The URL can be used to link to this page

04 - May 27, 2025 Committee of the Whole Agenda PackageEl m ou sty Elgin County Council Committee of the Whole Meeting Orders of the Day Tuesday, May 27, 2025, 9:30 a.m. Council Chambers 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas ON Note for Members of the Public: Please click the link below to watch the Meeting: https://www.facebook.com/ElginCounty Accessible formats available upon request. Pages 1. Meeting Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes 2 4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 5. Members' Motions 6. Reports of Council, Staff or Outside Boards 6.1 Manager of Economic Development, Tourism & Strategic Initiatives - 5 Elgincentives Community Improvement Plan Review 6.2 Director of Engineering Services - Tourism Oriented Directional Signage 113 (TODS) Agreement 6.3 Director of Engineering Services - Reduced Speed Zone By -Law 127 Amendment — St. George Street 6.4 Senior Planner - Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-SO2402, Township of 132 Southwold 35743 Horton Street, Shedden 6.5 Senior Planner - Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-MA23001, Township of 155 Malahide 9270 Rogers Road 6.6 Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk - Radio Working Group 179 Recommendations 7. Adjournment Elgin County Council Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes May 13, 2025, 9:30 a.m. Council Chambers 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas ON Members Present: Warden Grant Jones Deputy Warden Ed Ketchabaw Councillor Dominique Giguere Councillor Mark Widner Councillor Jack Couckuyt Councillor Andrew Sloan (virtual) Councillor Todd Noble Councillor Mike Hentz Councillor Richard Leatham Staff Present: Blaine Parkin, Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Nicholas Loeb, Director of Legal Services Michele Harris, Director of Homes and Seniors Services Brian Masschaele, Director of Community & Cultural Services Jennifer Ford, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Mat Vaughan, Director of Planning and Development Holly Hurley, Director of People & Culture Andrew Parker, Manager of Roads and Asset Management Katherine Thompson, Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk Jenna Fentie, Legislative Services Coordinator Stefanie Heide, Legislative Services Coordinator Meeting Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. with Warden Jones in the chair. 2. Approval of Agenda Resolution Number: CW25-14 Moved by: Councillor Hentz Seconded by: Councillor Noble RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the May 13, 2025 Committee of the Whole Meeting be approved as presented. Motion Carried. 3. Adoption of Minutes Resolution Number: CW25-15 Moved by: Councillor Hentz Seconded by: Councillor Noble RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the meeting held on April 22, 2025 be adopted. Page 2 of 182 Motion Carried. 4. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Councillor Widner declared a conflict in regards to item 6.1 - Director of Engineering Services - Port Talbot Hill Reconstruction - Contract Award. Councillor Widner will not participate in the discussion or vote on this item. 5. Members' Motions None. 6. Reports of Council, Staff or Outside Boards 6.1 Director of Engineering Services - Port Talbot Hill Reconstruction — Contract Award Councillor Widner declared a conflict with this item. Councillor Widner left the Chambers during discussion and did not vote on this item. The Manager of Roads and Asset Management presented the report recommending that Clarke Construction be awarded the contract for the Port Talbot Hill Reconstruction project, and the continued use of Spriet Associates for the contract administration and inspection services required for this project. Resolution Number: CW25-16 Moved by: Councillor Noble Seconded by: Councillor Hentz RESOLVED THAT Clarke Construction Inc. be selected to complete the Port Talbot Hill Reconstruction located on Fingal Line (CR 16), Tender No 2025-T15 at a total price of $2,853,500.00 inclusive of a $200,000 contingency allowance and exclusive of HST.; and THAT contract administration and inspections services associated with the Port Talbot Hill Reconstruction project, previously awarded to Spriet Associates, be increased in the amount of $72,000 (excluding HST); and THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be directed and authorized to sign the contract. Motion Carried. 6.2 Director of Planning and Development - Consent application delegated authority The Director of Planning and Development presented the report recommending that County Council delegate approval authority for non - contentious consent applications from the County's Land Division Committee to senior Planning staff in order to accelerate processing time Resolution Number: CW25-17 Moved by: Councillor Hentz Seconded by: Councillor Couckuyt RESOLVED THAT the report titled "Report Consent application delegated authority" from the Director of Planning and Development dated May 13, 2025 be received and filed; and THAT County Council repeal By -Law No. 24-25 Planning Delegation Authority and adopt an updated by-law as presented in this report. Motion Carried. Page 3 of 182 6.3 Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk - AMO Delegation Requests 2025 The Manager of Administrative Services/Deputy Clerk presented the report seeking direction on which ministries Council would like to request delegations with at the 2025 Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Conference. Resolution Number: CW25-18 Moved by: Councillor Widner Seconded by: Councillor Hentz RESOLVED THAT staff prepare a draft delegation request based on outstanding questions and issues regarding rural healthcare and a draft delegation request to the MTO regarding costs associated with the purchase of municipal vehicles; and THAT these draft delegation requests be brought forward to County Council for approval at their meeting on May 27, 2025. Motion Carried. 7. Adjournment Resolution Number: CW25-19 Moved by: Councillor Leatham Seconded by: Councillor Widner RESOLVED THAT we do now adjourn at 10:11 a.m. to meet again on May 27, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. Motion Carried. Blaine Parkin, Grant Jones, Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk. Warden. Page 4 of 182 Report to Committee of the Whole From: Carolyn Krahn, Manager of Economic Development, Tourism & Strategic Initiatives Date: May 27, 2025 Subject: Elgincentives Community Improvement Plan Review Recommendation(s): THAT Council direct staff to commence the preparation of a comprehensive update to the existing Elgincentives Community Improvement Plan. Introduction: This report provides County Council with information required to consider a comprehensive update to the existing Elgincentives Community Improvement Plan. In the Fall of 2024, the County commenced a review of the County's Community Improvement Plan (CIP) known as "Elgincentives" as the program reached its loth anniversary. The goal of this background review was four-part, namely, to assess and analyze: • How well the County's existing CIP programming has been performing since the program's launch with respect to addressing the needs of its local municipal partners; • The cumulative impact of existing CIP programming including its potential impact on job creation, tax assessment, and business investment (amongst others); • The available resources and capacities of County's local municipal partners to deliver or assist in delivering community improvement programming, particularly from a budget, staffing, and real property asset perspective; • The County's current economic and market context to ensure that CIP programming is responsive to the County's economic and demographic realities; and, • How the County's CIP programming compares to neighbouring peer municipalities to ensure the County is both competitive and implementing best practice. These analyses have been compiled into the Elgincentives Community Improvement Plan Review Report, attached to this staff report. With the background review Page 5 of 182 completed staff are now seeking direction from County Council with respect to updating the CIP. Background and Discussion: A CIP is a powerful planning and economic development tool authorized under the authority of Section 45 of the Planning Act and provides the only opportunity for municipal governments to provide direct financial incentives to individuals and businesses that are otherwise prohibited under the Municipal Act (known as `bonusing'). While Elgin County itself is not permitted to adopt its own CIP, it is permitted to fund and administer CIP activities, and as such, Elgincentives was developed and designed as a template CIP to be adopted at the local level and administered at the County level. The Elgincentives CIP was the first of its kind in Ontario and has been used as inspiration for many other similar CIP in other two-tier jurisdictions. Since its launch in 2015, Elgincentives CIP has been an important economic development tool for the County and local municipal partners, offering financial incentives to stimulate private -sector investment, main street revitalization, and local job creation across the County. As the program reaches its 10-year milestone, a comprehensive review was undertaken to assess its effectiveness and to ensure it continues to meet the County's evolving needs. This review, informed by policy analysis, data evaluation, stakeholder consultation, and comparison with peer municipalities, has generated several key findings to inform potential updates to the CIP. The review confirms that Elgincentives has delivered significant value to the County and local municipal partners, having supported nearly 290 projects with over $1.5 million in grants, leveraging over $9.4 million in private sector investment across the County over the past decade. The most common types of projects involved building restoration, facade improvement, and signage enhancements, primarily within the County's settlement areas. While the program has seen widespread uptake there has been more recent declines in applications to the program, and the review identified a number of areas for enhancement to ensure continued relevance and impact. Stakeholder and municipal feedback underscored the need for updated grant structures that better reflect the cost of improvement projects today. Many noted that the current funding caps are often too low to catalyze significant change. Comparative analysis with other municipalities revealed that Elgincentives could improve its competitiveness by expanding support for affordable housing, adaptive reuse, and rural economic diversification, areas not currently prioritized in the existing CIP. Process improvements were also identified. While the Elgincentives Implementation Committee plays a vital role in administration, the process is perceived by some as cumbersome and lacking flexibility. Stakeholders expressed interest in streamlined application procedures, clearer eligibility guidelines, and more effective communication strategies. Enhanced digital tools and a dedicated application portal were also recommended to modernize service delivery. Page 6 of 182 Finally, the report also noted opportunities to clarify and strengthen governance structures, including clearer roles for County and local municipal staff, greater guidance on program evaluation criteria, and improved consistency in the promotion and administration of the CIP across Elgin's seven municipalities. Financial Implications: The review to -date was undertaken with budget monies set aside in the 2024 Budget. Undertaking an update to the Elgincentives CIP is anticipated to cost $50,000 and funded through this years' approved CIP budget. Advancement of the Strateaic Plan: Promoting Economic Development While Respecting Rural Heritage — Updating the CIP will ensure that the County continues to support rural and small-town revitalization in a targeted and impactful manner. Revised incentives tailored to tourism, agri-business, and adaptive reuse align directly with the County's goal of fostering sustainable community growth through investment attraction, main street renewal, and the protection of rural character. Enhancing Collaborative Engagement and Communication — The review process itself demonstrated strong engagement with local municipal partners, and a revised CIP will strengthen that collaboration by offering a more flexible, coordinated implementation framework. Shared program delivery, joint promotion, and streamlined administration support the goal of improving communication and collaboration across departments and municipalities. Supporting Housing Needs for Diverse Populations — An updated CIP would present an opportunity to introduce incentives for affordable and attainable housing, infill development, and secondary suites, responding directly to the County's commitment to meet housing needs for a range of populations, including seniors, low-income households, and young families. Leveraging Technology to Enhance Service Delivery — Recommendations to introduce digital applications, centralized program tracking, and online public information tools in an updated CIP programme are aligned with the County's goal of using automation and virtual service platforms to improve accessibility and efficiency in service delivery. Instilling a Customer -Service Ethos — A updated CIP programme would also provide an opportunity to address feedback heard from stakeholders in the review process, by clarifying eligibility requirements, simplifying the application process, and improving response times. These improvements reflect the County's broader objective of putting users first and continuously improving service quality through responsive, transparent, and timely support. Page 7 of 182 Local Municipal Partner Impact: The preparation of an updated Elgincentives CIP would have direct impacts on all of Elgin's local municipal partners. As the County does not have the authority to adopt a CIP itself, each local municipality would be required to separately adopt the Elgincentives CIP (as previously done in 2015). Local municipal staff would also be required to assist in the administration of the CIP, working with county staff and applicants to identify and support improvement projects. While local municipal staff support is anticipated to be a requirement of operating the program, funding is anticipated to continue to come from the County. Communication Reauirements: The Planning Act outlines statutory notification and public consultation requirements for CIPs, which are essentially conducted in the same manner as an official plan. Any CIP update would necessitate the need to develop a consultation and engagement strategy outlining further communication and consultation beyond the minimal statutory requirements to ensure a robust consultation program for the development of an updated CIP. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis it is respectfully recommended that Council direct staff to undertake a comprehensive update to the existing Elgincentives CIP. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Carolyn Krahn Manager of Economic Development, Tourism & Strategic Initiatives Approved for Submission Blaine Parkin Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Page 8 of 182 6 �db lo�f'� CaIr,))i t le ts Introduction Legislation & Policy Review Overview of Elgincentives Elgincentives Implementation Data Consultation Summary Elgincentives Diagnostic Conclusion & Next Steps URI jo a Z FBI U I III III 1111NII! I IPI I IF 111 4 6 12 17 22 31 47 55 Page 11 of 182 uuu () li c t i o ir))l F)nvvi itovvi I F�ndi in Vvnsl F�Iqii I "RIE) COLAWS/ Of Bj§rl W U rldElwta brill a coornprEVENISME) revievv of AS CIOUrItAl VVICS CornnWrIAS/ Unpro/EwWrit Ran (CO PQ, lonOW/ri as ' E I qj 1 n CIE) n tMEN& IF h W3 1 n 1 th VIE), o All! Sri I II I El U rl CAI E)d 1 rl 22 01 Q Ks d E3 S 1 q) r I E) d t 0 S U F) F�) (�) u' I e c.,; (�) ri (�) rn 1 c; d E3 \1 E) I o p n1E)r1t across WE3 COUrity's S E3 V E3 n ril U rl K; p a H t we s Io y o ffe �l" i n I Ea r Ey n Ig e o fi i,, "i a i,, "i c � al i r "i c e L V E3 S WrYIEW at stAlUbtirf) I)IJ13irIE3E3E; AVEStrTIENIt, EMCIOU rall All prur)Ewly irnpralEsTIMUS, Enihariciry CJC)\A/ritC)\A/Sri rEMIREAZEAKI, f0StEQiqj job crEM US, El rid pram othly WE3 md EVIE) 10 pul Eeri I (�) f �-r ri d er e..r I i i ize d or WHOM F)r"OF)EMIES, -110; rEjOrl COMISALAER WE) rEMASN'S dW"Jr10St!C' Of WE3 EMI S01j] COT) Mid BrI MWENTrYIEWIt CA WE3 COUrlb/S aEAS With req)ec.'l la WIFACA/EnTIENIt rhar1rArl"] A A) Mum, Mid \A/Wi &,.jc'Je c'JecKYWAS CA P)C)tE3rltlatppurlc)cilKlc:Eat[K)rIE3 W thE3 CT) to rTRAW-he ts LYNAM W thE3 COUntv and ts 4 hdqhnm!nhv(!„ Cornmunk y' Irnpil mwrywn( Pinn Rm/k!w Page 1 MISTV h am pQh owMQ comm"Ay n any Awkwo W"R// DI'd I \0 � /"pil I �)M)h yrn/dn� iiq l7iasiiwsshivnsl i11 uuu FM _ As the program reaches its ten-year milestone, this review aims to assess the CIP's effectiveness, identify areas for improvement, and ensure its continued alignment with the County's economic development and planning goals. Several key considerations underpin this review: • Performance Evaluation: Assessing how well the current incentive programming has met the needs of local businesses, property owners, and municipal partners. • Economic Impact: Measuring the program's contributions to job creation, enhancement of property values, and overall business investment within the County. • Comparative Analysis: Benchmarking Elgincentives against similar programs in neighbouring municipalities to ensure Elgin remains competitive. • Resource Allocation: Reviewing the financial and administrative capacities of the County and its local municipalities to effectively manage the CIP. • Policy and Legislative Alignment: Ensuring the CIP aligns with the most up-to-date municipal and provincial planning policy and legislative requirements. The Elgincentives CIP Review is expected to yield several important outcomes: • A Comprehensive Assessment: A detailed evaluation of the CIP's effectiveness and economic impact. Stakeholder Insights: Incorporation of feedback from local businesses, municipal and economic development officials, and other stakeholders to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the CIP programming. Strategic Recommendations: Identification of needed modifications, including potential new incentive programs, adjustments to funding structures, or revised eligibility criteria. • Improved Implementation Framework: A roadmap for enhancing program administration, ensuring accessibility, and streamlining the application and approval process. The Elgincentives Community Improvement Plan has been a valuable tool in driving economic development within Elgin County. However, as economic and policy landscapes evolve, a thorough review is essential to refine the program and enhance its impact. This assessment will provide a roadmap for strengthening Elgincentives and ensuring it continues to serve as a catalyst for growth and investment in the County. Page 3 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�liv� ,r �,Ornriurii(,� Irr)�:�r(w( I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv iofI\0I /.,tiplH �)'Wh � ��ii IA 611m �� Illla. Illla. u� IIIII �l� III i IIIII..., 0 1 �` Illlk ' �� V o �,� q' , IIIII �1y11��q �� IIIII � �� I� ��yi�� IIIII �l ° ��,�0 IIIII ° ��, �� II� li otm VN��u IIm tvn i Ilm�w iiii uFl li��m� li u�r. A thorough understanding of the legislative and policy framework governing community improvement planning is essential for evaluating the effectiveness and future direction of Elgincentives. This section provides an overview of the key legislative provisions under the Ontario Planning Act and relevant planning and economic development policies of the County of Elgin Official Plan and local municipal partner official plans that impact the scope and implementation of the CIP. By assessing these legislative and policy contexts, the review will help ensure that Elgincentives maintains compliance with statutory requirements and the County's planning and economic development policies. Ontario • s VEMMUM The Ontario Planning Act provides the legislative framework for community improvement planning, primarily under Part IV: Community Improvement (Sections 28-32). These sections establish the authority, process, and conditions under which municipalities, including upper -tier municipalities like Elgin County, can develop and implement CIPs. Below is a summary of the key provisions relevant to Elgincentives CIP review. Planning Act Summary Section 28 (1)-(2) grants municipalities the power to designate a "Community Improvement Project Area" (CIPA) by passing a by-law. A CIPA is an area where community improvement is needed due to economic stagnation, underutilized properties, inadequate infrastructure, or environmental concerns. Where there is an official plan in effect in a local municipality, or in a prescribed upper -tier municipality, that contains provisions relating to community improvement in the municipality, the council may, by by-law, designate the whole or any part of an area covered by the said official plan as a community improvement project area. As Elgin is not "prescribed" for the purposes of this section, it does not have the authority to create a County CIP. To that end, Elgincentives has been developed as a "template" CIP for each municipality to then adopt at the local level. This allows the County to participate in funding community improvement initiatives, and provides for a high degree of coordination of efforts County -wide. • Section 28 0-0) outlines that once an area is designated as a CIPA, the municipality may prepare a Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to guide revitalization efforts. The goals of a CIP typically include: Economic development stimulation Revitalization of downtowns and commercial areas Affordable housing creation and general improvements to substandard housing Brownfield redevelopment Infrastructure improvements. • Section 28 047) empowers municipalities to acquire, hold, and redevelop lands within the designated CIPA to support community improvement objectives. • Section 28 (7.1)-(7.3) allows municipalities to offer grants, loans, and tax incentives to private property owners to encourage improvements in alignment with the CIP. • Section 28(7.2) allows the County to participate in local CIPs through the provision of grants and loans to the respective council of the local municipality, to support them in carrying out their CIP. • Section 28 (9)-(10) clarifies that upper -tier municipalities like Elgin may implement a CIP in collaboration with a lower -tier municipality, provided that a resolution is passed to authorize participation. This means that while the County can fund and support CIPs, the responsibility for CIP execution remains a the local level unless special arrangements are made. 6 Illirim rI( D)rnrnu,Iil,�IrnpiI()\/( 111,-11,1 Ik!vk!\/v/ �4 Of �82 '-d1\0I/',��Il I C))h Page � ��ii IA 611m �� Illla. Illla. u� IIIII �l� III i IIIII..., 0 1 �` Illlk ' �� V o �,� q' , IIIII �tiy11��q �� IIIII � �� I� ��yi�� IIIII � ° ��,�0 IIIII ° ��, �� II� li Qom VN��u IIm tvn i Ilm�w iiii uFl li��m� li u�r. J The PPS is the Province's statement on land use policy and establishes the overarching land use policies for Ontario and mandates that all municipal planning decisions be consistent with its policies. While the PPS does not speak directly to community improvement planning it includes a number of policies that can be supported through it. Below is an analysis of the PPS sections relevant to community improvement planning: • Section 2.1 promotes the creation of complete communities where housing, jobs, and amenities are located within close proximity. Section 2.2 requires planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet current and future demand. This includes a range of housing options to meet the social, health, economic, and well-being requirements of current and future residents and encouraging residential intensification. • Section 2.3.1 encourages intensification and redevelopment in settlement areas to achieve complete communities and supports the redevelopment of brownfield sites. • Section 2.5 supports the redevelopment of brownfield sites in the rural area. Section 2.9 directs municipalities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate by encouraging complete communities, supporting energy conservation and efficiency, promoting green infrastructure and low impact development. Section 4.6 requires municipalities to protect and conserve designated heritage properties 2.3 Approved The Elgin County Official Plan is the current, and in effect, Official Plan for Elgin and establishes the policy framework for CIPs, emphasizing economic revitalization, infrastructure improvement, and environmental sustainability. The policies provide guidance for identifying CIPA and administering financial incentive programs. Below is a summary of the key sections of the Official Plan relevant to Community Improvement Planning: Section A4.3 outlines economic policies that align with CIP objectives: Downtown Development: Reinforcing the role of downtowns as economic, cultural, and social hubs. Tourism and Port Development: Supporting tourism growth and maintaining Elgin's ports as focal points for economic activity. Business Attraction and Retention: Establishing financial incentive tools to support business growth. Cultural Heritage Protection: Encouraging the preservation of heritage assets as part of the economic development strategy. Incentive -Based Development: Encouraging municipalities to develop programs that provide grants or tax incentives to spur private investment. • Section A5 constitutes the Official Plan's Economic Strategy, which supports community improvement planning by: Maximizing Employment Lands: Ensuring the and other cultural heritage assets. Page 15 of 182� �`''r'" ` r'`"" ,I' `fornmunk,� Irr)�:I] rr""r'` i inn i�" "" "\/ rat 1 v0 � /.,,i: l H ,)M)'h � ��ii IA 611m �� Illla. Illla. u� IIIII �l� III i IIIII..., 0 1 �` Illlk ' �� V ° , ' , IIIII �tiy11�� IIIII � �� )Ii � ��yi�� IIIII � v a�� ° �� x IIIII �° ��,� ��II� li � : VN��u IIm tvn i Ilm�w iiii uFl li��m� li u�r. full utilization of commercial and industrial lands. Supporting Business Improvement Areas: Encouraging downtown business enhancement programs. Brownfield Redevelopment: Incentivizing redevelopment of underutilized industrial sites. Public Space Activation: Promoting investments in public plazas, event spaces, and pedestrian -friendly environments. Section F6 establishes policies related to community improvement to facilitate the physical, social, and economic revitalization of areas in need of renewal. Further Section F6.1 outlines multiple objectives for CIP initiatives, including: Infrastructure and Services: Encouraging efficient provision and maintenance of infrastructure, utilities, and public services. Housing Renewal: Supporting the maintenance and rehabilitation of older housing stock. Brownfield Redevelopment: Facilitating the cleanup and reuse of vacant or underutilized industrial lands. Downtown Revitalization: Enhancing commercial areas through fagade improvements, business incentives, and streetscape enhancements. Heritage Preservation: Promoting the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings to support economic development. Environmental Sustainability: Encouraging energy -efficient building retrofits and sustainable development practices. Economic Growth: Strengthening economic vitality by promoting business investment in designated areas. Aesthetic Enhancements: Improving the visual characteristics of streetscapes and neighborhoods. • Section F6.2 provides guidance on how local municipalities should implement CIPs: Designation of Community Improvement Areas: Local councils may designate CIPA by by-law. Public Consultation: Background studies must be conducted before implementing a CIP, with findings made available for public review. Approval Process: Local municipalities are required to submit their CIPs to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for review and comment. Upper -Tier Support: Elgin County may provide financial assistance (grants or loans) to lower -tier municipalities for implementing CIPs, aligning with Section 28 of the Ontario Planning Act. In May of 2024, the County Council adopted a new Official Plan which, as of the time of the writing of this report, is awaiting approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Once approved, the adopted County Official Plan will establish an updated policy framework for CIPs. The most recent iteration of the plan was prepared in March 2025, and includes several proposed modifications to reflect the new Provincial Planning Statement (PPS). As it is anticipated that any updated or new CIP developed by the County will likely proceed after the Adopted Official Plan has been approved, the analysis below summarizes key sections of the Adopted Official Plan relevant to Community Improvement Planning: 8 Igh'i mrIlCornrnu,I ,� IrnpiI ()\/(irI I k��!vk�!\/v/Page 16 Of 182 � ��ii IA 611m �� Illla. Illla. u� IIIII �l� III i IIIII..., 0 1 �` Illlk ' �� V o �,� q' , IIIII �tiy11��q �� IIIII � �� I� ��yi�� IIIII � ° ��,�0 IIIII ° ��, �� II� li otm VN��u IIm tvn i Ilm�w iiii uFl li��m� li u�r. Section 2.13 directs that the County examine opportunities to fund redevelopment and intensification projects through community improvement programming Section 3.1 outlines the County's general economic development priorities including growth and expansion of industry, agriculture and tourism and states that economic development programming (which can include CIPs) will be used to support these priorities. • Section 3.8 encourages high quality design in designated Strategic Employment Areas as economic gateways to the County. • Section 3.14 identifies `scenic routes' where public realm improvements are encouraged on both public and private property. • Section 3.15 supports ongoing efforts to revitalize, improve, and restore the County's downtowns, main streets, and waterfronts with the aim of supporting local business and attracting tourism to the County. • Section 3.16 supports placemaking initiatives such as public art installations, development of programd public spaces, and the improvement and beautification of infrastructure where there is an evident county -wide economic development or tourism benefit. • Section 3.17 encourages the protection of the County's rural and urban character and placemaking initiatives to attract the `creative class' economy. Section 3.18 comprises the County's policies as they relate to community improvement planning and plans and provides the authority for the County's participation in the Elgincentives CIP. With respect to CIP planning the Adopted County Official Plan identifies the following specific community improvement priorities that may be eligible for CIP funding: Affordable housing development Rural economic development Downtown, main street, and waterfront revitalization Cultural heritage tourism Beautification on identified scenic routes Placemaking initiatives Attracting creative industries Improvements to strategic employment areas The policy also allows County Council to identify additional strategic priorities for CIP funding beyond those explicitly listed. • Section 4.6 establishes targets for the creation of affordable housing in the County and directs that community improvement planning should be examined to assist in funding affordable housing. • Section 5.4 establishes a county -wide rural character and requires the protection of this character by new development in the Rural Area. • Section 6.2 recognizes that achieving the creation of compact and complete communities in Elgin will in part be accomplished through community improvement planning • Section 6.4 establishes a county -wide urban character and requires the protection of this character by new development in the County's Settlement Areas • Section 13.6 requires annual reporting to County Council on investments leveraged by any community improvement funding committed by the County. Page 7 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�liv� ,r �,Ornriurii(,� Irr)�:Ir(w( I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv iofI\0I /."plH �)'M)h � ��ii IA 611m �� Illla. Illla. u� IIIII �l� III i IIIII..., 0 1 �` Illlk ' �� V ° , ' , IIIII �tiy11�� IIIII � �� )Ii � ��yi�� IIIII � v a�� ° �� x IIIII �° ��,� ��II� li � : VN��u IIm tvn i Ilm�w iiii uFl li��m� li u�r. There are seven local municipalities (or lower tier municipalities) in Elgin, each with their own official plan. These local official plans establish the policy frameworks for the creation, adoption, and implementation of a community improvement plans. The table below summarizes the relevant policies of these official plans. It specifically identifies if the local official plan has enabling policies that permit the municipality to create a CIP, summarizes the focus areas of a local CIP and what areas of the local municipalities can be considered for a community improvement project area. OP enabling CIP policies? Affordable Housing Beautification Infrastructure EcDev Sustainability Brownfields Public Safety Is a CIP permitted in the rural area? Is a CIP permitted in settlement areas? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N N N N Unclear Unclear N N Y Y Y Unclear Unclear Y Y 10 Igh'i mrIlCornrnu,I ,� IrnpiI ()\/(irI I k��!vk�!\/v/Page 18 Of 182 � ��ii IA 611m �� Illla. Illla. u� IIIII �l� III i IIIII..., 0 1 �` Illlk ' �� V o �,� q' , IIIII �tiy11��q �� IIIII � �� I� ��yi�� IIIII � ° ��,�0 IIIII ° ��, �� II� li otm VN��u IIm tvn i Ilm�w iiii uFl li��m� li u�r. Based on the legislative and policy review conducted as part of this report, the following is noted: • Since the approval of the existing Elgincentives CIP, there have been few legislative changes to Ontario's planning framework for community improvement planning. As such, the County can expect a similar approvals process as in 2015, where the County is not permitted to create an upper tier community improvement plan, but can fund community improvement plans approved by lower tiers. • The current PPS does not contain any specific policy direction regarding community improvement planning or plans, however it provides extensive policy direction regarding the provision of an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities; the provision of special needs housing; support for intensification and redevelopment in settlement areas; redevelopment of `brownfield' sites; support for energy conservation, green infrastructure and low impact development; and support for the protection and conservation of cultural heritage. All of which are often addressed in community improvement planning and plans in Ontario. • Both the current and adopted Elgin County Official Plans include enabling policies which permit the County to participate in community improvement planning, but not adopt its own CIP, and include similar areas of focus: including affordable housing, brownfield development, and downtown/main street revitalization, however the adopted County Official Plan also includes a focus on: cultural heritage tourism; placemaking initiatives; and improvements to strategic employment areas as other areas of potential focus. • All local official plans currently in effect contain provisions related to community improvement planning, including required enabling policies that permit CIP to be developed and implemented. • In most cases, the language found in local official plans is flexible enough to consider a wide range of incentive programs, but each local municipality may need to confirm their own interpretation of this, or may wish to scope or limit which priorities they focus on. • In two cases (Southwold and West Elgin) the Official Plans contain explicit reference to the Elgincentives CIP and permit participation in the program, however this is not seen as a prerequisite for other municipalities to participate in the Elgincentives CIP program. Page 9 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�liv� ,r �,Ornriurii(,� Irr)�:Ir(w( I'm1,11 Iron I';r v/k riv 11 iofI\0I /.,tiplH �)'M)h �E].911 1", FiICJIIII n I It vns D)Iiui) aIIIIt i 11 )prOv/( I nn IIt FlIrui Cmwr P�rrp ! M10=6 ! The Elgincentives Community Improvement Plan (CIP) was introduced approximately a decade ago as a strategic framework to guide and support economic development and revitalization efforts across Elgin County. Developed as a county -wide initiative, the plan provides a unified but adaptable approach for local municipalities, allowing them to tailor its provisions to meet their specific needs. Each municipality within Elgin County is responsible for adopting and implementing the CIP, ensuring that the plan's objectives align with their local economic and community development goals. The fundamental purpose of the CIP is to encourage private -sector investments by offering financial incentives that stimulate development and redevelopment activity. The Plan was designed to enhance business retention and expansion, attract new investment, improve the visual and functional appeal of commercial and industrial properties, and ultimately contribute to the long-term economic sustainability of the region. By providing structured financial support, the CIP aims to mitigate barriers to development and encourages businesses and property owners to invest in projects that contribute to the overall prosperity of their communities. Over the past decade, the Elgincentives CIP has played a crucial role in strengthening local economies by supporting small businesses, fostering job creation, and improving the aesthetic and structural quality of buildings and properties. The program has contributed to revitalizing downtown cores, enhancing the tourism sector, and ensuring that rural areas remain economically viable. However, given the evolving economic landscape, it is essential to review and assess the effectiveness of the CIP, ensuring it continues to meet the needs of Elgin County's municipalities and their stakeholders. 12 Ippirim rI( (: ;rnrnuI'II;,� IrnpiI;v(irI I k!vk!\/v/ 20 Of � $2 '-dl\0I/',��l I C))h Page The vision of the Elgincentives CIP is to establish a vibrant, investment -friendly economic environment that supports sustainable development and economic diversification across Elgin County. The plan is structured to promote local business growth, infrastructure improvements, and heritage preservation while fostering innovation and community engagement. The CIP seeks to create an environment where businesses can thrive, town centres can be revitalized, and the overall quality of life in Elgin County is enhanced through economic development. The goals of the CIP focus on several strategic areas that collectively contribute to the county's economic success: Business Retention and Expansion - One of the primary objectives of the CIP is to support the growth and sustainability of local businesses by encouraging investment in property and operational improvements. By offering financial incentives, the program aims to reduce the economic burden on businesses seeking to modernize their facilities, expand their operations, or enhance their competitiveness within the local and regional markets. Downtown Revitalization - Many of Elgin County's municipalities have historic downtown cores that serve as economic and social hubs. The CIP encourages facade improvements, signage updates, and streetscaping projects to enhance the aesthetic appeal and functionality of these areas. A well -maintained and visually attractive downtown can boost foot traffic, increase commercial activity, and create a more inviting atmosphere for both residents and visitors. Tourism and Agricultural Sector Support - Elgin County has a strong tourism and agri-business sector, and the CIP aims to enhance these industries by providing incentives for the development of visitor -oriented facilities and rural business improvements. By supporting businesses that cater to tourists and agricultural enterprises, the Plan contributes to diversifying the local economy and ensuring that these key sectors remain competitive. Employment Growth and Economic Diversification - The CIP seeks to encourage new employment opportunities by supporting industrial and commercial developments. By incentivizing property improvements and new business ventures, the Plan promotes job creation and ensures that Elgin County remains an attractive destination for entrepreneurs and investors looking to establish or expand their operations. Sustainability and Accessibility Improvements - Promoting environmentally sustainable improvements and enhance accessibility. This includes encouraging businesses to adopt energy -efficient building practices, implement green infrastructure, and ensure that commercial properties are accessible to all individuals, including those with disabilities. These improvements not only align with modern sustainability goals but also contribute to the long-term viability and inclusivity of Elgin County. Page 2� Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�lnn ,r �,Ornriurii(,� Irr)�:r(w( I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 13 iofI\0I /.,tiplH �)'Wh The Elgincentives CIP is structured around a suite of financial incentive programs designed to encourage private investment in property improvements, business development, and community enhancement projects. These programs provide direct financial assistance to property owners, business operators, and developers seeking to undertake projects that align with the plan's objectives. While the community improvement planning provisions of the Planning Act include a wide range of community improvement tools including: land acquisition, land clearance, construction/improvement of buildings, sale/disposal of land, the existing Elgincentives CIP does not include any such enabling provisions. Table 1: Elgincentives Financial Incentives Encourages significant investment in 100% tax rebate decreasing by 10% annually Tax Increment property redevelopment and rehabilitation for five years (non -priority); 100% rebate for Equivalent Grant by providing a rebate on the municipal tax five years (priority/brownfield); special cases increase. may receive full rebate. Fagade, Signage, Supports exterior building improvements, 50% of eligible costs: Up to $10,000 (priority), $5,000 (non -priority) for fagades; and Property signage updates, and enhancements to Up to $7,500/$2,500 for signage; Up to Improvement Grant private property. $5,000/$2,500 for property improvements. Building Assists property owners in maintaining and 50% of eligible costs: Up to $10,000 (priority) Improvement/ upgrading existing buildings to ensure long- and $8,000 (non -priority). Restoration Grant term viability. Building Supports small-scale conversion of $15 per square foot of converted or Conversion/ underutilized space into commercial, mixed- expanded space: Up to $10,000 (priority) and Expansion Grant use, or other eligible uses. $8,000 (non -priority). Energy Efficiency Encourages energy -efficient upgrades 25% of retrofit costs: Up to $10,000 (priority) Retrofit Grant to commercial, industrial, or mixed -use and $7,500 (non -priority); professional fees properties. max 15% of grant. Supports the installation of permanent 50% of eligible costs: Up to $3,000 (must be Outdoor Art Grant outdoor artwork or sculptures to enhance in a priority area). public spaces. Feasibility, Design, Assists in the preparation of feasibility and Study Grant studies, architectural designs, and business o 50% of eligible costs: Up to $2,000. development plans. Application and Reduces the cost of planning applications Permit Fees Grant or building permits associated with 50% of municipal/county fees: Up to $2,000. improvement projects. Multiple Provides an additional financial incentive 15% of total approved grant value: Up to Property Owners when multiple property owners coordinate $1,000 per owner/tenant. Supplemental Grant improvement projects. Savour Elgin/ Encourages business development aligned 15% of total approved grant value: Up to Elgin Arts Trail with the Savour Elgin and Elgin Arts Trail $2,000 per owner/tenant. Supplemental Grant programs. Assists property owners in conducting Environmental environmental studies to determine 50% of eligible costs: Up to $8,000. Study Grant contamination levels and potential remediation costs. Brownfield Tax Provides financial support for the Municipal/county taxes cancelled for up to Assistance remediation and redevelopment of three years; provincial education taxes may Program brownfield (contaminated) sites by offering be cancelled (subject to approval). tax relief. 14 h Iqinm nhv/( ,; (ornmunk,� lrnpl Ph n (!\/k!\/v/ 22 Of 82 '-dC\0I/',��l I C))h Page e The administration of the Elgincentives CIP is managed by the County in partnership with local municipalities, with oversight provided by the Elgincentives Implementation Committee. This committee is responsible for receiving and reviewing financial incentive applications, making approval decisions based on the plan's criteria, and ensuring funds are distributed accordingly. The funding of financial incentives is determined annually by both municipal and county councils, who allocate resources for eligible programs. Some programs may be fully funded by Elgin County, while others, such as the Tax Increment Equivalent Grant, Application and Permit Fees Grant, and Brownfield Tax Assistance Program, require shared funding. Once the budget is exhausted for a given year, no further grants are issued until the following year. The application process involves submitting a completed application with supporting documentation. The Elgincentives Implementation Committee evaluates applications and notifies applicants of missing materials. Approved applicants must enter into a financial assistance agreement, while applicants whose applications where refused may appeal to the local municipal council, except when refusal is due to insufficient funds. Projects must commence within six months of approval and be completed within 12 months, though extensions may be granted. Upon project completion, invoices and documentation are submitted for final review before incentives are disbursed. Non-compliance with agreement terms may result in delays, reductions, or cancellations of funding. Figure 1: Elgincentives Key Steps in Application Process 3.5 SummarV Based on the review of the CIP conducted as part of this report, the following is noted: • The Elgincentives CIP is a county -wide CIP that requires each local municipality to adopt locally (in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act). As such, each local municipality must satisfy themselves that the Elgincentives CIP is enabled under their own official plans (i.e. that the local official plan permits the implementation of a CIP), and that it must align with their community improvement priorities which in some cases vary from policies of some local official plans. • Elgincentives offers 12 distinct, but often intersecting/overlapping, grant programs addressing building improvement and beautification, as well as remediation of contaminated sites, and tourism. It is notable that the CIP does not include any additional authority under the Planning Act such as the acquisition, improvement, and disposition of land. • Most grant programs require a contribution by the property/business owner and max -out at 50% of costs. Notable exceptions to this include the Tax Increment Equivalent Grant, Building Conversation/ Expansion Grant, and the Brownfield Tax Assistance Grant. Further, with the exception of the Tax Increment Equivalent Grant and the Brownfield Tax Assistance Grant, all other grants are to a maximum of $10,000 and may be stacked to a maximum of $15,000 per property. Page 23 Of (,�,rr�rriur�il,� Irrq:] ww rrw nl I11nn R( \/kDiv 15 1 u Y 1 \0 I /'q: J H �)'W h • The administration and implementation of Elgincentives is shared between the County and local municipalities. While the CIP provides a broad framework for this shared responsibility, detailed responsibilities are not outlined. This shared administration centres around the `Elgincentives Implementation Committee' which: Receives and reviews all applications for financial incentives; and Makes decisions on whether applications should be approved or refused, based on the criteria outlined in the CIP. • This Committee is administered by the County with representation from `senior staff' from the local municipalities. • The Implementation Committee has wide ranging powers related to the administration of the CIP including approving applications, inspection of completed works, and/or auditing project costs. • The CIP also includes detailed application requirements including `good quality plans', past/historical photographs or drawings, two cost estimates, and `any additional requirements as determined by the [Elgincentives Implementation] Committee' • Finally the CIP includes both an high level marketing strategy and an extensive monitoring strategy. The marketing strategy is to be implemented by the Elgincentives Implementation Committee with general guidance on marketing methods and media to be used. The CIP's monitoring strategy includes an extensive list of `suggested' targets and metrics to be evaluated on a five-year basis and annual reporting to both county and local councils. The CIP's targets are intended to be achieved on a municipality - by- municipality basis and include tracking the establishment of new businesses, reductions in vacancy rates, and increased tax revenue. • The CIP is also accompanied by a non -statutory set of `implementation guidelines'. The Guidelines summarize the content to the CIP and provide some additional details on how local municipalities approve the CIP, and the role and responsibility of the Elgincentives Implementation Committee, however in many cases the Guidelines only restate the direction found in the CIP itself as opposed to providing additional guidance. It is also noted that the existing CIP and accompanying guidelines only focus the administrative and procedural aspects of the CIP, and provide little or no guidance on what constitutes a `good' application or project, or little guidance, for example: what is a good facade improvement vs. a bad facade improvement. 16 Ig rim rI(nn „ D)rnrnu,Iil,� IrnpiI ()v( 111,-11,1 I k!vk,!\/v/ 24 Of � 82 '-d1\0I/',��l I C))h Page omm, �u r" � N� m i �^ I�nul �u glop �^ umi�mi a lio ^^^^�1� ^'��1� �19��u� �� ^^^�1� °^^^�1� �^tat ��`� �^ ��'� mo ^� mo °� IIIII IIIII IIIII ��,,N�� ^� IIIII IIIII °�� IIIII 0\ ^� �I Illlf IIIII 11111 I^ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 ^� IIIII IIIII �� ^�� IIIII„u� IIIII IIIII ^�� ^.��. Since its creation in 2015, the CIP has been administered every year since in collaboration with Elgin's seven local municipalities. Since its inception County Staff have completed comprehensive data tracking and implementation monitoring allowing for a detailed analysis of historical trends related to its administration and impact on the County. The following analysis is based on the data collected by the County of Elgin. To complement this data, a snapshot of Elgin County's community demographic change, economic development trends, and target market profiles, was prepared and is attached in Appendix A. • ca tIIIII o IIIII°^°IIIII s A IIIr"o0\ e d Million'$1.56 IIIII h^IIIII,,,,^^11�II� IIIII° ^°IIG h^IIIII ��„ uu p i �wi^n Illlk. p^ piu ii^��, � i i ,r Sul �inu� pM I V �wi„n 14 14 �`� °�u1� III ��y IIIII �iii� ^� IIIII IIIII �iii� ��^ �, ^ � � IIIII ��u� o� ^� �� l �4iumuv�ll� uuuuu°m�NIIVVr nBjO N QU�ON pU �rl)i o� e s t ��^ �,� cl c a IIIII )i t s Wmouuuuu (�Niisu� utllllumimu � Itnm 4um 4um AYLMER ,u»rou Y ��m�iullluu� UTHWOLD ��w,��m��ll�m��i��II� Yuuum ��NTRgC �14toumv�ll� �QoI� FwIN�P'III°IIIIIIIIIII m�ltlllllllllll IIIII MqLgNIpE u0l�uoou agyygM Elgincentives Grant Approvals by Municipality (2015 to 2024) �?, yr rrtl errt<rrtirt<p r �rrt r , hs wr rr f, rtivirt<7 grrmhs which wcrr (mlcmir�i<7 or rml putirl :ru1 in full �frt rlttpr�� A f, p t ir� ut)<uF,aSit£tll tr��Plrllr r:r��lwrlllrt<� irw Iau, it phcr lifr 1irlm nr mr0 for <rrrtrrf<� r�prprrr:rvr rI Iwrra+ tl<,r rI p..Ytr lifrfirl�lr rtrllr:rurtl rtf ftrri<I,� I,�,�tlr,<I tlrtrlr,r litr ,If.� frt rlttlrIwr�,� �li<;'pYtlly Ir <� r� l lira lirlr of lwrilirt<p (pi /4 lifilli(m), Irwr <,prlmr0 rtrlowO hns'd rut prrrtper l cos,/ cslinmlc� irtfrtrrtmlirut prrr:rvirlr rI Ray rtprprli, or0s, rtp fitr lirlr� r:rf rtprprli, olirut suhrni,'=si(m f'Ir ns'c� rt lcp ti°u,1 r,r, wd ,ir'i<auM nmyrllffor. Page ZJ Of $Zh Ippir�r,:t r�lwt ,ornmunk,� Irnpilr,vt awriil Iron H( ant Div 17 1 u Y 1 \0 I /'q: j I l �)'W h ommi �u r" � N� m i �^ I�nul �u glop �^ umi�mi a lio ^^^^�1� ^��1� �ti9��u� �� ^^^�1� °^^^�1� �^tat ��`� �^ ��'� mo ^� mo °� IIIII IIIII IIIII ��,,N�� ^� IIIII IIIII °�� IIIII 0\ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 I^ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 ^� IIIII IIIII �� ^�� IIIII„u� IIIII IIIII ^�� ^.��. Approvals vs Denials (2015 to 2024) The chart below compares application approvals and refusals over the last ten years. On average, the County approved 29 applications per year, and has only refused 32 (around 10%) applications total over the past ten years. According to data tracked by the County, most refusals are related to the failure to meet eligibility requirements, premature project initiation, and zoning or other by-law/policy compliance issues. a 00 00 0 30 20 2016 2017 Approve f Delniie a P..W 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 202 Approved Applications by Municipality (2015 to 2024) The table below summarizes the year-to-year total application submissions according to the Municipality in which the improvement project was located. Aylmer Bayham Central Elgin Dutton Dunwich Malahide Southwold West Elgin 18 Igh'imrI(nn„D)rnrnu,Iil,�IrnpiI()v( I'hirI Ik!vk!\/v/Page 26 Of 182 omm, �u r" � N� m i �^ I�nul �u glop �^ umi�mi a lio ^^^^�1� ^��1� �ti9��u� �� ^^^�1� °^^^�1� �^tat ��`� �^ ��'� mo ^� mo °� IIIII IIIII IIIII ��,,N�� ^� IIIII IIIII °�� IIIII 0\ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 I^ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 ^� IIIII IIIII �� ^�� IIIII„u� IIIII IIIII ^�� ^.��. Approved Applications by CIP Area (2015 to 2024) As shown on the pie chart to the right, around 70% of improvement projects supported under the CIP were located in Settlement Areas. This is unsurprising, given the programming options and level of support for applications in these areas. The chart further below summarizes the year-to-year distribution of approved CIP applications according to which Community Improvement Project Area the improvement project was located. 60 50 40 30 20 10 Milili 2015 :M Settlement Airea f Agricultural Airea I1......alkes1houre/ their Are Settlement Airea Agricultural Airea V alkeslhoure/ tlh ;ur Airea f 1 fP�/L:/l0//lRr 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 27 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�liv� ,r ,Ornrnurii(,� Irr)�:�r(w( I'm1,11 Iron Fk �/� riv 1 u Y 1 \0 I /'q: J H �)'C) p)h IN ommi �u r" � N� m i �^ I�nul �u glop �^ umi�mi a lio ^^^^�1� ^��1� �ti9��u� �� ^^^�1� °^^^�1� �^tat ��`� �^ ��'� mo ^� mo °� IIIII IIIII IIIII ��,,N�� ^� IIIII IIIII °�� IIIII 0\ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 I^ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 ^� IIIII IIIII �� ^�� IIIII„u� IIIII IIIII ^�� ^.��. Lifetime Grants Approved and Amounts by Program (2015 to 2024) The diagram below provides a look at the lifetime number of grants approved according to program, as well as the lifetime funding amounts approved under each stream. Building Improvement/Restoration Property Improvement l\o/cl 0/r fitr iWrrgf m y of ,g11,1li( Ii(m ' rqrprrovr r:A for lirr L' -�x lrrcn mr ,xrorrP (I 1r,x1 irrolgrr�rn, it ol,r'+ rmI iri( hr(: rA iri r0, ,mi Iy,'i ' rmr:A ( rrllr Ii(IN Savour Elgin Building Conversion/Expansion U Signage Improvement Energy Efficiency ® ®o ® 0 000 •®®® oo po Elgin Outdoor Multiple Feasibility Arts Trail Art Property Owners and Design 20 Igh'imrl(: ()rnrnurIil,�lrnpiI()v(irI Ik!vk,!\/v/ 2$ Of �82 ii'-dC \0 I /"pill C)� h Page omm, �u r" � N� m i "^ I�nul �u glop "^ umi�mi a lio ^^^^�1� ^��1� �ti9��u� �� ^^^�1� °^^^�1� �^tat ��`� �^ ��'� mo ^� mo °� IIIII IIIII IIIII ��,,N�� ^� IIIII IIIII °�� IIIII 0\ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 I^ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 ^� IIIII IIIII �� ^�� IIIII„u� IIIII IIIII ^�� ^.��. Lifetime Grants Monies Approved (2015 to 2024) The figure below provides an overall comparison between the total grant monies applied for (-$2.17 Million) and the total grant monies approved (-$1.56 Million) over the lifetime of the CIP. The amount of lifetime grant money approved was around 28% less than the total applied for. This relationship can be impacted by a number of factors, including the number of applicants for a given year, ineligible costs being included in the request, or maximum caps on grant amounts per property per year. The map further below provides a breakdown of the amount of grant monies approved by each local municipality over the lifetime of the CIP. Elgincentives Lifetime Grant Amounts Requested vs. Approved (2015 to 2024) 2,171,050 Requested (Lifetime) Elgincentives Lifetime Grant Amounts by Municipality (2015 to 2024) $493,,E55."lI / AYLMER ��'NkC CENTRAL E G Page 29 Of $Zh Illir�r,:� r�lnn ,r 'ornmunk,� Irnpil mwm rrwril Iron I Cr v/k riv 21 1u11\0I /.,tipjIl �)Wh omm, �u r" � N� m i �^ I�nul �u glop �^ umi�mi a lio ^^^^�1� ^��1� �ti9��u� �� ^^^�1� °^^^�1� �^tat ��`� �^ ��'� mo ^� mo °� IIIII IIIII IIIII ��,,N�� ^� IIIII IIIII °�� IIIII 0\ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 I^ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 ^� IIIII IIIII �� ^�� IIIII„u� IIIII IIIII ^�� ^.��. Year -to -Year Grant Amounts Approved by Municipality (2015 to 2024) The table below provides a breakdown of the total grant monies approved year-to-year by each municipality. The County -wide grant total for each year is provided in the bottom row, while the overall total for each municipality is provided in the last column. Applicant Investment in CIP Projects (2015 to 2024) The map below provides a breakdown of the level of applicant investment (self -reported) in CIP projects by municipality over the lifetime of the Plan. Lifetime grant monies approved in each municipality are also shown, along with the percentage of the overall investment to provide a look at how the CIP programs have supported improvement projects over the last ten years. 1,488,498 20 8'2 7 808,465 14.1 % $ I6 4 35 $1,914,943 19.8% $4.9'p 6�dl 1,815,294 NN`cN SOUTHWOLD cENT2q .8% � 2� 'p,��'.°s8 �NpU CEtGIN 15.4% o�fi Applicant YInvestment (Il�ifetlilme) \ Grant % of Applicant Investment AYLMER 2,26,150 4.6% M—. ALNIpE \;Z'gM 1,05,285 5.5% 22 Cornmunk,�lrnp�l Iron Ik!\/k,�!\/v/Page 30 Of 182 omm, �u r" � N� m i �^ I�nul �u glop �^ umi�mi a lio ^^^^�1� ^��1� �ti9��u� �� ^^^�1� °^^^�1� �^tat ��`� �^ ��'� mo ^� mo °� IIIII IIIII IIIII ��,,N�� ^� IIIII IIIII °�� IIIII 0\ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 I^ ^� Illlf IIIII 11111 ^� IIIII IIIII �� ^�� IIIII„u� IIIII IIIII ^�� ^.��. CIP Inquiries vs. Applications Submitted (2015 to 2024) Interestingly, data collected by the County indicates that the number of CIP applications received outweighed the number of inquiries received. The inverse of this relationship is typical with many other types of municipal application processes (planning applications, business licenses, other grants, etc.). This may suggest that either applicants are familiar with the program and process (either through direct experience with the program and/or experience with other municipal processes), or information is generally straight -forward enough to allow the average applicant to apply with little difficulty. The charts below summarize the relationship between inquiries and applications submitted. Staff have noted that recently, pre - consultations for CIP applications have been made mandatory to improve the quality of submissions. This is likely the contributing factor to the rise of inquiries from 2022 to 2024 as shown below. '70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 202 MW Applications R OEM Page 3� Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�lnn ,r ' rnrnurii(,� Irr)�:r(w( I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 23 1u11\0I /.,pilII �)'M)h IN r" ul pIIIIIII1 umr r��i � pm m��ul r^ � of m��i yu ��i �� ppu ii ��IUdOup V°' uplli m0u ii r � V�\pig ul ,u iii � ,r gal mpum pm �ppu i �� u�ni4�u u�ni4�u \\\{ �� ` uu umu� m\w\I`1 m0u o �tiyiuNpl �tiyiuNpl Imnn�� Illli. WIII uo� uuuu IIIII IIIII \\�n IIIII IIIII '°�Ilmuu� IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII "Illlmuunl7u: IIIII IIIII i �miin�� Il�w�o � �Iliim>7III �omin�� IIIII IIIII �t\hry ml��l, `�IIIIWm�m� \V�muu� IIIII IIIII IIIII �u m�� om�� IIIII �miin�� n IIIII \\�n "Illlmuunl7l \\\\ IIIII IIIII �miin�� \\ pllliwuA��' IIIII pllliwuA��' Analysing Elgincentives against similar programs in neighbouring municipalities can provide insights into Elgin's competitive advantage as well as best/contemporary practices. As such, a comparative analysis of area CIPs was conducted, reviewing the financial incentive programs, funding levels, and program structures offered by other counties and municipalities in the broder region. This environmental scan included the following upper- and single -tier municipalities: • Norfolk County • Oxford County Chatham -Kent ' • County of Brant° Haldimand County f • Niagara Region - • London r 0 • St. Thomas 1 - r Y� I Southern Ontario Comparison Municipalities Elgin County IM Comparison Municipalities A more in-depth summary of each municipalities' CIP incentive programs is provided in Appendix B. This review helped identify key strengths and gaps in the Elgincentives programs relative to its municipal counterparts, highlighting areas where Elgin County may need to refine or expand its incentive offerings to remain competitive. The findings of this analysis informed a set of strategic recommendations to help enhance the program's effectiveness, increase participation, and improve its overall economic impact. 24 vl „ I; I lrrlmurI (,� IrnpiI 111,-11,1 1 k!vk,!\/v/ 32 Of 182 IN r" ul pIIIIIII1 umr r��i � pm m��ul r^ � of m��i yu ��i �� ppu ii ��IUdOup V°' uplli m0u ii r � V��lpi� ul ,u iii � ,r gal mpum pm �ppu i �� u�ni4�u u�ni4�u \\\{ �� Q uu umu� m\w\I`1 a mp o �tiyiuNpl �tiyiuNpl Imnn�� Illli. WIII uo� uuuu IIIII IIIII \\�n IIIII IIIII '°�muu� IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII "Illlmuunl7u: IIIII IIIII i �miin�� Il�w�o � �Iliim>7III �omin�� IIIII IIIII �t\hry ml��l, `�IIIIWm�m� \V�muu� IIIII IIIII IIIII �u m�� om�� IIIII �miin�� n IIIII \\�n "Illlmuunl7l \\\�� IIIII IIIII �miin�� \\ pllliwuA��' IIIII pllliwuA��' 5.2 SummarV of Comparison Municipalities Please refer to Appendix 8 for more details on each Municipalities' Community Improvement Plan(s) No5COUNTY Norfolk County's CIP offers a diverse range of grants and tax -based incentives focused on pre - development work, agricultural diversification, and downtown revitalization. The program supports urban, hamlet, agricultural, and Iakeshore areas, distinguishing itself with specific funding for agricultural buildings and environmental remediation. A multi -year Tax Increment Equivalent Grant (TIEG) provides property tax relief for large-scale projects. • Strong focus on agriculture and rural economic development. Supports pre -development work through design grants and planning fee reimbursements. Multi -year tax incentives encourage long-term redevelopment. (�OxfordCounty Growing stronger together Oxford County's CIP is highly targeted and primarily supports affordable housing and redevelopment through tax -based incentives. Rather than direct grants for property improvements, the County provides tax rebates and fee waivers, working alongside local municipal CIPs. • No direct grants for facade or property improvements. • Incentives require participation in local municipal CIPs. • Affordable housing incentives reduce development costs through planning fee waivers. Chatham -Kent administers two separate CIPs: 1. Municipal -wide CIP (CK CIP) - Focuses on tax relief, planning fee reductions, facade improvements, and housing development. 2. Downtown CIP (DCIP) - Supports streetscape enhancements, including cafes, patios, and outdoor commercial spaces. The CK CIP offers some of the highest facade improvement grants in the region, with a maximum of $40,000 per property. • Two distinct programs, targeting economic development and downtown streetscapes. • Strong incentives for facade improvements, affordable housing, and mixed -use development. • Unique downtown outdoor space grants not commonly seen in other CIPs. Page 33 Of $Zh Illlrlr,:l rlllvl ,ornmunk,� Irrl�;rllvl rrwrll Iron H( \/1 riv 25 1,111 \0 I /.,tipl 11 �)'Wh IN r" ul pIIIIIII1 umr r��i � pm m��ul r^ � of m��i yu ��i �� ppu ii ��IUdOup V°' uplli m0u ii r � V��lpi� ul ,u iii � ,r gal mpum pm �ppu i �� u�ni4�u u�ni4�u \\\{ �� ` uu umu� m\w\I`1 m0u o �tiyiuNpl �tiyiuNpl Imnn�� Illli. WIII uo� uuuu IIIII IIIII \\�n IIIII IIIII '°�Ilmuu� IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII "Illlmuunl7u: IIIII IIIII i �miin�� Il�w�o � �Iliim>7III �omin�� IIIII IIIII �t\hry ml��l, `�IIIIWm�m� \V�muu� IIIII IIIII IIIII �u m�� om�� IIIII �miin�� n IIIII \\�n "Illlmuunl7l \\\�� IIIII IIIII �miin�� \\ pllliwuA��' IIIII pllliwuA��' BrentSimply Grand 7:;� Brant County administers three targeted CIPs for Downtown Paris, Downtown Burford, and Downtown St. George. The program primarily funds fapade improvements, housing conversions, brownfield redevelopment, and adaptive commercial reuse. • Grants encourage downtown revitalization and adaptive reuse. Fapade improvement grants scale based on property location, with higher incentives for riverfront properties. • Brownfield redevelopment incentives support environmental studies and tax relief. ,�N „iirpm ilmm inr ti((l�i'(ff(((�FffUl�rrrmw,� Haldimand County Haldimand County operates two separate CIPs: Downtown Revitalization CIP - Focuses on fapade improvements, building restoration, housing conversions, and heritage preservation. 2. Rural Business and Tourism CIP - Encourages rural business growth, value-added agriculture, and commercial accommodations. The County offers grants up to $25,000 for major building restorations, alongside tax -based incentives for large-scale projects. • Two CIPs address urban and rural economic needs separately. • Incentives support building restoration, heritage preservation, and commercial accommodations. • Full rebates for development charges and permit fees provide significant cost reductions. Niagara Region's Gateway CIP is a performance -based, tax -increment program that provides property tax rebates and development charge relief for commercial and industrial projects. Incentives are awarded based on job creation, construction value, and environmental performance. • Fully tax -based incentives —no direct grants. • Funding levels depend on project performance in job creation and environmental sustainability. • Long-term property tax rebates (5-10 years) encourage high -impact investments. 26 rlllvl„I; Ilrrlmunk,�Irrlp�l I'hlrl I,1!\/I,�!\/v/ 34 Of 182 IN r" ul pIIIIIII1 umr r��i � pm m��ul r^ � of m��i yu ��i �� ppu ii ��IUdOup V°' uplli m0u ii r � V��lpi� ul ,u iii � ,r gal mpum pm �ppu i �� u�ni4�u u�ni4�u \\\{ �� ` uu umu� m\w\I`1 m0u o �tiyiuNpl �tiyiuNpl Imnn�� Illli. WIII uo� uuuu IIIII IIIII \\�n IIIII IIIII '°�Ilmuu� IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII "Illlmuunl7u: IIIII IIIII i �miin�� Il�w�o � �Iliim>7III �omin�� IIIII IIIII �t\hry ml��l, `�IIIIWm�m� \V�muu� IIIII IIIII IIIII �u m�� om�� IIIII �miin�� n IIIII \\�n "Illlmuunl7l \\\�� IIIII IIIII �miin�� \\ pllliwuA��' IIIII pllliwuA��' 4 a , London administers four city-wide, and eight neighbourhood -specific, CIPs. The programs vary widely, targeting housing, industrial growth, heritage preservation, and brownfield redevelopment. Notably, London offers substantial incentives for office -to -residential conversions and 0% interest loans for building improvements. • Multiple CIPs allow for tailored approaches to redevelopment. • Significant housing incentives, including $35,000 per unit for office -to -residential conversions. • Tax grants and 0% interest loans encourage long-term investment. ek�n T H M AS ST IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II 4 II �4,� /OY II Ili W dye, Yr cIIi IIr Y St. Thomas has a diverse range of grants, loans, and tax -based incentives supporting heritage preservation, fapade improvements, residential development, and brownfield remediation. The Tax Increment Grant (TIG) program provides up to 10 years of tax relief for redevelopment projects. • Strong focus on downtown revitalization, heritage restoration, and residential intensification. • Up to $12,500 per affordable unit in housing grants. • Full development charge grants lower upfront costs for developers. Page 35 Of $Zh I��Irlr,:l rlllvl ,Ilrrlrnuril(,� Irrlpl Ovl I'm1,11 Iron I Cr rnl riv 27 I u Y 1 \0 I /'q: J H �)'C) pi*' h IN r" ul pIIIIIII1 umr r��i � pm m��ul r^ � of m��i yu ��i �� ppu ii ��IUdOup V°' uplli m0u ii r � V��lpi� ul ,u iii � ,r gal mpum pm �ppu i �� u�ni4�u u�ni4�u \\\{ �� ` uu umu� m\w\I`1 m0u o �tiyiuNpl �tiyiuNpl Imnn�� Illli. WIII uo� uuuu IIIII IIIII \\�n IIIII IIIII '°�Ilmuu� IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII "Illlmuunl7u: IIIII IIIII i �miin�� Il�w�o � �Iliim>7III �omin�� IIIII IIIII �t\hry ml��l, `�IIIIWm�m� \V�muu� IIIII IIIII IIIII �u m�� om�� IIIII �miin�� n IIIII \\�n "Illlmuunl7l \\\�� IIIII IIIII �miin�� \\ pllliwuA��' IIIII pllliwuA��' The intent of this section is to highlight strengths, gaps, and potential areas for refinement to ensure Elgin County remains competitive and aligned with best practices in CIP programming. Funding Levels Elgin County's funding levels are generally mid -range compared to neighbouring municipalities. Most grants cap at $10,000, with some smaller programs providing $2,500 to $5,000 for signage, property improvements, and fapade upgrades. Some comparative examples include: • St. Thomas and London offer more substantial fapade and building improvement grants, with St. Thomas offering up to $20,000 and London providing interest -free loans up to $50,000 for fapade improvements. • Haldimand County and Norfolk County have select building and business improvement grants up to $25,000, particularly for adaptive reuse, major renovations, and industrial projects. • Niagara Region's Gateway CIP provides large-scale tax incentives (40-100% property tax reductions) for 5-10 years for major development projects, which is more aggressive than Elgin's tax increment -based approach. Elgincentives' maximum grant per property of $15,000 per year is on the lower end compared to some competing municipalities, especially for major projects. Types of Programs Elgincentives provides a comprehensive suite of incentives, covering key areas such as fapade improvements, signage, property enhancements, energy retrofits, and tax increment grants. However, some notable gaps exist in comparison to other municipalities: • Affordable Housing & Residential Development: Several municipalities (e.g., St. Thomas, London, Chatham -Kent) include specific incentives for housing intensification, conversions, and affordable housing development. London offers grants up to $35,000 per unit for office -to -residential conversions, whereas Chatham -Kent provides $5,000-$7,500 per additional residential unit. Elgin County does not currently offer residential -specific grants, making it less competitive for incentivizing housing development —an identified local need. • Brownfield Redevelopment: Elgincentives includes tax -based incentives for brownfield sites, but some municipalities —such as Norfolk County, Niagara Region, and Haldimand County —offer higher tax assistance periods or separate grants for environmental remediation. 28 Ig rim rllnn „ Co ,� IrnpiI llvl rrwn I'hlrl I k!vk!\/v/ 36 Of � $2 DI'-dl \0 I /',��l I C)� h Page IN r" ul pIIIIIII1 umr r��i � pm m��ul r^ � of m��i yu ��i �� ppu ii ��IUdOup V°' uplli m0u ii r � V��lpi� ul ,u iii � ,r gal mpum pm �ppu i �� u�ni4�u u�ni4�u \\\{ �� ` uu umu� m\w\I`1 m0u o �tiyiuNpl �tiyiuNpl Imnn�� Illli. WIII uo� uuuu IIIII IIIII \\�n IIIII IIIII '°�Ilmuu� IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII "Illlmuunl7u: IIIII IIIII i �miin�� Il�w�o � �Iliim>7III �omin�� IIIII IIIII �t\hry ml��l, `�IIIIWm�m� \V�muu� IIIII IIIII IIIII �u m�� om�� IIIII �miin�� n IIIII \\�n "Illlmuunl7l \\\�� IIIII IIIII �miin�� \\ pllliwuA��' IIIII pllliwuA��' • Adaptive Reuse & Commercial Redevelopment: Chatham -Kent, Brant, and Haldimand County provide specific grants for adaptive reuse of existing buildings (e.g., converting old structures into new commercial, industrial, or mixed -use spaces). Norfolk County offers a $15,000 Agricultural Building Improvement Grant, which supports the conversion of farm buildings for new business purposes —a potential fit for Elgin's rural economy. • Development Charges & Permit Rebates: Several municipalities —St. Thomas, Chatham -Kent, and Haldimand County —offer full or partial refunds on planning and building fees to offset development costs. Elgincentives' Application and Permit Fees Grant covers only up to $2,000, while competing municipalities offer full development charge rebates (e.g., Chatham -Kent and London). Program Administration & Accessibility • Elgin County's multi -tiered approach (County -administered but locally funded) is somewhat unique, as some counties delegate full CIP administration to lower -tier municipalities. • Some municipalities —like Haldimand and Norfolk Counties —operate their CIP programs on a first -come, first -served basis with a set annual budget. Elgincentives' structured intake process is beneficial but may require additional flexibility. While Elgincentives provides a strong foundation for supporting local business investment, rural economic development, and downtown revitalization, it does not include a number of incentive programming found in other neighbouring municipalities such as housing incentives and development charge rebates. The following key takeaways and recommendations have been identified through the environmental scan and comparative analysis: 1. Expand Financial Support for High -Impact Projects • Consider increasing grant ceilings for key programs to better align with competitors offering $15,000-$25,000 for major building improvements and adaptive reuse. • Expand tax increment grants to longer durations or higher rebate percentages for priority projects. Page 37 Of $Zh Illlrlr,:l rllnn ,Ilrnrnuril(,� IrrlplOvl I'm1,11 Iron Fk rnl riv 29 I of I,A0 I /.,tipl H �)'Mi'h IN r" ul pIIIIIII1 umr r��i � pm m��ul r^ � of m��i yu ��i �� ppu ii ��IUdOup V°' uplli m0u ii r � V��lpi� ul ,u iii � ,r gal mpum pm �ppu i �� u�ni4�u u�ni4�u \\\{ �� ` uu umu� m\w\I`1 m0u o �tiyiuNpl �tiyiuNpl Imnn�� Illli. WIII uo� uuuu IIIII IIIII \\�n IIIII IIIII '°�Ilmuu� IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII "Illlmuunl7u: IIIII IIIII i �miin�� Il�w�o � �Iliim>7III �omin�� IIIII IIIII �t\hry ml��l, `�IIIIWm�m� \V�muu� IIIII IIIII IIIII �u m�� om�� IIIII �miin�� n IIIII \\�n "Illlmuunl7l \\\�� IIIII IIIII �miin�� \\ pllliwuA��' IIIII pllliwuA��' 2. Introduce a Residential Development Grant • Other municipalities actively incentivize affordable housing, residential intensification, and upper - storey conversions. While Elgincentives supports mixed -use development under the building conversion grant that could be used to facilitate conversion of upper -floor space into housing, there is an absence of discrete residential programs. • A Residential Intensification Grant could provide funding for housing -related projects (e.g., mixed - use developments, conversions, and affordable housing initiatives). 3. Enhance Brownfield Redevelopment Incentives • Some municipalities provide standalone remediation grants in addition to tax rebates. • Consider adding a Brownfield Remediation Grant to offset environmental study and cleanup costs. 4. Support Adaptive Reuse & Rural Economic Diversification • Several municipalities provide targeted grants for adaptive reuse of buildings, agri-business expansion, and rural commercial redevelopment. • A Building Reuse & Expansion Grant could support farm diversification, agri-tourism, and mixed - use conversions. 5. Increase Support for Development Charges & Permit Rebates • Some competing municipalities fully cover development charges and planning fees for qualifying projects. • Consider expanding the Application & Permit Fees Grant to reduce barriers to investment. 6. Streamline Application & Administrative Processes • Several municipalities employ an online, fully -digital intake for applications, allowing for easier data collection, processing, and tracking. This could be considered by Elgin to help streamline application processes. 30 nn „ I; I lrrlmurI (,� IrnpiI 111'-11,1 1 k!vk,�!\/v/ 38 Of 182 �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t ° °ll II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ Stakeholder Workshop 6.1.1 Introduction In November 2024, the County hosted a workshop with representatives from the business community focused on assessing changes and needs of the business community in Elgin as it relates to Elgincentives CIP programming. The primary goal AM was to evaluate the existing CIP's effectiveness and explore ways to adapt it to the County's evolving demographic, economic, and community landscape. Key discussions centered on demographic shifts towards younger families, the increasing need for diverse retail options, and the impact of new developments like the new EV plant in St. Thomas. Specific challenges such as vacant storefronts, affordable housing shortages, and barriers to small business development were highlighted. Participants also provided actionable suggestions, emphasizing the need for better marketing, more accessible incentives, and expanded support for industries like agritourism and agricultural processing. 6.1.2 Observations on Changes Over the Last 10 Years �I I} xlA,e pl (J:,� ml ��je& Significant development has occurred in several areas, such as Port Stanley and Aylmer. Seasonal population shifts, particularly in Port Stanley, have created new economic opportunities. Main streets in larger centres have experienced redevelopment, though some smaller communities report stagnation and disrepair. ale mi��ll" e�� ("Ihai n�je& There has been increased tourism, especially in Aylmer, which has shifted towards becoming a destination for visitors. A noticeable shift in retail and service demands has occurred, with younger demographics and immigrant communities driving these changes. Industries like breweries and cideries have grown, while wineries have declined, leaving Elgin County with only one remaining winery. DeI rur GP I e mpl �Ia, S&IP�� f1��x�. Communities like Port Stanley have transitioned from older populations to younger ... _ families. Growth in immigrant populations has contributed to new housing and service demands. Additionally, aging populations and long wait lists for senior housing, such as 279 people waiting for senior units, highlight the need for targeted housing solutions. 6.1.3 Challenges and Areas for Improvement II1(.G1rIi(:3, "I ae 1:ei n�je& High vacancy rates in storefronts, present significant barriers to economic vibrancy. Affordability concerns for both housing and commercial lease spaces hinder small business growth. Furthermore, the lack of transit options and complementary services, such as daycares, creates additional challenges for younger families and workers. I 'J a ilu ,I Many participants were unaware of the Elgincentives program's existence or unclear a. bout its benefits and eligibility criteria. Businesses report that the grant application process can be intimidating and overly complex, which discourages participation. The need for proactive local municipal partner communication and enhanced marketing was emphasized repeatedly. Page 39 of 1$2h ICornmunk,� Irr)p�] Iron R(\/kriv 31 ]uY1\0I /.,pilII �)'Wh �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t ° °ll II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ Girai.. Il ruitem�I�.GI � x. Current grant amounts are perceived as insufficient for certain projects. Stakeholders .... ....... suggested that Tax Increment Equivalent Grant (TIG) structures could benefit from extended relief periods, such as ten years instead of five. Additionally, some businesses recommended incorporating loan frameworks alongside grants to increase flexibility. I:)e~x4opi rleilY% Entrepreneurs face difficulty accessing support due to fear of regulatory complexities. Limited support for innovative uses of vacant heritage buildings or creative business models further restricts growth. Feasibility studies, which could inspire young entrepreneurs, are underutilized due to a lack of awareness and complexity in the application process. 6.1.4 Suggestions for Future Improvements Gil mil. &il' .kA:,�ui e& Higher grant amounts for impactful projects should be considered. Stakeholders suggested introducing greater flexibility, such as ad -hoc application periods, retroactive support for projects completed within the last 6-12 months, and allowing multiple businesses to apply jointly for combination grants. &lrnpl fyi n� UI �e L.Ii o �9��,��,�� To reduce barriers for entrepreneurs, creating automatic approval pathways for applicants who meet mandatory criteria is essential. Streamlining discretionary approvals and investing in marketing the program by emphasizing its benefits and success stories can further improve participation. airl „jee�,6 SuD. poirl Ai ea& Focus on specific industries such as agritourism, destination businesses, and small-scale industries, as well as affordable housing developments. Increasing support for feasibility studies to help businesses plan projects effectively can also enhance outcomes. Partnerships with financial institutions could provide additional support mechanisms. I evBeI(,p�i�)l riei! �f:. Beautification projects for downtown areas and main streets should be prioritized. Programs that support affordable housing and higher -density developments can address housing gaps. Additionally, transit solutions and tourism infrastructure are critical to improving accessibility and accommodations. Support for agricultural processing and secondary industries was also noted as a vital area for expansion. 6.1.5 Role of Elgincentives Moving Forward Vsioi � foi. U: �e Stakeholders envision Elgincentives as a critical tool for driving economic growth, beautifica tion, ation, and community sustainability. The program should evolve to meet the needs of both younger and aging populations, focusing on affordability and accessibility. Enhancing alignment with local municipal priorities and broader economic development efforts was seen as essential. Affordable housing and housing diversity, revitalization of vacant storefronts and heritage buildings, and expanding support for small businesses and entrepreneurs are key. Enhancing marketing and awareness of the program and strengthening partnerships with municipalities and businesses to maximize impact are also important priorities. 32 Igh'imrI( (: ()rnrnu,Iil,�IrnpiI()\/(irI Ik!vk,�!\/v/Page 40 Of 182 �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t a II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ 6.1.6 Key Takeaways and Conclusions i. �J"(Yrailln Elgincentives should adopt a more adaptable approach to application periods, grant amounts, and eligibility criteria to better serve the diverse needs of Elgin County's communities. 2, Simplifying the grant application and approval process for both implementation committee members and applicants alike will reduce barriers and encourage broader participation, particularly from small businesses and entrepreneurs, and continued efficiency with CIP administration. 3, I I fljai Iced ,J IiVle i! I<eJi n� : Improved outreach and education about the program's benefits and successes are essential for increasing engagement. 4. &ra�ej� (, Ai ea& Prioritize affordable housing, agritourism, and beautification projects to align with stakeholders' vision for vibrant, sustainable communities. Explore partnerships with municipalities, community organizations, and private developers to expand the program's reach and impact. 6.2.1 Introduction As part of the ongoing review, a series of one-on- one interviews were conducted with senior local municipal staff across Elgin County. The purpose of these interviews was to assess the effectiveness of the current CIP, evaluate resource availability and constraints, and explore opportunities to enhance implementation through improved collaboration and resource alignment. Interviews were held with: - Bayham, - Malahide, - Central Elgin, and, - Southwold. While no interview was conducted with the Town of Aylmer, written comments were provided. The interviews focused on understanding the strengths and limitations of the CIP from an administrative perspective, identifying areas where financial, organizational, and infrastructure resources may be limiting factors, and considering the potential for leveraging existing municipal partnerships. Additionally, insights were gathered on the efficiency of the program's administration, its impact on economic development and community revitalization, and opportunities for process improvements. Page 4� Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�liv� ,r �,Ornriurii(,� Irr)�:r(w( I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 33 1 u Y 1 \0 I /'q: J H �)'M)h �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t ° °ll II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ By engaging key municipal staff, this consultation process aims to ensure that the CIP is aligned with local priorities and has the necessary support mechanisms to enhance its effectiveness moving forward. 6.2.2 Questions & Interview Format Each interview was structured as a 30-minute session with senior municipal administration from various local municipalities within Elgin County. Participants were asked to provide their perspectives on the CIP's implementation, focusing on three key areas: • How well is the current CIP addressing the community's needs and priorities (e.g., housing affordability, economic development, community beautification)? • What incentive programming is working well? • Are there areas where the programming falls short or needs adjustment? mi.PiA Iae.m ioi • Has the CIP effectively engaged local businesses, residents, and other stakeholders in its implementation? • Are there gaps in communication, collaboration, or inclusivity that should be addressed? I1 oa;;ess • How efficient has collaboration between local municipalities and the County been within the CIP process? • Are there components of the application and administration process that work well or need improvement? • Are there processes, tools, or resources that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation moving forward? • These structured discussions provided an opportunity for municipal staff to share their firsthand experiences with CIP administration, highlight key successes and challenges, and suggest refinements to improve its impact at the local level. 6.2.3 Summary of Feedback Feedback from senior municipal staff revealed both strengths and challenges in the current CIP. While there was general support for the program, many respondents identified areas for process improvements, better communication, and a more strategic focus on impactful projects. Below are the key themes that emerged from the interviews. • Affordable Housing as a Priority: Several municipalities emphasized the need for a County -wide CIP focused on affordable housing. Concerns were raised that Elgin County contributes less per capita to housing compared to provincial averages, and that partnerships with St. Thomas should be re- evaluated. • Focus on Impactful, Larger -Scale Projects: Many felt that existing grants are too small to be meaningful, suggesting that bigger, more impactful funding streams (including tax -increment/ 34 CornmurIi(,� IrnpiI 111,-11,1 I k!vk,!\/v/ 42 Of � $2 '-d1\0I/',��l I C))h Page �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t a II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ incentive grants) should be introduced. • Diversification of Funding Streams: Some municipalities suggested adding new funding categories, such as rural/on-farm diversification and targeted support for existing businesses. • Need for Clarity on Regional Economic Development Criteria: There was concern about defining what constitutes "significant economic development," with one respondent suggesting a threshold of at least 250 new jobs for incremental tax write-offs. ioi n, I:::�i r.GA,�.?�� s, ai n,J � �.GIIe��Ir.u�.H e�m�:�i��:au..� • Simplify the Administrative Process: Several respondents noted that the current process is too complex and discourages applicants. Recommendations included more flexible intake dates, a better scoring system, and streamlining approvals to avoid unnecessary delays. • CAO Involvement Should Be Re -Evaluated: Multiple municipalities suggested that CAOs should not be directly involved in the application process, as they lack the resources or time. Some recommended shifting this role to planning and building departments for better alignment. • Earlier Municipal Input in the Application Process: Many municipalities expressed frustration that local municipalities are involved too late in the decision -making process, which sometimes results in zoning or regulatory conflicts. Earlier review by municipal staff could help identify issues before applications advance too far. • Greater Role for the County in Administration: Some suggested that the County should take full control of Elgincentives administration —including agreements and funding —while still allowing lower -tier municipalities to provide comments on applications. • Need to Better Review Guidelines: A number of participants noted the lack of knowledge about what constitutes good urban design, or a good CIP project advising that better guidance or guidelines are needed to assist in evaluating applications. Oufi.ewm(_ �, ai n I • Need for Stronger Promotion of the CIP: Several municipalities noted that businesses and property owners are unaware of the program, leading to low participation in some areas. More dedicated advertising and outreach efforts were recommended. • More Localized Engagement with Businesses and Community Groups: Suggestions included walkabouts, site tours, and face-to-face engagement to improve awareness and participation. Helping municipal councils understand the programming could also help local councils become better advocates for the CIP. • Improved Online Tools for Applications: The development of a CIP website portal for submissions, which could improve accessibility and efficiency was also suggested. 6.2.4 Conclusions While the CIP is clearly valued amongst the local municipalities in Elgin County, there are clear opportunities for refinement considering the above. The strongest feedback centered on the need for more impactful funding, a streamlined process, stronger local engagement, and a clearer administrative structure. Addressing these areas could enhance the program's efficiency, expand its reach, and better align it with local and regional economic development priorities. Given the strong administrative relationship between the County and local municipal partners, the County should continue to work with its local partners to clarify and refine strategic focus and funding priorities under the Plan. Page 43 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�liv� ,r �,Ornriurii(,� Irr�plOv/( I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 35 1u11\0I /.,,plH �)'M)'h �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t a II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ To complement the stakeholder workshop and further inform the review of the Elgincentives Community Improvement Plan (CIP), the County of Elgin also conducted a public survey. The survey was made available for four weeks and gathered a total of 58 submissions, with just over 60% of respondents identifying as members of the business community. While the overall number of responses was modest —the level of detailed feedback being sought, and the need for direct experience with the program —valuable insights were still gleaned from the submissions. The following section provides a summary of the responses gathered through the public survey. Which BEST describes your relationship with Elgin County/the region? (N=58) The majority of respondents identified as business owners or operators, reflecting strong engagement from the local business community. Smaller groups included landowners, residents, and nonprofits/ community organizations. IIIIIIIIIII Business Owner/Operator qqL Resident N Landowner Nonprofit/Community Org. Other • 36 r�lnn„Cmrnmunk,�11,Y)p] Iron I,(!\/k,!\/v/ 44 Of �82 'ni i \0 I /�,��l I C) )h Page In which area of Elgin County are you primarily based? (N=72) Respondents were distributed across Elgin County, with the Municipality of Central Elgin, the Township of Malahide, and the Town of Aylmer being the most represented areas. Other municipalities also contributed notable input, reflecting broad geographic engagement across the region. Note: The total number of responses to this question (72) exceeds the total survey respondents (58) because this was a "select all that apply" question, allowing participants to indicate multiple areas of operation or association. iuumu \ iNuo ��CN 0 oN OVN OTHER rym��u�mm 111, �mww�u % Are you aware of the Elgincentives CIP and its financial incentive programs? (N=58) Most respondents were aware of the Elgincentives CIP and its financial incentive programs, indicating strong program recognition among participants. However, a smaller but notable portion was not familiar with the program, suggesting room for improved outreach to enhance awareness. LYes No fifiyy n y� 0 �Puuuuuuuuu AYLMER RP��' ��t�V C Imo ECG/A/ h°„U agyygM Page 45 of 182h ICornmunk,� Irr)p] Iron I Cr v/k riv 37 1 uY 1 \0 �)'Wh �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t ° °ll II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ How did you first learn of or hear about Elgincentives? (N=45) Summary of Responses: • Local Government and Municipal Channels: Respondents frequently mentioned hearing about Elgincentives through county or municipal officials, councils, or administrators, such as CAOs, mayors, council meetings, and municipal communications. • Business and Economic Development Networks: Many respondents cited business organizations and networks as their sources, including Business Improvement Areas (BIAs), the St. Thomas & District Chamber of Commerce, and business events. The BR&E (Business Retention and Expansion) program and the Elgin Business Resource Centre (EBRC) were also noted as key channels. • Community Partnerships and Networks: Word of mouth emerged as a prominent source of information, with respondents mentioning friends, colleagues, service club members, and community partners. Contractors and other business connections were also noted as significant contributors to awareness. • Media and Online Sources: Information about the program reached respondents through local newspapers such as Aylmer Express, newsletters, and social media. The Elgin County website and online mailings were also effective in spreading awareness. • Personal Involvement and Past Applications: Several respondents learned about Elgincentives through personal involvement, either as past applicants or recipients of grants. Direct interactions with program administrators also played a role. • Events and Specific Programs: Specific events and programs, including COVID-19 Info Sessions & Business Events and St. Thomas SBEC (Small Business Enterprise Centre) meetings, were identified as valuable sources of information. Key Takeaways: • Municipal and government communications, business networks, and word of mouth are dominant ways people learn about Elgincentives. • Some responses suggest limited knowledge about the program even among those familiar with the channels (e.g., "I don't know much about the program though"). This highlights the need for enhanced outreach and clear information. • Past successes (e.g., businesses being awarded funds) shared through media and community channels seem to help spread awareness. • The high frequency of "word of mouth" responses underscores its importance and suggests leveraging community advocates and past participants more effectively. 38 r�lnn„CornmurIi(,�IrnpiI 1'hir1Ik!vk!\/v/ 45 Of �82 '-d1\0I/,pill C))h Page �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t a II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ Have you applied for and/or received financial incentives through the Elgincentives CIP for one or more projects in the past? (N=45) Just over half of respondents indicated they had applied for and/or received financial incentives through the Elgincentives CIP in the past, while a sizable portion had not. This highlights significant program engagement while also pointing to Yes opportunities to attract new participants. No What CIP financial incentive programs have you applied for? (N=42) Building improvement, fagade improvement, and signage improvement were the most frequently applied -for incentive programs, with fewer applications for grants related to energy efficiency, planning/building fees, and tax increment equivalent grants (TIEG). This suggests that physical property enhancements are the primary focus for most applicants. Building Improvement/ Facade Restoration Improvement "il "il "1 0 0 ® 0( Signage Property Energy Fee Tax Improvement Improvement Efficiency Rebate Increment 9 How would you rate your experience with your application in each of the following categories? (N=24) Respondents generally had a positive experience with the application process, particularly in terms of ease of application and reporting obligations, which most found met or exceeded expectations. However, grant amounts received the most critical feedback, with a notable portion of respondents indicating this category "needs improvement" Timeliness of decisions was mixed, with many stating it met expectations, though some suggested room for improvement. Overall, the results suggest that while the application process is effective, adjustments to funding levels and decision timelines could enhance satisfaction. Grant Amount Reporting Obligations & Follow-up Timeliness of Decision Ease of Application IIIIIIIIIII Needs Improvement Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Outstanding Page 47 Of $Zh liiir�r,:� r�lnn �,n],n iunk,� 11,Y)pr�w� rr��+,r�l I11nn I�Pr \/kDiv 39 ]u11\0I /',plII �)'M)'h L, . 6 C o IIIII° ))i s it ii II a tIIIII o IIIII° ))l S (t 11 IIIII °°II11 " )111 IIIII IIIII )111 a IIIIIr If you decided not to apply for funding through Elgincentives, what factors) influenced your decision not to participate? The most common factors influencing respondents' decisions not to participate in the program were not having a qualifying project or improvement and feeling that the programs did not align with their needs. A smaller group cited a lack of time or resources to apply, while fewer mentioned ineligibility or that the application process seemed too complex. These responses suggest that program alignment with project goals and greater outreach about eligibility could encourage broader participation. • IIIIIIIIIII No Project Identified LOther Reason(s) Lack of Time/Resources Programs Didn't Meet Needs Project Was Ineligible Nt�1RU�l Application too Complex What parts of the application process or programs) worked well for you? N=23 Summary of Responses • Ease of Application Process: Respondents frequently praised the simplicity and straightforward nature of the application process, describing it as easy to follow, fill out, and prepare. Many noted that the process was seamless and well -organized, making it accessible even for small business owners. • Staff Support: Staff assistance stood out as a critical factor in the success of the program. Respondents appreciated the guidance provided by staff throughout the application process, including help with understanding program requirements, answering questions, and reviewing applications. Flexibility and availability of staff were frequently highlighted. • Positive Program Impact: Many respondents emphasized the value of the program in enabling business improvements that would not have been possible otherwise. Specific examples included funding for property enhancements, year-round business expansion, and improvements to heritage buildings and signage that benefited tenants and commercial operations. • Initial Impressions and Meetings: The initial stages of the application process, including meetings with Elgin representatives, were often mentioned as being particularly helpful and well -executed. These early interactions left a positive impression on participants. • Unique Opportunity: Some respondents noted that the program offered a rare chance for funding, especially in areas where they did not qualify for other grants, subsidies, or incentives. The program was described as unique and impactful for their business goals. • Room for Follow -Up Improvements: While the overall application process was well -regarded, one respondent mentioned that follow-up stages of the process could be improved, though specifics were not detailed. Key Takeaways: • The application process is widely regarded as simple, efficient, and user-friendly. • Staff support plays a crucial role in ensuring the program's success, with many respondents highlighting their helpfulness and expertise. • The program has a significant positive impact on small businesses, providing opportunities for growth, 40 Cm,nrnunilylrrq::rIron I,(!\n(!\/v/ 4$ Of �82 ]niI\0I/'q:11iI C))h Page �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t a II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ improvement, and property enhancement. • The program's unique focus on areas such as heritage building enhancements and signage creates value that is not typically offered by other funding sources. • One respondent noted that initial application stages were particularly strong, but that follow-up processes could benefit from further improvements; however, no further details or suggestions were provided by the respondent as to what those "further improvements" would look like. What challenges (if any) did you experience with the application process or program(s)? N=24 Summary of Responses • Funding and Project Scope Challenges: Some respondents noted that the funding amount provided was insufficient to cover the full cost of their projects. Others expressed difficulty deciding which projects to prioritize due to the amount of work needed or challenges interpreting the value of different grant components. • Application Process and Requirements: Several participants found certain aspects of the application process challenging, such as the requirement to obtain multiple quotes, particularly for specialized projects like signage. This was seen as cumbersome and unnecessary. Other challenges included understanding which sector to apply to and the complexity of paperwork. • Program Clarity and Consistency: A few respondents highlighted inconsistencies in the program, such as changing standards for applications year over year. Others found the grant allocation process confusing, with uncertainty around how funding amounts were decided based on the number of applicants in a given period. • Timing and Lead Time: The time required for application submission and approval was identified as a challenge, particularly for businesses needing to move quickly on projects. Suggestions included having more frequent intake periods or allowing projects to begin before decisions are finalized. • Unique Cases and Eligibility Issues: Some respondents faced unique barriers, such as zoning issues for properties or eligibility restrictions (e.g., the requirement to be in business for a certain number of years). One participant suggested allowing funds to cover materials for self -led work rather than relying solely on contractor quotes. It should be noted that the County has funded projects in the past where participants undertook the work, but in these cases quotes for materials are still required. • General Positive Feedback: A significant number of respondents reported no challenges, stating the program was clear, straightforward, and easy to follow. Some recommended broader promotion of the program's variety of options, as there is a perception that it focuses primarily on fagade improvements. Key Takeaways • The funding structure and allocation process may benefit from greater transparency and flexibility to better meet applicant expectations and project costs. • Simplifying requirements, such as the need for multiple contractor quotes, could reduce application barriers and improve accessibility for smaller businesses or self -led projects. • Improved clarity and consistency in program standards year over year would help alleviate confusion among applicants. • Faster application turnaround times or more intake periods would support businesses operating on tighter timelines. • Expanding promotion to highlight the variety of eligible project types could address misconceptions about the program's scope. Page 49 Of � $Zh I��ir��r,:� r�lnn ,� ��,�,rr�rriuriil�,� Irr��:r(w( rr��+,r1l I'hir� I';r \nk Div 41 1u11\0I /.,,plH �)'M)'h �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t a II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ What improvements (if any) would you like to see in the CIP programs? (N=46) The most commonly suggested improvement to the CIP programs was higher grant amounts, highlighted by a significant number of respondents. Other priorities included expanded types of eligible projects, greater flexibility in grant uses, and a simplified application process, each noted by smaller but notable groups of respondents. These responses suggest a focus on increasing program accessibility and aligning funding with broader project needs. What types of community improvement projects do you think would most benefit the County and/or its local municipalities? (N=32) Respondents identified affordable housing creation/support and property redevelopment of vacant lands or brownfields as the most beneficial types of community improvement projects for the County, with both receiving strong support. Public space enhancements also ranked highly, reflecting a desire for more vibrant and accessible shared spaces. Other priorities included building or facade improvements, tax incentives for development, and grants for energy efficiency upgrades, though these were mentioned less frequently. The responses emphasize a focus on addressing housing and land use challenges while enhancing the community's public and physical environments. What (if anything) do you think would encourage you (or other people/businesses in the County) to participate in a CIP financial incentive program? (N=29) The most commonly cited factor for encouraging participation in a CIP financial incentive program was the need for more information about available programs, reflecting a demand for greater outreach and communication. Respondents also highlighted the importance of a simplified application process and expanded types of eligible projects, with higher grant amounts being noted less frequently. These responses suggest that improving awareness and accessibility could significantly boost participation. 1.1 ice Higher Expand Flexibility Simplify Other Grant Eligible in Eligibility Application Amounts Projects IN More Simplify Expand Higher Information Application Eligibility Grant Amounts 42 Cm,nrnunilyIrY)p]mw awn[ Iron I,(!\/k+!\/\/Page JO Of �$2 'ni ( \0 I /',l�l I C) )h �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t a II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ Do you have any planned/upcoming improvement projects that you think would benefit or improve the broader community? • Building and Facility Improvements: Many respondents mentioned projects focused on improving existing buildings and facilities. Examples included upgrading historical buildings to maintain operations, enhancing accessibility features (e.g., accessible entrances and washrooms), and completing major renovations to improve infrastructure, facades, and systems. • Business Expansion and Development: Respondents expressed interest in expanding their businesses through additional storefronts, local dining options, or increased operational space. Some noted plans to acquire or expand into adjacent properties, hire more team members, or add new features like industrial strip malls. • Tourism and Educational Enhancements: Several projects aimed at boosting tourism and education were highlighted, including developing on -farm retail spaces, building educational tourism centers, and creating new experiences like botanical gardens and guided tours. Unique ideas included installing a large statue of cattle for farm tourism and updating gardens with native plants to certify as a nature sanctuary. • Streetfront and Community Beautification: Respondents shared plans to enhance the public and private realms with streetfront improvements, such as signage, rest areas, safety features, and beautification efforts to attract pedestrian traffic. • Sustainability and Energy Projects: Some respondents prioritized sustainability initiatives, such as implementing environmental programs to track their carbon footprint, incorporating energy -efficient features, and educating visitors on sustainable agriculture practices. • Signage and Branding: A significant number of projects included updates to signage, either for branding purposes or to improve visibility and appeal. These ranged from refurbishing gas station signage to highway signage to attract visitors. What is the MINIMUM financial incentive grant amount that you think would provide meaningful support for this project? (N=28) The majority of respondents indicated that a minimum financial incentive grant of $5,000 to $10,000 or $10,000 to $20,000 would provide meaningful support for their projects, with these ranges being the most frequently selected. Smaller groups favored grant amounts of $20,000 to $35,000 or higher, with a notable portion identifying $50,000+ as the minimum needed. These responses suggest that meaningful support for most projects lies in mid -to -high grant ranges, though larger -scale projects may require significantly higher funding levels. C o 11/ 29/ 25/ 7% 7% 18% Page 5� Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�lnn ,r ' rnriurii(,� Irr�� lmm I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 43 1u11\0I /.,,plIl �)'M)h �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t a II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ What level of support would you have for public funds (i.e. tax dollars) being used for the following. (N=58) Respondents showed the strongest levels of support for public funds being used for affordable housing, public space improvements, and accessibility improvements, with these categories receiving high levels of "strong" and "full" support. Increased employment/job creation and visual or structural improvements also received substantial backing. Climate change impact mitigation and increased property tax revenue saw more neutral or moderate responses, with less overwhelming support compared to other categories. Overall, the results reflect a preference for public funding to address housing, accessibility, and community enhancement needs. Accessibility Improvements Climate Change Impact Mitigation Increased Property Tax Revenue Visual or Structural Improvements Increased Employment/Job Creation Public Space Improvement Affordable/Attainable Housi IIIIIIIIIIIII No Support Limited Support 0 Neutral Strong Support Full Support 44 h liiinm nlnn„Cm,nrnunilylr q:]m rrw n[ Iron I,(!\/k,!\wPag@ JZ Of �82 'ni ( \0 I /',I�l I C) )h �V 'n� (0 ��I� 1�. ,,,,,, 0IIIII° IIIII S 1i t a II IIIII o IIIII°°IIIII S �lll ii a IIIII °"0\ Do you have any additional feedback or suggestions for the County to consider as part of the community improvement plan review? (N=28) Summary of Responses • Program Accessibility and Communication: Respondents emphasized the need for clearer communication about program eligibility and zoning requirements, including easier ways to check zoning and understand why certain projects may not qualify. Suggestions included increasing advertising, providing advance notice through tax statements or public records, and using business networks like BIAs to reach more potential participants. • Support for a Broader Range of Projects: Many respondents advocated for expanding the program to include projects like greenspace initiatives (e.g., living walls, rooftop gardens), agriculture -focused efforts, and improvements to institutional and non-profit buildings that attract tourism. Several highlighted the need to support both established and new businesses, especially in underrepresented areas like the west end of the county. • Sustainability and Community Improvements: There were calls for prioritizing sustainable projects and beautification efforts, such as improving main streets in small towns, enhancing public spaces, and addressing environmental concerns like pollution and carbon footprints. Respondents linked these initiatives to creating vibrant, welcoming communities. • Funding and Financial Concerns: Participants expressed concerns about the program's funding stability, suggesting that reduced municipal taxes could threaten program resources. Others recommended increased grant amounts, ensuring more businesses can benefit, and providing clearer information about the types of projects the program supports. • Zoning and Eligibility Issues: Several responses pointed to zoning restrictions as a significant barrier, particularly for non -profits and organizations with institutional zoning. Respondents argued that zoning should not disqualify projects that drive tourism and economic activity, as these align with the program's goals. • Positive Feedback on Program Continuation: Many respondents praised the program, emphasizing its importance for the community and urging the county to continue it. Specific examples of successful projects across the county were cited as evidence of the program's value. Key Takeaways • Improved communication and clearer eligibility guidelines, especially regarding zoning, would help applicants navigate the program more effectively. • Expanding the program's scope to include diverse projects, such as greenspace initiatives and institutional buildings, could address broader community needs. • Sustainability projects and beautification efforts remain priorities, linking environmental and community well-being with economic development. • Funding stability and increased grant amounts would ensure more businesses and projects can benefit, particularly in underserved areas. • Zoning restrictions should be reevaluated to prevent disqualifying projects that support tourism and community engagement. • Strong support exists for continuing the program, with many citing its positive impact on the county. Page J3 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�lnn ,r �,��rnriurii(,� Irr�plOv/( I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 45 1u11\0I /',plIl �)'Wh 01111111 V 'n� a �I� .,,,,,,..0 0 IIIII° �IIII S 1,11 t a II IIIII o IIIIrl)III S (lll ii IIIII ""IIIII'""'lull IIIII lull'" 11111 a IIIIr"0\ 6.4 Overall Conclusions & Takeaways from the Public SurveV The results of the public survey provide valuable insights into the strengths and opportunities for the Elgincentives CIP. Respondents expressed strong support for the program's role in fostering economic growth, beautification, and community revitalization. The feedback highlighted the program's accessibility, with many participants praising the application process and the assistance provided by staff. Key takeaways from the survey included: Coii� Yl)�li,Ylr°i��uuiuuluo- a1liiOirii airud Otillurewfll,,i: Respondents emphasized the need for better awareness of program offerings, eligibility criteria, and funding opportunities. lu I�(u! eas,,ed GIIr airroll� Many participants identified the current funding levels as insufficient for meaningful project support and suggested increases. a ii, IIIS111110Ii1°Io &1: Calls for the program to support a broader range of projects, including affordable housing, sustainability initiatives, and community spaces, were prominent. �,uuuu IIII, Ilulu R� Applll�c llJoii°Ii Pii oces&; While generally seen as accessible, some respondents highlighted areas where further simplification could encourage greater participation. st.ippoIIr ll lm fir �sllabllos,,lliied acrid I`,,Jew Feedback reflected the importance of balancing support for existing businesses with efforts to engage newer ventures. [`1111rluOirlullr Airea��,,: Affordable housing, public space improvements, accessibility enhancements, and sustainability emerged as the top priorities for future funding and program evolution. 46 CornmurIi(,� IrnpiI I'hirI I k!vk,!\/v/ cJ4 Of � $2 I'-dC\0I/',��l I C))h Page w!III' luau ��i m V' uuf, Qo ��11 a Vl ° um 111I� IIIII �� V ui,i�� y�iiiip1 uu4. \m ,III au IIIII IIIII �IIII Ili m>7I°�li un17�' IIIII �IIII ,,,, V ��Vl`u OlyyiiiiiN mai um „ �� IIIII �� (�� ,�si� G (1�� IIIII ��I ��,,,u� ��,��i� �� ,,,, IIIII c /A[631Z+ In reviewing the Elgincentives CIP, it is important to assess how effectively the CIP is organized and presents information. A well -structured CIP should be logically arranged, clearly articulate its purpose and scope, and provide accessible details on financial incentives, administrative processes, and implementation frameworks. This review examines key structural components such as document organization, readability, purpose and scope, financial details, governance frameworks, use of visuals, and monitoring mechanisms. By analyzing these elements, the review aims to determine whether the document facilitates efficient navigation, transparency, and usability for its intended audience. 7.1.1 Document Organization & Layout Overall the Elgincentives CIP is structured logically, with well-defined sections and sub -sections that provide a clear framework for readers. Each section follows a logical progression, beginning with foundational context before detailing program specifics and implementation. The document is generally easy to navigate with a clear table of contents, sequential section numbering making it generally easy to reference and locate information. It employs bolded section titles and bullet points to highlight key points, ensuring clarity and effectively summarizes financial incentives, eligibility criteria, and program structures. A glossary at the end of the document assists in defining key technical terms such as `tax increment financing', `brownfield site', and `priority area', which can be beneficial for readers unfamiliar with planning terminology. The document also includes appendices that provide an overall key map and additional reference materials. Opportunities for improvement • Enhance cross-referencing between sections to better link key information (e.g., financial programs with eligibility criteria) Ensure consistency in formatting of tables and charts for clarity. • Ensure uniform font, font size, weight (bold, italic), and spacing across all sections, including tables and appendices. 7.1.2 Clarity & Readability The CIP generally uses clear, technical, and structured language throughout and effectively outlines financial incentives, eligibility criteria, and administrative processes in a way that is informative rather than overly complex. Key sections, such as Financial Incentives and Application Process, provide step-by-step clarity, making it easier for stakeholders to understand and avoids excessive redundancy, keeping information succinct and to the point. However, certain sections could benefit from the use of more plain language wording to make the CIP more accessible to the general public and applicants who likely will not have planning, financial, or policy expertise. While the CIP does a good job of balancing technical detail with readability, some areas rely heavily on municipal and planning terminology without explanation. Further, not all technical terms are included in the glossary. Certain policy -specific phrases (e.g., "development charges," "incremental tax rebates") could be explained in plain language within the main text rather than requiring the reader to refer to appendices. Opportunities for Improvement • Some sections, particularly in the administrative and governance portions, use formal and technical language that may be difficult for lay people to understand. Use of technical language to ensure legislative and policy compliance needs to be balanced with the need to ensure the document is accessible and understood by the general public. • Certain financial and tax -related discussions (e.g., Tax Increment Equivalent Grant & Page JJ Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�lnn ,r �,��rnriurii(,� Irr�plOv/( I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 47 1u11\0I /.,tiplH �)'M)h w!III' luau ��i m V' uuf, Qo ��11 a Vl ° um 111I� IIIII �� V ui,i�� y�iiiip1 uu4. \m ,III au IIIII IIIII �IIII Ili m>7I°�li un17�' IIIII �IIII ,,,, V ��Vl`u O1lyiiiiiN mai um „ �� IIIII �� (�� ,�si� G (1�� IIIII ��I ��,,,u� ��,��i� �� ,,,, IIIII c Brownfield Tax Assistance Program) could benefit from simplified explanations or practical examples to improve clarity for potential applicants as the document assumes familiarity with municipal tax structures, CIP- specific terminology, and government funding mechanisms. Certain terms like "incremental tax increases," "brownfield redevelopment," and "priority areas" could benefit from simpler explanations or real - world examples. A "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) section or separate document could help clarify key concepts for potential applicants. 7.1.3 Purpose & Scope The CIP effectively outlines its purpose and intended impact early in the document. The introduction clearly states the purpose of the plan and also explains that the plan is a county -wide initiative that municipalities can adapt to their local needs, ensuring flexibility within a unified framework. The goals and objectives are explicitly listed, making it easy to understand the key priorities of the plan and the scope of incentives and eligibility is clearly addressed. The CIP clearly acknowledges its legal foundation under the Planning Act, demonstrating compliance with provincial legislation and the administrative section specifies that municipalities must independently adopt the plan. The CIP clearly identifies Community Improvement Project Areas (CIPAs) and specifies that each municipality within Elgin County is responsible for adopting and implementing the plan. The eligibility criteria for different financial incentive programs are well-defined and the document differentiates between priority areas and general coverage areas, specifying how funding levels may vary based on location. rtunities for Improvement While the overall intent of the CIP is well - communicated, the document does not include a strong explanation of the rationale for creating and maintaining a CIP (e.g. what history brought the County and local municipalities to create a CIP; what economic and physical conditions in the County contributed to its creation?). These elements can ground a plan in its real life context and provides context for why the plan was created, and why the specific set of incentives and programming were chosen. The community improvement project areas noted in Appendix I of the Plan may not reflect those in local official plans and this should be confirmed. If local municipalities need to amend their official plans, this should be conducted at the same time as adoption of any revised/ updated CIP. References to the County's broader economic development and planning frameworks are becoming (or are) outdated and should be revised. Further, a dedicated section or table comparing the CIP's alignment with municipal, county, and provincial objectives would provide greater clarity and policy context. 7.1.4 Financial & Program Details The document effectively outlines its financial incentive programs, providing a detailed breakdown of the grants, tax incentives, and eligibility criteria. The document dedicates Section 5.0 (Financial Incentive Programs) to describing the available programs, ensuring a structured presentation. Each program includes a purpose, funding structure, eligibility criteria, and eligible project types, ensuring clarity for applicants. The inclusion of a summary table (page 5-27) enhances accessibility by providing a quick -reference guide to funding amounts and eligibility. Each financial program is distinct in terms of purpose and structure, ensuring applicants understand what type of funding they may receive and the eligibility of multiple grants per property is clearly stated, ensuring applicants know which programs can be combined. Explicit funding limits and eligibility conditions prevent overuse or misuse of resources. Further the CIP specifies that funding is allocated annually by both municipal and county councils, with specific considerations for priority areas and economic impact. The document clearly states that priority Areas (downtowns, 48 r�lnn„CornmurIi(,�IrnpiI 1'hir1Ik!vk!\/v/ cJ6 Of �82 '-d1\0I/',��l I C))h Page w!III' luau ��i m V' uuf, Qo ��11 a Vl ° um 111I� IIIII �� V ui,i�� y�iiiip1 uu4. \m ,III au IIIII IIIII �IIII Ili m>7I°�li un17�' IIIII �IIII ,,,, V ��Vl`u OlyyiiiiiN mai um „ �� IIIII �� (�� ,�si� G (1�� IIIII ��I ��,,,u� ��,��i� �� ,,,, IIIII c tourism corridors, and employment lands) receive enhanced funding amounts and that not all financial incentives may be available every year, as availability is subject to annual budget approvals. Opportunities for Improvement • Some programs could provide illustrative examples, helping potential applicants understand practical and supportable projects. • Some financial details are spread across multiple sections, requiring users to navigate back and forth for full clarity. • The eligibility criteria for some grants, such as the Tax Increment Equivalent Grant and Brownfield Tax Assistance Program, are complex, which may discourage smaller applicants from applying. • Maximum funding amounts/caps should be reviewed to ensure they reflect the 2025 market (e.g. since 2015 the cumulative inflation has increased by almost 30%). • The Financial Incentives Summary Table could be enhanced with colour coding or section divisions to visually differentiate major grants, supplemental grants, and tax -based incentives. 7.1.5 Administrative & Implementation Framework The governance structure for the CIP is well- defined explaining the relationship between the County, local municipality, and the Elgincentives Implementation Committee. The roles and responsibilities of key bodies involved in application processing, decision -making, and funding disbursement are generally clear and well-scoped. While the administration process is clearly outlined, the criteria for decision -making beyond "following the goals and objectives of the CIP" remain vague. Further, while the CIP includes appeal provisions for rejected applicants, it does not clarify the grounds for appeal or whether an independent review mechanism exists. The CIP also acknowledges that "other community improvement plans may exist in the municipality," but does not specify how overlapping CIPs would, or could be, coordinated. With respect to reporting structures, the Implementation Committee is required to report annually to both the local municipality and Elgin County Council regarding financial incentives in effect, however it is unclear if this is done in practice. The budgeting process is clearly defined stating that once annual budgets are exhausted, no more grants will be provided until the following year. Further, the Plan clearly states that incentives are not retroactive, in accordance with legal interpretations of the Planning Act by the Province. Opportunities for Improvement • With the CIP having been in effect for a decade, administrative and governance processes should be revised to reflect standard practices that have worked well, and to remove practices that have not served their purpose. Decision -making transparency could be more clearly defined by incorporating more detailed evaluation criteria or developing associated guidelines (e.g. urban and rural design guidelines) to help ensure consistent and good quality decision making. • Consider opening up the Implementation Committee to urban planning, design, and/ or economic professionals who can provide greater input and assistance in decision - making. • The appeal process should be reviewed for relevancy. This is not required under legislation and not common for most municipal decision - making outside of planning. 7.1.6 Use of Visuals & Supporting Materials The CIP utilizes maps, tables, and schedules to visually communicate key aspects of the plan providing spatial and comparative understanding of programs and the summarization of financial incentive programs through a table, and the application process through a flow chart, are also efficient for quick reference. Despite this, the CIP includes very few other visuals such as photographs, diagrams, drawings, or schematics. While the document includes example projects for each financial incentive program these are only described in text. Case study -style examples Page J7 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�lnn ,r �,��rnriuriil�,� Irr�� lmm I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 49 1u11\0I /',plIl �)Mi'h w!III' luau ��i m V' uuf, Qo ��11 a Vl ° um 111I� IIIII �� V ui,i�� y�iiiip1 uu4. \m ,III au IIIII IIIII �IIII Ili m>7I°�li un17r IIIII �IIII ,,,, V ��Vl`u O1lyiiiiiN mai um „ �� IIIII �� (�� ,�si� G (1�� IIIII ��I ��,,,u� ��,��i� �� ,,,, IIIII c in the CIP provide tangible explanations of the program's benefits, but again do not include any visual representations. Opportunities for Improvement Incorporate a wider range of visuals including photographs, diagrams, and drawings to provide greater clarity to the text and enhance readability and the document's aesthetics. This could include before -and -after images of exemplary projects and infographics, or visual examples demonstrate how funds can be applied for different property improvements. Consider adding enhanced process flowcharts illustrating the application and approval journey. • After 10 years of implementation, consider including real case studies showcasing previous project successes with visuals. 7.1.7 Monitoring & Evaluation Framework The CIP provides for a monitoring strategy in Section 8, which establishes a framework for tracking the performance of Elgincentives. The monitoring program has a clearly defined purpose and includes regular report to local and county councils to ensure transparency and accountability. The Monitoring & Evaluation Framework also includes a structured approach to performance measurement, including performance indicators, annual data collection and reporting to councils, and five-year review periods for the CIP. The Framework also includes an extensive list of targets or key performance indicators (KPI) which are intended to be monitored on a municipality - by -municipality basis and include targeting two to three new businesses per year in each local municipality; the expansion of at least one `accommodation establishment' per year in each local municipality; and three industrial business expansions per year in each municipality by year five of the CIP's implementation. Opportunities for Improvement • KPIs are aggressive and likely not achievable on a municipality - by- municipality basis. They should be revisited and revised to reflect more realistic targets. There are no qualitative success indicators beyond financial and numerical tracking. Such indicators could include: improved business confidence; general visual improvements in commercial areas; positive community perceptions, etc. This section could also consider establishing mechanisms for gathering feedback from program participants to assess real -world impact. • Consider incorporating external auditing requirements at five- or ten-year intervals to review benefits of public investments in private properties. Consider benchmarking against area CIPs to incorporate best practices and ensure public investments through the program remain competitive. 7.2 CIP Implementation ,l, Administration The Elgincentives CIP has a structured application process designed to guide applicants from initial inquiry through to funding approval and project completion. This process is outlined in the CIP's implementation framework and provides a consistent approach to reviewing and evaluating grant applications. At a high level, the application process follows these steps: Inquiries & Initial Contact: Prospective applicants learn about the program through various channels, including word of mouth, municipal referrals, and the County's website. 2. Pre -Consultation Meeting: County staff meet with applicants to discuss eligibility, required documentation, and application requirements. 3. Application Submission & Review: Applications are screened for completeness before being forwarded to the Implementation Committee for evaluation. 4. Evaluation & Scoring: Applications are scored based on a standardized evaluation matrix, determining funding eligibility and prioritization. 50 Illirim rI(nn„D)rnrnu,Iil,�IrnpiI()v( 111,-11,1 Ik!vk!\wPage J8 Of �82 '-d1 \0 I /',��l I C)� h w!III' luau ��i m V' uuf, Qo ��11 a Vl ° um 111I� IIIII �� V ui,i�� y�iiiip1 uu4. \m ,III au IIIII IIIII �IIII Ili m>7I°�li un17�' IIIII �IIII ,,,, V ��Vl`u OlyyiiiiiN mai um „ �� IIIII �� j�� ,�si� G jl�� IIIII ��I ��,,,u� ��,��i� �� ,,,, IIIII c 5. Approval & Funding Allocation: Approved applications receive a portion of available funding, which is distributed using a weighted scoring system. 6. Project Implementation & Monitoring: Applicants complete their projects, submit proof of expenditures, and receive funding upon final verification. 7. Project Close -Out: A post -project review occurs, but there is currently no formalized process for celebrating success stories or tracking long-term impact. While this framework provides structure, feedback from County Staff and local municipalities indicates several operational challenges and inefficiencies in the implementation of the process. The following section provides a critical analysis of these pain points and explores opportunities to improve the program's accessibility, efficiency, and impact. 7.2.1 Application Process While the Elgincentives application and approval process is structured, feedback from consulted stakeholders has revealed several operational inefficiencies and challenges that affect both applicants and administrators. These issues highlight areas for potential refinement to improve efficiency, accessibility, and the overall impact of the program. II & Awai ei lues,,s,, Applicants appear to learn about the CIP through a various channels including word-of- mouth, website search, or external referrals as opposed to organized communications methods on the part of the County or local municipalities, potentially leading to missed opportunities to engage with potential applicants. Despite its age and relative success in implementation, there appears to be a continued limited awareness of the program and/or its details amongst potential applicants and municipal staff in local municipalities. • A lack of online/digital tools makes the inquiry process more cumbersome for potential applicants. Opportunities for Improvement: • Expand direct outreach efforts by the County with local municipalities to increase awareness and improve referrals. Develop a digital pre-screening or inquiry tools to help guide potential applicants through the initial stages of the application process. 2' II[11ire IIIVleellIIII I�gs,, • Meetings with County Staff have been integral to helping applicants navigate the application process, but many applicants struggle to articulate their project's goals and scope. • A significant number of "tire -kickers" enter the process but fail to follow through with a completed application. Opportunities for Improvement: • Develop a standardized pre-screening checklist to help applicants self -assess their project's fit before booking a consultation. • Create clearer guidance materials and FAQ resources to streamline the pre -consultation process. &III %,,e vr'ew • Staff review applications for completeness, ensuring eligibility before forwarding them to the Implementation Committee. • Many applications are incomplete or incorrect, requiring additional back -and -forth with applicants, delaying the process and consuming staff time. • The lack of a digital/online application system makes it harder to track progress and ensure completeness. • The fixed intake deadline can sneak up on potential applicants, leading to missed opportunities or last-minute applications, increasing the administrative burden. Page J9 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�liv� ,r �,Ornriurii(,� Irr)�:r(w( I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 51 1u11\0I /.,tiplH �)'M)h w!III' luau ��i m V' uuf, Qo ��11 a Vl ° um 111I� IIIII �� V ui,i�� y�iiiip1 uu4. \m ,III au IIIII IIIII �IIII Ili m>7I°�li un17r IIIII �IIII ,,,, V ��Vl`u OlyyiiiiiN mai um „ �� IIIII �� j�� ,�si� G jl�� IIIII ��I ��,,,u� ��,��i� �� ,,,, IIIII c Opportunities for Improvement: • Introduce a rolling intake period or additional application windows. • Implement a web -based application system with required fields and validation checks to prevent incomplete submissions. • Offer application workshops or tutorial videos to help applicants submit complete and accurate applications. &&oII'uurlog • Applications are reviewed by the Implementation Committee, which includes representatives from local CAOs, finance, economic development, and planning. • The current scoring system is quantitative, with a pass/fail approach, and lacks a qualitative or discretionary review element. • Because funding is distributed using a weighted average, applicants are incentivized to request the maximum amount, even for smaller projects • Scoring inconsistency between committee members has been noted, and eligibility criteria may need refinement to prioritize higher -impact projects over a high quantity of applications. Opportunities for Improvement: • Introduce a qualitative component to the evaluation process to allow for more strategic funding allocations. • Refine the evaluation matrix and scoring criteria to ensure that higher -impact projects receive appropriate funding levels. • Consider capping grant requests based on project scale or need, rather than an open- ended structure that encourages applicants to maximize their requests unnecessarily. A p II i m wvaA IH fo- ° a ll u oii ii • Approved applications are funded based on a weighted scoring system, dividing the available funding "pie" among applicants. Because of limited funding, there is no guarantee that high -scoring projects will receive their full requested amount, which may undermine the program's ability to deliver meaningful impact. • The ability for applicants to appeal funding decisions has created administrative complications. Opportunities for Improvement: • Consider removing the appeals process, as outlined in the CIP, to reduce administrative burden and ensure finality in funding decisions. Explore a tiered funding model where high - priority projects receive a greater proportion of available funds, rather than equal distribution across all applicants. IlluYh°iMllll�wuYliw��wuull�lllum°��III�&III""urmwl��wo-��ll�lll�o��o-�w�u..u�ilu��li°�lo • Approved applicants enter into a formal funding agreement with the County and their local municipality. • Delays in executing funding agreements have been noted, impacting project timelines. • Some projects funded under Elgincentives fail to create lasting economic benefits, particularly those in seasonal or short-lived businesses. Opportunities for Improvement: • Strengthen project selection criteria to prioritize applicants with long-term business plans and sustainable impacts. Provide more hands-on support to ensure successful implementation and completion. I°'"' ur m.i1� I�uu • Receipts and proof of project completion must be submitted before funding is disbursed. • While a post -project interview is conducted, there is no formal process for celebrating successful projects or sharing success stories. Opportunities for Improvement: • Establish a formal project showcase or promotional strategy to highlight success stories and encourage broader participation. 52 Ig rim rI( (: ()rnrnu,Iil,� IrnpiI ()\/(irI I k!vk!\/v/ 60 Of � $2 '-dC\0I/',��l I C))h Page w!III' luau ��i m V' uuf, Qo ��11 a Vl ° um 111I� IIIII �� V ui,i�� y�iiiip1 uu4. \m ,III au IIIII IIIII �IIII Ili m>7I°�li un17�' IIIII �IIII ,,,, V ��Vl`u OlyyiiiiiN mai um „ �� IIIII �� (�� ,�si� G (1�� IIIII ��I ��,,,u� ��,��i� �� ,,,, IIIII c • Explore a "recognition program" or annual 7•3 Ease of Access to awards event to further promote Elgincentives and demonstrate its impact. Information on the CIP @<ey eii,rio(11a Il u ()iris,, oII ()iir III,)u! m wo- � �� s,,S,, e a YirrM ii,rio Il The Elgincentives application and evaluation process presents some challenges that impact efficiency and accessibility. By implementing key process refinements, better communication strategies, and a more targeted funding approach, Elgin County can enhance the effectiveness of the program and ensure that incentives drive meaningful community improvements. Based on these findings, the Elgincentives application and approval process could benefit from several key improvements as follows: • Implement a more flexible intake process, either through rolling applications or additional intake windows, to avoid last- minute rushes and improve participation. • Introduce an online application portal with built-in validation checks to reduce errors, minimize back -and -forth communications, and streamline approvals. • Enhance pre-screening and consultation efforts by providing self -assessment tools, better applicant guidance, and clearer eligibility information before submission. • Refine the evaluation process to introduce a qualitative review component, ensuring that funding is distributed based on impact and long-term sustainability rather than just quantity of applications. • Reassess funding distribution models to avoid over -saturation of funds across too many projects and focus on higher -value investments. • Improve outreach and marketing to increase program awareness, particularly in rural areas and among local municipalities. • Develop a post -project promotion strategy to showcase funded projects, share success stories, and encourage participation. Unless an individual knows what they're looking for, the Elgincentives program can be difficult to find. On the Elgin County website, the current line of access to information on the website from the homepage is, in order of clicking headings found at the top of the page: Home Page Doing Business How We Help Grants Upon arriving at the "How We Help" page, there is a paragraph entitled "Grants" that briefly mentions Elgincentives. No links or further information is made available from this page. The only way to obtain further information (based on the messaging on this page) appears to be to contact the County. This may deter some people from digging deeper as they may not wish to take the initiative in contacting the County. Recommendations • Create a more streamlined route to info on the CIP - using clearer terms "How We Help" vs. "Financial Incentives", or "Economic Development Support", for example. • Introduce a direct link and/or a dedicated grants page within the municipal website An alternative means for finding information on Elgincentives was through a search engine by looking for "Elgin County Grants" or something similar. In most cases, the first result was the Elgin County "Progressive by Nature" economic development webpage. Upon arriving at the site, the current line of access to information on the CIP is: Home Page Business Resources Elgincentives Page 61 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�liv� ,r �,��rnriurii(,� Irr�� lmm I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 53 w!III' luau ��i m V' uuf, Qo ��11 a Vl ° um 111I� IIIII �� V ui,i�� y�iiiip1 uu4. \m ,III au IIIII IIIII �IIII Ili m>7I°�li un17r IIIII �IIII ,,,, V ��Vl`u OlyyiiiiiN mai um „ �� IIIII �� )�� ,�si� G (1�� IIIII ��I ��,,,u� ��,��i� �� ,,,, IIIII c Compared to the County's municipal website, this line of access to information is relatively streamlined. However, again, if one is not familiar with the "Progressive by Nature" page, it may be difficult to stumble across. Recommendations • Post the actual CIP document to the website so that people can learn and understand the vision/goals behind what the grants are trying to achieve. Should consider how the CIP administration structure is presented to the public - as of now, it may appear to some that the local municipalities just support the program, but have limited involvement. Clearer messaging is important. It may not have been an issue people have expressed, but it is not clear who implements the CIP / how it's implemented • •11MOMM • A scan of local municipal websites was completed to see how much information is available on the Elgincentives, and whether there are other local CIPs besides elgincentives. Bayham No No Central No No Elgin Dutton Yes, not on Yes Elgincentives Dunwich (I INK) �................................) ................................ West Yes (LINK) No Elgin Aylmer Yes, but difficult Yes to find (I INK) (I INK) Malahide No No Southwold Yes, but limited No (I......INK) ............................... While the CIP is County -developed and led, legislatively speaking, it must technically be administered and implemented through the local municipalities. Despite this, only four of the seven local municipalities currently have any information related to community improvement plans on their websites and, of these four, only three mention Elgincentives and refer to the County. As a further note, some of the information on the CIP was difficult to find unless specific keywords were used in a search engine, which likely means that an average person in the County will have a difficult time finding any information on Elgincentives at the local level unless they know what they're looking fo r. Recommendations • Encourage greater coordination of implementation efforts across all seven local municipalities in the County Undertake more cooridnated and consistent advertising/information support at local level. Work with local municipalities to set up dedicated spaces for info on the CIP. 54 Ig rim rIlnn „ Cornrnu,I ,� IrnpiI ()v(awn I'hirI I k!vk!��!v/v/ Page 62 Of � 82 '-dC\0I/',��l I C))h 0 C it li suIIuIIl Ii)i &A.tu1N�omMlll � �,��mi m4io i Based on the research and analysis conducted for this report, the Elgincentives Community Improvement Plan (CIP) has played a important role in fostering economic development, property enhancement, and business investment across Elgin County. Over the past decade, it has supported numerous projects, strengthened local economies, and contributed to the revitalization of the County's downtowns and main streets corridors. However, as economic and demographic landscape of the County evolves, this review highlights several key areas where the program can be refined to improve its effectiveness, accessibility, and long-term impact. While the CIP remains a valuable tool for driving investment, modifications are needed to ensure it continues to meet the needs of the County and its local municipalities. Stakeholder feedback, comparative analysis, and program data indicate that adjustments in funding structures, administration, program outreach, and eligibility criteria will help the CIP remain competitive and impactful. Strengthening governance, streamlining application processes, and broadening the scope of incentives would also help enable the CIP to provide greater economic benefits and facilitate strategic community improvements. To that end, this report provides a roadmap for enhancing Elgincentives, ensuring that it remains a responsive and effective tool for economic growth and community revitalization. [00"0 =0 The County of Elgin and its local municipalities must work collaboratively to implement these recommendations and ensure that Elgincentives remains a valuable and effective economic development tool. The following steps are recommended to be taken by the County in the near term as part of a recommended review and update to the existing Elgincentives CIP: u ii ati, , 'Il i��w�l� l t III°�I%�" V'sJoii J i I��,:� - Conduct community engagement to update the program's vision, goals, and strategic direction. 116'(u y Lllipdalles,, - Develop a revised CIP framework incorporating the recommended structural and administrative changes. �uuu°u��fVu ILA ��Il�uu��llllYh°iM�llloll��o - Work with local municipal partner and county councils to re -assess program funding and new incentive streams. uYI)�IIoV� ii,i)�eiii"ii1la1luo iiu"ii o gluAa Illio6ls,, - Launch an online application system and centralized CIP information hub. Otilllu ew,,ii Sllirallegy - Develop targeted marketing campaigns and establish local champions to promote the program. �wll� IVm°;wll� uYli�� a°lo��° �w III\�llim°;wu uull��u��ul�°u� &III��,, vuew - Implement new tracking mechanisms and ensure regular performance reporting to local and county councils. Page 63 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:� r�liv� ,r �,Ornriurii(,� Irr)�:r(w( I'm1,11 Iron Fk v/k riv 55 1 u Y 1 \0 I /'q: J H �)'C) p)h P"� I 1 AlP"� tv W I 0 I W I 0 I I I �q} �° �q} �� mi,„ pli Ian 11 Key Fa cts 0 ft CA$104,103 Total Population Median Household 00o Income 00 171140 Total Households AAA 43.1 Median Age 2.4% Visible Minority PRIZM is broken into 67 segments that capture current demographics, lifestyles and values in communities across Canada. Used by Environics, it's used to help gain a better understanding of markets at the community level. The dominance of "New Country," "Country Traditions," and "Down to Earth" PRIZM segments in the County reinforces a rural, community -oriented culture. 5,740 households of Households Residents in this segment typically live in rural areas and are part of middle-aged family units. With occupations in the primary and blue-collar sectors, they are grounded in traditional values and often live in single -detached homes they own. The segment reflects modest cultural diversity, with English as the dominant language. Country Traditions 22.1% 3,790 households of Households segment includes rural families, often middle-aged or older, with stable upper -middle incomes. They �. iomeowners in detached dwellings and commonly employed in service or blue-collar sectors. Their lifestyle values are conservative, rooted in family, and community -oriented. Predominantly older adults, this group includes a mix of retirees and older working -age individuals. They tend to live in owned, detached homes and have limited cultural diversity. Employment is often in the service sector or agriculture, and their households reflect a stable, slower -paced lifestyle. �,()1dri fv I I IIIl7CjI-1I)I°I'ii OI It,III I d-II.1 tOI)I-vId(Id F""I IIVII (lI Ili d� 58 �riyl\/ rlll/�ti�u�il tr�rriurlll,� lrr)��:ir(w(rr) (+,rrl I'hirl I,��\n�,+.��v/Page 66 C�'11i82Iill��rl �I I� Iiir�epir�I�III�: /i��Ilr�r�l<<� III "Iii/( II/( ��r'i P"� I P"� tv W I 0 I W I 0 I I I �q} �° �q} �� mi�„ pli Ian 11 Household Income $200,000+ $150,000-$199,999 $125,000-$149,999 $100,000-$124,999 $80,000-$99,999 $60,000-$79,999 $40,000-$59,999 $20,000-$39,999 $0-$19,999 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% Population by Age and Sex The largest group: 2024 I'M alc.s ,C} lc', �4 Yrss i"( , r €" (, f'11:, 85 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 M1 The smallest group: 2(.}24 Mw'slc s F3`,) €rf ()Hc`.�r " (:; r( (,f'11: Household income in Elgin County is concentrated in the mid -range brackets, particularly between $60,000 and $125,000 annually, with fewer households earning at the highest or lowest ends of the spectrum. This suggests a relatively stable middle -income base. The population distribution in Elgin County is relatively balanced across age groups, though skewed slightly older. The largest cohort in 2024 is males aged 60-64, signaling a significant approaching retirement population. Conversely, the smallest group is males aged 85+, which is consistent with life expectancy trends. Considering this, the County may wish to consider exploring CIP tools or initiatives that support age -in -place strategies, accessible public spaces, and senior -friendly infrastructure investments. ar�drI I III � II IIreprrl )IIIII I � ()i it.,IIII dl IIr1 1, )i rr \/I d(Id by F""II\/'irrl ili S nu Id C'11 i fl 1 s ni I is rlrrtrl I ittl) //rlrr nr:rji s 1 rri1i/Ii i/I��age 67 Of � $2h Ittir,r, � rliv� ,r ��,rrrrriur�ir,� Irr�:�rrv( rY)( rI( I II,IrI I �Cr cn( ccv 59 irrepr<<rl�Iii� �!�/Irlt� I/� ri rl�,ir��:reprrll�Iii�:.�,/� ruirlr�r�,1111r P"� I P"�tv W I V I t �NW I 0 I t 11I I �q} i„,�° �q} �� mi�„ pli Ian 11 Household Spending Total Household Expenditures CA$2,376,628,495 CA$138,660 106 Clothing CA$62,096,753 CA$3,623 94 Education CA$33,423,376 CA$1,950 104 Food CA$267,065,928 CA$15,581 103 Games of Chance CA$15,116,819 CA$882 63 Health Care CA$127,349,530 CA$7,430 125 Household Furnishings and Equipment CA$77,421,725 CA$4,517 109 Household Operations CA$107,124,464 CA$6,250 103 Income Tax CA$331,671,541 CA$19,351 85 Improvements Owned Residence CA$113,048,900 CA$6,596 180 Improvements Alterations Vacation Home CA$2,464,234 CA$144 55 Miscellaneous Household Expenditures CA$32,248,948 CA$1,882 104 Personal Care CA$41,361,044 CA$2,413 98 Pet Expenses CA$24,018,027 CA$1,401 164 Recreation CA$76,213,037 CA$4,447 93 Reading Materials and Other Print CA$3,246,223 CA$189 98 Shelter CA$354,212,978 CA$20,666 98 Tobacco Products, Alcoholic Beverages CA$56,177,222 CA$3,278 86 Current Consumption CA$1,544,935,630 CA$90,136 103 Financial Transactions CA$2,053,864,585 CA$119,829 101 Personal Insurance Premiums, Retirement CA$112,011,776 CA$6,535 105 Money, Gifts, Contributions, Support Pay CA$65,245,638 CA$3,807 144 Transportation CA$291,877,582 CA$17,029 116 n �+: Ii �f13/1 hnsr d rrr°i dnln r rrllpi tr d G;7)i "'Inhshrs Cniindn frrr In 60 I �r lrrfl\/�I C) rIlI/,ti��rir)rriurIil,�lrr)�;ir.r,vr rr)r�,rrl I'hrrI I,r\nr,�,��Page 68 of 1� inngr�rl�lii� /Irtr l/r .i.i rlr iliurepi�rl�likrs/�lniInflr�)In ��r'i Iri 2 ii uur... mu uur... um. uur. 0 3rnla Chatham -Kent Stratford -0.9% Woodstock f '19-'21 - Population London LFRR Labour Force Replacemnet Ratio This is 7% higher than Ontario. Ontario has a value of 0.78. Age Breaks by Five Year Groupings 3,500 3,000 2,500 fffffff fffffff fffffff fffffff fffffff fffffff. 2,000 JllllllJJJJJJI�JJJJJJI�JJJJJJI �1111111 1,500 1,000 JJJJJJJJI 500 ° m m + o Oo In Oo 7 Oo lI7 Oo N Oo lt7 O - 0 � N M M V 7 lI7 m lt7 (O (O 1` 1� 0 The highlights age breaks are used in the creation cif the Labour Farce Replacement Ratia. LFRR = (Ages 0 to 14)!(Ages 50 to 64) CA$20,665.87 C orrq-,�arison (Ial,a is not avallab/o 2.4% '21-'24 - Population New Country Dominant PRIZM Name 1.0% '24-'29 - Population 47,488 37,149 Total Population Daytime Population 43.1 17,140 Median Age Total Households CA$104,103 88.3% Median Income Own Residence 14.2% 92.4% University Degree Employment Rate 11.7% 33.3% Self Employed Mobility Status 5 Year 281 2.4% Recent Period of Visible Minorities Immigration Since'22 000 ❑o 0 CA$20,666 Boa � o Shelter 7 pt� I I CA$1,950 a CA$3,623 Education Clothing CA$17,029 CA$15,581 CA$7,430 Transportation Food Health Care hnsnd ,n i dnln Nk , Ind I ly ,I,+ta I II s Cni indn k)1- I I in .l.arr, it Cni indl ,-111 C i Il //rl,r� �Ir�:.epi ,n�i�l/, i/, r'i rl, iil,rcprrll �I ii� I/, r � vl ,r 1,,,rr�rm'In ly,� Irr�l:�r„vl rr�l+,r�l inn F r rnl nv 61 Pbge 69 of 182 rl, iiurr.r,�l �lii1�,/i,ui,lrlr+,litiil IllrlYl,V� Ill �)Wh 2 ii uur... mu uur... um. uur. 0 Dwelling Residence Type 'rxivrrllhcr rlrrlrlrt'fllrr of Cow0y, lirlilr 1111ivcnsilyrf<Iw Ilirl,q lyplr < is, lu surplris,iri,q l\polwilhslrr<airl<l lili=+,'fhcr �".c�rlrlly =�irr:rll111 her <¢r r hirl<l fr r r, OWOI C rn orr diver r farm", of homsirl<l /o hrr'Oon <r,ralion" and fWorrrk% hlll y, Apartment 5+ Stories 0.0% Semi Detached 0.9% Row 1.0% Apartment Less than 5 Stories 2.9% Single Detached 92.5% Elgin County's residential landscape is dominated by single -detached dwellings, which make up 92.5% of all homes. Other dwelling types, such as apartments and row or semi-detached housing, are almost entirely absent*. At the same time, the County's average household size of 2.74 exceeds both the Ontario (2.63) and Canadian (2.49) averages. Considering this, the County may wish to consider exploring CIP tools that encourage the development or adaptive reuse of a broader range of housing types —particularly compact, multi -unit, and rental forms —in appropriate locations. Such diversification could better accommodate seniors, newcomers, and smaller households, and align with broader housing affordability and intensification goals. Average household size for this area which is more than the average for Canada Area Value V 0.00 4.00 ...III'"his area 2.74 Ontario 2.63 Canada 2.49 F�i \/'iIrni krs ,rlllR ,rf1,r1 ," 11,rl ;rO,''R 'r03r1, Ih� .� r d ,rl i dnln ,r11, c I nd Ily ,Irrti it s Cni Inds f' )r 11 i, r.arr it f ni nrhni 11 62 rlYlV�r�li/,,��ril rCmrnrm,riil,�lrr�;�r,lvl rrr�,rrl Phlrn I�l!rrl�,rivPage 70 r fii+�i��itlii� ��Ilii�ulsrcjDI'lItin ,rrrl/, ii/, ��r'i rl, iiureprrtl�lii� I/, t�rl. 2 ii uur... mu uur... um. uur. 0 Industry of Employment 31-33 Manufacturing 23 Construction 62 Health & Soc Assist 44-45 Retail Trade 11 Ag for Fish Hunt 61 Educat Svcs 48-49 Transp & Warehous 81 Other- No Pub Admin 72 Accom & Food 91 PublicAdmin 54 Prof Scient & Tech 56 Waste Mgmnt 41 Wholesale Trade 52 Finance & Insurance 71 Ent Arts & Rec 404 53 Real Estate 340 22 Utilities 206 51 Info & Cultural 157 21 Mining, Oil & Gas 97 55 Mgmnt of Companies 33 1,449 1,274 1,040 1,034 1,007 861 775 Household Population by Period of Immigration 644 632 Non -Perm Residents 0.6% 2022 To Present 0.6% 2016 To 2021 0.8% 2011 To 2015 0.9% 2001 To 2010 1.6% Before 2001 8.4% n , F , OIR ,r11,r1 ^ 11, / ,�O,�R %1., I'm `, rl OI I e nIn I.f:rII( I t, d kly ,IntI !rII� �r�r°irlrlrl Y,:rr t i,r ; ir,ret r �11Ind I r�, I �d IItl r� //dOI n-I epi � I rn�r/, iI/l ��r'i Page 7� Of $Zh Itt�r,r,;l rlivl ,a l,rrr nar�ir,r Irr�:�rrvl rrr,r�l Phlr (\/k Div 63 Tarr, ri d i r,°re ,l )I ii�:.,, /I IiInfln 111111 2 ii uur... mu uur... um. uur. 0 Population Totals 54,000 52,000 50,000 48,000 46,000 44,000 42,000 40,000 38,000 36,000 34,000 32,000 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 i \/'iImi krs ,�r1fr , r, 1 , r, I `,�O,'; r ''03r.1., Ih� w d ()I i dnln r r11, c Ind hy ,Inh it s C'm Inds f' )r 11 in rmrrmit C'm nrhni 1 64 lrrlfl` !ri��/�,�u; ,C)r)rriurir,�11,Y)prrvl Phrn rrr�,rrl �1��rnl'+!rlvPage 72 rT, ilik i:rllr'lrlsl,lstir "rr/, i/, ��r'i rl, irreprrtl�lii� I/, t�r'i 2 ii uur... mu uur... um. uur. 0 26,000 25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Daytime Population At Home Home 0-14 At Home 15-64 At Home 65+ At Work Wrk Usual Plc At Wrk Mobile Wrk at Home rian , F , OI ,r11,r1 ^ 11, / ,�O,�R klrl `, rl ,rr'i r nIn I.f:rII( t, d kly ,IntI !rIII /�rrr°irlrlrl Y,:rr t i,r ; irret r �11Ind I i r�, i i �d I IItl r� RdOI n-I cjI � I rr�r/(i I/l ��r'i Page 73 Of � $Zh Itl�r,r,; l rlivl ,a l�,rrY)rrn'II'II ,r IrY)piI vl rrr,rII I11,1rI I �i( rrl riv 65 Tarr, ri rl,ir,°rei,l�lii�:.,,/I IiirudnI11ir 2 ii uur... mu uur... um. uur. 0 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 30.8% 21.5% 6.8% Educational Attainment 25.4% 1.4% 14.2% 10.4% 3.8% No Degree HS Dipl or Equiv Trade Cert Dipl College Dipl < Bachelor Degree Bachelor Above Bachelor F I \i'irni ik�s Ai ', COI 1 ,r11, 1, , 11, / ','O,' R 'r03/1 lrl wd ,rl i dnln (rll, c Ind hy ,Inhs1 i C'm Indn k)1- 11 in .l.arr it C'm inflhni 1 66 rlYi\/�ri�/,,��ril Cpr�rriur�ii,�lrr��:�r„vl rrl�,rri III,"'I Ik!vk,��!vTage 74 6f,118p211tlii� /�rllii�l�rl l litiil nin/, ii/, �t�r'i d inn prrllpIIII /Inn sI/, �t�rl. 0 (t li v 0 II^ip 11n1�11 ![ 11 I,o �V II)i e II)i s0 Diversity Index 5 3&5 39,3 41,2 40 32,3 36,4 t44tiy, 3 2 10 2.1 2_.4 2.6 2.7 24 U irrmrnrs",1auirrrrruruirrrii,rrirnrrrrruiiuirrirrriirriarrrrirrrairrrarrirrrrairriaicn rrairiirmrirrairmorraarmanearmrirrairmonriiirmoirnonmoirmoirrnrrrrroirrroir�miarrmrnairrarrirrrrrrirrrarrrrrrirrarrrrrcriirriarrrrarrrairrrarrirrrrairrcaium�rrrrrrrrairririr arrrrirrarriairrrrrrrarriirriirarrcairrairreiirrmrrcairrrar 2019 2024 2027 2029 2034 SiteOntario [lots show comparison to 0ntaru0 Median Age Average Household Size 2019 2024 2029 2034 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 r°rllrrprrlI I I I I IIt,III dII- I IIv/IirlrlIII: S ;r11r1 ,rll,rr1 , 11`, 7 rllrCi `, 0 /1) 1it4//llrI;: nrI rpi I OII)/�;r�age 75 Of $2h Ittir,r,:l rlivl ,rrrrriur�ir,r Irr�:irrvl rrr,rI( I'hlrI I�Cr v/I rry 67 n sri rlr iiu�r,pr<<11°��lii� /Irll�: /� ri r,l� iiurrprral�lii� /� r�iirlrlrl litril 1)1,111\ /',pull r'C)r'h A 3 C 0 (t li tv C 0 Ir� 11"11 11 ![,11 I['11 t V C a Irl)i g e S Irl)i a s 0 t 54,0 53,0 52,0 51,0 50,0 49,0 48,0 47,0 46,0 45,0 440 2019 90% 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0% Total Population 2021 (Census) 2024 2027 2029 2034 Owner vs Renter Occupied Units 1�1':, lf�l 1-` 1P le"', Owner Renter 2024-2034 Compound Annual Growth Rate 0PN A ll� 0010, ................................... ............................................ Population Households Structure Median Household Income 2024 CA$104,103 CA$98,866 2029 1 CA$120,505 CA$11 6, 010 CA$138,661 2034 If I CA$135,546 CA$O CA$50,000 CA$100,000 CA$150,000 CA$200,000 SItE- Ontario Bars show comparison to Ontario Total Housing Units: Past, Present, Future J f� ,. 16,365 17,140 18,076 19,113 2019 2024 2029 2034 I I -II .( I I I Is I I I In CJI-,-11,) I I I () I I tII I I s dn I n p I-()\/ dnd by l I V11M I I I I S 68 IdqrIh\/(!�; Cornmunky, PIlln Fk!\/k!\/\/ o��zl ��o� ,R ',�03/1) Dj",-11 , \0 I q:II I �)Wh Page 76 f dni nngir'-11A III: s/i: ni Indn I III 1) IIIa I xuIIuIIIa IIi��(IIIi ))i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� .1 Norfolk County Norfolk County's Community Improvement Plan (CIP) provides a mix of tax -based incentives, study/ pre -development grants, and property improvement incentives. The program is structured to support redevelopment, agricultural diversification, and downtown revitalization across urban, hamlet, agricultural, and lakeshore areas. 1. Program Types Norfolk County offers a variety of grants and tax -based incentives aimed at supporting pre -development work, structural and facade improvements, and property redevelopment. The CIP also includes funding specifically for agricultural buildings and environmental remediation, distinguishing it from other regional programs. 2. Maximum Funding Amounts and Notable Details Study / Pre -Development Grants 1. Architectural & Design Grant Max Funding: Up to $1,500. Structure: Reimburses the cost of preparing architectural drawings and plans required for redevelopment projects. Eligibility: Available in urban, hamlet, agricultural, and lakeshore areas. 2. Environmental Remediation Grant Max Funding: Up to $15,000. Structure: Covers the cost of site remediation, excluding Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). Eligibility: Available in urban, hamlet, agricultural, and lakeshore areas. 3. Planning Application & Building Permit Fee Grant Max Funding: Up to $3,000 for building permit fees, plus $1,000 for planning application fees. Structure: Reimbursement of development -related fees. Eligibility: Available in urban, hamlet, agricultural, and lakeshore areas. Building / Property Improvement Incentives 4. Agricultural Buildings & Facilities Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $15,000. Structure: Supports conversion or expansion of agricultural buildings for value-added activities. Eligibility: Limited to agricultural areas. 5. Building Facade Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $10,000. Structure: Cost -sharing grant for exterior facade upgrades. Eligibility: Available in urban, hamlet, and lakeshore areas. 6. Landscaping, Signage & Property Improvement Grant 70 nn ,I I: I,rnmurIi(,� Irrl:iI 111,-11,1 1 k!vk,!\/v/ 78 Of 182 IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� Max Funding: Up to $2,000. Structure: Supports improvements to open areas, signage, and landscaping. Eligibility: Available in urban, hamlet, agricultural, and lakeshore areas. 7. Structural Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $5,000. Structure: Assists with structural upgrades for commercial properties. Eligibility: Available in urban, hamlet, agricultural, and lakeshore areas, but not for properties receiving Agricultural Buildings Improvement funding. 8. Residential Conversion & Rehabilitation Grant Max Funding: Up to $4,000 per dwelling or commercial unit (maximum $8,000 per property). Structure: Supports conversion of underused spaces into residential or commercial units. Eligibility: Available in urban, hamlet, and lakeshore areas. Tax Incentives 9. Property Tax Increment Grant Max Funding: Grant is calculated based on the increase in assessed property value after redevelopment. Structure: Multi -year Tax Increment Equivalent Grant (TIEG) based on the increased municipal tax assessment post -improvement. Eligibility: Available in urban, hamlet, agricultural, and lakeshore areas. 3. Key Takeaways • Norfolk County's CIP supports both urban and rural economic development, with a strong focus on agricultural diversification. • The Property Tax Increment Grant provides multi -year tax relief, making it beneficial for large-scale redevelopment projects. • Fagade and property improvement grants are available across a variety of land use areas, offering flexibility to businesses. • The program places emphasis on pre -development work, with dedicated funding for environmental remediation, design work, and planning applications. • Agricultural businesses have a unique funding stream, setting Norfolk County apart from many other municipalities. Page 79 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:l r�lnn ,r I,Ilrnrnurii(,� Irr�l:�rllvl I'm1,11 I'hlr� Fk \/I riv 71 IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� Program Types Oxford County's CIP primarily focuses on tax -based incentives and affordable housing support. Unlike some other counties, its programs are designed to integrate with local municipal CIPs to enhance redevelopment, intensification, and housing development. 2. Maximum Funding Amounts and Notable Details 1. Tax Grant Back Incentive Program Max Funding: A portion of increased municipal taxes resulting from property improvements is granted back for up to 5 years. Structure: Works as a tax increment equivalent grant (TIEG), offsetting increased taxes due to reassessment. Eligibility: Only applies to properties located within an approved Local Municipal CIP area that promotes downtown, central area, or village core redevelopment. 2. Affordable Housing Incentive Program Max Funding: Waiver of County planning application fees (e.g., Official Plan Amendments, Condominiums, Consents). Structure: Planning fee relief, rather than direct grant funding. Eligibility: Must be an affordable rental project subject to a Municipal Housing Facilities Agreement (to ensure long-term affordability) and must be an affordable homeownership project developed by Habitat for Humanity or a similar non-profit housing provider. Key Takeaways • Oxford County does not provide direct grants for fagade improvements, signage, or property redevelopment —instead, it focuses on tax -based incentives and affordable housing development. • Grants are tied to Local Municipal CIP participation, meaning the County supports local initiatives rather than administering separate, stand-alone programs. • The Tax Grant Back Incentive Program follows a declining structure over a 5-year period, providing higher reimbursements in the first year, gradually decreasing over time. This time period may be increased to 10 years for projects over $1,000,000 and/or involving brownfield redevelopment. • The Affordable Housing Incentive Program is structured as a fee waiver, reducing the upfront financial burden for developers focused on affordability. 72 Ig rim rIlnn ,I Co IrnpiI llv(rrwn I'hlrI I k!vk,!\/v/ $0 Of $2 Drlfl\0I/',I�l I C))h Page IIIa l xuIIuIIIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� .3 Chatham -Kent Chatham -Kent has two distinct Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) that provide financial incentives for property and business improvements: • Chatham -Kent Community Improvement Plan (CK CIP) - Focuses on property tax relief, development cost reduction, fagade improvements, and residential conversions to promote economic development and housing. • Downtown Community Improvement Plan (DCIP) - A targeted program supporting cafes, patios, display areas, and courtyards in downtown and main street areas. The summary below consolidates key features from both CIPs. 1. Program Types Chatham-Kent's CIP offerings provide grants, tax incentives, and fee rebates that support commercial and residential redevelopment, mixed -use development, affordable housing, downtown revitalization, and streetscape enhancements. 2. Maximum Funding Amounts and Notable Details CK CIP (General Municipal -Wide CIP) 1. Property Tax Increment Equivalent Grant Max Funding: Rebate of a portion of increased property taxes resulting from redevelopment or new construction. Structure: Tax increment equivalent grant (TIEG) over a multi -year period. Eligibility: Covers commercial, employment, mixed -use, major rental housing, hotels, and affordable housing developments. 2. Building & Planning Fee Rebate Max Funding: Rebate of planning and building permit fees. Structure: Direct reduction in initial regulatory costs for developers. Eligibility: Applies to commercial properties in downtown areas, employment lands, mixed - use commercial/residential projects, additional dwelling units (ADUs), and affordable housing developments. 3. Fagade Improvement Program Max Funding: 50% matching grant, up to $200 per linear foot, with a maximum of $40,000 per property. Structure: Cost -sharing for front exterior renovations, including windows, doors, and architectural details. Eligibility: Limited to commercial and mixed -use commercial/residential buildings. Approval required before construction begins. 4. Residential Conversion & Affordable Housing Grant Max Funding: • $5,000 per Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU). • $7,500 per unit for conversions in mixed -use buildings (behind non-residential use). Page 81 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:l r�lnn ,r I,Ilrnrnurii(,� Irr�l:�l mm I'm1,11 I'hlr� Fk \/I riv 73 IIIa�IIa IIi��(IIIi ))i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� • $7,500 per unit for affordable housing developments. Structure: One-time grant per new or rehabilitated unit. Eligibility: Incentivizes new residential units and affordability -focused projects. DCIP (Downtown Community Improvement Plan - Cafes, Patios, Display Areas & Courtyards Program) 5. Outdoor Commercial Space Grant Max Funding: 50% matching grant, up to $10,000 per application. Structure: Reimbursement after successful completion of approved work. Eligibility: Supports permanent cafes, patios, display areas, and courtyards accessory to commercial uses. Must comply with municipal design guidelines. Geographic Scope: Limited to downtown and main street areas, as defined in the DCIP boundary document. 3. Key Takeaways • Chatham -Kent has two separate CIP programs: one for broader municipal economic development and one specifically for enhancing outdoor commercial spaces in downtown areas. • The CK CIP provides some of the highest facade improvement grants in the region, with a maximum of $40,000 per property. • The Downtown CIP (DCIP) offers up to $10,000 for outdoor commercial spaces, which is unique compared to other municipalities. • Strong focus on mixed -use and affordable housing development, with direct incentives for new residential units. • The Property Tax Increment Equivalent Grant provides multi -year tax relief, making it an attractive incentive for large-scale projects. • Facade Improvement Grants require pre -approval, ensuring alignment with municipal goals before work begins. 74 nn ,I I: I,rnmurIi(,� Irrl:iI 111'-11,1 I k!vk,!\/v/ $2 Of $2 Drlfl\0I/,pl I C)�h Page IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� The County of Brant administers three Community Improvement Plans (CIPs): Downtown Paris, Downtown Burford, and Downtown St. George. These plans enable the County to offer financial incentive programs that provide grants for private property improvement projects, supporting downtown revitalization, housing, commercial reuse, and brownfield redevelopment. The following summarizes the key incentive programs available under these three CIPs. 1. Program Types The County of Brant offers a range of grants and tax incentives that encourage facade enhancements, adaptive reuse, downtown housing, brownfield redevelopment, and tax relief for property improvements. 2. Maximum Funding Amounts and Notable Details Facade, Signage, and Property Improvement Grants 1. Facade Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $10,000 (standard), $12,500 (corner lots), or $15,000 (properties backing onto the Grand River). Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Available for building facade improvements in designated downtown areas. 2. Signage Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $3,000. Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Supports business signage upgrades in eligible CIP areas. 3. Property and Private Parking Area Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $5,000. Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Supports landscaping and private parking improvements for eligible properties. Housing and Commercial Revitalization Grants 4. Downtown Housing Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $10,000 per unit (maximum $30,000 for three units). Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Supports the conversion or rehabilitation of upper floors for housing in designated downtown areas. 5. Adaptive Commercial Reuse Grant Max Funding: Up to $15,000. Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Assists with interior renovations for commercial properties, including Building Code compliance upgrades. Page 83 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:l r�lnn ,r I,Ilrnrnurii(,� Irr�l:�rllvl I'm1,11 Iron Fk �/I riv 75 IIIa l xuIIuIIIa IIi��(IIIi ))i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� Planning, Development, and Environmental Incentives 6. Planning and Building Application Fee Grant Max Funding: Up to $10,000. Structure: Rebates municipal planning and building permit fees. Eligibility: Available to property owners undertaking developments requiring planning approvals and/or building permits. 7. Brownfield Study Grant Max Funding: Up to $15,000. Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Supports environmental studies (Phase I and II) for brownfield sites. 8. Brownfield Property Tax Assistance Grant Max Funding: Property taxes deferred or canceled during the rehabilitation/redevelopment period. Structure: Temporary tax relief for contaminated sites undergoing remediation. Eligibility: Available to properties that have completed a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Tax Incentives 9. Tax Increment Equivalent Grant Program (TIEG) Max Funding: Rebates all or a portion of the increase in property taxes resulting from redevelopment. Structure: Multi -year property tax relief based on increased post -renovation assessments. Eligibility: Available to redevelopment projects that generate increased property taxes. Restriction: Cannot be combined with any other grant program. 3. Key Takeaways • The County of Brant's CIP consists of three distinct plans for Downtown Paris, Downtown Burford, and Downtown St. George, providing a targeted approach to downtown revitalization and private property investment. • Fagade and signage improvement grants provide up to $15,000, with additional incentives for corner properties and sites along the Grand River. • Housing incentives support downtown residential conversions, offering up to $30,000 per property for new or rehabilitated units. • Brownfield redevelopment is supported through study grants and tax relief, encouraging remediation of contaminated sites. • The TIEG program offers long-term tax relief for redevelopment projects, but applicants must choose between tax incentives and direct grant funding. • A mix of grants, planning fee rebates, and tax incentives provides flexibility for businesses, property owners, and developers to enhance downtown areas. 76 Illirim rIlnn ,I I: I,rnrnu,Iil,� IrnpiI llvl 111,-11,1 1 k!vk,�!\/v/Page 84 Of 182 IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� .5 Haldimand County Haldimand County administers two distinct Community Improvement Plans (CIPs): • Downtown Revitalization Community Improvement Plan - Supports building renovations, facade improvements, downtown housing, and heritage preservation in designated downtown areas. • Rural Business and Tourism Community Improvement Plan (RBTCIP) - Encourages rural economic development, value-added agriculture, and commercial roofed accommodations through financial incentives. Both programs share an annual budget of $150,000 and operate on a first -come, first -served basis, with applications required before any work begins. 1. Program Types Haldimand County offers grants, planning/development fee rebates, and tax -based incentives to support building rehabilitation, heritage preservation, signage, housing, and rural tourism -related businesses. 2. Maximum Funding Amounts and Notable Details Downtown Revitalization CIP Grants 1. Building Restoration, Renovation & Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $25,000. Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Supports interior renovations, upgrades for fire/building code compliance, and conversion of vacant/underutilized spaces. Special Focus: Only available for projects creating commercial roofed accommodations, restaurants/markets, or cultural/recreational spaces. 2. Facade Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $10,000 (standard), $15,000 (for accessibility improvements or properties visible from the Grand River). Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Available for front, rear, or sidewall facade improvements. Signage-only projects can receive up to $5,000. 3. Downtown Housing Grant Max Funding: Up to $15,000. Structure: Covers 15% of eligible construction costs. Eligibility: Supports rehabilitation or conversion of non-residential space into housing in designated downtown areas. 4. Heritage Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $10,000. Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Available for preservation, restoration, and enhancement of designated heritage properties. Page 85 of 1 $Zh IlIH,M r(nn ,r Dlrr)rriu,I ,� Irr)l:irm rr)l+,rI( I'In rI I�C( rnl riv 77 Ilu11\0 I /.,,I: l I �)'Wh IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� 5. Tax Increment -Based Equivalent Rebate Program (for large-scale capital projects) Max Funding: Covers up to 50% of the annual County tax increase for a maximum of 10 years. Structure: Multi -year Tax Increment Equivalent Grant (TIEG). Eligibility: Designed for major rehabilitation and redevelopment projects. Restriction: Applicants cannot combine this grant with any other CIP funding. 6. Application & Permit Fees Refund Program Max Funding: Refund of County planning application, building permit, and development charge fees. Structure: 100% rebate on applicable fees. Eligibility: Supports property redevelopment projects. Rural Business and Tourism CIP Grants 7. Fagade, Landscape & Signage Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $10,000. Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Supports fagade, signage, and landscaping improvements for businesses in rural hamlets or heritage buildings. Landscaping costs cannot exceed 15% of the total grant. 8. Development Charge, Planning Fees & Building Permit Grant Max Funding: 100% rebate of development charges, planning fees, and building permit fees. Structure: Full fee refund. Eligibility: Available for property redevelopment in rural areas. 9. Tax -Based Redevelopment Grant (TIEG) (for large-scale capital projects) Max Funding: Covers up to 50% of the annual County tax increase for a maximum of 10 years. Structure: Multi -year property tax relief. Eligibility: Designed for major redevelopment projects. Restriction: Applicants cannot combine this grant with any other program. 10.Building Restoration, Renovation & Improvement Grant Max Funding: Up to $25,000. Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Covers interior renovations, repurposing of agricultural buildings, building expansions, retrofitting, and fire/code compliance. 11. Heritage Commercial Use Grant Max Funding: Up to $10,000. Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: Supports heritage property preservation and enhancement for commercial uses. 78 Igh'i:;l rIlnn ,I Co IrnpiI llvl lrI I k!vk,!\/v/ 86 Of 82 Drlfl\0I/,pl I C)�h Page IIIa�IIa IIi��IIIi ))i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t Ii IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� 3. Key Takeaways • Haldimand County operates two separate CIP programs, targeting downtown revitalization and rural economic development. • Downtown incentives focus on building restoration, housing conversion, and heritage property improvements, with grants up to $25,000 for major renovations. • Rural incentives encourage value-added agriculture, commercial accommodations, and heritage business development, providing up to $25,000 for interior renovations and repurposing of agricultural buildings. • The TIEG program provides tax relief for large-scale capital projects but cannot be combined with other grants, requiring applicants to choose between upfront financial assistance or long-term tax incentives. • Fagade and signage improvement grants support both urban and rural businesses, with enhanced funding for accessibility improvements or properties near the Grand River. • Development charges and permit fees can be fully rebated, reducing regulatory costs for redevelopment projects. Page $7 Of $Zh Illir�r,:l r�lnn ,r I,Ilrnrnurii(,� Irr)l:rllv( I'm1,11 Iron Fk rnl riv 79 I of I,A0 I /.,,p l II �)'M)h IIIa l xuIIuIIIa IIi��(IIIi ))i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� The Niagara Gateway Economic Zone and Centre Community Improvement Plan (Gateway CIP) provides property tax reductions and development charge grants to support private sector investment, redevelopment, and construction activity in strategic areas of Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, Port Colborne, Thorold, and Welland. Incentives are awarded based on an evaluation system that considers a project's economic performance, job creation, and environmental design, with higher -scoring projects receiving greater financial benefits. 1. Program Types Niagara Region offers two primary tax -based incentive programs to encourage commercial and industrial development: • Tax Increment -Based Grant (TIBG) Program - Rebates a percentage of increased property taxes for eligible projects over five or ten years. • Regional Development Charge Grant Program - Provides partial or full exemptions from development charges for projects that meet high economic and environmental performance standards. 2. Maximum Funding Amounts and Notable Details Tax Increment -Based Grant (TIBG) Program • Max Funding: 40% to 100% of the post -project property tax increase, depending on evaluation score. • Structure: Multi -year property tax rebate, calculated based on project performance in: Construction value Job creation/retention LEED certification or Smart Growth Design Criteria compliance • Eligibility: Available in designated Gateway CIP project areas across Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, Port Colborne, Thorold, and Welland. • Duration: Five or ten years, depending on the project's location within a Strategic Location for Investment. Regional Development Charge Grant Program • Max Funding: Capped at $1.5 million. • Structure: Full or partial exemption from Regional Development Charges (RDCs) for projects that achieve 14 or more points on the Gateway CIP evaluation criteria. • Eligibility: Applies to exceptional projects that meet high economic and environmental performance standards. 80 nn ,I I: I,rnmurIi(,� Irrl:iI 111,-11,1 1 k!vk,!\/v/Page 88 Of 182 IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� 3. Key Takeaways • Niagara Region's CIP is fully tax -and development -charge relief -based, offering long-term property tax rebates and rebates rather than direct grants. • Incentives are performance -based, with funding amounts tied to economic impact (job creation, construction value) and environmental design (LEED certification or Smart Growth compliance). • Projects scoring 14 points or higher receive additional incentives, including Regional Development Charge relief (capped at $1.5 million). • The tax rebate lasts for five or ten years, depending on the project's location and strategic importance. • Applications are assessed through a formal evaluation matrix, ensuring funds are allocated to high - impact projects. Page $9 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:l r�lnn ,r I,Ilrnrnurii(,� Irr�l:rllv( I'm1,11 I'hlr� Fk \/I riv 81 l u Y 1 \0 I /'q: J H �)'M) h IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� .7 City of London The City of London administers four city-wide Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) and eight neighbourhood -based CIPs, each designed to support different types of development and revitalization efforts. Each CIP offers specific financial incentives tailored to the needs of the designated areas. Affordable Housing CIP (not yet in effect) Brownfield CIP (targets contaminated site redevelopment) Heritage CIP (supports designated heritage properties) Industrial Lands CIP (encourages industrial development) 1. Program Types London offers a mix of grants, loans, and tax -based incentives to encourage: • Downtown and neighbourhood revitalization • Affordable and additional residential units • Office -to -residential conversions • Heritage preservation and brownfield remediation • industrial and commercial property improvements 2. Maximum Funding Amounts and Notable Details Housing and Residential Development Incentives 1. Additional Residential Unit (ARU) Loan (not yet in effect) Max Funding: Up to $20,000 or the cost of eligible works (whichever is lower). Structure: Low -interest loan, repaid over 108 monthly payments. Eligibility: Supports creation of additional residential units (ARUs), with conditions such as owner - occupied dwellings and long-term lease agreements. 2. Office -to -Residential Construction Conversion Grant Max Funding: Up to $35,000 per unit. Structure: Forgivable loan. Eligibility: Conversion of vacant Class `B' or `C' office buildings in the Downtown CIP area into residential units. 3. Residential Development Charges Grant Max Funding: Rebates 100% of residential development charges (DCs) over a 10-year period. Structure: Grant equal to the net residential DCs paid. Eligibility: Available for new residential developments in Downtown and Old East Village CIP areas. 82 Igh'i:;l rIlnn ,I Co IrnpiI llvl lrI I k!vk,!\/v/ 90 Of 82 IJl rlf l \0 I /,pill C)� h Page IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� Building Improvement Incentives 4. Facade Improvement Loan Max Funding: 50% of eligible costs, up to $50,000. Structure: 0% interest loan, repaid over 10 years (some areas may qualify for partial loan forgiveness). Eligibility: Supports facade improvements, including windows, doors, brickwork, painting, lighting, and signage. 5. Upgrade to Building Code Loan Max Funding: 50% of eligible costs, up to $200,000. Structure: 0% interest loan, repaid over 10 years (some areas may qualify for partial loan forgiveness). Eligibility: Funds interior building upgrades, including plumbing, electrical, HVAC, fire protection, and structural improvements. Tax -Based Redevelopment Incentives 6. Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant Max Funding: No set limit —grant amount is determined by MPAC reassessment of the redeveloped property. Structure: Refunds a portion of the municipal tax increase over 10 years, decreasing annually. Eligibility: Available for redevelopment and rehabilitation projects in Downtown, Old East Village, and SoHo CIP areas. 3. Key Takeaways • London administers multiple CIPs, combining city-wide programs with neighbourhood -based initiatives to target specific revitalization efforts. • Housing and residential conversion grants prioritize downtown and urban intensification, with substantial incentives (e.g., $35,000 per unit for office -to -residential conversions). • Loans for facade and building code improvements provide up to $200,000 at 0% interest, supporting both exterior and interior upgrades. • The Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Tax Grant refunds municipal tax increases over 10 years, making long-term investment in property redevelopment more viable. • The Residential Development Charges Grant fully rebates development charges over time, reducing the financial burden on new downtown residential developments. Page 9� Of $Zh Illir�r,:l r�lnn ,Ilrnrnuriily,� Irr�l:rllvl I'm 1,11 Iron Fk rnl riv 83 I of I,A0 I /.,,p l II �)W h IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� The City of St. Thomas Community Improvement Plan (CIP) provides financial incentives to encourage redevelopment, reuse, rehabilitation, and brownfield remediation in key areas of the city. The Project Area has been expanded to include: • City -Wide Community Improvement Area • Primary Community Improvement Area (CIPA) • Secondary Community Improvement Area (CIPA) Incentives support heritage preservation, residential development, commercial and industrial improvements, and environmental site remediation. 1. Program Types St. Thomas offers a mix of grants, loans, and tax -based incentives to encourage: • Fapade and heritage building restoration • Residential intensification and affordable housing • Brownfield redevelopment and environmental remediation • Development charge relief and planning fee rebates • Employment land development and tax increment grants 2. Maximum Funding Amounts and Notable Details Heritage and Facade Improvement Incentives 1. Heritage Design Grant Program Max Funding: 50% of eligible costs, up to $5,000 per property/project. Structure: Grant for professional urban design, architectural studies, and heritage impact assessments. Eligibility: Designated heritage properties in the Primary CIPA or Downtown Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Sub -Area. 2. Heritage Fapade and Building Improvement Program Max Funding: • Up to $10,000 for properties with <_25 feet of frontage. • Up to $400 per linear foot (max $20,000) for larger properties. • Up to $5,000 for side or rear fapade improvements (at the discretion of Council). • Up to $25,000 in no -interest loans (repayable over five years). Structure: 50% matching grant and optional no -interest loan. Eligibility: Commercial and mixed -use properties in Downtown, Old St. Thomas, and Downtown HCD Sub -Areas. 84 nn ,I I: I,rnmurIi(,� Irrl:iI 111'-11,1 I,I:vnl,!\/v/ 92 Of $2 Drlfl\0I/,pl I C))h Page IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� Housing and Residential Development Incentives 3. Residential Program Max Funding: • Up to $7,500 per unit (max $60,000 per property/project). • Up to $12,500 per unit for affordable housing (max $100,000 per property/project). • No -interest loans of up to $12,500 per unit (max $100,000, repayable over seven years). Structure: 50% matching grant and optional no -interest loan. Eligibility: Properties in the Primary CIPA that involve: • New residential units on vacant lots. • Residential intensification of commercial/mixed-use buildings. • Conversion of underutilized commercial space to residential. • Renovation of existing units to meet building and fire code standards. Tax and Fee -Based Development Incentives 4. Development Charge Grant Program Max Funding: Up to 100% of City Development Charges (DCs). Structure: Full rebate of development charges. Eligibility: All projects in the Primary CIPA, and employment -based brownfield redevelopment in the Secondary CIPA. 5. Tax Increment Grant (TIG) Program Max Funding: 100% of the municipal tax increase, up to 10 years. Structure: Annual property tax refund (percentage decreases over time). Eligibility: • All development types in the Primary CIPA (up to five years). • Brownfield redevelopment in the Secondary CIPA (up to 10 years). • Employment land development in the Secondary CIPA (up to five years). 6. Parkland Dedication Grant Program Max Funding: 100% of parkland dedication cash -in -lieu fees. Structure: Rebate of parkland fees for eligible projects. Eligibility: Residential intensification projects in the Primary CIPA that also qualify for other CIP programs (e.g., Residential, Development Charge, or TIG). 7. Planning and Building Fees Grant Program • o Max Funding: 100% of planning and building permit fees, up to $5,000. • o Structure: Rebate of municipal fees. • o Eligibility: Projects in the Primary CIPA that qualify for other CIP programs. Page 93 Of $Zh I��ir�r,:l r�lnn ,Ilrnrnurii(,� Irr�l:�lmm I'm 1,11 Iron Fk \/I riv 85 IIIa�IIa IIi��(II)i IIIi )i p1 'm' IIIIIIS (t li (IIu IIi )i (IV�..,,,,m,ip,p II)i t IIIII IIIII � ,,,,u� Heritage and Brownfield Redevelopment Incentives 8. Heritage Tax Relief Grant Program Max Funding: 40% of the municipal tax increase for five years. Structure: Annual tax rebate. Eligibility: Heritage preservation and restoration projects on designated properties in the Primary C I PA. 9. Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Grant Program Max Funding: • $2,000 for Phase I ESA studies. • $7,500 for Phase II or other environmental studies. • Maximum of $10,000 per property/project. Structure: 50% matching grant. Eligibility: All development types within the City -Wide CIPA. 3. Key Takeaways • St. Thomas offers a diverse range of financial incentives, combining grants, tax rebates, and no - interest loans. • Heritage and fapade improvement grants include both funding for restoration work and professional design studies. • Residential intensification is highly incentivized, with up to $12,500 per affordable unit and additional tax relief for eligible developments. • Development Charge Grants fully reimburse municipal DCs, significantly reducing costs for developers. • The Tax Increment Grant (TIG) program provides long-term tax relief (up to 10 years) for brownfield and employment land redevelopment. • Environmental Site Assessment grants help offset the costs of brownfield remediation, encouraging the redevelopment of contaminated properties. 86 nn ,I I: I,rnmurIi(,� Irrl:iI 111'-11,1 I,I:vnl,!\/v/ 94 Of 82 Drlfl\0I/,pl I C))h Page 0 4-J V) 4-J _0 x 0 co co c a) u bn E 0 u uj U— re C1,121111111 (N co O co 0) N 0) co d 4-J 0 CL 4-J MO 0 u E m 43 Ln Lo- bn bn c oll i.......... miu, (11,01 4-J ol bn < it 0 0 min E 4-J u bn 0 E 2! Sl 4-J ................ u E u 4-j .......... 0 0 C) (I'loo)) "0 c 0 10 .... ....... 4-J 4-J 0 !:'o .. . .. .. . . . . . . CL OWN R MR C I f t 1 C (N 00 0 co 0- lwnj 4-J E 4-J 4-J 0 4-J C: 0 C: C. ci 4-J U- c I" (N co 0 (N C) (1) 0) co 0- _0 to 0 .......... u E m (I tar") > C: a) tic") u (1) C: > bm III _0 tic)u°4''°'° 4-J Qu ` _0 -- 0 E 4-J C bm 0 Ul +J vo L Co i .......... bn L- bn 4-J E -0 W co LA EE tic) CIA C 4+-J (D _0 > LA 4-J o C: 0 a) tic) -2 c>= 2 U LIJ Mo bm uj III m III....•. x LU Cq 0 to O Ncu ° a M T Ls Zr ml III' II u mi r uwmoiiooq�r buo T uuuuoumimi uuuuum co • Ln • N co O Lf) O N 0) co d 0 0 O rn N a 0 a m N co O O N O) co d � (( 8. E 0 0 ;EE'T' 0 00 M___l 11.2 � ". {( w LVf) uwyy Diu �midllion�,. ouomioi Ilmuoi��pu ��ul��no�nl�l�U mimmuum�V ououuouuouuouuoum. M1M1��n�illlll�l Ilmummimu onl�.miounilulululio. �010041111P ,uowP�llll miimymmmNllll.. m 000iouuouuoio bn u�mumuwlV4 bn 0 INyummimu -�-� E u • ououuoi Iluouuouuov. uuu�oumuuo�V bn Ilmlmmmmu pouumip �� p�Ilwulooll�� NNINOIOIOIOIb �num��luumouuuuu rq � W_ (� (Illl lllp) � tmmuuuti�" (� •/� �Imummimu � W �q�� W [ 1 1 1 mm 000ioummmuo ououuoillmuoi��ya "� `> y��/ L— -a.d U • ANMOIOIOIOIp mm �ooioummmuo �num��luuumu°°°u rj , //qWq�� W x X �myyoI�IIIVIuuu uj uj 0— • � ups LL �ViV�i�u ��n��lNlllllllllllll� • • • N co O co O N 0) co d 75 bn uwyy Diu �midllion,. tw ououuo�pmuoi�� u aulnmm � mimomml m muuuuuum III bn ououuouuouuouuoum. M1M1��n�llllll�l �Ilmummlmu onu 000iouuouuolo ��m0pjp4111P m�OW SIR mumuyyuumNlllll onu 000iouuouuolo ^�YlllmA i umouyuom�l4 /q 1 VJ ANINufuf``'OIOIOIOIp �IIIIIIIII�I�II�I • OIIIIIIIIIII lllllllllllllllf�. IIIIO,,�++++��IIIIIIIIIIIOVI �IINOImI0lmll� p��,ypplllll�llll^Ily pp"�`IIWIIIOOIIII'V oo��XX ANINOIOIOIOIp WIIIIIII��IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIP ll1,0I"yIy1�lllp1) CL t�qryryppIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIw ANMOIOIOIOIp bm onu 000iouuouuolo ououuo�pmuoi�� u ��gqryryppuummol� • ANMOIOIm01p mm 000iouuouuolo �Num��luumouuuuu n �IIIIyyIOI�IIIIVuuV� • � 0.�p� LL �ViV�i�u ��n��lNlllllllllllll� • D D N co O 0) O N O) co d co 0 • 4-J _0 AIM 0 u ............ f I I (N co 0 C) (2) 0) co 0- u 4-J 4-J 4-J _0 4-J u 0 t)LO U.j 0 4-J 0 4-J m > 0 _0 E CL bn 4-J 4-J 0 4-J z U m co 0 E -0 0 E 0 4-J 0 4-J -C u bn 0 4-J u 0 _0 C :3 0 U (1) 4-J 0 4-J E 4-J X E u bn 4-J 0 Pill kilo I, linf�1111111111mill,� c u X \ =3 0 0 z V) c 11 u co E75 � �, ! COLL 0 ) ! .WD � \C) I � m L Report to Committee of the Whole From: Peter Dutchak, Director of Engineering Services Date: May 27, 2025 Subject: Tourism Oriented Directional Signage (TODS) Agreement Recommendation(s): THAT the Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk and Warden be directed and authorized to enter into the standard agreement with Canadian TODS Limited to provide tourism directional informational signage along County roads. Introduction: In order to provide tourism business operators within Elgin County an opportunity to provide directional signage along Provincial highways and county roads, an agreement with Canadian TODS Limited is necessary. This report recommends entering into an agreement with Canadian TODS to provide this as an option for tourism businesses with Elgin. Background and Discussion: Tourism businesses have the ability to install directional signage along Provincial highways though their exclusive tourism sign vendor, Canadian TODS Limited. One requirement of the signage program is that directional signage be installed along roads leading directly to the business to provide navigation confirmation to drivers. To support local tourism vendors who wish to purchase signage through Canadian TODS Limited, the County must enter into an agreement to permit the installation and maintenance of signage located along County roads. Staff have reviewed the standard `Trail Blazer Sign Agreement' (attached) with Canadian TODS Limited and recommend execution of the agreement to facilitate the signage program opportunity to local tourism businesses. Financial Implications: There are no costs for the County and we will receive a $150 administration approval fee per intersection where signage is installed, which could constitute one or many signs. Page 113 of 182 Advancement of the Strategic Plan: Supporting this opportunity promotes economic development, and public -private partnerships for sustainable community growth. Local Municipal Partner Impact: •Cm Communication Requirements: Tourism vendors who request signage along County roads will be directed to Canadian TODS Limited who can facilitate participation in their program. Conclusion: To provide the opportunity for Elgin's tourism -oriented businesses to have directional signage installed on Provincial and County roads, an agreement must be entered into with Canadian TODS Limited. Staff has reviewed the agreement and recommends the CAO and Warden be directed and authorized to enter into the attached agreement. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Peter Dutchak Director of Engineering Services Approved for Submission Blaine Parkin Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Page 114 of 182 TRAIL BLAZER SIGN AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated the 9th day of May, 2025. BETWEEN The CORPORATION OF the County of Elgin in the Province of Ontario. Hereinafter referred to as the "City" -and- Canadian TODS Limited, a limited company incorporated under the laws of the Province of Nova Scotia and having its principal office in and carrying on business in the Province of Ontario. Hereinafter referred to as the "Company" WHEREAS by agreement dated the 31 st day of December, 2009 between The Ministry of Transportation and The Ministry of Tourism, for the province of Ontario, and the Company, administration of the Tourism Oriented Directional Signing Policy for Provincial Highways is under the sole jurisdiction of the Company, AND WHEREAS support and co-operation of the City is essential to the continuity and viability of the Provincial Tourism Signing Policy for the benefit of the public, the Province of Ontario and the City, NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, terms, conditions and covenants contained herein, and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions 1.1 "Agreement" means this Agreement and includes all schedules attached to it or otherwise intended to form a part of it, and amendments thereto. 1.2 "Contract" means the contract between the Company and an Operator. 1.3 "Maintenance" or "maintain" means the repair or replacement of illegible, damaged, defaced, leaning or broken signs and their supporting posts. 1.4 "Operator" means the person or entity contracting with the Company for the placement of their signs. 1.5 "Sign" means the signs as specified in Schedule C to this Agreement. 1.6 "Site Plan" means the plan produced by the Company on which the number, type and location of signs to be located along the City's roads are shown and which appears in Schedule A in this Agreement. 2. Schedules The following are the Schedules attached to and forming a part of this Agreement Schedule A — Site Plan — Not attached — no signs are currently up in Elgin County by TODS Schedule B — Site Plan Approval — We have no site plans to submit yet Schedule C — Technical Standards and Specifications of TODS Signs — See attached. 1 Page 115 of 182 3. Term of the Agreement 3.1 The Term of this Agreement shall commence on the day of 2025 and shall continue for a period of TEN (10) years or until December 31 st 2029 (the "Term"). 3.2 The City grants non-exclusive permission to the Company to erect and maintain tourism signs on its highways in accordance with the terms provided herein. The City may enter into agreements with the Company or with other parties to provide other signage on or adjacent to its highways for any other purpose. 3.3 The Company acknowledges and agrees that, in the event that the Province of Ontario transfers title and or responsibility for any of its highways or any portion thereof to the City, all Canadian TODS signs are to be removed from the transferred highways within 60 days of transfer, unless encroachment permits are obtained for those signs from the City in accordance with this Agreement. 3.4 The Company acknowledges and agrees that, in the event that the City transfers title and or responsibility for any of its highways or portions thereof to another County or the Province of Ontario, then the City shall have no further or continuing obligations to the Company or any person under this agreement with respect to such highways or portions thereof. 3.5 Failure on the part of the Company to fulfil its obligations in accordance with the terms of this agreement will result in the termination of this agreement, and the transfer, without compensation, of all signs, materials, records and contracts to the City. 3.6 It is further understood that the Company's signs will be removed in the event of one of the following: a) Failure of the Company to maintain the signs, or b) The Operator no longer qualifies for signs because of failure to meet the criteria under which the Operator's contract approval with the Company was made. 4. Company Representations and Warranties The Company represents and warrants that: a) the Company has been duly incorporated under the laws of the Province of Nova Scotia and is licensed to carry on business in Ontario and validly exists as a corporate entity with full power to perform and observe the terms, conditions and obligations of this Agreement, b) all necessary corporate actions have been completed in order for the Company to enter into this Agreement, c) the Company has made full disclosure to the City of any fact which might materially affect the Company and its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement; d) the Company will not, at any time during the Term, without the written consent of the City, sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of any of the property or assets acquired pursuant to or as a result of this Agreement, e) the Company will at all times during the Term comply with all relevant Federal, Provincial and City statutory and other legal requirements, f) the Company will establish and maintain an office in Ontario which shall be open and staffed each business day during the Term and g) the Company will not use the City's name or imply the City's support in marketing signs to operators without the prior written consent of the City. 2 Page 116 of 182 5. Administration 5.1 Before undertaking any activities on the highway, the Company must first obtain site plan approval. 5.2 The Company will be responsible for preparing all necessary documents, including Site Plan and field reviews, to obtain the necessary site plan approval. 5.3 The site plan approval request shall specify the design, type, number and location of all proposed signs of that part of the highway described in the Site Plan, which Site Plan becomes, and is, Schedule A to this agreement. 5.4 Site plan approvals may be issued for individual signs, or for multiple signs in accordance with a Site Plan. 5.5 In the event of additions or deletions to the number of signs covered by this Agreement, a revised Schedule A to this Agreement will be submitted by the Company to the City for the City's approval. When approved by the City the revised Schedule A will replace the old. 6. Site Plan Approvals 6.1 All site plan approvals issued by the City will be valid for 10 years or for the duration of this Agreement, whichever is the lesser. Site plan approvals will be subject to a one-time fee outlined below. 6.2 Fees for the site plan approvals will be reviewed annually, after which the City reserves the right to adjust the approval fee to reflect changes in the cost of issuing and administering the site plan approvals. 6.3 Site Plan Approval Fees For the installation of a single sign assembly for each direction of travel at intersection or decision points only. Fee $150.00 per intersection 6.4 The Company will pay approval fees within 30 days for the site plan approval. Roles and Performance 7.1 The Company shall arrange and be responsible for the fabrication, construction, painting, erection and installation of signs, in accordance with the technical and material standards and specifications as shown in Schedule C to this Agreement. 7.2 The Company shall arrange for and be responsible for maintenance, and where necessary the removal of the signs. 3 Page 117 of 182 7.3 The Company shall be responsible for: a) Ensuring that all works carried out under the approval or permit shall be signed in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices or as directed by the City as per Book 7. b) Ensuring compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and all relevant statutes. c) Ensuring that all works are carried out in accordance with the intersection layout described in the Site Plan. d) All utility locates prior to work operations. e) Ensuring that the work does not create any unnecessary impediment or interference with the travelling public. f) Ensuring the completed installation does not interfere with ditches, drains or sight lines. g) Ensuring that the work area is restored to a condition satisfactory to the City. h) The actions of its subcontractors, if any, and in ensuring that the work is carried out to the satisfaction of the City and that no work is commenced without the prior knowledge of the City. i) Repairing signs immediately, but in any event not more than 30 days, after becoming aware of the need for repair. j) The relocation or removal of signs in the event of road reconstruction or repair within 14 calendar days of the City sending notice of the reconstruction or repair to the Company. k) The relocation or replacement of signs which impair visibility at intersections or entrances, within 30 calendar days of the City sending notice of the required relocation or replacement to the Company. 7.4 The Company shall be responsible for replacement or relocation of signs as a result of adjoining new development or entrances. The Company shall be reimbursed by the City for reasonable costs. 7.5 The Company is the contact for the City for any installation, removal, replacement or maintenance of signs. 7.6 The City will endeavor to respond to the request for a site plan approval within 14 days of receipt. 8. Liability and Indemnification 8.1 The Company agrees that the City shall not be liable for any injury or damage (including death) to the person of the Company or to any officer, director, employee or agent of the Company, or for the loss of or damage to the property of the Company or any of its officers, directors, employees or agents that is in any manner based upon, caused by or in any way attributable to the Company's performance under this Agreement. 4 Page 118 of 182 8.2 The Company agrees that it shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents from and against all claims, demands, losses, costs, damages, actions, suits or other proceedings by whomsoever made, sustained, brought or prosecuted, that are in any manner based upon, caused by or attributable to anything done or omitted to be done by the Company or any of its officers, directors, employees or agents in connection with services performed, purportedly performed or required to be performed by the Company under this Agreement. 8.3 Without restricting the generality of anything contained in paragraph 8.2 above, the Company shall maintain comprehensive all-risk general liability insurance acceptable to the City and subject to limits of not less than $5 million inclusive per occurrence for bodily injury, death and damage to property including loss of use thereof, completed operations or products insurance and automobile liability insurance acceptable to the City for both owned and non -owned vehicles. 8.4 The Company shall arrange for the completion and submission to the City of a certificate of liability insurance for each policy of liability insurance maintained under this Agreement and which shall include a provision requiring the insurer to give ten (10) days written notice to the City in the manner set forth in the policy conditions if the policy is to be changed or cancelled. 8.5 In no event will the City be responsible for indirect or consequential damages or loss of profit sustained by the Company, or by an Operator. The City shall not be liable to the Company or to any other person or company for the payment of any money pursuant to, as a result of, or in any way connected with the Company's performance pursuant to this Agreement. 9. Defaults and Remedies Each of the following events constitutes Default under this Agreement: a) the Company fails to observe or perform a term, condition, obligation, or covenant in this Agreement and such failure continues for a period of twenty days after receipt by the Company of written notice of such failure, or b) the Company becomes insolvent, bankrupt, or a receiver or manager, court appointed or otherwise, is appointed for its assets; or c) an order is made or a resolution is passed, or proceedings commenced for the windup, liquidation, or dissolution of the Company, or the Company is otherwise dissolved or ceases to carry on business. 10. Confidentiality Either party may distribute copies of this Agreement to anyone without the consent of the other party. 11. Assignment. The City and the Company agree that this Agreement will be binding on all successors and assigns except as provided elsewhere in this agreement. 5 Page 119 of 182 12. Severability If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal or unenforceable by a court or other lawful authority of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement will continue in full force and effect with respect to all other provisions, and all rights and remedies accrued under such other provisions will survive any such declaration. Any invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision will, to the extent permitted by law, be severed and replaced by a valid provision which comes closest to the intention underlying the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision. 13. Non -Agent It is agreed that this Agreement is a contract for a service, and the Company, its officers, directors, employees and agents are not, nor are they deemed to be, employees or agents of the City. 14. Applicable Law This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in all respects in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and of Canada. 15. Amendments This Agreement may be amended, altered or modified only by a written document signed by duly authorized officers of the City and the Company. The schedules to this Agreement may also be amended, altered or modified only by a written document signed by the Company and authorized representatives of the City. 16. Waiver No provision of this Agreement will be deemed to be waived, and no breach excused, unless such waiver or consent excusing the breach is in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent. A waiver of any provision of this Agreement or of any other provision of this Agreement or of any other breach, whether of the same or of any other provision, nor shall any delay or omission on the part of any party to this Agreement to exercise or avail itself of any right it has or may have under this Agreement, operate as a waiver of any such breach or right, nor will any waiver or failure to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement in any way affect the validity of the Agreement or any part of it. 17. Notices Any notice, request, demand, consent, approval, correspondence, report or other communication required pursuant to or permitted under this Agreement, must be in writing and must be given by personal delivery or transmitted by fax, telegram, facsimile or other electronic message which provides a hard copy, or be sent by first class mail, postage or charges prepaid, and addressed to the party to whom it is intended at its address as set out below: To: The City of the County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Blaine Parkin, CAO & Grant Jones, Warden To: The Company Canadian TODS Limited 120 Whitmore Rd. Unit 8 Woodbridge, Ontario L4L 6A3 6 Page 120 of 182 Any notice given as aforesaid shall be deemed to have been effectively given on the earlier of: a) the date of delivery, if delivered during normal business hours, and if not, on the next following business day; or b) on the fifth business day after effectual posting in Canada, or four (4) hours after being sent by fax during normal business hours. Any party may, at any time, give notice in writing to the other in the manner provided for above of any change of address or fax number. 18. Arbitration The Company and the City shall use their best efforts to settle in a fair and reasonable manner any financial or business or other dispute arising in connection with this Agreement, or the performance thereof. If such disputes cannot be settled by the parties between themselves, they shall settle it by arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act of Ontario and as follows. The party that desires arbitration shall nominate one arbitrator and shall notify the other party of such nomination, who shall within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice nominate an arbitrator. The two arbitrators appointed by the parties shall fail within a further 15-day period to select a third arbitrator, either party may apply to a judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) to appoint such third arbitrator. If a second arbitrator is not nominated within thirty (30) days, then the first arbitrator may proceed to determine the dispute and his decision shall, subject to the provisions hereof, be binding upon the parties. The decision of the arbitrators or any two of them (or the decision of the single arbitrator, if only one is appointed in the circumstances described above) shall be given in writing and shall be final, binding on the parties, not subject to any appeal, and shall deal with the question of costs of arbitration and all matters related thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City and the Company have signed this Agreement by their duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above mentioned. CANADIAN TODS LIMITED I have the authority to bind the Corporation per: (GENERAL MANAGER — Randy Nichols) THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN per: per: (Blaine Parkin, CAO) (Grant Jones, WARDEN) 7 Page 121 of 182 SCHEDULE C Technical Standards and Specifications of Signs Signs must meet the standards and specifications laid out in Schedule B of Canadian TODS agreement with the Province of Ontario Page 122 of 182 3.02.05 Mainline - Regular Attraction HIGHWAY - RURAL Mainline - Regular Attraction Sign - HIGHWAY - RURAL Highway I Ramp AssemNy (240 x 240) cm COLOUR: Refl. While Arrow, Legend and Border, Refl. Blue Background FONT: Helvetuca Medium BLANK NO: B-34b (4) (Plywood) SUPPORT: 2 Post (15 xl5)cm Wood POSITION- 1.5 rn Distance frorn E.P: 3 to 4 rn Page 26 TODS Policy Manual Page 123 of 182 3.03.04 Mainline - Major Attraction - HIGHWAY - URBAN / RURAL --5 8�5 ON TIC', 10 tro, 5 19 60 7 19 10 30 Mainline - Major Attraction Sign - HIGHWAY — URBANIRURAL Highway Panel -(Major Attraction (150 x 240) crn COLOUR: Reff, White Arrow, Legend and Border, Refl. Blue Background FONT: Helvetica Medium BLANK NO: B-45 (Plywood) SUPPORT: As Per Assembly POSITION: As Per Assembly Distance from E,P : As Per Assembly TODS Policy Manual —8.5 10 Page 124 of 182 Trailblazing - Attraction Signing 30 10 Q 75% 10 9 30 A9-5 10.5 IE 30 10 10 RA 111MEEMAN, 30 Trail Blazer (Low Speed) (30 x 120) cm COLOUR: Refl. White Arrow, Legend and Border, Reff, Eue Background FONT: Helvetica Medium BLANK NO.: B-8b (Ptywood) SUPPORT: As Per Assembly POSITION: As Per Assembly Distance from EP: As Per Assembly 10 10 @ 60% 10 Page 42 TOE Policy MalMal Page 125 0 182 Page 43 Trailblazing -Attraction Signing 0 75 7 19 075% 10 60 142,5 60 M • Trail Blazer (High Speed) (60 x 240) cm • COLOUR: Refl. White Arrow, Legend and Border, Refl, Blue Background • FONT: Helvefica MediRm • BLANK NO.: B-34b (Plywood) SUPPORT: As Per Assembly • POSITION: As Per Assembly Gstance from EP.- As Per Assembly TORS Policy Minual Page 126 0 182 Report to Committee of the Whole From: Peter Dutchak, Director of Engineering Services Andrew Parker, Manager of Roads and Asset Management Date: May 27, 2025 Subject: Reduced Speed Zone By -Law Amendment — St. George Street Recommendation(s): THAT the reduced speed zone By -Law 20-58 be amended to include a 30km/h reduced speed zone on St. George Street (County Road 26) from 50m north of Independent Street to 50m northwest of Hydro Road for a total distance of 460m. Introduction: The County of Elgin reconstructed St. George Street in 2024 which included the addition of barrier curbs, roadside safety features (steel beam guiderail) and an urban stormwater system. This report presents an amendment to the roadways regulatory speed limit to ensure adherence to Transportation Association of Canada's JAC) Geometric Design Guide and to provide accurate guidance to drivers. Background and Discussion: The County of Elgin undertook the reconstruction of St. George Street (County Road 26) in the spring of 2024 with the project substantially completed November 2024. Final adjustments and surface asphalt will be completed in 2025. The reconstruction of St. George Street saw several substantial changes with the roadway's profile, structure and designation. The roadway was re -designated from a "rural suburban link" to an "urban collector" roadway as part of the County of Elgin's 2024 Official Plan. This saw the addition of barrier curb, grassed boulevard to separate the travelled roadway from the sidewalk, an urban stormwater system and roadside safety features (steel beam guide rail). Steel beam guide rail was added due to a collision history of vehicles leaving the roadway travelling north of the CN Rail crossing. Steel beam guiderail was installed between the new curb and sidewalk for an added level of protection for pedestrians utilizing the sidewalk and to protect errant vehicles from fixed hazards. An aerial view of the steel beam guiderail installed as of October 2024 is shown in the photo below. Page 127 of 182 Figure 1 - Steel beam guide rail installed October 2024 between curb and sidewalk 0 After the guide rail was installed, staff received a concern with respect to the sight lines available for pedestrians wishing to cross St. George Street from their residence to Cowan Park. Page 128 of 182 As seen in the photo above, drivers may have an obstructed view of pedestrian crossing movements at this location. Therefore, staff undertook a review of existing warning signage, regulatory signage and available sight distance to ensure conformance with engineering standards. Due to the sharp curves north of the CN Rail crossing, 20km/h advisory warning speed signage exists. Yellow warning signage is not enforceable under the Highway Traffic Act but is recommended to be installed to inform drivers the speed that the curves can be comfortably and safely negotiated. Staff reviewed and confirmed that the current advisory speed posting is correct for the existing conditions. Staff then reviewed the available sight distance, assuming the guide rail completely obscured the view between drivers and pedestrians, and it was found that 42m of sight distance is available. At the current posted speed limit of 50km/h, a sight distance of 65m is recommended. Staff collected traffic data with the following results: • Average annual daily traffic — 2,768 (vehicles / day) • 85t" percentile speed — 38km/h (speed at which 85% of the vehicles are travelling at or below) • Average speed — 33km/h Although most vehicles travel at 38km/h or less where sufficient sight distance is available, the posted speed limit is 50km/h and insufficient sight distance exists should a vehicle travel at 50km/h. Therefore, in order to provide consistent messaging to drivers and ensure sufficient safe sight distance if available, staff recommends reducing the posted speed limit in this area from 50km/h to 30km/h and as depicted on the attached drawing. Financial Implications: Signage will be installed by the contractor and funded from the St. George Street reconstruction project. Advancement of the Strategic Plan: The implementation of the lowered speed zone will advance community well being and inclusivity. Local Municipal Partner Impact: None. Communication Requirements: None. Page 129 of 182 Conclusion: Staff recommend lowering the regulatory speed limit from 50m north of Independent Street to 50m northwest of Hydro Road along St. George Street (County Road 26) for a total distance of 460m. A lowered regulatory speed limit of 30km/h will ensure adherence to Transportation Association of Canada's JAC) Geometric Design Guide and provide accurate guidance to drivers. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Peter Dutchak Director of Engineering Services Andrew Parker Manager of Roads and Asset Management Approved for Submission Blaine Parkin Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Page 130 of 182 ..... .. . , ST 011�� Speed Limit Change THAT County Staff be directed to implement a reg6latory speed limit sign change from 50m north of Independent Street to 50m northwest of Hydro Road from 50km/h to 30km/h along St. George Street (County Road 26). N k 05/09/2025 County Road 30km/h Speed Limit The Corporation, of the County Elgin Prepared By: Planning and Development Report to Committee of the Whole From: Diana Morris, Senior Planner Date: May 27, 2025 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-SO2402, Township of Southwold 35743 Horton Street, Shedden Recommendation(s): THAT the Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin grants draft plan approval to Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-SO2402, Township of Southwold 35743 Horton Street, Shedden, by Dillon Consulting Limited on behalf of 1873828 Ontario Limited, dated October 31, 2024; and THAT staff be directed to provide notice of decision subject to the conditions of final approval in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Introduction: This report will provide County Council with information required to consider granting approval to the above noted draft plan of subdivision, in accordance with Section 51 of the Planning Act, the Council of the County of Elgin, as "Approval Authority," is required to make a decision which gives approval or refusal for a proposed draft plan of subdivision. Background and Discussion: The County of Elgin received a draft plan of subdivision for the above noted subject lands, located south of Horton Street and west of Union Road, municipally known as 35743 Horton Street in the Village of Shedden, as shown in Appendix A- Location Map. Lands are located within the Shedden Settlement Area surrounded by low density residential lands to the north and east and agricultural lands to the south and west, outside the Settlement Area boundary. The subject lands consist of a total area of 20.7ha (51.15ac), frontage of 91.33m (299.64ft) along Union Road and approximately 21.Om (68.90ft) of frontage on Talbot Line. The lands are currently 2 being used for agricultural purposes. There is one (1) existing home and two (2) barn structures on the subject lands which will be removed to facilitate the proposed development. Page 132 of 182 The proposed draft plan of subdivision is for a total of one hundred and twenty-four (124) units in Phase 1 and approximately one hundred and seven (107) units in Phase 2. The following is a breakdown of uses in each Phase of development. Phase 1 • 46 single -detached dwellings • 13 semi-detached dwellings (26 units) • 3 development blocks for rowhouse dwellings (52 units) • Stormwater Management Pond • Open Space Phase 2 • 10 Blocks for future residential development including single -detached, semi- detached and rowhouse units. These Blocks are intended to be further developed and subdivided. The Draft Plan of Subdivision is shown in Appendix B of this report. A Conceptual Plan is also shown in Appendix C attached to this report. The subject lands are designated Tier 2 Settlement Area within the County of Elgin Official Plan(s) (2015 & 2024) as shown on Schedule `A'- Land Use and County Structure Plan, respectively, and also found in Appendix D of this report. These settlement areas are on partial services or individual on -site water/municipal sewage services. Limited development is permitted given the absence of full municipal services, amenity levels and employment opportunities. The subject lands are located in an area serviced by the municipal water supply and will be serviced by the future Township Wastewater Treatment Plant expected to begin construction late 2025. The Township of Southwold Official Plan designates the lands as `Residential' within the Shedden Settlement Area as shown on Schedule `4B'- Land Use, also found in Appendix E of this report. This designation supports a variety of housing options in order to meet the needs, affordability and preferences of residents in a manner that integrates within the community. The subject lands are zoned Settlement Reserve (SR) and Agricultural 1 (Al) as shown on Schedule A, Map 13 of the Township of Southwold Zoning By-law 2011-14. In order to proceed with the proposed development, a Zoning By-law Amendment is required to rezone the lands to Residential 2 Special Provision 2 (R2-2) Zone, Residential 2 Special Provision 3 (R2-3) Zone, Residential 3 Special Provision 7 (R3-7) Zone, Residential 3 Special Provision 8 (R3-8) Zone, Residential 3 Special Provision 9 (R3-9) Zone and Open Space (OS) Zone. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was passed by By- law No.2025-27 (ZBA 2025-01) by Township Council on April 14, 2025, and can be found in Appendix F. The subject application proceeded through the standard application process including the preparation, review, and acceptance of a number of technical studies and reports, and the technical circulation to statutory review agencies. Page 133 of 182 On January 27, 2025, Township of Southwold Council provided a resolution of support for the Draft Plan of Subdivision, subject to the County of Elgin's approval. County staff have had the opportunity to review the subject application under the requirements of the Planning Act, the Provincial Planning Statement, the County Official Plan, and the Township of Southwold Official Plan and are satisfied that the application meets all relevant requirements. Further, a series of conditions to the draft approval (Appendix G) have been prepared to accompany the approval, should County Council deem it appropriate to approve, including conditions from: the Township of Southwold, Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority, Enbridge, Bell and Canada Post. Financial Implications: There are no direct financial impacts to the County with respect to approval of this application. Advancement of the Strateaic Plan: Local Municipal Partner Impact: This decision will directly impact the Township of Southwold. Communication Requirements: Notice of the decision will be sent to all parties that requested notification, to the local Township and to any other person/body prescribed under the Planning Act. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis it is recommended that County Council grant draft plan approval to application No. 34T-SO2402, subject to the conditions in Appendix G, as the application: • Is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement; • Conforms to the County of Elgin Official Plan and Township of Southwold Official Plan; • Conforms to the Township of Southwold Zoning By-law (2011-14), as amended and approved by By-law 2025-27, and; • Constitutes good land use planning. Page 134 of 182 All of which is Respectfully Submitted Diana Morris, RPP, MCIP Senior Planner Mat Vaughan, RPP, MCIP Director of Planning and Development Attachments: Approved for Submission Blaine Parkin Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Appendix A- Location Map Appendix B- Draft Plan of Subdivision Appendix C- Conceptual Plan Appendix D- Elgin County Official Plan Map(s) Appendix E- Township of Southwold Official Plan Map Appendix F- Approved By-law No. 2025-27 (Township of Southwold) Appendix G- Conditions of Draft Plan Approval Page 135 of 182 'Cow 0 11 U �M z M N co 4- 0 C7 N 0) (6 0- Subject Site: 35743 Horton Street, Shedden ON File Number., Planning Report 2024- Owner: Township of Southwold CA: Lower Themes Conservation Created By: TB Date: 04/22/2025 Township of Southwold The Corporation of the County 0gin Prepare4 By: Planning and Development Land Use Designations Strategic Employment Settlement Areas Areas lM Tier 1 St. Thomas Municipal Airport EM Tier 2 Provincial Highway 0 Tier 3 County Highway �f E]Agricultur4l Page L14co cal Ro2 ad 125 250 "goo 750 Meters ounty i a77751 ran �E Ig ii n Co i.i ri'Ay Schedul'�e'A' County Structure Map date. May 15, 2025 Projecdon: NAD 83 Zone 17N flhm Q "'T, 0 f !Ain WA's —n V p— �Nn to PIA UP4041 W Ind u'f.' n,,n— n �11 III.W, P111filhIld ay U11 P-16e APIII.A.— W.—AJ.n-nU-vd,n "'Jq Jh'I)I 'g"" W1 —,r9 noy —, udo f a t In- own nA IE M,nnoripjlay-N-t enwrt-i -V da— ari—g ow of ffic, um, 0 thl� Mali or oft—&-n u M. 65 ful raj - LL 0 0 -j 0 F— D 0 U11 U) qvi LL 0 z CL U) LJJ Z ci'5 E D LU 0 m NOTICE OF THE PASSING OF A ZONING BY-LAW II `% BY THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHWOLD Application ZBA2025-01 TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Southwold passed By- law No. 2025-27 on the 14t" day of April, 2025, pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended. The subject lands are legally described as: Part of Lot 15, Concession South East of the North Branch of Talbot Road, Geographic Township of Southwold, Elgin County, located at 35743 Horton Street, Shedden, as shown on the key map on the back of this notice. THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT of the By-law was to rezone the subject lands from Agricultural 1 (A1) Zone, as shown on Schedule A - Map 4 of Zoning By-law 2011-14, and Settlement Reserve (SR) Zone as shown on Schedule A - Map 13 of Zoning By-law 2011-14, as amended, to a variety of requested site specific zones including Residential 2 Special Provision 2 (R2-2) zone, Residential 2 Special Provision 3 (R2-3) zone, Residential 3 Special Provision 7 (R3-7) zone, Residential 3 Special Provision 8 (R3-8) zone, Residential 3 Special Provision 9 (R3-9) zone and Open Space (OS) zone. The proposed zoning seeks to establish site specific zone provisions to increase the permitted maximum lot coverage and to decrease the minimum required exterior side and rear yard setbacks of the R2 zone and to permit semi- detached dwellings as a permitted use in the R3 zone and increase the maximum permitted lot coverage, and decrease the minimum required lot area, interior side, exterior side and rear yard setbacks of the R3 zone. The Written and Oral Submissions are summarized in the Planning Staff Report PLA 2025-11 and in the Statutory Public Meeting portion of the Council Meeting minutes of February 27, 2025; and were considered as part of the effect on the decision -making process. AND TAKE NOTICE that those afforded rights to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal under Section 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.1990, as amended, may appeal the decision of Council with respect to the By-law by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Corporation of the Township of Southwold, no later than May 5, 2025. The Notice of Appeal shall set out the objection to the by-law, the reasons in support of the objection, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the appeal form, available from the Ontario Land Tribunal website at www.elto.gov.on.ca, other documents and the fee required by the Tribunal (certified cheque, money order or credit card) payable to the Ministry of Finance and in Canadian funds. Upon receipt by the Clerk, the Notice of Appeal package will be forwarded to the Ontario Land Tribunal. No person or public body shall be added as a party to the hearing of the appeal unless, before the by-law was passed, the person or public body made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council or, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party. This Notice and the By-law are available online at the Township's website at: www.soudrnw&d.ca�c�uirirent prll,anniin applliica�iions The complete By-law is available for inspection daily, from Monday to Friday, during regular office hours, at the Clerk's Office. DATED at the Township of Southwold, this 15t" day of April, 2025. June McLarty, Deputy Clerk Township of Southwold 35663 Fingal Line Fingal, Ontario NOL 11<0 Office: 519-769-2010 Email: de r,u yelleirlkC>so�u Inw6d.ca Page 143 of 182 d')lIr',i)V ')�C„uq;� 11111i) '¢ iwv A I I I i,I II I I i3I"'Ii A pp I I , )PIinII I, I A)T �..1" KEY MAP: ZBA 2025-01(Not to Scale) 35743 Horton Street, Shedden Page 144 of 182 I ')lIr,,)V 1:,') /0 11111 wv A I I I i, I I I I I i3 I I i A pp I I c)P In I I I, I A)T, Schedule A to By-law 2025-27 Page 145 of 182 DECISION The conditions to final plan of approval for registration of this Subdivision (File No. 34T- S02402) as provided by the County of Elgin are as follows: No. Conditions That this approval applies to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Kim S. Husted O.L.S., dated October 31, 2024, that shows 46 lots for single detached residential units; 13 for semi-detached dwellings, three blocks for rowhouse residential development, ten blocks for future residential development, two open space blocks, one block for a storm water management easement and three blocks for pedestrian walkways for lands legally described as Part of Lot 15 Concession South East of The North Branch of Talbot Road, Geographic Township of Southwold, in the Township of Southwold, County of Elgin. 2. That the Owner be required to enter into a development agreement with the municipality wherein the owner agrees to satisfy all the requirements financial and otherwise, including but not limited to: the payment of fees and development charges, provision of roads, installation and capacity of services, sanitary sewerage collection system, storm water collection system, water distribution system, utilities, stormwater management facilities, sidewalks, active transportation facilities, traffic signage, streetlighting system, pavement markings, temporary lot drainage, temporary drainage systems at limits of subdivision phases, fencing, buffering, retaining walls, and trees for the development of the lands within the plan, all in accordance with approved drawings and specifications. 3. That the development agreement between the Owner and the Municipality contain provisions requiring financial contributions be made and/or secured to the Municipality including all required letters of credit, cash securities and insurances (for a period of time up to and including two years after final completion of all required municipal infrastructure and services). Development Charges shall be paid at the time of building permits, Water connection fees due upon plan registration. Securities (100% of estimated work on public lands), Deposit for legal fees, costs incurred by the Township, and all other associated fees to be paid upon submission of signed agreement. 4. That Securities be provided in a Letter of Credit or a Surety Bond to the satisfaction of the Township. 2 Page 146 of 182 5. That the development agreement between the Owner and the Municipality be registered against the title of the lands to which it applies prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision. 6. That the development agreement contains provisions to the satisfaction of the Municipality regarding the phasing or timing of the development. That the Owner shall submit plans showing any revised phasing to the Municipality for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed in more than one registration. 7. That prior to final approval by Elgin County, the County is to be advised by the Municipality that this proposed subdivision conforms to the zoning by-law in effect. The Owner shall provide to the Municipality a table of lot areas and lot frontages certified by an Ontario Land Surveyor confirming compliance with the Zoning By-law. 8. That the Owner shall provide easements as may be required for services, utility or drainage purposes, including any private storm drainage from neighbouring residential properties and shared rear yard swales, and where required by the Municipality, daylight corners and/or 0.3 metre reserves shall be shown on the final plan and conveyed in a form satisfactory to the Municipality and the relevant agency. 9. That the Owner provide to the municipality all servicing plans and reports for the review and final approval by the Municipality in accordance with the Development Standards Manual/to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 10.That the Owner design any stormwater management facility to accommodate the entire Tributary Area, including the development east of the subject lands and the Horton Drain Catchment Area. The stormwater management facility is to include an outlet structure approved by the Township, maintenance road with turnaround area, and nutrient absorption considerations/capabilities. The stormwater management design submission shall include an Operations and Maintenance manual in accordance with the Township's Consolidated Linear Infrastructure -Environmental Compliance Approvals. 11.That the development agreement, between the Owner and the Municipality, contain provisions, to the satisfaction of the Municipality and the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority, that stipulates, that prior to obtaining final approval, for any phase of the development, that the Owner, will finalize an engineering analysis, to identify stormwater quality and quantity measures, as necessary to control any increase in flows in downstream watercourses, in accordance with any relevant municipal/provincial, standards or guidelines, in consultation with the applicable authority. 12.That the development agreement, between the Owner and the Municipality, contain provisions, to the satisfaction of the Municipality, that stipulates, that prior to obtaining final approval, for any phase of the development, that the Owner, will finalize and submit a full set of Engineering Drawings required as part of the Township 3 Page 147 of 182 Design Guidelines Manual, Section 3.2.3 — Engineering Drawings, including but not limited to the following: • Approved Draft Plan • Grading Plans • Site Servicing Plans • Erosion and Sediment Control Plans • Phasing Plans • Sanitary and Storm Area Plans- showing pre and post tributary areas, outlets storm water management, calculations etc • Details and Notes Plans as Required • Plan and Profiles • Photometric Plans • Any other plans deemed necessary by the Township 13.That the development agreement between the Owner and the Municipality contain provisions, that requires, that the Owner will establish a legal stormwater outlet under the provisions of the Drainage Act in consideration of the necessary road upgrades and stormwater management, to service the subject lands, and shall request any required apportionments under the same, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 14.That the development agreement between the Owner and the Municipality contain provisions, that requires, that the Owner, installs the stormwater management measures, for any phase of the development, identified in the final engineering analysis completed, as part of the development for the site and undertake to implement the recommendations contained therein, to the satisfaction of the Municipality and the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority. 15. That the Owner extend the outlet of the Horton Drain to the proposed stormwater management facility, including the removal and restoration of the existing temporary pond, and swales. 16.That prior to undertaking construction or site alteration activities, including but not limited to any, dwellings, accessory structures, pools, enclosed/covered decks, fill placement/excavation, etc., any necessary permits or approvals, be received, from the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority. 17.That the Owner complete an application for Sewage Allocation in accordance with By-law 2024-28. Connection fees due at plan registration. 18.That prior to final approval, the Municipality shall confirm that reserve sewage treatment conveyance capacity and water supply capacity is available for all lots in the proposed development. 4 Page 148 of 182 19.That the Owner complete a sidewalk connection on Union Road from the sidewalk extension terminus on the west side of Union Road to Phase 1 of the development. 20.That the Owner complete a multi -use path connection to the existing park, and connect to the future development directly west, using the proposed road allowance connecting to Union Road. 21.That the draft Plan of Subdivision include and show any and all required daylight/visibility triangles, to the satisfaction of the Township. 22.That the development agreement between the Owner and the Municipality include the transfer of designated Right -of -Ways to the Township upon assumption. 23.That the development agreement between the Owner and the Municipality include the necessary easements and requirements, as needed, with any applicable utilities and/or Canada Post. 24. That the Owner convey to the Township, Blocks 64 and 65, which are to be zoned Open Space, for the protection of Natural Heritage, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 25.That the Owner convey to the Township, Block 66, upon completion of the proposed roadway turnaround. 26. That the Owner convey to the Township, Blocks 67 and 68, upon assumption of their respective phases. 27.That the Owner provide water, storm and sanitary services to Parts 5, 6 and 7 of Reference Plan 11 R-10769 for a fee agreed upon in the Agreement, or alternatively the Owner provide the Township Contractor access to the site prior to installation of base asphalt to install such services. 28. That the Owner confirm that wildlife capture at the artificial ponds will occur prior to grading work, as recommended in the Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited, dated October 2024. 29.That the recommendations presented in the submitted Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Assessment prepared by EXP, dated September 2022, be implemented, as required, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 30.That the recommendations presented in the submitted Environmental Impact Study prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited, dated October 2024, be implemented, as required, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 5 Page 149 of 182 31.That the development agreement between the Owner and the Municipality shall contain the following clause for Lots 1-4, as recommended in the Transportation Noise Assessment prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited dated October 2024: • "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment."; and • "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment." 32.That the development agreement between the Owner and the Municipality shall contain the following clause, as recommended in the Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Assessment prepared by EXP, dated September 2022: • "Purchasers are advised that Owners must obtain permissions from the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority before beginning any development, site alteration, construction or placement of fill within the regulated area." 33.That the development agreement between the Owner and the Municipality shall contain a provision requiring the installation of perimeter fencing. The location, type, height of the fencing shall be shown on the appropriate drawing, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. No rear yard gates may be permitted of residential lots providing access into any surrounding open space lands, the storm water block, Union Road or the neighbouring lands to the south. 34.That the subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality contain a provision requiring the owner to notify in writing each person who first offers to purchase any subdivided lot within the plan of subdivision of all approved development charges, including development charges for school purposes, relating to any such lot pursuant to Section 59(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, and the Education Act. 35.That prior to final approval by Elgin County, the Owner shall submit for review and approval by the Municipality, a draft of the final M plan. 36.That prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit a storm water management plan, a sediment and erosion control plan and final detailed servicing and grading plans to the satisfaction of the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority. 37.That prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit for review and approval, a geotechnical study of the site prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer for the entire subject lands prior to the initiation of any site grading or servicing to the satisfaction of the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority. 6 Page 150 of 182 38. That the subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality shall include that permits from the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority be obtained prior to any works/construction taking place within the Conservation Authority's Regulated Area and an acknowledgement that setbacks will be required from the top of the bank of the ravine system for any proposed structures. 39.That the Owner acknowledges and agrees to convey to Enbridge Gas Inc. (operating as Union Gas) the necessary easements and/or agreements required for the provision of gas services to the new lots. 40. Prior to final approval, the Owner will provide to Bell Canada the necessary easements and/or agreements required by Bell Canada to service this new development. The Owner further agrees and acknowledges to convey such easements at no cost to Bell Canada. The Owner agrees that should any conflict arise with existing Bell Canada facilities where a current and valid easement exists within the subject area, the Owner shall be responsible for the relocation of any such facilities or easements at their own cost. 41. Prior to final approval the Owner shall ensure that the requirements of Canada Post have been satisfied: a) The developer will consult with Canada Post to determine suitable permanent locations for the Community Mail Boxes. The developer will then indicate these locations on the appropriate servicing plans; b) The developer agrees, prior to offering any units for sale/rent, to display a map on the wall of the sales office in a place readily accessible to potential owners/renters that indicates the location of all Community Mail Boxes within the development, as approved by Canada Post; c) The developer agrees to include in all offers of purchase/rental a statement which advises the purchaser/renter that mail will be delivered via Community Mail Box. The developer also agrees to note the locations of all Community Mail Boxes within the development, and to notify affected owners/renters of any established easements granted to Canada Post to permit access to the Community Mail Box. d) The developer will provide a suitable and safe temporary site for a Community Mail Box until curbs, sidewalks and final grading are completed at the permanent Community Mail Box locations. Canada Post will provide mail delivery to new residents/tenants as soon as the homes/businesses are occupied; and e) The developer agrees to provide the following for each Community Mail Box site and to include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans: i. Any required walkway across the boulevard, per municipal standards; ii. Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access, with an opening of at least two to three metres (consult Canada Post for detailed specifications); iii. A Community Mailbox concrete base pad per Canada Post specifications. 7 Page 151 of 182 42.Should the subdivision be approved, the developer is to provide notification of the new civic addresses as soon as possible to Canada Post. 43. The developer/owner is to provide Canada Post with the excavation date for the first foundation/first phase as well as the date development work is scheduled to begin and provide the expected installation date(s) for the CMBs. 44.That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by the Municipality how conditions 1-35 have been satisfied. 45. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority how conditions 36, 37 and 38 have been satisfied. 46. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by Enbridge Gas Inc. (operating as Union Gas) how condition 39 has been satisfied. 47. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by Bell Canada how condition 40 has been satisfied. 48. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by Canada Post how condition 41 has been satisfied. Notes to Draft Approval: That this approval applies to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Kim S. Husted O.L.S., dated October 31, 2024, that shows 46 lots for single detached residential units; 13 for semi-detached dwellings, three blocks for rowhouse residential development, ten blocks for future residential development, two open space blocks, one block for a storm water management easement and three blocks for pedestrian walkways for lands legally described as Part of Lot 15 Concession South East of The North Branch of Talbot Road, Geographic Township of Southwold, in the Township of Southwold, County of Elgin. 2. It is the Owner's sole responsibility to fulfill the conditions of draft approval. 3. It is suggested that the Owner be aware of section 144 of the Land Titles Act and subsection 78(10) of the Registry Act. Subsection 144 (1) of the Land Titles Act requires that a plan of subdivision of land that is located in a land titles division be registered under the Land Titles Act. Exceptions to this provision are set out in subsection 144(2). Subsection 78(10) of the Registry Act requires that a plan of subdivision of land that is located only in a registry division cannot be registered under the RegistryAct unless that title of the owner of the land has been certified under the Certification of Titles Page 152 of 182 Act. Exceptions to this provision are set out in clauses (b) and (c) of subsection 78(10). 4. The Owner is advised that in the event that deeply buried archaeological remains should be discovered during construction, it is recommended that archaeological staff of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport be notified immediately. Similarly, in the event that human remains should be encountered during construction, it is recommended that the proponent immediately notify the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and the Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Cemeteries Branch. 5. The Ontario Land Surveyor responsible for preparing the final plan for registration should contact the Municipality of Southwold regarding the preparation of the final plan to ensure the requirements of draft approval are properly addressed in the preparation of the final plan and that the final plan prepared contains sufficient geodetic information to locate the plan within the UTM Coordinate System, North American Datum 1983, prior to submitting the plan for final approval. A digital copy of the final plan, in a form satisfactory to the Municipality, is required as part of the final plan submission. 6. Inauguration, or extension of a piped water supply, a sewage system, or a storm drainage system, is subject to the approval of the Ministry of the Environment under Sections 52 and Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act. 7. The Owner is hereby advised that the review of this plan of subdivision did not include groundwater, soil, or atmosphere testing to fully discount the possibility that waste materials and/or other contaminants are present within or near this subdivision. If either the Owner or the Municipality requires such assurance before proceeding with this plan of subdivision, a team of consultants should be retained to conduct any necessary investigations. 8. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks must be advised immediately should waste materials or other contaminants be discovered during the development of this plan of subdivision. If waste materials or contaminants are discovered, a further approval under Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act may be required from that Minister. 9. The Owner is advised that if any unplugged petroleum wells or associated works are identified during the development of the site, the owner shall notify the Petroleum Resources Centre of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The Owner shall plug the wells and rehabilitate the surface according to the Provincial Standards of the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry recommends that no structures be built immediately over a plugged petroleum well. 10.Should the Owner or the Municipality require underground telecommunications facilities to serve this subdivision, the owner must confirm with the Municipality that satisfactory arrangements have been made with telecommunications provider for underground 9 Page 153 of 182 services. The Owner is also advised that, should any conflicts with the existing telecommunications facilities or easements arise, the Owner shall be responsible for realignments or relocation. Further, the Owner is to provide easements as required to service this subdivision. 11. Clearances are required from the Township of Southwold, Lower Thames Conservation Authority, Enbridge (Union Gas) and Canada Post. If the agency's condition concerns a clause in the subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to them. This will expedite clearance of the final plan. A copy of the agreement is also required by the County of Elgin. 12.AII measurements on subdivision and condominium final plans must be presented in metric units. 13.The final plan must be submitted digitally in AutoCAD (DWG) and Portable Document Format (PDF) with the appropriate citation from the Planning Act used. The AutoCAD (DWG) file must be consistent with the following standards: • Georeferenced to the NAD83 UTM Zone 17M coordinate system. • All classes of features must be separated into different layers. Each layer should be given a descriptive name so that the class of feature it contains is recognizable. 14.The final plan approved by the County of Elgin must include the following paragraph on all copies (3 mylars and 4 paper) for signature purposes: Approval Authority Certificate This final plan of subdivision is approved by the County of Elgin under Section 51 (58) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, on this day of 20 Manager of Planning 15.The approval of this draft plan of subdivision File No. 34T-SO2402 will lapse on June 10, 2028, pursuant to subsection 51(32) of the Planning Act, as amended. It is the responsibility of the Owner to request an extension of the draft approval if one is needed. A request for extension should be made at least 60 days before the approval lapses since no extension can be given after the lapsing date. The request should include the reasons why an extension is needed and a resolution in support of the extension from Council of the Township of Southwold. 16.The final plan approved by the County of Elgin must be registered within 30 days or the County may withdraw its approval under subsection 51(59) of the Planning Act. 10 Page 154 of 182 Report to Committee of the Whole From: Diana Morris, Senior Planner Date: May 27, 2025 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-MA23001, Township of Malahide 9270 Rogers Road Recommendation(s): THAT the Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin grants draft plan approval to Draft Plan of Subdivision 34T-MA23001, Township of Malahide 9270 rogers Road, by Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd on behalf of Peter and Anita Wiebe, dated November 18, 2024; and THAT staff be directed to provide notice of decision subject to the conditions of final approval in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Introduction: This report will provide County Council with information required to consider granting approval to the above noted draft plan of subdivision, in accordance with Section 51 of the Planning Act, the Council of the County of Elgin, as "Approval Authority," is required to make a decision which gives approval or refusal for a proposed draft plan of subdivision. Background and Discussion: The County of Elgin received a draft plan of subdivision for the above noted subject lands, located in the `suburban' area of the Township of Malahide, east side of Rogers Road, as shown in Appendix A- Location Map. The subject lands directly abut institutional and residential uses to the north and are approximately 200m south of Highway 3. Low density residential uses are located to the west and south of the subject property. The subject lands consist of a total area of approximately 3.4ha (8.4ac), an approximate frontage of 167m (547.9ft) of frontage along Rogers Road. Lands are currently vacant. Page 155 of 182 The owners are proposing to develop the subject lands as an infill residential subdivision which includes the creation of eleven (11) rural residential lots that will have vehicular access a new roadway which will intersect with Rogers Road to the west and terminate into a temporary turning circle at the eastern end of the subject lands. The Draft Plan of Subdivision is shown in Appendix B of this report. The subject lands are within the `Agricultural Area' within the County of Elgin Official Plan(s) (2015 & 2024) as shown on Schedule `A'- Land Use and County Structure Plan, respectively, and also found in Appendix C of this report. As stated in Section C2.2 of the County of Elgin Official Plan, it is recognized that certain lands outside of the settlement areas have been designated for non-agricultural development by the lower tier Official Plans and these lands are deemed to not be within the prime agricultural area and are instead subject to the relevant policies of the lower tier Official Plan. The Township of Malahide Official Plan designates the lands as `Suburban Area' on Schedule 'Al'- Land Use Plan, also found in Appendix D of this report. New development is directed to these areas to allow for infill and growth in areas adjacent to built-up areas. The suburban designation permits a range of non-agricultural uses and new development shall generally consist of commercial, industrial and institutional uses. Residential uses may be permitted on a case -by -case basis where there area already existing residential uses and will not cause land use conflicts. The proposed infill development will not result in any land use conflicts as existing low density residential uses (single -detached dwellings) are evident to the south, west and northeast The subject lands are zoned `Small Lot Agricultural- Holding (A4-H-1) as shown on Schedule A, Map G4 of the Township of Malahide Zoning By-law 18-22. In order to proceed with the proposed development, a Zoning By-law Amendment is required to rezone the lands to `Rural Residential- Site Specific' (RR-9-H-1) and `Open Space' (OS). The H-1 holding provision prohibits the development on the property until a subdivision agreement has been registered on the lands. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was passed by By-law No.25-30 by Township Council on May 1, 2025, and can be found in Appendix E. The subject application proceeded through the standard application process including the preparation, review, and acceptance of a number of technical studies and reports, and the technical circulation to statutory review agencies. The Notice of the application was circulated to property owners as regulated by the Planning Act. One written comment was received from a member of the public seeking clarification on the development specifically in relation to road access and servicing. No concerns were raised. On May 1, 2025, Township of Malahide Council provided a resolution of support for the Draft Plan of Subdivision, subject to the County of Elgin's approval. Page 156 of 182 County staff have had the opportunity to review the subject application under the requirements of the Planning Act, the Provincial Planning Statement, the County Official Plan, and the Township of Malahide Official Plan and are satisfied that the application meets all relevant requirements. Further, a series of conditions to the draft approval have been prepared to accompany the approval, as attached in Appendix F, should County Council deem it appropriate to approve, including conditions from: the Township of Malahide, Enbridge, Bell and Canada Post. Financial Implications: There are no direct financial impacts to the County with respect to approval of this application. Advancement of Strategic Plan: Planning for and facilitating residential growth within Elgin County. Local Municipal Partner Impact: This decision will directly impact the Township of Malahide. Communication Requirements: Notice of the decision will be sent to all parties that requested notification, to the local Township and to any other person/body prescribed under the Planning Act. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis it is recommended that County Council grant draft plan approval to application No. 34T-MA23001, subject to the conditions in Appendix F, as the application: • Is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement; • Conforms to the County of Elgin Official Plan and Township of Malahide Official Plan; • Conforms to the Township of Malahide Zoning By-law (18-22), as amended and approved by By-law 25-30, and; • Constitutes good land use planning. Page 157 of 182 All of which is Respectfully Submitted Diana Morris, RPP, MCIP Senior Planner Mat Vaughan, RPP, MCIP Director of Planning and Development Attachments: Appendix A- Location Map Appendix B- Draft Plan of Subdivision Appendix C- Elgin County Official Plan Map(s) Approved for Submission Blaine Parkin Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Appendix D- Township of Malahide Official Plan Map Appendix E- Approved By-law No. 25-30 (Township of Malahide) Page 158 of 182 TaLIN C71 'I I ..... .... .. 171) iE ....... RS':DR'J"VE- iEiiEPET .eer - - - ----------- --------- F3 F I i Location Map Legend Subject Site: 9270 Rogers Road Subject Site Fite Number: Gwner: Peter & Anita Wiebe CA: Catfish Creek Conservation Authoro County Road Created By: TE "AIV Date: 05/09/2025 Township of Mailahide Local Road Buildings The Corporadon of the County Elgin I 1� Prepared OyPlanning and Devdapment 0 40 lu Oil v IN 14, C� 4W m' W 4 ::FT IQ 1A ow -Svi Q In R _....... �._._ .. ..... __....... N _._ . Li W � z TI g� mm..... ... �e �.._. _ ...... - .... LLJ m....a, _ ..... ...,_ z� A ut r w � io... .... ,..... r 19 .hv �t s, �;� it .3+b, ;1 N CID O O (D 0) Cu 0— N co 4- 0 N O1 N co 4- 0 N N O1 OFFICIAL PLAN OIF THETOWNSHIP of MALAHIDE TOWNSHIP of MALAHIDE: a7FIF Sri yyJ1„u LAND USE �IflWl° �, �r�rrr r �m rIUIP rY /r I m 1 �� ltl` �rU �» , �P VIA r �G/IU��o IUI�d f/0 ".,«M��""✓-� a1 �` ,n»r((lii%�wry/��f/l�l�"'�/� . 0011), A �. F y �Vpp 7�4 "(D ¶ F,Sr Ol rrrad7 is f'5 r Nw� uYrv`'. M,,re L�Na ¢f rtiu Va a r 16 1p� �� w i R� >i,'v �4�rrV rf1 "u r&kd GY'�9Y"a,.r rdir� .. r� m. .M '�11AI6[pr fly �a�mwd•rr �S_y �, , , .! li 171 I `Ve� ? jf IN MIL�O Ems #6� 111 F 94 RS k 311S21 rr 4 3w�o 4ur P m�� y JJ�� F � III ^l� lail"CJIoWNNP� m[". fYlf;lflllll fi "r� � �Aw r q ( NORTH ("PORE 01goofP011, p 104 r�� PISSOURCO USES �r rrr �rG SG]S Nakxr.4a�s rn,. ms rcea era. � � % IIk1C'N `rr 2 rr % ' �p2 %/ S9f� �r 93''44 �7 98 'S�'y9� �f�I�SS� 8 m bNw TiN u.w m �hWW�Lk ��"+��'�7��YJI ,rt IV rwaNnwu.r�rxsuamsr�La�srCu�e 71 MGJOamrrrr�Wr�'a "ON MCI r+ WSE1%� nt� ,ir1N ID rya SUMMERS SUill.mtkw+.n .cadr '',`lli,. �r, ' �llll ar CORNERS an�siro u'e'iutn PARK� IVi}�lly, a frr/ w ( k,.J GpWY 1 l i �, � POOKWAYCs;:Mra»i[I, ' CON&8"JNATION m.ANDSr ,4 , MONER�W MI Iti N�ATY1..O an VUI � ' —Iv r Illti "w rw^ r•r�u ,_ : 11 r l Hiraiit�, �,J lire ircF pr wcrq is I raa�r�cuwruearrwramr I rr„- ' r IIII r'li i V S r r � r HAM L �@ VarQryIMPROVEMENT rr.acnr JAIR 4wS�t��f( iGa,�,9nWA:4�lIWe'� r FOUNTY" Nu¢an+wa r.a G4, ,/ ran r r l nnNnrr^raatius „ l/r 1 1✓�� , 1�� i UII�>1 ,KA1. k��Rr�, a wOM.'NurxSEr�raw:MEL10a6 q�1 r RAIR WNW A L� r CAILTON i p P ' as r� u 7 a�u�l i1111 �� rll" V� / 4V7 e /I� r �'1JJllll�/r1t 1f 1, , ,l� I�Yw.,,argrmF�rr s1z11P+.zany COPE MIhEN,..�r !1 J�m 7,46 KiAtarwNw U r ,J��f�w'°'7r`al` r l Sp 41 S nd,�,,, �, 1 4 ,7 r7 ' ��8/� Schedi e A4' f rmmus part of�r a,llJf .� IY1fGffi��/�� ✓' VUfUI 4rr � the OlGocoAl Man al' dbe T'ownshroi J ,� ,,r/ ,n„�� „/r� � �. r�A ��... J �,III of MaInhide and mtmO be reed in njUndon wflh the wfifte a SexI OFFIICE C0N50LlDATVCNN Jranuary, 2023 NOTICE OF THE PASSING OF A ZONING BY-LAW BY THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE Peter & Anita Wiebe (c/o Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.) 9270 Rogers Road TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Malahide passed By-law No.25- 30 on the 1st day of May, 2025 under Section 34 of the Planning Act. AND TAKE NOTICE that any specified person or public body may appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal in respect to the By-law by filing with the Clerk of the Township of Malahide not later than the 20th day of May, 2025 a notice of appeal setting out the reasons for the appeal, and must be accompanied by the fee required by the Tribunal. PURPOSE AND EFFECT The owners proposed to develop the subject lands as a small infill residential subdivision. The proposed subdivision includes the creation of 11 rural residential lots that will have vehicle access to a new road Street'A' which will intersect with Rogers Road to the west and terminate in a temporary turning circle at the eastern end of the property. The lands are currently zoned "Small Lot Agricultural — Holding (A4-H-1)". The A4 zone is generally applied to lots in rural areas that are primarily used for residential purposes and are over one acre in size. The lands are proposed to be rezoned to the Rural Residential (RR) zone to reflect proposed minimum lot area of 2,000 m2 and their location within the `suburban area' of the Township. Tsr RDA NLRIHSIDE LOT 79 KEY MAP T LB T RDAr. 'shlp;of Malahide TALBOT LINE _E L T 78 TALB DT RO .D SOUTH S O a SUBJECT !ANDS 9270 Rogers Road LOT 9 TALBOT ROAD 'OUTH SIDE 0 40 60 160 0 Meters Public input was acknowledged by the Council at the meeting to consider an amendment to the Zoning By-law held on the 1 st day of May, 2025 and no objections to the amendment were brought forward by the public. ONLY THE APPLICANT, the owner of the subject lands, the Minister, a public body, or a specified person, as defined under the Planning Act, who made oral or written submissions may appeal a by- law to the Ontario Land Tribunal. An appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal in respect to all or part of this Zoning By-law Amendment may be made no later than 4:30 pm on May 20th, 2025 by either: Online via OLT E-File Service: file a notice of appeal with the Clerk via the Ontario Land Tribunal e-file service (first-time users will need to register for a My Ontario Account) at https://olt.gov.on.ca/e-file-service/ by selecting "Malahide (Township)" as the Approval Authority. If the e-file portal is down, you can submit your appeal to kbrix@malahide.ca" Submit via Mail file a notice of appeal with the Clerk (84 John Street South) no later than 4:30 p.m. on May 20th. If you wish to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) or request a fee reduction for an appeal, forms are available from the OLT website at www.olt.gov.on.ca. Page 164 of 182 The filing of an appeal after 4:30 p.m., in person or electronically, will be deemed to have been received the next business day. The appeal fee of $1,100 can be paid online through e-file or by certified cheque/money order to the Minister of Finance, Province of Ontario. NO PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY shall be added as a party to the hearing of the appeal unless, before the by-law was passed, the person or public body made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council or, in the opinion of the Ontario Land Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party. The complete By-law is available for inspection in the Township Office during regular office hours. DATED AT THE TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2025. Allison Adams, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk Township of Malahide 87 John Street South Aylmer, ON N5H 2C3 519-773-5344 Note: The present fee with regard to the filing of an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal is $1,100.00. (Subject to change without notice.) Page 165 of 182 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE BY-LAW NO.25-30 Being a By-law to amend By-law No. 18-22 Peter & Anita Wiebe 9270 Rogers Road WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Malahide deems it necessary to pass a By-law to amend By-law No. 18-22, as amended; AND WHEREAS authority is granted under Section 34 of the Planning Act, as amended, to pass a By-law; AND WHEREAS this By-law conforms with the Official Plan of the Township of Malahide, as amended; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Malahide HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the area shown in diagonal hatching on the attached map, Schedule "A", and described as MALAHIDE CON STR PT LOT 79, RP 11R10469 PART 1, Township of Malahide, shall be removed from the "Small Lot Agriculture (A4) Zone" of By-law No. 18-22 and placed within the "Rural Residential (RR) Zone" of By-law No. 18-22 as set forth in this By-law. The zoning of this land shall be shown as "RR-9-114" on Key Map G4 of Schedule "G" to By-law No. 18-22, as amended. 2. THAT the area shown in cross hatching on the attached map, Schedule "A", and described as MALAHIDE CON STR PT LOT 79, RP 11 R10469 PART 1, Township of Malahide, shall be removed from the "Small Lot Agriculture (A4) Zone" of By- law No. 18-22 and placed within the "Open Space (OS) Zone" of By-law No. 18-22 as set forth in this By-law. The zoning of this land shall be shown as "OS" on Key Map G4 of Schedule "G" to By-law No. 18-22, as amended. 3. THAT By-law No. 18-22, as amended, is hereby further amended by amending Section 6.7 RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONE —'SITE-SPECIFIC' ZONES by, adding the following new subsection. Page 166 of 182 "6.7.9 a) Defined Area RR-9 as shown on Schedule `G, Map No. G4. b) Setback to a Municipal Tile Drain Minimum from Centreline 3 m c) Local Road Setback Minimum from Centreline 95 m 4. THAT this By-law shall come into force: a) Where no notice of objection has been filed with the Township's Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the expiration of the prescribed time; or, b) Where notice of objection has been filed with the Township's Clerk within the time prescribed by the Planning Act and regulations pursuant thereto, upon the approval of the Ontario Land Tribunal. READ a FIRST and SECOND time this 1st day of May, 2025. READ a THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED this 1st day of May, 2025. Ma or — D. Gigue e Clerk — A. Adams Page 167 of 182 TALBOT LINE LANDS - - TO BE REZONED "OS" LANDS _ Q „ p O,BE REZONED w o This is Schedule 'A' to By-law No. 25-30 passed on this 161 day of May, 2025 YOR CLERK " rowNaetva � Y /jam �ALAIidH�>: �-(—�-�- Township of Malahide SCHEDULE W w Comprehensive Zoning -Bylaw No.18-22 Map No. G4 Metres 0 25 50 100 Page 168 of 182 DECISION The conditions to final plan of approval for registration of this Subdivision (File No. 34T- MA23001) as provided by the County of Elgin are as follows: No. Conditions That this approval applies to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Stirk, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. dated November 18, 2024, that shows 11 rural residential lots with access via Street `A' which intersects with Rogers Road and terminates in a turning circle at the eastern end of the lands which are legally described as Part of Lot 79, Registered Plan 11 R-10469, Part 1 at the Geographic Township of Malahide, in the Township of Malahide, County of Elgin. 2. That the Owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the Municipality pursuant to the authority of Section 51 (26) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended, wherein the Owner agrees to satisfy all the requirements and conditions of the Municipality, financial, and otherwise, which may include but is not limited to: the payment of fees, provision of roads, installation and capacity of services, sanitary sewage collection system, storm water collection system, water distribution system, utilities, stormwater management facilities, sidewalks, traffic signage, streetlighting system, pavement markings, temporary lot drainage, temporary drainage systems at limits of subdivision phases, fencing, buffering, retaining walls, and trees for the development of the lands within the plan, all in accordance with approved drawings and specifications. The subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality shall contain provisions requiring financial contributions be made and/or secured to the Municipality including all required letters of credit, cash securities and insurances (for a period of time up to and including two years after final completion of all required municipal infrastructure and services). Securities (100% of estimated work on public lands), municipal water and sanitary sewage connection fees, impost fees, deposit for legal fees, costs incurred by the Municipality, Cash in lieu of parkland, and all other associated fees are to be paid upon submission of signed agreement. 3. That the subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality shall be registered against the land to which it applies, and the Municipality is entitled to enforce the provisions of it against the Owner and, subject to the Registry Act and the Land Titles Act, any and all subsequent owners of the lands. 2 Page 169 of 182 4. That the subdivision agreement contains provisions to the satisfaction of the Municipality regarding the phasing of the development, where proposed. The Owner shall submit plans showing any phasing to the Municipality for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed in more than one registration. The phasing plan shall include the sequence of development, the land area, and the number of lots, blocks, and units for each phase. The Owner agrees that the phasing must also be reflected in all required reports. 5. That prior to final approval by the County of Elgin, the Owner shall submit for review and approval to the Municipality a draft of the final M plan. 6. That the Owner acknowledges that the Municipality may require minor red -line revisions to the draft plan to ensure proper alignment with existing or proposed lots, blocks, streets, and/or facilities on the plan or on lands adjacent to this draft plan and agreed to by the Owners. 7. Prior to final approval, the Owner shall pay in full all financial obligations/encumbrances owing to the Municipality on the subject lands, including property taxes. 8. That the Owner covenants and agrees that the subject lands will not be developed, serviced, altered, disturbed or graded prior to the final plan approval for each respective phase. 9. That the Owner submit all required detailed engineering drawings and reports, with the appropriate review fee, for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Municipality. The engineering design process shall be substantively complete prior to the preparation of the subdivision agreement. 10. That the Owner shall prepare and submit cross sections for the site grading and drainage plans based on the final elevations. These sections will include existing and proposed future grades, source, receiver and barrier/berm ground elevations, berm slopes, sidewalks, boulevards, ditches, stormwater management facilities, etc. 11. That the Owner shall provide easements as may be required for services, utility or drainage purposes, and where required by the Municipality, daylight corners and/or 0.3 metre reserves shall be shown on the final plan and conveyed in a form satisfactory to the Municipality or other relevant agency. 12.That prior to final approval, the Municipality shall confirm that supply capacity is available for all lots in the proposed development. 13.That the Owner shall demonstrate using a water distribution system model that there is adequate water supply and pressure for potable water as well as Fire protection to accommodate the development, to the satisfaction of Municipality. 3 Page 170 of 182 14.That the subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality contain provisions that require that the Owner establish a legal stormwater outlet under the provisions of the Drainage Act to service the subject lands, and shall request any required apportionments under the same, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 15.That the subdivision agreement should contain provisions stating that any lands containing the stormwater management pond should be assumed by the Municipality. 16.That the subdivision agreement and all agreements of purchase and sale should contain provisions to advise the owners that owners will not undertake activities to impair the discharge of stormwater to its intended outlet. 17. That the Owner agrees to construct maintenance access to the Storm Water Management Facility, storm water bypass routes and overland flow routes to the satisfaction of the Municipality through the detailed design phase. 18.That the Owner shall prepare and submit an Environmental Monitoring Plan designed to evaluate the function, stability and performance of the Storm Water Management Facility from completion and certification to 1 year following assumption of the subdivision to ensure the pond operates as planned under full development conditions. The Owner shall further monitor the storm water management facility during the development process and undertake any necessary cleaning, at the Owner's expense, to ensure the pond operates as designed. 19. That the Owner will develop and implement an "Excess Soil Management Plan" and post any required securities with the Municipality to ensure effective implementation of the Plan prior to any earthworks advancing upon the lands. 20.That the Owner is to adhere to Ontario Soil Regulation O. Reg. 406/19. For inbound fill on lands to be conveyed to the Municipality, the Owner is obliged to ensure that all fill placed on these lands is suitable for the type of land use in which the land is being conveyed to the Municipality (Roads, Park, SWM). The Owner shall undertake the required testing and remediation (if necessary) to ensure the lands/soils are suitable for their intended use (i.e. residential development) and that the lands will remain suitable if/when fill material is brought to the site. 21.That upon draft approval, supporting infrastructure services (water, storm sewers, roads) within the plan of subdivision may be installed, provided the detailed engineering design drawings have been approved by the Municipality, the subdivision agreement has been executed, appropriate financial security has been posted, all relevant fees have been paid to the satisfaction of the Municipality and all requisite government approvals have been obtained and notices given to all public utilities. 4 Page 171 of 182 22.The Owner shall construct all potable water utilities in accordance with the Municipal Drinking Water Works Permit (DWWP) and Municipal Drinking Water License (MDWL). All watermain alterations shall meet or exceed the minimum standards set forth by the MECP for Watermain Design Criteria for Future Alterations Authorized under the Drinking Water Works Permit. The Owner shall provide a detail watermain commissioning plan to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 23. That the Owner agrees to undertake the reconstruction of any existing infrastructure that is required to accommodate the planned road connections and planned servicing connections to the existing watermain as outlined and approved through the detailed engineering approvals. This may include infrastructure which is required to be relocated, improved, upsized or enlarged. Such infrastructure includes but is not limited to storm management facilities, storm sewers, watermains, and roads. 24. That the Owner shall agree to prepare engineering as -constructed drawings, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 25. That the Owner designs, constructs, stabilizes and has in operation all stormwater management facilities and stormwater outfalls, or appropriate alternative measures, in accordance with the approved Stormwater Management Plan and prior to site alteration for each phase of development. The landscaping plan for the SWM pond must be to the satisfaction of the Municipality. The Owner agrees to plant all vegetation (which is not required for stabilization) within 12 months upon constructing the SWM Pond as per the approved landscape drawings. The Owner shall be entirely responsible for the implementation of these features including financial costs. 26.That the road allowances included on the draft plan shall meet the standards of the Municipality and be shown and dedicated as public rights -of -way on the final plan submitted for approval and registration. 27.That the street(s) within the draft plan of subdivision shall be named to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 28.That the Owner shall agree to obtain all required permits, including but not limited to, Road Occupancy Permits or Entrance Permits, from the Municipality prior to the commencement of any servicing or other works within any Municipality Road right- of-way. 29. That the Owner develop a construction access and site management plan for review and subsequent approval by the Municipality prior to the approval of the Subsivision Agreement. The plan shall, amongst other matters, set out how the Owner will be required to complete a pre -condition assessment of Rogers Road to monitor roadway conditions for those roads used to access the site, throughout the development of the lands and address safety issues to users. The Owner will be required to fully rehabilitate Rogers Road to the pre-existing condition should this 5 Page 172 of 182 roadway be damaged from its use in support of developing the subject lands but not including normal wear and tear. 30. That the Owner will be required to provide a construction access and management plan setting out how they will address issues of noise, mud tracking and dust management and to provide a 24/7 contact number for staff to access a responsible party who has the authority to respond and resolve issues that may arise on these matters. 31. That the Owner shall agree within each phase of the development, that any road that is not a through street at the completion of the phase will be terminated as a temporary turning circle to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 32.That that Owner shall agree to provide adequate fire protection measures and the installation of fire hydrants, to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief for the Municipality and the Director of Public Works. 33. That the Owner shall agree that prior to final plan approval and registration of the plan in whole, or in part, that a fire flow testing report with recommendations regarding servicing of the development to achieve adequate water flow rates and pressures in the water mains for fire protection be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 34.That the Owner shall prepare and implement (implementation will be a Subdivision Agreement condition) a Landscape Plan for the stormwater management facility. 35.That the subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality contain provisions that requires the septic systems which include Level IV treatment systems, as per the recommendations of the submitted Geotechnical Report prepared by LDS Consultants, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 36.That the Owner agrees to provide payment in lieu of parkland dedication of the value of 5% of the land included within the plan of subdivision, with the value of the land to be calculated in accordance with Section 51.1(4) of the Planning Act, as amended. The Owner shall provide an appraisal of the value of the property as required under the Municipality's Parkland Dedication By-law. 37. Prior to final approval for the registration of the subdivision, the Owner shall submit a request for municipal addressing to the Municipality to be prepared by the Municipality and submitted to the appropriate agencies. 38.That the Owner agrees that any unplugged oil or gas wells discovered during the development process must be plugged in accordance with the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act at the sole expense of the Owner. 39.That the development agreement between the Owner and the Municipality shall contain a provision requiring the installation of fencing along the rear yards of all lots 6 Page 173 of 182 and western lot boundary of Lots 5 and 11. The location, type, and height of the fencing shall be shown on the appropriate drawing, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. Fencing shall be installed prior to final approval by the Municipality, the cost of materials and installation shall be included in the calculation of securities and will be held to ensure completion. 40.That the subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality contain a provision requiring the owner to notify in writing each person who first offers to purchase any subdivided lot within the plan of subdivision of all approved development charges, including development charges for school purposes, relating to any such lot pursuant to Section 59(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, and the Education Act. 41. That any study, report and assessment that is technically reviewed by a third -party qualified professional will be at the discretion of the Municipality, and notification provided to the Owner. The third -party review will be at the Owner's expense. 42. That the owner shall agree to provide private waste/recycling services for the occupied homes of the subdivision, until such time as the rights -of -way are dedicated to the Municipality and the roadways are constructed to a standard that is satisfactory of the Municipality to provide municipal waste/recycling collection services. 43. That the owner shall agree to provide private snow removal/winter control services within the subdivision, until such time as the rights -of -way are dedicated to and assumed by the Municipality. 44.That the Owner acknowledges and agrees to convey to Enbridge Gas Inc. (operating as Union Gas) the necessary easements and/or agreements required for the provision of gas services to the new lots. 45. Prior to final approval, the Owner will provide to Bell Canada the necessary easements and/or agreements required by Bell Canada to service this new development. The Owner further agrees and acknowledges to convey such easements at no cost to Bell Canada. The Owner agrees that should any conflict arise with existing Bell Canada facilities where a current and valid easement exists within the subject area, the Owner shall be responsible for the relocation of any such facilities or easements at their own cost. 46. Prior to final approval the Owner shall ensure that the requirements of Canada Post have been satisfied: a) The developer will consult with Canada Post to determine suitable permanent locations for the Community Mail Boxes. The developer will then indicate these locations on the appropriate servicing plans; b) The developer agrees, prior to offering any units for sale/rent, to display a map on 7 Page 174 of 182 the wall of the sales office in a place readily accessible to potential owners/renters that indicates the location of all Community Mail Boxes within the development, as approved by Canada Post; c) The developer agrees to include in all offers of purchase/rental a statement which advises the purchaser/renter that mail will be delivered via Community Mail Box. The developer also agrees to note the locations of all Community Mail Boxes within the development, and to notify affected owners/renters of any established easements granted to Canada Post to permit access to the Community Mail Box. d) The developer will provide a suitable and safe temporary site for a Community Mail Box until curbs, sidewalks and final grading are completed at the permanent Community Mail Box locations. Canada Post will provide mail delivery to new residents/tenants as soon as the homes/businesses are occupied; and e) The developer agrees to provide the following for each Community Mail Box site and to include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans: i. Any required walkway across the boulevard, per municipal standards; ii. Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access, with an opening of at least two to three metres (consult Canada Post for detailed specifications); iii. A Community Mailbox concrete base pad per Canada Post specifications. 47.That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by the Municipality how conditions 2-43 have been satisfied. 48. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by Enbridge Gas Inc. (operating as Union Gas) how condition 43 has been satisfied. 49. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by Bell Canada how condition 44 has been satisfied. 50. That prior to final approval, the County of Elgin is to be advised in writing by Canada Post how condition 45 have been satisfied. Notes to Draft Approval: That this approval applies to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Stirk, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. dated November 18, 2024, that shows 11 rural residential lots with access via Street 'A'which intersects with Rogers Road and terminates in a turning circle at the eastern end of the lands which are legally described as Part of Lot 79, Registered Plan 11 R-10469, Part 1 at the Geographic Township of Malahide, in the Township of Malahide, County of Elgin. 2. It is the Owner's sole responsibility to fulfill the conditions of draft approval. 3. It is suggested that the Owner be aware of section 144 of the Land Titles Act and subsection 78(10) of the Registry Act. Page 175 of 182 Subsection 144 (1) of the Land Titles Act requires that a plan of subdivision of land that is located in a land titles division be registered under the Land Titles Act. Exceptions to this provision are set out in subsection 144(2). Subsection 78(10) of the Registry Act requires that a plan of subdivision of land that is located only in a registry division cannot be registered under the RegistryAct unless that title of the owner of the land has been certified under the Certification of Titles Act. Exceptions to this provision are set out in clauses (b) and (c) of subsection 78(10). 4. The Owner is advised that in the event that deeply buried archaeological remains should be discovered during construction, it is recommended that archaeological staff of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport be notified immediately. Similarly, in the event that human remains should be encountered during construction, it is recommended that the proponent immediately notify the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and the Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Cemeteries Branch. 5. The Ontario Land Surveyor responsible for preparing the final plan for registration should contact the Township of Malahide regarding the preparation of the final plan to ensure the requirements of draft approval are properly addressed in the preparation of the final plan and that the final plan prepared contains sufficient geodetic information to locate the plan within the UTM Coordinate System, North American Datum 1983, prior to submitting the plan for final approval. A digital copy of the final plan, in a form satisfactory to the Municipality, is required as part of the final plan submission. 6. Inauguration, or extension of a piped water supply, a sewage system, or a storm drainage system, is subject to the approval of the Ministry of the Environment under Sections 52 and Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act. 7. The Owner is hereby advised that the review of this plan of subdivision did not include groundwater, soil, or atmosphere testing to fully discount the possibility that waste materials and/or other contaminants are present within or near this subdivision. If either the Owner or the Municipality requires such assurance before proceeding with this plan of subdivision, a team of consultants should be retained to conduct any necessary investigations. 8. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks must be advised immediately should waste materials or other contaminants be discovered during the development of this plan of subdivision. If waste materials or contaminants are discovered, a further approval under Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act may be required from that Minister. 9. The Owner is advised that if any unplugged petroleum wells or associated works are identified during the development of the site, the owner shall notify the Petroleum Resources Centre of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The Owner shall 9 Page 176 of 182 plug the wells and rehabilitate the surface according to the Provincial Standards of the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry recommends that no structures be built immediately over a plugged petroleum well. 10.Should the Owner or the Municipality require underground telecommunications facilities to serve this subdivision, the owner must confirm with the Municipality that satisfactory arrangements have been made with telecommunications provider for underground services. The Owner is also advised that, should any conflicts with the existing telecommunications facilities or easements arise, the Owner shall be responsible for realignments or relocation. Further, the Owner is to provide easements as required to service this subdivision. 11. Clearances are required from the Township of Malahide, Enbridge (Union Gas), Bell and Canada Post. If the agency's condition concerns a clause in the subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to them. This will expedite clearance of the final plan. A copy of the agreement is also required by the County of Elgin. 12.AII measurements on subdivision and condominium final plans must be presented in metric units. 13.The final plan must be submitted digitally in AutoCAD (DWG) and Portable Document Format (PDF) with the appropriate citation from the Planning Act used. The AutoCAD (DWG) file must be consistent with the following standards: • Georeferenced to the NAD83 UTM Zone 17M coordinate system. • All classes of features must be separated into different layers. Each layer should be given a descriptive name so that the class of feature it contains is recognizable. 14.The final plan approved by the County of Elgin must include the following paragraph on all copies (3 mylars and 4 paper) for signature purposes: Approval Authority Certificate This final plan of subdivision is approved by the County of Elgin under Section 51 (58) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, on this day of 20 Manager of Planning 15.The approval of this draft plan of subdivision File No. 34T-MA23001 will lapse on June 10, 2028, pursuant to subsection 51(32) of the Planning Act, as amended. It is the responsibility of the Owner to request an extension of the draft approval if one is 10 Page 177 of 182 needed. A request for extension should be made at least 60 days before the approval lapses since no extension can be given after the lapsing date. The request should include the reasons why an extension is needed and a resolution in support of the extension from Council of the Township of Malahide. 16.The final plan approved by the County of Elgin must be registered within 30 days or the County may withdraw its approval under subsection 51(59) of the Planning Act. 11 Page 178 of 182 Report to Committee of the Whole From: Andrea Loughlean, Manager of Emergency Management & Elgin -Middlesex Regional Fire School Date: May 27, 2025 Subject: Radio Working Group Recommendations Recommendation(s): THAT the report titled "Radio Working Group Recommendations" from the Manager of Emergency Management & Elgin -Middlesex Regional Fire School dated May 27, 2025 be received and filed; and THAT Council directs staff to develop an intermunicipal agreement with participating municipalities that sets the terms and conditions for a County -led arrangement for the procurement, ownership, maintenance and contract administration of a regional fire radio system. Introduction: On November 12, 2024, Chief Ray Ormerod (Central Elgin) and the Elgin County Fire Chiefs presented to Council regarding the state of the fire radio system. The presentation outlined the administrative challenges, aging infrastructure, and the need for strategic oversight in light of a projected system replacement. On that date, County Council passed a resolution to form a Radio System Working Group tasked with reviewing the system and returning with recommendations for a more coordinated approach. This report presents the findings and recommendation resulting from that resolution and outlines the next steps for implementation. The Elgin County fire radio system is a critical communication tool that enables coordinated emergency response across all lower -tier municipalities. At present, the administrative responsibilities for the system are fragmented —Central Elgin oversees the service contract, Aylmer maintains insurance coverage, and other municipalities manage additional components. This disjointed model presents inefficiencies in oversight, accountability, and future planning. The Working Group's recommendation is that Elgin County assume centralized administration of the fire radio system, in collaboration with the Radio System Working Page 179 of 182 Group, and initiate the necessary steps to lead procurement and long-term management. Background and Discussion: In 2022, an assessment of the Elgin County fire radio system indicated that a full system replacement would likely be required within five years. However, due to the deteriorating condition of certain components, a replacement is now anticipated sooner than expected, with an estimated cost of approximately $2.3 million. In the absence of a centralized administrator, the current approach has resulted in fragmented oversight. This has prompted the fire chiefs from Elgin's lower -tier municipalities to formally request that the County assume responsibility for both the procurement process and the long-term administration of the radio system. The Radio System Working Group is comprised of the following County and municipal representatives: • Blaine Parkin, CAO (Elgin County) • Andrea Loughlean, Manager of Emergency Management & Elgin -Middlesex Regional Fire School (Elgin County) • Nathan Dias, CAO (Malahide) • Carey Herd, CAO (Central Elgin) • Jeff McArthur, Fire Chief (Southwold/Dutton Dunwich/West Elgin) • Jeff Spoor, Fire Chief (Malahide) • Todd McKone, Fire Chief (Aylmer) • Harry Baranik, Fire Chief (Bayham) • Ray Ormerod, Fire Chief (Ret.) (Central Elgin) The Working Group evaluated the administrative structure and recommends that Elgin County assume full responsibility for the fire radio system. The County's access to legal, procurement, and financial services positions it to efficiently manage the system and ensure consistency in administration. Given the system's degraded condition and fragmented oversight, a centralized administrative model is both timely and necessary. The Radio System Working Group recommends that, in leading the effort, the County would: • Coordinate vendor contracts; • Oversee insurance and asset management; • Lead the RFP process for system replacement; • Administer ongoing operational oversight; • Equitably bill participating municipalities through an agreed -upon cost -sharing model. The County would enter into an intermunicipal agreement with participating municipalities to define responsibilities, funding, and governance. Page 180 of 182 Financial Implications: There are no immediate financial implications arising from this report. Legal staff time will be expended preparing an intermunicipal agreement but any such agreement will return to Council prior to execution. The intention is that capital expenditures, including the estimated $2.3 million system replacement, as well as staff time and other soft costs will be cost- shared by participating municipalities. A detailed financial plan and project scope will be developed in consultation with local partners and brought to Council for approval before any commitments are made. Advancement of the Strategic Plan: The proposal aligns with the County's Strategic Plan Strategy 3: Service Excellence and Efficiency showing commitment to collaborative emergency service delivery and effective infrastructure management. Local Municipal Partner Impact: The impact on local municipal partners includes reduced administrative burden through the elimination of fragmented responsibilities, as the County would oversee system contracts, insurance, and vendor management. Municipalities would benefit from improved coordination, consistent system oversight, and streamlined communication, while continuing to have a voice in operational decisions through collaborative mechanisms. Financially, municipalities would share costs equally, including contributions toward the anticipated $2.3 million system replacement, formalized through inter -municipal agreements. Overall, this transition supports a more sustainable, efficient, and unified approach to fire service communications across Elgin County. Communication Requirements: Effective communication will require coordinated engagement with all local municipal partners to ensure transparency, alignment, and shared understanding of the proposed transition. This includes providing clear updates to CAOs, CEMCs, and Fire Chiefs regarding the County's role, anticipated timelines, cost -sharing implications, and the development of inter -municipal agreements. Ongoing communication through the Radio System Working Group will be essential to maintain collaboration, gather feedback, and ensure that municipal needs and concerns are addressed throughout the transition and procurement process. Should Council approve the recommendations in this report, that decision will be communicated to LMPs with the caution that the County is not yet committed to taking on these responsibilities and that should the radio system need replacement before finalization of a County -led arrangement, the LMPs will continue to be responsible for that replacement in the interim, under the existing system. Conclusion: The County's assumption of fire radio system administration will address long-standing inefficiencies and support a coordinated, sustainable communication system for Page 181 of 182 emergency services. Council's approval will enable staff to proceed with legal and administrative steps, in collaboration with the Radio System Working Group and the lower -tier municipalities, to implement a centralized model that supports both immediate operational needs and long-term system renewal. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Andrea Loughlean Manager of Emergency Management & Elgin -Middlesex Regional Fire School Approved for Submission Blaine Parkin Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk Page 182 of 182