View - The Municipality of Lambton Shores

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES 

Regular Meeting of Council 

Meeting Number: 09-2013 

Date of Meeting: Monday, March 04, 2013 

Time: 

Place of Meeting: 

06:00 p.m. 

Village Complex, Thedford 

AGENDA 

Pages 

1. Call to Order 

2. Declaration of Pecuniary or Conflict of Interest 

3. Confidential Business 

3.1 Closed Session Minutes - February 11, 2013 

3.2 6:00 p.m. - PL Report No. 12-2013 - Re: Request for Direction 

from the Municipal Solicitor on a Litigation Matter" (Authorization 

to Close - Section 239 (2) e of the Municipal Act - Advice that is 

Subject to Solicitor Client Privilege) 

4. Consent Agenda 

4.1 Bluewater Recycling Association Meeting Highlights for February 

2013 

4.2 Correspondence from Sharon Weitzel, Lambton Shores 

Community Association - Re: Fence Issue 

1 - 14 

15 - 15 

5. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meetings 

5.1 Budget Meeting - February 7, 2013 16 - 19 

5.2 Regular Council Meeting - February 11, 2013 20 - 29 

5.3 Regular Council Meeting - February 19, 2013 30 - 34 

6. Delegations, Public Meetings & Presentations 

6.1 6:30 p.m. - Nigel Bellchamber - Re: C.A.O. Recruitment Process 

(See TR Report No. 28-2013) 

6.2 7:10 p.m. - Public Meeting - Zone Amendment Application ZO- 

01/2013 for Sand Hills Golf Resort Inc. - 9763 Port Franks Road 

(See PL Report No. 16-2013)

6.3 7:20 p.m. - Public Meeting - Official Plan Amendment Application 

OP-01/2013 and Zone Amendment Application ZO-03/2013 for 

Roy Schrijver - 7549 Arkona Road (See PL Report No. 10-2013) 

6.4 7:30 p.m. - Laureen Maurizio, Lakeshore Coalition - Re: Survey 

Letter to Residents of Port Franks Concerning Bell Mobility's 

Telecommuncations Tower 

35 - 42 

7. Correspondence & Petitions 

Correspondence - for Council Information 

7.1 Ronald G. Van Horne, C.A.O. - County of Lambton - Re: Updated 

Strategic Plan 

43 - 43 

For a copy of the County's Updated Strategic Plan go to: 

http://www.lambtononline.ca/home/government/countydivisions/ad 

ministration_cao/Publications/Documents/Strategic%20Plan%20- 

%20Amended%202012.pdf 

7.2 Dinah Taylor, Chairman - Sunset Cinema Volunteers - Re: Thank 

You for Financial Support 

7.3 Suncor Energy Products Inc. - Re: Notice of Revised Draft Site 

Plan & Final Public Meeting 

7.4 The Forest Community Theatre Board Members - Re: Thank You 

for Donation 

7.5 Lea James, President - Port Franks Garden Club - Re: Thank You 

for Donation 

7.6 Monte McNaughton, MPP - Lambton-Kent-Middlesex - Re: Green 

Energy Act & Renewable Power Developers 

44 - 44 

45 - 45 

46 - 46 

47 - 47 

48 - 49 

Correspondence - for Council Direction 

7.7 Don White & Karen Kelly-White - Re: Request to Lambton Shores 

Council - Re: Industrial Wind Turbines 

50 - 50 

8. Consideration of Committee Minutes and Staff Reports 

8.1 Minutes of the Lambton Shores Fire Board Meeting held February 

21, 2013 

51 - 53 

Planning 

8.2 PL Report No. 10-2013 - Re: Official Plan Amendment Application 

OP-01/2013 & Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO- 

03/2013 for Roy Shrijver - 7549 Arkona Road 

8.3 PL Report No. 11-2013 - Re: Beige Zone (Electromagnetic 

Frequency Reduced Area) 

54 - 65 

66 - 70

8.4 PL Report No. 14-2013 - Re: Rice Development Company Inc. - 

77 Main Street East Grand Bend - Request for Additional Sewage 

Capacity 

8.5 PL Report No. 16-2013 - Re: Zoning By-law Amendment 

Application ZO-01/2013 for Sandhills Golf Resort Inc. - 9973 Port 

Franks Road 

71 - 74 

75 - 82 

Community Services 

8.6 D.C.S. Report No. 27-2013 - Re: Municipal Drain Assessment 

Updates 

8.7 D.C.S. Report No. 28-2013 - Re: 2013 International Silver Stick 

Tournament 

83 - 84 

85 - 87 

8.8 D.C.S. Report No. 29-2013 - Re: 2013 Aquafest Request 88 - 96 

8.9 D.C.S. Report No. 30-2013 - Re: Pedestrian Warning Sign on 

North Street and Stop Sign in Merrywood Subdivision 

8.10 D.C.S. Report No. 31-2013 - Re: Project Update - Port Franks 

Mud Creek Pedestrian Bridge 

97 - 102 

103 - 104 

8.11 D.C.S. Report No. 33-2013 - Re: Tender Summary Report 105 - 109 

8.12 D.C.S. Report No. 34-2013 - Re: Lambton Shores Harbour 

Working Group Draft Terms of Reference 

8.13 D.C.S. Report No. 35-2013 - Re: 60 Main Street, Forest - 

Vibration Complaint 

8.14 D.C.S. Report No. 36-2013 - Re: Water Meter Replacement 

Program - Thermal Expansion 

8.15 D.C.S. Report No. 37-2013 - RE: Capital Replacement Projects - 

Sidewalk Policy 

110 - 113 

114 - 119 

120 - 121 

122 - 123 

Finance & Administration 

8.16 TR Report No. 28-2013 - Re: C.A.O. Search - N.G. Bellchamber & 

Associates 

8.17 TR Report No. 30-2013 - Re: Grand Bend Sewer Treatment Plant 

Costs 

124 - 124 

125 - 128 

8.18 TR Report No. 31-2013 - Re: 2012 Capital Allocations 129 - 133 

8.19 TR Report No. 32-2013 - Re: 2013 Operating and Capital Budget 134 - 143 

8.20 CL Report No. 17-2013 - Re: Appointment of an Integrity 

Commissioner 

8.21 CL Report No. 18-2013 - Re: Use of the Legacy Centre for 

Council Meetings 

144 - 154 

155 - 157

9. By-laws & Resolutions 

9.1 By-law 19-2013 - Re: Authorize Agreement with Johnston Bros. 

(See D.C.S. Report No. 33-2013) 

9.2 By-law 20-2013 - Re: Authorize Agreement with Den-Mar Brines 

Ltd. (See D.C.S. Report No. 33-2013) 

9.3 By-law 22-2013 - Re: Confirming Resolutions to Date 158 - 158 

9.4 By-law 23-2013 - Re: Adopt the 2013 Budget (See TR Report No. 

32-2013) 

10. Accounts 

10.1 TR Report No. 29-2013 - Re: January, 2013 Cheque Listing 159 - 165 

11. Notice of Motion 

11.1 Notice of Motion from Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg - Re: Goods 

Exchange Day (or Free Day) 

11.2 Notice of Motion from Councillor Maguire - Re: Protocol for 

Dealing with Graffiti 

11.3 Notice of Motion from Councillor Bonesteel - Re: Polling 

Residents on Wind Farm Projects 

11.4 Notice of Motion from Councillor Underwood - Re: Guideline for 

Large-Scale, Ground-Oriented Solar Energy Facilities 

166 - 166 

167 - 167 

168 - 168 

169 - 175 

12. New Business 

12.1 Results from the Economic Development Committee Application 

Selection Process 

12.2 Update on the MIII Asset Management Program Grant 

13. Councillor Reports 

13.1 Report from Councillor Underwood - Re: the Federation of 

Canadian Municipalities Sustainable Communities Conference 

176 - 178 

14. Opportunity for the Public to Seek Clarification 

Questions must pertain to items on the agenda, and be for the 

purpose of clarification only. 

15. Adjourn

February 2013 Bluewater Recycling Association Meeting Highlights 

MPAC Landfill Assessment Consultation 

On Thursday, February 7th, MPAC provided a background on how and why these 

consultations were being held. The presentation highlighted the disproportionate impact 

MPAC's proposed new methodology could have on Ontario's 32 largest landfill 

sites. MPAC acknowledged the many potential problems with the proposed 

methodology and that they should have held consultations before moving forward with 

the changes. 

Under the proposed MPAC methodology, landfills would see a 100% - 4432.96% 

increase in their valuations between 2008-2012. 

It is important to note that although the initial methodology was to be applied only to the 

32 largest landfill sites, MPAC did state a similar approach would be developed and 

applied to all landfills in the province. The consultations will help to identify the 

methodology that will be used for smaller sites. 

The consultations are intended to discuss the applicability of the three approaches to 

valuation that have been brought forward (current, MPAC's proposed & OWMA 

proposed) and to consider other alternative methodologies. 

MPAC has proposed an 8 week consultation process with an early March teleconference 

or in person meeting and a June 30th report, which would be sent to the Minister of 

Finance on the consultation results (dissenting positions would be included if agreement 

was not reached). MPAC will be posting specific details on their website regarding the 

actual dates of the consultations. 

Any new valuations that may arise from changes made in the consultations will not be 

retroactive unless there is regulatory intervention from the Ministry of Finance (MPAC 

does not have authority). 

The OWMA did present an alternative approach which the OWMA membership 

developed. A copy of the OWMA presentation is also attached. 

The Ministry of Finance representatives stated a regulation is not off the table but would 

prefer a solution be found between the groups. A regulatory solution may be necessary 

as much of the discussion surrounds tax policy. 

As for next steps, MPAC has agreed to compile a comparison of the three methodologies 

including similarities and differences in each approach. This analysis would include a 

comparison of landfill valuations for the 32 largest landfills based on the 3 

approaches. MPAC has also agreed the results will be shared with all parties. 

MPAC & the Ministry of Finance stressed that there is a need to better understand the 

position of municipalities on this issue. 

1

Turbines Could Affect Exeter Radar 

Bluewater's C.A.O. told councillors that tests on the proposed Grand Bend Wind Energy 

Project indicated some problems with the Exeter Radar station. The tests looked for any 

kind of interference with telecommunications near the turbines and the consultant found 

that there would be interference with the Exeter Radar. Steve McAuley adds that 

Environment Canada confirmed those findings and said the two would likely not be able 

to co-exist. There are a couple of possible solutions, McAuley says the use of stealth 

turbine blades or turning the turbines off on days when Environment Canada needed to 

use the radar to issue weather warnings are both options. McAuley also suggested the 

same problem would likely exist with the Goshen Energy Project. 

Michigan Waste Export Still Common 

Total waste disposal in Michigan landfills was reported at 44,308,076 cubic yards, a 

decrease of 1,419,925 cubic yards or about 3.1 percent less than the fiscal year (FY) 2011 

report data. Waste generated in Michigan decreased from 35,857,919 cubic yards in the 

previous reporting period to 34,630,419 cubic yards, a decrease of about 3.4 percent. 

Total imports of waste into Michigan landfills decreased from the previous reporting 

period from 9,870,082 cubic yards to 9,677,657 cubic yards, a decrease of about 1.9 

percent. The largest source of waste imports to Michigan continues to be from Canada, 

with total reported imports to landfills of 6,764,907 cubic yards, down 218,220 cubic 

yards or about 3.1 percent from the FY 2011 report data. Canadian waste imports equal 

about 15.3 percent of all waste disposed in Michigan landfills. 

Waste imported from other states and Canada totaled about 21.8 percent of all solid waste 

disposed in Michigan landfills. Imported waste comprised 21.6 percent of solid waste 

disposed in Michigan landfills in the previous year. Further, the data that follow outline 

the out-of-state imports to Michigan over the past sixteen FYs. Imports from other states 

increased to 2,912,750 cubic yards from 2,886,955 cubic yards, an increase of about 0.9 

percent. 

Industry Stewardship Plans 

The WDO Board was informed that WDO has received formal notification from Product 

Care that they will be submitting an Industry Stewardship Plan to WDO on behalf of all 

the paint manufacturer members of the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association and any 

other stewards in the paint and coatings category of the MHSW program who want to 

participate. Product Care is currently the program operator for paint stewardship 

programs in seven Canadian provinces. 

Used Tires Program – New Rules For Stewards 

The WDO Board reviewed and approved the changes required to the rules as a result of 

the Minister’s Cost Recovery Regulation for the Used Tires Program that will take effect 

April 1, 2013. 

2

In-Kind Advertising Program – Blue Box Program 

As part of the financial obligation for industry stewards that participate in Ontario’s Blue 

Box program, the Canadian Newspaper Association and the Ontario Community 

Newspaper Association (CNA/OCNA) provides an in-kind contribution as their 

obligation in the form of full card value advertising in newspapers. 

The CNA/OCNA in-kind obligation has increased significantly for 2013. This will have 

an impact on the cash funding available for the 2013 disbursement to municipal 

programs. Since its beginning in 2004, the in-kind values have been: 

Funding Year 

CNA/OCNA In-Kind 

Obligation 

2004 $ 1,119,667 

2005 $ 1,300,000 

2006 $ 1,476,965 

2007 $ 1,359,661 

2008 $ 1,829,057 

2009 $ 3,301,404 

2010 $ 1,442,510 

2011 $ 1,706,117 

2012 $ 3,571,471 

2013 $ 6,140,409 

The WDO Board was informed of recent discussions on this issue at a meeting of the 

Municipal Industry Program Committee (MIPC), and the position of AMO and the City 

of Toronto that this program be terminated and that the newsprint stewards be required to 

pay fees for their share of the costs of the Blue Box Program. WDO will be meeting with 

all of the parties involved. It is the intention of WDO staff to bring a recommendation on 

a path forward to the April 18, 2013 meeting of the WDO Board. 

WEEE Program – Amendment To The Fee-Setting Methodology 

Following discussions between WDO, Ontario Electronic Stewardship and the Ministry 

of the Environment, it was determined that the change required to the fee-setting 

methodology to implement the cost recovery plan should be done through a change to the 

current Program Plan. As a result, the Minister formally requested WDO to submit a 

Program Plan change recommendation, to implement the new fee-setting methodology. 

Law Would Make It Crime To Send Medical Waste To Recycling Facilities 

Lawmakers in South Dakota are considering a law to punish those who negligently 

expose medical waste to recycling workers. House Bill 1131 would make it a 

misdemeanor for the offense and the bill moved out of committee, the newspaper 

reported. Several recycling workers testified, saying the danger occurs when workers are 

hand sorting materials at a materials recovery facility. 

The law would make the offense punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of $500. 

3

Cabinet Shuffle 

Incoming Premier, Kathleen Wynne and her new Cabinet were sworn-in yesterday. The 

Cabinet has increased in size to 27 Ministers and includes 9 new faces on Cabinet. It 

continues to include three former Ministers of Environment - Jim Bradley, Laurel Broten 

and John Gerretsen. 

Jim Bradley remains the Minister of Environment. This allows for continuity on a 

number of waste related files and could lend itself to more immediate action on waste 

management related files. Minister Bradley has indicated in speeches his intention to 

bring forward new waste diversion legislation in the Spring. 

Here is a full list of appointment: 

Kathleen Wynne: Premier & 

Minister of Agriculture 

Charles Sousa: Minister of Finance 

Deb Matthews: Minister of Health and Long Term Care Deputy Premier 

Jim Bradley Minister of Environment 

John Gerretsen: Attorney General 

Bob Chiarelli: Minister of Energy 

Madeleine 

Meilleur: 

Minister of Community Safety & Correctional Services & 

Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs 

Harinder Takhar: Minister of Government Services & Chair Management Board of Cabinet 

Linda Jeffrey: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing & Chair of Cabinet 

Michael Chan: 

Minister of Aboriginal Tourism, Culture Affairs and Sport & Minister Responsible 

for the 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games 

David Zimmer: 

Michael Gravelle: Minister of Northern Development & Mines 

Eric Hoskins: Minister of Economic Development, Trade & Employment 

Reza Moridi: 

Ministry of Research & Innovation 

Laurel Broten Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs & Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues 

John Milloy: Government House Leader 

Brad Duguid: Minister of Training, Colleges & Universities 

Liz Sandals: Minister of Education, 

Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Labour 

Teresa Piruzza: Minister of Children and Youth Services 

Ted McMeekin: Minister of Community & Social Services 

David Orazietti Minister of Natural Resources 

Glen Murray: Minister of Transportation & Minister of Infrastructure 

Michael Couteau: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration 

Tracy MacCharles Minister of Consumer Services 

Mario Sergio: Minister Responsible for Seniors 

Jeff Leal Minister of Rural Affairs 

4

A new Speech from the Throne will be read when the new legislative session begins on 

February 19th and a budget will likely be tabled at the end of March. Both of these are 

considered maters of confidence and if not passed in the Legislature, another election will 

be called. Premier Wynne’s priorities during her leadership bid can be found at 

http://www.kathleenwynne.ca/theway which should provide some insight on what might 

be included in both the Budget and the Speech from the Throne. 

It is still unclear as to whether the opposition parties will continue to support the 

government. The latest polls have the three political parties deadlocked. 

By-elections will be necessary to replace to Dwight Duncan (former Minister of Finance) 

in Windsor West and Chris Bentley (former Minister of Energy) in Windsor West, unless 

a general election is called. 

MOE Appoints Three To WDO Board 

Ontario Minister of the Environment has made three appointments to the Waste 

Diversion Ontario (WDO) board. Dr. Virginia Maclaren and Brian Rosborough have 

both been re-appointed to the WDO Board, while the ministry adds David Brezer (MBA, 

P.Eng), currently the Director of the Consumer Policy and Liaison Branch for the 

Ministry of Consumer Services. 

“In this role, [Brezer] is responsible for policy in the areas of corporate law and consumer 

protection, and for oversight and liaison with the ministry's consumer protection 

Administrative Authorities,” says a January 30, 2013 statement on WDO 

Brezer has served on a variety of boards, including the Canadian Commission on 

Building and Fire Codes and the Governing Council of Professional Engineers Ontario. 

He replaces Greg Sones, Director of the Ministry of the Environment’s Waste 

Management Policy Branch. 

Dr. Maclaren is currently Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Geography 

and Program in Planning at the University of Toronto. She has served on the WDO Board 

since January 2009. 

Rosborough is currently Director of Government Relations at Wilfrid Laurier University. 

He has served on the WDO Board since February 2010. 

Councillors Have The Recycling Bin Blues 

City councillors say it's again time to review the blue box recycling program as it's 

contributing to a large amount of garbage on city streets. Ward 11 Councillor George 

Carlson said the strong winds the city experienced recently sent items from recycling bins 

across his ward spiralling onto lawns and streets. 

"I think the romantic (notion) with the blue bins has to end," said Carlson. Carlson, who 

chairs the City's environmental advisory committee, called the current system 

"prehistoric." 

Mayor Hazel McCallion said she filled her empty recycling bin with items collected from 

the streets around her home following the wind storm and asked for discussion of the 

issue. "We'll never be able to have a clean city with an uncovered blue box”. 

5

Call2Recycle Rebrands, Collects Record Volume 

Call2Recycle, a North American product stewardship organization for batteries and 

mobile phones, collected a record 10 million pounds of batteries in 2012 — a 16 percent 

increase from the previous year. 

The industry-led organization, which administers a voluntary stewardship program 

through a network of over 30,000 retailers, municipalities, businesses and public agencies 

throughout the U.S. and Canada, attributes its success to banner years in California and 

Canada, both of which collected over 1 million pounds. 

In Canada, battery collections grew by 56 percent. The increase can be accredited in part 

to its program expansion in Quebec, where Call2Recycle was selected by RECYC- 

QUÉBEC, the organization that coordinates recycling efforts for the province, to serve as 

the official battery recycling program. As of July 2012, Call2Recycle began accepting 

single-use household batteries for recycling in support of the provincial extended 

producer responsibility regulation. As a result, 2012 collections in Quebec rose by 357 

percent over 2011. 

Call2Recycle offers battery collection through a network of over 30,000 retailers, 

municipalities, businesses and public agencies throughout the U.S. and Canada. 

In other related news from the group, as of the first of the year the Rechargeable Battery 

Recycling Corporation has formally changed its name to Call2Recycle, Inc. 

National Battery Recycling Program 

The Home Depot Canada offers rechargeable battery recycling to customers across the 

country, and single-use (non-rechargeable) battery collection in British Columbia and 

Ontario. Batteries should not be disposed of in regular household waste because their 

toxic materials can leach into groundwater and soil. Help the environment by bringing 

your old batteries to The Home Depot to be responsibly 

recycled. 

Single-use (non-rechargeable) battery collection is available at 

all Ontario and British Columbia The Home Depot Stores. 

Changes To Home Depot's Paint And Compact 

Fluorescent Bulb And Tube Recycling Programs 

We're making changes to our paint recycling program in 

Ontario and Quebec, and our compact fluorescent (CFL) bulb 

and tube recycling programs across the country. We believe 

the collection and disposal of CFLs and paint can be more 

effectively managed through a third-party recycling program 

and as such, will no longer be accepting these products for 

recycling. But don't worry - we've got a solution. Beginning 

March 1, 2013, you can drop off your used paint and expired CFL bulbs at one of the 

many recycling locations near you. 

6

Container Freight Rates To Rise By Half? 

Container freight rates on trans-Pacific services from Asia to the USA could rise 50% by 

May this year if shipping lines succeed in pushing through planned rate increases, 

according to the South China Morning Post. 

Fifteen container shipping lines belonging to the Transpacific Stabilisation Agreement 

(TSA) have recommended rate increases of US$ 400 per 40-foot container to US west 

coast ports and US$ 600 per FEU to all other US destinations from April. Carriers like 

the Tung-family controlled Orient Overseas Container Line and Cosco Container Lines 

are advocating increases of US$ 800 per FEU for cargo shipped to the west coast and up 

to US$ 1200 per FEU from Asia to other US cities. 

Barclays Bank industrial analyst Jon Windham says container lines have been only 

partially successful in lifting freight rates as cargo owners have resisted paying the full 

increases sought. He estimates that cargo demand will rise by 6.3% this year while fleet 

growth will lag behind at 5.8%, thus helping to ‘buoy’ freight rates. The latter figure 

contrasts with the 9% growth in container ship capacity forecast by Alphaliner for this 

year. 

TSA’s Executive Administrator Brian Conrad comments: ‘It is essential to carriers’ longterm 

viability that new contracts include rates that are more closely aligned with current 

market levels.’ 

Will A Shortage Of Fiber Harm The Global Paper Recycling Industry? 

A review of assessments by paper industry analysts shows growing concern about the 

potential inability of the recycling industry in developed countries to supply enough fiber 

to feed new demand in the developing world. 

The key issue being debated by analysts in reports and presentations is the theoretical 

limits to expanded recovery. For example, while the current fiber recovery level in the 

U.S. is at a highly commendable 67 percent, this is actually below levels elsewhere. 

"Japan has the highest recovery rate in the world at about 77 percent," says Bill Moore of 

Moore and Associates. He notes that the Netherlands, Austria and Germany have similar 

rates. Moore says that Japan topped at 80 percent before falling back. "Thus, I would say 

80 percent is a good theoretical maximum." 

Hannah Zhao, an economist with RISI, agrees. "Although we don't know the exact limit 

on how high the paper recovery can go, we are almost sure that 80 percent is very close 

to the limit," she concludes. She points out that all of Western Europe, including the three 

countries listed by Moore, has a combined recovery level of about 75 percent. 

At the same time, demand for recovered fiber continues to rise in the developing world. 

Zhao points out that China added 6.6 million tons per year of new paper and paperboard 

capacity last year. While some of these new machines replaced old, inefficient ones, 

China's demand for bales continues upward. 

7

Tim Hortons Announces Electric Vehicle Charging Station Pilot In Canada 

Electric vehicle owners in Oakville, ON are now able to charge their cars while enjoying 

a Tim Hortons coffee. Canada's largest restaurant chain installed its first electric vehicle 

charging stations as part of a new pilot project. 

Charging stations are now available for guest use, free of charge, at Tim Hortons located 

at 228 Wyecroft Road in Oakville and for use by corporate employees at head office, in 

an effort to study the technology, its usage and opportunities. 

"The electric vehicle infrastructure is in its infancy and we see a potential opportunity for 

Tim Hortons to help make a true difference by expanding that infrastructure in Canada," 

said Paulo Ferreira, Senior Director, International Design and Building Standards, Tim 

Hortons. "At this stage, the goal for us is to explore and understand the technology, to see 

how it can work at our restaurants and how we can, in turn, support our guests who 

choose to go electric." 

Tim Hortons partnered with Oakville Hydro and Town of Oakville to launch the pilot 

project. 

"Electric vehicles can potentially have an impact on distribution systems across Ontario," 

said Rob Lister, President and CEO of Oakville Hydro Corporation. "As part of our 

Smart Grid initiatives, this pilot project will allow us to gain insight into how our 

distribution system responds and reacts to the addition of electric vehicles. We are very 

proud to be part of this project with other Oakville businesses." 

Tim Hortons continues discussions with additional municipalities in an attempt to expand 

the pilot before deciding on the future possibility of EV charging stations across the 

company's more than 3,300 restaurants across Canada. 

The company will also make provisions to run electrical wires to future charging stations 

through conduits in parking lots at all newly-built Canadian restaurants going forward, to 

simplify the installation process. 

Ford Motor Company of Canada provided Tim Hortons with the C-MAX Energi Plug-in 

Hybrid for testing purposes. 

8

Canada Receives A “C” For Environment 

Canada receives a “C” grade on environmental performance and ranks 15th out of 17 

peer countries. 

Canada’s success in improving its environmental performance has been mixed. It has 

improved air quality, reduced its energy intensity, and increased the growth of forest 

resources relative to forest harvest. But Canada must do more to lower greenhouse gas 

emissions, to use its freshwater resources more wisely, and to reduce waste. 

To improve its overall performance, Canada must promote economic growth without 

further degrading the environment, partly by encouraging more sustainable consumption. 

The Conference Board’s overarching goal is to measure quality of life for Canada and its 

peers. But a country must not only demonstrate a high quality of life—it must also 

demonstrate that its high quality of life is sustainable. 

There is growing recognition that gross domestic product (GDP) produced at the expense 

of the global environment, and at the expense of scarce and finite physical resources, 

overstates the net contribution of that economic growth to a country’s prosperity. 

Canadians understand that protecting the environment from further damage is not a 

problem for tomorrow, but a challenge for today. Without serious attention to 

environmental sustainability, Canada puts its society and its quality of life at risk. 

Ontario Regulation 141/12: Funding Requirements 

Bill 135, the Helping Ontario Families and Managing Responsibly Act, 2010, received 

Royal Assent on December 8, 2010. The legislation contains amendments to the WSIA 

that require the WSIB to reach a prescribed level of funding, within a prescribed 

timeframe. These amendments came into force on January 1, 2013. 

A regulation with an effective date of January 1, 2013, has been established under these 

amendments that require the WSIB to move towards a sufficiently funded system by 

requiring the insurance fund to reach: 

- 60 per cent funding by the end of 2017, 

- 80 per cent funding by the end of 2022, and 

- 100 per cent funding by the end of 2027. 

Under the regulation, the WSIB is required to submit a funding plan to the Minister of 

Labour by June 30, 2013 outlining how the WSIB will achieve the prescribed sufficiency 

targets. 

In the plan, the WSIB is required to include: 

1. A description of the measures it will take to achieve partial sufficiency and sufficiency 

by the dates prescribed. 

2. An explanation of how those measures will be used to achieve the prescribed 

sufficiency ratios. 

9

Saskatchewan Announces Its Own EPR Program 

With the approval of the Household Packaging and Paper Stewardship Program 

Regulations, the Saskatchewan government has set the foundation for a province-wide 

multi-material recycling program (MMRP). 

The MMRP will provide the framework to fund the collection and recycling of household 

materials including printed paper, newsprint, cardboard, plastic, metal and glass 

packaging in the province. With the regulations now in place, Multi-Material 

Stewardship Western Inc. (MMSW), representing industry, will work with municipalities 

and other stakeholders to develop the recycling program. MMSW is similar to those 

organizations that have been developed for waste paint, used oil, scrap tires and e- 

waste. Industry has the legal responsibility under the regulations to manage and fund the 

MMRP. 

Within 180 days (on or before August 6, 2013) MMSW will present to the Minister of 

Environment for his approval a product management plan on how the recycling program 

will be structured, funded and managed. Once the product management plan has been 

approved, implementation of MMRP can proceed. 

The responsibility of managing and financing recycling programs for these materials is 

being transferred from the taxpayer to industry and consumers. Municipalities that 

currently collect recycling are covering 100 per cent of the cost. Once the MMRP is 

established, industry will contribute up to 75 per cent of the costs to deliver an effective 

and efficient program. Municipalities that choose to participate in MMRP will be 

responsible for the remainder of the cost to operate a recycling program in their 

community. Municipalities will also be able to decide the type of collection system for 

their community – curbside pickup or a central depot, depending on the size of their 

community and the associated costs. 

The actual cost to industry will be determined in the plan; however, it is expected that the 

financial implications to industry will be minimal and most likely charged back to the 

consumer. For example, in other Canadian jurisdictions with similar recycling 

programs, the costs to newspapers range from less than one-quarter of a cent to one cent 

per paper produced. Depending on the size of the newspapers’ distribution, some may be 

exempt from paying fees entirely. 

10

Low Standards Costly for Some Recyclers 

The Resource Association has released a report highlighting the cost burden on UK 

reprocessors and manufacturers resulting from poor and inconsistent quality of recyclate 

The findings of the Costs of Contamination Report 2012 show that poor and inconsistent 

quality recyclate is a significant financial burden for British industry, according to the 

Resource Association. 

It also identifies a conservative estimate of over £51m a year of costs associated with the 

management of poor and inconsistent quality recyclate, representing an average of £15.67 

per tonne for over 3m tonnes of reprocessing capacity featured in the survey. 

The report surveyed all of the Resource Association's reprocessor members and all nine 

reprocessors participated in the research. The capacity surveyed for this research 

represents around half of all the UK reprocessing capacity that exists for paper and card, 

plastics, aluminium and glass. 

Chairman of the Resource Association Andy Doran commented: "This report clearly 

shows the extent to which poor and inconsistent quality of recyclate adds real cost for the 

UK manufacturing base. This represents a missed opportunity for the UK - it is a cost 

burden that hampers investment and costs jobs, all to the detriment of the UK green 

economy." 

Chief executive Ray Georgeson added: "The drive for quantity has come in part at the 

expense of quality, and what might be seen as the delivery of cost savings at the 

collection end of recycling appears simply to be shifting costs into the manufacturing end 

of recycling. We question how long must the UK reprocessing sector carry this burden." 

In the report, the Association restated its calls for: 

• a fresh look at the whole municipal recycling supply chain, including action to 

better regulate the output of MRFs 

• this must include a mandatory MRF Code of Practice that demonstrably improves 

the quality of UK MRF output through a robust system of monitoring, material 

sampling and unannounced inspections 

• further robust action by regulators to enforce TFS Regulations and ensure that all 

recyclate exported meets legal quality requirements - doing this would 

undoubtedly lead to quality improvements in the recyclate also destined for UK 

reprocessors 

• more research by Government and its agencies to understand better the 

relationship between collection systems, public behaviour and contamination of 

recyclate - with the purpose of improving communications and operational 

practice to deliver better quality. 

The findings of the report will be submitted to the various Governments in the UK as part 

of the on-going policy discussion about delivering high quality recycling. 

11

MRF Code Of Practice Consultation Launched 

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has published a 

Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Code of Practice and Quality Action Programme 

aimed at improving the quality of ‘dry’ recyclates (paper, glass, metal and plastic) from 

household and commercial waste in the UK. 

It is hoped that the Quality Action Plan and Code of Practice, now open for consultation, 

will increase recyclate quality from MRFs to ‘help stimulate the market conditions 

necessary to improve the quality of the material produced by MRFs so that it can be more 

readily recycled’, as required under the European revised Waste Framework Directive. 

Indeed, according to the professional advocacy body for the reprocessing and recycling 

industries, the Resource Association, contamination at MRFs costs the UK £51 million a 

year. 

Code of Practice 

Under the new Code of Practice, MRF operators will not be required to set recyclate 

specifications, but will have to take samples and conduct composition tests on both inputs 

and outputs. 

The results from these tests would then be made available, for example to those 

businesses buying the recycling material as well as to local councils and others who 

supply the material to the MRFs. 

Other details outlined in the Code of Practice, include: 

• Mandatory compliance with the Code will be targeted at MRFs with an output of 

more than 1000 tonnes per annum; 

• Introducing a voluntary system for grading the quality of recyclate for each of the 

main material streams (paper, plastic, glass and metal); 

• Establishing labelling requirements to make it easier to identify the quality of a 

consignment as it moves along the supply chain; 

• Establishing a price differential. For example, material which reaches end of 

waste status may attract a price differential to reflect its ‘high quality and that it is 

subject to robust quality assurance arrangements’; 

• Exploring the possibility of making amendments to the PRN and PERN system to 

‘even out any disparity in the playing field, by applying the same quality criteria 

when issuing PRNs and PERNs’; 

• Ensuring that by 2014, over 90 per cent of the industry ‘in terms of share of the 

market, proportion of sites, and number of operators’ are in verified compliance 

with the MRF Code of Practice on quality; 

• Establishing a webportal with a list of accredited MRFs together with some highlevel 

performance information (e.g. average composition of output materials. 

12

City Trash Talk: Vancouver's Plans To Turn Garbage Into Power 

A proposed $400 million Metro Vancouver facility 

to convert garbage to electricity could reverse recent 

gains in waste reduction, say critics 

Canadians, it turns out, are really good at creating 

garbage. A recent Conference Board of Canada 

report revealed Canada tops 17 other developed 

countries in the per-capita amount of trash produced. 

In the Lower Mainland, BC, they contribute to this 

gross domestic product to the tune of one million 

tonnes of garbage annually. It's Metro Vancouver's 

job to figure out what to do with it all. 

The regional district plans to stop landfilling 

garbage and, in 2018, open a new $400 million 

waste-to-energy plant that would generate electricity 

– and profit – from trash. 

But with attitudes toward garbage changing, Metro 

Vancouver has already had to modify its plan. When 

garbage production dropped in 2011, the size of the 

planned facility was reduced to 370,000 tonnes from 500,000 tonnes. The regional 

district will now have to redo its business plan to take the change into account. 

The region currently landfills 700,000 tonnes and sends another 300,000 to a garbage 

incinerator in Burnaby. An ambitious goal to reduce, recycle and compost 80% of what is 

thrown away by 2020 will still leave at least 370,000 tonnes to deal. 

Metro Vancouver's garbage incinerator in south Burnaby burns 240,000 tonnes of 

garbage each year and produces enough electricity to power 17,000 homes. 

Waste-to-energy plants make money in three ways: 

•tipping fees 

•steam and electricity sales; and 

•metals recovery. 

But although the Burnaby plant performs efficiently, it doesn't make money. In 2011, the 

facility generated $10 million in revenue but cost $18 million to run. 

In contrast, the proposed new facility is projected to generate net revenue of $20 million 

over 35 years of operation. The numbers are based on the original plan for a 500,000 

tonne mass-burn incinerator. 

Owners of waste-to-energy facilities can apply to B.C.'s Ministry of Energy to have the 

electricity they produce designated as clean energy and be eligible to be bought at a 

higher rate by BC Hydro. 

Under the terms of the 20-year deal, the city will truck 109,500 tonnes of garbage 

13

1.4 

Diesel Price $/litre 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Commodity Prices 

160 

140 

129 

133 

142 143 139 

126 

$/tonne 

120 

100 

80 

60 

111 

100 

90 90 

101 104 107 

40 

20 

0 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

January 

14

L A M B T O N S H O R E S C O M M U N I T Y A S S O C I A T I O N 

Lambton Shores Community Association 

P.O. Box 1016, 

47 Hill St. 

Grand Bend, ON 

N0M 1T0 

Feb 2, 2013 

To the Mayor and members of Council: 

It has come to our attention that Council received a letter (Council Meeting agenda Jan. 14, 2013) 

from Coehn Highley dated Dec. 21, 2012, which states that “Kevin Misselbrook has also joined the 

Lambton Shores Community Association”, among other things. 

Kevin Misselbrook made requests to join the LSCA. He was instructed to provide the association 

with pertinent information, which he did. 

Mr. Misselbrook and the Lambton Shores Community Association were in the process of 

discussing the final portions of the issue but Mr. Misselbrook failed to respond to our last enquiry 

and to date has not forwarded any membership fee to LSCA. 

He therefore is NOT a member of the Lambton Shores Community Association. 

Mr. Misselbrook’s lawyer also made a number of claims and sent in a petition which has no 

validity re the situation as none of the signatories live close enough to be impacted by his activities. 

We remind Council that all of the issues caused by Mr. Misselbrook and of concern to LSCA 

members can be resolved by ensuring that Municipality of Lambton Shores By-laws are enforced. 

Sincerely, 

Sharon Weitzel per 

Lambton Shores Community Association 

P . O B O X 1 0 1 6 , 4 7 H I L L S T . , G R A N D B E N D , O N , N 0 M 1 T 0 

• E M A I L L S C o m m u n i t y A s s o c @ g m a i l . c o m 

15


Date of Meeting: February 7, 2013 

Budget Council Meeting 

Members Present: Mayor Bill Weber 

Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg 

Councillor Bonesteel 

Councillor Lorie Scott 

Councillor Ken McRae 

Councillor Martin Underwood 

Councillor Doug Cook 

Members Absent: 

Staff Present: 

Councillor Maguire 

Councillor Russell 

Acting C.A.O. /Treasurer Janet Ferguson 

Director of Community Services Brent Kittmer 

Administrative Assistant Roberta Brandon 

1. CALL TO ORDER 

Mayor Weber called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. 

2. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

The Mayor asked members of Council to declare any pecuniary or conflict of interest 

that they may have with the business itemized on the agenda and none were declared. 

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINTUES FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES 

3.1 Budget Meeting – January 31, 2013 

The minutes of the Budget meeting held the 31st day of January, 2013 were reviewed. 

13-0207-01 Moved by: Councillor Cook 

Seconded by: Councillor Underwood 

That the minutes of the January 31, 2013 Budget meet be accepted 

as presented. 

Carried 

4. DELEGATIONS, PUBLIC MEETINGS & PRESENTATIONS 

4.1 Susan Mills, Manger & Glen Baillie, President of the Grand Bend and Area 

Chamber of Commerce – Re: Funding Lambton Shores Tourism 

16

Minutes of the February 7, 2013 Budget Meeting 

Susan Mills and Glen Baillee of the Grand Bend and Area Chamber of Commerce 

appeared before Council with a PowerPoint presentation on the 2012 activities of the 

Grand Bend and Area Chamber and the proposed activities for 2013. 

Ms. Mills provided information on the economic impact of tourism on Lambton Shores, 

how the Chamber targeted tourists in 2012, the challenges faced in the past year along 

with information on proposed activities to promote tourism in 2013. 

She further provided details on the Chamber’s 2012 revenue stream, a breakdown of 

the 2012 budget and the proposed budget for 2013. 

Ms. Mills advised that the Chamber is requesting 42,721.80 in Municipal support and 

noted that she believed that the promotion of tourism by the Chamber of Commerce is 

an excellent investment. 

Discussion ensued on the role of the Chamber in Grand Bend with respect to Tourism 

Sarnia Lambton and getting the best value for the Municipal dollar. 

5. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS 

5.1 Emery Huszka, President – Lambton Local 328 National Farmers Union – 

Re: MPAC Farm Assessments 

Council reviewed correspondence from Lambton Local 328 National Farmers Union 

regarding the recent MPAC farm assessments. 


Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel 

That correspondence from Emery Huszka, President of the 

Lambton Local 328 National Farmers Union regarding MPAC farm 

assessments be received and filed. 

Carried 

5.2 Rick Boerkamp, Scouts Canada – Re: Request for Donation towards 

Project Wellness – Uganda 2013 

Council reviewed a request from Scouts Canada for a donation towards a trip to 

Uganda to assist local villagers with digging wells and other projects. 

13-0207-02 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel 

Seconded by: Councillor Scott 

That staff send a letter to Scout Canada expressing Council’s 

wishes for a successful trip to Uganda and that the request for 

financial support is denied. 

Carried 

17


6. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE MINUTES & STAFF REPORTS 


6.1 D.C.S. Report No. 23-2013 – Re: Grand Bend Municipal Boat Launch & Gas 

Dock 

Council discussed D.C.S. Report No. 23-2013 outlining details on a proposal to perform 

spot dredging at the location of the Municipal launch ramp and the Municipal gas dock 

to enable large vessel to safely launch due to lower than normal water levels in the 

Grand Bend Harbour. 

The Director of Community Services advised Council that presently, the operating 

budget does not include funds for this work as it is not a regular occurrence for the 

Grand Bend Harbour, and this work was not forecast as needed when the budget was 

prepared. He further advised that a portion of the spot dredging work proposed for the 

Grand Bend Harbour qualifies for funding from the Federal Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans, with cost sharing of 50 percent available for work completed on Federal 

property to a Federal maximum of $40,000. 

Direction from Council on the amount that could be approved for such work was 

requested and staff was directed to proceed with this spot dredging to a limit of $10,000. 


Seconded by: Councillor Cook 

That staff proceeds with the proposed spot dredging work for the 

Grand Bend Harbour at the Municipal launch ramp and the 

Municipal gas dock to the limit of $10,000. 

Carried 

Finance and Administration 

6.2 TR Report No. 16-2013 – Re: Grand Bend Chamber of Commerce 

The Treasurer advised that Lambton Shores has a formal 2 year agreement with the 

Grand Bend and Area Chamber of Commerce to provide tourism related services for 

Lambton Shores. She noted that the 2012 funding was $16,337.00 however the 2013 

funding level was to be determined during the 2013 budget deliberations. 

13-0207-04 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg 


That a request from the Grand Bend and Area Chamber of 

Commerce for funding in the amount of $16,337.00 be granted for 

2013. Motion Failed 

18


In response to the Chambers current request of $42,721.80 Council discussed providing 

funding equivalent to the cost of the Visitor Guide for $21,376.20 and requested the 

impact to the budget. 

Ms Ferguson advised Council that currently $26,200 has been allocated under 

Economic Development in the advertising / promotion line and from this amount an 

allocation for the overage of $6,800.00 in Community Grants is applied; therefore 

$1,905.00 is required to be added to the current draft budget to provide the Chamber 

with the full $21,376.20. 



That a request from the Grand Bend and Area Chamber of 

Commerce for funding in amount of $21,376.20 be granted for 

2013. Carried 

6.3 TR Report No. 17-2013 – Re: 2013 Draft Operating Budget 

Further to direction of Council that staff prepares the 2013 budget with a 2.5% increase 

over 2012, Treasurer Janet Ferguson reported that the current draft reflects a 2.49% 

increase in expenditures over the 2012 level. It was noted that during the meeting there 

have been additions to the operating budget and the updated increase in expenditures 

is 2.57%. 

13-0207-05 Moved by: Councillor Underwood 


That the 2013 Operating and Capital Budgets be accepted and 

approved as discussed at the February 7, 2013 budget meeting. 

Carried 

7. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEEK CLARIFCATION 

There were no questions from the audience pertaining to items on the agenda for the 

purpose of clarification only. 

8. ADJOURN 



That the February 7th Budget meeting adjourn at 3:24 p.m. 

Carried 

19



Regular Council Meeting 



Councillor Dave Maguire 

Councillor Doug Bonesteel 

Councillor Lorie Scott 






Councillor John Russell 

Acting C.A.O. / Treasurer Janet Ferguson 

Clerk Carol McKenzie 






That Mayor asked members of Council to declare any pecuniary or conflict of interest 

that they may have with the business itemized on the agenda and Deputy Mayor Davis- 

Dagg declared a conflict with Item # 8.4 dealing with the NextEra Jericho Wind Project 

as her husband is involved in a wind turbine project. 

Councillors Cook and Underwood also declared a conflict with Items # 6.2 and 8.7 as 

Councillor Cook formerly owned the house located at 60 Main Street, Forest and 

Councillor Underwood resides on Main Street in Forest. 

3. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

13-0211-01 Moved by: Councillor Scott 


That Council go into a “Closed Session” at 6:15 p.m. to discuss PL 

Report No. 08-2013 and D.C.S. Report No. 25-2013 on property 

matters held under Section 239 (2) c of the Municipal Act. 

Carried 

Council rose at 6:26 p.m. and reported progress on two property matters. 

4. CONSENT AGENDA 

20

Minutes of the February 11, 2013 Council Meeting 

Council reviewed those items listed as part of the Consent agenda. 


Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg 

That Item # 4.1 of the Consent agenda be moved to the regular 

Council agenda. 

Carried 



That the following items on the Consent agenda be received and 

filed: 

4.2 January Update from Jenna Allain, Program Supervisor – 

Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley Drinking Water Source 

Protection Region 

4.3 Correspondence from Dana Thorne, Curator/Supervisor – 

Lambton Heritage Museum – Re: 2013 Feature Exhibit – 

Shine: Spotlight on Women of Lambton 

4.4 Correspondence from Susan Humphrey, Regional Director – 

Canadian Wildlife Service – Ontario – Re: Consultation on 

the Proposed Recovery Strategy for the American Badger, 

Jacksoni Subspecies in Canada 

4.5 Notice of Public Information Centre – Bright’s Grove Sewage 

Treatment Facility Municipality Class Environmental 

Assessment 

4.6 CL Report No. 14-2013 – Re: Applications Heard by the 

Committee of Adjustment on January 24, 2013 

4.7 CL Report No. 15-2013 – Re: Applications to be Heard by 

the Committee of Adjustment on February 28, 2013 

Carried 

4.1 Correspondence from Elysia Petrone – Hamilton 350 Committee – Re: 

Enbridge Pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal to Allow Pumping of Tar Sands 

Bitumen to the U.S. 

Council reviewed correspondence regarding the proposed pipeline from Sarnia to 

Montreal by Enbridge to allow the pumping of Tar Sands Bitumen to the United States 

and the possibility that this could impact Lambton Shores. 



That staff prepare a report on the implications to Lambton Shores 

on the proposed Enbridge pipeline pumping Tar Sands Bitumen 

from Montreal to the U.S.A. 

Carried 

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINTUES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 

21


5.1 Regular Council Meeting – January 22, 2013 

5.2 Regular Council Meeting – January 28, 2013 

Council reviewed the minutes of the Council meetings held the 22nd and 28th of 

January, 2013. 

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg questioned the Municipal policy on statements made by 

members of Council on a “Point of Personal Privilege” and it was noted that this will be 

discussed at the upcoming Council meeting on the 19th of February, 2013. 



That the minutes of the Council meetings held January 22nd and 

January 28th, 2013 be accepted as presented. Carried 


6.1 Garry Glenn – Re: Present & Future Use of the Thedford Village Complex as 

a Municipal Council Chambers 

Garry Glenn appeared before Council to express his concerns and those of the 

residents of the former Village of Thedford on the possible use of the Thedford Village 

Complex as a permanent Council Chambers and the impact this could have on those 

who use the facility. 

Mr. Glenn presented information on the history of the Complex, noting the time and 

funding that local residents have put into this facility in the past and presently and asked 

Council to consider alternatives to using the Thedford Village Complex as a permanent 

Council chamber. 

6.2 Bernice Rade – Re: Request to Re-consider a Decided Matter 

Bernice Rade appeared before Council regarding the condition of Main Street, South, in 

Forest and to advise of her dissatisfaction with Council`s decision to allocate Main 

Street`s road and water-main reconstruction to the 10 year capital forecast. 

Mrs. Rade proceeded to outline her concerns with the results of a vibration report done 

by AMEC in front of her home on Main Street, Forest and asked Council to rectify the 

problem of vibration caused by the dis-repair of Main Street South in Forest in 2013. 



That Council reconsider the December 17, 2012 resolution that the 

Municipality will not take any further action regarding the vibration 

issue in her home and that the road and water-main reconstruction 

of Main Street, South in Forest be allocated as needed to the 10 

year capital forecast. 

Carried 

22




That staff prepare a report on the viability and costs of a diagonal 

patch road repair at 60 Main Street, South in Forest. Carried 



That the order of the Council agenda be amended to bring forward 

D.C.S. Report No. 17-2013. 

Carried 

8.5 D.C.S. Report No. 17-2013 – Re: Council Chambers 

Due to the concerns that have been raised by the public concerning the use of the 

Thedford Village Complex as a permanent Council Chamber, the Director of Community 

Services Brent Kittmer provided several options for Council to consider from maintaining 

the status quo of using the Village Complex as is, moving the Council meetings to a 

new locations such as the Legacy Centre, or constructing a new Council chambers. 



That Councillor Bonesteel and the Clerk Carol McKenzie look at 

the option of using the Legacy Centre as either a temporary or 

permanent Council chamber and report back to Council on this 

possibility. 

Carried 

7. Correspondence & Petitions 

7.1 Justin Speake – Re: Clear Answer to My Three Simple Questions 

Council reviewed correspondence from Justin Speake regarding a clear answer to 

questions asked. 

Councillor Cook moved the motion to receive and file this correspondence and the 

motion did not receive a seconder. 


Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis Dagg 

That should Justin Speake not be satisfied with the response to 

questions posed to the Mayor in correspondence concerning the 

tendering process for a sound system to be installed in the 

Thedford Village Complex and should he feel that there was a 

breach to the Municipality’s Code of Conduct, then Mr. Speake 

should file a formal complaint 

Carried 

7.2 Anne Walkinshaw – Re: Placing a Moratorium on Cell Towers 

23


Council reviewed correspondence from Anne Walkinshaw regarding actions taken by 

the Municipality to stop the construction of a cell tower in Port Franks. 



That correspondence on concerns with cell towers sent previously 

from the Municipality to the Ontario Premier be sent to the new 

Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Health along with 

correspondence from Anne Walkinshaw included in the February 

11, 2013 Council agenda. Carried 

7.3 Jean Dorey – Re: Costs Associated with the Dismissal of John Byrne as 

Chief Administrative Officer 

Council reviewed a request from Jean Dorey asking for those costs associated with the 

dismissal of John Byrne as Chief Administrative Officer for the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores and it was noted that some of the information is available regarding these 

questions; however other information is not currently available or cannot be made 

available due to confidentiality issues. 



That those inquiries made by Jean Dorey regarding the dismissal of 

John Byrne, C.A.O. for the Municipality that can be responded to be 

done so as the information is made available. Carried 

8. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE MINTUES AND STAFF REPORTS 

8.1 Minutes of the Board Meeting for the Forest Business Improvement Area 

held November 21, 2012 


held December 6, 2012 


held January 29, 2013 including the Proposed 2013 Budget 

The minutes of the Board meeting held by the Forest Business Improvement Area held 

November 21st and December 6th of 2012 and January 29th, 2013 were reviewed by 

Council. 



That the minutes of the Forest Business Improvement Area Board 

meetings held November 21st and December 6th, 2012 and 

January 29th, 2013 be received and filed. 

Carried 

24


The Clerk Ms. McKenzie noted that the proposed 2013 budget for the Forest Business 

Improvement Area was included with the January 29th, 2013 Board meeting minutes for 

Council approval. 

Planning 



That Council approves the Forest B.I.A. 2013 budget as presented. 

Carried 

8.4 PL Report No. 09-2013 – Re: NextEra Jericho Wind Inc. Wind Power Project 

Draft Municipal Consultation Form 

A draft of the Municipal Comments solicited by the Province as part of the Application 

for a Renewable Energy Approval (REA Application) for the NextEra Jericho Wind Inc. 

Wind Power Project was provided to Council for review; however Council asked that this 

draft be tabled until after the final Public Consultation meeting is held for the NextEra 

Wind Power Project. 

It was noted that public comments can be submitted to the Municipality for review and 

consideration in the preparation of the Municipal comments. 


Seconded by: Councillor Maguire 

That the draft of the Municipal Comments for the NextEra Wind 

Power Project be tabled until the final Public Consultation meeting 

has been held. 

Carried 


8.6 D.C.S. Report No. 24-2013 – Re: Southcott Pines Three Way Stop Proposal 

Council reviewed a request from the Southcott Pines Residents’ Association to install a 

three way stop at one of the two intersections of Lakeview Avenue and Grand Oaks 

Drive. Brent Kittmer, the Director of Community Services, noted that the purpose of this 

traffic control is to improve safety for all road users by adding a new measure of speed 

control. 



That D.C.S. Report No. 24-2013 be approved; and further 

25


That By-law 17-2013, establishing a three way stop at the northerly 

intersection of Grand Oaks Drive and Lakeview Avenue be 

approved. 

Carried 

D.C.S. Report No. 26-2013 was dealt with earlier in the meeting. 

Finance and Administration 

8.8 TR Report No. 19-2013 – Re: Phasing Out of the Penny 

The methodology that will be used by the Municipal Finance department in phasing out 

the penny was outlined in TR Report No. 19-2013. 



That TR Report No. 19-2013 providing information as to how the 

Finance Department for the Municipality will phase out the penny 

be received and filed. 

Carried 

8.9 CL Report No. 11-2013 – Re: Proposed Amendment to the “Chip Wagon 

Licensing” By-law 99-2007 

A proposed change to the “Chip Wagon Licensing” by-law was outlined in CL Report 

No. 11-2013 whereby the previous licensees will be given the first opportunity to reapply 

for licenses each year by April 1st instead of March 1st as currently allowed in Bylaw 

99-2007. 

13-0211-18 Moved by: Councillor Maguire 


That By-law 99-2007, a by-law to provide for the licensing, 

regulating and governing Chip Wagons in the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores be amended as outlined in CL Report No. 11- 

2013. Carried 

8.10 CL Report No. 13-2013 – Re: Charity Donation Boxes 

Background information and the lack of regulations for charitable “donation” boxes was 

outlined in CL Report No. 13-2013. Clerk Carol McKenzie also provided information on 

regulations that other municipalities in Ontario are contemplating or already have in 

place to regulate community donation boxes. 



That CL Report No. 13-2013 be approved; and further 

26


That the Municipal Zoning By-law 1 of 2003 be amended to include 

regulations for charitable “donation” boxes as similar to that of the 

Town of Milton. 

Carried 

8.11 CL Report No. 12-2013 – Re: Report from the Office of the Ombudsman – 

Re: In Camera Meeting November 13, 2012 

Correspondence from the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman regarding a review of a 

Closed Session of Council held November 13, 2012 was discussed and it was noted 

that this correspondence outlines the gist of the complaints received, information 

considered during the review and the finding of the “Open Meeting Law Enforcement 

Team”. 



That correspondence from the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman 

regarding a review of a Closed meeting of Council held November 

13, 2012 be posted on the Municipal website. Carried 

9. BY-LAWS AND RESOLUTIONS 

13-0211-21 Moved by Councillor Underwood 

Seconded by: Council Maguire 

That the following by-laws are read a first, second and third time, 

passed and numbered appropriately, signed by the Mayor and 

Clerk and engrossed in the by-law book: 

- By-law 16-2013 – Amendment to the Chip Wagon Licensing By-law 

- By-law 17-2013 – Respecting the Erection of Stop Signs at 

Intersections – Grand Oaks Drive and Lakeview Avenue 

- By-law 18-2013 – Confirming Resolutions to Date. Carried 

10. ACCOUNTS 

There were no Municipal accounts for Council to review. 

11. NOTICE OF MOTION 

There were no notices of motion brought forward by Council. 

12. NEW BUSINESS 

There were no emergent issues brought forward. 

13. COUNCILLOR REPORTS 

27


Councillor Bonesteel reported that he had attended the Lambton Museum’s retirement 

event for Susan Hewitt and had met with the Huron Woods Habitat Stewardship Group 

and noted that this group is contemplating offering an educational program on the 

different wonders of the environment within Lambton Shores. 

Councillor Maguire reported that the Grand Bend Winter Carnival would be held the 

upcoming weekend with fireworks and a parade on Saturday. 

Councillor Cook offered his appreciation to the Finance Department for all their hard 

work in preparing and presenting the 2013 Capital and Operating budgets. 

Councillor Underwood reported that the January 29th Town Hall meeting had been well 

received. 

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg presented a report on the proposed Economic Development 

Commitee for Council’s preliminary input. She provided information on proposed time 

frames, fundamentals, reference materials, components for success, financial support 

and proposed action plan. 

Mayor Weber reported that he had attended the Mayor’s Breakfast with other members 

of Council in attendance and had won 2nd Place in the Kiwanis Club Chilli cook-off. 

14. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEEK CLARIFICATION 

Jean Dorey asked for confirmation that in looking at the applicants for the Economic 

Development Committee Council would select on a geographical basis and this was 

confirmed. 

Bob Sharen asked when the report the former C.A.O. had been working on for the 

parking issues and MNR properties at Ipperwash would be forthcoming. 

Jordy Speake asked Council if staff was aware there was already a sound system in the 

Village Complex and this was confirmed however it was noted that it was in need of 

updating. 

Glenn Baillie asked if the Mayor was an officer of the Municipality and this was 

confirmed. 



That Council go into a “Closed Session” at 8:53 p.m. to discuss a 

personal matter held under Section 239 (2) b of the Municipal Act. 

Carried 

Council rose at 9:15 p.m. and made the following resolution: 



28


That the CAO provide a progress report on Resolution # 13-0114- 

41 at the February 19 th meeting. Carried 

15. ADJOURN 



That the February 11, 2013 Council meeting adjourn at 9:15 p.m. 

Carried 

29



Regular Council Meeting 



Councillor Dave Maguire 





Councillor John Russell 



Councillor Scott 


Clerk Carol McKenzie 






Mayor Weber asked members of Council to declare any pecuniary or conflict of interest 

that they may have with items on the agenda and none were declared. 


3.1 Dennis Gannon, Operations Manager & Monique Belair, Program Specialist 

– Ontario Fire Marshal’s Office – Re: Fire Service Delivery & General 

Information on Best Practices for Structure of a Fire Board & Fire 

Department 

As requested by Council, representatives from the Office of the Fire Marshal were in 

attendance to provide information on fire service delivery and general information on 

best practices for the structure of a Fire Board and Fire Department. 

Mr. Gannon provided details on municipal governance, due diligence and risk 

management, establishing a fire department, municipal responsibilities under the Fire 

Protection and Prevention Act, the responsibilities and role of the Fire Chief and 

municipal fire agreements. 

30


In concluding his presentation Mr. Gannon made several recommendations to Council 

for the operation of the Lambton Shores’ Fire Department such as updating and revising 

the Establishing By-law, ensuring all Fire Protection Agreements are reviewed for 

services provided and received and ensuring that the Fire Chief develops and 

implements all approved Fire Department policies, SOG’s and / or SOP’s. 

The composition of the current Lambton Shores Fire Board was briefly discussed 

however Dennis Gannon noted that The Fire Protection and Prevention Act does not 

recognize the establishment of Fire Boards in its legislation and that Council would have 

to address this issue. 


Seconded by: Councillor Russell 

That the information presented by the Operations Manager Dennis 

Gannon and Program Specialist Monique Belair from the Office of 

the Fire Marshal be forwarded to the Lambton Shores Fire Chiefs 

for review and comment and that the C.A.O. report back to Council 

on a time line and implementation of the Chiefs’ recommendations 

regarding this presentation. 

Carried 

4. CONSIDERATION OF STAFF REPORTS 

4.1 TR Report No. 20-2013 – Re: Beige Zone (Electromagnetic Reduced Area) 

Report Schedule 

TR Report No. 2013 provided information on the progress to date of a proposed staff 

report on what establishing a “Frequency Reduced Environmental Enclave” or “Beige 

Zone” would entail and how this would help those people with electromagnetic 

sensitivities. 

Discussion ensued on Council’s decision to send out this information to those residents 

of the Port Franks area for their input on the matter. 

It was pointed out to Council that Municipalities cannot regulate the placement of cell 

towers and ownership or use of wireless devices and cannot prevent others from using 

wireless frequencies. 



That the March 4 th report provide a letter and survey which asks the 

residents of Port Franks whether they were in favor or opposed to a 

ER free zone as found in the Bio-Initiative Report and from the 

contacts with the residents with the expert knowledge and that it be 

returned in 2 weeks due to time sensitivity Motion Failed 



31


That TR Report No. 20-2013 be received and that staff prepare a 

further report on establishing a “Frequency Reduced Environmental 

Enclave” or “Beige Zone” for Port Franks. 

Carried 

TR Report No. 21-2013 was dealt with during the delegate portion of the meeting. 

4.3 TR Report No. 23-2013 – Re: C.A.O. Search Consultant 

The Acting C.A.O. / Treasurer Janet Ferguson presented the three submissions 

received in response to the request for proposals from consultants to assist Council with 

filling the C.A.O. positions on a permanent basis. 



That the request for proposal submitted by Nigel Bellchamber for 

assistance in filling the position of C.A.O. be accepted. 

Carried 

4.4 TR Report No. 24-2013 – Re: Forest Legion Generator 

The methodology in purchasing and installing a generator at the Forest Legion was 

outlined in TR Report No. 24-2013. The Forest Legion is considered to be an 

evacuation and/or warming centre for the Forest area as noted in the Lambton Shores 

Emergency Plan. 



That Council support the installation of an emergency generator at 

the Forest Legion as outlined in Treasurer’s Report No. 24-2013. 

Carried 

4.5 CL Report No. 16-2013 – Re: Education and Training Session 

As it was getting late in the meeting the question of postponing discussion on CL Report 

No. 16-2013 was discussed. 



That CL Report No. 16-2013 be tabled for discussion at an 

upcoming meeting. 

Motion Failed 

Clerk Carol McKenzie reviewed with Council several of the most recent issues that have 

arisen that are in need of clarification in order to assist Council and staff to operate 

more efficiently and effectively. 

32


Along with the feasibility of recording Councillor votes, other topics discussed by 

Council were as follows: 

1. Amending a Motion of a decided matter without having to have a reconsideration; 

2. Answering questions from residents; 

3. Rise and Report; 

4. Conflict of Interest; 

5. Minutes; and 

6. Meeting times. 



That future Council meeting minutes be recorded without note or 

comment. 

Carried 


Seconded by Councillor Underwood 

That a personal statement is made only under Councillor Reports 

unless it is a statement made by the chair regarding the efficiency 

and the effectiveness of conducting meeting or on a Councillor’s 

point of personal privilege 

Carried 



That if a motion is amended more than once, the mover and 

seconder withdraws the original motion and re-drafts the motion 

based on the outcome of the discussion. 

Carried 



That the current practice of having only approved Council meeting 

minutes posted on the Municipal website be upheld. 

Carried 

Prior to opening up the meeting to questions for clarification Mayor Weber noted that a 

Wind Symposium was being held in Wainfleet and as no member of Council could 

attend it would be requested that a report on the symposium be forwarded to Council for 

review. 



That staff request a report from the Township of Wainfleet on the 

Rural and Small Urban Green Energy Symposiurm that was held 

February 22nd. 

Carried 

33


5. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEEK CLAIRFICATION 

There were no questions from the audience seeking clarification on items of the 

agenda. 

6. CONFIDENTIAL 

There were not items of a confidential nature to deal with. 

7. ADJOURN 



That the February 19th, 2013 Council meeting adjourns at 4:51 

p.m. 

Carried 

34

SCHEDULE “A” TO BY-LAW 37-2012 

Delegation Form – Request to Make a Presentation to Council 

To speak at a meetingof Council, you must complete this form and submit it to the 

Municipal Clerk. Agendas are finalized the week prior to the Council meeting, and if a 

“Request Form” is received after 11:00 a.m. 7 days prior to the meeting or if the agenda is 

deemed full, the Request Form shall be considered for the next appropriate meeting. 

Delegations are limited to a maximum of 10 minutes, which includes questions from 

Council. Please include copies of presentations to be made, including a copy of the power 

point presentation, and all background information you would like Council to consider. 

Please provide details on the issue to be discussed: 

_Council’s Letter to residents of Port Franks surveying the desire for installation/ cessation 

of Bell Mobility’s Telecommunications Tower________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Have you discussed this issue with the appropriate Municipal Department? __ No _ Yes 

If yes, what was the response? ___Advised to attend Council’s meeting on March 4 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Name:__Laureen Maurizio 

____________________ 

Firm / Organization (if any): _____Lakeshore Coalition _________________________ 

Address:________7613 Chester Trail, Port Franks ON________________________ 

Postal Code:___N0M 2L0_________________Email:__towerpf@yahoo.com__________ 

Residential Phone: ___519-243-2415______ Business Phone: ____________________ 

Fax Number: _____________________________ 

I agree that I have read the Municipality of Lambton Shores Delegation Policy# 34, attached 

to this form, and understand that all information will become part of a public document and 

posted on the Municipal website. 35

I also understand that the form, together with the presentation materials must be submitted 

Procedural By-law 37 of 2012 

Page 2 no later than 11:00 a.m., 7 days prior to the meeting. 

Signature: ___Laureen Maurizio____________________________ 

36

Health Canada admits Safety Code 6 guideline for 

microwave radiation is based ONLY on thermal effects! 

February 20, 2013. I just returned from a hearing in Montreal in front of the Superior 

Court of Quebec where Health Canada scientist, James McNamee, admitted that the 

Safety Code 6 guideline for microwave radiation (which includes radiation from most 

of the devices we are concerned about like mobile phones, cell phone antennas, Wi-Fi, 

wireless toys and baby monitors, smart meters etc.) is based ONLY on preventing a 

heating effect! 

Let me state that again. Health Canada admits that Safety Code 6 for frequencies 

between 100 kHz and 300 GHz are based ONLY on heating. 

Why is this so important? 

For years Health Canada has stated that Safety Code 6 takes into consideration and 

protects the public from both thermal and non-thermal effects. They made this 

statement to groups concerned about Wi-Fi in schools and to those concerned about 

smart meters and cell towers coming into their neighborhoods. While they are 

technically correct in their statement, they mislead the public by what they failed to 

mention. What Health Canada failed to mention is that the “non-thermal” effects are 

considered ONLY for frequencies between 3 and 100 kHz. For frequencies between 

100 kHz and 300 GHz ONLY thermal effects are considered and cell towers fall 

within this “thermal range.” 

That is not the only thing that was novel and refreshing at this hearing. 

This is the first time a provincial court (Superior Court of Quebec) has challenged 

the right of municipal governments to address health concerns expressed by citizens 

regarding federally regulated radio frequency radiation. 

Let me explain what this hearing is about. It is a story concerning Rogers and the 

City of Chateauguay. 

Rogers wanted to erect a monopole tower (35 meters tall) with multiple antennas in 

a residential section of the City of Chateauguay in Quebec within 15 meters of the 

nearest property line. We have regulations in Canada that for towers taller than 15 

meters, the wireless provider has to hold a public meeting. The meeting was held and 

those who lived nearby expressed their concerns about health effects associated with 

the radiation from this proposed tower. 

37

The Mayor of Chateauguay, Nathalie Simon, took these concerns seriously and asked 

city planners to find an alternative site for the tower. They did and they 

contacted Industry Canada, who needs to approve the tower location as they provide 

the license to the operator, and Industry Canada accepted the new location. City 

planners also contacted Rogers who agreed this location would work but it was not 

their first choice. In order to facilitate the erection of this tower, the City of 

Chateauguay expropriated the land so the tower could be built. 

But then things began to fall apart. Rogers decided they did not want to go ahead with 

this new location and the case ended up in court, in front of the Superior Court of 

Quebec. 

I was called as an expert witness for the City of Chateauguay and the hearing was 

scheduled for November 2011. Just prior to the hearing, Rogers tried to get my 

testimony and anything to do with “health” thrown out of court because health of 

radio frequency radiation comes under federal jurisdiction (Health Canada & Industry 

Canada) and neither a municipality nor a province may question Health Canada’s 

jurisdiction in this matter. [More about this later.] Up until now, each court has 

agreed with Rogers and health could not be discussed when it came to the siting of 

cell phone base stations. Or, if it was discussed, it did not influence the final decision 

made by Industry Canada. 

But Quebec is different. The judge, Madam Justice Perrault, stated that she would 

allow health to be discussed because it was health that the citizens were concerned 

about and she wanted to know if their concerns had any scientific merit. 

The law firm representing Rogers Communications Inc. and their attorney, Nikolas 

Blanchette, suddenly found themselves in an awkward position. Rogers’ attorneys 

were so certain the court would rule in their favor that they neglected to hire an expert 

witness to testify on Rogers’ behalf! 

The hearing was moved to February 2012 and Roger’s Subpoenaed, James 

McNamee, a Health Canada scientist to testify. Dr. McNamee, came to court with 

three massive binders of documents. This was unusual as Dr. McNamee was sworn 

in as a witness, and not as an “expert” witness. 

The major difference between an “expert witness” and a “witness” is that the expert 

witness may provide his/her opinion on issues related to their expertise. In other 

words they are able to interpret the facts, while a witness can only provide facts. 

Patrice Gladu (from the law firm Dunton Rainville S.E.N.C.R.L.), the lawyer 

representing the City of Chateauguay, objected and argued that the information in 

38

those binders should be inadmissible as Dr. McNamee was not being considered as an 

expert witness in front of this court. After both sides presented their arguments, 

Justice Perrault took a short recess to consider her decision. She returned siding with 

Mr. Gladu and said that according to law, as Dr. McNamee was not sworn in as an 

expert witness he could testify only to those documents that were Health Canada 

documents and he was unable to express his opinion about the other documents except 

as they pertained to Health Canada’s decision regarding Safety Code 6. 

Fasken Martineau, the law firm representing Rogers, objected to this ruling and asked 

to take their case to the Court of Appeal. Justice Perrault granted that appeal. 

Months later the ruling came out that upheld Justice Perrault’s decision and the 

hearing resumed. 

It is now February 2013. Dr McNamee returned to present his testimony and to be 

cross examined. He went through every document in the 3 binders and was asked the 

same question each time by his lawyer. 

“What is this document and what role did it play in establishing Safety Code 6?” 

Each time Dr. McNamee gave a short answer. 

For documents that Health Canada did NOT consider Dr. McNamee’s response was . . 

. 

“Does not support non-specific health symptoms, not considered in Safety 

Code 6 2009.” 

“Non-support for conclusions, did not review document for Safety Code 6.” 

“Levitt and Lai, was not considered in 2009. Their opinion is contrary to 

Health Canada’s opinion and they don’t take same approach of health 

agencies.” 

For documents that Health Canada DID consider, Dr. McNamee stated . . . 

 

 

 

“Helped to reinforce our own assessment of the literature.” 

[This was a] “reference document that supports our conclusions.” 

“‘Document supported Health Canada’s decision.” 

Dr. McNamee went further and stated that most studies dealing with non-thermal 

effects were poorly conducted and were rejected by Health Canada. McNamee states 

that a large number of studies show an adverse effect; a large number of studies don’t 

show effects, and that the better studies are the ones that show “no effect.” 

39

I have two points to make here. 

The first is that Health Canada is cherry picking the studies they include for the 

Safety Code 6 decisions. They include ONLY studies that support their own 

conclusions. This is NOT how science is conducted. Obviously, Dr. McNamee and 

his fellow scientists at Health Canada are unfamiliar with the work of Dr. Karl Popper 

on falsification. 

Popper, who was one of the preeminent 20th century philosophers of science stated 

that one does not test an hypothesis by pointing out each time an observation supports 

it. The proper scientific method to test an hypothesis is through falsification, by 

trying to find a situation where it is not supported by observation. 

The example Popper gives is the statement that, “all swans are white.” You may 

count as many white swans as you like but that does not prove that all swans are 

white. What you need to do is look for a black swan. Once you find a black swan 

you may state that, “not all swans are white” and as such you have falsified your 

original hypothesis. This is the proper scientific method. 

What the Health Canada scientists are doing is “cherry picking” or counting white 

swans and as such are not conducting science properly. Click here for video on this 

topic. 

The second point is that Dr. McNamee is demonstrating bias when he states that 

better studies are the ones that show “no effect.” What is that statement based on? 

Where is the document that identifies which studies Health Canada considered and 

which ones were ignored? Where is the document identifying flaws in peer-reviewed 

scientific studies? 

Whenever IARC or any other agency evaluates the scientific literature for the purpose 

of policy setting, it is customary for them to provide a monograph documenting the 

studies that were included and how they were weighed, and the studies not included 

with justification for their omission. Health Canada, to my knowledge, has NOT 

produced such a document for non-ionizing radiation. There is no disclosure about 

the processes Health Canada uses to assess scientific studies. When Dr. McNamee 

was asked how Health Canada conducts the “weight of evidence” he was unable to 

provide a clear, comprehensive answer and referred instead to references from other 

organizations. 

40

In the 1999 version of Health Canada Safety Code a very important statement on page 

11 of that report that was omitted from the 2009 version of SC6. That statements 

reads as follows: 

“Certain members of the general public may be more susceptible to harm from RF 

and microwave exposure.“ 

According to Dr. McNamee, what this statement referred to is that among the public 

there is “a wide range of body sizes, health status, and different thermal regulation 

properties” and that Health Canada is acknowledging ONLY a thermal effect by the 

term “susceptible” and that “Health Canada does not acknowledge 

electroshypersensitivity.” 

What does a country do when the leading federal health authority, Health Canada, is 

not doing its job properly? What role do provincial and municipal governments play 

in this regard? Do these governments not also have the ability to protect the health of 

their citizens? Isn’t that why we have provincial Ministries of Health and Municipal 

Health Authorities. Weren’t municipal governments responsible for bringing bylaws 

forward about toxic chemicals used in lawn care despite the fact that Health Canada 

has federal jurisdiction over the toxic chemicals that were involved? 

One very interesting statement in the Preface of Safety Code 6 (2009) is the following 

(page 3): 

The purpose of this code is to establish safety limits for human exposure to 

radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 

GHz. The safety limits in this code apply to all individuals working at, or visiting, 

federally regulated sites. These guidelines may also be adopted by the provinces, 

industry or other interested parties. 

If I understand this correctly, Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 does NOT automatically 

apply to provinces, industry, or other interested parties. So the much reduced 

guideline proposed by the Board of Health for the City of Toronto originally in 1999 

(Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Sheela Basrur) and reaffirmed in 2007 can be applied 

to the City of Toronto! 

At that time, Toronto wanted the federal guidelines reduced to 1/100th of the current 

guidelines to be more in line with Russia and other countries with much more 

protective guidelines. In the 2007 document from Toronto Board of Health 

(click here for this document), the Federal guidelines were correctly identified as 

being based on an “acute thermal effect” with “acute” referring to short-term, high 

exposure. 

41

Since the guidelines have not changed and with Dr. McNamee finally admitting that 

the guidelines in question regarding cell towers are based ONLY on preventing a 

thermal effect, it is accurate to say that Canada does not have a guideline to protect 

Canadians from long-term exposure to “non-thermal” levels of microwave 

radiation! 

Justice Perrault has six months (end of August 2013) to complete her deliberations 

regarding where this tower will be erected. The outcome could be precedent setting in 

Quebec and in Canada. 

42

From: Don White & Karen Kelly-White [mailto:dkwhite@hay.net] 

Sent: February-22-13 2:09 PM 

To: Bill Weber; External - Davis-Dagg; Dave Maguire; Doug Bonesteel; Lorie Scott; Martin Underwood; 

Doug Cook; John Russell; Ken McRae 

Cc: Carol McKenzie 

Subject: Request for Lambton Shores Council 

Dear Mayor and Lambton Shores Council, 

Today, we request Lambton Shores Council write the new Ontario Premier and say ‘no, thanks’ to the 

installation/approval of any Industrial Wind Turbines in Lambton Shores. If you wish, you can update 

and resend the letter that was sent to Mr McGuinty in Aug 2011 and Aug 2012 outlining the following 

Lambton Shores resolution. 

11-0808-13 That Council supports a moratorium on the construction of industrial wind 

turbines until such time as third party health studies have been done and further that the 

province reinstate local planning authority to municipalities regarding renewable energy 

projects. 

Here’s 3 of this week’s reasons to say ‘no’ to the Industrial Wind Turbines. 

1) Environment Canada reported that Grand Bend Wind Turbines would affect the weather 

radar 

http://www.theloop.ca/news/ctvnews/local/ontario/article/-/a/1622379/Concerns-Grand- 

Bend-wind-turbines-could-affect-weather-radar 

2) The announcement of a noise monitoring program in Waterloo, Australia after sleep 

disturbance survey 

A recent survey in Waterloo, Australia showed 39 per cent of respondents reported sleep disturbance up 

to 5km from the wind turbines. At 10km away, 29 per cent of respondents reported sleep disturbance. 

Environmental Protection Authority science and assessment director Peter Dolan says a noise monitoring 

program will start in April 2013 and continue uninterrupted for two months. 

“Something is happening and we are trying our best to figure out what it is,” Dolan says. “I certainly 

believe people are affected by something. “There are some theories around that it is not infrasound but 

low-frequency noise, but something is affecting people for certain. They are not making it up.” 

3) The Throne speech indicated that Municipalities are to have more say about Industrial Wind 

Turbines in their area. 

Everyone in Lambton Shores will be impacted by Industrial Wind Turbines increasing our 

energy costs and some will suffer subsequent job losses and health issues. Your residents are 

saying: 

We will not be bought by Big Business Wind Companies. 

We will not put our neighbours at risk. 

We will protect our quality of life, and our natural landscape & wildlife. 

Your attention to this request would be appreciated. 

Sincerely 

Karen Kelly-White & Don White 

Grand Bend Residents 

50


Fire Board Meeting Minutes 

Meeting No. 01-2013 

Date of Meeting: Thursday, February 21, 2013 

Location: 

Arkona Seniors’ Centre 

Members Present: Chair Doug Cook 

Mayor Bill Weber 



Councillor Adrian Cornelissen, North Middlesex 

Councillor John Couwenberg – Township of Warwick 

Also Present: 

Chief Dave McLean, Forest Station 

Chief Jerry VanBruaene, Grand Bend Station 

Captain Brad Clark, Thedford Station 

Chief Jim Sisler, Arkona Station 




Chair Cook called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 

2. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

Members were asked to declare any pecuniary or conflict of interest that they may have 

with the business itemized on the agenda and none were declared. 

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 

3.1 Regular Fire Board Meeting – October 18, 2012 

The minutes of the regular Fire Board meeting held the 29th day of November, 2012 

were reviewed. 

LSFB13-0221-01 

Moved by: Councillor Scott 


That the minutes of the regular Fire Board meeting held November 

29, 2012 be accepted as presented. Carried 

51

Minutes of the Lambton Shores Fire Board Meeting – February 21, 2013 

4. REPORTS FROM THE CHIEFS 

The Board reviewed written reports from four of the Lambton Shores Fire Chiefs all of 

which are on file with the Municipality. 

Northville Chief Ron Huxley was unable to attend the meeting. 

Brad Clark– Thedford Captain, reported that the Thedford department had responded to 

4 calls to date, that training was ongoing and it was noted that the Thedford Fire 

Department was hosting the Lambton County Chiefs’ Quarterly Meeting at the Village 

Complex February 27, 2013. 

Dave McLean – Forest Chief, provided an update on his Department’s calls and 

training, and noted that he and two members of his department had done a pre-build 

inspection on the proposed new truck for the Forest Fire Department. Chief MacLean 

advised that it is anticipated the new truck will be delivered in October of 2013 and that 

the old rescue vehicle for the Forest Department had been sold for $50,000.00 

Jerry VanBruaene – Grand Bend Chief, reported that the Grand Bend Fire Department 

had responded to 7 calls to date, that repairs to the Grand Bend Station were ongoing 

and that a recent fire had been mistakenly called out to Grand Bend when it should 

have been Arkona, that the Communications Centre in Wallaceburg should take note 

that this does not occur again. 

Jim Sisler – Arkona Chief, reported that his department had only one call so far this 

year, that the Arkona tanker had been temporarily repaired, that his department was 

reviewing the Safe Operating Guidelines and were being recertified in CPR. 

5. CONSIDERATION OF STAFF REPORTS 

5.1 TR Report No. 27-2013 – Re: Fire Marshal Presentation 

Information prepared by the Fire Marshal’s Office on the best practices and possible 

changes to the setup of the Departments and current structure of the Fire Board was 

presented to the Fire Board at the request of Council, for their input. 

It was noted that the Acting C.A.O. Janet Ferguson would be meeting with the Chiefs to 

review the establishing by-law 47-2001, and those suggestions summarized in the Fire 

Marshal’s presentation such as ensuring all Fire Protection Agreements, and that the 

Fire Chiefs develop and implement all approved Fire Department policies such as 

SOG’s and SOP’s. 

LSFB13-0221-02 

Moved by: Mayor Weber 


That TR Report No. 27-2012 regarding the Fire Marshal’s 

presentation of February 19th, 2013 be received and that the Acting 

C.A.O. and Chiefs proceed in discussing the summary presented in 

the Fire Marshal’s report to Council. 

Carried 

52

Minutes of the Lambton Shores Fire Board Meeting – February 21, 2013 

6. FINANCE 

6.1 TR Report No. 26-2013 – Re: 2013 Draft Year to Date Operating Financial 

Statements 

The Treasurer Janet Ferguson presented the Draft 2013 Operating financial statements 

up to and including February 15, 2013 noting that there were minimal transactions this 

year and that she was currently updating the fire service agreements for 2013 which will 

incorporate the update in assessed values. 

LSFB13-0221-03 

Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel 

Seconded by: Councillor McRae 

That the Draft 2013 Operating Financial Statements for the 

Lambton Shores Departments as outlined in TR Report No. 26- 

2013 be received and filed. Carried 

6.2 Municipal Cheque Register for November and December, 2012 and 

January, 2013 

A review of the November and December, 2012 and January, 2013 Municipal cheque 

listings for the Lambton Shores Fire Departments was conducted. 

LSFB13-0221-04 


Seconded by: Councillor McRae 

That the November and December, 2012 and January, 2013 

cheque listings for the Lambton Shores Fire Departments as 

presented be approved. 

Carried 

A brief update was given on proceeding with the RFP for the provision of fire inspection 

services as well as noting that the Fire Departments are not qualified for silo and wind 

turbine rescue. 

LSFB13-0221-05 


Seconded by: Mayor Weber 

That the February 21, 2013 Lambton Shores Fire Board meeting 

adjourns at 7:50 p.m. 

Carried 

53

THE MUNCIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES 

PL Report No. 10-2013 Tuesday, February 19, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

Mayor Weber and Members of Council 

Patti Richardson, Senior Planner 

OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OP-01/2013 

ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION ZO-03/2013 

LOCATION: 7549 Arkoma Road 

OWNER: Roy Shrijver 

RECOMMENDATION: 

That Official Plan Amendment Application OP-01/2013 

submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the 

Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 

7549 Arkona Road, to allow the creation of a new non-farm 

dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a 

dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a 

farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to 

the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing 

septic system meets current standards and is functioning 

properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced prior to 

the Official Plan amendment being adopted by Council. 

That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-09/2012, 

submitted by Roy Schrijver requesting an amendment to the 

Lambton Shores Official Plan as it relates to lands known as 

7549 Arkona Road, to allow the creation of a new non-farm 

dwelling lot, which has a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectare, for a 

dwelling which is surplus to a farming operation as result of a 

farm consolidation be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to 

the County and Municipality being satisfied that the existing 

septic system meets current standards and is functioning 

properly and if it is not that it be repaired or replaced prior to 

the implementing by-law being adopted by Council and the 

new zonings on the property: 

a) prohibiting the construction of a new dwelling on the 

remnant farm parcel after the severance of the surplus 

dwelling; 

b) requiring a surplus farm dwelling lot to have a minimum 

lot area of 0.8 hectares (2 acres); and 

54

c) allowing a 416 m² accessory building to remain on the 

proposed surplus farm dwelling lot. 

REPORT 

Summary of the Application 

The Applicant, Roy Schrijver is requesting: 

Official Plan Amendment Application 

an amendment to the “Agricultural” policies in the Lambton Shores Official Plan to 

permit the creation of a new 0.57 hectare non-farm dwelling lot for a dwelling which is 

surplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation. 

Zoning By-law Amendment Application 

an amendment to the Agricultural 1 (A1) zone in Zoning By-law 1 of 2003: 

(a) as it affects the remnant farm parcel to prohibit the construction of a new dwelling on 

the farm parcel after the severance of the surplus dwelling 

(b) as it affects the proposed severed non-farm dwelling lot to: 

i) allow a lot area of approximately 0.57 hectares (1.4 acres; and 

ii) allow a 416 m² accessory buildings to remain on the proposed non-farm dwelling 

lot. 

The applications are being proposed in order to allow the existing farm dwelling and 

accessory building to be severed from the farm parcel and sold as a non-farm dwelling. 

The proposed severed dwelling is excess to the owner’s needs as he resides on 

another farm. 

Location 

The subject lands are located on the west side of Arkona Road, just north of Arkona (see 

map Attachment 1). The lands are occupied by a dwelling and a large shed. The lands 

have frontage of approximately 539 metres (1,770 ft.) and a lot area of 73.6 hectares (182 

acres). Abutting lands to the south are occupied by single detached dwellings and lands 

under cultivation. Lands to the east, west and north are under cultivation. 

Correspondence 

A letter has been received from Corrine Nauta, Chief Building Official and Manager 

of Building Services, County of Lambton (See Attachment 2), advising that the 

proposed retained lot size of 0.57 hectare (1.41 acres) for the non-farm dwelling lot is 

55

not accepted and does not meet the ‘Reasonable Use’ guidelines set by the Ministry of 

the Environment which requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres when created in 

underlying clay soils. Therefore the County cannot support the application as 

presented, with respect to proposed lot size. 

The property does have septic records available for consideration. (SL-269-90) A lot 

diagram was not submitted regarding the existing septic system, but our records do 

indicate where the system is currently located. 

It should be noted that the septic tank is 600 gallons and is smaller than current Code 

Standards. The septic bed is stated to be a fully raised filter bed. The septic tank and 

bed must be located within the property lines and effluent treatment must also follow 

this requirement. Septic effluent cannot be discharged into field tiles or drainage 

ditches. This process is no longer permitted or acceptable. If the septic system is not 

operating in this manner, it may be necessary to install an acceptable Part 8 septic 

system. This requirement has been set out by the County-Wide Septic Policy on all 

Planning Applications. The applicant should contact this Department for further direction 

regarding this task. 

At this time, this Department cannot support the above noted application, for the 

following reasons: 

1. The new proposed lot size of 0.57 hectares (1.41 acres) does not meet 

Reasonable Use guidelines. 

2. The existing tank does not meet the current Code requirements (and the existing 

bed will need to be assessed). 

3. Further, a site inspection will need to be conducted to confirm location of the 

septic system(s) and to ensure that sewage/effluent is not being emitted or 

discharged onto the surface and that it is wholly contained within the newly 

created parcel. In the event the septic system is not compliant, a new Part 8 

system will be required to be installed. 

56

Geoff Cade of the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority advises (see 

Attachment 3) that a portion of the proposed retained lot is regulated under the 

Authority’s Development Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and 

Watercourses Regulation 147/06. The property has been identified as hazardous due to 

the flooding and erosion characteristics of the adjacent Curtis Townline Drain. The 

proposed severed lot has not been identified as hazardous. The Authority has not 

identified any natural heritage concerns with the requested amendments and lot 

creation. The Authority advises that it does not have any natural hazard or natural 

heritage concerns with the requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments or 

the ultimate severance. 

Discussion 

The lands are currently designated “Agriculture”, and “Agricultural Constraint” in the 

Lambton Shores Official Plan. 

The “Agricultural Constraint” designation affects the south boundary of the lands where 

the Curtis Townline Drain traverses property. 

The balance of the lands are designated “Agriculture”. The primary use of lands located 

within the “Agricultural” designation include the growing of crops, including nursery and 

horticultural crops; raising of livestock and other animals for food, or fur, including 

poultry and fish; aquaculture; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated onfarm 

buildings and structures including accessory farm dwellings 

The Official Plan indicates that the minimum lot size for agricultural uses shall generally 

be 40 hectares. The proposed retained farm parcel will have a lot area of 73 hectares 

and thus complies with the policy. 

Section 1.11 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan states: 

A severance to create a new non-farm lot may be permitted for infilling purposes, 

provided Council is satisfied that the lot to be created and the proposed retained 

farm lot comply with the following polices: 

i) infilling will be limited to the creation of one residential lot between two 

existing non-farm residences which are on separate lots of a similar size 

and which are situated on the same side of the road and are not more than 

61 metres apart; 

ii) 

only one non-farm single-detached residential lot will be permitted to be 

severed from an original farm lot; 

iii) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot meets the 

requirements of the Province, the County, the Health Unit and the 

Municipality regarding water supply and sewage disposal; 

57

iv) 

the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling is located in compliance 

with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae; and 

v) the proposed non-farm single-detached dwelling lot has direct access to an 

improved year round public road and the access does not result in traffic 

hazards due to poor sight lines or proximity to an intersection. 

Provincial Policy Statement 2005 

Section 2.3.1 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement states that Prime Agricultural 

areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. 

Further, Section 2.3.4.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement indicates the following: 

Lot Creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may be permitted for: 

c) a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation 

provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are 

prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by severance. 

The approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted 

on the remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on 

municipal approaches which achieve the same objective: and 

The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement defines “residence surplus to a farming operation 

as 

” an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm 

consolidation (the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one 

farm operation). 

Finally, Section 2.3.3.3 states: 

“New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new and expanding livestock 

facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.” 

The 1997 Provincial Policy Statement, on which the present Official Plan policies were 

based and which has been superseded by the 2005 Policy Statement, provided the 

following with respect to the creation of new residential lots: 

Lot Creation in prime agricultural Areas is generally discouraged and will be 

permitted only in the following situations: 

(a) new lots for residential uses may be permitted for : 

1. a farm retirement lot; 

58

2. a residence surplus to a farming operation; and 

3. residential infilling. 

Mr. Schrijver farms an extensive dairy farm operation with his father and mother, Leo 

and Gerritdina Schrijver, with their primary operation and home being located at 7714 

Gordon Road. The Schrijver family and their farming company, Leges Farm Ltd., have 

land holdings comprising 432 acres. Mr. Schrijver resides at his family farm on Gordon 

Road and has no use for the dwelling on the subject lands. As a result, he would like to 

dispose of it. This would be permitted by the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, but not 

the Lambton Shores Official Plan which has not been updated to reflect the 2005 Policy 

Statement. 

The Policy Statement requires that the retained farm parcel be zoned to prohibit the 

construction of a new farm dwelling on the lands. The applicant has applied for a zoning 

amendment to prohibit a new dwelling on the farm parcel. 

As well, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the creation of a lot for a surplus 

farm dwelling comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae (MDS). Site 

inspection reveals that there are no animal operations in the general vicinity. 

Zoning 

The subject lands are zoned “Agricultural 1 (A1)”, and “Environmental Protection - 

Hazard (EP-H)” in the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law. 

The “Environmental Protection - Hazard (EP-H)” zone affects the south portion of the 

lands where the Curtis Townline Drain traverses property. 

The balance of the lands are zoned “Agricultural 1 (A1)”. The predominant permitted 

use in this zone is agriculture and associated buildings and structures. 

The “A1” zone requires that a farm parcel have a minimum lot area of 38 hectares and a 

minimum lot frontage of 150 metres. The lands which are to be retained in agricultural 

use will have a lot frontage of approximately 539 metres (1,770 ft.) and a lot area of 73. 

hectares (180 acres). The lot frontage and area comply with the by-law. The “A1” zoning 

on these lands permits an accessory farm dwelling as a permitted use. The zoning on 

the remnant farm parcel will be amended to prohibit the construction of a new non-farm 

dwelling as is required by the Provincial Policy Statement. 

The Agricultural 1 (A1) Zone requires that a non-farm dwelling lot have a minimum lot 

area of 0.8 hectares and a minimum lot frontage of 45 metres. The surplus dwelling lot 

is proposed to have a lot area of approximately 0.57 hectares and a lot frontage of 67 

metres. The lot frontage complies but the lot area is deficient. It is recommended that 

the lot area of the lot be increased to a minimum of 0.8 hectares. 

59

Servicing 

The proposed non-farm residential lot is serviced by a private septic system and 

municipal water. 

Corrine Nauta, Chief Building Official and Manager of Building Services, County 

of Lambton, advises that the 0.57 hectare (1.41 acres) area proposed for the non-farm 

dwelling lot is not accepted and does not meet the ‘Reasonable Use’ guidelines set by 

the Ministry of the Environment which requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres when 

created in underlying clay soils. Any approval of this application should be conditional 

on the size of the proposed surplus farm lot being revised to a minimum of 0.8 hectares 

or 2 acres. 

Further, Ms. Nauta indicates that the property does have septic records available for 

consideration. (SL-269-90) A lot diagram was not submitted regarding the existing 

septic system, but our records do indicate where the system is currently located. It 

should be noted that the septic tank is 600 gallons and is smaller than current Code 

Standards. The septic bed is stated to be a fully raised filter bed. The septic tank and 

bed must be located within the property lines and effluent treatment must also follow 

this requirement. Septic effluent cannot be discharged into field tiles or drainage 

ditches. This process is no longer permitted or acceptable. If the septic system is not 

operating in this manner, it may be necessary to install an acceptable Part 8 septic 

system. This requirement has been set out by the County-Wide Septic Policy on all 

Planning Applications. The applicant should contact this Department for further direction 

regarding this task as it will be necessary to conduct a site inspection to ensure that 

sewage effluent is not being emitted or discharged onto the surface. Again any approval 

of this application should be conditional on the County and the Municipality being satisfied 

with respect to the septic system. 

Summary 

In light of the above, I can recommend that these applications be approved in principle, 

subject to the size of the proposed surplus farm dwelling lot being increases to 0.8 

hectares and the County and Municipality being satisfied with respect to the existing 

septic system prior to the By-law for the Official Plan and zoning amendments being 

adopted by Council as the applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy 

Statement. 

Respectfully submitted 

Patti L. Richardson 

Senior Planner 

60

61 

ATTACHMENT 1

62 

ATTACHMENT 2

64 

ATTACHMENT 3


PL Report No. 11-2013 Wednesday, February 20, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Beige Zone (Electromagnetic Frequency Reduced Area) 


For Council information and direction. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

REPORT 

Council passed the following resolution at their January 14, 2013 meeting: 

That staff prepare a report on the possible installation of hard-wired phones 

in Port Franks’ waterfront area for the increase of emergency services 

where cellphone service is diminished and; 

That staff research and define for clarity what establishing a “Frequency 

Reduced Environmental Enclave” or “Beige Zone” would entail and how 

this would help those people with electromagnetic sensitivities and further; 

That this information be sent out to the residents of Port Franks for their 

input on the matter. 

Carried 

Planning Comments 

In today’s world everyone is exposed to electromagnetic and radio frequencies. They come 

from electrical and electronic appliances, power lines, wireless devices such as cell 

phones, cell towers, cordless phones, security systems, broadcast transmission towers, 

baby monitors, wireless laps tops, incubators, smart utility metres for water, gas and 

electrical services, video ipods, tablets and the list goes on. 

Currently, staff have been requested by Council to investigate and clarify what an 

electromagnetic frequency reduced environment or enclave would be and then to clarify if it 

could be established and how it would help people with electromagnetic sensitivities. 

First it needs to be clarified that no member of the Lambton Shores staff, including myself 

has the professional qualifications to advise Council on electromagnetic frequencies or their 

impacts on people’s health. Such expertise does not exist in this Municipality as well as in 

most others, as the regulating of electromagnetic frequencies is not a legislative function 

66

assigned to Municipalities. It is a Federal jurisdiction and regulated by the Federal 

Government. Further, Health Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to set acceptable 

electromagnetic field levels in Canada. 

We have been asked to define what an electromagnetic frequency reduced environment 

enclave may be. Simply put, it would be an area where electromagnetic frequency is 

reduced. That could be achieved by eliminating or reducing the level on electromagnetic 

frequency by doing some of the following: 

 

 

 

 

Not permitting cell towers or radio broadcasting towers to be installed; 

Not permitting or reducing the use of cell phones, wireless internet or any personal 

wireless devices by providing for hard wired internet and telephone service, as well 

as TV services; 

Eliminating the use of smart utility metres or radio read metres; and 

Eliminating the use of microwaves. 

It is my understanding that there is no legislative authority for the Municipality to do any of 

the above things, except within their own building or lands. I have consulted with the 

Municipal Solicitor, Mr. Barry Card who advises the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

Municipalities cannot regulate the placement of cell towers. That is a federal 

responsibility. 

Municipalities cannot (generally) regulate the use of personal property. 

Municipalities cannot regulate the ownership or use of wireless devices. That is also 

federal responsibility. 

Municipalities cannot refuse to grant building permits where the proposed building or 

structure complies with all applicable laws. 

Municipalities can restrict their own communications (to land lines) but cannot 

prevent others from using wireless frequencies. Restrictions on wireless use by staff 

will have to take competing interests (such as safety) into account. 

Mr. Card advises that in his experience, there is not much room for municipal control of the 

spectrum. Except that if there are design features that can assist in the goal of mitigation, 

those can be incorporated into municipal facilities and "encouraged" or sponsored 

elsewhere. Appropriate locations for transmission facilities can be identified or developed 

(Cell Tower Protocol). Opportunities for the use of public land that is considered 

inappropriate can be limited. 

67

In addition Mr. Card sent the following link and advised that we should review Part "V" of 

the paper at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09388.html which expresses the 

federal government's view of the matter. The following is an excerpt from Part 5 of the 

referenced paper: 

It is submitted that the guidelines do identify and, if applied, will protect the 

legitimate interests of the federal government and of municipal 

administrations in Canada, except in the following respects. The current 

constitutional powers of municipalities do not permit them to deny the 

choice of site for a radio transmitter and antenna. Nor do they permit local 

governments to require accommodations to the height, dimensions or 

structural integrity of antennae or support structures selected for a 

particular installation. Clearly, such powers would encroach upon the 

federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over radio communications. 

According to the constitutional law of Canada, local or provincial 

governments cannot deny such sitings and pursuant to rules of legislative 

interpretation, the federal government cannot deny the radio authorization 

under the existing Radio Act or the Aeronautics Act (unless there exists a 

genuine spectrum management or aeronautic navigation problem). 

Therefore, when serious land utilization issues arise, no mechanism exists 

to consider them. Yet, due to the radiocommunication jurisdiction of the 

federal government, accommodations of this nature are within the 

exclusive constitutional competence of the federal government even if the 

Radio Act currently does not provide the legislative authority to do so. 

It is clear that Municipalities have no ability to control the location of cell towers, the use of 

cell phones, Wi-Fi internet, smart meters etc. As well they do not have the authority or 

power to establish acceptable electromagnetic field levels in Canada. All of this is regulated 

by the Federal Government. We cannot put in place regulations that would restrict such 

uses and facilities or set a lower level of acceptable electromagnetic field levels. 

In order to solicit information on electromagnetic frequency reduced environmental 

enclaves or Beige Zones, we solicited comments from municipalities across the province, 

from AMO and from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 

We have not received any comments to date respecting other municipal jurisdictions 

establishing an electromagnetic frequency reduced enclave or area. The only comments 

we received were related to cell towers and establishment of municipal protocols. However, 

all municipalities who responded with cell tower information indicated they did not have 

authority to control the location of cell towers, that it was a federal jurisdiction and 

responsibility. 

Further, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicate that cell towers are a Federal 

jurisdiction and the Municipality should consult with Industry Canada. 

68

To date AMO has not responded. 

With respect to the Planning Act, (Provincial Legislation) no provision enacted under the 

Planning Act can supersede Federal legislation or jurisdiction. Therefore, Council cannot 

use the Planning Act to control electromagnetic levels or influences or create a Beige Zone 

which places control over these influences. 

I would suggest to Council that if they continue to have concerns about the placement of 

cell towers and the effects of electromagnetic frequency on the health of the residents of 

Lambton Shores, that they continue to put pressure on our MP to effect change at the 

federal level. 

Community Services Comments 

Staff have contacted Execulink to determine the possibility of installing hard wired pay 

phones in Port Franks. Execulink informed staff that the company is typically 

decommissioning existing units in the field due to a lack of use because of widespread use 

of cell phones, but did commit to investigating the potential for two new installations and 

likely costs to Lambton Shores. In a follow-up conversation, Execulink informed staff that 

the request had been passed along to senior management, and informed staff that they are 

aware Bell was erecting a cell tower to service the area and successful completion of that 

project may affect the Municipality’s request. At the time of this report no subsequent 

information has been received respecting our request. 

Acting C.A.O. Comments 

This report was to provide information to Council in response to the resolution passed. 

Part 1: 

The information regarding the hardwired phones is still pending. 

Part 2: 

As outlined in the report, the Municipality has not found any avenue to implement a 

“Frequency Reduced Environmental Enclave” or “Beige Zone”. Further, we have not found 

an area that has implemented such an enclave. 

Part 3: 

With no supporting information for a Municipality to create a “Frequency Reduced 

Environmental Enclave” or “Beige Zone”, seeking input from residents would not be 

prudent. 

For Consideration: 

It would be in Council; and staff’s, best interest if a decision was made on how they would 

like to be involved in these important but non-municipal issues. 

69

Some possibilities would be: 

Summary 

-be a leader and advocate for change to the Federal / Provincial Governments 

-support our residents by requesting the Federal / Provincial Governments to review 

their policies and protocols 

-have a resource link on our website as a conduit of information 

-take an indirect approach and provide people with the pertinent level of government 

contact information 

Staff would appreciate Council direction if there is anything further that Council would like to 

be done for the resolution of January 14, 2013 as detailed above. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Patti L. Richardson, 


70


PL Report No. 14-2013 Thursday, February 21, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 


Municipality of Lambton Shores 


Rice Development Company Inc. 

77 Main Street, East - Grand Bend 

Request for Additional Sewage Capacity 


Staff recommends that Council endorse the additional 

allocation of 80m³ of sewage capacity in the existing Grand 

Bend Sewage Treatment Facility to Rice Development 

Company Inc. for development of the first phase of their 

Subdivision and direct staff to request that the Grand Bend 

Sewage Facility Joint Board grant 80m³ of additional 

capacity to the Rice Development Company Inc. subject to 

reconsideration in 2 years. 

REPORT 

Correspondence has been received from Rice Development Company (see Letter, 

Attachment 1) requesting that an additional 80m³ of sewage capacity in the Grand Bend 

Sewage Treatment Facility be allocated to the development of their lands. 

Currently Council has allocated 60 m² to this development. Approximately 30 m³ of the 

allocated Rice capacity is assigned to the apartment building currently under 

construction by McCann. Rice have serviced 15 single detached dwelling lots and a 26 

unit townhouse block. They are currently proposing to revise the townhouse block to 

reduce the number of townhouse units to 14 and would like to construct another 

apartment building with 50 dwelling units. Further, with respect to their commercial 

block, they are in discussions with a number of commercial tenants and are requesting 

the sewage capacity be allocated to their commercial lands. Finally, there are 6 single 

detached dwelling lots in the registered portion of the Rice Development which they 

would also like capacity for. 

The transfer order for the existing Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility assigns the 

power to approve capacity requests to the Joint Sewage Board. The Joint Board can 

allocate and reallocate capacity. 

71

Staff recommends that Council endorse the additional allocation and direct staff to 

request that the Grand Bend Sewage Facility Joint Board grant 80m³ of additional 

capacity in the existing Grand Bend Sewage Treatment Facility to the Rice Group, 

subject to review of the allocation in 2 years. 


Patti L. Richardson, 


72

73 

ATTACHMENT 1


PL Report No. 16-2013 Wednesday, February 27, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-1/2013 

Location: 9973 Port Franks Road 

Owner: Sand Hills Golf Resort Inc. 


That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZO-1/2013, 

submitted Sand Hills Golf Resort Inc. requesting amendments 

to the Lambton Shores Zoning By-law 1 of 2003, as it relates to 

lands known as 9973 Port Franks Road to amend the 

Commercial 6-3 zoning on the lands to allow a travel trailer 

sales establishment, an equipment sales and service 

establishment (golf course maintenance equipment and golf 

carts) and auction hall as permitted uses, be APPROVED, 

subject to: 

a) A holding zone being placed on the lands requiring that the 

owner enter into a new site plan agreement or amend the 

existing site plan agreement before any of the new uses 

requested in this application are permitted to be established 

on the lands and 

b) a provision being included in the zone prohibiting any fill from 

being placed in the low lying area at the north west corner of 

the lot. 

REPORT 

Summary of the Application 

The Applicant, Sand Hills Golf Resort Inc., is requesting an amendment to the 

Commercial 6-3 (C6-3) zoning in effect on the northeast corner of lands known as 9763 

Port Franks Road to add as permitted used on the lands the following: 

 

 

 

Travel Trailer Sales Establishment; 

Equipment Sales and Service Establishment (golf course maintenance equipment 

and golf carts); and 

Auction Hall. 

75

The applicants propose to use the two existing storage buildings located on the lands 

(see attached plan Attachment 2). 

Location 

The subject lands are located on the southwest corner of Highway 21 (Lakeshore Road) 

and Port Franks Road in Northville. The property subject of this application comprises 

part of the Sand Hills Golf Course. The lands to the north are occupied by a farm. Lands 

to the northeast are occupied by a restaurant and convenience store. Lands to east are 

vacant but primarily located within a flood plain. The balance of the lands subject of the 

Zoning By-law Amendment are occupied by the balance of Sand Hills Golf Course. 

Correspondence 

Correspondence has been received from Tom and Linda Laird, who reside at 8504 

Lakeshore Road, the farm immediately north of the subject lands. The Laird’s are 

concerned that the low lying lands located right at the corner of Port Frank’s Road and 

Highway 21, if used for display will be raised creating further drainage problems on their 

lands (see Attachment 2). 

Discussion 

The lands subject of the By-law Amendment Application are designated “Northville 

Policy Area” in the Lambton Shores Official Plan. Permitted uses in this designation 

include a range of housing accommodations, local and tourist oriented commercial 

development including seasonal recreational campgrounds, institutional and open 

space uses. Policies in the plan also indicate that commercial development shall be 

directed towards the existing commercial nodes at the intersection of Highway 21 and 

the north entrance of Northville Crescent and in the area adjacent to Highway 21 

between Port Franks Road and the south entrance of Northville Crescent and shall be 

subject to the commercial polices of the plan. Uses permitted by the commercial 

policies are those commercial uses intended to serve the day to day needs of the 

residents of the community, and tourists visiting or traveling though the municipality. 

Two of the objectives noted in Section 13.2 of the Lambton Shores Official Plan for the 

Northville Policy Area are as follows: 

 

 

To provide a range of commercial services to service the needs of the 

adjacent area and tourists; 

To ensure that development occurs in a manner which will enhance the 

aesthetics of the area and be compatible with the pattern of existing 

development. 

The Northville Policy Area policies in the Official Plan also indicate that direct access to 

Highway 21 will be discouraged. New development should be required to be accessed 

through service roads or Northville Crescent. The plan encourages the use of shared 

driveways, particularly for commercial development. Further, safe and adequate access 

shall be provided and access points to roads will be limited and designed to minimize 

any danger to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 76 Shared properly designed access shall

e provided, wherever possible. Adequate off-street parking and loading spaces shall 

be located behind or beside the commercial establishment, where possible and the site 

shall be sufficiently landscaped. 

The lands are currently zoned Commercial 6-3 (C6-3) in the Lambton Shores Zoning 

By-law 1 of 2003. Uses permitted in this zone include: commercial recreation, hotel, 

marina, motel, tourist establishment, restaurant, retail store, tavern, tourist home, 

miniature golf course and a dwelling unit, accessory to a permitted use. 

The zoning on the lands also establishes the following regulations: 

a) Minimum Lot Area: 1,400 m² 

b) Minimum Lot Frontage 22 metres 

c) Minimum Front Yard Setback 9 metres 

d) Minimum Exterior Side Yard Setback 4.5 metres 

e) Minimum Interior Side Yard 4.5 metres 

f) Minimum Rear Yard Setback 9 metres 

g) Maximum Building Height 10 metres 

h) Maximum Lot Coverage 50 % 

i) Minimum Landscaped Open Space 0% 

The subject lands are designated for development of commercial uses by the Official 

Plan. The uses proposed by the applicant are in keeping with the uses permitted by the 

Official Plan. As the land are part of the Sand Hills Golf Course the issues associated 

with access have been addressed, No new accesses are proposed. 

A large gravel parking lot associated with the golf course currently exists on the property. 

Golf Courses are required to provide 8 spaces per tee. There are 18 holes at the Sand 

Hills Golf Course so 144 spaces are required. The site plan agreement in effect on lands 

was executed in 1992 and contains very little information and a very poor site plan. An 

auction hall is required to provide parking at a rate of 1 parking space for every 5 square 

metres of gross floor area accessible to the public. A travel trailer sales establishment 

and an equipment sales and service establishment (golf course maintenance equipment 

and golf carts) are required to provide parking at a rate of 1 space per 37 m² floor area. 

There appear to more than adequate area to accommodate any additional parking 

required for the new uses. 

With respect to the drainage concerns expressed Mr. And Mrs. Laird, regarding the low 

lying lands located right at the corner of Port Frank’s Road and Highway 21; I discussed 

this matter with Mr. Philip Walden, agent for the Sand Hill Golf Course. Mr. Walden 

indicates that there is no intent to fill the lower lands to accommodate outdoor storage 

and display or parking. He indicates they will not be using those lands for any purpose. 

New uses proposed to be established on lands are required to submit and have 

approved a site plan and to enter into a site plan agreement with the Municipality prior 

to the site being used for the new business. Staff recommend that a holding zone be 

placed on the lands requiring that the owner enter into a new site plan agreement or 

amend the existing site plan agreement before any of the new uses requested in this 

application are permitted to be established on the lands. 

77

The applicant’s proposal to utilize an underutilized property within an established 

settlement area conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement which directs development 

and intensification within existing settlement areas. The uses proposed by the applicant 

conform to the Lambton Shores Official Plan and therefore I can recommend approval 

of this application, subject to a holding zone being placed on the lands to ensure that a 

site plan agreement is enter into. 


Patti L. Richardson 


78

ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION ZO-1/201 

LOCATION: 9763 Port Franks Road 

APPLICANT: Sand Hills Golf Resort Inc. 

ATTACHMENT 1 

79

80 

ATTACHMENT 2

81 

ATTACHMENT 3

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES 

D.C.S. Report No. 27-2013 Monday, February 25, 2013 

TO: 

FROM 

RE: 


Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services 

Municipal Drain Assessment Updates 


That Council appoints Spriet and Associates, per Section 65. 

(1) of the Drainage Act, to update the assessment schedules 

for the Mud Creek and Golden Creek Municipal Drains. 

REPORT 

Recent drainage maintenance activities to Mud Creek and Golden Creek has brought to 

the attention of the Community Services Department that the Mud Creek and Golden 

Creek drains have outdated Assessment Schedules and require an engineer to 

appropriately levy costs to the landowners within the watershed. 

The watershed of both drains are significant in size spanning from Arkona to Port 

Franks and Thedford to Port Franks (see attached Schedule A). The reports were last 

reviewed in 1985 where they were divided into sections in both the Upper and Lower 

reaches. Since this last report the CNR had dissolved its ownership to lands which it 

crossed and sold/returned it to the owners. It has also been noted that there have been 

some additional ownership changes to various other properties where some have 

relinquished their “Agricultural” status and no longer receive the benefit of the 1/3 

granting rebate. 

As regulated under section 65. (1) of the Drainage Act, if, after the final revision of an 

engineer's assessment of land for a drainage works, the land is divided by a change in 

ownership of any part, the clerk of the local municipality in which the land is situate shall 

instruct an engineer in writing to apportion the assessment among the parts into which 

the land was divided, taking into account the part of the land affected by the drainage 

works. Staff recommends that Spriet and Associates be appointed to complete this 

work. 


Brent Kittmer, P.Eng. 

Director of Community Services 

Prepared by Allan Little, Drainage Superintendent. 83

Schedule A – Drainage Area 

84


D.C.S. Report No. 28-2013 Tuesday, February 19, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



2013 International Silver Stick Tournament 


That Council receive D.C.S. Report 28-2013 for information. 

REPORT 

The 23 rd Annual North American Silver Stick B and C Championships were held on the 

weekends of January 11-13 and January 25-27, 2013 at the Shores Recreation Centre 

in Forest and the Legacy Recreation Centre in Thedford. The Watford Arena was also 

used for games on the Fridays of both weekends. Peewee and Midget teams gathered 

on the first weekend, while the Atom and Bantam teams met up on the second 

weekend. Once again, the tournaments were a huge success for all involved. 

Teams travelled from all over North America to our community for the event. We had 

visitors from the United States representing towns in Texas, Colorado, Indiana, Florida, 

Alabama, New York, Ohio and Michigan. Ontario was well represented with teams from 

Bancroft, Lucan, Ottawa and Lambeth to name a few. Our very own local Lambton 

Shores Minor Hockey Association teams represented each age category as well. 

Our local economy received a boost with many of the visiting teams staying at local 

hotels in Grand Bend and Forest. Our guests also frequented the many restaurants and 

shopped at the businesses in our community during their stay. 

The Municipality coordinates the gate keepers at each location throughout the two 

weekends. All monies received at the gates are kept by the municipality, less the 

referee fees and gate keepers’ wages. 

Silver Stick 2013 - Gate Receipts 

January 11-13 Gate Profit $ 9,669.00 

January 25-27 Gate Profit $ 9,566.00 

Gate Profit from Silver Stick $ 19,235.00 

In exchange for the money brought in at the gates, the Municipality does not charge the 

Silver Stick Committee for the use of the ice at our facilities. The Municipality pays for 

the ice used at the Watford facility. 

85

Silver Stick 2013 - Ice Rental Costs to Lambton Shores 

*HST not included 

January 11, 12, 13 - 

Peewee/Midget 

Total 

Hours 

Rate 

Per 

Hour 

Waived 

Rental 

Fees 

Watford 

Rental 

Fees 

Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 

Legacy 

Non-Prime 

Hours 9 0 0 9 $ 46.35 $ 417.15 

Prime Hours 2.5 14 4 20.5 $104.35 $2,139.18 

Shores 

Non-Prime 

Hours 9 0 0 9 $ 46.35 $ 417.15 

Prime Hours 6 15 12 33 $104.35 $3,443.55 

Watford 10 10 $104.76 $1,047.60 

Subtotals 36.5 29 16 81.5 $6,417.03 $1,047.60 

January 25, 26, 27 - Atom/Bantam 

Total 

Hours 

Rate 

Per 

Hour 

Waived 

Rental 

Fees 

Watford 

Rental 

Fee 

Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 

Legacy 

Non-Prime 

Hours 9 0 0 9 $ 46.35 $ 417.15 

Prime Hours 2.5 14 4 20.5 $104.35 $2,139.18 


Non-Prime 

Hours 9 0 0 9 $46.35 $ 417.15 

Prime Hours 6 15 12 33 $104.35 $3,443.55 

Watford 10 10 $104.76 $1,047.60 

Subtotals 36.5 29 16 81.5 $6,417.03 $1,047.60 

Totals 73 58 32 163 $12,834.05 $2,095.20 

The Silver Stick Committee books a total of 71.5 hours of ice per weekend for the 

tournaments at the Lambton Shores arenas. This is compared to the regular 55.75 

hours of contracted ice used on a typical weekend as shown below. 

Typical Regular Contracted Ice and Revenue Generated 

*HST not included 

Total 

Hours 

Rate Per 

Hour 

Total 

Rental 

Friday Saturday Sunday 

Legacy 

Non-Prime Hours 1 0 0 1 $46.35 $46.35 

Prime Youth Hours 2.5 7.5 7 17 $ 104.35 $1,773.95 

86

Prime Adult Hours 1 3 5 9 $115.95 $1,043.55 


Non-Prime Hours 0 0 0 0 $46.35 $0.00 

Prime Youth Hours 5 8 11.25 24.25 $104.35 $2,530.49 

Prime Adult Hours 0 3 1.5 4.5 $115.95 $521.78 

Totals 9.5 21.5 24.75 55.75 $5,916.11 

The traffic into our facilities during these two weekends is considerably higher than that 

of a typical weekend. This can be seen not only by the revenue generated at the gates 

but also at our canteen. The Municipality operates the canteen at the Shores only, 

while the Lambton Shores Minor Hockey Association operates a food booth at the 

Legacy Centre as one of their annual fundraisers. Sales at the Shores canteen are 

almost four times higher per Silver Stick weekend then they are on a typical weekend. 

Staff would like Council to be aware of the numerous compliments we received from our 

visitors over the duration of the two weekends. They included the coordination of the 

tournament itself, the friendly staff and volunteers at each venue and the facilities 

themselves (cleanliness, accessibility, modern amenities). 

Although our local teams were not successful in reaching the finals of the tournaments, 

Lambton Shores was still represented well. The winning teams were as follows: 

‘B’ Division Atom Lambeth 

Peewee Ottawa West 

Bantam Mount Brydges 

Midget Tampa, Florida 

‘C’ Division Atom Delhi 

Peewee Centre Hastings 

Bantam Tweed 

Midget Minto 

The Annual Silver Stick Tournaments are organized by a committee under the direction 

of Al McColl and Rick Allen. This first class tournament puts Lambton Shores on the 

map and it would not be possible without the countless hours the volunteers put in. 

Lambton Shores’ staff also worked extra hard to keep everything running smoothly and 

the facilities tidy. Everyone involved should be commended for their efforts in making 

the tournaments a huge success again this year! 




Report prepared by Bill Bentley, South Area Manager 

87


D.C.S. Report No. 29-2013 Wednesday, February 20, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



2013 Aquafest Request 


That the recommendation in D.C.S. Report No. 29-2013 be 

approved, and that the Aquafest Committee be considered a 

Committee of Council. 

REPORT 

For the past four years, Aquafest has been an important part of the summer festivities 

that take place in Lambton Shores. The three-day event, which typically falls on the 

second weekend in August, educates the public about the importance of protecting 

essential water resources through a variety of different activities for children, guest 

speakers and art displays. These activities have taken place at the Main Beach and 

River Road in Grand Bend, the Pinery Provincial Park and West Ipperwash Beach over 

the years. One day, the Committee would like to see the event expand along the entire 

coastline of Lake Huron. 

The Aquafest Committee has been searching for a new partner since their previous 

one, the Grand Bend Community Foundation (GBCF), asked the group to work 

independently from them. The reason for that request was so the GBCF could 

contribute financially to the event, something their mandate would not allow them to do 

while the partnership was formed. The partnership with the GBCF gave Aquafest the 

legal and financial structure that allowed them to apply for certain grants and disburse 

tax receipts to financial donors. It also provided the event with liability insurance and a 

place for money to flow through. 

The Committee has received numerous letters of support from various groups, including 

the Grand Rotary Club, Lambton Shores Communities in Bloom, the Grand Bend & 

Area Chamber of Commerce and the Grand Bend Art Centre to name a few. Although 

all of these groups do support the event, Aquafest was not able to solidify a partnership 

with any of them. As a result, the Aquafest Committee is seeking an avenue to ensure 

that this event continues. 

It was suggested that the event could very well operate similar to many other events 

that take place in Lambton Shores, where the Aquafest would oversee its own finances, 

with assistance from the Municipality for insurance coverage and issuing donation 

receipts. Assistance with grant applications may also be required. The Municipality 

88

offers these in-kind services to community groups, such as the Forest Canada Day 

Committee, that have been designated a Committee of Council. 

Staff met with members of the Committee on Monday, February 11, 2013 to discuss to 

situation. It was agreed that the arrangement noted above would work for the event. 

The attached letter in ‘Schedule A’ outlines the Committee’s request to be designated a 

Committee of Council for insurance purposes and staff support for donation receipts 

and grant assistance when required. The group understands that the municipality does 

have limitations on the grants that can be applied for and therefore some of the grants 

they have received in the past may no longer be obtainable. 

Staff recommends that Council approve the request from the Aquafest Committee in 

order to keep the event viable. Not only does the event convey an important 

environmental message, but it also contributes to the economic development of the 

community by attracting tourists to the area. 


Brent Kittmer 


Report Prepared by Shannon Prout – Acting Facilitator of Recreation & Leisure 

Attachments: 

1) Schedule A – Letter from Aquafest requesting municipal assistance 

2) Schedule B – 2012 Aquafest Report 

89

Dear Members of Lambton Shores Council, 

Request: 

That Council approves Aquafest becoming a Committee of Council, for the purposes of 

insurance coverage, and for the municipality providing the supporting mechanism for the 

Aquafest Committee to apply for grants and issue tax receipts when required. 

Background: 

The Aquafest Committee is respectfully asking for the support of Lambton Shores Council and 

staff to help ensure that an event that touches each and every living being in our community and 

beyond can continue to take place. Aquafest is an annual, three-day, festival raising awareness 

and building capacity in people and in communities to protect essential water resources. 

Without water, one cannot survive more than three days. There are 7 billion people on the 

planet now, and that number is projected to continue to grow rapidly. Water issues are more 

and more common throughout the world, even in our own country, either due to poor quality or 

dwindling supply. And, we are all alarmed to see our own Lake Huron receding, and dropping 

to a record low level. 

Aquafest was born when the Grand Bend Community Foundation received seed money from 

Community Foundations of Canada to launch an Environmental Committee and an 

environmental program. The inaugural committee drew many interested area residents, and 

there were many ideas for programs. Our freshwater resources were thought to be a crown 

jewel of the planet, and its stewardship inspired many. Aquafest became an umbrella event 

under which local residents, organizations and businesses could come together to achieve 

multiple goals: to engage, educate and empower people of all ages to protect our essential 

water resources; to honour and raise the profile of the natural paradise of which we are front line 

stewards; and to raise the profile of our community as an environmentally progressive, family 

friendly destination. It is held the weekend after August’s Civic Holiday, to help boost visitor 

numbers to the area in support of our business community. Aquafest has included venues 

throughout Lambton Shores including Main Beach and River Road in Grand Bend, the Pinery 

Provincial Park, and West Ipperwash Beach. It is always open to participation from groups 

desiring to support achievement of these environmental goals. 

90

The GBCF provided Aquafest with its backing, which included the use of its charitable number 

and insurance, which allowed us to apply for grants, issue tax receipts, and, in general, receive 

and disperse funds. As you may know, the GBCF has asked that we move to an independent 

status from them, which will facilitate their ability to support us financially by supplying grant 

funds. The bad news for us as a volunteer group is we no longer have the legal or financial 

structure and status that allows us to apply for the many grants that have supported Aquafest. 

The good news is that, once we find a new partner who can provide us with the financial 

framework and structure to apply for grants, and issue tax receipts, we may continue our good 

work. We have approached many groups to help provide the kind of support we have enjoyed 

with GBCF, including Communities in Bloom and, as yet, have not been able to find the right fit, 

due to a number of reasons including mandate or poor timing. Nonetheless, the GBCF has 

earmarked a grant for Aquafest 2013 of $10,000. Lambton Shores has similarly approved a 

community grant for Aquafest 2013 of $2000. With these funds, we have sufficient funding to 

continue Aquafest’s three-day event. We have a program, we have the manpower, and we also 

have letters from a number of community groups who provide annual sponsorship with cash, inkind 

resources, and volunteers. 

All of our events are free admission to ensure that there are no barriers preventing anyone from 

learning about water and how to protect it, or to participate in any of our activities. We have 

relied on in-kind and financial support from a number of organizations including Lambton 

Shores, Grand Bend Rotary Club, The Royal Canadian Legion of Grand Bend, TD Friends of 

the Environment, Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, among others. 

We are missing but one thing. 

The Aquafest Committee is requesting that council provide us with support to continue to hold 

this important event in 2013, and beyond. We believe there may be a model, similar to the 

Canada Day event, which would provide us with the ability to receive and disperse funds 

through the municipality, and provide us with the insurance to mount our event. We humbly 

submit to you that Aquafest is an event with an excellent brand and reputation and has enjoyed 

excellent media coverage locally and beyond – including London, Kitchener, Goderich, in all 

media including television. We have even achieved national coverage with the National Post. 

Our message and our community have enjoyed excellent and positive profile as a result of 

these efforts. Additionally, Aquafest is something our municipality could easily reference in 

discourse with other levels of government or other jurisdictions, as an example of a productive 

contribution to water preservation. 

We are aware that you are asked to support many worthy causes and activities. We are not 

asking for staff involvement beyond the supporting mechanisms for insurance coverage, and in 

applying for grants when tax receipts are required. We can tell you; this cause benefits every 

living person, animal and plant in our community and beyond. Water protection and 

preservation is something we all need to embrace. And to be clear, Lambton Shores is our last 

resort for this type of support. We will not be able to do this without you. That is just the reality 

we have had to reluctantly face. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. http://www.grandbendaquafest.ca/ 

91

The Aquafest Committee: 

The Aquafest Committee is a team of volunteers who have stepped up to the plate for the past 

four years. 

Jennifer Mossop, Co-chair: 

Responsibilities include: media relations, advertising and press releases; program 

sponsors; keynote speakers; entertainment contracts 

Janette Baillie, Co-Chair 

Responsibilities include: photo contest; sourcing local bands; sourcing children’s 

activities; designing brochures and pamphlets 

John Powell, Logistics 

Responsibilities include: securing sound systems; Lambton Shores and Rotary liaison on 

parking and beach logistics; exhibitor/vendor management; event signage placement 

Marissa Vaughan, Secretary-Treasurer: 

Responsibilities include: bank accounts; budgeting; financial reporting; database 

management; SWO community calendars; beach tent & security, program assistant to 

the co-chairs 

Dave Maguire, Lambton Shores Council Representative 

Program Managers: 

Sharon Callan, Volunteer 

Responsibilities include: sourcing student art; securing and administering student 

volunteers for set up and take down of art show 

Teresa Marie and Steph Purdy, Volunteers 

Responsibilities include: planning and execution of chowder 

competition; accommodating canoe display on River Road: organizing art show 

Stephanie Donaldson, Volunteer 

Responsibilities include: securing the Coast Guard for tours and education at the event 

Barb Ferris, Volunteer 

Responsibilities include: management and updates of Aquafest’s website 

http://www.grandbendaquafest.ca/ 

Alistair McKenzie and John Swick, Pinery Provincial Park 

Responsibilities include: canoe rides, movies, hikes at the Pinery Provincial Park 

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, Sponsor 

Responsibilities include: hands on education activities for the children at the event 

And a small army of Student, GB Legion, Rotary and Senior Volunteers (ranging from 25-35 in 

number) who organize and display student art and photos shots, man the doors to events, and 

provide security at the various venues during the event. 

Proposed 2013 Program includes: 

Children’s Learning Adventures, Student Art Contest and Show, Photo Contest and Sale, Art 

Exhibits, Face Painting, painting class, Beach glass jewelry making,, hikes, musical 

performances, Great Lakes Chowder Competition, and environmental exhibitors. 

92

Grand Bend Aquafest 2012 

Grand Bend Aquafest 2012 was held on August 10th, 11th and 12 th , 2012. 

For the fourth year running, Aquafest achieved its goals in raising awareness 

of water stewardship and supporting our community environmentally and 

economically. Aquafest 2012 was a three day event attracting more than 

2000 people to our many events and attractions in five locations: Grand 

Bend Legion, Optimist Youth Centre, River Road, Pinery Provincial Park, and 

the Main Beach Grand Bend. 

The festival kicked off at the Grand Bend Legion with our keynote speaker 

and entertainer – Survivorman! (aka Les Stroud), and the 

Campfire Kings with song and story. His message 

to a riveted audience of more than 400 was succinct 

and potent “Water, the Ultimate Survival Tool!” Before, 

during and after the show, we featured the entries 

of our photo contest and attendees were encouraged to 

take in the absolutely amazing photographs celebrating 

the beauty of water and vote for the “Peoples Choice” 

Award. Over at the Optimist Youth Centre art awards 

were presented to students while proud parents and 

friends looked on. There were nearly 300 entries from over half a dozen 

schools in the area in the annual Student Art Contest and Show. 

The festival continued on Saturday under a big 

top tent at the main beach. Mother nature 

found favour with us this year as the lake was a 

dazzling, aquamarine blue. We couldn’t have 

hoped for anything better! For the children, there 

was native storytelling celebrating water, 

educational adventures from the Ausable Bayfield 

Conservation Association, Kryart Studios water 

93

themed finger painting, face painting, and other games. Exhibitors delivered 

some powerful messages on water safety and conservation. Paddle boarders 

demonstrated environmentally friendly water sport, and, we were honoured 

with an exciting visit from the Canadian Coast Guard! Hundreds of parents 

and children soaked up the fun, and our message. 

On Sunday, off to River Road for Purdy’s 3 rd Annual Great Lakes Chowder 

Competition where Chef Jonathan Gushue of Langdon Hall presided over 10 

Ontario restaurateurs from the region and 

beyond, showcasing their culinary expertise. 

Three hundred and fifty people participated in 

the tasting and People’s Choice Award. This 

year, one of our Grand Bend restaurants won 

both the “Chef’s” and the “Peoples’ Choice” 

golden spoon awards. Can you guess which one? 

This signature event held on the edge of the 

river has become a much anticipated event by the 

chefs’ community and the public. 

Throughout the weekend, the Pinery offered free admission to Aquafest 

attendees and featured voyager canoe rides, guided hikes, displays and 

water themed movies in the outside theatre. 

94

Once again, Aquafest attracted tremendous media coverage with the focus 

on our message of stewardship and the ability of everyone to make a 

difference in protecting and preserving clean water for now and future 

generations. 

Special thanks to: 

The talented Lambton Main Street Players for their entertainment and 

extra assistance; 

The Canadian Coast Guard, for travelling from their port to ours, and 

The small army of citizen and sponsor volunteers who make Aquafest 

possible each year! 

Attendance: Estimated at over 2000 

Media Coverage: London Free Press, Sarnia Observer, Lakeshore Advance, 

Sarnia Observer, Exeter Times Advocate, Parkhill Gazette, Forest Standard, 

104.9 The Beach, MyFM in five area communities, CFPL 980 radio 

Funding and Sponsorship: Businesses and organizations within the 

Greater Grand Bend Area and beyond have been very generous in their 

support of Aquafest by providing a wide variety of grants, “in kind” goods, 

services, web site advertising and use of premises. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grand Bend Community Foundation 

RBC Bluewater 


Rotary Club of Grand Bend 

TD Friends of the Environment 

Ausable Bayfield Conservation 

Foundation 

Hay Communications 

Purdy’s Fisheries. 

Grand Bend Legion 

Grand Bend Optimists 

Oakwood Inn & Resort 

Schoolhouse Restaurant 

Smackwater Jacks 

Track 21 Graphics 

MyFM 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aunt Gussie’s 

Paddington’s Pub & Eatery 

The Lake Huron Centre for Coastal 

Conservation 

Union Gas 

Lambton County, Community Health 

Services 

Canadian Coast Guard 

Lambton County Health Services 

River Road Gallery 

Baillie’s Picture Framing 

Mossop Media 

Friends of Pinery Park 

Huron Woods Association 

Ontario Parks 

Philip Schmidt Outdoor Photography 

95

Aquafest 2012 Video: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW_TSbTJixI&feature=youtu.be 

Website: 

www.grandbendaquafest.ca 

96


D.C.S. Report No. 30-2013 Thursday, February 21, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Pedestrian Warning Sign Installation on North Street 



That the Municipality of Lambton Shores install a pedestrian 

warning sign on North Street; 

That Council approves in principle the installation of a stop 

sign at the intersection of Merrywood Crescent and Meadow 

Lilly drive subject to the completion of the public 

engagement period and final approval by by-law. 

REPORT 

This report brings forward two separate reqests for street signage to improve pedestrian 

and motorist safety. During the 2013 budget deliberations Council provided direction to 

staff to treat potential roadway safety concerns with an increased degree of priority, and 

as such staff recommends that Council support both of these requests. 

Request for Warning Sign – North Street 

The Municipality has received correspondence requesting a pedestrian warning sign on 

North Street off of Goosemarsh Line. The correspondence is attached to this report. A 

map of the location is provided below. The particular location of concern is the 90 

degree bend between North Street and East Street. 

Community Services staff have had the opportunity to review the request on site and 

are in agreement with the request. We believe that the sign promotes the well being and 

safety of pedestrians in this neighbourhood and provides increased visual aids for 

vehicle traffic. The cost of the sign installation is negligible and is covered within the 

sign line item within the Community Services 2013 Operating Budget. The installation 

can proceed when weather permits. 

97

Request for Stop Sign – Merrywood Subdivision 

Within the Merrywoods Subdivision at the corner of Meadowlilly Crescent and 

Merrywood Drive is an uncontrolled `T` intersection (see below). An uncontrolled 

intersection is an intersection that does not have stop or yield signs directly assigning 

priority to traffic entering an intersection. The Ontario Highway Traffic Act stipulates that 

all traffic approaching an uncontrolled intersection must yield the right-of-way to traffic 

approaching on the right. 

Attached to this report is a request from a group of petitioners withing the subdivision 

asking that a stop sign be installed in this location. 

Currently 

Controlled 

Currently 

Uncontrolled 

98

After review, and in the interest of public safety, staff is recommending a stop sign be 

installed at the intersection requested. The currently applicable “yield to traffic on the 

right rule” is not always fully understood by all traffic, and the current location is not 

signed with any directions for drivers. In addition staff have reviewed the location on site 

and have found that there is vegetation and other obstructions present that interfere 

with the vision of motorists approaching the intersection from Meadowlilly Crescent 

which would make a safe yield difficult for motorists. For these reasons staff 

recommends that this location is suitable for the placement of a stop sign facing west 

on Meadowlilly at the intersection. 

Should Council decide to support this recommendation staff will arrange for 

advertisements in the local paper of the Municipality’s intention to install a stop sign at 

the intersection to ensure there is public engagement prior to Council’s formal approval 

through by-law. 


Brent Kittmer, P.Eng 


Report Prepared by Nick Verhoeven, P.Eng., North Area Manager 

Attachments: 

1. Correspondence re: North Street Sign Request 

2. Correspondence re: Merrywood Stop Sign Request 

99

100

101

102



TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Project Update – Port Franks Mud Creek Pedestrian Bridge 


That the report be received for Council direction. 

REPORT 

This report provides Council with an update respecting the Port Franks Mud Creek 

Bridge Project, and asks that Council provide direction regarding the placement priority 

of this project in the Capital Plan. 

Background 

At the November 13, 2012 Council Meeting Council reviewed a number of future capital 

projects and prioritized them into the capital plan. At that time the Port Franks Mud 

Creek Pedestrian Bridge was not at a point where enough information was available to 

place it in the Capital Plan. The pedestrian bridge will be located at the southern end of 

the Huron Street road allowance crossing Mud Creek and linking to the Nature 

Conservancy of Canada (NCC) lands. The previous bridge at this location was removed 

due to deterioration and safety concerns. 

Further discussions have taken place with the Lambton Shores Nature Trail Group 

(LSNT) to move the project further along. At this point the general proposal of the 

project is that the Municipality funds half of the project costs, and grants and/or 

fundraising will be attempted for the remainder of the costs. That said, LSNT has 

advised staff that the municipality may be required to fund 100% of the project. In 

addition, prior to the project moving forward an agreement will need to be reached with 

Nature Conservancy Canada. 

Project Costs 

The scope of construction is a pedestrian only bridge using prefabricated steel 

structures with wooden decking with an estimated 2013 cost of $77,500. Placement of 

this project into future years’ capital budgets should take into account inflationary 

factors. For discussion purposes the following budget estimates can be used for future 

years: 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 

$77,500 $79,900 $82,300 $84,800 $87,400 $90,100 $92,900 $95,700 $98,600 $101,600 

103

Relationship to Recreation Master Plan and Community Design Plan 

At this point in time staff is unable to provide a recommended priority for this project as 

neither the Recreation Master Plan nor the Community Design Plan include this project 

in their recommendations. 

The Recreation Master Plan does not specifically address this project. The Master Plan 

found that trail related activities were the two most popular recreation activities in 

Lambton Shores, and that unpaved nature trails ranked second amongst public opinion 

for priority spending on recreation facilities. 

The Community Design Plan articulates that the replacement of the Mud Creek bridge 

was identified by Port Franks resident as one of the key issues for the village, but this 

project was not included in the recommendations or the master plan for the village 

adopted by Council. The Community Design Plan recommends that the Municipality 

“extend pedestrian and cycle-friendly connections throughout Port Franks which 

connect to adjacent communities”. 

At this point staff requires direction from council respecting the municipality’s 

commitment to this project and direction on placement of this project into the 

municipality’s Capital Plan. 


Brent Kittmer 


Report Prepared by Nick Verhoeven, North Area Manager 

104



TO: 

FROM 

RE: 



Tender Summary Report 



That By-law 19-2013, being a by-law for Municipality of 

Lambton Shores to enter into an agreement with Johnston 

Bros. (Bothwell) Limited for the 2013 gravel supply contract 

in the amount of $200,755.80 including HST, be approved 

and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute any 

and all necessary documents; and further 

That By-law 20-2013, being a by-law for Municipality of 

Lambton Shores to enter into an agreement with Den-Mar 

Brines for the 2013 dust suppression contract in the amount 

of $47,267.97 including HST, be approved and that the 

Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute any and all 

necessary documents. 

REPORT 

This report presents the results of several recent tenders for Council’s review and 

approval. 

2013 Gravel Program 

On February 25 th , the Municipality of Lambton Shores opened tenders for the above 

noted project. This tender included all things necessary to provide approximately 

18,000 tonnes of Granular A for the maintenance of various rural roads. 

The results were as follows: 

Bidder Name 

Total Tender inc. HST 

Johnston Bros. Bothwell $ 200,755.80 

McKenzie & Henderson $ 202,586.40 

Jennison Construction Ltd. $ 218,655.00 

105

Funding for this annual program is included in the Transportation Services operating 

budget under “Loose Top Maintenance – Construction Materials”. Funding in the 

amount of $193,800 was included in the 2013 approved operating budget for this 

program. The total expected cost of this contract (including net HST costs) is 

$180,786.80. 

It is the recommendation of the Community Services Department that the 2013 Gravel 

Tender be awarded to Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited in the amount of $200,755.80 

(including HST). 

2013 Dust Control Program 

On February 25 th , 2013 tenders were opened in public for the above noted project. This 

is an annual contract which specifies that bidders will submit a proposal for the 

placement of 250 Flake Equivalent tons of Calcium Chloride or equivalent for the 

purposes of dust control on unpaved roads within Lambton Shores. 

The results were as follows: 

Bidder Name 


Den-Mar Brines Ltd. $ 47,267.97 

Da-Lee Dust Control $ 83,733.00 

Funding for this annual program is included in the Transportation Services operating 

budget under “Loose Top Maintenance – Contracted Services”. Funding in the amount 

of $76,000 was included in the 2013 approved operating budget for this program. The 

total expected cost of this contract (including net HST costs) is $42,566. 

Den-Mar Brines proposed an alternative to the originally proposed 250 Flake tons of 

calcium chloride. Dust Fighter HI-CAL is a naturally occurring well brine containing 

calcium and magnesium chloride which complies with Ontario Provincial Standard 506. 

The Municipality has been using this product since 2009; staff has been very pleased 

with this product and its effectiveness. As a result, it is the recommendation of the 

Community Services Department that the 2013 dust suppression tender submitted by 

Den Mar Brines in the amount of $47,267.97 (including HST) be approved. 

2013 Capital Plan – ½ ton 4x4 Pick-Up Truck Purchase 

On February 25 th , 2013 proposals were opened in public for the above noted project. 

Four submissions were received and the results are listed below: 

Bidder Name 


Exeter Chrysler $ 25,144.76 

Oxford Doge Chrysler $ 26,594.55 

St. Thomas Ford $ 27,465.78 

Grogan Ford Lincoln $ 28,234.18 

Bluewater Ford $ 28,783.36 

Kernohan Motors 

106 

$ 32,299.09

Staff have had the opportunity to review and confirm the proposals. All were fully 

completed, and were signed correctly. The low proposal was submitted by Exeter 

Chrysler. The bid document was found to be complete, is acceptable, and the proposed 

equipment meets the minimum specifications. 

The contract for the capital pick-up purchase was tendered with a total budget of 

$30,000 as approved by Council in the Community Services Vehicle & Fleet budget. 

The tender submitted by Exeter Chrysler is less than the budgeted amount and the net 

cost to the municipality (less the HST rebate) is $22,643.64. 

As the tendered value of the truck was less than the budget staff has proceeded with 

the purchase of this vehicle. A portion of the savings compared to the budgeted amount 

will be used to accessorize the vehicle with the municipality’s standard work package 

(i.e. strobe light, tool box, and back rack). 




107


BY-LAW 19 OF 2013 

Being a By-law to authorize an Agreement between the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores and 

Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Limited 

WHEREAS: 

The Municipality of Lambton Shores tendered for the supply of 

Granular ‘A’ Gravel; 

AND WHEREAS: A low tender was submitted by Johnston Bros. (Bothwell) Ltd. 

which was subsequently approved by Council on March 4, 2013. 

AND WHEREAS: It is deemed appropriate for the Municipality to authorize the 

Mayor and Clerk to sign the necessary agreement; 

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores enacts as follows: 

1. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute an agreement on behalf of the 

Corporation between the Municipality of Lambton Shores and Johnston Bros. 

(Bothwell) Ltd. a copy of which is attached to this by-law as “Schedule “A”, and 

to affix to the contract the Corporate Seal of the Corporation of the Municipality 

of Lambton Shores; 

2. This By-law comes into force and effect upon being finally passed. 

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 4 th day of March, 2013. 

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4 th DAY OF MARCH, 2013. 

___________________________ 

MAYOR – Bill Weber 

___________________________ 

CLERK – Carol McKenzie 

108


BY-LAW 20 OF 2013 

Being a By-law to authorize an Agreement between the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores and 

Den-Mar Brines Limited 

WHEREAS: 

The Municipality of Lambton Shores tendered for the supply of 

dust suppression; 

AND WHEREAS: A low tender was submitted by Den Mar Brines Limited, which 

was subsequently approved by Council on March 4, 2013. 

AND WHEREAS: It is deemed appropriate for the Municipality to authorize the 

Mayor and Clerk to sign the necessary agreement; 

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton 

Shores enacts as follows: 

1. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute an agreement on behalf of the 

Corporation between the Municipality of Lambton Shores and Den-Mar Brines 

Limited, a copy of which is attached to this by-law as “Schedule “A”, and to 

affix to the contract the Corporate Seal of the Corporation of the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores; 

2. This By-law comes into force and effect upon being finally passed. 

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 4 th day of March, 2013. 

READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 4 th DAY OF MARCH, 2013. 

___________________________ 


___________________________ 


109


D.C.S. Report No. 34-2013 Tuesday February 26, 2013 

TO: 

FROM 

RE: 



Lambton Shores Harbour Working Group 


That the report be received by Council for consideration of 

the Draft Terms of Reference for the Harbours Working 

Group. 

REPORT 

At the January 14, 2013 meeting Council considered report DCS 05-2013 regarding the 

harbour depth maintenance program. While deliberating on the report Council 

discussed the advantages of creating a Harbours Working Group as a forum for 

stakeholder engagement regarding harbour operations. This report presents a first draft 

of the Terms of Reference for the Working Group for Council feedback. 

The following notes outline the perspective taken while drafting the TOR. Council 

feedback would be appreciated so that the TOR can be finalized. 

Scope and Purpose 

It was staff’s perspective that the working group should be an informal forum for 

idea sharing, and not for decision making. It will be staff’s responsibility to report 

on the recommendations coming from the group. 

The scope of the group is planned to be limited to the municipal harbours, and 

will not include the issue of ice management. Ice management activities in Port 

Franks is a similar but separate topic that will be dealt with when the ABCA 

presents the cost sharing report from AECOM. When that report comes forward a 

separate public engagement will be required. 

It is not intended for the working group to be a formal committee of Council. 

Composition 

Composition is expected to be elected officials, staff, and public stakeholders as 

noted in the draft TOR. 

It was staff’s perspective that the working group be primarily a staff driven 

undertaking with elected officials present to hear and understand the issues that 

come forward. As such a formal Chair of the group has not been identified, 

however for the purposes of formality Council may wish to appoint a Chair whose 

primary responsibilities would be to ensure order at meetings in the unlikely 

event they become contentious. 

110

To engage public stakeholders it is staff’s intention to send letters of invite to 

known stakeholders in each harbour (private marina operators, yacht clubs, 

cruising clubs, etc.) and ask them to send one member representing their group. 

To engage other interested stakeholders the TOR will be posted once it has been 

adopted and interested members of the public will be asked to submit contact 

information to the Director of Community Services. Lastly, the first meeting of the 

working group will be advertised in the local paper asking interested members of 

the public to attend. 

The positive of the approach above is that no one will be restricted from 

participating in the group, however this presents a challenge respecting the size 

of the group. The primary purpose of the group is to brainstorm ideas to improve 

the municipal harbours and if a very large group of stakeholders participates 

orderly sharing of ideas may be challenging. For this reason Council may wish to 

consider setting a limit to the number of public stakeholders that are asked to 

participate. That said, this approach may be considered a restriction to 

participation. 

Council feedback regarding the draft terms of reference would be appreciated so that 

the document can be finalized and posted. It is staff’s intention to hold the first working 

group meeting during the month of April. 




Attachments: 

1. Harbours Working Group Draft Terms of Reference 

111

Attachment 1 

Lambton Shores Harbours Working Group 

DRAFT Terms of Reference 

Mandate 

The primary purpose of the Harbour Working Group is as a means of stakeholder 

engagement and communication. The Working Group is to meet on a regular basis to 

share ideas and best practices to help guide the Municipality of Lambton Shores in 

developing a harbour strategy to determine short and long term goals to enhance the 

harbour areas of Port Franks and Grand Bend for the public and various stakeholders. 

The Working Group is considered to be an informal body with no decision making, 

revenue generating, or expense creating powers. The Working Group is to be 

considered a forum for sharing ideas. All recommendations made by the Working Group 

are to be reviewed by appropriate municipal staff prior to formal consideration by 

Council. The Municipality of Lambton Shores makes no guarantee of implementation of 

the recommendations of the Working Group should municipal Council deem those 

recommendations not to be in the best interests of the entire municipality. 

The Working Group is not considered a formal Committee of Council. 

Composition: 

Elected Officials: 

Mayor as ex-officio 

Ward 1 Representative, representing the Grand Bend Harbour 

Ward 3 Representative, representing the Port Franks Harbour 

Ward 7 Representative, representing upstream Ausable River property owners 

Municipal Staff: 


North Area Manager 

Public Stakeholders 

General Rules of Operation: 

Members of the Working Group shall act in the best interest of Lambton Shores, and 

shall participate in meetings in a positive manner. 

The Working Groups is to act as a forum for sharing ideas and best practices. Topics 

for review can include, but not be limited to: 

Review scope of short and long term harbour plans. 

Developing overarching principles to guide the evolution of the harbours. 

Developing partnerships and collaborative approaches to issue resolution. 

Stakeholder engagement. 

Needs of various harbour users. 

112

Seasonal and transient docking options. 

Annual dredging program. 

Response to low water conditions. 

Municipal staff is responsible for reviewing recommendations that are made by the 

Working Group and updating municipal Council on an as required basis. All 

recommendations made by the Working Group are to be reviewed by appropriate 

municipal staff prior to formal consideration by Council. The Municipality of Lambton 

Shores makes no guarantee of implementation of the recommendations of the 

Working Group should municipal Council deem those recommendations not to be in 

the best interests of the entire municipality. 

Committee Resources 

Municipal staff will be responsible for advertising meeting date and location prior to each 

meeting, preparing the agenda, and keeping a meeting record. 

The Working Group is considered to be an informal body with no decision making, 

revenue generating, or expense creating powers. 

Frequency of Meetings: 

Meeting will be held on a bi-monthly basis during the boating season (May – October 

annually), and one off-season meeting will be scheduled each year prior to season start. 

Meetings will be held at 3:00pm on Friday afternoon to ensure that out of town 

stakeholders have the opportunity to attend. 

Municipal staff will be responsible for advertising meeting date and location prior to each 

meeting, preparing the agenda, and keeping a meeting record. 

Term: 

Due to its informal status, the Working Group will continue until stakeholders no longer 

find value in meeting to share ideas. 

113



TO: 

FROM 

RE: 



60 Main Street, Forest – Vibration Complaint 


That the report be received for Council direction. 

REPORT 

This report presents follow-up information as requested by Council regarding the 

vibration complaint from the resident located at 60 Main Street South in Forest. 

Background of the Issue 

Council reviewed this complaint in 2012 and the key information as it relates to 

Council’s 2012 deliberations and decision on this matter is noted in the summary below: 

Why was a vibration study undertaken? 

The original letter of complaint was received in August 2012 and Council chose 

to respond by indicating that signage would be posted in the area asking truck 

traffic to slow down. The complainant was not satisfied with this response and 

sent a second letter indicating that they believed the best possible solution was 

to route truck traffic around Forest. 

In response to this letter Council directed staff to determine the cost of 

resurfacing Main Street in Forest and make it a priority. DCS 102-2012 outlined 

the cost of resurfacing the roadway was $168,000 – $289,000 and that the 

priority for repair based on the road needs study was 6-10 years to be 

coordinated with a water main replacement project. The report further outlined 

concerns from staff that a small asphalt patch would be a “band-aid” repair that 

would need to be completed every couple of years if the asphalt continued to 

settle and heave. In addition, concerns related to the precedent this approach 

would set were raised as a similar complaint for road condition has been raised 

for King Street. 

The report further outlined that the only complaint of vibrations was received from 

the resident 60 Main Street South, and that a background vibration study could 

be conducted to determine if the roadway was the cause of widespread vibration 

or if this was an isolated incident with an individual who was particularly sensitive 

to perceiving vibrations. 

Considering this information Council directed staff to complete a vibration study 

as a due diligence step prior to investing significant capital funds. 

114

Who Completed the Vibration Study? 

The study was completed by AMEC Environmental, and vetted by professional 

engineers and a Ph.D. at their firm who specialize in Geotechnical Engineering. 

AMEC confirmed to staff that the study was completed to all applicable 

standards, and was representative of possible traffic conditions. Photographic 

documentation was included in the report. 

What did the AMEC Study Find? 

The AMEC report found that surface vibration levels at the front of 60 Main Street 

were below benchmark readings for the area, and that there were not any 

abnormal readings immediately across the street or at the neighboring property 

(62 Main Street South). 

AMEC confirmed with municipal staff that vibration readings progressively 

decreased as the recordings were taken further away from the road, and that this 

is typical of a healthy roadway. 

AMEC confirmed with municipal staff that vibrations occurring in the home in a 

china cabinet could be the result of that particular piece of furniture amplifying 

vibration, and that further detailed vibration study work would need to be 

conducted in the home to determine the cause. 

What Did Council Decide? 

Considering the information presented; the opinion from AMEC that the roadway 

was typical; and the possible precedent of the municipality funding a detailed 

study on private property Council directed that no further action was to be taken 

and passed the motion below as a result of information presented in report 

number DCS 116-2012. 

12-1217-13 Moved by: Councillor Russell 


That the home owner for 60 Main Street, South in Forest be advised that the 

Municipality will not take any further action regarding the vibration issue in her 

home and that the road and watermain re-construction of Main Street South in 

Forest be allocated as needed to the 10 year Capital forecast. Carried 

The complainant was informed of this decision, and requested a delegation at Council 

on February 11, 2013 to speak to the decided matter and ask that Council reconsider 

their approach. During the delegation the complainant informed Council that it was her 

opinion that the approach taken by the municipality had the following flaws: 

1. Opinion that AMEC did not test a representative sample of traffic or vibration 

conditions despite the photo documentation 

2. Opinion that AMEC did not complete the study over a long enough period of time. 

3. Opinion that AMEC performed the test incorrectly by placing the monitoring 

equipment on top of sand bags. 

4. Opinion that AMEC is not qualified to complete such work. 

The complainant advised Council that she believed the solution to the problem was to 

remove the asphalt patch that had been 

115 

placed in response to her complaint a few 

years earlier. Considering this information Council passed the following motion:



That staff prepare a report on the viability and costs of a diagonal patch road 

repair at 60 Main Street, South in Forest. 

Carried 

Follow-Up with AMEC 

The information presented during the delegation on this issue on February 11, 2013 did 

not paint a positive impression of AMEC’s work. As a result staff met with a senior 

AMEC representative on February 21 to review the concerns expressed by the 

complainant and to determine if the study was completed negligently. AMEC Has asked 

to go on record with the following statement: 

“Thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet with you yesterday to discuss 

the general premise and results of the vibration monitoring presented in our 

Report SW0512033 dated 30 November. It was concluded that the work was 

carried out professionally and as per the expected and agreed scope. The 

magnitudes of the vibrations measured were much lower than the level at which 

structural damage could be expected. An exhaustive long term vibration study to 

determine the very low threshold levels of vibration perceptible by humans would 

be relatively much more expensive than the current study. 

Again, thank you for giving AMEC the opportunity to be of service to Lambton 

Shores.” 

C. (Kees) Kooy 

Professional Engineers Ontario Licensee 

Geotechnical Specialist 

AMEC Environment and Infrastructure 

Each of the four concerns presented in the delegation were provided to AMEC for 

comment, and the information below was provided respecting each concern: 

1. The AMEC representative confirmed municipal staff’s statement that the test was 

representative as the load on the road will never be greater than when two trucks 

pass by the same location at the same time, regardless of traffic volume. 

2. As above, AMEC confirmed that, in their opinion, the study was representative 

based on the scope requested. The scope of the project was to confirm if surface 

vibrations were caused by the roadway. 

3. The AMEC representative confirmed that monitoring discs were placed directly 

on the ground and sandbags were then placed on top of the monitors. This is 

standard practice to ensure the disc is in direct contact with the ground with the 

sand bag preventing the disc from moving during the test. Photo documentation 

of the testing shows this to be the case. 

4. AMEC confirmed their staff is qualified to complete this work, and offered the 

company’s curriculum vitae for review should Council desire it. 

In addition to the above, the senior AMEC representative provided the following 

information that is useful for consideration 116 of this issue:

The original asphalt patch was placed due to a frost heave in the road. This 

points to an issue with the road bedding material, and if a heave and/or 

settlement has occurred in this location this will continue to happen. 

Ground vibration is a natural occurrence happening all the time. The testing 

showed that the vibrations that occur when traffic is present is no higher than the 

background vibration of the area. This does not mean that individuals will not feel 

vibrations because each person is different and able to perceive vibrations at 

differing intensities (think of the person who lives beside railway tracks and 

doesn’t notice the train passing by compared to their neighbor that has a to move 

out of the area because it is causing a negative impact to their lifestyle). 

There are many ways by which ground vibrations can be amplified in a home. 

Sewer laterals have been known to amplify vibrations and affect a home; the 

building foundation could be in poor condition thus amplifying perceived 

vibrations; particular pieces of furniture in the home have been known to amplify 

vibrations; etc. As notes in their first report, the senior AMEC representative 

confirmed that the method to determine the true cause is detailed monitoring in 

the home. 

Asphalt Repair Options 

Council has directed staff to investigate the cost and viability of fixing the current asphalt 

patch in front of 60 Main Street South. A site visit reveals that there are in fact three 

separate locations in front of this property that are patched (see attached picture), and 

in each case the patched joints are not flush with the original pavement (settlement of 

approximately 0.5 inches). As a result, each of the patches may be contributing to the 

perceived vibration. There is a risk that if only the patch identified by the complainant is 

replaced vibrations may continue to be perceived as the other patches may in fact be 

the cause. 

Two possible asphalt repair options are presented: 

1. Repair only the patch identified by the complainant 

Mill asphalt with a 3 m wide, angle cut patch. This work would involve: 

Mill 8 square meters to 2” depth, mill 16 square meters to 4” depth. 

Pave 8 square meters at 2” thickness, pave 16 square meters at 4” 

thickness. 

Lapped and sealed joints to prevent asphalt heaving/settling. 

Cost: $5,000 based on estimates received from local paving contractors. 

The primary concern with this option is that two other patches will remain in the 

same area, and if there is not a resolution to the perceived vibration then it is 

reasonable to expect the municipality will be asked to repair those patches as 

well. In addition, because heave and settlement has already occurred at this 

location it is reasonable to expect this behavior to continue. As a result, the 

concern may emerge again. 

117

2. Repair all patchwork in front of the property 

Mill asphalt with a 13 m wide, angle cut patch. This work would involve: 

Mill 8 square meters to 2” depth, mill 96 square meters to 4” depth. 

Pave 8 square meters at 2” thickness, pave 96 square meters at 4” 

thickness. 

Lapped and sealed joints to prevent asphalt heaving/settling. 

Cost: $20,000 based on estimates received from local paving contractors. 

The primary concern with this option is cost. In addition, because heave and 

settlement has already occurred at this location it is reasonable to expect this 

behavior to continue. As a result, the concern may emerge again. 

If Council chooses to proceed with one of these two options the paving work will be 

coordinated with the street reconstruction projects planned for Forest in 2013. However, 

the 2013 capital budget does not currently include a line item for this work, and to 

approve this project Council will need to pass a motion to amend the capital budget to 

include the funds so that staff has authorization to proceed. 

For Council’s information pre-design cost estimates have been completed for a 

complete reconstruction of Main Street South. Based on the information available the 

cost was estimated at $1,500,000 (+/- 10%). Detailed engineering would need to be 

completed to confirm the actual cost. 

Staff Concerns 

As noted in the previous reports on this issue staff would like to point out concerns and 

considerations regarding the proposed solution of asphalt repair: 

AMEC’s report indicates that roadway is not having the effect of increasing or 

making the perceived vibration issue worse as surface level vibrations when 

traffic is present are not higher than the benchmark for the location. 

Because heave and settlement has already occurred at this location it is 

reasonable to expect this behavior to continue. As a result, the concern may 

emerge again and the municipality may again be requested to repair the area. 

This location does not represent the location with the greatest extend of asphalt 

heaving or settling on Main Street South and King Street (the Connecting Link). 

Council may wish to consider the possible precedent set if public perception is 

that asphalt repair is being conducted based on the concerns of a specific 

property owner. It is foreseeable that similar requests may come forward for 

asphalt repairs in other locations. 

Staff respectfully requests direction on Council’s wishes to proceed on this issue. 




118

Pavement Conditions in Front of 60 Main Street South 

119



TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Water Meter Replacement Program – Thermal Expansion 


That the report be received for Council’s information. 

REPORT 

As part of the Lambton Shores 2012 Capital Plan and water meter replacement 

initiative, 370 water meter assemblies were replaced in Grand Bend. This installation 

project was contracted to Neptune Technology Group. The new meter assemblies 

installed consisted of new isolation valves, water meter, backflow preventer and 

pressure reducing valve. 

The backflow prevention device is recommended by the Ministry of Environment and is a 

requirement of municipal bylaw #65-2008. Its purpose is to prevent contaminants from 

being back-fed into the municipal drinking water system. Most households in Lambton 

Shores have had this device installed for many years. It was believed prior to the 2012 

project that all households in Grand Bend had these backflow prevention devices and 

therefore plumbing systems would be properly designed to relieve thermal expansion. 

Thermal expansion tanks are installed in homes with backflow preventers to relieve buildup 

of pressure caused by thermal expansion created by hot water tanks. These 

expansion tanks are a requirement of plumbing code for new homes and are highly 

recommended by the Lambton County Building Department for existing homes with new 

backflow prevention devices. Protecting a homes plumbing system from thermal 

expansion is a home owners responsibility. 

There have been three instances where leaks have occurred in households where meter 

assemblies were replaced last fall. It is difficult to determine if the cause of the leaks was 

thermal expansion. However, after reviewing the situations it was discovered that two of 

the three did not have backflow preventers prior to the meter replacement. 

Staff have gone through pictures that were taken by Neptune before the meter 

assemblies were replaced and have been able to confirm that approximately 95% of the 

households had backflow preventers before the meter replacement project. Letters will 

be sent to all home owners who were part of the meter replacement program in 2012 to 

inform them of the risks of thermal expansion and the need for home owners to ensure 

120

their plumbing systems can relieve pressure build up caused by thermal expansion. The 

5% of households where the “before” pictures did not clearly show existing backflow 

preventers will receive these letters by registered mail. Staff believe these actions are 

required in order to limit exposure to liability in the event that damages are caused by 

thermal expansion, and to inform property owners that it is their responsibility to take all 

reasonable steps necessary to protect their home’s plumbing system. 

This information regarding thermal expansion will be presented to home owners prior to 

meter replacement in future meter replacement projects. 




Report Prepared by Jeff Wolfe, Project and Infrastructure Manager 

121


D.C.S. Report No. 37-2013 Tuesday, February 26, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Capital Replacement Projects – Sidewalk Policy 


That the report be received for Council’s information. 

REPORT 

As part of the Lambton Shores 2013 Capital Plan, Pearl Street in Thedford will be 

reconstructed from Allen St. to Ravenswood Rd. This project will include the 

replacement of the watermain, partial replacement of storm sewers, road surface and 

sidewalk replacement. The project is currently in the design stage with the tender 

documents being drafted for a spring or summer construction period. 

An item that has not been an issue in recent construction projects, but may be in 

2013 is sidewalk reconstructions. Staff feel it is appropriate to refresh Council on the 

sidewalk reconstruction policy in the municipality’s construction standards as there 

may be questions from residents resulting from the 2013 work. 

The construction standards have been in effect since 2002 and regulate how 

sidewalks will be constructed in new developments and reconstruction projects. The 

policy states that sidewalks will be constructed of concrete, 1.5 meters wide and only 

on one side of the street unless the street is a collector street (i.e. main community 

corridors such as Main Street in Thedford) or if a school property fronts the street. 

Sidewalk requirements on both sides of the street are considered on a case by case 

basis when a street abuts park land. Certain circumstances such as a short street 

with a cul-de-sac may not require sidewalks depending on nearby land uses. These 

stipulations for sidewalk location are based upon the current best practices used in 

the engineering design community, and are designed to meet pedestrian and 

accessibility needs while controlling operational costs for snow removal and future 

capital replacement costs. 

Pearl Street has existing sidewalks from Allen St. to Ravenswood Rd. that vary from 

1 meter wide to 1.5 meters wide and are constructed of asphalt and concrete in 

different sections. When the road is reconstructed as a part of the 2013 capital plan, 

1.5 m wide concrete sidewalk will be installed on the East side of the roadway with 

the exception of Franklin to Ravenswood where the sidewalk will be on the West side 

122

of the street. As a result, sections of Pearl St. where there are currently sidewalks on 

both sides of the street will only have sidewalks on one side after construction. This 

change will be communicated property owners affected. 




Report Prepared by Jeff Wolfe, Project & Infrastructure Manager 

123


TR Report No. 28-2013 Wednesday, February 27, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 


Janet Ferguson, Treasurer 

C.A.O. Search – N.G. Bellchamber & Associates 


For Council information. 

REPORT 

At the February 19 th , 2013 Council meeting, a decision was made to engage the 

services of N.G. Bellchamber and Associates to complete the C.A.O. Search for 

Lambton Shores. 

Nigel Bellchamber is coming to Council to review and discuss the proposed process for 

completing the C.A.O. search as outlined in the accepted proposal. The proposal 

submitted included a draft timetable for consideration; however, this can also be 

reviewed and updated if necessary. 

Staff has provided Mr. Bellchamber with the current pertinent documents for the position 

for consideration and discussion with Council. 


Janet Ferguson, 

Treasurer 

124



TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



Grand Bend Sewer Treatment Plant Costs 


For Council information. 

REPORT 

At the January 28, 2013 Council meeting the following resolution was passed: 

13-0128-25 

That staff provide a full accounting of the $1.56 million expenditure for 

engineering services in relation to the (1) EAs, and (2) Grand Bend Sewage 

Treatment Facility by the end of February. This report will include, but not limited 

to, the following information: 

Date of Payment, Recipient, Amount Paid; and Purpose of the payment in 

sufficient detail to distinguish it from other payments; and further that if payment 

is made or more than one item on a cheque, the division of the money should be 

clearly enumerated. 

Staff has prepared the requested information and expanded on the information showing 

the grant allocation as well as the net cost shared with the partner municipalities. The 

format basically follows that of what is required for our granting purposes. 

If there are specific questions that Council may have, myself or Brent Kittmer, Director 

of Community Services can provide clarification for you. 



Treasurer 

125

Grand Bend Area Sewage Treatment Facility 

Funding Amount Remaining 

Periot of invoice Cheque Payment Invoice Net Provincial Federal after Funding LS Additional Lambton Shores South Huron Bluewater 

Invoice # Date From To Vendor Name Number Date Amount Cost Cost 58.30% 25.90% 15.80% 

Not Shared 48.40% 30.20% 21.40% 

50% 50% 

Engineering - General Co-ordination 

51169 2/27/2009 Jan 1, 2009 to Jan 31, 2009 Dillon Consulting 25543 3/26/2009 5,216.55 4,968.14 - - 4,968.14 - 2,896.43 1,286.75 784.97 

54604 5/28/2009 Apr 1, 2009 to Apr 30, 2009 Dillon Consulting 26242 6/25/2009 1,827.00 1,740.00 - - 1,740.00 - 842.16 525.48 372.36 

56623 7/17/2009 May 28, 2009 to June 24, 2009 Dillon Consulting 26590 8/14/2009 2,872.28 2,735.50 - - 2,735.50 - 1,323.98 826.12 585.40 

58153 8/24/2009 June 25, 2009 - July 29, 2009 Dillon Consulting 26809 9/10/2009 3,853.50 3,670.00 - - 3,670.00 - 1,776.28 1,108.34 785.38 

59440 9/28/2009 July 30, 2009 - Aug 26, 2009 Dillon Consulting 27100 10/15/2009 3,526.95 3,359.00 - - 3,359.00 - 1,625.76 1,014.42 718.83 

60167 10/23/2009 Aug 27, 2009 - Oct 7, 2009 Dillon Consulting 27489 11/19/2009 3,526.23 3,358.31 - - 3,358.31 - 1,625.42 1,014.21 718.68 

61621 11/20/2009 Oct 14, 2009 - Oct 28, 2009 Dillon Consulting 27632 12/4/2009 1,370.25 1,305.00 - - 1,305.00 - 631.62 394.11 279.27 

62960 12/17/2009 Oct 29, 2009 - Nov 25, 2009 Dillon Consulting 27826 1/7/2010 1,088.33 1,036.50 - - 1,036.50 - 501.67 313.02 221.81 

63634 1/14/2010 Nov 25, 2009 - Dec 30, 2009 Dillon Consulting 28041 1/28/2010 1,115.10 1,062.00 - - 1,062.00 - 514.01 320.72 227.27 

64573 2/11/2010 Jan 4, 2010 - Jan 27, 2010 Dillon Consulting 28343 3/11/2010 1,811.25 1,725.00 - - 1,725.00 - 834.90 520.95 369.15 

67893 5/4/2010 Mar 1, 2010 - Mar 31, 2010 Dillon Consulting 29024 6/18/2010 2,677.50 2,550.00 - - 2,550.00 - 1,234.20 770.10 545.70 

68277 5/19/2010 Apr 1, 2010 - Apr 28, 2010 Dillon Consulting 29024 6/18/2010 4,144.88 3,947.50 - - 3,947.50 - 1,910.59 1,192.15 844.77 

69288 6/11/2010 May 1, 2010 - May 31, 2010 Dillon Consulting 29178 7/8/2010 5,793.38 5,517.50 - - 5,517.50 - 2,670.47 1,666.29 1,180.75 

71694 7/28/1010 June 1, 2010 - June 30, 2010 Dillon Consulting 29554 8/26/2010 1,761.38 1,677.50 - - 1,677.50 - 811.91 506.61 358.99 

72630 8/23/2010 July 7 , 2010 - July 28, 2010 Dillon Consulting 29768 9/23/2010 988.75 890.40 - - 890.40 - 430.95 268.90 190.55 

73762 9/17/2010 Aug 4, 2010 - Aug 25, 2010 Dillon Consulting 29880 10/7/2010 2,327.24 2,095.75 - - 2,095.75 - 1,014.34 632.92 448.49 

76312 11/22/2010 Sept 28/10-Oct 27/10 Dillon Consulting 30562 12/16/2010 1,101.75 992.16 - - 992.16 - 480.21 299.63 212.32 

78885 1/14/2011 Nov 24/10 - Dec 29/10 Dillon Consulting 30961 2/10/2011 1,111.64 1,001.07 - - 1,001.07 - 484.52 302.32 214.23 

82703 1/21/2011 Mar 1/11-Mar 30/11 Dillon Consulting 31577 5/16/2011 932.25 839.52 - - 839.52 - 406.33 253.54 179.66 

81367 3/14/2011 Feb 1/11 - Feb 28/11 Dillon Consulting 31602 5/19/2011 693.82 624.81 - - 624.81 302.41 188.69 133.71 

83350 5/17/2011 April 7/11 - April 7/11 Dillon Consulting 31772 6/14/2011 1,031.13 928.56 - - 928.56 - 449.43 280.43 198.71 

90440 11/21/2011 Oct 1/11 - Oct 31/11 Dillon Consulting 33506 01/12/12 423.75 381.60 - - 381.60 - 184.69 115.24 81.66 

91585 12/19/2011 Nov 1/11 - Nov 30/11 Dillon Consulting 33506 01/12/12 1,017.00 915.84 - - 915.84 - 443.27 276.58 195.99 

92889 12/31/2011 Dec 1/11-Dec 31/11 Dillon Consulting 33717 2/9/12 802.87 723.00 - - 723.00 723.00 

93413 2/13/2012 Jan 1/12 - Jan 25/12 Dillon Consulting 33970 3/22/12 1,525.50 1,373.76 - - 1,373.76 1,373.76 

96771 5/14/2012 April 11/12-April 18/12 Dillon Consulting 34559 6/14/12 542.40 488.45 - - 488.45 488.45 

Subtotal 53,082.68 49,906.86 - - 49,906.86 2,585.21 23,395.53 14,077.51 9,848.62 

Class EA & Preliminary Design 

50614 2/19/2009 Jan 1, 2009 to Jan 31, 2009 Dillon Consulting 25543 3/26/2009 141,366.19 134,634.47 - - 134,634.47 78,491.90 34,870.33 21,272.25 

52582 4/1/2009 Feb 1, 2009 to Feb 28, 2009 Dillon Consulting 25714 4/22/2009 1,562.09 1,487.70 - - 1,487.70 867.33 385.31 235.06 

53263 4/20/2009 Mar 1, 2009 to Mar 25, 2009 Dillon Consulting 25920 5/21/2009 4,632.37 4,411.78 - - 4,411.78 2,135.30 1,332.36 944.12 

54616 5/28/2009 Apr 1, 2009 to Apr 30, 2009 Dillon Consulting 26153 6/18/2009 8,759.67 8,342.54 - - 8,342.54 4,037.79 2,519.45 1,785.30 

55135 6/10/2009 May 1, 2009 to May 27, 2009 Dillon Consulting 26352 7/15/2009 401.90 382.76 - - 382.76 185.26 115.59 81.91 

Subtotal 156,722.22 149,259.25 - - 149,259.25 - 85,717.57 39,223.04 24,318.64 

BCF - Tracking 126 1 As of December 31, 2012





Not Shared 48.40% 30.20% 21.40% 

50% 50% 

Detailed Design & CA 

56783 7/21/2009 May 28, 2009 to June 24, 2009 Dillon Consulting 26590 8/14/2009 36,673.33 34,926.98 11,642.33 11,642.33 11,642.33 - 5,634.89 3,515.98 2,491.46 

57626 7/14/2009 June 25, 2009 - July 29, 2009 Dillon Consulting 26809 9/10/2009 71,588.93 68,179.93 22,726.64 22,726.64 22,726.64 - 10,999.70 6,863.45 4,863.50 

60214 10/23/2009 Aug 27, 2009 - Sept 30, 2009 Dillon Consulting 27220 10/23/2009 95,121.44 90,591.85 30,197.28 30,197.28 30,197.28 - 14,615.49 9,119.58 6,462.22 

58798 9/14/2009 Aug 1, 2009 - Aug 26, 2009 Dillon Consulting 27575 11/26/2009 55,198.43 52,569.93 17,523.31 17,523.31 17,523.31 - 8,481.28 5,292.04 3,749.99 

61291 11/13/2009 Oct 1, 2009 - Oct 28, 2009 Dillon Consulting 27575 11/26/2009 128,842.35 122,707.00 40,902.33 40,902.33 40,902.33 - 19,796.73 12,352.50 8,753.10 

62455 12/9/2009 Oct 29, 2009 - Nov 25, 2009 Dillon Consulting 27826 1/7/2010 132,681.85 126,363.67 42,121.22 42,121.22 42,121.22 - 20,386.67 12,720.61 9,013.94 

63747 1/18/2010 Nov 25, 2009 - Dec 30, 2009 Dillon Consulting 28041 1/28/2010 129,778.59 123,598.66 41,199.55 41,199.55 41,199.55 - 19,940.58 12,442.27 8,816.70 

64439 2/5/2010 Jan 4, 2010 - Jan 27, 2010 Dillon Consulting 28343 3/11/2010 55,808.16 53,150.63 17,716.88 17,716.88 17,716.88 - 8,574.97 5,350.50 3,791.41 

65855 3/8/2010 Jan 28, 2010 - Feb 28, 2010 Dillon Consulting 28486 3/31/2010 82,107.48 78,197.60 26,065.87 26,065.87 26,065.87 - 12,615.88 7,871.89 5,578.10 

66938 3/31/2010 Mar 1, 2010 - Mar 31, 2010 Dillon Consulting 28590 4/22/2010 119,300.60 113,619.62 37,873.21 37,873.21 37,873.21 - 18,330.63 11,437.71 8,104.87 

67854 5/4/2010 Apr 1, 2010 - Apr 28, 2010 Dillon Consulting 28792 5/20/2010 37,491.46 35,706.15 11,902.05 11,902.05 11,902.05 - 5,760.59 3,594.42 2,547.04 

70790 7/9/2010 Jun 1, 2010 - Jun 30, 2010 Dillon Consulting 29331 7/29/2010 225.38 214.65 71.55 71.55 71.55 - 34.63 21.61 15.31 

73641 9/16/2010 Aug 25, 2010 - Aug 28, 2010 Dillon Consulting 29880 10/7/2010 825.30 743.20 247.73 247.73 247.73 - 119.90 74.82 53.02 

74762 10/19/2010 Sept 1, 2010 - Sept 28, 2010 Dillon Consulting 30140 11/4/10 12,237.90 11,020.61 3,673.54 3,673.54 3,673.54 - 1,777.99 1,109.41 786.14 

75770 11/10/2010 Sept 29/10 - Oct 27/10 Dillon Consulting 30562 12/16/2010 25,383.54 22,858.66 7,619.55 7,619.55 7,619.55 - 3,687.86 2,301.11 1,630.58 

77151 12/23/2010 Oct 27/10 - Nov 24/10 Dillon Consulting 30746 1/13/2011 4,012.07 3,612.99 1,204.33 1,204.33 1,204.33 - 582.90 363.71 257.73 

78792 1/13/2011 Nov 24/10 - Dec 29/10 Dillon Consulting 30852 1/27/2011 16,880.79 15,201.67 5,067.22 5,067.22 5,067.22 - 2,452.54 1,530.30 1,084.39 

79996 1/26/2011 Jan 1/11 - Jan 26/11 Dillon Consulting 31153 3/14/2011 4,681.37 4,215.72 1,405.24 1,405.24 1,405.24 - 680.14 424.38 300.72 

81106 3/8/2011 Jan 27/11 - Feb 28/11 Dillon Consulting 31403 4/21/2011 4,213.77 3,794.63 1,264.88 1,264.88 1,264.88 - 612.20 381.99 270.68 

82253 4/8/2011 Mar 1/11 - Mar 30/11 Dillon Consulting 31577 5/16/2011 1,208.20 1,088.02 362.67 362.67 362.67 - 175.53 109.53 77.61 

83565 5/20/2011 Apr 1/11 - Apr 27/11 Dillon Consulting 31772 6/14/2011 13,126.36 11,820.69 3,940.23 3,940.23 3,940.23 - 1,907.07 1,189.95 843.21 

79996-1 2/10/2011 January 1/11 - January 31/11 Dillon Consulting 31981 7/14/2011 4,045.62 3,643.21 1,214.40 1,214.40 1,214.40 - 587.77 366.75 259.88 

85358 7/15/2011 June 1/11 - June 30/11 Dillon Consulting 32178 8/11/2011 28,936.81 26,058.49 8,686.16 8,686.16 8,686.16 - 4,204.10 2,623.22 1,858.84 

86427 8/12/2011 July 1/11 - July 27/11 Dillon Consulting 32392 9/8/2011 25,588.74 23,043.45 7,681.15 7,681.15 7,681.15 - 3,717.68 2,319.71 1,643.77 

90560 11/23/2011 July 28/11 - Oct 26/11 Dillon Consulting 33249 12/14/2011 84,765.74 76,334.17 25,444.72 25,444.72 25,444.72 - 12,315.25 7,684.31 5,445.17 

92668 12/31/2011 Dec 1-Dec 31/11 Dillon Consulting 33646 1/31/2012 2,071.06 1,865.05 621.68 621.68 621.68 - 300.90 187.75 133.04 

93792 2/22/2012 Jan 1/12 - Jan 25/12 Dillon Consulting 33970 3/22/2012 3,122.70 2,812.09 937.36 937.36 937.36 453.68 283.08 200.60 

94600 3/13/2012 Jan 25/12 - Feb 29/12 Dillon Consulting 34158 4/19/2012 3,234.85 2,913.08 971.03 971.03 971.03 469.98 293.25 207.80 

95773 4/12/2012 March 14/12 - March 28/12 Dillon Consulting 34337 5/17/2012 713.93 642.92 214.31 214.31 214.31 103.72 64.72 45.86 

91082 12/12/2011 Oct 27/11 - Nov 30/11 Dillon Consulting 33506 1/12/2012 11,590.53 10,437.63 3,479.21 3,479.21 3,479.21 - 1,683.94 1,050.72 744.55 

Subtotal 1,191,457.28 1,121,932.98 373,977.66 373,977.66 373,977.66 - 181,005.19 112,941.25 80,031.22 

Site Plan Review 

28113 10/22/2010 Aug 1, 2010 - Aug 28, 2010 Municipality of South Huron 30408 11/18/2010 320.54 320.54 - - 320.54 - 155.14 96.80 68.60 

29311 12/31/2010 Oct 31,2010 - Nov 27,2010 Municipality of South Huron 31654 5/19/2011 1,997.04 1,997.04 - - 1,997.04 966.57 603.11 427.37 

29310 12/31/2010 Dec 31, 2010 - Dec 31, 2010 Municipality of South Huron 31654 5/19/2011 2,348.67 2,348.67 - - 2,348.67 1,136.76 709.30 502.62 

29312 12/31/2010 Nov 28/10 - Jan 1/11 Municipality of South Huron 31654 5/19/2011 8,565.63 8,565.63 - - 8,565.63 4,145.76 2,586.82 1,833.04 

28271 1/1/2011 Oct 3/10 - Oct 30/10 Municipality of South Huron 31731 6/2/2011 3,419.08 3,419.08 - - 3,419.08 1,654.83 1,032.56 731.68 

28174 1/1/2011 Aug 29/10 - Oct 2/10 Municipality of South Huron 31731 6/2/2011 4,269.12 4,269.12 - - 4,269.12 2,066.25 1,289.27 913.59 

29983 8/12/2011 Jan 1/11 - April 20/11 Municipality of South Huron 32442 9/8/2011 3,066.32 3,066.32 - - 3,066.32 1,484.10 926.03 656.19 

30180 10/26/2011 Jan 1/11 - Sept 30/11 Municipality of South Huron 32993 11/17/2011 737.16 737.16 - - 737.16 356.79 222.62 157.75 

30323 11/30/2011 Sept 4/11 -Oct 30/11 Municipality of South Huron 33576 1/12/12 1,462.80 1,462.80 - - 1,462.80 708.00 441.77 313.04 

32761 2/29/2012 Jan 1/12 - Jan 31/12 Municipality of South Huron 34109 4/4/12 309.10 309.10 - - 309.10 149.60 93.35 66.15 

32762 2/29/2012 Feb 1/12-Feb 29/12 Municipality of South Huron 34109 4/4/12 136.72 136.72 - - 136.72 66.17 41.29 29.26 

33090 6/14/2012 01/29/12-02/25/12 Municipality of South Huron 33090 6/14/2012 824.26 824.26 274.75 274.75 274.75 137.38 137.38 

Subtotal 27,456.44 27,456.44 274.75 274.75 26,906.93 - 13,027.35 8,180.30 5,699.29 

Legal 

182027-18 2/3/2009 Jan 1, 2009 to Jan 31, 2009 Barry Card 25248 2/12/2009 894.60 852.00 - - 852.00 852.00 

182027-30 2/2/2010 Jan 1, 2010 to Jan 31, 2010 Barry Card 28246 2/25/2010 7,320.08 6,971.50 - - 6,971.50 6,971.50 

182027-31 3/1/2010 Feb 1, 2010 to Feb 28, 2010 Barry Card 28327 3/11/2010 5,365.50 5,110.00 - - 5,110.00 5,110.00 

182027-32 4/1/2010 Mar 1, 2010 to Mar 31, 2010 Barry Card 28580 4/22/2010 3,257.63 3,102.50 - - 3,102.50 3,102.50 

182027-34 6/1/2010 May 1, 2010 to May 31, 2010 Barry Card 29013 6/18/2010 344.93 328.50 - - 328.50 328.50 

182027-35 6/30/2010 Jun 1, 2010 to Jun 30, 2010 Barry Card 29170 7/8/2010 7,779.98 7,409.50 - - 7,409.50 7,409.50 

182027-38 10/4/2010 Sept 1, 2010 to Sept 30, 2010 Barry Card 29872 10/7/2010 1,237.35 1,114.27 - - 1,114.27 1,114.27 

Subtotal 26,200.07 24,888.27 - - 24,888.27 24,888.27 - - - 






Not Shared 48.40% 30.20% 21.40% 

50% 50% 

Pump Station 2 Review 

105512 1/18/2013 Nov 14/12 - Dec 26/12 Dillon Consulting - PS 2 36448 1/31/2013 2,022.82 1,821.61 1,821.61 1,821.61 

Subtotal 2,022.82 1,821.61 - - 1,821.61 1,821.61 - - - 

ESR - Design Review 

675708 6/8/2012 Jan 1/12 - June 9/12 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 34890 7/19/2012 5,598.43 5,041.56 1,680.52 1,680.52 1,680.52 840.26 840.26 

683489 7/25/2012 June 10/12 - July 6/12 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 35170 8/23/2012 13,138.28 11,831.43 3,943.81 3,943.81 3,943.81 1,971.90 1,971.90 

693445 7/20/2012 July 7/12-Aug 17/12 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 35364 9/20/2012 16,461.84 14,824.40 4,941.47 4,941.47 4,941.47 2,884.39 2,057.08 

701888 9/25/2012 Aug 18-12 -Sept 7/12 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 35562 10/18/2012 751.45 676.70 225.57 225.57 225.57 112.78 112.78 

718581 11/28/2012 Oct 6/12 - Nov 9/12 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 36433 1/24/2013 16,381.16 14,751.74 4,917.25 4,917.25 4,917.25 2,458.62 2,458.62 

728425 12/21/2012 Nov 10/12 - Nov 30/12 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 36433 1/24/2013 3,005.80 2,706.82 902.27 902.27 902.27 680.31 221.96 

Subtotal 55,336.96 49,832.65 16,610.88 16,610.88 16,610.88 - 8,948.28 7,662.61 - 

ESR - Addendum 

711636 10/29/2012 Sept 8/12 - Oct 5/12 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 35980 11/29/2012 17,438.30 15,703.73 5,234.58 5,234.58 5,234.58 1,882.32 1,882.32 1,469.95 

Subtotal 17,438.30 15,703.73 5,234.58 5,234.58 5,234.58 - 1,882.32 1,882.32 1,469.95 

Advertising 

LA Mar 2009 3/28/2009 Mar 1, 2009 to Mar 31, 2009 The Lakeshore Advance 25735 4/22/2009 206.39 196.56 - - 196.56 95.14 59.36 42.06 

0000235517 3/30/2009 Mar 1, 2009 to Mar 31, 2009 The Forest Standard 25720 4/22/2009 212.07 201.98 - - 201.98 - 97.76 61.00 43.22 

47/006971 1/20/2010 Jan 1, 2010 to Jan 31, 2010 The Lakeshore Advance 28270 2/25/2010 193.20 184.00 - - 184.00 - 89.06 55.57 39.38 

47/006990 1/27/2010 Jan 1, 2010 to Jan 31, 2010 The Lakeshore Advance 28270 2/25/2010 193.20 184.00 - - 184.00 - 89.06 55.57 39.38 

1000003321 2/25/2010 Feb 25, 2010 to Feb 25, 2010 Hayter- Walden Publications 28348 3/11/2010 205.23 195.46 - - 195.46 94.60 59.03 41.83 

2890273 11/14/2012 Nov 14/12 Times Advocate 36244 1/4/2013 1,130.00 1,017.60 - - 1,017.60 492.52 307.32 217.77 

3037670 10/31/2012 Oct 31/12 Times Advocate 36549 2/7/2013 369.96 333.16 - - 333.16 161.25 100.61 71.30 

Subtotal 2,510.05 2,312.76 - - 2,312.76 - 1,119.38 698.45 494.93 

Miscellaneous 

INV000029672 12/31/2009 Nov 25, 2009 - Nov 25, 2009 Ontario Clean Water Agency 28075 1/28/2010 7,000.00 7,000.00 2,333.33 2,333.33 2,333.33 - 1,129.33 704.67 499.33 

SWM Report 10/26/2010 Oct 26, 2010 - Oct 26, 2010 Ausable Bayfield Conservation 30099 10/29/2010 1,275.00 1,275.00 425.00 425.00 425.00 - 205.70 128.35 90.95 

OPA/ZBLA 4/7/2011 April 7/11 - April 7/11 Ausable Bayfield Conservation 31278 4/7/2010 350.00 350.00 116.67 116.67 116.67 - 56.47 35.23 24.97 

Visa Mar 2010 2/23/2010 Feb 23, 2010 to Feb 23, 2010 CIBC Visa - Photocopies 28548 4/13/2010 110.35 105.10 - - 105.10 - 50.87 31.74 22.49 

120910 12/9/2010 Dec 9, 2010 - Dec 9, 2010 Huron Repra Graphics - Drawings 30865 1/27/2011 147.49 132.82 - - 132.82 132.82 

9/25/2012 Lambton Shores - Postage Journal Entry 9/25/2012 1,745.73 1,745.73 - - 1,745.73 1,745.73 

11/9/2012 Lambton Shores - Postage Journal Entry 11/9/2012 1,667.63 1,667.63 - - 1,667.63 1,667.63 

2009-2010 Admin Allocations Journal Entries 196,745.15 196,745.15 196,745.15 196,745.15 

Subtotal 209,041.35 209,021.43 2,875.00 2,875.00 203,271.43 200,291.33 1,442.37 899.99 637.74 

NET COST 

FUNDING 

UNFUNDED 

PORTION 

LS 

ADDITIONAL 

(NOT SHARED) 

LAMBTON 

SHORES 

SOUTH 

HURON 

BLUEWATER 

TOTAL 1,652,135.98 398,972.87 398,972.87 854,190.24 229,586.42 316,537.98 185,565.47 122,500.38 

LS SH BW TOTAL 

2009-2012 546,124.40 185,565.47 122,500.38 854,190.26 

North End / STP Master Plan 2008 178,560.39 43,872.21 27,098.61 249,531.21 

NET COSTS 724,684.79 229,437.68 149,598.99 1,103,721.47 




TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



2012 Capital Allocations 


That Council approves the reserve fund allocations for the 

2012 year end as outlined in the Treasurer’s report TR-31- 

2013. 

REPORT 

Staff are preparing the final entries for the 2012 fiscal year and require confirmation for 

transactions that were reallocated in the 2012 Capital Budget or savings used to offset 

over expenditures as well as outside of the approved 2012 Capital Budget. 

A capital summary has been presented to Council on a monthly basis to show the 

progress of the projects and if there were concerns on specific issues separate reports 

were provided. An updated capital summary has been prepared for your review and 

approval. Notes have been provided for the items that require the additional 

consideration. The Reserve Fund balances have been updated and reflected in the 

2013 budget. 

A council resolution to support the redirection and additional allocation of funds is 

required for audit purposes. We are still waiting for some final information that will 

impact the 2012 operational financial status; however, at this time staff does not foresee 

any concerns. Audited statements are typically presented in April to meet the reporting 

deadline of May 31 st for the Financial Information Return. 



Treasurer 

129


2012 Capital Expense Summary December 31, 2012 

PROJECT 

TOTAL 2012 

FINAL 

BUDGET 

TOTAL PROJECT 

EXPENSE 

COMMENTS 

GENERAL 

GB Office 

2-110-110-5879 Facility Upgrades 26,443.43 5,887.31 Partial Completion - Remaining deferred to 2013 Budget 

Information Technology 

2-110-110-5876 IT 57,932.27 49,128.13 

Subtotal 84,375.70 55,015.44 

PROTECTION TO PERSON 

Fire Departments 

Arkona 

2-210-211-5875 Radios 899.08 49.07 

2-210-211-5875 Pagers 740.42 915.56 

2-210-211-5875 Bunker Gear 6,134.88 334.89 

Global expenditures under global budget 

Grand Bend 

2-210-214-5875 Radios 899.08 47.22 

2-210-214-5875 Pagers 740.42 1,756.00 

2-210-214-5875 Bunker Gear 6,119.85 

Northville 

2-210-212-5875 Radios 899.08 1,056.24 

2-210-212-5875 Pagers 740.42 556.34 

2-210-212-5875 Bunker Gear 3,067.44 2,897.89 

Forest 

2-210-213-5140 Forest Hall - Floor Drain 11,106.24 8,899.68 

2-210-213-5875 Air Packs (3) 15,866.06 13,956.62 

2-210-213-5875 Pagers 1,480.83 1,790.80 

2-210-213-5875 Bunker Gear 1,228.33 

2-210-213-5879 Antenna (Jepp) 16,100.00 16,127.90 

Thedford 

2-210-215-5875 Pagers 740.42 1,796.12 

2-210-215-5875 Radios 899.08 710.20 

2-210-215-5875 Bunker Gear 6,134.88 8,607.30 

General Fire 

2-210-210-5876 Breathing Gear 4,759.82 2,989.32 

2-210-210-5875 Portable Emergency Lighting (Jepp) 10,000.00 0.00 

Subtotal 81,208.11 69,839.33 

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 

Transportation Depot & Land 

Forest Works Depot - 12 Ann St 

2-300-110-5879 New Facility 1,062,316.56 106,817.56 

Northville - 9575 Port Franks Rd 

2-300-110-5878 Coverall 265,579.14 243,423.74 

BM Ross hired to complete operations review. Final report 

due February/March 2013 

Funded from Transportation RF 

Road Re-Construction 

2-300-300-5103 GB - Morenze Lane/Dietrich Cres/Eilber 21,246.33 24,956.52 Balance from Transportation RF 

2-300-300-5102 GB - Municipal Drive 19,121.70 17,679.60 

2-300-300-5106 GB - Erosion Control - Gill Rd 212,463.31 12,433.87 

Work will not be completed in 2012 

Funds to be transferred to fund the converall. 

2-300-300-5107 BOS - Port Franks Rd 7,436.22 7,323.13 

2-300-300-5112 BOS - Jericho Rd (townsend to cedarpoint) 106,231.66 96,717.20 

2-300-300-5113 TH - Pearl St 33,994.13 12,020.46 Engineering Complete in 2012 - Construction in 2013 

2-300-300-5108 TH- Pherrill St W of Dumfries to King 6,373.90 373.02 Engineering Complete in 2012 - Construction in 2013 

2-300-300-5150 ARK - Water ST 16,997.06 16,223.69 

2-300-300-5153 FO - Victoria 57,365.09 3,357.16 Deferred to 2013 

2-300-300-5110 FO - King St west - shave and pave, rail road way 43,023.82 41,785.38 

2-300-300-5151 FO - Morris - Main to Macdonald 300,848.05 180,556.06 Work complete with first lift of asphalt. Second lift in 2013 

2-300-300-5152 FO - Water St 47,804.25 28,005.69 

2-300-300-5154 FO - old arena entrance - shave and pave 19,121.70 16,238.89 

Re-Surface Treatment 

2-300-300-5111 GB - Lakeview Ave - Ontario to Pines Pkwy 26,557.91 45,265.01 Balance from Transportation RF 

2-300-300-5155 GB - William St - Pines Pkwy to Shoreline Dr 5,311.58 310.86 

2-300-300-5172 BOS - Gordon Rd 101,982.39 81,599.56 

2-300-300-5157 BOS - Lakeview Haven Drive - Lakeshore road to end (1200m) 79,673.74 48,313.67 

2-300-300-5158 BOS - Vance Drive - full subdivision 75,424.48 66,911.27 

2-300-300-5164 BOS - Glendale Drive - full subdivision 74,362.16 50,722.16 

2-300-300-5165 BOS - Cedar Point Line -full subdivision 92,421.54 65,831.68 

2-300-300-5168 BOS - Clemens Line - Army Camp to South end 4,249.27 248.69 

2-300-300-5169 BOS - Klondyke Rd 127,077.89 Funded from Savings Above 

2-300-300-5170 ARK - Arkona Rd - from Cty Rd 79 to Bog Line 10,623.17 621.68 

1,362,633.45 944,573.14 

130 

page 1 of 4 

28/02/2013



PROJECT 

TOTAL 2012 

FINAL 

BUDGET 

TOTAL PROJECT 

EXPENSE 

COMMENTS 

Sidewalks / Walkways 

2-310-175-5113 Rotary Trail - Julie Ave to Cold Storage Rd 95,608.49 95,112.05 

2-310-175-5151 TH - Sarah St - Elizabeth to 79 (250m) 21,777.49 6,909.80 

2-310-175-5156 GB Bridge Railing 69,050.58 13,801.90 Deferred to 2013 

2-310-175-5169 FO -James St -King to Ann (west side) (53m) 7,794.22 5,504.14 

2-310-175-5168 FO - Forest Main St S (170m) 26,557.91 17,132.83 

2-310-175-5152 FO - Townsend to Juniper (112m) 10,623.17 9,035.05 

2-310-175-5157 ARK - Sidewalk Main intersection 84,985.32 83,166.51 

Bridge / Culvert 

2-310-301-5106 Ridge Rd - culvert 26,557.91 10,439.52 Engineering Complete in 2012 - Construction in 2013 

2-310-301-5107 Pinetree Dr - guardrail 10,623.17 5,576.36 Installation Spring 2013 

2-310-301-5108 Lakeview in Southcott - guardrail 10,623.17 5,711.49 Installation Spring 2013 

2-310-301-5109 FO - Church St - culvert 10,623.17 621.68 Engineering Complete in 2012 - Construction in 2013 

Street Light 

2-340-340-5878 Amtelecom Road - Street Light Installation 13,071.81 8,317.58 

Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Program 

General 

2-900-175-5133 Radio System 33,847.59 42,751.65 Balance from V & E RF 

2-900-175-5142 Equipment 5,288.69 288.70 

Pickup 

2-900-906-5137 Ford 4x4 37,020.80 29,278.65 

Grader 

2-900-901-5137 Windrow eliminator attachment - N. Area 26,443.43 1,443.45 Ordered 2012 with delivery early 2013 

Chipper 

2-900-911-5101 Chipper - Vermeer 31,732.12 33,730.00 Unit delivered balance from transportation RF 

Mower 

2-900-175-5137 Flail Mower 10,577.37 9,018.34 

2-900-175-5138 Boom Flail Mower 52,886.86 24,076.34 

3,276,222.40 1,696,730.48 

RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES 

Arenas 

Legacy Centre 

2-720-175-5880 Concession Table / Chairs 4,230.95 4,306.77 Balance from Rec RF 

2-720-175-5877 Staging 19,039.27 16,758.21 

2-720-175-5876 Legacy Centre PV System 76,321.33 pending FIT agreement - FCM grant / loan 

Old Forest Arena 

2-720-176-5878 Roof 5,139.54 4,889.57 

Community Centres 

Arkona CC & Library 

2-730-731-5878 Splash Pad 105,773.72 106,384.02 Balance from Rec RF 

PF Community Centre 

2-730-732-5873 Facility Upgrades 27,501.17 16,341.87 

2-730-732-5877 Dishes 1,057.74 1,011.82 

2-730-732-5879 Tennis Court - Resurfacing Upgrades 15,866.06 866.06 Deferred to 2013 

2-730-732-5880 Awnings 12,692.85 3,084.23 

Shores Fitness Centre 

2-721-726-5850 Fitness Equipment 5,288.69 4,325.26 

2-721-726-5851 Showers 6,346.42 3,975.19 

No needs identified by YMCA. 

Budget redirected to resurfacing the gymnasium floor at the 

Shores. 

Curling Club 

2-720-176-5875 Facility 350,000.00 0.00 Not completing in 2012 - FCSC project 

GB Youth Centre 

2-700-110-5100 Accessibility - Doors 5,288.69 288.70 Deferred to 2013 

Nursery School 

2-720-726-5850 Fencing 5,658.89 3,895.93 

2-720-726-5851 Playground Equipment 15,866.06 23,844.29 Balance from Thedford Ball Diamond allocation 

131 


28/02/2013



PROJECT 

TOTAL 2012 

FINAL 

BUDGET 

TOTAL PROJECT 

EXPENSE 

COMMENTS 

Libraries 

Forest Library 

2-740-175-5100 Windows 12,692.85 10,805.02 

Portion of this budget was allocated to an emergency 

purchase of a furnace for the library. Remaining budget 

used to purchase the windows, and a partial installation will 

occur in 2012. The remaining windows will be installed in 

2013 and funded from operating. 

Old Thedford Library 

2-740-175-5106 Council Chamber Renovations 26,443.43 2,601.70 

Harbours 

GB Harbour 

2-350-350-5876 GB Harbour Alum Boat w/motor 4,855.01 4,499.99 

2-350-350-5877 Lighting 5,288.69 288.70 

2-350-350-5875 GB Harbour Security System 1,626.05 Funded from operating 

PF Harbour 

2-350-351-5880 Pavilion - roof replacement 7,933.03 6,661.05 

2-350-351-5881 Accessibility 12,692.85 692.87 Deferred to 2013 

2-350-351-5879 Northside Repair Launch 26,443.43 18,790.73 

Parks / Beaches 

Beach/Beach House 

2-710-716-5875 Fixtures 21,154.74 16,190.81 

Eilber Park 

2-710-710-5883 Facility Upgrade (fixtures, countertop, roof) 16,923.79 6,996.01 

Grand Bend Lions Park 

2-710-710-5101 Playground Equipment 30,000.00 25,793.33 

2-710-710-5102 Infield Resurface 30,000.00 34,915.71 

2-710-710-5103 Infield Fencing 35,000.00 34,081.60 

2-710-710-5104 Accessibility 10,000.00 0.00 no funding received 

2-710-710-5106 Erosion Control 48,050.20 Carry from 2011 - Funded from Rec RF 

Optimist Park 

2-710-710-5120 Play Equipment 12,000.00 10,907.54 

2-710-710-5121 Gazebo 7,000.00 23,695.43 

2-710-710-5122 Walkways / Plantings 16,000.00 15,903.95 

2011 Expenses included in amount - Balance of $2,506.92 

from Rec RF 

Klondyke Park 

2-710-710-5879 Irrigation System 10,623.17 621.65 Deferred for 2013 consideration 

Other Bosanquet Parks 

2-710-710-5880 Land - Klondyke Rd Tree Farm 2,644.34 144.35 

This project has been cancelled due to concerns of ability to 

water trees once planted. 

Will be reconsidered if/when an irrigation system is 

installed. 

Utter Ball Diamond 

2-710-710-5882 Pavilion Roof Replacement 11,635.11 11,478.68 

McRae 

2-710-710-5884 Backstop 6,346.42 2,638.35 

Coultis 

2-710-710-5885 Washrooms 2,750.12 150.12 

Rotary Civic Square 

2-710-710-5886 Hydro Panel 3,702.08 2,222.02 

Other Forest Parks 

2-710-710-5887 BMX Park 105,773.72 65,473.53 

Thedford Village Green 

2-700-110-5103 Play Equipment 3,400.00 0.00 Expensed directly 

Thedford Ball Diamond 

2-710-710-5888 Playground Equipment 19,039.27 7,400.70 

Thedford Main St 

2-700-110-5101 Garbage Cans 2,000.00 1,874.94 

2-700-110-5107 Garbage and Cigarette Disposal Units 4,500.00 4,971.24 Balance from Rec RF 

2-700-110-5108 Trails - Benches & Signs 5,000.00 3,801.34 

2-710-710-5881 Signage - Various Parks 5,288.69 783.12 

2-700-110-5102 Community Signs 37,020.80 2,020.80 

1,073,901.57 632,374.78 

132 


28/02/2013



PROJECT 

TOTAL 2012 

FINAL 

BUDGET 

TOTAL PROJECT 

EXPENSE 

COMMENTS 

SEWAGE SYSTEM 

Collection Systems 

2-410-175-5100 Road Related Replacements 79,330.29 44,361.47 

Miscellaneous Items 

2-410-175-5107 Forest PCP Pump Impellers 25,385.69 1,385.67 Deferred to 2013 

2-410-175-5108 Forest Main Lift Pumps Impellers (2) 21,154.74 1,154.75 Deferred to 2013 

2-410-175-5103 SCADA System Upgrades 11,106.24 3,048.48 

2-410-175-5152 Thedford Generator Replacement 26,443.43 1,443.45 Ordered and to be installed in 2013 

2-410-175-5153 Forest PCP Compressor Replacement 21,154.74 12,641.15 

2-410-175-5154 Industrial Park Servicing 26,443.43 1,443.45 

2-410-175-5879 Arkona Wastewater Pumping Station 4,324.80 Fund from Wastewater RF 

New System 

2-410-175-5104 North Sewage Treatment Facility (LS Portion) 12,720,812.00 1,164,474.06 In progress - LS cost before grant reduction 

2-410-175-5106 North End Collection System - Zone 3 315,364.84 accumulated costs -identified in rate review -3 yr alloc 

12,931,830.57 1,549,642.12 

WATERWORKS SYSTEM 

Water System General 

2-430-110-5112 North Area Meter Changeout 305,421.61 187,284.47 

Water Mains 

2-430-110-5151 FO - Morris St - Main St to MacDonald 74,887.79 74,546.73 

2-430-110-5157 FO - Victoria St - Watt 10,577.37 577.35 Deferred to 2013 

2-430-110-5163 ARK - Wisbeach Rd waterline 10,577.37 1,086.05 

2-430-110-5105 LAWS System 54,215.00 54,213.72 

2-430-110-5154 Industrial Park Servicing 15,866.06 866.06 

2-430-110-5875 SCADA System Upgrades 11,106.24 3,150.24 

2-430-110-5152 Thedford Generator 31,732.12 1,731.94 Deferred to 2013 

Subtotal 514,383.56 323,456.56 

17,961,921.90 4,327,058.71 

133 


28/02/2013



TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



2013 Operating and Capital Budget 


That Council adopts the 2013 Operating and Capital Budget 

as presented and outlined in Treasurer’s report TR-32-2013 

and that By-law 23 of 2013 be passed. 

REPORT 

The 2013 Budget process was started in October of 2012 and in early January 

presented to Council and finalized in February 2013. In preparation of the budget, staff 

and Council had reviewed many items that had been referred to budget; which, proved 

to be an expedient method of preparing the budget and finalizing it. The following 

significant resolutions were passed: 

At the January 10 th , 2013 Budget meeting the following resolution was passed: 



That the 2013 Capital Budget be approved, with the changes noted 

at the January 10, 2013 meeting. Carried 

At the February 7 th , 2013 Budget meeting the following resolution was passed: 



That the 2013 Operating and Capital Budgets be accepted and 

approved as discussed at the February 7, 2013 budget meeting. 

Carried 

The final step in budget adoption is passing the pertinent by-law. By-law 23 of 2013 has 

been prepared with the updated budget schedules for Council’s approval. Detailed 

backup will be provided under separate cover so Council will have an updated budget 

binder. 

134

Attached to this report is the Business Unit year over year comparison which also 

illustrates the percentage of the tax levy that is apportioned to the operation of the 

business unit. The following graph illustrates it more effectively. 

Lambton Shores 

2013 Tax Levy Allocation to Business Units 

Transportation Services 

Policing 

Arenas 

Fire 

Recreation & Leisure Services 

Solid Waste Management 

Protection to Person & Property 

Community Centres & Libraries 

Harbours 

Parks 

Beach 

Drainage 

Economic Development 

Planning 

Cemeteries 

Building & Assessment 

8.35% 

8.20% 

6.47% 

5.62% 

4.37% 

3.49% 

2.76% 

2.16% 

1.92% 

0.72% 

0.63% 

0.48% 

0.47% 

0.45% 

23.04% 

30.85% 

The Transportation Services and Policing continue to be the largest component of the 

taxation levy. The Business Units are relatively consistent with the allocation with the 

exception of Harbours taking a sizeable increase at 2.76% and Solid Waste taking the 

next largest increase; although it is only a 1% increase. The increase to the Harbours is 

directly related to the inclusion of additional funds for the additional dredging required, 

emergency dredging and the ice management project. The only other sizeable increase 

to the operating budget is the increase in the allocation to the Fire Department reserve 

fund to cover future infrastructure replacement. The balance of the reserve fund 

allocations were increased by 2%. 

The capital budget continues to be aggressive with several new projects as well as 

infrastructure renewal. The overall value of the capital budget has decreased 

significantly; however, that is primarily due to the timing of the proposed construction of 

the Grand Bend Area Sewer Treatment Plant. 

135

At this time Lambton County has not approved the tax policies for 2013 and therefore 

we cannot calculate the actual 2013 tax rate. The actual rates will be brought forward 

once the policies have been finalized. We can; however, provide an estimate using last 

year’s information and assuming a status quo. The estimated tax rate increase is 

3.29% 

The following chart illustrates the Lambton Shores budget impacts as an estimated tax 

impact: 

2012 2013 Annual Installment Month Day 

$100,000.00 $505.21 $521.70 $16.59 $4.15 $1.38 $0.05 

Avg Assess Inc $214,000 $224,700 

Taxation Impact $1,080.72 $1,172.26 $91.33 $22.83 $7.61 $0.25 

No Assess Chg $214,000 $214,000 

Taxation Impact $1,080.93 $1,116.44 $35.51 $8.88 $2.96 $0.10 

Although the tax levy increase looks substantial, the tax rate impact is less due to the 

assessment growth and value increases in Lambton Shores. Lambton Shores 

continues to maintain a high level of service and infrastructure for the residents which 

lends to the quality of life our residents enjoy. 

By-law 23 of 2013 and pertinent schedules have been prepared for Council passing to 

complete the final step of approving the 2013 Operating and Capital Budget 



Treasurer 

136


Tax Supported Business Unit Summary 

2012 % 2013 % % 

Business Unit Budget of Levy Budget Change of Levy 

Policing $ 2,255,888.60 25.05% $ 2,220,599.98 -1.56% 23.04% 

Planning $ 31,525.16 0.35% $ 46,581.73 47.76% 0.48% 

Building & Assessment $ 64,320.11 0.71% $ 43,830.86 -31.86% 0.45% 

Protection to Person & Property $ 412,485.89 4.58% $ 420,715.99 2.00% 4.37% 

Fire $ 741,450.22 8.23% $ 790,723.55 6.65% 8.20% 

Transportation Services $ 2,915,757.89 32.38% $ 2,973,256.17 1.97% 30.85% 

Harbours $ (2,481.28) -0.03% $ 266,023.86 10821.24% 2.76% 

Arenas $ 764,096.90 8.49% $ 804,724.08 5.32% 8.35% 

Solid Waste Management $ 388,017.75 4.31% $ 541,774.32 39.63% 5.62% 

Cemeteries $ 35,897.59 0.40% $ 45,507.59 26.77% 0.47% 

Recreation & Leisure Services $ 592,170.90 6.58% $ 623,640.42 5.31% 6.47% 

Parks $ 169,150.23 1.88% $ 207,938.44 22.93% 2.16% 

Beach $ 135,744.64 1.51% $ 184,978.07 36.27% 1.92% 

Community Centres & Libraries $ 358,413.33 3.98% $ 336,630.87 -6.08% 3.49% 

Drainage $ 78,994.59 0.88% $ 69,650.41 -11.83% 0.72% 

Economic Development $ 63,033.19 0.70% $ 61,111.50 -3.05% 0.63% 

TOTAL $ 9,004,465.71 100.00% $ 9,637,687.86 7.03% 100.00% 

137 

2013 Final 

February 7, 2013


BY-LAW 23 OF 2013 

Being a By-law to adopt the 2013 Budget for the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

WHEREAS: Pursuant to the Municipal Act 2001, c. 25, s. 290 (1); 2006, c. 32, 

Schedule. A, s. 120 (1) as amended, a local municipality shall in each 

year prepare and adopt a budget including estimates of all sums 

required during the year for the purposes of the municipality 

including: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Amounts sufficient to pay all debts of the municipality falling 

due within the year; 

Amounts required to be raised for sinking funds or retirement 

funds; and 

Amounts required for any board, commission or other body. 

THEREFORE: 

The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

enacts as follows: 

1. THAT the attached Schedule “A”, being a summary of the 

budget, be adopted for the year 2013 for the Municipality of 

Lambton Shores. 

2. THAT this by-law shall come into force and effect as of the date 

of the final passing. 

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 4 th day of March, 2013 

Read a THIRD time and finally passed this 4 th DAY OF MARCH, 2013 

________________________ 


138 

_________________________ 

CLERK – Carol McKenzie

Schedule "A" 

MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES 

2013 Operating Budget Summary Comparison 

2012 2013 

Final Final Percent 

Budget Budget Change 

Taxation Levy 9,004,465.73 9,637,687.86 7.03% 

Base Assessment 170,392.59 1.89% 

Phased in Assessment 345,771.48 3.84% 

Growth Assessment 117,058.05 1.30% 

Policing 

Revenue 

Policing 908,872.22 903,147.23 -0.63% 

Community Police Group 

Sub Total 908,872.22 903,147.23 -0.63% 

Expense 

Policing 3,164,422.69 3,123,747.21 -1.29% 

Community Police Group 338.13 - -100.00% 

Sub Total 3,164,760.82 3,123,747.21 -1.30% 

Policing Total 2,255,888.60 2,220,599.98 -1.56% 

Planning 

Revenue 

Planning and Zoning 142,844.74 134,696.50 -5.70% 

Expense 

Planning and Zoning 174,369.90 181,278.23 3.96% 

Planning Total 31,525.16 46,581.73 47.76% 

Building & Assessment 

Revenue 

Building and Assessment Admin 217,051.77 233,007.54 7.35% 

Expense 

Building and Assessment Admin 281,371.87 276,838.40 -1.61% 

Building Total 64,320.10 43,830.86 -31.86% 

Protection to Person & Property 

Revenue 

Bylaw / Parking / Prop. Stnds Enforce. 144,301.14 138,140.61 -4.27% 

Animal Control 11,557.89 7,880.47 -31.82% 

Weed Inspection 639.23 524.53 -17.94% 

Crossing Guards 8,033.12 6,853.83 -14.68% 

Emergency Management 711.29 618.48 -13.05% 

Conservation Authority 

Sub Total 165,242.67 154,017.93 -6.79% 

Expense 

Bylaw / Parking / Prop. Stnds Enforce. 214,246.22 199,929.91 -6.68% 

Animal Control 39,048.58 35,948.32 -7.94% 

Weed Inspection 3,432.31 3,063.78 -10.74% 

Crossing Guards 43,133.25 40,033.35 -7.19% 

Emergency Management 3,819.22 3,612.57 -5.41% 

Conservation Authority 274,049.00 292,146.00 6.60% 

Sub Total 577,728.58 574,733.92 -0.52% 

Protection to Person & Property Total 412,485.91 420,715.99 2.00% 

139 

2013 Final 

February 7, 2013

Schedule "A" 



2012 2013 



Fire Services 

Revenue 

Fire Prevention and Inspection 

Arkona FD 57,711.89 74,053.33 28.32% 

Northville FD 9,778.83 10,546.08 7.85% 

Forest FD 58,114.85 70,739.49 21.72% 

Grand Bend FD 68,031.65 76,308.24 12.17% 

Thedford FD 9,880.65 10,649.58 7.78% 

Sub Total 203,517.87 242,296.72 19.05% 

Expense 

Fire Prevention and Inspection 5,202.00 10,000.00 92.23% 

Arkona FD 164,678.45 180,344.44 9.51% 

Northville FD 172,926.12 187,653.46 8.52% 

Forest FD 204,115.26 220,056.11 7.81% 

Grand Bend FD 201,088.54 222,824.08 10.81% 

Thedford FD 196,957.72 212,142.19 7.71% 

Sub Total 944,968.09 1,033,020.28 9.32% 

Fire Services Total 741,450.22 790,723.55 6.65% 

Transportation Services 

Revenue 

TRF to Equipment Replacement RF 

TRF to Road Purposes RF 

Roadways 912,599.41 957,901.51 4.96% 

Winter Control 277,776.38 263,780.05 -5.04% 

Street Light / Traffic Control 111,304.60 110,265.51 -0.93% 

Sub Total 1,301,680.39 1,331,947.07 2.33% 

Expense 

TRF to Equipment Replacement RF 318,325.99 324,692.51 2.00% 

TRF to Road Purposes RF 1,208,241.56 1,232,406.39 2.00% 

Roadways 1,873,894.35 1,969,776.02 5.12% 

Winter Control 583,263.52 548,883.62 -5.89% 

Street Light / Traffic Control 233,712.87 229,444.70 -1.83% 

Sub Total 4,217,438.29 4,305,203.24 2.08% 

Transportation Services Total 2,915,757.90 2,973,256.17 1.97% 

Harbours 

Revenue 

Grand Bend 368,032.80 381,371.81 3.62% 

Port Franks 193,500.04 191,464.32 -1.05% 

Sub Total 561,532.84 572,836.13 2.01% 

Expense 

Grand Bend 348,109.62 403,558.93 15.93% 

Port Franks 210,941.94 435,301.06 106.36% 

Sub Total 559,051.56 838,860.00 50.05% 

Harbours Total (2,481.28) 266,023.86 10821.24% 

140 

2013 Final 

February 7, 2013

Schedule "A" 



2012 2013 



Arenas 

Revenue 

Legacy Recreation Centre 215,955.83 183,434.11 -15.06% 

Shores Recreation Centre 367,278.07 308,202.08 -16.08% 

Forest Arena 

Sub Total 583,233.90 491,636.19 -15.71% 

Expense 

Legacy Recreation Centre 606,564.00 554,812.38 -8.53% 

Shores Recreation Centre 713,883.80 707,233.73 -0.93% 

Forest Arena 26,883.00 34,314.16 27.64% 

Sub Total 1,347,330.80 1,296,360.27 -3.78% 

Arenas Total 764,096.90 804,724.08 5.32% 

Solid Waste Management 

Revenue 

Solid Waste Management 464,725.44 356,960.85 -23.19% 

Expense 

Solid Waste Management 852,743.20 898,735.17 5.39% 

Solid Waste Management Total 388,017.76 541,774.32 39.63% 

Cemeteries 

Revenue 

Forest - Beechwood 48,146.55 50,059.28 3.97% 

Arkona 32,258.66 15,866.63 -50.81% 

Pinery, Ward & Baptist / Misc. 2,090.48 2,105.09 0.70% 

Sub Total 82,495.69 68,031.00 -17.53% 

Expense 

Forest - Beechwood 56,770.45 62,560.30 10.20% 

Arkona 48,917.49 40,719.14 -16.76% 

Pinery, Ward & Baptist / Misc. 12,705.35 10,259.15 -19.25% 

Sub Total 118,393.29 113,538.60 -4.10% 

Cemeteries Total 35,897.60 45,507.59 26.77% 

Recreaion & Leisure Services 

Revenue 

Gen Admin, Fitness Area, Gymnasium 292,331.42 297,804.15 1.87% 

Expense 

Gen Admin, Fitness Area, Gymnasium 884,502.31 921,444.57 4.18% 

Recreation & Leisure Services Total 592,170.89 623,640.42 5.31% 

Recreation Parks 

Revenue 

Parks, Ball Diamonds, Pavillions 28,930.37 31,738.32 9.71% 

Expense 

Parks, Ball Diamonds, Pavillions 198,080.60 239,676.76 21.00% 

Recreation - Parks Total 169,150.23 207,938.44 22.93% 

141 

2013 Final 

February 7, 2013

Schedule "A" 



2012 2013 



Recreation - Beach 

Revenue 

Beach, Beach House, Patrol, P.Lot 720,110.69 701,192.69 -2.63% 

Expense 

Beach, Beach House, Patrol, P.Lot 855,855.33 886,170.76 3.54% 

Recreation - Beach Total 135,744.64 184,978.07 36.27% 

Community Centres & Libraries 

Revenue 

Community Centres 73,246.04 72,790.64 -0.62% 

Libraries 9,085.75 7,320.89 -19.42% 

Sub Total 82,331.79 80,111.54 -2.70% 

Expense 

Community Centres 360,800.89 352,206.08 -2.38% 

Libraries 79,944.23 64,536.32 -19.27% 

Sub Total 440,745.12 416,742.41 -5.45% 

Community Centres & Libraries Total 358,413.33 336,630.87 -6.08% 

Drainage 

Revenue 

Drainage 166,031.89 425,689.37 156.39% 

Expense 

Drainage 245,026.49 495,339.78 102.16% 

Drainage Total 78,994.60 69,650.41 -11.83% 

Economic Development 

Revenue 

Industry Trade amd Tourism 27,274.10 28,052.26 2.85% 

Expense 

Industry Trade amd Tourism 90,307.29 89,163.76 -1.27% 

Economic Development Total 63,033.19 61,111.50 -3.05% 

Water 

Revenue 

Water 3,862,047.26 3,936,261.29 1.92% 

Expense 

Water 3,862,047.26 3,936,261.29 1.92% 

Water Total - - 

Wastewater 

Revenue 

Wastewater 1,432,793.96 1,349,933.92 -5.78% 

Expense 

Wastewater 1,432,793.96 1,349,933.92 -5.78% 

Wastewater Total - - 

Revenue Total 20,247,514.76 20,977,048.55 

Expense Total 20,247,514.76 20,977,048.55 

Increase in Expenses over previous year 3.60% 

Increase in Expenses without Drain TRF 2.57% 

142 

2013 Final 

February 7, 2013


2013 CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY 

DESCRIPTION EXPENSE FINANCED FROM 

Balance 

General Reserve - Finance / 

Levy Reserve Fund Funding / Other 

General Government 

IT Equipment $ 48,160.11 

$ 33,160.11 $ 15,000.00 

- 

Sub Total General $ 48,160.11 $ - $ 33,160.11 $ 15,000.00 

- 

Protection to Persons 

Fire Departments 

AR - Radios/Pagers/Bunker Gear $ 1,690.95 

$ 1,690.95 

- 

GB - Radios/Pagers $ 1,690.95 

$ 1,690.95 

- 

NV - Radios/Pagers/Bunker Gear $ 1,690.95 

$ 1,690.95 

- 

FO -Pumper $ 473,011.53 

$ 459,011.53 $ 14,000.00 

- 

FO - Generator $ 13,912.92 

$ 13,912.92 

- 

FO - Quad Cab Truck $ 53,511.24 

$ 53,511.24 

- 

FO - Breathing Gear $ 16,053.37 

$ 16,053.37 

- 

FO - Light Tower $ 11,772.47 

$ 11,772.47 

- 

TH - Radios/Pagers/Bunker Gear $ 1,690.95 

$ 1,690.95 

- 

TH - Generator $ 17,511.02 

$ 17,511.02 

- 

Breathing Gear $ 4,816.01 

$ 4,816.01 

- 

Sub total PPP $ 597,352.36 $ - $ 583,352.36 $ 14,000.00 

- 


Road Program 

- Re-Construction $ 1,550,859.18 

$ 1,317,405.18 $ 233,454.00 

- 

- Re-surface $ 26,755.62 

$ 26,755.62 

- 

- Bridge & Culvert $ 512,889.07 

$ 512,889.07 

- 

-Sidewalk / Walkway $ 149,831.47 

$ 149,831.47 

- 

- Streetlights $ 181,260.75 

$ 154,260.75 $ 27,000.00 

- 

Transportation Depot & Land * $ 750,000.00 

$ 750,000.00 

- 

Vehicle & Equipment $ 326,968.63 

$ 326,968.63 

- 

Recreation & Leisure $ 542,061.14 

$ 428,811.14 $ 113,250.00 

- 

- 

$ - 

Sub total CS $ 4,040,625.86 $ - $ 2,916,921.86 1,123,704.00 

Offices & Depots 

GB Office $ 8,500.00 

$ 8,500.00 

Council Chamber Renovations $ 25,000.00 

$ 25,000.00 

- 

Sub Total O&D $ 33,500.00 

$ 33,500.00 

$ - 

Waterworks System 

General $ 307,261.53 

$ 307,261.53 

- 

Water Mains $ 273,360.91 

$ 273,360.91 

- 

Miscellaneous $ 118,266.86 

$ 118,266.86 

- 

LAWSS $ 55,841.00 

$ 55,841.00 

- 

Sub Total Water $ 754,730.30 $ - $ 754,730.30 $ - 

- 

Waste Water System 

Collection System $ 107,022.48 

$ 107,022.48 

Miscellaneous $ 169,564.61 

$ 169,564.61 

- 

GB STP $ 670,000.00 

$ 670,000.00 

- 

Sub Total Sewer $ 946,587.09 $ - $ 276,587.09 $ 670,000.00 

- 

2013 TOTAL $ 6,420,955.72 $ - $ 4,598,251.72 $ 1,822,704.00 $ - 

2012 Capital $ 17,691,925.33 

143 

2013 Final 

February 7, 2013


CL Report No. 17-2013 Thursday, February 21, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 


Carol McKenzie, Clerk 

Appointment of an Integrity Commissioner 


For Council direction. 

REPORT 

On May 22, 2012, the Municipality of Lambton Shores approved By-law 55 of 2012, a 

“Code of Conduct Policy for Council and to Establish Roles and Responsibilities for 

Council to promote Accountability and Transparency in Municipal Governance”. 

The goal was to establish a standardized and acceptable level of ethical behaviour for 

the members of Council to ensure respect for the integrity of the Corporation and to 

ensure the trust of the public. When considering the by-law, samples were reviewed 

from a number of municipalities and the final result was a by-law deemed suitable for a 

municipality the size of Lambton Shores. 

In addition to guidelines for expected behaviors, the by-law included information on 

dealing with perceived “breaches” of Code of Conduct on both an informal and formal 

basis. The by-law further notes that if both the informal or formal processes were 

unsuccessful, the next step would be to refer issues / complaints to an Integrity 

Commissioner, who would complete an independent and impartial review of the 

complaint. 

While the by-law did include the options for complaints, unfortunately, it was silent on 

the protocol and the actual process to follow when a complaint was received, and on the 

duties to be assigned to the Integrity Commissioner. 

In order to process complaints fairly and equitably and to proceed with the next step in 

the appointment of the Integrity Commissioner, it will be necessary for Council to 

determine a formal complaint process and the functions to be assigned to the Integrity 

Commissioner. 

1. Complaint Form: 

For standardization, and to provide guidance to persons submitting complaints, it is 

144

ecommended that a Municipal Affidavit and submission form be approved. A draft for 

consideration is included as Attachment 1. 

2. Appointment of an Integrity Commissioner 

At the January 14, 2013 meeting, the following resolution was passed: 

13-0114-42 That Council retain an Integrity Commissioner under the 

Municipal Act to start an investigation to determine if allegations against 

the Council have any grounds. 

The information to be considered by the Integrity Commissioner has been filed, and 

Council will need to approve a process for soliciting applications for an Integrity 

Commissioner, and determine the duties the Integrity Commissioner. 

a) Soliciting for applications for an Integrity Commissioner 

From the research that I have conducted, most of the Integrity Commissioners fulfil the 

role on a part time or as needed basis. In order to expedite the appointment process, 

and to take advantage of the experience and expertise that already exists in this field, it 

would be advantageous to circulate the RFP to persons who currently serve in the role 

of an Integrity Commissioner. The RFP would require the applicant to provide details on 

experience in this role, and the process recommended for processing complaints 

received. 

There is an “ad hoc” Association of Ontario Integrity Commissioners and it is 

recommended that the “Requests for Proposals” for the Lambton Shores Integrity 

Commissioner be sent to this group of distribution. 

b) Duties of the Integrity Commissioner 

In order to prepare the RFP, it will be necessary to determine the duties and functions 

Council would like the Integrity Commissioner to undertake. 

The Municipal Act authorizes the appointment of an Integrity Commissioner in the 

following section: (the complete section of the Act that pertains to Integrity 

Commissioners is attached as “Attachment 2”) 

Integrity Commissioner 

223.3 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize 

the municipality to appoint an Integrity Commissioner who reports to council and 

who is responsible for performing in an independent manner the functions 

assigned by the municipality with respect to, 

(a) the application of the code of conduct for members of council and the 

code of conduct for members of local boards or of either of them; 

145

(b) the application of any procedures, rules and policies of the 

municipality and local boards governing the ethical behaviour of 

members of council and of local boards or of either of them; or 

(c) both of clauses (a) and (b). 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Powers and duties 

(2) Subject to this Part, in carrying out the responsibilities described in 

subsection (1), the Commissioner may exercise such powers and shall perform 

such duties as may be assigned to him or her by the municipality. 2006, c. 32, 

Sched. A, s. 98. 

Several of the larger municipalities in Ontario have appointed Integrity Commissioners, 

including the Cities of Hamilton, Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Vaughan, and Kitchener, 

and information on the issues assigned to the Integrity Commissioner have been 

researched. 

One notable difference found was that in the Lambton Shores by-law, the process to 

deal with “formal complaints” states that formal complaints received would be reviewed 

by Council. Most of the municipalities with Integrity Commissioners referred formal 

complaints to the Commissioner to investigate. 

Council may want to consider amending the by-law to include the review of all formal 

complaints in the duties of the Integrity Commissioner, as it could conceivably be very 

detrimental to the working relationship of Council if members are asked to sit in 

judgement of his/her peers. By allowing the Integrity Commissioner to investigate all 

complaints, there will be consistency in the decision making, and it will ensure fair and 

equitable treatment of all members of Council. 

The duties and the functions assigned to Integrity Commissioner in the municipalities 

researched can be categorized as: Advisory, Educational, Complaint Investigation and 

Complaint Adjudication. 

The following are suggested roles for the Lambton Shores Integrity Commissioner: 

Advisory: 

Reviews the Code of Conduct to ensure it continues to meet the needs of 

Council; 

Provides advice to Council to prevent potential violations of the Code of Conduct. 

Education: 

Educate Members of Council on the Code of Conduct and on matters of integrity; 

Complaint Investigation: 

Assess all complaints from the public to determine their validity; 

Investigate valid complaints; 

146

Report the results of the investigations to Council and the public. 

Complaint Adjudication: 

Determine whether a member of Council has violated a Municipal protocol, bylaw 

or policy governing ethical behaviour; 

If a member is found to be in violation of the Code of Conduct, determines 

appropriate discipline as authorized in the By-Law; 

Report to the public, through Council, on the results of an investigation. 

3. Process for dealing with complaints: 

A process for dealing with complaints received will be required and the following is 

provided for review and discussion. Once a process and protocols are approved, they 

should be included as a Schedule to the Code of Conduct By-law. 

a. Confidentiality Requirement 

When considering a protocol to deal with complaints received, it is very important to 

remember that while a person or organization has the right to submit a breach of Code 

of Conduct complaint against any or all members of Council, the complaint is not 

confirmed upon submission. The claims deal with the integrity and reputation of a 

member of Council, and there are duties of confidentiality to protect both the 

complainant, and the person to whom the claim is against. 

Confidentiality is a requirement under the section of the Municipal Act that pertains to 

the Integrity Commissioner: 

Duty of confidentiality 

223.5 (1) The Commissioner and every person acting under the 

instructions of the Commissioner shall preserve secrecy with respect 

to all matters that come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or 

her duties under this Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

The Integrity Commissioner is bound by the Municipal Act to ensure that a complaint of 

misconduct against a Member of Council is kept confidential. However, in order to allow 

the person the complaint pertains to defend the claim, the member of Council is advised 

of the identity of the complainant and would be provided a copy of the complaint. It is 

important to note that the Councillor would also bound by the Municipal Act requirement 

for confidentiality. 

b. Application Fee 

An option for Council to consider is the initiation of a refundable fee for applications, 

similar to applications for Freedom of Information inquiries, or appeals to the Ontario 

Municipal Board. The fee would discourage frivolous or vexatious applications, and 

147

would be refundable upon the filing of a report by the Integrity Commissioner (or 

alternatively, once the decision has been made that the complaint is valid.) 

Fee Requirement: 

A Complainant shall pay to the Municipality a refundable fee in the amount of $100.00 

upon the filing of a complaint. 

The fee payable shall be refunded to the complainant when the lntegrity Commissioner 

files his/her report (or determines the complaint is valid), except as may otherwise be 

required under this section. 

Where the Integrity Commissioner determines that a complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or 

not made in good faith, the fee shall not be refunded. 

Where a Complaint withdraws his/her complaint prior to the investigation commencing, 

a full refund of the fee will be provided. 

c. Processing Complaints: 

The following is the proposed process for procession complaints: 

Council Referred Complaints: 

Council may refer a complaint directly to the lntegrity Commissioner. A Complaint 

referred to the lntegrity Commissioner by Council shall contain the information required 

in the complaint form, but is not required to be in the form of an affidavit. 

Any approved fee for applications would not be required to be submitted with respect to 

a Complaint referred by Council to the lntegrity Commissioner 

Complaint referred by Members of the Public: 

A Complainant regarding a member of Council may be made by filing with the Clerk a 

completed and sworn/affirmed Complaint Form together with the required fee in a 

sealed envelope, and the Clerk shall forward such a Complaint to the Integrity 

Commissioner unopened. 

A Complaint regarding a member of Council shall not be made available to the public 

except as may be required under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection 

of Privacy Act. 

d. Limitation Period 

In order to ensure that the complaint is valid, and that the person against whom the 

complaint is levied has the ability to defend the allegations, it is recommended that a 

time limitation be established in which complaints are to be filed. 

148

Time Limitation Period 

The lntegrity Commissioner shall not proceed with an inquiry in regard to a complaint 

which is filed with the Clerk more than 60 days after the date when the event or series 

of events which are the subject matter of the complaint were discovered by the 

complainant. 

An event, or series of events, is discovered on the earlier of the date, upon which the 

Complaint first knew, 

a. that the event, or series of events, had occurred, 

b. that the event, or series of events, constituted a contravention of the Code of 

Conduct, and 

c. the identity of the member of Council involved in the event or series of events; and 

b. the date on which a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of 

the Complainant first should have known the matters took place. 

e. Filing Reports: 

It is important for Accountability and Transparency purposes for regular reports to be 

provided to Council not only at the conclusion of an investigation, but also an annual 

report providing details on all outstanding investigations and a review of the activities of 

the Integrity Commissioner during the year. 

The Integrity Commissioner shall file a report with the Council at the conclusion of each 

investigation, outlining the findings and if applicable, the recommended sanctions or 

change(s) to the Code of Conduct; 

Where the lntegrity Commissioner decides not to proceed with an inquiry he/she shall 

prepare and file a report setting out the decision and the reason for the decision. 

An annual report will be submitted summarizing the status of all complaints. 

Current situation 

Currently, two complaints have been filed, and have been logged as received, and staff 

awaits direction on the process to deal with the documentation. 


Carol McKenzie 

Clerk 

149

Attachment 1 – CL Report No.17-2013 

Affidavit 

(For a complaint under the Municipality of Lambton Shores By-law 55 of 2012) 

Affidavit of __________________________________________________[full name] 

I, ______________________________________________________ [full name], of the 

City/Town/Other of _________________________________[municipality of residence] 

in the Province of Ontario 

MAKE OATH AND SAY/AFFIRM: 

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts as set out in this affidavit because 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

__________ [insert reason(s), e.g. I work for. . . , I attended the meeting at which . . 

., etc.]. 

2. I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a member of the 

Municipality of Lambton Shores' Council, 

________________________________ [name of member], has contravened 

section(s) _____________________ [specify section(s)] of the Code of Conduct 

for members of the Municipality of Lambton Shores' Council, other procedure, 

rule or policy, the particulars of which are as follows: 

[Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs in the space below, 

with each paragraph being confined as far as possible to a particular statement of fact. 

If you require more space, please attach an additional page or pages, numbered 

consecutively, with a statement at the top of each additional page that the contents form 

part of this affidavit. 

If you wish to include documents or other exhibits to support this Complaint, please refer to 

them as Exhibit A, B, etc. and attach them to this affidavit. 

If you are relying on the information of others, please indicate this and identify the source of 

the information by name, providing contact information if possible.] 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

150

_________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

[specify the number of additional pages, if any, attached] 

If you are filing this Complaint more than six months after the date of the event or series of 

events which form the basis of the Complaint, you should include information regarding 

the reasons why your date of discovery is later than the deemed date of discovery under 

that section. 

3. This affidavit is made for the purpose of making a Complaint for consideration by 

the Municipality of Lambton Shores Council or Integrity Commission and for no 

other purpose. 

SWORN/AFFIRMED before me at the 

City/Town/etc. of : 

In the Province of Ontario on [date] 

A Commissioner for taking affidavits, 

etc. [Signature of Commissioner] 

Complainant [Signature] 

Signing a false affidavit may expose you to prosecution under section 131 and 

132 or 134 of the Criminal Code (Canada) and also to civil liability for defamation. 

Notice of Collection of Personal lnformation pursuant to the 

Municipal Freedom of lnformation and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) 

Personal information contained on this form is collected under the authority of the 

Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, and will be used for the purposes 

of an inquiry into a Code of Conduct issue pursuant to By-law 55 of 2012. Questions 

about this collection may be directed to the Municipal Clerk. 

151

Integrity Commissioner 

Attachment 2– Section 223.3 of the Municipal Act 

223.3 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize the municipality 

to appoint an Integrity Commissioner who reports to council and who is responsible for 

performing in an independent manner the functions assigned by the municipality with respect to, 

(a) the application of the code of conduct for members of council and the code of conduct 

for members of local boards or of either of them; 

(b) the application of any procedures, rules and policies of the municipality and local 

boards governing the ethical behaviour of members of council and of local boards or 

of either of them; or 

(c) both of clauses (a) and (b). 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Powers and duties 

(2) Subject to this Part, in carrying out the responsibilities described in subsection (1), the 

Commissioner may exercise such powers and shall perform such duties as may be assigned to 

him or her by the municipality. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Delegation 

(3) The Commissioner may delegate in writing to any person, other than a member of 

council, any of the Commissioner’s powers and duties under this Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 

98. 

Same 

(4) The Commissioner may continue to exercise the delegated powers and duties, despite 

the delegation. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Status 

(5) The Commissioner is not required to be a municipal employee. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, 

s. 98. 

Inquiry by Commissioner 

223.4 (1) This section applies if the Commissioner conducts an inquiry under this Part, 

(a) in respect of a request made by council, a member of council or a member of the 

public about whether a member of council or of a local board has contravened the 

code of conduct applicable to the member; or 

(b) in respect of a request made by a local board or a member of a local board about 

whether a member of the local board has contravened the code of conduct applicable 

to the member. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Powers on inquiry 

(2) The Commissioner may elect to exercise the powers under sections 33 and 34 of the 

Public Inquiries Act, 2009, in which case those sections apply to the inquiry. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 

6, s. 72 (1). 

152

Information 

(3) The municipality and its local boards shall give the Commissioner such information as 

the Commissioner believes to be necessary for an inquiry. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Same 

(4) The Commissioner is entitled to have free access to all books, accounts, financial 

records, electronic data processing records, reports, files and all other papers, things or property 

belonging to or used by the municipality or a local board that the Commissioner believes to be 

necessary for an inquiry. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Penalties 

(5) The municipality may impose either of the following penalties on a member of council 

or of a local board if the Commissioner reports to the municipality that, in his or her opinion, the 

member has contravened the code of conduct: 

1. A reprimand. 

2. Suspension of the remuneration paid to the member in respect of his or her services as 

a member of council or of the local board, as the case may be, for a period of up to 90 

days. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Same 

(6) The local board may impose either of the penalties described in subsection (5) on its 

member if the Commissioner reports to the board that, in his or her opinion, the member has 

contravened the code of conduct, and if the municipality has not imposed a penalty on the 

member under subsection (5) in respect of the same contravention. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Duty of confidentiality 

223.5 (1) The Commissioner and every person acting under the instructions of the 

Commissioner shall preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that come to his or her 

knowledge in the course of his or her duties under this Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Exception 

(2) Despite subsection (1), information may be disclosed in a criminal proceeding as 

required by law or otherwise in accordance with this Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Section prevails 

(3) This section prevails over the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of 

Privacy Act. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Report to council 

223.6 (1) If the Commissioner provides a periodic report to the municipality on his or her 

activities, the Commissioner may summarize advice he or she has given but shall not disclose 

confidential information that could identify a person concerned. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Report about conduct 

(2) If the Commissioner reports to the municipality or to a local board his or her opinion 

about whether a member of council or of the local board has contravened the applicable code of 

conduct, the Commissioner may disclose in the report such matters as in the Commissioner’s 

opinion are necessary for the purposes of the report. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

153

Publication of reports 

(3) The municipality and each local board shall ensure that reports received from the 

Commissioner by the municipality or by the board, as the case may be, are made available to the 

public. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Testimony 

223.7 Neither the Commissioner nor any person acting under the instructions of the 

Commissioner is a competent or compellable witness in a civil proceeding in connection with 

anything done under this Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

Reference to appropriate authorities 

223.8 If the Commissioner, when conducting an inquiry, determines that there are 

reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a contravention of any other Act or of the 

Criminal Code (Canada), the Commissioner shall immediately refer the matter to the appropriate 

authorities and suspend the inquiry until any resulting police investigation and charge have been 

finally disposed of, and shall report the suspension to council. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98. 

154


CL Report No. 18-2013 Thursday, February 21, 2013 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 


Carol McKenzie, Clerk 

Use of the Legacy Centre for Council Meetings 


For discussion purposes. 

REPORT 

At the time of amalgamation in 2001, the decision was made to rotate the Council 

meetings throughout the community for the convenience of the public. Meetings were 

held in Arkona at the Community Centre, Grand Bend in the former Council Chambers, 

Forest at the North Lambton Community Health Centre, Port Franks at the Port Franks 

Hall, and in Thedford at the Village Complex. 

Rotating the meetings was not as successful as anticipated, as it was found that 

attendance was based on the issue(s) being discussed, as opposed to location of the 

meeting. It was also difficult for attendees to be sure of the location of the meeting, and 

there were instances when attendees and presenters were driving to the various 

centres trying to find the meeting. Therefore, after a trial period, the decision was made 

to use the Thedford Village Complex as the location for Council meetings, as it was 

centrally located, and the facility was accessible. 

In the past, discussions have been held on improving the Council meeting facility, and 

one option considered was to make improvements to the Village Complex and use the 

facility as a permanent Council Chamber. 

At the February 11, 2013 Council meeting, a delegation attended and outlined the 

community concerns with using the Thedford Village Complex as a permanent 

chamber, and the possibility of moving the Council meetings to the Legacy Centre was 

discussed as an option to consider. 

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 Councillor Bonesteel, Mayor Weber and I met at the 

Legacy Centre to review the facility with the intent of determining if the facility would be 

suitable for use as the Council meeting location. 

When reviewing this option, it was found that the Council meetings could be 

accommodated using only ½ of Thomas Hall, and it was suggested that the smaller of 

the two halls would be the preferred option. The smaller hall would accommodate 

approximately 200 people, which is sufficient for most meetings, and the larger ½ of the 

hall would be available for groups such 155 as the “I can” program or boot camp. The

Council tables and chairs could remain set up until the full hall was needed for a large 

event, and the room can be secured to reduce any damage to the tables. When there is 

a wedding or a large number of “shufflers”, the tables that are being proposed are 

mobile and can be easily moved. In the event storage of Council items is required, it can 

be accommodated on site with just minor rearrangements. 

After reviewing the site, it was determined that moving the meetings to the Legacy 

Centre would be an excellent option for Council to consider, and could be 

accommodated with minimal costs. 

Some of the other advantages include: 

1. There is ample parking to accommodate Council and members of the audience; 

2. The building is pre-wired for an audio system that could be re-routed to 

accommodate the Council configuration and would be compatible with the new mixer 

board and microphones; 

3. Staff has reviewed the room configuration and has identified several options for 

projections to ensure that the members of Council and the members of the public can 

view presentations; 

4. The majority of the activities currently taking place in the evening in Thomas Hall can 

be accommodated on other nights, or possibly at the Thedford Village Complex; 

5. Staff is on site for set up, which is a considerable time/cost savings; 

6. Purchasing the required furniture and undertaking the minor modifications could be 

accomplished within the budget allocation; 

7. The Village Complex would once again be available to the seniors and the other 

community groups 

Recommendation on timing: 

If the option of using the Legacy Centre as the Council Chambers is endorsed, it is 

recommended that the change take place for the April 8 th Council meeting, which will 

allow time for the furniture to be ordered and minor modifications complete, and to 

provide sufficient notice of the change of location. 

Preferred Time of Meeting and Council Meeting Night: 

At the February 19 th meeting, a brief discussion was held on the best time for Council 

meetings to ensure the business of the Corporation was completed efficiently and 

effectively. One suggestion Council was asked to consider was having meetings run 

from 4:00 – 6:00 and 7:00 to 9:00, with any confidential matters discussed from 5:30 to 

6:00 to minimize disruptions to the public that attend meetings. Council asked for time 

to consider this possible change. 

156

Also, it was discussed at the onsite meeting that since the meeting location was 

changing, it may be appropriate for Council to have an opportunity to discuss the 

preferred best night for Council meetings, so that if the day or the time of the Council 

meetings was to change, all changes could take place simultaneously and be 

advertised accordingly. 

Traditionally, the Council meetings are held on the 1 st and 3 rd Monday nights and the 

second Tuesday in the afternoon. This may be the easiest date to maintain, as 

members tend to schedule other activities around these dates, which makes it more 

difficult to change the date, however, it would be advantageous to have a discussion on 

the best date for meetings. 

Previously Council did meet on the Thursday nights, and this had its advantages. The 

agendas were available to Council on Monday evenings, which allowed items or issues 

that transpired over the weekends to be included in the agenda. In addition, as the area 

is served by weekly newspapers with a submission deadline of Friday noon, it allowed 

staff to have notices or issues discussed at the meeting in the next edition of the paper, 

and reach our residents faster. (The need to advertise quickly can be accommodated 

by posting items of general interest on the website.) 

As noted above, there are activities currently taking place in the evening in Thomas Hall 

which, depending on the night of the Council meetings, can be accommodated on other 

nights, or possibly at the Thedford Village Complex. 

The hall is not currently used on Tuesday nights or Thursday nights and meetings could 

be accommodated easily on either of those nights, if that was the decision of Council. 

Designated Meeting Location: 

For consistency, it would also be advantageous for Council to consider making the 

Legacy Centre the designated meeting facility for the Municipality. Meetings of the Fire 

Board, Accessibility Committee, and Committee of Adjustment could all take place at 

the Legacy Centre which would reduce the amount of staff time required for hall set up 

and tear down at other locations, and would ensure that all meetings are held at an 

accessible location. 


Carol McKenzie 

Clerk 

157


BY-LAW NUMBER 22 of 2013 

A By-law of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

to confirm the proceedings of Council which were adopted 

up to and including March 4, 2013 

WHEREAS: 

It has been expedient that from time to time, the Council of the 

Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores should act by 

resolution of Council; 

AND WHEREAS: 

It is deemed advisable that all such actions that have been adopted by 

a resolution of the Council be authorized by By-law; 

THEREFORE: 

The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Lambton Shores 

enacts as follows; 

THAT all actions of Council which have been authorized by a resolution of the Council and 

adopted in open Council and accepted by Council up to and including March 4, 2013 be 

hereby confirmed; and 

THAT the Mayor and the proper officials of the Municipality of Lambton Shores are hereby 

authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the approved actions or to 

obtain approvals where required, and to execute all documents as may be necessary in that 

behalf and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the Corporate Seal to all such 

documents. 

THAT any pecuniary interest declared during any Council meeting or Committee meeting is 

deemed to be in force and the same as though repeated in this by-law; 

THAT THIS BY-LAW is read a FIRST, SECOND and THIRD time and finally passed March 

4, 2013 

_________________________ 


_________________________ 


158



TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



January 2013 Cheque Listing 


That the Municipal cheque listing for the month of January, 

2013 in the amount of $1,697,031.47 be accepted as 

presented. 

REPORT 

This report accompanies the January Cheque listing for Lambton Shores in the amount 

of $1,697,031.47. Department Heads and Area Managers are responsible for 

approving all purchases and payments. 

This listing resembles a typical level of monthly expenditures. Although the amounts 

are paid in January there may be some costs that are attributed to 2012 and have been 

accounted for in the proper manner. This listing also includes some of the work started 

for the 2013 budget year as approved by Council – such as the Community Grants. 

If there are any specific questions that you may have, myself or the pertinent 

Department Head would be pleased to provide clarification. 



Treasurer 

159


January Cheque Register 

2013 

DATE CHQ # VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 

1/3/2013 36182 CAROL MCKENZIE Expense report - December $172.61 

1/4/2013 36183 A.G. HAYTER CONTRACTING LTD. Drain mtce & Jericho Rd culvert $18,424.65 

1/4/2013 36184 AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL LIMForest Main St. vibration, Morris St. $2,877.67 

1/4/2013 36185 BEDELL'S FROZEN FOODS LTD. Canteen supplies - both arenas $2,780.38 

1/4/2013 36186 BLACK & MCDONALD LIMITED Equipment repair - Shores $9,864.58 

1/4/2013 36187 BLUEJAY IRRIGATION North end meter changeout $152.50 

1/4/2013 36188 BLUEWATER RECYCLING ASSOC Dec co-collections & blue boxes $24,043.91 

1/4/2013 36189 BMA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING INC. Municipal competitiveness study $1,695.00 

1/4/2013 36190 CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF FIRE C 2013 Membership - GB FD $287.02 

1/4/2013 36191 BARRY R CARD Legal fees -general, bldg code, zoning $5,796.12 

1/4/2013 36192 CELERITY COMMUNICATIONS LTD Supplies - PW & Thed FD $1,213.67 

1/4/2013 36193 CITY TREASURER - LONDON Purchase of water - Nov 2012 $36,813.94 

1/4/2013 36194 HARVEY COLLINS Canteen supplies- Forest arena $128.13 

1/4/2013 36195 CORPORATE EXPRESS CANADA INC.Office supplies - GB & Forest $657.91 

1/4/2013 36196 COUNTRY CORNERS RENT ALL INC. Equipment rental - CS $1,538.44 

1/4/2013 36197 FRANK COWAN COMPANY LTD. Deductible billing $7,229.38 

1/4/2013 36198 C.T. ENVIRONMENTAL LTD. Road inspections $2,267.06 

1/4/2013 36199 C.U.P.E. Union dues - January $945.37 

1/4/2013 36200 DUDMAN LIMITED Fuel - CS, bldg & Forest FD $3,408.89 

1/4/2013 36201 FIRESERVICE MANAGEMENT LTD Bunker gear cleaning & repair - Thed FD $363.09 

1/4/2013 36202 FOREST FOODLAND Staff Christmas $1,280.86 

1/4/2013 36203 GOERTZ ELECTRIC LTD Drain mtce, Civic Square, Shores $3,551.71 

1/4/2013 36204 GORDON RUTH & COMPANY LIMITEDSound system - Legacy $271.20 

1/4/2013 36205 HOME HARDWARE BUILDING CENTRESupplies - CS $117.00 

1/4/2013 36206 GREEN SHIELD CANADA Employee benefits - January $10,484.91 

1/4/2013 36207 STEPHEN GUAY Fire inspections $412.76 

1/4/2013 36208 RYAN GUAY Fire inspections $160.00 

1/4/2013 36209 H.E. ZAVITZ ELECTRICAL & HEATI Equipment repair - Shores arena $1,230.42 

1/4/2013 36210 HARRY'S SPRING SERVICE LTD Parts - CS $228.60 

1/4/2013 36211 HELEN HAYTER NV Office cleaning - December $300.00 

1/4/2013 36212 HAYTER-WALDEN PUBLICATIONS December advertising $933.04 

1/4/2013 36213 CHRISTINE HLADKI Arkona CC cleaning - December $268.75 

1/4/2013 36214 HOLLAND CLEANING SOLUTIONS LTDFacility/cleaning supplies $1,990.65 

1/4/2013 36215 HURONIA WELDING & INDUSTRIAL SAnnual supplies contract - NV FD $120.00 

1/4/2013 36216 HURON TRACTOR LTD Parts - CS $224.88 

1/4/2013 36217 IMPERIAL COFFEE AND SERVICES I Supplies - CS & both arenas $993.64 

1/4/2013 36218 J & L HENDERSON LIMITED Drain mtce $16,475.57 

1/4/2013 36219 LAVIS CONTRACTING CO. LIMITED Road mtce materials $1,497.25 

1/4/2013 36220 HILARY LEAN Part time help - Admin office $283.50 

1/4/2013 36221 BOB MAGEE PLUMBING GB Beach House fixture replacement $17,024.58 

1/4/2013 36222 PAUL MARTIN Work boot allowance & licence renewal $285.00 

1/4/2013 36223 MCKENZIE & HENDERSON LTD Supplies - Arkona FD $101.64 

1/4/2013 36224 THE MEARIE GROUP Regular monthly remittance $424.73 

1/4/2013 36225 MINISTRY OF FINANCE Regular EHT remittance $4,233.07 

1/4/2013 36226 MINISTER OF FINANCE Regulated remittance $309.93 

1/4/2013 36227 M & L SUPPLY Materials & supplies - Forest, Thed & NV FD's $6,089.82 

1/4/2013 36228 OFFICE CENTRAL NV Office supplies $1,283.77 

1/4/2013 36229 ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION 2013 Membership $1,141.92 

1/4/2013 36230 OLD DUTCH FOODS LTD Canteen supplies - Shores $106.51 

1/4/2013 36231 OMEGA CONTRACTORS INC. Morris Street $141,711.73 

1/4/2013 36232 OMERS Regular monthly remittance $32,753.02 

Page 1 of 6 160



2013 


1/4/2013 36233 OMI CANADA INC. Out of scope - October $6,082.23 

1/4/2013 36234 PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP (CANADA) Canteen supplies - Legacy $858.52 

1/4/2013 36235 SAFEDESIGN APPAREL LTD Bunker gear - Forest FD $1,566.22 

1/4/2013 36236 SARNIA TRUCK CENTRE Vehicle repair - CS $170.88 

1/4/2013 36237 SCOTT PETRIE LLP Legal fees - Beach O'Pines $649.66 

1/4/2013 36238 SENTRY FIRE PROTECTION SERVICEFire extinguisher parts & service $174.99 

1/4/2013 36239 VICKI SHEPPARD Forest & GB Office cleaning $130.00 

1/4/2013 36240 WAYNE STUBBS Dec wtr mtr reads & Jan retainer $2,436.45 

1/4/2013 36241 SUNMEDIA December advertising $649.98 

1/4/2013 36242 SWISH MAINTENANCE LIMITED Facility/cleaning supplies $545.45 

1/4/2013 36243 THAMES COMMUNICATIONS Radio equipment - Forest FD $642.91 

1/4/2013 36244 EXETER TIMES ADVOCATE Oct/Nov advertising $1,130.00 

1/4/2013 36245 TRI- COUNTY TREE SERVICE Tree removal - GB $847.50 

1/4/2013 36246 MARTIN UNDERWOOD Meeting mileage $99.90 

1/4/2013 36247 VANGORP WELDING & FABRICATINGEquipment repair - CS $6,567.07 

1/4/2013 36248 VAN VALKENBURG JEWELLERS INC. Engraving - Forest FD $122.04 

1/4/2013 36249 VERMEER CANADA INC. Parts - CS $178.79 

1/4/2013 36250 WATER TRAX INC. 2013 membership $6,149.74 

1/4/2013 36251 WEST COAST DISTRIBUTING Canteen supplies - both arenas $1,195.18 

1/4/2013 36252 WORK EQUIPMENT LTD Parts - CS $274.90 

1/4/2013 36253 WSIB Regular monthly remittance $5,303.42 

1/4/2013 36254 ZAMBONI COMPANY LTD Parts - CS $515.26 

1/4/2013 36255 DIAMOND MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS 2013 Treasury Software Support Agreement $5,926.85 

1/4/2013 36256 PITNEY BOWES Postage machine leases - all offices $3,077.53 

1/4/2013 36257 LARRY TAYLOR Mileage - GB FD $73.26 


1/9/2013 36259 DEBBIE BRESSETTE Refund rental damage deposit $206.00 

1/9/2013 36260 CRAWFORD SECURITY N. By-Law contract $3,646.44 


1/9/2013 36262 MUNICIPAL RISK SERVICES LIMITE Council workshop $179.67 

1/9/2013 36263 PETTY CASH/ROBERTA BRANDON Replenish pettycash - Forest Office $98.03 

1/9/2013 36264 PETTY CASH/CARRIE SNELL Replenish pettycash - GB Office $70.44 

1/9/2013 36265 RECEIVER GENERAL Regular payroll remittance $35,906.66 

1/9/2013 36266 COREY TURK Work boot allowance $225.62 

1/9/2013 36267 GERALD VAN GRINSVEN Work boot allowance $128.12 

1/9/2013 36268 DON WELTEN Building inspections $420.00 


1/9/2013 36270 MINISTER OF FINANCE Filing fee $40.00 

1/10/2013 36271 ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ROAD SUCertification renewal - CS $197.75 

1/10/2013 36272 CANPAR TRANSPORT L.P. Courier services - all offices $121.35 

1/10/2013 36273 CARILLION CANADA INC Winter road mtce - GB & Forest $9,220.25 

1/10/2013 36274 CASE 'N DRUM OIL LP Shop supplies - CS $1,601.97 

1/10/2013 36275 CEDAR SIGNS Signs $203.40 

1/10/2013 36276 COUNTY OF LAMBTON-POA Parking - quarterly court fees $45.00 

1/10/2013 36277 COUNTY OF LAMBTON 911 & planning signs & prosecutorial services $648.25 

1/10/2013 36278 C.T. ENVIRONMENTAL LTD. Flushing - Nelson & Pearl $2,919.64 

1/10/2013 36279 D.CULBERT LTD. Morenz Lane, Pearl St., Ravenswood, Allen St. $5,445.39 

1/10/2013 36280 FOREST AUTOMOTIVE & SPORTS LTDMaterials & supplies - CS $1,417.23 

1/10/2013 36281 GRAND BEND OPTIMIST CLUB Refund Nevada Licence $350.00 

1/10/2013 36282 IDEAL SUPPLY COMPANY LTD Lighting supplies $2,659.52 

1/10/2013 36283 LIGHTNING EQUIPMENT SALES INC. Vehicle parts - NV FD $556.53 




2013 


1/10/2013 36284 MCCANN REDI-MIX INC Ditch cleaning $16,560.15 

1/10/2013 36285 MECHANICAL ADVERTISING Signs $212.78 

1/10/2013 36286 MICROAGE BASICS Office supplies - GB $118.65 

1/10/2013 36287 MINISTER OF FINANCE/TRANSPORT.Parking - court costs - Oct - Dec 2012 $783.75 

1/10/2013 36288 MITOI WORKS INC. Final contract - PF Harbour dredging $3,766.66 

1/10/2013 36289 MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATIO2013 Membership $101.70 

1/10/2013 36290 NELLA CUTLERY (HAMILTON) INC. Equipment mtce - Forest arena $122.04 

1/10/2013 36291 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL WATER ASSOCI2013 Membership $666.70 

1/10/2013 36292 PARKS AND RECREATION ONTARIO 2013 Membership $1,635.00 

1/10/2013 36293 PRINCESS AUTO Supplies - CS $248.72 

1/10/2013 36294 PROUTS BUILDING CENTRE Materials & supplies - CS & Forest Library $6,394.10 

1/10/2013 36295 RED DOG SERVICES Thedford Library roof repair $904.00 

1/10/2013 36296 RILEY MANUFACTURING Supplies - Forest arena $2,129.49 

1/10/2013 36297 RSD AUTHENTICS Engraving - GB FD $74.58 

1/10/2013 36298 SCOTT PETRIE LLP Beach O'Pines $3,818.84 

1/10/2013 36299 SIFTO CANADA CORP. Bulk hwy salt $19,157.39 

1/10/2013 36300 SISLER ELECTRIC INC. Arkona Seniors,Legacy kitchen,NV generator $3,053.56 

1/10/2013 36301 EVAN SMITHRIM Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

1/10/2013 36302 SPRIET ASSOCIATES Pearl St. reconstruction $5,869.89 

1/10/2013 36303 STOKES INTERNATIONAL Supplies - Forest FD $978.02 


1/10/2013 36305 MC GEE JACKIE Refund balance of water deposit $40.68 

1/10/2013 36306 VITALAIRE Supplies - Thedford FD $129.16 

1/10/2013 36307 ZAMBONI COMPANY LTD Equipment repair parts - Forest arena $708.00 

1/14/2013 36308 CIBC Visa - all managers $6,911.93 

1/14/2013 36309 MAC KENZIE DAVID ALEXANDER Refund partial planning deposit $7,500.00 

1/17/2013 36310 1714715 ONTARIO INC. - O/A J.D WiFi access point - GB, NV, Thedford $352.29 

1/17/2013 36311 ARKONA FIREMAN'S ASSOCIATION 2012 Annual Team building $1,053.00 

1/17/2013 36312 ARMTEC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Drain & road mtce supplies $1,146.55 

1/17/2013 36313 B.M. ROSS & ASSOCIATES LTD Ridge Rd bridge,Mun Bldg,Morenz,wtr quality $30,645.29 

1/17/2013 36314 BDO DUNWOODY 2012 Fiscal year $791.00 

1/17/2013 36315 PETER BECKER Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

1/17/2013 36316 BEDELL'S FROZEN FOODS LTD. Canteen supplies - both arenas $3,119.30 

1/17/2013 36317 BLUEWATER FORD SALES LTD Vehicle service - CS $375.56 

1/17/2013 36318 BORE FENCE LTD. Coverall $17,204.25 

1/17/2013 36319 CANADIAN TIRE CORPORATION Supplies - CS $152.76 

1/17/2013 36320 CANADIAN WATER AND WASTEWATER 2013 membership $349.31 

1/17/2013 36321 CAN FUELS Fuel - Arkona FD $91.02 

1/17/2013 36322 CELERITY COMMUNICATIONS LTD Communications expense - Forest & Thed FD's $485.90 

1/17/2013 36323 CINTAS, THE UNIFORM PEOPLE Uniforms & supplies - CS $3,728.09 

1/17/2013 36324 CLEAN HARBOURS CANADA INC. Waste disposal - Forest FD $1,805.74 

1/17/2013 36325 CMC 016 SARNIA Sponsor Canadian Motorcycle Cruisers Rally $1,000.00 

1/17/2013 36326 HARVEY COLLINS Canteen supplies - Forest arena $128.13 

1/17/2013 36327 COUNTRY MARKET Fuel - GB FD $184.00 

1/17/2013 36328 DASHWOOD LOCK AND KEY Lock repairs $338.72 

1/17/2013 36329 BILL DAVIES Drain mtce $310.00 

1/17/2013 36330 DAVE MOORE FUELS Fuel - CS $3,643.61 

1/17/2013 36331 JACQUELINE DOLAN PFCC cleaning - December $367.50 

1/17/2013 36332 DUDMAN LIMITED Boiler service, fuel - CS,bldg & Forest FD $8,709.97 

1/17/2013 36333 ELECTRIC CRAYON GRAPHIC & WEB2013 Forest coupon book $1,130.00 

1/17/2013 36334 DALE ELLIOTT Council name badge $44.00 




2013 


1/17/2013 36335 MR. IAN FLEMING Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

1/17/2013 36336 FOREST AUTOMOTIVE & SPORTS LTDVehicle repair parts - CS $362.72 

1/17/2013 36337 GRAND BEND FIRE DEPT. ASSOCIAT2012 Annual Team building $1,330.59 

1/17/2013 36338 HOME HARDWARE BUILDING CENTRESupplies - CS & GB FD $117.29 

1/17/2013 36339 HAYTER-WALDEN PUBLICATIONS December advertising $554.80 

1/17/2013 36340 HENDRIX RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT &Equipment - PFCC $1,089.32 

1/17/2013 36341 IMPERIAL COFFEE AND SERVICES I Coffee supplies - Forest arena & CS $181.78 

1/17/2013 36342 INGERSOLL RAND Forest PCP Compressor $268.65 

1/17/2013 36343 J & L HENDERSON LIMITED Drain mtce $17,989.17 

1/17/2013 36344 MR. BRUCE JACKSON Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

1/17/2013 36345 KAN FUELS Fuel - CS & Thed FD $236.01 


1/17/2013 36347 ALLIE MASON Part time help - Admin office $661.50 

1/17/2013 36348 MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS' AS 2013 membership renewal $327.70 

1/17/2013 36349 M & L SUPPLY Supplies - Forest, NV & Thedford FD's $3,379.30 

1/17/2013 36350 MUNICIPAL RISK SERVICES LIMITE Training - CS $179.67 

1/17/2013 36351 NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGY GROUP North end meter changeout $101,545.43 

1/17/2013 36352 OMEGA CONTRACTORS INC. Release of HB - Morris Street $23,906.09 

1/17/2013 36353 OMI CANADA INC. 2012 Lead testing,out of scope-Nov & Jan agree $132,143.99 

1/17/2013 36354 ONTARIO TAX SALES INC. Tax sale proceedings $762.75 

1/17/2013 36355 ORKIN CANADA Pest control - various facilities $429.40 

1/17/2013 36356 PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP (CANADA) Canteen supplies - both arenas $2,031.24 

1/17/2013 36357 POLE PRINTING INC Leisure guides & GB office supplies $5,342.08 

1/17/2013 36358 PRO ABLE SERVICES INC. Lock - PF Harbour $458.78 

1/17/2013 36359 PROUTS BUILDING CENTRE Supplies - CS & Forest FD $139.39 

1/17/2013 36360 SHANNON PROUT Mileage - December $145.42 

1/17/2013 36361 R.PROUT & SON LTD Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

1/17/2013 36362 RAWLINGS AUSABLE BRIDGE INC. Vehicle service & safety - CS $3,480.24 

1/17/2013 36363 VICKI SHEPPARD GB & Forest office cleaning & supplies $293.62 

1/17/2013 36364 SPORT SYSTEMS UNLIMITED CORP. Equipment - Thedford arena $740.15 

1/17/2013 36365 STRATHROY MONUMENTS LTD Supplies - Cemetery $183.06 

1/17/2013 36366 TABOR JAMIE Training mileage - NV FD $61.05 

1/17/2013 36367 UTC FIRE & SECURITY CANADA Fire alarm repair - Legacy & 2013 monitoring CC $2,496.74 

1/17/2013 36368 VAN BREE DRAINAGE AND BULLDOZIPC # 3 & HB Release Sercombe Drain $60,589.06 

1/17/2013 36369 DON WELTEN Building inspections & mileage - Jan $535.99 

1/17/2013 36370 WEST COAST DISTRIBUTING Canteen supplies - both arenas $2,811.37 

1/17/2013 36371 WESTERN FIRE PROTECTION INC. Fire protection demo -Thed FD & equ service-CS $528.28 

1/17/2013 36372 DOUG WILCOCKS Vehicle mtce - Nov & Dec $1,550.93 

1/17/2013 36373 MUNICIPAL IT SERVICES IT,LAN, equipment $5,070.31 

1/24/2013 36374 CRAWFORD SECURITY N. By-Law contract $3,646.44 

1/24/2013 36375 GLENN C BELL S. By-Law contract $5,000.00 

1/17/2013 36376 PITNEY WORKS Postage - all offices $5,650.00 

1/17/2013 36377 SOCAN Copyright fees - Legacy & Shores $654.00 

1/17/2013 36378 VOID 

1/17/2013 36379 SISKINDS HR Legal $10,747.71 

1/24/2013 36380 ARKONA RECREATION COMMITTEE 2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36381 CENTRE IPPERWASH COMMUNITY ASS 2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36382 FOREST & DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36383 FOREST CANADA DAY COMMITTEE 2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36384 FOREST GARDEN CLUB 2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36385 FOREST LAWN BOWLING CLUB 2013 Community Grant $700.00 




2013 


1/24/2013 36386 GRAND BEND AND AREA HORTICULTU2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36387 GRAND BEND CANADA DAY CELEBRAT 2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36388 GRAND BEND HISTORICAL WALK COM2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36389 HOME MADE JAM 2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36390 IPPERWASH AND AREA COMMUNITY 2013 P Community Grant $500.00 

1/24/2013 36391 LAMBTON 4-H ASSOCIATION 2013 Community Grant $500.00 

1/24/2013 36392 LAMBTON FARM SAFETY ASSOCIATIO2013 Community Grant $200.00 

1/24/2013 36393 LAMBTON SHORES NATURE TRAILS 2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36394 LAMBTON UNITED CHURCH CENTRE2013 Community Grant $1,000.00 

1/24/2013 36395 PORT FRANKS COMMUNITY POLICING2013 Community Grant $500.00 

1/24/2013 36396 PORT FRANKS GARDEN CLUB 2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36397 SARNIA LAMBTON REBOUND 2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36398 SUNSET CINEMA SOCIAL FILM CLUB 2013 Community Grant $400.00 

1/24/2013 36399 THEDFORD GARDEN CLUB 2013 Community Grant $2,000.00 

1/24/2013 36400 GRAND BEND WINTER CARNIVAL INC2013 Community Grant & application fee refund $2,035.00 

1/24/2013 36401 AMCTO 2013 Membership fees $824.90 

1/24/2013 36402 AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL LIMPort Franks & Decker Rd $7,648.77 

1/24/2013 36403 ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES 2013 Membership $4,898.76 

1/24/2013 36404 BURNARD CONSTRUCTION Arkona Sewage Pump roof $4,802.50 

1/24/2013 36405 CJ LANDSCAPING & TREE SERVICE Compost grinding $8,814.00 

1/24/2013 36406 COPE CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT Release of HB - Asphalt paving $19,834.97 

1/24/2013 36407 COUNTY OF LAMBTON CACC fire dispatch 2012 & winter salt $5,210.16 

1/24/2013 36408 FOREST COMMUNITY THEATRE 2013 Community Grant & application fee refund $2,035.00 

1/24/2013 36409 GRAND BEND OPTIMIST CLUB 2013 Community Grant & deposit refund $2,266.85 

1/24/2013 36410 GRAND BEND RONA Supplies - CS $32.82 

1/24/2013 36411 IMPERIAL COFFEE AND SERVICES I Canteen supplies - both arenas $844.86 

1/24/2013 36412 J & L HENDERSON LIMITED Drain mtce & road culvert $45,054.70 

1/24/2013 36413 LAMBTON GROUP POLICE SERVICESRegular monthly remittance $277,451.92 

1/24/2013 36414 LAMBTON COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASS2012 Association dues - all fire depts $555.00 

1/24/2013 36415 MIKE MCKELLAR Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

1/24/2013 36416 MECHANICAL ADVERTISING Signs $7,837.82 

1/24/2013 36417 MINISTER OF FINANCE Ontario Gazette advertising $169.50 


1/24/2013 36419 JOEL MOLOY LTD Ditching & drain mtce $15,650.55 

1/24/2013 36420 MONTEITH & SUTHERLAND LTD Engineering - preparation of plan $3,013.71 

1/24/2013 36421 MUNICIPAL EMPLOYER PENSION CEN2013 Employee municipal contribution $237.30 

1/24/2013 36422 MR. SUSHIL NAKHWAL Final inspection security bond refund $1,750.00 

1/24/2013 36423 ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CEMETER2013 membership fee $198.31 

1/24/2013 36424 PARIS EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURINGTrails - benches $2,508.60 

1/24/2013 36425 PBS BUSINESS SYSTEMS Office supplies - GB Office $3,802.85 

1/24/2013 36426 POCKELE & ASSOCIATES INC. H & S Consulting $248.32 

1/24/2013 36427 PRAXAIR Supplies - CS $532.18 

1/24/2013 36428 PRO DRAINAGE Drain construction $1,522.17 

1/24/2013 36429 RFS CANADA Copier leases - all offices $2,098.41 

1/24/2013 36430 RICOH CANADA INC Photocopies - July - Nov - all offices $2,927.54 

1/24/2013 36431 DON RIVERS AUTO SERVICE Vehicle service & fuel - NV FD $401.44 

1/24/2013 36432 SENTRY FIRE PROTECTION SERVICEFire extinguisher parts & service $101.47 

1/24/2013 36433 STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. GB STP Review $19,386.96 


1/24/2013 36435 MR. TIM SWEET Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

1/24/2013 36436 THAMES COMMUNICATIONS Annual airtime,pager & radio mtce - all FD's $9,219.51 




2013 


1/24/2013 36437 THEDFORD SPIRIT CLUB Refund event application fee $35.00 

1/24/2013 36438 V.B. SAND & GRAVEL LTD. Winter sand $10,335.71 

1/24/2013 36439 BILL WEBER Meeting mileage $67.17 

1/24/2013 36440 YMCA OF SARNIA-LAMBTON Association services January $4,750.00 

1/24/2013 36441 ZAVITZ GENERAL STORE Supplies - Forest office & Thed FD $84.55 

1/24/2013 36442 RES-Q-TECH SYSTEMS INC. Bunker gear - GB FD $6,959.67 


1/25/2013 36444 RECEIVER GENERAL Regular payroll remittance $36,053.59 

1/31/2013 36445 SCOTT ALLEN Training - GB FD $220.00 

1/31/2013 36446 CONFIDENTIAL 

1/31/2013 36447 FRANK COWAN COMPANY LTD. Insurance deductible billing $1,141.65 

1/31/2013 36448 DILLON CONSULTING GBPS2 Capacity review, Woodside,Johnstone $3,976.71 

1/31/2013 36449 ENGELENBERG FARMS LTD Final inspection security bond refund $3,250.00 

1/31/2013 36450 ERAMOSA ENGINEERING INC. Maintenance contract $827.59 

1/31/2013 36451 FOREST CURLING & SOCIAL CLUB Flow through donation $14,175.00 

1/31/2013 36452 MS. TINA GOODHAND Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

1/31/2013 36453 HELEN HAYTER NV Office cleaning - January $375.00 

1/31/2013 36454 CHRISTINE HLADKI Arkona CC cleaning - January $268.75 


1/31/2013 36456 MACPHERSON'S RESTAURANT COA appreciation dinner $179.66 

1/31/2013 36457 ALLIE MASON Part time help - Admin office $283.50 

1/31/2013 36458 TODD MELLIN Training & mileage - GB FD $325.46 

1/31/2013 36459 JESSIE MOLOY Work boot allowance $146.89 

1/31/2013 36460 PITNEY WORKS Postage - all offices $9,040.00 

1/31/2013 36461 RECEIVER GENERAL Regular remittance $1,485.33 

1/31/2013 36462 MR. ORVAL REID Final inspection security bond refund $750.00 

1/31/2013 36463 VICKI SHEPPARD GB & Forest office cleaning $260.00 

1/31/2013 36464 TOWN OF TILLSONBURG Mayors Coalition membership 2013 $1,000.00 

1/31/2013 36465 VANENGELEN DAIRY FARMS Final inspection security bond refund $1,750.00 

1/31/2013 36466 DON WELTEN Building inspections & mileage $737.25 

1/31/2013 36467 BRYAN WILLSIE Mileage - NV FD $64.38 

1/31/2013 36468 MRS. DALE WILSON Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

1/31/2013 36469 ELIZABETH DAVIS-DAGG Expense report - Nov/Dec $105.26 

1/31/2013 36470 DRAINAGE SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOC 2013 membership dues $175.00 

1/31/2013 36471 HYDRO ONE NETWORKS Monthly remittance (reimbursed) $177.16 

1/31/2013 36472 MEDWAY HOMES INC Final inspection security bond refund $250.00 

1/31/2013 36473 DERYCK WALDEN, BARRISTER & SOLFinal inspection security bond refund $1,750.00 

1/31/2013 36474 MUNICIPAL IT SERVICES IT,LAN, replacement parts $3,219.37 

1/31/2013 PAP EASTLINK PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $152.35 

1/31/2013 PAP EXECULINK TELECOM PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $1,611.57 

1/31/2013 PAP HAY COMMUNICATIONS PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $220.17 

1/31/2013 PAP HYDRO ONE NETWORKS PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $46,040.04 

1/31/2013 PAP RBC (Paytickets) PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $3.39 

1/31/2013 PAP RELIANCE HOME COMFORT PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $439.80 

1/31/2013 PAP ROGERS AT & T PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $1,400.11 

1/31/2013 PAP SSQ PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $8,062.07 

1/31/2013 PAP UNION GAS PRE-AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS $9,333.18 

TOTAL $1,697,031.47 


Notice of Motion: March 4, 2013 

Moved by: 

Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg 

Seconded by: 

MOVED that council direct staff to arrange for the advertising and promotion of a goods 

exchange day (or “Free Day”) where residents place reusable materials curbside for one day 

and other residents can freely take them. The municipality will not pay for the disposal of left 

over items but it will provide contact information for companies that do. This event will take 

place the Saturday after the town-wide yard sale in Forest or as determined by staff and 

council. 

166

Notice of Motion: March 4, 2013 

Moved by: 

Councillor Maguire 

That council directs staff to research an appropriate protocol for dealing with graffiti on 

public and private property, and include in the report the possibility of restricting the sale 

of spray paint to youth under the age of 18. 

167

Notice of Motion: March 4 

Moved by: 

Councillor Bonesteel 

That staff determines the most effective and efficient manner with which to poll Lambton 

Shores’ residents to determine the importance that residents place on the proposed 

wind farm projects intended for this municipality and identify concerns that residents 

have with regards to these projects. Upon approval of the proposed methodology, the 

results should be brought back to council by June 3, 2013 for consideration. 

168

Notice of Motion: February 25, 2013 

Moved by: 

Councillor Underwood 

Seconded by: 

That the planning staff prepares a guideline to be enacted based upon the example of the City 

of Kingston “Landscaping and Site Design Guidelines for Large-Scale, Ground-Oriented Solar 

Energy Facilities”. 

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

Cllr Martin Underwood. 

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Sustainable Communities 

conference Notes for Councillor Reports. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For major long term sustainable change consider a “block by block” approach to 

urban initiatives. Allows for immediate citizen feedback, buy-in, and innovation 

plus allows a municipality to create local “best practices” guideline quicker. 

FCM website has results of a nation wide infrastructure report card available on 

its website. 

Placed great importance of “integrated asset management plans” joining; finance, 

engineering, cultural need and replacement of assets. 

Showed need for the incorporation of “mixed use transportation corridors” for 

sustainable communities allowing effective movement in local areas for the 

future. 

Demonstrated a need to move towards redevelopment versus Greenfield 

development in the future. 

Trends of moving towards eating in season and also recreating in season to save 

resources. (Less ice rinks in summer more outside social sport recreation.) 

Sustainable Neighbourhoods Legal responsibilities for Municipalities with 

regards to climate change and adjusting climate effects. We know climate change 

is occurring, this means we may be held responsible for future environmental 

events by a litigious society. 

o Legal Questions will be answered. 

o Municipalities have the legal obligation to adapt. 

o Must provide good Governance. 

o There are Natural Persons Rights. 

o We provide due diligence through the use of planning and by-laws. 

 

Municipalities must work towards carbon neutrality. 

o Intentional response 

o Engage residential groups 

o Local initiatives 

o Establish a baseline 

o Have realistic options 

o ACT 

o Replicability throughout municipality 

 

 

Resident groups Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) 

o Neighbourhood skill approach 

o Intergrated Scientific Approach 

o Patient approach 

Insurance Bureau of Canada 

176

o Water issues greatest long-term threat 

o Evidence through Hydrological studies 

o Water source protection first priority 

New data suggests the planet breaths with the seasons. 

Water dramatically affects the atmosphere. 

Polar ice regulates the temperature swing. 

Jet stream has been altered. 

More severe weather events. 

Parts of the planet will be uninhabitable for parts of the year. (Southern US, where will 

those people go?) 

Since 1967 Lake Huron has lost 67 cubic Kilometres of water, where did it go? 

New discovery of “atmospheric rivers” at high altitude dumping huge amounts of water 

in localized areas in extremely short durations. 

Major risks to society identified are. 

 

 

 

 

 

Agriculture 

Insurance 

Real Estate 

Municipalities 

Marginal Peoples (climate refugees) 

Previous land planning no longer applicable for flood prone areas. Must decide what 

future parameters are. 

Lecture from Dr Florida. 

 

 

 

 

 

Amidst an economic “reset” 

Generational event 

Must restructure/reorganize communities 

Auto dependent communities are in trouble unless they identify and adjust; spatial 

patterns, retrofitting of sub-urban and urban centres, integrate transportation 

corridors, recognize the emergence of a “creative class” driving a “societal game 

changer”. 

Innovation will come from entire workforce not just a few. 

Described “3Ts” of economic innovation 

 

 

 

Technology 

Talent (become a talent magnet) 

Tolerant Society (must welcome all) 

Should consider the partnering of cities. 

177

Communities must have plan for future connection of some kind of transit. 

Briefly described community needs most important. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality of place 

Safety and Security infrastructure 

Social and Civil environment 

Open-mindedness (tolerance) 

Intolerance of all waste 

Recognition that class divide will tear our society apart 

Attempt to create sustainable jobs and create a social contract 

In short it was a worthwhile conference and experience I can heartily recommend. 

178

View - The Municipality of Lambton Shores

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?