agenda - wasaga beach documents/2016-06-13 committee of t… · approve in principal holding a...

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

AGENDA

Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. to be held in the Classroom

1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. DEPUTATIONS, PETITIONS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS

a) Clearview Aviation Business Park - Paul Bonwick & Charlie Tatham

4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – See attached list 5. NEW BUSINESS

a) Tourism and Event Advisory Committee Recommendation Recommendation: That Committee of the Whole receive the report from the Chair of the Tourism and Event Advisory Committee and direct staff to work with the Tourism and Event Advisory Committee to implement the recommendations listed in this report and provide a progress update to General Government on a bi-annual basis; and, Further That Committee of the Whole recommend to Council that staff to bring forward any funding requests to implement the recommendations contained within this report as part of the Town’s annual budget process for consideration by Council.

b) Downtown Master Plan Consultant – Awarding of RFP Recommendation: That Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the multi-disciplinary team led by FORREC Ltd. be awarded the contract to lead the development of the Master Plan for Downtown Wasaga Beach and that staff proceed to enter into a contract with Forrec Ltd.

c) Burger King Lease – Rent Reduction – 41 Beach Dr. Unit C Recommendation: That Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the Town of Wasaga Beach not grant a twenty (20) percent reduction to the rent currently being paid by 1082744 Ontario Inc., (operating as Burger King) at 41 Beach Drive, Unit C.

d) Grants through Wasaga Distribution Inc. Recommendation: That Committee of the Whole of Council recommends to Council that it provide the following donations through Wasaga Distribution Inc.

COWOC –June 13, 2016 of 3

1) Breaking Down Barriers - $5,000 2) Georgian Triangle Housing Resource Centre - $5,000 3) Georgian Triangle Hospice - $5,000 4) Simcoe Muskoka Dufferin Crimestoppers - $2,500 5) YMCA Strong Kids Campaign - $5,000

And further that consideration and discussion occur regarding the Collingwood General & Marine Hospital’s annual donation of $8,400, although the full pledge (pledged $42k in 2011) for the New Age of Care fund has been reached.

e) 2017 Budget Review and Approval Schedule

Recommendation: That Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the 2017 Budget Review and Approval Schedule be approved.

f) Ward vs At Large Election Recommendation: That Committee of the Whole receive the report pertaining to the Results of Public Engagement to Consider the Potential Option of Establishing a Ward System Council Structure and Election; and, That Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the Town of Wasaga that the Council Structure and Election for the 2018 Municipal Election remain as an at-large system.

g) Music Event – Playland Park Square – Saturday, August 13, 2016 Recommendation: That the Committee of the Whole of Council recommends to Council that they approve in principal holding a Aretha Franklin, Four Tops and Temptations concert on Saturday, August 13, 2016 in the Playland Park Square; and, That the entire Playland Parking lot be closed on Thursday, August 11, 2016 by 6 a.m. until Monday, August 15th, 2016 at 12:00p.m.

h) Dardanella – Discussion – Staff Direction on the Next Steps

i) Notice of Motion:

Deputy Mayor Bifolchi – Wasaga Distribution Minutes

Free Resident Parking – Mayor Smith

6. ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS (new items) 7. CLOSED SESSION

8. ADJOURNMENT

COWOC –June 13, 2016 of 3

TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

JUNE 13, 2016 UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

a) Council Compensation Review for Elected Positions and staff – HR – May 17, 2016

b) MNR Beach Maintenance – A. McNeil – May 17, 2016

c) Creation of a Business Plan for Beachfront properties – A. McNeill *Fall

2015

d) Chamber of Commerce – A. McNeil - Tourism Service Agreement

e) Legal Services RFP – A. McNeil

f) Burger King Lease – A. McNeil – May 17, 2016 *On Agenda

We will host a world class ‘Aviation Business Park’ without equal! Live, Work, Fly, at Clearview Aviation Business Park.

Welcome to the Clearview Aviation Business Park, a 260 acre World Class Aerospace/Aviation Mecca


Overview

• Located only 110 KM north of Toronto Pearson International Airport

• Largest economic expansion of it’s kind planned in rural Ontario, with a forecasted build-out estimated at over $300 million dollars

• Provide a home to over 400 full time employees and effect 1,300 full time indirect positions in the region during Phase 1


Community Profile Major arterial highways serving the region: • Highway 26 connects

Collingwood northwest to Meaford and southeast to Highway 400 in Barrie.

• Highway 400 in Barrie is the

closest Trans-Canada Highway and is 55km away from Collingwood.


Community Profile AMENITIES • Collingwood General

and Marine Hospital • Royal Victoria Regional

Health Centre • Georgian College, South

Georgian Bay Campus • Recreation Facilities • Tourism


Airport Profile The Collingwood Regional Airport is situated on 392 acres of land in Clearview Township. The municipal address is 1997 Concession 6N. It is close to ski hills, golfing and the world’s longest freshwater beach.


Development Opportunities - Site Plan


Development Opportunities The Clearview Aviation Commerce Centre offers the distinct advantage of allowing companies to purchase or lease land with or without airside access, thereby offering aerospace and related companies a competitive advantage for their business. Other options include turnkey operations for lease or purchase, build to order units, or self-build within proposed guidelines.


Development Opportunities RECOMMENDED USES BY AREA

• Corporate Aviation Operations, Executive Air Charter

Light Corporate Aviation Hangars, Private/Prestige Aircraft Hangars

• Rotary Wing Operations, Flight Training, Air cargo/courier facilities, Aerial Survey, Sightseeing

• Groundside industrial uses, Manufacturing, Light industrial, Warehousing, Non-aviation uses, Recreational Uses

STAFF REPORT

TO: Committee of the Whole

FROM: David Johnston, Chair, Tourism and Special Events Advisory Committee Andrew McNeill, Director, Economic Development and Tourism

SUBJECT: Tourism and Event Advisory Committee Recommendation Report

DATE: June 13, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT Committee of the Whole receive the report from the Chair of the Tourism and Event Advisory

Committee and direct staff to work with the Tourism and Event Advisory Committee to implement the

recommendations listed in this report and provide a progress update to General Government on a bi-

annual basis;

AND FURTHER THAT Committee of the Whole recommend to Council that staff to bring forward any

funding requests to implement the recommendations contained within this report as part of the

Town’s annual budget process for consideration by Council.

BACKGROUND

Mandate:

The Tourism & Event Advisory Committee (TEAC), reporting through the General Government

Committee, provides advice to staff and Town Council on how best to promote tourism and

attract/develop events that will bring tourists and identify issues and opportunities to support the

growth and development of tourism and special events as an economic, community and cultural

driver in Wasaga Beach.

Committee Purpose:

1. To identify and provide recommendations on opportunities that will make Wasaga Beach more

attractive to tourists;

2. To identify and recommend improvements to tourism services provided by the Town or

agencies delivering services on behalf or in partnership with the Town;

3. To identify and recommend events that will increase the number of tourism-related overnight

stays in the Town of Wasaga Beach and serve as support for the tourism industry;

4. To identify gaps in tourism products and barriers to positive tourist experiences and make

recommendations on how these gaps and barriers can be addressed;

5. To review the Tourism Strategy report and make recommendations on actions that Council can

take to implement the recommendations;

6. To collaborate with the local tourism sector, Chamber of Commerce as a visitor centre, Ontario

Parks – Wasaga Beach Provincial Park as a visitor centre and Town Council to develop

strategies to promote the Town as a premier tourist destination, and

- 2 -

7. To create value and work in partnership with the tourism operators of Wasaga Beach.

DISCUSSION

The TEAC has met regularly since the fall of 2015 and has identified the following six areas as being

the priority areas for the committee to provide advice to the Town:

1. Creation of Main Street/Downtown;

2. Development of the beachfront;

3. Festivals;

4. People moving;

5. Four season destination, and

6. Marketing and branding.

A Quick Wins Approach

The TEAC is interested in delivering results quickly. Therefore, the following recommendations are

intended to deliver quick wins for the Town in the next two to three years to improve the overall state

of the tourism economy of the town. These recommendations are intended to form the basis of a

living action plan document that the TEAC will champion with support from Town staff.

1. CREATION OF MAIN STREET/DOWNTOWN

The TEAC strongly supports the creation of a downtown for Wasaga Beach and the downtown

master plan process that will begin shortly. The TEAC will be actively engaged in the development

of the plan and once completed will work to assist the Town where appropriate to implement the

plan. In the interim period, a focus on short-term activation is recommended.

Recommendations:

Continue to implement the Main Street Market;

Activate the Main Street with performers (buskers, singers, etc.);

Identify low cost public art opportunities, and

Explore relocating the Santa Claus parade to Main Street beginning in 2016.

2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE BEACHFRONT

The Beachfront at Beach Areas One and Two has, and always will be, one of the key tourism

assets for Wasaga Beach. It is in need of reinvention and this will occur in two different ways:

I. Through large-scale redevelopment, and

II. Through grassroots small “quick win” changes that will cumulatively add up to significant

change.

- 3 -

Recommendations:

Identify large-scale catalytic projects and a phasing strategy to realize those projects

through the downtown master plan process;

Undertake an annual walking audit of the beachfront in September to identify

improvements required for the following season;

Formalize an annual beachfront workshop (in September) with all beachfront

businesses and tourism-related businesses in town to debrief on the following:

What businesses liked about the previous operating season;

What businesses did not like, and

What should be implemented for the following season?

Present an annual action plan to Council with any funding requests to be considered as

part of the Town’s annual capital and operating budget process, and

Pursue family-oriented amusement rides and activities for the beachfront.

3. FESTIVALS

Wasaga Beach has a variety of small, medium and large-scale festivals virtually every weekend in

the summer. There is an opportunity to work with festivals and the Ministry of Natural Resources

and Forestry (MNRF) to build strong, sustainable festivals into the future.

Recommendations:

Undertake festival intercept surveys;

Determine 1-2 festivals annually to undertake festival surveys in partnership with

RTO7.

Ensure festivals are included in business engagement tactics;

Encourage residents to become ambassadors and attend festivals through the Town’s

social media outlets;

Expand festival networking meetings to include restaurants and other tourism

businesses;

Ensure festival details are included on the Town website once a permit is approved, and

Work with the community to develop criteria for the types of festivals and special events

that the Town would like to host/attract.

4. PEOPLE MOVING

To regain our place as one of the province’s tourism jewels, it is important for Wasaga Beach to

focus on non-automobile forms of mobility particularly at the beachfront and within the new

downtown. Building a walkable downtown that adopts a “pedestrian first” mentality is critical to be

competitive in today’s tourism economy. A sustainable core must also look at other non-

automobile forms of movement.

- 4 -

RTO7 and Tourism Simcoe County have identified cycling as a growth market for the area.

Wasaga Beach has also identified cycling as an asset for the community and has installed cycling

signage and developed an active transportation strategy for the community. In addition, for many

years Wasaga Beach had a beach caravan that was a popular tourist attraction. It not only

provided a utilitarian transportation function but it also provided guided tours of the area.

Recommendations:

Work with Tourism Simcoe County to develop a cycle tourism action plan for Wasaga

Beach;

Work with the Town to identify an accountable Town staff person to be responsible for

cycling;

Undertake a walking audit of the downtown to identify priority projects to foster a more

walkable and cycling friendly downtown;

Work with the Historical Advisory Committee to identify historical points of interest for a

downtown walking tour (building upon previous walking tours originating from Nancy

Island);

Resurrect a tourist people-mover between Stonebridge and the beachfront (perhaps the

Stonebridge Train?);

Work with the MNRF to explore the opportunity for a beachfront guided people-mover

between the beach areas, and

Ensure that the Downtown Master Plan provides a multi-modal approach to the

development of the downtown.

5. FOUR SEASON DESTINATION

A successful four season destination requires product ready experiences in all four seasons.

Wasaga Beach has the potential to deliver a world-class four season experience but in order to do

so some of the tourism product that is currently offered may require strategic development. If a

community asset is not yet tourism ready it is better not to market it until it is at a proper level of

development.

Recommendations:

Work with Tourism Simcoe County to create a four season tourist map with product

ready experiences for 2017;

For each product ready experience identify areas of suggested improvement and work

to influence product operators to realize those improvements;

Identify additional tourist product that should be nurtured to enable it to be product

ready.

- 5 -

6. MARKETING AND BRANDING

A successful tourism destination requires a mix of tourism products and services that exceed the

needs of their current and potential tourist. Successful tourism businesses have strong

partnerships, innovative marketing strategies, customer-focused business approaches and a long-

term business plan.

There are several organizations providing tourism related services for the businesses in Wasaga

Beach including: RTO7, Tourism Simcoe County, Wasaga Chamber of Commerce and the Town

of Wasaga Beach. There is an opportunity for the Town to take on a lead role in engaging tourism

businesses and building a strong tourism destination.

Recommendations:

Social Media Outreach

Engage businesses regularly through social media and other communications;

Communicate successes and work underway via a municipal newsletter to

residents and businesses, and

Develop a 2017 Facebook marketing campaign.

Tourism Business Open House

Hosted by the Town;

Suggest: showcasing local food and celebrating local examples;

Purpose: Encourage partnership and collaboration amongst businesses;

If successful, the Town could offer ongoing engagement sessions focusing on a

variety of topics relevant to business owners, and

Suggested date in early fall 2016.

Customer Service Training

Encourage Wasaga Beach businesses to participate in RTO7’s online Customer

Service training.

Tourism Services

Provide tourism services at the beachfront where most tourists visit;

Bring tourism services into Town Hall so that the Town can coordinate and

leverage other tourism partnerships;

Establish a tourism website with French translation;

o Compile product-ready tourism collateral including 5/15/30/120 second

videos and still shots;

o Include website analytics to track visitors to the site.

Ensure that the Wasaga Beach visitor guide is ready for January 1, 2017, and

Pursue a new brand, logo and slogan for the town in 2018.

Establishing a Tourism Baseline

Establish a new set of criteria and tools to track visitors to the town, and

Work with our tourism partners and businesses in town to unveil the tools for

2017 to then create a new baseline to measure progress against.

- 6 -

CONCLUSION

The above noted recommendations are intended to be quick wins for the town to help improve the

overall tourism economy. The TEAC will work in partnership with the Town and other tourism

providers to create a workplan to implement the recommendations listed above.

Respectfully submitted by:

David Johnston David Johnston

Chair, Tourism Events and Advisory Committee

Andrew McNeill Director, Economic Development and Tourism

STAFF REPORT


FROM: Andrew McNeill, Director of Economic Development and Tourism SUBJECT: Downtown Wasaga Beach Master Plan RFP Award Recommendation

DATE: June 13, 2016

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the multi-disciplinary team led by FORREC Ltd. be awarded the contract to lead the development of the Master Plan for Downtown Wasaga Beach and that staff proceed to enter into a contract with Forrec Ltd.

BACKGROUND At its meeting of March 15th, Committee of the Whole approved the following RESOLUTION NO. 2015-05-10 as follows:

RESOLVED THAT Committee of the Whole does hereby recommend to Council that the Terms of Reference for the Downtown Wasaga Beach Master Plan be approved; and, Further That direction be provided to the Director of Economic Development and Tourism to proceed to issue a Request for Proposals from qualified consultant teams to undertake the Downtown Master Plan; and, Finally that direction be provided to the Director of Economic Development and Tourism to report back to Committee of the Whole with the details of project funding for approval prior to contract award.

DISCUSSION A Request for Proposals (RFP) for the above noted contract was issued on April 21, 2016 and was posted on the Town of Wasaga Beach website, as well as through the Wasaga Sun, Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, Economic Developers Council of Ontario and Biddingo. The RFP closed on May 12, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. A total of ten (10) proposals were received. Following the closing, all bids were checked for accuracy and completeness. The evaluation team included the following: - Andrew McNeil, Director, Economic Development and Tourism - Barrie Vickers, Chief Building Inspector - Doug Herron, Manager, Planning - Nathan Wukasch, Planner

- 2 -

- Johanna White, Economic Development Officer The proposals were evaluated based on the following criteria: - Qualifications and Firm Experience – 40% - Quality of the proposal – 20% - Project Understanding, Proposed Methodology and Scope of Work – 35% - Financial – 5% PROPOSAL RESULTS

The proposal results are summarized as follows, with the lead proponent indicated in bold:

Proponent Total Score

Rank

BrookMcIlroy Three Sixty Collective MNP Amec Foster Wheeler Thompson Ho Transportation

83 Tie

FORREC Ltd. CBRE Tourism & Leisure Toole Design Group N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited JC Williams Group

83 Tie

Urban Strategies Urbanics C. C Tatham and Associates

75 3

Fotenn Planning and Design Sierra Planning and Management The Tourism Company Stantec Studio Jaywall Cameron Hawkins & Associates

74 4

WSP and MMM RCLCO Gibbs Planning Group Shook Keeley ATA Architects

71 5

The Planning Partnership Cushman & Wakefeild MDB Insight Tate Research Poulos & Chung SCS Consulting Group Ltd.

69 6

- 3 -

MetroQuest SGL Planning and Design Altus Group Project for Public Spaces Associated Engineering BA Group

66 7

MacNaughton Hermson Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) urbanMetrics Inc. C.F. Crozier & Associates Michael Spaziani Architect Inc. Lehman & Associates Planning Consultants

62 8

Dialog Henson Consulting Ltd.

53 9

Skelton Brumwel & Associates Crombie Capital Partners Cambium Peter G. Dunbar Gardhouse Consulting Ltd.

43 10

Based on the above results, the proposals that ranked above 80 points (FORREC Ltd. and BrookMcliroy) were invited to an interview where they were asked to provide a 15-20 minute presentation on their proposed process, team members, and relevant project experience and address the following items: - Challenge(s) facing Wasaga Beach - Approach to meeting the needs of a growing permanent population base, seasonal residents

and tourists (day-trippers and longer stay tourists) in the new downtown, and - How the team’s approach will position Wasaga Beach for successful implementation. Both BrookMcliroy and FORREC Ltd. provided noteworthy presentations and clearly addressed the abovementioned items. However, it was clear to the panel that, while both teams are highly skilled and would be suitable candidates to deliver the Downtown Master Plan, FORREC Ltd. and the comprehensive team they have established, is better positioned to provide the Town with a Downtown Master Plan that will provide a blueprint for developing a unique and functional downtown that will attract private sector investment and be highly implementable in the immediate future. TEAM OVERVIEW FORREC Ltd. FORREC Ltd. is an entertainment design company that specializes in the creation of places of escape and destinations of distinction. Their creative house leads in the design of theme parks,

- 4 -

water parks, retail and mixed-use developments, resorts and visitor attractions globally. FORREC Ltd.has a keen understanding of the strategies required to attract and entertain large numbers of people. Their creativity, proven master planning experiences and design skills enable them to approach projects from an unconventional perspective, which opens the door to new possibilities. They merge design creativity with fiscal practicality which has made them a trusted firm by some of the world’s most successful brands. Based in Toronto, FORREC Ltd. has built projects in 20 countries, with a history that spans 30 years including Universal Studios, Muskoka Warf, Downtown Markham Master Plan and The Villages in Florida. CBRE Tourism & Leisure CBRE is the world’s largest real estate services provider, with preeminent leadership positions in virtually all key business centres globally. With the acquisition of PFK Consulting Inc., CBRE now has the only proprietary data base on the accommodation industry in Canada. The CBRE Tourism & Leisure Group has over 30 years of experience working with Canada’s tourism and leisure sector serving clients who represent private investment interests, municipalities, government agencies, non-profit organizations and indigenous groups. Toole Design Group Toole Design Group is a global leader in planning, engineering and landscape architecture firm specializing in bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Their focus is developing creative yet practical solutions that move people more efficiently, while improving the quality of life of the community. N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited is a leading multi-disciplinary real estate consulting firm specializing in market research, urban planning, financial analysis and development management. JC Williams Group J.C. Williams Group is a firm that specializes in retail market research, real estate, mixed-use development, recruitment/leasing, and urban revitalization projects. The also specialize in retail in cultural attractions, libraries and other non-traditional areas. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council approved a project budget of $350,000, exclusive of taxes and disbursements, as part of the 2016 budget for the Downtown Master Plan. The following financial contributions have been secured to offset the cost to the Town: - $150,000 from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport through the Tourism Development

Fund - $30,000 from Regional Tourism Organization 7 thought Partnership Funding - $75,000 from the County of Simcoe - $75,000 from the private sector

- 5 -

Therefore, total partner contributions equal $330,000. The County of Simcoe funding is based on cost sharing and in order to secure the funding the Town must invest $25,000. As such, the Town is able to have a $5,000 contingency allocation. The private sector contribution is from a largescale landowner, Hamount Investments Limited, which has been exploring the possibility of redeveloping of some of their land holdings that fall within the designated downtown area.

TIMELINE FORREC Ltd. has committed to an eight (8) month timeline from the day of receiving notice to proceed to the delivery of the final report. CONCLUSION Based on the qualified bids received and evaluated it is recommended that the contract for the Downtown Master Plan be awarded to FORREC Ltd. as they have stood out as the most qualified team to undertake the Downtown Master Plan. They are able to bring forward a unique vision, a highly qualified team, deliver the final Downtown Master Plan within the 12 months stipulated in the RFP and in line with the approved budget. Staff will look to mobilize quickly and launch the project in early July. Staff will look to the consultant team to mobilize in early July. Mobilizing the consulting team during the summer months will enable them to fully understand the current environment of Wasaga Beach during peak season as well as engage all stakeholders, including the permanent population base, seasonal residents and tourists throughout the summer months. Commencing in early July will also enable the Town to have a final Downtown Master Plan by spring 2017 with the ability to begin implementing the plan immediately.

Respectfully submitted,


STAFF REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole

FROM: Andrew McNeill, Director of Economic Development and Tourism

SUBJECT: Rent Reduction Request – 41 Beach Drive, Unit C

DATE: June 13, 2016

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the Town of Wasaga Beach not grant a twenty (20) percent reduction to the rent currently being paid by 1082744 Ontario Inc., (operating as Burger King) at 41 Beach Drive, Unit C.

BACKGROUND

At the May 17, 2016 meeting of Committee of the Whole RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07-01 was approved as follows:

THAT the presentation pertaining to the Burger King Operator – Current Lease Agreement be referred back to staff for further follow-up on the requests presented within the presentation; and

THAT said report provide an overview of all current lease terms for all Town Beachfront facilities including but not limited to square footage, base rent, parking spaces, utilities, taxes etc.

THAT staff report back to Committee of the Whole at the next meeting.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Fred Char is a long time, well respected beachfront operator in Wasaga Beach. He has successfully operated Burger King for approximately 23 years. Mr. Char attended Committee of the Whole on May 17, 2016 and requested a 20% reduction in his current rent as a result of maintenance issues that have occurred as well as concerns over recent lease agreements between the Town and other operators at the beachfront. Mr. Char believes that a 20% reduction in rent will address perceived issues of competitive fairness.

- 2 -

Mr. Char’s lease was signed with Wasaga Beach Waterfront Development Inc., and carried forward when the Town purchased the property in 2015. Key terms of Mr. Char’scurrent lease are as follows:

Five (5) years that commenced on May 1, 2014; Option to renew for an additional five (5) years; Exclusivity to sell French fries in 41, 45 and 47 Beach Drive; Annual base rent does not include taxes and utilities; however, it does include

realty taxes, local improvements and all charges for water usage. Base rent as follows:

o $55,600 (May 1, 2014 to April 30, 2015); o $58,600 (May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016); o $61,600 (May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017); o $63,000 (May 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018), and o $63,000 (May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2019).

Beachfront Lease Comparison Staff have compiled the attached chart (Appendix One) that lists some of the key lease terms for all of the Town-owned units at the beachfront (exclusive of the beachfront licensed establishments).

It is important to note that all units at the beachfront have historically not been treated equally. Units in the base of Bananas (41 - 47 Beach Drive) or the Dardanella (13 First Street) have commanded higher rents than other locations at the beachfront. The lowest rents have historically been collected from 115 Beach Drive. Previous owners also utilized a flat rate approach to leases, they were not calculated on a per square foot basis.

Mr. Char is paying one of the highest flat rate rents; however, if you compare with other leases on a per square foot basis he is not paying the highest per square foot rent. The highest per square foot rents are actually being generated by the kiosks at the Main Street Market ($75/SF). Ciao Burger is also higher than Mr. Char and recent leases adjacent to Burger King are in line with the average rental rates in the building.

Wasaga Waterfront Development Inc. Leases

There are currently 8 leases that the Town acquired when it purchased the beachfront units. They are as follows:

13 First Street Unit 4 (Shore Store)

- 3 -

13 First Street Unit 5 (Splash) 13 First Street Units 2 and 3 (Rebel Beach) 41 Beach Drive Units A and B (Ciao Pizza) 43 Beach Drive Unit C (Burger King) 47 Beach Drive Unit H (Spirit) 47 Beach Drive Unit G (Perfect Image) 115 Beach Drive Unit 7 (Bubble Tea – note tenant has vacated the premises)

If a reduction is granted to Mr. Char it would not be unexpected to assume that all of the above operators will approach the Town to seek similar consideration.

Maintenance Issues Mr. Char has legitimate issues and concerns as they pertain to maintenance issues in his unit. Staff, the Town’s Property Manager and the roofer that was retained by the Town have worked to rectify the issues and will contain to respond and repair any future maintenance issues as they arise – as would be the case for any tenant.

Mr. Char has submitted an invoice and has requested compensation for equipment that is alleged to have been damaged by water leaks. This matter will be dealt with separately. The CAO will meet with Mr. Char upon his return.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Char has legitimate reason to complain about maintenance concerns that have transpired. The situation is being addressed and will be resolved. If the Town was to grant a 20% reduction to Mr. Char’s rent it is likely that other operators may approach the Town seeking similar consideration. After a review of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Char’s request, staff do not think Mr. Char is being treated unfairly or that his current rent is placing him at a strategic disadvantage at the beachfront. Staff recommend that a reduction not be granted.

Submitted by:


App

endi

x A:

Bea

chfro

nt L

ease

Sum

mar

y

Byl

aw #

Tena

ntA

ddre

ssTe

rmSq

uare

Fo

otag

eSt

art D

ate

Ann

ual

Am

ount

Pro

pert

y Ta

xes

W/S

Hyd

roFu

ll Le

ase

amou

nt

excl

. Util

ities

Park

ing

Spac

esC

omm

ents

2016

-06

Beav

erta

ils

Com

mer

cial

Inc

93 B

each

Dr U

nit B

5 yr

573

1-M

ay-1

6 $

18

,000

.00

$

3,

617.

62

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

$

21,

617.

62

2

2016

-32

JJB

G H

oldi

ngs

Inc

o/a

Tim

Hor

tons

93 B

each

Dr

Uni

t A5

mth

s71

81-

May

-16

$

20,0

00.0

0 $

4,53

3.07

W

orki

ng o

n Se

para

te

Mon

itorin

g

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

$

24,

533.

07

4

2016

-36

Gre

g Bu

chan

an In

Tr

ust f

or a

Com

pany

to

be In

corp

orat

ed a

nd

o/a

Juni

ors

Piz

za

115

Beac

h D

r U

nits

1-

65

yrs

5440

01-M

ar-1

6 $

17

,000

.00

$

11,

182.

55

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

$

28,

182.

55

2

2016

-37

Fine

st G

loba

l Im

ports

13 F

irst S

t Uni

t 13

yrs

609

1-Ap

r-16

$

18,0

00.0

0 $

1,47

9.30

N

ot

indi

vidu

ally

Se

rvic

ed

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

$

19,

479.

30

0

2016

-38

Enzo

Gro

ssi,

In tr

ust f

or

a C

orpo

ratio

n to

be

Inco

rpor

ated

o/a

Bana

nas

41 B

each

Dr U

pper

5 yr

7464

1-M

ay-1

6 $

102

,000

.00

$

33,

490.

67

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

Has

ow

n ac

coun

t with

H

ydro

$

135,

490.

67

6

2016

-50

RLS

Was

aga

Gro

up

Inc

o/a

Cop

a C

aban

a31

Bea

ch D

r5

yr60

141-

May

-16

$

25,0

00.0

0 $

2

0,80

9.96

In

divi

dual

ly

serv

iced

mus

t be

bill

ed

Mus

t set

up

acco

unt w

ith

Hyd

ro $

4

5,80

9.96

6

2016

-73

Kaos

App

arel

Inc

o/

a Fu

nnel

Tun

nel

14 F

irst S

t Uni

t 15

mth

s61

81-

May

-16

$

14,5

00.0

0 $

1,77

1.94

W

orki

ng o

n Se

para

te

Mon

itorin

g

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

$

16,

271.

94

2

Not

e: T

axes

are

pro

rate

d ba

sed

on th

e le

ase

term

of 5

mth

s.

2016

-74

Kaos

App

arel

Inc

o/

a S

plas

h57

Bea

ch D

r5

mth

s28

361-

May

-16

$

37,7

89.0

0 $

6,14

7.98

N

o w

ater

av

aila

ble

Mus

t set

up

acco

unt w

ith

Hyd

ro $

4

3,93

6.98

2

N

ote:

Tax

es a

re p

rora

ted

base

d on

the

leas

e te

rm o

f 5 m

ths.

2016

-90

Sus

hi W

asag

a Be

ach

41 B

each

Dr U

nit F

5 yr

s57

81-

Jul-1

6 $

20

,000

.00

$

3,

000.

00

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

$

23,

000.

00

2

2016

-91

Sna

ck B

each

Zon

e41

Bea

ch D

r Uni

t E5

yrs

612

13-M

ay-1

6 $

23

,000

.00

$

3,

000.

00

Indi

vidu

ally

se

rvic

ed m

ust

be b

illed

Mus

t set

up

acco

unt w

ith

Hyd

ro $

2

6,00

0.00

2

2016

-95

Hou

se o

f Bom

bay

Inc

o/

a B

each

Dep

ot47

Bea

ch D

r Uni

t F5

mos

524

13-M

ay-1

6 $

16

,950

.00

$

1,

082.

63

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

Wor

king

on

Sepa

rate

M

onito

ring

$

18,

032.

63

2

Not

e: T

axes

are

pro

rate

d ba

sed

on th

e le

ase

term

of 5

mth

s.

2016

-103

RLS

Was

aga

Gro

up

Inc

o/a

Cop

a C

aban

a31

Bea

ch D

r Uni

t A5

yrs

2866

1-Ju

l-16

$

-

$

9,

917.

08

Indi

vidu

ally

se

rvic

ed m

ust

be b

illed

Mus

t set

up

acco

unt w

ith

Hyd

ro $

9,9

17.0

8 6

N

ote:

Lea

se a

mou

nt in

Yea

r 1 is

$0.

00.

Pag

e 1

of 2

App

endi

x A:

Bea

chfro

nt L

ease

Sum

mar

y

Byl

aw #

Tena

ntA

ddre

ssTe

rmSq

uare

Fo

otag

eSt

art D

ate

Ann

ual

Am

ount

Pro

pert

y Ta

xes

W/S

Hyd

roFu

ll Le

ase

amou

nt

excl

. Util

ities

Park

ing

Spac

esC

omm

ents

Cia

o P

izza

Esp

ress

o &

Gel

ato

Ltd

o/a

Cia

o Pi

zza

41 B

each

Dr U

nits

A &

B

5 yr

s12

471-

Apr-

15 $

34

,728

.75

$

8,

652.

00

Indi

vidu

ally

se

rvic

ed m

ust

be b

illed

Mus

t set

up

acco

unt w

ith

Hyd

ro $

4

3,38

0.75

0

N

ote:

fina

l sig

natu

re fo

r thi

s le

ase

was

re

ceiv

ed a

fter T

WB

mad

e th

e pu

rcha

se.

1082

744

Ont

ario

Inc

o/a

Bur

ger K

ing

43 B

each

Dr

5 yr

1210

1-M

ay-1

4 $

61

,600

.00

NA

Incl

uded

in

Ren

t

Ow

n H

ydro

ac

coun

t is

set

up $

6

1,60

0.00

0

Cia

o P

izza

Esp

ress

o &

Gel

ato

Ltd

o/a

Cia

o Bu

rger

93 B

each

Dr U

nit 4

5 yr

s24

31-

Apr-

15 $

19

,500

.00

NA

Indi

vidu

ally

se

rvic

ed m

ust

be b

illed

Mus

t set

up

acco

unt w

ith

Hyd

ro $

1

9,50

0.00

0

Kaos

App

arel

Inc

o/

a R

ebel

Bea

ch13

Firs

t St U

nits

2 &

33

yrs

1667

15-A

pr-1

4 $

38

,000

.00

NA

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

$

38,

000.

00

0

Spiri

t App

arel

Inc

o/

a S

hore

Sto

re13

Firs

t St U

nit 4

3 yr

s16

071-

Apr-

14 $

31

,500

.00

NA

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

$

31,

500.

00

0

Spiri

t App

arel

Inc

o/

a S

hore

Sto

re13

Firs

t St U

nit 5

3 yr

s19

531-

May

-14

$

31,5

00.0

0 N

A N

ot

indi

vidu

ally

Se

rvic

ed

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

$

31,

500.

00

0

Spiri

t App

arel

Inc

o/

a S

pirit

Bea

ch W

ear

47 B

each

Dr U

nit H

3 yr

s52

41-

Apr-

14 $

36

,500

.00

NA

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

$

36,

500.

00

0

1515

084

Ont

ario

Li

mite

d o/

a Pe

rfect

Im

age

47 B

each

Dr U

nit G

5 yr

s72

81-

Apr-

14 $

37

,500

.00

NA

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

$

37,

500.

00

0

1847

689

Ont

ario

Inc

o/

a B

ubbl

e Te

a11

5 Be

ach

Dr U

nit 7

5 yr

s63

11-

May

-14

$

18,0

00.0

0 N

A N

ot

indi

vidu

ally

Se

rvic

ed

Not

in

divi

dual

ly

Serv

iced

$

18,

000.

00

0

Not

e: T

enan

t has

vac

ated

pre

mis

es w

ithou

t no

tice,

app

ropr

iate

col

lect

ion

activ

ity h

as

begu

n.

Not

es:

1) P

leas

e no

te th

at th

e sq

uare

foot

age

is b

eing

revi

ewed

for e

ach

unit

as s

ome

disp

arity

has

bee

n re

aliz

ed b

etw

een

new

and

old

dra

win

gs.

Pag

e 2

of 2

STAFF REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole of Council FROM: Monica Quinlan, Treasurer SUBJECT: Grants provided through Wasaga Distribution Inc. DATE: June 13, 2016

RECOMMENDATION THAT Committee of the Whole of Council recommends to Council that it provide the following donations through Wasaga Distribution Inc.:

1) Breaking Down Barriers - $5,000 2) Georgian Triangle Housing Resource Centre - $5,000 3) Georgian Triangle Hospice - $5,000 4) Simcoe Muskoka Dufferin Crimestoppers - $2,500 5) YMCA Strong Kids Campaign - $5,000

AND Further that consideration and discussion occur regarding the Collingwood General & Marine Hospital’s annual donation of $8,400, although the full pledge (pledged $42k in 2011) for the New Age of Care fund has been reached. BACKGROUND Over the past several years a number of grants have been provided through Wasaga Distribution (WDI) on behalf of the Town. These grants are for registered charities in which WDI receives donation receipts to use to offset their annual tax return. This provides a benefit to the Town, Wasaga Distribution and the community. The process that has been followed and that has been agreed to as part of the March 15, 2016 (COWOC) is different than the normal grants applications in that in general it is historical amounts that are provided. The mechanics of the process are that the Treasurer provides an amount to the staff at WDI for inclusion in their annual budget and then a report is brought back to members of Council to determine if they are in favour of moving forward with those grants. DISCUSSION For 2016, the total budgeted amount for Wasaga Distribution is $30,900. Although an increased amount has been requested from the community at this point the historical amounts have been budgeted to ensure that all organizations may receive a benefit. All applications are attached, however as noted in prior discussion the YMCA has in the past been given a $5,000 grant based on an annual pledge towards the Strong Kids program. Additionally the Hospital Foundation has also not yet provided a grant application as they have been meeting with all municipalities over the past several months since the New Age of Care campaign has ended. Back in 2011 the Town pledged a $42,000 amount towards this campaign and that amount has been given over the last several years. At this point members of Council have a few options in terms of how they provide a donation in 2016 towards the hospital:

Option #1 – Provide the $8,400 as in year’s past; Option #2 – Provide another amount that is below the $8,400 budgeted; Option #3 – Wait for the Hospital Foundation to come forward with an updated amount for 2016; or Option #4 – Provide no donation for 2016. Staff is of the opinion that providing the historical amount for 2016 is the preferred option given that the amount has been budgeted. CONCLUSION Both Council and Staff recognize the contributions that all of the non-profit service clubs and other organizations make to the quality of life for residents and businesses in the Town of Wasaga Beach. The Town is truly fortunate to have such a wealth of community partners that make the Town a better place to live, work and play. Respectfully Submitted, Monica Quinlan, Treasurer

Form: WB-SR2010

STAFF REPORT

TO: General Government Committee FROM: Monica Quinlan, Treasurer SUBJECT: 2017 Budget Review and Approval Schedule DATE: June 13, 2016

RECOMMENDATION THAT General Government Committee recommend to Council that the 2017 Budget Review and Approval Schedule be approved. BACKGROUND Each year as preparations for the annual budget are made a formal report is presented to members of Committee to ensure that they are comfortable with the budget schedule and to allow staff to plan accordingly. DISCUSSION As part of the 2016 Budget process some changes were included in the schedule as requested by members of Council. Below you will find the 2017 schedule which has included some of these revisions to ensure staff and Members of Council prepared for the annual budget process. Schedule August 30th – Set Guidelines – Committee of the Whole to consider the 2017 Budget Guidelines, based on the previous year’s forecast, environmental scan of cost and revenue drivers, implications of decisions made in 2016 and Council priorities for 2017. September 2nd – First draft operating and capital budget prepared by Budget/Financial Analyst and distributed to staff. Operating budget will be based on the proposed Budget Guidelines/4 Year Forecast and comparison to prior year actual results. Capital budget will be based on the 4-year capital forecast prepared in 2014. First draft budget working papers with revisions due by September 16th. September 21st to September 23rd – CAO, Treasurer and Budget Analyst to review first draft operating and capital budget and 4-year capital forecast with Department Heads. October 4th - First Draft – Committee of the Whole to review first draft operating and capital budget, with brief (5 – 7 mins) presentations from each department highlighting major changes and/or new initiatives. During this meeting discussion will occur generating a list for top priorities from Council for further discussion at the November 1st meeting. October 7th – Discussion items due from members of Council to the Treasurer.

2

October 12th – Reports due from Staff to the CAO to cover the list of discussion items identified by members of Council. October 18th – Presentation of Reports related to Discussion items November 1st – Second Draft – Committee of the Whole to review second draft operating and capital budget, and to review the listing of grant requests and request for permission to advertise the public meeting scheduled on December 13th, 2016. November 15th – Third Draft - Special Committee of the Whole to review third draft operating and capital budget including the 4 Year Operating and 10 Year Capital Forecasts. November 22nd – Possible 4th Draft – Committee of the Whole left open if needed. December 6th – Possible 5th Draft – Committee of the Whole left open if needed.

December 13th - Public Meeting for consideration of 2017 Operating and Capital Budget and 4 Year Operating and 10 Year Capital Forecasts, Rates and Fees (including Water/Wastewater Update) Recommendation that By-law will proceed to Council once School Board and County rates are received. December 20th – Council meeting, final approval of 2017 Operating and Capital Budget and 4 Year Operating and 10 Year Capital Forecasts, and Rates and Fees. Respectfully Submitted, Monica Quinlan, Treasurer

STAFF REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole FROM: Holly Bryce, Town Clerk/Manager of Corporate and Strategic Initiatives SUBJECT: Results of Public Engagement to Consider the Potential Option of Establishing a

Ward System Council Structure and Election

DATE: June 13, 2016 RECOMMENDATION THAT Committee of the Whole receive the report pertaining to the Results of Public Engagement to Consider the Potential Option of Establishing a Ward System Council Structure and Election; and, THAT Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the Town of Wasaga that the Council Structure and Election for the 2018 Municipal Election remain as an at-large system. BACKGROUND A review of the ward vs. at-large system is conducted once within each Council term. Previous reviews conducted in 2009 and 2013 resulted in the retention of an at-large council and election structure. During the priority setting exercise undertaken by Council, a priority was identified to investigate and conduct a review of at-large versus a ward system council structure and election. In February, a report was brought forward by staff that provided an overview of the pros and cons of each system in order for Council to determine if they wish to proceed with a full review and potential implementation of a ward system for the 2018 municipal election. At the February 9, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting, Committee passed a motion recommending to Council that the Town review the option of establishing a ward system for the 2018 Municipal Election and requested Staff to bring back a report to Committee outlining the options and associated costs to engage the public on the Town investigating the options of establishing a ward system (report attached). It should be noted, this is not the same as public participation in an electoral review process of investing a ward system, and is only a tool to gage interest in moving forward with a complete study. At the March 15, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting, Committee approved the undertaking of the following steps to solicit public opinion on if the Town should consider the potential option of establishing a ward system council structure and election for 2018: - Media Release, Social Media (twitter and website) - Newspaper advertisement (open house and survey)

2

- Public Open House to be held at the Rec Plex - Survey (online and paper) - Utilizing Existing Key Interest Groups This report outlines the results of the public engagement for council’s further consideration on the ward versus at-large Council and Election structures. DISCUSSION As noted above, Committee approved Staff to undertake various public engagement options for the Town to solicit comments from the public on if the Town should pursue the option of establishing a ward system. The methods noted above were utilized during the Town’s public consultation process to gage the community’s support for a gaming facility in the fall of 2012. Media Release, Social Media (twitter and website) A series of media releases and social media posts were generated to advise the public of the opportunities for them to obtain further information on ward systems, to provide the Town with comments and to complete an online survey. The media release was also distributed to key interest groups including Parkbridge communities. The Media release and social media efforts also generated additional media coverage in the local paper and on CTV News. Newspaper advertisement (open house and survey) An advertisement was placed in the local paper on April 21 and 28 advertising the survey and open house, as well as on May 5 and 19 promoting the survey. Public Open House to be held at the Rec Plex On Sunday May 1 an open house was held at the Rec Plex from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm. At the Open House, the Town Clerk provided an overview presentation to approximately 40 members of the public. The survey was available to be completed online or on paper. Attendees were also asked to mark on a map, based on where they lived, their preference of either at-large, 2 wards, 3 wards or 5 wards. In summary, 75% of attendees prefer an at-large system. The attached Appendix “A” outlines the results which were: At-large = 30 2 Wards = 1 3 Wards = 2 5 Wards = 7 Survey (online and paper) The survey that was created to gage public interest in the council and election structure was available on the Town’s website during the month of May. The questions were based on the pros and cons of each structure. The survey was also available in print form at Townhall, the Library, Rec Plex and Arena. During the month of May, 269 surveys were completed representing only 1.34% of the eligible voters (2014 eligible voters in 2014 = 20,026). The low response rate could indicate either a lack of interest in the election process or a lack of understanding in the ward vs. at-large structure. The attached Appendix “B” outlines the results which, in summary, show a 65.80% preference for an at-large system.

3

Options/Next Steps Based on the results of the public engagement, it is Staff’s recommendation that the at-large council and election structure be retained for the 2018 election. However, Council may choose to look at additional options which include: Formal Ward Review If Council wishes to pursue a ward system for the 2018 Municipal Election, a study would be required to set up the wards with the appropriate populations, taking into consideration such principles as future growth trends, representation b population, representation of communities of similar interests, geographical features defining natural boundaries, infrastructure boundaries such as roads and bridges, and electorate distribution. This should be done as soon as possible in order to allow sufficient time to implement any potential changes to the current system prior to January 1, 2018 to take effect for the 2018 Municipal Election. Electoral Review Process - Time Line (19-32 weeks)

• 3-4 Weeks: Preliminary evaluation of adequacy of present at-large structure. • 6-8 Weeks: Establish process, guiding principles, terms of reference; obtain Council

consent, identify staff team, begin research. • 10-12 Weeks: Public consultation, preliminary and final reports to Council, approval of

by-law. • 8 Weeks: Potential OMB appeal (45-day appeal period, hearing).

Process needs to be completed by:

• January 1, 2018 – Electoral arrangements come into effect. • March 31, 2018 – Polling Subdivision boundaries to MPAC.

In review of the complex principles associated with this project, the significance of applying both case law (Supreme Court and OMB) and the magnitude of work involved; staff recommend hiring a consultant specializing in this line of work. The consultant would be responsible for ensuring public participation, consultation with key stakeholders such as council and school boards and providing sound options for council’s consideration. On average, based on similar reviews in neighbouring municipalities (Clearview, 2013), consulting services for electoral reviews cost approximately $35,000. This cost could be funded through the Council Initiatives Account that has adequate funds in it for 2016. In addition, hiring a certified consultant to undertake this review, will also provide the Town with an expert witness, should an alteration be adopted and appealed to the OMB. Appeals to the OMB are typically made for decreasing wards or moving from a ward to an at-large system. Question on the 2018 Ballot Council has the authority under the Municipal Election Act to place the question of establishing a ward system on the ballot for the next municipal election in 2018 and holding a referendum. The results are not binding on Council to establish a system, but rather undergo a full review

4

and would give an opportunity for the public to provide their input on the current at-large system or ward system. CONCLUSION For a municipality the size of Wasaga Beach, the current at-large electoral system works well and is favoured by those that participated in the public engagement. It may be a little more expensive for each candidate to campaign across Town, but it provided members of Council that are accountable to all the residents, not just to those in their ward. As the Town continues to grow, there will be future opportunities to review the electoral structure again, typically once each council term. Respectfully Submitted, Holly Bryce Town Clerk/Manager of Corporate and Strategic Initiatives Attachments

- Open House Results - Survey Results - Original Report on Ward vs At-large Structures

Appendix A—Open House Results

At - large = 30

2 Wards = 1

3 Wards = 2

5 Wards = 7

Ward vs At-large SURVEY RESULTS

Question 1

Did you vote in the 2014 Municipal Election? 93.31% (251) Yes

6.69% (18) No

If Yes, did you vote for one candidate for all possible positions? 90.40% (226) Yes

(1 Mayor, 1 Deputy Mayor, 5 Councillors) 9.60% (24) No

Question 2

Please select one of the following that best represents your view on voting in a Municipal Election:

Being able to vote for all Members of Council (at-large) 65.80% (177)

The Town should be divided into communities with similar interests (wards) 34.20% (92)

It doesn’t matter to me how many Council positions I get to vote for, 0% (0)

I just pick names I know

Question 3

Do you feel the Town has distinct communities/neighbourhoods within it that have different interests/concerns? (please circle)

Yes 47.96% (129)

No 52.04% (140)

Number of Communities/Neighbourhoods:

2 11.45% (15)

3 20.61% (27)

5 49.62% (65)

MORE 18.32% (24)

Question 4

Please select from the statements listed below, what is important to you as an elector: (please check all that apply)

Note – The following options were presented in random order, however, for the purpose of the results, have been reordered based on At-large vs Ward preferences. The questions were based on the pros and cons of each system.

Favours At-large Favours Wards

78.44% (211)

I want my Council as a whole to look out for the best interest of the Town

77.70% (209)

Personal agendas don’t belong at the Council table

70.26% (189)

I want to be able to contact any Member of Council I want if I have a concern or issue

32.34% (87)

A Councillor who lived near me would have a better understanding of my concerns

65.43% (176)

I want to vote for the best person for the position and not based on where they live in Town

28.25% (76)

My neighbourhood has different priorities and concerns then others, I want someone on Council who will put my neighbourhood as priority

62.83% (169)

I want to vote for all council positions

26.39% (71)

My Councillor would be more accessible if they lived in my community

46.47% (125)

Candidates should not be acclaimed to their position, it should be a competition for the position

20.45% (55)

None of the existing Council Members live in my neighbourhood

43.12% (116)

It wouldn’t be fair if someone at one end of Town got to vote for more candidates than me if I lived at the other end of Town

17.47% (47)

Elections are expensive for candidates, making it cheaper to run may encourage more candidates

21.56% (58)

Not being able to vote for a candidate that I saw an ad or sign for would be confusing

13.75% (37)

Having to vote for less Councillor positions would make voting easier

5.20% (14)

We have too many Councillors and should consider reducing the size of Council in the future

12.27% (33)

It is hard to reach Members of Council because they are busy representing everyone and aren’t available for me

Appendix B — Survey Results

At - large = 177

Wards = 92

STAFF REPORT


FROM: Holly Bryce, Town Clerk/Manager of Corporate and Strategic Initiatives

SUBJECT: Review of At-large versus Ward System Council Structure and Election

DATE: February 9, 2016

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee of the Whole receive the report pertaining to Review of At-large versus Ward System Council Structure and Election; and,

THAT Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the Town of Wasaga review the option of establishing a ward system for the 2018 Municipal Election; and,

THAT Staff be directed to prepare a Request for Proposals to solicit proposals from qualified firms to complete a comprehensive review ensuring public participation and consultation with key stakeholders such as members of council, community associations, the business community and school boards in order to recommend and present options for council’s consideration.

BACKGROUND

The Council of the Town of Wasaga Beach uses the at-large method of electing all seven (7) members of Council. The Municipal Act requires a municipality to elect a minimum of five members to Council, including a head of Council (Mayor). The head of Council must be elected by general vote (at-large), but the remaining positions on Council can be elected by general vote, by using a ward system or a combination of the two.

“Composition of council of local municipality 217. (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a local municipality to change the composition of its council subject to the following rules:

1. There shall be a minimum of five members, one of whom shall be the head of council. 2. The members of council shall be elected in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. 3. The head of council shall be elected by general vote. 4. The members, other than the head of council, shall be elected by general vote or wards or by any combination of general vote and wards. 5. The representation of a local municipality on the council of an upper-tier municipality shall not be affected by the by-law of the local municipality under this section.

2

During the priority setting exercise undertaken by Council, a priority was identified to investigate and conduct a review of at-large versus a ward system council structure and election. This report will provide an overview of the pros and cons of each system in order for Council to determine if they wish to proceed with a full review and potential implementation of a ward system for the 2018 municipal election.

A review of the ward vs. at-large system is conducted once within each Council term. Previous reviews conducted in 2009 and 2013 resulted in the retention of an at-large council and election structure.

The Association of Municipal Clerks, Treasurers and Managers (AMCTO) conducted a survey after the 2006 election and found that 47% of the 321 municipalities that responded used the election at-large method and 53% conducted the election by the ward method.

Staff has conducted a survey of municipalities in Simcoe County to determine what existing electoral systems are in place across the County. County wide, there are 13 wards systems and 3 at-large electoral systems.

County of Simcoe

Municipality Ward/At-large Council Composition

Population* (*2011 Census)

Township of Adjala- Tosorontio

Wards x 5 7 (1 Councillor/ ward)

10,603

Township of Bradford West Gwillimbury

Wards x 7 9 (1 Councillor/ ward)

28,077

Township of Clearview Wards x 7 9 (1 Councillor/ward)

13,734

Town of Collingwood At-large 9 19,241 Township of Essa Wards x 3 5

(1 Councillor/ward) 18,505

Town of Innisfil Wards x 7 7 (1 Councillor/ward)

33,079

Town of Midland Wards x 3 9 (3/ward, 3/ward,

1/ward)

16,572

Town of New Tecumseth Wards x 8 10 (1 Councillor/ward)

30,234

Township of Oro-Medonte Wards x 5 7 (1 Councillor/ward)

20,078

Town of Penetanguishene Wards x 2 9 (4/ward, 3/ward)

9,111

Township of Ramara Wards x 5 7 (1 Councillor/ ward)

9,275

Township of Severn Wards x 5 7 (1 Councillor/ ward)

12,377

3

Municipality Ward/At-large Council Composition

Population* (*2011 Census)

Township of Springwater Wards x 5 7 (1 Councillor/ ward)

18,223

Township of Tay Wards x 3 7 (2/ward, 1/ward,

2/ward)

9,736

Township of Tiny At-large 5 11,232 Town of Wasaga Beach At-large 7 17,537

There are advantages and disadvantages to both an election at-large and an election by ward system that are listed below. This report also outlines the process of further investing a ward system if Council opts to proceed in that direction for the 2018 municipal election.

DISCUSSION

In Ontario, municipalities play a vital role in the local electoral process by establishing the size and composition of municipal council, determining the method of selecting members of municipal council (at large elections versus the ward system), and by establishing the wards from which municipal councillors are elected.

The review of electoral arrangements is not subject to a standardized process in Ontario. The timing of a review is entirely at the discretion of each municipal Council. The only reference in the Municipal Act, 2001 occurs at section 222 (1), where a municipality is authorized “to divide or redivide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards” through a by-law. Despite a statement in the Municipal Act that the Minister “may prescribe criteria,” none actually exist.

Because of the Act’s silence, it is therefore up to each municipality to determine when a review should occur, to set the terms of reference for its review, including the process to be followed, and, ideally, to establish criteria or guiding principles to evaluate the municipality’s electoral system.

At-Large Council and Election Structure

The current Wasaga Beach seven (7) member Council is elected at-large. The At-large system works well in Wasaga Beach primarily; it ensures that all members of Council represent the best interests of the municipality as a whole. It also ensures that all members of Council are familiar with all issues that come forward. It is recognized that there are increased costs and time for candidates to canvas the entire Town, but these are incremental costs to what would have incurred during a campaign.

As noted above, there are advantages and disadvantages to an at-large electoral system, some of which are noted in the following chart:

4

At-large System

Advantages Disadvantages Electors can vote for all council positions Campaign expenses much greater, may deter

potential candidates from running (especially newcomers)

Broader community view required More difficult for electors to decide between a greater number of candidates

More accountable to entire electorate Elected members may be concentrated from a particular area

Public able to access more members for assistance

Decreases ability of minority/community of interest candidates to get elected

Easier to modify size and composition of Council

Large number of candidates can be confusing to electors

Electors vote for entire Council composition in the election

May result in disproportionate number of candidates between rural and urban centres

Residents have a number of councillors to approach with their concerns

Councillors may not be familiar with “one area specific concerns.”

Promotes global view of municipality Area may not have specific voice on Council for concerns

Electors have greater choice and flexibility in elections: each voter has the opportunity to consider every candidate in the council election

No guarantee that Councillors will reflect diversity of urban/rural mix

Electors able to select the candidates they think will do the best job, rather than having to make a choice among candidates who happen to run in their ward

Can lead to significant communities of interest and points of view being unrepresented (or underrepresented)

Promotes the concept of a Town-wide focus, with councillors being elected by and concerned for the Town as a whole

Can lead to councillors being relatively inaccessible for residents in part of the Town

Removes the need to define ward boundaries Can lead to confusion of responsibilities and duplication of effort on part of councillors

Reduces likelihood of acclamations

Clearer voting ability with on-line voting method

It has been found that shortly after the election, residents typically forget who their elected official is and rely on whoever they know best on Council. With no residency restrictions, candidates can run in which ever ward they feel they have the best chance to be elected. Quite often an elected official will live in one ward and represent the other ward. What happens over time is that elected officials becomes familiar with issues in both wards and function like an at-large Council.

5

In an at-large system, members of Council will be familiar with the part of the Town where they live (or have other ties) but are expected to give routine consideration to the entire municipality. Residents have the option of contacting any member of Council on matters of concern since all of them are their representatives. Depending on the election outcome, such representatives may not live or work in close proximity to residents who have concerns. The net effect is likely to increase the volume of communication directed to individual Councillors (from across the entire municipality rather than from one ward) and would require residents to compete with many more voices for the ear of any one representative.

In an at-large structure, eligible voters can vote for all available councillor positions regardless of where they reside in Wasaga Beach. This ability is thought to provide the voter with a greater sense of involvement in their local government and selection of elected officials. Rather than only being able to vote for candidates in their ward, regardless of their credentials, they can vote for all the candidates and select the ones they feel have the best abilities to represent them.

Ward System Council and Election Structure

If the Town were to change to a ward system, the five (5) Councillor positions would be elected by ward and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor positions would continue to be elected at-large.

Section 222(1) of the Municipal Act authorizes municipalities to:

“Establishment of wards 222. (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to divide or redivide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards.

Coming into force of by-law (8) A by-law of a municipality described in this section comes into force on the day the new council of the municipality is organized following, (a) the first regular election after the by-law is passed if the by-law is passed before January 1 in the year of the regular election and, (i) no notices of appeal are filed, (ii) notices of appeal are filed and are all withdrawn before January 1 in the year of the election, or (iii) notices of appeal are filed and the Board issues an order to affirm or amend the by-law before January 1 in the year of the election; or (b) the second regular election after the by-law is passed, in all other cases except where the by-law is repealed by the Board.

Election (9) Despite subsection (8), where a by-law comes into force on the day the new council of a municipality is organized following a regular election, that election shall be conducted as if the by-law was already in force.

6

Petition re: wards 223. (1) Electors in a municipality may present a petition to the council asking the council to pass a by-law dividing or redividing the municipality into wards or dissolving the existing wards.

Number of electors required (2) The petition requires the signatures of 1 per cent of the electors in the municipality or 500 of the electors in the municipality, whichever is less, but, in any event, a minimum of 50 signatures of the electors in the municipality is required.

Failure to act (4) If the council does not pass a by-law in accordance with the petition within 90 days after receiving the petition, any of the electors who signed the petition may apply to the Ontario Municipal Board to have the municipality divided or redivided into wards or to have the existing wards dissolved.”

As noted above, there are advantages and disadvantages to a ward electoral system, some of which are noted in the following chart:

Ward System

Advantages Disadvantages Less costly campaigns, better access to elected office for new candidates

Limits the number of positions that electors can vote for

More attentive/responsive to constituents Members may be too “parochial” and not as concerned for the overall welfare of the entire community

More efficient division of responsibilities among members

Not necessary for Councillor to live in ward

Councillors aware of local issues and represent local area

Greater likelihood of acclamations

Simplifies election process – select one ward Councillor

Councillors may be elected on minor or parochial issues and lack a perspective of what is to the benefit of the Town as a whole

Councillors are more likely to be truly local representatives, easily accessible to residents and aware of local issues

Ward boundaries may divide communities of interest which may be difficult to define

Significant communities of interest are likely to be represented

Voters may have a restricted choice of candidates in elections for individual wards

It is less likely that one particular point of view or sectional interest will dominate the council

Only one representative per ward

Can provide for a more equal division of workload for Councillors

Ward boundaries may be susceptible to frequent change caused by demographic shifts

7

Advantages Disadvantages Individual Member of Council may be more accessible to voters.

Population changes can lead to unequal workloads for councillors until ward boundaries are reviewed

Can lead to division within Council Ward Election can cause more challenge and

unbalanced representation if a seat becomes vacant

May be unclear for voting on-line method (inability to vote for whomever they want)

At the present time, Ward Councillors normally rely on their familiarity with a component part of the Town (their ward) and the people who reside there when making decisions at Council. Communication from residents who reside some distance away from their home may occur, but it normally constitutes a relatively insignificant part of their role as a representative. Councillors are linked to a particular part of the municipality and residents of that part of the community normally turn first to their ward Councillor on matters of concern.

Process to Establish a Ward System

Despite the importance of the ward boundary review process, section 222 of the Municipal Act contains no direction to municipalities respecting the process for a ward boundary review. In fact, no criteria has been provided to guide the division of wards, the alteration of ward boundaries, or the process for a ward boundary review even though subsection 222(10) specifically provides that the Minister may prescribe such criteria.

An analysis of the case law and experiences of municipalities in Ontario reveal a number of important guiding principles city councils must consider in conducting a ward boundary review, such as:

• a strong and effective public consultation process must take place; • develop appropriate objectives and guiding principles for the terms of reference for the

ward review; • the principle of “effective representation” must be respected; • in determining ward boundaries factors such as geography, community history,

community interests and minority representation should be taken into account by municipalities in order to ensure effective representation of the diverse social mosaic;

• absolute voter parity is impossible, and relative voter parity may be deviated from in order to achieve more effective representation;

• beyond achieving more effective representation, the dilution of one citizen’s vote as compared with another’s should not be countenanced;

• reasonable population projections for each ward based in fact that reflect where growth is actually expected;

8

• in determining if there is a compelling reason to amend or repeal a decision of a municipality on ward boundary matters the Board may consider the process followed by the municipality, the criteria used by the municipality and the grounds of the appeal.

Following numerous hearings and appeals, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has established guiding principles for ward boundary creation and reviews. They are as follows:

1. Representation by Population or Equality of Representation: Considering

representation by population or every Councillor generally representing an equal number of constituents within his or her respective wards. Given the geography and varying population densities and characteristics of the Town, a degree of variation acceptable.

2. Population and Electoral Trends: Accommodating for and balancing future increases

or decreases in population growth/decline to maintain a general equilibrium in the representation by population standard, until the year 2022.

3. Means of Communication and Accessibility: Arranging ward boundaries by primary

and secondary road patterns and railway, telephone exchanges, postal codes and servicing capabilities to help foster an identity and neighbourhood groupings.

4. Geographic and Topographical Features: Utilizing geographical and topographical

features to provide for ward boundaries and compact and contiguous areas (similar to the use of manmade features).

5. Community or Diversity of Interests: Recognizing settlement patterns, traditional

neighbourhoods and community groupings (social, historical, economic, religious and political diversities) while, at the same time, not fragmenting a community.

6. Effective Representation: Considering an overriding principle of effective

representation as describe by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision on the Carter case.

If Council wishes to pursue a ward system for the 2018 Municipal Election, a study would be required to set up the wards with the appropriate populations, taking into consideration such principles as future growth trends, representation b population, representation of communities of similar interests, geographical features defining natural boundaries, infrastructure boundaries such as roads and bridges, and electorate distribution. This should be done as soon as possible in order to allow sufficient time to implement any potential changes to the current system prior to January 1, 2018 to take effect for the 2018 Municipal Election.

If Council decides to move away from the at-large system, in dividing the municipality into wards there are several options. The Town could be split into two wards, three elected officials in one and two in the other. The Town could be split into five wards with one elected official in each ward. Finally, the Town could be split into three wards with two elected officials in each of the two wards and one elected official in a third, smaller ward. The final determination for the creation of wards, needs to consider the previously noted guiding principles.

9

For illustration purposes only, the three options of potential ward structures noted in the previous paragraph are attached. Please note, this is simply using existing population counts (2011 Census Data – Dwelling Information), does NOT include consideration on the additional guiding principles and is for illustration purposes only.

What does a successful electoral review look like?

To be successful, an electoral review requires a high degree of independence from

political involvement and effective engagement with residents. An open electoral review requires:

o Clear and workable guiding principles to evaluate alternative ward designs/electoral systems that fit the unique requirements of your municipality; and

o Transparency and consistency in the review process and its outcomes. An evaluation of electoral alternatives that can garner Council and public support and

OMB approval (if necessary) requires: o Expertise on municipal electoral systems; o Reliable data on present and future population trends across the municipality; o Expertise to develop and map alternative designs; and o A public engagement strategy.

Electoral Review Process - Time Line (19-32 weeks)

3-4 Weeks: Preliminary evaluation of adequacy of present at-large structure. 6-8 Weeks: Establish process, guiding principles, terms of reference; obtain Council consent, identify staff team, begin research. 10-12 Weeks: Public consultation, preliminary and final reports to Council, approval of by-law. 8 Weeks: Potential OMB appeal (45-day appeal period, hearing).

Process needs to be completed by:

• January 1, 2018 – Electoral arrangements come into effect. • March 31, 2018 – Polling Subdivision boundaries to MPAC.

Based on the criteria noted above for completing a successful electoral review, it is felt that Staff do not have the expertise or time to devote to the review in order to provide a comprehensive review that includes all the necessary research to satisfy the requirements of the review or to support any electrical changes if challenged via the OMB.

In review of the complex principles associated with this project, the significance of applying both case law (Supreme Court and OMB) and the magnitude of work involved; staff recommend hiring a consultant specializing in this line of work. The consultant would be responsible for ensuring public participation, consultation with key stakeholders such as council and school boards and providing sound options for council’s consideration. On average, based on similar reviews in neighbouring municipalities (Clearview, 2013), consulting services for electoral reviews cost approximately $35,000. This cost could be funded through the Council Initiatives Account that has adequate funds in it for 2016.

10

In addition, hiring a certified consultant to undertake this review, will also provide the Town with an expert witness, should an alteration be adopted and appealed to the OMB. Appeals to the OMB are typically made for decreasing wards or moving from a ward to an at-large system.

Another consideration is that Council has the authority to place the question of establishing a ward system on the ballot for the next municipal election in 2018 and holding a referendum. The results are not binding on Council and would give an opportunity for the public to provide their input on the current at-large system or ward system.

CONCLUSION

With the next Municipal Election in October 2018, now is the opportune time to review the Town’s electoral system. For a municipality the size of Wasaga Beach, the current at-large electoral system works well. It may be a little more expensive for each candidate to campaign across Town, but it provided members of Council that are accountable to all the residents, not just to those in their ward.

As the Town continues to grow, there will be future opportunities to review the electoral structure again, typically once each council term.

Respectfully Submitted,

Holly Bryce Town Clerk/Manager of Corporate and Strategic Initiatives

Attachments

Ward 2 (2 Councillors) = 6,560 Ward 1 (3 Councillors) = 10,835

2 WARD OPTION

Ward 3 (2 Councillors) = 6,640 Ward 2 (1 Councillor) = 3,585 Ward 1 (2 Councillors) = 7,170

3 WARD OPTION

Ward 5 = 3,500 Ward 4 = 3,665 Ward 3 = 2,975 Ward 2 = 3,585 Ward 1 = 3,670

5 WARD OPTION (1 Councillor per ward)

Form: WB-SR2010

STAFF REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole of Council FROM: David J. Brunelle, Special Events Coordinator SUBJECT: Aretha Franklin, Four Tops & Temptations Concert DATE: June 13, 2016

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Committee of the Whole of Council recommends to Council that they approve in principal holding a Aretha Franklin, Four Tops and Temptations concert on Saturday, August 13, 2016 in the Playland Park Square. AND FURTHER THAT the entire Playland Parking lot be closed on Thursday, August 11, 2016 by 6 a.m. until Monday, August 15th, 2016 at 12:00p.m. BACKGROUND

The writer received an urgent special events application on June 6, 2016 from Imagination Concerts Inc., a large international entertainment promoter who is seeking an alternate venue for a Motown concert featuring Aretha Franklin, The Four Tops & the Temptations. The venue that the organizer originally was seeking has fallen through and they are now considering other venues to hold this concert with Wasaga Beach being one of the venues on the alternate list. This concert would be part of their Urban Forest Concept Series which is a unique outdoor series that presents great artist of the world in a variety of legendary and majestically natural settings. With this concept in mind, the organizers see Wasaga Beach as a great natural setting with its beautiful beaches, Georgian Bay and of course the Niagara Escarpment on the other side of the bay as a backdrop. Also, with the Urban Forest Concept theme, the organizers will be dressing the stage and venue with live trees and other vegetation to intertwine the urban and environmental concepts together for an aesthetically pleasing entertainment venue. Anticipated numbers for this concert would be 8,000 to 10,000 participants. Additionally, the organizers are also optimistic that this concert will be filmed live and streamed via Pay-per–View and other social media networks.

DISCUSSION

The writer met with one of the main organizers on June 7, 2016. Following a thorough review of Playland Park Square, the event organizer is excited and looking forward to making this event happen in Wasaga Beach on Saturday, August 13, 2016. With everything in place from the organizers standpoint, their main concern now is appeasing their investors and partners. Given that the other venue fell through, it is very important that the event organizer confirm an alternative venue as soon as possible (as previously stated, the preferred location is Wasaga Beach.) The organizers are looking for a solid commitment from the Town of Wasaga Beach that it is 100% in favour of

2

hosting this event and working with the writer, other Town staff and other external agencies to make it a reality. As with all special events, the writer will follow-up with the organizers in the development of an Operational Plan to a level of comfort with all agencies including:

1. Town of Wasaga Beach internal departments – Fire, By-Law, Public Works and Building 2. Ontario Provincial Police 3. Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO); and 4. County of Simcoe Paramedic Services.

Emergency Services Meeting As with all large events taking place in Wasaga Beach that can potentially put a strain on emergency services, the writer will be coordinating an additional meeting with various emergency services providers closer to the event including: OPP, Fire, Simcoe County Paramedic Services, Odyssey Medical, By-Law, Collingwood General and Marine Hospital and MNRF in order to review safety and security plans further, to ensure all necessary parties are aware of medical/security logistics and required road closures pertaining to the event of the event. AGCO Requirements Regarding Licensed Areas of the Event As per the AGCO guidelines, hosting the beer garden in an outdoor venue, the Town of Wasaga Beach must deem the event as municipally significant. Given the nature of the event and the amount of participants it draws, the writer feels this event meets the requirements to be deemed “municipally significant”. Subject to Council’s final approval of the event, staff will utilize the new policy dealing with Municipally Significant events to deem the event as municipally significant. Town Fees Associated with the Event The event organizers are fully aware and agreeable to fees associated with the Special Event Application and rental of Playland Park Square. The writer will work with the event organizer to determine rental fees associated with the event. CONCLUSION

Communication with the organizers will continue and to date the writer has verified that Imagination Concerts Inc. is a reputable company with decades of experience hosting large entertainment events. The writer believes this event is a great fit for Wasaga Beach and with such a great legendary musical lineup, will draw huge crowds from our local community and help promote Wasaga Beach as an international venue and in hopes of attracting other international artist. The writer recommends the Town of Wasaga Beach approve in principal hosting this event. Respectfully Submitted,

David Brunelle

David J. Brunelle Special Events Coordinator (Enclosed)

3

Creative Concept

The Urban Forest Concert Series is a unique outdoor series that will present the great artists of the world in a variety of legendary and majestic natural settings. These concerts will become recognized for combining artistic genius with geographic majesty.

The concept was first tested at Whistler/Blackcomb Mountain when Faith Hill played to a sell-out audience on the ski run that would become a part of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games. The star power, creative production values and the incredible beauty of the venue drew 49 journalists from the around the world

Based upon our success with outdoor events, Paper Rain has partnered with Tourism Vancouver, the Vancouver Park Board and the City of Vancouver to launch the 2015 – 2017 concert series. With solid financial, creative and production backing we will expand this series of stunning, outdoor concerts to other dazzling venues around the world.

Our concerts are designed to take outdoor music to a new, professional level of production. They should not be confused with the standard multi-day festival circuit.

Our business objectives are as follows:

1. Sustainable Business Model – To create a scaleable business that is based on an environmentally sustainable model that can be transported to locations around the world.

2. Sold-out Concerts – To ensure the financial strength of Paper Rain by matching sellout artists to their target demographic.

3. Superstar Artists & Venues – To present the world’s greatest artists in grand outdoor settings venues.

4. Corporate Responsibility – To leave behind a financial and creative legacy for each community through the participation of strategically selected charities, sponsors and partners.

5. Charity involvement – Partial proceeds from the Urban Forest Concert will be donated to “The Elton John AIDS Foundation” in partnership with Vancouver’s esteemed Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation.

6. Green Energy Savings – Environmentally friendly protocols for concert production are being developed that can be shared or licensed to other producers.

7. Talent Auditions – New, emerging, local artists will be auditioned in the weeks leading up to the concert in partnership with our media partners. Three of the winning artists will be given the opportunity to perform from 4:30 to 6:00 pm.

8. Paper Rain Music Scholarships – Scholarships will be awarded to young artists selected during the auditions.

agenda - wasaga beach documents/2016-06-13 committee of t… · approve in principal holding a...

Documents