Full Transcript
1 Call to Order
The meeting was called to order.
Agenda item 1: Call to Order
2 Declaration of Interest
Agenda item 2 was a Declaration of Interest.
Agenda item 2: Declaration of Interest
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
2.
Declaration of Interest
3 Business Arising from Minutes
The agenda lists Business Arising from Minutes as item 3 without recording a specific disposition in this excerpt.
Agenda item 3: Business Arising from Minutes
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
3.
Business Arising from Minutes
4 Delegations
The agenda lists an item regarding delegations.
Agenda item 4: Delegations
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
4.
Delegations
4.a Stephen Barclay - Entrance Permit Refusal on Grey Road 1
Stephen Barclay requested a final determination on entrance permit applications for three properties fronting on Grey Road 1, which have been pending for years. The applicant argued that the refusal was based solely on private access from above and that no site-specific engineering deficiency has ever been identified despite repeated requests. Correspondence indicates that staff have had multiple opportunities to state a specific deficiency but have not done so, leading the applicant to ask the Committee to direct that the entrance permits be issued. Barclay also requested clarification on why he cannot legally access Lot 27 from Grey Road 1 and asked who requested Fire Number #504328. The municipality of Georgian Bluffs is responsible for issuing fire numbers, not the county. A previous application for an entrance permit was rejected because the proposed location was deemed a private road rather than a public one. Barclay argued that the entrance has existed for over 40 years and should grandfather in, requesting a refund of any paid fees. Steve Barclay stated that he attached an entrance permit form to his email because Planning indicated a permit is required before applying for a building permit on his Big Bay Estates lot.
Stephen Barclay Requests Final Determination on Entrance Permits
Stephen Barclay requested a final determination on entrance permit applications for three properties fronting on Grey Road 1, noting that these applications have been pending for years. The applicant stated that the only reason given for refusal is that the properties have private access from above, which depends on the Grey Road 1 entrance he maintains. He argued that no site-specific engineering deficiency has ever been identified despite repeated written requests and that fire number 504328 was issued for an exact same entrance to a property that does not front on Grey Road 1. The email correspondence indicates that staff have had multiple opportunities to state a specific deficiency but have not done so, leading the applicant to ask the Committee to direct that the entrance permits be issued.
Barclay Requests Access Clarification and Fire Number
Steve Barclay requested clarification on why he cannot legally access Lot 27 from Grey Road 1 and asked who requested Fire Number #504328. The email correspondence indicates that the municipality of Georgian Bluffs is responsible for issuing fire numbers, not the county. A previous application for an entrance permit was rejected because the proposed location was deemed a private road rather than a public one. Barclay argued that the entrance has existed for over 40 years and should grandfather in, requesting a refund of any paid fees.
Steve Barclay Stated That He Attached an Entrance Permit Form
Steve Barclay stated that he attached an entrance permit form to his email because Planning indicated a permit is required before applying for a building permit on his Big Bay Estates lot. The correspondence notes the entrance was constructed in 1972 and has been used since then. Jacquelyn Morrison, Solicitor, sent an email dated 2026-02-02 stating that access via deeded private road does not meet Entrance Permit Policy requirements and an application to Grey Road 1 was declined. Steve Barclay replied that his lot has direct frontage on Grey Road 1 and requested written reasons for the refusal, including specific reference to any policy or technical standard.
1972 Right-of-way Agreement for Keppel Estates
A right-of-way agreement dated January 28, 1972, was executed between the Township of Keppel and private parties James Hutchison, Glen Beattie, Frederick G. MacKay, Donald M. McKerroll, and Lorek Enterprises Limited. The Township granted a right-of-way for persons, animals, and vehicles across specific lands in Colpoy's Range from Development Road to the top of a hill. The agreement stipulated that the private parties would construct and maintain any roadways or fences at their own expense until the Township declared the land a public highway. Upon such declaration, the private parties' obligations would cease, and the Township would assume responsibility for maintenance.
Excerpt Contains Two Affidavits of Execution for Documents Dated March 10, 1972
The excerpt contains two affidavits of execution for documents dated March 10, 1972, and April 12, 1972. The first affidavit is sworn by Vivian Prus in Toronto regarding a document executed by Frederick G. MacKay. The second affidavit is sworn by Jeanette Jennings in Owen Sound regarding documents executed by James Hutchinson, Glen Beattie, and Donald M. McKerroll.
Certified Right-of-way Agreement No. 129543 Dated January 28, 1972, Was Registered
A certified Right-of-Way Agreement No. 129543 dated January 28, 1972, was registered in the Registry Office at Owen Sound, Ontario.
Agenda item 4.a: Stephen Barclay - Entrance Permit Refusal on Grey Road 1
---
Attachment: Request to Council Email.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/c112d7d014d1bb2787dede3e7b0efe19ea0af1851c22fd90d75345214a12b5b9/4-a-1-request-to-council-email-pdf.pdf
From:
Sent: Friday, 16 October 2026 10:40:11
To: Tara Warder <Tara.Warder@grey.ca>
Cc: Pat Hoy <Pat.Hoy@grey.ca>; Rayburn Murray <Rayburn.Murray@grey.ca>
Subject: Re: Request to Appear as Delegation – Entrance Permits Grey Road 1 – Stephen Barclay
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
-----------------
Warden and Members of Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. This matter should have been resolved by staff without the
need for a delegation. I am requesting a final determination on entrance-permit applications for three
properties fronting on or accessed from Grey Road 1:
Roll 420362000835612 (same entrance already used by fire number 504328)
Roll 420362000841227 (lower plateau)
Roll 420362000841251 (lower plateau)
These applications have been before the County for years. The only reason given for refusal has been
that the properties have “private access from above.” That private access itself depends on the Grey
Road 1 entrance I maintain. No site-specific engineering deficiency has ever been identified, despite
repeated written requests.
Fire number 504328 was issued for the exact same entrance to a property that does not front on Grey
Road 1. Nearby properties on the same side of the road (504678, 504688, 504696, and 504726) have
also received fire numbers and, in some cases, houses. No explanation has been given for the difference.
I have asked, in writing, for the specific deficiencies that prevent these permits. The responses received,
including from County legal counsel, did not identify any. A reply that restates the private-access
position without addressing the request for specific engineering or policy deficiencies is not a proper
response to the application.
Staff have had multiple opportunities to state a specific deficiency and have not done so. I am therefore
asking this Committee to direct that the entrance permits be issued.
If a specific deficiency exists that distinguishes these lots from the entrance already numbered 504328
and from the nearby approved entrances, staff should be required to state it on the record today. In the
absence of any such deficiency, the permits should be issued and the matter closed.
I am prepared to answer questions.
Thank you.
---
Attachment: A2021117 Entrance Map.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/80090d7bb2c9d3c82faaeb3e588450ab4956b1bbfed344f9ae18a6296cfd43f4/4-a-2-a2021117-entrance-map-pdf.pdf
Legend
Map Title Grey County Boundary
Large Scale Roads
Provincial Highway
County Road
Township Road
Seasonal Road
Parcels - Current
Parcels - Base
0.
2221446691
44812
Notes
0 0 0 0 Kilometers
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.
Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
© County of Grey Printed:October 12, 2021 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
---
Attachment: 504328_entrance_from_greyrd1.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/c10b28b1b15d3a2e8726e96721bfb720e35072f3ebcafbf55cb67c296c494dfd/4-a-6-504328-entrance-from-greyrd1-pdf.pdf
504328 Grey Rd 1
504328 Grey Rd 1
Directions Save Nearby Send to phone Share
504328 Grey Rd 1, Wiarton, ON NOH 2TO, Canada
Confirm or fix this location The location shown is not precise
Suggest an edit on 504328 Grey Rd 1
Add a missing place
504325 Grey Rd 1 Georgian Bluffs, Ontario Google Street View Jul 2024 See more dates Share X
Google Maps
---
Attachment: 504328_entrance_landlocked_does_not_front_one_Greyrd1.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/73e3dadfc32299f4b8b28b61249b6b9f5d0df5ccf6e30a2b93a75464e932f379/4-a-7-504328-entrance-landlocked-does-not-front-one-greyrd1-pdf.pdf
GIS – Fire number 504328 (ARN 420362000835200) – property does not front on Grey Road 1
Does not abut
Grey Road 1
LOT 42, CON COLPOY RANGE
79.6 ha
LOT 43, CON COLPOY RANGE
85.3 ha
LOT 44, CON COLPOY
81.8 ha
County GIS screenshot. Not a survey.
< >
1 of
Assessment Parcel:
420362000835200
Zoom to
Primary Address: 504328 Grey Road 1
ARN
420362000835200
ARN (19)
4203620008352000000
Primary Address
504328 Grey Road 1
Municipality
Georgian Bluffs
Property Use
Managed forest property,
---
Attachment: 504328_grey_county_gis_map_shows_504328_with_no_greyrd1_direct_access.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/af6e808b41e03d78e048b55e66d389bff503a7d945f1efd1b0643e872487f2bd/4-a-8-504328-grey-county-gis-map-shows-504328-with-no-greyrd1-direct-access-pdf.pdf
< >
1 of .
Assessment Parcel:
420362000835200
Zoom to
Primary Address: 504328 Grey Road 1
ARN
420362000835200
ARN (19)
4203620008352000000
Primary Address
504328 Grey Road 1
Municipality
Georgian Bluffs
Property Use
Managed forest property,
LOT 42, CON COLPOY RANGE
79.6 ha
LOT 43, CON COLPOY RANGE
85.3 ha
LOT 44, CON COLPOY
81.8 ha
Grey Rd 1
Grey Rd 1
---
Attachment: 504328photoentrance.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/c7b0b0c1e40b05cfcd93e55981c2f270b0035effd949d69b5a25362369f49e1e/4-a-9-504328photoentrance-pdf.pdf
Fire number 504328
Existing entrance from Grey Road 1 – continuous use since at least 1972
504328
---
Attachment: 504328GreyRd1_overview.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/89028bdcb2aebf463550cf54995bc43b1285c35d9d62da6b250ec872c797d65c/4-a-10-504328greyrd1-overview-pdf.pdf
Google Maps
504328 Grey Rd 1
Restaurants Hotels Things to do Transit Parking Ph >
sk Maps
Saved
Recents
Georgian Bluffs &..
View more
Get app
504328 Grey Rd 1
Directions Save Nearby Send to phone Share
504328 Grey Rd 1, Wiarton, ON NOH 2TO, Canada
Confirm or fix this location
The location shown is not precise
Suggest an edit on 504328 Grey Rd 1
Add a missing place
Layers
Google Maps
---
Attachment: Emails1_Redacted.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/24da309649db0718c1f390c4b91146172a72117be2bda0a6ac9b9acb7c087dcd/4-a-11-emails1-redacted-pdf.pdf
RE: Pat - Re: FW: Big Bay Estates
From Pat Hoy <pat.hoy@grey.ca>
To
Cc Group: TS General Inquiries <roads@grey.ca>
Date 2026-01-07 13:49
Steve,
As per our previous discussions, we will not be issuing an entrance permit for your property on Grey Road 1.
Pat Hoy, P. Eng.
Director, Transportation Services
County of Grey
Phone: +1-800-567-4739
pat.hoy@grey.ca
https://www.grey.ca
From:
Sent: December 30, 2025 11:49 AM
To: Pat Hoy <pat.hoy@grey.ca>
Subject: Re: Pat - Re: FW: Big Bay Estates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Pat,
I want to access my property #420362000841227 from Grey rd 1. There is a lower plateau area that I need access to and Grey rd 1 is the only safe
way to access it. Please let me know what is required for the entrance permit. I must be legally able to access my property and Grey rd 1 is the only
way to access the lower section of lot 27.
Thanks,
Steve Barclay
On 2024-08-16 09:57, Pat Hoy wrote:
I haven't contacted Georgian Bluffs yet, so maybe you'd be better off doing that. The request came from them.
As far as access, there were never any lot entrances approved from Grey Road 1 and the access was to be from the service road. It really isn't on us that
the developer never built the access properly for whatever reason.
Pat Hoy
Director of Transportation Services
Phone: +1 548-877-0890
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 9:19 AM
To: Pat Hoy <pat.hoy@grey.ca>
Subject: Fwd: Pat - Re: FW: Big Bay Estates
Importance: High
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Pat,
Hope you had a nice holiday. If you could let me know why I can't legally access lot 27 from Grey rd 1 that would be great. Also if you could let me
know who requested fire #504328 and why?
Thanks,
Steve Barclay
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:Pat - Re: FW: Big Bay Estates
Date:2024-07-26 12:28
From:
To:Pat Hoy <pat.hoy@grey.ca>
Hi Pat,
I wanted to know who from Georgian Bluffs requested fire #504328 and why.
I also am wondering why I am unable to get an entrance permit for roll#420362000841227.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Steve Barclay
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:Re: FW: Big Bay Estates
Date:2024-07-22 11:03
From:
To:Pat Hoy <pat.hoy@grey.ca>
Hi Pat,
Roll##420362000841227
I need to access that part of my property. Why am I unable to legally access my property via Grey rd 1? Many other properties
are. I shouldn't have to present anything other than a filled out entrance permit. I must be legally allowed to access my
property via that road if that is the only safe access. Why are these lots any different. Can you forward the info/rule that
states that these lots are restricted from accessing Grey rd 1. I don't think property owners were ever notified about that
rule.
Sincerely,
Steve
On 2024-07-22 10:45, Pat Hoy wrote:
Steve,
Please forward the full roll number for 'lot 27' so we can look the
property up on our GIS. We will not be issuing an entrance permit for
the property. I will be looking into this in greater detail and you
can always make a request to present the issue to the committee of the
whole.
Pat Hoy
Director of Transportation Services
Phone: +1 548-877-0890
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:19 AM
To: Pat Hoy <pat.hoy@grey.ca>
Subject: Re: FW: Big Bay Estates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Pat,
Thanks for getting back to me. Who at Georgian Bluffs requested the
fire number be issued?
Regarding the entrance for lot 27, I must be legally allowed to access
a property if the only safe way is via a county road. Please issue an
entrance permit for lot 27 as I would like to access the lower
section.
We can consider the access road at the top the main entrance but I
should still be able to access the lower section with a 2nd entrance
onto the lot.
Sincerely,
Steve Barclay
On 2024-07-22 09:55, Pat Hoy wrote:
Steve,
Regarding our earlier conversation, it is my understanding that the
County was asked by Georgian Bluffs to issue a fire number for the
property in question. That's all I know about the situation.
As previously discussed about the access off Grey Road 1 for your lot,
I will work on getting you a more thorough answer. But the access
from these lots was always intended to be the access road and not
directly off Grey Road 1.
I'll be back in touch at some point in the future with more background
in my answer.
Pat Hoy
Director of Transportation Services
Phone: +1 548-877-0890
-----Original Message-----
From: Grey County <webmaster@grey.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:12 AM
To: Pat Hoy <pat.hoy@grey.ca>
Subject: Big Bay Estates
Name: Steve Barclay
Email:
Message: Hi Pat,
Great speaking with you. I would like to know how/why fire #504328 was
issued and I also need an entrance permit issued for one of the lots
off Grey rd 1 as it has a lower plateau area I want to access.
Roll##420362000841227.
Thanks,
Steve Barclay
---
Attachment: Emails3_Redacted.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/11b4fad917ee7ee27d3e19d7a4ad9717f9c8aa546fe975a94af2e7be04006005/4-a-12-emails3-redacted-pdf.pdf
RE: Entrance Permit A202117 Grey Road 1 Georgian Bluffs S Barclay
From Paige Cutting <Paige.Cutting@grey.ca>
To
Date 2021-10-27 09:02
Good morning,
The municipality of Georgian Bluffs would the one to issue fire number for you.
Paige Cutting
Accounting/Administrative Support Clerk
Phone: +1 519-376-2205
From:
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 4:45 PM
To: Paige Cutting <Paige.Cutting@grey.ca>
Subject: Re: Entrance Permit A202117 Grey Road 1 Georgian Bluffs S Barclay
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Paige,
The entrance has been there for over 40 years so the entrance grandfathers in. A fee is probably not applicable. Can you issue a fire number so I can
have that placed at the entrance.
Thanks,
Steve Barclay
On 2021-10-22 16:23, Paige Cutting wrote:
Hi Steve,
I am following up in regards to the entrance permit that you applied for.
Unfortunantly for the location you are proposing we cannot issue a permit for a private road. I realize you have already paid the entrance fee, therefore I
will process a refund cheque to be sent back to you.
Regards,
Paige Cutting
Accounting/Administrative Support Clerk
Phone: +1 519-376-2205
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:12 AM
To: Paige Cutting <Paige.Cutting@grey.ca>
Subject: Re: Entrance Permit A202117 Grey Road 1 Georgian Bluffs S Barclay
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Paige,
I have attached the agreement to this email. Thanks very much.
Steve.
On 2021-10-13 09:55, Paige Cutting wrote:
Good morning,
Are you able to send that registered agreement again? I don't see that I have it. I think it would be good to add to the permit file.
Thanks,
Paige Cutting
Accounting/Administrative Support Clerk
Phone: +1 519-376-2205
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 7:56 PM
To: Paige Cutting <Paige.Cutting@grey.ca>
Subject: Re: Entrance Permit A202117 Grey Road 1 Georgian Bluffs S Barclay
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Paige,
Yes that entrance/laneway is for access to the upper level of the lot. My lot extends down to Grey Rd 1 but the entrance has been via that existing
laneway up the hill. There is a registered agreement allowing access via this entrance. I forwarded a copy of it to your office on one of my last
emails. The Town of Keppel and lot owners came to an agreement regarding access for the lots. Let me know if you need anything else. Entrance
has been there for 40+ years and has been used without interruption.
Sincerely,
Steve Barclay
On 2021-10-12 16:11, Paige Cutting wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Please see attached map. The map shows the subject lot and the entrance on the adjacent lot that you are using to access. Is this correct? We just want
to confirm.
Thank you,
Paige Cutting
Accounting/Administrative Support Clerk
Phone: +1 519-376-2205
From:
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 2:23 PM
To: Paige Cutting <Paige.Cutting@grey.ca>
Subject: Re: Entrance Permit A202117 Grey Road 1 Georgian Bluffs S Barclay
Importance: High
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Paige,
I just saw this email and paid the fee. The entrance is already in. It has been there for 40+years so I don't know if it needed to be paid for but
whatever works. :) The Town just told me I needed an entrance permit as I am guessing there wasn't one taken out when the entrance was
originally put in 40+years ago or they didn't require it at that time?
I won't be doing any work at entrance so I won't be taking out insurance.
Let me know if you need anything else. Can you forward a copy of permit so I can forward to Town?
Thanks,
Steve Barclay
On 2021-09-16 12:07, Paige Cutting wrote:
Hi Steve,
Application has been received, thank you. I have included the payment link for you below. Please also note we will need a sketch done to the best of
your ability for the entrance and also a copy of the insurance certificate. You can send these back directly to me.
A202117
https://payments.grey.ca/index.php?page precharge&link d87967aa-1707-11ec-91ec-005056aebc81
Thanks,
Paige Cutting
Accounting/Administrative Support Clerk
Phone: +1 519-376-2205
From:
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 1:38 PM
To: Group: TS General Inquiries <roads@grey.ca>
Subject: Entrance permit Big Bay Estates
Importance: High
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hello,
I have attached the entrance permit form to this email. Jenn at planning said I need an entrance permit before I can apply for building permit on
my lot in Big Bay Estates. The entrance was constructed in 1972 and has been used since then. Let me know if you need any more information.
RANGE COLPOY'S PT LOT 43 RP;16R70 PART 12
Roll Number: 420362000835612
Sincerely,
Steve Barclay
---
Attachment: Emails4_Redacted.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/3c8a13420ce27b515ce004c5d30679a2370cdb7ad024ff265495cd7aeabe1941/4-a-13-emails4-redacted-pdf.pdf
RE: Z07/24 – FINAL DEMAND – BIG BAY COTTAGE APPLICATION (roll 420362000835612)
From Jacquelyn Morrison <Jacquelyn.Morrison@grey.ca>
To [Redacted]
Cc Becky Hillyer <Becky.Hillyer@grey.ca>, Scott Taylor <Scott.Taylor@grey.ca>, Pat Hoy <Pat.Hoy@grey.ca>
Date 2026-02-02 16:05
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Good afternoon, Steve Barclay.
It is our understanding that your planning matter is currently before the OLT.
As you are aware, access to your property is established by deeded access through a private access road. Given that your property has access and does not meet the requirements of the County's Entrance Permit Policy, an entrance permit authorizing access directly from your property to Grey Road 1 was declined.
Regards,
Jacquelyn Morrison
Solicitor
Phone: +1 548-877-0821
Grey County
Colour It Your Way
From: [Redacted]
Sent: January 19, 2026 1:54 PM
To: Jacquelyn Morrison <Jacquelyn.Morrison@grey.ca>
Cc: Becky Hillyer <Becky.Hillyer@grey.ca>; Scott Taylor <Scott.Taylor@grey.ca>; Pat Hoy <Pat.Hoy@grey.ca>
Subject: Re: Z07/24 – FINAL DEMAND – BIG BAY COTTAGE APPLICATION (roll 420362000835612)
Importance: High
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Jacquelyn,
Thank you for your response.
For clarity, my lot has direct frontage on Grey Road 1, and the proposed entrance is the only safe and feasible access to the lower section of the property.
The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement require safe vehicular access for development on existing lots of record (Planning Act s.51(24); PPS 2024 Policy 1.6.7.1). Grey County has previously issued entrance permits on the same public road to properties that don't even front onto Grey rd 1. (e.g., permit 504328.)
Please provide written reasons for the refusal, including specific reference to any policy or technical standard that cannot be met.
Regards,
Steve Barclay
On 2025-11-28 09:20, Jacquelyn Morrison wrote:
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dear Steve Barclay,
The County is in receipt of your email dated November 21, 2025.
We understand that it relates to Z07/24, being a zoning by-law amendment application that you have submitted to the Township of Georgian
Bluffs (the "Township"). The County previously provided the Township with comments related to the same. It is our understanding that the
Township has requested further information from you regarding the application.
As the Township is the approval authority for your zoning by-law amendment application, we encourage you to continue working directly with
the Township to address any outstanding requirements.
Finally, the County does not agree to either Option A or Option B as outlined in your email. The County does not agree to grant an entrance
permit for the property directly onto Grey Road 1.
Regards,
Jacquelyn Morrison
Solicitor
Phone: +1 548-877-0821
From:
Sent: November 21, 2025 7:53 PM
To: Pat Hoy <pat.hoy@grey.ca>; Transportation Services <transportation@grey.ca>; kevin.wingrove@grey.ca; heather.morrison@grey.ca; sharon.vokes@grey.ca;
hyule@waterloolegal.ca
Subject: Z07/24 – FINAL DEMAND – BIG BAY COTTAGE APPLICATION (roll 420362000835612)
Importance: High
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Grey County Staff and Council,
For clarity, the final demand letter sent earlier today to the Township of Georgian Bluffs is also directed to Grey County as
joint approval authority and road authority.
The same deadline applies: written acceptance of Option A or Option B is required by **Friday November 28, 2025 at 5:00 PM**.
Failure to accept by that date will result in an OLT appeal filed **Monday December 1, 2025 at 9:00 AM** seeking costs of
**$3,200,000+ (joint and several)**.
The original letter is below.
Thank you.
Steve Barclay
Lawyer: Harley Yule hyule@waterloolegal.ca
ORIGINAL LETTER SENT TO GEORGIAN BLUFFS TODAY
Council and Staff,
After twelve years of frustration, I demand approval of the zoning amendment for my cottage on roll 420362000835612.
YOU HAVE UNTIL FRIDAY NOVEMBER 28, 2025 at 5:00 PM TO REPLY IN WRITING ACCEPTING EITHER OPTION A OR OPTION B.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
1. August 13, 2008 – Motion COW-10/2008/08/13 declared "no support for any development on Big Bay Estates" → Unenforceable
under Bill 23 s.34(1.0.1).
2. December 13, 2022 – Five current Councillors (Carleton, Pringle, Moore-Coburn, Winters, Day) received Report PB-2022-84
stating "refusal of PD lots would trigger OLT appeals with significant cost exposure" → No action taken for three years. Since
that 2022 warning, the Township has rezoned zero (0) Planned Development lots to residential and has issued zero (0) building
permits on any PD lot anywhere in Georgian Bluffs.
3. May 5, 2025 – Township confirmed the original intent was residential purposes → DEV2025-069 confirms full feasibility.
4. November 29, 2024 – Staff wrote they were "awaiting confirmation on the ownership of the entrance road" → The 1972
Agreement is registered on the Township's own deeds.
5. Grey County issued entrance permit 504328 to a non-fronting lot using the same private road but refused mine → Second
refusal for Lot 27 with direct Grey Road 1 access.
6. Administration refused to accept my revised application for processing.
7. I have spent $15,000 maintaining the private road – 20 % of which is owned by the Township.
FINAL DEMAND – WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE REQUIRED BY FRIDAY NOVEMBER 28, 2025, 5:00 PM
OPTION A (PREFERRED)
1. Adopt Z07/24 for roll 420362000835612 exactly as "Zoned Shoreline Residential (SR)"
2. Issue entrance permit for roll 420362000835612
3. Pay $1,000,000 cash
4. Transfer title to all Township-owned Big Bay Estates lots (ends conflict of interest)
OPTION B
1. Adopt Z07/24 for roll 420362000835612 exactly as "Zoned Shoreline Residential (SR)"
2. Issue entrance permit for roll 420362000835612
3. Pay $1,420,000 cash
IF NO WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE BY 5:00 PM FRIDAY NOVEMBER 28, 2025
→ OLT appeal will be filed Monday December 1, 2025 at 9:00 AM seeking costs of $3,200,000+ (joint and several) under OLT Rule
23.01 for unreasonable conduct.
Precedents already exceeded:
• North End v. Aurora + York (2025) – $1,420,000
• Lake Simcoe v. Oro-Medonte (2024) – $1,180,000
• River's Edge v. Niagara (2025) – $812,000
Option A is the best solution – it fully resolves the matter and immediately eliminates the Township's conflict of interest.
Steve Barclay
Roll 420362000835612
Lawyer: Harley Yule – hyule@waterloolegal.ca
---
Attachment: Big Bay estates 1972 agreement.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/993502203e08b1001ce7728b769516ed15902c2072e1063846a10282b5a91ae7/4-a-14-big-bay-estates-1972-agreement-pdf.pdf
DEC.17'2002 12:34 519 534 2409
ROGER M MORRIS
#1583 P.003/009
Re: Big Bay Estates
620 098 35000
8-356
RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made in triplicate the 28th day of January,
A. D. 1972;
B E T W E E N:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KEPPEL
Hereinafter called the "TOWNSHIP"
OF THE FIRST PART;
-and-
JAMES HUTCHISON., of the Township of
Keppel, in the County of Grey; and
GLEN BEATTIE, of the Township of
Sydenham, in the County of Grey;
Hereinafter called the "PARTIES"
OF THE SECOND PART;
-and-
FREDERICK G. MacKAY, of the City of
Toronto, in the County of York; and
DONALD M. McKERROLL, of the City of
Owen Sound, in the County of Grey;and
LOREK ENTERPRISES LIMITED
an Ontario Corporation having its
Head Office in the City of Owen Sound
in the County of Grey;
Hereinafter called the "PARTIES"
OF THE THIRD PART:
WHEREAS the Parties of the Second part and Frederick G. MacKay
one of the parties of the Third Part have conveyed the lands
hereinafter described to the Township for road purposes in
consideration of the Township granting to the Parties of the
Second and Third Parts their heirs and assigns a right-of-way
for all purposes in, over, along and upon the roadway presently
constructed across the said lands from the Development Road
to the top of the hill and the right to construct and use the
same as a roadway to service the Parties of the Second and
Third Parts owners of parts of Lots 42, 43, 44 and 45 and
Block "A", Colpoy's Range in said Township;
...2
DEC.17'2002 12:34 519 534 2409 ROGER M MORRIS #1583 P.004/009
2.
WITNESSETH that the Township does hereby grant to the Parties of the Second and Third parts, owners of parts of lots 42, 43, 44, 45 and Block "A" Colpoy's Range and their heirs, successors and assigns a right-of-way for all purposes for persons, animals and vehicles, in, over, along and upon the lands hereinafter more particularly described in Schedule "A" attached hereto and being -
From the Southerly limit of the Development Road as shown on sketch attached hereto to the lands of the Parties of the Second and Third parts adjacent thereto; until such time as the said Township declares the said lands or the roadway built thereover to be a public highway and opens the same for travel by the public and the Grantor further grants permission to the said Parties of the Second and Third parts to enter upon the said lands and to construct and build thereon such roadways for their own private use and such fences as the said Parties may desire at their own expense.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED by the Parties of the Second and Third parts that their uses of the lands hereafter shall be at their own risk, that the Township shall not be required to build or maintain any roadway or fences on said lands nor to repair or keep in repair any roadways or fences built thereon by the Parties of the Second and Third parts until such time as the said roadway is opened by the Township as a public highway.
IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the Township shall not be responsible to the Parties of the Second and Third Parts or their heirs or assigns or to any tenants, lessees or invitees of the said Parties for any loss, damage or injury of any kind that might occur on the said right-of-way or in any way connected with its use by the said Parties or persons herein referred to.
...3
DEC.17'2002 12:34 519 534 2409 ROGER M MORRIS #1583 P.005/009
3.
AND THE PARTIES of the Second and Third Parts further covenant and agree for themselves, their heirs and assigns that they will on notice from the Grantor and at their own expense do such work thereon as may be necessary to bring up to the requirements and specifications of the Grantor: any road constructed by them on the said lands before the Grantor assumes the same as a public roadway, it being understood that as soon as the Grantor assumes the same and opens the road as a public highway the obligations of the parties of the Second and Third parts and their heirs and assigns in respect of the roadway over the said lands shall cease.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals and the Corporations have affixed their corporate seals as attested by their duly authorized officers in that behalf.
SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED in the presence of:
Jeanette Jennings As to the signature of Frederick G. MacKay Miriam Prus Jeanette Jennings
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KEPPEL
Marie Williamson Peers
Lorne Carson
James Hutchinson
Glen Beattie
Frederick G. MacKay
Donald M. McKerroll
LOREK ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Louis J. Webster PRESIDENT
Jean L. Duran SEC
DEC.17'2002 12:35 519 534 2409 ROGER M MORRIS #1583 P.006/009
SCHEDULE "A"
(Being part of Lot 42, Colpoy's Range)
ALL AND SINGULAR:
THAT certain parcel or tract of land and premises situate, lying and being in the Township of Keppel, County of Grey being more particularly described as follows:
FIRSTLY:
PREMISING: that the Easterly limit of Lot 42 has a bearing of North 1 degree 33 minutes 00 seconds West and relating all bearings herein, thereto.
COMMENCING: at a point on the said easterly limit distant 220.39 feet measured South 1 degree 33 minutes 00 seconds East thereon from its intersection with the Southerly limit of the Keppel Township Development Road, according to Registered Plan No. 518, said point being 5926.28 feet measured Northerly along said Easterly limit from the southeast angle of Lot 42;
THENCE: South 1 degree 33 minutes 00 seconds East along said Easterly limit, a distance of 284.99 feet to the Southwesterly angle of Part 16, according to Plan R-70, filed in the North Grey Registry Office;
THENCE: South 59 degrees 29 minutes 00 seconds West along the production of the southerly limit of the said Part 16 a distance of 100.0 feet;
THENCE: North 16 degrees 56 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 260.84 feet to intersection with a line drawn from the point of commencement on a bearing of South 60 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds West;
THENCE: North 60 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds East along said line a distance of 176.87 feet to the point of commencement.
SECONDLY:
PREMISING: that the Easterly limit of said Lot has a bearing of North 1 degree 33 minutes 00 seconds West and relating all bearings herein, thereto.
COMMENCING: at a point on the said Easterly limit distant 220.39 feet measured South 1 degree 33 minutes 00 seconds East thereon from its intersection with the Southwesterly limit of the Keppel Township Development Road, said point being distant 5926.28 feet measured Northerly thereon from the Southeast angle of said Lot;
THENCE: South 60 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 176.87 feet;
THENCE: North 84 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds West a distance of 321.91 feet to the Southeasterly limit of said road;
THENCE: North 59 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds East along said Southeasterly limit a distance of 170.83 feet to intersection with a line drawn from the point of commencement on a bearing of North 84 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds West;
THENCE: South 84 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds East along said line a distance of 329.30 feet to the point of commencement.
DEC 17'2002 12:36 519 534 2409
ROGER M MORRIS
#1583 P.007/009
Newsome and Gilbert, Limited, Toronto
Form 98
AFFIDAVIT OF EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
CANADA
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
COUNTY YORK
To Wit:
I, VIVIAN PRUS
of the City of Toronto
in the County of York
make oath and say:
1. THAT I was personally present and did see the within Instrument and a duplicate duly signed, sealed and executed by Frederick G. MacKay one of the parties thereto.
2. THAT the said Instrument and duplicate were executed by the said party at the City of Toronto in the County of York
3. THAT I know the said party;
4. THAT I am a subscribing witness to the said Instrument and duplicate.
SWORN before me at the City of Toronto in the County of York this 10th day of March, 1972.
Vivian Prus
A Commissioner for taking Affidavits, &c.
CANADA
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
COUNTY GREY
To Wit:
I, Jeanette Jennings
of the City of Owen Sound in the County of Grey Secretary make oath and say:
1. THAT I was personally present and did see the within Instrument and a duplicate duly signed, sealed and executed by James Hutchinson, Glen Beattie and Donald M. McKerroll three of the parties thereto.
2. THAT the said Instrument and duplicate were executed by the said parties at the City of Owen Sound in the County of Grey
3. THAT I know the said parties;
4. THAT I am a subscribing witness to the said Instrument and duplicate.
SWORN before me at the City of Owen Sound in the County of Grey this 12th day of April 1972
Jeanette Jennings
Wallace T Murray for taking Affidavits, &c.
DEC.17'2002 12:36 519 534 2409 ROGER M MORRIS #1583 P.008/009 DATED 28 JANUARY, A.D. 1972 RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT No. 129543 Registry Division of Grey North (No. 16) I CERTIFY that this instrument is registered as cf 12:30 PM in the MAY 19 1972 Registry Office at Owen Sound, Ontario. D. Oumlan REGISTRAR CRAIG, MCKERROLL & MURRAY Barristers &c., 997 Second Avenue East, Owen Sound, Ontario.
of PART OF ID OF KEPPEL 1 INCH = 200 FEET GEORGIAN AUDREY SOI EDGE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION INST. 129543 RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT INST. 129543 EDGE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION 8-308-03 8-308-04 8-310 8-310-01 8-312 8-312 911.55'- (R.P. 518) 57229 129 518 519. 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51B 51
5 Determination of Items Requiring Separate Discussion
The agenda item listed Determination of Items Requiring Separate Discussion without recording any specific items, discussion, or decision in this excerpt.
Agenda item 5: Determination of Items Requiring Separate Discussion
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
5.
Determination of Items Requiring Separate Discussion
6 Consent Agenda
The Committee of the Whole moved to receive the Consent Agenda items, authorize staff actions for recommendations, and support correspondence for information.
Agenda item 6: Consent Agenda
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
6.
Consent Agenda
5
That the following Consent Agenda items be received; and
That staff be authorized to take the actions necessary to give effect to the
recommendations in the staff reports; and
That the correspondence be supported or received for information as
recommended in the consent agenda.
6.a Ministry of Energy and Mines - Update on the Provincially Funded Broadband Expansion
Agenda item 6.a: Ministry of Energy and Mines - Update on the Provincially Funded Broadband Expansion --- Attachment: Ministry of Energy Broadband Expansion Projects.pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/ddf910ebb9ede577b9aae218a68d11feb884b9ee6a9c7fce14e883dbd3055d62/6-a-1-ministry-of-energy-broadband-expansion-projects-pdf.pdf From: Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) <Energy@ontario.ca> Sent: September 25, 2026 5:04 PM To: Andrea Matrosovs <Andrea.Matrosovs@grey.ca> Subject: Update on the provincially funded broadband expansion projects in Grey County [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Andrea Matrosovs Warden Grey County Dear Warden Matrosovs: Thank you for your letter dated September 4, 2026, requesting an update on the provincially funded broadband expansion projects underway within the County of Grey.
Agenda item 6.a: Ministry of Energy and Mines - Update on the Provincially Funded Broadband Expansion
---
Attachment: Ministry of Energy Broadband Expansion Projects.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/ddf910ebb9ede577b9aae218a68d11feb884b9ee6a9c7fce14e883dbd3055d62/6-a-1-ministry-of-energy-broadband-expansion-projects-pdf.pdf
From: Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) <Energy@ontario.ca>
Sent: September 25, 2026 5:04 PM
To: Andrea Matrosovs <Andrea.Matrosovs@grey.ca>
Subject: Update on the provincially funded broadband expansion projects in Grey
County
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Andrea Matrosovs
Warden
Grey County
Dear Warden Matrosovs:
Thank you for your letter dated September 4, 2026, requesting an update on the
provincially funded broadband expansion projects underway within the County of Grey.
Ministry staff are pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister and the Associate
Minister.
Ontario remains fully committed to ensuring every community across the province has
access to high-speed internet by the end of 2028, including homes and businesses in
Grey County.
As of August 2026, approximately 200,000 homes and businesses have been
connected with high-speed internet access to date, with construction continuing across
the province.
As you know, deploying broadband requires coordinated collaboration among partners
working with the Government of Ontario—such as utilities, municipalities, and internet
service providers (ISPs) — and this alignment of roles, from work on utility poles and
municipal rights-of-way to ISPs attaching or burying fibre, enables projects to be built
more quickly and efficiently.
The Ministry can confirm that there are a total of 11 projects in Grey County that are
now 100% complete. This includes two AHSIP projects with EH!tel, AHSIP Lots 32 and
76, as well as nine projects with Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology (SWIFT),
and the following ISPs: GBTel Inc., Wightman Communications, EH!tel Networks, and
Xplore Inc.
The Ministry can also confirm that there are three projects currently underway in Grey
County under the Universal Broadband Fund (UBF) and the Accelerated High-Speed
Internet Program (AHSIP). Xplore Inc. is delivering a UBF project, while Rogers
Communications Inc. is delivering both a UBF project and the AHSIP – Lot 51 project in
Grey County.
Please be advised that construction schedules and timelines are determined by the ISP
working within Ontario's broader connectivity commitment for projects to be completed
by the end of 2028.
Ontario maintains strong oversight of ISPs leading provincially funded broadband
projects and has introduced accountability measures this year to ensure commitments
are met, including new forms of financial security for the highest risk projects, critical
path milestones tied to project funding and enhanced reporting requirements. Contract
extensions for ISPs were granted based on an agreement to adhere to these
accountability provisions and to complete work by the end of 2028.
Ontario encourages ISPs to engage early and frequently with municipalities on projects
impacting their communities to ensure awareness of planned project activities, facilitate
coordination, and support the timely approval of permits. Municipalities are encouraged
to work collaboratively with ISPs by providing timely feedback on project plans,
identifying local considerations early, and processing permits and approvals within
established service standards whenever possible.
The Ministry recognizes the need for broadband project transparency to support
collaboration among delivery partners and enable informed decision-making. Updates to
the project status for provincial broadband projects are now available on the Ontario
High-Speed Internet Access Map. The map shows where high-speed internet service is
currently available across Ontario and will be updated on a quarterly basis to include
project status updates and completed projects.
The Ontario government continues to work closely with key partners and stakeholders
to advance projects and accelerate deployment where connectivity gaps remain.
Thank you for your continued leadership and partnership in helping us build a more
connected Ontario.
Sincerely,
Ministry of Energy and Mines Staff
Confidentiality: If you have received this email in error, please advise us through the
Ministry of Energy and Mines website www.ontario.ca/feedback/contact-
us?id=26915&nid=77132 and destroy all copies of this message. Thank you.
Confidentialité : Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez nous en informer par
le biais du site Web du ministère de l’Énergie et des Mines au
www.ontario.ca/fr/commentaires/pour-nous-joindre?id=26915&nid=77132 et détruire
toutes les copies du présent message. Nous vous remercions.
6.b FR-CW-23-26 Capital Project Status Update
Agenda item 6.b: FR-CW-23-26 Capital Project Status Update --- Attachment: Capital Project Status Update - August 31, 2026 - FR-CW-23-26.pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/5f4f0e7293a9bb1856c2e7906a964d2f6b06410f2e3fceb7508b06287415d73c/6-b-1-capital-project-status-update-august-31-2026-fr-cw-23-26-pdf.pdf Committee Report To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council Committee Date: October 22, 2026 Subject / Report No: FR-CW-23-26 Title: Capital Project Status Update - August 31, 2026 Prepared by: Katherine Dabrowa, Financial Analyst Garrett Reed, Interim Deputy Treasurer Reviewed by: Sue Murray, Interim Treasurer Lower Tier(s) Affected: Recommendation 1.
Capital Project Status Update August 31
The report provides a high-level point-in-time update on Grey County's 2026 capital projects as of August 31, 2026. Staff have categorized the procurement and project status for all 256 approved projects using specific criteria regarding initiation, cancellation, progress, and budget variance. The document outlines the purchasing policy methods applicable to different dollar values and includes tables detailing the number of projects and total budgeted value for each status category.
Report Presents a Capital Project Status Table As of August 31, 2026
The report presents a capital project status table as of August 31, 2026, showing 256 projects with a total value of $111,841,900 distributed across categories including In Progress and Complete statuses. Staff will continue monitoring 2026 capital projects through year-end, while quarterly purchasing reports summarize purchases between $75,000 and $500,000, with individual reporting for amounts over $500,000. Recent pricing data informs the 10-year capital forecast, potentially impacting future levy requirements, reserve balances, and work reprioritization to manage financial constraints.
Agenda item 6.b: FR-CW-23-26 Capital Project Status Update
---
Attachment: Capital Project Status Update - August 31, 2026 - FR-CW-23-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/5f4f0e7293a9bb1856c2e7906a964d2f6b06410f2e3fceb7508b06287415d73c/6-b-1-capital-project-status-update-august-31-2026-fr-cw-23-26-pdf.pdf
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: October 22, 2026
Subject / Report No: FR-CW-23-26
Title: Capital Project Status Update - August 31, 2026
Prepared by: Katherine Dabrowa, Financial Analyst
Garrett Reed, Interim Deputy Treasurer
Reviewed by: Sue Murray, Interim Treasurer
Lower Tier(s) Affected:
Recommendation
1. That Report FR-CW-23-26 regarding the 2026 Capital Project Status Update as of
August 31, 2026, be received for information.
Executive Summary
This report provides a corporate update for capital projects approved in the County’s 2026
Budget. This report is a high-level point in time summary of the projects as of August 31, 2026.
Staff have identified the procurement status of each capital project as:
not started
not applicable – direct purchase / transfer
cancelled
in progress
awarded or
completed
Of the 256 capital projects, there are 40 not started, 111 not applicable, 2 cancelled, 20 in
progress, 54 awarded and 29 completed.
FR-CW-23-26 1 October 22, 2026
Staff have identified the project status of each capital project as:
not started
on hold
cancelled
deferred
in progress - on time and on budget
in progress - significant delays in schedule or budget variance
in progress - variance from budget or schedule
completed - on time and on budget
completed - significant delays in schedule or budget variance, or
completed - variance from budget or schedule
Of the 256 capital projects, there are 11 on hold, 19 not started, 2 cancelled, 23 deferred, 158 in
progress, 43 completed.
Under Appendices and Attachments, there is a link to the list of projects with a column for
comments that provides narrative for each project. As well there is a link to Grey County’s open
book site, which includes a budget book titled “2026 Capital Project Status Report as of August
31, 2026”. This tool can be used to search and filter for specific projects/departments, as well as
visualize the comparison between budget, actual and committed spending.
Background and Discussion
Grey County has an established purchasing policy which is included as an attachment at the end
of the report.
Under Section 4.0 Procurement Methods in the purchasing policy, the County uses the following
procurement methods:
Direct Purchase Request for Quotation Request for Request for Proposal and
Tender other Methods
Up to $20,000 $20,001 to $75,000 Over $75,000 Any $ Amount
Schedule “A” Authority to Award of the policy outlines whether delegated authority or Council
authority is required to award a contract. The following chart provides a summary of the dollar
value and level of authorization required.
FR-CW-23-26 2 October 22, 2026
Minimum Method of
Authority to Award Dollar Value
Procurement
Any employee authorized by
Less than $20,000 Direct Purchase
Director
Manager as authorized by Request for Quotation /
$20,000 - $75,000
Director Proposal
Directors, Deputy CAO or CAO $75,000 - $500,000 Request for Tender / Proposal
Over $500,000 and special
Council circumstances as determined Request for Tender / Proposal
by Purchasing
This report provides Council with information on the status of individual 2026 capital projects as
of August 31, 2026. Attached to the report are the details of procurement status, key dates, year-
to-date spend, total budget and budget committed for 2026. Projects have been sorted by their
project name which relates to the department responsible for the projects.
Departments are referred to as follows:
AMB - Paramedic Services HOU -Transportation Facilities
CAO – Chief Administrative Officer HR - Human Resources
CC - Climate Change IT - Information Technology
CLK - Clerks LHC - Housing
COM - Communications LLL - Lee Manor
CON – Road and Bridge Construction LTC – Rockwood Terrace Redevelopment
ECD - Economic Development MOP - Transportation Machinery
FIN - Finance PLN - Planning
FTL - Forestry and Trails PRO - Administration Building
GGG - Grey Gables RRR - Rockwood Terrace
HER - Grey Roots SOC - Social Services.
Staff have identified the procurement status of each capital project as either not started, not
applicable, cancelled, in progress, awarded or completed. The total budgeted value of these
capital projects is broken down in the following table Figure 1 – Procurement Status of Capital
Projects.
FR-CW-23-26 3 October 22, 2026
Figure 1 – Procurement Status of Capital Projects
Number of Capital Total Budget % of Total
Projects Budget
Not Started 40 $ 11,974,000 10.71%
NA – Direct Purchase - Transfer 111 $ 13,083,300 11.70%
Cancelled 2 $ 131,600 0.12%
In Progress 20 $ 4,522,400 4.04%
Awarded 54 $ 71,244,900 63.70%
Complete 29 $ 10,885,700 9.73%
Total 256 $ 111,841,900 100.00%
Staff have identified the project status of each capital project as either not started, on hold,
cancelled, deferred, in progress - on time and on budget, in progress - significant delays in
schedule or budget variance, in progress - variance from budget or schedule, complete - on time
and on budget, complete - significant delays in schedule or budget variance or, complete -
variance from budget or schedule. The total budgeted value of these capital projects is broken
down in the following table Figure 2 – Project Status of Capital Projects.
Figure 2 – Project Status of Capital Projects
Number of Total Budget % of
Capital Total
Projects Budget
Not Started 19 $ 3,923,700 3.51%
On Hold 11 $ 1,989,400 1.78%
Cancelled 2 $ 131,600 0.12%
Deferred 23 $ 7,253,300 6.49%
In Progress - On Time and On Budget 110 $ 61,312,700 54.81%
In Progress - Variance from Budget or Schedule 22 $ 6,434,500 5.75%
In Progress - Significant Delays in Schedule or
26 $ 19,670,900 17.59%
Budget Variance
Complete - On Time and On Budget 23 $ 10,341,000 9.25%
Complete - Variance from Budget or Schedule 10 $ 382,900 0.34%
Complete - Significant Delays in Schedule or
10 $ 401,900 0.36%
Budget Variance
Total 256 $ 111,841,900 100.00%
FR-CW-23-26 4 October 22, 2026
Financial and Resource Implications
Staff will continue to monitor 2026 capital projects for the remainder of the year. In addition,
Council is provided quarterly purchasing reports as per the County’s purchasing policy that
summarize all purchases made between $75,000 and $500,000. All purchases over $500,000 are
reported to council individually.
Recent pricing forms the basis for estimating future costs in the 10-year capital forecast and will
impact the County’s future levy requirement, reserve balances and may result in reprioritizing
work in order to manage financial constraints.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal - Department Managers, Senior Management Team, and Finance Staff
☐ External
Appendices and Attachments
Capital Project Status as of August 31, 2026.pdf
Grey County Open Book Site
2024 Purchasing Policy
FR-CW-23-26 5 October 22, 2026
6.c PDR-CW-44-26 Morrison Minor Exemption
Agenda item 6.c: PDR-CW-44-26 Morrison Minor Exemption --- Attachment: Morrison Minor Exemption - PDR-CW-44-26.pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/0d1414939ce354433ead119e8a11ed99c48e3f704ea3fc03369353da6a4524e9/6-c-1-morrison-minor-exemption-pdr-cw-44-26-pdf.pdf Committee Report To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council Committee Date: October 22, 2026 Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-44-26 Title: Morrison Minor Exemption Prepared by: Sarah Johnson, Trails and Forestry Coordinator Reviewed by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning Lower Tier(s) Affected: Township of Chatsworth Recommendation 1.
Staff Recommend Approval of Minor Exemption for Woodland Clearing
The report recommends approval of a minor exemption application to clear approximately 4.8 hectares of woodland at 135545 Concession 8 in the Township of Chatsworth. Staff noted that while the current Forest Management By-law does not prohibit clearing trees planted with public funding, the by-law is under review and future applications may face different requirements. The Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority found the application acceptable, though one enforcement officer expressed opposition to removing publicly funded trees. County staff responded that the by-law regulates tree removal rather than lot creation or specific planting programs.
Climate Targets and External Stakeholder Involvement
The report discusses the relationship between Going Green in Grey and the County's Forest Management By-law review regarding climate change targets. The item notes external involvement from the Township of Chatsworth, Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority, and the public.
Agenda item 6.c: PDR-CW-44-26 Morrison Minor Exemption
---
Attachment: Morrison Minor Exemption - PDR-CW-44-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/0d1414939ce354433ead119e8a11ed99c48e3f704ea3fc03369353da6a4524e9/6-c-1-morrison-minor-exemption-pdr-cw-44-26-pdf.pdf
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: October 22, 2026
Subject / Report No: PDR-CW-44-26
Title: Morrison Minor Exemption
Prepared by: Sarah Johnson, Trails and Forestry Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott Taylor, Director of Planning
Lower Tier(s) Affected: Township of Chatsworth
Recommendation
1. That report PDR-CW-44-26 be received; and
2. That the application for minor exemption under the County’s Forest Management
By-law for 135545 Concession 8, west half of Lot 22, Concession 7, geographic
Township of Sullivan, Township of Chatsworth, be approved.
Executive Summary
The County received a minor exemption application under the County’s Forest Management By-
law in July 2026 to clear woodlands consisting of approximately 4.8 hectares (12 acres) of
mainly pine. County staff are recommending approval of this minor exemption application.
Background and Discussion
An application for a minor exemption was received for clear cutting in a woodland under the
County’s Forest Management By-law. The application is seeking approval to clear
approximately 4.8 hectares (12 acres). Map 1 below shows the subject lands, and those lands
proposed for clearing.
The subject lands are located at 135545 Concession 8, west half of Lot 22, Concession 7,
geographic Township of Sullivan, Township of Chatsworth. Approximately half of the property is
in active agriculture while the remaining is forested. Surrounding the land is a mix of rural
residential, farming, and forestry.
The subject lands are part of three recent applications for consent, and a subsequent
implementing zoning by-law amendment. Three non-farm lots were proposed on the northwest
corner of the property and are not in the area proposed for clearing. They range in size from
0.85 hectares to 1.5 hectares and they align with the fencelines (see Figure 1), the zoning
PDR-CW-44-26 1 October 22, 2026
recognized the reduced lot sizes and frontages. These consent applications have been
conditionally approved by the Township of Chatsworth.
In the County official plan, this property is designated as ‘Rural’ and ‘Hazard Lands’ on
Schedule A. On Appendix B ‘significant woodlands’ are identified on the property, not in the
area proposed for clearing.
Map 1 – Proposed clearing
PDR-CW-44-26 2 October 22, 2026
Figure 1 – Conditionally Approved Consents
The County’s climate change action plan, Going Green in Grey, promotes tree planting across
the County, including setting tree planting targets. The County’s current Forest Management By-
law predates Going Green in Grey. The County’s by-law is currently under review. One of the
objectives of this review is to consider the by-law’s relationship to other County plans and
strategies such as Recolour Grey, the County official plan, and Going Green in Grey, the
climate change action plan. Strictly speaking this minor exemption application is being tested
against the current Forest Management By-law. Staff are however cognizant that the future
PDR-CW-44-26 3 October 22, 2026
updated by-law may consider woodland clearing differently, including possibly considering
replanting plans or offsetting approaches.
Agency and Public Comments Received
Under the County’s Forest Management by-law, adjacent landowners, conservation authorities,
and municipalities are to be notified and/or consulted when a minor exemption application is
received.
Public Comments
County staff received comments from two members of the public on this application.
The concerns raised by the first individual were mainly related to the planning applications that
were recently approved for the property and other planning matters unrelated to this minor
exemption application. They questioned whether the lots were permitted under the Forest
Management By-law.
Staff Response: The Forest Management By-law regulates tree removal in Grey County, not
lot creation. Lot creation is regulated by the official plan, and the proposed lots conformed to the
County official plan.
The other concern was from the former owner of the property. It related to the fact that the trees
proposed for removal were planted by the local conservation authority and that the proposal
would remove those trees. The local knowledge of the property was that the lands were
unsuitable for farming and would likely become abandoned if cleared and farming was
unsuccessful.
Staff Response: The Forest Management By-law doesn’t have any clauses that speak to
programs where trees are planted by agencies (i.e. Conservation Authorities or via federal or
provincial funding programs). Generally speaking, these tree-planting programs do not regulate
the planted trees when lands get passed from one landowner to the next. The applicant
indicated that even though they are proposing to remove the trees, they would like to have local
arborists or landscaping companies in to remove the trees to possibly be reused. They are
planning on improving the lands so that they can be rented for agriculture.
Agency Comments
The Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA), the Township of Chatsworth, the County’s
Forestry By-law Enforcement Officer, and the County Planning Ecologist provided comments on
this application. A summary of each of their comments is as follows:
SVCA finds the application acceptable.
The Township of Chatsworth has no concerns.
Planning Ecology staff reviewed the proposal and noted they had no concerns.
The County’s By-law Enforcement Officer indicates that:
‘Currently this area is still early successional and so has many grassland species
using it for food and homes. In the future as it matures it will store carbon at a faster
PDR-CW-44-26 4 October 22, 2026
and faster rate. The landowner will be granted an envelope when they get a building
permit but the rest should be left to aid in the climate mitigation efforts.
I am opposed to this clearing as it was planted using public funding and the
preservation of those trees would assist with climate change.’
The current Forest Management By-law does not contain a prohibition on clearing trees funded
through government programs. As noted above, the current by-law is under review. There are
other legislative tools which could protect publicly funded tree planting, but generally they
should be applied at the time when the trees are planted. These tools may include restrictive
covenants, or contractual agreements between a landowner and a funding body. Staff are not
aware of any such restrictions on the lands proposed to be cleared. One of the objectives of the
County’s Forest Management By-law review is to consider the by-law’s relationship to other
County plans and strategies such as Recolour Grey, the County official plan, and Going Green
in Grey, the climate change action plan. Following the completion of an updated Forest
Management By-law, future applications similar in nature to this one may have different
requirements.
Based on the above, staff are recommending approval of the minor exemption application.
Financial and Resource Implications
None.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal: Planning, Grey County By-law Enforcement Officer, Planning Ecology
☒ Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets: see commentary in the
report regarding the relationship between Going Green in Grey and the County’s
current Forest Management By-law review.
☒ External: Township of Chatsworth, Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority, and the
public
Appendices and Attachments
None.
PDR-CW-44-26 5 October 22, 2026
6.d Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team - Municipal Update September 2026
Agenda item 6.d: Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team - Municipal Update September 2026 --- Attachment: GBOHT Annual Report Final (1).pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/f9cfe10a46f5120ceded8e76837f55d0da6056fb9025f92b47bb7d1d457138c4/6-d-1-gboht-annual-report-final-1-pdf.pdf Grey-Bruce OHT YEAR IN REVIEW 2025-2026 Working toward a better healthcare experience for you close to home.
Grey Bruce OHT Reports Progress in Primary Care Access
The Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team reported meaningful progress in the 2025-2026 fiscal year through partnership with health care, social service, municipal and community partners. The team improved access to primary care, strengthened system coordination, and built a more connected local health system. Strategic Priority 1 focused on expanding primary care access and attachment, while Strategic Priority 2 advanced integrated clinical priorities for individuals at risk or living with chronic disease.
Report Details Progress in OHT Capacity Building for the 2025-2026 Fiscal Year
The report details progress in OHT capacity building for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, including expanding Best Care to five additional sites and initiating support for the Primary Geriatrics Project. Strategic goals focused on strengthening partnerships, embedding health equity, and improving communication pathways were addressed through initiatives like establishing a new Indigenous Primary Health Care Organization in Nawash Unceded First Nation and filling seats on various leadership tables. Communication efforts included developing an annual OHT Communication Plan with quarterly newsletters achieving a 66% average open rate, while specific programs served 900 patients with COPD or CHF and successfully attached 200 vulnerable unattached patients to primary care providers.
Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team (gboht) Shared Its 2025-2026 Year
The Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team (GBOHT) shared its 2025-2026 Year in Review, highlighting progress in primary care access and attachment where over 7,000 residents were attached to local providers. The team secured more than $7 million in base funding for team-based primary care through Interprofessional Primary Care Team (IPCT) funding. Additional highlights included supporting 900 patients through the Supported Attachment Program and expanding Best Care services for COPD and CHF to five additional sites.
These Priorities Reflect a Shared Commitment Among Partners to Improve Access
The Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team reports on current work spanning primary care access, palliative care, chronic disease management, mental health, older adult care, digital health, health equity, and patient engagement. These priorities reflect a shared commitment among partners to improve access and strengthen collaboration for better resident outcomes. The team continues its partnership with municipalities, noting their role in supporting recruitment, identifying community needs, and contributing to collaborative approaches that strengthen the region.
Agenda item 6.d: Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team - Municipal Update September 2026
---
Attachment: GBOHT Annual Report Final (1).pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/f9cfe10a46f5120ceded8e76837f55d0da6056fb9025f92b47bb7d1d457138c4/6-d-1-gboht-annual-report-final-1-pdf.pdf
Grey-Bruce OHT
YEAR IN REVIEW
2025-2026
Working toward a better
healthcare experience
for you close to home.
Grey-Bruce
OHT
PAGE 2
MESSAGE FROM THE THANK YOU
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TO OUR GBOHT
STAFF TEAM &
LEADERSHIP
The 2025-2026 fiscal year was another
successful and productive year for the
Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team.
Through partnership, collaboration
and a shared commitment to
improving care, we continued to
make meaningful progress across our
local health system.
PCN Board
Throughout the year, we focused on Members
improving access to primary care,
strengthening the coordination and
integration of services, advancing
health equity and building stronger
relationships across Grey Bruce.
I would like to extend a special thank you to our OHT staff team and
leadership, including Dr. Kelly Fenn, Dr. Libby Cox, Dr. Debbie Dyke,
Dana Howes, Kathy Irwin, Nichol Cruise and Kate Barnard, for their
leadership, expertise and continued commitment. Coordinating
Council
I would also like to recognize the members of our Primary Care Members
Network Board and Coordinating Council, as well as the many
physicians, nurse practitioners, health and social service
organizations, municipalities and community partners who
contributed to this work.
The accomplishments highlighted in this report demonstrate what
is possible when we work together with a shared purpose.
Thank you for your continued partnership and commitment to
improving health care for everyone living in Grey Bruce. All health, social
service and
Lindsay Johnston community
partners
Lindsay Johnston
Executive Director
Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team
GreyBruceOHT.ca
PAGE 3
2025-2026
GBOHT YEAR IN REVIEW
The 2025-2026 fiscal year was marked by meaningful progress and strong collaboration
across the Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team. Working alongside health care, social
service, municipal and community partners, the GBOHT continued to improve access
to care, strengthen system coordination and build a more connected, equitable and
responsive local health system.
The following strategy reflects our shared vision for a healthier Grey Bruce.
GreyBruceOHT.ca
PAGE 4
STRATEGIC PRIORITY 1 BY THE NUMBERS
PRIMARY CARE ACCESS 7000+
AND ATTACHMENT Residents attached to local
primary care (89% have a
family physician or NP).
OUR GOALS
Expand access to team-based primary care.
5,211 (97%)
Patients removed from the
Design and implement a program that supports pre-January 1, 2025 Health
Care Connect waitlist as of
primary care providers to attach more patients. March 31, 2026.
Clear the pre-January 1, 2025 Health Care Connect
waitlist.
$7 MILLION+
Increase physician and nurse practitioner
In base funding for team-
engagement across the GBOHT Primary Care based primary care secured
Network. through IPCT funding.
PROGRESS IN 2025-2026
Facilitated the writing and submission of five successful IPCT 900
proposals
Patients supported through
the GBOHT Supported
Supported implementation of all Round 1 proposals (Round 2 Attachment Program.
approved in Apr 2026).
Developed and implemented the GBOHT Supported Attachment
Program, available to all medical clinics in Grey Bruce.
80+
Supported physicians to attach new patients and reduced the pre-
Jan 1, 2025 Health Care Connect waitlist by more than 90%. Custom EMR and OCEAN
forms and 46 privacy
compliant web-based form
Hosted two Continuing Medical Education events for local
created.
physicians and nurse practitioners.
Reduced administrative burden for local primary care
organizations, physicians and nurse practitioners through digital 1
enablers, custom forms and EMR efficiencies.
Regional recruitment
Initiated the inaugural Primary Care Network Board to strengthen webpage developed
collaboratively with the Grey
PCP voice in health system change.
Bruce Primary Care
Recruitment, Retention and
Supported a regional collaborative approach to Primary Care Wellness Collaborative.
Provider recruitment, retention and wellness.
GreyBruceOHT.ca
PAGE 5
STRATEGIC PRIORITY 2
INTEGRATED
CLINICAL PRIORITIES
OUR GOALS PROGRESS IN 2025-2026
Advance community-based care for Supported increased capacity
individuals at risk or living with chronic of Best Care (COPD and CHF)
disease to support primary care and HSP from 1.0 FTE to 2.0 FTE.
reduce hospital use.
Collaborate with regional partners to Expanded Best Care to five
create initiatives geared towards additional sites in Grey Bruce,
improving quality and integration of including sites without previous
care for local populations including: access to team-based care.
palliative care, older adults and mental
health and addictions.
Initiated and continued
facilitation of the Mental Health
BY THE NUMBERS
and Addictions Service Delivery
Working Group, a working group
of the Grey Bruce Mental Health
and Addictions Network.
900
Grey Bruce patients with COPD or
CHF enrolled or impacted by Best
Expanded the Remote Care
Care service implementation and
expansion. Monitoring (RCM) Palliative Care
Nurse Navigator Program to
additional sites on the North and
South Bruce Peninsula and to
98 support the Grey Bruce Palliative
Medicine Group.
Patients served through
the Palliative Care Nurse
Navigator Remote Care
Monitoring Program.
Initiated and continued support
of the Primary Geriatrics Project.
GreyBruceOHT.ca
PAGE 6
STRATEGIC PRIORITY 3
OHT CAPACITY BUILDING
OUR GOALS PROGRESS IN 2025-2026
Strengthen patient, family and caregiver
Annual GBOHT OHT Communication
representation at decision-making tables. Plan developed and implemented.
Plan includes:
Strengthen Indigenous partnerships and Quarterly OHT Partner
support reconciliation. Newsletter
Quarterly OHT Primary Care
Build strong communication pathways
Network Newsletter
between the GBOHT, Grey and Bruce
Counties, municipalities of Grey and Bruce, Quarterly Community Newsletter
provincial elected officials, community
Quarterly Municipal Updates
focused corporate partners, and additional
(also shared with County
health and social service organizations. Councils, Staff, and local MPPs)
Embed health equity and inclusion in all
OHT initiatives.
New Indigenous Primary Health
Care Organization (IPHCO)
established in Nawash Unceded First
BY THE NUMBERS Nation.
66% Average newsletter open
rate for all FY 2025-2026
newsletters. Indigenous Primary Care Provider
seat filled on the Primary Care
Vulnerable and marginalized Network (PCN) Board (Leadership
200
unattached patients
and Decision Making Table).
successfully attached to a
primary care provider
through the Primary Care
Without Walls Initiative.
Community Council seat filled on
the OHT Coordinating Council
300
Patients enrolled during
fiscal year 2025-2026 at (Leadership and Decision Making
Noongwa Wellness IPHCO. Table).
44
Patients with 480
encounters served through
the IEAPC Program. Implemented the Improving Equity
and Access to Palliative Care (EAPC)
Navigator role, serving Indigenous,
homeless, and vulnerably housed
populations in Grey Bruce.
GreyBruceOHT.ca
PAGE 7
THANK YOU
TO OUR PARTNERS
The progress highlighted throughout this report was made possible through the dedication, expertise and
collaboration of many.
We extend our sincere appreciation to our partner organizations, physicians, nurse practitioners, hospitals,
health and social service providers, Indigenous partners, municipalities, elected officials, patients, families,
caregivers and community organizations.
Your continued commitment, leadership and willingness to work together strengthen our local health system
and support better care for the people and communities we collectively serve.
Together, we are building a healthier Grey Bruce.
Grey Bruce Ontario Health
TEAM STAFF
Lindsay Johnston Audrey Peters & Jessie Nusselder
Executive Director Registered Nurses, Supported Attachment
Provides strategic leadership for the Grey Bruce Ontario Health Providing direct patient onboarding support to local Physicians
Team, overseeing governance, operations, partner engagement, and Nurse Practitioners.
and the implementation of the OHT's strategic priorities.
Matt Milencoff
Dr. Debbie Dyke Population Health & Systems Performance Analyst
Clinical Lead Provides data analysis, performance measurement, and
Provides clinical leadership and strategic guidance to support population health insights that support evidence-informed
primary care integration, physician engagement, and the planning, decision-making, and system improvement.
continued development of the Primary Care Network.
Julie Henderson
Kate Barnard SCOPE Nurse Navigator
Project Manager Supports primary care providers by coordinating access to
Leads the planning, coordination, implementation, and specialist services and community resources for patients with
evaluation of strategic OHT initiatives, working collaboratively complex health needs.
with partners to advance shared priorities.
Taylor Deakin
Kathy Irwin Palliative Care Transformation Lead
Digital Lead Works with healthcare organizations and providers to
Leads the implementation of digital health solutions that strengthen palliative care through education, coaching, and
improve patient and provider experiences, streamline workflows, implementation of Ontario's adult palliative care model.
and reduce administrative burden across the health system.
Rachel Gallagher
Nichol Cruise Administrative & Project Coordinator
NP, Primary Care Access & Attachment Lead Provides administrative and project coordination support to the
Leads initiatives that improve access to primary care, including Executive Director, leadership tables, committees, and OHT
patient attachment, Health Care Connect, supported attachment, initiatives.
and preventive cancer screening initiatives.
GreyBruceOHT.ca
PAGE 8
LOOKING AHEAD
TOGETHER
The 2025-2026 year strengthened our partnerships, expanded access to
care and advanced important health system priorities.
As we look ahead, the GBOHT remains committed to building a more
connected, equitable and responsive health system that reflects the needs
and values of the people and communities we serve.
We will continue to work together with our partners, providers and
communities to create lasting improvements and better health outcomes
for everyone in Grey Bruce.
Thank you for being part of this important work.
A SHARED COMMITMENT TO BETTER HEALTH
COLLABORATION PARTNERSHIP COMPASSION ACCOUNTABILITY IMPACT
We achieve more Strong relationships People are at the We are accountable Together, we are
when we work create stronger centre of everything to our partners and building a healthier
together. communities. we do. our community. tomorrow.
CONNECT WITH US FOLLOW US
Stay connected for the latest news, updates and
Visit our website opportunities.
www.greybruceoht.ca
facebook.com/GreyBruceOHT
Email us
info@greybruceoht.ca instagram.com/greybruceoht/
x.com/greybruce_oht
Subscribe to our newsletter
greybruceoht.ca/news linkedin.com/company/grey-bruce-
ontario-health-team/
GreyBruceOHT.ca
---
Attachment: GBOHT Municipalities Update_September 2026 (1).pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/8736f80b191c27fe96f16a0c0489ee050e022379b753f8a1c8a5761ea65f7045/6-d-2-gboht-municipalities-update-september-2026-1-pdf.pdf
To: Clerks, Grey County Municipalities
From: Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team
Date: September 28, 2026
Re: Grey-Bruce Primary Care and Health System Update
About the Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team
The Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team (GBOHT) brings together hospitals, primary care providers,
community health and social care organizations, and other partners to improve how healthcare is
delivered across the region. We collaborate with patients, families, caregivers, and the community to
design better ways of delivering care. By working across organizations, the GBOHT focuses on
improving access to primary care, strengthening coordination between services, and supporting the
long-term health needs of people in Grey-Bruce. To learn more about the GBOHT, including its
governance, priorities and community resources, please visit www.greybruceoht.ca.
2025-2026 Grey-Bruce OHT Year in Review
The Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team (GBOHT) is pleased to share our 2025–2026 Year in Review,
highlighting the progress made over the past year through partnership, collaboration and a shared
commitment to improving health and care across Grey-Bruce.
Throughout 2025–2026, the GBOHT focused its work around three strategic priorities: Primary Care
Access and Attachment, Integrated Clinical Priorities, and OHT Capacity Building. Working alongside
primary care providers, hospitals, health and social service organizations, municipalities, Indigenous
partners and community organizations, we continued to improve access to care, strengthen
coordination across the health system and advance health equity. Among the year's highlights:
• More than 7,000 residents were attached to local primary care, and 97% of patients on the pre-
January 1, 2025 Health Care Connect waitlist had been removed from the waitlist by March 31,
2026.
• More than $7 million in base funding for team-based primary care was secured through
Interprofessional Primary Care Team (IPCT) funding.
• 900 patients were supported through the GBOHT Supported Attachment Program.
• Best Care services for people living with COPD and CHF expanded to five additional sites
across Grey Bruce, including communities without previous access to team-based care.
• The Palliative Care Nurse Navigator Remote Care Monitoring Program expanded to additional
sites on the North and South Bruce Peninsula.
These accomplishments reflect the collective efforts of partners throughout Grey-Bruce, and
demonstrate the impact of working together to address local health system priorities.
The 2025-2026 GBOHT Year in Review can be found attached to this email.
Advancing Health System Priorities Across Grey-Bruce
Building on this progress, the GBOHT continues to work alongside partners across the region on
initiatives designed to improve access to care, strengthen coordination and integration, and support a
more connected and equitable health system.
Current work spans a wide range of priorities, including primary care access and attachment, palliative
care, chronic disease management, mental health and addictions, older adult care, digital health
solutions, health equity, and patient, family and caregiver engagement.
These priorities reflect the shared commitment of partners across Grey-Bruce to improve access,
strengthen collaboration, and support better health outcomes for residents. Visit the Grey-Bruce OHT
2026-2027 Initiatives Webpage
Continuing Our Partnership with Municipalities
Municipalities are important partners in building healthier, thriving communities across Grey-Bruce.
Access to primary care and other health services is closely connected to broader community priorities,
including population growth, economic development, workforce attraction and retention, and
healthcare recruitment.
Municipalities bring valuable local knowledge and perspective to these conversations. In addition to
supporting physician and nurse practitioner recruitment and retention efforts, municipal partners help
connect residents with health information, identify emerging community needs and contribute to
collaborative approaches that strengthen our communities and region.
The GBOHT remains committed to keeping municipal leaders informed about health system priorities
and creating opportunities for ongoing dialogue and collaboration. By bringing together
municipalities, healthcare providers and community partners around shared priorities, we can continue
to identify solutions that respond to local needs while strengthening healthcare across Grey-Bruce.
We appreciate the continued support and collaboration of our municipal partners and look forward to
continuing this important work together. If you have questions or would like to learn more about the
GBOHT or the work underway across Grey-Bruce, we would be pleased to connect.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Johnston
Executive Director
Grey Bruce Ontario Health Team
execdir@greybruceoht.ca
6.e Township of Ramara - Enhanced Municipal and Watershed Representation in the Proposed Regional Conservation Authority Governance
Agenda item 6.e: Township of Ramara - Enhanced Municipal and Watershed Representation in the Proposed Regional Conservation Authority Governance --- Attachment: Support for Enhanced Municipal and Watershed Representation in the Proposed RCA.pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/83709629891b170f65ba78d36addb02ed67e84d86e92b77872727cabb42950db/6-e-1-support-for-enhanced-municipal-and-watershed-representation-in-the-proposed-rca-pdf.pdf October 2, 2026 Via Email Hon.
Township of Ramara Adopted Resolution Cr.238.2026 to Support Enhanced Municipal Representation
The Township of Ramara adopted Resolution CR.238.2026 to support enhanced municipal representation in the proposed Regional Conservation Authority governance framework. The resolution requests that appointed RCA Board members reside within their applicable watershed and asks for clear guidance on member recruitment, eligibility criteria, and financial implications of the consolidation. It further encourages the Province to provide additional information regarding operational responsibilities and levy apportionment to allow municipalities sufficient time to prepare for implementation.
Agenda item 6.e: Township of Ramara - Enhanced Municipal and Watershed Representation in the Proposed Regional Conservation Authority Governance
---
Attachment: Support for Enhanced Municipal and Watershed Representation in the Proposed RCA.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/83709629891b170f65ba78d36addb02ed67e84d86e92b77872727cabb42950db/6-e-1-support-for-enhanced-municipal-and-watershed-representation-in-the-proposed-rca-pdf.pdf
October 2, 2026
Via Email
Hon. Todd McCarthy, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Jill Dunlop, MPP Simcoe North
Re: Support for Enhanced Municipal and Watershed Representation in the
Proposed Regional Conservation Authority Governance Framework
At its meeting held on September 28, 2026, the Council of the Township of Ramara
adopted the following resolution:
Resolution Number CR.238.2026
Moved by Dana Tuju
Seconded by Joe Gough
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has proposed the consolidation of Ontario's
existing conservation authorities into nine Regional Conservation Authorities
(RCA), with a proposed transition date of February 1, 2027, or such later date as
may be prescribed;
AND WHEREAS Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting No. 026-0740
proposed regulations respecting the method for determining the number of
members appointed by participating municipalities to RCAs and additional
eligibility criteria for appointments to the Board of Directors of the Ontario
Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA);
AND WHEREAS under the proposed governance framework, upper-tier and
single-tier municipalities will be responsible for appointing members to RCAs,
resulting in lower-tier municipalities no longer having the ability to directly appoint
representatives to the governing board;
AND WHEREAS lower-tier municipalities continue to have a direct and significant
interest in the programs, services, land use planning matters, natural hazard
management, environmental protection and other responsibilities undertaken by
conservation authorities within their communities;
AND WHEREAS meaningful local and watershed-based representation will be
essential to ensuring that local municipal priorities, knowledge and watershed-
specific considerations continue to inform decision-making within the new RCA
structure;
AND WHEREAS the geographic size of the proposed RCAs further emphasizes
the importance of ensuring that appointed Board members have a meaningful
connection to the watershed they are responsible for governing;
www.ramara.ca
AND WHEREAS there remains a need for additional information and guidance
respecting several significant aspects of the proposed transition and future
operation of the RCAs, including the governance framework, member recruitment
and eligibility, travel and time commitments, budgeting, financial responsibility
and the future apportionment and payment of conservation authority levies;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of
the Township of Ramara supports continued consultation with municipalities and
existing local Conservations Authorities on the development and implementation
of the new RCA governance framework;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to
ensure that any individual appointed to a RCA Board of Directors reside within
the applicable watershed of the RCA to which they are appointed, in order to
ensure that Board members have a direct and meaningful connection to the
communities, municipalities and watershed they are responsible for governing;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the future regulations establishing the
composition, role, and operation of Watershed Advisory Committees provide
meaningful opportunities for lower-tier municipal representation and participation,
recognizing that lower-tier municipalities will no longer directly appoint members
to RCA Boards;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Province be requested to reconsider the
proposed eligibility restrictions for the OPCA Board in order to establish a
meaningful connection between the RCAs and the Ontario Provincial
Conservation Agency, including consideration of providing for at least one
representative from each RCA on the OPCA Board, or another formal
mechanism to ensure direct communication and coordination between the two
levels of governance;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Province be requested to provide clear
guidance to upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities respecting the recruitment
and appointment of RCA Board members, including eligibility criteria, desired
qualifications and expertise, expected roles and responsibilities, anticipated
meeting frequency, travel requirements, and the time commitment associated
with serving on the larger regional authorities;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Province be requested to provide
municipalities with additional information regarding the financial and operational
implications of the consolidation, including how RCA budgets will be developed
and approved, how municipal levies and apportionment will be determined and
collected, whether upper-tier and single-tier municipalities will assume
responsibility for levy payments on behalf of lower-tier municipalities, and how
costs and financial obligations will be allocated throughout the transition and
ongoing operation of the new RCAs;
www.ramara.ca
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Province be encouraged to provide this
information as soon as possible to allow municipalities sufficient time to
understand the governance, operational and financial implications of the new
model and to prepare for implementation;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution be forwarded to the
Honourable Todd McCarthy, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and
Parks; the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; the Rural Ontario Municipal
Association; Conservation Ontario; Simcoe North MPP Jill Dunlop; the County of
Simcoe; all Ontario municipalities; the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation
Authority (LSRCA); and the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA).
CARRIED.
The Township of Ramara respectfully requests your consideration of the enclosed
resolution and encourages support for the continued involvement of municipalities and
conservation authorities in the development and implementation of the proposed
Regional Conservation Authority governance framework. The Township further believes
that meaningful watershed-based representation, opportunities for lower-tier municipal
participation, and greater clarity regarding governance and financial implications will be
essential to the successful transition to the new model.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Nate Harrington
Assistant Clerk
Cc. Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA)
Conservation Ontario
County of Simcoe
Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority (LSRCA)
Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA)
Bcc. All Ontario municipalities
www.ramara.ca
7 Items For Direction and Discussion
The agenda lists seven items for direction and discussion without recording any specific motions, decisions, or outcomes in this excerpt.
Agenda item 7: Items For Direction and Discussion
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
7.
Items For Direction and Discussion
7.a Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes dated October 15, 2026
The Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee met electronically on October 15, 2026, to receive verbal reports regarding accessibility projects at the Greenwood Cemetery Chapel Columbarium, Flesherton Fire Hall, Flesherton Arena, Stothart Hall, Rotary Park Bridge, and Flesherton Pickleball Courts. The Committee received a progress report on the Multi-Year Accessibility Plan for 2025 and 2026, which included updates to the website, budget software, and training tools, and endorsed the report as presented. Additionally, the Committee received a report on updated Terms of Reference and adopted them as presented. The Committee noted that applications for the 2027-2030 membership campaign are open and will close on November 15, 2026.
Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee Met Electronically on October 15, 2026
The Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee met electronically on October 15, 2026, to receive verbal reports regarding accessibility projects at the Greenwood Cemetery Chapel Columbarium, Flesherton Fire Hall, Flesherton Arena, Stothart Hall, Rotary Park Bridge, and Flesherton Pickleball Courts. The Committee also reviewed a progress report for the Multi-Year Accessibility Plan covering 2025 and 2026, which included updates on website compliance, software tools, and various engagement initiatives. Additionally, the Committee received a report on updated Terms of Reference for the Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee.
Committee Received and Adopted Updated Terms of Reference for the Joint Accessibility
The Committee received and adopted updated Terms of Reference for the Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee, noted open applications for the 2027-2030 membership campaign closing November 15, 2026, and adjourned.
Agenda item 7.a: Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes dated October 15, 2026
---
Attachment: Post-Meeting Minutes - GCJAAC_Oct15_2026 - English.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/50d931b923ca786622083fb0ba998910a995bfac322c79d8345657b2993ec35f/7-a-1-post-meeting-minutes-gcjaac-oct15-2026-english-pdf.pdf
Minutes
Grey County Joint Municipal Accessibility
Advisory Committee
October 15, 2026
Present: Councillor Greig, Member Catherine Sholtz, Member Andrew
Edgcumbe, Member Brooke Sillaby, Member Ray Whitfield
Regrets: Member Christina Schnell, Member Claudia Strelocke, Member
Pamela Matheson
Staff Present: Robert Hatten, Manager of Communications, Kathie Nunno,
Accessibility and Contract Specialist , Rayburn Murray, Deputy
Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________
Call to Order
The Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee met electronically on the above
date. The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. with all members present.
Others Present: Jennifer Patton, Town of Blue Mountains; Marty Wellwood, Shawnette
Crouse, Municipality of Grey Highlands; Kayla Hyndman, City of Owen Sound.
Declaration of Interest
There were no declarations of interest.
Delegations
Items For Direction or Discussion
City of Owen Sound - Greenwood Cemetery Chapel Columbarium
(Pamela Coulter)
Kayla Hyndman from the City of Owen Sound summarized the Greenwood Cemetery
Chapel Columbarium project through the provided site plans.
1
JAAC20-26
Moved by: Member Whitfield
Seconded by: Member Sillaby
That the verbal report from the Director of Community Services
regarding the Greenwood Cemetery Chapel Columbarium be
received for information.
Carried
Municipality of Grey Highlands - Flesherton Fire Hall Addition
(Marty Wellwood)
Marty Wellwood, Fire Chief from the Municipality of Grey Highlands, summarized the
proposed addition at the Flesherton Fire Hall Addition. There were comments
surrounding the building being municipally-owned, although not always open to the
public and the corresponding accessibility requirements.
JAAC21-26
Moved by: Member Edgcumbe
Seconded by: Member Sillaby
That the Grey County Joint Accessibility Committee review and
provide comment on the proposed addition at the Flesherton Fire
Hall, located at 54 Durham Street, Flesherton.
Carried
Municipality of Grey Highlands - Flesherton Arena Accessible
Washrooms (Shawnette Duvall-Crouse)
Shawnette Duvall-Crouse from the Municipality of Grey Highlands, summarized the
Flesherton Arena Accessible Washroom update.
JAAC22-26
Moved by: Member Whitfield
Seconded by: Councillor Greig
That the Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee receive
this report regarding the proposed Universal Accessible Washroom
addition at the Flesherton Memorial Arena; and
That the Committee review the attached concept drawings and
provide any comments or recommendations related to accessibility
prior to the project proceeding to tender.
Carried
2
Municipality of Grey Highlands - Updated Stothart Hall Accessible
Upgrades (Shawnette Duvall-Crouse)
Shawnette Duvall-Crouse from the Municipality of Grey Highlands, referred to the option
of a lift, rather than the ramp for the Stothard Hall upgrades. This will assist with
accessibility for upper and lower levels of the facility. Comments regarding accessibility
to get to the lift were noted. Clarification was made that there will be a paved area from
the accessible parking lot to the space.
JAAC23-26
Moved by: Member Whitfield
Seconded by: Councillor Greig
That the Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee receive
this report regarding the proposed accessibility upgrades at Stothart
Hall; and
That the Committee review the revised plans and provide any
comments or recommendations prior to the Municipality proceeding
with the project.
Carried
Municipality of Grey Highlands - Rotary Park Bridge Redesign
(Shawnette Duvall-Crouse)
Shawnette Duvall-Crouse from the Municipality of Grey Highlands, referred to the
Rotary Park Bridge Redesign. She further noted that she will be meeting with the Rotary
Club next week and can forward any comments received from the Committee.
JAAC24-26
Moved by: Member Edgcumbe
Seconded by: Member Sillaby
That the Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee receive
this report regarding the proposed Markdale Rotary Park Pedestrian
Bridge; and
That the Committee review the revised plans and provide any
comments or recommendations prior to the Municipality proceeding
with the project.
Carried
Municipality of Grey Highlands - Flesherton Pickleball
Court (Shawnette Duvall-Crouse)
3
Shawnette Duvall-Crouse from the Municipality of Grey Highlands, summarized the new
project of the Flesherton Pickleball Courts. The final construction is to be completed in
the Spring of 2027.
JAAC25-26
Moved by: Member Sillaby
Seconded by: Councillor Greig
That the Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee receive
this report regarding the new Flesherton Pickleball Courts; and
That the Committee provide any additional comments or
recommendations regarding accessibility enhancements that could
be considered for the facility.
Carried
CCR-JAAC-17-26 County of Grey - Multi-Year Accessibility Plan
Progress Report for 2025 and 2026 (Kathie Nunno)
The Accessibility and Contract Specialist summarized the report. She noted the
importance of the Long-Term Care Accessibility Plan being incorporated as a Schedule
to the Multi-Year Accessibility Plan, rather than as a separate plan. She further
referenced updates that have occurred over 2025 and 2026, including, website updates,
AODA compliant budget software, Grey Roots Museum & Archives updates, new
training software, and more. Additionally, she highlighted that staff presented a report on
municipal accessibility legislation which was circulated to all local Grey County
municipalities to use as a tool to guide compliance. She further highlighted the several
initiatives promoted consultation and improved communication including Access E11
software implementation, focus groups as part of the engagement Regional Transit
Study, Long-Term Care resident and family experience surveys and resident councils,
Sydenham Campus support, and more.
JAAC26-26
Moved by: Member Sillaby
Seconded by: Councillor Greig
That Report CCR-JAAC-17-26 Multi-Year Accessibility Plan 2025 and
2026 Progress Update be endorsed as presented and posted to the
Accessibility page of the Grey County website; and
That the 2023 – 2027 Multi-Year Accessibility Plan be amended to add
Appendix D: Accessibility Plan – Long-Term Care.
Carried
CCR-JAAC-18-26 Updated Terms of Reference for the Grey
County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee (Kathie Nunno)
4
The Accessibility and Contract Specialist summarized the report and referenced the
proposed changes within the Terms of Reference.
Member Greig thanked the Committee for their support and comments amongst various
projects throughout this Committee term.
JAAC27-26
Moved by: Member Whitfield
Seconded by: Councillor Greig
That Report CCR-JAAC-18-26 regarding the updated Terms of
Reference for the Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory
Committee be received; and
That the updated Grey County Joint Accessibility Advisory
Committee Terms of Reference be adopted as presented.
Carried
Correspondence
ARCH Disability Law Centre - Workplace Accommodations
Webinar Information
The Accessibility and Contract Specialist referred to the correspondence for information
of the Committee.
Other Business
Call for Applications - 2027-2030 Membership Campaign
The Accessibility and Contract Specialist highlighted that applications for the 2027-2030
Committee membership are now open and scheduled to close on November 15, 2026.
She further thanked the Committee for their participation throughout the Term.
Next Meeting Date
To be determined.
Adjournment
On motion of Member Greig and Member Whitfield, the Grey County Joint Accessibility
Advisory Committee adjourned at 2:47 p.m. to the call of the Chair.
5
7.b FR-CW-22-26 Grey County 2025 Asset Management Plan
Agenda item 7.b: FR-CW-22-26 Grey County 2025 Asset Management Plan --- Attachment: Grey County Asset Management Plan - FR-CW-22-26.pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/e4f15ab64e307a8d2cf190860713909da20fa1ae4c9b18356770ceaa60c10203/7-b-1-grey-county-asset-management-plan-fr-cw-22-26-pdf.pdf Committee Report To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council Committee Date: October 22, 2026 Subject / Report No: FR-CW-22-26 Title: Grey County 2025 Asset Management Plan Prepared by: Garrett Reed, Interim Deputy Treasurer Reviewed by: Sue Murray, Interim Treasurer, Randy Scherzer, Chief Administrative Officer Lower Tier(s) Affected: Recommendation 1.
Report Recommends That Grey County Council Receive the 2025 Asset Management Plan
The report recommends that Grey County Council receive the 2025 Asset Management Plan and endorse it as presented. The plan updates the asset portfolio's estimated replacement cost to $2.6 billion, reflecting a 4% improvement in asset condition compared to 2023. Staff recommend establishing a target investment of $57.3 million per year to maintain an average 'good' condition across the portfolio. To meet this target by 2038, the County is advised to increase the annual tax levy by 2.55% per year for asset management. The financial impacts outlined in the report are recommended for inclusion in the 2027 draft budget and 2028 forecasted budget.
Asset Management Plan (amp) for 2025 Presents Four Investment Scenarios Ranging
Staff recommend Scenario 3 of the Asset Management Plan (AMP) for 2025.
Maintain Current Asset Management Financial Strategy
The report recommends maintaining the County's current financial strategy for asset management used in the 2027 budget and 2036 forecast, with annual increases approved through the budget process.
Agenda item 7.b: FR-CW-22-26 Grey County 2025 Asset Management Plan
---
Attachment: Grey County Asset Management Plan - FR-CW-22-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/e4f15ab64e307a8d2cf190860713909da20fa1ae4c9b18356770ceaa60c10203/7-b-1-grey-county-asset-management-plan-fr-cw-22-26-pdf.pdf
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: October 22, 2026
Subject / Report No: FR-CW-22-26
Title: Grey County 2025 Asset Management Plan
Prepared by: Garrett Reed, Interim Deputy Treasurer
Reviewed by: Sue Murray, Interim Treasurer, Randy Scherzer, Chief
Administrative Officer
Lower Tier(s) Affected:
Recommendation
1. That report FR-CW-22-26 regarding the Grey County 2025 Asset Management Plan
be received; and
2. That the Grey County 2025 Asset Management Plan be endorsed as presented;
and
3. That the financial impacts as outlined in the report be included in the 2027 draft
budget and 2028 forecasted budget for consideration.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to summarize Grey County’s 2025 Asset Management Plan (AMP)
and outline the changes from previously endorsed asset management plans. This report and
plan represent the County meeting its legislative requirements for asset management and
removes the risk of the province withholding Ontario Community Infrastructure Funding (OCIF)
allocations. The County’s asset portfolio has an overall estimated current replacement cost of
$2.6 billion, an increase of $0.2 billion over the 2023 AMP value of $2.4 billion. The increase is
the result of updating replacement costs of various assets based on increases in pricing.
Overall, 89% of the County’s assets are in fair or better condition, which is an improvement of
4% compared to 2023 AMP. These numbers are as of December 31, 2025, and do not include
any changes in the County’s asset portfolio based on the road exchanges anticipated on June
1, 2027, as approved by Council on July 9, 2026.
Based on the requirements outlined under Ontario Regulation 588/17 this is the final legislated
AMP update that requires specific enhancements compared to previous plans. The primary
change from the 2023 AMP requirements is the addition of proposed levels of service for the
County’s asset portfolio which allows the County to build a financial strategy that is realistic and
achievable.
FR-CW-22-26 1 October 22, 2026
The County analyzed four scenarios with different levels of service, and it is recommended that
the County establish a target investment of $57.3 million per year to maintain an average
condition of “good” across the County’s asset portfolio. To achieve this in a timely fashion it is
recommended that the County maintain the current practice of increasing the annual tax levy by
2.55% per year for asset management in order to meet the target investment levy by 2038. This
is consistent with the timeline and investment outlined in the 2023 asset management plan. This
will be evaluated annually based on updated asset information and reviewed during the annual
budget process.
The County’s asset registry includes 11,452 different assets and asset components. Each
inventory line includes a condition rating, replacement cost and risk rating. All these data points
impact the calculation used in this analysis. Going forward staff are committed to maintaining
and enhancing this data to make the analysis as accurate and relevant as possible. This will
include recording the acquisition and disposal of assets, identifying any missing data and
updating data based on best available information. In 2027 this will include updating asset
inventories as a result of road exchanges and updating conditions and replacement information
based on asset condition assessments being completed in 2026, which could have significant
impacts on the calculations.
Background and Discussion
Current State of Grey County Assets
The attached report along with the appendices provide details on the current assessment of the
County’s asset portfolio. For each of the County’s 11,452 assets and asset components, a
replacement cost, condition assessment and risk rating are assigned. This information helps to
show the current state of the asset portfolio and plan for the future management of these
assets. The appendices provide a breakdown of the same information but separated by different
categories.
The County’s portfolio has a total replacement cost of $2.6 billion dollars. The largest asset
categories are the road network ($1.49 billion), bridges & culverts ($425.9 million) and buildings
& facilities ($539.8 million). These numbers help illustrate the scale of the asset portfolio that the
County owns and is responsible for maintaining. Staff used recent pricing to update replacement
costs, when no recent pricing was available staff used original cost plus an inflationary increase.
FR-CW-22-26 2 October 22, 2026
Figure 1: Current Replacement Cost by Asset Category
Overall, the County’s assets are in relatively good condition and 89% of all assets are in fair or
better condition. Staff performed field assessments to assess the condition of assets, where
field condition was not available staff used the age of the asset to determine the condition.
Assets conditions are then used to determine when replacements are expected for that asset.
Based on current condition assessment it is expected that $680 million or over 25% of the
County’s assets are expected to require replacement in the next 10 years.
Table 1: Standard Condition Rating Scale
FR-CW-22-26 3 October 22, 2026
Figure 2: Asset Condition by Asset Category
Risk ratings were assigned to all assets based on the probability and consequence of potential
asset failures. This provides a high-level analysis of where immediate investment may be most
needed, however, in certain circumstances it may be possible to significantly lower the risk of
failure through repairs. Additionally certain critical assets like bridges may return very high-risk
ratings regardless of condition or probability of failure because the consequence of their failure
is very high.
Figure 3: Overall Asset Risk Breakdown
Previous Grey County Asset Management Plans
The 2023 AMP approved by council in 2024 identified assets with a total replacement cost of
$2.4 billion with over 85% being in fair or better condition. The plan used recommended
reinvestment rates from The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card for the various asset types to
calculate a target reinvestment rate of $56.2 million. The available funding for capital assets was
identified as $25.5 million.
Table 2: 2025 AMP Compared to 2023 AMP Key Figures
2025 AMP 2023 AMP Difference
Total Replacement Cost of Assets $2.6 billion $2.4 billion $0.2 billion
Assets in Fair or Better Condition 89% 85% 4%
FR-CW-22-26 4 October 22, 2026
Annual Funding Required for Full $79.6 million $71.4 million $8.2 million
Lifecycle Replacement
Total Annual Funding Available $28.6 million $25.5 million $3.1 million
Annual Funding Deficit Full Lifecycle $51 million $45.9 million $5.1 million
Recommended Reinvestment Rate $57.3 million $56.2 million $1.1 million
Annual Funding Deficit Using $28.7 million $30.7 million ($2.0 million)
Recommended Reinvestment Rates
Annual Tax Levy Increase 2.55% 2.55% 0.00%
Recommended
Planned year to meet investment 2038 2038 0 years
target
The chart shows the total replacement cost of assets and required annual investment for life
cycle replacement has increased since the last plan. This is the result of updating pricing and
detail of lifecycle activities. However, it also shows that the overall condition of the assets and
the annual funding available have improved. This a result of strategic maintenance and
replacement and support from council for asset management through the annual budget
process. The target reinvestment rate has increased slightly, which is the result of changing the
methodology from using recommended rates in 2023 to using proposed levels of service to
maintain an average of good condition for the asset portfolio. The net impact is that
infrastructure deficit has been reduced by $2 million over 3 years. Additionally, the County’s levy
has grown over these 3 years, which allows the 2.55% annual target to still be relevant to close
the $28.7 million dollar deficit by 2038.
Proposed Level of Service Options
New to the 2025 AMP is proposed levels of service for the capital asset portfolio with various
scenarios being analyzed. A 100-year simulation was run for 4 different scenarios proposing
different levels of service. This allows the County to view the impact of investments on the
condition of the overall portfolio and establish a target investment rate that is both realistic and
achievable for the County. It allows the County to build a financial plan far beyond the 10 year
capital plan, which is important as the majority of the County’s asset have a useful life greater
than 10 years.
Scenario 1: Maintain current capital investment. If the County were to not increase capital
spending above the 2026 budgeted amounts indefinitely there would be significant impacts on
the portfolio. Currently the county invests $28.6 million per year into maintaining the County’s
assets. The model showed significant deterioration in the asset portfolio, with the average
condition falling to poor in the next 20 years. This deterioration would result in higher risk of
asset failure, reduced levels of service and potential service disruptions.
Scenario 2: Target average condition of fair, 50 condition score. In order to maintain this target
an annual investment of $48.3 million is required, this is $19.7 million more than the current
FR-CW-22-26 5 October 22, 2026
investment being made. This option would represent a moderate reduction to level of service
compared to the current condition of assets but comes at a lower cost than maintaining assets
at current condition.
Scenario 3: Target average condition of good, 60 condition score. In order to maintain this target
an annual investment of $57.3 million is required, this is $28.7 million more than the current
investment being made. This option would represent a slight reduction in the level of service
compared to the current condition of assets. Note that the average condition would be 58, this is
slightly lower than the 60 noted above as it is not financially practical to keep certain assets in
very good or good condition over their useful life. For example, vehicles will eventually fall to fair
conditions closer to the end of their useful life and be treated as spares.
Scenario 4: Full lifecycle activities. In order to complete these activities the annual investment of
$79.6 million is required, this is $51 million more than the current investment being made. This
would represent the fully funded asset management plan where the county is able to complete
all lifecycle maintenance activities and end-of-life replacements for identified assets. However,
the significant cost may not be realistic given municipal budget constraints.
Based on this staff recommend that the County select scenario 3 as the proposed levy of
service for the 2027 budget. This represents a balanced approach that keeps most assets in
good condition while being able to maintain the financial strategy of 2.55% annual levy increase
and achieving the target by 2038.
Future Asset Management Plans
This AMP is intended to be a living document with annual updates provided to council and an
updated plan being completed every 5 years as required by Ontario Regulation 588/17. As
outlined in the plan, the financial projections and recommendations rely heavily upon the
available data for asset conditions, expected replacement date, replacement costs and planned
lifecycle activities. Staff will be working to improve this data every year and evaluate whether the
recommended 2.55% annual increase is still relevant before draft budgets are proposed to
future councils. This figure can be impacted by condition assessments, replacement costs,
lifecycle activities and changes to the overall Grey County levy.
The County is currently working with experts to get updated Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
inspections, Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) and Building Condition Assessment’s
(BCA). This will improve the underlying data for the County’s road network, bridges and major
culverts and buildings, which represents $2.45 billion of assets or 94% of the County’s total
asset portfolio. This could result in significant changes to the financial strategy.
As approved by Council, the County will be completing various road transfers with lower tier
municipalities on June 1, 2027. This could have significant impacts on the asset management
plan. Urban roads being transferred to the lower tier municipalities will be removed from the
asset portfolio, which will reduce the annual reinvestment required, however the transitional
funding being provided to lower tiers will be removed from the County’s current funding being
invested in its own assets. Rural road exchanges between municipalities will also have an
impact on the asset management plan. Although roads are being exchanged, there will be a
difference in the condition, replacement dates and replacement cost between the roads being
FR-CW-22-26 6 October 22, 2026
transferred to and from the County, which will impact the financial strategy of the asset
management plan.
Staff are committed to updating improving the County’s asset inventory on a regular basis to
ensure underlying data is as accurate as possible. Additionally, staff will work with asset-owning
departments to build better lifecycle management activities on all assets. This will help identify
opportunities where it is possible to extend the useful life of assets in a cost-effective manner
while maintaining the proposed levels of service. These updated lifecycles will be built into
future asset management models to ensure that capital spending is being used in the most
efficient way possible.
Legislated Requirements
Ontario Regulation 588/17, Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure, became
effective on January 1, 2018. This regulation required all municipalities in Ontario to first
develop an Asset Management Policy by July 1, 2019, and then Asset Management Plans by
July 1, 2022, 2024, and again in 2025, with increasing levels of detail. This AMP has been
prepared to follow 2025 requirements. This represents the final regulated plan, going forward
annual updates to council must be provided and an updated plan must be prepared every 5
years.
Financial and Resource Implications
The recommendations in the report represent maintaining the County’s current financial strategy
for asset management that was used for the 2027 budget and 2027-2036 10-year capital
forecast. Increases will be approved annually through the budget process. Staff will continue to
update the underlying data that drives the analysis of the plan, and update council annually
before budget discussions and provide updated recommendations for consideration. A full
updated asset management plan will be required in 2030.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal (all asset-owning departments)
☒ AODA Compliance Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Compliant
☐ Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets (describe)
☒ External (PSD Citywide)
Appendices and Attachments
Grey County 2025 Asset Management Plan.pdf
Previous Asset Management Plans
FR-CW-22-26 7 October 22, 2026
7.c TR-CW-30-26 Update to By-law 4788-13 - A By-law to Regulate Traffic and Parking on Highways within the County of Grey Roads System
A report recommends that Council consider a by-law to amend Schedules D, F, N, and P of By-Law 4788-13 regarding traffic and parking regulations in the County of Grey Roads System. Transportation Services proposes specific edits including adjusting speed limits on Grey Road 2 in Feversham and Bruce Road 10 in Elmwood, while maintaining existing limits in Heathcote based on collected data. The department also recommends establishing new Community Safety Zones near a school and a church used for worship, and retaining current zone limits on Grey Road 13 despite them not meeting typical criteria.
Amendments to By-law 4788-13 Traffic Parking
A report recommends that Council consider a by-law to amend Schedules D, F, N, and P of By-Law 4788-13 regarding traffic and parking regulations in the County of Grey Roads System. The proposed amendments update speed limits and parking restrictions in various areas, including Owen Sound, Feversham, Elmwood, and Heathcote. Specific changes include defining a two-hour parking zone on Grey Road 15 in Owen Sound, removing short-term metered parking designations, adjusting speed limits to 40 km/h in certain villages, creating new community safety zones, and modifying existing transition zones.
Transportation Services Recommends Parking Edits and Speed Limit Changes
Transportation Services recommends an edit to Schedule D of By-Law 4788-13 to adjust 10-minute parking limits on Grey Road No. 15 and the removal of specific items from Schedule F. The department does not recommend reducing the speed limit on Grey Road 2 in Feversham to 40 km/h, citing TAC guidelines that suggest the current 50 km/h limit is already below the road's design speed. Staff instead recommend extending the 50 km/h zone and shifting the transition zone north on Bruce Road 10 in Elmwood to address sightline concerns, pending coordination with Bruce County.
Grey Road 13 – Heathcote 50 Km/h Zone Correspondence from a Local
Transportation Services recommends maintaining the existing 50 km/h speed limit in Heathcote. The department also recommends adding a new 60 km/h transition zone at the southerly approach to Heathcote and proposes revisions to Schedule P of By-Law 4788-13 to establish Community Safety Zones on Grey Road 2 near Hundred Acre Wood School and on Grey Road 12 near a church used for worship.
Staff Confirm Existing Community Safety Zone Limits Are Adequate
A request to shorten the Community Safety Zone limits on Grey Road 13 in Heathcote was included on the Consent Agenda based on a resident's correspondence. Staff confirmed that existing signage provides sufficient notice and that maintaining current limits protects awareness for nearby properties like Blackbird Pie Company. Transportation Services supports keeping the existing zone limits despite them not meeting typical criteria, and does not recommend any changes to the by-law schedule.
Agenda item 7.c: TR-CW-30-26 Update to By-law 4788-13 - A By-law to Regulate Traffic and Parking on Highways within the County of Grey Roads System
---
Attachment: Amendments to By-Law 4788-13 – Regulating Traffic and Parking within the County of Grey Roads System - TR-CW-30-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/f80999df53cdc40f1171b8535a7fb0465adc49b4f88bd00e0b8ebf3b0adaa4a0/7-c-1-amendments-to-by-law-4788-13-regulating-traffic-and-parking-within-the-county-of-grey-road.pdf
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: October 22, 2026
Subject / Report No: TR-CW-30-26
Title: Amendments to By-Law 4788-13 – Regulating Traffic and
Parking within the County of Grey Roads System
Prepared by: Trevor Ireton, Engineering Manager
Reviewed by: Pat Hoy, Director of Transportation
Lower Tier(s) Affected: Member Municipalities
Recommendation
1. That report TR-CW-30-26 be received; and
2. That a by-law be brought forward for Council’s consideration to amend Schedule
“D”, Schedule “N”, Schedule “F”, and Schedule “P” of By-Law 4788-13, being the
By-law to Regulate Traffic and Parking on Highways within the County of Grey
Roads System, to reflect the proposed revisions included within TR-CW-30-26.
Executive Summary
By-Law 4788-13 was adopted by Grey County Council to regulate traffic and parking on roads
under the jurisdiction of the County of Grey.
Several changes are proposed to the By-law to update certain speed limits and parking
restrictions, in various areas of the County.
The table below summarizes those proposed changes and requests received and whether
these meet policy criteria.
TR-CW-30-26 1 October 22, 2026
Meets Policy
Recommended
Changes Requested Criteria to
Schedule Description by
warrant speed
Transportation
reduction
D Parking – Definition of 2 hour parking zone on N/A Yes
Restricted GR 15 (3rd Ave. E.) from the
Length of Time intersection 8th St. E. to the
intersection of 10th St. E. in Owen
Sound
F Short Term Removal of the short-term metered N/A Yes
Parking - parking zone on Grey Road 15 GR 15
Meters (3rd Ave. E.) from the intersection 8th
St. E. to the intersection of 10th St. E.
in Owen Sound
N Rates of Grey Road 2 Feversham - Reduction No No
Speed of speed limit to 40 km/h within the
village of Feversham.
Bruce Road 10 Elmwood - Extension Yes Yes
of 50 km/h zone at the north end of
the village of Elmwood due to sightline
concerns and shifting of 70 km/h
transition zone
Grey Road 13 Heathcote - Reduction No No
of speed limit to 40 km/h within the
village of Heathcote.
Grey Road 13 Heathcote - Creation of Yes Yes
a new 60 km/h speed limit transition
zone at the southern limits of the
current 50 km/h zone within the village
of Heathcote.
P Community Grey Road 2 Feversham - New N/A Yes
Safety Zones Community Safety Zone due to the
presence of the Hundred Acre Wood
School.
Grey Road 12 - New Community N/A Yes
Safety Zone due to the presence of
the Georgian Heights Church of God
in Christ (west of Meaford)
Grey Road 13 Heathcote – Changes N/A No
to the limits of the existing Community
Safety Zone in the village of
Heathcote
TR-CW-30-26 2 October 22, 2026
Background and Discussion
Schedule “D” – Parking For Restricted Length of Times and
Schedule F – Short Term Parking - Meters
City of Owen Sound staff submitted a request to update the County’s parking By-Law to reflect
previous changes made by the City that were not provided to the County at the time. The
County By-Law currently identifies on-street parking on Grey Road 15 (3rd Ave. E.), from 8th St.
E. to 10th St. E., as metered parking. The parking meters were removed several years ago;
however, the County By-Law was not updated to reflect this change. The changes include the
parking areas defined as a 2-hour parking limit between 8th St. E. and 10th St. E. as well as
parking stalls in front of the post office which are defined as 10 minute parking on both the east
and west sides of 3rd Ave. E. To align the County By-Law with the current parking restrictions
provided by the City of Owen Sound, the following adjustments to Schedules “D” and “F” are
required.
Transportation Services recommends the following inclusion to Schedule “D” of By-Law
4788-13.
Parking Time of Day That
Grey Road No. Description Time Limit Parking Limit is
Applicable
15 (3rd Ave. On the west side from a point 33.4 metres 2 hour anytime
E., Owen northerly of the intersection of 8th Street parking
Sound) East to a point 26.4 metres southerly of
the intersection of 9th Street East
15 (3rd Ave. On the east side from a point 16.6 metres 2 hour anytime
E., Owen northerly of the intersection of 8th Street parking
Sound) East to a point 28.7 metres southerly of
the intersection of 9th Street East
15 (3rd Ave. On the west side from a point 21.3 metres 2 hour anytime
E., Owen northerly of the intersection of 9th Street parking
Sound) East to a point 30.0 metres southerly of
the intersection of 10th Street East
15 (3rd Ave. On the east side from a point 74.5 metres 2 hour anytime
E., Owen northerly of the intersection of 9th Street parking
Sound) East to a point 58.3 metres southerly of
the intersection of 10th Street East
15 (3rd Ave. On the west side from a point 21.3 metres 10 minute anytime
E., Owen northerly of the intersection of 9th Street parking
Sound) East to a point 47.5 metres northerly of the
intersection of 9th Street East
TR-CW-30-26 3 October 22, 2026
Transportation Services recommends the following edit to the limits of the 10 minute parking
area defined in Schedule “D” of By-Law 4788-13.
Parking Time of Day That
Grey Road No. Description Time Limit Parking Limit is
Applicable
15 (3rd Ave. On the east side from a point 16.5 10 minute anytime
E., Owen metres northerly of the intersection of parking
Sound) 9th Street East to a point 52.0 metres
northerly of the intersection of 9th
Street East
Transportation Services recommends the following items be removed from Schedule “F” of
By-Law 4788-13.
Grey Road No. Description
15 (3rd Ave. E., Owen Both sides from the intersection of 8th Street East to the intersection
Sound) of 10th Street East (King’s Highway No. 6 and 21)
15 (3rd Ave. E., Owen West side from a point 12.2 metres from the intersection of 8th Street
Sound) East to a point 10 metres southerly of this point
Schedule “N” - Rates of Speed
In accordance with the Highway Traffic Act, municipalities have the authority to establish rates
of speed on their roads. For the speed limit rates to be applicable, a by-law must be passed
identifying the limits and the rate of speed.
Schedule “N” regulates the rates of speed on County roads that differ from standard regulatory
speeds (80/50 kilometres per hour).
Speed Limit Changes
Requests to reduce posted speed limits are received regularly throughout the County. County
roads are generally designed to accommodate higher traffic volumes and travel speeds while
maintaining efficient movement as well as safety considerations. Staff use the Transportation
Association of Canada (TAC) Speed Limit Assessment Guidelines to evaluate speed limits
based on roadway characteristics and the observed operating speeds of drivers.
Many requests seek speed limits below those recommended through the TAC assessment.
While lower posted limits may appear to address safety concerns, setting a limit substantially
below the natural operating speed of the roadway can increase the variation in vehicle speeds.
Greater speed variation between vehicles can contribute to a higher risk of conflicts, increased
aggression, and a larger risk of collision. A change to the posted speed limit alone does not
typically result in a corresponding reduction in operating speeds. Where speeding or compliance
remains a concern, requests are typically referred to the local police service for consideration of
TR-CW-30-26 4 October 22, 2026
targeted enforcement.
Below is the background for requested changes:
Grey Road 2
A Motion from the Municipality of Grey Highlands was included on the September 10, 2026
Committee of the Whole Consent Agenda and was pulled for further discussion. One of the
suggested improvements was to consider dropping the speed limit from 50 km/h to 40 km/h
within the village in Feversham.
Grey Road 2 continues to function as a County arterial route through the community, providing
for the movement of people, goods and services, while the majority of residential properties are
accessed from the local road network. This arrangement allows local streets to provide the
lower-speed environment appropriate for residential activity without unnecessarily imposing the
same operating characteristics on the County road.
Based on the TAC Speed Limit Assessment Guidelines, the assessment tool verified a 70 km/h
posted speed based on the road characteristics of Grey Road 2 and a 60 km/h posted speed
based on policy, which, in this case represents 10 km/h below the design speed stated in the
assessment tool (70 km/h). The current 50 km/h posted speed limit is already below the speed
supported by the physical characteristics of Grey Road 2, and further reducing the limit to 40
km/h would increase the difference between the posted speed and the speed that the roadway
environment communicates to drivers. Without corresponding changes to the roadway
environment, a lower posted limit is unlikely to materially influence driver behaviour and
increases the risk of collisions due to a larger driver speed differential.
Based on the TAC assessment, the existing road characteristics, and the function of Grey Road
2 within the community, Transportation Services does not recommend reducing the posted
speed limit to 40 km/h in Feversham.
Transportation Services does not recommend changes to Schedule “P” of By-Law 4788-13
relating to the 50 km/h zone in the village of Feversham.
Bruce Road 10
Bruce Road 10 in the village of Elmwood in the Municipality of West Grey currently has a 1,281
m long 50 km/h speed limit zone. At the northerly limit of the village, Bruce Road 10 transitions
to a 70 km/h speed zone for approximately 500 m before transitioning to 80 km/h in the rural
area.
Transportation Services received public comments requesting an extension of the 50 km/h zone
north of Queen Street East in the village of Elmwood. During the field review, staff determined
that the existing vertical sightline is not appropriate for the current posted speed of 70 km/h.
Extending the northerly limit of the 50 km/h zone to 750 metres north of Queen Street East, and
shifting the 500 m long 70 km/h transition zone to the north would address this concern.
As Bruce Road 10 is a boundary road shared with Bruce County, Grey County staff have
contacted Bruce County staff to coordinate the proposed speed by-law amendment. As part of
the ongoing discussion, it was verified that Bruce County’s speed By-Law does not include this
stretch of Bruce Road 10 as it falls within the road sections maintained by Grey County as part
of the Boundary Agreement. However, in consultation with the Clerk, staff believe that both Grey
TR-CW-30-26 5 October 22, 2026
and Bruce Counties require the entirety of the Grey Bruce boundary road to be contained within
each By-Law. Staff will continue to coordinate with Bruce County to ensure their By-Law reflects
Grey County’s.
Staff recommend extending the 50 km/h zone and shifting the 70 km/h transition zone north of
Queen Street East on Bruce Road 10 in Elmwood.
Transportation Services recommends the following revisions to Schedule “N” of By-Law
4788-13.
Grey Road From To Rate of Speed
Bruce Road 10 A point 383 metres south A point 750 metres north of 50 kilometres
of the Intersection at the Intersection at Queen per hour
Queen Street East and Street East and West
West (Elmwood) (Elmwood)
Bruce Road 10 A point 750 metres north A point 1250 metres north of 70 kilometres
of the Intersection at the Intersection at Queen per hour
Queen Street East and Street East and West
West (Elmwood) (Elmwood)
Grey Road 13 – Heathcote 50 km/h Zone
Correspondence from a local resident in Heathcote was included on the May 28, 2026
Committee of the Whole Consent Agenda and was pulled for further discussion. One of the
suggested improvements was to consider dropping the speed limit within Heathcote from 50
km/h to 40 km/h within the village.
The two curves in Heathcote are constructed such that they exceed the standards for a design
speed of 60 km/h however, do not currently meet the requirements of a 70 km/h design speed.
Typically in an urban environment, a posted speed 10 km/h below the design speed is standard.
Based on the TAC Speed Limit Assessment Guidelines, the assessment tool determined a 70
km/h posted speed based on the road characteristics and a 50 km/h posted speed based on
policy, which, in this case represents 10 km/h below the design speed stated in the assessment
tool (60 km/h).
Recent speed data was collected in the village of Heathcote from Sept 17 to Sept 29, 2026.
Based on the data collected, the average driver speed within the village of Heathcote was 52.2
km/h with the 85th percentile driver speed at 59.0 km/h. This shows great correlation between
the posted speed and the design speed for the road showing that drivers are reacting to the
natural road characteristics within Heathcote.
The policy assessment, roadway characteristics, and collected speed data do not support a
reduction in the posted speed limit. Accordingly, Transportation Services recommends
maintaining the existing 50 km/h speed limit in Heathcote.
Transportation Services does not recommend changes to Schedule “P” of By-Law 4788-13
relating to the 50 km/h zone in the village of Heathcote.
TR-CW-30-26 6 October 22, 2026
Grey Road 13 – Heathcote South Transition Zone
As part of the speed limit review completed by Transportation Services staff, it was noted that
there is currently no transition zone at the southerly approach to the village of Heathcote.
Based on this review, the introduction of a new 500 m long 60 km/h transition zone is warranted
extending from the southerly limit of the existing 50 km/h zone. The addition of this zone will
help to provide awareness to drivers travelling northbound that they are approaching the village
and should adjust their driving speed accordingly.
Transportation Services recommends the following revision to Schedule “P” of By-Law 4788-
13.
Grey From To Rate of
Road Speed
No.
13 A point 299 metres north of the A point 799 metres north of the 60
Intersection of Grey Road 13 at Intersection of Grey Road 13 kilometres
Sideroad 22C (geographic at Sideroad 22C (geographic per hour
Township of Euphrasia) and 21st Township of Euphrasia) and
Sideroad (Town of Blue 21st Sideroad (Town of Blue
Mountains) (Heathcote) Mountains) (Heathcote)
Schedule “P” – Community Safety Zones - Anytime
Requests from residents for the implementation of Community Safety Zones are received
regularly throughout the County. Community Safety Zones are an important tool for increasing
driver awareness and highlighting locations where there is a particular need to protect
vulnerable road users and promote public safety.
Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 5 states:
“Community Safety Zones are sections of roadway where public safety is of special concern.
These zones may include roadways near schools, day care centres, playgrounds, parks,
hospitals, senior citizen residences or may be collision-prone areas within a community. Traffic-
related offences committed within the zone are subject to increased fines. Many set fines are
doubled for offences such as speeding and traffic signal violations.”
While public safety is an important consideration at all locations throughout the County,
Community Safety Zones are intended to identify sections of roadway where there is a
heightened and specific safety concern. As such, consideration should be given to whether a
proposed location meets the criteria and intent outlined in OTM Book 5 before a Community
Safety Zone is established.
The effectiveness of Community Safety Zones can be diminished if they are applied too broadly
or in locations where the underlying safety concerns do not warrant their designation.
Maintaining a focused approach helps ensure that Community Safety Zones remain meaningful
to drivers and continue to draw attention to those locations where enhanced awareness and
TR-CW-30-26 7 October 22, 2026
compliance are particularly important.
Below is the background for requested changes:
Grey Road 2
A Motion from the Municipality of Grey Highlands was included on the September 10, 2026
Committee of the Whole Consent Agenda and was pulled for further discussion. One of the
suggested improvements was to introduce a new Community Safety Zone to reflect the
presence of the Hundred Acre Wood School.
Transportation Services staff reviewed the location and agree that the presence of the school
warrants the creation of a Community Safety Zone in the village of Feversham. Staff suggest
the zone extend approximately 300 m north of the Hundred Acre Wood School and 500 m south
to encapsulate the neighbouring residential side streets.
Transportation Services recommends the following revision to Schedule “P” of By-Law 4788-
13.
Grey Location From To
Road
No.
2 Feversham A point 200 metres north of A point 400 metres north of
the Intersection of Grey the Intersection of Grey Road
Road 2 at 8th Concession B 2 at 8th Concession A / River
(geographic Township of Road (geographic Township
Osprey) (Feversham) of Osprey) (Feversham)
Grey Road 12
Local residents within proximity to the Georgian Heights Church of God in Christ located on
Grey Road 12 between 16 Sideroad and 13 Sideroad in the Municipality of Meaford have
requested the creation of a Community Safety Zone. As this church is both used for worship and
as a school for the local Mennonite community, staff support the creation of a Community Safety
Zone along this stretch of Grey Road 12. Staff suggest the zone extend approximately 300 m
north of the church and 800 m south to include the neighbouring residential properties.
Transportation Services recommends the following revision to Schedule “P” of By-Law 4788-
13.
Grey Location From To
Road
No.
12 West of Meaford – A point 20 m south of the A point 600 m south of the
South of 16 driveway of #137763 Grey intersection of 16 Sideroad
Sideroad Road 12
TR-CW-30-26 8 October 22, 2026
Grey Road 13
A request to adjust the limits of the Community Safety Zone in Heathcote was included as a
second option in correspondence from a local resident, which was included on the May 28,
2026 Committee of the Whole Consent Agenda. The resident requested that the Community
Safety Zone be shortened so signage would be located closer to the village and be more easily
recognized by drivers.
Upon review, staff confirmed that Community Safety Zone signs are posted throughout the
existing zone, including immediately before the core village area at both approaches to
Heathcote, as shown in the photos provided in the appendices. Staff note upon inspection that
the current signage provides sufficient notice to drivers as they enter the core village area.
The current limits of the Community Safety Zone also include the Blackbird Pie Company and
the equestrian riding centre north of the main village area. Staff confirm that maintaining the
existing Community Safety Zone limits will continue to provide raised awareness relating to
these two properties.
Although the existing Community Safety Zone in Heathcote does not expressly meet the typical
criteria outlined in OTM Book 5, Transportation Services supports maintaining the current zone
limits.
Transportation Services does not recommend any changes to Schedule “P” of By-Law 4788-
13 relating to the Community Safety Zone in Heathcote.
Legislated Requirements
For the by-law to be enforced, signage needs to be erected in accordance with the legislation.
Financial and Resource Implications
Labour, material and equipment to manufacture and install/change signage would cost
approximately $3,000.00.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal: Clerks Department
☒ External: Bruce County, City of Owen Sound
Appendices and Attachments
Grey Road 15 (3rd Ave. E.) - City of Owen Sound - By-Law 4788-13 Schedule “D” – Parking -
Restricted Length of Time and Schedule “F” – Short Term Parking – Meters - Location Map
Grey Road 2 - Municipality of Grey Highlands (Feversham) - By-Law 4788-13 “N” – Rates of
Speed – Speed Limit Analysis
Bruce Road 10 - Municipality of West Grey (Elmwood) - By-Law 4788-13 “N” – Rates of Speed -
Location Map
TR-CW-30-26 9 October 22, 2026
Grey Road 13 - Town of The Blue Mountains / Municipality of Grey Highlands (Heathcote) - By-
Law 4788-13 “N” – Rates of Speed - Location Map
Grey Road 2 - Municipality of Grey Highlands (Feversham) - By-Law 4788-13 “P” – Community
Safety Zones - Anytime - Location Map
Grey Road 12 - Municipality of Meaford - By-Law 4788-13 “P” – Community Safety Zones -
Anytime - Location Map
Grey Road 13 - Town of The Blue Mountains / Municipality of Grey Highlands (Heathcote) - By-
Law 4788-13 “P” – Community Safety Zones - Anytime – Location Map
Grey Road 13 - Town of The Blue Mountains / Municipality of Grey Highlands (Heathcote) - By-
Law 4788-13 “P” – Community Safety Zones - Anytime – Village Approach Photos
TR-CW-30-26 10 October 22, 2026
Grey Road 15 (3rd Ave. E.) - City of Owen Sound - By-Law 4788-
13 Schedule “D” – Parking - Restricted Length of Time and
Schedule “F” – Short Term Parking – Meters - Location Map
TR-CW-30-26 11 October 22, 2026
Grey Road 2 - Municipality of Grey Highlands (Feversham) - By-
Law 4788-13 “N” – Rates of Speed – Speed Limit Analysis
TR-CW-30-26 12 October 22, 2026
Bruce Road 10 - Municipality of West Grey (Elmwood) - By-Law
4788-13 “N” – Rates of Speed - Location Map
TR-CW-30-26 13 October 22, 2026
Grey Road 13 - Town of The Blue Mountains / Municipality of
Grey Highlands (Heathcote) - By-Law 4788-13 “N” – Rates of
Speed - Location Map
TR-CW-30-26 14 October 22, 2026
Grey Road 13 - Town of The Blue Mountains / Municipality of
Grey Highlands (Heathcote) - By-Law 4788-13 “N” – Rates of
Speed – Speed Limit Analysis
TR-CW-30-26 15 October 22, 2026
Grey Road 2 - Municipality of Grey Highlands (Feversham) - By-
Law 4788-13 “P” – Community Safety Zones - Anytime - Location
Map
TR-CW-30-26 16 October 22, 2026
Grey Road 12 - Municipality of Meaford - By-Law 4788-13 “P” –
Community Safety Zones - Anytime - Location Map
TR-CW-30-26 17 October 22, 2026
Grey Road 13 - Town of The Blue Mountains / Municipality of
Grey Highlands (Heathcote) - By-Law 4788-13 “P” – Community
TR-CW-30-26 18 October 22, 2026
Safety Zones - Anytime – Location Map
Grey Road 13 - Town of The Blue Mountains / Municipality of
Grey Highlands (Heathcote) - By-Law 4788-13 “P” – Community
Safety Zones - Anytime – Village Approach Photos
Heathcote – Northbound Town Limit Approach
Heathcote – Southbound Town Limit Approach
TR-CW-30-26 19 October 22, 2026
[[IMAGE ONLY PAGE]]
TR-CW-30-26 20 October 22, 2026
7.d FR-CW-21-26 - Corporate Financial Update as of August 31, 2026
Agenda item 7.d: FR-CW-21-26 - Corporate Financial Update as of August 31, 2026 --- Attachment: Corporate Financial Update - August 31, 2026 - FR-CW-21-26.pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/9dd458a25a7f4c57766bcd6fc2eb73e6e1174dea3a154e5b01dd441d158e805f/7-d-1-corporate-financial-update-august-31-2026-fr-cw-21-26-pdf.pdf Committee Report To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council Committee Date: October 22, 2026 Subject / Report No: FR-CW-21-26 Title: Corporate Financial Update - August 31, 2026 Prepared by: Cara Ottoson, Financial Analyst Garrett Reed, Interim Deputy Treasurer Reviewed by: Sue Murray, Interim Treasurer Lower Tier(s) Affected: Recommendation 1.
Corporate Financial Update Shows Projected County-wide Deficit
The report provides a corporate financial update for Grey County departments as of August 31, 2026, projecting an overall deficit of $1,269,800 against the budgeted levy of $83,951,800. Several projects approved in 2025 but completed in 2026 account for $943,700 of this deficit because funding was not re-budgeted. Departmental variances are attributed to factors such as staffing vacancies, unbudgeted software costs, increased travel expenses, and a large unbudgeted workers' compensation claim. The report notes that final surplus and deficit figures will be calculated at year-end closure.
Health Unit and Other Funding Initiatives Are Projecting to End the Year
The Health Unit and Other Funding Initiatives are projecting to end the year on budget, with payments to the Grey Bruce Health Unit making up $1,803,500 of this budget. Property's operating budget is trending to end the year in a deficit of $31,800 driven by unbudgeted professional fees for emergency mezzanine repairs and higher than budgeted contracted building maintenance. Property's capital budget is projecting a deficit of $230,900 primarily due to $192,000 in unbudgeted roof repairs at the Administration Building delayed due to weather and contractor timelines. Taxations, Grants and Other is projecting to end the year on budget, though final projections cannot be determined until lower-tier municipalities receive their final data from MPAC in late November. The Planning operating and capital budgets are projected to end the year on budget, with subdivision application fees trending lower than anticipated but offset by higher official plan applications. The Agriculture budget is projecting a surplus of $8,000 due to lower than estimated expenses for beaver and coyote compensation and higher than anticipated permit revenues.
Projected Deficit Exists in Snow Removal Within the Housing Budget
A projected deficit exists in snow removal within the Housing budget, with the final figure dependent on winter conditions. Staff have sought operational savings in other building maintenance lines to mitigate this shortfall.
Projected Operating and Capital Deficits Across Departments
The report projects operating deficits for Housing, Long-Term Care, Grey Gables, Lee Manor, Paramedic Services, and Transportation Services, primarily driven by staffing vacancies, supply costs, and winter maintenance overages. Capital projections show deficits for Housing, Grey Gables, and Paramedic Services due to unbudgeted projects and fleet replacement delays, while Rockwood Terrace and Long-Term Care Redevelopment are projected to end on budget or in surplus.
Projected Deficits in Facilities and Machinery Capital
Competitive bids generated cost savings early in the year, though asphalt price increases utilized some project contingencies. Grey Road 40 emergency culvert replacements will be funded through budget surpluses.
Agenda item 7.d: FR-CW-21-26 - Corporate Financial Update as of August 31, 2026
---
Attachment: Corporate Financial Update - August 31, 2026 - FR-CW-21-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/9dd458a25a7f4c57766bcd6fc2eb73e6e1174dea3a154e5b01dd441d158e805f/7-d-1-corporate-financial-update-august-31-2026-fr-cw-21-26-pdf.pdf
Committee Report
To: Warden Matrosovs and Members of Grey County Council
Committee Date: October 22, 2026
Subject / Report No: FR-CW-21-26
Title: Corporate Financial Update - August 31, 2026
Prepared by: Cara Ottoson, Financial Analyst
Garrett Reed, Interim Deputy Treasurer
Reviewed by: Sue Murray, Interim Treasurer
Lower Tier(s) Affected:
Recommendation
1. That report FR-CW-21-26 regarding Corporate Financial Update as of August 31,
2026, be received for information.
Executive Summary
This report provides a corporate financial update for all County departments based upon
financial statements as of August 31, 2026. This report is a snapshot in time and therefore the
numbers will continue to change as the year progresses. Currently staff are projecting a deficit
across the County of $1,269,800, compared to the budgeted levy of $83,951,800 in 2026. The
report summarizes a high-level variance analysis for the various departmental operating and
capital budgets.
The following projects account for $943,700 of the overall deficit. These are projects that were
approved and awarded in 2025 but did not get completed until 2026. The funding was not re-
budgeted and therefore it creates a deficit in the 2026 fiscal year. However, the funding
allocations are still in the reserves and can be used to fund the projects through the year end
surplus deficit report.
- $584,400 – Motor Grader
- $192,000 – Administration Building Roof Repair
- $110,000 – Grey Gables Air Handling Units
- $57,300 – 17 Legion Road Meaford, Housing Roof Replacement
Background and Discussion
The County spreads the 2026 budget evenly over the year for departments, and actual
spending in departments can be cyclical in nature, therefore there could appear to be significant
FR-CW-21-26 1 October 22, 2026
variances as of August 31, 2026. Departments receive monthly financial statements and review
results and trends with their designated finance team lead.
The August financial statements are included as a link at the end of the report. It is important to
note that some entries will not be recorded until year end, including but not limited to reserve
transfers, grant reconciliations, and debt repayments.
Each department reviews its actual versus budget figures and projects a year end position by
estimating results still to happen. Highlights of the financial statements and variances are
included below.
This report is a point in time update and projection for 2026 fiscal year. The final surplus and
deficit will be calculated when the 2026 year-end is closed and will be reported to Committee of
the Whole. Variances could occur in the last months of the year that will impact this projection
such as the impact of the first few months of winter and supplemental tax billing reconciliations.
Administration
Operating
The Administration departments are projecting an operating surplus of $105,200. This is
primarily due to temporary staffing vacancies, along with related benefit savings. These savings
have been partially offset by using external consultants to support required departmental
deliverables during the vacancies. Additional savings are projected from lower-than-anticipated
spending on external legal services. These are partially offset by Communications’ projected
deficit of $25,000, mainly due to anticipated unbudgeted software costs for Social Pinpoint, as
outlined in Council report CAOR-JMS-10-26.
Capital
The Administration capital budget is projecting a deficit of $10,100. This deficit is primarily
driven by an unbudgeted purchase of storage hardware totaling $9,000 for security footage at
the County Administration Building, which was a change to the County’s hosted infrastructure
project.
Climate Change
Operating
Climate Change is projecting an operating surplus of $46,200. This surplus is primarily due to
staffing vacancies throughout the year. Additionally, staff time has been reallocated to the grant-
funded Green Development capital project, which will result in reduced operating costs that
were budgeted to be funded by levy.
Capital
Climate Change capital budget is projected to end the year on budget. The Corporate Climate
Action project has been deferred to 2027 due to the selected supplier’s withdrawal and staffing
FR-CW-21-26 2 October 22, 2026
changes, while the Climate Opportunities Fund has been deferred because no suitable funding
opportunities have been identified for 2026. The projects included in this budget are funded from
reserve and therefore do not generate a surplus.
Council
Operating
The Council budget is projecting a deficit of $4,200. The deficit is caused by increased spending
on travel and meals expenses. These deficits are projected to be partially offset by reduced
spending on conference registration expenses.
Information Services (IS)
Operating
The Information Services budget is projecting a deficit of $74,000. This deficit is caused by
higher than anticipated software costs. The budgeted costs for this department are allocated to
the various departments throughout the County and therefore it has no budgeted levy.
Weekly Indemnity and Workers’ Compensation
Operating
The Weekly Indemnity (Short Term Disability) budget is projected to end the year on budget.
However, the Workers’ Compensation budget is projected to be in a deficit of $110,300 due to a
large unbudgeted claim. The Weekly Indemnity (Short Term Disability) and Workers’
Compensation budgets are self-insured plans. The premiums charged to County departments
are shown in these budgets as a source of revenue and are used to pay the costs to administer
these plans.
Assessment
Operating
The costs related to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (MPAC) services are
projecting a deficit of $6,400. Staff budgeted for a 3.4% increase in 2026 over 2025 actuals, but
the increase was closer to 3.72%. These fees are based on MPAC’s provincial budget and then
allocated to municipalities based on their weighted assessment and building counts.
FR-CW-21-26 3 October 22, 2026
Court Security
Operating
Court Security is projecting a deficit of $97,000. This deficit is primarily due to mandatory armed
security and enhanced screening, increased court sittings and trials, and additional staffing
required to manage violent or high-risk offenders.
Provincial Offences
Operating
The Provincial Offences budget is projecting an operating surplus of $163,900, which is Grey
County’s portion of the surplus as it is cost shared with Bruce County based on population.
Ticket revenues are trending to be in a surplus due to improved fine recovery rates. Revenue
remains difficult to forecast based on the variability of when charges are laid and paid. These
increased revenues are offset by increased costs to administer fines and payments to various
organizations. There are also minor savings for temporary staffing vacancies contributing to the
overall surplus.
Health Unit and Other Funding Initiatives
Operating
The Health Unit and Other Funding Initiatives are projecting to end the year on budget.
Payments to the Grey Bruce Health Unit make up $1,803,500 of this budget. The budgeted
$200,000 contribution for Brightshores Health System has been made in full and funded from
the Health Care Initiatives Reserve. This represents the fourth installment of a five-year, $1
million dollar commitment. There is a budgeted contribution to the reserve for 2026 of $200,000
to fund future health care requests.
Property
Operating
Property’s operating budget is trending to end the year in a deficit of $31,800. The deficit is
driven by unbudgeted professional fees for emergency mezzanine repairs. The remaining deficit
is driven by higher than budgeted contracted building maintenance, as a result of heating and
cooling repairs and required electrical upgrades following the three-day power outage at the
Grey County Administration Building.
Capital
Property’s capital budget is projecting a deficit of $230,900. The primary overage is due to
$192,000 in unbudgeted roof repairs at the Administration Building. The roof work was slated for
completion in 2025 but delayed due to weather and contractor timelines. The project was not re-
FR-CW-21-26 4 October 22, 2026
budgeted in 2026. The remaining deficit is a result of the emergency breaker replacement
attributable to the power outage.
Taxations, Grants and Other
Operating
Taxations, Grants and Other is projecting to end the year on budget. Final year-end projections
for supplementary taxation and write-offs cannot be determined until the lower-tier municipalities
receive their final Supplementary and Omitted Assessment data from MPAC in late November
and complete their year-end reconciliations.
Planning
Operating
The Planning operating budget is projected to end the year on budget. Subdivision application
fees are trending lower than anticipated. However, they are offset by higher than anticipated
official plan applications. These revenues are difficult to budget and forecast, due to the
uncertainty around when applications are submitted.
Capital
The Planning capital budget is trending to end the year on budget. The budgeted levy in this
department is for transfers to reserve for future projects. All current year projects are funded
from reserve and therefore do not generate a surplus.
Agriculture
Operating
The Agriculture budget is projecting a surplus of $8,000. The surplus is due to lower than
estimated expenses for beaver and coyote compensation paid by the County as well as higher
than anticipated permit revenues.
Forestry & Trails
Operating
Forestry and Trails operating budget is projecting a deficit of $5,100. The primary reason is
higher than expected spending on maintenance of trails due to damaged gates and higher than
expected snow removal of the Kolapore parking lot. However, the overall snow removal impact
will be dependent on the severity of the second half of winter.
FR-CW-21-26 5 October 22, 2026
Capital
The Forestry and Trails capital budget is projecting to end the year on budget. The projects
included in this budget are funded from reserve and therefore do not generate a surplus. The
levy for this department represents an annual contribution to reserve to fund future repairs and
replacement and will end the year on budget.
Economic Development & Tourism
Operating
The Economic Development and Tourism operating budget is projecting a deficit of $106,300.
This deficit is primarily caused by an increase in salaries and benefits due to temporary staffing
overlap required for maternity leave coverage and retirement transition. Additionally, tenant
revenues are projecting to be under budget at Sydenham campus resulting from Georgian
College’s discontinuation of two full-time room rentals effective September 2026.
Capital
The Economic Development and Tourism capital budget is projected to end the year on budget.
This budget includes the replacement of the tourism vehicle as well as repairs and upgrades to
Sydenham Campus including the planned HVAC project, which is scheduled for completion in
2026 and the unbudgeted boiler replacement that was approved on council report EDTC-CW-
05-26. These projects are funded from reserve and therefore do not generate a surplus.
Grey Roots
Operating
Grey Roots is projecting an operating surplus of $17,800. This surplus is driven primarily by
lower than anticipated building maintenance costs and cleaning services, as the cleaning
contract was awarded below budget. Some of this surplus is offset by admission revenues
projecting slightly below budget as a result of the museum's one-month closure to facilitate the
flat roof replacement of the main building.
Capital
Grey Roots capital is projecting to end the year on budget. This budget includes the flat roof
replacement scheduled for completion in October, as well as replacement of domestic water
tanks and hot water heaters. In addition, the completion of the updated road signage project
was approved through council report EDTC-CW-05-26. These projects are funded from reserve
and therefore do not generate a surplus.
FR-CW-21-26 6 October 22, 2026
Ontario Works
Operating
Ontario Works is projecting an operating surplus of $39,300. This is primarily the result of lower
than budgeted spending on non-shareable costs within social assistance. Additionally, there are
temporary staffing vacancies creating savings that are partially offset by reduced cost matching
provincial grants.
Capital
Ontario Works capital is projecting to end the year on budget. Computer replacements are
occurring throughout the year. Purchases are funded from reserve and therefore do not
generate a surplus.
Early Learning and Child Care
Operating
Early Learning and Child Care is projecting an operating surplus of $51,500. As more families
are utilizing CWELCC funded childcare spaces and paying $22 a day for childcare, there is less
demand on the fee subsidy budget that subsidizes parents based on their income and childcare
expenses. Reduction in these costs has resulted in the planned provincial funding being
reallocated to the capacity building childcare budget that was to be funded by the levy. This
creates a surplus as the allocated levy will not be needed.
Capital
The Early Learning and Child Care capital budget contains $1,733,000 for the continuation of
the Hanover EarlyON building construction. The land was acquired in 2025, with construction
occurring throughout 2026. Occupancy is anticipated for February 2027. Therefore, a portion of
the project has been re-budgeted for 2027. All project costs are funded from reserve and
therefore do not generate a surplus.
Housing and Non-Profit Housing
Operating
Housing is projecting an operating surplus of $268,700. This surplus is driven by savings in
salaries and benefits due to temporary staff vacancies and benefit savings. These savings are
partially offset by overages in contracted services for custodial support during vacancies.
Tenant revenues are projecting a surplus due to changes in tenant rent amounts and decreased
vacancies in 2026. This will help offset the projected deficit associated with bad debt write offs.
Additionally, there are savings in property taxes due to lower than expected increases. The
Non-Profit Housing budget is projecting a surplus due to agreements and mortgages ending, as
well as annual funding reconciliations that resulted in subsidies being repaid by providers.
FR-CW-21-26 7 October 22, 2026
A deficit is projected in snow removal in the Housing budget, but the final figure will be impacted
by the timing and severity of the second half of winter. Staff have worked to find operational
savings in other building maintenance lines throughout the year to mitigate this deficit.
Capital
Housing is projecting a capital deficit of $112,300. This deficit is primarily the result of elevator
replacements being over budget. These overages were approved through CSR-CW-11-26.
Additionally, there is an unbudgeted roof replacement that was awarded in 2025 but did not get
completed until 2026 and was not re-budgeted. The 2026 budget continues to utilize 30%
CMHC funding that must be expended by the end of this year.
Long-Term Care
Overall Long-Term Care is projecting a deficit of $11,700. The deficit is primarily due to
increased usage of agency staff to fill shifts and staffing vacancies. These overages are slightly
offset by higher-than-expected provincial funding. Staff monitor program costs and eligible
expenditure guidelines to ensure maximum funding allocations are achieved; any
underspending in ministry funded programs does not result in a surplus and funds are returned
to the province. Staff will continue to monitor expenditures for funding eligibility to reduce the
overall levy deficit.
Long-Term Care Administration
The cost of this department is funded through the care homes’ budgets on a per bed allocation
and is therefore expected to end the year on budget.
Grey Gables
Operating
Grey Gables is projecting a deficit of $353,700. This is primarily due to additional agency
staffing for vacancy coverage resulting in a higher contracted services cost. In addition, Grey
Gables is projecting a deficit in resident revenue due to admissions being placed in room
classifications with lower associated revenue than budgeted, based on bed availability at the
time of admission. The Behavioural Support Transition Unit (BSTU) continues to be under
budget as limitations exist in order to fully staff the program; any surplus is remitted back to the
Province and therefore does not create a surplus.
Capital
Grey Gables capital is projecting to end the year in a deficit of $110,000. The deficit is driven by
a 2025 air make up unit project that was not re-budgeted in 2026. Progress continues with the
2026 approved capital projects, the majority of which are funded from reserves and do not
generate a surplus.
FR-CW-21-26 8 October 22, 2026
Lee Manor
Operating
Lee Manor is projecting an operating deficit of $142,800. This is primarily driven by additional
agency staffing for vacancy coverage resulting in higher contracted services cost. Some of this
deficit will be offset by projected savings in funding received for building maintenance and
repairs that were budgeted to be funded by levy.
Capital
Lee Manor capital is projecting to end the year on budget. Progress continues with the 2026
approved capital projects, the majority of which are funded from reserve and do not generate a
surplus.
Rockwood Terrace
Operating
Rockwood Terrace is projecting an operating surplus of $484,800. This is primarily due to shift
vacancies being seen throughout the year. Additionally, building maintenance expenditures are
trending lower than budget as only essential repairs have been completed at the current facility
in anticipation of the future relocation to the new Rockwood Terrace.
Capital
Rockwood Terrace’s capital is projecting to end the year in a surplus of $110,000. This surplus
is the result of utilizing minor capital funding and only completing critical repairs. There is a need
to provide a safe, comfortable environment while balancing the need to redevelop, therefore
capital projects related to the building are only undertaken if necessary.
Long-Term Care Redevelopment
Long-term Care Redevelopment is projected to end the year on budget. The 2026 budget
anticipated $38,840,600 in expenditures. However, expenditures vary based on the completion
timelines set by the general contractor. Cash flow projections for 2026 include construction
financing to cover the remainder of the project. Professional fees originally unbudgeted at
creation of budget, were later endorsed by the Long Term Care Committee of Management
report LTCR-CM-03-26. Project completion is scheduled for Spring of 2027; therefore, a portion
of the project has been re-budgeted in 2027. This project is funded through Infrastructure
Ontario Financing and therefore does not generate a surplus.
FR-CW-21-26 9 October 22, 2026
Paramedic Services
Operating
Paramedic Services is projecting an operating deficit of $17,900. This deficit is primarily driven
by increasing costs of medical supplies, medications, and patient care equipment. Expenditures
for these supplies are trending above budget due to increased call volumes driving greater
usage, combined with cost increases such as freight charges and tariff related supplier
increases. Additionally, computer support and software are projecting a deficit due to
unforeseen costs associated with the electronic medical records software transition.
Capital
Paramedic Services is projecting a capital deficit of $32,900. This deficit is driven by the tender
awarded for replacement power stretchers exceeding the approved budget. All other budgeted
projects are funded from reserve and therefore do not generate a surplus.
Supply chain issues continue to be a problem with ambulances causing significant delays in
replacing the County’s fleet. Currently, the County has four ambulances on order, with only one
expected to come in 2026 and the remaining three to come in 2027. The 2026 budget also
included the full amount for the new Dundalk base, but the amount has been re-budgeted to
2027 as discussions are ongoing with Southgate. The amount is funded from debenture and
does not impact the current year levy.
Transportation Services
Operating
Transportation Services is projecting an operating deficit of $534,700. There are cost increases
in the operating facilities budget due to higher than anticipated maintenance and repairs of
buildings. Overages in vehicle maintenance are also being seen as tandems are being kept
beyond their recommended useful life due to delays in receiving replacement vehicles.
Additionally, a severe winter in the beginning of the year is significantly impacting the winter
control and stock budgets. These budgets will fluctuate year-to-year based on the severity of
winter. Significant weather events in the County result in overages in staff costs as plow
operators work overtime to maintain the roads and mechanics work overtime to maintain the
fleet. Overages for materials such as fuel, de-icer, salt, sand, and vehicle parts result due to
increased consumption, and overages in contracted services result as external parties are
brought in to remove snow when needed. The County has a dedicated Winter Reserve with a
current balance of $505,000 that is meant to mitigate the impact of winter maintenance cost
fluctuations. Staff have projected costs for an average second half of winter in 2026, but the
actual timeline and severity will impact this projection.
Capital
Transportation Services capital is projecting to end the year with a $584,800 deficit. The Major
Road and Bridge Construction budget is projected to have a surplus of $462,700. Tendering
FR-CW-21-26 10 October 22, 2026
early in the year has resulted in competitive bids and cost savings. However, increases in the
asphalt price index have utilized a portion of the contingencies allocated to several projects.
Additionally, the Grey Road 40 emergency culvert replacements completed this summer will be
funded through surpluses identified within the current budget. These projections could change
as the final invoices come through and change orders are finalized. All projects are expected to
be completed except for the Grey Road 19 and 21 utility relocations and booster pumping
station as well as the Grey Road 9 Urban Rehabilitation in Dundalk, which will see top course
paving completed in early 2027. These projects have all been re-budgeted in 2027.
Facilities, Depots and Domes capital is projecting a deficit of $462,700. The deficit is the result
of the new Patrol D Depot which was awarded overbudget with the intention of using any
surplus found in the Major Road and Bridge Construction budget. A portion of Patrol D Depot
budget has been deferred to 2027, with construction expected to be completed in Spring of
2027. All other budgeted projects are funded from reserve and federal grants and therefore do
not generate a surplus.
Machinery and Equipment capital budget is projecting a deficit of $584,800. This is due to a
grader that was ordered in 2025 and not received until 2026, and the budget was not rolled
forward. Staff are suggesting that this deficit be funded from the equipment reserve, as the
grader was budgeted in 2025 to be funded from this reserve. Three budgeted tandems (one
ordered in 2024 and two ordered in 2025) are not expected to be delivered in 2026 and have
been re-budgeted in 2027. All remaining budgeted vehicles and equipment have been awarded
and received. The Machinery and Equipment capital budget is funded from proceeds on
disposal of old equipment and transfers from reserve and therefore do not generate a surplus.
Financial and Resource Implications
Staff have reviewed actual financial results as compared to budget as of August 31st, as well as
any significant known changes since that time and are projecting an overall corporate deficit of
approximately $1,269,800 for 2026. Once the 2026 year-end is finalized, staff will provide a
2026 Year End Transfer report to the Committee of the Whole with recommendations on how
the departmental surplus/deficit positions will be transferred to/from reserves.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal – Senior Management Team and departmental staff
☐ External (none)
Appendices and Attachments
Operating and Capital Budget Variance Analysis as of August 31, 2026.pdf
Corporate Financial Statements as of August 31, 2026.pdf
FR-CW-21-26 11 October 22, 2026
8 Closed Meeting Matters
The Committee of the Whole moved into closed session to discuss litigation regarding a Toronto St. Subdivision appeal, advice subject to solicitor-client privilege concerning an entrance permit, and personal matters about identifiable individuals including municipal employees.
Agenda item 8: Closed Meeting Matters
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
8.
Closed Meeting Matters
That the Committee of the Whole does now go into closed session pursuant to
Page 3 of 99
89
Page 4 of 99
Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, to discuss:
i.
litigation or potential litigation (Toronto St. Subdivision appeal)
ii.
advice subject to solicitor - client privilege (entrance permit)
iii.
personal matters about an identifiable individual including municipal or
local board employees (work planning)
9 Other Business
Agenda item 9 Other Business was listed on the agenda.
Agenda item 9: Other Business
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
9.
Other Business
10 Notice of Motion
The agenda lists a Notice of Motion as item 10 without recording any discussion, motion text, or disposition in this excerpt.
Agenda item 10: Notice of Motion
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
10.
Notice of Motion
11 Adjournment
The agenda item listed for adjournment was recorded.
Agenda item 11: Adjournment
---
Combined agenda package (secondary source)
11.
Adjournment