special council agenda the corporation of norfolk county … · 2021. 1. 22. · special council...

Working together with our community

Special Council Agenda The Corporation of Norfolk County

January 26, 2021 3:00 p.m.

Council Chambers*

Live Stream: www.norfolkcounty.ca/watch-norfolk-county-meetings/

*Due to Covid-19 restrictions, there is no public access to Council Chambers.Proceedings are web-streamed live and archived on the County’s website. Deputationsare presented electronically.

5

1. Approval of Agenda/Changes to the Agenda

2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

3. Deputations

4. Communications

A) 2021 Budget DeliberationsRe: South Walsingham Transfer Station

George KinnearJanice LalondeJudy & Robert MabeeG ChisholmDarlene ElligsenRosemarie CookPat MontroseMary SaundersDanielle PierceBill MontroseKim CookWendy RowenStu MackenzieBill and Sharon MacIntyreJohn and Patti MoorePhyllis CalliganGord Christmas

https://www.norfolkcounty.ca/government/watch-norfolk-county-meetings/https://www.norfolkcounty.ca/government/watch-norfolk-county-meetings/

Jim Billo Peter Langer

11

37

39

41

B) 2021 Budget DeliberationsRe: By-Law Enforcement

Gaye HornellPatricia SpencerDaphne SchuylerGeorgina McLarenJamie and Rebecca SuprunEd DertingerJim and Barb BeamishOrv SlackDebbie FranceKalju and Merike MerimetsAnn and John FitzsimonDave NicolleGary ArmstrongBeth and Ken SmithBarbara Taylor GagneGar PurmaJan and Wilma HoogendoornGreg FranceRandy and Grace VisserJack and Lyn HallemaCam Carter, Downtown Simcoe BIA

C) 2021 Budget Deliberations

Re: Bulk Item Pickup

John & Janet Sage

D) 2021 Budget Deliberations

Re: Heritage and Culture

Elizabeth Price, Multicultural History Society of Ontario

E) 2021 Budget Deliberations

Re: Arena Rental Rates

Debbie and Rick Maley

43

65

67

73

5. Reports of Committees

A) Budget Committee Minutes - January 6-7,12,19, 2021

6. Staff Reports/Discussion Items

A) Verbal DiscussionRe: Parking Downtown Simcoe

7. Motions

8. Notices of Motion

A) Motion to Reconsider - Councillor Van PaassenRe: Direction on Hastings Drive Litigation Matter

9. By-Laws

A) By-Law 2021-11Being a By-Law to establish a Water and Wastewater Billing and Collection Policy.

B) By-Law 2021-12Being a By-Law to Amend By-Law 2020-101 to Establish User Fees and Service Charges.

10. General Announcements

11. Closed Session

A) County Solicitor MemoRe: Investigation Update

Pursuant to Section 239 (2) (b), (e) and (f) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended asthe subject matter pertains to personal matters about an identifiable individual,including municipal or local board employees, litigation or potential litigation, includingmatters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board, advicethat is subject to solicitor-client privilege including communications necessary for thatpurpose.

89

12. Confirming By-Law

A) By-Law 2021-13Being a By-Law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council of Norfolk Countyat this Special Council Meeting Held on the 26th Day of January, 2021.

13. Adjournment

Contact Information

Andy Grozelle, County Clerk

[email protected]

Meeting schedules available online at http://www.norfolkcounty.ca/council_meetings/

Name George Kinnear

Please provide any further information I strongly oppose the closing of the South Walsingham disposal sight. The result I fear will be that ALL backroads of Norfolk will be littered with illegal dumping. What tourist or Norfolk resident wants to see the beautiful roads and natural sights of Ontario’s Garden covered in garbage? Don’t let Norfolk become aTHIRD WORLD country!

Name Janice Lalonde

Please provide any further information Do NOT close down our transfer station on concession 3. Our dirches will be a mess with garbage if you take it away. I need a transfer station close to home. That is what our raised taxes pay for.

Name Judy & Robert Mabee

Please provide any further information Please do not close on the 3rd concession of South Walsingham. People are throwing enough garbage in the ditches now and large items. Maybe you could take vehicles away from county workers. Way to many on the roads. Where are they all going ? Maybe decrease the numbers of emoyees leaning on their shovels at work sites. Most jobs appear to be over staffed. Does everything have to be in Simcoe? Hello we are here in the large west region and we pay taxes to ! Let's get some action going on our causeway and bridge before a crisis occurs with the amount of people living on the Point

Name G Chisholm

Please provide any further information Do Not Close The S.Waltsingham Dump. There will be dumping in every ditch for 30 klms around it.

5

Name Darlene Elligsen

Please provide any further information With regards to the South Walsingham transfer station...please keep it open. It is a sensible decision. If the county charged less, it would encourage those dumping everywhere in the ditches to perhaps use it. Look at the Halton model. $5.00 and you could use the dump. It has likely increased since I lived in Oakville but it was user friendly and used. Do not close this site.

Name Rosemarie Cook

Please provide any further information I just want to reinforce the importance of the transfer station on Concession 3. We use it all the time during the summer months. Please do NOT close this location.

Name Pat Montrose

Please provide any further information Concerned to hear that council is considering closing the SW transfer station Walsingham. We need this transfer to remain open. Summer populations increase and I do not want to see people throwing garbage, items into ditches. We are tired of having council wanting everything centralized to Simcoe and Port Dover.

Name Mary Saunders

Please provide any further information DO NOT close the South Walsingham Transfer Station

6

Name Danielle Pierce

Please provide any further information With regards to the recent slim margin vote to maintain the Walsingham dump station, I am a property owner in Long Point (since 2001) and believe it is imperative to keep this landfill open. I personally have used it on a regular and ongoing basis over the last 20 years for all manner of household items, renovations, tires, property leaves, brush, etc. Closing this most basic community service not only eliminates access to yet another important tax payer service but also puts tax payers in a bind for ongoing and larger waste needs. Per the result of the closure of the facility during Covid this past spring 2020, having no local facility open encouraged dumping of many and sundry waste articles in the ditches, and properties along the concessions, as well as in the waterways - thereby polluting a designated world biosphere and natural landscape marketed in Norfolk as “Ontario’s Garden”. Pictures and comments were posted regularly on FB pages throughout this time. Don’t do it!

Name Bill Montrose

Please provide any further information Do not close the SW transfer station.

Name Kim Cook

Please provide any further information Please do not close the transfer station on concession 3 in Walsingham

Name Wendy Rowen

Please provide any further information Please do not close the transfer station dump in Walsingham, just outside of Port Rowan...

7

Name Stu Mackenzie

Please provide any further information Re. Walsingham transfer closure. Closing the station may result in short-term savings, but will result in greater problems down the road and further marginalize communities. Lowering the barrier to disposal plays an important function in keeping waste out of people’s yards, in ditches, ravines, and woodlands of our beloved county. Having to drive to Simcoe (public) or Dover (private) increases cost and time involved in waste mgmt for most constituents. Instead, why not address waste mgmt as a whole and reduce pick up to every other week, or some seasonal schedule to address summer peaks. The notion of weekly pickup is a fairly privileged concept that is not necessary. Reducing this schedule would result in immediate savings, be applied homogeneously across the county, and create incentive for household waste reduction, organization, composting, and reduced packaging.

The County’s financial problems can’t be solved with nitpicking - we need bold, innovative, creative leadership.

Name Bill and Sharon MacIntyre

Please provide any further information As a seasonal resident at long point we use limited township services, however one important service that we occasionally used is walsingham transfer station Please do not close it

Name John and Patti Moore

Please provide any further information This is to request you do not close the South Walsingham Transfer Station. We have to run to Simcoe for everything. Please leave it open, even with limited hours to save us more trips. Concerns it will lead to more roadside and creek dumping of waste than there is now.

8

Name Phyllis Calligan

Please provide any further information I do not wish to have the transfer station closed to the public. Im on Long Point.

Name Gord Christmas

Please provide any further information Concerning the closure of the transfer station on Com.3 S/W . The impact on Long Point would be considerable as well as other rural taxpayers

Name Tracey Burbie

Please provide any further information Do not close our Dump on the third of walsingham its needed in our area - everyone uses this dump from frogmore to port rowan and langton. Keep it open

Name Jim Billo

Please provide any further information Keep our weigh station open. I already drive from port Rowan. Don't want to have to go to simcoe

Name Peter Langer

Please provide any further information Please keep our transfer station open

9

Wednesday, January 20, 2021

Norfolk County

Re: Councils Decision to Reduce staff at Bylaw Department

Open Letter to Members of Norfolk County Council and Residents of Norfolk County

I wish this letter to be a matter of public record.

I request that all Councilors get a copy. Thank you

I have just read that five (5) members of Norfolk Council have voted to reduce the bylaw department staff level by one. I would ask members of Norfolk County Council to reconsider I do not support reducing the bylaw staff. Based on various newspaper articles over the past year the issue of non licensed and overproducing “licensed” cannabis growers in Norfolk County is out of control and having less staff will not solve the issue of neighbourhoods having to deal with the problems of these operations, such as smell, noise, lights, traffic and decrease in property assessments.

Obviously the members who voted to decrease the staff have not had the issue in their own back yard yet, but it will happen to you or someone you know if you do not keep on top of it with sufficient front line in the field by-law officers.

Warm regards,

Gaye Hornell

11

I wish this letter to be a matter of Public Record I request that all councilors get a copy please.

While I do understand the need to be fiscally responsible in this 2021 budget, I also recognize that such decisions require due consideration. The proposed reduction in the number of bylaw enforcement officers is a very serious concern requiring further consideration.

Bylaws are developed to create the community and maintain it. Bylaw officers are the frontline workers contacted by the community's residents who are dealing with a perceived violation of the established bylaws. This is a unique and essential role in the maintenance of an orderly society by following established procedures to reduce the vulnerability of the residents and the liability of the community's governing body.

It was very troubling to hear in the recording of council's proceedings on January 12, 2021, that while Norfolk Council members acknowledge that the Bylaw enforcement department effectively over the past year increased efficiency and speedier resolution of complaints, it is now proposed that the position of a front line enforcement officer should be cut so a message could be sent to the union that would find efficiencies in the scheduling within the collective agreement. Furthermore, I was very deeply concerned and disappointed upon hearing Mayor Chopp state their (front line bylaw officers) pay did not warrant the remuneration they received.

This reduction in bylaw staff is being proposed while knowing that the number of complaints received from the community over the past four years has dramatically increased by over 200% (714 increasing to 1819 in 2020). This is expected to further increase in 2021.

This reduction is proposed while illegal cannabis operations are increasing in the county with the bylaw enforcement office the first point of contact by the residents negatively impacted.

OPP news reports advise that there is a criminal element heavily involved in some of these illegal cannabis operations and our bylaw enforcement front line officers are required to deal with these individuals. Have Norfolk Council members considered the costs of dealing with the ongoing legalities of such illegal operations both within the county operations as well as the courts? Have they considered the role of strong Bylaw enforcement in reducing these costs? What is the 'opportunity cost' of the cutback?

I do not agree with the proposed staff reduction in the bylaw enforcement department.

Respectfully,

Patricia Spencer

Simcoe ON

12

19 January 2021

I wish this letter to be a matter of Public record

I request that all Councillors get a copy.

Councils Decision to Reduce Staff Levels at Bylaw Dept.

I have observed the 2021 budget discussions and understand the challenge it is for Norfolk County Council. I note that some members of council support the idea of reducing the staffing levels of the bylaw department.

Having read the Norfolk County website the following points must be noted;

Purpose of bylaw enforcement is

1/ Develop and administer Norfolk County’s bylaws by providing TIMELY response to bylaw complaints

2/ Enforce Norfolk County bylaws to ensure compliance in a TIMELY manner using a professional, non-biased approach avoiding the need for court action

During the year 2020 complaints received by the bylaw department had increased by approximately 200%. The increase in the number of complaints in Norfolk is consistent with other areas of Ontario.

Norfolk County will continue to face additional complaints that illegal Cannabis cultivation and Covid 19 will bring during the year 2021. With a 200% increase in complaints and a clear indication the number of complaints are going to continue to climb during 2021, how can a reduction of front line officers be justified? How is this going to assist in the TIMELY response to bylaw complaints?

It is my understanding that adding a supervisor position to the bylaw dept. does not equate to one addition full time position. It is only .5 of a full time position. This indicates that the suggestion of eliminating one front line officer would result in a saving of $100,000.00 is NOT accurate.

On the positive note it is encouraging to see that staff in the clerk’s office is doing some office related duties for the bylaw dept. It is also encouraging to see the overall efficiencies in the bylaw dept. have improved with the addition of a supervisor.

All of these steps that have resulted in some improvements will NOT significantly make a difference on the front lines. Considering a 200% increase in the number of complaints received by the bylaw dept., it is the front line officer that must investigate and then attempt to arrive at a satisfactory resolution for those involved. These efforts require time!

13

To Mayor Chopp, Councillors Tom Masschaele, Chris Van Paassen, Ian Rabbits and Ryan Taylor I would encourage you to reconsider your support for the reduction of front line officers in the bylaw dept. It is my hope that when you review the facts that were presented during the budget deliberations you will agree common sense does not support this idea.

Daphne Schuyler

Waterford

14

Dear Mayor and Councillors,


I would like it known that I am very disappointed at the decision to reduce staff in the by-law department.

With this reduction in staff it will be very difficult to implement the 5 point plan to address the illegal cannabis operations that are currently in Norfolk County. This program operated by the York Regional Police who work with the local by-law departments has proven to be effective. I am not understanding why Norfolk County Council are not helping to implement this program. The number of illegal cannabis operations in Norfolk County is becoming outrageous.

Please reconsider your decision to reduce the staff at the by-law office.

Georgina McLaren Waterford

15

I am writing this today to object to the potential cuts to the Norfolk County bylaw division. Mr. Millson along with his division have been extremely responsive and helpful with many issues facing downtown Simcoe, my personal property in Port Dover, and the issues we faced with Seadoo rentals on Lake Erie this past summer. I believe that cuts to the division and his team, will result in underservicing, and more issues will reappear. Mr. Millson has been exceptionally approachable and receptive to issues that I have brought to bylaw, and I feel that he is finally moving this department forward after years of neglect.

Thanks Jamie and Rebecca Suprun

suprunwealth.com iaprivatewealth.com

Jamie Suprun, Hon. B.Comm Senior Investment Advisor, Executive Director - Private Client Group Suprun Wealth Management iA Private Wealth, a division of Industrial Alliance Securities Inc. 49 Robinson Street, Simcoe, ON N3Y 1W5 [email protected]

16

Dear Council Members,

I trust this letter will be included in the public records. It has been brought to my attention that council plans to reduce it’s number of by law officers. I feel this move is misguided and hope council reconsiders before the final vote. Presently we live 60 metres from a designated cannabis operation that grows thousands of cannabis plants in a massive 3 acre greenhouse. We have been informed by our by law officer that he has reason to believe it is operated by a criminal organization. They purchased this greenhouse knowing full well they were in violation of the county set back requirements but went ahead anyways. These operations need to be stopped and by reducing the number of by law officers trying to enforce county by laws is moving in the wrong direction. It’s time council got serious about enforcing their by laws before it’s too late. The time to act is NOW ! Why bother making by laws if they are not going to be enforced? This erodes the public confidence in our institutions. So frustrated.

Sincerely,

Ed Dertinger

Sent from my iPad

17

LETTER TO COUNCIL @ NORFOLK COUNTY RE: DECISION TO REDUCE STAFF AT THE BY-LAW DEPARTMENT.

January 18, 2021.

We wish this letter to be of public record.

We request that ALL Councillors get a copy.

OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND RESIDENTS OF NORFOLK COUNTY.

It is our concern that 5 members of the Norfolk Council have voted to reduce the BY-LAW STAFF by one under the pretence to save the taxpayers $100,000.

We would ask members of the Norfolk Council to consider the facts that have been presented.

Mainly, there has been an increase in the number of complaints received by the bylaw enforcement to 200 percent in the past year.

Last year a supervisor was hired in the By-law department because of these escalating needs arising. Some councillors voted to reduce the frontline workers because a supervisor was hired. However, a supervisor is not hired as a frontline worker where the demands to serve the public are greater than ever.

Clerical staff are attempting to handle this 200 percent increase of complaints to the By-law Department. These staff are not frontline workers and thus their ability to meet the needs is not enough. Frontline By-law officers must do field investigations and to attempt to resolve the issues.

We commend highly Councillor Columbus, Councillor Martin, and Councillor Huffman for recognizing the facts of this issue and responding with common sense.

To the other Councillors, Rabbits, Masschaele, Van Passen, Taylor and Mayor Chopp who voted to reduce the frontline By-Law officers please reconsider to reduce staff from

18

other departments such as Finance which , in our opinion would be less impacting than decreasing the frontline By-Law officers right now in 2021 combatting major issues in our Norfolk County at this time.

We as citizens,of Norfolk County understand the need to save taxpayers money. However, it seems there must be a better way to budget this considering the MAJOR ISSUES at hand including operations of ILLEGAL CANNIBAS and COVID 19 which require maintaining if not increasing staffing in the By-Law Department.

Sincerely

Jim and Barb Beamish

Waterford, Ontario

19

15 January 2021 I wish this letter to be a matter of public record.

I request that all Councillors get a copy. Thank You

Open Letter to Members of Norfolk County Council and Residents of Norfolk County

Councils Decision to Reduce staff at Bylaw Department

I have just read that five (5) members of Norfolk Council have voted to reduce the bylaw department staff level by one. This is being proposed under the pretence as a means of saving the tax payers of Norfolk County $100,000.00.

I would ask members of Norfolk County Council to consider the facts that have been presented.

1/ During the past year complaints received by the bylaw department have increased by 200 %.

2/ Andy Grozelle stated the Ombudsman office indicates the trend in other areas show an increase by 200-300 % in bylaw complaints. The increase of bylaw complaints as seen in Norfolk County is consistent when compared to other areas. There was evidence presented that would suggest these numbers are not going down. Considering this County continues to deal with illegal cannabis and Covid- 19 issues these numbers will go up as noted by Councillor Mike Columbus.

3/ During the past year a supervisor has been hired which has resulted in efficiencies within the department.

4/ Some members of Council justified their decision to reduce the number of front line officers at the bylaw department because a supervisor had been hired during this past year.

5/ Responsibilities of a supervisor are to ensure the work is completed and completed in a timely fashion. It is not the responsibility of a supervisor to do the front line work. If a supervisor is doing front line work, he is not supervising!

6/ Some bylaw clerical duties are being completed by staff in the clerk’s office and for this I commend your efforts, however considering the number of complaints received by the bylaw office has increased by 200 % I remind you clerical staff members are not front line officers. Front line officers must do the field investigations and attempt to resolve the complaint.

I would ask members of Norfolk County Council to consider how they would feel if they were a member of the Norfolk County bylaw dept. You have just completed the year 2020 as an employee of Norfolk County during which time you saw your work load increase 200 %. You didn’t complain but you did the work the best you could during the year.

20

Then elected officials representing your employer come to you and say, “Not good enough”! Despite you seeing a 200 % increase in work load, we are going to reduce your staffing level!

Is it any wonder Norfolk County continues to witness good hard working dedicated employees of Norfolk County make the decision to work in other municipalities.

I am glad to see that Councillor Columbus recognized that Norfolk County should increase staffing levels in the area of bylaw enforcement based on a 200 % increase in the work load in the dept. It is refreshing to see and witness an elected official in Norfolk County making decisions based on fact and common sense.

It is refreshing to see that Councillor Martin expressed the same concerns and stated in good conscience she could not support the reduction of staff numbers in the bylaw dept. Councillor Martin put forth an alternative that did not receive the support from some of her colleagues. Another member of Council making decisions based on fact and common sense.

It is refreshing that Councillor Huffman recognized that reducing staff levels in the bylaw dept did not make sense based on fact and common sense.

As I sit down and write this letter I have just read an article in the Detroit News where the former Governor of Michigan has been held accountable for his decisions he made related to the City of Flint dating back to 2014 – 2015. Criminal charges have been filed against the governor.

During this time 2014 – 2015 the city of Flint Michigan was in financial trouble. Decisions were made to use water from the Flint River while a regional pipeline from Lake Huron was under construction. This decision was based on the sole purpose to save money!

I make reference to this incident because the residents of Flint Michigan are still coping with the effects of the decisions made by their elected officials. Decisions that were made in an effort to save money with little to no consideration of the other facts that were present at the time.

To the five members of Council that voted to reduce the number of front line officers in our bylaw dept. please reconsider! We all want to save money. We all want responsible government, however, when elected officials make decisions that are not based on fact or common sense, responsible government is NOT what the people get in return.

As a resident of Norfolk I want to see an effective and efficient government, however, decisions should be based on fact and common sense. Complaints received by the bylaw dept have increased 200 %, not 2 % or 20% but 200%.

21

To Mayor Chopp, Councillors Tom Masschaele, Chris Van Passen, Ian Rabbits, and Ryan Taylor I remind you to consider the legal ramifications that must be considered when facts and common sense are ignored. In the event Norfolk County is required to defend itself in any legal proceedings, 100,000.00 is going to be an insignificant amount. Take a lesson from the State of Michigan and the position elected representatives put themselves and their state in for the sole purpose of saving money! When facts and common sense are sacrificed for money, the circumstances can be tragic!

Orv Slack

Waterford

22

Comments on Proposed Bylaw Staff Reductions 18 January 2021 I wish this letter to be a matter of Public Record I request that all councilors get a copy, Thanks Kindly. Having read that it is the intention of some members of Norfolk County Council to reduce the staffing level at the bylaw department, I wish to share some observations and concerns I have. First some excerpts from the Norfolk County website. Purpose of by-law enforcement 1/ Develop and administer Norfolk County’s by-laws by providing timely responses to by-law complaints. 2/ Enforce Norfolk County By-laws to ensure compliance in a timely manner using a professional, non-biased approach avoiding the need for court action. Complaints registered stem from a number of items ranging from clean yard, snow, ice removal, animal control, dog barking, parking, zoning, property standards, cannabis, signs, Covid 19 and more. A cut in services will have a definite ripple affect on this team’s ability to complete all types of complaints effectively. The numbers of complaints that members the bylaw department have required to deal with during the past few years have continued to grow. 2017 - 714 2018 – 1211 2019 – 1115 2020 - 1819 Based on the trend of the past four years one should anticipate there will be an increase in the number of bylaw complaints in 2021. The work load is currently being handled by a 4 person team with 1 team member devoted to illegal cannabis issues. With the addition of a supervisor this has produced commendable results. However, the deletion of front line officers will have a significant impact on the timely response of front line officers as they address complaints. Having watched the budget discussions I note that some members of council suggested that when a supervisor was added to the bylaw team, this resulted in the staffing level at the bylaw department to increase by one. This is misleading. Considering staff adjustments that have been made previously, the supervisor role was held with a .5 (full time employee) compliment. This was later amended to give Mr. Millson a full time supervisor role. Currently the complement is only ahead by .5 of a full time employee!

23

Observing the budget discussions Mayor Chopp made some comments that were very telling and caused me great concern. Mayor Chopp stated the position of a front line enforcement officer should be cut so a message could be sent to the union that would find efficiencies in the scheduling within the collective agreement. Furthermore, I was concerned upon hearing Mayor Chopp state their (front line bylaw officers) pay did not warrant the remuneration they received. The question begs to be asked, is the proposed cuts to the bylaw department really about saving money or is it about sending a message to the union? The illegal cannabis cultivation issue will continue to be a concern in Norfolk County in 2021. In 2018 Norfolk County had 30 cannabis sites. On Oct 7/2020 Health Canada representatives spoke with members of the Norfolk Police Services Board. Health Canada stated Norfolk County has 525 cannabis registrations. They did not break down the numbers of personal to designated prescriptions, however, based on this information Norfolk County could have as many as 130 designated growers. These numbers continue to grow today. It is a well known fact that there is a criminal element heavily involved in some of these operations and our bylaw front line officers are required to deal with these individuals. I wish to thank Councillors Martin, Columbus and Huffman for your common sense. I hope that Mayor Chopp, Councillors Van Paasen, Taylor, Rabbits and Masschaele will see and understand the merits of not reducing the staffing levels of the bylaw department. I do not agree with this budget proposal reduction and the suggestion that eliminating a position in the bylaw department equates to a savings of approximately $100,000.00 for Norfolk. Thanks kindly Debbie France Simcoe, Ontario

24

Please do not reduce staff at the by law dept. Not only have complaints to them have increased by 200% during the pandemic. Hopefully with the vaccine this problem will pass, but the illegal cannabis being grown in Norfolk County will ramp up with the warmer weather and continue to affect neighourhoods for many years. This has been ongoing for a long time and needs a better solution such as the successful 5 Point Plan of York Reg. Police which has presented to our PSB on Sept 23,2020. This needs serious considerations and requires BY LAW to be affective, There are 5 greenhouse ones in my area alone!!! Kalju and Merike Merimets

25

We are alarmed and disappointed that several council members have voted to reduce the bylaw staff by one in a cost cutting measure. In light of what is occurring re: illegal growing of cannabis in our area we believe this to be a short sighted decision. Please rethink this. We would appreciate a copy of this email being sent to all council members. Sincerely, Ann and John Fitzsimon. Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad

26

Greetings, Happy New Year and thank you for your time and efforts in managing our great Norfolk County during these challenging times. I read with significant concern that Council is proposing to reduce the number of Bylaw Enforcement Officers as you debate the upcoming budget. Amongst the many subjects that bylaw enforcement has to investigate is the ILLEGAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION in our County which has now become the home to approximately 150 illegal operations, the #1 county by far in Ontario and probably all of Canada. This unattended subject has reduced many of our County residence's property values and quality of outdoor life and this needs to be urgently attended to by County Council, the Bylaw Enforcement Department and the OPP. Please reconsider any reduction in the Bylaw Enforcement Department and please get serious about this ILLEGAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION crisis in our Norfolk County. Sincerely and please take care, Dave Nicolle, Wilsonville

27

I wish this letter to be a matter of public record. The purpose of this letter is to urge Norfolk council not to reduce the number of front line bylaw officers for the year 2021. With calls-for-service 170 per cent higher than 2019, as noted in a report given to council by Jim Millson, supervisor of bylaw enforcement, it doesn’t make sense to cut down the number of bylaw enforcement staff. One of my main concerns however, is the need for bylaw officers to help control the illegal growth, distribution, and use of cannabis in Norfolk County. I remember when cannabis was first legalized. The Honourable Bill Blair, former police chief of Toronto, was the Federal Liberal Cabinet Minister responsible for administering the Cannabis Act. Mr. Blair said something to the effect that cannabis had to be legalized so growing, distribution, and use of cannabis could be controlled. From the information I have read, there is still a long way to go in Norfolk County. I am not sure what role Norfolk County is expected to play. But, if the present number of bylaw officers are needed, please do not cut their numbers. As well, with Covid-19 still a huge problem, I do not think it is the right time to be cutting bylaw enforcement staff. Hopefully the Covid-19 pandemic will not be a problem in 2022 and then maybe one less bylaw officer will suffice. I for one am willing to have a small increase in my property taxes if it will help control the illegal growth of cannabis in Norfolk County. I do not envy the job of Norfolk Council trying to set a budget for 2021 that will satisfy the majority of tax payers. Sincerely, Gary Armstrong

28

We wish this letter to be a matter of public record. We add our voices to those who object to the reduction of the by-law enforcement effort of Norfolk County. It should be increased not decreased. Any industry including Agriculture should be much more responsive to the established by-laws of the community. If by-laws are regularly ignored there is not much use having any. Flagrant disregard of by-law requirements for cannabis grow operations simply makes it easier to feed the black market and at the same time pollute the environment around the grow-op sites. Beth and Ken Smith

29


I am very concerned that the finance committee is planning to reduce the number of front line bylaw officers. It has been reported that the bylaw complaints in Norfolk have increased by 200% during the past year. I do realize that the present situation has contributed to the voicing of many complaints that could have been resolved privately. Other factors that have impacted the increased complaints are population growth and illegal cannabis operations in Norfolk.

The illegal cannabis operations in Norfolk have required a strong bylaw enforcement team and will continue to do so.

I cannot imagine that Norfolk County plans to withdraw services that are necessary to combat illegal cannabis cultivation. My hope is that there is consideration being given to another tactic that will compensate for the reduction of frontline bylaw staff.

Thank you for opposing the suggestion to reduce staffing.

Barbara Taylor Gagne

Waterford ON

30

Gary Purmal Port Dover, Ontario

Sunday January 19th 2021

Attn: Kristal Chopp, Mayor & Norfolk City Council ( Please note that I wish this letter to be a matter of public record )

I wish to address an issue which was voted on by the finance committee on January 12th

2021 which effectively reduced the front line by-law enforcement in Norfolk County. I understand these are incredibly tough times for any government on any level to showanything but fiscal restraint in their respective administrations. I must however, point out thatcuts to certain areas are ill advised and may even be considered irresponsible. Such is the case with respect to enforcement of the laws of society be they IndictableCriminal offences, or municipal by-laws. It is the perception of law and order that prevents chaos and anarchy from ruling the world.Once this perception is reduced, then boundaries are crossed by those who might otherwise bereigned in. I believe strongly that there has been a steady reduction in the rule of law and beliefthat there are no longer the resources to control crime effectively. I further beleive that this fact isat least partly to blame for the rampant explosion of gun violence we see today, not just in the bigcities, but even with some incidences here in Norfolk County. I have been told that by-law complaints have increased 200% over 2020, and yet councilfeels it can reduce the workload of front line officers. If community complaints are not addressedefficiently, then perceptions may lead people to the belief that they are on their own and tocorrect situations themselves. This is a very dangerous situation. Even more seriously, it is my perception, right or wrong, that both the Federal and Provincialgovernments are reluctant to tackle the very serious problems we face regarding criminal gangs,who come from some distance, ignoring what laws there are governing the legalized marijuanaindustry. Norfolk County Council, to their credit, have tackled the situation the only way they can bythe implementation of strict by-laws to curb the abuse. Is it reasonable then to curb anyenforcement we can provide to control these armed hoods who are working with apparentimpunity to desecrate and bleed this great community which I have been so proud to call homefor the past 25 years? It is my strong hope that this council will reflect on the potential damage any reduction in by-law enforcement may cause, versus the money saved, and consider a reversal of this decision.

Respectfully:Gar Purmal

31

I wish this Letter to be a Matter of Public Record Dear Members, It is our understanding that there are plans to reduce the number of front line bylaw officers by one person. In light of the added work load that comes with controlling and fighting the production and trading of illegally produced cannabis in our county we do not think that this is a good thing to do. So .....the workload goes up and the number of people available to control it goes down? How can this make sense. At the same time we realize that it was Norfolk County who allowed all these cannabis producers to start producing a crop that causes so many problems. By that, we mean, health wise (addiction) and the attraction of criminality. Many of these production “facilities” produce very bad odour, are not well kept and attract people that don’t think twice of using their guns (which seem to be readily available). Norfolk County issued these “businesses” their permits and cashed in on the fees applicable. On top of that many of these greenhouse operations were purchased at inflated prices and I am sure the county collects taxes on these increased values (they always do) but in return the county does not want to spend any of that increased revenue to police them. For these reasons we strongly disagree with the proposed reduction in staff as proposed. We urge you to reconsider and decide not to take away any staff members from this very important issue. Sincerely yours, Jan & Wilma Hoogendoorn

32

To whom it may concern, I'm writing to express my concern on the proposal to reduce bylaw officers in Norfolk county (with the final vote being Jan 26). I, myself have seen the benefit that bylaw offers bring the county and feel a reduction, while a short term cost savings, will ultimately do more harm than good to the quality of service this department can provide to Norfolk county. I ask that you please take this into account when making your final vote. Thank you for your time and consideration. It is truly appreciated. I wish this letter to be a matter of Public Record and that a copy be sent to all councillors and mayor. Take care, Greg France Simcoe, Ontario

33

I wish this letter to be a matter of Public Record I request that all councillors get a copy, Please and Thank you.

We do not agree to the proposed decrease in staff to Norfolk’s bylaw team. The Reformer stated on January 14/21 that there was an increase in bylaw complaints from 2017 - 2020 by 714 to 1819. Over these 4 years that is an increase of 255%. In his report, Supervisor of Bylaw, Jim Millson stated that complaints through September to December 2020 more than doubled from in 2019. Enforcement officers investigate issues relating to clean yard policies, dog barking, parking, Covid 19, zoning, cannabis and more.

Adding a supervisor has produced commendable results but the deletion of a “boots to the ground front line enforcement officer” will have a significant impact on the improvement of service accomplished by the efforts of Mr. Millson this year.

The largest issues currently with the designated medicinal cannabis grower can be evidenced by the OPP Press release of January 6, 2021 copied beneath.

Ontario Provincial Police - News / Nouvelles

How can we ever gain control of the complaints stemming from these operations unless we have a bylaw team that has a complement of staff to do their jobs? These employees deserve the support of their council to effectively do their jobs in a timely manner.

We do not agree to the suggested $100,000 saving that the council says it will realize. The bylaw department is a service that is directly related to assisting the public with areas of conflict.

Randy & Grace Visser

Simcoe ON

34

http://opp.ca/news/#/viewnews/5ff716ed6fc4b


I read in the Reformer that the Norfolk Council voted to reduce the bylaw department staff by one to save $100,00.00. I am all about being prudent and responsible and would be in favour of my taxes being lower but I do not think this is a place where reduction of staff is advisable. I read in the report that the bylaw office has had an increase of 200% in complaints. I also read that a supervisor has been hired to assist this department. It is my belief that a supervisor could well have part of this division but a supervisor sees that the work is completed not 'hands on" where it is so badly needed in Norfolk County with all the illegal cannabis operations popping up that are totally destroying so many peoples livelihood. It truly makes no sense at all when an office has a 200% increase of work load to reduce the staff. I hope that you will reconsider your decision and reverse it. I commend our Councillor Kim Huffman for voting against this motion.

Respectfully

Jack and Lyn Waterford

35

Downtown Simcoe Business Improvement Area 26 Peel St, Simcoe ON N3Y 1R9 [email protected]

519-426-5150

Sent by E Mail January 20, 2021. Mayor Chopp and Members of Council Norfolk County 50 Colborne St. South Simcoe, ON N3Y 4H3 Dear Mayor Chopp and Councillors, I am writing to you on behalf of the Downtown Simcoe BIA Board of Directors and our members to express our concern about the potential reduction of 1.0 FTE in the front line by-law enforcement staff. We recognize the challenges you have faced throughout your budget deliberations, however we respectfully request that you consider maintaining the present compliment of by law officers. Over the past couple of years, the Simcoe BIA has been working closely with the By-Law Enforcement Department in resolving some of the problems that we are continually faced with in the downtown core such as garbage removal, parking, building infractions, and out of town landlords. We have experienced some successes but there is still a great deal of work to do and we need the by-law enforcement staff available to us moving forward. This is an important part of making our downtown a safe and an attractive place for our residents and visitors to enjoy and shop. We would appreciate your support in maintaining this same level of service. Sincerely,

Cam Carter President Downtown Simcoe BIA

36

In the deliberations regarding the issue of bulky item pickup for a fee, I'm all in favor, and have no objection to paying the extra. As you can see by the picture I've attached, some wouldn't agree with it. This is a small example of what we see at our properties' edges and county ditches , ( Mabee's Corners, Mabee Sideroad and Concession 1STR. Middleton ). As the roads employees would attest, the discarded items cover a wide range of no longer wanted items. I'm not sure if availability of disposal with a fee would help or exacerbate this. In our particular case ,we are close to Tillsonburg, and know full well this is where some of what we see originates. We all know people know better, but for whatever reason don't seem to care. Maybe a stiff financial penalty would be a deterrent . We try to be vigilant, but, you know how that goes. Again, we have no issue paying for bulky item pickup . We usually make a trip once a year to Norfolk Disposal in Waterford and pay to dispose of items not acceptable as garbage or too large for the recycle truck. As for the transfer station in South Walsingham, it's something that we would use maybe periodically, maybe more if it was open certain hours. It wouldn't need to be open full time, as long as the hours were regular and the fee communicated clearly. I suppose it really all comes down to making the best financial decision while still providing a service and maintaining Norfolk as the best county in Ontario to live.

Thanks for your time, John & Janet Sage Stone Veil Farm Inc.

37

From: rick maley Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2021 11:44 AM To: Mayor Subject: Jan 14 article in Norfolk and Tillsonburg News 'Ice Time'

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I strongly support your efforts to increase arena rental rates. We (my wife and I) strongly support your efforts to control spending in all areas in Norfolk county. We appreciate there are many difficult decisions to make.

It was mentioned in this article that you "...by the end of 2022-she would like a program in place to subsidize families who have difficulty affording hockey and figure skating for their children." My wife and I applaud your sentiment but, feel any attempt to subsidize families is a big mistake. Where does the money come from in an era of restraint? What group (civil servants?) decides which families are to get funding and how much to each? How can you/council insure "fairness" between deserving families in Simcoe vs. Delhi vs. Port Dover and so on? I see this becoming a very bothersome headache for all council members. There will be winners (receiving benefits) and losers (not receiving benefits). The losers will not be too happy with their councilor. Councilors represent areas. It would only be human for each councilor to want "their share" for their respective area. Five years after implementation, I predict that more money is allocated to deal with "exceptions". There could also be expansion of the program because there will always be voices asking for somebody else to pay for something that benefits my family Once you start something like this, how do you control the spending and the expansion of who gets benefits over time?

For these reasons (and probably others) we strongly oppose any subsidy by Norfolk Council to families having difficultly affording hockey and figure skating. For your information, we raised a family of four children and are now in our sixties.

Debbie and Rick Maley

Simcoe

rick

41

mailto:[email protected]

Working together with our community

Budget Committee Minutes The Corporation of Norfolk County

January 6, 7, 12 & 19, 2021

9:00 a.m. Council Chambers*

2nd Floor County Administration Building 50 Colborne Street South, Simcoe

Present: Mayor Kristal Chopp, Tom Masschaele, Michael Columbus, Chris Van Paassen, Ian Rabbitts, Ryan Taylor, Amy Martin, Kim Huffman

Absent with Regrets: Roger Geysens Also Present: Jason Burgess, Kathy Laplante, Jason Godby, Shelley

Darlington, Brandon Sloan, Marlene Miranda, Paula Boutis, Kathryn Fanning, Megan Soles, Lucas Cracknell, Tyler Wain, Bill Cridland, Nikki Slote, Sarah Page, Gord Stilwell, Erin Anderson, Brent Wallace, Andy Grozelle, Heidy VanDyk-Ellis, Kevin Klingenberg

Chair Rabbitts provided introductory comments to the 2021 Operating Budget Deliberations. Approval of Agenda/Changes to the Agenda (Item 2) 1. (Masschaele/Taylor) THAT the agenda of the Budget Committee meeting be approved with the following additions: (Item 5) Communications A) Randy Goudeseune Re: Budget B) Stella Walker Re: Library Budget

43

Budget Committee Minutes – January 6, 7, 12 &19, 2021 Page 2 of 21

C) Leonard Patterson Re: Budget Considerations D) Martin Jefferson, Norfolk Minor Hockey Association Re: Recreation User Fees – Arenas E) Garfield Eaton Re: Feedback Proposed 2021 Budgets Operating and Capital F) Wesley Wilson Re: Supporting Norfolk County Heritage and Culture

Carried. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest (Item 1) None were declared. Presentations (Item 3) (3:00pm)

A) Norfolk County Library - Heather King 2. (Martin/Huffman)

THAT the presentation from Heather King regarding the Norfolk County Library be received as information.

Carried.

Deputations (Item 4)

A) Les Anderson Re: 2021 Funding Request for Lynnwood Arts Centre Board

3. (Huffman/Taylor)

THAT the deputation from Les Anderson regarding the 2021 Funding Request for Lynnwood Arts Centre Board be received as information.

Carried.

i. Staff Information Memo – Ryan Fess, Financial Analyst Re: December 8, 2020 Deputation – Lynnwood Arts Centre Board

4. (Columbus/Martin)

44


THAT Staff Information Memo from Ryan Fess, Financial Analyst regarding the December 8, 2020 Deputation – Lynnwood Arts Centre Board be received as information.

Carried.

B) Steve Scheers Re: 2021 budget and effects on the community

5. (Huffman/Masschaele)

THAT the deputation from Steve Scheers regarding the 2021 budget and effects on the community be received as information.

Carried. Communications (Item 5)

A) Randy Goudeseune Re: Budget


THAT the communication from Randy Goudeseune regarding the Budget be received as information.

Carried.

B) Stella Walker Re: Library Budget


THAT the communication from Stella Walker regarding Library Budget be received as information.

Carried.

C) Leonard Patterson Re: Budget Considerations


THAT the communication from Leonard Patterson regarding Budget Considerations be received as information.

Carried.

D) Martin Jefferson, Norfolk Minor Hockey Association Re: Recreation User Fees – Arenas


THAT the communication from Martin Jefferson, Norfolk Minor Hockey Association regarding Recreation User Fees – Arenas be received as information.

Carried.

45


E) Garfield Eaton

Re: Feedback Proposed 2021 Budgets Operating and Capital 10. (Columbus/Martin)

THAT the communication from Garfield Eaton regarding Feedback Proposed 2021 Budgets Operating and Capital be received as information.

Carried.

F) Wesley Wilson and Jim Norman – Delhi Chamber of Commerce Re: Heritage and Culture Budget 2021

11. (Columbus/Martin) THAT the communication from Wesley Wilson and Jim Norman – Delhi Chamber

of Commerce regarding Heritage and Culture Budget 2021, be received as information.

Carried.

Staff Reports/Discussion Items (Item 6)

A) Staff Report CS 21-02 Re: Proposed 2021 Levy Supported Operating Budget

Jason Burgess, Chief Administrative Officer, introduced the proposed 2021 budget. Shelley Darlington, General Manager Corporate Services and Kathy Laplante, Treasurer provided an overview of the budget. Megan Soles, Kathryn Fanning and Tyler Wain presented to Committee with the

aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

Staff presented to Committee with the aid of PowerPoint presentations and responded to questions of Committee regarding division specific proposed levy supported operating budgets.

Committee recessed at 4:09 p.m. to reconvene at 9:00 a.m. on January 7th. Committee reconvened at 9:00 a.m. on January 7th. 12. (Taylor/Van Paassen) THAT the agenda be amended through the addition of the following new correspondence: G) Frank and Catherine Schonberger Re: Bunkhouse Inspection fees

46


H) Cassandra Chromczak Re: Bunkhouse Inspection fees I) Sue Downs, Simcoe Chamber of Commerce Re: Heritage and Culture Budget J) Kae Elgie Re: Heritage and Culture Budget

Carried.

Communications Continued (Item 5) G) Frank and Catherine Schonberger

Re: Bunkhouse Inspection fees 13. (Masschaele/Van Paassen)

THAT the communication from Frank and Catherine Schonberger regarding bunkhouse inspection fees, be received as information.

Carried. H) Cassandra Chromczak

Re: Bunkhouse Inspection fees 14. (Masschaele/Van Paassen)

THAT the communication from Cassandra Chromczak regarding bunkhouse inspection fees, be received as information.

Carried. I) Sue Downs, Simcoe Chamber of Commerce

Re: Heritage and Culture Budget 15. (Masschaele/Van Paassen)

THAT the communication from Sue Downs Simcoe Chamber of Commerce, regarding the Heritage and Culture Budget, be received as information.

Carried. J) Kae Elgie

Re: Heritage and Culture Budget 15. (Masschaele/Van Paassen)

THAT the communication from Kae Elgie, regarding the Heritage and Culture Budget, be received as information.

Carried.

47


Staff Reports/Discussion Items Continued (Item 6) A) Staff Report CS 21-02 ` Re: Proposed 2021 Levy Supported Operating Budget i) Option 1A – Recreation User Fees - Arenas 16. (Chopp/Van Paassen) THAT Committee endorse staff recommendation of Option 1 representing standard increases for Arena User Fees as outlined on page 2-2 and 2-3 of the budget package; AND THAT staff be directed to present a further report in 2022 with options for a targeted subsidy for the economically disadvantaged for Arena User Fees to be instituted in the Fall of 2022. AND FURTHER THAT Committee provide staff direction to establish a 65% cost recovery methodology in developing the User Rate for 2021 Summer Ice Fees.

17. (Martin/Masschaele) THAT the rules of order be waived to allowed recorded votes to allow for recorded votes at a Committee meeting.

Carried.

Councillor Martin requested a recorded vote upon the motion proposed under Option 1A. The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Martin, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1 ii) Option 1B – Recreation User Fees – General

48


18. (Van Paassen/Chopp) THAT the 2021 rates as outlined under Option 1 B) for Recreation User Fees Option 1B as outlined starting on page 2-8 of the budget package be approved; AND THAT staff be directed to present a report to Council with a comprehensive review upon Recreation Services provided prior to December 2021; AND FURTHER THAT Family passes policy be amended to be allow for four (4) children that are not siblings.

Carried.

iii) Option 2 - Donation Revenue

19. (Van Paassen/Martin) THAT the option to establish donations to support abandoned cemeteries be

endorsed as outlined on page 2-18 of the budget package. AND THAT Staff be directed to present a fee associated with Courtesy Slips.

Carried.

iv) Option 3C – HNHU – Inspection User Fees

20. (Martin/Van Paassen) THAT Committee endorse Alternative #4 upon page 2-38 to apply a 2% increase

to existing fees be endorsed.

Councillor Martin requested a recorded vote.

The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Martin, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

49


21. (Chopp/Taylor) THAT Committee endorse Alternative #2 upon page 2-37 to require consultation

with Haldimand County and report back upon business license and user fees. Mayor Chopp requested a recorded vote. The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Martin, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

v) Option 7 – South Walshingham Transfer Station

22. (Van Paassen/Masschaele) THAT Committee approve option 7 alternative 1A) as listed on page 2-50 of the

budget binder respecting the South Walshingham Transfer Station; AND THAT staff be directed to seek alternative service providers and not dedicate capital funds towards scale refurbishment. Mayor Chopp requested a recorded vote. The Motion was DEFEATED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Masschaele, Van Paassen, Martin, Columbus Total: 4 Nays: Chopp, Taylor, Huffman, Rabbitts Total: 4 Absent: Geysens Total: 1 23. (Huffman/Chopp) THAT Committee approve option 7 alternative 1bas listed on page 2-50 of the budget binder respecting the South Walshingham Transfer Station; AND THAT staff be directed to not dedicate capital funds towards scale refurbishment. Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote.

50


The Motion was DEFEATED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Masschaele, Van Paassen, Martin, Columbus Total: 4 Nays: Chopp, Taylor, Huffman, Rabbitts Total: 4 Absent: Geysens Total: 1 24. (Masschaele/Martin)

THAT Committee approve option 7 alternative 1b as listed on page 2-50 of the budget binder respecting the South Walshingham Transfer Station with the amendment that the Transfer Station be only open for 7 hours on Saturdays;

AND THAT staff be directed to not dedicate capital funds towards scale refurbishment. Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion was DEFEATED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Martin, Rabbitts Total: 5 Nays: Chopp, Taylor, Columbus Total: 3 Absent: Geysens Total: 1 25. (Van Paassen/Martin)

THAT Committee approve option 7 alternative 2 as listed on page 2-50 of the budget binder respecting the South Walshingham Transfer Station.

AND THAT staff be directed to not dedicate capital funds towards scale refurbishment. Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion was DEFEATED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Martin, Total: 4 Nays: Chopp, Taylor, Rabbitts, Columbus Total: 4 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

51


vi) Option 10 A) Phone Repair Costs Pilot 26. (Chopp/Van Paassen)

THAT phone repair savings target as listed on page 2-57 be increased to $10,000.

Carried.

vii) Option 19 – Reduce Annual Transfer to the Council Initiative Reserve

27. (Van Paassen/Huffman) THAT sufficient funds be placed in the Council Initiative Reserve to regain the one million dollar balance at the beginning of the 2021 year. Councillor Columbus requested a recorded vote.

The Motion was CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Van Paassen, Huffman, Masschaele, Taylor, Chopp Total: 5 Nays: Rabbitts, Columbus, Martin Total: 3 Absent: Geysens Total: 1 viii) Option 22 SCOR Membership

28. (Columbus/Van Paassen)

THAT SCOR (South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corporation) membership be withdrawn for a period of one year; AND THAT the benefits of membership be reevaluated beyond 2021. Councillor Columbus requested a recorded vote. The Motion was CARRIED on the following recorded votes:

Yeas: Martin, Huffman, Masschaele, Taylor, Chopp Total: 5 Nays: Rabbitts, Columbus, Van Paassen Total: 3 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

52


Committee recessed at 4:50 p.m. to reconvene at 9:00 a.m. on January 12, 2021. Committee reconvened at 9:00 a.m. on January 12, 2021. 29. (Martin/Chopp) THAT the agenda be approved with the following additions: 5. K) Rick Levick, Long Point World Biosphere Reserve Foundation Re: Heritage and Culture in 2021 County budget L) Katrina Marques, Multicultural Heritage Association of Norfolk Re: 2021 Budget – Heritage and Culture M) Andy Putoczki Re: Delhi Tobacco Museum and Cultural Centre N) Mary Jane Kekes Re: Delhi Tobacco Museum and Cultural Centre O) Leigh Burbridge Re: 2021 Budget – Heritage and Culture

P) Jim Norman Re: 2021 Budget – Heritage and Culture Q) Wes Wilson Re: Petition 2021 Budget – Heritage and Culture

Carried.

Communications Continued (Item 5) K) Rick Levick, Long Point World Biosphere Reserve Foundation Re: Heritage and Culture in 2021 County budget 30. (Martin/Chopp) THAT the correspondence of Rick Levick, respecting the 2021 Heritage and Culture in 2021 County budget, be received as information.

Carried. L) Katrina Marques, Multicultural Heritage Association of Norfolk Re: 2021 Budget – Heritage and Culture

53


31. (Martin/Chopp) THAT the correspondence of Katrina Marques, Multicultural Heritage Association of Norfolk respecting the 2021 Heritage and Culture in 2021 County budget, be received as information.

Carried. M) Andy Putoczki Re: Delhi Tobacco Museum and Cultural Centre 32. (Martin/Chopp) THAT the correspondence of Andy Putoczki, respecting the 2021 Heritage and Culture in 2021 County budget, be received as information.

Carried. N) Mary Jane Kekes Re: Delhi Tobacco Museum and Cultural Centre 33. (Martin/Chopp) THAT the correspondence of May Jane Kekes, respecting the 2021 County budget be received as information.

Carried. O) Leigh Burbridge Re: 2021 Budget – Heritage and Culture 34. (Martin/Chopp) THAT the correspondence of Leigh Burbridge, respecting the 2021 County budget be received as information.

Carried.

P) Jim Norman Re: 2021 Budget – Heritage and Culture

35. (Martin/Chopp) THAT the correspondence of Jim Norman, respecting the 2021 County budget be received as information.

Carried. Q) Wes Wilson Re: Petition 2021 Budget – Heritage and Culture

36. (Martin/Chopp) THAT the correspondence of Wes Wilson, respecting the 2021 County budget be received as information.

Carried.

54


Staff Reports/Discussion Items Continued (Item 6) A) Staff Report CS 21-02 ` Re: Proposed 2021 Levy Supported Operating Budget

ix) Option 24 Target Labour Reductions

37. (Columbus/Masschaele) THAT Committee convenes in Closed Session at 10:20 a.m. pursuant to

Sections 239 (2) (b) and (d) of the Municipal Act 2001 as amended as the subject matter pertains to personal information about identifiable individuals including municipal or local board employees and is a matter of labour relations or employee negotiations.

Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Martin, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1 At 12:05 p.m. Chair Rabbitts announced to the public that Committee would

recess until 12:45 p.m. for lunch and then resume in Closed Session. 38. (Martin/Columbus) THAT Committee reconvene in open session at 1:25 p.m. Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Martin, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

39. (Columbus/Huffman)

THAT the reduction associated with By-Law Services be removed from the 2021 budget.

Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote.

55


The Motion was DEFEATED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Huffman, Columbus, Martin Total: 3 Nays: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Van Paassen, Rabbitts Total: 5 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

40. (Chopp/Van Paassen)

THAT Committee endorse staff recommendation respecting the museum reductions; AND THAT staff be directed to negotiate an agreement with the Lynwood Arts Management Group to include up to $50,000 in grant funding; AND THAT the grant fund from existing levy funded dollars; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to present an agreement to Council respecting the future use of lands and buildings at the Lynwood Arts Centre

Councillor Martin requested a recorded vote. The Motion was CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Taylor, Rabbitts Total: 6 Nays: Martin, Columbus Total: 2 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

41. (Chopp/Martin) THAT Chief Page be directed to locate $50,000 in levy departmental savings to paramedic service with no impact to front-line services.


56


The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Martin, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

Missing motion:

4#. (Chopp/Columbus) THAT the 2021 Levy Budget savings target for Option 24 be reduced to $750,000 with no impact to front line paramedic services.

Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 7 Nays: Martin

Total: 1 Absent: Geysens

Total: 1 Committee recessed at 2:59 p.m. on the January 12, 2021 to reconvene at 9:00 a.m. on January 19, 2021. Committee reconvened at 9:00 a.m. on January 19, 2021.

42. (Taylor/Huffman) THAT the agenda for January 19, 2021 be approved as presented.

Carried.

43. (Huffman/Van Paassen)

THAT Council approve the Council Initiative Reserve minimum target level be maintained $1,000,000 and the estimated transfer to maintain this balance be adjusted annually during budget deliberations based on the projected balance at that time.

57


AND THAT the 2021 transfer to the Council Initiatives Reserve be reduced to $281,400 to maintain the forecasted opening reserve balance at the minimum target level.

Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Rabbitts Total: 6 Nays: Columbus, Martin Total: 2 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

44. (Columbus/VanPaassen) THAT project 5332010 Rooftop Solar Net Metering Pilot Project in the amount of

$30,000 be funded from the tax levy as part of the 2021 Climate Change Adaptation Program for $100,000

AND THAT staff provide a subsequent report outlining the utilization of the

remaining $70,000 for the 2021 Climate Change Adaptation Program. Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Rabbitts, Columbus, Martin Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1 45. (Columbus/Masscahele) THAT the $95,000 in Infection Control Prevention and Control Funding from the

Ministry of Long-Term Care be accepted; AND THAT $85,500 of this funding be utilized to purchase 14 Needlepoint

Bipolar Ionization units and that the remaining funding of $10,000 be allocated to the 2021 Levy Supported Operating Budget to offset the budgeted purchase of dining room tables.


58


The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Rabbitts, Columbus, Martin Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

x) Option 25 – Delay or Remove Levy Funded Capital Projects 46. (Van Paassen/Masschaele) THAT the 2021 Capital Budget be amended as follows: 1. Brush Chipper – deferral - $60,000 2. LED Street Lighting Retrofit Program – reduction - $50,000 3. Turkey Point Gateway Sign – remove 2021 project - $13,000 4. Cedar St. Electronic Sign – deferral - $31,000 5. Digital Info Sign – deferral - $15,000 6. Pool Entrance Turnstile gate – removal combine with another project - $27,000 7. Kinsmen Park Concrete Pad – deferral - $12,000 8. Concrete pads Port Rowan Skate Park – deferral - $7,000 9. Rail Trail Directional Signage – reduction - $4,000 10. Cedar Street Pedestrian Cross-over – reduction - $27,000 11. West Street Pedestrian Cross-over – reduction - $20,000 Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Rabbitts, Columbus, Martin

Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

xi) Option 26 Shifting Funding from Levy Supported to Debt Funded

47. (Masschaele/Taylor) THAT the 2021 Capital Budget be amended through the issuance of debt for the following projects: 1. 2021 Drainage Engineering and Construction 2. Pedestrian Cross-over West St. Simcoe 3. Pedestrian Cross-over Cedar St. Simcoe

59


4. Culver/Argyle St. West Municipal Parking 5. Culver/Argyle St. E Side Municipal Parking

Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Rabbitts, Columbus, Martin Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

xii) Option 27- In Sourcing Capital Projects 48. (Van Paassen/Masschaele) THAT the following levy funded paving and resurfacing 2021 Capital Projects be completed internally: 1. Port Dover Arena Parking Lot – Surface Treatment 2. Parking Lot Refinishing – Delhi Quance Parking Lot 3. Roadway Resurfacing – Oakwood Cemetery 4. Simcoe Kinsmen Park – Phase 2 (paving work only) Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Rabbitts, Columbus, Martin Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

xiii) Levy Stabilization Loan From Legacy Fund 49. (Masschaele/Van Paassen)

THAT Committee approve of the one-time loan from the Legacy Fund in the amount of $5,000,000. AND THAT as outlined on page 2-94 of the budget binder the loan be assigned a two year no interest free period followed by a 10-year amortization at a 3.7% interest rate.


60


The Motion CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Huffman, Van Paassen, Rabbitts, Columbus Total: 7 Nays: Martin Total: 1 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

50. (Huffman/Martin) THAT Committee approve Option 1 in respect the Norfolk Public Library as outlined on page 4-5 of the budget binder for a 2021 budget reduction of $144,230. Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion was DEFEATED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Van Paassen, Total: 4 Nays: Martin, Huffman, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 4 Absent: Geysens Total: 1 51. (Martin/Huffman) THAT a 7.5% reduction compared to the 2020 budget be applied to the Norfolk Public Library Boards 2021 budget for a reduction of $216,300. Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion was CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Van Paassen, Martin, Huffman, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1 52. (VanPaassen/Chopp) THAT an exemption be granted to Council’s established Compensation By-Law respecting salaries for Mayor and Council Members for no increase in 2021.

61


Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion was CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Van Paassen, Martin, Huffman, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1 53. (Chopp/Masschaele) THAT the 2021 Levy Budget Options and Levy Relief Strategy be approved as

amended by the Budget Committee. Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion was CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Van Paassen, Martin, Huffman, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

54. (Huffman/Taylor)

THAT Report CS 21-02 Proposed 2021 Levy Supported Operating Budget be received as information; AND THAT the 2021 Levy Supported Operating Budget, with a Net Levy Requirement of $104,635,500 be approved; AND THAT the 2020 surplus generated from General Operations be contributed to the Contingency Reserve; AND THAT Council direct staff to establish a formal staff working committee to ensure potential service options and deliverables are met and to provide quarterly status reports to Council; AND THAT Council adopts a policy statement that assessment growth revenue be applied for infrastructure purposes until reserve funds are positive and asset management obligations are fully funded; AND THAT Council adopts a policy statement setting the County’s own debt and financial obligations limit at 15% of own source revenues;

62


AND FURTHER THAT Council adopts a policy statement that Norfolk County no longer allow operating deficits to occur.

Chair Rabbitts requested a recorded vote. The Motion was CARRIED on the following recorded votes: Yeas: Chopp, Taylor, Masschaele, Van Paassen, Martin, Huffman, Columbus, Rabbitts Total: 8 Absent: Geysens Total: 1

Adjournment (Item 9) 55. (Huffman/Martin)

THAT the Budget Committee be adjourned at 12:39 pm. Carried.

__________________________ __________________________ County Clerk Mayor

63

_________________________ _________________________ Defeated: Carried:

THE CORPORATION OF NORFOLK COUNTY

RESOLUTION # DATE: January 26, 2021 NOTICE OF MOTION MOVED BY: Councillor Van Paassen________________________________ THAT Recommendation No. 34 of September 22, 2021 be reconsidered:

34. THAT Council approve the direction provided to the County Solicitor in Closed Session as outlined in the memo presented, respecting the Hastings Drive Litigation Matter.

65

The Corporation of Norfolk County By-Law 2021-11

Being a By-Law to establish a Water and Wastewater Billing and Collection Policy.

WHEREAS Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes a municipality to pass by-laws imposing fees or charges on persons for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of the municipality;

AND WHEREAS Section 398(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes a municipality to add outstanding fees and charges imposed by the municipality to the tax roll for the following property in the local municipality and collect them in the same manner as municipal taxes: in the case of fees and charges for the supply of a service or thing to a property, the property to which the service or thing was supplied.

AND WHEREAS Ontario Regulation 581/06 gives fees and charges added to the tax roll under Section 398(2) priority lien status;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of Norfolk County hereby enacts as follows:

1. That a Water and Wastewater Billing and Collection Policy as attached hereto asSchedule “A” be adopted for implementation in March 2021.

2. That the effective date of this By-Law shall be the date of passage thereof.

ENACTED AND PASSED this 26th day of January, 2021.

Mayor

County Clerk

Authority: Council, Resolution 19 Meeting: November 17, 2020 Staff Report: CS 20-36

67

By-Law 2021-11 Schedule A Page 2 of 5

POLICY #: FS-49 Water and Wastewater Collection Policy

Corporate Services

Approval Date: November 17, 2020

Approval Authority: Council

Effective Date: March 2021

Revision Date/s: N/A

Purpose:

The purpose of this policy is:

1. To ensure the municipality is in a position to manage water and wastewateraccounts receivable effectively by utilizing collection activities to minimize debtsowed to the municipality.

2. To provide consistent and equitable treatment to debtors.

3. To establish the protocol for collection of accounts in arrears including theschedule of certain collection activities.

Policy Statement:

Norfolk County recognizes the importance of strong fiscal management policies that incorporate consistent business practices and efficiencies that are fair to water and wastewater customers, property owners and to the municipality.

68


Definition:

Primary Account Holder – the person, persons or business name to which the account is registered. A primary account holder may be the property owner or a tenant/occupant.

Secondary Account Holder – a landlord/property owner registered with the billing agent for the purposes of receiving notice of a tenant’s arrears only.

Property Owner – a holder or proprietor of land, landowner

Landlord – the owner of a house, apartment, condominium or real estate which is leased to a tenant or lessee.

Tenant – a lessee, a person who leases property or who occupies land or property leased from the owner of the property.

Implementation Procedure:

Water and Wastewater Account Collection Process

1. Norfolk County has a service agreement with a billing agent for the provision ofwater and wastewater billing and account collection services. This policy isadministered by the billing agent pursuant to the service agreement.

2. Invoices are issued by the billing agent and include a payment due date.

3. Six (6) days following the due date if the account remains unpaid an automatedreminder via telephone will be issued to the primary account holder.

4. Thirty (30) days following the due date if the account remains unpaid a remindernotice will be issued to the primary account holder.

5. Forty-five (45) days following the due date if the account remains unpaid a noticewill be issued to the primary account holder and to the secondary account holderif applicable, warning of pending transfer to the applicable property tax accountfor the service address.

6. Sixty (60) days following the due date if the account remains unpaid the billingagent will notify Norfolk County to add the outstanding amount to the property taxaccount. A notice will be issued to the primary account holder and to the

69


secondary account holder, to confirm the account has been transferred to the applicable property tax account for the service address.

7. An administration fee related to the tax roll addition/adjustment will be added tothe tax account in accordance with the current user fee By-Law.

8. Payments by mail will be processed by the billing agent as of the date thepayment is received. The customer is responsible to ensure that payments arereceived on or before the payment deadline.

9. A service charge shall be applied by the billing agent if a payment is dishonouredby the bank for any reason.

Rental Properties

Where a landlord-tenant relationship exists the account may be registered to the landlord (property owner) or the tenant. Regardless of whether the account holder is a tenant or landlord, accounts in arrears for sixty (60) days will be transferred from the billing agent’s receivable ledger to the applicable property tax account for the service address.

Where the account holder is the landlord (property owner) notices will only be sent to the landlord at the address filed with the billing agent.

Where a tenant is the account holder notices will be issued to the tenant at the address filed with the billing agent. The landlord may register with the billing agent as a secondary account holder to be notified when the account remains unpaid for forty-five (45) or more days.

Notices to the secondary account holder will include the applicable service address and the amount due. Notices to the secondary account holder will not include the tenant’s name or private information.

Outstanding Debts prior to March 2021

Arrears accumulated by a tenant account holder prior to March 2021 will be transferred to the collection agency if not paid or in the event of a defaulted payment arrangement.

70


Arrears accumulated by a tenant account holder prior to March 2021 will not be transferred to the property owner’s property tax account.

All previous debts for Norfolk County water and wastewater must be paid in full before a new account may be set up with the billing agent. Proof of payment or confirmation from the collection agency will be required.

71

The Corporation of Norfolk County By-Law 2021-12

Being a By-Law to Amend By-Law 2020-101 to Establish User Fees and Service Charges.

WHEREAS Section 391(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, provides that a municipality may pass By-Laws imposing fees or charges for services or activities provided, for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of the municipality and for the use of its property including property under its control;

AND WHEREAS the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c.23, as amended, and various other statutes provide municipalities with authority to impose various fees and charges;

AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of Norfolk County has, from time to time, established various fees and charges for information, services, activities and use of County property;

AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of Norfolk County deems it expedient to enact a comprehensive By-Law establishing and requiring the payment of fees for information, services, activities and use of County property;

AND WHEREAS on December 8th, 2020 Norfolk County Council deferred consideration of some fees, which were temporarily assigned a $0 increase for 2021 until amended by Council; comprising of fees 24, 28, 51-91, 99-101, 105-120, 122-133, 146-152, 162, 163, 173-182, 313-355, 419, 423, 427, 438, 453, and 534;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of Norfolk County hereby enacts as the following amendment:

1. That fees numbered 24, 28, 51-91, 92, 99-101, 105-120, 122-133, 146-152, 175-182, 313-355, 453, and 534 are hereby repealed in its entirety and the attached schedule is submitted therefor;

2. That the effective date of th

special council agenda the corporation of norfolk county … · 2021. 1. 22. · special council...

Documents