occurred in April, 2014. As the County is currently seeking proposals from ERTH and Tillsonburg Hydro Inc. for billing and collection related to water and wastewater services throughout the County, it was necessary to review and consider the effectiveness of existing policies and procedures that relate to these services.

Page 2 of 4



Comments The aforementioned review, as it relates to collections of water and wastewater user fees, involved an examination of the Receivable Management Policy. Although no substantive change to the overarching Policy is required at this time, it was determined through research for best practices among our municipal peers that improvements can be achieved by implementing standard collection policies and procedures specific to water and wastewater user fees. The County’s bad debt expense has averaged $173,000 over the past five years, $143,000 or 77% represent water and wastewater revenues. Although difficult to determine the amount of savings or revenue retention that will be achieved, the proposed provisions will eliminate the need for costly private collection agency fees charged at approximately 30% of the value of each account recovered – representing $30 for each $100 of revenue collected. Attached as Attachment No. 1, the Receivable Management Policy is clearly marked with changes with the exception of Appendix B which is new in its entirety. More specifically, Appendix B to the Policy sets out the actions and responsibilities of the parties involved in the recovery of past due water and wastewater user fees. The marked changes in the Policy and in Appendix A are minor in nature with some making reference to the newly formed Appendix B. In summary, Appendix B of the Policy sets out the timing for giving notice in advance of disconnecting water services which will occur 20 calendar days beyond due date and for adding outstanding balances to the property tax account scheduled to occur 90 or more calendar days beyond due date. There are exceptions to this standard collection procedure as follows:

Exception to Standard Procedure Exception Procedure

One meter on a multiple unit property with tenants

Water service will not be shut off to avoid negatively impacting individuals who have no control over payment of services

One meter per unit of a multi-unit property and account holder is not the property owner

Past due account is sent to a collection agent as opposed to being transferred to the property tax account

Wastewater only service Water services are not available for shut off - proceed to transfer past due account to property tax account 90 calendar days or more beyond due date

Property under mandatory connection (not connected) – currently being billed for services in accordance with mandatory billing by-law

Water services are not available for shut off - proceed to transfer past due account to property tax account 90 calendar days or more beyond due date

Page 3 of 4

lbuchner

Underline



In addition to the exceptions sited above, special provisions may be considered by the County Treasurer. Subsection 3.2.9 of the Policy authorizes the Treasurer to, on a required basis:

1. Adjust collection procedures 2. Adjust late payment charges 3. Negotiate payment plans 4. Waive or adjust NSF fees.

As previously mentioned, the County is currently seeking proposals from ERTH and Tillsonburg Hydro Inc. for billing and collection related to water and wastewater services throughout the County. The proposed amendments to the Receivable Management Policy have been provided to the proponents for comment and consideration in preparing their proposals. Conclusions Based on the review, experiences of municipalities that employ similar policies and procedures have contributed to maximizing revenue retention for water and wastewater systems which strengthens financially sustainable requiring a more gradual incline in user fees/rates over the long term.

SIGNATURE Report Co-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 – Delegation Policy with Proposed Amendments

Page 4 of 4

GENERAL POLICY MANUAL

SECTION: Finance APPROVED BY: County Council

NUMBER: 6.3 SIGNATURE: Peter M. Crockett, CAO

PAGE: 1 of 13 DATE: November 14, 2007

REFERENCE POLICY: REVISED: April 17, 2014

Receivable Management

PURPOSE The County of Oxford has many different revenue cycles within its numerous departmental divisions. Because of this the effective management of account receivables is significant to the County in achieving its overall objective of responsible fiscal management. It is prudent that the Finance division of the Corporate Services department assume primary responsibility for the collection of accounts receivable. Further it is imperative that each division that extends credit to customers have in place procedures that are consistent with specific legislation and corporate policy to ensure their part in the receivable management process is effective to maximize revenue retention.

DEFINITIONS Date of Service Is the date when the service was provided or the product was obtained from the County. PROCEDURE 1.0 Application:

This policy applies to all departments and boards under the auspices of the County of Oxford. 2.0 Policy Requirements:

The management of receivables related to the programs and services offered by County departments will be coordinated by the Corporate Services department. Any questions regarding clarification or interpretation of this policy will be the responsibility of the Director of Corporate Services.

3.0 Responsibilities: This policy sets forth the management framework for the effective administration of all accounts receivable granted by the County of Oxford.







3.1 Oxford County Council

The Municipal Act S.O. 2001, c. 25 as amended (Municipal Act) sets forth the statutory authority for Council. Section 224 clause (d) states Council is “to ensure that administrative practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of Council” and furthermore clause (e) states that it is the role of Council “to ensure the financial integrity of the municipality”. 3.2 Corporate Services Department

In his/her capacity as Treasurer, the Director of Corporate Services (County Treasurer) is responsible under section 286 (1) (a) of the Municipal Act to collect money payable to the municipality, in the manner directed by the Council. Therefore, the County Treasurer or their designate, the Manager of Finance, shall provide direction to staff in the management of receivables. The following procedures form part of the overall strategy for accounts receivable management: 3.2.1. All invoices shall be issued under the authority of the County Treasurer. 3.2.2. All amounts owed to the County shall be collected in the manner set out in this policy. 3.2.3. All invoices are to be reviewed, approved and recorded by the Corporate Services department. 3.2.4. Accounting practices and financial systems shall be maintained to ensure that

receivables are measured with respect to value and aging. 3.2.5. Interest shall be charged on overdue accounts when it remains unpaid after 30

days from the date of the invoice. Interest at the rate of one and a quarter percent (1.25%) will be charged on outstanding balances from the date of service.

3.2.6. The cost of collection for overdue accounts shall be added to accounts for collection purposes. 3.2.7. Procedural matters related to settlement of accounts, referral to private collection

agency (PCA), write offs and set offs will be subject to the approval of the County Treasurer. The financial situation and any other special circumstances regarding a debtor are considered when collecting an account.

3.2.8. Additional measures, such as withholding services or security deposits, may be put into place in the event of non-payment of invoices.

3.2.9. The County Treasurer is authorized to, on an as required basis: a) adjust collection procedures b) adjust late payment charges c) negotiate payment plans d) waive or adjust NSF fees






3.2.10. The County Treasurer is authorized to write-off accounts deemed to be uncollectible, only after all required steps set out in this policy have been followed and all collection efforts have been exhausted.

3.2.11. The County Treasurer shall establish a framework of internal controls for the administration of accounts receivable that adhere to the following principles:

a) the appropriate division of duties related to credit granting, collections, maintenance of accounting records, and handling and reconciling of money;

b) the provision of complete audit trails to track all claims from the transaction that gave rise to the account to its final settlement;

c) the establishment of monitoring mechanisms that include the preparation and distribution of periodic management reports concerning the age and collection activities of the portfolio.

3.3 Other Departments Directors of each department are to ensure that procedures are in place to manage the revenue specific to their respective departmental programs. Specific legislation such as the Provincial Offences Act, the Social Housing Reform Act or the Ontario Works Act should be adhered to and form part of the procedures. The procedures should take into account the following criteria: 3.3.1 Whenever possible design the delivery of a program to avoid the creation of receivables. Therefore, departments should require, to the extent possible, payment in advance, or at the same time as goods and services are provided. 3.3.2 Obtain the information necessary to extend credit and grant credit only when it is an operational requirement. 3.3.3 Obtain security for accounts due to the County when it is good business practice to do so. 3.3.4 Ensure receivables are promptly recorded in accordance with County accounting and financial procedures. 3.3.5 Promote that debtors are treated fairly with service expectations openly being communicated to debtors. 3.3.6 Allow for the sharing of information and resources between departments, where permitted, in order to locate and collect accounts owing to the County.

4.0 Specific Collection Criteria:

4.1 The County of Oxford has several departments. Some departments have numerous divisions within their structure. There are a variety of revenue cycles within the






County structure and some of these revenue cycles have a complex nature. Therefore, no one set of collection procedures would be effective for all the circumstances existing. Outlined in Appendix A is a list of revenue categories, by department, with prescribed collection methods allowed by statute, third party Agreements, County By-law or required by this policy as a default provision.

4.2 If a specific revenue source is not identified in Appendix A then methods outlined in

Appendix B apply. Appendix B outlines general procedures to follow for timely and cost-effective collection actions that will normally be progressive.

5.0 Sharing of Information:

5.1 The County is subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Departments must comply with the County’s obligations under this Act. All requests for information relating to County debtors should be referred to the Legislative Services Coordinator.

The County of Oxford, upon the request of a third party, acting in the capacity of a collection agent, can provide the following information concerning a person or business entity that has an account due to the County of Oxford:

5.1.1 The basic information required to locate the person in order to collect an account

or to set-off the account against any sum of money that may be due or payable to the County of Oxford.

5.1.2 Any information provided in response to the request must be obtained from any account, return, record, statement, document or report pertaining to the person and not from any other persons record such as a relative or a spouse and must not be used for any other purpose.

5.1.3 Collection agents are required to protect the information transferred to them from disclosure in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of the program under which it was collected.

6.0 Monitoring:

6.1 The County Treasurer will monitor the effectiveness of this policy by an internal audit, program evaluation reports and conducting regular reviews at least every four years.






Appendix A - Prescribed Collection Methods 1.0 Types of debts and other claims to be included in the departmental receivables management systems. This Appendix identifies types of debts managed by the County that may need to be recognized and administered in the receivables management system. Not all of these debts will be managed by the County using the general collection procedures outlined in Appendix B. Some revenue sources have prescribed procedures that are outlined in provincial statute or other legal processes defined in County By-laws or Agreements. Table 1.1 – Types of Debts

Department Revenue Category Prescribed Collection Method

Corporate Services Provincial Offences As prescribed by the Provincial Offences Act and Oxford County Bylaw No. 4661-2006

Public Works Bag Tags As described by vendor agreement

Public Works Landfill disposal fees Security deposit

Public Works Water charges As prescribed by section 398(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amendedAppendix B to this Policy

Public Works Wastewater charges As prescribed by section 398(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amendedAppendix B to this Policy

Human Services Ontario Works overpayment As prescribed by the Ontario Works Act

Human Services Rent Geared to Income As per County of Oxford Tenant Arrears policies






2.0 General Procedural requirements for collections The Finance Division of the Corporate Services Department will be responsible for collection of all accounts receivables. Finance will use whatever collection method is appropriate and cost-effective in each circumstance. Collection actions will usually be based on the methods and information outlined below.

Table 2.1 – Common routine collection actions Progressive

Steps Action

1 invoice sent out within thirty days of the date of service

2 statement with interest calculated from the date of service will be sent out thirty days after the invoice was sent

3 letter informing that the account will be forwarded to a collection agent along with a statement with interest calculated from the date of service will be sent out 60 days after the invoice was sent

4 forward account to private collection agency 21 days after notification letter to debtor

5 negotiate a repayment schedule with debtor at any time between date of service and prior to transfer of debt to collection agent

Table 2.2 – Other collection actions Progressive

Steps Action

1 County may act on a debtor’s voluntary authorization to deduct the amount of a debt from payments the County owes the debtor

2 Departments may recommend that a debt be considered for write off however all reasonable collection activities shall be exhausted prior to write off consideration

3 Departments must decide on a program basis, when requiring an amount to be paid to the County, whether security could be required in order to facilitate the collection of debt

4 Departments should assess when it is appropriate in their collection process to realize the securities provided to the County






3.0 Compromise settlement A compromise settlement involves accepting partial payment as fully satisfying a debt and releasing the debtor from any obligation to pay the balance. The authority to accept a compromise settlement is held by the County Treasurer, who normally acts on the advice and recommendation of the appropriate Director. Compromise settlements are normally considered in a process that is incidental to litigation. The necessary condition for accepting a compromise settlement is the determination that the cost of litigation would be more than the expected recoveries or, when the debtor is on the verge of bankruptcy, that the settlement exceeds what the departments would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. It may be determined that a compromise settlement should be accepted either before or after the commencement of legal proceedings. 4.0 Garnishment Garnishment, seizure of property or any legal action will generally be initiated by the Private Collection Agency and any cost associated with these actions shall be added to the debt. 5.0 Limitation period Unless the limitation period for collections of debts is specified in program legislation, the applicable provincial statute will apply. As the collection of County debts is not always bound by provincial legislation, advice may be sought from legal counsel to confirm the applicable limitation period.






Appendix B - Water and Wastewater Billing Collection Policy

1.0 Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this policy is to set out guidelines for the municipality and its billing

agents to follow when water and/or wastewater accounts remain unpaid.

1.2 The policy is intended to establish and document a process that will provide guidance to the County’s management, staff and billing agents, to help them make operational decisions to ensure that monies owed to the County are collected in a timely manner.

1.3 To provide water and/or wastewater account holders and property owners notice of and sufficient time to pay unpaid fees in order to avoid the arrears being placed on the tax roll.

2.0 Legislative Authority 2.1 The Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes the municipality to place unpaid fees and charges for

public utilities on the tax roll for the property to which the public utility was supplied, regardless of who the consumer is. Section 398(2) provides that a municipality may add unpaid public utility fees and charges, which include water and/or wastewater/storm arrears, to the respective property’s tax roll.

2.2 Ontario Regulation No. 581/06 additionally identifies such fees or charges associated with the supply of water and sewage services as having ‘priority lien status’ as described in section 1 of the Act such that, when added to a property tax roll because of payment default, these fees/charges:

2.2.1 may be collected in the same manner as taxes on the property; 2.2.2 may be recovered with costs as a debt due to the municipality from the assessed owner of the property at the time the fee was added to the tax roll and from any subsequent owner of the property or any part of it; 2.2.3 are a special lien on the property in the same manner as taxes under subsection 349 2.2.4 Act; and 2.2.5 may be included in the cancellation price under Part XI of the Act, in the same manner as are taxes on the property, in the event that a Tax Arrears Certificate is registered on title of the property.

2.3 The Municipal Act, 2001, Chapter 25, Section 80 provides that a municipality may, at reasonable times, enter on land to which it supplies a public utility, to inspect, repair, alter or disconnect the service pipe or wire, machinery, equipment and other works; to






inspect, install, repair, replace or alter a public utility meter and for such purposes to shut off the supply of the public utility to the land; and if a customer discontinues the use of a public utility on land of the municipality lawfully decides to cease supplying the public utility to land, shut off the supply of public utility, remove any property if the municipality or determine whether the public utility has been or is being unlawfully used.

2.4 The Municipal Act, 2001, Chapter 25, Section 81 provides that a municipality may shut off the supply of a public utility to land if fees or charges payable by the owners or occupants of the land for the supply of the public utility to the land are overdue, subject to the municipality providing reasonable notice of the proposed shut-off to the owners and occupants of the land by personal service or prepaid mail or by posting the notice on the land in a conspicuous place

3.0 Collection Procedure 3.1 Accounts that fall into arrears follow the collection protocol below. The collection protocol

applies to residential, commercial and industrial water accounts and provides: 3.1.1 reminders to account holders and property owners of their financial obligation; 3.1.2 ample opportunity for payment; and 3.1.3 the County with tools needed to safeguard its water and wastewater revenue.

Reasonable efforts are undertaken by the County and its billing agents to provide the following notifications: Table 3.2 – Collection Procedure

Progressive Steps

Account Outstanding

Responsibility

Response Outcome

1 4 business days beyond due date

Billing Agent “Reminder Call” is made to account holder at minimum via interactive voice response (IVR) telling them bill is unpaid.

2 9 calendar days beyond due date

Billing Agent “Service Disconnection Notice” is issued to account holder by mail. In this notice, the account holder is advised that they have seven days to pay. And “Reminder Call” is made to account holder at minimum via interactive voice response (IVR) advising the account holder they have seven days to pay.






Progressive

Steps Account Outstanding

Responsibility

Response Outcome

3 16 calendars days beyond due date

Billing Agent “Disconnection of Services Reminder Notice(s)” is issued to account holder. 1st call – Advising account holder by phone (human contact) they have 48 hours to pay to avoid disconnection. 2nd call – Advising account holder by phone (human contact) they have 48 hours to pay to avoid disconnection. Or if no valid number on file: Notice is delivered to premise that indicates the Billing Agent’s office be contacted immediately.


Billing Agent Oxford County Oxford County and/or its Operating Authority

“Water Shut-off Notice” is sent to Oxford County Public Works by Billing Agent and water is shut-off. (Arrears balance greater than $249) “Disconnection for Non-Payment” is left at property upon disconnection, advising them account must be paid through the Billing Agent to avoid balance transfer to property tax account.

5 90 or more calendar days beyond due date

Oxford County “Property Tax Transfer Notice” is issued to account holder and area municipality advising them their arrears have been transferred to property tax account.

1 See Section 5.0 Exceptions to Collection Procedure






4.0 WORKFLOW1

1 See Section 5.0 Exceptions to Collection Procedure

Billing Agent

Action

Payment Made Through

Oxford County and/or its Operating Authority

Action

Account Current

(16 Days or 12 Business Days from Bill Issue

Date)

No Action

Billing Agent

No Action

Step 1

4 Business Days

Beyond Due Date

Reminder Call

Billing Agent

No Action

Step 2

9 Calendar Days

Beyond Due Date

Service Disconnection

Notice

Billing Agent

No Action

Step 3

16 Calendar Days

Beyond Due Date

Disconnection of Services Reminder

Notice

Billing Agent

No Action

Step 4

20 Calendar Days

Beyond Due Date

Shut-off Form sent to Oxford

County

Billing Agent (Water

Reconnect Form sent to

Oxford County when payment

is made)

Disconnection for Non-

Payment and Water Shut-off

Step 5

90 Business Days

Beyond Due Date

Account written off

Tax Office

If payment made (notified by customer), notify Billing

Agent & Reconnect

Water






5.0 EXCEPTIONS TO COLLECTION PROCEDURE The following steps will be followed in place of the steps as set out in section 4.0 when the following circumstances exist: 5.1 One Meter on a Multiple Unit Property with Tenants:

In this case, the owner of the premises is held liable for the water used on the property. Shutting off water services would negatively affect individuals that have no control over payment of services.

Progressive Steps

Account Outstanding

Responsibility

Response Outcome


Billing Agent Oxford County Oxford County

“Water Shut-off Notice” is sent to Oxford County Public Works by Billing Agent and water is shut-off. (Arrears balance greater than $249) The Billing Agent is notified by Oxford County that this property will not be shut-off, and to continue billing the account holder.



5.2 One Meter per Unit of a Multi-Unit Property:

The account holder is not necessary the property owner.

Progressive Steps

Account Outstanding

Responsibility

Response Outcome


Billing Agent The account is forwarded to the Collection Agency. Oxford County is notified of this action taken by Billing Agent.






5.3 Wastewater Only Service:

There is no water service to shut-off.

Progressive Steps

Account Outstanding

Responsibility

Response Outcome


Billing Agent

No action



5.4 Property under Mandatory Connection (however not connected): The account holder is currently paying for services they are not using and are billed services in accordance with a mandatory connection by-law. Shutting off the water would allow user to avoid this mandatory service requirements, and provide no incentive to connect.

Progressive Steps

Account Outstanding

Responsibility

Response Outcome


Billing Agent Oxford County

“Water Shut-off Notice” is sent to Oxford County Public Works by Billing Agent and water is shut-off. (Arrears balance greater than $249) The Billing Agent is notified by Oxford County that this property will not be shut-off, and to continue billing the account holder.



PENDING ITEMS

Council Lead

Meeting Date Issue Pending Action Dept. Time Frame

10-Sep-14 Report CAO 2014-12 - University of Ottawa - Woodstock Satellite Staff to negotiate partnership agreement and report CAO 2015 - Q3

Campus Proposal

14-Jan-15 Report CAO (CS) 2015-01 (Released) University of Ottawa -

Woodstock Satellite Campus Proposal Update

14-Jan-15 Resolution No. 9 - Presentation made on behalf of SouthWestern CAO Report CAO 2015 - Q1

Integrated Fibre Technology (SWIFT)

28-Jan-15 Investment in Affordable Housing direction to staff through CAO Develop a strategy to leverage remainder of HS 2015 - Q2

further to adoption of Report HS 2015-01 recommendations Investment in Affordable Housing funding and report

back to Council - Housing First (HS 2015-03)

adopted 13-May-15

22-Apr-15 Report PW 2015-17 - Water Efficiency Plan - Low Flow Fixture Deferred for further staff consideration and report PW 2015 - Q2

Rebate Program

13-May-15 Report HS 2015-03 - Sale of Surplus Land and Assets to Support a Develop a Housing First Policy for Council's HS/CS 2015 - Q2

Housing First Policy consideration.

27-May-15 Resolution No. 16 - Princeton Wastewater Servicing Study - Public Works directed to engage in talks with the PW 12-Aug-15

recommendations contained in Report No. PW 2015-25 received as Van Wees family and report solutions to Council

information

08-Jul-15 Resolution No. 9 - Request for Financial Contribution - Possible Public Health Report regarding opportunities for funding PHES Sep-15

Campaign - Stage for Change live concert/event

of 1

Zero Waste Oxford Motion

Whereas solid waste in Oxford County, as across the Province of Ontario, is generated by industrial, commercial, institutional, recreational, agriculture, agricultural related, and other businesses, residents and visitors;

And whereas almost 47,000 metric tons of solid waste is landfilled annually at the Oxford County Waste Management facility in Salford, comprised of approximately 37% residential and 63% industrial/commercial/institutional;

And whereas, at the current annual landfill volumes, the Oxford County Waste Management facility has

the site capacity to receive 47,000 metric tons of solid waste to approximately 2043:

And whereas at an additional 20,000 metric tons of solid waste generated in Oxford County is exported annually for disposal outside of the County of Oxford which, if landfilled in Oxford County, would dramatically shorten the lifespan of the Oxford County Waste Management facility;

And whereas Oxford County Council, at its meeting on April 11, 2012, adopted a motion which in part sought the development of a strategy that would ensure the Oxford County Waste Management facility meets all waste disposal needs of Oxford County to the Year 2100;

And whereas Oxford County Council, at its meeting on May 13, 2015, adopted a resolution calling on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to replace the Waste Diversion Act with legislation that will, among other issues:

first and foremost take definitive and meaningful action to reduce solid waste generation and increase disposal rates through effective waste reduction and enhanced waste diversion requirements across all sectors of the Province of Ontario;

fully supports and facilitates a community’s systematic approach to the reduction of waste disposal demand in that community;

And whereas the Future Oxford Plan, expected to be adopted by all municipal councils in Oxford in September 2015, is a community based vision of sustainability including associated waste management goals, actions and targets intended to establish Oxford County as a Zero Waste community;

And whereas Zero Waste for Oxford County means:

100% of Oxford generated and non-hazardous Industrial, Commercial, Institutional, and Residential solid waste disposal needs are met by the County of Oxford Waste Management facility;

Therefore be it resolved that the County of Oxford commit to achieving Zero Waste by 2025;

And further, that the plan to achieve Zero Waste in Oxford County include definitive actions to reduce solid waste generation, increase waste diversion and other actions deemed necessary across all sectors to extend the lifespan of the Oxford County Waste Management facility to 2100;

And further, that industrial, commercial, institutional, recreational, agriculture, agricultural related, and other businesses and residents of Oxford County be encouraged to actively participate in Zero Waste Oxford initiatives and programs as they are introduced, discussed and implemented;

And further, that the County of Oxford seek the appropriate regulatory reform, and support, from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change necessary to assist the County of Oxford in the achievement of its Zero Waste goal.

COUNTY OF OXFORD

BY-LAW NO. 5725-2015

BEING a By-law to repeal By-law No. 3742-98 and to enact a new By-law to provide for speed limits on County Roads. WHEREAS, the Table to Section 11 and Section 52 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, prescribes that specified highways are within the jurisdiction of the County of Oxford for all matters relating to those highways, including parking and traffic.

AND WHEREAS, the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter H.8 authorizes a municipality to prescribe speed limits for motor vehicles driven on any highway or portion of a highway under its jurisdiction. AND WHEREAS, Council has adopted Public Works Report No. PW 2014-59, dated October 22, 2014, recommending a new speed limit By-law to repeal By-law No. 3742-98 and to consolidate the existing Schedules with amendments made by By-law to that date.

AND WHEREAS, subsequent to Report No. PW 2014-59 being adopted, Council passed two further amending By-laws, No. 5645-2014 and No. 5713-2015 on December 10, 2014 and June 24, 2015 respectively.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the County of Oxford enacts as follows: 1. That By-law No. 3742-98 is hereby repealed.

2. That when any highway or portion of highway is marked by signs as required under the

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter H.8, the maximum rate of speed thereon shall be as shown in Schedules “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” or as determined under a construction zone designation.

3. The penalties provided in the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter H.8, as it may from time to time be amended or rewritten, shall apply to offences against this By-law.

READ a first and second time this 12th day of August, 2015. READ a third time and finally passed this 12th day of August, 2015.

DAVID MAYBERRY, WARDEN

BRENDA J. TABOR, CLERK

SCHEDULE "A"

FORMING PART OF BY-LAW NO. 5725-2015

MAXIMUM RATE OF SPEED

40 KILOMETRES PER HOUR

From the point To the point

Highway described as described as

------- -------------- ------------

County Road 3 South limit of County 260 metres South of South limit

Road 29, Drumbo of County Road 29, Drumbo

County Road 4 10 metres North of the 10 metres South of South limit

Noth limit of George St. of Main St./Burton St.

Innerkip Innerkip

For specific times, being

from 8:30am to 9:00am,

12:15pm to 12:45pm and

3:30pm to 4:00pm, Monday

to Friday when school is in

session.

County Road 8 20 metres West of the 20 metres East of East limit

West limit of William St. of River Road

Plattsville Plattsville

For specific times, being

from 8:15am to 9:00am,

and 2:30pm to 3:00pm,

Monday to Friday when

school is in session.

County Road 15 30 metres West of the 90 metres East of the

West limit of Sales Drive, East limit of Robinson St.

Woodstock Woodstock

County Road 35 Springbank Avenue, Cree Avenue,

Woodstock Woodstock

County Road 53 10 metres North of the South limit of Concession

North limit of Brock St., Street, Tillsonburg

Tillsonburg

SCHEDULE "B"






-------- -------------- ------------

County Road 2 193 metres West of 403 metres East of the

Stanley Street, Thamesford 21 st Line Zorra

Thamesford

County Road 2 310 metres West of the West limit of Mill Street,

West limit of Ingersoll Road, Woodstock

Woodstock

County Road 2 631 metres West of 268 metres East of

Oxford County Road #3 Oxford County Road #3

Princeton Princeton

County Road 3 North limit of County 90 metres North of the

Road #2, Princeton North limit of Roper St.,

Princeton.

County Road 3 670 metres South of the 260 metres South of the

South limit of County South limit of County Road 29

Road #29, Drumbo

County Road 3 North limit of County Road 29, 660 metres North of the

Drumbo North limit of County

Road #29, Drumbo

County Road 4 190 metres South of the West end of County

George St., Road #29

Innerkip

County Road 6 North limit of County 570 metres North of the

Road #12, Foldens North limit of County

Road #12, Foldens

County Road 6 480 metres South of the 100 metres North of the

South limit of John St., North limit of Halliday St.,

Embro Embro

County Road 7 South limit of Bell St. 270 metres North of the

Ingersoll North Towline Road,

Ingersoll


West limit of County Road East limit of County Road

# 59 Hickson # 59 Hickson


West limit of County East limit of County

Road #22, Bright Road #22, Bright

County Road 8 10 metres South of the 150 metres East of the

South limit of Isabella East limit of Walter St.,

St., Plattsville Plattsville

County Road 9 700 metres West of the East limit of County Road 10

West limit of Ingersoll Ingersoll St., Ingersoll

St., Ingersoll

County Road 9 West limit of Harris St. 450 metres East of the

Ingersoll East limit of Taylor St.,

Ingersoll

County Road 9 310 metres West of the 340 metres West of the

West limit of Vine West limit of East Hill

Street, Beachville Road, Beachville

County Road 9 South limit of Park Row, South limit of Dundas St.

Woodstock Woodstock


South limit of County North limit of County

Road #20, Brownsville Road #20, Brownsville

SCHEDULE "B"






-------- -------------- ------------

County Road 10 West limit of South limit of County Rd. 119

Culloden Rd., Ingersoll Bell St., Ingersoll

County Road 11 Northerly limits of Queen St., 390 metres North of Queen St.,

Beachville Beachville

County Road 12 400 metres South of the South limit of Dundas St.

South limit of Bowerhill Woodstock

Rd., Woodstock.

County Road 15 90 metres East of the 80 metres East of the East

East limit of Robinson limit of Springbank Ave.,

St., Woodstock Woodstock.


West limit of Spring St., East limit of Phoebe St.,

Norwich Norwich

County Road 18 East limit of Highway 19, 680 metres East of the East

Mt. Elgin limit of Highway 19, Mt. Elgin


West limit of James St., East limit of York St.,

Otterville Otterville



Road #13, Springford Road #13, Springford



Road # 10 Brownsville Road #10, Brownsville

County Road 20 720 metres West of the West 200 metres East of the East

limit of the road between limit of the road between

lots14/15, Delmer lots 14/15, Delmer

County Road 20 West limit of the Town East limit of the Town

of Tillsonburg of Tillsonburg.



Road #8, Bright Road #8, Bright

County Road 22 490 metres North of North limit 175 metres South of North limit of

of Oxford Road 29 Blandford-Blenheim Township Road 8


West limit of Centennial St., East limit of Victoria St.,

Tavistock Tavistock

County Road 29 East end of County 50 metres West of the

Road #4, Innerkip centre of the Thames River


West limit of Mill St., East limit of Railway St.,

Drumbo Drumbo

County Road 33 668 metres West of the West limit of County

West limit of County Road #4, Innerkip

Road #4, Innerkip

County Road 35 East limit of Vansittart Springbank Avenue,

Avenue, Woodstock Woodstock

County Road 35 Cree Avenue, Woodstock 250 metres East of the

East limit of Lansdowne

Avenue, Woodstock

SCHEDULE "B"






-------- -------------- ------------

County Road 37 North limit of Simcoe East limit of the Road in

Street, Tillsonburg lot 28, Con. 12, Township

of Norwich

County Road 51 500 metres West of North limit of Oxford St.,

the West limit of Tillsonburg

Borden Cres., Tillsonburg

County Road 51 West limit of New Vienna 200 metres East of the

Road, Tillsonburg East limit of Goshen St.,

Tillsonburg

County Road 53 North limit of Oxford St., 10 metres North of the

Tillsonburg North limit of

Brock St., Tillsonburg

County Road 53 South limit of Concession South limit of North St.,

Street, Tillsonburg Tillsonburg

County Road 54 North limits of Dundas South limit of Devonshire

Street, Woodstock Avenue, Woodstock

County Road 59 50 metres South of 58 metres North of

Robson Street, Norwich North Street,Norwich

County Road 59 334 metres East of 158 metres West of

Burgess Street, Deer Street,

Burgessville Burgessville

County Road 59 149 metres South of Tecumseh North limits of Dundas

Street, Woodstock Street, Woodstock

County Road 59 11 metres South of 119 metres South of

Dietrich Road, Tavistock Bauer Street, Tavistock

County Road 59 50 metres South of the 60 metres South of

Southerly limit of Salter Pattullo Avenue,

Avenue, Woodstock Woodstock

County Road 119 155 metres South of North limits of County

Stedelbauer Road Road 2, Thamesford

Thamesford

County Road 119 125 metres South of South limits of County

County Road 2, Thamesford Road 2, Thamesford

County Road 119 Thames Street, Ingersoll 268 metres North of Ingersoll Rd.

SCHEDULE "C"






------- -------------- ------------

County Road 2 350 metres West of 350 metres East of

County Road 6 County Road 6

County Road 2 West limit of the 10th Line 215 metres West of

Road of East Zorra-Tavistock Bexley Street, in the

City of Woodstock

County Road 2 120 metres West of 193 metres West of

the 15th Line Stanley Street, Thamesford

County Road 3 South limit of County Road #8 280 metres South of the

South limit of County Road #8


South limit of Road between North limit of Road

lots 25 and 26, Brooksdale between lots 25 and 26,

Brooksdale

County Road 6 350 metres North of 350 metres South of

County Road 2 County Road 2

County Road 7 270 metres North of the North 365 metres North of the North

limit of the North Town Line, limit of the North Town Line,

Ingersoll Ingersoll

County Road 8 835 metres West of West 535 metres West of West limit

limit of County Road 22 of County Road 22

County Road 8 620 metres East of East limit 920 metre East of East limit

of County Road 22 of County Road 22

County Road 8 80 metres North of the North 10 metres South of the

limit of Elizabeth St., South limit of Isabella St.,


County Road 8 30 metres East of the East 150 metres East of the East

limit of Hofstetter Road, limit of Walter Street,


County Road 8 230 metres West of the West 400 metres East of the

limit of County Road #3, East limit of County

Washington Road #3, Washington

County Road 9 310 metres West of the 150 metres West of the

West limit of Vine St., West limit of Domtar Line,

Beachville Beachville

County Road 9 340 metres West of the 100 metres East of

West limit of East Hill the East limit of

Road, Beachville East Hill Road, Beachville

County Road 9 520 metres South of the South limit of Park Row,

South limit of Park Row, Woodstock

Woodstock

County Road 9 Western boundary of 395 metres west of the

Ingersoll and South-West 25th Line of South-West

Oxford Oxford Township


South limit of the Road North limit of the Road

between Con. 8 & 9, between Con. 8 & 9,

Culloden Culloden

SCHEDULE "C"





South limit of the Road North limit of the Road

between Con. 4 & 5, between Con. 4 & 5,

Verschoyle Verschoyle

County Road 10 250 metres North of the South limit of the Northern

North limit of the road ramp terminal at Hwy 401

between Con. 1 & 2,

West Oxford



Road #6, Foldens Road #6, Foldens


West limit of Dodge East limit of Dodge

Line, Sweaburg Line, Sweaburg

County Road 12 240 metres North of the 400 metres South of the

North limit of Con. 3 & 4, South limit of Bowerhill

East Oxford Road, Woodstock



Road #19, Springford Road #19, Springford

County Road 15 80 metres East of the East East limit of Beard's

limit of Springbank Avenue, Lane, Woodstock

Woodstock



Road #119, Kintore Road #119, Kintore

County Road 17 West limit of County Road 30 4.2 km East of 14th Concession

Road, East Zorra Tavistock

County Road 17 Westerly limits of County Westerly 900 metres

Road 30

County Road 18 620 metres West of the West 200 metres West of the

limit of Spring St., Norwich West limit of Spring St.,

Norwich

County Road 18 130 metres East of the East 480 metres East of the

limit of Phoebe St., Norwich East limit of Phoebe St.,

Norwich

County Road 19 West limit of County Road 19 570 metres East of the West

limit of County Road 19

County Road 22 North limit of County Road 29 490 metres North of North

limit of County Road 29

County Road 22 175 metres South of North limit 175 metres North of North limit

of Blandford Blenheim Twp Rd 8 of Twp. Rd 8

County Road 24 200 metres East of East limit 500 metres East of East limit

of Victoria St., Tavistock of Victoria St., Tavistock


limit of the Road between East limit of the Road

lots 14 & 15, Dereham Centre between lots 14 & 15,

Dereham Centre

County Road 27 East limit of County Road 27 370 metres West of East limit

of County Road 27

County Road 28 15 metres west of the west East Limit of the 33rd Line

limit of 31st Line

County Road 30 North of the North limit 1730 metres North of the

of County Road #2 North limit of County

Road #2


limit of the road between East limit of the road

con. 8 & 9 between con. 8 & 9

SCHEDULE "C"




County Road 37 East limit of Sand Road, in 1970 metres East of the

lot 28, Con. 12, Norwich East limit of Sand Road,in

Township lot 28, Con. 12, Norwich

Township

County Road 40 350 metres East of County East limit of County

Road 59 Road 59, Curries

County Road 46 East limit of Highway #19, 380 metres East of the

Salford East limit of Highway #19,

Salford

County Road 51 North limit of Highway #3, 500 metres West of the

Tillsonburg West limit of Borden Cres.,

Tillsonburg

County Road 51 200 metres East of the East Boundary between the

limit of Goshen St., County of Oxford and the

Tillsonburg Regional Municipality of

Haldimand-Norfolk

County Road 59 750 metres South West from Wilton St., Tavistock

intersection of Wilton St.,

Tavistock

County Road 59 119 metres South of Bauer 547 metres South of Bauer

Street, Tavistock Street, Tavistock


Oxford County Road #8 Oxford County Road #8

Hickson Hickson

County Road 59 149 metres South of 400 metres north of the northerly

Tecumseh Street, Woodstock limit of the road allowance for

County Road #17

County Road 59 60 metres South of Southerly limit of the road allowance

Pattullo Avenue, Woodstock for the Old Stage Road, Woodstock

County Road 59 310 metres South of Quaker 58 metres North of North

Street, Norwich Street, Norwich

County Road 59 50 metres South of Robson 50 metres South of

Street, Norwich Airport Road, Norwich

County Road 59 891 metres South of Braemar 914 metres North of County

Road Road #33


County Road #16 County Road #16

Kintore Kintore

County Road 119 113 metres South of 268 metres North of

North Town Line Ingersoll Street North

Ingersoll Ingersoll

County Road 119 North property line of The former southern boundary

the King's Highway 401 of the Town of Ingersoll

County Road 119 630 metres north of 340 metres south of County

County Road #28, Road #28, Uniondale

Uniondale

SCHEDULE "D"SCHEDULE "D"


MAXIMUM RATE OF SPEEDMAXIMUM RATE OF SPEED

70 KILOMETRES PER HOUR70 KILOMETRES PER HOUR

Highway From the point To the point

described as described as

------- -------------- ------------

County Road 15 East limit of Beards East limit of the

Lane, Woodstock City of Woodstock

COUNTY OF OXFORD BY-LAW NO. 5726-2015 BEING a By-Law to repeal By-Law No. 3755-98. WHEREAS, the Council of the County of Oxford deems it desirable to re-establish Part Lot Control on certain lands within the Town of Tillsonburg; AND WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, provides for by-laws designating plans of Subdivision not subject to Part Lot Control and provides for the repeal of such by-laws; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the County of Oxford enacts as follows: 1. That By-Law No. 3755-98 be and the same is hereby repealed. 2. That Subsection 5 of Section 50 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, applies

to the subject lands as described in Schedule “A” to By-law No. 3755-98. 3. That the Part Lot Control Agreement, dated the 8th day of April, 1998, registered as

Instrument No. LT70307, in conjunction with By-Law No. 3754-98, has been complied with and is therefore discharged and released.

4. That the Clerk is authorized to execute, on behalf of the County of Oxford, whatever

further documents are required to amend the register for the lands to delete By-Law No. 3755-98 and the part lot control agreement, registered against those lands specified in Item 2 above.

5. That this By-Law shall become effective on the date of third and final reading. READ a first and second time this 12th day of August, 2015. READ a third time and finally passed in Open Council this 12th day of August, 2015.



COUNTY OF OXFORD

BY-LAW NO. 5727-2015 BEING a By-law to amend By-law No. 5616-2014, being a By-law to remove certain lands from Part Lot Control. WHEREAS, Council passed By-law No. 5616-2014 on September 10th, 2014 containing an expiration date of September 10, 2015. AND WHEREAS, Tillsonburg Developments Inc. has applied to the County of Oxford to amend the expiration date of By-law No. 5616-2014 which deleted certain lands for thirty-two (32) residential lots in a registered subdivision from Part Lot Control. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the County of Oxford enacts as follows: 1. That By-law No. 5616-2014 is hereby amended by changing the expiration date to

September 30, 2016. 2. That this By-Law shall become effective on the date of third and final reading. READ a first and second time this 12th day of August, 2015. READ a third time and finally passed this 12th day of August, 2015.



COUNTY OF OXFORD

BY-LAW NO. 5728-2015

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 12th day of August, 2015. READ a third time and finally passed this 12th day of August, 2015.

