View - The Municipality of Lambton Shores

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES
Council - Special
Meeting Number: 05-2013
Date of Meeting: Thursday, January 31, 2013
Time:
Place of Meeting:
01:00 p.m.
Village Complex, Thedford
AGENDA
Pages
1. Call to Order
2. Declaration of Pecuniary or Conflict of Internet
3. Confirmation of Minutes from Previous Meetings
3.1 Budget Council Meeting - January 10, 2013 1 - 5
4. Consideration of Staff Reports
Community Services
4.1 D.C.S. Report No. 18-2013 - Re: 2013 Phragmites Program 6 - 21
4.2 D.C.S. Report No. 19-2013 - Re: 2013 Gravel Supply and Dust
Suppression Program
4.3 D.C.S. Report No. 20-2013 - Re: Port Franks Community Centre
Pavillion Project
4.4 D.C.S. Report No. 21-2013 - Re: Grand Bend Parking Issues and
Options
4.5 D.C.S. Report No. 22-2013 - Re: Solid Waste Management -
Large Item Disposal - Educational Program
22 - 22
23 - 26
27 - 37
38 - 43
5. Opportunity for the Public to Seek Clarification
Please Note: As per By-law 37-2012, Section 15, Subsection 13 -
Questions must pertain to items on the agenda, and be for the
purpose of clarification only, and not for the purpose of making
statements.
6. Adjourn

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES
Date of Meeting: January 10, 2013
Budget Council Meeting
Members Present: Mayor Bill Weber
Deputy Mayor Elizabeth Davis-Dagg
Councillor Dave Maguire
Councillor Doug Bonesteel
Councillor Ken McRae
Councillor Martin Underwood
Councillor Doug Cook
Councillor John Russell
Staff Present:
Acting C.A.O/Treasurer Janet Ferguson
Director of Community Services Brent Kittmer
Acting Facilitator of Recreation & Leisure Shannon Prout
Project & Infrastructure Manager Jeff Wolfe
Financial Assistant Carrie Snell
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Weber called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and wished everyone a Happy
New Year.
2. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mayor Weber asked members of Council to declare any pecuniary or conflict of interest
that they may have with items on the agenda and Councillor Maguire declared conflict
with discussions regarding YMCA as his wife is now an employee and Councillor
Russell declared a conflict with the Museum and the Community Grants.
3. CONSIDERATION OF STAFF REPORTS
3.1. D.C.S. Report No 02-2012- Re: Budget Report 2013 Community Grant
Applications
Acting Facilitator of Recreation and Leisure Services Shannon Prout presented
information on the 2013 community grant request received and advised that staff had
reviewed all applications, and were making recommendations based on the municipality
policy. It was noted that several applications were submitted after the deadline and
several groups did not meet the grant eligibility requirements.
Council reviewed and discussed the applications and made
13-0110-01 Moved by: Councillor Cook
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg
1

Minutes of the January 10, 2013 Budget Council Meeting
That Council approved the 2013 Community Grant applications
requests as amended.
Carried
3.2 D.C.S. Report No. 03-2013 Re: Solid Waste Management – Large Item
Disposal – The Great Exchange Program
Further to direction from Council at the September 4, 2012, Community Services staff
has researched the various components of a “Large Item Disposal Day” and the results
were provided in D.C.S. Report No. 03-2012. Director of Community Services Brent
Kittmer provided background information on past practices in the community for large
item pick up and issues that staff has identified. Details were provided on proposed
locations, traffic issues, waste collection and disposal, waste exchange, staffing and
acceptable materials. The estimated cost for the event, based on the available
information would be $ 40,000. The risk of cost overruns, issues with environmental
legislation, and the safety of participants were also discussed.
Discussions ensued on what the residents needed, whether the location should rotate
throughout the community, possible involvement of service clubs, and opportunities to
educate and inform residents on the options for large item disposal.
13-0110-02 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg
That staff provide additional information on large item pick up –
disposal, including options to rotate the program throughout the
community, possible involvement of service clubs, participation by
local businesses and opportunities to educate and inform residents
on the options for large item disposal and that the report be
presented at the February 7, 2013 meeting
Carried
3.3 D.C.S. Report No. 06-2013 Re: PF Ice Management Emergency Dredging
Award
In D.C.S. Report No. 06-2013, Director of Community Services Brent Kittmer provided
information on the results of the tender for the emergency dredging in Port Franks;
however Mr. Kittmer noted that new information has been received and he asked if the
report could be deferred until January 14, 2013.
13-0110-03 Moved by: Councillor Underwood
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg
That D.C.S. Report No. 06-2013 Re: PF Ice Management
Emergency Dredging Award be deferred to January 14, 2013.
Carried
3.4 TR Report No. 01-2013 – Re: Draft 2013 Budget
Treasurer Janet Ferguson provided information on the first draft of the 2013 Operating
and Capital budget for the Municipality of Lambton Shores, which was prepared using
2

Minutes of the January 10, 2013 Budget Council Meeting
the direction from Council to stay within a 2% increase in expenditures over the 2012
budget.
2013 Capital Budget:
The possibility of using the former Forest Arena for the new south area depot was
discussed, and Director of Community Services Brent Kittmer noted that there are
challenges with the location as it is adjacent to a residential area and sports field, and
the consultant had concluded that it would cost the same to renovate the building as it
would to construct a new one. A further report will be forthcoming once the needs study
has been completed.
The possibility of a grant for generator for the Thedford pump station was discussed,
and it was noted that grants are not available as this is not considered an “emergency
generator”. It was also noted that the JEPP grant for the emergency generator at the
Forest Legion has been approved.
The use of the product “Dolomite” on Jericho Road in 2012 was discussed, and it was
reported that this will be the second season after application, and staff are tracking the
properties and will be reporting back prior to the 2014 budget on the possibilities for this
product.
Discussions ensued on the Ontario Street (Grand Bend) bridge railing, the policy for
sidewalk replacements, the need for accessibility ramps on Church Street, the desire to
move the Klondyke Trail project forward, and the possibility for a street light for the Oak
Street cross walk.
With respect to Recreation, the condition of the Eslie Dodge Tennis Courts was
discussed, and until repairs are completed, it was suggested that it may be best for a
“use at own risk” sign to be erected.
13-0110-04 Moved by: Councillor Russell
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg
That a report be prepared on the condition of the tennis courts at
the Eslie Dodge Conservation area with options for improvements.
Carried
A report was requested on the status of the Pavilion at the Port Franks Community
Centre, and the community support for the project. Also, a report was requested on the
possibility of having the Department of Fisheries and Oceans fund the repairs needed at
the Grand Bend Harbour, or if the harbour could be returned to the Federal Government
for redevelopment.
Questions were raised on the possibility of partners for the improvements at the Utter
Ball Park and the Klondyke Park, and after a brief discussion, an allocation of $
5,000.00 was approved for the Christmas lights in Grand Bend.
The status of the “Wayfinding Signs” was discussed, and a further update on the project
was requested.
3

Minutes of the January 10, 2013 Budget Council Meeting
With respect to the Fire Department Capital Budget, the issue of the 2014 truck
purchases was referred back to the Fire Board for discussion.
A staff report was also requested on the possibility of changes to the Thedford Village
Complex and discussed allocating $ 25,000.00 to improvement that could enhance the
building as a Council Chamber.
Council discussed improvements to the sound system at Thomas Hall, and allocated in
$10,000.00 for improvement to the Acoustical System.
13-0110-05 Moved by: Councillor Underwood
Seconded by: Councillor Bonesteel
That the 2013 Capital Budget be approved, with the changes noted
at the January 10, 2013 meeting.
Carried
Council Reports
Doug Bonesteel read an email from Lorie Scott stating that after the last meeting there
were confrontations in the parking lot and she has concern for the safety of staff and
Council and would like to hire a police officer for the meetings.
Mayor Weber asked if this was an emergent issue as it wasn’t on the agenda, and
noted that it required support from 2/3 of the member to consider the issue.
13-0110-06 Moved by: Councillor Bonesteel
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg
That the issue of the need for Police protection at Council meetings
be brought forward as an emergent issue.
Did Not Carry
Mayor Weber also noted that he will make a statement at the beginning of the meeting
about safety concern in the parking lot, and requesting those in the audience to be
respectful of the proceedings.
Clarification was requested on the interim CAO position and whether Council wanted
the position posted and to give any interested person an opportunity to submit an
application, as it had been understood that the process was to use the available
databases through the professional organizations.
13-0110-07 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg
Seconded by: Councillor McRae
That the Interim C.A.O. position be advertised on the Lambton
Shores’ website and the AMO website.
Carried
4

Minutes of the January 10, 2013 Budget Council Meeting
4. Bylaws
The by-law for the emergency dredging was deferred to the January 14 th meeting.
5. Opportunity for the Public to Seek Clarification
Jim Hanson noted that he was at the Nov 19 th 2012 meeting at The Legacy Centre and
wanted to point out that instead of spending all the money on sound systems that
Council should bring in a trainer to learn how to speak out to the public and stop
speaking to just each other. Also, he asked why are we interviewing for interim CAO
and not going through the whole process, which means we are going through the
process twice.
Lynda Rapley asked if any of the Councillors were standing outside and witnessed what
prompted the turmoil at the Dec 17, 2012 Council Meeting.
A lady in the audience suggests that the reason people are heckling is because people
need the opportunity to tell Council how they feel, and that the people just want to be
heard.
A question was raised regarding the cost for the Sound System at the Village Complex
and the Mayor said that a report would be done.
Bob Sharen asked if Lambton Shores has lifecycle reserves for all of its infrastructure.
6. Adjourn
13-0110-08 Moved by: Councillor Russell
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Davis-Dagg
That the meeting be adjourned at 4:17 p.m. Carried
5

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES
D.C.S. Report No. 18-2013 Thursday, January 24, 2013
TO:
FROM
RE:
Mayor Weber and Members of Council
Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services
2013 Phragmites Program
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report be received for Council direction.
REPORT
At the December 11, 2012 meeting Council received a delegation from the Lambton
Shores Phragmites Community Group that outlined the group’s work to date and a
request to Council that $15,000 be dedicated to the phragmites program in the 2013
municipal budget.
At the conclusion of the delegation Council passed the following motion:
12-1211-01 Moved by: Councillor Russell
Seconded by: Councillor Scott
That staff prepare a report to expedite the elimination of phragmites within
Lambton Shores and identify partners for this initiative. Carried
Staff have consulted with the Phragmites Group and the County and have prepared this
report for Consideration.
County Efforts
The County of Lambton has been proactive in mapping the occurrences of phragmites
within their road allowances and has established a good information base to develop
their program. Attachment #1 shows the results of the County’s mapping efforts. For
2013 the County has approved a program budget of $50,000 as a first phase to deal
with dense occurrences of phragmites within their road allowances. This represents
approximately 90 lane km of area, and is shown as the pink sections in the attached
map. The yellow sections of the map show the occurrences of less dense phragmites
patches, and the County plans to address these areas once the dense populations are
controlled. This may occur in 2013 if the budget allows, but is more likely to occur in
subsequent program years.
For 2013 in Lambton Shores, the County will address the dense patches of phragmites
that have been observed at the north end of Lakeshore Road near Kettle point.
6

Lambton Shores Efforts
As noted above, the Lambton Shores Phragmites Group has requested that Council
include $15,000 in the 2013 budget for the purposes of Phragmites control. The draft
operating budget has been prepared to reflect this request, and the group’s presentation
is attached to this report as a reminder of the proposed program.
In consultation with the group, staff has been provided the following breakdown of the
$15,000 request:
(a) development of a comprehensive Management Plan $7800
(b) obtaining required permits for Phragmites control $700
(c) landowner education and outreach $600
(d) coordinating all required Phragmites occurrence mapping: comments:
(this is part of the Management Plan development)
(e) leveraging additional funding (i.e. grant/funding proposal writing) $1080
(f) coordinating and overseeing implementation of Phragmites control $1800
(g) assessing program efficacy (ie. pre and post control assessments and
report)
$3020
After consultation with the Lambton Shores Phragmites Group the plan for the 2013
municipal program is to focus efforts on Ward 4 to develop a pilot to then be expanded
to all of Lambton Shores once a refined program has been created.
On December 11, 2012 staff, the Lambton Shores Phragmites Community Group, and
County representatives met to discuss a collaborative approach to phragmites control.
From Lambton Shores’ perspective the discussion focused on taking the “bitesized
chunks” approach, where we concentrate our efforts to a smaller geographical area to
build and refine a program before it is implemented on a municipality wide basis. The
rationale for the focus on Ward 4 is that we know Ward 4 has a high concentration of
the plant, and the County is performing work in the Ward in 2013. The purpose of the
program would be as a pilot to see if a combined approach between two levels of
government (upper and lower tier) could produce strong results in managing the plant.
What is not included in the $15,000 request outlined above is the cost to control
occurrences of phragmites within the municipal road allowances. Developing a budget
estimate for control is difficult at this time because Lambton Shores has not yet
performed any mapping in the affected area. Attachment #2 to this report shows the
municipal roads that are located within Ward 4. “Green” roads are municipally owned
roads, and these represent a total of 82 lane km of road allowance. These locations
would be the focus of any necessary control efforts for phragmites that occur on
municipal property, and a conservative budget for control efforts of $5,000 is
recommended bringing the total budget allocation for the phragmites program in 2013 to
$20,000. The “Blue” roads are privately owned 7 and the municipal program would not

address these locations. Depending upon the timing for completing mapping efforts the
municipality may be able to partner with the County for control efforts to gain an
economy of scale.
What is not addressed above is control efforts that focus on the occurrences of
phragmites located within municipal drains. Municipal drains are considered a conduit
for the spread of phragmites, and controlling populations in drains is an important step
to limit spreading of the plant. At this point in time there is not any mapping that exists to
determine the level of control efforts required for municipal drains, and the plan for 2013
to map these areas. However, the budget above does not include remuneration for time
spent mapping municipal drains, and any funding needed to extend efforts in this area
would be in addition to the current request. A possibility to accomplish this is for the
municipality to hire a summer student, which was part of Community Services staffing
plan already.
Once mapping is completed, the level of maintenance and control in municipal drains
would need to be determined. It is not expected that there will be any control efforts in
2013 as there is a significant amount of ground to cover to map the drains. Once it is
time for control efforts in the drains, under the Drainage Act the municipality has the
right to initiate work of this nature in the drain if the plant is restricting flow, and the costs
are recoverable from the assessment to the drain. This is a proactive approach that may
cause some concern from property owners in the assessment area as they would be
expected to directly pay for the control efforts.
Conclusion
Should Council be supportive of the 2013 phragmites program, staff recommends that
Council increase the budget allocation to $20,000 to include the costs of control efforts
within the municipal road allowance. This is a large sum of money to be directed to the
program and to protect the public interest, and the use of public funds, staff further
recommends that Council include in their resolution a requirement that all costs funded
from this budget allocation are to be approved by the appropriate departmental staff
prior to that expense being incurred.
If Council wishes to extent phragmites control efforts to municipal drains as a proactive
approach, staff requests that direction by resolution so that the property owners may be
informed.
Respectfully submitted,
Brent Kittmer, P.Eng.
Director of Community Services
Attachments:
1. Map of County areas of effort in 2013
2. Map of municipal roads located in Ward 4
3. Lambton Shores Phragmites Community Group December 11, 2012 presentation
to Council
8

40
Bingo
Creek
John
Baseline
West Ward
West Pointe
River
Chief's
Smith
Bridge
Emily
St. Clair
Main
St. Clair
West Smith
Virgil
Ward
Fane
Greenfield
River
Hill
French
40
Vidal
Unknown
40
Fort
Tashmoo
40
Pointe
White
Holt
Scott
Ladysmith
Wilkesport
Trella
Grant
Whitebread
Louisa
Brock
Degurse
40
Daly
Duthill
Exmouth
Devine
Imperial
Unknown
Maria
Indian Creek
Calahan
Lecaron
Stanley
Tulloch
West River
Indian
Errol
Rosedale
Wellington
Tecumseh
Shepley
2012 Phragmites Assessment On
Lambton County Road Allowance
Burr
Tecumseh
East River
Legend
Concentrated Phragmites Growth
Sporadic Phragmites Growth
County Roads
Local Roads
Provincial Roads
Administrative Boundaries
McGregor
Baby
Mill
Unknown
Bentpath
Smith
Kimball
Cathcart
Lambton
Modeland
Confederation
Gladwish
Moore
Rokeby
Waubuno
Blackwell
Bickford
Black Creek
Kerr
Pretty
Clarence
Airport
Kent
Telfer
Telfer
Plank
Charlemont
Michigan
Jackson
Marshall
Bridgen
Brigden
Burman
Brigden
Jane
Old Lakeshore
London
Waterworks
Stanley
McCallum
Kerr
Mandaumin
Lakeshore
Mandaumin
Dawn Valley
Fairweather
Cuthbert
O'Brien
Fairweather
Kent
Plowing Match
Robinson
King
Queen
Fleming
Plowing Match
Kettle
Unknown
Marthaville
Hyslop
Camlachie
Edys Mills
Langbank
Irish School
Caroline
Tramway
Maude
Tile Yard
Esterville
4
Tank
Bluepoint
MacFarlane
Kerrigan
Aberarder
First
South Plank
Aberfeldy
Oil Heritage
Dawn Mills
Broadway
North
Kelly
Pantry School
Gypsie Flats
Hillsboro
Minielly
Churchill
Gould
Black Ash
Huff's Corners
Douglas
Blue Heron
South Plympton
Elmsley
Wright
Durham Creek
Aniline
Lakeside
Hilltop
Glendale
Fisher
Wanstead
Hale School
Hubbard
Uttoxeter
Leyton
Oakdale
Oak
Dolmage
Brush
Stewardson
Naylor
Mawlam
Lake
Franks
Centre
Wood
Fuller
Park
Forest
McAuslan
Florence
Middle
King
Inwood
Proof
Cedar Point
Rawlings
Chalk
Weidman
Mill
Shetland
Fansher
East Parkway
Elarton
Salt
Kingscourt
Townsend
Sutorville
Mosside
Burr
Davis
Ipperwash
Kinnaird
Bilton
Egremont
Kerry
Little Ireland
Army Camp
Hickory Creek
Warwick Village
Bethesda
Campbell
Smith Falls
Dobbyn
First School
Ebenezer
Shiloh
Courtright
Oil Springs
Cox
Annett
Downie
Thomson
Ridge
Jericho
Outer
Bruce Scott
Ravenswood
Petticoat
Bush
Jura
Birnam
Brick Yard
Bethel
Underpass
La Salle
Petrolia
Fields
Aughrim
Cairo
Old Walnut
Sydney
Elliott
Northville
Nauvoo
Johnston
Euphemia
Nipigon
Zion
Erie
Hilly
Willsie
Brooke
McCready
Sitter
Railroad
Decker
Gordon
Quaker
402
White Pine
Cameron
Bog
Farmers
Tamarack
Short
Argyll
Sydenham
Walker
Widder
Watterworth
Limerick
Arkona
Hardy Creek
Goosemarsh
Haig
Kennedy
Ferne Huron
Main
9
Oil Heritage
Unknown
Michigan
Oakdale
Oakdale
Indian
Churchill
Fansher
Kennedy
River
Fansher
Gordon
Philip
Peak of Mosa
Junction
Lazy
Ann
Walker
Main
Rock Glen
Wisbeach
Donnelly
Pinery
Salem
Gully Mor
Blain
River
Sexton
Calvert
Meters
0 4,375 8,750 17,500
Klondyke
Parkview
Ontario
Oak
Bridge

To:
Municipality of Lambton Shores
Subject: Phragmites Management Plan
Date: November 26, 2012
Report by: Karen Alexander, Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
Nancy Vidler, Lambton Shores Phragmites Working Group
Attachments:
1. The Challenge
2. LSPWG Progress to Date
3. Potential Choice for Option 1
4. Municipal Services Program
Recommendation:
Karen Alexander and Nancy Vilder recommend…..
….that…..the Municipality of Lambton Shores takes advantage of this unique opportunity to become a
leader in the province by supporting a coordinated, comprehensive approach to Phragmites control
throughout the entire Municipality of Lambton Shores. This program will enable the Municipality to
leverage various funding sources in support of this program.
Options:
1. Hire an experience project coordinator to work with Municipal staff to coordinate
Phragmites Management which will include (a) preparing a comprehensive Management
Plan, (b) obtaining required permits for Phragmites control, (c) landowner education and
outreach (d) coordinating all required Phragmites occurrence mapping, (e) leveraging
additional funding, and (d) coordinating and overseeing implementation of Phragmites
control, (e) assessing program efficacy
2. Assign specific Municipal Staff/Department to coordinate Phragmites Management which
will include (a) preparing a comprehensive Management Plan, (b) obtaining required
permits for Phragmites control, (c) landowner education and outreach (d) coordinating all
required Phragmites occurrence mapping, (e) leveraging additional funding, and (d)
coordinating and overseeing implementation of Phragmites control, (e) assessing program
efficacy
3. Hire, or assign, existing Municipal Staff/Department to coordinate Phragmites control
exclusively on Municipal properties, including ditches.
4. Status quo
1
11

Attachment 1: The Challenge
Phragmites australis (Common reed / Phragmites) is considered to be the most aggressive invasive
species of marsh ecosystems in North America and Canada’s worst invasive plant. First observed in the
late 1970’s in wetlands and ditches in the St. Clair region this robust grass is now established in most
Lake Erie and Huron wetlands and is getting a foot hold in Lake Superior coastal habitats. It is also a
common site along Ontario’s major highways and secondary roads which act as spread vectors.
The Lambton Shores Phragmites Working Group (LSPWG) is composed of dedicated people with an
interest in working together to facilitate effective management of invasive Phragmites in Lambton
Shores. This volunteer initiative is aimed at reducing the current threats posed by this aggressive
invasive plant to biodiversity and Species at Risk (SAR) through habitat protection and restoration.
Specific goals focus on facilitation of education, information sharing and investigation and pursuit of
effective management options.
To date, partnerships have been formed in order to initiate Phragmites control within the Municipality.
Nancy Vidler, chair of the LSPWG, has been attempting to coordinate a regional approach to controlling
this invasive species. Karen Alexander from The Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation (LHCCC),
has provided educational and information resources. Janice Gilbert, wetland ecologist, has been
assessing and mapping Phragmites along the shoreline and ditches of several major roads and has been
managing the Phragmites control program at Kettle Point.
The progress of this partnership has been positive and encouraging. Landowners impacted by
Phragmites have been delighted to hear of a developing program within the Municipality that will help
to control this regional problem. Many landowners have been struggling with Phragmites issues for a
number of years and are frustrated with the challenges involved in its control. Some landowners have
been employing environmentally destructive and counterproductive management techniques. Many
are using valuable financial resources on these ineffective actions and have stated they are willing to
contribute to a Municipal program.
Lambton Shores has a very unique situation in that there is a list of stakeholders involved in land
ownership and management, including private landowners, Nature Conservancy Canada, Conservation
Authority, First Nation Reserves, Provincial Parks, Municipal parks and beaches, Provincial properties
and Crown Land. The challenge is that some of these groups are implementing control projects, while
others lack resources and others still are unsure of how to deal with Phragmites or are unwilling to
invest in control measures without a comprehensive effort. As a result, to date control and
management of Phragmites has been implemented in a fragmented, uncoordinated way. The
Municipality could provide a critical leadership role to coordinate a comprehensive, effective, and
efficient Phragmites management strategy for both short and long term success.
12
2

Attachment 2: Progress Report
Lambton Shores Phragmites Community Group
Noticed Phragmites on the Port Franks beach in 2009
Homeowners Association applied for a Letter of Opinion from the Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) and received approval to begin habitat restoration September 2010
Presented to Municipal Council in March 2011 asking for support in managing
Phragmites in Lambton Shores
Coordinated a demonstration project on Mosquito Island with the Ausable Bayfield
Conservation Authority (ABCA)
Partnered with the Municipality of Lambton Shores (MLS) and ABCA in organizing a
Community Information Night August 2011
Coordinated barges, work crews and volunteers
Presented to council; approval to extend the beach project to Mud Creek/Sunfish Bay
Partnered with Nature Conservancy Canada (NCC), MLS, ABCA and private landowners
to continue restoration in L Lake and Watson property
Communicated with property owners to obtain necessary sign offs and permission forms
Become the LAMBTON SHORES PHRAGMITES COMMUNITY GROUP Spring 2012
Identified Phragmites in Grand Bend and assisted in coordinating restoration work
Recommended hiring Dr. Janice Gilbert to complete site assessments and create a 5
year plan for Lambton Shores
Organized a second Community Information Session September 2012
Worked with the ABCA in completing a grant application to the Great Lakes Guardian
Community Fund; other grant applications include the Invasive Species Council, Cottage
Life magazine
Met with local MPP and MP to educate and promote Phragmites management
New Projects
Providing ongoing education and support to communities west of Port Franks
(Cedarview Beach, Lake Valley Grove/Sunnidale, Ipperwash, Lambton Centre)
3
13

Creating partnerships with St. Clair Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of
Natural Resources to obtain support in restoration projects involving their properties
Drawing on the expertise of the Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation to assist
camp program directors create habitat restoration program for youth (this will strengthen
grant applications)
Developing a “pilot” training workshop for municipal employees with the Ontario
Phragmites Working Group
AND
Continue Phragmites monitoring, touch up and restoration work
14
4

Attachment 3: Potential Choice for Option 1
There are few people in the Province with enough experience to provide the recommended services for
the Municipality. Three extremely knowledgeable professionals have already been engaged in
Phragmites issues in Lambton Shores: Nancy Vidler, Karen Alexander and Janice Gilbert. This “Trio” are
available for hire should the Municipality select option 1.
Costs for services are estimated to be in the range of approximately $47,950, if the Municipality elects
to participate in the LHCCC Municipal Services Program. As non-members, costs are estimated to be
closer to $58,550 (see Municipal Services Program attachment).
Karen Alexander, B.A., E.R.G.C.
Nancy Vilder
Outreach and Education Coordinator
Chair
Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
Lambton Shores Phragmites Working Group
226-421-3029 519-243-2562
karen.alexander@lakehuron.on.ca
nancy.v@execulink.com
5
15

Municipal Services Program
for Lake Huron’s Coastal
Communities
The Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
16

The Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
74 Hamilton St.
Goderich, ON
N7A 1P9
(519) 523-4478
www.lakehuron.ca
Mission Statement
To provide Leadership and Expertise, in collaboration with partners, to achieve a
healthy Lake Huron coastal ecosystem.
17

Municipal
Services
Program
The Centre for Coastal Conservation has developed a municipal services
program designed for municipalities along the Lake Huron shoreline.
These services are designed to provide coastal communities with access to
expertise and information resources that are not otherwise available.
The Coastal Centre is a registered non-profit, charitable organization
dedicated to the conservation and stewardship of Lake Huron’s coastal
environment. Its volunteer Board of Directors represents a diverse group of
professionals committed to Lake Huron’s future. A Board of Technical
Advisors, made up of experts from a wide range of disciplines, assist
Centre staff as required, to find reasonable solutions to coastal problems.
The Centre has three professional staff, two with over 25 years each of
experience in coastal conservation on Lake Huron.
Funding of the Centre for the Municipal Services Program can either come
from local conservation authorities, who in turn request a levy from their
shoreline municipalities to cover their cost apportionment, or directly from
the municipality to the Centre. The benefit of having payments made
through the conservation authority is that it maintains the connection
between the Coastal Centre and the local watershed management agency.
This helps to ensure no service overlaps, better communications on issues
and maintain the connection between issues pertaining to the interior
watersheds and those along the lakeshore.
Through this financial relationship, the Centre endeavours to provide a
basic and consistent level of service at a reasonable cost to the
municipality.
18

Municipal
Services
The following services are provided to municipalities who participate in
supporting the Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation.
(Municipality directly benefits , indirectly benefits )
Technical Services
Municipality receives free technical advisory services on municipal property along
the shoreline relating to coastal environmental issues. Detailed studies or projects are
provided on a preferred client rate basis.
Municipal staff has access to coastal resource managers to consult with on local
coastal issues. The Centre has a Board of Technical Advisors with expertise in a range
of disciplines to confer on issues that fall beyond the scope of staff resources.
Communications Services
The Centre regularly tracks water levels on Lake Huron and updates participating
municipalities as requested.
Each member of Council receives copy of the Centre’s annual Year in Review
summary of projects and activities of the Centre.
The Centre produces a monthly email-based newsletter highlighting a topic of
interest along the coastal environment, and identifying Centre news and events.
The Centre’s web site provides a forum for communicating information about coastal
conservation, and allows the user to have ready access to the Centre and information
pertinent to Lake Huron.
The Centre conducts regular media interviews on issues affecting the coastal
environment.
Land Use Planning Services
The Centre has professional planners who have an extensive knowledge of Ontario’s
Great Lakes hazards and natural heritage policies. Municipalities updating their Official
Plan’s and Zoning Bylaws are required to conform to the new County Official Plans and
Provincial Policies. The Centre can provide preliminary guidance to municipalities
through this service package. Detailed involvement in the process can be arranged, at
a preferred client rate, as required.
19

Information Services
The Centre conducts research on emerging issues, like climate change, and its
impact on lake levels and local coastal communities. Currently we are researching
control techniques for the invasive plant species Phragmites australis which has
invaded area beaches, and is threatening local ecosystems. We have conducted
workshops on developing control programs.
The Centre promotes and supports local Lake Huron research by universities along
Lake Huron. The Centre has worked with the School of Landscape Architecture,
University of Guelph on two coastal projects, and we will be participating on a study with
Western University on groundwater flow at beaches. We have also been involved in
climate change research involving Lake Huron coastal communities with researchers
from University of Waterloo.
The Centre participates as a Technical Advisor to the Lake Huron Dune Grasslands
Recovery Team, a group of government, academic, private consultant and nongovernment
organization scientists and resource managers interested in protecting
dunes and species at risk.
The Centre is a member of Coastal Zone Canada Association, the Canadian
Coastal Science and Engineering Association, Living Lakes Canada and the
International Association of Great Lakes Researchers.
The Centre hosts local workshops and conferences to discuss current
environmental issues affecting Lake Huron. The Centre’s biennial “Is the Coast Clear?”
conference has been held in Goderich, Port Franks, Port Elgin and Grand Bend. Over
200 delegates consisting primarily of local landowners and municipal councillors
attended the conference in 2008 in Port Elgin. In 2009 and 2011, the Centre hosted a
one-day conference in Midland, Ontario entitled “Caring for Our Beaches”.
The Web site (www.lakehuron.ca) is updated regularly with information on coastal
related issues affecting Lake Huron municipalities. The site is accessed by both
permanent landowners and seasonal residents, in addition to researchers, funding
partners, and others who share a concern for Lake Huron.
Community Stewardship Services
The Centre has initiated a number of special projects where the municipality has
shown a specific need. For example, the Town of Saugeen Shores required assistance
in conserving their waterfront resources. A project was developed by the Centre to
provide guidance to municipal staff. Such projects are funded separately from this
municipal service package at a preferred client rate, although the Centre has had some
success in acquiring outside funding to assist in project implementation.
20

The Centre has developed a ‘Beach Care Toolkit’ for coastal landowners. The kit
contains a wide range of stewardship resources to help landowners become better
caretakers of our coastal areas.
Numerous stewardship projects along the shoreline related to sand dune
rehabilitation have been completed with technical assistance provided by the Centre.
The Centre assisted in developing, and promoting the use of, the Lake Huron
Stewardship Guide for Coastal Residents, and has developed a stewardship program
called the “Green Ribbon Beach” program to recognize community groups doing
positive stewardship work along our coast.
The Centre participates on the Great Lakes Jury of the international Blue Flag
program, and as such, assists municipalities along Lake Huron develop resources for
compliance to the program.
The Centre is involved with coastal science education with youth. It has developed
two education resource curriculum kits for schools on coastal science, as well as
summer ‘Coastal Day Camp’ resources to assist municipalities in implementing the Blue
Flag program.
21

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES
D.C.S. Report No. 19-2013 Wednesday, January 16, 2013
TO:
FROM
RE:
Mayor Weber and Members of Council
Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services
2013 Gravel Supply and Dust Suppression Program
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council provides pre-budget authorization to staff to
tender the annual gravel supply and dust suppression
contracts.
REPORT
This report requests authorization from Council to tender the annual gravel supply and
dust suppression contracts.
Policy #20a outlines the value of expenditures that are permitted each year prior to
budget approval to ensure the continued operation of municipal services. The policy
states:
Before the current year’s budget has been approved, if necessary, individual
department are authorized:
-To purchase those goods and services required to maintain the program
provided that the total expended does not exceed 50% of the previous
year’s budget. The 50% limit may only be exceeded with the approval of
Council.
To ensure a successful gravel supply and dust suppression program for rural roads in
2013 staff is requesting approval to tender these contracts prior to budget approval. In
2012 the tenders for these services did not close until March 12, and as a result the
municipality was placed as a later priority for the supply services. This resulted in a later
gravel application, and an immediate application of dust suppressant. This is not the
ideal process as it is preferable for gravel application to be completed 2-4 weeks prior to
the application of dust suppressant
The 2013 operating budget is presented with $193,800 for the gravel supply contract
and $76,000 for the dust suppressant contract.
Respectfully submitted,
Brent Kittmer, P.Eng.
Director of Community Services
22

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES
D.C.S. Report No. 20-2013 Wednesday, January 16, 2013
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor Minielly and Members of Council
Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services
Port Franks Community Centre Pavilion Project
RECOMMENDATION:
For Council review and direction.
REPORT
At the January 10, 2013 budget meeting Council directed staff to prepare a report
regarding the Port Franks Pavilion project for additional information regarding the
pavilion design proposal.
Report number DCS 52-2009 was presented at the August 4, 2009 meeting of
Council and is attached to this report. DCS 52-2009 outlines the history of the project,
and provides information respecting a design draft that was submitted for the project.
This design draft is still applicable for 2013, and the key points of the design are as
follows:
Wooden framed open concept building constructed on concrete footings with a
concrete pad, steel clad roofing and drainage.
The dimensions of the building are 70’x40’.
No washroom facilities.
Based upon these requirements a project budget was put forward of approximately
$86,900.00 (not including contingency or taxes) based on the cost per square foot to
construct this type of building. That cost estimate is reflected in the 2013 capital
budget. The draft design of the Pavilion is attached to this report.
The Port Franks Optimist Club has previously committed $10,000 toward this project
(see letter attached), and at the time of considering DCS 52-2009 Lambton Shores
had committed $25,000 to the project. As a result of the cost estimate that staff had
provided for the project, the sitting Council passed the following motion:
09-0804-08 Moved by: Councillor Simpson
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Jamieson
That the Port Franks Community Centre Pavilion Project be deferred, and
referred to the 2010 budget discussions.
Carried
23

The minutes of the August 4, 2009 minute provide the following rationale for the
motion:
“It was discussed that it would be prudent to defer the project to the 2010
budget, which would allow more time for fundraising for the project.”
When preparing this report staff consulted with Councillor Scott who is also a Port
Franks Optimist member. Councillor Scott confirmed that the financial contribution
from the Club still stands, and they are prepared to commit $10,000 to this project. In
addition, the Municipality has also received a donation of $500 from the Port Franks
Homeowner’s Association. Councillor Scott also confirmed that the Opitimist Club is
planning additional fundraising efforts in 2013.
Councillor Scott noted that as a part of the original project concept the Optimist Club
envisioned that during the winter time the pavilion could be converted to a covered
skating rink. To do this, the concrete slab could be constructed with the necessary
cooling tubes and connected to a compressor, of the proposed rink could be naturally
cooled. The estimated 2013 cost of constructing a 40’x70’ cooled slab is $140,000
(with all necessary equipment and thermal insulation), and this value is not reflected
in the project budget. Due to this high capital cost, staff recommends that if the
pavilion is intended to be converted to a skating rink in the winter that it be naturally
cooled and a conventional slab on grade be used for the pavilion.
Lastly, Councillor Scott identified that a phased approach has been considered for
this project whereby the concrete slab could be constructed as a first phase, and the
Optimist would solicit the services of a charitable organization to construct the
structure of the pavilion as a second phase. For budget purposes, the cost of the first
phase construction of the concrete slab is estimated below. When preparing this
report staff contacted a concrete supplier and their recommendation is for a 6” slab
on grade.
Concrete slab formed and finished by municipal staff: $9,000
Concrete slab formed and finished by contractor: $17,500
The 2013 capital budget was presented with $87,000 for the completion of this
project, and it is staff’s intent to move forward with the work unless Council provides
alternate direction.
Respectfully submitted,
Brent Kittmer, P.Eng.
Director of Community Services
Attachments:
1. DCS 52-2009, and attachments
24

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES
D.C.S. Report No. 52-2009 Wednesday, July 22, 2009
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor Minielly and Members of Council
Peggy Van Mierlo-West, Director of Community Services
Port Franks Pavilion Community Centre Pavilion Project
RECOMMENDATION:
For Council review and direction.
REPORT
Staff was requested to draft a report to Council regarding the update of the Port
Franks Community Centre pavilion project. As a background the Port Franks
Community Centre pavilion project was originally brought to Council’s attention in
2007 when the Port Franks Optimists supplied Council with a letter of intent stating
that this group would be favorable to constructing a pavilion on the grounds of the
Port Franks hall with assistance from the Municipality.
The Municipality has allocated $25,000.00 towards this project with the assumption
that the additional funds for this project would be donated by the Optimists. To date
the Optimists have stated that they have $10,000.00 for this project. They have also
submitted a Trillium Grant application for assistance in furnishing of the pavilion with
picnic tables etc.
The Community Services Department was given a plan for the pavilion (Schedule A).
It is a similar design the structure which was constructed in 2006 at the Klondyke
Sports Park however the proposed plan for Port Franks does not include washroom
facilities.
The proposed Port Franks pavilion is a wooden framed open concept building. Other
components to the construction will include a concrete pad, steel clad roofing and
drainage. The dimensions of the building are 70’x40’. Based upon these
requirements it is our estimate that this project will be approximately $86,900.00 (not
including contingency or taxes).
Staff has also reviewed concepts such as prefabricated design. These designs are
similar to the submitted Optimist plans however are made of metal. The costs for
these buildings range from $40,000.00 -$112,000.00 and are smaller in size.
Installation of the concrete pad and underground work would be additional costs also.
The attached Schedule B depicts some of the buildings we reviewed.
25

Staff is requesting direction from Council on how to proceed with this project. As
stated earlier the estimated cost for this project was $50,000.00 based on estimates
this amount is not sufficient to cover the costs of the construction.
Respectfully submitted
Peggy Van Mierlo – West
Director of Community Services
26

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES
D.C.S. Report No. 21-2013 Friday, January 25, 2013
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor Weber and Members of Council
Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services
Grand Bend Parking Issues and Options
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report be received for Council information and
direction.
REPORT
Over the past few years a number of concerns have been brought to the attention of
Council and staff regarding congestion and parking issues in the Grand Bend area. As
one of the regions’ most popular tourist destinations, people come to enjoy our local
attractions, and the resulting parking and congestion can cause negative experiences
for visitors to this area. It is important that Lambton Shores recognize where potential
problems are and act on them to ensure that our visitors and residents can best enjoy
Grand Bend.
The completion of the Beach Enhancement and Main Street construction brought
significant changes to this area, however, it is important to recognize that regardless of
recent changes, Grand Bend is always a popular summertime destination and during
times of good weather and summer weekends the streets and parking lots will be full of
vehicles and pedestrians enjoying our community.
While it is a nice problem to be dealing with an over abundance of people (and vehicles)
in a tourist area, it is still very important to review ways to improve the Grand Bend
experience for visitors, businesses, and residents. The Municipality has invested a great
deal in upgrading the area assets and it is imperative that they are being used
effectively.
Feedback from many sources has focused on a few common issues within the current
parking system in Grand Bend. This report looks at the more common problem areas
and provides possible solutions. The recommendations are given as a starting point to
resolve these specific problems but also provide some bigger picture solutions to
hopefully improve the effectiveness of the parking system in Grand Bend.
With this in mind this report aims to focus on two main goals:
1. Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our existing Parking Areas and
Infrastructure by offering readily available and accessible information to users of
the parking areas
2. Identify potential capital projects that increase the capacity of parking in Grand
Bend. (It should be noted that this 27 report focuses on the possible capital works

that have been suggested to improve parking. The next phase of the program
would be a review of the current “on street” parking in the Village.)
We believe it is prudent to review the existing setup and recognize what changes can
be made to optimize the use of our assets. When the existing parking system operate
as effectively as possible, it will then allows for a true objective look at the need for
capital projects to expand parking capacity or projects that reduce traffic congestion.
Some recurring issues have been raised are discussed in the following paragraphs –
Please note this is not intended to be an exhaustive list but an overview of the most
common issues based on feedback received from different sources (visitors, residents,
businesses) within the Community. Discussing these issues brings forward a number of
common themes that help to produce ideas for solutions at the end of this report.
Main Street
The implementation of the new pay parking on Main Street and the results of the Main
Street reconstruction project have generally worked well and garnered positive reviews.
However, based on feedback received from residents, visitors, and businesses and
feedback from Municipal bylaw enforcement and other staff, there are still some issues
to be worked out. There are still many people who park on the Main Street who are
unaware that it is paid parking. Additionally there are complaints that even the people
who are aware of the paid parking on Main Street cannot easily locate where to pay for
their parking. Vegetation growth from the Main Streetscaping Project has begun to
compound the problem by creating visual obstacles to current signage and pay and
display parking machines.
The Community Services Department understands these concerns and the frustration
that this causes. Improving signage along Main Street is needed to clearly communicate
that this area is pay and display parking and direct users to the pay and display parking
machines. A strategy is provided in the recommendations section of this report to
address this issue.
The hours during which paid parking is in effect on the Main Street have also been a
regularly voiced concern. It has been proposed that having paid parking begin later in
the afternoon before the really busy period starts will help businesses by encouraging
more local people to take advantage of longer free parking hours. The Community
Services Department understands this idea and the reason for it, however, it is really
not a parking capacity or congestion concern and is not covered in this report.
River Road
River Road contains a group of businesses, the municipally run harbour, the Grand
Bend Yacht Club, and an access to the South Beach. During busy periods, weekends
and holidays, the area becomes congested with traffic and there is very little available
parking. This leads to frustration from visitors, local residents, businesses, and boaters.
Essentially people are free to park as they wish within the existing areas designated for
parking. The only restrictions in place are that trailers are prohibited from some areas
and there is no overnight (2am-6am) parking. Bylaw enforcement focuses on ensuring
that vehicles are parked in a way that does not impede traffic. For many boat trailers
28

this has been a problem due to the little amount of space available to park their trailers
without impeding traffic.
We presently believe the biggest issue on River Road has to do with insufficient
markings, signage, and barriers to direct vehicles to properly park. We believe with
additional markings there will be more space available for parking and congestion
during busy periods will be reduced. Additionally improved signage indicated parking
areas on River Road as well as other areas that are available to park will help to direct
people accordingly.
There has been some discussion about introducing paid parking or timed parking on
River Road. The thought is that this would reduce demand for the limited space in the
area and offer incentives for people to park in less demand areas such as the Municipal
Lot (Legion) or Gill Road Lot. Pay parking on River Road however does present many
questions that would need to be decided before implementation:
- Do seasonal Marina users get free parking passes?
- Do the businesses get passes?
- Do we implement a similar system as Main Street?
- What about Alberta Street and Orchard Street and any impact into Southcott
Pines as people search out new areas to park for free?
At this point there are many issues that would need to be decided before implementing
a pay system on River Road and these decisions need to be made with an interest
towards fairness in comparison to the rules on Main Street. Although introducing paid
parking is the most direct way to reduce congestion and parking demand on River
Road, it would be prudent to observe the results of other recommendations before this
step is taken (i.e. this would represent a second phase to the parking improvement
plan). There is a fairness issue for beachgoers using the South Beach for free parking
instead of the North Main Beach while taking up parking that could otherwise be used
for Marina or Business customers. This is a problem that would be solved with paid
parking but brings up the other questions as discussed above.
The private businesses on River Road have also voiced concerns that parking is not
available for their patrons during busy periods due to a combination of boaters and
south beach goers taking up parking spaces for long stretches during the days. There is
a possibility of designating a number of spots for each business but that brings up
issues of enforcement and fairness (other Businesses in Grand Bend do not have this).
Again, paid parking or timed parking would provide incentive for persons to park
elsewhere and reduce demand in the area.
It can be seen that at the very least improved signage as part of the overall sign
strategy would provide greater direction and information to users. Potentially paving
gravel areas and upgrading markings and barriers would provide a more orderly and
efficient parking arrangement which would result in greater amounts of vehicles being
able to park and remove some of the confusion that can happen during peak times. The
introduction of paid parking is certainly a possibility but requires thorough thought before
implementing. There are also potential capital works that would increase the area
available for parking by means of excavating out some of the green space immediately
beside the road. There are no immediate 29 options to expand the amount of space for

parking in this area. Due to this, the focus of the Community Services is on maximizing
the effectiveness of the available space and better promoting areas that are
underutilized.
81 Crescent
81 Crescent is a one way street from Main Street East to Gill Road. It has angle parking
on the west side of the street and parallel parking on the east. Because the street has a
surface width to allow two directions of traffic it has been proposed that each side have
angle parking from the start of Sauble Road to Gill Road. Staff reviewed the site and
took measurements to determine the suitability of angle parking on both sides. The road
asphalt surface stretches across virtually the entire road allowance making it very
accommodating for parking while still maintaining traffic flow. Staff recommends
maintaining a minimum 6.0m open traffic lane for traffic flow, truck access, and fire
access. With the 6m minimum width shown and a 0.5m buffer on each side the
proposed sketch below shows a potential setup preferred by Community Services Staff.
Closer to Sauble Road the surface area of the road is slightly smaller than the Gill Road
side which does not work with the measurements we’re proposing. We believe that it
would be feasible to introduce angle parking in entirety on both sides of the street
however it is thought that a measured approach to introduce this parking in phases
would be more prudent in order gradually introduce these changes. From a financial
perspective the cost of these changes is relatively small and adjustments could be
made quickly as warranted. The proposed set up is illustrated below showing the
resulting traffic lane and new angle parking spaces. The proposal as shown would add
eight new spaces to 81 Crescent (accessible spaces would increase from one to two).
Current Parking Lots
The Municipality has done a good job of acquiring and developing parking areas in
Grand Bend in key areas. Maximizing the benefit of these parking areas is a key to
30
reducing parking issues in Grand Bend. Many visitors and businesses complain that

people have a difficult time finding these areas and that once they are in these lots have
difficulty finding somewhere to pay for their parking. As part of the Signage Strategy
outlined below we believe that increasing the visibility of these parking lots will improve
use and make it easier for visitors to find and pay for parking.
On good weather weekends and holidays the Beach Lot, North Beach Lot, Mid Town,
and King Street lots are regularly at capacity. The Ontario Lot, Municipal Lot (Legion),
and Gill Road Lot are often underutilized. To combat this we believe implementation of
the signage strategy would improve visibility of the underutilized lots and create more
room at the busier lots.
Expanding the available parking areas is also a possibility. Land purchase and lot
development could be undertaken but is a very costly undertaking. It is potentially
possible to expand the Midtown (Eilber) Lot by another 10 spaces by removing the out
of date playground equipment. A cost for this is provided in the solutions summary.
Private persons can develop their own parking lots through the planning and parking
and/or parking lot permit process. Whether or not private persons or businesses create
private parking lots is dependent on market forces. Whether or not council wishes to
offer incentives or encourage this type of business in Grand Bend is a question of policy
and should be addressed strategically by Council. It is always possible to work out
rental or lease arrangements with private property owners to develop more parking
areas but is difficult to project the potential availability of willing partners or the costs of
such arrangements.
Pedestrian Safety
Pedestrian Safety is a concern during busy periods as all different types of traffic
converge in Grand Bend. As part of the 2013 capital budget Council has approved the
installation of two new Pedestrian crossings across Ontario Street (Highway 21). The
Community Services department is working to have these installed and completed
before the 2013 summer season. These two installations will help to improve safety for
pedestrians in Grand Bend.
Options for Solutions
Based on the common themes a number of potential solutions have been identified that
the Community Services Department believes would immediately improve the Grand
Bend Parking System.
1. Signage Strategy
A common theme is the need to improve signage and information about parking to
users. We believe it would be beneficial to implement signage in a uniform and
standardized manner, something akin to branding, in order to simplify communication
for staff, residents, and visitors alike. This would allow everyone to speak the same
language when discussing parking.
31

This approach will allow uniform symbols and literature to describe the parking system
as a whole. The first level of signage is the parking lot way finders and identifiers that
make it simple for people to identify and find lots to park and to recognize how and
where to pay once on site. In the following examples ‘Pay’ parking areas are defined by
blue signage and ‘free’ parking areas defined by green signage.
Figure 1 – Sample ‘Branded’ Parking Signs in Different Applications
The second level of signage is placement of area maps throughout the village where
people can find their location on a map and relate their position to the Grand Bend area
and Parking amenities. The second level signage samples are provided below. The
markings on these signs follow the ‘branding’ theme by using similar fonts and symbols
to illustrate locations of parking.
32

Figure 2 – Grand Bend Area Parking Sample Map Sign
33

Figure 3 – Main Street Pay and Display Sample Map Sign
Production and installation of the signage strategy is estimated as $20,000 for the entire
Grand Bend Area.
Community Services staff have created these sample signage as an example for this
report. We recommend that input be sought from interested parties before this signage
is purchased. We believe that this signage strategy will eliminate many complaints of
people being unaware of paid parking, how to find different lots, and locations of
machines for payment.
2. Website and Electronic Information
In an increasingly online world it is clear that many people rely on the internet and
mobile devices in order to find information. Lambton Shores already has a page on the
Municipal website dedicated to parking with some information available about locations,
costs, and times, applicable to visitors in Grand Bend. We believe that in order to
maximize the potential of this site we should improve the information available on the
site to match the uniform branding of the Signage Strategy. The signage samples
provided previously make use of QR codes that automically link to the current Municipal
parking site. The Municipal website can be updated with maps and information
matching the a new Signage Strategy in order to simplify things for visitors. Once a
person enters Grand Bend the signage directing them to parking areas would already
be familiar to them from visiting the Municipal website.
The following QR Code leads to:
http://www.lambtonshores.ca/living/municipalservices/parking.
34

Figure 4 – Active QR Code to Municipal Parking Information
Updating the information on the website can be done with staff time. There is no direct
capital expense with this work.
3. River Road
The signage strategy would apply to and include River Road with the placement of the
area map and available parking spaces. This information would help direct traffic to
other lots and provide information about the parking system as a whole.
Paving and marking all of the existing parking gravel areas (shown below) has an
estimated cost of $97,200. It is also possible to delay paving to a future year and mark
the existing gravel surface during the busy seasons as an interim measure. This would
result in higher operational and paint material costs on an annual basis but also allows
time for adjusting the layout of permanent markings until all issues are worked out. As
part of new pavement/ground markings the existing bylaw signage needs to be updated
to delineate parking areas based on suitable use. Additional bollards are also required
to direct vehicles accordingly. These costs can be covered in the appropriate line item in
the Community Services Operating Budget in the interim or as part of the capital project
for a future paving project.
4. Parking Area on River Road
To create more room for boating related parking it is possible to eliminate a portion of
the green space on the south side of river road. Excavation to the south side of Lake
Road into the green space (shown below) and construction of a retaining wall has an
estimated cost of $125,000. This is given as an option but would necessitate removal of
the ‘Grand Bend’ shrub.
35

Figure 5 – River Road Excavation Option
5. 81 Crescent
Implementing a new area of angle parking on 81 Crescent will immediate add eight new
spaces. This option has minor Capital Costs and can be completed within existing Line
Painting and signage items within the Community Services Operating Budget.
6. Midtown Lot Expansion
Expanding this parking lot into the existing green space would include removal of the
existing playground equipment, construction of a granular base, asphalt surfacing. This
cost is estimated as $50,000 to expand the parking lot as shown below. This would
create approximately 10-16 new parking spaces and also leave a smaller portion of
green space.
36

Figure 6- Midtown Lot Expansion
Longer Range Items
The options presented above represent short and medium term projects with smaller
(comparatively) expense. There are longer term projects available that would provide
major impacts to the Grand Bend Area. Projects such as new river crossings, ring
roads, new lane configurations, etc. that are very expensive and require a great deal of
planning before implementation. These types of projects are typically implemented as a
result of a long term plan or vision. There are obvious benefits to a number of these
longer-term projects that could make a very positive impact on Grand Bend and the
Municipality as a whole. A long term vision or plan brings to light the traffic, economic
impact, or tourism studies and masterplans that identify and prioritize long term projects.
Funding
The draft budget as presented does not include funds for this project. Should Council
wish to complete this work in 2013 the capital budget will need to be amended to
include this work, or it will have to be included in and funded from the operating budget.
Respectfully submitted,
Brent Kittmer, P.Eng.
Director of Community Services
Report Prepared by Nick Verhoeven, North Area Manager
37

THE MUNICIPALITY OF LAMBTON SHORES
D.C.S. Report No. 22-2013 Friday, January 25, 2013
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor Weber and Members of Council
Brent Kittmer, Director of Community Services
Solid Waste Management – Large Item Disposal – Educational Program
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report be received for Council consideration and
direction.
REPORT
The Lambton Shores Solid Waste Management Plan (2011) reviewed the various
aspects of waste disposal services provided to the residents of Lambton Shores. There
were several recommendations made within the Management Plan that relate to large
item disposal:
Increasing public awareness of existing disposal options,
Development of a permanent transfer station in a central location of the
municipality to accommodate the collection of large items, and
Promoting the donation of gently used materials by assisting in communication
needs.
As part of the Management Plan report, a survey was sent to all residents of Lambton
Shores to gauge their opinion of the waste management services provided by the
municipality. This survey, as well as comments received during the public consultation
process for the automated curbside collection system, revealed that residents would like
to have a large item disposal option available to them.
When local government is faced with a new problem or identified service need there are
three general categories of options to consider when determining which policy
instruments to implement and when developing the program design. These include:
1. Do nothing (static response) - this policy decision is typically made due to
resource and precedent concerns; the system is self-correcting and a solution to
the policy/program will evolve naturally as a result of market forces and without
government intervention; and the problem may be outside of the scope of the
local authority’s jurisdiction.
2. Indirect response – the local authority can consider addressing the issue in an
indirect fashion by investing in information (i.e. education programs) to assist
residents with finding their own solution to a policy issue; the local authority can
38

act indirectly by providing expenditures (i.e. grants, subsidies, etc.) facilitate
residents’ self-determined solution to the policy issue; and lastly the local
authority can put into place regulations to address the policy issue to help to
correct the policy problem.
3. Direct response – the last consideration that a local authority has when
considering its policy instruments is to directly provide the service, whether
through a municipal department, or some form of third party partnership and/or
contract.
To date Lambton Shores’ approach to the large garbage policy issue has been to use
indirect policy instruments, namely an education program, and to allow market forces to
act and address the disposal issue by establishing private enterprises to deal with the
waste. Presently the municipality keeps a database of known locations and businesses
that offer these services, and provide this information to residents upon request.
Residents are required to manage large waste item disposal on their own through
arrangements with private contractors or disposal at a landfill. In the current program
the information is not actively published or advertised by the municipality, and this is
further discussed below.
For the 2013 budget Council requested that Staff consider a change to the program
whereby the municipality would begin to directly provide a large item waste program. At
the January 10, 2013 budget meeting Council received a report from staff regarding a
proposed large item collection and exchange day. The report outlined the findings of a
staff investigation and was meant to help Council determine whether a large item
collection program would fit into the 2013 operational budget. The report outlined that
the key risks with direct service provision are cost overrun, worker safety, and
compliance with environmental legislation.
The general consensus was that the collection day as proposed was too costly and staff
were directed to modify the report and determine if there were more feasible options for
dealing with the issue of large item disposal. Options for consideration are presented
below.
Re-Work “Great Exchange” Program
Staff consulted with the Bluewater Recycling Association (BRA) to determine if the
proposed collection day could be planned in such a way to reduce its overall cost.
Francis Veilleux, President of BRA, offered the following comment in regards to the
proposed collection day event:
“With respect to any suggestions I may have on the current plan, I believe if the
event is free, your costs will be over budget, If you have user pay, it is likely to kill
participation, the timelines will be inadequate to manage the amount of material
coming through.”
After further review and as outlined by BRA, the event could be modified in several
ways but the underlying issues of cost over-run, worker safety and event timeframe
inadequacies would still exist.
39

There was also discussion at the January 10, 2013 meeting regarding the possibility of
Lambton Shores hosting smaller rotating collection events in each community of the
municipality. Staff looked at this option and again consulted with BRA to determine how
it might be carried out. Although smaller, these collection days would have the same
requirement for staff to be present to manage the waste that was dropped off, and to
ensure that once the placed bins are full that no additional materials are collected and
accumulated in the area. It was determined that, while this approach would have the
benefit of being more convenient for residents, the overall costs of the program would
be similar if not more costly than the original one-day event.
Should Council wish to continue with a consideration of direct service provision staff
recommends that an upset limit for the annual budget be set to ensure that the risk of
cost overrun is managed. Staff report DCS 03-2013 presented a budget of $40,000 that
was recommended to be fixed and would thereby limit participation in the program. As
noted in that report, the 2013 draft operating budget (as presented) does not include
funds for this program, and to accommodate this program direction from Council would
be needed.
Active Educational Program Option
The current version of the draft 2013 operating budget exceeds Council’s target of a 2%
expenditure increase, and, as noted above, and funds earmarked to change this
program will further increase the gap between the draft budget and Council’s goal. As
noted, direct service provision is expected to be very costly, and as a result Council may
wish to consider an enhancement to the current indirect method of service delivery.
As an alternative to a municipally run collection and disposal program, Lambton Shores
could consider active implementation of its current educational program as outlined
below. This approach would be significantly less expensive for the municipality than
hosting a collection event, and would promote and provide increased exposure to the
existing businesses in the Lambton Shores area that provide large item re-use and
disposal options.
There are many options available for residents to donate their re-usable large items.
Likewise, there are many existing options for residents to dispose of their large item
wastes rather than have a direct service provided by the municipality. Several local
retail businesses offer exchange programs where an old item will be disposed of for free
when a new one is purchased. There are also several waste management companies
that offer a variety of roll-off bin rental options for small to large household clean-ups. As
a response to market demands, there are also several businesses that offer full service
waste management services. These companies will clean up large items right out of a
property owner`s home. These non-profit and private organizations already provide
large item re-use and disposal options for residents of Lambton Shores so it may not be
necessary for the municipality to provide a similar and duplicated effort. An educational
program that informs residents of the options already available to them might be a
better use of tax dollars.
40

Lambton Shores has several avenues of communicating with its residents and could
utilize these avenues to maximize the effectiveness of a communications program. The
following communication options could be utilized:
1. Showcase an insert in tax bills and/or water bills
2. Showcase information by placing an ad in the local news papers such as Forest
Standard and Lakeshore Advance on a quarterly basis
3. Place information on the Lambton Shores website year around
4. Place information in our weekly email
5. Place information in editions of the quarterly Living and Playing in Lambton
Shores newsletter and the weekly Living In Lambton Shores email
6. Have flyers printed for residents to pick up in the three Municipal offices
Staff undertook an investigation of local businesses and social service groups in the
Lambton Shores area to determine what programs were available locally for residents to
donate or dispose of their old large items. A draft flyer was created from the results of
this investigation and is attached as Appendix A. This is just an example of what a
communication flyer could include.
Municipal policy is that Lambton Shores does not recommend specific businesses as it
could be seen as favoritism towards certain businesses. If a business was to be missed
and was not included in the educational information it could claim that Lambton Shores
was promoting its’ competitors. As a result the educational program would need to be
designed to be dynamic so that regular updates can be made as new information
arises.
In an effort to eliminate this risk to Lambton Shores, staff contacted BRA to see if
educational material could be published through them. BRA regularly publishes and
distributes information regarding waste and recycling to residents. BRA agreed to
partner with Lambton Shores to undertake an educational program for large item
disposal. Their expertise in waste management and experience with producing similar
educational material would enhance the effectiveness of the program.
Based on the communication options presented above, quotes were received for
printing and advertising. It is estimated that a budget of $5,000 plus proportionate
administrative costs would be incurred to effectively educate residents on options that
currently exist for large item disposal. This educational program’s effectiveness could be
assessed after 2013 and could be modified or eliminated. Similar to the “Great
Exchange” proposal, these costs are not included in the 2013 budget and would need to
be an addition to the solid waste operational budget.
Next Steps
Staff respectfully requests direction from Council regarding their preferred approach to
this program proposal.
Given the budget implications of direct service provision it is staff’s recommendation
that enhancements to the current educational program be implemented, and that $5000
41

e added to the draft 2013 operating budget to complete the tasks as outlined in this
report.
Should Council wish to continue with the change in the program to a direct service
provision, staff recommends that a fixed budget be set in an effort to eliminate the risk
of cost and budget overrun.
Respectfully submitted,
Brent Kittmer, P.Eng.
Director of Community Services
Report Prepared by Jeff Wolfe, Project & Infrastructure Manager
Attachments:
1. Appendix A: Draft Educational Material
42

Appendix A – Draft Educational Material
43