Full Transcript
4.a The Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team - Lindsay Johnston, Executive Director
Lindsay Johnston introduced the Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team's mission to improve local healthcare experiences and provided a contact email for organizational involvement.
Attachment: Grey County Delegation July 2026.pdf
Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10375
The Grey Bruce Ontario
Health Team
“Working toward a better
healthcare experience for you
close to home.”
W W W. G R E Y B R U C E O H T. C A
Thank you.
Merci.
Miigwetch.
To learn more about the Grey-Bruce OHT or how your organization can
become involved, please contact lajohnston@Brightshores.ca
W W W. G R E Y B R U C E O H T. C A
6.a Letter from the Honourable Minister Robert J. Flack - Community Benefits Charges and Parkland Regulation
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing amended O. Reg. 509/20 under the Planning Act to establish a new framework for developer-identified parkland dedication effective July 1, 2026.
Attachment: 234-2026-2403 HOCs Parkland Regulation SIGNED.pdf
Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10366
Ministry of Ministère des
Municipal Affairs Affaires municipales
and Housing et du Logement
Office of the Minister Bureau du ministre
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor 777, rue Bay, 17e étage
Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Toronto (Ontario) M7A 2J3
Tel.: 416 585-7000 Tél. : 416 585-7000
234-2026-2403
June 30, 2026
Dear Head of Council,
I am writing to provide an update that the government has amended a regulation under
the Planning Act to support a new framework for developer-identified parkland
dedication.
Specifically, amendments to the regulation prescribes requirements to support:
• The identification of land
• Notice to owners
• Record to the Ontario Land Tribunal, and
• Land suitability criteria
The changes affect the following regulation:
• O. Reg. 509/20: Community Benefits Charges and Parkland
The amending regulation supports the government’s plan to support increased housing
supply, job creation, and economic activity in Ontario.
Please see the links below to the amending regulation: O. Reg. 207/26: Community
Benefits Charges and Parkland
Updates will also be noted on the ERO posting: Proposed Changes to Support
Standardizing of Parkland Requirements Under the Planning Act
These changes were filed on June 26, 2026, and will come into force on July 1, 2026.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Flack
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
c. Municipal Chief Administrative Officer and/or Treasurer
Robert Dodd, Chief of Staff to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Martha Greenberg, Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Laurie Miller, Assistant Deputy Minister, Local Government Division, Municipal
Affairs and Housing
6.b Correspondence from the Town of Halton Hills - Modernizing Ontario's Invasive Plant Rules
Halton Hills adopted Resolution No.
Attachment: Halton Hills Support Resolution regarding Modernizing Ontario's Invasive Plant Rules.pdf
Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10367
June 5, 2026
Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario
Via Email
Re: Modernizing Ontario’s Invasive Plants Rules to Protect Taxpayers, Municipal Lands,
Agriculture, Natural Heritage and Local Gardens
Please be advised that Council of the Town of Halton Hills at its meeting of Monday June 1,
2026, adopted Resolution No. 2026-0107 regarding Modernizing Ontario’s Invasive Plants
Rules to Protect Taxpayers, Municipal Lands, Agriculture, Natural Heritage and Local Gardens.
Attached for your information is a copy of Resolution No. 2026-0107.
Respectfully,
Melissa Lawr, AMP, Dipl.M.A.
Deputy Clerk – Legislation
cc. Ontario Minister of Natural Resources
Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness
Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Ontario Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Halton area MPs and MPPs
Region of Halton
HRFA
OFA
Conservation Halton
Credit Valley Conservation
Grand River Conservation Authority
AMO
ROMA
FCM
Ontario Invasive Plant Council
Landscape Ontario
Canadian Nursery Landscape Association
All Ontario municipalities
6.c Correspondence from Jennifer Shevalier - Grey County Climate Action Plan
Correspondence from resident Jennifer Shevalier challenges the declaration of a 'Climate Emergency' in Grey County, arguing that natural disasters are historical phenomena and questioning the measurable impact of local spending given the county's negligible contribution to global emissions (0.0042%). The letter highlights concerns over $1.5 million spent on initiatives without clear results, questions the reconciliation between promoting tourism as an economic driver while reducing emissions, and asks why municipal funding is needed when provincial and federal governments already fund climate programs.
Resident Jennifer Shevalier Questions the Justification for Ongoing Climate Spending Without Measurable
Correspondence from resident Jennifer Shevalier challenges the declaration of a climate emergency in Grey County, arguing that natural disasters are historical phenomena and questioning if current spending justifies an 'emergency' label. The author notes Mayor Ross Kentner supports continued funding despite her skepticism regarding measurable outcomes versus theoretical projections. Specific concerns include reconciling emissions reduction with tourism promotion, avoiding duplication of provincial/federal efforts funded by taxpayer dollars, and the lack of clear metrics for success after over $1.5 million in reported expenditures.
Attachment: Committee of the Whole-Climate Action Plan_Redacted.pdf
Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10365
An emergency is generally understood to be an immediate and pressing situation
requiring urgent action to prevent imminent harm. Floods are emergencies. Ice storms
are emergencies. Wildfires are emergencies. They are events that require immediate
response because the threat is present, identifiable- and often poses a direct risk to life,
property, or critical infrastructure.
Importantly, these types of natural disasters are not new phenomena. Floods,
storms, droughts, heat waves, wildfires- and periods of climatic variability have occurred
throughout recorded human history and long before modern industrial society existed.
Communities have always faced the challenge of preparing for and responding to
natural hazards as part of living within a dynamic and ever-changing environment. This
is why I struggle with the application of the term "climate emergency." If an emergency
exists, it should be clearly defined, measurable- and distinguishable from the natural
weather events and environmental challenges that humanity has historically
experienced and adapted to for centuries.
During the discussion, Mayor Ross Kentner expressed strong support for
continued spending on climate initiatives based on the belief that such actions are
necessary to influence climate outcomes. Respectfully, this is where I struggle.
Throughout the discussion, there appeared to be an underlying belief that increased
spending on climate initiatives will somehow influence future weather and climate
outcomes. Grey County's contribution to global emissions is only a tiny fraction of the
global total, 0.0042% of global human-caused emissions and 0.00007% of all
atmospheric CO2 for reference. Even if our county were to achieve net-zero emissions
tomorrow, the impact on global emissions would be extremely small. Yet taxpayers are
being asked to support ongoing expenditures without a clear demonstration of
measurable results. To date, more than $1.5 million taxpayer dollars have reportedly
been spent on consultations and operational costs related to climate initiatives
according to the FOI I received. The County also employs dedicated climate staff, in
addition to grant-funded positions whose compensation ultimately comes from
taxpayers through provincial and federal taxation.
I also understand that Grey County is not legally required to maintain a standalone
Climate Action Plan. The Ontario Planning Act already allows municipalities to
incorporate environmental and sustainability objectives into planning and development
decisions. If sustainability goals can already be achieved through existing planning
processes, taxpayers deserve to know why additional staffing, administration, studies,
and expenditures are necessary.
Deputy Mayor Scott Greig raised another point that deserves serious
consideration. Grey County actively promotes tourism as a key economic driver.
Tourism encourages travel, transportation, accommodations, dining- and increased
economic activity. Yet at the same time, we are investing significant resources into
reducing emissions. This presents a legitimate policy question regarding how these
objectives are reconciled and what the net impact actually is.
The same question extends beyond Grey County. While developed regions invest
heavily in emissions reduction strategies, many developing nations continue to
industrialize and improve living standards for growing populations. As these economies
expand, energy consumption and emissions often increase. This is not a criticism of
those nations; it is an economic reality. However, it raises an important question about
scale and effectiveness. If emissions continue to increase elsewhere in the world, what
measurable impact will Grey County's expenditures have?
Mayor Scott Mackey also raised an important question regarding the role of
municipal government in relation to provincial and federal climate initiatives. Residents
already fund climate-related programs through federal and provincial taxation. Those
governments maintain ministries, agencies, researchers, scientists- and environmental
programs dedicated to climate policy and emissions reduction. If taxpayers are already
funding these initiatives through two higher levels of government, why are they also
being asked to fund additional climate programs, staff positions, studies, consultations,
and action plans at the county level? While grants are often described as "free funding,"
they ultimately originate from taxpayers. Whether funding comes from municipal,
provincial- or federal sources, it is still public money.
My concern is not with responsible environmental stewardship. Most residents
support protecting our natural resources, improving efficiency, reducing waste, and
planning responsibly for future generations. My concern is whether we have moved
beyond practical stewardship and into a system where the declaration of an emergency
has become justification for ongoing spending, staffing, and programs without clearly
defined measures of success.
Questions Requiring Council's Response
1. What objective criteria were used to declare a Climate Emergency in Grey
County?
2. What specific risks or impacts within Grey County led Council to conclude that a
Climate Emergency exists?
3. What measurable data or evidence demonstrates that those risks or impacts
constitute an ongoing emergency today?
4. What metrics will Council use to determine whether the emergency is worsening
or improving?
5. At what point would Council determine that the Climate Emergency has ended?
6. What specific conditions distinguish this declared emergency from the natural
climatic variability and weather-related events that communities have
experienced throughout history?
7. What measurable results have been achieved through the Climate Action Plan to
date?
8. How much have greenhouse gas emissions been reduced as a direct result of
the Climate Action Plan?
9. What specific environmental outcomes can be directly attributed to these
expenditures?
10. What is the return on investment for Grey County taxpayers?
11. How will Council determine whether the Climate Action Plan has succeeded or
failed?
12. How are Grey County's emissions reduction initiatives being reconciled with its
promotion of tourism as a significant economic driver?
13. If emissions continue to increase elsewhere in the world, what measurable
impact will Grey County's expenditures have, and how is that impact being
quantified?
14. What specific role is Grey County fulfilling that is not already being addressed
through provincial or federal climate initiatives?
15. What unique outcomes are being achieved locally that justify additional municipal
taxation for climate-related initiatives?
16. At what point does local climate policy become a duplication of services already
funded through provincial and federal taxation?
Ultimately, taxpayers are not asking for more plans, more studies, more staff, or
more spending. They are asking for evidence. While forecasting can be a useful
planning tool, taxpayers deserve policies grounded in present realities, measurable
results- and observable evidence rather than decisions driven primarily by long-range
projections and theoretical outcomes. Before asking residents to continue funding
additional initiatives, Council should be able to clearly demonstrate what has been
achieved, what remains to be achieved, and why the expenditures are justified.
Accountability is not opposition to environmental stewardship; it is a fundamental
responsibility of good governance.
As a taxpayer and resident of Grey County, I respectfully request that this
correspondence be included in the next Grey County Council agenda package so that it
forms part of the public record and each member of Council has the opportunity to
consider the concerns and questions it raises.
I also respectfully request a written response addressing each of the questions
outlined above. These questions relate directly to fiscal responsibility, public
accountability, and the stewardship of taxpayer dollars. I believe the residents of Grey
County deserve clear and transparent answers regarding the rationale, measurable
outcomes, and ongoing expenditures associated with the Climate Action Plan.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Jennifer Shevalier
Grey County Resident
6.d Correspondence from Lyssa Ireton - Grey Road 1 Concerns
Resident Lyssa Ireton requests a traffic safety review of Grey Road 1 from Frank Street to Concession 24 due to aggressive speeding and passing behavior that endangers families, pedestrians, cyclists, and school bus users. The letter details specific incidents where drivers passed near shoulders or driveways despite warnings, noting that winter snowbanks further reduce safe space for residents walking dogs or accessing mailboxes.
Lyssa Ireton Requests a Traffic Safety Review for Grey Road 1
Resident Lyssa Ireton requests a traffic safety review of Grey Road 1 from Frank Street to Concession 24 due to aggressive speeding and dangerous passing behavior that endangers pedestrians, cyclists, school bus users, and residents with dogs. The writer notes winter conditions exacerbate risks as snowbanks reduce space between vehicles and people on the roadside. Specific incidents include near-misses at mailboxes and driveway turns, alongside observations of multiple vehicles exceeding speed limits over three mornings in June 2026.
Attachment: Road safety Grey County Council (1)_Redacted.pdf
Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10376
To Grey County Council, Jun 24, 2026
I am writing to request a traffic safety review of Grey Road 1 from the point where Frank street
becomes Grey Road 1 through to Concession 24.
I have lived on this stretch of road for approximately ten years. During that time, I have watched
traffic speeds and driver behaviour become an increasing concern, and I believe the situation is
getting worse.
This is not simply a rural highway. This stretch of Grey Road 1 is home to dozens of families.
There are school bus stops, pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers, driveways, mailboxes, local
traffic, tourists, Airbnb’s, an airport, small businesses, and users accessing the Bruce Trail.
While Grey Road 1 is an important transportation corridor, it is also a place where people live.
Over the years, traffic on this road has changed how my family uses it. We do not bike on the
road. I walk my dogs less than I would like because I can not trust that passing vehicles will
respect the space available. My children are older now, but I still think about traffic whenever
they are near the road.
Winter conditions present additional concerns. Portions of this corridor are open and prone to
drifting snow, and snowbanks significantly reduce the available space between pedestrians and
passing vehicles. Despite these conditions, speeding and passing behaviour continue
throughout the winter months, leaving even less room for error for residents using the roadside.
My concern is not simply the posted speed limit. My concern is that many vehicles appear to be
travelling well above it, and that this creates aggressive and dangerous passing behaviour.
Importantly, many drivers do follow the speed limit. Unfortunately, that often seems to frustrate
other drivers, resulting in passing manoevers by people who are unwilling to slow down. In my
opinion this is one of the biggest safety issues on this corridor.
I regularly observe passing along this stretch of road, and I recently drove the corridor from
Frank Street to concession 24 specifically to review the pavement markings. From Lake Street
to Concession 24, passing opportunities exist along much of the roadway. Given the residential
nature of this corridor and the driver behaviour residents are experiencing, I believe these
markings deserve review.
My concerns are based on more than frustration. I have experienced several incidents over the
years that continue to stand out to me.
Most recently, I was nearly struck while standing at my mailbox when a vehicle passed another
vehicle at a high rate of speed in close proximity to the shoulder.
On other occasions, I have had drivers attempt to pass while I was waiting to turn left into my
driveway.
I have also experienced situations involving my dogs near the roadway where approaching
drivers failed to slow down despite obvious efforts to warn them.
In just three mornings while waiting for the school bus, in a ten minute span, I observed the
following:
June 22
● Approximately 6-7 vehicles travelling significantly above the posted speed limit.
● One vehicle passed the school bus between our stop and the stop before us.
June 23
● Approximately 7 vehicles travelling at speeds above the limit.
June 24
● One vehicle passed two vehicles in succession in front of our bus stop.
I understand that Grey County cannot control every driver. However, I believe that the current
situation warrants a review.
I am requesting a comprehensive traffic review of Grey Road 1 from Frank Street to Concession
24, including vehicle speeds, passing behaviour, school bus safety, pedestrian safety, cyclist
safety, and driveway access.
While I am open to whatever solutions County staff determine are appropriate, I would strongly
encourage consideration of:
● Reviewing and reducing passing opportunities through revised pavement markings
where appropriate;
● Increased and visible traffic enforcement;
● Speed feedback signs to encourage compliance with posted speed limits.
Vehicles travelling on Grey Road 1 need to slow down.
Residents should be able to walk their dogs, check their mail, access their driveways, wait for
the school bus, and allow their children to use the roadside without worrying that someone
travelling too fast or passing aggressively will cause a tragedy.
I would welcome the opportunity to speak to Council regarding these concerns and the lived
experiences of residents along this corridor.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lyssa Ireton
6.e CSR-CW-17-26 Award of Special Needs Resourcing
The report recommends awarding the Special Needs Resourcing RFP to Community Living Owen Sound for an annual operating funding of up to $1,400,000.00 commencing in 2027.
Attachment: Award of Special Needs Resourcing RFP - CSR-CW-17-26.pdf
Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10372
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: July 23, 2026
Subject / Report No: CSR-CW-17-26
Title: Award of Special Needs Resourcing RFP
Prepared by: Tara Cockerill, Manager – Early Learning and Child Care
Reviewed by: Anne Marie Shaw, Director of Community Services
Lower Tier(s) Affected: All
Recommendation
1. That report CSR-CW-17-26 regarding the provision of Special Needs Resourcing
Services be received and;
2. That Community Living Owen Sound be awarded RFP-SS-02-26 for the provision
of Special Needs Resourcing Services up to $1,400,000.00 annually; and
3. The contract be funded on an annual basis in accordance with provincial Early
Learning and Child Care funding guidelines.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to approve the award of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
provision of Special Needs Resourcing services in licensed child care programs in Grey County
in the amount of operating funding of up to $1,400,000.00, commencing in 2027 and to be
reviewed annually.
Background and Discussion
In 2025, Grey County Early Learning & Child Care division commissioned a comprehensive
review of its Special Needs Resourcing (SNR) program to evaluate the effectiveness of the
current service delivery model to identify opportunities to strengthen outcomes for children,
families, educators and licensed child care operators. The review identified a number of
strengths within the system, however the review also identified service gaps that affect access,
continuity and coordination of supports.
A key recommendation of the review was the establishment of a single-provider third-party
delivery model to improve service coordination, access, efficiency, accountability and quality of
service across the county.
Request for Approval Process
CSR-CW-17-26 1 July 23, 2026
Following committee direction of report CSR-CS-12-26, a request for proposal process was
implemented to identify a qualified provider capable of delivering all SNR services across Grey
County.
Following a comprehensive evaluation of submissions, staff recommend awarding the contract
to Community Living Owen Sound. The recommended proponent demonstrated a strong ability
to achieve the objectives outlined within the SNR review and presented a service model that
aligns closely with the report recommendations to support the delivery of SNR services in
licensed child care settings.
Alignment with SNR Review Recommendations
The new service delivery model will incorporate the review’s key recommendations, including:
Establishment of a single-provider delivery model to streamline service access, improve
coordination, and eliminate service fragmentation
Enhanced communication and collaboration among families, educators and resource
consultants
Strengthened accountability through regular performance measurement, reporting and
continuous quality improvement
Increased educator capacity through coaching, mentorship, professional development,
and inclusion-focused supports
Improved service coordination for children across licensed child care programs
Expanded support for licensed school-age child care and summer programming
Community Living’s historical knowledge of the local region and early years system positions
the organization to effectively respond to community needs while maintaining service continuity.
Proceeding with this proposal supports retention and integration of existing sector knowledge,
continuity of support for children currently enrolled in licensed child care programs, increase
clear community with licensed child care operators and families, and focus on ongoing
collaboration with community partners.
Legislated Requirements
In accordance with the Child Care and Early Years Act (2014), Service System Managers are
responsible for the local planning, coordination, and funding of child care and early years
services, including Special Needs Resourcing supports that facilitate the inclusion of children
with special needs in licensed child care programs.
Financial and Resource Implications
The contract allocation is $1,400,000.00 annually, subject to provincial funding availability, and
will be funded through the existing Special Needs Resourcing budget as part of the municipal
provincial funding allocation.
The purchase of service agreement will identify eligible expenditures and budgets will be
reconciled with the provider at the end of each calendar year. Any identified surplus funding will
be recovered in line with provincial guidelines.
CSR-CW-17-26 2 July 23, 2026
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal (list)
☒ Purchasing
☒ Finance
Appendices and Attachments
None.
CSR-CW-17-26 3 July 23, 2026
6.f PDR-CW-29-26 Grey County Official Plan Amendment 32 - Wilton Sanitation
Attachment: Grey County Official Plan Amendment 32 - Wilton Sanitation - PDR-CW-29-26.pdf Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10371 Committee Report To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council Committee Date: July 23, 2026 Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-29-26 Title: Grey County Official Plan Amendment 32 – Wilton Sanitation Prepared by: Cassondra Dillman, Intermediate Planner Reviewed by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning Lower Tier(s) Affected: Municipality of Grey Highlands Recommendation 1.
Wilton Sanitation Proposes a New 730 M² Septage Holding Tank
The report details an application by Wilton Sanitation to expand its on-farm diversified use operations located at Lot 21 and 22, Concession 3 NDR in the Municipality of Grey Highlands. The proposal seeks a site-specific exception under County Official Plan Amendment 32 (OPA 32) to construct a new concrete septage holding tank with a liner and wire fence safety measure. This facility would accommodate approximately 1,932,150 litres of pumped septic system waste but explicitly excludes portable toilet waste from the storage capacity. The expansion requires redesignating the land use from 'Agricultural' to 'Agricultural with Exceptions,' allowing an on-farm business footprint increase from roughly 6,600 m² (2%) to approximately 8,630 m² (2.62%). Construction of the new tank and its associated buffer area would occupy a total land mass of about 1,490 m², removing approximately 710 m² currently used for agricultural production from active farming. The applicant justifies this expansion by citing potential future constraints on municipal sewage treatment facilities in Markdale and Flesherton as the rural population grows.
Analysis Evaluates the Proposed On-farm Diversified Use (ofdu) Against Provincial Interests
The analysis evaluates the proposed on-farm diversified use (OFDU) against provincial interests under the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), specifically regarding agricultural protection in prime areas. The subject lands cover approximately +/-33 hectares, designated as Agricultural with frontage on Grey Road 4 (+/-536 m). While PPS Section 2.5.1 supports rural character diversification, constraints exist due to Aggregate Resource Area overlap and wetlands within Appendix B mapping; no development is proposed adjacent to these sensitive areas (within 120 m). The County official plan permits an OFDU occupying up to 6,600 m² for parcels over 20 hectares. Staff will conduct a detailed review following public agency input regarding ecology and transportation services before the final staff report.
Attachment: Grey County Official Plan Amendment 32 - Wilton Sanitation - PDR-CW-29-26.pdf
Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10371
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: July 23, 2026
Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-29-26
Title: Grey County Official Plan Amendment 32 – Wilton Sanitation
Prepared by: Cassondra Dillman, Intermediate Planner
Reviewed by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
Lower Tier(s) Affected: Municipality of Grey Highlands
Recommendation
1. That report PDR-CW-29-26 regarding an overview of County Official Plan
Amendment 32 on lands described as Lot 21 and 22, Concession 3 NDR,
geographic township of Artemesia, Municipality of Grey Highlands be received for
information.
Executive Summary
This report provides Grey County Council with an overview of County official plan amendment
32 (OPA 32), submitted by Wilton Sanitation. The application seeks a site-specific policy to
permit the expansion of an on-farm diversified use (OFDU) on lands legally described as Lots
21 and 22, Concession 3 North of Durham Road (NDR), Municipality of Grey Highlands, and
municipally known as 405549 Grey Road 4.
The proposed applications would allow the existing on-farm business, Wilton Sanitation, to
expand and occupy a larger portion of the property. The business currently includes a septage
operation, office area, employee parking, and outdoor storage. The applications would also
permit construction of a new 730 m² septage holding tank and associated buffer area. Waste
from portable toilets would not be permitted in the new tank.
A County official plan amendment is required to permit the OFDU to occupy 2.62% of the
property, or approximately 8,630 m², whereas the County official plan currently permits up to 2%
of the property, or approximately 6,600 m². The amendment would redesignate the property
from ‘Agricultural’ to ‘Agricultural with Exceptions’ to recognize the existing on-farm business
and permit the proposed holding tank and associated buffer area.
The proposal includes three applications under the Planning Act: amendments to the Grey
County official plan, the Municipality of Grey Highlands official plan, and the Municipality of Grey
Highlands zoning by-law. Provincial approval from the Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks (MECP) would also be required.
PDR-CW-29-26 1 July 23, 2026
At this stage, staff are recommending that Committee of the Whole receive this report for
information. A thorough planning analysis and report back will be undertaken following the
agency and public commenting process.
Background and Discussion
Grey County has received a County official plan amendment application (OPA 32) to add a site-
specific exception to the subject lands to permit expansion of an existing on-farm business.
A copy of the draft County OPA is included in the Attachments section of the report.
Location
The subject lands are legally described as Lot 21 to 22, Concession 3 NDR, geographic
township of Artemesia, Municipality of Grey Highlands and have a civic address of 405549 Grey
Road 4.
The lands are located on the north side of Grey Road 4, approximately 650 metres west of
Ceylon. The property is approximately 33 hectares in size and has approximately 536 metres of
frontage on Grey Road 4. The applicant’s residence and detached garage are located on the
property, along with a workshop and outdoor storage area associated with Wilton Sanitation.
The workshop and outdoor storage area are located approximately 250 metres from Grey Road
4. A mature forested area, approximately 35 metres deep, extends along the full frontage of the
subject property and along approximately 180 metres of the easterly boundary. Rows of trees
also line both sides of the driveway leading to the residence and business area.
Surrounding land uses include agricultural and residential uses. The County of Grey owns a
property across Grey Road 4 where a public works depot is being constructed. The applicant
also owns the property to the west of the subject lands, including the former road allowance
between Lots 21 and 20.
Map 1 below shows the subject lands in blue and surrounding land uses.
PDR-CW-29-26 2 July 23, 2026
Map 1: Location of Subject Lands
Proposal
The applicant, Wilton Sanitation, is seeking approval to expand the existing on-farm business.
The proposed OPA would facilitate construction of a holding tank for hauled sewage, specifically
septage pumped from septic system holding tanks, and would recognize the existing on-farm
business. The tank would accommodate 1,932,150 litres (425,000 Imperial gallons) of septage
and occupy an area of 730 m2. The tank and its 5-metre buffer would occupy 1,490 m2 of land.
Approximately 710 m2 of land would be removed from agricultural production as a result of the
development.
The applicants have indicated that the proposed tank location was selected based on site
topography, accessibility, and separation distances from neighbouring uses. The tank would be
located along the existing gravel area to minimize impacts to surrounding agricultural fields. The
proposed tank location is 140 metres from the well on the subject lands and more than 500
metres from the nearest off-site residence.
The tank would be constructed of concrete and finished with a liner. As a safety measure, a 1.5
metre high wire fence would be installed at the top of the tank. Engineering drawings for the
tank would be required at the building permit stage.
PDR-CW-29-26 3 July 23, 2026
The amendment would redesignate the property from ‘Agricultural’ to ‘Agricultural with
Exceptions’ so that the OFDU may occupy up to 2.62% of the property, or approximately 8,630
m². Under the County official plan, an OFDU is generally limited to 2% of the total lot area,
which is approximately 6,600 m² on this property. The OPA would recognize the existing on-
farm business and permit the construction of a new holding tank and associated buffer area.
The site plan image below shows the areas occupied by the following uses:
- agricultural uses (indoor / outdoor farm equipment storage) in green – 2960 m2,
- the existing parking and outdoor storage area occupied by the business in blue, the
existing office, workshop and indoor storage area in orange – 7140 m2 (combined total of
the blue and orange), and
- the proposed holding tank and buffer area in pink – 1490 m2.
Map 2: Site Plan
Staff note that while the size of the existing gravel parking area is indicated as 10,100 m2 above,
any shared areas also used by the farm (i.e. shared laneway, farm buildings, landscapes areas)
are not included in the total use size calculation for an OFDU, per 5.2.2.16) in the County
Official Plan.
Wilton Sanitation was established in 1969 and provides services including septic system holding
tank pumping, portable toilet rentals, and large garbage bin rentals. As part of its operations, the
business has permission from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)
PDR-CW-29-26 4 July 23, 2026
to spread septage pumped from septic system holding tanks on licensed fields, including the
subject lands and the property to the west, between April 1 and November 30. During the winter
months, this sewage is taken directly to municipal sewage treatment plants, including facilities in
Markdale and Flesherton. Waste from portable toilets cannot be land-applied and must be
treated at a municipal treatment plant year-round.
Wilton Sanitation has indicated that municipal sewage treatment facilities in Grey Highlands and
surrounding areas may not always be available to service rural areas as the population grows
and plant capacity becomes more constrained. For this reason, the business is proposing to
install a second holding tank on the property. Septage stored in the tank would be spread on
approved land application sites during the period specified in the site’s Environmental
Compliance Approval, as conditions permit.
Pre-submission consultation occurred between Grey Highlands, the County, and the applicant.
The draft County OPA is included in the Appendices section of this report. Copies of all
background reports and plans can be found on the County of Grey website.
A joint public planning hearing has been scheduled for August 24, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.
Analysis of Planning Issues
When making a land use planning decision, planning authorities must have regard for matters of
provincial interest under the Planning Act, be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement,
2024 (PPS), and conform to applicable provincial plans and County and municipal official plans.
In this case, the County of Grey official plan and the Municipality of Grey Highlands official plan
apply to the subject property.
A detailed planning analysis has not yet been completed. Following the public and agency
review process, staff will provide a comprehensive analysis and recommendation. Key
provincial and County policies have been identified below for Council’s information.
Provincial Policy and Legislation
The Planning Act requires planning authorities to have regard for matters of provincial interest,
including the appropriate location of growth and development, the protection of agricultural
resources and ecological systems, the protection of public health and safety, and the orderly
development of safe and healthy communities.
The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning
and development. Section 2.5.1 of the PPS states that healthy, integrated, and viable rural
areas should be supported by building upon rural character, leveraging rural amenities and
assets, promoting diversification of the economic base and employment opportunities, and
providing opportunities for economic activities in prime agricultural areas.
On-farm diversified uses, in accordance with provincial standards, are permitted in prime
agricultural areas under Section 4.3.2.1 of the PPS.
The PPS defines on-farm diversified uses as:
PDR-CW-29-26 5 July 23, 2026
“Uses that are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, and are limited
in area. On-farm diversified uses include, but are not limited to, home occupations, home
industries, agri-tourism uses, uses that produce value-added agricultural products, and
electricity generation facilities and transmission systems, and energy storage systems.”
Proposed on-farm diversified uses shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding
agricultural operations. Criteria for these uses may be based on provincial guidance or
municipal approaches, as set out in municipal planning documents, which achieve the same
objectives (4.3.2.1).
The Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas are intended to
complement the PPS and assist with interpreting provincial policies and definitions related to
agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses. The guidelines
recommend that an OFDU occupy up to 2% of a farm parcel, to a maximum of 1 hectare
(10,000 m2).
Chapter 4.3 of the PPS outlines policy direction for agriculture and states that prime agricultural
areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture.
Chapter 4.6 outlines policy direction for the protection and management of archaeological
resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.
Chapter 4.1 speaks to protecting natural features and areas for the long-term, while Chapter 4.2
identifies that planning authorities shall protect, improve, or restore the quality and quantity of
water.
County of Grey Official Plan
The subject lands (+/-33 ha) are identified as the following in the County official plan:
- Schedule A: Land Use Types – Agricultural
- Schedule B: High Potential Mineral Aggregate Resources - Aggregate Resource Area
- Appendix B: Constraint Mapping – Other wetlands, lakes/rivers
- Appendix D: Functional Road Classification – Frontage (+/-536 m) on Grey Road 4
Schedule A of the County official plan designates the subject lands as ‘Agricultural’, which
permits on-farm diversified uses.
Table 8 of the County official plan provides size criteria for OFDUs based on land use type and
property size. For parcels greater than 20 hectares in the Agricultural designation, the maximum
OFDU area is 2% of the total property area, to a maximum combined area of 8,000 m2. As the
subject lands are approximately 33 hectares, the County official plan would permit the OFDU to
occupy up to 6,600 m2. Section 5.2.2(19) provides criteria to consider when establishing a new
OFDU.
County Planning staff will review the scope of the OFDU on this specific parcel of land at the
time of the detailed planning review stage.
Schedule B of the County official plan indicates that a portion of the subject lands is within an
Aggregate Resource Area. Section 5.6.2(1) states that where the Aggregate Resource Area
overlaps with an Agricultural land use type, the policies and permitted uses of the underlying
land use type apply until the site is licensed for sand or gravel extraction.
PDR-CW-29-26 6 July 23, 2026
Appendix B of the County official plan indicates that the subject lands contain other wetlands
and ponds. No development is proposed adjacent to (within 120 m) of these areas. Further
comments will be received from County Planning Ecology staff at the detailed review stage.
Appendix D indicates that the subject lands have frontage on County Road 4. Further comments
will be received from County Transportation Services staff at the detailed review stage.
The final staff report will provide a detailed review of the Planning Act, the PPS, the County
official plan, and applicable municipal planning documents following the public and agency
review process.
Legislated Requirements
These applications will be processed in accordance with the Planning Act.
Financial and Resource Implications
There are no anticipated financial, staffing, or other resource considerations associated with the
proposed County official plan amendment, beyond those normally encountered in processing
such applications. The County has collected the requisite application fee and peer review
deposit for this application.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal: Planning, Planning Ecology
☒ AODA Compliance: To be assessed in the final staff report following the
public/agency review process.
☒ External: Municipality of Grey Highlands and other prescribed agencies under the
Planning Act
Appendices and Attachments
Appendix 1: Draft By-law for Official Plan Amendment 32 and Schedule ‘A’
PDR-CW-29-26 7 July 23, 2026
6.g PDR-CW-31-26 Watermain Easement on the CP Rail Trail
Staff report PDR-CW-31-26 recommends an agreement with the Township of Southgate to finalize two road crossing land transfers in Dundalk and secure a watermain easement along the CP Rail Trail. The proposed watermain extension, located on Part Lot 232 through 236 within PIN 37268-0610, will not impact trail operations or future rail service restoration.
Agreement for CP Rail Trail Watermain Easement on Parts of Lots 232-236
Staff recommend an agreement with the Township of Southgate to incorporate a watermain easement along the CP Rail Trail in Dundalk and finalize two remaining road crossing land transfers. The proposed watermain extension will run through Part of Lots 232, 233, 234, 235, and 236 without impacting trail operations or future rail service restoration.
Attachment: Watermain Easement on the CP Rail Trail - PDR-CW-31-26.pdf
Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10368
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: July 23, 2026
Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-31-26
Title: Watermain Easement on the CP Rail Trail
Prepared by: Lacey Thompson, Law Clerk / Real Estate Coordinator and
Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
Reviewed by: Randy Scherzer, CAO
Lower Tier(s) Affected: Township of Southgate
Recommendation
1. That report PDR-CW-31-26 be received; and
2. That staff be directed to prepare an agreement (or agreements) with the Township
of Southgate for the purposes of incorporating the watermain easement along the
CP Rail Trail in Dundalk, along with the previously authorized road crossings of
the CP Rail Trail to facilitate the Eco Park Way extension.
Executive Summary
In February 2025, staff received direction to proceed with land transfers and agreements to
facilitate four new road crossings of the CP Rail Trail in Dundalk, as well as lowering one
section of the trail. Two of these crossings and land transfers have since been completed. The
County and Township of Southgate have since determined that the lowering of the CP Rail Trail
is no longer required, however there is the need for a watermain extension along a section of
the trail, in addition to the final two road crossing land transfers. This report recommends that
the County and Township proceed with an agreement which includes an easement for the
watermain extension, and the final two road crossing land transfers. If the staff recommendation
is supported, staff would prepare the agreement, and a by-law to enact the agreement, for a
subsequent County Council meeting.
Background and Discussion
At the February 13, 2025 Committee of the Whole meeting, Council supported the following staff
recommendation.
1. “That report PDR-CW-15-25 be received; and
2. That staff be directed to prepare an agreement (or agreements) with the Township of
Southgate for the purposes of:
PDR-CW-31-26 1 July 23, 2026
a. conveying four (4) road crossings of the CP Rail Trail to the Township of
Southgate, where the transfers shall reserve an easement in favour of Grey
County to ensure that the County maintains its ability to pursue the potential of
such things as installation of utilities and the return of rail service on the rail
corridor;
b. lowering a section of the trail in the south end of Dundalk to facilitate the Eco
Park Way extension, where such works would be completed by the Township of
Southgate, or a contractor working on their behalf;
3. That staff be authorized to enter into a temporary access agreement for any of the four
(4) crossings, should it be necessary, ahead of the conveyance of the lands to the
Township of Southgate; and
4. That staff be authorized to carry out the above prior to County Council approval as per
Section 26.6(b) of Procedural By-law 5134-22.”
Staff report PDR-CW-15-25 has been linked to in the Attachments section of this report.
Since the February 2025 staff report, the two road crossing land transfers in the north end of
Dundalk between two draft approved plans of subdivision (known as Glenelg phase 2 and
phase 3) have been completed. These two transfers have helped support the construction of the
new elementary school in Dundalk.
The proposed lowering of a section of the CP Rail Trail referred to in 2.b. of the above staff
recommendation is no longer needed, and as such this portion will not be included in a future
agreement between the Township and the County.
The two road crossing transfers in the south end of Dundalk to facilitate the Eco Park Way
extension have not been completed yet, but are getting close to completion. Based on further
discussions with Southgate, an easement has been requested to run a watermain extension
along a section of the CP Rail Trail in the south end of Dundalk. This watermain would not
impact the operations of the trail. Section 8.8 of the County official plan states the following as it
pertains to the CP Rail Trail.
“Utilizing the CP Rail Trail corridor will be considered for extension of broader public based
services such as water and sewer services as well as the extension of utilities (e.g.,
broadband/fibre).”
Servicing extension easements have been granted in other parts of the County along the CP
Rail Trail. If supported by Council, County staff will work with the Township to ensure that the
watermain extension does not impact the long-term operations of the trail, or the ability to
restore rail services in the future, if feasible.
The lands subject to the watermain easement are described as Part of Lot 232, 233, 234, 235
and 236, geographic Township of Proton, being that portion of PIN 37268-0610 East of Part 1,
Plan 16R-10743 extending easterly along the PIN 37268-0610 to the Western limit of Part 22,
Plan 16R-11871; Township of Southgate, County of Grey.
Staff are recommending that the County continue to proceed with the two southerly crossing
land transfers, as previously authorized by report PDR-CW-15-25, and also include the
watermain easement in the agreement between the Township and County. Should the staff
PDR-CW-31-26 2 July 23, 2026
recommendation be supported, staff will prepare the agreement, and a by-law to enact the
agreement will be presented at a subsequent County Council meeting.
The general location of the proposed crossings and watermain extension in relation to the CP
Rail Trail Corridor are depicted on Map 1 below as follows:
The CP Rail Trail Corridor is shown in blue.
The Eco Parkway Extension and general locations of the crossings are shown in purple.
The general location of the proposed Watermain Easement is shown as a red dashed
line.
Map 1: Airphoto of the CP Rail Trail, Proposed Easement and
Road Crossings
Legislated Requirements
There are numerous pieces of legislation that impact matters covered in this report,
including the Environmental Assessment Act, Highway Traffic Act, Municipal Act,
Ontario Trails Act, and Planning Act.
Financial and Resource Implications
There are no additional Financial and Resource implications beyond those already covered in
report PDR-CW-15-25.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal: Legal Services and Planning
☒ External: Township of Southgate
PDR-CW-31-26 3 July 23, 2026
Appendices and Attachments
PDR-CW-15-25 CP Rail Trail Crossings in Dundalk
PDR-CW-31-26 4 July 23, 2026
6.h PDR-CW-32-26 Active Ontario Land Tribunal List
Attachment: Active Ontario Land Tribunal File List - PDR-CW-32-26.pdf Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10373 Committee Report To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council Committee Date: July 23, 2026 Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-32-26 Title: Active Ontario Land Tribunal File List Prepared by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning Reviewed by: Randy Scherzer, CAO Lower Tier(s) Affected: All municipalities in Grey County with active County appeals Recommendation 1.
Updates on Active Ontario Land Tribunal Files Including New Appeal
The report updates Council on active Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) appeals in Grey County, specifically a new appeal regarding the subdivision at 263 & 269 Toronto Street South and a disposition received for The Blue Mountains' request to review the Thornbury Acres decision. Staff are preparing OLT packages for the recent subdivisions while noting that municipal or NEC appeals without County involvement remain excluded from this list.
Attachment: Active Ontario Land Tribunal File List - PDR-CW-32-26.pdf
Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10373
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: July 23, 2026
Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-32-26
Title: Active Ontario Land Tribunal File List
Prepared by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
Reviewed by: Randy Scherzer, CAO
Lower Tier(s) Affected: All municipalities in Grey County with active County appeals
Recommendation
1. That report PDR-CW-32-26 regarding the active Ontario Land Tribunal File List, be
received for information purposes.
Executive Summary
Development applications or policy updates in Grey County sometimes get appealed to the
Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT), or occasionally the County appeals a decision to the OLT. When
there are new appeals, updates on existing appeals, or decisions rendered by the OLT, County
staff provide updates to Council. This report contains a status update on a request for review
disposition by the OLT, as well as a new appeal submitted. The report does not list municipal or
Niagara Escarpment Commission appeals, where there is not a corresponding County
application, and the County is not involved as a party or participant.
Background and Discussion
The County tries to avoid appeals to the OLT by working with the public, developers,
municipalities, and other partners, to ensure that the County’s decisions are balanced and meet
all applicable planning legislation and policy. There are instances where development
applications or policy initiatives get appealed. When there are new appeals, decisions, or
updates on existing appeals, County staff provide updates to County Council. The purpose of
this report is to update Council on the status of the County’s appeals.
Since the last appeals update report, the County has received (1) a disposition on the Town of
The Blue Mountains’ request to have the Thornbury Acres OLT decision reviewed, and (2) a
new appeal on the 263 & 269 Toronto Street South subdivision in the Municipality of Grey
Highlands. More information on each of these files can be found in Appendix 1, which contains
a summary of the appeals in Grey before the OLT.
PDR-CW-32-26 1 July 23, 2026
Note that Appendix 1 above does not include any municipal or Niagara Escarpment
Commission (NEC) appeals which do not involve a County application, for which the County is
neither a party or a participant. The status of any OLT file can be found at the below link:
https://jus-olt-prod.powerappsportals.com/en/e-status/
County involvement and party status is in accordance with the guidelines established in Staff
Report PDR-PCD-08-13 which can be found at this link: PDR-PCD-08-13 Ontario Municipal
Board Attendance. The County’s party status listed in Appendix 1 is reflective of the guidelines
in the above-noted staff report but does not necessarily reflect further direction given to staff on
individual files based on closed session discussions with County Council.
Legislated Requirements
The above-noted appeals are processed and disposed of in accordance with the Planning Act
and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.
Financial and Resource Implications
Specific financial and resource implications are addressed as part of staff reports for each of the
above-noted appeals, rather than in the appeals update report.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal: CAO/Deputy CAO, Legal Services, and Planning
☒ External: Municipalities, and parties or participants to the appeals.
Appendices and Attachments
Appendix 1: Active Ontario Land Tribunal Appeals as of July 9, 2026
PDR-CW-32-26 2 July 23, 2026
Appendix 1: Active Ontario Land Tribunal Appeals as of July 9, 2026
Municipality File Name / County File Status / Links to Documents Consultants / Appellants / Parties County County
Number Type Groups Involvement or Staff
Involved Party Status Involved
Municipality 263 & 269 Plan of The proponent appealed the County’s non- Krystin Stonebrook Based on the Becky
of Grey Toronto Subdivision decision on a draft plan of subdivision, and the Rennie, Developments Inc. County’s hearing
Highlands Street South Municipality’s non-decision on the related zoning Georgian (appellant) attendance
Subdivision - by-law amendment. These appeals were just Planning Municipality of Grey guidelines, the
42T-2025- recently received, and staff are working to Highlands (party) County is a Party to
04, and prepare the OLT appeal packages to be the appeal.
County of Grey (party)
related submitted to the Tribunal. No OLT case
municipal management conferences or hearings have
zoning by- been scheduled yet.
law
amendment
Town of The Thornbury Plan of The proponent appealed non-decisions by the David McKay, Thornbury Acres Based on the Scott
Blue Acres / Condominium Town and the County on the zoning by-law MHBC Holdings Inc. County’s hearing
Mountains 42CDM- amendment, Town official plan amendment, and Planning (appellant) attendance
2022-11 and plan of condominium applications respectively. Town of The Blue guidelines, the
related Town An OLT decision was received on the official Mountains (party) County is a Party to
official plan plan and zoning by-law amendments and that the appeal.
County of Grey (party)
amendment decision can be found here: OLT Decision. The
and zoning Town filed a request for review of the OLT
by-law decision. A disposition has been rendered on the
amendment request for review, and a new hearing has been
ordered. The OLT’s disposition letter can be
found here: OLT Disposition Letter
PDR-CW-32-26 3 July 23, 2026
Municipality File Name / County File Status / Links to Documents Consultants / Appellants / Parties County County
Number Type Groups Involvement or Staff
Involved Party Status Involved
The related plan of condominium application
remains under appeal, and was not included in
the OLT decision / disposition.
Note that Table 1 above does not include any municipal or Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) appeals which do not involve a County application, for which the County is
neither a party or a participant. The status of any OLT file can be found at the below link: https://jus-olt-prod.powerappsportals.com/en/e-status/
PDR-CW-32-26 4 July 23, 2026
7.a FR-CW-17-26 Financing Paramedic Services Bases in Durham and Feversham
Attachment: Financing for Paramedic Services Bases in Feversham and Durham - FR-CW-17-26.pdf Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10374 Committee Report To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council Committee Date: July 23, 2026 Subject / Report No: FR-CW-17-26 Title: Financing Paramedic Services Bases in Durham and Feversham Prepared by: Garrett Reed, Interim Deputy Treasurer Reviewed by: Sue Murray, Interim Treasurer Lower Tier(s) Affected: None Recommendation 1.
Financing for Paramedic Services Bases in Durham and Feversham
Staff recommend a by-law to borrow $4.4 million from Infrastructure Ontario over 20 years for the Durham and Feversham Paramedic Bases. The loan covers remaining costs after applying previous year funding of $361,900 and current year contributions totaling $362,600 against expected project costs of approximately $5.14 million.
Attachment: Financing for Paramedic Services Bases in Feversham and Durham - FR-CW-17-26.pdf
Source: https://pub-grey.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10374
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: July 23, 2026
Subject / Report No: FR-CW-17-26
Title: Financing Paramedic Services Bases in Durham and
Feversham
Prepared by: Garrett Reed, Interim Deputy Treasurer
Reviewed by: Sue Murray, Interim Treasurer
Lower Tier(s) Affected: None
Recommendation
1. That report FR-CW-17-26 Financing for Paramedic Services Bases in Durham and
Feversham be received; and
2. That staff bring forward a by-law as necessary to apply to Infrastructure Ontario to
borrow up to $4.4 million over 20 years to fund the construction of the Paramedic
Bases in Durham and Feversham.
Executive Summary
Based on updated project costing and after taking into consideration current year and previous
year funding contributions, it is expected that a $4.4 million loan will be required to finance the
Durham and Feversham Paramedic Base capital projects. Staff have discussed a loan
application with Infrastructure Ontario, to proceed with the application being considered by the
board, a borrowing by-law is required. This report provides staff with the direction to start the
application process and bring back the by-law to council.
Staff are recommending a loan for 20-year amortization period that would commence when the
projects are completed and final invoices are received. Budgets for these debentures were
included in the 2026-2035 10-year capital forecast. Final amounts will depend on the interest
rates at the time the loans are drawn but staff anticipate existing budgets will be sufficient to
cover the annual debt costs.
Background and Discussion
Infrastructure Ontario has recommended that a joint application be completed for these two
projects. Separate draws can be made on the application once the individual projects are
substantially completed.
FR-CW-17-26 1 July 23, 2026
The new Paramedic base in Durham was awarded to Domm Construction through PSR-CW-10-
24 with an anticipated total project cost of $2,933,000. Construction was substantially completed
in September of 2025 and is now in use but there were some final items needing completion.
Staff are reviewing final invoices and anticipate total project costs to be approximately $2.75
million. Savings were found in project contingency allowances, professional fees and site
servicing costs.
The new Paramedic base in Feversham was awarded to Domm Construction through PSR-CW-
06-25 with an anticipated total project cost of $2,392,900. Construction is underway and staff
anticipate the project will be within budget with substantial completion in late 2026 but final
invoices could come in 2027.
Legislated Requirements
Long-term borrowing by law must be enacted in accordance with the provisions of Part XIII of
the Municipal Act, 2001 (Debt and Investment).
Financial and Resource Implications
The County has typically not utilized external financing for projects of this scale and instead
would borrow internally against other reserves. However, staff are recommending that external
financing be used for these bases as the interest cost is an eligible expense for 50/50 ministry
funding. This means the County will continue to earn interest on its funds held in reserve but
only have to pay 50% of the borrowing costs of its loans. Resulting in higher net return on
investment vs borrowing cost. If the loans are financed internally then the expenditure is not
eligible for funding.
The chart below outlines the total funding required to be borrowed for the two projects based on
expected final project costs.
Durham Feversham Total
Expected Project Costs $2,750,000 $2,392,900 $5,142,900
Less: Previous Year County Funding ($361,900) $0 ($361,900)
Less: 2026 County Funding ($192,800) ($169,800) ($362,600)
Amount Required to Borrow $2,195,300 $2,223,100 $4,418,400
The 2026-2035 10 year capital forecast included a budget of $192,800 for the Durham Base
Debenture and $169,800 for Feversham base for a total budget of $362,600. These payments
were calculated based on full project costs with a 25-year mortgage at 5%. Lower project costs
and borrowing rates have resulted in lower expected annual payments. The chart below
summarizes the current rates being offered by Infrastructure Ontario and the calculated
payments that would be required based on term chosen.
Term 30 Years 25 Years 20 Years 15 Years
FR-CW-17-26 2 July 23, 2026
Rate as of 07/13/2026 4.92% 4.83% 4.65% 4.35%
Annual Payment $284,500 $307,900 $343,800 $406,800
Total payments $8,535,000 $7,697,500 $6,876,000 $6,102,000
Based on the current rates and current project budgets, staff are recommending that the term of
the debenture be 20 years. The anticipated payment is lower than current budgeted amounts by
$18,800 and will save an anticipated $821,500 over the term of the loan compared to a 25-year
term.
The Municipal Act, 2001 as amended, provides the authority, and imposes restrictions regarding
a municipality’s ability to incur debt such that the annual principal and interest payments do not
exceed 25% of own source revenue. The 2026 ARL estimated annual repayment ceiling is
$24,196,957. However, the County’s internal policy sets the annual repayment limit at 10% of
own source revenues or $9,838,782.
Currently Rockwood Terrace has a planned debenture payment of $3.6 million with dedicated
provincial funding of $1.9 million annually to offset these costs. Meaning it is expected to utilize
$1.7 million of the ARL. When combined with debentures proposed in this report, Grey County
would be using approximately $2.05 million of its ARL, meaning there would be $7.79 million of
additional internally set ARL room available for any future projects.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal (Paramedic Services)
☒ External (Infrastructure Ontario)
Appendices and Attachments
None.
FR-CW-17-26 3 July 23, 2026