Task Force Final Draft Report to Council will all public ... - Port Hope

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER TASK FORCE REPORT TO COUNCILCONTENTSExecutive Summary1) Introduction2) Land Use and Flood plain issues3) The Cameco scope of work4) The PHAI scope of work5) Illustrative Project Schedule6) Harbour and Marina Configuration7) Costs Of Restoration And Site Development8) Redevelopment Financial Summary Based on the recent information received fromCameco and PHAI, this section is no longer relevant and has been omitted.9) Future Management of the Centre Pier10) Funding strategies11) RecommendationsAPPENDICESAppendix I GRCA floodplain Modelling PlanAppendix II Illustrative Project ScheduleAppendix III Suggested Principles for Future Management of the Centre PierAppendix IV Precedent CasesAppendix - Building Plans (Deleted: No longer relevant)ReferencesGlossary of termsTask Force Members Bio’sPeople Contacted

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:In the closing days of preparing our report, the Centre Pier Task Forcereceived information from Cameco and the Port Hope Area Initiative(PHAI) making it clear that preservation of the buildings would delay andextend the clean-up project by an estimated six years and increase the costsvery significantly. Regardless of whether the time estimate is correct theextension is our main concern and even if the reality were half that time,that is still too great a burden to ask the residents of the Town to bear interms of continued adverse publicity and disruption.There are several reasons offered for the delay and extension of time:First: Based on recent data, we are told that decontamination of thebuildings for public use could take up to two and a half years to complete.This work cannot start until at the earliest 2014 and would therefore delaythe start of the harbour wall rehabilitation, LLRW soils and contaminatedharbour sediment remediation accordingly. Decontamination of a structurefor future occupancy takes far longer and costs are much higher than forsimple demolition and removal to landfill. This assertion is supported byinformation from recent comparable decontamination projects at ChalkRiver Ontario and in the UK. Compared with other non-radiologicalprojects, costs and project time for any work under Canadian NuclearSafety Commission (CNSC) licence are increased by multipliers of four orfive and an additional 30%+ for engineering and administration. This islargely due to the occupational health and safety processes and proceduresrequired for work in a licensed nuclear site.Secondly: The engineering for the harbour and Centre Pier sites has nowbeen completed by the PHAI and approvals pending from CNSC.Substantial revisions would require a year of re-engineering and furtherdelay the approvals process.Thirdly: If the buildings were to remain, much work would have to be doneto them after decontamination in order to render them structurally safe forthe soils cleanup operation and to preserve them from further damage anddeterioration over the following three years or so of LLRW clean-up. Thiswork would have to be done under the Cameco CNSC licence and the costswould be exceedingly high compared with a conventional building scenariodue to occupational health and safety processes and procedures requiredfor work in a CNSC licensed nuclear site. (See section 7)Fourthly: The LLRW cleanup would also take longer with the buildings inplace. More time would be required to remediate the soils under andaround the structures. In addition, the rehabilitation of the harbour walls

would be more complex, time-consuming and costly with the buildings inplace. As well, dredging the harbour of the contaminated sediment wouldbe more complicated and time consuming as the de-watering process wouldbe confined to a smaller available area for de-watering and staging ofmaterials/equipment needed to support the harbour remediation work.The delay in the start of the cleanup and the extension of the schedule by anumber of years, as indicated by PHAI-MO staff, would extend the socialand economic difficulties experienced by the community. The Municipalityalready faces controversies and stigma related to the LLRW in thecommunity and the future cleanup. The local economy is suffering and willcontinue to feel the negative effects in tourism, retail business activity, realestate and investment throughout the remediation project which alreadyhas a life-span of ten years.The PHAI MO were given no mandate with respect to the industrialheritage of Port Hope and do not have responsibility for the long termeconomic or space planning issues connected with a built environment onthe Centre Pier. It is not their job, they are focused on the clean-up.Although the Task Force was aware that there would be some slippage inthe schedule for the remediation of the harbour and Centre Pier and thatthere would be additional costs, the Task Force members had notanticipated the drastic increases in construction time provided recently. Itwould have taken the heat out of the debate and saved a lot of peopleconsiderable time. The first mention of a six year extension was on July15 th . Most likely this issue was not addressed simply because it was noone’sjob to do so and it was always assumed that the buildings would beremoved.The members of the Centre Pier Development Task Force were charged,among other things, with determining whether, from a developmentperspective, it was feasible for some or all of the buildings to remain on theCentre Pier and, if so, with providing logical reasons why the buildingsmight remain. This, regretfully, we now believe to not be feasible.The Task Force plunged optimistically into examination of all the issuesincluding a very detailed cost and revenue analysis to try to justify theretention of the buildings. The reality of the clean-up costs and schedulemade it clear that retention of the buildings could not be justified.Perhaps it was not all in vain because we strayed slightly outside of ourmandate to look at the Port Hope Centre Pier from a macro perspectiveand came up with the following three major findings which we feel areimportant to the future of this critically valuable site:

1.) THE MARINA AND HARBOUR DESIGN.There are very strong economic, environmental, social and planningreasons to locate the proposed marina in the inner harbour or turningbasin as it known. This will give the Centre Pier a reason for being and themarina building will serve as a nucleus on which to add further commercialand social functional spaces and will connect much more directly with thedowntown core than if it were isolated east of the Ganaraska River, muchfurther from the downtown core.Some re-cycled materials from the existing buildings could be incorporatedin the new marina building. Perhaps the wood frame and roof trusses ofbuilding 41 could be stored under cover and re-used.At the same time the harbour mouth needs to be re-designed to eliminatewave action into the harbour and alleviate the siltation problem to reduceannual dredging costs.2.) BUILDINGS ON THE PIERA built presence on the Centre Pier is essential to the long term health ofdowntown Port Hope. At the end of the PHAI clean-up, once that land isreturned to the Harbor Commission as a flat green field site with a largeberm down the middle, it is the unanimous opinion of the Task Force thatit will stay vacant. The risk management considerations of financing andinsurance engendered by the flood plain issues will be too much toovercome, certainly for private users and most likely for any level ofgovernment to consider as a site for institutional or office use. Thereforethe Municipality has to plan now for what it wants the Centre Pier to be inthe future and get PHAI to help implement that vision. Unless a there is acommitment made before the buildings are razed to replace them with newbuildings on the Centre Pier when the clean-up is done, it will not happenfor a long time, if ever.3.) COMPENSATIONWhen the decision to eliminate the Centre Pier buildings was confirmed,there must have been a large sigh of relief from PHAI and Cameco. Itrepresents a huge saving in cost and time for which there has beenabsolutely no reciprocal consideration from PHAI/Cameco. The town isbeing stripped of its irreplaceable industrial heritage under the clean-upprocess and will be left with a vacant piece of land that contributes little ornothing to the socio-economic welfare of Port Hope.The Task Force therefore proposes that it is only right and proper thatsavings from the razing of the Centre Pier industrial heritage buildings gotowards replacement of built spaces on the Pier for the reasons outlinedabove.

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCESection 1Introduction1.1 BackgroundThe Centre Pier Development Task Force was established:o To identify costs, risk and or deferred risk to the Municipality and its taxpayersassociated with future development of the Centre Pier.o Examine the restraints and associated continuing costs imposed on any Pier redevelopmentthrough the harbour and pier decontamination operation.o Clearly define various options to open the site to future development with or withoutexisting structures being retained.o The scope and mandate of the task force is confined to the Centre Pier.The work carried out by the Port Hope Branch of the ACO and Pier Group has provided thehistory of the various buildings and outlined their merit as artifacts from the industrial historyof Port Hope. The Task Force did not wish to repeat these efforts but rather acknowledge andbuild on them. The Task Force members agree that that buildings 41, 42 and 43 are ofhistorical significance and together with building 40 offer a valuable resource from aplanning viewpoint with potential economic and social benefits to the Municipality. The taskwas to examine how to make the buildings economically viable given their condition, theprospects for future use and the program of the PHAI.1.2 MethodologyThe task force has taken a macro approach to the Port Hope Centre Pier, examining a widerange of interrelated topics which define the future of this site. These include flood plain andplanning, marina location, river siltation and harbour design as well as the obviousconsiderations of economics, construction issues and the demands of the synchronisedprograms of Cameco and the PHAI. The Task Force has attempted to demonstrate the futureviability of the buildings as an integral part of Port Hope’s economy. Having taken thiseconomic approach rather than a visionary approach has led the Task Force to a series ofrecommendations within the different time spans during and following the PHAI clean-up ofthe centre pier and harbour lands. The recommendations for the Centre Pier lands andbuildings are a mixture of public and private uses and spaces with a commercial focus, moreof a campus.There are some who may question why the Task Force has not recommended “demand”studies to determine future uses. Again, the approach taken was from the “supply” side of theequation, with conservative assumptions. The Task Force believes that this approachprovides practical solutions for what will be a long term economic development opportunityfor the Municipality.The Task Force carried out their work making use of the information that already exists frommany sources, references are cited in the final section of the report. The input from technicaladvisors was invaluable, as were case studies from other localities. In addition, each of themembers of the Task Force brought their own knowledge and expertise which they willingshared.The final recommendations are a series of “next steps”, which will require the will of Counciland the Harbour Commission as well as Cameco and the PHAI to bring to fruition.

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCESection 2Land Use and Flood Plain Issues2. Land Use OptionsThe Centre Pier lands are defined as “Hazardous Lands” under the Planning Act. Specificallyprohibited are institutional uses associated with hospitals, nursing homes, pre-school, schoolnurseries, day care and schools, where there is a threat to the safe evacuation of the sick, theelderly, persons with disabilities or the young during an emergency as a result of flooding,failure of flood proofing measures or protection works, or erosion;Also prohibited are essential emergency services such as that provided by fire, police andambulance stations and electrical substations, which would be impaired during an emergencyas a result of flooding, the failure of flood proofing measures and/or protection works, and/orerosion; and uses associated with the disposal, manufacture, treatment or storage ofhazardous substancesSubject to confirmation, secondary or post secondary schools or college functionsmay be permitted.Residential uses would only be permitted if a “safe exit” could be provided,they would have to be on the second floor of the existing buildings because of the floodproofing requirements and access issues. Based on the flooding issues outlined by theConservation Authority, the Municipality would have to be willing to take on the liability ofbeing subject to claims for damage in case of a flood.Given these constraints, examination of commercial, industrial development with somerecreational uses was deemed most viable and appropriate.2.1 Port Hope Official PlanThe Centre Pier is within the Central Commercial area and connected to both the HeritageConservation District and the Downtown. The Central Commercial area shall contain a mixof uses. Enhancement to the central commercial areas is to be accomplished through theenlargement and extension of the commercial core to include the lands along the GanaraskaRiver and on the Centre Pier.In addition, the Centre Pier lands were designated as a Special Policy Area referencing theConsolidated Waterfront Master Plan approved by Council bin 2009. They may be used formarina, tourist and commercial activities. Criteria is set out in the Environmental section ofthe Official Plan pertaining to the uses that can occur within a flood plain. Depending on thelevel of flood proofing the usability of the first floor, since it would be “prone” to floodingwould need to be addressed.If required Council may also determine that a Community Improvement Plan for the CentrePier lands may be beneficial.2.2 Consolidated Waterfront Master PlanThe Municipality’s Consolidated Waterfront Master Plan (2009) identified the Centre Pier asa major focal point of the Port Hope waterfront; a centrally located green space and a passive

ecreation area. The Master Plan was a consolidation of the various plans and decisions thathad been taken for the Centre Pier up until 2009. The Centre Pier Task Force was asked tore-examine the retention of the buildings; also the recent decision regarding the deferral ofthe East Marina prompted us to look beyond the consolidated plan.2.3 Floodplain Modelling:(Refer to Appendix I GRCA floodplain Modelling Plan)The Conservation Authority has undertaken work to determine the extent and potential forflooding within the floodplain. The flood-line has been revised based on this modelling. TheCameco property is “protected” by the elevation of the Centre Pier buildings and a berm(currently the TSS) that completes the barrier. Removal of the buildings would requirereplacement of their effect on flood abatement by the construction of a berm on the CentrePier mimicking the current 80/20 split of the river flood waters.2.4 Function of the buildings as a barrier to protect CamecoThe Ganaraska River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has stated that the hydrauliccalculations for the protection of the Cameco plant require that the buildings remain orequivalent berms/barriers be constructed to a height 1 ft (0.3 m) above the projected floodlevel. (Roughly 6’ above existing mean grade).The Centre Pier is approximately 76.5 metres above sea level.Design high water level is78.12 to 77.08 metres as you move south through the property. A flood will spill for the mostpart (+/-80%) over the east side of the Pier and out into Lake Ontario just south of the marinabuilding. Approximately 20% of the river flood will spill across the north end of the CentrePier and into the inner basin. The existing buildings provide a barrier to the flooding of theinner basin and the Cameco lands to the west of the Pier. The flood barrier has to bemaintained by leaving the buildings and extending an approximate 2m or 6' berm between theexisting buildings; or if the buildings are removed the berm will need to replicate their effectto the 2 metre height along the length of the pier.In addition, to the buildings providing a barrier to protect Cameco there will also need to be aberm along the west of the turning basin to divert flooding from the River over the low areaunder the train trestles.2.5 Cameco’s Vision 2010 plans for flood proofingCameco has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment for its Vision 2010 Project. Theirplans have evolved to include a berm for flood protection of their property on the west side ofthe inner basin. The implications of this berming on the requirements for the flood protectionrequirements on the Pier would have to be evaluated.2.6 Flood proofing required for new development or alterations to the buildings:Buildings on the Pier would need to be flood proofed prior to use. Two types of floodproofing are generally considered in such situations – wet flood proofing and dry floodproofing.Wet flood proofing reduces damage to buildings from flooding by allowing flood waters toeasily enter and exit the building to minimize structural damage; use of flood resistantmaterials in areas of the building likely to be flooded; and, elevating important utilities.

Dry flood proofing attempts to make the building water tight or impermeable to flood watersto the anticipated flood height in the building.Wet flood proofing is most likely the best solution for the existing buildings.Dry flood proofing, either active or passive may be considered but would be very expensiveand intrusive to access.

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCESection 3The Cameco Scope of WorkBased on very recent information provided by Cameco and PHAI, it hasbecome clear in the final few days of assembling this report that LLRWdecontamination for future occupancy purposes rather than for demolitionand removal to the LTWMF is a far more costly and time-consumingendeavour. Information from comparable decontamination projects atChalk River and in the UK demonstrate that costs and project time aresignificantly increased by multipliers of four or five compared with nonlicensedstructures. This is due largely to the occupational health and safetyprocesses and procedures in a licensed nuclear facility as well as anaadditional burden in the order of 30% due to engineering andadministration. Based on recent experience, we are told thatdecontamination of the buildings for public use could take up to two and ahalf years versus the roughly seven months previously identified byCameco for the decontamination work required in advance of theirbuilding demolition work. This cannot start until at the earliest 2014 andwould therefore delay the start of the de-watering/harbour wallrehabilitation and LLRW soils remediation accordingly.3. Cameco Scope of WorkThe Center Pier buildings are owned by Cameco. The land under the buildings leased fromthe Municipality, by agreement with the Harbor Commission, the Municipality’s agent for theCentre Pier and inner harbour lands.The buildings are being used to store low level radioactive waste materials stored in drums.These drums will be moved to the LTWMF as soon as space is available which should be inSummer 2014.Cameco is currently under instructions from the Harbor Commission to demolish the CentrePier buildings at the end of the lease.The demolition work will include cleaning LLRW from the superstructures of the buildingsto permit disposal. The MMM Inferred Contamination chart indicates extensive traces ofLLRW under building 43. None is shown under buildings 40 and 41 because of a lack of testdata and that cleaning will be limited to removal of any dust from surfaces that may havetraces of contamination.Demolition by Cameco is assumed to be superstructure only with removal of floor slabs andfoundations and footings being executed by the PHAI.The nominal estimated cost of decontamination and demolition is now $3,100,000.

3.1 Effects on Cameco Vision 2010 ActivitiesIn the present circumstances, Cameco has been maintaining the buildings only to a “makesafe”level. However, if the buildings were to remain, a substantial amount of money wouldhave to be spent to halt further rapid deterioration and to preserve the structures until suchtime as the Municipality can regain access to the site.If the buildings were to remain, Cameco would be required to clean the buildings for publicuse, a higher standard as required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) thanwould have been required if they were to demolish them.Cameco would require CNSC approval to undertake the clean-up of the buildings for publicuse. That work would have to be completed prior to any other remediation activities on thePier, (excluding the removal of LLRW stockpile) followed by excavation and replacement ofthe top 1.5M of material on the Centre Pier by PHAI.3.2 CNSC Licenses on the Secured Area of the Centre PierThe buildings and secure area (fenced) of the Centre Pier are currently under the licenseCameco has from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) which permits thestorage of LLRW. Once the LLRW stored inside the buildings and the TSS have beenremoved to the Long Term Waste Management Facility on Baulch Road, the PHAI will beable to begin remediation on the Centre Pier under their licence from the CNSC. .This licensewill remain in place for the duration of the harbour clean-up as it involves the dewatering ofthe inner harbour, placement of geo-tubes on the Centre Pier and then removal of thedewatered sediment.After the removal of the geo-tubes and inner harbour sediment then the surface contamination(see Section 3) will be removed to either a depth of 1.5 metres or as a Risk Assessmentdictates. It is anticipated that a CNSC license will be in place on the Centre Pier lands until atleast 2021. It is only at that time that access to the Pier by others would be allowed. Thismeans that interim use of the buildings from the time that the LLRW stored in drums areremoved until the PHAI has left the site is very constrained. The only use possible would beby PHAI related activities (e.g. contractor vehicle and supply storage, etc.)

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCESection 4The PHAI Scope of WorkBased on very recent information released by Cameco and PHAI in thefinal few days of assembling this report it is now apparent that the presenceof the building radically changes project costs and more importantly, theschedule resulting in an estimated six year extension of the combinedCameco/PHAI remediation projects.(As a result, some of the following paragraphs are no longer relevant and have thereforebeen struck out.)4 PHAI Scope of WorkThe MMM reports of 2002 and 2006 plot the various inferred locations and depths ofhistorical LLRW on the Centre Pier and conclude that there is LLRW contamination in theupper metre of the soils on the Pier. The entire Centre Pier is contaminated with historicalheavy metals as well as VOC’s (Volatile Organic Compounds) in certain areas from priorindustries (e.g. Crane, Port Hope Sanitary Works).The Centre Pier has been identified as both an LLRW site requiring cleanup of the LLRW onthe site to the cleanup criteria for the PHAI and as a non-radiological industrial site to becleaned up to the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) requirements for brownfield sites.To address the LLRW, LLRW contaminated soils as well as other contamination co-mingledwith the LLRW would be removed to achieve the Project cleanup criteria.To address the non-radiological industrial contamination (including heavy metals, andVOC’s), a Risk Assessment (RA) approach has been proposed. This risk assessmentapproach is very site specific depending on the risk assessment Phase I/Phase II analysis. Theproposal to remove the top 1.5 M of material across the entire site and replace it with anequal volume of clean fill appears to be primarily driven by the requirement to remove theLLRW (anticipated to be primarily in the upper 1 metre) and the proposed upgrade to futureuse as public open space/parkland. If the site were to remain as industrial or commercial, theLLRW would need to be removed to the Project cleanup criteria for LLRW but removing afull 1.5 metres of soils would not be necessary. Any and all remediation measures specific tothe proposed use of the site must be approved by the MOETo meet the MOE requirements and by employing the “stratified” approach to remediation,the PHAI-MO has proposed removing a minimum of 1.5M of the existing soil over the entiresite and backfilling with an equal volume of clean fill. This approach requires a “RiskAssessment” (RA) to address the non-radiological contamination. This entails, among otherthings, extensive new soil testing by means of new boreholes and test pits to provide up-todatelevels of soils contamination over the entire site (including within the buildings) as wellas a Phase I/Phase II analysis. MOE typically requires soils analysis data to be recent (i.e.,within 2 years of an application).If some or all of the buildings were to remain there are two possible scenarios:.Scenario 1: would leave the floor slabs in place and a risk assessment (RA) approachwould be employed to assess what is under the slabs, what risk it presents to future occupants

ased on the type of anticipated usage and what management measures would be required bythe owner of the property in the short and long term. The management measures determinedthrough the RA process would be registered on title and run with the building(s) inperpetuity. However, this can entail long term costs due to additional safety requirementsimposed on any work below the floor slab and possibly around the foundation.Scenario 2: the floor slabs would be removed and a full 1.5M of soils removed bothinside and outside the buildings. In order to do this, the foundations would have to belaterally supported which would be extremely expensive with significant risk of seriousdamage to the structure. Protective measures may also be required to ensure worker safetyduring the remediation.To reduce risk of damage to foundations, and using the RA approach, it maybe possible to reduce the excavation depth immediately adjoining thebuildings, depending on what is found from the soil analysis and also theheight of any landscaping berms on the centre pier lands.Without such data from on site soils testing it is impossible to accurately assess thelong term risks of contamination. However, as previously noted, environmental testing isrequired within the buildings under the PHAI-MO proposed remediation strategy using thestratified RA approach being recommended for the entire centre pier site.Under the agreement with PHAI, detailed testing of the site is scheduled to proceedwithin six months of completion of Phase I of the PHAI project, Possibly as early as spring2012.Schedule and sequence of the work:(refer to Appendix II and III Preliminary Schedules with and without buildings remaining)The Long Term Waste Management Facility (LTWMF) will not be ready to acceptany material until July 2014 at the earliest.The Temporary Storage Stockpile (TSS) material on the Centre Pier will likely be among thefirst contaminated soils to be moved to the LTWMF. This may take “several months”. TheCameco LLRW (Cameco Decommissioning Waste) stored in buildings 40 and 43 may beremoved to the LTWMF during or shortly after the transfer of the TSS material. Under thePHAI-MO plans, the drums will be buried along with the TSS material which will becompacted around them to prevent future settlement.Following the removal of the Centre Pier TSS and the Cameco LLRW, and before dewateringof inner harbour dredgate, the harbour wall re-construction will be undertaken toensure that the walls are structurally stable.Attention was drawn to the no-load zone which will exist around the pier perimeter,even after the harbour wall re-construction.Based on this schedule, if the buildings were to be removed, the demolition would start in late2014 (or early 2015) after TSS removal and removal of the Cameco LLRW stored inBuildings 40 and 43 and before harbour wall construction to reinforce the existing wallsbefore dewatering of the harbour sludgeThe present TSS berm in conjunction with the Centre Pier buildings provide a flood barrierwhich is critical to the flood plain hydraulic calculations to divert flooding from the CamecoPlant. See appendix _________Ganaraska Flood Plain Elevations

Current status of the required environmental assessment (EA)The remediation work on Centre Pier and the harbour was captured under the EAdone for the PHAI which was approved in 2007. This EA was based on the assumption thatthe buildings would be demolished in accordance with instructions from the owner at thattime.Cameco has recently completed an EA for their Vision 2010 work with the buildingsbeing either retained or removed as required under the terms of their lease unless directedotherwise.Confirmation is required on whether the two EAs (PHAI and Vision 2010) adequatelyaddress the situation where the buildings are to be retained.

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCESection 5 Illustrative Project ScheduleAttached as Appendix II is a simple Gant chart for illustrative purposes only to show theapproximate sequence of events from demolition of the buildings and hand-over of licensefrom Cameco to PHAI through to completion of remediation.Please note:This schedule is for illustrative purposes only and is based purely on our conjecturebecause PHAI does not release such information for reasons of contractual security.

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCESection 6Harbour and Marina Configuration6.1 IntroductionThe existing configuration of the harbour and Centre Pier is the result of a series ofreconfigurations of the harbour over the last 200+ years. Initially the mouth of the river wasan estuary with a number of islands in what would be described as a delta formation. Thebedrock is just below the surface through the area under the railway trestles and Hayward St.The further south you go along the Centre Pier the more the bedrock drops off to a depth ofalmost 18’ at the southern end.The first settlers built piers out into the lake taking advantage of the depth to increaseshipping access and trade. With the development of the railroad additional piers and pilingswere added to carry the weight of trains such that the train tracks could be extended into theharbour. Additional fill and piling were added over time to expand the land base on which tocarry out harbour trans-shipments of lumber and other incoming and outgoing supplies.The construction of the existing centre pier to the best of our knowledge is timber cribs, thenorth end being timber cribs with a concrete cap. The sheet steel piling has been added overtime on a piece-meal basis and is not particularly founded (driven) to bedrock.6.2 PHAI Shore Wall InstallationThe PHAI is proposing to install steel sheet piling driven to bedrock at a 1 metre offset to theexisting configuration of the Centre Pier. New steel sheet piling would allow for thenecessary wave attenuation structure being installed for dredging of harbour sediment. Thesteel sheet will have rock placed at it base to create fish habitat.Any kind of cutting back into or configuring to allow for a haul-out or additional slips wouldrequire removal of some existing steel sheet piling and wood cribbing. The PHAI hasassumed that the shape of the pier will remain as is (replace existing). Any reconfiguration isbeyond the mandate set out by PHAI to its consultant team and will have to be negotiated bythe Municipality with PHAI.6.3 Inner Harbour MarinaThe September 2005 Marina Report completed by The Planning Partnership Group, Bairdand Associates & TCS Management Consultants presented various options regarding thedevelopment of the proposed Marina. The “Options” Report presented four options for thedevelopment of the proposed Marina based on demand studies.The various marina options that were examined in 2005 included an option to increase thesize of the inner basin. It was not fully developed as the alternate option of going tothe east was the selected alternative. Because the options were based on demand studies theyhad an underlying set of goals for the marina development. The inner harbour option did notincrease dockage to the desired level and had conflicts in scheduling and occupancy with thePHAI clean-up which were evaluated as disadvantages of this option.

This option was never fully developed. Because the bedrock falls off to the south of thecentre pier, the PHAI clean-up will provide access for larger boats of greater draft to bedocked further south on the centre pier. However, without a comprehensive review of theaccess to the approach channel and the sedimentation issues, the ability to bring in largerboats may not be a reality.The other current disadvantage of the existing inner harbour is the wave action caused due tothe direct exposure to the lake. The current PHAI proposal for the approach channel includesrevetment along the west wall which they expect will reduce wave action in the basin.However, reduction of wave action could be better explored in combination with the need toreduce sedimentation, flush river silts and to reconfigure of the harbour to provide betterdockage.If the option of an inner harbour marina were fully explored the other items that should beaddressed include the land area required to support the marina (building, boatstorage/parking) which would be a natural future use of the Centre Pier.The addition of a haul out area to accommodate larger boats would expand the potentialfuture uses of the centre pier buildings and provide for continued use of the centre pier with alake related use. The demand for storage of large boats could be assessed for businesspotential is a market that could be tapped into. Also the provision of fuelling and pump-outfacilities on the Centre Pier should be examined.A comprehensive examination of the marina issue in relationship to the centre pier and thewaterfront remediation could address a number of issues.6.4 Sedimentation and DredgingAs a result of ongoing dredging costs, Council passed a resolution at its April 12 th , 2011Committee of the Whole meeting directing Staff to review existing information, includingstudies previously undertaken and consolidate information in a Staff report with regard to adredging strategy. The Municipality is currently considering a Municipal Dredging StrategyProject to evaluate options to address the sedimentation issue.Whether the East Marina proceeds or another of the four options (e.g. inner harbour - option2) is pursued the sediment issue has to be addressed. To date the response has been one ofsolving the immediate problem by dredging to the required depth to gain access to the innerbasin . A longer term solution is necessary, one that allows the river to naturally flush out thesediment and not have it accumulate at the mouth.A comprehensive hydraulic and geomorphic analysis that would review how to get thesediment flowing out around the end of the harbour mouth is necessary. The configuration ofthe lake access would have to be altered (not a straight line in from the Lake) in order to haveless sedimentation at the river mouth at the end of the pier.6.4 BreakwatersThe creation of a safe, calm inner harbour that addresses the sedimentation issue will requirethe creation of breakwaters in some manner and form. The breakwaters could provideadditional opportunities for other uses. Currently the use of breakwaters is typically fornavigation purposes but can also be the base for alternative forms of energy. These couldinclude wind turbines, run of the river hydro-electric or wave refraction units that could beused to feed the commercial operations of the pier or fed back into the grid directly.

6.5 Recommended Technical EvaluationThe following recommendation was made by Municipal staff to theCommissioners of the Port Hope Harbour on July 6:“That the Commissioners of the Port Hope Harbour approve up to $200,000previously allocated to fund the Marina Environmental Assessment Processbe held for re-allocation to a Municipal Dredging Strategy Project such asthe one currently being considered by the Municipality of Port Hope.”This study could be expanded to address the issues noted above in Section11.2 to 11.5. The following are excerpts from the staff report:The study can be handled as a technical evaluation of the sedimentation anddredging or through a Class Environmental Assessment. It is highlyanticipated that the selected option would be below the $3.5 million thresholdand hence may be eligible for an EA exemption.The tasks outlined herein are based solely on a technical evaluation.Review Historical Actions review past responses to sedimentation, including historical records ofdredging and construction of structures.Define Coastal Processes conduct geomorphic assessment of shoreline using the available aerialimagery, bathymetric and profile survey data, GIS analysis of bluff andnear shore recession, sources of sediment, including lake and riversources, sediment sample and geotechnical data define the deepwater wave conditions based on a minimum 40 yearhourly wave hind cast that has been calibrated/verified and usesmultiple wind stations around the lake define Lake Ontario levels and Ganaraska River flood levels and flows define bathymetry at Harbour and vicinity develop a model of the regional shoreline geomorphology and coastalprocesses including alongshore and cross-shore processes use numerical models to simulate the near shore waves and currents toassess existing conditions at the site including alongshore and crossshoretransport, bypassing and sedimentation of the harbour entranceand stability of the existing west and east beachesDevelop and Assess Concepts to Address Sedimentation develop concepts to address the sedimentation issue including; donothing, remedial dredging and construction of sedimentation controlstructures and/or facilities assess concepts; evaluation to consider costs, sustainability andadaptability and potential impacts to the natural environment includingfisheries identify potential permits and approvals required to implement concepts

The cost to complete this comprehensive dredging strategy is expected to bewithin the $200,000 EA funds set aside by the Commissioners of the PortHope Harbor.

7) EXISTING CONDITION OF THE SITE AND BUILDINGS, REQUIREDREMEDIAL WORK AND ASSOCIATED COSTS.Based on very recent information provided by Cameco and PHAI, thissection is now irrelevant, though may be of interest to some people.Detailed cost spreadsheets were developed to address all of the requiredremedial and renovation work. What is important now to understand is thedramatic increase in costs and time for work on a licensed nuclear facilityversus the a non-licensed site.Although Cameco has not undertaken a detailed cost estimate for theretention of the buildings and to stabilize the buildings and make them safefor remediation of the soils, they indicated that their costs on a CNSClicensed site are typically 400 % to 500 % more than typical costs for anon-licensed site, excluding engineering, administration and overheadcosts. To provide some sense of scale with respect to costs and risk to themunicipality to retain the buildings, we have provided ballpark estimatesof the costs, for illustrative purposes:Assuming the buildings were to remain and that Cameco had completeddecontamination (to a level suitable to public occupancy) at its own cost,then, in the case of Building #43 alone, we estimate a further $8.1 million($184.00 per sf*) would have to be spent to make them safe in order towithstand the next +/-four years of PHAI remediation activities. Weestimate The equivalent costs for building 41 would be $2.3 million ($92.00per sf*) Please note, however, that does not include the cost of stabilisingthe foundation structure to withstand the removal of LLRW under thefloor slabs and around the foundations. (*pricing is based on the higherconstruction costs further compounded by a further roughly 30% burdenfor engineering, administration and overhead for work on a licensednuclear site)Actual renovation work to make the building habitable would then be extrato the above costs.7.1 SITE WORKS: See Appendix ____ for Site Works Cost Summary Sheet)It is assumed that Cameco will clean the buildings of any residual LLRW contamination andthat, if so instructed by the municipality via the CPHH, that the buildings would be left in astable condition free of LLRW above grade. And further, that the PHAI would deal with anytraces of LLRW under and around the buildings and that the depth of non-LLRWcontaminated soils removed would be kept to a minimum to avoid damage to the structures.Soils removed would be replaced by compacted granulars designed to support normal floorslab loadings.Currently, based on the assumption that the buildings are to be removed, the PHAI is to leavethe site in a “green field condition including supply and placement of topsoil and grass.The site is served by a large 347/600V transformer (size unknown) off a high voltage(13.8KV?) line on the north boundary.

In addition it is assumed that the PHAI will restore electrical, water and sanitary services tothe site.The extension of Queen Street into the site as well as paving, curbs, sidewalks and a liveplanting allowance would be constructed by the municipality.7.2 BUILDING 40This building is relatively new (1957) with bow string trusses at 21 ft centres on load-bearingunit masonry walls with reinforced masonry piers. The clear height of the structure is only 14ft. The overall building is in generally good condition. The roof deck is wood planking withnominal 1” mineral wool insulation.A number of buildings of this specific roof design and vintage failed under heavy snowconditions over the last thirty years or so and many more were condemned and demolished.The reason was that the structural design did not allow for uneven snow loading on one sideof the roof. This was aggravated by their predominant use as ice hockey arenas which createdcondensation with resulting rot as well as higher than normal snow loading due to thebuilding not being heatedHowever, a recent structural engineer’s review of the truss design data indicates that thedesign criteria used were quite conservative and the building does not share the commontraits of poor design, workmanship and materials which caused failures in similar structures.The roof membrane and condition is unknown. It is not known if the roof is contaminatedwith LLRW. No electrical or plumbing systems were observed. The building is served by adry sprinkler system which is likely in acceptable condition.LLRW remediation studies indicate no contamination below the floor slab of this building.However, this is simply due to the absence of data and, being late vintage, the building wasmost probably built over LLRW, which means that, if this building were to remain, the floorslab would have to be removed (by PHAI) and replaced (by municipality of Port Hope).7.4 BUILDING 41Building 41 is of two storey timber frame construction with a roughly 2 1/2/12 sloped roofover the main part (roughly 9,000 sf) and flat roof over the offices in the north section. Theflat roof is contaminated by LLRW.The first floor heavy wood frame offers a clear height of 10 ft and appears to be in generallyfair condition with no evidence of rot to the base of the columns nor any sagging of theframe. The roof trusses again are in generally fair condition except for evidence of waterdamage in seven areas due to roof leaks…. These have been covered by plywood asreinforcing and the precise extent of damage is unknown. The trusses have been lifting underhigh wind loads and have been lashed down with hawsers to resist wind uplift.A large area of roof in the south west corner was replaced due to wind. Many purlins havebeen replaced along the west side and new steel deck installed. The purlins have been lasheddown to the roof trusses with steel cables through the roof. These penetrations have now beencaulked but previous leakage caused quite severe localised rot in floors and trusses. Due tothis, the floor deck has been overlaid with new ply in certain areas to cover the damage.If the building were to be re-used, additional wind uplift measures would be needed withpermanent steel members to tie the roof trusses down to the lower walls. The entire roofwould have to be removed and new 2”x12” purlins at 16” ocs installed. A new (Vicwest)

insulated composite steel deck assembly has been assumed for pricing purposes whichprovides for exposed metal deck underneath.The masonry on the second storey is in extremely poor shape and is in an unsafe condition.Along the west side, wind forces have actually blown the masonry wall inwards. This damageis clearly evident above the windows with loose bricks lying on the floor and severe crackingin several places. Temporary wood ledgers inside and out have been bolted through themasonry with jacks back to the floor plate to withstand wind forces on the damaged walls.There is similar damage to the east side, though this is more likely due to age, differentialsettlement, water penetration and frost action.A remedial masonry specialist was consulted to give an opinion as to remediation and cost.This is reflected in the cost summary.It is assumed that the electrical systems are obsolete. The cost summary reflects a new serviceand emergency and exit lighting with the balance of electrical under the tenant improvementsallowance.The building is served by a dry sprinkler system which is assumed to be unsafe. A newordinary hazard wet system is allowed for.LLRW remediation studies show no contamination below the floor slab of this building. Dueto the age of this building (1913?) it was not built over LLRW although seepage or latercontamination from within may have occurred.It is assumed that no viable plumbing or drainage exists and a new public washroom core hasbeen allowed for.A barrier free elevator has been included in an existing shaft.7.4 BUILDING 42Building 42 is a later annex to Building 41 and is structurally independent. It has a flat roofand is of steel frame construction with open web steel joists and steel deck. It is clad withmasonry which is in poor condition.It is assumed that building 42 will be demolished.7.5 BUILDING 43Building 43 has a steel frame structure with +/- 15’-6” bays and infill masonry. The roof deckis nominally flat with a deck constructed of dimensional lumber.Extensive steel structural reinforcing has been carried out within the last year or so. New steellateral bracing has been installed in both the north-south and east-west directions.The section of mill roof deck roughly half way along on the west side was sagging and hasbeen temporarily supported by means of scaffolding.We are told that a new TPO roof membrane was recently installed. However, the new roofwas installed over LLRW contamination and will have to be removed and replaced if thebuilding is to remain. Cost analysis is based on the contaminated lumber deck being removedand replaced with new steel deck and an insulated roof assembly to current code standards

There is indication of extensive LLRW contamination below the floor slab which willtherefore have to be removed and replaced if the building is to remain.The masonry on the west wall appears to be in excellent condition with little or no visibledifferential settlement, spalling or deterioration due to water or frost. However, the north partof the east wall and the entire north wall masonry is in very poor shape. There are many oldprocess-related openings which have been closed up. It has suffered from water penetrationand frost damage over the years. The north wall has been temporarily braced back to the floorslab with steel jack bolted to ledger channels inside and out. It is assumed that these sectionsof wall will be demolished and replaced with structural steel and an insulated metal sidingassembly with new overhead doors and man doors.The clerestory glazing is mainly intact. The west wall glazing is original industrial steel sashcovered on the outside with translucent fibreglass panels. The industrial sash may possibly berestored and re-glazed and the translucent panels replaced. This would provide a doubleglazed assembly and preserve the “look” of the old industrial sash whilst screening out directview of the Cameco plant.It is assumed that the “annex” at the south east corner of building 43 will be demolished.Given the height and construction of Building 43, the cost of heating would be significant. Inthe early stages of re-development it is therefore best suited to an unheated use such asstorage.The existing electrical systems are obsolete and a new service has been allowed for togetherwith emergency and exit lighting, minimal general area lighting and convenience poweroutlets.It is assumed that the existing plumbing and drainage is inoperative and a new publicwashroom core has been allowed for.A new dry sprinkler system has been included in the budget pricing.

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCESection 9Future Management of the Centre PierThe Centre Pier is owned by the Harbor Commission and managed by the Municipality; thisincludes the inner harbour also called the Turning Basin where the yacht club is located. Theleases with both Cameco for the land under the buildings on the centre pier and the lease withthe yacht club are Harbor Commission responsibilities.The mandate of the Harbor Commission can be paraphrased as: to make the harbour safe,commodious and convenient as possible for the purpose of trade and attracting vesselsnavigating Lake Ontario; the Harbor Commissioners were provided with the ability to fixtolls to be paid by the vessels and businesses that benefit from the Harbour improvementsand the Centre Pier lands.The Harbor Commission is a separate functioning corporate body appointed substantively byCouncil. The Harbor Commission is currently composed of all members of Council and twomembers of the public. Other than the Mayor, who by the governing Act (the Port HopeHarbor Vesting Act of 1853) will always be a member, the Harbor Commission can becomposed of any 8 members that Municipal Council appoints.Having the entirety of Council as members of the Harbor Commission can be both anadvantage and disadvantage. Some of the requirements under the Municipal Act fortransparency, openness and public notification of Council decisions are disadvantages to acorporate body when negotiating with other private companies for leases and developmentopportunities.In the future, the Harbor Commission might be comprised of the Advisory Committee Chairof Economic Development and Parks and Recreation as members and others with experienceand knowledge of economic development and marine/waterfront operations. The HarborCommission could then provide quarterly updates to Council much like Veridian. This mightprovide better checks and balances for the Harbor Commission and allow them to fullydevelop their mandate.Regardless of who the Harbor Commission members are it would be prudent to set outprinciples under which the Harbor Commission acts in municipal and public interests. Theseprinciples would be a “test” by which the recommendations of the Harbor Commission couldbe analyzed. Such principles would include the fundamental economic developmentresponsibilities of their mandate, public and civic expectations. Establishing a set ofprinciples under which to operate the center pier and for user groups would eliminate thepotential for decisions to be swayed by political and public influences. Any change to theprinciples would require formal Council endorsement.It is envisioned that the Harbor Commission would continue the management function atarms length from Council when the Centre Pier is no longer under licences from theCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). At such time, the Harbor Commission couldretain the services of a consultant, hire an executive director (e.g. Harbour Master) or otherstaff position to market the Centre Pier and inner basin harbour as necessary to meet theirmandate.

See Appendix III for background information on the Harbor Commission. Examples ofprinciples that might assist the Harbor Commission in determining the balance betweenmoney-making ventures, public access, social and tourism benefits are noted in bothAppendix III and the precedent case from Hamburg, Germany in Appendix IV.

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCESection 10Funding StrategiesBased on very recent information provided by Cameco and PHAI, thissection takes on a somewhat different role to address future developmentafter remediation of the Pier is completed. Parts of this section are stillapplicable. However, it is the unanimous opinion of the Task Forcemembers that, unless there is an early commitment made by theMunicipality of Port Hope with provincial and or federal support, theCentre Pier will remain vacant and not fulfill its full potential role foreconomic development and public use/interest.The redevelopment of the Centre Pier will occur over a number of years after the remediationof the area is complete, likely in the year 2018. New funding opportunities can arise andexisting funding opportunities can disappear over the time period from when this report iswritten until these funding strategies will be able to come into play. A number of suggestionshave been made in other studies as to the funding opportunities that the Municipality couldtap into for funding to redevelop the Centre Pier. The following is an overview of thedifferent mechanisms suggested. A more complete analysis of the opportunities would berequired at a future date.10.1 Community Improvement Plan (CIP)The site for a Community Improvement Plan must be identified in the Municipality’s OfficialPlan. And it must be for the “public good”. Formerly CIP’s were approved by the Ministry ofHousing and Municipal Affairs but now are approved by the Municipality. At one time therewere provincial programs but, there has been no provincial government funding for manyyears. CIP’s are funded by Municipal taxes. Must meet the requirements set out in thePlanning Act and Municipal Act.If the Municipality chose to fund the developments on the Pier through tax revenues or iffunding for CIPs become available from other sources, it could ensure that the Centre Pier isidentified in the Official Plan prior to the completion of the remediation of the Pier. It couldthen prepare a Community Improvement Plan for the Centre Pier and possibly the areaaround the Pier.10.2 Tax Increment Funding (TIF)Alberta and many states within the United States have TIF’s.. There is no legislation inOntario as of yet but the Province has two pilot projects using TIFs underway. TIF’s reducetaxes to a lower level through legislation for specific properties. It is a way of phasing inassessment increases.10.3 National Historic SiteIf the Centre Pier could be designated a National Historic Site, there might be fundingavailable up to one million dollars per year with matching community funds. This

designation doesn’t protect the buildings. In order to qualify it must be of national historicalsignificance. A convincing argument has to be advanced to identify this site as a nationalhistoric site. There must be something special about the site or the industry on it that wouldgarner national recognition. The railway viaducts may help to justify this site as a nationalhistoric site. (permission from the owner(s) for national designation is necessary10.4 Small Crafts and HarboursFunding may be available but it is geared towards fishing opportunities.10.5 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal FundThe FCM Green Municipal Fund is related to projects of environmental benefit. It providesfunding to three types of environmental initiatives: plans, studies and projects. Grants areavailable for sustainable community plans, feasibility studies and field tests, while acombination of grants and loans are available for capital projects.Funding is available in five sectors: brownfields, energy, transportation, waste and water.In the past funded projects where required to be innovative as well. The development of theCentre Pier as a sustainable development site (if alternative energy generation were included)might better meet the criteria.10.6 Brownfield FundingBrownfield financing may be available but it is unlikely that the Pier would qualify as it isbeing remediated by PHAI. Typically the way in which brownfield investors (private sector)make their money is through the potential resale of the property. In this case, theMunicipality would have to be willing to sell or allow a long-term (+20 year) lease over theland. The a long-term lease option on the Centre Pier would be a possibility if an institute ofhigher education or some development with triple A covenant user (corporate, Federal orProvincial) could be attracted to the site.10.7 Development ChargesDevelopment Charges (DCs) are not particularly applicable in this case. The existingbuildings would be exempt under the conversion regulations in the Act. If new space isadded then DC’s could come into play. Capital projects as baselines for municipal servicesare included in the studies and added to the Development Charges By-laws to be applicable.For instance, parkland and trail development can be funded up to 90% from D.C.’s if a baseis established in the DC studies.10.8 Federal ParkFederal parks have been established in urban areas. Examples include the Forks in Winnipeg,Lunenberg in Nova Scotia, the Port in Montreal, the Rouge Park in Toronto and StevensonPark in B.C. It does not necessarily have to be classified as historical to qualify as a federalpark. Environmental significance can also be used to justify that status,. In this case, theLLRW history may play a role in being able to justify why this should be a federal park.Lowell, Massachusetts is a US example of a town that was designated as a federal park.

10.9 PHAI Host Community FundingTen million dollars was provided to Port Hope and another $10 million to the Township ofHope as Community Hosting Fees under the Legal Agreement for the former municipalitiesagreeing to host Long Term Waste Management Facilities in their communities. Currentlythe funding is held in two separate accounts. The principal is available to the Municipalitywhen the CNSC has issued a license for construction of the LTWMF. While a license hasbeen issued, the CNSC has however established “hold points” to be addressed prior toconstruction. The Municipality has adopted policies regarding the application of theprincipal and interest. There is potential to use some of this money to fund building projectsand then these funds could be replenished with taxes/fees from the new buildings. Theycould be used in a similar fashion to micro-financing for the start-up of the businesses,commercial enterprises, similar to an endowment.10.10 Naming Rights/SponsorshipMany civic or public use developments include some “naming rights” through thesponsorship by a larger corporation or wealthy benefactor. Examples are the Cameco CapitalArts Centre and the ESCO fields at Town Park. The same approach could be used forbuildings and/or features on the Centre Pier. A fundraising program could be formulatedbased on an overall masterplan and sponsorships sought out.10.11 Higher Education InstituteExamples from case studies have been undertaken of other municipalities who have attractedhigher education institutions into their downtown core to act as a catalyst for revitalizationexist (see Appendix IV). Funding will be required to attract such an institution not viceversa. In most cases incentive funding by the municipality has been in the magnitude of $15million. In some cases, it has been a combination of land, buildings, waiving of fees andother measures. Regardless, one of the factors that the higher education institutions will belooking for is community commitment such as the funding of student scholarships,endowments, teaching positions and/or the development of the site.There are additional funding options referenced in the appendices of the Lazarus Effect(Appendix IV), there is also the possibility of entering into P3 agreements.10.12 Beware of the seductive P3!The question is “How much should governments pay to transfer risk to a P3 developer?”There are two main sources of risk in any large real estate lease deal, be it P3 or otherwise.The largest risk is security of the long-term debt-service or rent. The other is to design andconstruct within the budget. The strong financial covenant of a government body effectivelyeliminates the debt service risk and the P3 developer transfers the entire cost control risk tothe constructor through proven design-build methodology.By entering into a P3 agreement, government agencies are allowing P3 developers to use thepublic financial covenant to generate very substantial fees to manage the design-build processand arrange the financing. And usually those fees are not declared.If government needs to sell the project, it is far better for the public purse to sell oncompletion with established cash flow backed by the public financial covenant. Oncecompleted with the rent flowing, institutional investors will pay dearly for such large, longterm and secure investments.

The cost to the public is further increased when governments make the size of P3 projects solarge that there are only maybe two or three construction firms with the capacity tounderwrite them. Where possible, large projects should be broken down into smallercomponents or stages to allow established medium size general contractors andsubcontractors to compete.Is it laziness or ignorance on the part of government or maybe something else? P3’s are oftenrecommended by the private sector as they are a way of the private sector not having toassume as much risk. Many local governments have been seduced into 3P’s by the mantrathat sharing risk is a win-win-win but often the profits sharing is structured in such a way asto not reward the local government in the same proportion as the private entity.

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCESection 11RecommendationsThe purpose of this task force was to make an objective and unbiased evaluationof the long term risks and opportunities presented by preserving the buildings ofthe Port Hope Centre Pier. The committee agreed at the outset that in a perfectworld they should remain. The case and the numbers that we present are, wefeel, conservative and have been checked where possible by local professionalsin the case of both revenues and construction costs (expressed in currentdollars).We bring to your attention a fairly complex group of very pragmatic and hardnosedbusiness, cost and scheduling issues that surround the Port Hope CentrePier, they are all interrelated.1. Re-design harbour mouth to improve siltation control and wave actionincluding the following:o Establish a dream team of both river and lake specialists to create a moreeffective harbour mouth design which will maintain the flow and flushingof the river to a point where littoral wave action will wash the silteastwards along the shoreline. This could also improve the problem of theflood plume being picked up by the water plant intake.o Explore the possibility of combining some of the required PHAI work(such as the dam at the mouth of the channel) into the long-term design ofthe inner harbour.o Dredging costs (averaging $75k/annum) can be significantly reduced andthose long-term savings invested in improved design and constructiono Wave action can be eliminated from the inner harbour making it suitablefor marina development with docks.o Elimination of wave action makes parallel mooring possible on both sidesof the approach channel to the turning basin, including provision for ahaul-out.2. Locate the Port Hope Marina in the turning basin:o By reducing the size of the marina to 120 slips (versus the previouslyproposed 200 slips) and locating it within the existing harbour walls, thecapital costs will be dramatically lower and the adverse effect of amassive new marina beyond the harbour mouth would be much reduced.o Locating the marina in the turning basin provides a completely differentfocus and “reason for being” for the Port Hope Centre Pier with a viableboat yard and storage operation together with other visitor-generatingactivities that will extend the season and generate additional year-roundactivities for residents and visitors alike.

o Examine how the yacht club could be improved. Specifically what arethe requirements for the PHYC with regard to additional slips, launchareas, and boat storage. The inner harbour could be a combination ofPHYC and rental dockage similar to Cobourg and Newcastle where thereis a mixture of sail, power, and fishing charter boats.3. Reconsider the blanket removal of 1.5M of soil across the entire siteo Apply a Risk Assessment approach to the remediation of the non-LLRWcontaminated soils with the objective of leaving more existing materialundisturbed in place..o This should allow contamination to be quantified and evaluated for futurerisk and hopefully result in much of it being treated on site and or allowedto remain under encapsulated conditions.o The 1.5M depth stems from general established environmental remediationpractice in order to render a “clean” site and is often associated with an upgradeof use.o Therefore direct that the future zoning of the Port Hope Centre Pier beIndustrial/Commercial and that it not be upgraded to Residential/Parkland.Provincial law and common sense eliminate residential uses and the site is clearlynot suited to being exclusively a green-field open parkland.o Depending on the RA results, this approach could reduce the cost, time, localdisruption and the environmental degradation associated with removal of non-LLRW and the excavation and importing by road of replacement clean fill.4, Harbour Wall Design and ConstructionEnsure that the tie-back and dead men are buried at sufficient depth as not tointerfere with the foundations of future buildings on the Centre Pier. Thismeans that they must allow for at least 60” depth of reinforced concretegrade beams to be supported on future piles.Harbour wall design and constructiono Proposed harbour wall tie-backs affected by approx 170 Metres of wallabutting building #43o Harbour wall tie-backs would be designed in a different way if theshorewall was extended into the channel.o Consider sheet pile construction instead of revetment for the west side ofthe harbour approach channel in order to provide additional parallelmoorings as well as mooring for large boats..5. PHAI de-watering of harbour sludgeRetention of the buildings would reduce the area available for the geotubedewatering when compared with the designs dated____. However, that is areduction only when compared with the original premise of the buildings inplace. It is a therefore a lost opportunity cost, not an additional cost.

o The increased sludge de-watering time and cost could be partially offset by thereduced volume of remediated soils to be removed and replaced if a true RAapproach were used to minimise the volume of material removed.6. Minimise the amount of fill removed:o Removal of a blanket 1.5 M would equate to roughly 82,500 M3 of(bulked) material going to the LTWMFo According to the MMM Site Characterization Report (2002) Plate #6,there is roughly 19,500 M3 (bulked) of LLRW to be removed.o Limiting removal of LLRW contaminated soils only would save approx5, 250 loads of exported material and a further 5,250 loads of importedfill for a total saving of 10,500 truckloads.o That’s a saving of over $3 million in trucking.o It saves roughly three months of PHAI working time.o It saves massive amounts of fuel and of CO2 discharge.o It saves the environmental degradation of the gravel pit that supplies theimported fill material.7. Flood plain issues:o The Centre Pier buildings, together with the TSS stockpile presentlyfunction as part of the flood protection of Cameco. (please refer toattached part plan pdf of the flood plain hydrology) Presumably, if thebuildings were removed, a protective berm would need to be installedimmediately upon removal of the TSS and demolition of the buildings atrough cost of $240,000. If the ground beneath is not remediated beforeplacement of the berm presumably it would have to be at a later date,doubling the cost.o Examine how the flooding issue (the 80% spill) could be enhanced byreconfiguring (lowering) the east pier south of the marina building.8. Long-term economic developmento The members of the Centre Pier Task Force are unanimous in agreementthat a built environment on the Port Hope Centre Pier buildings isessential and will act as a focal point for significantly improved economicand social activity in the downtown core.o A redeveloped Centre Pier will increase the number of visitors andresidents coming into the downtown area.o Port Hope has a tourist season of perhaps five months. The Port HopeCentre Pier buildings will extend the tourist season, which is a criticallyimportant factor in increasing local business investment.o A re-developed Centre Pier will serve to re-invigorate the economy ofport Hope and the surrounding areas.9. Revised Comprehensive Master Plano Develop a revised comprehensive master plan for the centre pier, innerharbour, harbour entrance and viaduct lands.

o Examine the “clean-up” and “restoration” of the viaduct lands by PHAI.They could benefit from the extension of the commercial core to thewaterfront while addressing the floodplain issues (e.g. restoration of theestuary and its function as a water retention area, not just replacement ofwhat currently exists).10. Peer Reviewo Obtain third party objective review and verification of the estimates andtime schedule to ensure that the information provided regarding theimpacts of retaining the buildings is accurate.

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCEAppendix IGRCA Floodplain Modelling PlanPlease see attached pdf

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCEAppendix IIIllustrative Project SchedulePlease see attached Gant chart

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCEAppendix IIISuggested Principles for Future Management of the Centre PierHistoryPort Hope Harbour Commission is private corporation granted to the Municipality by theVesting Act in 1853. The Municipality assumed ownership of the improvements the PortHope Harbour Company, which had been incorporated in 1829 had been making to theharbour. Unfortunately the shareholders quarreled and eventually the Municipality had tostep in. When the Harbour Commission was formed the Municipality did not have thenecessary funds to provide for improvements; 8 citizens provided their personal guaranteesand in return were included as Commissioners; the Vesting Act provided a mechanism for theCommissioners to be paid out and replacement Commissioners over time to whomever theCouncil wishes to appoint.MandateTo make the harbour safe, commodious and convenient as possible for the purpose of tradeand attracting vessels navigating Lake Ontario; the Harbour Commissioners were providedwith the ability to fix tolls to be paid by the vessels and businesses that benefit from theHarbour improvements including the Centre Pier lands (paraphrased).ChronologyVesting Act- Written and made valid 3 January 1852, Assented to 23 May 1853- It is a body corporate consisting of 8 members plus the Mayor (9 in total)Belden’s Atlas or 1878 describes the harbour as being in excellent condition and bringing inlarge revenues. It depicts the harbour in a configuration that can be recognized today and hasa number of raillines extending along it to the southern tip. The 1874 Bird’s Eye View printof Port Hope shows the same configuration and raillines in addition to sheds.First Agreement of Lease is dated 18 May 1896 with Standard Ideal Sanitary CompanyFirst Agreement with Port Hope Sanitary Company is 3 February 1923, another in 1930. The1930 agreement is for 99 years. The agreement with Crane is dated 1960.Pictures of the harbour from the Long Collection in 1901 and 1951 show the Centre Pier andinner harbour much as it appears today.The first lease agreement with Eldorado is 16 October 1961.The buildings are “surrendered” to Eldorado 21 December 1967 for 60 years.There is a Consolidating Lease (consolidated all the various leases) with Eldorado dated 13May 1976 for 29 years.Cameco notes in a report from October 2005 that Eldorado Nuclear/Resources Limitedpurchased the buildings, improvements and fixtures on the Centre Pier associated with theCrane Company property in December 1970 from Kranko Holdings Limited.

PrinciplesThe Port Hope Harbor Commission is not subject to the Harbour Commissions Act 1964.This Act applies to national ports; however some of the principles may apply:“It is hereby declared that the objective of the national ports’ policy for Canada is to createa port system that:A) Is an effective instrument of support for the achievement of Canadian internationaltrade objectives, and of national, regional and local economic and social objectives;B) Is efficient;C) Provides accessibility and equitable treatment in the movement of goods andpersons to users of Canadian ports;D) Provides Harbour Commissions with a high degree of autonomy for themanagement and operation of the ports for which they are established, consistent withthe responsibility of the Minister to ensure the integrity and efficiency of the nationalports system and the optimum deployment of resources; andE) Is coordinated with other marine activities, and surface and air transportationsystems.”Management and OperationsTypically, Harbour Commissions view their role as providing services and moorings forharbour users on a competitive and commercial basis, performing a valuable role in supportof the local, regional and national economy and provide a benchmark for good governance,accountability, and openness.The Commission is a self-financing, not for profit organization that aims to make anoperating surplus to reinvest into the continuing development of the harbour and associatedservices. There are no shareholders or owners and all operating surplus is re-invested backinto the harbour for the benefit of the harbour users and stakeholders.The Commission operates a robust financial management system to provide transparency andaccountability in respect of the Commission's dual functions as the statutory harbourauthority and also a service provider. All income and expenditure is budgeted and accountedin separate ring fenced cost centres which facilitates accurate reporting.Typically the day-to-day operation of a Harbour Commission is delegated to the HarbourMaster/Chief Executive to manage the harbour.Request for ProposalsTo provide a fair playing field and obtain the optimum mix of uses and revenues on theCentre Pier, the best way to determine future uses may be to call proposals, in that mannerany commercial entity or non-profit could submit a proposal. A terms of reference for theproposal could would have to clearly set out the evaluation criteria.

PORT HOPE CENTRE PIER DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCEAppendix IVPrecedent CasesSimilar Project Precedent CasesLazarus Effecthttp://www.environment.uwaterloo.ca/research/hrc/documents/lazarus-jan20-verA.pdfwww.engg.ksu.edu/chsr/outreach Kansas State University has a number of interestingarticles.Granville Island (Vancouver) is an interesting example as it is very industrial, still has abrewery, cement plant and boat building repair/marina but is very public. It is an example ofa brownfield from before the word was invented and it in fact has never been cleaned up.The other examples are Battle Creek, Michigan (former Kellogg industrial complex) and PortStanley, Ontario (where the former boat yards were being redeveloped_.The Wynchwood Barns and Evergreen at Don Valley Brickworks and others in TO have beenled by a group called Artspace. Artspace did a workshop before Christmas in Oshawa. Theseare the presentations from the workshop. http://www.torontoartscape.on.ca/knowledgeexchange/workshopsPort Credit, the reuse of the former St. Lawrence Starch Buildings isa good example for us to look at.http://www.portcredit.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=41http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/BMI2008Oct28Section1Background.pdfThe Goderich example is perhaps the closest in size and proximity towater. It was a former oil tank farm with rail connection. MarkInglis from MMM has worked on this project for over 25 years. Thetanks were taken out in the 70's, the rail was taken out in the 90's.It is now part of the lakefront park. It is entering into aninteresting stage whereby the historic train station may be moved toa site within the area. It may require remediation on the newsite. Add to this the existence of an artesian well.There is not much on the web much of this information came fromthe designers involved in the project.http://www.goderichport.ca/Expansion/index.htmlPlastimet in Hamilton is not on the water, but a similar sizesite. Rather a nasty environmental mess, large firein 1997 with all manner of health implications. Not much on the webabout how it has developed, the designer is MMM.

Steveston, B. C is a very comparable story. When the canary closedin the late 70's early 80's the place became a ghost town. Therewere a number of people that loved the old canary buildings andeventually after lots of teeth-nashing the place has become verytrendy, lots of restaurants, and all sorts of people have movedtheir as a retirement place outside of Vancouver. It is withinbiking distance of Richmond B.C. along the dykeway. This history is not on the Stevestonwebsites but to give you a flavour here are a couple of resources:http://www.stevestonharbour.com/SHA_Site/SHA_History.htmlhttp://www.stevestonharbour.com/SHA_Site/Sales_Float_History.htmlhttp://www.steveston.bc.ca/documents/201101_VillagerNewsletter_January_FINAL_000.pdfhttp://www.richmond.ca/parksrec/ptc/trails/map/steveston.htmhttp://richmond.ca/culture/sites/cannery.htmhttp://richmond.ca/culture/sites/britannia/site.htmThe Britannia Shipyard building began its life as a Cannery. It wasbuilt in 1889 and was purchased by the ABC Packing Company two yearslater to operate as a salmon cannery. It became one of the busiestcanneries on the Fraser River, producing canned salmon for shipmentall over the world. However, the Hell's Gate Landslide of 1912 causeda significant decline in salmon stocks, forcing many canneries toclose or convert to other uses. In 1917-18, the Britannia Cannery wasconverted into a shipyard and general maritime repair shop forfishing boats of the ABC Packing Company, which operated until 1969.The Shipyard was then purchased by the Canadian Fishing Company andwas operational until BC Packers purchased it in 1979, closing itsdoors in 1979-80.The Britannia Heritage Shipyard is an authentic representation of aonce thriving community of canneries, boat yards, residences and stores.City of Richmond staff and dedicated volunteers work together topreserve and restore the shipyard and surrounding buildings as anactive wooden boat centre and waterfront park. Tour the oldestshipyard buildings in British Columbia, and observe ongoing boatrestoration projects as you experience a bygone time when fishing andboat building were flourishing industries on the Fraser River.Many of the buildings date back to 1885 and tell the stories of multi-ethnic residents andworkers at the Britannia Cannery and Britannia Shipyard: Chinese, European, First Nationsand Japanese. This collection of buildings has national value and was designated a NationalHistoric Site in 1992 by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board.From Dockyard to Esplanade: Leveraging Industrial Heritage in Waterfront Redevelopment(Master’s Thesis that includes a number of case studies)Jayne O. Spector, University of Pennsylvania, jspector@mindspring.comHamburg, Germany Harbour Revitalization Program (good principles that may apply)The best waterfront regeneration strategies capitalise on and add to the area’s existing physicaland human resources. In particular, heritage buildings and features can be a catalyst for

egeneration and the location for a range of cultural and artistic functions. Reusing existingstructures helps reintegrate the waterfront area into the economic and social life of the city.Preservation and enhancement of harbour heritage in combination with initiatives in arts andculture are a good foundation for fostering urban complexity.Preservation of different aspects of harbour heritage can contribute to the success ofregeneration strategies: linking new and old structures in an urban design framework, providingan exciting basis for citizen participation, fostering the waterfront as a cultural and industrialheritage destination, and initiating skills training and new employment in the heritage andtourism sector.Architectural competitions for new buildings of international stature can help to ensure thatnew build equals the quality, character and identity of the architectural heritage.A wide range of events which can foster arts, culture and heritage appreciation and short andlong-term participation are essential.Further information: www. hafencity. com, www. stiftung- hamburg- maritim. DeBrownfield Redevelopment Precedent CasesJan 2007, City of Hamilton, Council Report on the Brownfield Redevelopment andIntensification Office, pdf can be pulled off the web.Port Colborne has a waterfront CIP (community improvement plan), CIP’s are one of thefunding mechanisms that we can use so this project is interesting from that aspect. I am notsure how much of it has been built. http://www.portcolborne.ca/page/waterfront_cip\Kingston also has some waterfront brownfields and a funding mechanism for them.http://www.cityofkingston.ca/residents/environment/brownfields/plan.aspCollingwood is a good example of a heavy industry harbour that is being redeveloped.http://www.mynewwaterfronthome.com/brownfields.aspxRENEW magazine focuses exclusively on brownfields and has been published for about 3years. I get it as do many other Planners, what is interesting in it is the various ways thingshave been funded like the example below. The brownfield equity funds and propertydevelopment trusts usually prefer to purchase the property and then work on it.http://renewcanada.net/tags/brownfield/Kilmer Brownfield Equity Fund - In February 2010, the Fund acquired a 9-acre, formerdistillery, foundry and appliance manufacturing site in Guelph, Ontario. The site will beredeveloped for a mix of high-rise, mid-rise and townhouse residential uses while preservinghistorical elements on the site. The site supports the City of Guelph’s plan to revitalize thehistoric character of its downtown area while still meeting the objectives of Ontario’s SmartGrowth intensification initiatives. This site is located within Guelph’s CommunityImprovement Plan (CIP) area and is eligible for various financial incentives to assist in itsredevelopment.Oshawa has made the entire urban area into a CIP and then added additional funding forbrownfields. They have had some good success and are now looking at a co-generation plantand district heating (that would serve other sites) on a former brownfield.http://www.oshawa.ca/documents/CIP-Brownfields.pdfInteresting paper as it relates many of the fears people have especially from “small towns”when these types of developments are discussed and attempted. BROWNFIELDS INSMALL AND RURAL COMMUNITIES WORKSHOP EVALUATION REPORT

Higher Education Precedent CasesWillowbank is a house/school that teaches restoration arts, theschool is how the building is being restored over time. I havetoured the school and spoken with the instructors and students acouple of years ago. It is an dual purpose type of initiative. Thestudents get hands on experience in restoration arts.http://www.willowbank.ca/content/home2/index/• Port Hope has a relatively small population and large geographic area.• The competition for new college or university campuses is very strong. It isestimated that there are 20 to 25 communities in Ontario with similar dreams.• This is likely to require sustained effort and expense over the medium to longterm with no guarantee of success• The province already has a well established infrastructure of college anduniversity campuses including, Durham College, UOIT, and Trent University,Sir Sandford Fleming.• Campus expansions are cylical, there have been a number of announcementsin the past 12-18 months which will be built over the next 10-15 years.• In the current economic climate, the thought of expansion or a satellitecampus for some institutions is contrary to the drive to rationalize and “rightsize”.The examples reviewed include Oshawa, Brantford, St. Catharines and Cambridge.Each of these cities (of at least 100,000 pop) have been working with highereducation institutions for 10-15 years to attract the institution into the downtown core.The commonality between these communities and how they approached attracting ahigher education institution are the following factors:• A strategy. A comprehensive strategy and business plan endorsed bycouncil.• A champion. An endeavour like this will need champions in order to succeed.• Partnerships. Key community partners have to support the concept.• Shared vision. Develop a shared vision for the campus within the community.• Niche offerings. Training and education offerings that can be supported bylocal companies with specialized facilities and expertise.• Community support. Land, buildings or funds for capital expenditures, pluspolitical and moral support for the larger concept.Typically the communities listed above have either partnered (3P’s) on facilities thatare required by both the institution and the community (e.g. theatre or performancespaces), provided land or direct funding over a number of years. Typically, monieshave been garnered from provincial and federal programs for development (e.g.brownfield clean-up, green energy development).If the Municipality is going to take this on as a goal an overall strategy will have to beput in place and pursued.http://www.brantford.ca/govt/projects/downtown/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.stcatharines.ca/en/investin/EconomicDevelopmentStrategy.asp

http://www.oshawa.ca/eco_dev/improvement.asphttp://www.cambridge.ca/visit/arts_culture/school_of_architecturehttp://www.strategyinstitute.com/A Strategy Institute Conference is your best method of gaining specific industry knowledge while networking withyour peers. Our conferences identify challenges and provide expert solutions for business and public sector leaders in ourtargeted topic areas. The Strategy Institute held a conference on June 14 and 15, 2011 which included a panel discussionbetween the planners involved in the Brantford, St. Catharines, Oshawa and Cambridge downtown campus initiatives. Theirpresentations can be obtained from the Institute if you are a member or attended the conference.

References:The Handbook of Environmental Compliance in Ontario (Phypher/Ibbotson) McGraw-Hill.Hydraulic Assessment and Preparation of Flood Plain Mapping of the Ganaraska River fromRobertson Street to Lake Ontario; AMEC Earth & Environmental; prepared for Cameco andGRCA, April 2006Heritage Assessment o0f the Port Hope Centre Pier; Historica Research Limited; prepared forThe Pier Group; June 2009Revitalization of Port Hope’s Centre Pier; NetGain Partners Inc.; prepared for The PierGroup, October 2009Port Hope Waterfront Plan and Update and Implementation Strategy; The PlanningPartnership, Natale + Scott Architects, Baird + Associates; prepared for the Municipality ofPort Hope; 1991, 2002, 2005 (respectively)Municipality of Port Hope Official Plan; MMM; prepared for the Municipality of Port Hope,2005MMM Reports on locations and depths of historical LLRW on the Centre Pier, PHAI2002 and 2006Vision 2010; Zeidler Partnership; prepared for Cameco; 2011Marina Report (Options); The Planning Partnership Group, Baird and Associates & TCSManagement Consultants; prepared for the Municipality of Port Hope; September 2005

GlossaryACOCNSCCPHHEAGRCALLRWLTWMFMMMMOEPHAIPHAI-MORARSCTSSVOCArchitectural Conservancy of OntarioCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionCommissioners of the Port Hope HarborEnvironment Assessment (both federal and provincial)Ganaraska River Conservation AuthorityLow Level Radioactive WasteLong Term Waste Management Facility (on Baulch Road)Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan (Consultants)Ministry of the Environment (Ontario)Port Hope Area InitiativePort Hope Area Initiative – Management OfficeRisk AssessmentRecord of Site ConditionTemporary Storage StockpileVolative Organic CompoundPeople ConsultedOrganisations Consulted:Ron Warne, Director of Planning & Development ServicesKen Andrus, Port Hope Building Dept.PHAI- Glenn Case. Andrea Denby, Christine FaheyCameco –Aldo Dagostino, Doug Burgess, Vince Rae, Andy ThornePort Hope ACO – Phil CarterThe Pier Group – Phil GoldsmithThe Canadian Firefighters Museum – Roger CarrGanaraska Regional Conservation Authority; Mark Peacock.Experts Consulted:Mark Peacock, GRCAMark Kolhberg, Baird Assoc.Phil Fidello, Cobourg HarbourCarm Trizzino, Remedial masonry expert.Dorlan Engineering, Structural engineersMark Stevenson, MAS Consulting GroupSites Visits:Centre Pier Site with Cameco officialsDon Valley BrickworksWynchwood Barns

Task Force MembersPaul Evans, B.Arch. (Univ. of Wales) (Chair of Task Force)Paul came to Canada as a registered British architect (RIBA) in 1975. After several yearsmanaging the architects department of one of Canada’s largest fully integrated design,engineering, construction and development firms he graduated into project management andbusiness development to become a leader in design-build industrial/commercial constructionand development in the GTA. His professional design and consulting background combinedwith a lifetime of hands-on design/build and construction experience in Britain, Germany,Japan, the Caribbean and Canada, gives him a unique overview and comprehensive grasp ofall disciplines in the industry including project financing and site selection.He continues to serve clients as an owner’s representative and project manager and is chair ofthe Port Hope Economic Development Advisory Committee.Faye Langmaid, B.L.A., M.P.A., FCSLA, MCIPAfter working abroad and in the private sector, Faye has worked for municipalities for thepast 25+ years. Faye’s professional practice as a landscape architect and planner has rangedfrom construction management/maintenance, park planning and waterfront development tourban design, energy conservation and planning policy. Faye is the recipient of local,regional and national awards from the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects, CanadianInstitute of Planners and other agencies. Her current work is focused on environmentalassessments (including the Port Granby project of the PHAI), the protection of agriculturaland natural landscapes, the attraction of a higher education institution and other assignmentswith the Municipality of Clarington. Among Faye’s current volunteer activities, she is grantschair of the Landscape Architecture Canada Foundation, a director of the Ontario ParksAssociation Foundation and involved with Advisory Committee’s in Port Hope.Will Ryan, ARIDO, IPC, ASIDWill has been a resident of Ward 2 for thirteen years. He was involved in the repurposing ofan existing Historical building in Millbrook and has continued his interest in many aspects ofcommunity welfare. He has found that his forty years in the Interior Design field, with aconsiderable construction component well suits his interests in historical buildings and theirrevitalization. He is past president of the Port Hope ACO and is involved in manycommunity organizations and charities.Mary Lou EllisMary Lou Ellis, councillor of the Municipality of Port Hope and Chair of Planning &Development Committee. Mary Lou attended the University of Toronto. She began her careerin publishing with Sailing Canada Magazine in 1985. In 1991 Mary Lou relocated to PortHope when the company moved here and she has happily made it her home ever since.Recently worked with the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office in the PropertyValue Protection Program. Mary Lou currently sits on HBIA, Heritage Port Hope AdvisoryCommittee, GRCA and the Chamber of Commerce..Jeff GilmerJeff is deputy Mayor and councillor in the Municipality of Port Hope and Chair of theEconomic Development & Tourism Committee. The Gilmer family has a long history in thecommunity, owning and operating Gilmer's Home Hardware Building Centre from 1972 to2010. Jeff attended Port Hope High School, graduated from the University of Waterloo with adegree in Recreation and Business in 1981 and worked for 3 years for the former Town ofLindsay as a Recreation Programmer. Rejoining the family business in 1985, he remainedinvolved for 25 years.

Assisted by: Mark StevensonMark Stevenson is Principal of MAS Consulting Group with over 25 years ofexperience in project management, socio-economic impact assessment, publicconsultation and conflict resolution. Mark was on the forefront in the developmentof Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) in the early 1980s helping to develop aholistic approach to community / project interaction.Mark recently acted as Project Manager for the Municipality of Port Hope where heled an interdisciplinary team in peer reviewing the federal environmentalassessment and licensing application for the remediation and long-term managementof historic low-level radioactive waste contamination in Port Hope.

July 2011FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLYIDTask Name1 PHAI LTWMF constructionPort Hope Centre Pier REMEDIATION2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3PHAI LTWMF constructionMon 03/09 Mon 30/0623 PHAI removal of TSS stockpile on centrepierPHAI removal of TSS stockpile on centre pierTue 01/07 Mon 15/1245 Removal of Cameco drums of LLRW toLTWMFRemoval of Cameco drums of LLRW to LTWMFTue 16/12 Mon 09/0367 Cameco decontaminates and demolishesbuildingsCameco decontaminates and demolishes buildingsTue 10/03 Thu 31/128 End of Cameco licence, start of PHAIlicenceEnd of Cameco licence, start of PHAI licenceFri 01/01 Fri 01/019 Harbour wall constructionHarbour wall constructionTue 01/03 Fri 10/021011 De-watering of harbour sludgeDe-watering of harbour sludgeTue 01/03 Tue 31/101213 PHAI clean-up removal of top 1.5 M ofLLR and historical contamination andreplace with compacted granulars, topsoil& seededPHAI clean-up removal of top 1.5 M of LLR and historical contamination and replace with compacted granulars, topsoil & seededThu 01/03 Fri 28/061415 Topsoil, seeding & landscapingTopsoil, seeding & landscapingMon 01/07 Mon 30/09Project: Prelim schedule buildings remTaskSplitMilestoneSummaryRolled Up SplitRolled Up MilestoneExternal TasksProject SummaryExternal MilestoneExternal MilestoneProgressRolled Up TaskRolled Up ProgressCriticalDeadlinePage 1

UNRESTRICTEDINFORMATION REGARDING THE REMEDIATIONOF THE PORT HOPE HARBOUR AND THE CENTRE PIERAS PART OF THE PORT HOPE AREA INITIATIVEIntroduction & BackgroundThis document summarizes the involvement of the Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI)Management Office with the Centre Pier Task Force and the information provided to the TaskForce. It describes the Current Base Plan for accomplishing the remediation of the Port HopeHarbour and Centre Pier and identifies the anticipated scope, cost, schedule and social impacts ifthe Alternative Scenario presented by the Task Force were adopted.The PHAI Management Office concludes that the Alternative Scenario would necessitate majorredesign work, delay the start of the remediation, greatly complicate the planned remediationactivities and appreciably escalate the costs. The closure of the Harbour to boaters and the CentrePier to Ganaraska River fishers, as well as the overall project schedule, would be significantlyextended.The PHAI Management Office was established to plan and accomplish the work set out inAgreement for the Cleanup and the Long-Term Safe Management of Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Situate in the Town of Port Hope, the Township of Hope and the Municipality ofClarington, signed in 2001 by the municipalities and the Government of Canada. In 2009, thePHAI Management Office was designated as the Federal Operating Agency to carry outCanada’s responsibilities for the project, succeeding the Low-Level Radioactive WasteManagement Office that had led the project since 2001. The PHAI Management Office issituated at 115 Toronto Road in Port Hope, Ontario.Meetings with the Task ForceThe PHAI Management Office met with the Centre Pier Task Force on 2011 March 31, shortlyafter the Task Force was struck. A technical presentation was provided of the detailed designsand construction plans for the cleanup of the contaminated sediments in the Port Hope Harbourand the contaminated soils (containing historic and industrial wastes) on the Centre Pier,assuming there are no buildings on the Centre Pier. This presentation included the samematerials presented at the Municipality of Port Hope Council’s Committee of the Whole Meetingon 2011 March 1.In June, the Task Force requested to meet with the PHAI Management Office once again, todiscuss an Alternative Scenario of accomplishing the cleanup of the Centre Pier and Harbourwith the buildings remaining in place. The PHAI Management Office engaged the assistance ofits design team to conduct a high-level technical assessment of this alternative to the CurrentBase Plan (described below) and commenced a review of the potential project impacts. TheManagement Office then met to share the results with the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer,and two representatives of the Task Force (the Chairman and the Deputy Mayor) on July 5.1

UNRESTRICTEDA subsequent meeting was held on July 15 involving the same participants as well asrepresentatives of Cameco Corporation. The purpose of the meeting was for the PHAIManagement Office and Cameco to respond to questions and ideas posed by the Chairman of theTask Force.Current Base Plan: Remediate Harbour and Centre Pier without the BuildingsThe Current Base Plan for the Port Hope Project, including the in-hand environmental andregulatory approvals for the Project and the completed detailed designs, is based upon thepremise that the buildings now standing on the Centre Pier have been removed prior to theremediation of the Harbour and the Centre Pier. This premise is rooted in the direction given toCameco, the owner of the buildings, by the Commissioners of the Port Hope Harbour, the ownerof the Centre Pier, to remove the buildings upon the termination of its lease.With the buildings demolished by Cameco, the remediation sequence of activities will start withrehabilitation and stabilization of the existing Centre Pier walls using land and marine basedconstruction systems. The walls require these upgrades to ensure the integrity of the Centre Pierduring the dredging operation as well as into the future.Following completion of the wall stabilization work, the entire Centre Pier site will be availablefor the establishment of a series of sediment dewatering cells and an associated water treatmentplant that will be required during the harbour sediment removal operation. These geo-tubedewatering systems require large footprints to efficiently operate and a Centre Pier withoutbuildings will facilitate the development of a large footprint arrangement.Following completion of the harbour sediment dredging, the sediment dewatering system will beremoved and the excavation of the historic LLRW and industrial waste from the Centre Pier willbe undertaken. This soil removal operation is a stratified cleanup nominally 1.5 metres in depth.It is anticipated to take place in a systematic manner whereby the contaminated soils will beremoved using conventional excavation equipment and loaded into larger capacity haulagevehicles for the transfer to the Port Hope Long-Term Waste Management Facility (LTWMF).The excavation would start at the southern end of the site and progress in a northerly direction.As the excavation work progresses, the condition of the underlying soils would be verified toensure compliance with the industrial contaminant concentrations specified by the site-specificrisk assessment. Following this verification step, the excavation would be backfilled withsuitable material and suitable flood protection measures reinstated. The current detailed designspresent an example of the type of earthen berm configuration that would be required to maintainsuch flood plain protection.The Current Base Plan for the remediation of the Harbour and the Centre Pier has been reviewedby the Municipality’s Peer Review Team and by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission(CNSC). The requirements of the Port Hope Yacht Club, the Commissioners of the Port HopeHarbour, and the Cameco Conversion Facility and Vision 2010 Project have also beenconsidered in the completion of the detailed designs.2

UNRESTRICTEDAlternative Potential Scenario: Buildings Remain on the Centre PierShould the buildings not be removed, the Harbour sediment and Centre Pier contaminated soilremediation operation would become much more complicated and time consuming. This wouldresult in a significantly greater cost to the overall Port Hope Project and increased social impactto the users of the harbour and the community at large. The scope, schedule, cost and socialeffects are discussed below in the context of the changes they would introduce to the CurrentBase Plan.Scope ImpactThe design of the harbour wall rehabilitation and stabilization would have to be revised to reflectthe impediments presented by the existing buildings. The Port Hope design team has identified apossible solution for this situation that would involve the use of a pile supported beam andinclined tie-rod and anchor system rather than the more conventional buried pre-cast concreteanchor block and horizontal tie rod configuration. This solution would require the use of amarine based installation unit, and because of the non-conventional rehabilitation approach,would take longer to complete.With the buildings left in place it is estimated that there will be a 40% reduction in availableopen space on which to construct the sediment dewatering cells and water treatment system.This reduction in footprint would translate into slower production rate of dredging anddewatering and will extend the period of time that the Harbour is closed to the members of theYacht Club and other boaters by a full season.Following removal of the contaminated sediments from the Harbour and decommissioning of thesediment dewatering cells and water treatment system, the focus of the work will be directedtowards the objective of complete removal of the contaminated soil from the entire Centre Pier.With the buildings left in place it will be more challenging to meet this objective due tostructural and safety considerations that will limit the rate of remediation. To complete thestratified cleanup, the foundation slabs and the footings (e.g. wall strip footings, columnfootings) must be removed to gain access to the contaminated soil that lies beneath. Throughoutthis operation, temporary structural supports would be required to carry the loads that wouldotherwise be borne by the footings that have been removed and individual columns/walls mayrequire temporary lateral bracing depending on the specific building construction details.Footings would need to be replaced following contaminant removal to resume their load bearingroles and cross-bracing necessary to keep the walls standing.Prior to undertaking the Centre Pier cleanup described above, it will be necessary to address thefollowing considerations.Structural integrity of the buildings. The current owner, Cameco, has maintained thebuildings in a condition to support their interim use for interior storage of barrelled waste andpotentially contaminated items, pending their demolition within a few years as part of Vision2010. The buildings have been maintained on a short-term basis and have not beenmaintained with the notion of a life beyond their current limited use. If the buildings were tobe re-purposed and restored, substantial portions of buildings 41 and 43 would require3

UNRESTRICTEDreinforcement to ensure their structural competency during the subsequent decontaminationwork and soil remediation. Such reinforcement work is outside the scope of the PHAI and itsimplementation will delay the commencement of subsurface removal operations by severalmonths.Decontamination. The decontamination of the buildings, to allow their release for publicuse / normal occupancy, would entail the removal of all radioactive and industrialcontamination that is present on both the outside and inside surfaces of the structures. Thisdecontamination work is outside the scope of the PHAI’s mandate for this site. Nonetheless,AECL resources experienced in carrying out this work under the provisions of a CNSCnuclear licence (as would apply to the Centre Pier) with its many health and safetyrequirements advise that the technical difficulties that would likely be encountered indecontaminating the buildings include:o The porous nature of the concrete block (cinder) makes it difficult to clean. Structuralintegrity can be lost through extensive cleaning (Buildings 40 and 43).o The timber trusses are not easily decontaminated and would likely require shaving,diminishing their aesthetic and their structural soundness (Building 40).o Anticipated deterioration of the brick materials as a result of the decontamination process– the contaminated hard surface would likely require removal and the brick wouldquickly deteriorate (Buildings 41 and 43).o All surfaces (vertical and horizontal) of steel columns, such as I-beam supports, wouldneed to be exposed for decontamination and monitoring (Building 43).o Entire roofs would appear to need replacement as a pre-requisite for the interior cleaningto limit the spread of contamination (Buildings 41 and 43).o Floors are likely contaminated through the expansion joints and cracks and extensivedamage is probable (Building 43).o Drains are likely to contain radiological contamination, mercury, heavy metals, etc.(Building 43).o The expected need to remove and dispose of hazardous (non-radioactive) materials suchas asbestos and coal tar pitch (Buildings 40, 41 and 43).Restoration. The restoration of the buildings would require that current building codestandards be addressed, complete with life-safety systems, for all occupied buildings.Reconstruction of the buildings would likely be a far less expensive alternative to restorationof the current buildings. Any and all restoration associated with the buildings on the CentrePier is beyond the scope of the PHAI.4

UNRESTRICTEDSchedule, Cost and Social ImplicationsWhen assessing schedule impact, it is important to look at the effect on the entire projectschedule, not just the change at the Centre Pier / Harbour remediation sites.Due to the requirement to have all design work completed, reviewed by the Municipality andaccepted by CNSC staff prior to seeking a licence amendment, the approval to commencelicensed Phase 2 activities would be delayed by an estimated 12 months to allow for the redesignof the Harbour and Centre Pier remediation work with the buildings in place. This delay willaffect the construction of the water treatment plant in 2012 and the start of the construction of thenew Port Hope LTWMF which is currently scheduled to begin in 2013 (both starts subject tofederal project approvals for Phase 2).The schedule for the cleanup work at the Centre Pier and Harbour would be extended by anestimated additional 15 months 1 while the decontamination of the buildings to allow for futureunrestricted, occupied use is being completed. This would be followed by a 40-month extensionof the duration to complete the more complicated harbour wall restoration and sediment dewatering(10 months) and the stratified Centre Pier remediation (30 months). Allowing for theseasonal restrictions placed on work in the harbour, there will be an additional effect of 4 monthsof lost time. The cumulative schedule impact associated directly with accomplishing theseelements of the cleanup would be approximately 59 months (15+10+30+4), or nearly 5 years.In aggregate, the schedule for the Port Hope Project would be extended by an estimated 71months (12+59), or nearly 6 years if a plan were endorsed to accomplish the cleanup in theHarbour and on the Centre Pier with the buildings remaining in place. This total schedule impactreflects the anticipated design re-work, licensing deferral, Centre Pier remediation delayspending building reinforcement / decontamination and added construction complications forcontaminated soil removal.In terms of the financial implications to the cleanup costs if it was necessary to perform the workwith the buildings on the Centre Pier standing, the direct cost impact (premium) for theremediation work at the Harbour and on the Centre Pier has been estimated at 25-30% of thebudgeted total for these work elements 2 . This estimate excludes engineering, procurement andconstruction management (EPCM) fees for these elements, which would be in the order of 25%of the cleanup premium. All costs associated with the Centre Pier cleanup considerations(structural, decontamination, restoration) noted above would have to be borne by others as theyfall outside the mandate of the PHAI Management Office. These costs can be expected to be upto four times higher on a property governed by a nuclear licence compared to an industrial ormunicipal location, due to the extensive health, safety, and regulatory requirements imposed bythe CNSC.The indirect cost impact of lengthening the project duration by nearly 6 years would be verysignificant. The PHAI Management Office and dozens of its resources (staff and contractors)involved in technical, regulatory, management, administrative, and other project functions would1 15 months is in addition to the 15 months Cameco estimates to prepare the buildings for demolition.2 Costs impacts are expressed in relative terms to protect the integrity of the forthcoming procurement processes.5

UNRESTRICTEDbe mobilized for the extended period. In addition, programs assured under the Legal Agreement(e.g. property value protection, municipal administration cost recover, communications andstakeholder outreach, etc.) would be required for the additional duration. As such the projectedimpact on non-direct cost estimates, now budgeted for the 10-year Phase 2 duration, wouldnominally increase by 60% for the projected 16-year duration.From a social perspective, the implications from the extended project duration that would arisefrom the Alternative Scenario of leaving the Centre Pier buildings in place include:Extended closure period of the Port Hope Harbour facilities for the boaters,Lengthened period of restricted access to the Centre Pier for Ganaraska River fishers,Delay in the municipal re-development of the waterfront area, and,Most significantly, six more years of remedial activities within the community.Summary ConclusionsThe PHAI Management Office met with the Task Force on three occasions and responded toeach of its information requests in a timely manner. Extraordinary efforts were made to addressdifficult technical questions that were posed several months after the initial meeting with theTask Force.The Current Base Plan for the remediation of the Harbour sediments and the contaminated soilon the Centre Pier is based on the removal of the buildings by others, prior to the start of theseproject work elements. The in-hand environmental and regulatory approvals are based on theCurrent Base Plan and the completed detailed designs reflect this plan.The Alternative Scenario proposed by the Task Force would require substantial changes to theCurrent Base Plan, affecting the detailed designs, licensing plan and construction scope/timelines with significant cost and social impacts:The overall schedule for the Port Hope Project would be lengthened by approximately sixyears, beyond the current 10 year plan,Direct costs would be impacted by 25-30% exclusive of EPCM fees while indirect costswould rise by an estimated 60%, and,The boating, fishing and redevelopment activities in the Harbour area would be restrictedfor a longer period of time than currently planned and overall remediation activities in thecommunity markedly extended.Christine FaheyProject Director, Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office2011 August 256

From: Kyle/Bolton [hunter@nhb.com]Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 5:25 PMTo: Karen DuncanSubject: Re:Karen,We appreciate being included, and the Cemetery Board members have indicatedto me, that as the Pier development has no impact on our operations, we have nocomments as a Board to offer.Peter BoltonChairFrom: Karen DuncanSent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:11 PMTo: selena@eagle.ca ; tmain@norag.ca ; Richard.Jorge@RBC.com ; hunter@nhb.com ;bejkyle@hotmail.com ; frasercopeland@sympatico.ca ; maryellen.french@gmail.com ;dunain@eagle.ca ; millsbrad@hotmail.ca ; pdeauer@sympatico.ca ; Beata Odziemkowska ;Brenda Whitehead ; Rosita Vorsteveld ; Karen Sharpe ; Sue Dawe ; stickley@eagle.ca ; ConnieMartinell ; architect@sympatico.ca ; bandjbayley@bell.net ; reno@picciniarchitect.com ; GregBurns ; bpemberton3@cogeco.ca ; dhouston3@cogeco.ca ; Trevor ClappertonCc: Carl CannonDear Chairs, Co-Chairs or Staff Representatives:Further to Resolution No. 112/2011 passed at the July 26 th Council meeting, I am providing acopy of the Centre Pier Development Task Force’s Draft Final Report and comment sheet to alladvisory committees for your review (and possible comments) at your next regular meeting.Please be advised that the deadline for comments is September 5 th . I bring this deadline to yourattention in case you do not have a regular meeting prior to this date.Thank you,Karen DuncanAdministrative Assistant to the CAOMunicipality of Port Hope56 Queen StreetPort Hope, ON L1A 3Z9905.885.4544 x 2238kduncan@porthope.ca

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: pburgess [mailto:pburgess3@cogeco.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:58 PMTo: Port Hope MayorSubject: Fw: Centre PierMayor Thompson - I had sent the Email below to Deputy Mayor Gilmer in early July, butwas hoping that it could now be included officially as a comment received regarding thedevelopment of the Pier. Thank you.Regards,Doug Burgess309 Ridout StPort Hope L1A 1P9----- Original Message -----From: pburgessTo: jgilmer@porthope.caSent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:02 PMSubject: Centre PierJeff - I write to you as a resident of the Municipality who is very interested in thedevelopment of the Centre Pier. I strongly urge the Centre Pier Task Force to giveconsideration to the idea of creating an expanded harbour by digging out a large portionof the Pier. This development would require that all of the buildings on the Pier beremoved.Since the proposed East Marina is not going to proceed, the expanded harbour couldbecome the replacement. The present harbour is home to the Port Hope Yacht Club. Myview is that the anchorage of boats is very inefficient and should be changed to a dockingarrangement similar to the Cobourg harbour. This docking arrangement would create alarge number of boat spaces throughout the existing and new areas. The revenue fromthe annual rental of the many spaces will help to pay for the dredging and othermaintenance of the harbour, thus reducing the burden on taxpayers.The creation of the expanded harbour would dovetail well with the remediation work thatis to be done by Cameco and the Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) in the harbour area.Cameco is to demolish the buildings on the Pier in accordance with the direction from theMunicipality. The PHAI will be removing the sediments from the turning basin andapproach channel and as a consequence of this work, will upgrade the harbour walls.They are proposing a stone revetment on the west side next to the Cameco facility andsheet piling on the east side of the harbour, i.e. on the west side of the Pier . While thedredging is underway, the harbour will be isolated by a barrier located south of the Pier.The impacted soil on the Centre Pier is to be removed by Cameco and the PHAI. All of

the radiologically-impacted soil is to be taken out and the soil impacted by heavy metalsis to be excavated to the water table.In the area of the Pier where the harbour would be expanded, the excavation wouldinstead continue to bedrock. The cost of the extra excavation would fall to theMunicipality, but would be off set to a degree by savings to the PHAI from not having totruck in replacement fill. There would also be a cost to the Municipality for new sheetpile walls to form the harbour, but the PHAI should bear the cost of some of the worksince they were going to install a new wall along the west side of the Pier. Wth theharbour isolated by the barrier, the environmental impact on the Lake from digging outthe Pier would be mitigated.The design of the expanded harbour would best be done by professionals in the business,but I would envision in addition to the many new slips, areas for parking and boatstorage, a new marina administration building, a fisherman's park at the southern tip anda roadway running along the east side. A flood protection berm could be constructed atthe east side also if required. The Centre Pier is 10 acres in size and a lot can be donewith this large of an area. Such a marina development would be a major capitalexpenditure for the Municipality, but would be a great asset that would immediatelyencourage tourism and enhance the enjoyment of the waterfront for the residents.The Pier was constructed in the 1800's to serve as a shipping dock and later was used forindustrial purposes to take advantage of its position on the water. Let's continue theinteraction with the Lake by creating a another way to do this.Thanks very much for your consideration of this idea.Regards,Doug Burgess

August 5, 2011Mayor Thompson et al,The Pier Group is deeply concerned that the last‐minute information that was presented to theCentre Pier Development Task Force, and that resulted in the Task Force’s abrupt change ofdirection, has not been made public. Without this information it is impossible for the Pier Groupor any other concerned members of the community to adequately respond to the Centre PierDevelopment Task Force report in a fully informed manner. We therefore ask that theMunicipality and the Task Force provide, by August 30 (one week prior to the Sept 6 th deadlinefor public comment), the following:1) All correspondence and minutes of meetings between the Centre Pier Dev. Task Forceand the Municipality.2) All correspondence and minutes of meetings between the Centre Pier Dev. Task Force,PHAI and Cameco3) Copies of supporting documentation that justifies all of the claims made in the TaskForce Draft Report; in particular, all the documents that support the claims of an extra$25 million cost and 6 year delay to the clean‐up.4) Identification of the sources of the above documents; i.e. who wrote them and what aretheir credentials; who presented it to the Task Force.Without clear verification of the above information it is impossible for this community to assessthe Task Force report, and it is unacceptable for council to make irreversible decisions based oninformation that is being withheld from the public. Providing this information would help toensure the Task Force’s own recommendation that third party objective review and verificationbe obtained.Sincerely,C WallaceChris Wallace, Co‐chair, the Pier Group

PIERGUARDIANAUGUST 9, 2011Task Force conclusions areunsupported by evidenceThe Interim Report of the municipality’s Centre Pier Task Forcestates that saving the pier buildings would be prohibitively expensiveto the municipality, and would add up to six years to the Port Hopecleanup. This conclusion is unsupported and quite simply wrong.The Task Force Report says that its claims were revealedonly in eleventh-hour meetings with Cameco and PHAI. TheReport does not include any back-up for these claims and doesnot name the sources at Cameco or PHAI.The Report concludes with the essential recommendation thatthe town “Obtain third party objective review and verification ofthe estimates and time schedule to ensure that the informationprovided regarding the impacts of retaining the buildings is accurate”.This conclusion was not mentioned in the September 26presentation of the Report to Council.What we do know, however, is that the Task Force claims aboutlong delays and prohibitive costs are directly contradicted by otherpublished information.The Task Force says decontamination of the buildings for publicuse would take an extra 2 ½ years to complete, and would cost millionsmore. But Cameco’s massive Environmental Impact Statementoutlines the steps needed to clean the buildings for re-use,compared with the steps to clean them for demolition, and thesteps are almost entirely the same.Furthermore, Cameco spokesperson Doug Prendergast reactedto the Task Force Report by telling Northumberland News “it’smistaken to believe there is a cost saving if the buildings on theCentre Pier are demolished rather than remediated … Camecostill believes that potential clean-up of the Centre Pier Buildingscould be accommodated under the current waste deliveryschedule for PHAI, and has shared this information with the TaskForce”.Not only does the Report fail to establish that there would bemassive costs involved in saving the buildings -- it fails to makea case that any additional costs should be borne by local taxpayers.In fact, PHAI’s budget submission to the federal governmentincludes as a contingency that there may be a decision to save thebuildings. If the federal government’s own Environmental Assessmentdetermines that it would be environmentally advantageousto save the buildings, then Federal money as distributedthrough PHAI would pay for this extra work.The Pier Group“Friends ofthe Pier”Councilneeds to hearfrom you now!As bad as the content of theCentre Pier Task Force Reportis, the process may be evenworse. According to the Mayor’sinstructions, the entire public inputwill be the comments receivedby email or dropped off at TownHall during the August holidays.On September 6, the day afterLabour Day, these comments willbe tabulated and the process willbe over.This bare-minimum nod topublic input makes a mockery ofthe new Community ConsultationPolicy, approved after the“pillars” fiasco. That Policy statesthat for major projects, theremust be workshops and informalpublic meetings, Formal PublicMeetings to evaluate inputreceived, and meetings with theappropriate advisory committees.Unless you make your voiceheard in the next few weeks,Council may ignore their ownpolicy and rubber-stamp a seriouslyflawed report.Write to Council atadmin@porthope.ca, speakto your Councillors, and protestthis sham of a report andthe totally undemocratic processCouncil has set up for itsapproval.Further information – for a more detailed response to the Task Force Reportsee: www.thepiergroup.ca/response-to-task-force

Dear Mayor and members of Council:I am writing to say how dissappointed I am with the report presented by this task force. The onlygood and sound recommendation I can see is the final one, not included in their presentation tocouncil, that an independant review needs to be done to varify the last minute costing an timeoverruns they recieved re. saving the buildings are fact, not fantasy.I note that a Cameco spokeperson has already contradicted these scary dollar and timelineprojections and stated that there would be no cost savings to the municipality throughdemolishing the buildings. Why this task force would accept such information without anyverification and change their recommendations on this basis alone is simply beyond me.I demand that council follow its own recent Community consultation Policy and hold bothworkshops and informal public meetings on this very important issue. We need to know if thesefigures are accurate. If they are, anything can be done to mitigate them? This is a town thatlargely lives or dies based on it's hertiage and history. To lose these very valuable and rarebuildings would be a huge mistake. To do so based on wrong and/or incomplete informationwould be a travesty.Sincerely: William Lambert, Port Hope

Rod Stewart26 Barrett Street905 885 8764 Rod@HistoricPlaster.comI am disappointed and disturbed that council would even consider making a momentous decisionbased on a report that informs in the fine print that readers should check that the humble authorsaren't being lied to. Checking the nose stretching truth of the PHAI claims quoted in the report isbeyond the Task Force mandate, but they recommend it be done, presumably before it becomesholy scripture.As I read the reports from here in Newfoundland, it sounds as though Cameco has honorablydistanced itself from the abrupt conclusions in the Task Force Report. Possibly the PHAI has beencoerced into producing a wild budget and time line excuse to support one particular agenda for thePier and waterfront.In the face of all this last minute hyperbole and the warning from the Task Force that it might behogwash, why wouldn't council not simply thank and suspend the Task Force process for a shortwhile and establish the truth or untruth of the arguments about extreme delays and wild costsassociated with retaining the buildings on the Pier. The Task Force couldn't have been expected todo that.What on earth would council have to loose except that it might discover the disturbing truth that it toohas been lied to by people in positions of trust. Let's have the discussion about this eleventh hourrevelation out in the open and on the table.Somebody has to be lying to us, either now or not too long ago: and it hasn't been the Pier Group.We all deserve to find out who is the real puppet master hear - who is pulling the strings; and withwhat grand design in mind? It is hard to believe we all going through this because somebody ispassionate about having an off leash dog park.

I am quite appalled at the Centre Pier Development Task Force report, and at themethod in which this report is being communicated to the public:Concern no. 1: The report is not the result of the work of the Task Force members, butis rather a last minute re‐write, base on highly questionable ‘data’, presented in secretat meetings from which the majority of Task force members were excluded.Concern no. 2: The timing of this last minute re‐direction does not pass the smell test. Itwould appear that this ‘coincidence’ was orchestrated by someone with a vestedinterest in demolishing the Pier Buildings. The Task Force was well on its way torecommending that the buildings be preserved, when this strategic interventionoccurred.Concern no. 3: After the fiasco surrounding the approval of the controversial GanaraskaPillars, Council quite rightly passed a new “Community Consultation Policy”. MayorThompson is blatantly ignoring her own policy which calls for formal public meetings,among other things, for large projects. This makes a mockery of Council’s claim to be“open, honest, transparent and accountable”.Concern no. 4: The brand new information imposed on the Task Force at the last minuteis, quite frankly, absurd. This information ranges from the categorically untrue to thewildly exaggerated to the wilfully misleading.Item: The Task Force Report claims that Cameco’s cleaning of the buildings for re‐usewould add 2 1/2 years to the process, while Cameco’s official spokesman stated thatCameco could clean the buildings for re‐use within the agreed schedule.Item: The report blatantly padded Cameco’s clean‐up budget by adding items thatwere never intended to be part of this work.Item: The report makes exaggerated claims about flood plane conditions which aredirectly contradicted by the official GRCA flood plane mapping and which, if true, wouldrender the entire downtown of Port Hope undevelopable.Item: The report accepts as fact that PHAI will not pay for additional cost for retainingthe Pier Buildings. Rubbish. It’s PHAI’s job to clean up the harbour and Pier, and to notdamage the environment in the process. In fact the extra costs related to saving thebuildings, which are far less than the exaggerated claims, are already included as apossible contingency in the Harbour clean‐up budget.The only reasonable response to the overwhelming flaws in this report are to set itaside, to verify the information on which a revised report is based, and to present it tothe pubic for a comprehensive review, as called for in the municipality’s own policies.Chris Wallace192 Walton Street, Port Hope L1A 1N9home 905 885‐9266, work 905 753‐1122

Dear Mayor and Members of CouncilI do appreciate grass and trees. But, regardless of historical preservation goals, saving pier buildingsthat can be repurposed for effective new uses, in conjunction with public open space, seems farmore sensible than tearing them down in order to build and maintain a grass and trees park. The keyquestion is the feasibility of doing so.The Centre Pier Task Force worked hard on many aspects of the pier including the taskof preliminary evaluation of feasibility of retaining buildings. But costs and timing data they weregiven at the eleventh hour skewered the option of saving the buildings. The task force was apparentlyconcerned about the late arriving data which conflicted with other information provided by Camecoand made a recommendation for a follow up third party assessment. But I understand thisrecommendation was, unfortunately, not included in the presentation to Council .It's puzzling why the Task Force would choose to delete such a key recommendation.The Centre Pier has potential to support creative visions that could importantly impact the long termfuture of Port Hope. Thus it warrants every appropriate effort and full public consultation.I urge you to:1. Provide for an objective and open " third party" feasibility study for two options :A. Saving buildings for repurposing.B. Removing the buildings and making a public park .Costs/ benefits including revenue implications and timing for A and B would of course be criticalaspects. This assessment could also determine the feasibility of financial support from federal andprovincial governments.2. Observe the spirit and intent of the Community Public Consultation Policy. The Council's intent onthis , as I understand it, is not in line with this policy.Brad Johnson6692 7th LineRR 2 Campbellcroft, L0A 1B0905 797 2725

To the mayor and councillorsMunicipality of Port HopeRE: Interim report of the Centre Pier Task Force............................................................Twice this year, municipal council has flouted the principle of public consultation on notable projects,despite all your high-minded pledges of transparency and community involvement in decision-making.Most of us thought you had learned your lesson from the pillars fiasco (which was a direct result of youignoring the public consultation provisions of your Public Art Bylaw). You passed a CommunityConsultation Bylaw to ensure that voters have meaningful input into decisions that affect how we liveand use our town. But now you are proposing to ignore that.This must stop.You must have a public meeting to discuss the content, implications and possible scenarios arising fromthe Interim Report of the Centre Pier Task Force. There are at least three good reasons:1. You are not giving citizens a fair chance to read and respond to the report. It is available only duringthe month of August, when many people are on vacation, and comments are only being accepted until theday after Labour Day.2. There is no documentation in the report to support two key recommendations -- that the Centre Pierbuildings are too decrepit to save and it would cost too much money and time; and that a 200-slip marinacould be viable in the inner harbour.3. Council is making a mockery of its own bylaws, opening itself to legal challenge.The municipality's Community Consultation Bylaw states that "it shall apply to those projects with asignificant scope and potential impact on the community, the environment, level of service or health andsafety."It gives examples of projects that would not normally require public meetings. They are all minor --changes to traffic signage or notice of road closures. Examples of projects that would require publicmeetings include park development, new road development, zoning amendment, closing or opening amajor municipal facility.By this standard, it is clear that the long-awaited rehabilitation of Port Hope's public waterfront is a majorproject. Indeed, it is hard to think of a more major project that you will need to deal with this term. Itneeds a full public airing before you make any decision.At the public meeting, we need to hear:From the Task Force itself. When and why did they recommend to tear the buildings down?Why did they think the 11th hour estimates of costs and time were credible? How do they resolve

what was said in the report with the subsequent statement by Cameco that saving the buildingswouldn't necessarily cost more or take more time? Why did the task force not believe Cameco,which will actually carry out the remediation of the Centre Pier? The task force, which seems tohave met privately with several stakeholders, needs to be more openly accountable to thecommunity and give us good reason to believe that it was operating in the public interest. Thereare too many unanswered questions for us to accept that now. There are even rumours that theTask Force has resigned en masse. What is going on here?From municipal staff. What is the business plan in favour of a 200-slip marina in the innerharbour? It would be equivalent in size to the marina at Cobourg, but Cobourg does not have tocontend with train noise and whistles overhead, or the presence of a noisy industrial plant a fewmetres away from sleeping sailors. Why would they come here?From the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, on the need for a huge berm on theCentre Pier to protect Cameco from flooding. Is it really needed, and how will it inhibit other usesof the Centre Pier?From the mayor and council. You need to be accountable to us on this issue. Your actions todate have led many to question your motives. You have lost political credibility. You need to facea public meeting to do the following: explain your vision for the Centre Pier in light of this report;explain why you have chosen to shun advice and discourage input from an important communityresource (Port Hope has been lucky enough to attract a number of notable restoration architectswho have taken an interest in the potential of the Centre Pier buildings and have offered to assessthem at no cost to taxpayers. You need to explain why you are shunning that advice and help);explain why you do not have a conflict of interest (You are all members of the Port Hope HarbourCommission, which has already ordered Cameco to demolish the buildings; how can you now bein a position to impartially make any decisions on the Task Force recommendations?).It is not your harbour. It is our harbour. We need to do this right...............................................John MillerRR 4, Port HopeAugust 22, 2011

From: John Doherty [jdart_porthope@yahoo.ca]To: Admin@porthope.caDated August 23, 201111:02 AMTo whom it may concern: I am writing on behalf of myself, my wife, DebbieDoherty, my 2 daughters, Nicola & Tara, & Zac Cary, my daughters boyfriend. This is toprotest the actions of the Port Hope town council in the way they carried out businessinvolving specifically the pier buildings & the Farini park pillars. There seems to be a lotof evidence contrary to what the council is stating . We believe a further in depth study bedone by the council followed by a public forum where we can discuss the salient pointsneeds to be held. The meeting should be an open debate, NOT like the farcical pillarsforum when the architect left prior to the floor being opened for public questions. I wouldappreciate a response to this letter. yours sincerely, john doherty. 78, Pine street south.

From: Merron GottardiTo: Port Hope Mayor; Greg Burns; Greg Burns; Mary Lou Ellis; Jeff Gilmer; Jeff Lees; David TurckSent: Tue Aug 23 18:51:35 2011Subject: Port Hope of the Future?August 23, 2011Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members:The town of Port Hope has a unique and enviable opportunity to make its mark in SouthernOntario and beyond.Let’s envision Port Hope 10‐15 years from now having a vibrant waterfront, with visitors comingfrom the region, the cities and beyond to participate in year ‐round activities.Can you see the museums, galleries, markets, educational facilities, shops, restaurants, athleticvenues, and studios; all housed within and around the beautifully restored heritage industrialbuildings on the Pier?Can you hear the laughter, the conversation and the sounds of commerce?Can you see the growth in the town of Port Hope as people, young and not so young, choose tomake this wonderful place their home?They are researchers, students, artists, industrial workers, professors, healthcare workers, andentrepreneurs.They live here, work here, and play here. They participate in town life, they volunteer here, theyworship here, and they pay taxes here.And they all have one compelling feature in common:They thank the visionary leaders of Port Hope who could see the value of anchoring the townwith the Pier Buildings.They bless the taxpayers of Port Hope who understood that the future of the town dependedupon creative solutions to the down‐trending economic pressures of the day.They know that the 2011 town council of Port Hope made a courageous decision to aggressivelyseek the necessary expertise, and the required funding from a variety of public and privatesources to build a welcoming, safe and vibrant community for all to enjoy.Our children and grandchildren, their friends and family thank you in advance for making PortHope such a magnificent place to live and work.Mrs. Merron Gottardi,194 Walton Street,Port Hope OntarioL1A 1N905‐885‐2777

Re: The Pier Task Force Report12 August 2011To: The Mayor and Council, Municipality of Port Hope.I would like to comment on the Center Pier Task Force report.In the first part of the report it is clear that the Task Force having reviewed the Pierbuildings, the heritage value of the buildings, the economic potential for the reuse of thebuildings, the context for any work on the pier and precedents for similar projects inother communities came to the conclusion that the pier buildings have value and couldbe preserved in whole or in part.Upon review of the condition of the buildings it is clear they have determined that workis required to repair them, but not excessive work. This is typical of many such projectsand what was determined suggested an approach to their reuse that would mitigatesome of the damage by new work as part of the adaption of the buildings for new use.In the report there are assumptions regarding the cost of short term repairs to thebuilding. These are premature given no use for some or all of the buildings has beendetermined. Until such times as a use has been determined, costs for stabilizationshould be minimized. The approach Cameco has taken or less. The buildings afterCameco occupancy and until they are in whole or in part used, do not need to be“occupied” and therefore only structural stabilization is required. The costs in the reportmay apply but they may also not apply depending on the future.It has been reported that the cleaning of the buildings is to be undertaken by Cameco toremove radioactive waste prior to any wholesale demolition. This includes waste on thesurface of the buildings and beneath their floors. The completion of this cleaningoperation would cause the deconstruction of some elements of the buildings such asthe removal of the floor slab, or, the secondary roof. This work would in a sense alsoprepare the building shell for reuse and would leave the buildings in a preparatory statefor reuse.The report claims “new” information that the clean up would be to a lesser degree fordemolition than occupancy. Does this then mean that radioactive building materials arebeing removed from the site and sent to a landfill? We were previously informed thestandards for general landfill were similar to those for occupancy. This suggests somechange of position. Is this a political change or a real issue. This should beindependently verified. But even if real, Cameco “dirtied” the buildings which werenormal industrial buildings until their occupancy. Should they not be required to cleanthe site and buildings of all of their radioactive pollution? By accepting less, theMunicipality is granting Cameco a reduced expense at the cost of our public heritage

and development opportunity. The public, through the Harbour Commission, owns thesite after all.There is included a discussion about modification of the shoring design around the Pier.There would be an impact to this design but only over a small percentage of the lineardimension of the shoring. In this area a modified system would be required at somesmall added expense. However, this should not be considered additional expense. Inany urban area where existing buildings remain, shoring design must respond toexisting conditions. In the current plan, with the removal of the buildings, theMunicipality is granting the PHAI a reduction in their costs as you are willing to sacrificeour heritage!! The project should be based on preservation not the other way around.I make the same comment regarding the cost of cleaning up the harbour. From previousreports and discussions I understand there was a plan developed some time ago for thecleaning of the harbour with the buildings remaining. This was not pursued when theMunicipality agreed and requested of Cameco the buildings should be demolished. Ihave no doubt the destruction of our heritage and this unique adaptive reuseopportunity has saved PHAI costs and time for this work. But I highly doubt, also basedon previous estimates of time and money I have heard, that the unsubstantiatedamounts of both time and money set out in the report would be required to return to areasonable cleanup approach that saves the buildings.These amounts make no sense whatsoever to me and as an architect I am in theadaptive reuse business. These amounts appear very clearly to be highly inflated toreinforce a previous unreasonable decision that saved PHAI having to design a processwith the buildings in place. I would like to see an independent cost consultantʼs reporton these statements.The report identifies flooding issues on the Pier. I agree this is likely and in our meetingwith the GRCA we were informed that a flood of approx. 6” is likely, clearly we weremisinformed?. The 1.5 m calculation is based on theoretical computer modeling for apossible regional flood. I further understand the calculations indicate 1.5 m at the northend diminishing to .58m at the south end. So any general statement of 1.5 meters isinaccurate. I would also ask to have confirmed if any calculations have been done onthe basis of revising the east break-wall or other floodway measures - I suspect not. Inthis case looking more carefully at the design of the harbour, Camecoʼs redevelopmentplans and the idea of placing the Marina in the inner harbour be combined to makesome landform modifications that works for all of this and reduce the flooding risk.It is also interesting that in this so defined flood prone site Cameco has for years beenpermitted to store nuclear waste.Further, to suggest this is not a development site based on a computer calculation,means that most of downtown is also encumbered in a flood plain, with limitedpossibility of reuse or development of sites such as the CTC site or adjacent QueenStreet Plaza, or along Mill Street and so on. This is inaccurate. I have been granted

permission on several occasions to build in a flood plane. Certain precautions must beemployed and certain uses are restricted. The report begins to discuss this, that is all.Further, consideration is given as to if the project reduces the flood plain capacity.However, as our buildings already exist this would not be the case. I am sure a designfor reuse could be accomplished that meets regulations for occupancy in a flood plain.The report suggests the existing inner harbour / turning basin be reused as a marinaand that some modification of the harbour mouth be undertaken to reduce silting. I feelthis would be a excellent idea. Coupled with the retention of the buildings this wouldimprove the appearance and use of this body of water and the buildings could providesome interesting space in support. The pier will never be a beach type of “soft”waterfront, a use such as this would be attractive and appropriate. Further, themodifications mentioned should be considered in light of and coordinated with any othermodifications for flooding. The cost of developing a marina in this way would besubstantially less than the Waterfront Plan and outer harbour marina proposed, and yetaccomplish better many of the same objectives.The thought of the Pier as a bleak open space with a berm running down the middle assuggested in the report is very, very depressing. It will be a large empty wasteland.Even if developed as a park I suspect the cost of full park development would beprohibitive as a capital cost and add considerably to the park budget for annualmaintenance. A large empty space would be unused, cold and windswept in winter andin the end be of no economic advantage to the Municipality.In conclusion I am extremely disappointed in the report which finds the buildings to havevalue, economic reuse potential and then to fall victim to an unsubstantiated reportabout extreme costs and time delays that is just to “conveniently” in support of thestanding demolition decision and too extreme in both costs and time to be in any waycredible. It strongly appears to be a silly off the cuff kind of estimate. The decision toremove the buildings is wrong. I believe gives away too much to PHAI. We havesuffered enough at the hands of the historic nuclear industry in this Municipality. Toallow this travesty to continue just adds insult to injury.I ask you to have the Task Force reconsider its conclusions, to have a fair and accurateaudit done of the statement of costs and time and to push to have these new costsconsidered as a base condition for the clean-up project, a condition that saves ourheritage and our potential for an exciting creative and unique to Port Hope Waterfront.This is where it should have started, not the other way round.Phil Goldsmith, OAA, CAHP, BArch, BES46 Dorset St. East, Port Hope.

Received August 25, 2011 at 4:13 PMHello Karen.Here are the comments on the Centre Pier report from the EnvironmentalAdvisory Committee.1. Tentatively agree with conclusion that the buildings shouldcome down. Reported delay to PHAI clean-up and additionalexpenditure of tax payers money unacceptable.2. Need to know why it took so long to advise Task Force ofclean-up issues and delay. Cameco, PHAI and any membersof Council who were involved in the initial decision to instructCameco to remove buildings should have notified the TaskForce earlier .3. A committee should be struck to re-visit Waterfront Plan andsuggestion that a new marina be incorporated into the existingturning basin. This seems like a good idea. Status of Cameco’sVision 2010 should be pursued.4. Task Force needs to explain recommendation to keep buildingson the pier. What type of buildings does it have in mind ? Canthis be dealt with as part of new marina recommendation ?5. Compensation for clean-up cost savings to Cameco and PHAIshould be explored. However, we understand that Cameco'sagreement to be responsible for the demolition of the existingbuildings is beyond its lease obligations.Yours truly,Robert Fishlock

This message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Rod StewartEmail of sender: Rod@HistoricPlaster.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Rod StewartADDRESS 26 Barrett StreetPHONE NUMBER (905) 885 8764I object to the task force report being adopted for action by counciluntil all the last minute information that the authors report on hasbeen verified and made public.One point that seems very peculiar to me is the contention by the PHAIthat when the clean up of soil on the pier is complete, that it willnot be restoring the underground services to the site that arecurrently present there. Why not?Has the PHAI been told by someone in a position of authority that therewill be no need for municipal services like fire hydrants and sanitarysewers because the site is destined to be an off leash dog walkingpark? Has some sort of unauthorized and illegitimate miss-communicationlike this taken place.The services on the pier at the present time must be substantial. Theyare up to the standards of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for anuclear storage facility. The buildings all have sprinkler systems. I'msure there are fire hydrants. I believe there are washrooms in at leastone of the buildings.Imagine if the truth was that the services present on the pier areactually obsolete and of no value. Wouldn't our friends at Fare and theToronto Star have a heyday with that - The headline might be: Port HopeNuclear Facility Unprotected from Fire Risk.I imagine the PHAI is just doing and saying what it is being directedto say by a few people in power in the municipality who want to hijackthe constructive process that was well underway with the Task Forcerevisiting the demolition decisions of previous councils.An advocate for the tax payers of Port Hope would not be letting theFederal Government off the hook for the services that they will bedestroying when they clean their radioactive mess off our pier. Anadvocate for the municipal tax payers would be insisting on a thoroughaudit of these services and a clear statement form PHAI that they wouldbe reinstated as part of the clean up.I hope council understands that there is a long term asset value inwhat is on the pier and that all of us in Port Hope have a right to seeit recognized and be compensated if it is diminished in any way. Thatincludes the issue of services on the Pier.Rod Stewart

Gustave Dekking51 Dorset St EPort Hope OnL1A 1E2905-885-2212August 27 2011To the Municipality of Port Hope:Re: Comments on the Center Pier Task Force Report.1 / The Task Force at a very late stage in their process makes claim to last minute informationbeing provided by Cameco and the PHAI. This information is the basis of their conclusions toremove the pier buildings as costs and time line are grossly impacted if some or all the buildingswhere to remain. So strong is their belief, it reverses and/or makes all other analyse, reports,etc moot or redundant. And yet I could find no supporting documentation to enable this groupto make such a claim. I therefore conclude that such documentation to support theirrecommendation has not been provided. It is clearly unsubstantiated, anecdotal at best,hearsay and unprofessional. Council therefore can not rely on this report to assist them inmaking such a major decision regarding the deposition of the pier buildings.2/ Notwithstanding, I do agree with the Task Force however, on their recommendation torevisit the Turning Basin Harbour option. It has merit, and I believe a much better option thanthe pie in the sky East Harbour proposal. Also, it may provide a business case to use theexisting pier buildings to a renewed purpose. I believe that was something the Task Force wassuppose to consider in the first place.3/ I have read in the news that a public meeting will not be held on this issue as it is notconsider a major project. If the redevelopment of the center pier is not a major project I wouldnot know what would qualify. It is important to give all interested parties and stakeholders thebest opportunity to make their case. In the interest of transparency and fare process pleasereconsider.Thank you for the opportunity to comment on one of the most important issues facing thisCouncil.Respectfully,G. Dekking

From: Bart Hawkins Kreps [bart@anoutsidechance.com]Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 8:19 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Bart Hawkins KrepsEmail of sender: bart@anoutsidechance.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From: Bart Hawkins Kreps20 Caldwell St, Port Hope905-885-7963To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Port Hope Centre Pier Task Force highlights two essentialprinciples about the Centre Pier, but fails completely in providing solid information aboutthe feasibility of saving the pier buildings. It must be withdrawn and reworked, in aprocess that includes open public meetings as mandated in the municipality’s CommunityConsultation Policy.The Report emphasizes that having buildings on the pier is essential to the long termhealth of the town, so the pier must not be allowed to become a vacant lot or empty parkland. The Task Force members are right in saying that plans and commitments for newbuildings must already be in place if and when the existing buildings are destroyed.The Report also notes that if the current clean-up/demolition plan is carried out, the townwill be “stripped of its irreplaceable industrial heritage”, and will be left with “a vacantpiece of land that contributes little or nothing to the socio-economic welfare of PortHope.” The Report concludes that it is not right for such destruction to be carried outwithout compensation from Port Hope Area Initiative. Clearly the federal governmentshould be responsible for the costs of restoring the pier to full utility, whether thebuildings are remediated or replaced, and an Environmental Impact Statement must fullyaddress the economic and heritage issues before any demolition occurs.However, on the key issue of whether it is feasible to save any or all of the existingbuildings, the Report doesn’t deliver. We have waited for years to see documentation onadditional costs or delays associated with saving the buildings, and the Report just usleaves us waiting. The Report states that demolition is the only realistic option, basedsolely on last minute meetings with unnamed sources at Cameco and PHAI. The claimsmade by these unnamed sources are not documented in the Report, and there wasobviously no time for verification.

Given the importance of the heritage issues and the role of pier buildings in the town’slong-term development, Port Hope council must give the Task Force time to documentand verify key claims about remediation costs, followed by full public consultation.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Linda ThompsonSent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:51 AMTo: Karen DuncanSubject: Fw: Pier -waterfront issue--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Judith CopelandTo: Port Hope MayorSent: Tue Aug 30 09:03:14 2011Subject: Pier -waterfront issuePlease try to get all the various statements and opinions to come together to make somesense to the people of this community. The reports regarding costs of reconstuction werecontradictory and leave me scratching my head as to whether any real estimates based onknowledge were ever presented. It appears a public meeting to offer the committees'positions and the municipality's would be helpful.Judith Copeland

From: Linda ThompsonSent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:53 AMTo: Karen DuncanSubject: Fw: Port Hope pier--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: terry mooreTo: Port Hope MayorSent: Tue Aug 30 08:56:59 2011Subject: Port Hope pierWe support the Port Hope Pier option that will ensure the pier becomes a centre for thecommunity and will support those in the next municipal election who also support thisoption.Terry and Marilyn MooreBrown Street

From: Anthony Holmes [tony.holmes@cogeco.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:29 AMTo: Port Hope MayorCc: AdministrationSubject: The Future of the Centre PierYour Honour:I understand that there are impending decisions that will be made on this matter. As acitizen of Port Hope I am concerned that an opportunity has presented itself that couldlead to creating something that will greatly improve the public use of the waterfront andto our overall tourist appeal.May I therefore urge the Mayor and Council of Port Hope to:1 immediately establish an independent (possibly confidential) review of the cost andtime estimates provided to theTask Force by Cameco and the Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI);2 with that completed, hold full public discussions of the future of the pier, includingopen public meetings where questions may be asked and divergent opinions expressed;3 commit to development on the Centre Pier and to begin planning at once for itsfuture;4 enlist the support of Cameco, the Province and the various federal authorities behindthe PHAI.I am sure that you will feel as I do and not miss this once in a lifetime opportunitypermitting it to pass us by.Anthony Holmes23 Baldwin StreetPort Hope, ON L1A 1S3Tel 905 885 7372

From: Suzanne Aldis Routh [suzanne@effervescent.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:55 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Suzanne Aldis RouthEmail of sender: suzanne@effervescent.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: P.Doney [pdoney@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:00 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: P.DoneyEmail of sender: pdoney@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Patricia DoneyADDRESS 10 Armour StreetPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Susan Brooks [susansjb@yahoo.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:04 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Susan BrooksEmail of sender: susansjb@yahoo.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Susan BrooksADDRESS 5756 Choate Rd Port HopePHONE NUMBER 905 885 1708To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nick Vanderknokke [gharris@eagle.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:14 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Nick VanderknokkeEmail of sender: gharris@eagle.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gretchen Harris [gharris@eagle.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:14 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Gretchen HarrisEmail of sender: gharris@eagle.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Norenius mail [enorenius@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:17 PMTo: AdministrationSubject: Pier BuildingsCouncil MembersWe are neither for, nor against, saving one or more of the pier buildings. But we areagainst the current process of deciding their fate. We would like to see a clear statementof the pros and cons, assessed by qualified people on both sides of the equation, for eachbuilding. At the moment it looks as if the decisions have been taken already… with thetrain about to leave the station.Erik & Una NoreniusElgin St N, Port Hope, ON

From: Darrell Leeson [gallery@russborough.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:15 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Darrell LeesonEmail of sender: gallery@russborough.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Darrell Leeson82 Walton St Port Hope , Ont L1A 1N3905-885-9853To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chris Montgomery [studio@russborough.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:14 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Chris MontgomeryEmail of sender: studio@russborough.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Chris Montgomery84 Dorset St W Port Hope Ont L1A 1G2905-885-6186To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Linda ThompsonSent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:22 PMTo: Karen DuncanSubject: FW: The Port Hope Pier--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: suzanne.routh@sympatico.ca [mailto:suzanne.routh@sympatico.ca] On Behalf OfSuzanne Aldis RouthSent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:04 PMTo: Port Hope MayorSubject: The Port Hope PierDear Madam Mayor,What would you rather be remembered for Your Honour, being a visionary who left hercommunity with a shining and awarded example of architectual innovation andrestoration or as the Mayor who further ruined Port Hope's waterfront about which peoplewill shake their heads in years to come? The choice is yours.The future of the Centre Pier is one of the most important decisions Port Hope will makein the next decade – whether the pier is to become a vacant space providing floodprotection to Cameco, or a vibrant centre of community life that will attract tourists andinvigorate our downtown. The choice seems obvious.I am writing therefore to urge you and Council of Port Hope to:1 immediately establish an independent (possibly confidential), review of theestimates of cost and time provided to the Task Force by Cameco and Port Hope AreaInitiative (PHAI);2 with that completed, hold full public discussions of the future of the pier, includingopen public meetings where questions may be asked and divergent opinions expressed;3 commit to development on the Centre Pier and to begin planning at once for itsfuture development;4 enlist the support of Cameco, the province and the various federal authorities behindthe PHAI.

This pier and its propre development has the possibiity of making Port Hope anoutstanding example of civic leadership in heritage industrial site development.Yours truly,Suzanne Aldis Routh28 Ross StreetPort Hope

Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:59 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Anthony PriestleyEmail of sender:------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Anthony Priestley 59, Pine St. North 885-7366 To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Terry and Rita Bell [terryandritabell@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:59 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Terry and Rita BellEmail of sender: terryandritabell@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------Terry Bell7546 Bamsey DrP/O Box 452RR 2 Bewdley ONK0L 1E0PHONE NUMBER 905 342 3700To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Terry Bell [terryandritabell@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:06 PMTo: AdministrationSubject: Pier buildingsSaving these buildings might be just what is needed to start the revitalizing of thewaterfront area.Port Hope has so much potential but it is justnot being realized.RegardsTerry Bell

From: Stephen B H Smith [sbhs@eagle.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:35 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Stephen B H SmithEmail of sender: sbhs@eagle.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Stephen B H SmithADDRESS 105 Dorset Street West, Port Hope, L1A1G4PHONE NUMBER 905-885-4977To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.STOP THE COVER-UP !!!!------------------------------------------------------------

From: Suzanne Ryan [suer22@hotmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:42 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Suzanne RyanEmail of sender: suer22@hotmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Suzanne RyanADDRESS 72 Pine St.PHONE NUMBER 905-877-3736To the Municipality of Port Hope:I am deeply distressed by the Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Forceand feel that the whole process has been very undemocratic. As a resident, voter, andtaxpayer of Port Hope, I am in disbelief at the way in which this has been handled. Idemand more time for consultation and public feedback. It is in the interest of the wholecommunity that we get this right. Once the pier buildings are gone, we can never rebuildthem. It at least behooves us to take our time and really listen to all concerned so the wedon't mistakenly toss away our heritage and do irreparable damage to our beautifulcommunity. It is also this type of politics that makes new residents want to throw up theirhands and move away!------------------------------------------------------------

From: susan macdonald [sumac7@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:37 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: susan macdonaldEmail of sender: sumac7@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peter McCarthy [pj.mccarthy@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:17 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Peter McCarthyEmail of sender: pj.mccarthy@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peter Abrams [abrahend@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:30 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Peter AbramsEmail of sender: abrahend@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Peter Abrams41 Ellen Street905-885-4885To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: M.J.CUMMINGS [SCOUSE.CUMMINGS@GMAIL.COM]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:26 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: M.J.CUMMINGSEmail of sender: SCOUSE.CUMMINGS@GMAIL.COM------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joseph Ryan [joer6@hotmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:11 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Joseph RyanEmail of sender: joer6@hotmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Joseph RyanADDRESS 72 Pine St. N Port Hope, ONPHONE NUMBER 905-885-4945To the Municipality of Port Hope:Please Port Hope Administration ......STOP! Take time for a proper public consultationprocess and take time to investigate the contradictions in the reports that are before you.Is your legacy going to be the same as the one that destroyed the Post Office building?Surely there are many if not all members of that group who would like to revisit such aheritage destroying decision. This is of the same importance.Cobourg made a courageous decision to preserve its heritage town hall. Is that town morefar sighted than Port Hope!The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: jane currelly [jcurrelly@hotmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:45 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: jane currellyEmail of sender: jcurrelly@hotmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Jane CurrellyADDRESS 2775 Fourth Line,Port Hope,L1A3V7PHONE NUMBER 905 786 9845To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ferruccio Gottardi [fgottardi@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:36 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Ferruccio GottardiEmail of sender: fgottardi@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Ferruccio Gottardi, P.Eng., CEM194 Walton Street905 885-2777To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report from the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andneeds to be re-visited, after suitable public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on unverified, 11th hourinformation, that was released in meetings to which only a very few of the task forcemembers were invited. Further, there is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback and lack of a creation of suitable publicawareness makes this an insult of the new Community Consultation Policy, which saysthere must be public meetings to solicit feedback on any major projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportmust not serve as the basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.Regards,Ferruccio Gottardi--------------------------------

From: W. Edward Hunt [stickley@eagle.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:39 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: W. Edward HuntEmail of sender: stickley@eagle.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Carol Williams [mylilith54@hotmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:21 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Carol WilliamsEmail of sender: mylilith54@hotmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Carole Elliott [carole.elliott@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:28 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Carole ElliottEmail of sender: carole.elliott@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Carole ElliottADDRESS 87 Hope St NPHONE NUMBER 905-885-0098To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken Macpherson [kmacpherson12@cogeco.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:12 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Ken MacphersonEmail of sender: kmacpherson12@cogeco.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Ken MacphersonADDRESS512-155 Toronto Rd.PHONE NUMBER (905)885.7672To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Carole Elliott [carole.elliott@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:28 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Carole ElliottEmail of sender: carole.elliott@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Carole ElliottADDRESS 87 Hope St NPHONE NUMBER 905-885-0098To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: john king [thejohnkings@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:35 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: john kingEmail of sender: thejohnkings@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Bennett [john.bennett2@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:24 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: John BennettEmail of sender: john.bennett2@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:John & Peggy Bennett26 Bedford StreetPort Hope, Ontario905-885-7802To the Municipality of Port Hope:We had dinner with one of the members of the Task Force and he remarked that as far ashe was concerned the Task Force was coerced into providing the conclusion of theprovided information.The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeanette Bartosik [Jeanetteka@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:29 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Jeanette BartosikEmail of sender: Jeanetteka@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Jeanette Bartosik81 Bramley St. S.885 4120To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.I have read the pier groups findings and agree. Council should ask themselves, why is itthat years of study and research, time and energy was spent by a group of local concernedcitizens to save the buildings in the first place? Port Hope's appeal has always been whatordinary citizens have been doing to restore, upgrade and collectively create which is acommunity of historically beautiful buildings. Its a place where curb appeal is at an alltime high. If there were no historical buildings or homes, Port Hope wouldn't be muchdifferent from any other community of box houses and box stores. Port Hope is knownfor having one of the best examples of Victorian Architecture in its downtown core.Secondly, I hope the work of the pier group was not completely undone by one individualperson, and that there are no affiliations with the construction of future Port Hope

developments or pier construction projects? I also hope the individual(s) do not haveanything to do with the "Idea Hub" or the development of the "Industrial-representativebrick pillars" both of which are deemed hugely unsuccessful and a waste of tax dollars.As a side note, the pillars should have been representative of Port Hope's Victorian age -not the industrial age. The pillars are nothing but a cheaper version of what already existsin Peterborough (beautifully cut stones were used instead of bricks). Council should gotake a short drive to Peterborough to look for themselves.My last point is with what is taking place right now in China. The Three Gorges Dam inChina which will destroy a whole world of history by flooding the area, and the potentialfor environmental catastrophe is disastrous. Therefore, sacrificing an environment, or ahistorically significant building for temporary economic gains is not something thatcouncil should vehemently defend. Please give this considerable thought because we allknow, that once the buildings are gone, there is no going back. Thank you for your timeand consideration and having a chance to voice my opinion and concern on the piergroups findings and research.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Don Rumgay [drumgay@cogeco.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:43 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Don RumgayEmail of sender: drumgay@cogeco.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Don RumgayADDRESS 21 Dorset St EPHONE NUMBER 905-885-2928To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.Due to controversary surrounding the task force's final report, why is the Council rushingto try and close off this very important public issue? Why has the Council ignored all thework of many worthy citizens and tried to ignore the Pier Group, as though they did notexist? Why does the Council operate on the basis of selecting Task Forces that excludethe spokespeople of opposition.Parliamentary democracy calls for the elected government AND the government inopposition - but definitely NOT in Port Hope. A pity for the town.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: david Hamayda [davidhamayda@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:52 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: david HamaydaEmail of sender: davidhamayda@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Deby Goldsmith [debygoldsmith@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:02 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Deby GoldsmithEmail of sender: debygoldsmith@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Broughton [david.broughton@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:00 PMTo: AdministrationCc: info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Centre Pier Development Task Force Draft Final Report CommentsTo Members of Port Hope Council –This draft report is woefully inadequate.The primary conclusion that the Centre Pier buildings must be demolished due to costand time issues is not supported by any documented facts. There are many contradictionsbetween this report and previously published reports and statements from Cameco. Eventhe members of the committee (which includes council representation) recommend to“Obtain third party objective review and verification of the estimates and time scheduleto ensure that the information provided regarding the impacts of retaining the buildings isaccurate.” As it is we have last-minute statements from unnamed, unaccountable sources– not the basis for a well thought out plan of action.In addition to the lack of documented sources, the lack of opportunity for public scrutinyis appalling. We need the opportunity for a public review of the report. Your ownCommunity Consultation Policy says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback onany major projects. Yet you have gone out of your way to limit feedback to a time whenmany are on vacation.From a pure process perspective, given the lack of public participation in the selectionand deliberations of the committee, as well as the lack of meaningful public examinationof the “facts” used to determine the conclusions, council may fall well short of its goalsfor responsiveness, citizen empowerment, transparency and accountability.Having a Central Pier Task Force was a good idea. Let’s get the maximum benefit from itwith a thorough public review, followed by a re-write to produce a well-documentedreport.Sincerely,David Broughton

From: Peggy Mersereau [pmersereau@cogeco.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:02 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Peggy MersereauEmail of sender: pmersereau@cogeco.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

om: Nancy Jones [astral@eagle.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:27 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Nancy JonesEmail of sender: astral@eagle.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nancy Jones [astral@eagle.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:55 PMTo: AdministrationCc: The Pier GroupSubject: The Future of the Centre Pier BuildingsTo the Port Hope Town Council and Staff:RE: CENTRE PIER BUILDINGS AND PLANS FOR THE SITEThere are many factors that are currently playing a role in the controversy of the future ofthe Centre Pier Buildings, the most notable being the unwillingness of our present TownCouncil, and Staff, to entertain any concepts beyond their own. The Centre Pier hasalways, and will continue to play an important role in the fabric of Port Hope. In thismatter, it would be responsible for the Council to show more courtesy towards the peoplefor whom they work. It is disingenuous of Council to put aside their own CommunityConsultation Policy so soon after making it.I offer the following:In all the on-going discussions of potential uses for the existing Centre Pier Buildings,once rejuvenated, there has been little focus on the possibility of retaining the buildingsfor industrial and commercial use and I feel this avenue would benefit from furtherexploration.My husband and I have been residents of Port Hope for over eleven years and two yearsago we were finally able to relocate our leather shop to the town from the GTA. It took usnine years to find a suitable facility. We were looking for a commercial space that wouldaccommodate our production requirements and yet offer us contact with the downtownand it's visitors. There is almost nothing available and we were very fortunate to find theproperty on Cavan Street, after so many years of looking. We did investigate both theindustrial areas of Ward Street, and Croft, but found the isolation of these locations bothunattractive and unaffordable.I believe that the Centre Pier Buildings, with their immeasurable character and primetourist location, would be an excellent choice for small industrial/commerical trade basedenterprises, training centres and craft studios. The buildings, once remediated, could bedivided into varying sizes, all with traffic and pedestrian access and in close proximity tothe downtown core. With the desired plan to connect the downtown to the waterfront,

there is little that would draw people to the waterfront more than interesting commerce.Other than trying to attract visitors destined to the beaches of Cobourg and stopping herein Port Hope for a game of soccer before proceeding, there is little reason to waste such avaluable location on playing fields and more parks. In addition, the presence of thedouble railway overpasses make outdoor activities unpleasantly noisy. It will never besuitable as a picnic area. However, if a variety of enterprises, studios, shops, restaurantsand entertainment facilities were to occupy the Pier Buildings, many consumers would bedrawn to this intriguing property, as they are around the world. And the developmentcosts, once the structures are available, would be undertaken by the business themselves.In addition, if the decision can finally be reached that building an off shore marina on theEast Beach, and thus destroying our limited beach as it now is, can be put aside in favourof developing the existing inner harbour basin, the possibilities for businesses on theCentre Pier greatly expands. To be able to offer the boating public an excellent harbourwith indoor winter storage, marina facilities, boat builders, sail makers, and related tradeswould be a bonus few other harbours on the North Shore of Lake Ontario can provide. Toeliminate this potential for green space seems an oddly limited vision. There are fewthings that attract people as does a vibrant waterfront as can be seen in Toronto itself. Allit will take is a modest investment in a corrected breakwater and the installation of docksand facilities incorporated into the existing basin and adjoining improved buildings.It seems foolhardy to construct an expensive outer harbour when a perfectly usable onealready exists. The costs cannot be justified.For this current Town Council to assume arbitrary direction over the future of a longstanding asset that belongs to the Town is inappropriate. This Town Council and it's staffhave proven a questionable level of competence in managing OUR affairs. For example -The Pillars, with their unkempt gardens (do we really think people come to Port Hope tolook at tall grasses and purple weeds and not the Victorian gardens of lilacs and hostasand green lawns that graced these area before). The corner of Walton and Mill is adisgrace. The Town cannot manage the few parks it already has, let alone adding acresmore on the Centre Pier.The extraordinary expense of the Dorset Street revitalization (did we really need to plant64 trees on a tree lined street).The substantial investment in an industrial park on Toronto Road when the one on Croftremains underutilized (every town along the 401 wishes to attract business to their area,Port Hope is not unique in this and with the Town's higher than average tax base, fewbusinesses will consider it).

The IdeaHub with it's few tennants - Growing and vibrant businesses want to be locatedin the core, not on the fringes - imagine if such a project had been undertaken on arevitalized Centre Pier.The multi million dollar expense of the New Works Yard for the exclusive benefit ofTown Staff.The proposed twelve million dollar expansion of Town Hall for the primary benefit ofTown Staff and Council.The Harbour Commission and it's dubious claim to governance and control of propertyowned by the citizens of this Town. When exactly will we be informed of theCommission's "secret agenda"?I think that Town Council and it's Staff should be prudent in the use of their presumedauthority. There are over 500 active members of the Pier Group who support the conceptof revitalizing the Centre Pier. For this Town Council to override these possibilities andconsiderations is arrogant, if not self-serving, and is devoid of consideration towards thetaxpayers of this town. There is no reason that we have been informed of, to make thesepermanently altering decisions now. With the published dates of the remediation projectstill long into the future, decisions made now are unnecessarily premature.I would ask good will of the Town Council, and Staff, in endorsing more open andinformative communication regarding the Centre Pier plan and provide the supporters ofthis historic property a chance to offer some timely and constructive ideas for the future,instead of continuing to manipulate the information exchange and hide behind a decadesold concept of what should be.To be open minded and imaginative.To listen with sincerity.To get excited about the potential of this intriguing site.Nancy Jones51 John Street, Port Hope, ON

From: Jim Gooch [jim.gooch@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:33 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Jim GoochEmail of sender: jim.gooch@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Jim GoochADDRESS Box 171 Port Hope,Ontario L1A 3W3 PHONE NUMBER 905-753-2267To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,revealed in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which states there must be public meetings to solicit feedback onany major projects. Please schedule the required public meeting IMMEDIATELY. Theagenda should include the presentation of written support for the disputed information inthe Report or, in lieu of that, admission that none exists.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eve and Terry McBride [evenme955@msn.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:28 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Eve and Terry McBrideEmail of sender: evenme955@msn.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Eve and Terry McBrideADDRESS 9 Trafalgar Street, Port Hope Ontario PHONE NUMBER 630-293-4572To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: David J. Draper [dave.draper@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:28 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: David J. DraperEmail of sender: dave.draper@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:David J. Draper2 Ramsey Rd. Port Hope905-885-4465To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: carolyn ray [cray@eagle.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:55 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: carolyn rayEmail of sender: cray@eagle.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: patricia crosbie [pcrosbie@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:00 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: patricia crosbieEmail of sender: pcrosbie@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME patricia crosbieADDRESS 6 William StreetPHONE NUMBER 905-885-9999To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Norma E. Draper [dave.draper@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:30 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Norma E. DraperEmail of sender: dave.draper@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Norma E.Draper, 2 Ramsey Rd. Port Hope905-885-4465To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lee Vittetow [leevittetow@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:58 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Lee VittetowEmail of sender: leevittetow@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME: Lee VittetowADDRESS: 41 South StPHONE NUMBER: 905=885=8353To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Linda McClelland [mcpinkster@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:01 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Linda McClellandEmail of sender: mcpinkster@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Linda McClelland [mcpinkster@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:11 PMTo: AdministrationSubject: The Pier BuildingsI have to say that I was very disappointed to hear that council is still wanting to go aheadwith demolition of the old buildings on the waterfront, in particular the red brickbuilding.Surely council has learned a lesson from the tremendously offensive building thatpurports to be luxury condos...it is one storey too high to ever become part of thedowntown core, with such cheap finishings that it appears to be a poor attempt atsubsidized housing. I can only imagine this happening because you were trapped betweena rock and a hard place. "We build it our way or you're stuck with an abandonedbuilding"...Or Shopper's Drug Mart, also built on prime land right on the river. How didthese buildings ever get by the OMB?Why was no attempt made to build them with the type of finishes and architecture thatwould fit into the downtown core? And the aggressively bright lighting and signage ofShoppers belongs in a smart centre, not downtown in a neighbourhood where peopleactually dwell, and enjoy the night sky and daytime views.So you must forgive my having grave concerns about the council's ability to oversee anynew construction or demolition on the waterfront.Please spare us more new architecture. I appreciate good design and well-constructededifices, be they new or old. But the new structures I have seen go up in my time in PortHope have been jarringly ordinary, and in no way sympathetic to the downtown buildingsthat make our town unique and appealing.Linda McClelland

From: John Morand [j.moran@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:59 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: John MorandEmail of sender: j.moran@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:John Morand157 king street,Port Hope, Ont.L1A 2S2905-885-1405The Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is poorly done and shouldbe rewritten to take into account future development of the pier in Terms of therequirements of banks and lenders to have a "clean site" if they are to provide adequatesecondary or primary funding.I do not see that any conversations were held with any of the major pension funds thatcould act as a source of future funding for a redo of the Waterfront.it is my understanding that a number of the conclusions in the report are based on lastminuteinformation, made in meetings to which only some of the task force memberswere invited this is not consistent with council's new policyof oopeness andaccountability. I do not understand how such conclusions can be defended at the OMB orin an EA if no back up or supporting information is kept as a record.The minimal time allowed for public feedback disappoints me and many consider that itmakes a mockery of the new Community Consultation Policy, which says there must bepublic meetings to solicit feedback on any major projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportshould not serve as the foundation for thee future final report upon which criticaldecisions will be made.----------------------------------------------------------

From: nlefeaver@gmail.com on behalf of nancy lefeaver[lefeavertalent@canadafilm.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:31 AMTo: AdministrationSubject: Pier BuildingTo Whom It May Concern,As a resident of Newtonville I was very excited at the possibility of revitalising PortHopes water front by restoring the heritage buildings. I have seen how the restoredDistillery district in Toronto has revitalised that area and Port Hope's waterfront needs allthe help it can get. Since moving to Newtonville 14 years ago, I have been disappointedby the lack of interest in heritage buildings. (Look how century old barns are pulled downwithout a second thought.)Please register this as a support letter for the heritage buildings and a strong interest inseeing them restored and maintained.--Nancy LeFeaverLeFeaver Talent Management416-929-3112

From: Nancy Hooper [bedquarters@hotmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:10 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Nancy HooperEmail of sender: bedquarters@hotmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Nancy HooperBowmanville, Ontario905-924-2147To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Judith Kreps Hawkins [judith@vps032.coolcom.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:35 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Judith Kreps HawkinsEmail of sender: judith------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.Furthermore, it seems that you indicate that on the one hand this is not major enough towarrant the Community Consultation process, but on the other hand it would be somonstrously costly both in time and money that it cannot continue. WHICH do youmean?? In either case the proper thing to do is ensure that the community you serve isfully and fairly informed before decisions are made.So far this has not been the case.Respectfully submitted,JKH------------------------------------------------------------

From: david rydholm [davidrydholm@hotmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 6:16 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: david rydholmEmail of sender: davidrydholm@hotmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:David Rydholm6 King St. Port Hope ON L1A 2R4905 885-1660To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Derrick Kelly [DKelly@ThermaPan.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:58 AMTo: AdministrationSubject: Centre Pier Task Force ReportTo whom it may concern;I’m not necessarily in favor of keeping the buildings presently located on Port Hope’sCentre Pier, but I’m certainly not in favor of stifling debate on any issue and it appears tome that this is exactly what our municipal council is trying to do with this issue.What kind of non-sense is our democratically elected mayor and council trying to pullover our local democracy by not having a public meeting and by having the commentperiod, for the Centre Pier Tasks Force Report, ending on September 5th? It seems prettydubious to me that the comment period was only during the month of August when a lotof citizens are on vacation, including our own municipal council. Shame on the mayorand her council in once again trying to undermine debate in the Town of Port Hope!Derrick KellyPort Hope, Ward One

From: Alice Teichert [alice.teichert@gmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:48 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Alice TeichertEmail of sender: alice.teichert@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Alice TeichertRR1 Campbellcroft, ON L0A 1B0705 932 2072To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robin Thibodeau [robmar7@mac.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:29 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Robin ThibodeauEmail of sender: robmar7@mac.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tony and Mary Trevor [ttrevor@cogeco.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:48 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Tony and Mary TrevorEmail of sender: ttrevor@cogeco.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert F Anglin [Rfanglin@gmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:42 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Robert F AnglinEmail of sender: Rfanglin@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Robert F Anglin16 Bedford StPort Hope, Ont905 885 8511To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken Burgin [ken@contextcom.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:14 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Ken BurginEmail of sender: ken@contextcom.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Ken Burgin24 Bramley St. NPort HopeTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Deirdre Poole [didi.poolala@gmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:12 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Deirdre PooleEmail of sender: didi.poolala@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Deirdre Poole249 Ridout St., Port Hope905-885-7806To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Allen Strike [astrike@sympatico.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:15 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Allen StrikeEmail of sender: astrike@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------If the Port Hope Council had been running New York in 1857, would Central Park everhave been built? Did the imagination of citizen councils die with the nineteenth century?Enlightened leadership is sorely need today.------------------------------------------------------------

From: larry rooney [ljrooney@ca.inter.net]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:15 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: larry rooneyEmail of sender: ljrooney@ca.inter.net------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:I wish to begin my comments on a positive note by suggesting that the Council giveserious consideration to one of the recommendations of the Task Force to the effect thatcouncil: "Obtain third party objective review and verification of the estimates and timeschedule to ensure the information provided regarding the impact of retaining thebuildings is accurate.I have to question the accuracy, the process,and the general content of the report based onthe following:--At a crucial point in the work of the task force a meeting was held to which not allmembers of the task force were either not invited or present. It was at this last moment'smeeting that the Task Force received, and apparently accepted, submissions from thePHAI that became a central focus of the Report.---The fact that Council may be prepared to accept the report without any serious debateor public consultation leaves me to wonder is the majority of Council is more interestedin serving the interest of others rather than the citizens of Port Hope whom theysupposedly represent.---My comments are about the PROCESS; not about whether the buildings should orshould not remain. I hope individual members of the Council will give seriousconsideration to the concerns of people who are asking for transparency,integrity and dueprocess which will result in a thorough public review of both the process and the resultantTASK FORCE REPORT.Thank you in advance for giving consideration to this input.larry rooney------------------------------------------------------------

From: Allison Polutnik [Allison@technolutionsci.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:44 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Allison PolutnikEmail of sender: Allison@technolutionsci.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Polutnik [Chair@PHRA.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:43 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Robert PolutnikEmail of sender: Chair@PHRA.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT SHEETMUNICIPALiTy UF PORT HOPEPort Hope‘ri f n)cmIhyAUG 312011srii,tJVEDSeptemberDraft Final Report Comment,.Address:, J/-th 4y I /6 /To the Municipality of Port Hope:23O or adminporthope.caPort Hope.Name 7’ -LDeadline for Return -Centre Pier Development Task ForceThe Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawedPhone: —/O Email: f o6JyAR 0 Cc’rand must be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.formation, made in meetings to which only some of the task force members wereIt is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute ininvited, and that there is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new Cornfeedback on any major projects.munity Consultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicitFinally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by informaby Cameco since the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, thetion in Carneco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements madeInterim Report cannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future ofat adminportho.ca. Any questions may be directed to R. Carl Cannon, CAO at 905.885.4544 xPlease return your completed form to Town Hall Administration Office, 56 Queen Street or by email

41C-I 4e-,COMMENT SHEETCentre Pier Development Task ForceDraft Final Report CommentsDeadline for Return — September 5, 2011Thc ?.1c.palley utPort HopeName: \)4/.D,rFl c’Y c-)c,CAddress: 4’ 410 4/ie’j .5.Phone: 9os 5 ‘ “ Email:Your comments with regards to the Centre Pier Development Task Force Draft FinalReport would be appreciated. If you require more space please use the back of thissheet. Thank you./ ø4-, $- I- 6t,,-,h07 fe- aia- --.‘ -•-- .aeePlease return your completed form to Town Hall Administration Office, 56 Queen Street or by emailat admini)porthope.ca. Any questions may be directed to R. Carl Cannon, CAO at 905.885.4544 x2230 or adminporthope.caa--- p-’-/ø%7A’—’‘‘

REcEIVEDCOMMENT SHEET AuG 3 zoilCentre Pier Development TaskDraft Final Report CommentsIPALITy OF PORT HOPEDeadline for Return — September 5, 2011Name:Address: 071 ‘)6Zi) isQ .ft 2ac L7i(Phone: Email: —To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawedand must be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information, made in meetings to which only some of the task force members wereinvited, and that there is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new Community Consultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicitfeedback on any major projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information in Cameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements madeby Cameco since the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, theInterim Report cannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future ofPortHo e‘frPlease return your completed form to Town Hall Administration Office, 56 Queen Street or by emailat admin)porthote.ca. Any questions may be directed to R. Carl Cannon, CAO at 905.885.4544 x2230 or adminporthope.ca

From: Linda ThompsonSent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:39 PMTo: Karen DuncanSubject: Fw: Your support and assistance is urgently required.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Chair - PHRATo: Mr. Robert PolutnikSent: Wed Aug 31 15:54:21 2011Subject: Your support and assistance is urgently required.A number of senior members of the Pier Group, Mr. Hickey and I have recently had theopportunity to jointly review the process utilized by the Municipality of Port Hope indetermining the final outcome the four building located on the centre pier.After this review our original plan was to request of the PHRA Board of Directors to holda ‘Town Hall’ meeting allowing for all residents of Port Hope to be made aware of the allthe various points of view of this complex issue but due to time constraints this type ofmeeting cannot be properly setup with such short notice.Having said that, I have no difficultly in stating that after reviewing the available data, Ipersonally feel that no matter the insights discovered through the review performed byCentre Pier Development Task Force the results would have to favour the removal of allthe buildings.The removal of the building has always been part of the master plan of CPHH, the ownerof the centre pier. The documented decision to remove the centre pier building thenbecame the base for every other plan affecting the Port Hope Marina and Harbour fromthat point on, the date was July 25th, 2007. The other plans impacted by that decisionthat were affected included Cameco’ Vision 2010, the PHAI LLRW cleanup, theredesign and planned building of the new Port Hope Marina and Harbour, and perhapseven the Ganaraska River Park itself, the four building in question were always slated forremoval. All one has to do is look at any of the drawing of the revitalization. (Seeattached – note the date, Fall 2007)So the question became, who actually are the Commissioners of the Port Hope Harbour,the owner of the centre pier? You may not be aware of this but the very people whocreated the Centre Pier Development Task Force in the first place to review the status ofthe four buildings on the centre pier are actually the very same people who orderedCameco to remove the buildings back in 2007, your Town Council. Yes, your TownCouncil is also the CPHH. Now that might be considered by some as a conflict ofinterest.Neither the PHRA nor I are picking any sides on the issue of whether or not the fourbuildings removed or are we asking you to; but we do ask that you join in our effort toensure that the review process adheres to what the vision of your Port Hope TownCouncil states:

The growth and prosperity of Municipality of Port Hope will continue to flourish as aresult of Council’s commitment to strong, responsible leadership for the greater good.This vision will be accomplished through:· Fiscal responsibility· Responsiveness to community issues and needs· Accountability and citizen empowerment· Transparency· Commitment to economic development· Hard work, open and respectful discussion and debate· Realistic and attainable short and long term goals· Cooperation between Council, Staff and all levels of governmentThe above principles and actions will result in the systematic advancement of the qualityof life in our community.How can you help, well first if you too feel the process is seriously flawed then you needto click on this link http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html so you can completethe comment form and send it to the Centre Pier Development Task Force. We needevery PHRA member to do this, so remember that is every person who lives in yourresidence.Next, join with me at the Committee of the Whole Council Meeting in chambers at 7:00PM September 6th, 2011 in a demonstration through sheer numbers to that we theresidents of Port Hope deserve to know all the facts when decisions are made concerningour future and our money.Quamvis in incepto tres semper humus. Primum est plures spectant facto opus circumsilens nihil conferunt. Deinde secunda turma quae quamvis voluntas exertus queri nihilfacit etiam extrema quaedam est quod oritur group opus omnibus. Non animadvertoPrimi neque curant secundum.Robert Polutnik - ChairPort Hope Ratepayers AssociationPO Box 392, Port Hope, Ontario, L1A 3Z3www.phra.caIn case you were wondering what the Latin says ...' No matter the project, there arealways three groups. First, there is the majority, they watch the work being done aroundthem in silence and contribute nothing. Then that second group that no matter the projectwill complain about it but also contributes nothing and finally, there is the group thatactually does the work for everyone. They do not notice the first group nor do they careabout the second.'

Cleanup will clear way for waterfront renewalDiscussions underway to coordinate three major plans for the areaPicture the concept to revitalize the PortHope waterfront like a giant jigsaw puzzle.Tackling it one section at a time, first youassemble a restored west beach, then youmove to the east, before getting to work onthe long and complicated central section.This is how the Port Hope Project,Municipality of Port Hope and Cameco Corporation arecoordinating their individual, yet interdependent, plans forthe area. Working together as the Waterfront ImplementationTechnical Advisory Group, they discuss historic low-levelradioactive waste cleanup, land restoration, redevelopmentand beautification.Through the Port Hope Area Initiative, about 250,000 cubicmetres of waste will be cleaned up from the inner harbour,former waterworks and sewage treatment plant properties,centre pier, viaducts and surrounding lands.The municipal concept features an expanded east beachwith marina, new yacht club and waterfront trails. Thepublic will have the opportunity to comment on theseplans before they are finalized. Cameco has embarked onVision 2010, a master plan for complete facilitymodernization and waterfront greening.“Because the three major parties are represented at thetable now, at this early stage, this is a great opportunity todiscuss how to effectively renew thewaterfront,” says Glenn Case, ProjectDirector for the Port Hope AreaInitiative. “The group is consultingand discussing this now so all of theactivities can be coordinated in amanner that will minimizedisruption as much as possibleduring the four to five years ofconstruction work anticipated.”Municipality of Port Hopewaterfront conceptLLRWMO harbour wall soil investigationsSynchronization of all of the activitiesthat will take place at the waterfront isimportant for the success of therenewal. For example, cleanup ofcontaminated areas will have to comefirst, so properties can be madeavailable for redevelopment. Restoringthe area section by section will allowone area to be finished and reopenedbefore moving on to the next. ThroughVision 2010, Cameco will sequence theremoval of 150,000 cubic metres ofsoil and waste materials, includingbuilding demolition, for timelytransfer to the proposed low-levelradioactive waste managementmound before it is capped and closed.Cameco Vision 2010conceptual design4 5

From: Michele Duval Lane [mdlane2003@gmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:34 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Michele Duval LaneEmail of sender: mdlane2003@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: John McGuirk [john.McGuirk@sympatico.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:07 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: John McGuirkEmail of sender: john.McGuirk@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: John & Veronica Colson [britannica@sympatico.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:42 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: John & Veronica ColsonEmail of sender: britannica@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:John & Veronica Colson25 Centennial Drive, P-H, L1A 3S9885-9524To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is of doubtful veracityand must be withdrawn and rewritten, following verifiable public consultation.It is unacceptable that the report's conclusions are based on last-minute data, provided atmeetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and that nohardcopy confirmation was provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for comments by the public, makes a mockery of Port Hope's"Community Consultation Policy", which says there must be public meetings to providefeedback on all major projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by informationcontained in Cameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements madeby Cameco since the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the InterimReport must not be allowed to be the basis for such an important decision affecting thefuture of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: George Clements [gclem3@teksavvy.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:26 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: George ClementsEmail of sender: gclem3@teksavvy.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:George Clements13 King St. Port Hope905-885-1819To the Municipality of Port Hope:I believe that the most important decision that will affect the future of Port Hope as adesirable tourism destination will be what happens on the Centre Pier. Whether with newbuidings or old it must become a vibrant part of our waterfront, not just empty park land.For such an important decision I do not believe that the matter of the Centre Pierbuildings has been adequately reviewed. Nor do I feel that transparency has beenfollowed in the conversations between Cameco and the PHAI and the municipality. Andconsequently I cannot believe the findings until Cameco and the PHAI publicly justifytheir estimates of time and money.As a result I believe the Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force iscritically flawed and must be withdrawn and rewritten after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information and which justifies theirestimates.Moreover the minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the newCommunity Consultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicitfeedback on any major projects. It makes me suspect that there is another planned use ofthe land which the public is not being told about yet. There should be public meetings setup about the most beneficial uses of the land from the point of view of Port Hope's longterm economic future. It is not as if the PHAI is chomping at the bit to tear the buildingsdown, so we have adequate time for a proper evaluation.Thank you for allowing me to express my views.

George Clements

From: Chandra Reader [chandrareader@msn.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:32 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Chandra ReaderEmail of sender: chandrareader@msn.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bryan & Cathy Kerr [bryankerr@sympatico.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:25 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Bryan & Cathy KerrEmail of sender: bryankerr@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Bryan & Cathy Kerrbryankerr@sympatico.caTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gary Webb [gary.webb@sympatico.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:33 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Gary WebbEmail of sender: gary.webb@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Gary Webb10 Jeffries Street(905) 885 6884To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Denis Berger [denisberger7@gmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:09 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Denis BergerEmail of sender: denisberger7@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: carolyn webb [carolyn.webb@sympatico.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:09 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: carolyn webbEmail of sender: carolyn.webb@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Catharine Ramsey [cramsey@cogeco.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:10 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Catharine RamseyEmail of sender: cramsey@cogeco.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Catharine Ramsey33 South StreetPort Hope, ONL1A 1R9905-885-2763To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor project.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tannice Goddard [bookstopress@gmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:29 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Tannice GoddardEmail of sender: bookstopress@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: sheila forward [shefor@cogeco.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 7:43 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: sheila forwardEmail of sender: shefor@cogeco.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Marilyn Lally [marilynlally@scom.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:13 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Marilyn LallyEmail of sender: marilynlally@scom.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Marilyn Lally5 Jeffries Street905-885-7614To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: larry Hall [lhall@yaknet.ca]Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:23 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: larry HallEmail of sender: lhall@yaknet.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Larry Hall30 crossley Dr., Port Hope(905) 885-2315To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten. Port Hope residents should be consulted but theprocess should be expedited.The present approach is very time-consuming which in turn holds up the PHAIradioactive cleanup. This simply plays into the hands of the bureaucracy that welcomesany excuse to hold the clean-up job back.The four buildings in question would be very expensive to restore to the point of meetingspecs for public use. Ultimately this is not an economic possibility.The soils cleanup calls for removal of a very significant amount of the soil on the centrepier. Retention of the buldings merely holds this process up.also-removal opens the area up to a much wider range of uses, providing a start-fromscratchso to speak.If the structures are kept- who pays the bill?It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information. While regretably this may betrue, this is not the most important point.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects. However this issue has already taken up too much time, publicconsultation therefore must be executed quickly.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.

Every effort must be made to remove any impediments to Cameco's 2010 project, alreadyseriously held back by inaction on the part of the PHAI.Ratepayers must remember that any delay in this vital area of cleanup seriously impairscommunity development, job creation and new sources for property taxation.Ultimately Port Hope's crisis in elevated property taxes must be deemed the mostimportant consideration in council policy.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lee Caswell [leecaswell@sympatico.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:16 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Lee CaswellEmail of sender: leecaswell@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Lee Caswell13 Church St.,Port Hope,ONTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kirkpatrick's Inc. [brian@kpatricks.com]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 9:15 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Kirkpatrick's Inc.Email of sender: brian@kpatricks.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ron Frizzell [lefty41@sympatico.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 9:36 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Ron FrizzellEmail of sender: lefty41@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME: Ron & Lois FrizzellADDRESS: 14 Fenton LanePHONE NUMBER: 905 885 4329To the Municipality of Port Hope:While not an expert on any of the details involved in the Centre Pier development, it ismy opinion that the process has been flawed, almost from the outset.What I do know is that the residential tax rate for our area (Penryn Village)is too high,especially considering the services, or lack of same that we receive.Based on what I do know concerning this project and from discussions that I have hadwith individuals closer to the project, the cost of restoring any , or all of the fourbuildings currently on the pier will only add to our already high taxes.All residents of Port Hope, whether they are for, or against the retoration of thesebuildings need to be given all the facts. Too much municipal business has beenconducted in secret with the resultant costs affecting all of us. This must stop. An openand transparent process is needed starting immediately.SincerelyRon & Lois Frizzell------------------------------------------------------------

From: Barry Octeau [barryocteau@yahoo.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 9:39 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Barry OcteauEmail of sender: barryocteau@yahoo.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Barry OPort HopeTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jon Ed [jhed@cogeco.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:25 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Jon EdEmail of sender: jhed@cogeco.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Jon Ed10 Little Hope St.905-885-9381To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force may be critically flawedand was prepared without appropriate public consultation.I am concerned to be informed that conclusions in the report were based on last-minuteinformation, made in meetings to which only some of the task force members wereinvited, and that there is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback calls into question the Council'scommittment to the new Community Consultation Policy, which says there must bepublic meetings to solicit feedback on any major projects.Finally, I am told that the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted byinformation in Cameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statementsmade by Cameco since the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, theInterim Report cannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of PortHope.------------------------------------------------------------

-RECEiVEDCOMMENT SHEET SEP 012011Centre Pier Development TaslDraft Final Report CommeDeadline for Return — September 5, 2011PORT F’EThc Municipality ulPort HopeName: :\ pAddress:ThPhoneOS\ Email: Ocom Côcco ,Cc\Your comments with regards to the Centre Pier Development Task Force Draft FinalReport would be appreciated. If you require more space please use the back of thissheet. Thank you.7 \\ -k--\. crNTh.r\ ft \ 0 ç\- c5-\ c QcA \ O 0o CD( ca\ç- ‘j- )\ O Jr\c\\ \& o,-\Please return your completed form to Town Hall Administration Office, 56 Queen Street or by emailat admin(porthope.ca. Any questions may be directed to R. Carl Cannon, CAO at 905.885.4544 x2230 or admin(Zporthope.ca

From: Doug Weldon [dougweldon@live.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:00 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Doug WeldonEmail of sender: dougweldon@live.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: susan reynolds [sugarlake@sympatico.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:23 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: susan reynoldsEmail of sender: sugarlake@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robin Long [robinlong@rogers.com]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:47 PMTo: Port Hope Mayor; 'Greg Burns'; Mary Lou Ellis; Jeff Gilmer; Jeff Lees; Rick Austin;Administration; David TurckCc: chair@phra.caSubject: Pier Group Interim ReportMayor Thompson, Members of Council,I am greatly disturbed at the surprising and sudden appearance of figures relating to thecost of rehabilitation of the pier buildings at a Task Force meeting “attended by somemembers”.If Council, Town staff and PHAI knew of these costs beforehand, why was thisinformation not made public? Surely that would have been the ethical way to deal withthis issue. And given the length of time still available to properly review the facts, whythe undue haste? Is it because the CNSC gave the Town two and a half years to resolvethe issue and that deadline is this September?PHAI’s own budget submission to the federal government includes as a contingency thatthere may be a decision to save the buildings. If the federal government’s EnvironmentalAssessment determines that it would be environmentally advantageous to save thebuildings, then Federal money as distributed through PHAI would pay for this extrawork.Since Cameco spokesperson Doug Prendergast says “it’s mistaken to believe there is acost saving if the buildings on the Centre Pier are demolished rather than remediated andthat Cameco still believes that potential clean-up of the Centre Pier Buildings could beaccommodated under the current waste delivery schedule for PHAI “ why should PortHope, being so devoid of commercial and industrial tax base, be so determined to level$20,000,000 worth of such property? Especially when the costs of remediation would beborne by others?Unfortunately there seems to be some sleight of hand at work here. If so, is it by some ofour elected representatives and staff, or PHAI, or perhaps a combination of the two?My questions to you each are: Do you believe in disclosure and due process? Which ofyou has the courage to find out what really happened here?Yours, truly,Robin LongLong Bros. LimitedPort Hope Development Company Limited

COMMENT SHEETCentre Pier Development Task ForceDraft Final Report CommentsDeadline for Return - September 5, 2011Name:%u Cv{.,t-LI*Phone:Email:Your comments with regards to the Centre Pier Development Task Force Draft FinalReport would be appreciated. If you require more space please use the back of thissheet. Thank you.Please return your completed form to Town Hall Administration Office, 56 Queen Street or by emailat ac1ryin(a)porthope.ca. Any questions may be directed to R. Carl Cannon, CAO at 905.885.4544 x2230 or admin(a)porthope.ca

Submission to the Mayor and Councilors of Port Hope August 30, 2011Re:The Future of the Central PierThe Port Hope Chapter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) hashad a long-standing interest and concern for the buildings on the Centre Pier. Thisconcern was first triggered in 1991 with the Waterfront Trail Plan which proposedthe demolition of the buildings. Over the intervening 20 years, we have continuedto request an objective study of the buildings, their condition and their role in thecleanup under PHAI.We were pleased when the Municipality established the Centre Pier Task Force toobjectively study all aspects of the Centre Pier and its buildings, and we madedeputations to that body, to express our views. A short time before the Task Forcewas scheduled to present its preliminary findings, a meeting was called, attendedby the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the CAO, the Task Force Chair andrepresentatives of PHAI and Cameco. Other members of the Task Force wereexcluded from the meeting on the premise that confidential material would bediscussed, despite the fact that all Task Force members had signed non-disclosureagreements. At that meeting, information was given verbally suggesting that thecosts of saving the buildings would be many millions of dollars, cause delay in theclean-up process, and that the buildings were in poor structural condition. None ofthis information was in writing at that time, or supported by any studies of whichwe are aware.ACO has long called for an independent assessment of these buildings, but havenot been allowed access to the buildings to undertake such a study. The fact is thatthe Task Force members were excluded from hearing these findings and could notquestion the proponents of this information as to its foundation prior to submittingtheir interim report. In our view, this is unacceptable.This eleventh-hour intervention, with the Mayor in attendance, smacks of politicalinterference with the Task Force mandate, which was to examine all aspects of the

2Centre Pier from an objective, not political point of view. It has also been decidedthat there would be no public meeting held to discuss the issues, but rather, writtenresponses would be accepted prior to Labour Day – over a period of time whenmany are on holidays. This, despite Council’s directive of holding public meetingsafter the Port Hope Pillars issue raised issues of lack of public participation.Apparently, the future of 12 acres of land and its buildings in the centre of ourwaterfront is not considered important enough to warrant a public meeting.The Task Force then submitted their interim report to Council, stating that theexisting buildings could not be saved due to the condition of the buildings, cost ofclean-up and delay. Subsequently, Paul Evans, the Chair of the Task Force, issueda letter on August 29, 2011, suggesting that the existing buildings on the Pier besubject to further investigation. If this was the case, why would the interim reportbe so damning and definitive that the buildings should be demolished? Wewelcome this change of heart, but much damage has been done by releasing thepremature findings of the interim report.The Centre Pier has a long history and has been the focal point of Port Hope’seconomy since the Town was established some 200 years ago. It has been manythings, in many configurations over this long history – we can now embark on thenext phase of the Port Hope Harbour. But nowhere in the report does one get asense of any vision for the Centre Pier. The Municipality and the Harbourcommission, while calling for the demolition of the buildings, present us with novision of the future of the Pier. The only visions put forth are by ACO and the PierGroup. Both organizations laid out a series of options and visions to the TaskForce. These were largely ignored.The vision put forth by the Task Force, while having a few ideas, is lacking in anycoherent or inspiring vision, only suggesting that planning be undertaken. TheMunicipality’s assertion has been that the buildings, if they are to remain, wouldbecome a liability to the Municipality. It is our view that the buildings are in factthe asset of the site, and that an empty pier is in fact a liability: it is difficult topolice, it requires maintenance when no one will use it, and will become a virtualno man’s land.We of ACO are dismayed with the Centre Pier Task Force findings as outlined intheir July 26 th report, but more dismayed at the process and lack of objectivestudies to determine the veracity of the huge costs and time delays associated withthe possibility of saving the buildings as espoused at closed, secretive meetings.

3We believe all citizens of Port Hope should demand a more open and transparentpublic consultation process to determine the future of the most important area ofour waterfront.Respectfully submitted,ACO PORT HOPEPer:Phillip H. Carter, PresidentM.Arch., M.C.P., OAA, FRAIC, CAPHAttached:Brief to the Task Force

BRIEF ON THE FUTURE OFTHE CENTRE PIER – PORT HOPE HARBOURPrepared by Phillip H. CarterPresident, ACO Port HopeThe Centre Pier in Port Hope is aptly named, since it dominates the centre of the Townand its waterfront. This roughly 12-acre Pier is manmade and has a long history of beingthe focal point of Port Hope’s industry. Its configuration has changed drastically over theyears from a swamp at the mouth of the Ganaraska River, to a vital port, to an industrialsite of Crane (Ideal) Plumbing Fixtures, a foundry, to its present use as storage facilitiesfor Cameco. With the proposed low level waste cleanup to be undertaken over the nextdecade, the Pier will change once again. What shape that change may take is the subjectof the Central Pier Task Force but this Committee is not the first to explore options forthis strategically important site. Other groups and agencies have made proposals for itsfuture. We of Port Hope ACO have had a long-standing interest in this dialogue.The cleanup provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make the Pier a vital componentof Port Hope’s economic future, a position it held for over a century, from 1800 to the1950s. Early pictures indicate how vital the Port was to Port Hope, given its meeting oftwo railways and the waterfront. With one look at a map of Ontario one can see that arail link from the upper Great Lakes Ports of Midland and Collingwood to Port Hopeavoided a long shipping route and a cumbersome canal at Welland. The study whichACO funded, undertaken by Dr. Chris Andreae and the study by Port Hope AreaInitiatives entitled, Port Hope Harbour, A Compendium of Historical Information, PartA: A Historical Perspective, outline this colourful and vital history.Over the years since I have been in Port Hope (since 1985) I have, with others, taken anactive interest in the Centre Pier. When on LACAC, we responded to the WaterfrontTrail Master Plan of 1991 and its updates, suggesting that the plan showing the Pier as apark was unrealistic and did not adequately explore the possible potentials of thebuildings. Rod Stewart and I and others made the buildings on the Centre Pier thesubject of a CAPH Conference in 2001 where over 50 heritage consultants toured thebuildings and held a workshop to examine possible outcomes for the site. Thatworkshop, attended by Town officials (Mike Rostetter, Clerk) concluded that thebuildings on the Pier could be part of an overall development of the 12-acre site and alogical outcome of the cleanup.

2Another study undertaken by myself with Roger Carr showed how the Pier buildingscould house the Firefighters Museum and accommodate a new arena facility for PortHope and the overall site developed to incorporate a range of activities, includinglandscaped open space, casual parks, other outdoor and indoor athletic facilities andrental industrial space. In short, we proposed a mixed-use site that could add aneconomic engine to the downtown of Port Hope. At the time, the Municipality wascontemplating an “all season” ice arena addition to the Jack Burger Centre.In 2005, the Projects Committee of Port Hope ACO, which I chaired, set up a task forceto explore the potential of the buildings and the site. This task force eventually becameThe Pier Group, an independent group dedicated to exploring the potential of saving andreusing the buildings on the Pier. ACO provided the start-up funding for The Pier Groupas well as funding the two studies undertaken by it. The Group now claims amembership of over 500 citizens.I sit on the Liaison Group for Cameco’s Vision 2010 which promised a major renovationof their facilities making them not only safer but more attractive with parklands, aninterpretive centre and an attractive new building which could transform this unsightlyindustrial complex into a new focus. Funding seems to have scaled back these ideas butwe are hopeful that these improvements will be an asset to the future of Port Hope’swaterfront.The PHAI clean-up provides Port Hope with the opportunity to reclaim our waterfrontand create a vital, attractive and economically viable asset for the Municipality.However, waterfront development and reclaiming of waterfronts is a daunting task. In1970 I was involved with early efforts of reclaiming Toronto’s waterfront. My officewas in Queen Quay’s Terminal before it was renovated. There was one restaurant, butotherwise it was a bleak site and inhospitable in the winter. In 1970/71 the FederalGovernment, under Trudeau, made a gift of the Waterfront to Toronto and Harborfrontwas established. Bit by bit it restored old industrial buildings and created condo sites. Itwas a struggle, and even after 40 years it continues to struggle despite being at the heartof the waterfront of Canada’s largest city. East of Yonge Street the waterfront remainsparking lots and marginal uses, with one new building, while the eastern section belowLakeshore is existing industrial, despite years of plans spurred on by dreams ofOlympics, etc. In short, Waterfronts can be slow to develop, even in large cities.Obviously Port Hope, with its 15,000 citizens makes this development difficult. Onetends to compare it to Cobourg, but this comparison is troublesome. Cobourg always wasa resort town and its waterfront had little industry. It does not have huge viaductsseparating it from the downtown. In fact, the downtown is a mere two short blocks fromthe waterfront.

3What I am suggesting here, is that one must be realistic. The site is isolated from thedowntown by distance and is visually separated by the viaducts. The site’s views are to anot-so-attractive Cameco and other marginal uses, and the site itself has no access to thewater itself, such as a beach. The site is inhospitable in inclement weather and is flat andfeatureless with no natural vegetation.The isolation of the site from the downtown is a problem. This again is a similar problemfacing Harbourfront in Toronto. The 1991 Waterfront Trail Study, updated in 2001,began to address this issue of trying to connect the waterfront to downtown. The trailproposed by that plan now extends along either side of the Ganaraska River from thewaterfront to downtown. I think a further urban study is required to examine how themarginal lands between the Centre Pier and downtown may be developed. Sites such asthe Canadian Tire site, the boat storage area under the viaducts, the small storagebuildings (now Cats Media) and other lands can become a continuation of downtown.The role of the Viaducts themselves can be seen as a positive, rather than a barrier. Once,visiting Morlaix in France, I found the town had a similar viaduct. It is a unifyingelement in this charming town. In our case, the viaducts are stony heritage artifacts.They are a lot more open and attractive than the Gardiner Expressway that dividesToronto from its waterfront. We could even light them, and celebrate their presence.These ideas would all be part of a new urban design plan for these “bridge” lands.Planning for the future of the Centre Pier must take a long term view. It will likely be upto 10 years before the cleanup is complete. This gives plenty of time to develop newscenarios for the property, find new uses and new financial partners and develop newstrategies. In that interim, Toronto is continuing to expand at a rapid pace and much ofthat growth will spin over the Greenbelt to Port Hope. To keep ones options open, onemust maintain the assets of the site, the buildings and the infrastructure. To demolish thebuildings as part of the cleanup, would leave the site a barren wasteland surrounded by achain link fence.The Municipality claims the buildings are a financial liability to the Town. That is notentirely true – they can be an asset. Another tenant, other than Cameco, can maintainthem minimally if necessary. The open land with no tenant is a liability – it would haveto be policed and maintained. The seawalls will require constant maintenance and insome cases replacement. A tenant, even Cameco, is a better short term solution than avacant site.One must start to develop a long-term strategy for the site. This involves planning, andinvestigating various possible clients or tenants and building partnerships. Until the finaluses of the site are known and developed, the buildings should remain, since they may bepart of the site’s economic viability.

4Development StrategiesIt is my belief that there is no one use of the Pier which would be economically viableand satisfy the varied community aspirations for the waterfront. It is my view that the 12acre site should be a mixture of uses, both public and private. Below are some of theideas that should be explored.Port Hope has much to offer prospective partners to invest in the Town. An aggressiveEconomic Development Strategy is necessary to achieve an economically viable outcomefor the Pier. That strategy should stress Port Hope’s assets. To borrow from Dr. RichardFlorida in The Rise of the Cultural Class, we have “all the ingredients” required to makePort Hope a viable cultural town. Port Hope has a picturesque setting with an authenticheritage downtown, and a mixed housing neighbourhood. This is not an ersatz suburbancommunity. We have great recreation facilities such as the Ganaraska River andNorthumberland Hills for hiking, biking, mature trails, fishing and yachting. We havethe best private school in Canada – a great draw for the cultural class, plus good publiceducational institutions. We have a rich cultural life with a good library, the CapitolTheatre, the Friends of Music, the list goes on. It is a very active and friendly communitywith a wide range of ethnic and social groups, and a solid gay population, a keycomponent in Dr. Florida’s analysis.The Municipality enjoys excellent transportation connections. It is only one hour fromToronto, connected by the 401, Via Rail and bus links. In the future we can expect GOservice, and possibly high speed rail connecting us to Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa.The extension of the 407 eastward will improve vehicular transportation. As well, wehave a lake port and main line rail for shipping and receiving, and good fibre optic andcommunications networks. All these attributes assist businesses to move from the large,central, urban cores.These attributes can be used by a knowledgeable economic development department toattract highly skilled, highly paid employees to Port Hope and thus, businesses that arelooking for a highly educated labour pool could be attracted.The site is highly attractive, given its lakefront location and reasonable proximity todowntown and existing services, roads and other infrastructure, as well as being highlyvisible.1. Educational/InstitutionalMany universities and community colleges are developing satellite campuses to bringeducational services to communities and to address local needs. Lakehead Universityestablished a satellite campus in Orillia; University of Waterloo established itsArchitecture Facility in restored heritage industrial buildings in Cambridge (Galt) and asatellite campus in Huntsville; University of Ontario (Oshawa) has already established asatellite campus in downtown Oshawa; Trent University has also established a campus in

5Oshawa; University of Toronto is establishing a campus in Beijing. Brock University islocating its cultural campus in downtown St. Catherines to help rejuvenate this decayingdowntown core.This trend can be captured by Port Hope. It would seem logical that a campus could belured here and might even be tied to our nuclear heritage or our brownfields cleanupexperience. This cleanup will be the first of its kind in Canada and could attract thosewho wish to study these techniques.Another educational idea is one that Will Ryan proposed; that is, an internationalpreservation centre and school specializing in heritage restoration. This is an expandingfield of expertise. In Ontario we have Algonquin College in Perth specializing in trainingtradesmen in restoration techniques. Willow Bank in Queenston uses an old restoredmansion to teach such techniques. In England there are a number of such specializededucational institutions training architects, engineers, tradesmen, bureaucrats and others.With the brownfields cleanup of the site, this could be a very good fit for Port Hope sincewe are already noted for our wealth of heritage properties and our leading role in theconservation of our heritage. We also have a wealth of skilled heritage professionals andtradesmen to assist in the teaching. Such an idea could attract suppliers andmanufacturers, consultants and others to locate here in what could become a centre forheritage preservation, an ever-expanding field.Attracting such a campus requires appropriate promotion of the Town’s assets, togetherwith help from the Province or Federal Government, to perhaps get behind funding suchan institution.2. ManufacturingThe buildings on the Pier could well be used for manufacturing, especially an interim use.Old Pier buildings on Toronto Waterfront bought by Harbourfront were used for a varietyof manufacturing prior to being redeveloped. Boat repair and sail loft facilities were oneuse I recall and while marginal in terms of rent, did provide an interim tenant to maintainthe buildings until they were ultimately converted to more permanent uses.Some manufacturing can be permanent. A perusal of Google headquarters gives an ideaof what modern industrial uses are like. These are not smokestack industries, but ratherhi-tech facilities which often prefer open loft areas. Port Hope is well-poised to takeadvantage of such businesses of highly paid employees, given the assets of our Town.Other interim manufacturing-related uses can be just storage; the use Cameco has foundadvantageous for the last 40 years. Film companies are often in need of sets for films andalso storage for large sets and equipment. These buildings can be rented more cheaplythan Toronto facilities. It is even possible that film or TV company may wish to locatestudios here.

63. RecreationalAn early scheme I developed with Roger Carr was for a new all-season ice surface arena,reuse of the Quonset structure or practice surfaces and indoor tennis and soccer in thelarge building. Port Hope needs all-season ice, not available at Jack Burger, if it is tohave a Junior A level team. An arena could also be designed to be a convention facilityfor shows, large events and concerts. Such a facility located downtown rather than in thesuburbs invigorates downtown businesses. Cobourg is presently building such a facility,but in the suburbs.There are also examples of sports facilities in older buildings. An old GE plant in Ottawais now an indoor soccer facility. Others I have seen house indoor tennis courts. Thesecan be accommodated at minimal expense in the large building. Some structuralreconfiguration is likely to be necessary, but can be achieved relatively inexpensively.The site is large enough that outdoor facilities can be accommodated such as tenniscourts, soccer fields and even an outdoor ice skating facility. These can beaccommodated as part of an overall landscape plan.4. CulturalI have always joked to people that the large buildings on the Pier could be “a Museum forVery Large Things”. While cultural facilities are the most difficult to fund, requiringlarge amounts of public capital and operating costs, it is still worthy of investigation.The Museum of Modern Art in New York established a satellite gallery in an upstatesmall town, converting an old industrial site for works of art too large to beaccommodated in their Manhattan facility. The Tate Museum in London in the oldBattersea Plant is another example.Currently there is no major Marine Museum on Lake Ontario. This could be a natural,requiring large spaces dedicated to telling the story of our Maritime past. Anotherpossibility is a museum/interpretive centre for the nuclear industry, telling our story andthe story of this important cultural event. The Firefighters Museum is also a possibility,especially if combined with a “safety museum”. The Firefighters Museum is also anexcellent interim use, providing a tenant for the site to help maintain it.I presently sit on the board of the Wychwood Barns Community Association. This is aproject that converted the old TTC maintenance barns into a range of cultural andrecreational uses. It’s a very exciting facility with a wide range of uses, includingresidential, but it is in a large city from which to draw and required many years to raisefunds for its construction and constant fundraising to maintain it. However, a moremodest version of this could be possible in Port Hope.

7A similar project, the Toronto Brick Works, is proving that old industrial structures canbe converted to a wide range of uses.Could a Museum of Very Large Things be viable? I have visions of large earth-movingequipment, tractors and trucks. Maybe we can tell the story of our brownfields cleanup.5. CommercialI do not see the development of retail on the Pier, but rather uses that will support ourdowntown. Some supportive retail may be part of the development, a small restaurant,coffee shop, etc., and perhaps an indoor market in the winter. There are othercommercial enterprises that may occur. While I am not in favour of “big box stores”, Iwould rather have them downtown than on the fringes where they drain downtown.Large box stores such as Home Depot may be a good interim strategy for the buildings.Other non-retail commercial uses could find the large spaces and convenience todowntown attractive. Some large commercial enterprises such as insurance companies,call centres or banks may find this warehouse-like environment conducive to a modernbusiness environment. Again, I refer you to Google’s head offices at:http://www.google.com/corporate/culture.html.6. ResidentialMany visualize the Pier as condominiums on the water, similar to the development ofCobourg’s waterfront. As mentioned before, this is not Cobourg. Such development ismuch longer-term and planning could allow for such development. In Collingwood, theship building yards are now being developed as housing after 30 years of laying dormant.This, in a town that has much to offer in terms of retirement and second homedevelopment due to the ski hill and recreational assets of the area. As well, thedevelopment is literally “downtown”, right at the end of Hurontario Street with no visualor physical impediment to the downtown core. Our site does not possess these attributes.In the long term, once other uses described above are established, a residentialcommunity may well follow.7. Open SpacePart of the site can likely be developed as passive open space with gardens. It might bean opportunity to develop an interesting horticultural garden which has some poetic cache– “Brownfields to Gardens” perhaps. Landscape enterprises may also be an appropriateuse for some of the buildings as indoor greenhouses and garden centres. This could be anexcellent interim use of the buildings. Landscaping the site should be undertaken as soonas possible after the cleanup since trees take some time to mature. Such early plantingwould indicate an intention to develop the site.

88. Interim UsesAs mentioned earlier, any permanent new uses for the Centre Pier may take years toachieve. In order that the site not be a financial liability to the Municipality, tenants needto be found. The Municipality may have to forego property taxes, but it would bedesirable if they were relieved of on-going maintenance costs of the site. In theHarbourfront example in Toronto, many of the old buildings were rented at inexpensiverents prior to their ultimate development. Some were used for marine related functionssuch as yacht repair, yacht storage, sail lofts, etc. Some were leased for storage; othersenjoyed off-and-on uses as movie sets or storage of movie equipment. Other marginalbusinesses located in much of the space, including architects. Another old, partially openbuilding was used every Sunday for an Antique Market. This brought lots of people toHarbourfront and helped many small dealers to get a start in the business. While none ofthese uses paid very high rents, they did ensure that there were people on the site and thatthe buildings were maintained, even if only marginally. Without “eyes” on the site,heavy policing, etc. is required to deter vandalism and homeless squatters (which,incidentally, still goes on in Toronto in the Old Canada Malting Plant at Harbourfront).We believe that with appropriate marketing, interim leases could be entered into. Theseinterim uses often turn out to be viable new businesses assisted in their establishment bylow rents. Some potential interim uses already exist, such as the Firefighters Museum. Ihave outlined above other interim uses. Yards for contractors, such as William Oliver, isalso a good use. The Quonset building is in really good shape and could be used forrecreational purposes immediately.I think any of these ideas for interim use is preferable to the Municipality demolishing thebuildings. Then there would be no potential use or income – only the liability ofmaintaining and policing vacant land. This strategy tends to escalate the site’sdeterioration. Interim uses as outlined here improve the site. I believe that maintenanceof the buildings to maintain their structural integrity is less expensive than the cost ofmaintaining a vacant site. The asset of the site in fact has much to do with the buildings.ConclusionWe of ACO see a great potential for the Centre Pier and its buildings. We recognize itsredevelopment from a contaminated site to a viable community-oriented developmentwill take a great deal of time, thoughtful planning and an aggressive economicdevelopment strategy. Throughout this long process, a planned Community ConsultationStrategy should be implemented that involves citizens giving input into the developmentof the site. This is not a job for the Harbour Commission or the Municipality itself, butfor the entire community.

9We look forward to participating in what we see as Port Hope’s new future. We urge theTask Force to consider the long view and make no recommendations which will precludeany future development options. As we have stated before, no recommendation todemolish the buildings should be made until all possibilities of saving and reusing themhave been exhausted. Such a thorough exploration cannot be done within the short termof the task force’s mandate.Respectfully submitted,ACO PORT HOPEPer:Phillip H. Carter, PresidentM.Arch., M.C.P., OAA, FRAIC, CAHPPHC*ajs

From: Michelle Evans [mevans@bell.net]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:04 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Michelle EvansEmail of sender: mevans@bell.net------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Michelle Evans56 Hewson Drive, Port Hope L1A 4C8905-885-2766To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Doug Weldon [dougweldon@live.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 1:15 PMTo: AdministrationSubject: The Pier GroupI am a member of the Pier Group after having attended one meeting more than a year ago. Iattended out of curiosity over the nature of their issue. I”m still not clear where I stand but thiswhole issue does certainly reflect what has clearly become the source of the economic andcultural malaise that seriously affects Port Hope.“Having been born and raised in Port Hope I...” As you must realize( but probably hate toadmit) one must be born in Port Hope to have any reasonable chance of being elected in thistown. This may not be the fault of the elected members but more the fault of the electors. It isinteresting to note the difference in the growth of Cobourg and the make up of their council. I amnot aware that being born in Cobourg has ever been an election issue. Many “outsiders” havebeen embraced for both mayor and council.How does this impact the Pier issue? You are working within a microcosm that has a limitedscope of understanding. It can only be expected that if most members of council share the sameexperiences (life in Port Hope) that they will also share a similar outlook on the various issuebrought to council. You are making decisions without looking at many of the other possiblealternatives. A community should embrace all of its’ citizens and all of their various opinionseven if they are negative or contrary to the council’s opinions.Hear them out. With the PierGroup it is clear that one of their minor board members was invited to participate in the reviewof the pier study. It is easy to assume that it was thought that this member would be easy tocontrol and such was the case. Why did you not invite Chris Wallace to join your study group? Imet Chris only once, at the meeting mentioned above, but from the press coverage it is obviousthat he is the most concerned and is clearly professionally qualified to participate.Why is the council’s approach to this issue so important? Because once again a decision is beingmade within a closed shop rather than embracing the opinions of the entire community. To havea successful busy architect willing to help guide a major decision of our community can only bepositive. In 20 years of living in Port Hope I have seen this negative reaction to “outsiders” timeand time again. I have participated on council committees but gradually became discouragedwith the lack of inclusion in our town. I have personally known many people who have moved toour town because they loved the small town, the architecture, the downtown and ,of course, ourtheater...and then watched these people move away frustrated with the very issue I describe. Howmany of those people had talents to help our community, how many had friends and relatives tovisit or move to our town,how many had money to invest in Port Hope, perhaps money to investin a revitalized pier or even to help industry locate in town? We will never know but we can becertain that many opportunities have been lost and will continue to be lost by an attitude that saysthat only Port Hope councillors and therefore only people who have been born in Port Hopeknow enough to make decisions for “our” town.I DO HOPE THIS LETTER IS SHARED WITH THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. IF YOUWOULD STEP OUT OF YOUR CIRCLE OF PORT HOPERS YOU WOULD BESURPRISED HOW MANY PEOPLE IN OUR TOWN SHARE THIS OPINION. ITREPRESENTS THE SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED TO HELPSTART PORT HOPE ON THE ROAD TO GETTING PAST THE ISSUE OF RADIO ACTIVEWASTE.

etaining and re building old buildings, and decaying brick structures etc. The people of Port HopeI have concerns about the municipality of Port Hope spending a huge amount of tax payers’ taxes onRe: Centre Pier Buildings at Port Hope harbourUNICIpALiW o SORT ROPEDear Sirs 3012011the game.4. Develop new soccer fields with flood lighting, dressing rooms and bleachers for fans to viewand a place to visit with their friends.and a new arena with ice service for hockey and figure skating etc.3. A new sports centre like Cobourg or an expansion of the present facility with exercise gyms2. Affordable housing for seniors again wheel chair accessible.1. A new wheel chair accessible Seniors Centre like a community centre for seniors’ activitiesMy list would look like this:bunch of old derelict buildings on the centre pier. I think the public in Port Hope should beconsulted by town council on where future tax dollars should be spent. Major or even small projectsshould be listed for the public to view and in turn find out where their priorities are.Our present town council would be way out of line to spend upwards of 10 million dollars on athings needed for our further generations at a cost of 20 million dollars each.We have just completed building a new water treatment plant plus a sewage treatment plant, allpayers’ dollars are spent.spend tax-payers’ dollars.abandoned buildings. Again I am against small groups of self-interested people getting together toCobourg. All of this could be done without any taxpayers dollars. Cameco has even committed toand going from the new boating slips etc. while sitting in the park on one of the benches just likebeautifying their side of their property facing the harbour for free.park to be enjoyed by all Port Hope residents’ young and old, watching the boating activity comingI am looking forward to reclaiming our harbour area which could be developed into a waterfrontI read we should be getting small groups together to decide on spending money on these oldI am in favour of a meeting of all the people of Port Hope getting together to decide where our taxfactories are still there for all to see. Perhaps spending some money to highlight the glorious past ofyears and have never met a person who made wash basins and toilets at the waterfront, but I havemet many who have worked at Nicholson File Factory, Mathews Conveyers, Cameco, Esco and thesethese industries would be in order.have the main industrial buildings in town as reminders of our past. I have lived in Port Hope for 40As far as claiming these structures represent Port Hopes industrial past, I would point out we stillsource of income I.E. consultant fees etc.dreamt up by a self-interested small group of people who view these old derelict structures as ashould be consulted as a whole before any tax payers money is spent on the proposed projectRECEIVED

5. If we have 10 million plus to spend I think it would be better spent on our new industrialpark providing fully serviced lots. We could even consider giving cash incentives. Thiswould encourage businesses to locate to Port Hope and give our young people a chance ofemployment for future generations.I hear talk around town that the centre pier’s old derelict buildings be re-built into a firefighters museum and farmers market. Why should tax-payers be asked to pay for, andprovide these types of facilities? What would the cost be to take the site from its presentstate to a fully serviced and functional facility with roads, parking lots etc.? And of coursethere would be those consultant fees flying about all over the place on top of that.I don’t recall town council voting on anything like this or it being placed on any agenda forfuture council spending. So why are we now being told council must inform committees forconsultation on this project? I would point out this land belongs to the people of Port Hopeand will not just be handed over to a small group to decide what they want to do with it.These small groups want to use our tax-payers’ dollars to get what they want, thinking theycan take the land for nothing and walk away with their consultant fees, leaving thepayers to finance and maintain their proposed fire hall and farmers market with no revenuecoming back to the town of Port Hope in the way of future taxes.taxI think tax-payers like myself, a pensioner, voted for councillors who would work to keepproperty taxes affordable for the people of Port Hope and they would spend our money ononly the most necessary things around town. Things that benefit the whole population ofour town and township young and old.L

From: Masumi Suzuki [Masumi@historicplaster.com]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:38 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Masumi SuzukiEmail of sender: Masumi@historicplaster.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Masumi SuzukiADDRESS 26 Barrett Street PH, L1A1M7PHONE NUMBER (8858764905)To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eileen P Holton [holtons@sympatico.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:43 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Eileen P HoltonEmail of sender: holtons@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Eileen P Holton16 Hillcrest DrPort Hope, On905-885-4883To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave McGinn [dmcginn@mcginn.tv]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 4:31 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Dave McGinnEmail of sender: dmcginn@mcginn.tv------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Dave McGinn16 Scriven Boulevard885-1609To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.The Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information in theCameco Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.Finally - it is evident that Port Hope council already decided on the best course of actionin 2007. One wonders why we are even discussing it now.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Deborah Gatien [debbiegatien@sympatico.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:19 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Deborah GatienEmail of sender: debbiegatien@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Deborah GatienBritish Pantry and More95-97 Walton StreetPort Hope908-885-0710To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Preston [robert807@gmail.com]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:05 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Bob PrestonEmail of sender: robert807@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Blake M Holton [holtons@sympatico.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:42 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Blake M HoltonEmail of sender: holtons@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Blake M Holton16 Hillcrest DrPort Hope, On905-885-4883To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andrew Gregg [agregg@sympatico.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:14 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Andrew GreggEmail of sender: agregg@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Andrew Gregg1 Roseglen Rd., Port Hope, Ont. L1A 3V6905 885 8306To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.Please do the right thing here. I've lived in Port Hope for 32 years, long enough to watchthe town's biggest story unfold - saving heritage architecture. The pier buildings could bethe stimulus we need to make our waterfront unique, interesting and attractive. We mustpreserve what we have not destroy possibilities.Andrew Gregg------------------------------------------------------------

From: Olga Cwiek [ocwiek@sympatico.ca]Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 6:53 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Olga CwiekEmail of sender: ocwiek@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Patricia Sinnott [sinnblack@sympatico.ca]Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 10:15 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Patricia SinnottEmail of sender: sinnblack@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Patricia Sinnott268 Cavan Street, Port Hope ON L1A 3C2905-885-0805To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force must be considered in aproper public forum. Many municipalities are currently re-developing their waterfrontresources; before permanent removal of these historic artifacts of Port Hope's industriallegacy, all perspectives must be respectfully heard and understood.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided to substantiate this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects. Given the potential public perception of conflict because the the harbourcommission and municipal council are composed of like members, there is an even morepressing need to bring the matter into the public arena for adequate review.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:28 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Faye GillespieEmail of sender:------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: sheila dennis [sdenn@sympatico.ca]Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 10:35 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: sheila dennisEmail of sender: sdenn@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME s dennisADDRESS 72 Bramley St SPHONE NUMBER 905-885-7111To the Municipality of Port Hope:I am seriously concerned about the lack of transparency by the Council and feel that nodecision should be taken on this matter without true public consultation that begins withfull disclosure of conflict of interest issues.------------------------------------------------------------

From: John C. Campbell [jccampbell@royallepage.ca]Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 10:54 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: John C. CampbellEmail of sender: jccampbell@royallepage.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ron Hyatt [bryrohyatt@gmail.com]Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:07 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Ron HyattEmail of sender: bryrohyatt@gmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Z. Spirydowicz [sdeb@sympatico.ca]Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:14 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Z. SpirydowiczEmail of sender: sdeb@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Z. Spirydowicz72 Bramley Street South885-7111To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.I am DEEPLY concerned regarding the lack of transparency in this entire endeavor andthe absence of FULL disclosure to the taxpaying public (who is the employer of localgovernment). ALL facts, figures, NAMES and REPORTS (whether or not Mayor and/orCouncil or Taskforce deem them appropriate to release) should be made availableIMMEDIATELY and this project should NOT proceed until the general public givesformal approval. We, the taxpaying public, are not children to be shielded; we areintelligent adults voicing legitimate concerns to a governing body who appears to giveonly a passing nod to the DUTY of service and accountability to ALL members of ourcommunity.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Linda ThompsonSent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:48 AMTo: Karen DuncanSubject: Fw: Response to the Interim Report of the Task Force--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Jackie TinsonTo: Port Hope Mayor; Jeff Gilmer; Greg Burns; Mary Lou Ellis; Rick Austin; DavidTurckSent: Fri Sep 02 11:34:59 2011Subject: Response to the Interim Report of the Task ForceDear Madam Mayor,In the recent edition of the ACO newsletter, the President, Phil Carter, nicely outlines theproblems faced by our downtown. He cites empty stores, too many discount stores, lackof maintenance on many buildings, a key building stalled mid-construction. The onlysolutions anyone has been able to offer are ones that have already been tried. The answerto the decline of Port Hope is a repurposing of the buildings on the Centre Pier. Such aproject would have a dynamic impact on the Town. I urge you to withdraw the recent(negative) Interim Report of the Task Force, and think again. Don't waste thisopportunity. Take a moment to look at the literature produced by Prince Edward County.Always many things to do and see. I recently overheard a conversation in a local storewhere a young couple were asking the clerk what there was to do in Town. She sighedand said: "There really isn't anything to do. Why don't you go to Cobourg?"Not only was the negative interim judgement of the Task Force mistaken, the report itselfis very suspect. When one considers that at the eleventh hour the direction turned frompositive to negative as the result of a clandestine meeting to which only 2 members of theTask Force were invited, that the Chair resigned after presenting the first draft, and thatthere is no evidence whatsover of documentation to support the findings revealed at thesecret meeting, then questions arise as to its validity. Whatever the true nature of thatmeeting, the perception in Town is that the report was gerrymandered. I am sure, MadamMayor, that this is a taint you would wish to avoid at all costs. I urge you to reject theInterim Report, reconvene the Task Force, and start again.Yours sincerely,Jackie Tinson22 Ellen Street,Port Hope, ONL1A 1X9905-885-1768

From: Tim Johnston [advance_sign@yahoo.com]Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:59 AMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Tim JohnstonEmail of sender: advance_sign@yahoo.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAME Tim JohnstonADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tim Johnston [advance_sign@yahoo.com]Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 12:05 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Tim JohnstonEmail of sender: advance_sign@yahoo.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Tim Johnston3 Dorset St. E.905-396-7446To the Municipality of Port Hope:In addition to what the Pier Group has stated, I feel the people of this town are very, verytired of "the way things are done around here".You cannot continue to force your decisions, pretend to examine the facts and only utilizethose that support your conclusions.It has to be the other way around. Many, many people have worked long and hard topreserve these buildings...and you are still not listening. Our heritage buildings are thevery heart and soul of the charm of Port Hope.As in the uproar over your crazy pillars, everybody knew your hand-picked committeecould only arrive at the pre-determined outcome.This is not fair, never will be seen to be fair, and if you are allowed to continue to operatein such an imperious manner, you will drive this town right off the cliff.Even though I see opportunities, I am fairly sure I will not be making any moreinvestments in Port Hope. I cannot wait to unload my downtown property so that I willno longer have to fund your mad adventures with my tax-dollars. You are killinginvestment through your lack of creativity and inept bungling, and it's a shame.------------------------------------------------------------

om: Merron Gottardi [Mgottardi@sympatico.ca]Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 3:01 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Merron GottardiEmail of sender: Mgottardi@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From: Merron Gottardi194 Walton ST, Port Hope,905-885-2777.To the Municipality of Port Hope:As a taxpayer in Port Hope I respectfully demand that the Council to revisit thecontentious issue of repurposoing the pier buildings. Council, you have an obligation torespond to the concerns of Port Hope residents.The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: kathleen armour [kilembe53@hotmail.com]Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 5:33 PMTo: AdministrationSubject: Centre pier task force commentIn short- Tear the buildings down!! As a community, we have to go Forward! Anydelay in the cleanup is a detrimine to our future. We have to end the stigma that PortHope is not a safe place to live. Perhaps the Pier Group should purchase the File Factoryon Cavan St. (at their expense) That building may be worth saveing!Kathleen Armour

LU.O.cD0LUCC,,t-. _4_Jp40.— a)a)a)-4 .—Pc\JLI)a)a)a)a)a.)a)1L1z0C-)(4-C)ci):z4cl)0.0.4-.’a) —‘I)oC>0a)I-,C)C)04-’C)0dQV0C.)oVU).Dtt,0004-.’VU)(J7iVZL)It,4)0.. .t- 4-’1:10•0.-3:104)d alcx0EI4)0,ocda)0

From: Frances Clancy [mailto:frances_clancy@sympatico.ca]Sent: Sat 03/09/2011 11:58 AMTo: Port Hope Mayor; Rick Austin; Greg Burns; Mary Lou Ellis; Jeff Gilmer; Jeff Lees;David TurckSubject: Port Hope's PierDear Madam Mayor and Council Members,Our beautiful town has an underused waterfront. I would love to seedevelopment on the pier, using whichever buildings are viable forre-adaptive reuse. I can imagine a satellite campus, permanent farmers'market, museums, sports facilities, a café and restaurant. Can you imaginehow enjoyable it would be to overlook the Ganaraska River as it empties intoLake Ontario while enjoying a fine meal? I can.I was very concerned about the outcome of the Task Force. It seemed to be ona positive path until just weeks before their presentation. I am not happyabout how this occurred. It was clear that questionable reports weresubmitted at the last minute. It's difficult to understand how this ispossible. The Task Force has been working for months and yet these reportsonly surfaced recently, without all members present at these meetings. Iquestion the process.I am hoping that people with a vision of future possibilities will prevail.It's a shame to let this opportunity go to waste. The pier is so close tothe train station and the downtown core. Port Hope has a proximity to largepopulations that take advantage of interesting places. It's a perfect spotfor development.If more people visited Port Hope and the businesses enjoyed greater success,I feel the taxes would be more reasonable. As it stands, I am disappointedwatching businesses fail and I feel if we stay on this course, the town willbecome a ghost town. Let's do everything possible to develop interestingvenues for all to enjoy.Frances Clancy18 Bramley Street, SouthPort Hope, ON L1A 3J7905 885 0671

From: Barbara Winfield [barbwinfield@sympatico.ca]Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:19 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Barbara WinfieldEmail of sender: barbwinfield@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Blaise Gaetz [leecaswell@sympatico.ca]Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 3:40 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Blaise GaetzEmail of sender: leecaswell@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Blaise Gaetz13 Church St.,Port Hope,ONTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

Canton, Box 271 Port Hope, ON L1A 3W4 September 5, 2011Your Worship,Please accept this communication as my submission in response to the Centre Pier Development Task Force’scall for comments.I find several of the Task Force’s assumptions questionable, however, I do not support the demand for whatappears to be an endless debate about the future of the existing buildings. The Task Force has completed itswork and it is clear enough to me from their findings that the existing buildings do not warrant being saved at allcosts. I recommend a plan be put in place for the future of the pier taking into account the existing CNSCapproved plans of Cameco and the PHAI as the starting point. I am disappointed that once again a very vocalminority have hijacked the debate on this issue with little regard for the Municipality’s current management ofthe limited resources available to us, and for the long term social impact on its people.Assumptions:If I were reviewing the business case related to redeveloping the Centre Pier, I would question the evidencesupporting the broad and fundamental assumptions that any proposed redevelopment would increase thenumber of visitors and residents coming into the downtown, that it would extend the tourist season, or it wouldre-invigorate the economy of Port Hope and surrounding area. The lack of proof for these assertions calls intoquestion any such development. These may appear intuitively reasonable, even aspirational, but I would notproceed any further without evidence that this has been the case in situations like Port Hope’s. I would beconcerned about the distance between the downtown and the Centre Pier and the viaducts between them, andI would consider the level of success we have enjoyed in the past attracting more businesses to the area. TheTask Force rightly points out that there are several communities in Ontario vying for such developments andthey have developed long term strategic approaches.The estimates regarding cost increases and time delays supplied by Cameco and the PHAI may warrant furtherclarification or some form of review, but the Chair (Paul Evans) has laid out clearly how significant the exercisewould be to save the buildings. I can see no sense in belabouring the discussion further given his assessment.His point that a long term plan is required is a valid one, especially as it concerns the level of cleanup, what theCentre Pier will be when the cleanup is completed and how all of this could affect the flooding and the proposedmarina.Task Force Recommendations:I strongly disagree with seeking compensation from PHAI and Cameco for the perceived loss of industrialheritage. It reminds me of the brouhaha that arose after the sale of the lands for the development of theShoppers Drug Mart: I remember thinking at the time, if we wanted the river bank protected or handled in acertain manner, the time for that was during the planning phase, not after someone purchased the property.PHAI and Cameco have built their plans and expenditure-forecasts according to the requirements laid out sometime ago, and it is highly unethical to consider increasing those requirements now.I also disagree with tampering with the CNSC’s risk-assessment and requirements for the cleanup as called for inthe Task Force’s recommendation to reduce the amount of fill removed from the Centre Pier. Given all the pastangst and local insecurity caused by levels of radiation contained in the soils in Port Hope, it is astonishing to methat we would consider suggesting that the CNSC’s expertise in this area be challenged. The parties in thedebate appear to have ruled out residential use of the Centre Pier because of the potential for flooding, but Iwould argue this may be short-sighted. Portsmouth, England has redeveloped very successfully their dock-landswith a mix of residential, retail, restaurants, offices and light commercial, all within a few feet of sea-level. Allthis on the English Channel which I assume presents greater risks of flooding. Admittedly, most of theresidential space appears not to be on ground-level, except for the historic housing right at the water-front.

Canton, Box 271 Port Hope, ON L1A 3W4 September 5, 2011One need not look as far as the UK for examples of significant residential development at water-level: Cobourghas developed hundreds of housing-units right by their redeveloped water-front and integrated it effectivelywith their downtown. Thus, I suggest the levels of soil removal proposed by PHAI/Cameco be retained. We donot want to find ourselves limited in the use of the Pier in three to 10 years because insufficient removaloccurred. This would sound very like the 1950s to me!I recognize the Pier Group will have issues with the estimates provided by Cameco and PHIA for the increasedcosts and time-delays associated with changing our requirements. I also expect they will continue to target theprocess and the perceived secrecy associated with the provisions of these estimates. The estimates may be twoor four times too high, however, as mentioned above, I am convinced by Paul Evans’ points that saving thebuildings is unrealistic – regardless of who or what level of government foots the bill. I understand that theinformation was provided confidentially, but is now completely available to the public, so this is a red herring.Canadians have been duped into thinking governments don’t have to balance their books like households, butmany are starting to realize the long term impact this is having on societies all across the globe. We only have toobserve the economic turmoil in Europe and the US to see the impact of long periods of mortgaging futuregenerations for short term and ultimately unsustainable growth. We need to realize that any payment, even if itis only a quarter the $25 million suggested, will come out of our pockets. I know from the loss of the old PortHope Post Office, and the saving of the St Lawrence Hotel that long term decisions and costs associated withhistorical preservation are important and require courage. But I also know from restoring a 170 year-old OntarioCottage that tradeoffs are essential: there were many more historical elements of our house that we would liketo have preserved, but at some point we had to make the hard choices about financial and time constraints.The Pier Group will continue to suggest great potential uses for the Centre Pier buildings. Of course it would belovely to have an extension of a university campus here, and there are many other dreams we could enjoy. Butunless we are able to put together a suitable business case and seek private industry funding to move it forward,then these pipe-dreams are just that. As mentioned, the Task Force clearly states that many communities aremuch further down the (strategic) road to spending the time, energy and money to attract tenants orpurchasers.There is mention of the social cost associated with this debate, and I wish to raise this issue more substantially.The acrimonious debate that has accompanied Cameco, Shoppers Drug Mart, the “pillars” and other issues inPort Hope have pitted people against one another, dispirited various Councils, and cost millions in lost revenuesfrom businesses and families choosing not to relocate here because of the perceived but often unsubstantiatedrisks. I acknowledge that not all of those debates were useless, and much good may have come out of them, butthe sociological costs are much harder to assess or quantify. The fabric of our town has been ripped apart somany times by a very vocal minority, and to some degree, this needs to be acknowledged in the current debateover the Centre Pier buildings. The sooner the debate is re-directed to the realistic future purposes for the Pier,the better.Conclusion:I recommend Council consider the need for vigorous redirection of the public discourse on this matter. I recommenda very limited effort be expended by Council, Municipality staff or committees on reviewing the estimatesprovided by Cameco and PHIA and then opening the discussion about the long term uses of the Centre Pier. Ihope the discussion can be turned from a win/lose or right/wrong debate to a compromise where some of theattributes of some of the buildings may be integrated into future uses. Council needs to continue demonstratingdecisive leadership on this matter to decrease ill-filling and damaging rhetoric.Bill Bickle

From: WILLIAM @ ROHAISE NICHOLLS [nicholls@eagle.ca]Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 4:17 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: WILLIAM @ ROHAISE NICHOLLS Email of sender:nicholls@eagle.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Wilfred Gillespie [wilfgillespie@hotmail.com]Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 4:46 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Wilfred GillespieEmail of sender: wilfgillespie@hotmail.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Wilfred Gillespie15 Shortreed Lane,Port Hope,On.905-885-1623To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT SHEETCentre Pier Development Task ForceDraft Final Report CommentsDeadline for Return – September 5, 2011Name: Sue Stickley_________________________________________________________________Address: 231 Walton Street Port Hope ON L1A 1P1_______________________________________Phone: (905) 885-1344__ Email: stickley@eagle.ca____________________________________Your comments with regards to the Centre Pier Development Task Force Draft Final Report would beappreciated. If you require more space please use the back of this sheet. Thank you.The work of the Task Force is detailed and very informative.However, the report must be rejected on the basis of flawed process by other agencies.Both the Port Hope Area Initiative and the Municipality of Port Hope have failed to provideany transparency or public consultation on the harbour cleanup, one of the major sitesnoted in the 2001 legal agreement.To have completed the detailed design for this work without public consultation is shamefuland contradicts the aims of the entire Environmental Assessment fir the Port Hope Project.The Municipal Council has appointed itself as the Community Advisory Committee underthe legal agreement and is therefore, in my opinion, under an obligation to reject the TaskForce report and require AECL to conduct public consultation on this major site.To provide a summary report on the detailed design to some Task Force members in Julyof 2011 after the work was completed is not acceptable to me and I doubt that it will beacceptable to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.Following is a quote from the Commission decision document regarding the 2009 licensinghearing..Therefore no one should be able to claim that they were not asked to provide publicinformation and consultation on the Harbour remediation issuees, including theCentre Pier.Please return your completed form to Town Hall Administration Office, 56 Queen Street or by emailat admin@porthope.ca . Any questions may be directed to R. Carl Cannon, CAO at 905.885.4544 x2230 or admin@porthope.ca

16 Bedford StreetPort Hope, OntarioL1A 1W3The Municipality of Port Hope56 Queen StreetPort Hope, OntarioL1A3Z9RECEIVEDMVNfG&.1SEP 082011iiORT HOPEDear Sor/Madam;The Interim of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed and must be withdrawn and rewritten, afterproper public censuittion.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information, made in meetings to whichonly some of the task force members were invited, and that there is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed fopr public feedback makes a mockery of the new Community Consultation Policy, whichsays there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on any major projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by infortrnation in Camecos Environmental ImpactStatement and by public statements made by Cameco since the Report’s release. Until those contradictions areresolved, the Interim Report cannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.YoursAnglinMynneTZg Pin16 Bedford StreetPort Hope, OntarioLIA 1W3

From: Irena Orlowski [irena.orlowski@talentedwomen.ca]Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 8:47 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Irena OrlowskiEmail of sender: irena.orlowski@talentedwomen.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:YOUR NAMEADDRESSPHONE NUMBERTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

RECE;VECOMMENT SHEETCentre Pier Development Task Force 2 2011Draft Final Report CommiCipjiDeadline for Return — September 5, 2Oi1ORT HOPETI,c Munldpalhy ofPort HopeName: ‘P 14JNLi4 Qj,y%.Address: 0 R R / 13A/h O4o.‘.Phone: 9?3 1.24/ Email:To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawedand must be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information, made in meetings to which only some of the task force members wereinvited, and that there is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new Cornmunity Consultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicitfeedback on any major projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information in Cameco ‘s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements madeby Cameco since the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, theInterim Report cannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future ofPort Hope.Please return your completed form to Town Hall Administration Office, 56 Queen Street or by emailat adn nporthot,e.ca. Any questions may be directed to R. Carl Cannon, CAO at 905.885.4544 x2230 or admincäporthope.ca

COMMENT SHEETRECEIVEDCentre Pier Development Task ForceSEP U 22011Draft Final Report CommentsDeadline for Return— Septembe 191ITY OF PORT HOPEName: /A s\J /V L14 JW iiA-Address: 5T (4f ,ot /k , j4. L 3Phone: Email:“‘ pfraTo the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawedand must be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information, made in meetings to which only some of the task force members wereinvited, and that there is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new Cornmunity Consultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicitfeedback on any major projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information in Carneco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements madeby Carneco since the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, theInterim Report cannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future ofPort Hope.Please return your completed form to Town Hall Administration Office, 56 Queen Street or by emailat adm aorthoie.ca. Any questions may be directed to R. Carl Cannon, CAO at 905.885.4544 x2230 or adminporthope.ca

From: Dontarrious [daniel.rotband@bbcr.com.br]Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 10:05 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: DontarriousEmail of sender: daniel.rotband@bbcr.com.br------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------Way to use the internet to help people solve prboemls!------------------------------------------------------------

-L p C(LL-- ot/3i-4Address: LPort HopeThe MUncpHIity uCentre Pier Development Task ForceDraft Final Report CommeiOF poRT HOPEDeadline for Return —Septemb)lCOMMENT SHEETREGEVED)1L c..Your comments with regards to the Centre Pier Development Task Force Draft FinalReport would be appreciated. If you require more space please use the back of thisName: (L,Li_/-c 1tLt LLCZ- Lj (-1\;- t.4 k-t-’ 4E 2-L-tW 4.1}.L#) 41 LL-Z J4 4- -LL_ lkA4tiu-sheet. Thank you.Phone: c)c,s2230 or adininporthope.caPlease return your completed form toTo Hall Administration Office, 56 Queen Street or by emailat admin(orthoye.ca. Any questions may be directed to R. Carl Cannon, CAO at 905.885.4544 x?I - ‘UCl/ ‘7c L14‘‘I Email: eJ.k1eic SiLY4-

-0LIQi77I-j7 \jft577L

I/1s&/&LOJD3iOuécJ mJ 1Ji:i; z;L±c1iA b--€ fl a122cd’t

Deadline for Return —SeptemberCentre Pier Development Task ForceSEP u2 2011Draft Final Report Comments MIJNICJ5, 2011 ‘‘ OF PORT HOPPlease return your completed form to Town Hall Administration Office, 56 Queen Street or by email2230 or adminLporthope.caat adminiporthope.ca. Any questions may be directed to R. Carl Cannon, CAO at 905.885.4544 xsheet. Thank you.Report would be appreciated. If you require more space please use the back of thisYour comments with regards to the Centre Pier Development Task Force Draft FinalPhone: 9 E’i Email: &ye,’ct /47 ørnsAddress: Y?tName:(COMMENT SHEETRECEIVED

fayepaul@mnsi.net905 885 0571Port Hope, ONL1A 1X3regarding saving the buildings has always been one of cost measured against historicsignificance and usefulness to Port Hope. I am not qualified to judge the historicalsignificance or potential benefit to the Municipality but neither am I of the mindset topreserve buildings just because they are old. Earlier drafts and reports made a good caseprocess changed the equation drastically. The task force has put forward what they weretime is too onerous to entertain saving the buildings. This affects the second point of themandate as well as the timing for having the pier available for use by Port Hope citizenscost of the whole project was deemed excessive for the citizens of Port Hope. I alsofor saving the buildings but the information released by Cameco and PHAI late in theThe report presents ideas on the development potential of the Pier lands using the contextplan. While as a boater I was somewhat disappointed that the possibility of a new marinawas cancelled with the cancellation ofthe EA necessary to proceed I understood that thereconfigured with boat slips and breakwalls to aid in preventing silting come from thatof the Waterfront Development Plan. In fact the recommendation that the harbour beI am impressed with the work done by this committee. The question in my mindis greatly extended by trying to save the buildings.asked, “if so and what cost to the budget and schedule” and concluded that the cost and5. Define the kind of financial commitments required to support in principle the2. Examine the long term schedule restraints and associated continuing costsproceed with all or some of the existing buildings in place and if so at what cost tothe lease.the budget and scheduleimposed on any Pier re-development as a result of the PHAT (Port Hope AreaInitiative) operations and relieving Cameco of their obligations on termination offuture development with or without existing structures being retained. This wouldcosts up to the point of assumption by a developer and/or partnership fordevelopment.context ofthe current Port Hope Waterfront Development Plan.include but is not limited to continuing improvements, maintenance and insurancevarious development financing options and comment on the associated feasibilityand risk/reward of each to the Municipality.1. First of all confirm whether or not the Harbour decontamination operation can3. Review and comment on the development potential of the Pier lands within the4. Prepare conceptual development budget(s) for various options to open the site toReport.Please accept these comments on the Centre Pier Development Task Force Draft FinalHaving reviewed the mandate of the task force49 Bloomsgrove AvenuePaul Laing

member in Cobourg who feels that the economic spin off is worth it. However, it couldrestaurants and other downtown businesses should be considered.paying enterprises located on the centre pier. This together with the spin offto ourbe that he was comparing operating costs with benefit and not capital costs. The taskforce report presents a much lower capital cost to have a marina and associated taxland.What is the cost and benefit of saving the buildings. It goes further and suggests uses ofthe centre pier that match the land use constraints and economic realities of this parcel ofThis is a well researched report that answers the question the committee was tasked with.amount of expertise and knowledge to the project. It is evident in the parts of the reportThe task force, from the evidence inthe biographies of the members brought a significantstruck out after the new information was obtained that the task force was obligated tocredibility, and a desire to fulfill the mandate they were given and to write a reportchange their recommendation based on the new information. This is evidence of integrity,additional costs demonstrates the task force’s commitment to working with andreflecting the facts found rather than a position held prior to starting the task. Therecommendation to have a peer review made of the figures presented by PHAI onpresenting factual information as the basis of their recommendations.from that marina could not justify its construction. I have spoken with a former councilunderstand that at least some members of council believed that the economic spin off

From: Kelly Calbery [kcalbery@sympatico.ca]Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:36 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Kelly CalberyEmail of sender: kcalbery@sympatico.ca------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Kelly Calbery1 Chalmers Court, Port Hope, ON905-885-4168To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Wendy Reiner [wendyreiner1@msn.com]Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 3:02 PMTo: Administration; info@thepiergroup.caSubject: Comment Sheet re Centre PierThis message was sent from:http://www.thepiergroup.ca/comments_tf.html------------------------------------------------------------Name of sender: Wendy ReinerEmail of sender: wendyreiner1@msn.com------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------From:Wendy Reiner109 Strachan Street905.885.1647To the Municipality of Port Hope:The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force is critically flawed andmust be withdrawn and rewritten, after proper public consultation.It is unacceptable that the conclusions in the report are based on last-minute information,made in meetings to which only some of the task force members were invited, and thatthere is no written back-up provided for this information.The minimal time allowed for public feedback makes a mockery of the new CommunityConsultation Policy, which says there must be public meetings to solicit feedback on anymajor projects.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions are flatly contradicted by information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and by public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release. Until these contradictions are resolved, the Interim Reportcannot serve as a basis for an important decision about the future of Port Hope.------------------------------------------------------------

From: Heather [hws@cogeco.ca]Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:04 PMTo: Port Hope Mayor; Rick Austin; Greg Burns; Mary Lou Ellis; Jeff Gilmer; Jeff Lees;David TurckCc: Administration; chris@cwallacearchitect.comSubject: Letter regarding Centre Pier buildingsTo: Mayor, Counselors and Centre Pier Task Group.We are writing to urge the town not to demolish the Centre Pier buildings. Instead wesupport the municipality promoting development on the centre pier in order to takeadvantage of these heritage buildings on the waterfront. Our town has worked hard overthe years to earn a reputation as a community which values historic buildings and has theentrepreneurial vision to realize their commercial value. When it comes to the CentrePier, we must not permanently destroy the unique opportunity that these heritagebuildings present.In our view the buildings on the centre pier offer another exciting opportunity for ourcommunity to take advantage of our heritage. Port Hope is fortunate for a town its size tobe located so close to Toronto, the biggest city in Canada. We have the opportunity toattract people from the GTA to activities in our municipality and the Centre Pier is justsuch an opportunity waiting to be realized. Furthermore, the municipal government willnot be required to bear the full burden of any revitalization effort in the Centre Pier area,as many citizens have volunteered to participate in this visionary effort.If Council were to decide that the buildings are to be razed it would in effect be adecision by the municipality to destroy heritage building assets which are owned by themunicipality. It would be a most disappointing decision to see council destroying publicassets.The reports in the press and elsewhere of the consultant’s study on the centre pier, whichsimply concludes that the buildings should be razed with no supporting evidence orrationale provided, is highly suspect. The residents and tax payers of Port Hope deserveto have open access to such professional reports. The process council chose to receiveadvice, in our opinion, was hobbled from the outset by its narrow scope and its flagrantlack of transparency.In short, we feel strongly that the municipality must retain these buildings so that thecommunity can capture the economic benefits they can offer and provide employmentopportunities for residents of the municipality in the future. The decision to permanentlydestroy heritage buildings with such potential, an action which is irreversible and willnegatively affect future generations of Port Hope residents, is the wrong one. Theattempt to justify such an act with a highly suspect report that is inaccessible to taxpayerswould be inexcusable.Sincerely,Robert, Heather and Alexander Sculthorpe

From: Linda ThompsonSent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 5:21 PMTo: Carl Cannon; Karen Duncan; Tania Deschamps; Sue Dawe; Connie MartinellSubject: FW: Center Pier Task Force--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Debbie Beattie [mailto:debbie@higgletypigglety.ca]Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:03 PMTo: Port Hope Mayor; Rick Austin; Greg Burns; Mary Lou Ellis; Jeff Gilmer; Jeff Lees;David TurckSubject: Re: Center Pier Task ForceDear Mayor and Esteemed Councilors,Over the past year, I have had the pleasure of getting to know the members of the PierGroup Steering Committee (as an HBIA liaison and 'watchdog') and have been impressedwith the level of expertise, research and dedication that these volunteers have put forth tosave a piece of Port Hope heritage and their willingness to explore it's economic potentialfor our community.This group has devoted years to understanding the complexities of saving the Center Pierand believe that the costs presented to the Task Force were not correct. I have noexpertise in this field, however recognize the expertise of the steering committeemembers.It is my feeling however, that these clean up costs should be discussed openly with thePier Group and any of its interested membership in a public forum. This could be a hugeproject & opportunity for Port Hope. So many individuals have devoted their time andexpertise to explore options for the Pier Buildings (including the Task Force), that itwould be a shame to let it go without some further discussion and understanding of thesuggested prohibitive costs to save them, presented by PHAI.Anyhow, I just wanted to add my thoughts for your consideration. I know you will havemany emails to review. :)Thank-you.Sincerely,Debbie BeattieHigglety Pigglety74 Walton Street, Port Hope ON L1A 1N3p. 905.800.0288f. 905.800.0914www.higgletypigglety.ca

From: Christine CollieSent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:11 PMTo: AdministrationCc: Port Hope MayorSubject: Interim Report re Centre Pier in Port HopeTo the Mayor and Council of the Municipality of Port Hope:I have seen the The Interim Report of the Centre Pier Development Task Force and amvery disappointed due to its obvious flaws.The key claims outlined in the Report, which were made to the Task Force for the firsttime in mid-July, were presented as conclusions only, with no written back-up or sources.The Task Force made the recommendation to “Obtain third party objective review andverification of the estimates and time schedule to ensure that the information providedregarding the impacts of retaining the buildings is accurate”. I believe this Task Forcerecommendation should be followed.Because the report has conclusions based on last-minute information, made in meetingsto which only some of the task force members were invited, and where informationsources weren't provided makes this interim report seriously flawed.The Community Consultation Policy, states that there must be public meetings to solicitand receive feedback on any major projects. The Centre Pier has the potential to be a verymajor project for the municipality and as such there should be additional time to allow forproper public consultation and for the report to either be rewritten or revised when thefull sources of the pricing quotes, etc. are known so that multiple pricing quotations canbe included.Finally, the Interim Report’s key conclusions appear to directly contradict information inCameco’s Environmental Impact Statement and also public statements made by Camecosince the Report’s release.These contradictions highlight how flawed the current Interim Report is and why itshould not be accepted as is for decision-making on such a important issue as the CentrePier.Just as the industrial buildings in Toronto's downtown "Distillery District" have becomea centre for economic growth and job creation, so could the buildings on Port Hope'scentre pier help fuel Port Hope's future economy and create needed local jobs.Sincerely,Christine Collie Rowland4753- Mastwoods RoadPort Hope, ON L1A 3V5