the Municipality of Kincardine!

Transcription

TH
HE CORPORATIION OF THE MU
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Agenda
a
1.0
Page 1 of 13
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 18, 2013
3
CALL TO
O ORDER
Mayor Larry
L
Krae
emer will call
c
to Orrder at 5:00 p.m. o
on Wednesday
Septemb
ber 18, 2013, the Reg
gular Meetin
ng of the C
Council of T
The Corporation
of the Municipality
M
of Kincard
dine in the Council Chambers a
at the Muniicipal
Administtration Centtre.
2.0
ROLL CA
ALL
Mayor La
arry Kraemer
Deputy Mayor
M
Anne
e Eadie
Councillo
or Ron Coriistine
Councillo
or Maureen
n Couture
Councillo
or Kenneth Craig
Councillo
or Jacquelin
ne Faubert
Councillo
or Candy Hewitt
Councillo
or Mike Leg
ggett
Councillo
or Randy Roppel
R
Staff Pre
esent
er
Murray Clarke,
C
Chie
ef Administrrative Office
Jennifer Lawrie, Deputy Clerk
Karen Kieffer, Direc
ctor of Parks and Recrreation
B
Roxana Baumann,
Treasurer
3.0
AMENDM
MENTS, AD
DDITIONS OR DELET
TIONS TO//FROM THE
E AGENDA
A
4.0
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIAR
RY INTERE
EST AND T
THE GENE
ERAL NAT
TURE
THEREO
OF
Name
Item of
o Busines
ss
N
Nature of IInterest
5.0
PUBLIC FORUM
6.0
ADOPTION OF MIINUTES OF
O REGULA
AR AND S
SPECIAL M
MEETINGS
S OF
COUNCIIL
Motion #09/18/13
#
Moved by:
ed by:
Seconde
THAT the
e Minutes of
o the Coun
ncil meeting
gs held on S
September 4, 2013 an
nd
Septemb
ber 11, 2013
3 be adopte
ed as printe
ed.
7.0
PRESEN
NTATIONS AND PETIITIONS
None no
oted.
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Agenda
a
8.0
Page 2 of 13
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 18, 2013
3
CONSEN
NT AGEND
DA
(Items lis
sted under the
t Consen
nt Agenda a
are conside
ered routine
e and are
enacted in one motiion. The ex
xception to this rule is that a Coun
ncil membe
er,
the Chieff Administra
ative Office
er or a citize
en may requ
uest one orr more item
ms to
be remov
ved from th
he consent agenda
a
forr separate d
discussion a
and action.))
8.1
Ad
doption off Consent Agenda
A
Motion #09/18/13
#
Moved by:
Seconde
ed by:
THAT Co
ouncil appro
ove the rec
commendattions contaiined in the consent
agenda dated
d
Wedn
nesday Sep
ptember 18
8, 2013 atta
ached to this agenda a
and
direct sta
aff to procee
ed with all necessary
n
a
administrattive actionss (with the
exception
n of the following items which willl be added to the Com
mmittee of tthe
Whole diiscussion agenda of_.)
9.0
MOTION
NS & NOTIC
CE OF MOT
TIONS
9.1
No
otice of Mo
otion
9.2
Ro
oad Dedica
ation
Motion #09/18/13
#
Moved by:
ed by:
Seconde
THAT Co
ouncil appro
ove road de
edication re
equests to b
be included
d on the
consent agenda for considerattion as set o
out in Repo
ort No. PL 2
2013-11.
9.3
o Firearms
s
Diischarge of
Co
ouncillor Ro
oppel proviided this mo
otion for Co
ouncil’s con
nsideration.
Motion #09/18/13
#
Moved by:
Seconde
ed by:
WHEREA
AS By-law 4608 (form
mer Town off Kincardine
e) passed o
on the 21st d
day
of June 1984
1
is a by
y-law to pro
ohibit and re
egulate the
e discharge of guns or
other fire
earms in the
e geographic Town of Kincardine
e;
AND WH
HEREAS Municipal Ac
ct Section 119 allows ffor a municiipality, for the
purpose of public sa
afety, to pro
ohibit or reg
gulate the d
discharge o
of guns or o
other
firearms, air guns, spring
s
guns
s, cross bow
ws, long bow
ws or any o
other weapon;
AND WH
HEREAS on
n Decembe
er 12, 2012 the Committee of the Whole dire
ected
staff to develop a re
eport addressing hunting in the re
esidential areas along the
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Agenda
a
Page 3 of 13
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 18, 2013
3
shoreline
e and staff have
h
contacted the Miinistry of Na
atural Reso
ources for
consultattion regarding this issu
ue;
AND WH
HEREAS co
oncerns from
m citizens ccontinue to be receive
ed;
NOW TH
HEREFORE
E BE IT RESOLVED T
THAT staff b
be directed
d to provide a
report regarding inv
voking Municipal Act se
ection 119 in residential areas in the
Municipa
ality includin
ng up to a 300
3 metre ssetback.
9.4
Kiincardine Centre
C
for the Arts
Co
ouncillor Fa
aubert prov
vided this m
motion for C
Council’s con
nsideration
n.
Motion #09/18/13
#
Moved by:
Seconde
ed by:
THAT sta
aff be direc
cted to prep
pare a reporrt for Counccil initiating a second
phase off renovation
n and repairr actions off the interior of the Kincardine Ce
entre
for the Arts with these actions to be guide
ed by the Fa
acilities Report,
t Arts Co
ommittee fivve year plan
n presented
d to
consultattion with tenants and the
Council;
AND FURTHER TH
HAT the mo
onies neede
ed for these
e actions be
e taken out of
the Centre for the Arts
A reserve
e fund.
9.5
So
ocial Netw
working Pollicy
Motion #09/18/13
#
Moved by:
Seconde
ed by:
THAT Co
ouncil adop
pt Policy No
o. GG.1.15 – Social Ne
etworking P
Policy as
presente
ed in Reportt No. CSC 2013-05.
2
9.6
Co
ommerciall Alcohols
Motion #09/18/13
#
Moved by:
Seconde
ed by:
THAT Co
ouncil appro
ove the currrent sewerr discharge fee for the once-throu
ughwater used by Commercial Alc
cohols, exclluding the ssurcharge ffor 2013 forr
v
und
der the exis
sting fee strructure and
d that it be e
effective this
excess volumes
billing ye
ear.
10.0
CONSID
DERATION OF BY-LA
AWS
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE
Council Agenda
10.1
Page 4 of 13
Wednesday September 18, 2013
FIRST AND SECOND READINGS OF BY-LAWS LISTED UNDER SECTION
10.0, CONSIDERATION OF BY-LAWS OF THE WEDNESDAY
SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE AGENDA
Motion #09/18/13 Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the following by-laws be deemed to be read a first and second time:
i) the “OPA #7 to the Municipality of Kincardine Official Plan By-law”;
ii) the “Road Dedication 2013 By-law”;
iii) the “Inverhuron Gateway Sign Encroachment Agreement By-law”.
10.2
BEING A BY LAW TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE
OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE
Seconded by:
THAT the “OPA #7 to the Municipality of Kincardine Official Plan By-law” be
deemed to be read a third time, finally passed and numbered as By-law No.
2013 –
10.3
BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF
CERTAIN DEEDS OF LAND AND TO ASSUME AND DEDICATE
THE SAID LANDS FOR ROAD PURPOSES
Seconded by:
THAT the “Road Dedication 2013 By-law” be deemed to be read a third time,
finally passed and numbered as By-law No. 2013 –
10.4
BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE SIGNING OF AN
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT (3128 Bruce Road 15,
Inverhuron)
Seconded by:
THAT the “Inverhuron Gateway Sign Encroachment Agreement By-law” be
deemed to be read a third time, finally passed and numbered as By-law No.
2013 -
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Agenda
a
11.0
Page 5 of 13
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 18, 2013
3
COMMIT
TTEE OF THE
T
WHOLE (all de
elegations will be he
eard follow
wing
relevantt reports)
11.1
Move Into Committee
C
of the Who
ole
Motion #09/18/13
#
Moved by:
Seconde
ed by:
That Cou
uncil move into Comm
mittee of the Whole and
d upon com
mpletion retu
urn
to Counc
cil.
11.2
Ite
ems for Dis
scussion from
f
Coun
ncil Meeting
g
Ite
ems from th
he consent agenda as required.
11.3
Re
ecreation Services
S
(A
A)
REC 2013-11
2
Subject:: Phragmite
es Managem
ment Plan
Attachm
ment: Phrag
gmites Management P
Plan
Report Summary:
S
H
Centtre for Coasstal Conserrvation and
The Lake Huron
Janice Gilbert
G
have completed
d the Invasivve Phragmites Manag
gement Plan
n for
the Municipality of Kincardine.
K
Staff is reccommendin
ng that Cou
uncil acceptt the
Plan and
d then direc
ct staff to review it and include reccommendations for
phragmittes control through
t
the
e annual bu
udget proce
ess.
Origin: 2012
2
Capita
al Budget
Existing
g Policy: N//A
Analysis
s: The Mun
nicipality of Kincardine received a Letter of O
Opinion valid till
Dec 31, 2012
2
and were
w
advise
ed by the M
MNR that on
nce a detaile
ed
managem
ment plan was
w comple
eted for Kincardine, we
e could resubmit the
applicatio
on along with the man
nagement p
plan for review for a lon
nger term
Letter of Opinion.
The Lake
e Huron Ce
entre for Co
oastal Consservation an
nd Janice G
Gilbert (Wettland
Ecologistt) prepared
d the plan and submitte
ed both the
e plan and tthe applicattion
to the MN
NR in June of 2013. We
W were no
otified Augu
ust 6th, of ap
pproval to sspray
for phrag
gmites for th
he next five
e years, effe
ective until July 31, 20
018.
Phragmittes is an ag
ggressively spreading non-native
e, invasive g
grass. Due to
the exten
nsive area to
t be contro
olled along the Municipality of Kin
ncardine
shoreline
e, Phragmittes manage
ement will h
have to be d
done in stages and will
Council Agenda
Page 6 of 13
extend over a number of years. Available funding, weather conditions, wildlife
presence, and lake water levels are all main factors affecting the amount of
acreage that can be controlled during one growing season.
The goal is to bring the infestation of phragmites under control, once this
occurs, it will be significantly more cost effective to implement a monitoring
and rapid response control program to ensure Phragmites densities do not
return to pre-control conditions.
In the plan, the coastline was divided into 16 manageable sections or Blocks
using features that provided logical boundary lines. Within some blocks,
Phragmites formed a dense, almost continuous cell along the shoreline while
in others it was sparse and patchy. Approximately 68 ha of the coastal
wetland currently has Phragmites present. Of this, approximately 25.6 ha has
dense Phragmites cells present.
The Management Plan is designed to be implemented over the next four
years.
2013 – 13.70 ha; cost $20,000
2014 – 13.80 ha; cost $27,000
2015 – 37.70 ha; cost $42,200
2016 -
2.90 ha; cost $9,000
Total – 68.10 ha; cost $98,200
There will also be on-going maintenance costs thereafter that can be included
into the annual operating budgets.
Council passed Resolution # 08/14/13 on August 14, 2013 which referred to
the financial commitment by Council in developing the phragmites
management plan, the costs required for herbicide and prescribed burns
referenced in the plan from 2013-2016, and the request for financial
assistance for phragmites control within the Municipality.
Community Plan and Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP)
Considerations: To ensure the assets of the Municipality of Kincardine
continue to be well promoted, valued, enhanced and supported.
Financial Considerations: It is estimated that the Management Plan can be
implemented for $98,200 over the four years, with Council approving the
yearly allotment during the annual budget process. On-going maintenance
costs would also likely occur thereafter and would be included in the annual
operating budgets.
Council Agenda
Page 7 of 13
Options:
1. For Council to accept the Phragmites Management Plan as
presented and direct staff to review it and include
recommendations for phragmites control through the annual
budget process.
2. For Council to accept the Phragmites Management Plan and
not proceed further.
Preferred Option: Option one – For Council to accept the Phragmites
Management Plan as presented and direct staff to review it and include
recommendations for phragmites control through the annual budget process.
Date to be considered by Council: At the October 2, 2013 Council Meeting
CAO’s Comments: I concur
C O W RECOMMENDATION
11.4
Mayor’s Update
11.5
Other Areas of Responsibility
(A)
TRE 2013-12
Subject: Kincardine Shoreline Pipeline Debt
Attachments: Powerpoint, Map
Report Summary: Staff has been requested by Council to revisit the issue of
the Kincardine Shoreline Pipeline Debt and to develop possible solutions to
eradicate this debt. This report addresses Council’s request.
Origin: 2004 Kincardine Shoreline Pipeline Construction Program
Existing Policy: By-law 2005-142
Analysis: In 2004, the Municipality of Kincardine undertook the construction
of a shoreline water pipeline project at a net cost after grants of $4,868,163.
The total system capacity was 836 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU’s);
however connection to the pipeline was not mandatory. As a result, only 358
ERU’s were connected or paid at inception in the form of a lump sum
payment or over 2 years, and 204 ERU’s would be paid over a period of 15
years. This left 274 ERU’s in 2004 that did not connect or pay for the pipeline,
leaving an unfunded capital outlay (or stranded debt). There remain ~ 251
ERUs that are not connected or paid, and a stranded debt amount of
$1,514,347 as of December 31, 2012.
Council Agenda
Page 8 of 13
The original pipeline connection fee was $6,102 per property and $379 for a
fire charge. Through by-law 2005-142, an incremental premium would be
applied to the capital charges on an annual basis, in addition to CPI. As of
January 1, 2012, this premium has reached its cap of 100% and therefore the
connection charge for 2013 (including reserve fund contribution) is set at
$14,070.
It was anticipated that over time, and through the implementation of a
premium, more connections to the pipeline would be made. However as of
July 2013, there were 251 remaining ERU’s that still have not paid or
connected. Since 2005, there have been 23 hook-ups at an average rate of 3
connections per year. There have also been 7 connections resulting from
severed lots (average of 1 per year), which are subject to the original capital
cost of $6,102 + CPI (no premium), which further reduces the overall debt.
Based on these average connection rates and at the current capital charge of
$14,070, it would require 108 ERU’s to hook up to the pipeline to extinguish
the debt. At an average connection rate of 3 per year, it would take 36 years
(ignoring the additional interest charges incurred on the stranded debt).
Severed lot connections would reduce this time period, however not
significantly (~4-5 yrs).
Financial Considerations
 The difference between the interest received and the interest paid to
external financial institutions will continue to increase the outstanding
debt
 The premium has reached the 100% maximum (double the amount of
the original capital charge), and therefore the incentive to hook-up is
now significantly reduced.
 Cash flow is constrained by the current arrangement, as principal and
interest payments must be funded from cash derived from other
sources.
Several options to resolve this issue were last presented to Council in May
2010. At that time, Council had decided to defer the matter until the
Inverhuron Environmental Assessment was completed, as it was expected
that additional information would be available to facilitate further discussion
and an eventual decision. Due to the delays experienced with the Inverhuron
project, this matter has not been re-opened for discussion since 2010. In June
2013, staff was directed by Council to revisit the options to eradicate the
pipeline debt.
The following options are being presented to Council for consideration:
1. Mandatory Payment & Connection:
Council Agenda
Page 9 of 13
Implement mandatory connection and payment such that all properties with a
dwelling must pay and be connected to the pipeline and fund their capital
charge including CPI adjustment (but excluding the premium). As of January
1, 2013, this would amount to $5,802 base + $1,082.87 CPI + $300 reserve
fund contribution = $7,184.87 capital charge. Furthermore:
All remaining vacant lots will be assessed the above capital charge, plus the
fire capital charge of $379 + CPI. As of January 1, 2013 this amounts to
$449.74.
To ensure fairness, a refund of the premium charge would be refunded to the
23 property owners that connected between 2005 and present.
Property owners would have the option of paying the capital charge in a lumpsum by December 2014, or would have the option of financing the amount
over a 10-year period through the municipality. At the current interest rate
available to the municipality through Infrastructure Ontario, property owners
can expect to pay ~$900/year over a 10-year period.
If all remaining 251 ERU’s are required to pay the capital charge of $7,185,
this would generate $1,803,435. Once the premiums for the 23 property
owners were refunded (~ $60K), and in isolation of any additional interest
charges, there would be $1,743,435 in funds generated which should be
sufficient to extinguish the debt. Any residual would be transferred to reserve
funds.
2. Mandatory Payment Only (not mandatory connection):
This option would implement mandatory payment only to extinguish the
stranded debt, but allow the physical connection to be optional.
Although this would allow property owners the ability to continue using private
wells, the Municipality would not benefit from additional revenues that would
otherwise be generated from the fixed and metered consumption rates.
3. Fund the stranded debt through reserve funds:
The balance in the water reserve funds (Funds 24, 28, 68) at the end of 2013
is estimated to be $5.213 million. This is more than sufficient to extinguish the
current stranded debt amount of $1.514 million.
These reserve funds, however, were generated by existing water users. A
full-cost recovery system was established to ensure that all future capital and
maintenance costs of the existing infrastructure would be sufficiently funded
through these water rates. A lump sum payment out of water reserve funds to
fund the stranded debt would significantly reduce the funds available for such
future costs, and would very likely necessitate rate increases in the future.
Staff is not in support of this option.
Council Agenda
Page 10 of 13
4. Status Quo:
This option would continue on with optional connections at the existing
pipeline capital charges as per by-law 2005-142, at a current 2013 capital
charge of $14,070. This option is not recommended, as based on the current
trend of 3 connections per year on average, it would take at least 30 years to
extinguish the debt.
5. Deferral:
Deferring the decision on the pipeline debt issue until the completion of the
Inverhuron Environmental Assessment still remains an option. At this time,
the project would be further ahead and more information would be available.
This would also ensure that consistency between the two projects was
achieved.
Additional Considerations:
 A large number of Inverhuron residents were provided with water
servicing in conjunction with the Kincardine pipeline project but chose
not to connect due to non-mandatory connection policies.
 In 2011, Council has supported several Guiding Principles for the new
Inverhuron pipeline project, including support for mandatory connection
policies and creating consistency between the new Inverhuron pipeline
project and the Kincardine shoreline water pipeline project. This
includes providing a consistent capital charge among all water
customers, and ensuring that connection for all properties from both
the previous pipeline project and the new Inverhuron pipeline project
are made mandatory.
 A base water rate capital charge for customers to be serviced through
the new Inverhuron project is estimated to be $7,700. This amount,
which is based on current construction costs, is comparable and
consistent with the mandatory payment amount in Option 1 of $7,185
(which is based on historical costs plus inflation).
 Capital contributions from customers to be serviced through the new
Inverhuron project will not be applied to the stranded pipeline debt.
Capital contributions from water customers in Inverhuron that chose
not to be connected to the Kincardine pipeline will be applied to the
outstanding stranded debt.
Considerations: N/A
Financial Considerations: As discussed above.
Options:
1. Mandatory Payment & Connection
2. Mandatory Payment only (not connection)
3. Funding through reserve funds
Council Agenda
Page 11 of 13
4. Status Quo
5. Deferral
Preferred Option: Option 1 – Mandatory connection and payment
Date to be considered by Council: October 2, 2013
C O W RECOMMENDATION
(B)
TRE 2013-14
Subject: S. 357/358 Applications – Cancellation or Reduction in Property
Taxes
Attachments: S. 357/358 Applications Listing
Report Summary: The attached provides a list of property owners that have
applied for a cancellation or reduction and refund of taxes under specific
circumstances including but not limited to change in the use of a property,
demolition or the property being substantially unusable for a period of at least
3 months. Individuals make application to be reviewed and approved by
Council and any applicant may make representation on their application.
Council is being asked to approve this application as matters arising.
Origin: Municipal Act, S. 357 and S. 358
Existing Policy: None
Analysis: Section 357 of the Municipal Act provides a process for property
owners to apply for a cancellation, reduction and refund of taxes under
specific circumstances including but not limited to a change in the use of a
property, demolition or fire, the property being substantially unusable for a
period of at least 3 months or a gross and manifest error in the preparation of
the assessment roll. The deadline to apply is February 28th of the year
following.
Section 358 of the Municipal Act provides a process for property owners to apply for
a cancellation, reduction and refund of taxes resulting from a gross and manifest
error in the preparation of the roll that is factual in nature (i.e. not an error in
judgment in assessing the property). The deadline to apply is between March 1 and
December 31 of a year and can apply to taxes levied for one or both of the two years
preceding the year in which the application is made.
The Act requires that Council hold at least one meeting by September 30th of each
year with 14 days prior notice being given to property owners so they can make
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Agenda
a
Pag
ge 12 of 13
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 18, 2013
3
represen
ntations at the meeting
g and 14 da
ay notice following the meeting off Council’s
decision..
Property owners the
en have 35 days from the date off Council’s decision to
o appeal the
e
decision to the Asse
essment Re
eview Boarrd.
The partiiculars of th
he applications are inccluded in the attached document.. In
the opinion of staff, all write-offfs meet the
e criteria set out in the Municipal A
Act.
The totall of the write
e-offs if all are approvved are $3,7
705.08 with
h the municipal
share be
eing $775.22.
Process
s Change:
Staff is also
a
requestting that du
ue to the ad
dministrative
e nature of processing
g the
S.357/35
58 applicatio
ons, going forward the
ese write-offfs be reporrted on the
consent agenda unlless a mem
mber of the public requ
uests a dele
egation
concerning their application.
Commun
nity Plan and
a Integra
ated Comm
munity Sus
stainability
y Plan (ICSP)
Conside
erations: Complying
C
with
w the Strrategy of “A
Assuring Re
esponsible A
And
Sustaina
able Management Of Municipal
M
Financial Re
esources”.
Financia
al Considerations: All write-offs meet the cconditions u
under the A
Act.
Approvin
ng them willl result in re
educed reve
enues of $7
775.22 for tthe
Municipa
ality.
Options:
1. Ap
pprove the write-offs
w
ass presented
d and allow
w future S.
357/358 applications to be reported
d on the consent agen
nda
(un
nless a mem
mber of the
e public requests a dellegation).
2. Ap
pprove the write-offs
w
ass presented
d and do no
ot allow futu
ure
S.3
357/358 ap
pplications tto be reportted on the cconsent
agenda.
3. Ap
pprove some/all write-o
offs in a diffferent amount
Preferred Option: Option 1
Date to be
b conside
ered by Co
ouncil: Mattters Arising
g
CAO’s Comments
C
: I concur
C O W RECOMME
R
NDATION
12.0
MATTER
RS ARISING
G FROM COMMITTE
C
E OF THE WHOLE
13.0
MEMBER
RS OF COUNCIL GENERAL AN
NNOUNCEMENTS
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Agenda
a
Pag
ge 13 of 13
14.0
CLOSED
D SESSION
N IF REQUIIRED
15.0
RS ARISING
G FROM CLOSED
C
SE
ESSION
MATTER
16.0
CONFIR
RMATORY BY-LAW
B
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 18, 2013
3
Motion #09/18/13
#
Moved by:
Seconde
ed by:
THAT th
he By-law to confirrm the pro
oceedings of the C
Council of The
Corporattion of the Municipaliity of Kinc ardine of S
Septemberr 11, 2013 and
Septemb
ber 18, 201
13 be deem
med to be rread three times, fina
ally passed and
numbere
ed as By-law
w No. 2013
3 -.
17.0
SCHEDU
ULING OF MEETINGS
S
17.1 Co
ouncil Mee
etings
October 2,
2 2013
ar Council
Regula
October 9,
9 2013
Planning/Corpora
ate Servicess
October 16,
1 2013
Regula
ar Council
Novembe
er 6, 2013
Regula
ar Council
Novembe
er 13, 2013
Planning/Corpora
ate Servicess
17.2 No
otice of Pu
ublic and Special
S
Mee
etings
None notted.
18.0
ADJOUR
RNMENT
Motion #09/18/13
#
Moved by:
Seconde
ed by:
THAT thiis Council adjourn
a
at
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Council
C
Minu
utes
1.0
Page 1 of 17
W
Wednesdayy Septembe
er 4, 2013
CALL TO
O ORDER
Mayor La
arry Kraem
mer called to
o Order at 5
5:00 p.m. o
on Wednessday Septem
mber
4, 2013,, the Regu
ular Meetin
ng of the Council off The Corp
poration off the
Municipa
ality of Kincardine in the Co
ouncil Cha
ambers at the Muniicipal
Administtration Centtre.
2.0
ROLL CA
ALL
Council Present
arry Kraemer
Mayor La
Councillo
or Maureen
n Couture
Councillo
or Kenneth Craig
Councillo
or Jacquelin
ne Faubert
Councillo
or Candy Hewitt
Councillo
or Mike Leg
ggett (arrive
ed at 5:10 p
p.m.)
Councillo
or Randy Roppel
R
Council Absent
Deputy Mayor
M
Anne
e Eadie
Councillo
or Ron Coriistine
Staff Pre
esent
Murray Clarke,
C
Chie
er
Donna MacDougall
M
, Clerk
Gagan Sandhu,
S
Director of Public Works
Stephen Murray, Co
oordinator of
o Commun
nity Service
es and Speccial Projects
3.0
AMENDM
MENTS, AD
DDITIONS OR DELET
TIONS TO//FROM THE
E AGENDA
A
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 02
Moved by:
Maureen Couture
C
Seconde
ed by:
Kenneth Craig
C
THAT Co
ouncil appro
ove the following addition to the A
Agenda:
i)
14.0 Closed
C
Session – THA
AT Council move into cclosed sesssion
to con
nsider a pro
oposed or p
pending acq
quisition or disposition of
land by
b the municipality or lo
ocal board (Annex).
Carried.
4.0
RY INTERE
EST AND T
THE GENE
ERAL NAT
TURE
THEREO
OF
Name
Item of
o Busines
ss
None dis
sclosed.
N
Nature of IInterest
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Council
C
Minu
utes
5.0
Page 2 of 17
W
Wednesdayy Septembe
er 4, 2013
PUBLIC FORUM
1. Maria
anne Stewa
art, Allan Mo
oore, Betha
any Collins – Pinwhee
els for Peacce
and upcoming
u
events for Community
C
Living
6.0
O REGULA
AR AND S
SPECIAL M
MEETINGS
S OF
ADOPTION OF MIINUTES OF
COUNCIIL
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 02
Moved by:
C
Maureen Couture
Seconde
ed by:
Kenneth Craig
C
THAT the
e Minutes of
o the Coun
ncil meeting
gs held on A
August 07, 2013 and A
August 14,
2013 be adopted as
s printed.
Carried.
7.0
PRESEN
NTATIONS AND PETIITIONS
None no
oted.
8.0
CONSEN
NT AGEND
DA
(Items lis
sted under the
t Consen
nt Agenda a
are conside
ered routine
e and are
enacted in one motiion. The ex
xception to this rule is that a Coun
ncil membe
er,
the Chieff Administra
ative Office
er or a citize
en may requ
uest one orr more item
ms to
be remov
ved from th
he consent agenda
a
forr separate d
discussion a
and action.))
8.1
Ad
doption off Consent Agenda
A
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 03
Maureen Couture
Moved by:
C
ed by:
Jacqueline
e Faubert
Seconde
THAT Co
ouncil appro
ove the rec
commendattions contaiined in the consent
agenda dated
d
Wedn
nesday Sep
ptember 4, 2013 attacched to this agenda an
nd
direct sta
aff to procee
ed with all necessary
n
a
administrattive actionss with the
exception
n of the following items which willl be added to the Com
mmittee of tthe
Whole diiscussion agenda of September
S
4
4, 2013:
6.0
Co
ommunicattions
6.11
Je
eff Leal Min
nister of Rurral Affairs R
Re: Launch
h of the renewed Rura
al
Ec
conomic De
evelopmentt (RED prog
gram. (A17
7)
Carried.
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Council
C
Minu
utes
9.0
Page 3 of 17
W
Wednesdayy Septembe
er 4, 2013
MOTION
NS & NOTIC
CE OF MOT
TIONS
9.1
No
otice of Mo
otion
None notted.
9.2
ommunity Investmen
nt Grant Po
olicy
Co
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 04
Moved by:
C
Kenneth Craig
Seconde
ed by:
Candy He
ewitt
THAT Po
olicy G.G. 3.5,
3 Allocation of Comm
munity Gra
ants be ame
ended including
changing
g the title to
o Communitty Investme
ent Grants.
Carried.
10.0
CONSID
DERATION OF BY-LA
AWS
10.1
FIIRST AND SECOND READINGS
R
S OF BY-LA
AWS LISTE
ED UNDER
R SECTION
N
10
0.0, CONSIIDERATION
N OF BY-L
LAWS OF T
THE WEDN
NESDAY
SE
EPTEMBER 4, 2013 MUNICIPA
M
LITY OF K
KINCARDIN
NE AGENDA
A
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 05
Moved by:
Candy He
ewitt
Seconde
ed by:
Randy Ro
oppel
THAT the
e following by-law be deemed
d
to be read a ffirst and se
econd time:
i) the “Huro
on-Kinloss Water
W
Agreement Ame
endment (2
2013) By-law
w”.
Carried.
10.2
BE
EING A BY
Y-LAW TO AMEND BY
Y-LAW NO
O. 2004-185
5, BEING A
BY
Y-LAW TO
O ENTER IN
NTO AN AG
GREEMENT
T WITH TH
HE
CO
ORPORAT
TION OF TH
HE TOWNS
SHIP OF HURON-KIN
NLOSS FOR
R
TH
HE PROVIS
SION OF WATER
W
TO HURONVIILLE SUBD
DIVISION
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 06
Candy He
Moved by:
ewitt
ed by:
Kenneth Craig
C
Seconde
THAT the
e “Huron-K
Kinloss Wate
er Agreeme
ent Amendm
ment (2013
3) By-law” b
be
deemed to be read a third time
e, finally passed and n
numbered a
as By-law N
No.
2013 –11
12.
Carried.
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Council
C
Minu
utes
11.0
Page 4 of 17
W
Wednesdayy Septembe
er 4, 2013
COMMIT
TTEE OF THE
T
WHOLE (all de
eard follow
wing
relevan
nt reports))
11.1
Move Into Committee
C
of the Who
ole
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 07
Moved by:
Randy Ro
oppel
Seconde
ed by:
Jacqueline
e Faubert
That Cou
d upon com
mpletion retu
urn
to Counc
cil.
Carried.
Councillo
or Leggett arrived
a
at th
his point in the meeting
g.
11.2
Ite
ems for Dis
scussion from
f
Coun
ncil Meeting
g
Ite
ems from th
he consent agenda as required.
1.
6. Communic
cations 6.11
1 Jeff Leal Minister of Rural Affaiirs Re:
La
aunch of the
e renewed Rural Econ
nomic Deve
elopment (R
RED) progra
am
Th
he program and possib
bility of app
plications w
was noted.
11.3
Pu
ublic Work
ks
(A
A)
PW 20
013-15
Attachm
ments: OnW
WARN Mutu
ual Aid and Assistance
e Agreemen
nt, PW-2013-11
Subject:: Mutual Aid
d and Assis
stance Agre
eement for Ontario
Water/W
Wastewater Agency
A
Re
esponse Ne
etwork
Report Summary:
S
This reportt is a follow
w up to Coun
ncil’s directtion regarding
PW-2013
3-11. Staff is recomme
ending to C
Council to exxecute the OnWARN
agreeme
ent.
Origin: N/A
N
Existing
g Policy: No
one
Analysis
s: The PW--2013-11 re
eport was circulated to
o the Fire Chief and
Commun
nity Emerge
ency Manag
gement Coo
ordinator fo
or their review and
comments.
Council Minutes
Page 5 of 17
The agreement seems to be acceptable from their perspective. The
Municipality of Kincardine’s Risk and Insurance services provider also
reviewed the agreement and had no specific comments.
Considerations: Municipal Operations and Community Leadership – Assure
responsible and sustainable management of municipal infrastructure and
financial resources.
Financial Considerations: As indicated in PW-2013-11
Options:
1. Council executes the OnWARN agreement, including any
future amendments, with the Ontario Water/Wastewater
Agency Response Network.
2. Council does not execute the OnWARN agreement
3. Council direct staff in any other manner
Preferred Option: Option #1
Date to be considered by Council: September 11, 2013
Director of Public Works noted that the Municipality’s existing insurance
coverage is adequate for the purposes of the agreement.
Questions were raised about possibility of a fee being imposed at some point
in the future and the Municipality’s ability to withdraw from the agreement.
The agreement sets out withdrawal provisions which include a 60 day notice.
C O W RECOMMENDATION - Option 1 to be considered at September 11,
2013 Council meeting
11.4
County Council Update
Mayor reported there was no update from County Council.
He advised, that in regards to the creation of a Municipal Service Corporation
to advance the extension of natural gas service, there are requirements under
Ontario Regulation 168/03 which includes a public meeting. Staff will be
working on preparation for the meeting over next few months. sets out re to
this region of Ontario create a Municipal Service Corporation to advance the
extension of natural gas service to this region of Ontario
Council Minutes
Page 6 of 17
It was confirmed that the matter of “not a willing host” for wind turbines will be
on the agenda for September ATP meeting (third week of the month) at the
County.
11.5
Other Areas of Responsibility
(A)
CSC 2013-05
Attachments: Social Networking Policy
Subject: Social Networking Policy
Report Summary: The social networking policy is intended to provide
guidelines to employees on how to interact on social media sites both at work
or on their own time. It also sets out guidelines for the use of social media by
the Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine.
Origin: Clerk’s Department
Existing Policy: NA
Analysis: Social networking refers to an online place where people can come
together; post information, attachments, videos or images; build community
knowledge; discuss issues; and socially interact. This is accomplished
through many different types of websites, the most common being Facebook,
and Twitter. This new means of communication has increased considerably
since it became widely available. In fact, if Facebook were a country it would
be the third largest county in the world after China and India as it has 1.15
billion monthly users, 700 million of which check their account on a daily
basis. Here in Canada, nearly half of Canadians (14 million) check their news
feed daily (Financial Post, Aug 13, 2013), a number which is only expected to
rise with the rapid increased use of mobile options.
This new technology has become a very important tool for some departments
within the Municipality as the public expects enhanced services. The policy is
intended to set out expectations of employees who have been authorized by
the Chief Administrative Officer to represent their department through a social
networking account. As well, the policy sets out guidelines that cover
employee’s personal accounts and their conduct on social networking sites in
general.
Considerations: Community Plan 2010 Strategic Initiative. None apply.
2012 Integrated Community Sustainability Plan Strategy # “Enhance
community communications.” (Fostering Community Building and Identity.)
Council Minutes
Page 7 of 17
Financial Considerations: None
Options:
1. To adopt the social networking policy as presented.
2. To amend the social networking policy.
3. No action at this time
Preferred Option: Option # 1
Date to be considered by Council: September 18th, 2013
C O W RECOMMENDATION - Option 1 to be considered by Council at the
September 18, 2013 meeting
(B)
CSC 2013-06
Attachments: Inverhuron Gateway Schedule A & B
Subject: Inverhuron Gateway Sign
Report Summary: As part of the Municipal Signage program, a community
gateway sign was planned to be constructed and installed for Inverhuron
through the 2013 budget. After researching a few site options, the attached
location was settled upon. The County of Bruce has agreed to the location.
Origin: Signage Program
Existing Policy: NA
Analysis: As part of the Municipal Signage program, one gateway sign was
to be installed for Inverhuron. Gateway signs are an important component of
a community’s identity. After researching a few site options, the attached
location was settled upon along County road 15. The County of Bruce was
consulted first on the possibility of installing the sign within their road
allowance, however the geography of their land was not suitable for a
gateway sign. The County of Bruce has agreed to the location on the private
property. In consultation with the Inverhuron Ratepayers Association a sign
design was created to be placed upon the private lands. An Inverhuron
resident has offered to donate the plant material and maintenance shown in
the design.
Considerations: Community Plan: NA
Council Minutes
Page 8 of 17
Integrated Community Sustainability Plan “Implementing the Municipal
signage program”. Page 35.
Financial Considerations: $100 per year.
Options:
1. Agree to the proposed encroachment agreement.
2. Renegotiate the encroachment agreement.
3. Do not act at this time.
Preferred Option: Option # 1
Date to be considered by Council: September 18th, 2013
C O W RECOMMENDATION - Option 1 to be considered by Council at the
(C)
CLE 2013-06
Attachments: N/A
Subject: 2014 Election
Report Summary: This report is being provided for information purposes on
the various alternatives in regards to voting methods for municipal elections
and other associated matters.
Origin: 2014 Election
Existing Policy: By-law No. 2010 - 031 and 2010 - 032
Analysis: The next municipal election takes place Monday, October 27,
2014. This report is to primarily set out alternative voting methods available
to the Municipality. A by-law must be passed if an alternative voting method
is used or if vote counting equipment is to be used in the election.
In 2006, the Municipality of Kincardine first used the vote by mail method for a
municipal election. For 2010, vote by mail was used again. Voter
participation increased and costs decreased with the introduction of Vote by
Mail.
Alternative Voting Methods
Vote By Mail
Council Minutes
Page 9 of 17
Vote by Mail is a paper-based alternative voting method where a package
containing instructions, a ballot and a voter declaration form is mailed to every
qualified elector on the Voters List. The elector completes and mails back
their completed ballot and declaration form with the ballot in a sealed ballot
secrecy envelope. The Municipality processes the returned packages as they
are received to identify electors who have voted, however, the ballot secrecy
envelopes are not opened. They are stored in a secure location until voting
day. They are then opened and using vote counting equipment, the results
are tabulated. This method is convenient for both resident and non-resident
electors, meets accessibility needs, is lower in cost in comparison to
traditional voting locations (polling stations), and the paper ballot provides a
good audit trail. The accuracy of the Voters List can be an issue, as can be
completion of the ballot and declaration by the voter (improvements in 2010
process greatly reduced this), and there is potential for voter fraud with a
person completing someone else’s ballot.
Telephone/Internet Voting
Distribution of voting packages under this system is similar to Vote by Mail.
Voter information letter/package is mailed to qualified electors containing
instructions on how to access and complete their ballot. A PIN is provided as
well. If using telephone voting, the voter uses the key pad to vote. Upon
completion of making their selections, the voter is prompted to review their
decisions. Once confirmed by the voter, the final ballot data is transferred to
a secure server which tabulates results at the end of voting day and transfers
them to a results reporting system. If using the internet, the voter connects to
the voting website, enters their PIN and answers a personal security question.
Following this, the voter is asked to verify that they are a qualified elector
(similar to signing the declaration form within the Vote By Mail kit). Electors
then access the online ballot and complete, review and verify their completed
ballot making any changes prior to submission. Controls are in place to warn
the voter of any over-votes or blank offices. Voting data is stored in a secure
database and tabulated at the end of voting day. The system is designed to
ensure there is no way link the voter with his/her ballot.
The advantages and disadvantages of telephone/internet voting are similar to
Vote by Mail in that it, is convenient for both resident and non-resident
electors, meets accessibility needs, and is lower in cost in comparison to
traditional voting locations (polling stations). As with Vote by Mail, the
accuracy of the Voters List can be an issue. This method of voting offers the
greatest potential to attract new voters and engages a wider range of age
demographics. As well, it assists in the proper completion of a ballot by
disallowing over-votes. In 2010, network congestion created issues on voting
day. Telephone voting could be a challenge with a ballot containing a high
number of candidates for each office. However, best practices and academic
Council Minutes
Page 10 of 17
research confirms it poses the least amount of risk and greatest benefits
compared to other alternative voting methods.
Traditional Paper-based Election
The voter attends a voting place with the necessary documentation to confirm
their identity. A paper ballot is marked and then processed by a tabulator.
After processing, the ballots are placed in a sealed ballot box. The results of
the voting activity at each location is tabulated at the end of voting day and
transferred to a central location to be compiled and reported.
The benefits of a traditional voting system are that voters mark a paper
composite ballot which they then place into the tabulator, ballots are counted
at the poll, there is a paper audit trail with provision for recount and the use of
tabulators eliminates error from manual counting. The cost is higher than
Vote by Mail or telephone/internet voting.
The problem with traditional voting is that electors are required to go to the
poll to vote, there is no other option for those who are subject to mobility
limitations or are seasonal residents. The election process is labour intensive
as additional staff are required for each polling station.
The majority of Bruce County municipalities use an alternative voting method.
Two of them used telephone/internet voting in 2010 and those Clerks will be
recommending its use again for 2014. For the other municipalities, they are
in the midst of determining which method they will be using.
Council Meeting Schedule
Another election-related matter that I would like to bring to Council’s attention
is the increasing practice of reducing/eliminating Council meetings after
Nomination Day or Election Day. The “lame duck” (Council restricted to take
certain acts after Nomination Day if the new Council will include less than
three-quarters of the members of the outgoing Council) possibility plus the
prevalent practice of deferring matters for consideration by the new Council
are reasons cited for this. Additional powers are delegated to the Chief
Administrative Officer for the period. Some meeting dates are held in reserve
in the event there is a need for a special meeting, in Kincardine’s case, if
there are planning applications that require consideration by the Planning
Advisory Committee.
Considerations: N/A
Financial Considerations: N/A
Options:
Council Minutes
Page 11 of 17
1. This is an information report for Council’s discussion as to
whether any options should be explored further.
Preferred Option: N/A
Date to be considered by Council: N/A
CAO’s Comments: N/A
C O W RECOMMENDATION - Receive as information report
(D)
CAO 2013-17
Attachments: N/A
Subject: Commercial Alcohols/Greenfield Ethanol – Request for Waiver of
Sewage Charge for Once-Through Cooling Water
Report Summary: The report sets out options to address the situation along
with a recommended path forward.
Origin: Transfer of the water and wastewater infrastructure at the Bruce
Energy Centre (BEC) to the Municipality from Bruce Power in early 2012.
Existing Policy: Full cost recovery for water and wastewater services
including contribution to capital reserves.
Analysis: Subsequent to the handover of the BEC infrastructure, it was
discovered that Commercial Alcohols had not been billed by Bruce Power for
the discharge of water used to cool the plant operations in the summer
months, referred to as “once-through-water”. In an earlier consideration of
the matter, Council had agreed to waive the sewer surcharge which is applied
to outflow volumes that exceed a specified level. Commercial Alcohols is now
asking that the previous arrangement with Bruce Power continue, i.e. total
forgiveness for discharge of the cooling water, until wastewater treatment
capacity becomes an issue and/or the plant is retrofitted with chilling
equipment.
Considerations:


At this time, there is no significant impact of the cooling water on
the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant.
The company was of the understanding that Council’s previous
decision was to comply with the request for total waiver of the
cooling water sewer charge, not just the excess volume surcharge.
Council Minutes




Page 12 of 17
If the request were to be granted by Council, the decision should
take into consideration the requirement for operational and capital
cost recovery over the longer-term.
From the documentary evidence provided to the MoK, it would
appear that the waiver originally granted by Ontario Hydro was
intended to be an interim consideration with the expectation that
”we recommend you continue to work towards a more long-term
solution for cooling…” (Letter from Ontario Hydro to Commercial
Alcohols, July 26, 1995).
There may be merit in a phased implementation should Council
elect to move forward with billing for the cooling water discharge
into the wastewater treatment system.
Council will recall that an updated water and sewer billing
framework for the BEC is under development by staff. A report will
be presented to Council in the near future. Due to the potential
implications of a new billing program, the Public Works Director is
recommending that any deviation from the current fee structure
contemplated by Council should be granted for the 2013 (current
year) only.
Considerations: Community Plan – “The Municipality is accountable for the
wise expenditure of public funds in the ongoing provision of services that
affect the everyday life of all our citizens”
ICSP – Demonstrate leadership in finance, governance and sustainability”
Financial Considerations: Through resolution # 02/13/13-08, Council had
agreed to waive the excess volume surcharge that was previously included in
the agreement with Commercial Alcohols for the period of May 2012 –
December 31, 2013. The impact of this, as previously reported, was a
reduction in annual Municipal sewage revenues of approximately $300K.
If the sewer charges for the once-through-water will be waived in addition to
the surcharge, this will have an added negative impact on operating revenues
and the ability to generate sufficient funds to contribute towards reserve
funds. Revenues derived from the sewer billings for the once-through-water
amount to $63,415 for the (Jan. – Aug. 2013), with annual billings estimated
to be ~$110,000. Total sewer charges inclusive of the once-through-water for
the 7-month period amounted to $115,207, estimated to be ~$195,000
annualized.
As with any such situation, rate reductions offered to Commercial Alcohols for
2012, 2013 and future years will need to be incorporated into the new rate
structure that is being developed. Meaning, with the full-cost recovery model
in place, if overall operating costs are higher as a result of having to process
Council Minutes
Page 13 of 17
the once-through-water upon entering the lagoon, these added costs will
need to be recovered through higher rates. These rates would be set for all
BEC water and wastewater customers equally, in relation to their respective
consumption levels.
Options:
1. Effective this billing year and onward, impose the current
and future sewer discharge fee for the once-through-water
used by Commercial Alcohols, excluding the surcharge this
year for excess volumes under the current fee structure (as
previously approved by Council).
2. For the 2013 billing year, waive the sewer charge as
requested and initiate the charge in 2014 in accordance with
the new BEC water and wastewater fees.
3. Another path chosen by Council.
Preferred Option: Option No. 1.
CAO’s Comments: Author of Report
It was confirmed that this is consistent with previous direction given by
Committee of the Whole.
C O W RECOMMENDATION - Option 1 to be considered by Council at
(E)
CAO 2013-18
Subject: ICSP Implementation – Agreements with the Chamber of
Commerce and BIA
Attachment: Revised Contract August 30, 2013
Report Summary: To recommend the form and substance of Agreements
respecting implementation of the ICSP and identify a funding solution.
Origin: Council Resolution #07/10/2013-5, passed July 10, 2013.
Existing Policy: N/A
Analysis: The proposal from Team Kincardine, presented to Council on July
10, 2013 sets out a plan to move forward with what is described as a second
phase of an ICSP implementation plan. Council’s approval included direction
to staff to report back on how the plan may be funded from the current year’s
Council Minutes
Page 14 of 17
budget. This report includes a recommendation from the Treasurer in that
regard.
Further, attached to this report is a final edit of an Agreement that is
recommended to reflect the Team Kincardine ICSP Phase Two
Implementation Plan with terms and deliverables running to the end of the
current year.
Considerations: Community Plan 2010 – The ICSP and suggested
implementation plan is consistent with a range of priorities and strategic
objectives in the Community Plan.
ICSP – The implementation provisions of the Plan emphasize a collaborative
approach that engages a broad spectrum of community interests. Team
Kincardine is identified in playing a key role in that engagement and
implementation process. The Plan also acknowledges that ...”potential
expenditures are anticipated on an annual basis and will be included in the
annual municipal budget...”
Financial Considerations: Staff has been directed to report on a source
from which to fund Phase 2 of the ICSP implementation plan. Council has
established a maximum cost of $10,000 to be expended in 2013, with $5,980
funded through the Economic Development Budget. Staff is recommending
that the remaining $4,020 be funded out of account 01-1111-3114 (Council
Memberships & Subscriptions), which has sufficient funds remaining in it to
allot to this portion of the implementation plan.
Options:
1. That Council approve the draft Agreements with the
Chamber of Commerce and BIA respecting Phase Two of an
ICSP Implementation Plan as presented with this report and
further that Council accept the Treasurer’s recommended
funding solution for the initiative.
2. An alternate course of action as determined by Council.
Preferred Option: Option No. 1.
CAO’s Comments: Author of Report
C O W RECOMMENDATION - Option 1 to be considered as a Matter Arising
from Committee of the Whole
(F)
Community Living - Pinwheels for Peace
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Council
C
Minu
utes
Pag
ge 15 of 17
W
Wednesdayy Septembe
er 4, 2013
Committe
ee discusse
ed request of Community Living in regards tto planting of
pinwheells in various
s locations in recognittion of Interrnational Pe
eace Dat.
C O W RECOMMEN
R
NDATION - support th
he planting of the pinw
wheels as
requested and cons
sider as a Matter
M
Arisin
ng.
Committe
ee of the Whole
W
return
ned to Coun
ncil.
12.0
MATTER
RS ARISING
G FROM COMMITTE
C
E OF THE WHOLE
12.1
R
S OF BY-LA
AWS LISTE
ED UNDER
R
SE
ECTION 12
2.0, MATTE
ERS ARISIN
NG FROM COMMITT
TEE OF THE
E
WHOLE
W
OF THE WEDNESDAY S
SEPTEMBE
ER 4, 2013
MUNICIPALITY OF KIN
NCARDINE
E AGENDA
A
4/13 - 08
Resolutiion # 09/04
Moved by:
Jacqueline
e Faubert
Seconde
ed by:
Mike Legg
get
THAT the
d
econd time:
i) the “Busin
ness Impro
ovement Are
ea ICSP Ag
greement (A
April –
Decembe
er 2013) By
y-law”;
ardine & District Cham
mber of Com
mmerce ICS
SP Agreem
ment
ii) the “Kinca
(April – December
D
2013) By-law
w”.
Carried.
12.2
BE
EING A BY
Y-LAW TO ENTER INT
TO AN AG
GREEMENT
T WITH THE
BU
USINESS IMPROVEM
I
MENT ARE
EA
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 09
Candy He
Moved by:
ewitt
ed by:
Kenneth Craig
C
Seconde
THAT the
e “Business
s Improvem
ment Area IC
CSP Agree
ement (April – Decemb
ber
2013) By
y-law” be de
eemed to be
b read a th
hird time, fin
nally passed
d and
numbere
ed as By-law
w No. 2013
3 - 113.
Carried.
12.3
BE
EING A BY
Y-LAW TO ENTER INT
TO AN AG
GREEMENT
T WITH THE
KIINCARDINE & DISTR
RICT CHAM
MBER OF C
COMMERC
CE
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 10
Candy He
Moved by:
ewitt
Seconde
ed by:
Mike Legg
gett
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Council
C
Minu
utes
Pag
ge 16 of 17
W
Wednesdayy Septembe
er 4, 2013
THAT the
e “Kincardin
ne & Distric
ct Chamberr of Comme
erce ICSP A
Agreement
(April – December
D
2013)
2
By-la
aw” be deem
med to be rread a third time, finally
passed and
a numberred as By-la
aw No. 201
13 - 114 .
Carried.
12.4
Community
C
y Living Piinwheels fo
or Peace
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 11
Maureen Couture
Moved by:
C
ed by:
Jacqueline
e Faubert
Seconde
THAT Co
ommunity Living
L
Kinca
ardine & Disstrict be au
uthorised to plant
pinwheells at various locations in the Mun
nicipality, including the
e downtown
n
gardens, Victoria Pa
ark, boardw
walk garden
ns, the Mun
nicipal Administration
Centre and the Dav
vidson Centtre to recog
gnise Intern
national Dayy of Peace
Septemb
ber 21, 2013
3.
Carried.
13.0
MEMBER
NNOUNCEMENTS
Councillo
or Craig - Kincardine
K
Fall
F Fair succcess
Councillo
or Hewitt - take
t
care driving with bikes and b
buses as ch
hildren are
back in school
s
Councillo
or Couture - congratula
ations to M
Mass Band; Harbor Bea
ach visit
Councillo
or Faubert - concert ev
vent at Wallker House September 12, 2013
arbor Beac
ch visit
Mayor Krraemer - Ha
14.0
CLOSED
D SESSION
N IF REQUIIRED
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 12
Moved by:
C
Maureen Couture
Seconde
ed by:
Jacqueline
e Faubert
THAT Co
ouncil move
e into close
ed session tto considerr a proposed or pendin
ng
acquisitio
on or disposition of lan
nd by the m
municipality or local board (Annexx);
AND FURTHER TH
HAT Counciil return to rregular ope
en meeting upon
completio
on.
Carried.
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Council
C
Minu
utes
15.0
Pag
ge 17 of 17
W
Wednesdayy Septembe
er 4, 2013
MATTER
RS ARISING
G FROM CLOSED
C
SE
ESSION
None.
16.0
CONFIR
RMATORY BY-LAW
B
Resolutiion # 09/04
4/13 - 13
Candy He
Moved by:
ewitt
ed by:
Kenneth Craig
C
Seconde
THAT th
he By-law to confirrm the pro
oceedings of the C
Council of The
Corporattion of the
e Municipa
ality of Kin
ncardine o
of August 14, 2013 and
Septemb
ber 4, 2013
3 be deemed to be rread three times, fina
ally passed and
numbere
ed as By-law
w No. 2013
3 -115.
Carried.
17.0
SCHEDU
ULING OF MEETINGS
S
17.1 Co
ouncil Mee
etings
September 11, 2013
3
Planning/Corpora
ate Servicess
September 18, 2013
3
Regula
ar Council
October 2,
2 2013
Regula
ar Council
October 9,
9 2013
Planning/Corpora
ate Servicess
October 16,
1 2013
Regula
ar Council
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
17.2 No
otice of Pu
ublic and Special
S
Mee
etings
None notted.
18.0
ADJOUR
RNMENT
4/13 - 14
Resolutiion # 09/04
Moved by:
Randy Ro
oppel
Seconde
ed by:
Maureen Couture
C
a
at 6:30
6
p.m.
Carried.
_______
__________
__________
__
Mayorr
___
__________
_________
_______
Clerk
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Minutes
s
1.0
Page 1 of 20
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 11, 2013
3
CALL TO
O ORDER
Deputy Mayor
M
Eadiie called to
o Order at 5
5:00 p.m. o
on Wednessday Septem
mber
11, 2013
3, the Plan
nning/Corpo
orate Serviices Meetin
ng of the Council of The
Corporattion of the Municipality
y of Kincarrdine in the
e Council C
Chambers a
at the
Municipa
al Administrration Centrre.
2.0
ROLL CA
ALL
Council Present
Deputy Mayor
M
Anne
e Eadie
Councillo
or Ron Coriistine
Councillo
or Maureen
n Couture
Councillo
or Kenneth Craig
Councillo
or Jacquelin
ne Faubert
Councillo
or Candy Hewitt
Councillo
or Randy Roppel
R
(left the
t meeting
g at 6:48 p..m.)
Council Absent
arry Kraemer
Mayor La
Councillo
or Mike Leg
ggett
Staff Pre
esent
Murray Clarke,
C
Chie
er
Donna MacDougall
M
, Clerk
Michele Barr,
B
Directtor of Building and Pla
anning
Roxana Baumann,
B
Treasurer/D
Director of Finance
Gagan Sandhu,
S
Director of Public Works
3.0
AMENDM
MENTS, AD
DDITIONS OR DELET
TIONS TO//FROM THE
E AGENDA
A
3.1
Am
mendmentts, Additions or Dele
etions To/F
From the A
Agenda
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 01
Moved by:
Maureen Couture
C
Seconde
ed by:
Ron Coris
stine
THAT Co
ouncil appro
ove the following addition to the A
Agenda:
i) 6.4 Commun
nity Living Kincardine
K
a
and Districtt - Order of Kincardine
e.
Carried.
4.0
RY INTERE
EST AND T
THE GENE
ERAL NAT
TURE
THEREO
OF
Name
Item of
o Busines
ss
N
Nature of IInterest
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Minutes
s
Page 2 of 20
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 11, 2013
3
None dis
sclosed.
5.0
PUBLIC MEETINGS (Plannin
ng Advisory
y Committtee)
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 02
Randy Ro
Moved by:
oppel
Seconde
ed by:
Jacqueline
e Faubert
THAT Co
ouncil move
e into Plann
ning Adviso
ory Committtee to hold a public me
eeting to
discuss planning
p
ap
pplications.
Carried.
6.0
CONSID
DERATION OF BY-LA
AWS/MOTIO
ONS
6.1
R
S OF BY-LA
AWS LISTE
ED UNDER
R
SE
ECTION 6.0, CONSID
DERATION OF BY-LA
AWS/MOTIO
ONS OF TH
HE
WEDNESDA
W
AY SEPTEM
MBER 11, 2
2013 MUNIICIPALITY OF
KIINCARDINE AGENDA
A
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 03
Moved by:
C
Kenneth Craig
Seconde
ed by:
Candy He
ewitt
THAT the
e following by-laws be
e deemed to
o be read a first and ssecond time
e:
i) the “Mutu
ual Aid and Assistance
e Program A
Agreement with Ontarrio
Water/Wa
astewater Response
R
N
Network (OnWARN) B
By-law”;
king Amend
dment (9) B
By-law”.
ii) the “Trafffic and Park
Carried.
6.2
BE
EING A BY
Y-LAW TO AUTHORIZ
ZE THE SIG
GNING OF
F A MUTUA
AL
AIID AND AS
SSISTANCE
E PROGRA
AM AGREE
EMENT WIT
TH ONTAR
RIO
WATER/WA
W
ASTEWATE
ER RESPON
NSE NETW
WORK (OnW
WARN)
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 04
Moved by:
ewitt
Candy He
Seconde
ed by:
Maureen Couture
C
THAT the
e “Mutual Aid
A and Ass
sistance Pro
ogram Agre
eement with
h Ontario
Water/W
Wastewater Response Network (O
OnWARN) B
By-law” be deemed to be
read a th
hird time, fin
nally passed
d and numb
bered as By-law No. 2
2013 - 116.
Carried.
6.3
BE
EING A BY
Y-LAW TO AMEND BY
Y-LAW NO
O. 2009-006
6 - BEING A
BY
Y-LAW TO
O REGULAT
TE TRAFFIIC AND PA
ARKING IN THE
MUNICIPALITY OF KIN
NCARDINE
E
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Minutes
s
Page 3 of 20
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 11, 2013
3
This ame
endment to the Parking By-law iss being pressented for cconsideratio
on,
as recom
mmended by
y the OPP, Administra
ative Fire C
Chief and otther staff, in
n
light of th
he Joint Review Panell hearing fo
or the Deep Geologic R
Repository. It
restricts parking
p
on parts of La
ambton Stre
eet and Sau
ugeen Stree
et for the
schedule
ed period off the hearin
ng plus addi
ditional dayss to ensure the time fra
ame
of the he
earing is cov
vered.
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 05
Moved by:
Maureen Couture
C
Seconde
ed by:
Kenneth Craig
C
THAT the
e “Traffic and Parking Amendme nt (9) By-la
aw” be deem
med to be rread
a third tim
me, finally passed
p
and
d numbered
d as By-law
w No. 2013 - 117.
Carried.
6.4
Co
ommunity Living Kin
ncardine & District
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 06
Moved by:
C
Maureen Couture
Seconde
ed by:
Kenneth Craig
C
WHEREA
AS Commu
unity Living Kincardine
e and Districct will celeb
brate its 50tth
anniversary in our community
c
on Septem
mber 14, 201
13;
AND WH
HEREAS Co
ommunity Living
L
Kinca
ardine and District hass evolved in
nto
providing
g a growing
g range of inclusive se
ervices available to he
elp individua
als
with spec
cial needs, as well as their familie
es, and havve enabled their clients to
realize th
heir full pote
ential within
n the comm
munity of Kin
ncardine an
nd District;
NOW TH
HEREFORE
E BE IT RESOLVED T
THAT Comm
munity Livin
ng Kincardine
& Districtt be conferrred with the
e Order of K
Kincardine to show ou
ur community's
support for
f all that itt does and continues tto do in the
e Municipaliity of
Kincardin
ne and surrrounding arrea.
Carried.
7.0
COMMIT
TTEE OF THE
T
WHOLE (all de
eard follow
wing
relevantt reports)
7.1
Move Into Committee
C
of the Who
ole
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 07
Kenneth Craig
Moved by:
C
ed by:
Jacqueline
e Faubert
Seconde
That Cou
d upon com
mpletion retu
urn
to Counc
cil.
Council Minutes
Page 4 of 20
Carried.
Councillor Couture assumed the Chair.
7.2
Building and Planning
(A)
PL 2013-11
Subject: Road Dedication By-Law- Various locations
Attachments: None noted.
Report Summary: Request for road dedication by-law for various road
widenings to allow the properties legal status of fronting on a maintained
public highway. Also requesting that future housekeeping road widening
dedication by-laws be part of the consent agenda process.
Origin: Legal Correspondence
Existing Policy: Road Dedication By-Laws
Analysis: Ongoing correspondence has been received by the Building and
Planning Department regarding various road widening during land sale
transactions. A by-law will allow the properties legal status of fronting on a
maintained public highway.
In 2006 properties in the Municipality were converted to the new electronic
registration system which gave each property including roads a PIN number.
Road widenings that have not previously been dedicated can be dedicated by
by-law using the PIN number. By using the PIN we are able to dedicate the
entire road widening as opposed to individual parts.
Most roads involve parts on reference plans; however, some road widenings
date back to the time before reference plans were required; therefore,
instrument numbers for the deeds can be used.
I am requesting the following properties be dedicated as road widening by bylaw and that future requests be included on the consent agenda as the
process is standard, basic housekeeping for existing circumstances thus
allowing for a more efficient process.
(Reference plans can be viewed at the Building and Planning Department)
1. PIN 33301-0024 Southerly 17 feet of Lots 22 and 23, Concession 2
SDR. / Part 1 on 3R-4950, Part Lot 18 Concession 2 SDR.
2. PIN 33299-0003 request Part of Lot 63 and 64, Concession 2, SDR
being Part 1 on 3R-3637.
Council Minutes
Page 5 of 20
3. PIN 33298-0002 Part 11 on 3R-3540 (Lots 58, 59 & 60, Concession 3
NDR).
4. PIN 33292-0002 Part 11 on RP 3R-1008 (Part of Lot 9, Concession 8)
5. PIN 33291-0078 Southerly 10 feet of Lot 34, Concession 11and
southerly 10 feet of Lot 31, Concession 11.
6. PIN 33316-0106 Part 2 on 3R-8381 (Part Lots 15 and 16 W/S Adelaide
Street)
7. PIN 33292-0071 Part 8, Plan 3R-2440 (Part of Lot 13, Concession 11)
8. PIN 33292-0002 Part 10, Plan 3R-3540, (Lots 56-57, Concession 3
NDR)
9. Deed R80562 Northerly 10 feet of the Westerly Three hundred and
thirty feet of Lot 28, Concession 8
10. PIN 33297-0002 (Part 11 on 3R-2458, Part Lot 18, Concession 5)
11. PIN 33293-0640, Part 9 on 3R-1828 (Part Lot 47 & 48, RP 3R-7935
Part 1)
12. PIN 33287-0348, Part 4& 5 3R-1198, (Part Lot F, G, Concession 3)
13. PIN 33276-0064 Sprucedale Cr PL 770; Part Lot 51-53 Con Lake
Range or Con A Bruce as in R65682; Kincardine
14. PIN 33293-0333 Part 3 on 3R-2441(Part of Lot 2, Concession 10)
15. 15.PIN 33302-0022 Part 8 Plan 3R-4245 (Lot 28, Concession 2 NDR)
Considerations: N/A
Financial Considerations: Legal Fees associated with registration of bylaws
Options:
1. THAT Council grant approval for the road dedication by-laws
as presented AND FURTHER allow future requests to be
included on the consent agenda for consideration.
2. THAT Council grant approval for the road dedication by-laws
and any future requests will be presented to Council by
report.
3. THAT Council not grant approval at this time.
Council Minutes
Page 6 of 20
Preferred Option: #1 to grant approval for the dedications as presented and
allow future dedications be considered on the consent agenda to allow for a
more efficient process.
C O W RECOMMENDATION - Option 1 to be considered at the September
18, 2013 Council meeting
Deputy Mayor Eadie assumed the Chair.
7.3
Corporate Services
(A)
TRE 2013-14
Subject: Consolidated Water Rates for Tiverton and Kincardine Systems
Attachments: Powerpoint Presentation
Report Summary: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with
options on blending the water rates for the Tiverton and Kincardine water
systems, as per resolution 08/14/13-08.
At the August 7, 2013 Council meeting, staff has been directed to develop a
proposal for consolidating the Kincardine and Tiverton water rates. The
proposal includes freezing the Tiverton rates, both fixed and consumption,
until Kincardine rates move into range of fairness for both water systems
within 3 % for average user across the board.
Council is presented with 5 possible options.
Origin: Resolution # 03/20/13-07, 08/14/13-08, 2011 Hemson Study
Existing Policy: Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA); O. Reg 453/07
Analysis: In August 2013, staff had prepared a report to Council (TRE-201309) presenting several options in consolidating the Tiverton and Kincardine
water rates. Based on the direction provided to staff at this meeting, five
revised options are being presented to Council. Each of these options
includes freezing Tiverton’s fixed and metered water rates until such time that
Kincardine’s rates move into a range of fairness within 3% for the average
user.
The options are presented in detail in the attached presentation, and are
summarized below:
Council Minutes
Page 7 of 20
1) Option 1: Implement the same rates for Kincardine users as in the
original 2011 Hemson Study, and consolidate the rates in 2021
This option continues to implement the rate increases that would otherwise
occur in the absence of consolidation, in accordance with the original study.
A range of fairness is achieved in year 2020, with the average Kincardine
household paying $700/year compared to $721 for Tiverton households ($21
difference = 3%).
In 2021, the rates would be consolidated. These rates have not been
calculated, as by that time the capital expenditures and connection and
consumption assumptions would need to be reevaluated. It is recommended
that the assumptions used in the rate calculation model be reviewed after 5
years.
If this option is selected, the consolidated rate would need to be determined
for the years 2021 and beyond at a later date.
This option was presented under two alternative scenarios: (A) Using original
connection and consumption patterns using 2011 data, and (B) Using revised
connection and consumption patterns using 2013 data
Under Scenario A, the impact of freezing the Tiverton rates results in a
funding shortfall of $232K, which increases to $875K under Scenario B.
This shortfall would need to be recovered in 2021 and future years through
additional rate increases.
Staff does not recommend Option 1, as it does not support the full-cost
recovery model.
2) Option 2: Accelerated metered rates using original consumption
and connection data
This option uses the original consumption and connection data. It does not
account for the negative impact of the decreased water connections of 4,531
from 2011 to 4,482 in 2013, or the decreased annual consumption of 964,400
m3 to 880,000 m3.
Under this option, Kincardine flat rates would remain as per the original study
with 3-4% annual increases. The metered rates for Kincardine would increase
at an accelerated rate of 4-5% annually, as opposed to the 1-2% rate
increases per annum in the original study.
Council Minutes
Page 8 of 20
household paying $721/year which is equivalent to the average Tiverton
household of $721/year.
As with Option 1, a new consolidated rate would need to be established for
the years 2021 and beyond using more relevant data at that time.
As this option uses original assumptions for connections and consumption
patterns, this option will create a revenue shortfall in the long term. The
increase in Kincardine’s metered rate offsets the impact of freezing Tiverton’s
rates over the 7-year period. However, by not incorporating the most relevant
data, the reserve fund contributions will remain at lower than required levels.
Staff does not recommend Option 2, as it does not support the full-cost
recovery model.
3) Option 3: Accelerated metered rates using recent consumption
and connection data
This option uses more recent 2013 consumption and connection data. The
rates were determined in the original study using 4,532 connections and
annual consumption of 964,400 m3. Recent data has shown that these
numbers are inflated, and actual connections are only 4,482 and consumption
is only 880,000 m3 per annum.
Option 3 incorporates these revised figures into the analysis, which therefore
ensures that rates are set at appropriate levels to maintain adequate reserve
fund contributions throughout 2014 – 2020.
Kincardine metered rates will increase by an accelerated rate of ~ 5%
annually (vs. 1-2% per original study) throughout 2014 – 2018
household paying $707/year compared to $721 for Tiverton households
(difference of $14/year = 2%)
Upon consolidation in 2019, the metric charge continues to increase by ~ 5%,
and the fixed fee increases by 7% in 2019 and 4% in 2020
There is no projected funding shortfall under this option
Users would experience a slight spike in 2019 upon consolidation, as the
annual household charge increases by 7% over the preceding year
Over the 7-year period (2014 – 2020), the average Kincardine household
would experience a cumulative increase of $294, or $3.50/month in
comparison to the rates that would be otherwise set based on the 2011 study
Council Minutes
Page 9 of 20
Staff feels this is a reasonable option, as it supports the full-cost recovery
model and encompasses the most updated consumption and connection
data.
4) Option 4: Accelerated metered and flat rates using recent
consumption and connection data
As with the previous option 3, this option also uses more recent 2013
consumption and connection data and therefore ensures reserve fund
contributions are maintained at adequate levels.
This option compensates for the freeze in Tiverton’s rates by gradually
smoothing out this funding shortfall over the 7-year period. The flat fee rate
increases begin at 5% in 2014 and then gradually decline by 0.5% per year
until the range of fairness is achieved in 2018. At this time, the average
Kincardine household is paying $714/year compared to $721/year for Tiverton
households (difference of $7/year = 1%)
Upon consolidation, the flat fee increases at 3.5% over each of 2019 and
2020. The metered rate also increases steadily by ~ $0.05/m3 per year.
Over the 7-year period (2014 – 2020), the average Kincardine household
would experience a cumulative increase of $298, or $3.55 per month in
comparison to the rates that would be otherwise set based on the 2011 study
Staff feels this is also a reasonable option, as it supports the full-cost recovery
model and encompasses the most updated consumption and connection
data. This option also results in the smoothest rate increases over time, and
avoids any significant spikes in rates over the 7-years.
5) Option 5: Accelerated metered and 5% flat rate increases using
recent consumption and connection data
This option is very similar to Option 4 above, with a few variations in the rate
increase methodology used
This option also uses recent consumption and connection data and therefore
ensures adequate reserve fund contributions are maintained.
The monthly flat rate increases at 5% each year, while the metered rates
increase by 2-4% per year until the rates are consolidated in 2019
A range of fairness is achieved in 2018, where the average Kincardine
household is paying $700/year compared to $721 for Tiverton households
(difference of $21/year = 3%)
Council Minutes
Page 10 of 20
The new consolidated rate in 2019 will result in a metered rate of $1.02/m3,
which represents a $0.10/m3 increase over 2018. The increase in the flat rate
will then be reduced from 5% to 4% in 2019 and 3.5% in 2020.
Over the 7-year period, the average Kincardine household would experience
a cumulative increase of $244, or $2.90/month when compared to the original
study.
This is also a reasonable option, as it supports the full-cost recovery model
and encompasses the most updated consumption and connection data.
Recommendation - Staff is recommending Option 4 for the following
reasons:




It supports the full-cost recovery model and encompasses the most
updated consumption and connection data
It results in the smoothest rate increases over time, and avoids any
significant spikes in rates over the 7-years
The range of fairness prior to consolidation is minimal, with an annual
difference of only $7 (1%)
Maintains sufficient reserve fund contribution levels which will ensure
that future funding is available for capital upgrades and maintenance
The increase in water rates being proposed is not solely caused by blending
the rates of the 2 systems. It is also caused by adjusting for known reductions
in consumption levels and connections. If consumption patterns were
disregarded, as in Option 2, the rates for Kincardine would only increase by
an aggregate of $81 over 7 years ($11.50/year) to compensate for freezing
the Tiverton rates. If Option 2 were selected, a significantly higher rate
increase would be required in 2021 and future years (once the rates are
consolidated) to compensate for the decreased funding generated by reduced
consumption and connections.
Under any of the options presented, the rates should be reviewed after 5
years to ensure the assumptions remain valid. For the purposes of this
analysis, rates have not been calculated for years beyond 2020 due to the
difficulty in estimating future capital expenditure requirements and connection
and consumption data. A future study will need to be conducted to set any
rates for the years 2021 and beyond.
Significant resources had been invested in the 2011 Hemson study. Rates
were calculated based on a full-cost recovery model, taking into account the
required reserve fund levels. Moving away from this model would be a step
backwards, and for this reason, Options 1 and 2 are not supported by staff
Council Minutes
Page 11 of 20
due to the potentially significant funding shortfalls that will likely be generated
as a result.
Considerations: Complying With The Strategy Of “Assuring Responsible
And Sustainable Management Of Municipal Financial Resources.
Financial Considerations: As discussed in the report.
Options:
1. Implement the same rates for Kincardine users as in the
original 2011 Hemson Study, and consolidate the rates in
2021
2. Accelerated metered rates using original consumption and
connection data
3. Accelerated metered rates using recent consumption and
connection data
4. Accelerated metered and flat rates using recent consumption
and connection data
5. Accelerated metered and 5% flat rate increases using recent
consumption and connection data
Preferred Option: Option 4
Committee discussed the various options. It was noted the Tiverton
Ratepayers Association has requested this matter be deferred to October 16
meeting so they can speak to the report.
C O W RECOMMENDATION - defer to October 16, 2013 meeting
Councillor Roppel left the meeting at this point.
7.4
Other Areas of Responsibilities
(A)
PW 2013-12
Subject: Connaught Sanitary Drainage Area
Attachments: None noted.
Report Summary: The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of:
 the inflow/infiltration issues with the Huron Ridge subdivision waste
water collection system,
Council Minutes
Page 12 of 20
 the impact that this may have on the overall municipal
collection/pumping/treatment system,
 the corrective/rehab work done to date,
 implementing a disconnection program (mandatory or voluntary) for
private drain connections to the sanitary laterals, and
 recommend a phased implementation for inflow/infiltration reduction,
with an initial focus on those properties located and identified within the
Huron Ridge sub-division of the Connaught Sanitary Drainage Area.
Origin: At the request of the Council, Resolution #06/19/13-05:
“THAT Council confirm staff direction of 2011, as set out in Resolution #
10/19/11 - 05, in regards to mandatory disconnect program as per Report PW
2013-07”.
Resolution #10/19/11-05:
“That in regards to the Connaught Sanitary Drainage area Council approves
the following:
That the Public Works Manager continue with the reconstruction of the streets
in the Huron Ridge Subdivision with Inverlyn Crescent North, Wilson and
Riggin Crescent to be included in the 2012 budget;
That Council defer passing a by-law making it mandatory to disconnect the
footing drains from the sanitary sewers in the Huron Ridge Subdivision;
That staff prepare a report for Council providing the details of an enforced
Mandatory Disconnect Program and recommendations on possible municipal
subsidies for the work on private property.”
Existing Policy: Sewer Use By-law # 92-22, Township of Kincardine
Analysis: Since 2008, after Council’s direction, the Municipality has
proceeded with a planned and staged Reconstruction Program for the Huron
Ridge Subdivision, to address sewage back up, basement flooding and
inefficient/improper surface drainage.
Reconstruction Program Drivers:
This reconstruction program was driven by sewage back up and basement
flooding along Golf Course Trail and Saugeen Street in 2006. Another driver
was the inefficient/improper surface drainage in the area.
The sewage back up and flooding is due to:
1) Inflow into the sanitary sewer system. This is due to footing drains,
sump pumps and eaves troughs connected to the sanitary sewers.
And,
2) Infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. This is due to cracks, leaky
joints etc. in the sanitary pipes.
Council Minutes
Page 13 of 20
Typically basement flooding occurs at the lower reaches of the sewer
drainage area as the inflow/infiltration contributions from each property
accumulate from the top end of the drainage area to the bottom. Properties
unaffected by basement flooding in the higher reaches of the drainage shed
contribute to basement flooding of properties in the lower reaches of the
same drainage area as the extra flow makes it way down through the system.
Wet weather conditions also add to this problem.
Reconstruction Program Scope:
The reconstruction program includes new roadway cross section complying
with urban standards of sidewalks, curb and gutter and perforated storm
sewer.
The perforated storm drains have been installed to control shallow ground
water levels in this area and to intercept the inflow of drainage from lands to
the east. Also, these storm drains will provide benefit in that an outlet for
sump pumps/footing drains and inefficient/improper surface drainage will be
provided. All these initiatives mitigate infiltration, to some extent. Lateral lining
is also effective in addressing infiltration issues from leaking or compromised
mains and laterals.
Some inflow mitigation work has been completed in the form of disconnecting
catch basin leads. Any additional work to control inflow was deferred.
In general and typically, inflow remediation measures focus on disconnection
of any direct connections of foundation drains, downspouts and area lot
drains from the sanitary sewer system on each individual property. A sump
pump chamber is constructed in the basement or outside with discharge to
the surface designed to flow away from the residence or building. The sump
can also be connected to the storm sewer.
Staff has identified the number and location of private drain connections to
the sanitary lateral. These private drain connections have been identified as a
source of inflow that is contributing significantly to total wastewater volumes in
the Municipality’s sewer system. Excessive wastewater flows lead to:
• Sanitary Sewer Overflows,
• Sewer backflows onto private property,
• Increased maintenance and treatment costs,
• Unnecessary high costs for conveyance and treatment infrastructure
upgrades
The options to correct this identified anomaly is:
1. Municipality of Kincardine (MoK) may fund (partly or wholly) work to
disconnect private drain connections
Council Minutes
Page 14 of 20
2. Alternatively, MoK may employ regulatory mechanisms to have
homeowners disconnect, as per Section 2 of by-law # 92-22, Township
of Kincardine
These private drain connection arrangements have been around for a number
of years now, and in most cases, since the houses were built.
In order to encourage homeowners to comply with existing bylaws,
homeowners must be adequately informed of the existence of these bylaws
(and why they exist), and may require incentives to encourage compliance.
Two of the incentives options are:
 Subsidising the cost of the disconnect and making it mandatory
 Subsidising the cost of the disconnect and not making it mandatory.
This would involve a comprehensive public outreach and education
program so that the homeowners are made aware of the adverse
impact of the current arrangements and are willing to get on board with
this program, along with their portion of the cost
In principle, the Municipality of Kincardine has been subsidising this additional
cost of waste water conveyance, treatment and loss of conveyance and
treatment capacity. As a test, staff recorded the volume of storm water from a
footing drain during a rain event. The volume was measured to be 9,000
liters/day. There are about 180 properties in the Huron Ridge subdivision that
have their drains discharging into the sanitary laterals. With an estimate of
150 days in a year when precipitation (rain, snow)/snow melt occurs, the
amount of storm water discharged into the sanitary laterals per year in the
Huron Ridge subdivision equals:
9000*180*150 = 243,000,000 liters or 243 mega liters (ML)
According to our annual Municipal Performance Management Program report,
it costs around $360/ML for wastewater collection/conveyance, treatment and
disposal, which translates into roughly $88,000/year in additional costs due to
the inflow from 180 properties in the Huron Ridge subdivision. The
Municipality of Kincardine’s waste water system users have been, and will be
paying this cost, if inflow control measures are not adopted.
In light of the above mentioned reasons, option # 1 would seem more
reasonable than option #2 and subsidizing of the eligible work for private
drain disconnection work would be appropriate.
The eligible work will be:
 Disconnect private drain from the sanitary lateral,
 Install sump pump (inside or outside), and
 Discharge the sump pump into the storm pipe
The eligible work would not cover:
Council Minutes
Page 15 of 20




Replacement of existing sump pump
Upgrade of sump pump
Addition of another sump pump
Installation of a sump pump when foundation drains are already
separated from floor drain or sanitary sewer
 Work performed for which a building permit or a road cut permit (for
connection to the storm drain) cannot be obtained
Subsidy Requirements:
 The eligible work is only for the residents of Huron Ridge subdivision
 The applicant does not have any outstanding amount owing, i.e. tax
arrears
 All eligible work MUST be performed by a contractor/licensed plumber
or master plumber,
 Any work performed by a homeowner themselves DOES NOT qualify
for subsidy
The homeowner will approach Public Works with a plan to complete the
eligible work. After verifying the compliance of the plan with the above
requirements, Public Works would approve the plan and the homeowner’s
qualification for the subsidy. Subsidy payment would be done after receiving
and verifying the appropriate invoices.
Other Considerations:
It is noted in this report that developing and implementing an overall municipal
wide strategy for inflow/infiltration reduction will satisfy the provincial
requirements for asset management and self-sustainability for water and
waste water systems, as appropriate deficiencies can be qualified and
quantified. This overall strategy will include inflow/infiltration reduction
priorities, targets, timelines, tactics and initiatives and associated
implementation costs. The costs will be funded through the development of
appropriate waste water rates.
Staff will be developing the strategy and update Council.
Considerations:
Municipal Operations and Community Leadership – Assure responsible and
sustainable management of municipal infrastructure and financial resources.
Environmental Stewardship – Increase citizen awareness and action to
reduce impacts on the environment.
Create awareness of the connections between environment, society, culture
and economy.
Council Minutes
Page 16 of 20
Financial Considerations: As noted in the options, depending on the option
chosen by Council, the financial consideration may vary.
There are about 180 properties that would involve disconnect. The cost for
complete disconnect and private property restoration per property would vary.
The best estimate is around $7,000 per disconnect. This cost may vary due to
the basement depth, the kind of private property preparatory and restoration
work etc. For the purpose of this report, $7,000 has been used as the cost to
disconnect per property.
The total cost of private drain disconnection would be around $1.3 million.
Options:
1. Proceed with the eligible work for mandatory disconnect with
a maximum subsidy of $2,000 to the residents, with
complete funding from waste water reserves. This amount of
subsidy is fairly common in cases where other municipalities
have addressed the issue of private drain connections and
this amount is sufficient to cover the cost of constructing the
sump pump pit and sump pump installation, excluding the
cost of any other private property restoration. Roughly 30
properties will be identified and notified each year. The total
cost would be around $360,000. Approximately $72,000 per
year would need to be budgeted starting 2014 and up to
2018. Council should note that as a result of acquisition of
BEC waste water treatment plant and collection system in
2012, staff is already engaged in the exercise to determine if
this may impact the 2014 (and beyond) waste water rates.
Staff will include the project in this exercise and the 2014
(and beyond) rates will be adjusted, if needed.
2. Proceed with the eligible work for mandatory disconnect with
a maximum subsidy of 50% of the cost of the eligible work
up to a maximum of $3,500 to the residents, with complete
funding from waste water reserves. Roughly 30 properties
will be identified and notified each year. The total cost would
be around $630,000. Approximately $130,000 per year
would need to be budgeted starting 2014 and up to 2018.
Council should note that as a result of acquisition of BEC
waste water treatment plant and collection system in 2012,
staff is already engaged in the exercise to determine if this
may impact the 2014 (and beyond) waste water rates. Staff
will include the project in this exercise and the 2014 (and
beyond) rates will be adjusted, if needed.
3. Council provide other direction for subsidy share.
Preferred Option: Option #1
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Minutes
s
Pag
ge 17 of 20
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 11, 2013
3
Date to be
b conside
ered by Co
ouncil: Sep
ptember 18,, 2013
CAO’s Comments
C
: I concur
Delegatiions: Jim Bagshaw
B
Mr. Bags
shaw addre
essed the Committee
C
o
on matters relating to tthe sanitaryy
drainage
e area and the
t mandattory disconn
nect propossal. He outtlined conce
erns
that Huro
on Ridge re
esidents are
e upset as n
no notice of the matter was provided
to them and
a Counciil needs a complete
c
an
nd accurate
e assessme
ent of all
potential causes forr the sewag
ge flooding before makking a decission on the
issue. He
H noted concurrence with
w reducing ground water inflow
w to the
sanitary sewer syste
em is the right thing to
o do.
Committe
ee memberrs enquired
d on the histtory of the issue, how it develope
ed
and why it was not addressed
a
during the constructio
on. Discusssion took pllace
nal information and ne
ext steps.
on securring addition
C O W RECOMME
R
NDATION - invite BM Ross to meeting to m
make
presenta
ation, within the month dependentt on their avvailability, w
with Council
members
s to submit in advance
e any questtions they h
have so ansswers can b
be
provided at the mee
eting
Committe
ee of the Whole
W
return
ned to Coun
ncil.
8.0
MATTER
RS ARISIN
NG FROM COMMITT
TEE OF T
THE WHOL
LE PLANN
NING
ADVISORY COMM
MITTEE /CO
OMMITTEE OF THE W
WHOLE
8.1
Pe
eter McDonald - Partt Lot 28, Co
oncession A 261 Bru
uce Road 2
23
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 08
Moved by:
C
Kenneth Craig
Seconde
ed by:
Jacqueline
e Faubert
THAT Co
ouncil supp
port the Plan
nning Advissory Comm
mittee recom
mmendation
n to
adopt an
n Official Pla
an Amendm
ment and th
hat the adop
pted Amend
dment toge
ether
with supp
porting doc
cumentation
n be forward
ded to the C
County of B
Bruce Appro
oval
Authority
y for final ap
pproval, forr the lands d
described a
as Part of L
Lot 28,
Concess
sion ‘A’, Municipality off Kincardine
e (geographic Townsh
hip of
Kincardin
ne) to remo
ove the ‘Significant Wo
oodlands’ O
Overlay on a portion off the
lands and adjustme
ent to the bo
oundaries o
of the Naturral Environm
ment
designated lands;
AND FURTHER TH
HAT Counciil support th
he Planning
g Advisory C
Committee
endation to defer theirr recommen
ndation to re
ezone the llands descrribed
recomme
as Part of
o Lot 28, Concession
C
‘A’, Municip
pality of Kin
ncardine (geographic
Township
p of Kincard
dine) to ‘Re
esidential O
One Special’ to permit the creation of
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Minutes
s
Pag
ge 18 of 20
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 11, 2013
3
three res
sidential lots
s until further consulta
ation with Saugeen Va
alley
Conserva
ation Autho
ority regarding the prottection of th
he dunes.
Carried.
8.2
Fiirst and Se
econd Read
dings of B y-laws Lis
sted Under Section 8.0,
Matters Aris
sing from Planning
P
A
Advisory Committee/Committee
e of
th
he Whole Wednesday
W
y Septemb er 11, 2013
3 Municipa
ality of
Kiincardine Agenda
A
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 09
Moved by:
Kenneth Craig
C
Seconde
ed by:
Maureen Couture
C
THAT the
d
econd time:
i) the “Amend
dment to Co
omprehenssive Zoning
g By-law 2003-25, Partt of
Lot 35, Con
ncession 6,, Municipaliity of Kincardine (geog
graphic
Township of
o Bruce), By-law”.
B
Carried..
8.3
BE
EING A BY
Y-LAW TO AMEND ZO
ONING BY
Y-LAW NO. 2003-25,
BE
EING THE COMPREH
HENSIVE Z
ZONING BY
Y-LAW FOR THE
MUNICIPALITY OF KIN
NCARDINE
E 1154499 O
Ontario Ltd. (Ferris
Fa
arms) Part of Lot 35, Concessio
on 6, Muniicipality off Kincardin
ne
(g
geographic
c Township
p of Bruce))
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 10
Moved by:
ewitt
Candy He
Seconde
ed by:
Maureen Couture
C
THAT the
e “Amendm
ment to Com
mprehensivve Zoning B
By-law 2003
3-25, Part o
of
Lot 35, Concession
C
6, Municip
pality of Kinccardine (ge
eographic T
Township off
Bruce), By-law”
B
be deemed
d
to be read a tthird time, ffinally passsed and
numbere
ed as By-law
w No. 2013
3 - 118.
Carried.
9.0
MEMBER
NNOUNCEMENTS
Councillo
or Faubert - Walker Ho
ouse conce
ert Septemb
ber 12 and their Annua
al
Fall Feas
st Septemb
ber 29
Councillo
or Hewitt - BASWR
B
Fo
ood Drive S
September 1
17 & 18 for Kincardine
e
Councillo
or Coristine
e - Kathryn Soloduka’s
S
s recognition by Lieute
enant
Governor of Ontario
o for work in
n dog thera
apy program
m
TH
UNICIPA
ALITY OF
F KINCA
ARDINE
Coun
ncil Minutes
s
Pag
ge 19 of 20
Wednesda
ay Septemb
ber 11, 2013
3
Deputy Mayor
M
Eadie
e - Deep Geologic Re pository Jo
oint Review Panel hearing
starts next week; Co
ommunity Living’s
L
50thh anniversa
ary celebrattion Saturda
ay
evening at Davidson
n Centre; opening
o
cerremonies an
nd tour of C
Community
n
home on
o Saratoga Road nexxt Tuesdayy
Living’s new
10.0
D SESSION
N IF REQUIIRED
CLOSED
10.1
Move into Closed
C
Session
1/13 - 11
Resolutiion # 09/11
Jacqueline
Moved by:
e Faubert
Seconde
ed by:
Kenneth Craig
C
THAT Co
ouncil move
e into close
ed session tto considerr a proposed or pendin
ng
acquisitio
on or disposition of lan
nd by the m
municipality or local board (Annexx);
AND FURTHER TH
HAT Counciil return to rregular ope
en meeting upon
completio
on.
Carried.
11.0
MATTER
RS ARISING
G FROM CLOSED
C
SE
ESSION
None.
12.0
SCHEDU
ULING OF MEETINGS
S
12.1 Co
ouncil Mee
etings
September 18, 2013
3
Regula
ar Council
October 2,
2 2013
Regula
ar Council
October 9,
9 2013
Planning/Corpora
ate Servicess
October 16,
1 2013
ar Council
Regula
Novembe
er 6, 2013
Regula
ar Council
12.2 No
otice of Pu
ublic and Special
S
Mee
etings
None notted.
13.0
ADJOUR
RNMENT
Resolutiion # 09/11
1/13 - 12
Maureen Couture
Moved by:
C
Seconde
ed by:
Candy He
ewitt
a
at 8:06
8
p.m.
Carried.
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
5:00
0 p.m.
Council Minutes
Page 20 of 20
__________________________
Mayor
__________________________
Clerk
Consent Agenda
1.
Page 1 of 2
ACCOUNTS
None Noted
2.
MOTIONS
None Noted
3.
BY-LAWS
3.1
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NO. 2013-110 - BEING A BYLAW TO TEMPORARILY CLOSE STREETS TO FACILITATE THE 2013
KINCARDINE ROTARY CLUB WALK/RUN Note: Rotary Club has requested to extend the route of the Kincardine
Rotary Club Walk/Run THAT the “Kincardine Rotary Club Walk/Run (2013) Road Closure Amendment
By-law” be deemed to be read three times and finally passed and numbered as
By-law No. 2013 - 119.
4.
STATISTICAL REPORTS
4.1
4.2
Financial Statements for the period ending July 31, 2013.
Councillor Craig Re: 2013 Association of Municipalities of Ontario Annual
General Meeting
Request to receive and file statistical reports. 5.
MINUTES OF COMMITTEES AND BOARDS
5.1
Kincardine Police Services Board – June 11, 2013
Request to receive and file minutes.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS
6.1
Associations of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Re: Various items of
correspondence received:
a)
AMO Watch File – August 29, 2013. (A01)
b)
AMO Watch File – September 6, 2013. (A01)
c)
What’s on the program – AMO Counties, Regions and Single Tier
(CRST) Symposium. (A01)
Consent Agenda
Page 2 of 2
d)
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
Protection the OMERS Pension Plan: What Does Tomorrow
Demand from Us Today? session. (A01)
e)
AMO Watch File – September 12, 2013
f)
AMO Report to Members highlights of the August 2013 Board
Meeting. (A01)
Grey Bruce Health Unit (GBHU) Re: Public assistance request in finding
the owner of a dog involved in a biting incident that occurred in Medford.
(S01)
Michigan State University, Center for Community and Economic
Development Re: Bi-National Blue Water Regional Collaboration
Conference. (A04.
Bruce Area Solid Waste Recycling (BASWR) Re: 16th Annual Food Drive.
(W07)
Bob Chiarelli Minister of Energy Re: 2013 Association of Municipalities of
Ontario (AMO) Annual Conference in Ottawa and announcement of the
new Municipal Energy Plan (MEP) program. (M04)
Royal Canadian Legion Re: Branch 183 Activities Views & Reflections
September/October 2013 publication. N.B. Publication available in
Clerk’s Dept. (A01)
Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel Re: Public Hearing
schedule for Deep Geologic Repository Project. ((A01)
Ministry of the Environment Re: 2013 Minister’s award for Environmental
Excellence. (A20)
Ontario Clean Air Alliance Re: Speak up for a smarter-and cheaperenergy plan. (A01)
The City of Barrie Re: “Culture Grows Here” arts and culture event.
(M04)
Kincardine Rotary Club Re: 32st Annual TV Auction. (M03)
Bruce County Historical Society Re: Bruce County Historical Notes
Volume 55 No. 2 September 2013. (T03)
John Peevers, Bruce Power Re: Changes to ensure site is safer and
stronger. (A01)
2013 Chantry Chinook Classic Salmon Derby Re: Thank you for
sponsorship and support. (T00)
Jutta Splettstoesser Re: Burying Nuclear Waste International Experience,
International Perspective event. (A01)
Request to receive and file all communications and e-mails.
NO. 2013 -
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NO. 2013-110 - BEING A BY-LAW TO
TEMPORARILY CLOSE STREETS TO FACILITATE
THE 2013 KINCARDINE ROTARY CLUB WALK/RUN
WHEREAS Section 11 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as
amended, provides that a lower-tier municipality may pass by-laws, respecting
matters within the sphere of jurisdiction of highways, including parking and traffic
on highways;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to the said Municipal Act, 2001, Section 8 (1) and 9
provide that the powers of a municipality under this or any other Act shall be
interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to enable
the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance
the municipality’s ability to respond to municipal issues and has the capacity,
rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its
authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to the said Municipal Act, 2001, Section 35 authorizes
municipalities to pass by-laws removing or restricting the common law right of
passage by the public over a highway;
AND WHEREAS the Kincardine Rotary Club Walk/Run organizing committee
has requested to amend the route that was approved by By-law 2013-110;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Kincardine ENACTS as follows:
1.
That By-law No. 2013-110 be amended to include that portion of
Penetangore Row from Bruce Ave. to Saratoga Road and all of Goderich
Street from the boardwalk to the southerly limits of the municipality, be
closed to all vehicular traffic, other than those vehicles authorized by the
organizers, on Saturday, October 5, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for
the purpose of holding the Kincardine Rotary Club Walk/Run.
2.
This by law shall come into full force and effect upon its final passage.
3.
This by-law may be cited as the "Kincardine Rotary Club Walk/Run (2013)
Road Closure Amendment By-law".
READ a FIRST and SECOND time this 18th day of September, 2013.
Mayor
Clerk
READ a THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED this 18th day of September, 2013.
Mayor
Clerk
Statement of Operations for the period ending Aug 31, 2013
2012 YTD Actual
2013 YTD Actual
2013 YTD Budget
2013 Approved Budget
% of Annual YTD Actual YTD Budget Budget Variance
Variance
Remaining
Revenue
Taxation Revenue
7,046,434 7,331,971 7,548,742 11,323,113
35% 285,537 (216,771)
Fees and User Charges
1,090,566 1,342,423 1,236,450 1,854,675
28% 251,857 105,973
Water and Sewer Charges
2,691,103 2,760,479 3,247,176 4,870,764
43% 69,376 (486,697)
Grants
1,152,661 1,146,414 1,129,946 1,694,919
32% (6,247) 16,468
Other Income
2,296,662 2,724,911
27% 428,249
Total Revenue
2,488,747
3,733,120
236,165
$ 14,277,427 $ 15,306,198 $ 15,651,060 $ 23,476,591
35% 1,028,771 (344,862)
214,122
460,437
548,522
290,472
69,685
184,283
1,767,520
187,888
500,022
661,616
346,133
31,221
214,637
1,941,517
302,944
462,187
1,188,991
326,797
102,133
193,008
2,576,060
454,416
693,280
1,783,486
490,196
153,200
289,512
3,864,090
59%
28%
63%
29%
80%
26%
50%
705,204
1,733,810
2,439,014
779,574
1,680,179
2,459,753
706,649
1,736,372
2,443,021
1,059,973
2,604,558
3,664,531
26% 74,370 72,925
35% (53,632) (56,193)
33% 20,739 16,732
Public Works
6,155,360
7,162,846
7,219,291
10,828,937
34% 1,007,486 (56,445)
Recreation
2,546,629
2,912,966
2,572,910
3,859,365
25% 366,337 340,056
594,452
804,517
772,445
1,158,668
31% 210,065
Expense
General Government
Council
CAO
Treasury
Clerk
Economic Development
Tourism
Protective Services
Fire
Police
Building & Planning
Total Expense
Surplus (Deficit)
$13,502,975
$15,281,599
$15,583,727
$23,375,591
$774,452
$24,599
$67,333
$101,000
(26,234)
39,585
113,095
55,661
(38,464)
30,354
173,997
(115,057)
37,835
(527,374)
19,336
(70,912)
21,629
(634,543)
32,072
35% 1,778,624 (302,129)
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Annual General Meeting August 18 – 21, 2013 Ottawa, Ontario The AMO conference provides opportunities for delegates to see, hear, and engage with senior politicians, industrial suppliers, and peers. This year’s conference theme, “Aspire to Inspire”, was used to remind all participants of their social and political responsibility to proactively lead communities. The Municipality of Kincardine met with the representatives of the Ministry of Energy on Sunday afternoon. Monday morning began with a motivational presentation from retired colonel Chris Hatfield, the recent commander of the international space station. His message dealt with the international cooperation to build and fly the space station, his awe of the earth as seen from space, and his hope for the future as humanity continues to explore space. We also heard from Kevin Lynch, an economist and secretary of the Privy Council. He spoke about the rate of economic growth in the “mature” economic regions in the world (1.5 – 2.5 %) compared to the rate of growth in the emerging economic regions (8 – 11 %) and how this would affect our ability to fund infrastructure and how we might invest in the future. He stated that “the status quo is not a good risk management strategy”. AMO provides concurrent learning sessions where political and/or industry leaders speak to the changes in various areas of community life. Innovation in Social and Community Needs: This session provided suggestions for alternative methods of financing affordable housing units. Basically, the presenters said that the municipality had to give the land to the project for free, provide all the permits for free, and then subsidize the rental rates. Other grants might be available from other levels of government to help offset costs. They were challenged that this was not particularly innovative. They recognized that the innovation might be more appropriately directed to shift social policy and community “buy in” to the value of subsidizing housing. Green Energy – Threading the Needle: Al Barfoot and Bob Pringle spoke on the successes and challenges of running an aerobic digester. The process itself works well. The generator is supplying electricity to the grid. The issue continues to be economic in nature. There is still some reluctance to pay for the by product of the digester but once that is overcome, the process will be closer to breaking even. An energy project manager from the City of Kingston spoke of the work they are doing to install solar panels on as many municipally owned city roofs as possible. Your Annual HR Update: A couple of HR specialists updated us on some of the trends in collective bargaining. They also spoke at length regarding municipal case law including examples of what management can and cannot do in disciplining and managing employees in relation to the latest human rights and civil court cases. Plastics Challenges and Opportunities: A representative from the plastics industry updated us on the economic advantages of plastics when compared to other materials when it comes to transporting, packaging, extending shelf life, and re‐
using/recycling. One feature he noted was the high energy that could be captured when plastics, that are no longer suitable for recycling or are not able to be recycled, are burned for power. The session that was by far the best attended, generated the most debate, had the participants on the edge of their seats looking for answers, was the session that addressed where we should put beer stores. The debate whether they should be retained at the Beer Store or allowed in grocery and convenience stores was extensive. The representative from the Beer Store provided lots of economic and social reasons why they should retain a monopoly on beer sales but, by and large, his arguments fell on deaf ears. Next year’s AMO annual meeting will be held in London. Social Networking Policy
COVERAGE:
This policy applies to all Municipality of Kincardine “employees” who, for
the purpose of this policy, includes all full time, part time, seasonal, casual,
students, elected officials, volunteers, firefighters, consultants, contractors
or individuals who would be in a position to represent the Municipality of
Kincardine.
PURPOSE:
Social media has become a major communications tool in the world today.
The Municipality of Kincardine recognizes the value of utilizing social
networking in the workplace as it relates to one’s job. Use of these tools
should be for purposes of improving customer service, furthering the
positive identity of the Municipality of Kincardine, and facilitating municipal
communication.
The purpose of this policy is to outline acceptable and unacceptable use of
computer equipment and other technologies by all employees of the
Municipality of Kincardine as it relates to the use of social networking or
community forum/websites (as defined below). This policy is intended to
outline the guidelines for use by employees on social networking sites both
if they have been appointed as Social Media Content Administrator and as
a general member of the public with their personal social networking
accounts, whether it’s during work hours or personal time at home. These
rules and regulations are in place for the protection of all employees and
representatives of the Municipality of Kincardine.
Employees must be aware and acknowledge that social networking sites
are accessible to anyone, regardless of the security or restriction of access
to said websites, and you may be held accountable for your conduct.
Should your conduct on these sites be associated with your workplace in
any way as a representative of the Municipality, you will be expected to
conduct yourself in accordance with this policy, any existing policies,
agreements and relevant legislation. Violation of this policy may expose
the Municipality of Kincardine to risks and legal liability, and the persons to
risk of criminal or civil liability as well as disciplinary measures up to and
including dismissal. While the Municipality respects the separation
between work and private life, it wants employees to understand that they
may be accountable for publishing information on the internet that harms
the Municipality’s interest.
Elected officials must include a disclaimer on social networking sites
indicating that their opinions are theirs only and are not representative of
the Council as a whole. All comments made shall be factual, however, if
an opinion is expressed, it shall be noted as such.
SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS
The Chief Administrative Officer shall approve the creation and use of
appropriate municipal accounts for municipal departments that wish to
utilize social networking. The Chief Administrative Officer shall appoint
“Social Media Content Administrator”.
When the use of a new social media tool is requested, the requester will be
required to provide the following supporting information to the Chief
Administrative Officer:
a) The need for the specific tool/why it is required;
b) The added benefits of using the tool;
c) The required training to ensure that posted content is consistent with
corporate messaging and standards;
d) Details on how the use of the new tool will not interfere with the
credibility of the Municipality of Kincardine’s’ other established social
media sites;
e) Required staff resources to establish and maintain the new account.
Current departments or areas utilizing social networking sites are:
Kincardine Tourism
Kincardine Parks and Recreation
Business Improvement Area
Kincardine Emergency Services
Kincardine Airport
Kincardine Doors Open
Heritage Kincardine
In the event of a municipal emergency or in circumstances where social
networking would be useful in disseminating important community
messages, approved messaging will be issued by the Chief Administrative
Officer or in accordance with the communication protocols of the
Municipality of Kincardine Emergency Response Plan.
DEFINTION:
Social networking and Community Forums/Websites – Online sites or
internet communities where people can come together, post information,
attachments, videos or images, build community knowledge, discuss issues
and socially interact. These include, but are not limited to:
 Blogs;
 Bulletin boards;
 Chat rooms;









Discussion groups;
Instant messaging;
Mailing lists;
Photo/Video sites e.g. “YouTube”, “Flickr”;
Social Networking sites e.g. “Facebook, MySpace, Google +”;
Wikis;
Professional networking sites such as Linkedln;
Twitter;
Or any other online medium similar in nature to the above.
BEST PRACTICES
The following outlines the Municipality of Kincardine social media
guidelines – recommendations and best practices to guide employees
when participating in social networking, whether it’s at work as an
appointed Social Media Content Administrator or on your own time on your
personal social media accounts if it relates to the Municipality of
Kincardine. These guidelines are aimed to provide helpful, practical advice
and help set expectations for conduct online.
1. You are personally responsible for the content you provide and how
you conduct yourself online. Be authentic, factual and respectful at
all times. Use your real identity. Provide informed, well-supported
opinions and cite sources, if applicable. Though social media sites
are a more casual form of communication, be sure to remain
professional and use a positive tone of voice. Be respectful of our
colleagues, the Corporation and our clients.
2. Be aware of the laws covering defamation, financial disclosure,
privacy and Council closed session rules.
3. Always be professional, avoid speaking negatively. Do not engage in
inflammatory or inappropriate discussions about the Municipality.
Instead, highlight the strengths of the Municipality. Do not cite or
reference clients, partners or suppliers without their approval. When
you do make a reference, wherever possible, link back to the source.
A better practice would be to avoid these types of discussions.
4. Avoid engaging in online disputes with your audience. Don’t use
slurs, personal insults or obscenities, and always respect privacy
concerns. Avoid language that may be considered objectionable or
inflammatory. Show that you have listened and be responsive. If you
disagree, respond in a professional and respectful manner. The
Social Media Content Administrator has the right to disallow
participation from users who have engaged in language as described
above.
5. Be honest. Always tell the truth. Correct any mistakes you make as
quickly as possible. Don’t alter older posts without indicating that you
have done so.
6. Add Value. Express an interesting point of view and worthwhile
information and perspective. When speaking about the Municipality,
offer your subject matter expertise.
7. Build Relationships. Focus on engagement with the audience and
building trust to develop relationships rather than using your site
solely as a marketing tool or to promote yourself.
8. Be mindful of the indefinite life of Internet postings. You should
assume that all Internet postings, including those posted on a private
forum, can be made public and searchable for a long time. Private
discussions may inadvertently or intentionally get posted publicly.
9.
Know that it’s almost impossible to completely remove information
from the web even if you “remove/delete” it from the original source.
There is no way of knowing where it may have been reposted. Also,
if you edited your original posts, there is no way to ensure that the
last post is what people will see.
10.
Review the privacy setting of the social networking site that you are
using. Understand that when your content is posted on a public
social network, all posts and comments may be traceable. Any
information that you post should be considered at risk for public
disclosure, regardless of your privacy settings since your postings
can be reposted elsewhere and may be viewed by people other than
your intended audience. Also indicate on your site when the Social
Media Content Administrator is available to respond to queries, i.e.:
Monday to Friday from 8:30am to 4:30pm, not twenty four hours per
day. The Internet Technology Coordinator shall be the keeper of all
account login and password information.
11. Be aware of global implications. Your posts can have global
significance. The way that you post information might be appropriate
in some parts of the world, but inaccurate, inappropriate or even
illegal in others. Keep that “world view” in mind when you are
participating in online conversations.
12. Employees using the Internet and/or representing the Municipality of
Kincardine as a function of their duties are expected to adhere to all
the provisions of this policy herein. It is an expectation and condition
of employment that your participation and conduct in any Social
Networking or Community forum/website will be respectful and
professional at all times.
13. Employees that are so designated by the Chief Administrative Officer
will be authorized to participate or represent their department or the
Municipality of Kincardine on aforementioned forums/websites. The
social networking website that is created for the Municipality, its
content and all those who follow it shall be the property of the
Municipality of Kincardine, not the employee.
14. Employees are encouraged not to discuss details of their “workplace”
on any Social Networking or Community forum/website. Should an
employee wish to do so, it is expected that any comments or conduct
will be respectful and positive.
15. Employee’s comments or conduct on a Social Networking sites must
not interfere with an employee’s ability to carry out their duties or
result in other employees being unwilling to work with the said
employee.
16. Employee comments or conduct on a Social Networking or
Community forum/website must not interfere with the Employer’s
ability to manage and direct the work process. This conduct would
include, but is not limited to, insolent or insubordinate comments
concerning any employee in a position or capacity of supervision in
17. When using Twitter and Facebook, appropriate and reasonable
hashtags shall be used if attempting to trend a particular topic. Social
Networking sites shall not be used to relay the same information
repeatedly and could be considered as spam.
18. The Social Media Content Administrator shall respect all copyright
laws.
19. All Municipal Social Media sites shall contain the following disclaimer:
“The Municipality of Kincardine’s (insert social media page name) page is
a place where anyone is welcome to post comments on our wall in
accordance with the guidelines below. Please keep comments
respectful. This page will be moderated between the hours of 8:30 am –
4:30 pm, Monday – Friday, excluding holidays.
The Municipality reserves the right to, without notice, remove any posts
or content that does not meet the guidelines noted below, or that is
believed to be inappropriate in the opinion of the Municipality of
Kincardine.
Posts that are not acceptable:
a) Provides the personal information of individual;
b) Promotes, perpetuates or fosters discrimination on the basis of
race, creed, colour, age, religion, gender, marital status,
nationality, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation;
c) Is profane or abusive;
d) Is sexually explicit or link to content that is sexually explicit;
e) Conducts or encourages illegal activity;
f) Is non-Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine related
business advertising and or promotions;
g) Is for the purpose of promoting a candidates for municipal,
provincial or federal election;
h) Personal attacks on individuals or specific groups;
i) Any content that is believed to be inappropriate in the opinion of
Any articles or content posted to the Municipality of Kincardine pages are
subject to public disclosure. This means that the Municipality could be
compelled to disclose information from its social networking page if it were
ever called for in connection with a matter before the courts.
Personal information, which includes your Internet Provider address, is
being collected, managed, processed and or stored by a third party service
provider and is therefore, not in the sole domain, custody and control of the
Municipality of Kincardine. Additionally, your personal information may
cross the border to a foreign jurisdiction and will therefore, be subject to the
governing laws of that jurisdiction.
About your privacy; When you registered for your account, you provided
personal information to the social media company. Additionally, you may
have added more information and photos to your profile. If you don’t have
your privacy setting restricted, then anyone who is a fan of our page could
potentially view some or all of your personal information. Please review
your personal privacy settings on a regular basis. If you don’t restrict them,
then you have agreed to the display and release of your personal
information
OTHER POLICIES:
1. The conduct of all employees when at work, performing duties on
behalf of the Municipality of Kincardine on or off the worksite or if you
have identified yourself as an employee of the Municipality of
Kincardine or speak about your “workplace” on a Social Networking
or Community forum/website, is both governed by, and is expected to
be in adherence with, the following (but not limited to):
*
*
*
*
*
*
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act
Tripartite Agreement
Policy GG.1.2 Citizen Complaints
Policy GG.1.3 Communications
Policy GG.4.1 Municipal Health and Safety
Municipal Act
NO. 2013 -
BEING A BYLAW TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NO. 7
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE
WHEREAS The Council of the Municipality of Kincardine, pursuant to Section 17
of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 enacts as follows:
1. That Amendment No. 7 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Kincardine,
which is attached to and forms part of this By-law, is hereby adopted.
2. That the Clerk is hereby directed to forward the adopted Amendment together
with the necessary supporting documentation to the County of Bruce for final
approval.
3. This By–law may be cited as the "OPA #7 to the Municipality of Kincardine
Official Plan By-law"
Mayor
Clerk
Mayor
Clerk
on
ne
ll D
Bruce Rd 23
Mc
C
r
Lot
Sa
nd
pip
er
Lot
Ln
Lot
Ü
0
25
50
Whipp
o o r wi
1
2
3
ll Ln
100
Meters
SCHEDULE 'A'
to
Amendment No. 7
to the
Official Plan of the
Municipality of Kincardine
Part of Lot 28,
Concession A,
Municipality of Kincardine
(geographic Township of Kincardine)
SUBJECT PROPERTY
LANDS TO BE REMOVED FROM 'SIGNIFICANT
WOODLANDS' OVERLAY
LANDS DESIGNATED 'SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT'
LANDS DESIGNATED 'NATURAL ENVIRONMENT'
FILE: KINOPA-11-12.21
ASSOCIATED FILE: Z-15-12.21
APPLICANT: Peter McDonald
DATE: September 2013
NO. 2013 BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN DEEDS
OF LAND AND TO ASSUME AND DEDICATE THE SAID LANDS FOR ROAD
PURPOSES
WHEREAS Section 8(1) and 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 as
amended, provide that the powers of a municipality under this or any other Act
shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to
enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to
enhance the municipality’s ability to respond to municipal issues and has the
capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of
exercising its authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS Section 51 (25c) of the Planning Act allows the municipality to
impose conditions to the giving of a consent;
AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine deems it
expedient to impose the condition that sufficient lands be deed to the
Municipality, to be assumed and dedicated by the Municipality for road widening
purposes;
AND WHEREAS several parcels of land have been so deeded to the said
Municipality as a condition to a subdivision or development agreement,
condominium approval, or other municipal purposes;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to accept these parcels of land and to
assume and dedicate them for road purposes;
Kincardine ENACTS as follows:
1. That the lands listed and described in the attached Schedule “A” to this Bylaw and situate, lying and being in the Municipality of Kincardine are accepted
by The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine.
2. That the said lands be and they are hereby assumed by The Corporation of
the Municipality of Kincardine
3. That the said lands be and they are hereby dedicated as part of the Road
System of The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine for the road on
which they are situate as listed in the herein aforementioned Schedule “A”.
4. That the Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized and directed to
execute, on behalf of the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Kincardine, documents to complete this transaction.
/2
Page 2
Road Dedication 2013 By-law
By-law No. 2013
5. This By-law shall come into full force and effect upon its passage.
6. This By-law may be cited as the “Road Dedication 2013 By-law”.
Mayor
Clerk
Mayor
Clerk
PIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION 33301‐0024 33299‐0003 33298‐0002 33292‐0002 33291‐0078 33316‐0106 33292‐0071 R80562 33297‐0002 SCHEDULE ‘A’ FIRSTLY RDAL BTN CON 2 AND CON 3 SDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 16‐21, 24‐
30 CON 2 SDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 15‐17, 20‐21, 24‐30 CON 3 SDR KINCARDINE PT 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12, 3R4946 PT 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, & 8, 3R4950 & PT 6, 3R4961; SECONDLY; N 17 FT LT 22‐23 CON 3 SDR KINCARDINE; S 17 FT LT 22‐23 CON 2 SDR KINCARDINE; KINCARDINE RDAL BTN CON 2 AND 3 SDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 51‐70 CON 2 SDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 51‐70 CON 3 SDR KINCARDINE PARTS 1 TO 7, 9, 3R3637, PARTS 1 TO 9 AND PARTS 11 TO 14, 3R3640; FROM LOT 51 TO 70, CON 2 SDR; KINCARDINE RDAL BTN CON 2 NDR AND CON 3 NDR KINCARDINE BTN LT 51‐70; PT LT 51‐52, 56‐70 CON 3 NDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 51‐52, 56‐66 CON 2 NDR KINCARDINE PT 1 3R3104, PT 3‐4, 6‐9 3R3547, PT 1, 3‐6, 10‐11 3R3540; KINCARDINE FIRSTLY RDAL BTN CON 8 AND CON 9 KINCARDINE ABUTTING LT 6 TO 20; PT LT 7, 9‐10, 14‐15 CON 9 KINCARDINE; PT LT 14‐15 CON 8 KINCARDINE PT 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32 & 34, 3R1008; SECONDLY PT LT 7 CON 9 KINCARDINE, PT LT 14 CON 9 KINCARDINE, PT LT 14 CON 8 KINCARDINE; PT LT 6, 8, 11‐13, 16, 18‐20 CON 9 KINCARDINE; PT LT 6‐13, 16‐20 CON 8 KINCARDINE PT 6 TO 18, 23, 25 TO 27, 31, 33 & 35, 3R1008 & AS IN R74370, R74371, R74372, R74379, R74381, R74382, R80565 & R89855; KINCARDINE FIRSTLY, RDAL BTN CON 10 AND CON 11 KINCARDINE ABUTTING LT 21 TO 35; PT LT 34 CON 10 KINCARDINE; PT LT 21‐25, 28 CON 11 KINCARDINE AS IN PT 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 3R2101, PT 6 3R2144 & AS IN R78458, R79243, SECONDLY PT LT 28 CON 11; PT LT 21‐33, 35 CON 10 KINCARDINE; PT LT 26‐27, 29‐35 CON 11 KINCARDINE PT 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 3R2101, PT 5 3R2144 & AS IN R81496, R79240, 79241, R79242, R79244, R79245, R79246, R79247, R81410, R81606, R83624, R84181, R85040, R85041, R85042, R85043, R85221; KINCARDINE PT LT 15 W/S ADELAIDE ST PT 2 3R8381 PL KINCARDINE; KINCARDINE FIRSTLY RDAL BTN CON 10 AND CON 11 KINCARDINE ABUTTING LT 6 TO 20; PT LT 16‐20 CON 11 KINCADINE; PT LT 10, 12, 19 CON 10 KINCARDINE PT 2, 3R2440; PT 6 3R2439, PT 9, 11, 13‐18, 3R2098, 1, 3, 3R2144; SECONDLY PT LT 10 CON 10 KINCARDINE, PT LT 19 CON 10 KINCARDINE; PT LT 6‐8, 10‐15 CON 11 KINCARDINE; PT LT 6‐9, 11, 14‐18, 20 CON 10 KINCARDINE PT 1‐5, 7, 8, 10‐15, 3R2439, PT 1‐8, 10, 12, 3R2098, PT 1, 4‐15, 3R2440, PT 2, 4, 3R2144; KINCARDINE Northerly Ten (10) Feet of the Westerly Three Hundred and Thirty (330) Feet of Lot 28 in Concession 8 of the said Township of Kincardine FIRSTLY RDAL BTN CON 4 AND CON 5 KINCARDINE BTN LOT 16 TO 20; PT LT 16‐18 CON 5 KINCARDINE PT 11 TO 15, 3R2458; SECONDLY PT LT 16 CON 4 KINCARDINE; PT LT 17‐20 CON 4 KINCARDINE; PT LT 19‐20 CON 5 KINCARDINE PT 1 TO 10, 3R2458; KINCARDINE 33293‐0640 33287‐0348 33276‐0064 33293‐0333 33302‐0022 FIRSTLY; PT RDAL BTN LT 50 AND LT 51 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 31 CON A KINCARDINE; PT PARKLT A PORT HEAD KINCARDINE; PT LT 35‐48 CON A KINCARDINE; PT BLK D PL 828 PT 1 TO 5, 8 TO 11, 3R1828, PT 1, 2, 3, PL 934, PT 2 TO 8, 10 TO 19, 3R1040, PT 1, 2, PL1064; SECONDLY; PT LT 49 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 50 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 31 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 32 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 33 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 34 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 35 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 36 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 37 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 38 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 39 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 40 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 41 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 42 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 43 CON A KINCARDINE; POT LT 44 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 45 CON A KINCARDINE PT LT 46 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 47 CON A KINCARDINE; PT LT 48 CON A KINCARDINE; PT 14, 3R1828, PT 1, 3R1040; PT 1, 3R549, PT 1, 3R371, PT 1, 3R2654, PT 12, 13, 3R1828, PT 5, 3R7767; AKA COUNTY RD NO 23, GIVEN RD, SAUGEEN RD; KINCARDINE RDAL BTN CON 2 AND CON 3 BRUCE LYING W OF PT 2 R188233; PT LT F, G, H, I, J, 1‐5 CON 3 BRUCE; PT LT F, G, H, I, J, 1‐4 CON 2 BRUCE AS IN R25854 (FOURTHLY), R25783, R25789, R25784, R25797, R25788, R25785, R25795, R25790 & PT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 3R1198 & PT 1, 2, 3, 5 ,6 ,7 ,8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 & 20 3R1203; KINCARDINE SPRUCEDALE CR PL 770; PT LT 51‐53 CON LAKE RANGE OR CON A BRUCE AS IN R65682; KINCARDINE FIRSTLY; RDAL BTN CON 10 AND CON 11 KINCARDINE ABUTTING LT 1 TO 5 E OF HWY 21; PT LT 2‐3 CON 11 KINCARDINE PT 2, 3, 4, 3R2323; SECONDLY; PT LT 1 CON 11 KINCARDINE PT LT 2 CON 11 KINCARDINE; PT LT 3 CON 11 KINCARDINE; PT LT 4‐5 CON 11 KINCARDINE; PT LT 1‐5 CON 10 KINCARDINE PT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ,9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ,14, 3R2441; KINCARDINE FIRSTLY; RDAL BTN CON 2 NDR AND CON 3 NDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 2‐3, 6‐10, 13‐14, 21‐25, 28‐30 CON 2 NDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 CON 3 NDR KINCARDINE AS IN R104894, R104895, R104896, R112594, R276633, R276636, R276637, R280563, R293391, R295440, R280707, R276634, R277146, R276635, R180090, R104896, R112594; SECONDLY: PT LT 1 CON 2 NDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 2 CON 2 NDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 4‐5, 11‐12, 15‐16, 19‐20 CON 2 NDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 14 CON 2 NDR KINCARDINE; PT LT 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 5 CON 3 NDR KINCARDINE AS IN R180080, R180076, R180091, R187434, R180083, R187435, R180082, R180078, R180087, R180075, R180089, R187436, R180079, R180086, R180081, R180085, R179467, BTN HWY 21 & RDAL BTN LT 30 & 31 CON 2 NDR; S/T KN16210; KINCARDINE NO. 2013 –
BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE SIGNING OF AN
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
(3128 Bruce Road 15, Inverhuron)
WHEREAS Section 8 (1) and 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as
amended, provide that the powers of a municipality under this or any other Act
shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to
enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to
enhance the municipality’s ability to respond to municipal issues and has the
capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of
exercising its authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine
has requested an encroachment for the purpose of locating a gateway sign for
Inverhuron;
Kincardine, ENACTS as follows:
1.
That The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine enter into an
agreement with Ruby Alice Brown for an encroachment upon Park Pt Lot
4, known municipally as 3128 Bruce Road 15, Inverhuron (41 08 260 004
23300 ) and attached hereto as Schedule “A”.
2.
The encroachment includes a gateway sign, as outlined on the sketch
attached to the agreement and shall be subject to the terms and
conditions of the encroachment agreement attached as Schedule ‘A’ to
this by-law.
2.
That the Mayor and CAO be authorized to execute, on behalf of the
Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Kincardine, the
Encroachment Agreement with Ruby Alice Brown.
3.
This by-law may be cited as the “Inverhuron Gateway Sign Encroachment
Agreement By-law”.
Mayor
Clerk
Mayor
Clerk
INVASIVE PHRAGMITES MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR
THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE, ONTARIO
PHASE 1
J.M. Gilbert
June, 2013
Prepared by:
Janice M. Gilbert, Ph.D.
Wetland Ecologist
Gilbert and Dunn Wetland Specialists
RR5 Langton, ON, N0E 1G0
janicegilbert@rogers.com
Karen Alexander
Outreach and Education Coordinator
Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
74 Hamilton St., Goderich, ON, N7A 1P9
226-421-3029
karen.alexander@lakehuron.on.ca
2
Executive Summary
Phragmites australis (European Reed), a non-native, invasive grass has become
widespread throughout southern Ontario. Phragmites can out-compete all other plant
species and develop into a dense monoculture stand with stems of up to 200 per square
metre. Monocultures can degrade natural ecosystems in a variety of ways. Impacts on
coastal wetlands include changes to hydrology, nutrient cycling and lost habitat for
other plant species and wildlife.
Phragmites is not just a problem for ecology; it is also impacting local economies,
particularly shoreline communities. Residents in the Bruce Addition have lost access to
the water and in some places can no longer see the water through the dense
monoculture cells that have established along the shoreline.
The Municipality of Kincardine has responded to the concern of local residents living
along this stretch of shoreline by committing funds for the development of the attached
Management Plan and for active control of Phragmites.
Effective controls in Ontario are limited. A number of considerations must be taken into
account to determine the most appropriate control strategy. For mass infestations the
most effective and efficient control of Phragmites in Ontario is accomplished using a
combination of herbicide and prescribed burning.
The Management Plan recommends the use of herbicide and prescribed burns for the
shoreline of Kincardine with site specific modifications to accommodate for the
presence of wildlife, standing water, and ease of access. The plan divides the shoreline
infestation between Baie du Dore and MacGregor Point Provincial Park into 16
manageable blocks. Details on control techniques appropriate for each block as well as
timing, and costs are contained in the Phragmites Management Plan. The report
estimates good control of the infestation can be accomplished by 2016 for an estimated
total of $98,200.00. The estimated budgets required for each year of the program are as
follows:
3
Year
2013
2014
Cost
$20 000
$27 000
2015
$42 200
2016
$ 9 000
Location
B6 B7
B4 B5
B8
B9 B10
B11 B12
B13 B14
B15 B16
B1 B2 B3
While it is no longer feasible to completely eradicate Phragmites, it is possible to bring
the infestation under control. In order to ensure the Phragmites does not re-establish in
areas where control work has been completed the Municipality of Kincardine should
begin to implement the recommendations made in the Long Term Management Plan
section of the report.
The Management Plan is designed to be implemented over a four year period but can
be easily adjusted according to available funding.
Implementation of the plan requires a Letter of Opinion from the MNR. The application
for the Letter of Opinion was submitted with a draft copy of this plan in June 2013. The
Coastal Centre was notified of the approved application on August 6. The Municipality
of Kincardine is free to implement this 4 year Management Plan over the next 5 years.
4
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ 5
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 9
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 11
4. CONTROL OPTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 16
A) ALL-TERRAIN TRACK VEHICLES ...................................................................................................................... 16
B) MANUAL CONTROL ................................................................................................................................... 17
i) Backpack Spraying ........................................................................................................................... 17
ii) Herbicide Wicking ........................................................................................................................... 18
iii) Control of wet sites ........................................................................................................................ 19
5. MAPPING PHRAGMITES ALONG THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE SHORELINE .............................. 20
i) Block 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 21
ii) Block 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 23
iii) Block 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 25
iv) Block 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 27
v) Block 5 ............................................................................................................................................. 28
vi) Block 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 29
vii) Block 7 ........................................................................................................................................... 30
viii) Block 8 .......................................................................................................................................... 32
ix) Block 9 ............................................................................................................................................ 34
x) Block 10 ........................................................................................................................................... 36
xi) Block 11 .......................................................................................................................................... 38
xii) Block 12 ......................................................................................................................................... 40
xiii) Block 13 ........................................................................................................................................ 42
xiv) Block 14 ........................................................................................................................................ 43
xv) Block 15 ......................................................................................................................................... 45
xvi) Block 16 ........................................................................................................................................ 47
6. RECOMMENDED CONTROL STRATEGY ............................................................................................... 48
A) ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROJECTED CONTROL ................................................................................................ 49
B) LONG-TERM MONITORING AND RAPID RESPONSE PROGRAM ............................................................................ 57
7. LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................................... 58
8. MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 62
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 64
5
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE SHORELINE TO BE MANAGED FOR INVASIVE PHRAGMITES. .................................... 9
FIGURE 2. INVASIVE PHRAGMITES > 5 M TALL IN LAKE ERIE COASTAL WETLAND, RONDEAU BAY, ON. 2007. ...................... 11
FIGURE 3. NEW SHOOTS OF INVASIVE PHRAGMITES PLANTS GROWING OUT OF THE RHIZOME FROM ONE PARENT PLANT, ST.
JOSEPHS ISLAND, LAKE HURON, 2011. ........................................................................................................ 12
FIGURE 4. RHIZOMES GROWING LAKE-WARD FROM PARENT INVASIVE PHRAGMITES PLANTS AS WATER LEVELS DECLINED ALONG
THE LAKE HURON SHORELINE, AUGUST 2012................................................................................................ 12
FIGURE 5. SHOWN IS FRANK LATOURNEAU, (DOVER AGRI-SERVE) SPRAYING PHRAGMITES FROM THE DECK OF HIS MODIFIED
CENTAUR (A, B). ...................................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 6. CONTROLLING A PATCH OF INVASIVE PHRAGMITES WITHIN A SENSITIVE HABITAT IN RONDEAU BAY USING A HAND
PUMP BACKPACK SPRAYER.......................................................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 7. HANDWICKING INVASIVE PHRAGMITES ALONG THE LAKE HURON SHORELINE ON A WINDY DAY, SEPTEMBER 2008. 18
FIGURE 8. SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE KINCARDINE SHORELINE BETWEEN BAIE DU DORE AND MACGREGOR POINT PROVINCIAL
PARK SHOWING THE EXTENT OF INVASIVE PHRAGMITES AS ILLUSTRATED BY BLUE FLAGS. ........................................ 20
FIGURE 9. LOCATION OF PHRAGMITES CONTROL BLOCKS ACCESSED FOR DENSITIES AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ALONG THE
MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE SHORELINE. ................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 10. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 1. THE AREAS WITHIN THE WHITE LINES
(C1, C3, C4) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAYERS. THE TWO SECTIONS OUTLINED IN GREEN (C2, C5)
SHOULD BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. .............................................................................................. 22
FIGURE 11. BLOCK 1 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) SNAPPING TURTLE, B) SPARES PHRAGMITES PATCHES ALONG EDGE OF BOAT
RAMP, C) CELL 2 AREA WHERE DENSE PHRAGMITES HAD BEEN BURNED, D) SPARSE PHRAGMITES IN CELL 4. .............. 23
FIGURE 12. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 2. THE AREAS WITHIN THE WHITE LINES
(C1, C2, C3) SHOULD BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAYERS. THE CELL OUTLINED IN GREEN (C4) SHOULD BE
CONTROLLED USING A CENTAUR. ................................................................................................................. 24
FIGURE 13. BLOCK 2 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) VIEW FROM TREED RIDGE ON SOUTH SIDE OF BLOCK LOOKING TOWARD LAKE, B)
VEHICLE TRACKS THROUGH COASTAL MEADOW MARSH, C) VIEW LOOKING TOWARD LAKE WITH YARD WASTE PILE AND WET
AREAS IN FRONT. ...................................................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 14. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 3. THE AREAS WITHIN THE GREEN LINES
(C1, C6, C9, C12) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR WHILE THE SECTIONS DEMARCATED WITH THE WHITE LINES
(C2-C5, C7, C8, C10, C11) REQUIRES BACKPACK SPRAYING. .......................................................................... 26
FIGURE 15. BLOCK 3 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) SPARSE PHRAGMITES IN CELL 2, B) SPARSE PHRAGMITES IN CELL 5. .............. 26
FIGURE 16. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 4. THE AREA WITHIN THE WHITE LINES (C1,
C2) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR WHILE THOSE WITHIN THE GREEN LINES REQUIRE A BACKPACK SPRAYER
(C3) OR WICKING (C4). ............................................................................................................................ 27
FIGURE 17. BLOCK 5 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) PHRAGMITES NEAR BOAT CHANNEL IN CELL 2, B) PHRAGMITES PATCH IN CELL 2,
C) TWO NORTHERN WATER SNAKES (NERODIA SIPEDON) NEAR THE EDGE OF THE LAKE IN CELL 1. ........................... 28
FIGURE 18. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 6. THE SECTION WITHIN THE GREEN LINES
(C3) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE THREE CELLS OUTLINED IN WHITE (C1, C2, C4) SHOULD BE
CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS. ................................................................................................. 29
FIGURE 19. BLOCK 6 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) VEHICLE TRACKS IN COASTAL MEADOW MARSH, B) TRAIL COMING FROM SUNSET
DRIVE CUL DE SAC THROUGH COASTAL MEADOW MARSH, C) NATIVE MEADOW MARSH VEGETATION AND D) VEHICLE
TRACKS COMING INTO COASTAL MEADOW MARSH FROM PROPERTY WITH STORAGE SHED. ...................................... 30
FIGURE 20. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 7. THE SECTION WITHIN THE GREEN LINE
(C1) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREA OUTLINED IN WHITE (C2) SHOULD BE CONTROLLED USING
BACKPACK............................................................................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 21. BLOCK 7 PHOTOS: A) DENSE PHRAGMITES ALONG THE SHORELINE (MAY 2013), B) PHRAGMITES WITHIN THE
INTERIOR OF THE COASTAL MEADOW MARSH (MAY 2013), C) BIRD NEST ALONG EDGE OF PHRAGMITES (JULY 2012)
AND, D) LEOPARD FROD OBSERVED IN SPARSE PHRAGMITES SECTION OF THE COASTAL MEADOW MARSH (JULY 2012). 32
FIGURE 22. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 8. THE AREA WITHIN THE GREEN LINE (C1)
CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREA OUTLINED IN WHITE (C2) HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE
CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS. ................................................................................................. 33
6
FIGURE 23. BLOCK 8 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) DENSE PHRAGMITES ALONG CREEK NEAR ROAD, B) CLEARED BEACH SECTION
ALONG LAKESHORE, C) DENSE PHRAGMITES ALONG SHORELINE, AND D) SPARSE PHRAGMITES THROUGHOUT COASTAL
MEADOW MARSH BETWEEN TREE LINE AND DENSE SECTION. ............................................................................. 34
(C1, C2) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREAS OUTLINED IN WHITE (C3, C4, C5) HAS SPARSE
PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS............................................................... 35
FIGURE 25. BLOCK 9 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) IN CELL 1 NEAR THE LAKESHORE LOOKING TOWARD POND, B) WET SEDGE
MEADOW SECTION NEAR THE ROAD WITH SCATTERED PHRAGMITES THROUGHOUT, C) ROCK WALL ALONG LAKESIDE EDGE
OF ROAD IN THE AREA OF BLOCK 9, AND D) DENSE PHRAGMITES PATCH ALONG THE LAKESHORE. ............................. 36
FIGURE 26. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 10. THE AREA WITHIN THE GREEN LINE
(C1) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREAS OUTLINED IN WHITE (C2, C3, C4) HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES
AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS. ................................................................................ 37
FIGURE 27. BLOCK 10 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) CLEARED BEACH SECTION FOR BRUCEDALE CA (CELL 3), B) SMALL CLEARED
SECTION AT SHORELINE WITH PHRAGMITES POCKETS ON EITHER SIDE, C) SPARSE PHRAGMITES SECTION NEAR ROAD (CELL
4), AND D) DENSE PHRAGMITES SECTION IN CELL 1. ........................................................................................ 38
FIGURE 28. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 11. THE AREA WITHIN THE GREEN LINE (C2)
CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREAS OUTLINED IN WHITE (C1, C3) HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN
BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS. ............................................................................................. 39
FIGURE 29. BLOCK 11 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) VIEWPOINT FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD LOOKING TOWARD THE LAKE IN CELL
1, B) VIEWPOINT LOOKING NORTH ALONG THE EDGE OF SUNSET DRIVE, C) PHRAGMITES ALONG SHORELINE, AND D)
GROUNDWATER SEEP IN CELL 3. .................................................................................................................. 40
FIGURE 30. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING LOCATION OF BLOCK 12. ............................................................................... 41
FIGURE 31. PHOTO TAKEN IN BLOCK 12 FROM WAYPOINT # 839 LOOKING NORTHEAST, MAY 2013................................. 41
(C1, C2) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREAS OUTLINED IN WHITE (C3, C4, C5) HAS SPARSE
FIGURE 33. PHOTOS TAKEN IN BLOCK 13, MAY 2013 SHOWING A) SECTION OF SHORELINE USED BY COTTAGERS WITH
PHRAGMITES IN BACKGROUND, AND B) FRINGE OF PHRAGMITES ALONG SHORELINE. ............................................. 43
(C1, C2, C3, C4) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREA OUTLINED IN WHITE C5) HAS SPARSE
FIGURE 35. PHOTO TAKEN IN BLOCK 14 LOOKING TOWARD TREE LINE, MAY 2013. ....................................................... 45
FIGURE 36. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL AREA IN BLOCK 15. THE AREA WITHIN THE WHITE
LINE HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS. ....................................... 46
FIGURE 37. PHOTO TAKEN ALONG THE EDGE OF THE WET AREA IN BLOCK 15. MAY 2013. .............................................. 46
FIGURE 38. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 16. THE AREA WITHIN THE WHITE LINE HAS
SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS. ................................................... 47
FIGURE 39. PHOTOS TAKEN IN BLOCK 16, MAY 2013 SHOWING A) SPARSE PHRAGMITES ALONG THE EDGE OF A POND, B)
SMALL PHRAGMITES CELL IN THE COASTAL MEADOW MARSH, C) PHRAGMITES CELL ALONG THE EDGE OF THE LAKE, AND D)
ROCKS AND BOULDERS ALONG THE SHORELINE. .............................................................................................. 48
FIGURE 40. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM SHOWING THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF A LONG TERM PHRAGMITES MANAGEMENT PLAN.
............................................................................................................................................................ 63
7
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO BLOCK 1 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE 10................................................ 22
TABLE 6. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK 6 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE 18. ......................................... 29
TABLE 7. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK 7 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE 20. ......................................... 31
TABLE 8. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CELLS IN BLOCK 8, LABELED IN FIGURE 22. .......................................... 34
TABLE 9. CONTROL INFORMATION FOR BLOCK 9 CELL LABELED IN FIGURE 24. ............................................................... 35
TABLE 10. CONTROL INFORMATION FOR EACH OF THE BLOCK 10 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE 26. ........................................ 37
TABLE 11. CONTROL INFORMATION FOR EACH OF THE BLOCK 11 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE 28. ........................................ 39
TABLE 12. INFORMATION PERTAINING TO BLOCK 12. ............................................................................................... 41
TABLE 13. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO EACH CELL LABELED IN FIGURE 22. ................................................... 43
TABLE 14. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO EACH CELL LABELED IN FIGURE 34. ................................................... 44
TABLE 15. CONTROL INFORMATION FOR BLOCK 15. ................................................................................................ 46
TABLE 16. CONTROL INFORMATION FOR BLOCK 16. ................................................................................................. 47
TABLE 17. RECOMMENDED CONTROL SCHEDULE AND ASSOCIATED COSTS FOR PHASE I.................................................... 50
TABLE 18. SUGGESTED TARGET AREAS, DATES AND ESTIMATED COSTS FOR 2013. .......................................................... 51
8
1. Introduction
Phase 1 of the Invasive Phragmites Management Plan for the Municipality of Kincardine,
focuses on the Lake Huron shoreline between Baie du Dore and the MacGregor Point
Provincial Park (Figure 1). With the exception of the narrow strip used by the Brucedale
Conservation Authority, this entire shoreline is managed by the Municipality. Due to the
unique and globally rare ecosystems located here, a large portion of this shoreline has
been designated as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) and includes the
provincially significant Scott Point wetland complex, which supports rare flora and
fauna. The invasive Phragmites australis is currently well established throughout this
valuable ecosystem posing a significant threat. In some sections, dense monoculture
cells have developed and without active management, Phragmites will continue to
spread resulting in further reduction in biodiversity and a significantly altered
ecosystem. Accompanying these concerns is the negative impact on aesthetic and
recreational enjoyment and lakeshore property values. The Municipality of Kincardine
has responded to the concern of local residents living along this stretch of shoreline
regarding the rapid expansion of Phragmites that they have witnessed over the past few
years. The Council has addressed these concerns by committing funds for the
development of this plan and for active Phragmites control to commence in the fall of
2013.
Figure 1. Municipality of Kincardine shoreline to be managed for invasive
Phragmites.
9
A number of sensitive Great Lakes coastal habitats have been, or are in the process of
being, restored using a combination of chemical and mechanical control methods as
outlined in the Provincial Phragmites Control Best Management Practices document
(OMNR 2011). The success of these projects, as measured by the post control response
in native species richness and diversity, provides a strong case for pursuing a similar
approach at this site. As a first step, the shoreline has been traversed on foot to record
Phragmites locations, densities and site conditions to inform control options and timing.
The recommended control options for each site are outlined in this plan along with a
management schedule, associated estimated costs, and long term management
strategy.
Due to the extensive area to be controlled along the Municipality of Kincardine
shoreline, Phragmites management will have to be done in stages and will extend over a
number of years. Available funding, weather conditions, wildlife presence, and lake
water levels are all main factors affecting the amount of acreage that can be controlled
during one growing season. Since Phragmites has become so pervasive throughout
Southern Ontario, total eradication on a site level is practically impossible over the long
term due to constant new invasions from local spread vectors. However, once the main
infestation has been brought under control, it will be significantly more cost effective to
implement a monitoring and rapid response control program to ensure Phragmites
densities do not return to pre-control conditions.
The long term success of this program will be highly dependent upon the initiation of a
similar Phragmites control strategy for the adjacent property located to the south which
is owned by Ontario Power Generation. This includes Baie du Dore and the area within
the Bruce Nuclear Power Development restricted area (fenced zone) where extensive,
dense, monoculture Phragmites cells currently exist. MacGregor Point Provincial Park,
located on the northern boundary of the focus area, also has Phragmites and park staff
has been actively trying to manage these cells over the past few years. Control efficacy
has been greatly hampered at sites within the park where the presence of water
negates effective chemical control options. Partnering with these two adjacent land
owners will greatly enhance management efficacy and long term success. As will the
development of a long term Phragmites Management Plan for all of Municipality of
Kincardine. Phragmites located around residential areas and in roadside ditches should
be targeted for control to further reduce local spread vectors.
Several
recommendations for a long term management plan have been developed for the
Municipality and are provided in this document.
10
2. Background Information
European reed or Phragmites australis (here after referred to as Phragmites) is an
aggressively spreading non-native, invasive grass. It is capable of out-competing all
other plant species including cattails (Typha spp.), willows (Salix spp.), alders (Alnus spp.)
and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) resulting in expansive monocultures. Plants
can exceed 5 m in height (Figure 2) and reach densities of over 200 stems per square
metre. The high aboveground biomass is supported by an even greater amount
belowground and roots may extend downward several metres to attain required water
and nutrients. The roots also emit a chemical harmful to other plants further reducing
resource competition.
J.M. Gilbert
Figure 2. Invasive Phragmites > 5 m tall in Lake Erie
coastal wetland, Rondeau Bay, ON. 2007.
Phragmites colonizes new sites via seed and rhizome dispersal but, once established
spreads colonially via rhizomes. These can emanate from each parent stalk in all
directions and have been observed at 30 m lengths with new shoots emerging ~30 cm
(Figure 3). The resultant yearly growth of an established colony can be exponential and
expansion has noticeably increased with the decline in Lake Huron water levels (Figure
4).
11
J.M. Gilbert
Figure 3. New shoots of invasive Phragmites plants growing out
of the rhizome from one parent plant, St. Josephs Island, Lake
Huron, 2011.
J.M. Gilbert
Figure 4. Rhizomes growing lake-ward from parent invasive
Phragmites plants as water levels declined along the Lake Huron
shoreline, August 2012.
12
Unlike native Phragmites (Phragmites australis subsp. americanus), the European strain
has no known natural controls to keep the population in check. As a result, expansive
mono-dominant stands develop and greatly reduce native plant diversity thereby
altering habitat and significantly impacting wildlife. While bird and amphibian usage has
been observed within narrower tracks and along the edges of expansive Phragmites
cells, interior areas are effectively dead zones. Within coastal ecosystems the impacts
have the potential to be cumulatively devastating for many wetland dependent species,
including a number of Species At Risk (SAR) which depend upon these habitats for all or
a portion of their life cycle. For humans, Phragmites negatively impacts aesthetic and
recreational values by blocking views and making access to shorelines difficult and
unpleasant. Fire hazards from standing dead stalks is also becoming more of an issue as
are traffic hazards from blocked views at intersections where Phragmites is present
within roadside ditches.
Effective control methods in Ontario are limited and site specific. A number of
considerations must be taken into account to determine the most appropriate control
strategy. These include cell size, density, proximity to water, timing, presence of
desirable plant species, habitat value, presence of wildlife including SAR, human activity,
funding, ownership, and long term management plans.
Mechanical options, including cutting, drowning, smothering, grazing, excavating, and
burning have all been attempted with varying success. Control efficacy is related to cell
density, size and site conditions. Each method has its drawbacks and limitations and can
have negative impacts.
Flooding Phragmites to promote drowning can be difficult. Studies have shown that for
established stands water depths must exceed 1.5 m for at least 6 weeks. Cutting stalks
to enhance drowning opportunities in non-dyked sites may be an option if high water
periods occur. However, all stalks must be cut and located in flooded zones for this
method to be effective. Logistically, dewatered periods need to occur to allow for
cutting, since the use of cutting equipment in water can be challenging. In some areas
cutting is not an option due to unfavourable site conditions including access issues, soft
substrate, and expansive stand size. Within low nutrient, drier sites, cutting has been
effective at dampening Phragmites spread and stature, however this activity is required
several times during the growing season and on an annual basis. One significant
consideration about whether or not to cut is that native plant species or wildlife may be
harmed during the process. This risk greatly increases as the Phragmites stand thins and
native species re-establish.
Fire has also been used to try to reduce Phragmites densities but this only results in
thinning out the standing dead biomass. The use of fire alone to control Phragmites is
not an effective control method since Phragmites tends to thrive during the growing
season after a burn has occurred. The use of fire to reduce dead stalks and seed heads
13
has its limitations since not all sites lend themselves to being burned due to wetness or
safety concerns.
Smothering with thick dark plastic has also been attempted with limited success since
rhizomes can extend out from under the covered area. The method can be laborious as
Phragmites stalks must first be cut and tarps are heavy. There are also stand size and
location limitations, since covering large areas or flooded areas with tarps would be
impractical.
Bio-controls for Phragmites are currently being investigated by a research team lead by
Dr. Blossey at Cornell University. This laboratory was instrumental in identifying the
appropriate beetles to control the once troublesome purple loosestrife. It is estimated
that many more years of research are required before host specific herbivores to
control the European strain of Phragmites can be introduced. The fact that native
Phragmites also exists in North America may hinder this progress. Even if bio-controls
are found and a release program implemented, many more years may pass before any
noticeable impact takes place given the considerable biomass production and
reproduction rates of Phragmites. Ultimately the advent of natural controls provides the
only long-term viable solution for dampening the spread of this highly aggressive plant.
However, the amount of habitat impacted during the estimated several decades if not
centuries (if Typha angustifolia is any indication) that will pass before this will take
effect dictates that action be undertaken now where ever possible. It is also important
to note that even where this strain of Phragmites occurs naturally in Europe it has
developed into monoculture stands and been problematic.
The most effective and efficient control of Phragmites in the United States has been
achieved using two herbicides Rodeo® (glyphosate) and Habitat® (imazapyr). Both
products can legally be applied over water and aerially and have an efficacy of between
80 – 100% control after one treatment. The best results were obtained when the two
herbicides were combined. Both chemicals kill the plant by shutting down key enzyme
production within the belowground structures. Since these same enzymes are not
present in non-plant life, the chemicals pose little risk to humans and wildlife.
Unfortunately neither Rodeo nor Habitat is available in Canada.
Legal chemical options in Canada are limited to two products Weathermax® and Vision®
and neither product can legally be applied over water. Both are glyphosate based and
although this active ingredient is safe for overwater application, both products also
contain the surfactant polyethyloxylated tallowamine (POEA) which is harmful to
aquatic life. Vision, which is more expensive, is used by the forestry industry and can be
applied aerially. Weathermax is the best option available for on-the-ground Phragmites
control when no surface water is present.
14
Timing herbicide applications to occur when no water is present has allowed for some of
the seasonally wet sites to be sprayed. However, for coastal areas including wetlands,
the timing window for dewatered conditions can be rather short and can change year to
year. Usually, even with dewatered sections, wet areas remain interspersed making
effective and efficient control difficult. Site specific conditions such as: wildlife use of
Phragmites edges and adjacent habitats for breeding, brood rearing, foraging or the
presence of SAR plants, and recreational use of beach areas, also impact the timing
window. Also, since glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide, it kills all vegetation nonselectively. Use within dense, mono-dominant Phragmites stands does not create issues
since native plant presence is rare and, if present, they are generally under the
Phragmites canopy and would not receive spray drift. However, in less dense stands or
along the edges of Phragmites cells, native species can be quite prevalent. In these
situations, timing spray events to occur early to mid-fall, before a heavy frost when
most native species have already senesced but Phragmites is still green, has resulted in
successful Phragmites control and positive native species response the following
growing season. Spot spraying using backpack units or hand wicking can be used to
control sparse Phragmites. Using these methods of herbicide application, the timing
window is much greater since plants can be targeted anytime during the growing season
after they have reached ~1m in height and have sufficient leaf surface for chemical
uptake. Depending upon the weather and location, Phragmites plants may reach this
stage from mid-May to mid-June.
Phragmites control efficacy is greatly enhanced when both herbicide and fire are
combined. The best results occur when the site can be rolled and then burned prior to
being sprayed. This serves to remove the standing dead stalks, which can make up to
70% of the biomass in a live stand. Rolling just prior to burning ensures for drier and
safer conditions and promotes the incineration of seed heads. Burning should occur
sometime between late fall to early spring when all standing stalks are dead and dry to
improve effectiveness and reduce smoke. With the removal of this biomass, new shoots
emerging the following growing season can be easily observed. If conditions allow, these
plants can be sprayed when the plants are ~1m in height which is well before seed
heads set, further reducing new introductions and amount of chemical applied.
Failing the ability to burn, rolling or cutting the standing dead stalks can provide some
additional measure of control enhancement in combination with the herbicide
application. The recalcitrant stalks lying on the ground tend to decay at a quicker rate
than those standing. The prostrate stalks may also promote drowning of the below
ground structures when water is present since the standing ‘straws’ are removed.
Rolling or cutting does not however, rid the site of seeds which have the potential to
germinate the following growing season. And, in established Phragmites stands, the
resultant thick layer of downed biomass greatly reduces native species response in
comparison to sites that have been burned.
15
It should be noted that since Phragmites has become so pervasive throughout Southern
Ontario, total eradication on a site level is practically impossible. Seed and rhizome
dispersal from uncontrolled sites, combined with human activity will ensure constant reinfestations. For this reason it is highly recommended that an ongoing monitoring and
rapid response control program be implemented to ensure that Phragmites densities do
not return to pre-control conditions. This can be achieved by monitoring sites during the
growing season and controlling new shoots by either mechanical (cutting, pulling) or
chemical (backpack, handwicking) means. A reduction in these efforts should be realized
each subsequent year as control efforts throughout the region continue to expand.
4. Control Options
a) All-terrain track vehicles
The large, dense Phragmites cells would be most effectively controlled by using a
retrofitted all-terrain vehicle such as a Centaur. This equipment is currently being used
by Frank Letourneau of Dover Agri-serve who is a licensed pesticide applicator and the
most experienced Phragmites control contractor in Ontario. His machine is equipped
with commercial grade herbicide application equipment (tank, pump) and a spray deck
and has been used at numerous sites throughout the province to control Phragmites
(Figure 5). The machine can traverse rough terrain and access more remote and difficult
to reach cells. Depending upon weather and site conditions up to 8.5 ha (21 acres) of
Phragmites can be sprayed in one day using this equipment. The herbicide used is
Weathermax® (registration No. 27487) which is mixed with clean water at 4-5%
concentration. The surfactant MSO Concentrate Methylated Seed Oil (Adjuvant
commercial, active ingredients 70% methylated soybean oil, Registration No. 28385) is
also added to increase plant uptake and improve efficacy of the herbicide.
J.M. Gilbert
J.M. Gilbert
Figure 5. Shown is Frank Latourneau, (Dover Agri-Serve) spraying Phragmites from the deck
of his modified Centaur (a, b).
16
The recommended timing for control using the Centaur along the Municipality of
Kincardine shoreline is dependent upon site specific conditions including wildlife
presence, recreational use and lake water levels. The shoreline has been divided into
Blocks based upon shoreline features which provided logical dividing points. Each Block
has been assessed and mapped and has recommended control and timing windows
which are provided in Section 5.
b) Manual Control
i) Backpack Spraying
Backpack sprayers come in a variety of styles and can be either hand pump (Figure 6) or
battery operated. The hand pump style is much lighter without need for the battery
pack and tends to have more spray reach. The herbicide and surfactant used is identical
to that used in the Centaur. All applicators must be certified pesticide applicators. The
herbicide cannot be applied over water and care must be taken to ensure spray drift
lands only on the intended target.
Backpack spraying is recommended for sites considered too sensitive for the Centaur to
enter, sparse or small patches, cells located along streams and rivers, or in areas where
boulders or other obstructions are too plentiful for the Centaur to navigate. Since
backpack spraying is far less intrusive on wildlife that may be present, the timing
window for application is wider. Frogs, nesting birds or other wildlife are more likely to
be observed and avoided by the backpack operator. As long as surface water is not
present, backpack spraying can occur anytime after the plant reaches ~1m in height and
continue until the first heavy frost. Targeting the plant before it develops a mature seed
head would be preferable.
Shown: Darren. Jacobs, Sept. 2012
J.M. Gilbert
Figure 6. Controlling a patch of invasive Phragmites
within a sensitive habitat in Rondeau Bay using a hand
pump backpack sprayer.
17
The removal of the standing dead stalks either by rolling, cutting, or fire, prior to the
growing season greatly increases the ease in spray application to the targeted plants. It
is also safer since the applicator does not have to navigate through the brittle stalks or
risk “tripping” hazards. Backpack spraying requires the applicator to follow a strategic
plan to ensure that cells are sprayed in a systematic fashion. This reduces the chances of
missing sections or spraying sections more than once. Laying out a spray pattern prior
to starting with flagging tape or other markers will greatly assist with this process. Since
all areas being sprayed must be posted, these markers will also serve as a visual aid to
keep people out of the sprayed areas. It is recommended that the site be assessed ~3
weeks after the spray event to control any Phragmites plants that remain green and
alive.
ii) Herbicide Wicking
In some areas where SAR plants are located within a low density Phragmites cell or, on
very windy days, hand wicking may be a better option than backpack spraying. Wicking
by hand entails the application of the chemical directly to each Phragmites plant. The
applicator wears a chemical resistant glove under an absorbent mitt. The mitt is either
dipped into a bucket with the herbicide or the chemical is sprayed onto the glove using
a spray bottle. The applicator then grabs the Phragmites stalk near the bottom and
wipes upward toward the tip (Figure 7). The herbicide and surfactant used is identical
to that used with the other methods. All workers must be certified pesticide
applicators.
D. Jacobs
Figure 7. Handwicking invasive Phragmites along the Lake
Huron shoreline on a windy day, September 2008.
18
This method also has minimal impact on any wildlife that may be present. The timing
window for wicking is quite large, from the time the plant reaches ~1m in height up until
the first heavy frost. Targeting the plant before it develops a mature seed head would,
be preferable.
Much like backpack spraying, a systematic plan for wicking should be established to
reduce plants being missed or wicked more than once. A dye can be added to the
herbicide to assist with identifying wicked plants. It is also recommended that a grid
pattern be flagged to help guide the wickers.
iii) Control of wet sites
As previously discussed, available methods for controlling Phragmites in standing water
remain limited. A pilot project testing the efficacy of using a ‘tenting’ method over
Phragmites in standing water at Kettle Point in 2012 showed encouraging results. The
‘tent’ was a heavy, dark canopy draped over a secured frame that had been placed over
a Phragmites cell located in standing water. During the Municipality of Kincardine
mapping exercise, which occurred in early May of 2013, a few wet sites with Phragmites
were observed. If these sites do not de-water over the course of the growing season
control using tent structures should be pursued.
19
5. Mapping Phragmites along the Municipality of Kincardine
Shoreline
In May 2013, the shoreline between Baie du Dore and the MacGregor Point Provincial
Park was traversed on foot to record Phragmites locations and densities as well as
wildlife presence, flooded areas, native plants, terrain conditions, access points and
other relevant information (Figure 8). Phragmites was observed along the entire
shoreline with the exception of one short stretch.
Figure 8. Satellite image of the Kincardine Shoreline between Baie du Dore and
MacGregor Point Provincial Park showing the extent of invasive Phragmites as
illustrated by blue flags.
The coastline was divided into 16 manageable sections or Blocks using features that
provided logical boundary lines (Figure 9). Within some Blocks, Phragmites formed a
dense, almost continuous cell along the shoreline while in others it was sparse and
patchy. In some Blocks, Phragmites within the area between the shoreline and tree line
was widespread and well established while in others it was sparsely scattered or present
in small, isolated cells.
20
B16
B15
B14
B13
B12
B11
B10
B9
B8
B7
B6
B5
B4
B3
B2
B1
Figure 9. Location of Phragmites control Blocks accessed for densities and management
options along the Municipality of Kincardine shoreline.
Approximately 68 ha (~169 acres) of the coastal wetland currently has Phragmites
present. Of this, ~25.6 ha has dense (~30% to 100% coverage) Phragmites cells present.
Small, less dense cells and scattered Phragmites occur over ~39 ha (~96 acres). One ~3.7
ha (~9 acre) section (Block 12) has no Phragmites present.
Maps for each Block showing Phragmites densities and recommended control options
were developed using the program Expert GPS and Google Earth images into which the
GPS waypoints had been uploaded. Cells outlined in solid green lines represent where
all terrain track vehicle use is most appropriate. Sections within the solid white lines
represent areas that should be controlled using backpack sprayers or handwicking.
Some of these sites had surface water present during the assessment in May and all
sites should be evaluated prior to any control activities taking place. Detailed control
information for each block is provided below.
i) Block 1
Block 1 (Figure 10) is ~ 1.1 ha (~2.7 acres) in size. Of this, 0.4 ha (0.9 ac) is dense
Phragmites that can be controlled using the Centaur. The remaining acreage should be
controlled using backpack spray units (Table 1). The dense cells had been burned in the
early spring of 2013 to allow for easier control. A snapping turtle was observed crossing
the road heading toward the lake in the area just behind this Block (Figure 10, WP 374;
Figure 11). Within the Block, Canada Geese, Killdeer, gulls and a dead raccoon were
observed. With the exception of the dense Phragmites cells along the lake edge, native
wetland plants were common throughout (see Appendix A). It is recommended that,
21
due to the proximity of this Block to a boat ramp and fishing area, this area be targeted
for control after Labour Day when recreational activity would be much reduced. This
section can be accessed from Institute Road which joins to Concession Rd. #8.
Block 1
C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
Figure 10. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 1. The areas within the
white lines (C1, C3, C4) can be controlled using backpack sprayers. The two sections outlined
in green (C2, C5) should be controlled using the Centaur.
Table 1. Control information pertaining to Block 1 cells labeled in Figure 10.
Block 1
Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
m2
C1
412.0
1997.8
C3
331.7
3754.9
C4
172.5
1276.6
C2
162.3
1415.0
C5
348.7
2114.8
Total
1427.2
10559.2
Backpack
916.2
7029.3
Centaur
511.0
3529.9
Area
ha
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.7
0.4
acre
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.5
2.6
1.7
0.9
Waypoint Recommended
#
control method
Comments
375,376
backpack
section along edge of boat ramp and man-made jetty
379-383
backpack
7 small, sparse patches in this area
384-386
backpack
2 small, sparse patches
377,378
Centaur
cell had been burned, along edge of lake
387-392
Centaur
cell had been burned, along edge of lake
observed: snapping turtle,killdeer, gulls, Ca. geese,
dead raccoon
Centaur able to navigate rocks/bolders in this area
22
Figure 11. Block 1 photos, May 2013: a) snapping turtle, b) spares Phragmites patches along
edge of boat ramp, c) Cell 2 area where dense Phragmites had been burned, d) sparse
Phragmites in Cell 4.
ii) Block 2
Block 2 is ~1 ha (~2.5 ac) in size with 0.4 ha (~1.1 ac) of dense Phragmites (C4) that
should be controlled using a Centaur (Figure 12). The remaining area consists of three
cells with small patches and scattered Phragmites which should be controlled by a
backpack crew (Table 2). Some Phragmites was in standing water in Cell 3 in May but,
these shallow depressions should become drier during the summer. It is recommended
that this Block be targeted between August and the first heavy frost. This section can be
accessed off of Cedarwood Lane which joins to Concession Rd. #8. Photos of this Block
are provided in Figure 13.
23
Figure 12. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 2. The areas within
the white lines (C1, C2, C3) should be controlled using backpack sprayers. The cell outlined
in green (C4) should be controlled using a Centaur.
Block 2
Perimeter
Cell #
distance, m
C1
128.7
C2
17.5
C3
412.9
C4
436.9
Total
995.9
Backpack
559.1
Centaur
436.9
m2
517.6
20.9
5409.1
4257.1
10204.6
5947.6
4257.1
Area
ha
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.4
acre
0.1
0.0
1.3
1.1
2.5
1.5
1.1
#
control method
Comments
394-396
backpack
sparse Phragmites throughout
397
backpack
small patch 1x1m
398-399
backpack
10 small patches throughout, some in water
400-405
Centaur
Phragmites in this area had been burned
Observed: leopard frog,
vehicle tracks, yard waste piles
24
Figure 13. Block 2 photos, May 2013: a) view from treed ridge on south side of Block looking
toward lake, b) vehicle tracks through coastal meadow marsh, c) view looking toward lake
with yard waste pile and wet areas in front.
iii) Block 3
Block 3 (Figure 12) is ~ 0.8 ha (~2 acres) in size and of this, 0.2 ha (~0.4 ac) is dense
Phragmites in four separate Cells (C1, C6, C9, C12) that can be controlled using the
Centaur (Figure 14). The remaining area has 8 Cells with small patches and sparse
Phragmites and should be controlled using backpack spray units (Table 3). Three sparse
patches are located in front of a cottage and the owners will need to be notified prior to
any control activity taking place. It is recommended that this block be targeted for
control after Labour Day to reduce impact on recreational activities. Two Least Bitterns
were observed in this area and any disturbance to them and other wetland wildlife
would also be minimized by spraying after this time period. Access to this Block can be
made from Concession Rd. #8. Images of Block 3 are provided in Figure 15.
25
green lines (C1, C6, C9, C12) can be controlled using the Centaur while the sections
demarcated with the white lines (C2-C5, C7, C8, C10, C11) requires backpack spraying.
Block 3
Perimeter
Cell #
distance, m
C2
26.6
C3
29.9
C4
24.3
C5
31.9
C7
125.3
C8
30.2
C10
369.2
C11
30.8
C1
90.3
C6
58.0
C9
170.0
C12
40
Total
1026.4
Backpack
668.1
Centaur
358.3
m2
43.1
56.4
37.7
56.1
874.8
58.1
5212.0
56.2
265.7
172.5
1176.2
100.0
8108.7
6394.3
1714.3
Area
ha
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.09
0.01
0.52
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.12
0.01
0.81
0.64
0.17
acre
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.22
0.01
1.29
0.01
0.07
0.04
0.29
0.02
2.00
1.58
0.42
#
control method
Comments
415
backpack
4 small 1x1m patches near edge of lake
416
backpack
1 small, sparse patch near edge of lake
417
backpack
1 small, sparse patch near edge of lake
418
backpack
3 small patches in front of cottage
421-424
backpack
sparse Phragmites throughout
425
backpack
1 small, sparse patch
432-437
backpack
13 sparse patches, goes along rock wall near road
457
backpack
sparse, 2x2m
413-414
Centaur
Phragmites had been burned
419-420
Centaur
thick patch, in wet seep area
426-428
Centaur
burned section, small creek flowing through
435
Centaur
dense patch
Observed: 2 Least Bitterns flying over
4 cottages in this embayment
Figure 15. Block 3 photos, May 2013: a) sparse Phragmites in Cell 2, b) sparse Phragmites in
Cell 5.
26
iv) Block 4
Block 4 is ~ 0.2 ha (~0.5 acres) in size (Figure 16) with four cells of sparse Phragmites
totaling ~300 m2 which should be controlled using backpack sprayers (Table 4). The
remaining area had two dense Phragmites cells which can be controlled using the
Centaur. Access to this site can be made from Concession Rd. #8. This Block is located
near a boat ramp and boat channel and would best be targeted for control after Labour
Day weekend when recreational activity should be greatly reduced. For logistical
purposes Blocks 4 and 5 should be targeted on the same day.
Figure 16. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 4. The area within the
white lines (C1, C2) can be controlled using the Centaur while those within the green lines
require a backpack sprayer (C3) or wicking (C4).
Block 4
Perimeter
Cell #
distance, m
C1
31.5
C2
30.5
C5
35.0
C6
39.0
C3
96.0
C4
214.6
Total
446.6
Backpack
136.0
Centaur
310.6
m2
59.2
62.0
75.1
101.3
498.6
1324.8
2120.9
297.6
1823.3
Area
ha
0.006
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.050
0.132
0.212
0.030
0.182
acre
0.015
0.015
0.019
0.025
0.123
0.327
0.524
0.074
0.450
#
control method
Comments
455
backpack
small, sparse patch ~10m x 3m
456
backpack
4 small, sparse patches
467
backpack
468
backpack
458-461
Centaur
dense patch
462-466
Centaur
dense patch, had been burned
27
v) Block 5
Block 5 takes in the area around a public boat launch and dredged channel which goes
out to the lake (Figure 16). There are a number of homes, cottages and trails in this
section and control activity would be best left until after Labour Day weekend. All
residences should receive notice prior to activity commencing. Most of this Block will
require use of the Centaur to control three dense Cells totaling ~1.9 ha (~4.6 acres).
Some dense patches have been burned. There are a few small, sparse patches that will
require backpack use to control (Table 5). Access to this site can be made from
Concession Rd. #8.
Block 5
Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
C3
48.7
C1
495.8
C2
799.7
C4
573.3
Total
1917.5
Backpack
48.7
Centaur
1868.8
m2
132.7
3355.6
11455.4
3705.2
18648.9
132.7
18516.2
Area
ha
0.013
0.3
1.1
0.4
1.9
0.013
1.9
acre
0.0
0.8
2.8
0.9
4.6
0.032
4.6
Waypoint
Recommended
#
control method
Comments
482
backpack
sparse patch ~5m x 5m
471-478
Centaur
sparse and dense patches, burned areas
441-453;479-481
Centaur
dense patches throughout
484-495
Centaur
dsnse patches along shoreline
Observed: 3 Northern Water Snakes, Ca. Goose on nest
with 6 eggs, 4 Midland Painted Turtles in boat channel
Killdeer and Sandpiper sp. along shoreline
Figure 17. Block 5 photos, May 2013: a) Phragmites near boat channel in Cell 2, b) Phragmites
patch in Cell 2, c) two Northern Water Snakes (Nerodia sipedon) near the edge of the lake in
Cell 1.
28
vi) Block 6
Block 6 has dense Phragmites along the shoreline in an area covering ~0.4 ha (~1.1
acres) and could be controlled using the Centaur (Figure 18). Much of the standing dead
stalks were burned in March, 2013. This area also has three Cells with sparse, small
Phragmites patches covering a total of ~385 m2 which should be sprayed using backpack
units (Table 6). One of these cells, C4, is located along the lakeshore in an area with
numerous boulders and rocks making it too rough for the Centaur to traverse.
Phragmites in Cell 2 was in pooled water with ~9 cm depth in early May, 2013. Access
to this Block can be made from the Sunset Drive cul de sac, turning south off Concession
Rd. #10. This area has numerous vehicle tracks throughout which is negatively impacting
the wetland (Figure 19). It is recommended that this Block be targeted between August
and the first heavy frost.
Figure 18. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 6. The section within
the green lines (C3) can be controlled using the Centaur. The three cells outlined in white (C1,
C2, C4) should be controlled using backpack spray units.
Table 6. Control information pertaining to the Block 6 cells labeled in Figure 18.
Block 6
Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
C1
24.0
C2
23.4
C4
180.5
C3
697.7
Total
925.5
Backpack
227.8
Centaur
697.7
m2
37.5
31.5
316.3
4235.6
4620.9
385.3
4235.6
Area
ha
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.42
0.46
0.04
0.42
acre
0.01
0.01
0.08
1.05
1.14
0.10
1.05
Waypoint
#
439
438
505-508
496-504
Recommended
control method
backpack
backpack
backpack
Centaur
Comments
small, sparse patch ~5m x 10m , in ~9cm deep water
4 small patches, very rocky, too rough for Centaur
dense patches along shoreline, burned, varies in width 5m-15m
Observed: numerous vehicle tracks throughout meadow marsh,
brush piles
29
Figure 19. Block 6 photos, May 2013: a) vehicle tracks in coastal meadow marsh, b) trail
coming from Sunset Drive cul de sac through coastal meadow marsh, c) native meadow marsh
vegetation and d) vehicle tracks coming into coastal meadow marsh from property with
storage shed.
vii) Block 7
Block 7 is the largest section and the most impacted by invasive Phragmites (Figure 20).
Much of the shoreline has dense Phragmites which extends into the central area of the
coastal meadow marsh and covers ~7.8 ha (~19.2 acres; Table 7). The remaining area
between the tree line and the dense Phragmites cell has scattered Phragmites
throughout and covers an area ~5.4 ha (13.3 acres). Phragmites in this large cell should
be controlled using backpack sprayers and in some areas, where Phragmites is growing
up between willows, could be hand wicked. Phragmites is growing along a creek which
flows through the centre of this Block and along an excavated boat channel at the
northern edge. Leopard Frogs were observed near the creek and throughout the less
dense section and a Northern Water Snake was swimming along the shoreline. A bird
nest was on the edge of a dense Phragmites section on the lake side and a number of
birds were seen and heard throughout this area. Numerous large rocks and boulders are
present along some sections of the shoreline interspersed by stretches of soft sand or
organic muck. ATV tracks and brush piles were also present in this section of coastal
meadow marsh. Due to the extent and density of Phragmites, this Block is going to
require the greatest amount of effort and time to restore. This Block can be accessed
from Sunset Drive turning south off of Concession Rd. 10. It is recommended that this
Block be targeted between August and the first heavy frost.
30
Figure 20. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 7. The section within
the green line (C1) can be controlled using the Centaur. The area outlined in white (C2)
should be controlled using backpack.
Table 7. Control information pertaining to the Block 7 cells labeled in Figure 20.
Block 7
Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
m2
C2
3961.5
53887.3
C1
4194.1
77672.1
Total
8155.5
131559.4
Backpack
3961.5
53887.3
Centaur
4194.1
77672.1
Area
ha
5.4
7.8
13.2
5.4
7.8
acre
13.3
19.2
32.5
13.3
19.2
Waypoint
#
543,739
510-537
Recommended
control method
Comments
backpack
numerous scattered Phragmites between treeline and dense cell
Centaur
dense areas along shoreline and into meadow marsh interior
Observed: leopard frogs, Killdeers, Northern Water Snakes,
Spring Peepers, Ca. Geese, Mallards, shorebirds, raccoon
tracks, dead fish,White-throated Sparrows, gulls
31
Figure 21. Block 7 photos: a) dense Phragmites along the shoreline (May 2013), b) Phragmites
within the interior of the coastal meadow marsh (May 2013), c) bird nest along edge of
Phragmites (July 2012) and, d) Leopard Frod observed in sparse Phragmites section of the
coastal meadow marsh (July 2012).
viii) Block 8
Block 8 is another large section totaling ~12 ha (~29 acres) with one large dense
Phragmites cell and one large Cell with scattered Phragmites throughout (Figure 22).
The dense Phragmites occurs in pockets along the shoreline and extends into the
interior meadow marsh in some areas. Dense Phragmites is also present along a creek
near the road at waypoint #780 (Figure 23). A female Mallard and an unidentified duck
were flushed out of this area as were a pair of Red-winged Blackbirds although no nests
were found. Four Northern Water Snakes were observed among the rocks along the
edge of the lake. Numerous birds were heard while traversing through this section as
was a Spring Peeper. There was a groomed beach area between waypoints #746 and
#747 with Phragmites on either side and a waterfowl hunting blind was in the
Phragmites along the shoreline. Due to the wildlife and recreational use of this section,
control would be best left until after Labour Day Weekend.
The area with dense Phragmites covers ~7.8 ha (~19.2 acres) and should be controlled
using the Centaur (Table 8). This includes an ‘island’ that was connected to the shoreline
due to low lake levels. ATV tracks were observed at this site (WP #751) and traversed
through the meadow marsh. Smaller pockets of less dense Phragmites were scattered
throughout the remaining ~5.4 ha (~13.3 acres) of meadow marsh extending up to the
tree line. Numerous rocks and boulders are scattered throughout the entire Block and
along the shoreline this is interspersed with sections of sand and soft organic muck.
32
This Block will require similar time and effort as that of Block 7 in order to fully control
Phragmites and restore the coastal wetland. It can be accessed from Sunset Drive,
turning north off of Concession Rd. 10.
green line (C1) can be controlled using the Centaur. The area outlined in white (C2) has sparse
Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units.
33
Figure 23. Block 8 photos, May 2013: a) dense Phragmites along creek near road, b) cleared
beach section along lakeshore, c) dense Phragmites along shoreline, and d) sparse Phragmites
throughout coastal meadow marsh between tree line and dense section.
Table 8. Control information pertaining to cells in Block 8, labeled in Figure 22.
Block 8
Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
C2
2394.3
C1
3602.4
Total
5996.7
Backpack
2394.3
Centaur
3602.4
m2
39489.5
77615.7
117105.2
39489.5
77615.7
Area
ha
3.9
7.8
11.7
3.9
7.8
acre
9.8
19.2
28.9
9.6
19.2
Waypoint
#
768,780,784,785,
742-767
Recommended
control method
Comments
backpack numerous scattered Phragmites between treeline and dense cell
Centaur
dense areas along shoreline and into meadow marsh interior
Observed: 2 Mute Swans, female Mallard, cormorants, Spring Peeper, pair of
Ca. Geese with nest, male and female Red-winged Blackbirds, muskrat tracks
4 Northern Water Snakes, Garter Snake, dead gull and Yellow-shafted Flicker
ix) Block 9
Block 9 covers ~9 ha (~22 acres) of coastal meadow marsh (Figure 24; Table 9). Dense
Phragmites exists along a ~10 m wide strip along the shoreline, around a wet
depression, and along the edge of two small creeks flowing in from the upland. There is
also a small (~15 m x 20 m) dense cell (C2) in the central area of the sedge meadow.
Cells 1 and 2 can be controlled using a Centaur. The wet depression in Cell 2 appears to
dry out since the sediment basin had cracks throughout. There was very little
Phragmites in the Cell 3 section but this became much more prevalent in Cells C4 and C5
and will require control using backpack spray units. Within the section of Cell 5 close to
the road there was water throughout the sedge meadow and Phragmites was scattered
throughout. This may dry out during the summer months. Wildlife observed in this area
included Leopard Frogs, Red-winged Black Birds, song birds, American Coot, female
Mallard and Garter Snake. Access to this Block can be made off of Sunset Dr. turning
north from Concession Rd. #10 but there is a barrier of large boulders running along the
34
lakeside of the road here (Figure 25). It is recommended that this Block be targeted
between August and the first heavy frost.
green lines (C1, C2) can be controlled using the Centaur. The areas outlined in white (C3, C4,
C5) has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units.
Table 9. Control information for Block 9 cell labeled in Figure 24.
Block 9
Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
C3
934.8
C4
618.3
C5
775.6
C1
1776.3
C2
70.3
Total
4175.2
Backpack
2328.6
Centaur
1846.6
m2
33578.4
20254.5
18242.8
15618.7
323.8
88018.1
72075.6
15942.4
Area
ha
3.358
2.025
1.824
1.562
0.032
8.802
7.208
1.594
acre
8.294
5.003
4.506
3.858
0.080
21.740
17.803
3.938
Waypoint
#
827
821
815,817
786-788
791
Recommended
control method
backpack
backpack
backpack
Centaur
Centaur
Comments
very little Phragmites throughout this section
wet sedge meadow section with scattered Phragmites
scattered Phragmites throughout area
narrow fringe of thick Phragmites along shoreline, around pond and along 2 creeks
dense Phragmites cell ~15m x 20 m
Observed: Leopard Frog, Red-winged Black Birds, Sparrows, female Mallard
Garter Snake,
heard Am. Coot, song birds
35
Figure 25. Block 9 photos, May 2013: a) in Cell 1 near the lakeshore looking toward pond, b)
wet sedge meadow section near the road with scattered Phragmites throughout, c) rock wall
along lakeside edge of road in the area of Block 9, and d) dense Phragmites patch along the
lakeshore.
x) Block 10
Block 10 takes in ~5.1 ha (~12.6 acres) and includes a small portion of Brucedale
Conservation Area managed by Saugeen Conservation (Figure 26; Table 10). The CA
section is located in Cell 3 which takes in a groomed beach with Phragmites around the
perimeter (Figure 27a). Due to the heavy recreational use of this section of the
coastline, control efforts should not occur until after Labour Day weekend and be
coordinated with the Saugeen Conservation staff. The section that would best be
controlled using the Centaur includes patches of dense Phragmites along the shoreline
which in some areas continues back into the central area of the meadow marsh. It tends
to become less dense closer to the tree line however, it is still too much to control using
backpack sprayer units alone (Figure 27d).
36
Figure 26. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 10. The area within
the green line (C1) can be controlled using the Centaur. The areas outlined in white (C2, C3,
Table 10. Control information for each of the Block 10 cells labeled in Figure 26.
Block 10 Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
C2
474.3
C3
304.5
C4
671.3
C1
1315.8
Total
2765.8
Backpack 1450.1
Centaur
1315.8
m2
11032.6
2026.4
6127.5
32002.0
51188.5
19186.5
32002.0
Area
ha
1.10
0.20
0.61
3.20
5.12
1.92
3.20
acre
2.73
0.50
1.51
7.90
12.64
4.74
7.90
Waypoint
#
813-814
CA beach
805-810
797-805
Recommended
control method
backpack
backpack
backpack
Centaur
Comments
very rocky area, sparse Phragmites
CA beach section, sand
along roadside, Phragmites amongst shrubs in some areas
lg section, extends from shoreline up to treeline,sm shoreline sections cleared for recreational use
Observed: Red-winged Black Birds, Sparrows, female Mallard w. possible nest,
gull w. possible nest, song birds, Garter Snake,
37
Figure 27. Block 10 photos, May 2013: a) cleared beach section for Brucedale CA (Cell 3), b)
small cleared section at shoreline with Phragmites pockets on either side, c) sparse
Phragmites section near road (Cell 4), and d) dense Phragmites section in Cell 1.
xi) Block 11
Block 11 covers ~3.5 ha (~8.6 acres). The densest Phragmites occurs in the central part
of this block and extends from the shoreline up to the edge of the road covering a 0.6 ha
(1.6 acre) area (Figure 28). This cell (C2) and would best be controlled using the Centaur
however, large rocks and boulders are numerous and it may be too rough for the track
vehicle to safely navigate. If this is determined, this block can be controlled using
backpack units which will also be required to control the sparse Phragmites present
throughout the remaining area. Along the east side of the road is a large wetland that
did not, at the time of the assessment, appear to have Phragmites. However, an ATV
track was observed running through the middle of this marsh and, along with causing
harm to flora and fauna, may increase the probability of Phragmites colonizing. There
were two Northern Water Snakes observed along the rocky shoreline along with a
Canada Goose which was behaving as if she had a nest and there were Leopard Frogs in
the wet areas in Cell 3. Pitcher plants were also observed in a wet section in Cell 3.
Access to this Block can be made where Concession Rd. #12 ends at Sunset Drive. Timing
for control using backpack spray units should be appropriate starting in August while
control using the Centaur should occur later in the growing season beginning at the
earliest in September.
38
green line (C2) can be controlled using the Centaur. The areas outlined in white (C1, C3) has
sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units.
Table 11. Control information for each of the Block 11 cells labeled in Figure 28.
Block 11 Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
C1
684.1
C3
543.9
C2
350.3
Total
1578.3
Backpack
1228.0
Centaur
350.3
m2
17983.9
10594.2
6328.6
34906.6
28578.1
6328.6
Area
ha
1.80
1.06
0.63
3.49
2.86
0.63
acre
4.44
2.62
1.56
8.62
7.06
1.56
Waypoint
#
804, 831-833
835-840
833-834
Recommended
control method
Comments
backpack small pockets on shoreline and scattered Phragmites back to road edge
backpack groundwater seeps throughout this section, very sparse Phragmites throughout
Centaur
fringe along shoreline extending back to roadside
Observed: 2 Northern Water Snakes among rocks along shoreline, flushed out Ca. goose,
possibly has nest, Leopard Frogs, pitcher plants, ATV tracks throughout
39
Figure 29. Block 11 photos, May 2013: a) viewpoint from the edge of the road looking toward
the lake in Cell 1, b) viewpoint looking north along the edge of Sunset Drive, c) Phragmites
along shoreline, and d) groundwater seep in Cell 3.
xii) Block 12
Block 12 is a ~3.7 ha (~9.2 acres) stretch of shoreline were no Phragmites plants were
observed (Figure 30, Table 12). Some of the shoreline had been altered for boat
channels (Figure 31). However, the majority of this area was a relatively unaltered
coastal meadow marsh. Phragmites growing in front of 476 Sunset Drive has been
actively cut by the property owners since 2008. This has reduced density and expansion
in this site but requires continual maintenance to keep the Phragmites at low density. It
is recommended that the Phragmites not be cut in the growing season that this section
is targeted to be sprayed, to improve efficacy. Control can occur in this area using
backpack spray units anytime after the plants reach sufficient height (~1.5 m).
40
Figure 30. Satellite image showing location of Block 12.
Table 12. Information pertaining to Block 12.
Block 12 Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
1437.0
m2
37210.4
Area
ha
3.72
acre
9.19
Waypoint
#
840, 824
Recommended
control method
Comments
monitor
no Phragmites plants were observed throughtout the area between Waypoints 840 and 842
there were three sections of shoreline with excavated boat channels
Figure 31. Photo taken in Block 12 from waypoint # 839 looking northeast, May 2013.
41
xiii) Block 13
Block 13 is located where Sunset Drive ends heading north along the lake (Figure 32).
This area covers ~3.9 ha (~9.7 acres) and the majority of this section of coastline has
scattered Phragmites and small isolated pockets that can be controlled using backpack
spray units (Table 13). There are two sections along the shoreline where a dense
Phragmites fringe varying between 5m and 10 m in width occurs within a 0.5 ha (1.2
acre) area. These two cells (C1, C2) would be more effectively controlled using the
Centaur although control using backpack spray units would also be possible. There are a
few cottages in the tree line along this stretch and recreational use of small portions of
the shoreline is evident. Contact with these residents should be made before control
work commences. If backpack control is to be used, control in this section could occur
anytime after the plants reach ~1m in height up until the first heavy frost. Centaur
access should be acceptable anytime after the bird nesting period has finished (mid to
late June). This section of shoreline could be accessed from cottage lanes, pending
permission, or from Sunset Drive.
the green lines (C1, C2) can be controlled using the Centaur. The areas outlined in white (C3,
C4, C5) has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units.
42
Table 13. Control information pertaining to each cell labeled in Figure 22.
Block 13 Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
m2
C3
1437.0
34347.9
C1
107.9
577.9
C2
436.8
4293.0
Total
1981.7
39218.8
Backpack
1437.0
34347.9
Centaur
544.7
4870.9
Area
ha
3.43
0.06
0.43
3.92
3.4
0.5
acre
8.48
0.14
1.06
9.69
8.48
1.2
Waypoint
#
843-851
845,846
847,848
Recommended
control method
Comments
backpack scattered Phragmites and small pockets throughout this area
Centaur
fringe of thick Phragmites along shoreline ~10m wide
Centaur
fringe of thick Phragmites along shoreline ~5m-10m wide
Observed: flushed out Ca. Goose, female mallard
Figure 33. Photos taken in Block 13, May 2013 showing a) section of shoreline used by
cottagers with Phragmites in background, and b) fringe of Phragmites along shoreline.
xiv) Block 14
Block 14 is located in the most isolated section along this shoreline and can only be
accessed from the same location as that of Block 13 or from entering from the northern
end off of Richardson Road (Figure 34). There are four cells (C1-C4) with dense
Phragmites in this block which fringe the shoreline and cover an area of ~0.7 ha (~1.8
acres). The remaining ~3.5 ha (~8.6 acre) has scattered Phragmites throughout (Table
14). There are large, wet, shallow depressions throughout this block with Phragmites
along the fringe (Figure 35). These would be expected to dry out during dry periods in
the summer. This Block could be targeted for control anytime after the bird nesting
period has ended (mid to late June).
43
the green lines (C1, C2, C3, C4) can be controlled using the Centaur. The area outlined in white
Table 14. Control information pertaining to each cell labeled in Figure 34.
Block 14 Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
m2
C5
1110.8
34815.9
C1
235.2
3160.9
C2
116.9
527.9
C3
309.7
2147.7
C4
381.6
1394.8
Total
2154.2
42047.2
Backpack
1110.8
34815.9
Centaur
1043.4
7231.2
Area
ha
3.48
0.32
0.05
0.21
0.14
4.2
3.5
0.7
acre
8.60
0.78
0.13
0.53
0.34
10.4
8.6
1.8
Waypoint
Recommended
#
control method
Comments
367,852,855, 858-860
backpack scattered pockets of Phragmites throughout area
851,852
Centaur
dense Phragmites which extends from shoreline back to treeline
853,854
Centaur
small patch of dense Phragmites along shoreline
856,857
Centaur
fringe of dense Phragmites along shoreline ~7m wide
861-863
Centaur
fringe of dense Phragmites along shoreline ~7m wide
Observed: 2 mallards in pond,
no signs of human disturbance in this coastal wetland
44
Figure 35. Photo taken in Block 14 looking toward tree line, May 2013.
xv) Block 15
Block 15 covers ~6 ha (~14.8 acres) and has scattered Phragmites throughout (Figure 36,
Table 15). This section of coastal meadow marsh has large wet depressions with
Phragmites along the fringe (Figure 37). Water in these shallow depressions would be
expected to reduce during dry summer months allowing for chemical control. Although
the Phragmites is widespread throughout this block, there are no large, dense patches
and therefore this entire section would best be controlled using backpack spray units.
Timing for control would be best after the wetter sites have dried and prior to the plants
developing mature seeds (~late August) but could begin after birds have finished
nesting. Access to this site can be made from Richardson Road.
45
Figure 36. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control area in Block 15. The area
within the white line has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units.
Table 15. Control information for Block 15.
Block 15 Perimeter
Cell # distance, m
m2
C1
1099.7
59822.4
Area
ha
5.98
acre
14.78
Waypoint
#
358-371
Recommended
control method
Comments
backpack scattered Phragmites throughout much of this area
Figure 37. Photo taken along the edge of the wet area in Block 15. May 2013.
46
xvi) Block 16
Block 16 is located in the northern most portion of the Municipality of Kincardine
shoreline and is adjacent to the MacGregor Point Provincial Park (Figure 38). This
section takes in ~2.7 ha (~6.7 acres) and has Phragmites scattered throughout much of
this area (Table 16). Despite the prevalence of Phragmites, there are no dense cells that
have yet developed and there are numerous large rocks and boulders (Figure 39).
Therefore, this site would best be controlled using backpack spray units. There are
pockets of Phragmites along the shoreline within the Provincial Park boundary and
these areas should also be controlled during the same period, which will require
coordination with Park staff. Timing for control of this Block would be best after birds
have finished nesting and before Phragmites seeds have matured. Access can be made
off of Richardson Road.
Figure 38. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 16. The area within
the white line has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units.
Table 16. Control information for Block 16.
Block 16
Cell #
C1
Perimeter
distance, m
1330.5
m2
27025.4
Area
ha
2.70
acre
6.68
Waypoint
#
352-356
Recommended
control method
Comments
backpack
scattered Phragmites throughout much of this area
47
Figure 39. Photos taken in Block 16, May 2013 showing a) sparse Phragmites along the edge of
a pond, b) small Phragmites cell in the coastal meadow marsh, c) Phragmites cell along the
edge of the lake, and d) rocks and boulders along the shoreline.
6. RECOMMENDED CONTROL STRATEGY
The ultimate goal of Phase I of the Municipality of Kincardine’s Phragmites Management
Plan is to restore the coastal region between Baie du Dore and the MacGregor Point
Provincial Park. In so doing, the aesthetic qualities and recreational opportunities valued
by the local community will be returned and the current threat to native flora and fauna
significantly reduced. These objectives can only be achieved with sufficient financial
commitments to ensure the current infestation can be controlled in a timely fashion
over the next few years. It is recommended that the funds be used to hire a licensed
pesticide applicator to control the dense cells and to support a backpack crew to control
the sparse areas and those sections a Centaur cannot navigate due to rough terrain. The
licensed applicator should have equipment such as a Centaur to enable safe and
efficient access and have experience controlling Phragmites in sensitive habitats. It is
recommended that the backpack crew consist of at least 5 trained Municipal personnel
who would be available as required. One crew member should have a supervisory role
to: 1) ensure coordination with the Centaur crew, 2) undertake site visits prior to the
target date to assess conditions, 3) develop a spray plan, 4) schedule required crew and
manage field work, 5) ensure required signage is posted, 5) communicate planned
activities with adjacent property owners and the local community, and 6) write annual
reports detailing work completed and planned targets for the following year.
It is recommended that the backpack crew undergo on-site training prior to actual
control work commencing in 2013. Training should include backpack spray unit and
48
handwicking herbicide application methods, design of spray plan to ensure all cells are
targeted, review of health and safety requirements, proper herbicide and surfactant
mixing and handling, rare plant identification, overview of hazards, and other important
items.
The timing window for controlling Phragmites using backpack spray units can be
broader than that for Centaur use since they are far less intrusive. Within some areas
backpack control could occur between early June when the plants are ~1 m in height up
until late fall, before the first heavy frost. Walking through the wetlands with backpack
spray units or handwicking should have minimal impact on any wildlife that may be
present. The applicator is more likely able to observe, and avoid, chemical contact with
non-target species. The use of backpack spray units around residential sites and near
recreational areas will have to be timed accordingly.
Since we’re recommending spraying between June and fall, I suggest we supplement
this plan with a trained biologist to do field reconnaissance prior to each spray event.
This will need to be costed into the program. Also, since this will occur during the
recreation season, proper communications with the public will be required (notices,
signs, etc.).
If additional funding can be acquired, more support should go toward this program to
increase acreage that can be controlled during one growing season. At the end of the
2013 field season the efficacy of the program should be evaluated to determine how
much habitat can realistically be controlled within a given number of manpower hours
by both the backpack and Centaur crews. This will guide funding requirements in
subsequent years and provide a better projection for anticipated program costs and
estimates for dates of completion.
Funds will also be required to hire experienced personnel to burn the dead Phragmites
after it has been treated in the dense cells. This will significantly reduce seed dispersal
and increase native species response the following growing season. The timing window
for Phragmites burning along this shoreline would be best between November and
March. The actual target dates within this window are constrained by weather which
affects wildlife activity and the required conditions to ensure a safe and effective
controlled burned.
a) Estimated Costs and Projected Control
The following recommended control schedule is meant to serve as a guide and should
be adjusted accordingly (Table 17). Some areas may be controlled in a much shorter
time period than anticipated while others may take longer. Weather and equipment
repairs will also impact the amount of acreage that can be controlled within the target
period. The Municipality of Kincardine has allocated $20,000 for Phragmites control
efforts in 2013. If more funds become available more acreage can be controlled. The
estimated costs for controlling the areas are based upon a number of factors including
Phragmites densities, travel distance, terrain, as well as aerial coverage. The sections
with dense cells will likely require touch up by a backpack crew the following growing
49
season based upon mortality rates which tend to range between ~85% and 100% after
one herbicide application. The increase in anticipated funds for years 2014 and 2015
reflects this additional effort required by the backpack crew. It also reflects the
additional funds anticipated in order to control the suggested target sites. The three
Blocks 1, 2 and 3 are in the vicinity closest to the lands owned by Ontario Power
Generation which are heavily infested with Phragmites. Control efforts on these
sections would be more efficient if done in concert with similar efforts targeting these
areas. It is hoped that a program will be in place and in the process of being
implemented by 2016. The Blocks closest to the MacGregor Point Provincial Park, B14,
B15, B16 are currently scheduled for control in 2015. However, if more funds become
available, and a partnership can be formed with Park staff to work together on this
section and the shoreline within the park boundary, this area could be controlled much
sooner.
Table 17. Recommended control schedule and associated costs for Phase I.
Targeted Recommended
Priority
Sites
Control year
Block 6
Block 7
Block 4
Block 5
Block 8
Block 9
Block 10
Block 11
Block 12
Block 13
Block 14
Block 15
Block 16
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2016
2016
2016
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
Estimated
control
costs
$20,000
$27,000
$42,200
$9,000
Estimated
control
area
ha (ac)
0.5(1.1)
13.2(32.5)
0.2(0.5)
1.9(4.6)
11.7(28.9)
8.8(21.7)
5.1(12.6)
3.5(8.6)
0.2(0.5)
3.9(9.7)
4.2(10.4)
6.0(14.8)
6.0(14.8)
1.1(2.6)
1.0(2.5)
0.8(2.0)
For the initial control work planned for 2013 it is recommended that the section of
shoreline within Blocks 6 and 7 be targeted (Table 18). These areas have well
established Phragmites cells which will expand rapidly this coming growing season if not
controlled. This section of shoreline does not appear to have much recreational activity
50
and therefore could be targeted for control in August. This timing should not negatively
impact any wildlife that may be present in the area. Negative impacts to native plant
species should not be high due to the fact that very little desirable vegetation is among
the dense cells where the Centaur would be broadcast spraying. And, backpack spot
spraying in the less dense cells will reduce spray drift to non-target species. The Centaur
and Backpack crews should plan to work on the same days to ensure that all target
areas get covered and that there is no overlap in the spraying of cells. The coverage area
estimated for the funds available for 2013 may increase or decrease and the 2014
forecast should be adjusted accordingly. The dense cells that get controlled in 2013
should be rolled, if possible, and burned sometime between November 2013 and March
2014. A quote for burning this section should be obtained. Cost estimates for this work
are not included in this plan.
Table 18. Suggested target areas, dates and estimated costs for 2013.
Target
Blocks
Estimated
Control area
B6
0.4 ha (1.1 ac)
3 cells ~385 m2
B7
7.8 ha (19.2 ac)
5.4 ha (13.3 ac)
Total
8.2 ha (20.3 ac)
5.5 ha (13.5 ac)
13.6 ha (33.6 ac)
Est. costs
Centaur Crew
$0.5k
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people)
$0.25k
Centaur Crew
$15k
Backpack Crew
(4-5 people)
$4.25k
Centaur Crew:
$15.5K
Backpack Crew:
$4.5K
$20k
Est. days
(8hrs)
Target
Window
0.5
0.25
Aug-Oct
Aug-Oct
3-5
3-6
Aug-Oct
Aug-Oct
Comments
the
Centaur
and
backpack
crews
should
attempt to
work on
the same
days
The Blocks recommended for control in 2014 include sections to the south and north of
the blocks to be targeted in 2013 (Table 19). Blocks 4, 5 and 8 are in areas where
summer recreational activity occurs and should therefore be accessed after Labour Day
Weekend. These sections will require both Centaur and backpack application and crews
should plan to work on the same days to ensure that all cells get covered and that there
is no overlap in the spraying of cells. The areas sprayed in 2013 will likely need touch up
and a backpack crew can do this work anytime after the plant reaches sufficient height
(early-mid June). The dense cells in Blocks 4 and 5 were burned in the spring of 2013
and may not require further treatment after herbicide application. The dense cells in
Block 8 should however, require rolling, if possible, and be burned. This could take place
anytime between November 2014 and March 2015. The estimated cost for this activity
51
depends on whether or not Blocks 4 and 5 will also need burning and can be adjusted
accordingly.
Target
Blocks
Estimated
Control area
B6,B7
0.4 ha (1 ac)
B4
0.2 ha (0.5 ac)
4 cells ~298 m2
B5
1.9 ha (4.6 ac)
1 cell ~133 m2
B8
7.8 ha (19.2 ac)
3.9 ha (9.6 ac)
Total
9.9 ha (24.3 ac)
4.4 ha (10.8 ac)
14.2 ha (35.1 ac)
Est. costs
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people)
$0.5k
Centaur Crew
$0.5k
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people)
$0.5k
Centaur Crew
$5k
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people)
$0.5k
Centaur Crew
$15k
Backpack Crew
(4-5 people)
$5k
Centaur Crew:
$20.5K
Backpack Crew:
$6.5K
$27K
Est.
days
(8hrs)
Target
Window
0.25
Touch up of cells
June-Oct targeted the
previous year
0.25
0.25
Sep-Oct
Sep-Oct
0.5
0.25
Sep-Oct
Sep-Oct
3-5
3-6
Sep-Oct
Sep-Oct
Comments
the Centaur and
backpack crews
should attempt to
work on the same
days
Year 2015 efforts should focus on the remaining shoreline between Block 8 and
MacGregor Point Provincial Park. The Blocks targeted in 2013 should require no to very
minimal touch up while the Blocks controlled in 2014 may require touchup efforts in the
areas that were most dense. These areas can be targeted any time after the plants are
sufficiently developed and should only require a backpack crew of 2-3 people for one
day. Blocks 14, 15 and 16 have a very rocky shoreline and may have to be done with
backpack sprayers. These are larger sections and will require much walking. Use of an
ATV to transport mixed chemical and supplies may be beneficial. These sections should
be done the same year that the shoreline within the MacGregor Point Provincial Park is
targeted. If recreational use in these areas is high during the summer months they may
best be left until after Labour Day weekend. If this is not an issue, these areas could be
targeted anytime after birds have finished nesting in late June.
52
Blocks 9 through 13 are all in areas where summer recreational activity takes place,
including the Brucedale Conservation Authority visitors, and should be controlled after
Labour Day weekend. With the exception of Block 12, all sites require both Centaur and
backpack crews and they should coordinate efforts to ensure all areas get sprayed and
reduce duplicating spray efforts. Block 12 did not have any visible Phragmites plants
present at the time of this assessment in May 2012. However, it was subsequently
learned that property owners in this area have been controlling Phragmites by cutting
plants every summer since 2008. Notice of impending chemical control efforts should go
out to these residents early in the growing season to ensure plants are present at the
time control efforts are planned. These plants could be sprayed in June using backpack
units along with the section in Block 13. The dense Phragmites in Blocks 14, 15 and 16
could be burned between November 2015 and March 2016. Due to the rough terrain,
these areas will not be able to be rolled first. Estimates for burning this section of
shoreline will have to be obtained.
53
Target
Blocks
Estimated
Control area
B6-B7
0
B4,B5,
B8
0.8 (2 ac)
B9
1.6 ha (3.9 ac)
7.2 ha (17.8 ac)
B10
3.2 ha (7.9 ac)
1.9 ha (4.7 ac)
B11
0.6 ha (1.6 ac)
2.9 ha (7.1 ac)
B12
0.2 ha (0.5 ac)
B13
0.5 ha (1.2 ac)
3.4 ha (8.5 ac)
Est. costs
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people)
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people)
$0.5k
Centaur Crew
$4.5k
Backpack Crew
(4-5 people)
$6.1k
Centaur Crew
$9k
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people)
$1.6k
Est.
days
(8hrs)
0.25
0.25
2-4
0.5-1
0.5-1
Centaur Crew
$1.5k
Backpack Crew
(3-4 people)
$2.5k
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people)
$0.5k
0.25-1
1-3
Centaur Crew
$0.8k
Backpack Crew
(4-5 people)
$3k
0.25-1
1-3
0.25
Target
Window
Comments
June-Oct Touch up if
needed
June,
Touch up as
Sep-Oct required
Aug-Oct
the Centaur and
backpack crews
should attempt to
work on the same
days
Sep-Oct Shoreline used by
Brucedale CA
visitors;
the Centaur and
backpack crews
should attempt to
work on the same
days
Sep-Oct the Centaur and
Aug-Oct backpack crews
should attempt to
work on the same
days
June-Oct Contact
landowners at
476 Sunset Dr.
the spring before
treatment;
currently cut
plants
Aug-Oct the Centaur and
June-Oct backpack crews
should attempt to
work on the same
days
54
Table 20 continued
Target
Blocks
Estimated
Control area
B14
0.7 ha (1.8 ac)
3.5 ha (8.6 ac)
B15
6.0 ha (14.8 ac)
B16
2.7 ha (6.7 ac)
Total
6.6 ha (16.4 ac)
28.6 ha (70.7 ac)
35.2 ha (87.1 ac)
Est. costs
Centaur Crew
$1.5k
Backpack Crew
(4-5 people)
$3k
Backpack Crew
(4-5 people)
$5k
Backpack Crew
(4-5 people)
$2.5k
Est.
days
(8hrs)
0.5-1
2-4
3-6
2-4
Target
Window
Comments
Aug-Oct the Centaur and
June-Oct backpack crews
should attempt to
work on the same
days
June-Oct Very rocky terrain
and dense cells
along shoreline
June-Oct may best be
controlled using
backpack spray
units
Centaur Crew:
$17.5k
Backpack Crew:
$24.7k
$42.2K
By year 2016 only three small sections requiring Phragmites control should remain,
Blocks 1, 2, and 3 (Table 21). These are located within the southern portion of the
shoreline near Baie du Dore and the Bruce Nuclear Power Development (BNPD)
property. It is anticipated that by 2016, restoration efforts will be well underway within
the BNPD owned section of shoreline. This will greatly reduce re-infestation of the
controlled sites. The Blocks controlled over the previous years will have to be assessed
and any required touch-up work undertaken by a backpack spray crew.
55
Target
Blocks
Estimated
Control area
Est. costs
Est. days
(8hrs)
B6-B7
Target
Window
Comments
Touch up if
needed
Touch up if
June-Oct
needed
Touch up as
June-Oct
required
Recreational
area,
Sep-Oct
therefore
best
controlled
Sep-Oct after Labour
Sep-Oct Day
weekend;
the Centaur
and
backpack
Sep-Oct
crews should
Sep-Oct
attempt to
work on the
same days
June-Oct
B4,B5,
B8
B9B16
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people) $5k
Centaur Crew $1k
B1
0.4 ha (0.9 ac)
0.7 ha (1.7 ac)
B2
0.4 ha (1.1 ac)
0.6 ha (1.5 ac)
B3
0.2 ha (0.4 ac)
0.6 ha (1.6 ac)
Total
Centaur Crew: $2.5k
1.0 ha (2.4 ac)
Backpack Crew:
1.9 ha (4.8 ac)
$6.5k
2.9 ha (7.2 ac)
$9k
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people)$0.5k
Centaur Crew $1k
Backpack Crew
(3-4 people) $0.5k
3-5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
Centaur Crew $0.5k
Backpack Crew
(2-3 people)$0.5k
0.25
0.5
0.5
1-2
56
b) Long-term Monitoring and Rapid Response Program
It is anticipated that, with sufficient funding support, a reasonable expectation for
control of Phragmites within all mapped Blocks could be achieved by the fall of 2016.
Once this goal has been achieved, an ongoing program to monitor and rapidly control
newly establishing Phragmites plants should be in place. This can be designed as a
community wide reporting program with a contact person responsible for control.
Minimal funds would be required each year for equipment maintenance, chemical
purchase, training and other expenses. The program could also be expanded to include
other problematic invasive plants which require similar control methods. Without this
program in place, the existing Phragmites issue within the Municipality of Kincardine is
likely to return and the efforts and funds invested will be wasted.
Since this shoreline does not exist in isolation, the Phragmites currently invading
adjacent coastlines should also be controlled to reduce re-infestation rates. Phase II of
this program should focus on these areas.
It is anticipated that this Phragmites Management Plan will be used to guide a highly
successful restoration effort that will become a model project for other Municipalities
within the province requiring similar efforts.
57
7. LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
During the implementation of Phase I the Municipality should begin making plans for
the long term coordination of Phragmites control in Kincardine. There are other areas of
the Municipality, particularly along the south shoreline (Inverhuron to Boiler Beach),
where Phragmites also exists and, if not controlled, will continue to spread.
The following actions are recommended to enable the development of an effective early
detection, rapid response Phragmites Control Program. A schematic diagram is provided
for visual reference (Figure 40).
Recommendation 1:
Designate a Project Coordinator for Phragmites Control in Kincardine.
Phragmites control is a complicated process, and having one person from the
Municipality designated as the program coordinator would be a great benefit.
Recommendation 2:
Mapping
There are two components to mapping that should be considered.
1) Occurrence mapping: The Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation (Alexander,
2012) identified significant stands of Phragmites growing on the Lake Huron shoreline
from Tobermory to Sarnia. These mapping details illustrate that a significant infestation
does occur along the shoreline south of Bruce Power. This invasion presents itself like
patchwork along the shore all the way up to the marina at Station Beach. Station Beach
itself had no evidence of any Phragmites in 2011 when the survey work was complete,
but a significant patch was found growing at Boiler Beach.
The Friends of the Penetangore Watershed group collected some mapping details for
the Coastal Centre in 2011. The results indicated that Phragmites was established in
specific locations throughout the Penetangore Watershed, particularly in ditches. The
entire watershed was not mapped, only the Phragmites stands that were easily seen
from roads were reported.
Although the rest of the Municipality has not been formally surveyed for the presence
or absence of Phragmites, it does appear that Phragmites is not as serious an issue as it
is for the shoreline, and that the infestations which currently occur in some ditches can
be controlled using backpack sprayers.
58
Since the available occurrence mapping is isolated to the shoreline that is where the
control work should begin. However, because of the aggressive nature of Phragmites, it
is important to locate and control small stands that have established along waterways
and ditches before they become a serious local issue or spread back to the shoreline.
Option 1: Use a student.
Mapping Phragmites occurrence using GPS technology is a very interesting,
healthy and educational summer job for a student. In Kincardine, detailed
mapping of river banks, creeks, drains, ditches and interior wetland areas may
not take a full summer, as it appears that Phragmites does not present a serious
problem for interior areas.
Option 2: Train public works staff to recognize and report Phragmites occurrences.
Municipal staffs that travel the rural areas can report where Phragmites occurs.
A printed master map could be developed for staff to record their sightings on,
and/or a map created in GIS format, where the data can be added. Using GPS
technology to accurately record the location of Phragmites stands is
recommended. This will provide valuable information to the municipality for the
implementation of a rapid response, before stands of Phragmites has the
opportunity to expand into a larger and more costly problem.
2) Management Program Tracking: GIS software is a useful tool to organize and
coordinate control efforts and track progress. Phase I blocks could be imported into a
Phragmites Management Project file in which maps are created using layers or colours
to identify the areas that have been controlled, those targeted to be sprayed, those
requiring a burn and, controlled areas to be monitored. Alternatively, a similar and less
expensive system could be employed using a large printed map and coloured markers or
tacks.
Recommendation 3:
Build a team of Back-Pack Sprayers that are trained to control Phragmites.
A minimum of 2 licensed Landscape Exterminators are recommended, with 3 licensed
Pesticide Technician’s working under each exterminator. The Municipality may already
have licensed exterminators on staff.
Training information for the Exterminator Course and Pesticide Technician Course is
available at http://www.ontariopesticide.com/index.cfm/home-page/
Once they have acquired the required licenses, the Exterminators and Pesticide
Technicians should receive additional training on herbicide application techniques
specific to the control of Phragmites. They should also learn how to identify the natural
heritage features that may be impacted during control programs. This will help build the
capacity of the municipality to be able to carry out an ongoing program without the
reliance and expense of outside contractors.
59
Recommendation 4:
Hire Prescribed Burn Experts to complete all burning activities
Prescribed Burning is an essential phase of an Integrated Pesticide Management Plan.
Burning removes dead biomass, reduces seed dispersal, and allows for a quicker return
of native species. This method is most effective in the dense Phragmites cells and is not
required in the sparse areas. It is highly recommended that Prescribed Burn Experts be
engaged for the planning and implementation of any/all burns of Phragmites.
Recommendation 5:
Community Outreach and Education
Information about the Phragmites Control Program should be made available to all
residents of the Municipality. This could entail postings on the Municipal website, local
newspaper and radio ads, development of a pamphlet to be distributed throughout the
community, and information signage at select locations. Residents and property owners
within each area targeted for control should receive notification about planned
activities and periodic updates, through email, phone calls, letters or direct personal
contact.
In order to reduce the likelihood of a re-infestation of Phragmites on the shoreline, it is
important to work with the residents of Kincardine, particularly those who live along the
shoreline, to reduce the occurrence of activities that impact the health of coastal
ecosystems.
ATV use on the shoreline (i.e. west of the shore road) must be eliminated. ATV tracks
are a common site within the northern coastal wetlands. They are a known spread
vector of Phragmites and can impact, and sometimes kill, native species leaving
disturbed pockets of wetland that are ideal for Phragmites colonization.
Dumping activities must also be addressed. Field studies in the north wetland areas
revealed several sites where piles of yard waste, compost and debris had been
deposited. Dumping organic waste into a wetland can introduce other invasive species,
smother and kill native plants, alter water flow and cause nutrient loading that
contributes to algae formation.
Non-native landscaping practices should be discouraged. Encouraging local nurseries
and greenhouses to participate in the Ontario Invasive Plant Council’s “Grow me
Instead” program could help boost the use of native species in landscaping projects.
Promoting the use of native species for public landscaping projects reduces the
possibility of introducing new invasive species and helps deliver a strong message to
residents and horticultural businesses in the area. This is something the municipality
may wish to partner with the Coastal Centre to implement.
60
Recommendation 6:
Manage Spread Vectors
The Ontario Invasive Plant Council has recently released “Clean Equipment Protocols”
aimed at those working with heavy equipment. This booklet (available from the Coastal
Centre) provides general information on the more problematic invasive plants, how they
are being spread through use of heavy equipment, and how to ensure that various
pieces of machinery are properly cleaned and inspected for invasive species. It is highly
recommended that the Municipality require contractors and public works staff to follow
the protocols while working within the Municipality of Kincardine. Other groups that
should also be made aware of and encouraged/required to follow these protocols,
include recreational camps, trailer parks, ATV clubs and off-road biking groups.
Phragmites should be controlled within all roadside ditches, and the agricultural
community should be encouraged to control their tile drainage ditches. Phragmites in
ditches represents a spread vector, and dense stands can cause water flow issues.
The Municipality has been requested by residents to control Phragmites, thus it would
be reasonable for the Municipality to request residents to refrain from planting exotic
species that may become invasive in natural areas, and to check/clean shoes and
equipment when leaving and entering natural areas, particularly the shoreline. It would
be unfortunate for everyone should another invasive establish and become similarly
problematic.
Recommendation 7:
Establish Partnerships
Kincardine has an established partnership with the Coastal Centre, and the Centre is
available as a technical resource.
The Municipality of Kincardine is bordered by Huron-Kinloss in the south and Saugeen
Shores in the north. Both neighbouring Municipalities have implemented successful
Phragmites control programs. Huron-Kinloss should be notified of any planned control
work involving the use of pesticides at Boiler Beach, so the Work doesn’t duplicate what
they are already doing to control Phragmites in their municipality.
Kincardine borders two Provincial Parks: MacGregor Point Provincial Park in the north
and Inverhuron in the central area. The current Area Supervisor is Keith Early. Keith has
been made aware of the Municipality’s plans to control Phragmites along the north
shore. Preliminary discussions have taken place with MacGregor Point Provincial Park
staff regarding a collaborative effort to control Phragmites along the neighboring
borders. It is highly recommended that the Phragmites Control Coordinator within the
Municipality continue this dialogue.
61
Inverhuron Provincial Park shares a boundary with the Ontario Power Generation (OPG)
and, since dense Phragmites cells are present along this shoreline, both properties need
to be controlled in concert. Much of the OPG property has become severely infested
with Phragmites, and the Baie du Dore area is currently under threat. The Municipality
should approach Bruce Power and OPG about a Phragmites Control Plan for their
properties. The plan would be similar to the one developed for the project area, but
would likely be implemented by Bruce Power employees. Without action within the
OPG properties the Municipality will have to continually monitor for newly established
stands spreading from Baie du Dore onto Municipal Property, and Ontario Parks staff
will also have to treat Phragmites at Inverhuron, up to the property boundary fence,
year after year. It is recommended that a meeting be scheduled between the
Municipality, OPG, Bruce Power, Ontario Parks, Janice Gilbert, and the Coastal Centre to
begin discussions on how to develop the partnerships that will be required to ensure
this entire stretch of sensitive shoreline is restored.
8. MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY
Implementing the Phase I Management Plan for the coastal wetlands in north
Kincardine will result in the control of the large dense stands of Phragmites, and will
also prepare the Municipality for the implementation of Phase II, which will address
other shoreline areas.
The components of the long term management plan are all equally important and
should be implemented in tandem. A multi-tasked approach will ensure the control
program progresses annually along the shoreline, resulting in the control of as much of
the Phragmites infestation as possible by 2017.
The schematic diagram provides a visual of the various components of a long term
management plan (Figure 40). Phase I Management Plan was drafted for the Bruce
Addition because of the sensitivities of this area (Species at Risk, standing water, rare
flora and fauna, etc.) With the acquisition of an OMNR Letter of Opinion, the Phragmites
infestation along the remaining shoreline is controllable using back pack sprayers and a
combination of all the described components.
62
Figure 40. Schematic diagram showing the various components of a long term
Phragmites Management Plan.
63
REFERENCES
Alexander, K., 2012. Phragmites australis in Coastal Environments, prepared by the Lake
Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation, 57pp + Appendix
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Invasive Phragmites – Best Management
Practices, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. Version
2011. 15p.
64
Kincardine Shoreline Pipeline Debt
September 18, 2013
Purpose
Council has directed staff to revisit the issue of the
Kincardine Shoreline Pipeline Debt and to develop possible
solutions to extinguish this debt.
Staff is presenting 5 possible options for Council’s
consideration.
Background:
 Construction of shoreline water pipeline for a net cost
after grants of $4.868M
 Total system capacity = 836 ERUs
 Connection was not mandatory
 358 ERUs connected or paid at inception + 204 ERUs
financed over 15 years
 274 ERUs did not connect or pay
 Result = Unfunded capital outlay of ~ $1.5M
Capital Costs:
 2004 Original Capital Charge = $5,802 (+CPI)
 Fire Protection Capital Cost = $379 (+CPI)
 Contribution to Reserve Fund = $300
Premium:






2005 = 25% ($7,252 + CPI)
2006 = 30% ($7,543 + CPI)
2007 = 40% ($8,123 + CPI)
2008 – 2011 = 50% ($8,703 + CPI)
2012 + thereafter = 100% ($11,604 + CPI)
Total 2013 Fee = $14,519.48
Connection History:
 Since 2005, 23 ERUs have connected or paid at a
premium + 7 connections for severed lots
 Average rate of 3 hook-ups per year
 $1,514,347 ÷ (3 x $14,070) = 36 years
 Status quo, it would take 36 years to extinguish the
stranded debt ignoring any additional interest costs
Financial Considerations:
 Cash flows are constrained under the current arrangement, as
principal and interest payments must be funded through the
budget
 In 2012, the difference between external loan inflows and
outflows amounted to $87,850. Until such time that all property
owners connect to the pipeline, this gap will continue to be
funded through the annual operating budget
 The capital charge premium has reached its maximum of 100%,
and therefore the incentive to hook-up is now greatly reduced
Option 1: Mandatory Payment and Connection
 Implement mandatory connection and payment such that all
properties with a dwelling must pay and be connected to the
pipeline and fund their capital charge, including CPI but
excluding the premium.
 Total capital charge = $5,802 base + $1,082.87 CPI + $300
reserve fund contribution = $7,184.87
 Remaining vacant lots will be assessed the above capital charge
plus the fire capital charge of $379 + CPI = $449.74
 A refund of the premium charge would be provided to the 23
property owners that have connected between 2005 – 2013
Option 1 continued…
Property owners would be given the following
payment options:
 Lump sum payment in full by December 2014
 Financing through the municipality over a 10year term at our external borrowing rate + 1%.
Under this option, the average property owner
could expect to pay ~$900/year.
 If all remaining 251 ERUs paid the capital charge of
$7,185 and premiums of ~ $60K were refunded to
the 23 properties, this would generate ~ $1.75M
 After adjusting for interest, this would be sufficient
to extinguish the stranded pipeline debt
 Any residual would be transferred to water reserve
funds
Option 2: Mandatory Payment Only
 Implement mandatory payment only, and allow the
pipeline connection to be optional
 Capital charge would be the same as in Option 1
 Property owners would be given the option of
staying on their own water system after paying the
capital cost
 Would not generate any additional revenues for
water operations through user charges
Option 3: Fund the stranded debt through
reserve funds
 Withdraw the monies out of reserve funds to pay off
the pipeline debt
 The water reserve funds are estimated to be $5.2M
at the end of 2013, which is sufficient to extinguish
the stranded debt of $1.5M
Staff is not in support of this option for the following
reasons:
 The monies in these reserve funds were generated by
existing water users have already paid their respective
capital charges
 A full-cost recovery system has been established to
ensure that sufficient funds are available to fund future
capital and maintenance costs of the water system
 Withdrawing these funds for debt repayment may
necessitate future rate increases
Option 4: Status Quo
 The status quo option would continue on with
optional connections using the existing pipeline
capital charges of $14,070
 Based on historical averages, this is estimated to take
36 years
 Staff is not in support of this option as it does not
directly address the issue
Option 5: Deferral
 Defer the decision on resolving the pipeline debt
until completion of the Inverhuron Environmental
Assessment (EA)
 This may allow for greater consistency between the
two projects
 A large number of Inverhuron residents were provided with water
servicing in conjunction with the Kincardine pipeline project but
chose not to connect due to non-mandatory connection policies
 In 2011, Council supported several Guiding Principles for the new
Inverhuron pipeline project. Included in those Principles was a
mandatory connection policy for all pipeline properties in
Inverhuron, including properties from the original Kincardine
pipeline project.
 The Principles also included implementing a base water capital
charge that was consistent among all water customers. A base
capital charge for customers in the new Inverhuron pipeline project
has been estimated at $7,700, which is comparable to the
mandatory payment amount in Option 1 of $7,185 (based on
historical costs + CPI)
 Mandatory connection for the Kincardine pipeline
will ensure fairness among neighboring properties
 Capital contributions from customers to be serviced
through the new Inverhuron pipeline project will not
be applied to pay down the stranded debt. Only
those contributions from water customers that chose
not to connect to the Kincardine pipeline will be
applied.
Recommendation
Option 1 for the following reasons:
 Generates sufficient income to extinguish the stranded
debt
 Reserve funds remain intact
 Ensures a level of consistency and fairness among
neighbouring residents
 Supports the Guiding Principles that were adopted for
the Inverhuron pipeline project
Inverhuron Study Area
.
Paid connected
Paid Fire Charge
Paid not connected
Not Paid Not Connected
InverhuronStudyArea
Pipeline
Inverhuron EA
Study Area
WOOD ST
ALMA ST
RICHARDS DR
WHISPERING WOODS
NEIL PL
LOIS ST
HERBERT PL
ST
ST
CAMERON
NLEY
BRUCE ROAD 15
MILL ST SARA ST
EBSTER ST
KING ST
MANS
ST E ST
RAE
ESSION 11
ESSION 9
ARGYLE ST
PATERSON ST
CONQUERGOOD AVE
KING ST
ST
HIGHWAY 21
MAIN ST
CONCESSION 5
SMITH ST
ELIZABETH
HLINE EXTENSION
JOHN ST
CONCESSION 2
COLLINS DR
LORNE BEACH RD
CR
BR
RD
PARKWOOD
OO
KV
IEW
EASTWOOD CR
NORTH CEDAR LN
KINHURON
RD
CEDAR LN
SOUTH
BRUCE ROAD 23
OSS STCHURCH ST
IS
GGETT LN
Y
CONCESSION 7
ACKERT LN
NE
MACLEOD DR
VERNA LN
LINDEN LN LN
SANDPIPER
DAWSON DR
CRAIG DR
WICKHAM COVE LN
HARTWICK LN
O
ST
MAPLE ST
H LINE
MACCASKILL RD
INVERLYN CRES N
CRES S
N
CE L
RWILL LN
REN
CL A
CR
INVERLYN
GE
K LN MC
BL
KEN
ANLN
DRZIE
MITCHELL
CH HARVEY LN
E
JARREL
ANDERSENLN
LN
L LN
AVE
ALBERT RD
MCPHERSON RD
DR N
D LN
N
AVE
E RE
VE
M
EDGEEA
E
R RRACE AV
TE
T
ENWAN AVE
CRO
CR
ND
LA
O OD
ST
RID
CR
GIN
ST RIG
RAS
N
N ST
E
E
U
Q
YL
NE
HA LN
BEACH RIDGE
WHIPPOO
ON
LOWE
R
RD
SAN BEACSAMONA
BEACH LN
RHD
AC
DY C BEH
RR
INVERREGO
NESS
NESS
CG SOUTH
NO
A
RT
M
H
WILSS
LYN CRES
ON C
R
MCCONNELL DR
UR
SPAR
W
IRCH
PL B
JORDAN RD
ROBBIE LN
EWOO
ITE
REDMOND DR
L
EY TR
N VALL
SAUGEE
W
RUFF RD
SPRUC
WH
IE
NV
RO
HU
SHADY LN
VICTORIA ST
Lakeshore
AR
C
RESD
RDD
R
AE
C ED
ST
RED
ON
S
ST
R
N
HNE
I
KUE
RD
OBBEACH
UPPER LORRNE
WHISPER LNCAYLEY ST
WELLINGTON ST
LAKE ST
ARCHIE STDANIEL
ALBERT
ST RD
CEDAR DR
VICTORIA ST
PINE ST
R
TIE
SIDEROAD J/1
D
TRE‐2013 S357 & 358 Applications ‐ Cancellation or Reduction in Property Taxes
Attachment
Appeal No.
Property Location
Roll Number
Explanation
Revised June 20, 2013
Tax Year
Amount
Municipal Share
2013‐44
1893 Bruce Rd 20
4108‐260‐001‐22500 no industrial activity since new owner purchased on April 27/11. Therefore change in tax class from IT to CT and RT
2011
$1,416.27
$216.23 Section 358(1)
2013‐45
1893 Bruce Rd 20
4108‐260‐001‐22500 no industrial activity since new owner purchased on April 27/11. Therefore change in tax class from IT to CT and RT
2012
$1,790.54
$341.53 Section 358(1)
2013‐46
Durham St
4108‐220‐007‐09413 change in tax class from Residential to Farm. MPAC processed the incorrect document and therefore OMAFRA did not assign the farm tax class but has confirmed property qualifies
2012
$275.46
$120.22 Section 357 (1)(f)
2013‐47
Durham St
4108‐220‐007‐09415 change in tax class from Residential to Farm. MPAC processed the incorrect document and therefore OMAFRA did not assign the farm tax class but has confirmed property qualifies
2012
$222.81
$97.24 Section 357 (1)(f)
$3,705.08
$775.22
C:\Users\jlawrie\AppData\Local\Temp\notes9A489A\S357_358_Sept30
Notes

the Municipality of Kincardine!

Transcription

Similar documents

For Dog`s Sake - theMarketplacemag.com

2007 Newsletter - Kincardine and Community Health Care Foundation

On behalf of everyone involved with the BBBSKD

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE

Karak - Publications

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE

Embroidering Drawstring Backpack Drawstring backpacks are a

Summer 2015 - Grey

August-September 2014 - Municipalité d`Ormstown

August-September 2013

Invasive Phragmites Management Plan