191125 Regular Council Meeting AgendaThe Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Monday, November 25, 2019
4:00 PM
Council Chambers
200 Broadway, 2nd Floor
1.Call to Order
2.Closed Session
Proposed Resolution #1
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council move into Closed Session to consider:
personal matters about an identifiable individual, including Town employees; (CAO
Recruitment) (CAO Performance)
l
litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals,
affecting the Town; (Field and Flock)
l
a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the Town. (Cedar Street)l
3.Adoption of Agenda
Proposed Resolution #2
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Council meeting of Monday, November 25, 2019, be
adopted.
4.Moment of Silence
5.Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
6.Adoption of Council Minutes of Previous Meeting
Proposed Resolution #3
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the Minutes of the Council meeting of November 12, 2019, be approved.
7.Presentations
8.Public Meetings
8.1 Applications for Consent and Zone Change B19-77-7 & ZN 7-19-11 (Baird and
Cassidy)
Proposed Resolution #4
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council approve-in-principal the zone change application submitted by Shane
Cassidy and Scott Baird, whereby the lands described as Part Lots 488 & 489, Plan
500, in the Town of Tillsonburg, known municipally as 14 First Street, are to be
rezoned from ‘Low Density Residential Type 1 Zone (R1)’ to ‘Special Low Density
Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-sp)’ to allow for a reduced lot depth and reduced
minimum lot area to facilitate the creation of a vacant residential lot;
AND FURTHER Council advises the Land Division Committee that it is in favour of
the proposal to sever the subject property, subject to the conditions contained in
Report 2019-349.
9.Planning Applications
10.Delegations
10.1 Southwest Snow Riders Club - Snowmobile Trail Land Use Permission
Presented by: Larry Stuyt, Volunteer and William DeJonge, Club President
Proposed Resolution #5
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council receive the delegation by the Southwest Snow Riders Club regarding
a Snowmobile Trail Land Use Permission request, as information.
11.Deputation(s) on Committee Reports
12.Information Items
Page 2 of 170
13.Staff Reports
13.1 Chief Administrative Officer
13.1.1 CAO 19-13 Remediation of 58 Brock Street
Proposed Resolution #6
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council receive Report CAO 19-13, Remediation of 58 Brock Street;
AND THAT Council authorize A & A Environmental Consultants Inc. to
complete the remediation of 58 Brock Street at a cost not to exceed
$42,000 plus HST.
13.2 Clerk's Office
13.2.1 CLK 19-31 2020 Council Meeting Calendar
Proposed Resolution #7
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council receive report CLK 19-31 2020 Council Meeting Calendar,
as information;
AND THAT the following regular Council Meetings be re-scheduled for
2020:
Monday, February 24, 2020 be re-scheduled to Thursday,
February 27, 2020 due to the OGRA Conference (February 23 to
26, 2020).
1.
Monday, April 13, 2020 be re-scheduled to Tuesday, April 14,
2020 due to Easter Monday.
2.
Monday, June 8, 2020 be re-scheduled to Thursday, June 11,
2020 due to the AMCTO Conference (June 7 to 10, 2020).
3.
Monday, October 12, 2020 be re-scheduled to Tuesday, October
13, 2020 due to Thanksgiving Monday.
4.
AND THAT the following regular Council Meetings be cancelled for 2020:
Monday, July 27, 20201.
Monday, August 24, 20202.
Monday, December 28, 20203.
Page 3 of 170
13.2.2 CLK 19-32 Additional Appointments and Appointment Removal to Dog
Park Advisory Committee
Proposed Resolution #8
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council receive Report CLK 19-32 Additional Appointments and
Appointment Removal to the Tillsonburg Dog Park Advisory Committee;
AND THAT By-Law 4360 to amend Schedule A of By-Law 4247, be
brought forward for Council consideration.
13.3 Development and Communication Services
13.4 Finance
13.5 Fire and Emergency Services
13.6 Operations
13.6.1 OPS 19-51 Glendale West Subdivision Assumption By-law
Proposed Resolution #9
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council receive Report OPS 19-51 Glendale West Subdivision
Assumption By-law;
AND THAT a By-law to assume the Municipal Works and Services within
the Glendale West Subdivision, Registered Plan 41M-305 be brought
forward for Council consideration.
13.6.2 OPS 19-52 Results for Tender RFT 2019-021 Medium Duty Single Axle
Cab and Chassis
Proposed Resolution #10
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council receive Report OPS 19-52, Results for Tender RFT 2019-
021 Medium Duty Single Axle Cab and Chassis;
AND THAT Council award Tender RFT 2019-021 to Oxford Dodge
Chrysler Ltd. of London, ON at a cost of $55,761.43 (net HST included),
the only bid received.
Page 4 of 170
13.7 Recreation, Culture & Park Services
13.7.1 RCP 19-55 Tillsonburg Concert Series Update
Proposed Resolution #11
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Report RCP 19-55 Tillsonburg Concert Series Update is received for
information.
13.7.2 RCP 19-56 F.A.R.E. Februrary TMLA Fundraiser Update
Proposed Resolution #12
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Report RCP 19-56 F.A.R.E. February TMLA Fundraiser Update is
received for information.
13.7.3 RCP 19-57 Comparator Municipalities for RCP Department Service Review
Proposed Resolution #13
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Report RCP 19-57 Comparator Municipalities for RCP Department
Service Review is received for information.
14.New Business
15.Consideration of Committee Minutes
15.1 Committee Minutes
Proposed Resolution #14
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT Council receive the Cultural, Heritage and Special Awards Advisory
Committee Minutes dated November 6, 2019, and the Parks, Beautification and
Cemeteries Committee Minutes dated October 29, 2019, as information.
16.Motions/Notice of Motions
17.Resolutions/Resolutions Resulting from Closed Session
18.By-Laws
Page 5 of 170
18.1 By-Law 4360, Being a By-Law to Amend Schedule A of By-Law 4247 (Committee
Appointments)
Proposed Resolution #15
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT By-Law 4360, Being a By-Law to Amend Schedule A of By-Law 4247
(Committee Appointments) be read for a first, second, third and final reading and
that the Mayor and the Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and
place the corporate seal thereunto.
19.Confirm Proceedings By-law
Proposed Resolution #16
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT By-Law 4362, to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting held on November
25, 2019, be read for a first, second, third and final reading and that the Mayor and the Clerk
be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the corporate seal thereunto.
20.Items of Public Interest
21.Adjournment
Proposed Resolution #17
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the Council Meeting of Monday, November 25, 2019 be adjourned at ______ p.m.
Page 6 of 170
1
MINUTES
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
6:00 PM
Council Chambers
200 Broadway, 2nd Floor
ATTENDANCE: Mayor Molnar
Deputy Mayor Beres
Councillor Esseltine
Councillor Gilvesy
Councillor Luciani
Councillor Parker
Councillor Rosehart
Staff: Ron Shaw, Chief Administrative Officer
Donna Wilson, Town Clerk
Kevin De Leebeeck, Director of Operations
Dave Rushton, Director of Finance
Rick Cox, Director of Recreation, Culture and Parks
Terry Saelens, Acting Fire Chief
Amelia Jaggard, Deputy Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Closed Session
3. Adoption of Agenda
Resolution # 1
Moved By: Councillor Rosehart
Seconded By: Councillor Gilvesy
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Council meeting of Tuesday, November
12, 2019, be adopted.
Page 7 of 170
2
Carried
4. Moment of Silence
5. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
6. Adoption of Council Minutes of Previous Meeting
Resolution # 2
Moved By: Councillor Rosehart
Seconded By: Councillor Gilvesy
THAT the Minutes of the Council meeting of October 28, 2019, be approved.
Carried
7. Presentations
8. Public Meetings
9. Planning Applications
10. Delegations
10.1 Dereham Forge Playground Revitalization Project
Melanie Dickson appeared before Council to provide an overview of the
Dereham Forge Housing Co-operative's proposed playground
revitalization project at their property at 390 Quarter Town Line,
Tillsonburg.
Theresa Owen, President of Dereham Forge Housing Co-operative was
also in attendance.
Ms. Dickson submitted a statistical sheet to be included in the record.
The Co-operative is requesting a contribution from the Town towards the
proposed playground revitalization project totaling $38,000.
Opportunity was provided for comments and questions from Council.
Staff to provide Ms. Dickson with information regarding the Oxford County
Council delegation process.
Page 8 of 170
3
Resolution # 3
Moved By: Councillor Gilvesy
Seconded By: Councillor Rosehart
THAT Council receive the delegation regarding the Dereham Forge
Playground Revitalization Project, as information.
AND THAT the request be provided to Council for consideration with the
Community Groups 2020 Budget requests.
Carried
10.2 Tillsonburg Minor Baseball League Request
Jon Nunn, Scott Vitias and Chris Lee appeared before Council to provide
an overview of the Tillsonburg Minor Baseball League's improvement
projects.
The League is requesting the Town to partner on the electrical installation
project on the Optimist diamonds.
Opportunity was provided for comments and questions from Council.
Staff to report back during 2020 budget deliberations regarding a
partnership with the Tillsonburg Minor Baseball League on the
improvement projects.
Resolution # 4
Moved By: Councillor Parker
Seconded By: Councillor Rosehart
THAT Council receive the delegation from the Tillsonburg Minor Baseball
League, as information;
AND THAT Council in principal authorize the Director of Recreation
Culture and Parks or designate to work with the Tillsonburg Minor
Baseball League to complete the Hardball #1 improvements, electrical
installations on the Optimist diamonds and the dugout/scoreboard
improvements on the Kiwanis diamond.
Carried
11. Deputation(s) on Committee Reports
12. Information Items
Page 9 of 170
4
12.1 Oxford County Staff Report PW 2019-44 Transitioning the Blue Box
Program to Full Extended Producer Responsibility
Resolution # 5
Moved By: Councillor Parker
Seconded By: Councillor Esseltine
THAT Council receive Oxford County Staff Report PW 2019-44, as
information.
Carried
12.2 Oxford County Staff Report CP 2019-306 Provincial Policy Statement
(PPS) Review
Resolution # 6
Moved By: Councillor Parker
Seconded By: Councillor Esseltine
THAT Council receive Oxford County Staff Report CP 2019-306, as
information.
Carried
12.3 Letter from Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines -
Ontario Electricity Rebate (OER)
Resolution # 7
Moved By: Councillor Esseltine
Seconded By: Councillor Parker
THAT Council receive the letter from the Minister of Energy, Northern
Development and Mines regarding the Ontario Electricity Rebate, as
information.
Carried
12.4 Letter from Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing - November 1,
2019 Update
Staff noted that the Town has received notification of a new funding
program which requires expression of interest by December 6, 2019. To
be discussed at upcoming meeting.
Page 10 of 170
5
Resolution # 8
Moved By: Councillor Esseltine
Seconded By: Councillor Parker
THAT Council receive the letter from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing dated November 1, 2019, as information.
Carried
12.5 ICIP Green Stream Funding
Councillor Gilvesy left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Resolution # 9
Moved By: Councillor Luciani
Seconded By: Deputy Mayor Beres
THAT Council receive the correspondence regarding the ICIP Green
Stream Funding, as information.
Carried
13. Quarterly Reports
13.1 FIN 19-27 2019 Third Quarter Town Consolidated Results
Resolution # 10
Moved By: Councillor Luciani
Seconded By: Councillor Parker
THAT Council receives report FIN 19-27 2019 Third Quarter Town
Consolidated Results as information.
Carried
13.2 FIN 19-26 2019 Third Quarter Corporate Services Results
13.3 DCS 19-36 Third Quarter Economic Development and Marketing
Results
13.4 DCS 19-31 2019 Third Quarter Building, Planning, By-Law Services
Results
13.5 FRS 19-09 Third Quarter Fire Services Results
13.6 OPS 19-48 2019 Third Quarter Operations Services Results
Page 11 of 170
6
13.7 RCP 19-54 Third Quarter Recreation Culture and Parks Results
Geno Vanhaelewyn appeared before Council to answer questions.
Resolution # 11
Moved By: Deputy Mayor Beres
Seconded By: Councillor Luciani
THAT Council receive the 2019 Third Quarter Department Results, as
information.
Carried
14. Staff Reports
14.1 Chief Administrative Officer
14.1.1 CAO 19-08 OPP Contract Renewal
Staff to arrange for the OPP to make a presentation regarding the
funding formula to Council at an upcoming meeting.
Staff to determine what implications the Community Safety and
Policing Act, 2019 coming into force would have on the contract.
Staff noted the current building lease agreement with the OPP is a
five (5) year agreement which will expire at the end of 2020. The
agreement includes a provision for a potential five (5) year
extension.
Resolution # 12
Moved By: Deputy Mayor Beres
Seconded By: Councillor Luciani
THAT Council receives Report CAO 19-08, OPP Contract Renewal;
AND THAT the Town of Tillsonburg accept the proposal from the
Ontario Provincial Police and renew the agreement for the provision
of Police Services under Section 10 of the Police Services Act with
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the
Solicitor General for a further period of six years.
AND FURTHER THAT a By-Law authorizing the Mayor and Clerk
to sign the agreement on behalf of the Corporation, be brought
forward for Council's consideration.
Page 12 of 170
7
Carried
14.1.2 CAO 19-09 Tillsonburg Recreation, Culture and Parks Service
Review
Dave Rushton left the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Resolution # 13
Moved By: Deputy Mayor Beres
Seconded By: Councillor Luciani
THAT Council receives Report CAO 19-09, Tillsonburg Recreation,
Culture and Parks Service Review;
AND THAT the Town of Tillsonburg Council authorize the Mayor
and Clerk to execute the agreement with Clarico Group Inc. to
undertake a service review of the Town’s Recreation, Culture and
Parks Department in the amount of $38,195 inclusive of costs and
plus H.S.T.
Carried
14.2 Clerk's Office
14.2.1 CLK 19-30 Additional Appointments to Dog Park Advisory
Committee
Resolution # 14
Moved By: Councillor Rosehart
Seconded By: Councillor Parker
THAT Council receives Report CLK 19-30 Additional Appointments
to the Dog Park Advisory Committee;
AND THAT By-Law 4355 to amend Schedule A of By-Law 4247, be
brought forward for Council consideration.
Carried
14.3 Development and Communication Services
14.3.1 DCS 19-34 Road Naming – Northcrest Estates Subdivision
Geno Vanhaelewyn appeared before Council to answer questions.
Page 13 of 170
8
Opportunity was provided for comments and questions from
Council.
Staff to review the Town's Road Naming Policy and research best
practice regarding notification to family members.
Staff to attempt notifying family members of individuals whose
names are proposed to be used as road names.
Resolution # 15
Moved By: Councillor Rosehart
Seconded By: Councillor Parker
THAT Council receives Report DCS 19-34 Road Naming –
Northcrest Estates Subdivision as information.
AND THAT Council approves “Huntley Avenue”, “Livingston Drive”,
“Curren Crescent” and “Coulthard Street” as road names for the
Northcrest Estates subdivision.
Carried
14.4 Finance
14.5 Fire and Emergency Services
14.6 Operations
14.6.1 OPS 19-49 2020-21 Connecting Links Program Intake
Resolution # 16
Moved By: Councillor Parker
Seconded By: Councillor Esseltine
THAT Council receive Report OPS 19-49 2020-21 Connecting Link
Funding Program Intake;
AND THAT the Vienna Road Rehabilitation from Simcoe Street to
Highway 3 be endorsed as the Town’s project for the Connecting
Link funding application;
AND THAT the submitted Application meets the requirements of
MTO’s Connecting Links Program as described in the Program
Guide;
AND THAT a comprehensive asset management plan including
connecting links has been completed and publically posted;
Page 14 of 170
9
AND THAT the municipality will comply with the conditions that
apply to designated connecting links under the Highway Traffic Act
to ensure the safe and efficient movement of provincial traffic;
AND THAT the project put forward in the application will be
completed within the milestones stated in the Application;
AND THAT the Application is complete and factually accurate;
AND THAT the Interim Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to
execute the declaration statement within the formal application.
Carried
14.6.2 OPS 19-50 Rogers Lease Agreement at the Transfer Station
Resolution # 17
Moved By: Councillor Parker
Seconded By: Councillor Esseltine
THAT Council receive Report OPS 19-50 Rogers Lease Agreement
at the Transfer Station;
AND THAT a By-law authorizing Mayor and Clerk to execute the
Telecommunications Site Lease Agreement with Rogers
Communications Inc. be brought forward for Council consideration;
AND FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to provide a concurrence
letter on behalf of the Municipality.
Carried
14.7 Recreation, Culture & Park Services
15. New Business
16. Consideration of Committee Minutes
16.1 Committee Minutes
Staff noted that a policy is being created regarding advertising signage on
sport fields.
Resolution # 18
Moved By: Councillor Esseltine
Seconded By: Councillor Luciani
Page 15 of 170
10
THAT Council receive the Parks, Beautification and Cemeteries Advisory
Committee Minutes dated October 3, 2019, the Recreation and Sports
Advisory Committee Minutes dated October 9, 2019, and the Memorial
Park Revitalization Advisory Committee Minutes dated October 23, 2019,
as information.
Carried
16.2 Long Point Region Conservation Authority Board of Director Minutes
Resolution # 19
Moved By: Councillor Esseltine
Seconded By: Councillor Luciani
THAT Council receive the Long Point Region Conservation Authority
Board of Director Minutes dated October 2, 2019, as information.
Carried
17. Motions/Notice of Motions
18. Resolutions/Resolutions Resulting from Closed Session
19. By-Laws
19.1 By-Law 4355, To Amend Schedule A of By-Law 4247 (Committee
Appointments)
19.2 By-Law 4357, To Authorize a Telecommunications Site Lease
Agreement with Rogers Communications Inc.
19.3 By-Law 4358, To Authorize an Agreement for the Provision of Police
Services Between the Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg and the
Solicitor General
Resolution # 20
Moved By: Councillor Luciani
Seconded By: Deputy Mayor Beres
THAT By-Law 4355, To Amend Schedule A of By-Law 4247 (Committee
Appointments); and
By-Law 4357, To Authorize a Telecommunications Site Lease Agreement
with Rogers Communications Inc.; and
Page 16 of 170
11
By-Law 4358, To Authorize an Agreement for the Provision of Police
Services Between the Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg and the
Solicitor General be read for a first, second, third and final reading and
that the Mayor and the Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the
same, and place the corporate seal thereunto.
Carried
20. Confirm Proceedings By-law
Resolution # 21
Moved By: Councillor Luciani
Seconded By: Councillor Esseltine
THAT By-Law 4356, to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting held on
November 12, be read for a first, second, third and final reading and that the
Mayor and the Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place
the corporate seal thereunto.
Carried
21. Items of Public Interest
The Town Hall Project Steering Committee is holding a Public Information
Session on the potential development of a future Town Hall. To view the
proposals and provide comments to the steering committee, the public is invited
to attend Public Information Sessions at the Tillsonburg Community Centre on
Wednesday, November 20, 2019 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Thursday,
November 21, 2019 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. There will also be an online survey
to provide additional opportunity for feedback.
Tillsonburg Fire Department will be collecting donations to the Tillsonburg
Helping Hand Food Bank during the annual Tillsonburg Santa Claus Parade on
Saturday, November 16, 2019.
The Town's Traffic Bylaw prohibits overnight parking on all streets from
November 15 to March 31, between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. This allows
snowplow operators to safely and efficiently remove snow from local roadways.
The street side collection of loose leaves has been temporarily suspended and
will resume where it left off on November 18, 2019 subject to weather conditions.
Page 17 of 170
12
Members of the public can submit information regarding upcoming community
events on the Town's website to be posted on the Community Events Calendar.
Visit www.tillsonburg.ca.
22. Adjournment
Resolution # 22
Moved By: Deputy Mayor Beres
Seconded By: Councillor Luciani
THAT the Council Meeting of Tuesday, November 12, 2019 be adjourned at 8:02
p.m.
Carried
Page 18 of 170
Report No: CP 2019-349
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Meeting: November 25, 2019
Page 1 of 8
To: Mayor and Members of Tillsonburg Council
From: Eric Gilbert, Senior Planner, Community Planning
Applications for Consent & Zone Change
B19-77-7 & ZN 7-19-11 – Baird & Cassidy
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
The purpose of the application is to create a residential building lot for a single detached
dwelling. The lot to be retained contains a single detached dwelling and will continue to be
used for residential purposes.
The application for zone change proposes to rezone the property from ‘Low Density
Residential Type 1 Zone (R1)’ to ‘Special Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-sp)’ to
provide for a reduced lot area and reduced lot depth.
Planning staff are recommending approval of the application as it is consistent with the
Provincial Policy Statement and maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
Agency circulation resulted in no concerns with the proposed application.
DISCUSSION
Background
OWNERS: Scott Baird & Shane Cassidy
144733 Potters Road
Tillsonburg ON, N4G 4G7
LOCATION:
The subject lands are described as Part Lots 488 & 489, Plan 500, Town of Tillsonburg. The
subject property fronts on both the north side of First Street and the west side of Queen Street,
and is municipally known as 14 First Street.
COUNTY OF OXFORD OFFICIAL PLAN:
Schedule “T-1” Town of Tillsonburg
Land Use Plan
Residential
Page 19 of 170
Report No: CP 2019-349
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Meeting: November 25, 2019
Page 2 of 8
TILLSONBURG ZONING BY-LAW NO. 3295:
Existing Zoning: Lands to be Severed: Low Density Residential Type 1 Zone (R1)
Lands to be Retained: Low Density Residential Type 1 Zone (R1)
Proposed Zoning: Lands to be Severed: Special Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-sp)
Lands to be Retained: Special Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-sp)
SERVICES: Lots to be Severed & Retained: municipal water and municipal sanitary sewer
ACCESS: Paved, municipal roads (First Street & Queen Street)
PROPOSAL:
Area
Frontage
Avg. Depth
Severed Lot
365.2 m2 (3,931 ft2)
12.19 m (40 ft)
24.38 m (80 ft)
Retained Lot
303.7 m2 (3,269 ft2)
12.19 m (40 ft)
24.91 m (81.73 ft)
The purpose of the Application for Consent is to create a residential infill lot within the Town of
Tillsonburg that will front onto the west side of Queen Street. The proposed lot to be severed will
cover an area of approximately 365.2 m2 (3,931 ft2) and is currently vacant. The lot to be retained
will cover an area of approximately 303.7 m2 (3,269 ft2), contains an existing single detached
dwelling, a detached accessory building, and shed, and will continue to be used for residential
purposes. A single detached dwelling is to be constructed on the severed lot. The owners have
also applied for a Partial Discharge of Mortgage.
The purpose of the Application for Zone Change is to rezone the subject property from ‘Low
Density Residential Type 1 Zone (R1)’, to ‘Special Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-sp)’
to include special provisions to permit a reduced lot area of 303 m2 (3,261.5 ft2) and a reduced lot
depth of 24 m (78.7 ft).
Surrounding land uses consist of a mix of low density residential uses, consisting predominantly
of single detached dwellings. A multi-unit residential development is located to the east. An EMS
station, Tillsonburg Fire Hall, and OPP station are located to the east/southeast.
Plate 1, Location Map with Existing Zoning, shows the location of the subject lands and the
existing zoning in the immediate vicinity.
Schedule “T-2” Town of Tillsonburg
Residential Density Plan
Low Density Residential
Page 20 of 170
Report No: CP 2019-349
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Meeting: November 25, 2019
Page 3 of 8
Plate 2, Close-up of Subject Lands (2015 Air Photo) provides an aerial view of the subject lands
and surrounding area.
Plate 3, Applicant’s Sketch, provides the dimensions of the lands to be severed and retained.
Application Review
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT:
Section 1.1.3.1 of the PPS directs that settlement areas will be the focus of growth, and their
vitality and regeneration shall be promoted.
Section 1.1.3.3 of the PPS directs that planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and
promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated
taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability
of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate
projected needs.
Further, Section 1.4.3 of the PPS directs that planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate
mix of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents
of the regional market area by:
Establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is
affordable to low and moderate income households;
Permitting and facilitating all forms of residential intensification and redevelopment and all
forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current
and future residents, including special needs requirements;
Directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of
infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and
projected needs;
Promoting densities for new housing which efficiently uses land, resources, infrastructure
and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation and transit areas
where it exists or is to be developed; and
Establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new
residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form
while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.
OFFICIAL PLAN:
The subject lands are located within the ‘Low Density Residential’ designation according to the
Town of Tillsonburg Residential Density Plan, as contained in the Official Plan. Low density
residential districts are those lands that are primarily developed or planned for a variety of low-
rise, low density housing forms including both executive and smaller single-detached dwellings,
semi-detached, duplex and converted dwellings, street-fronting townhouses and other, similar
development. Within these areas, it is intended that there will be a mixing and integration of
different forms of housing to achieve a low overall density of use.
Page 21 of 170
Report No: CP 2019-349
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Meeting: November 25, 2019
Page 4 of 8
The policies of Section 8.2.4.1 (Infill Housing) indicate that in order to efficiently utilize the
designated residential land and municipal servicing infrastructure, infill housing will be supported
in Low Density Residential Areas. The County Land Division Committee and Town Council will
ensure that proposals for infill development are consistent with policies contained in Section
8.2.4.1.1 and 8.2.4.1.4.
Official Plan policies respecting Street Oriented Infill permit new residential housing into an
established streetscape pattern only if the proposal is deemed to be consistent with the
characteristics of existing development on both sides of the street. The policies also require that
the proposal is consistent with street frontage, setbacks and spacing of existing development
within a two block area on the same street.
In addition, all infill proposals are subject to the following criteria:
the location of vehicular access points, the likely impact of traffic generated by the proposal
on Town streets and potential traffic impacts on pedestrian and vehicular safety and
surrounding properties is acceptable;
existing municipal services and public facilities will be adequate to accommodate the
proposed infill project;
stormwater run-off from the proposal will be adequately controlled and will not negatively
affect adjacent properties;
adequate off-street parking and outdoor amenity areas will be provided;
the extent to which the proposed development provides for the retention of any desirable
vegetation or natural features that contribute to the visual character of the surrounding area;
the effect of the proposed development on environmental resources and the effects of
environmental constraints on the proposed development will be addressed and mitigated;
consideration of the potential effect of the development on natural and heritage resources
and their settings;
compliance of the proposed development with the provisions of the Zoning By-Law of the
Town and other municipal by-laws.
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG ZONING BY-LAW:
The subject property is zoned ‘Low Density Residential Type Zone (R1)’ which permits a single
detached dwelling and home occupation. The ‘R1’ zone also requires a minimum lot area of 480
m² (5,166.8 ft²), a lot depth of 32 m (105 ft) and a frontage of 15 m (49.2 ft).
The application for zone change proposes to rezone the severed and retained parcels to ‘Special
Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-sp)’ to permit a reduced lot area of 303 m2 (3,261.5 ft2)
and a reduced lot depth of 24 m (78.7 ft).
The R2 zone permits a converted dwelling, duplex dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, single
detached dwelling, and home occupation. For a single detached dwelling, the R2 Zone requires
a minimum lot area of 315 m2 (3,390.7 ft2), a minimum lot frontage of 10.5 m (34.4 ft), minimum
lot depth of 30 m (98.4 ft), front yard depth of 6 m (19.7 ft), minimum interior side yard width of 3
m (9.8 ft) on one side and 1.2 m (3.9 ft) on the other, and a rear yard depth of 7.5 m (24.6 ft).
Maximum lot coverage for a single detached dwelling in a R2 zone is 40% of the lot area.
Page 22 of 170
Report No: CP 2019-349
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Meeting: November 25, 2019
Page 5 of 8
AGENCY COMMENTS:
The application was circulated to various agencies considered to have an interest in the proposal.
The Town of Tillsonburg Engineering Services Department provided the following comments:
The owner shall prepare an overall grading plan and stormwater management design/plan
for both the proposed severed and retained lots to the satisfaction of the Town of
Tillsonburg Engineering Services Department;
The Town of Tillsonburg Building and By-Law Services Department provided the following
comments:
The owner shall submit an updated building location survey to confirm lot sizes and
building setbacks to the satisfaction of the Town of Tillsonburg;
Verification of the location of existing services for the retained parcel is required;
Lot to be severed will need to be serviced prior to severance being finalized.
The Town Director of Recreation, Culture & Parks indicated that cash-in-lieu of parkland will be
payable for the severed lot. The current fee is $1000.
The Oxford County Public Works Department provided the following comment:
The lot to be severed shall be serviced with water & wastewater services to the satisfaction
of Oxford County Public Works. All financial requirements must be complied with (by the
applicant) in respect to the provision of water and wastewater service connections for the
lot to be severed, prior to Oxford County Public Works clearing this severance condition.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION:
Notice of the applications for consent & zone change were provided to the public and surrounding
property owners on October 17, 2019 & November 8, 2019 in accordance with the requirements
of the Planning Act. Several adjacent residents have expressed concerns with an existing
commercial use that has been operating from the lot to be severed.
Planning Analysis
The application for consent proposes to create one new lot for residential development in the
central area of Tillsonburg, east of Lake Lisgar. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposal
will result in an efficient use of municipal services on residentially designated lands. In this respect,
the development proposal is consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement regarding
intensification and redevelopment within a settlement area.
With regard to the relevant Official Plan policies for Low Density Residential areas, an analysis of
the existing characteristics of residential development within the immediate area was completed
by Planning staff. For street-oriented infill development, the policies of Section 8.2.4.1.1 permit
such development where the proposal is deemed to be consistent with the characteristics of
Page 23 of 170
Report No: CP 2019-349
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Meeting: November 25, 2019
Page 6 of 8
existing development on both sides of the same street, and is consistent with street frontage,
setbacks and spacing of existing development within a two-block area on the same street.
The subject lands are located in an area characterized by low density residential development
(circ, 1910-1940’s), with more recent medium density residential development to the east. Two
duplex dwellings are present on the east side of Queen Street, opposite the lot to be severed.
Lots to the north have a more consistent lot size and contain single detached dwellings while lots
to the south, east and west have more varied lot sizes and shapes.
The proposal will also comply with the other review criteria for infill proposals as adequate
municipal services are present to accommodate the proposal, the severed lot is of a sufficient
size that adequate off-street parking and outdoor amenity areas are provided, and any drainage
or stormwater impacts to surrounding properties will be reviewed and assessed through the
preparation of preliminary lot grading plans and detailed lot grading plans upon building permit
submission.
This Office is satisfied that the lots to be severed and retained are generally consistent with the
frontage, configuration and area characteristics of development in the immediate residential area.
The surrounding development consists of varying dwelling types, lot sizes and dimensions. The
lot to be severed would not be out of character with the prevalent lot size and shape of lots fronting
on First Street and Queen Street, and the lot to be retained will be of a similar configuration as
other remnant lots that are within this area of Plan 500. In this regard, Planning staff are of the
opinion that the application conforms to the Official Plan policies that pertain to infill housing in
the Town of Tillsonburg.
The proposed zone change will facilitate the proposed severance by permitting a reduced lot area
and depth. In this instance, the requested relief is not expected to impact the ability of the severed
or retained parcels to provide appropriate area for parking, amenity areas, and a suitable building
envelope will remain for the severed parcel. The reduced lot depth will allow the subject lands to
be divided more equally to ensure that both parcels are sufficiently large to accommodate the
existing and proposed residential use.
In light of the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Office that the proposed zoning by-law amendment
is appropriate, consistent with the Official Plan policies respecting low density residential
development, and recommend it be approved-in-principle, pending the decision of the Oxford
County Land Division Committee at their December 5th meeting.
It is the opinion of Planning staff that the consent application is consistent with the policies of the
PPS and is in keeping with the County Official Plan. As such, Planning staff are satisfied that the
application can be given favourable consideration, subject to the appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Council of the Town of Tillsonburg approve-in-principle the
zone change application submitted by Shane Cassidy & Scott Baird, whereby the lands
described as Part Lots 488 & 489, Plan 500, in the Town of Tillsonburg, known municipally
as 14 First Street, are to be rezoned from ‘Low Density Residential Type 1 Zone (R1)’ to
Page 24 of 170
Report No: CP 2019-349
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Meeting: November 25, 2019
Page 7 of 8
‘Special Low Density Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-sp)’ to allow for a reduced lot depth and
reduced minimum lot area to facilitate the creation of a vacant residential lot;
AND FURTHER, it is recommended that Tillsonburg Council advise the Land Division
Committee that it is in favour of the proposal to sever the subject property, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The owners enter into a Severance Agreement with the Town of Tillsonburg, to the
satisfaction of the Town.
2. The lot to be severed shall be serviced with water & wastewater services, to the
satisfaction of Oxford County Public Works. All financial requirements must be
complied with (by the owners) in respect to the provision of water and wastewater
service connections for the lot to be severed.
3. The owners shall provide an overall lot grading plan for the lot to be severed and
retained, to the satisfaction of the Town of Tillsonburg Engineering Services
Department.
4. The owners shall verify the location of existing water, storm, and sanitary services
serving the lot to be retained, to the satisfaction of the Town Chief Building Official.
5. The owners shall make payment for cash-in-lieu of parkland, to the satisfaction of
the Town of Tillsonburg.
6. The owners shall provide an updated building location survey, prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor, to confirm the setback between the existing buildings on
the lot to be retained and the new rear lot line, to the satisfaction of the Town Chief
Building Official.
7. The Clerk of the Town of Tillsonburg advise the Secretary-Treasurer of the Land
Division Committee that all requirements of the Town, financial, services and
otherwise, have been complied with.
SIGNATURES
Authored by: Eric Gilbert, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner
Approved for submission: Gordon K. Hough, RPP, Director
Page 25 of 170
Report No: CP 2019-349
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Council Meeting: November 25, 2019
Page 8 of 8
Report Approval Details
Document Title: B19-77-7 ZN 7-19-11_rpt_till.docx
Attachments: - Report Attachments.pdf
- 7-19-11_appl-20190918.pdf
Final Approval Date: Nov 6, 2019
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:
Ron Shaw - Nov 6, 2019 - 4:46 PM
Page 26 of 170
October 7, 2019
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. This is not a plan of survey
Legend
550
Notes
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N
28 Meters
Environmental Protection
Flood Overlay
Flood Fringe
Floodway
Environmental Protection (EP1)
Environmental Protection (EP2)
Zoning Floodlines
Regulation Limit
100 Year Flood Line
30 Metre Setback
Conservation Authority
Regulation Limit
Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines
Land Use Zoning (Displays
1:16000 to 1:500)
Plate 1: Location Map with Existing Zoning
File Nos. B19-77-7 & ZN 7-19-11 - Baird & Cassidy
Part Lots 488 & 489, Plan 500, 14 First Street, Town of Tillsonburg
Queen
Street
Lot to be
Retained &
Rezoned
'R2-sp'
Lot to be
Severed &
Rezoned
'R2-sp'
King
Street
Lisgar
Avenue
Page 27 of 170
October 7, 2019
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. This is not a plan of survey
Legend
260
Notes
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N
13 Meters
Environmental Protection
Flood Overlay
Flood Fringe
Floodway
Environmental Protection (EP1)
Environmental Protection (EP2)
Zoning Floodlines
Regulation Limit
100 Year Flood Line
30 Metre Setback
Conservation Authority
Regulation Limit
Regulatory Flood And Fill Lines
Land Use Zoning (Displays
1:16000 to 1:500)
Queen
Street
Lot to be
Severed &
Rezoned
'R2-sp'
Lot to be
Retained &
Rezoned
'R2-sp'
Plate 2: Close-up of Subject Lands (2015 Air Photo)
File Nos. B19-77-7 & ZN 7-19-11 - Baird & Cassidy
Part Lots 488 & 489, Plan 500, 14 First Street, Town of Tillsonburg
Page 28 of 170
s 0 "' 0 z.
~ ..J
\..-J 0-
~ '2.
:z: B
\..1.-l ~
\J, /' ~ 4,
~~ \
\~ \
\'~~\ \ 1 o-r
'---'
z ~ c.:.
0 a; .. "'
~
=cg
. ..,
0
~ ~
()()
Y) t~9 2
0o6B
()' ~
z ~
$101<'<'1 1 SI0'<0 ~LIJIAI~IliA ovEu.I~G
QI)~R'< MICTR'<S
&7.8 s
r-~ 0.
2 0 ~ ~
'i'
.l<l
"' b
'%. ~
.....__,
I
\.:J
\.:J
'C( .....__,
I
~
0:::
0 z
I
tJ)
ASSOCIAllON OF ONTARIO
LAND SURVEYORS
PLAN SUBMISSION FOfll,/
2099196
THIS PLAN IS NOT VAUD
UNLESS IT IS AN EMBOSSED
ORIGINAL COPY
ISSUED BY THE SURVEYOR
tl OOCCif"dcllce wltll ~Gtlon 1028, Sectim 29(3)
SURVEYOR'S REAL PROPERTY REPORT
PLAN OF
PART OF LOTS 488 AND 489
JUDGE'S PLAN REGISTERED AS
PLAN No. 500
TOWN OF . TILLSON BURG
COUNTY OF OXFORD
KIM HUSTED SURVEYING L TO.
SCALE .:... . 1: 250 0~~~~~5----10~~~~15. METRES
METRIC DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METRES AND CAN
BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0.3048
REPORT SUMMARY (TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH PLAN OF SURVIEY)
REGISTERED EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY: NONE REGISTERED ON TITIUE
COMPLIANCE WITH MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL PLANS AND
ZONING BY-LAWS: NOT CERTIFIED BY THIS REPORT
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: PART OF LOTS 488 AND 489 JUDGE'S PLAN REGISTERED
AS PLAN No. 500 TOWN OF TILLSONBURG. COUNTY OF OXFORD
ALL OF P.I.N. 00028-0064
SUBJECT PROPERTY AREA = 668.9 SQUARE METRES
AREA OF SUBJECT PROPERTY COVIERED BY DWELLING, PORCH, GARAGE AND SHED
111.8 = SQUARE METRES
LOT COVERAGE = 16.7 %
AREA OF PROPOSED SEVERANCE = 365.2 SQUARE METRES
AREA OF PROPOSED RETAIN PARCEL INCLUDING DWELLING = 303.7 SQUARE METRES
THIS SURVEYOR'S REAL PROPERTY REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR
SHANE EDWARD MURRAY CASSIDY AND DONALD SCOTI BAIRD
AND THE UNDERSIGNED ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBIUTY
FOR USE BY OTHERS
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I CERTIFY THAT
(1) -THIS SURVIEY AND PLAN ARE CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE SURVIEYS ACT, THE SURVIEYORS ACT AND THE REGISTRY ACT AND THE
REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THEM
(2) -THIS SURVIEY WAS COMPLETED ON THE 27th DAY OF MAY, 2019
·• ADVANCE COPY
SUBJECT TO --------------~-~~~~
DATE ' · KIM S. HUSTED
ONTARIO LAND SURVIEYOR
THIS REPORT CAN BE UPDATED BY KIM HUSTED SURVEYING LTD.
HOWEVER NO ADDITIONAL PRINTS OF THIS ORIGINAL
REPORT WILL BE ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE
OF CER11FICA 110N
NOTES
(1) -BEARINGS ARE ASTRONOMIC AND ARE REFERRED TO THE WESTERN LIMIT OF
QUEEN STREET HAVING A BEARING OF N 11 ' 03' 30" W AS SHOWN ON
JUDGE'S PLAN REGISTERED AS PLAN No. 500
LEGEND
• DENOTES SURVIEY MONUMENT FOUND "THIS IS NOT
D DENOTES SURVIEY MONUMENT SET AN ORIGINAL COPY
UNLESS SIB DENOTES STANDARD IRON BAR EMBOSSED WITH IB DENOTES IRON BAR SEAL" RIB DENOTES ROUND IRON BAR cc DENOTES CUT CROSS
(WIT) DENOTES WITNESS
(P1) DENOTES JUDGE'S PLAN REGISTERED AS PLAN No. 500
(P2) DENOTES PLAN OF SURVIEY BY KIM HUSTED SURVIEYING DATED
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018, PROJECT 18-14250
(P3) DENOTES PLAN OF SURVEY BY J.F. WESTON O.L.S. DATED
JANUARY 15, 1985, FILE C-982
(P4) DENOTES PLAN OF SURVEY BY KIM HUSTED SURVIEYING DATED
MARCH 6, 1989, PROJECT 89-989
(P5) DENOTES PLAN OF SURVIEY BY KIM HUSTED SURVIEYING DATED
APRIL 5, 1989, PROJECT 89-1038
(D1) DENOTES INSTRUMENT No. 491333 P.I.N. 00028-0064
(M) DENOTES MEASURED
(S) DENOTES SET
P.I.N. DENOTES PROPERTY IDENTIFIER NUMBER
@ COPYRIGHT 2019 KIM HUSTED SURVEYING L TO.
THE REPRODUCTION, ALTERATION, OR USE OF THIS REPORT IN WHOLE OR IN
PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF KIM HUSTED SURVIEYING
LTD. IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED
KIM HUSTED SURVEYING LTD.
ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR
30 HARVEY STREET, 11LLSONBURG, ONTARIO, N4G 3J8
PHONE: 519-842-3638 FAX: 519-842-3639
PROJECT: 19-14887 REFERENCE: FF8 DISK No. Plate 3: Applicants' Sketch File Nos. B19-77-7 & ZN 7-19-11 - Baird & Cassidy Part Lots 488 & 489, Plan 500, 14 First Street, Town of TillsonburgPlate 3: Applicant's Sketch
File Nos. B19-77-7 & ZN 7-19-11 - Baird & Cassidy
Part Lots 488 & 489, Plan 500, 14 First Street, Town of Tillsonburg
Page 29 of 170
Oct. 4/19
Page 30 of 170
Page 31 of 170
Page 32 of 170
Page 33 of 170
Michael and Dianne Pepper
16 First Street
Tillsonburg, Ontario
N4G 1N2
November 19, 2019
Town of Tillsonburg
Clerk’s Office
200 Broadway
Tillsonburg, Ontario
N4G 5A7
Re: File B19-77-7; ZN 7-19-11 (Scott Baird and Shane Cassidy)
Dear Mayor Molnar and Members of Council,
This letter is regarding the proposed severance and rezoning of 14 First Street to create two
residential lots (R2-sp).
We own the property next door to the subject lands. We moved to 16 First Street in 1969 and it
has been our only residence for 50 years.
Errors and Omissions
To begin, we note there are several errors on the Application for Consent and Zone Change—
information that we believe is important to consider in your decision making.
1. The home on the subject land was constructed in 1952, but the shed/garage IS NOT
original to the property. It was added to the subject land in the mid 1980s, and was not
present when we bought our home in 1969. It is a tobacco-kiln style metal building on a
cement pad. The Public Notice regarding the application does not show the location of
this shed/garage, creating a false impression of the available space.
2. The Public Notice also does not show our garage (which is original to our property). As
shown in Appendix 1, we have a single car garage that faces Queen Street and a paved
driveway which provides entry. Again, this omission does not reflect what is actually on
site.
3. There is a 2 ft high retaining wall that separates the subject land from the higher grade of
the lot at 103 Queen Street).
Page 34 of 170
History of the Property
We would also like to provide some history on the property in question.
Over the past 50 years, the property has had several owners—many of whom expressed interest
in constructing a single car garage on the property. These plans were rejected because the
property was deemed too small.
When the current owners took possession, a smaller shed was added at the northern end of the
driveway on the subject land, effectively blocking tenant access to the back yard. This second
accessory building was subject to action by Bylaw Enforcement. This shed has since been moved
to the rear of the house, next to the tobacco-kiln style garage.
The property owners currently rent out the dwelling and the smaller shed to considerate and quiet
tenants. To be clear, we have no issue with this as it is a permitted use. However, it has been our
observation that the rear portion of the property (specifically the tobacco-kiln style shed/garage
and lands fronting Queen Street) have been effectively rented to Nash Construction for more
than a year. A commercial dumpster was placed on the north side of the shed/garage and
throughout the summer, Nash Construction would drive their truck and utility trailers across the
grass to load/unload materials from various job sites. On several occasions, Norfolk Disposal
accessed the property before 6:00 am to dump the container, in complete disregard of the
neighbours and permitted use of the property. When the ruts in the grass became too deep, the
owners allowed gravel to be put down, effectively turning the backyard of the property into a
secondary driveway.
Following investigation from Bylaw, the dumpster was removed, however the property is still
accessed regularly by Nash Construction.
Concerns with the Proposal
We understand that zoning regulations have changed and that infill lots are now permitted,
however, this neighbourhood is not Hickory Hills and zero lot lines are not the norm.
After 50 years, we find it unacceptable that a home could be built a mere four feet from our
property line on a lot was historically deemed too small even for a garage. Further, this proposal
will make it difficult for the retaining wall to the north of the property to be maintained or
repaired.
We support the concept of infill lots to protect our region’s agricultural land, however, given the
large number of subdivision approvals (on agricultural land) in Tillsonburg in recent years, and
the number of new homes available in these subdivisions, this severance application seems
redundant and unnecessary.
Further, as the property owners have not shown good faith in their previous stewardship of the
property, we have trouble believing this application—if approved—will bode well for us.
Page 35 of 170
Page 36 of 170
First Street
Queen StreetLegend
Tobacco-Style Shed/Garage (1983)
Garage (pre-1969) for 16 First St
Stepped retaining wall
Chain link fence at 16 First Street
Appendix A - Showing actual structures on site
Small shed
16 14
Page 37 of 170
16 First Street ->
View to Queen Street
<- Severed
Below:
Shows beginning of retaining wall at bottom right and scale of lot with access by Nash Construction
Page 38 of 170
Frequent use of lot that is to be severed
Shows parking of construction vehicles, gravel driveway and retaining wall
Page 39 of 170
Location of sheds shortly after new ownership. Note the larger structure has a pedestrian door only on end close to dwelling at 14 First Street. Vehicle access is on the north end.
Left: Shows new current location
of small shed and end garage with Nash Construction using
as a contractors yard .
Dumpster was later removed
but larger structure is still used by Nash Construction
First Street
Page 40 of 170
Above:Shows scale of property and while tobacco-kiln style shed/
rear of property is in use by Nash Construction. Proposed severance line is roughly where end of trailer is or where
trailer wheels are?
Tobacco-kiln style garage
Page 41 of 170
Att : Town of Tillsonburg
The Southwest Snow Riders has asked me to contact the Town of Tillsonburg
in regards to getting access rights to ride snowmobiles from Zenda Line to Broadway
using the Multi Use Trail. The trail would be marked as per or standard MTO
specifications with as few extra "Quite Zone" signs as well. I have attached a copy of
the Insurance contract as well as a copy of the Landowner contract for your review, I
have also attached a copy of the Ontario Impact Study that was done this last year.
If you have any question please contact me.
Thank you
Larry Stuyt
Page 42 of 170
Privacy Policy: Personal information provided on this form will only be used for purposes related to this agreement.
OFSC MOU Form: v2019
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
PRESCRIBED SNOWMOBILE TRAIL LAND USE PERMISSION
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)
On this _____ day of _______________, year ________ I, the undersigned, owner/occupier of the premises that is lot #_________
concession #__________ or other in the Township of __________________________________,
County/District/Region of do hereby give the __________________________________________
(snowmobile club), hereinafter referred to as the “local snowmobile club” (a member in good standing of the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs – OFSC), permission to legally enter, establish, groom, maintain, sign and use that portion of the premises herein
designated by me for the exclusive purpose of allowing legally permitted snowmobiles and their riders to use said designated premises
for snowmobiling under the following terms and conditions:
1. This MOU is valid for the period commencing ___________________________ and ending ___________________________ .
2. The local snowmobile club shall at all times remain a member in good standing of the OFSC and be able to verify this to the
owner/occupier with a current OFSC certificate or this agreement shall be immediately null and void.
3. The local snowmobile club will provide liability insurance in the amount of $15,000,000 for liability arising from the grooming,
maintenance and use of the snowmobile trail but only with respect to the negligence of the local snowmobile club name for those
operations usual to a snowmobile trail. This coverage is confirmed to the undersigned owner/occupier by signing this memorandum
of understanding on the condition no fee has been charged by the owner/occupier for the use of designated premises.
4. The insurers will add the landowner as an additional insured but only with respect to liability arising from the operations of the
named local snowmobile club name. Coverage will be extended to the location listed in the landowner agreement through an
insurance policy held by the OFSC and its member organization snowmobile club.
5. The above referenced insurance liability policy will not provide any coverage for the willful misconduct and or negligence on the
part of the landowner.
6. The designated premises shall be sketched on a separate sheet of paper or shown on an attached map and a copy of each/both shall
be initialed by both parties hereto and attached to each copy of this agreement.
7. It is understood that the local snowmobile club, with the owner/occupier’s verbal consent on each occasion, shall have access to the
designated premises prior to and after the winter months for the purpose of opening and closing, upgrading and maintaining the trail
when there is no snow cover.
8. The local snowmobile club shall maintain that portion of the designated premises to be used as a trail in reasonably good condition
for snowmobiling purposes only; and undertake to post appropriate signage; remove on an annual basis any litter and repair or replace
property damaged by valid permitted and exempted snowmobiles and their riders on that portion of the designated property used for
snowmobiling.
9. Each party hereto shall give the other sixty (60) days prior written notice to the address below of any changes to, or cancellation of
this agreement.
10. Representative of the local snowmobile club or district are hereby authorized to be the owner/occupier’s agent(s) to cooperate with
local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to supervise and enforce the uses defined hereunder with respect to the designated
premises in accordance with the Trespass to Property Act R.S.O. 1990, c.T21; the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act R.S.O. 1990,
c.M44; and the Occupiers Liability Act R.S.O. 1990, c.O-2 as amended.
11. The landowner/occupier and the local snowmobile club mutually confirm that the landowner/occupier, by signing this MOU is not
requesting nor granting permission for a registered easement over the designated premises.
12. Additional Conditions: ___________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
LANDOWNER/OCCUPIER
Name Phone:
Address Email:
Landowner
Signature
LOCAL SNOWMOBILE CLUB
Club Name Phone:
Address Email:
Alternate Contact
(District) Alternate
Phone/Email
Club Signature
Page 43 of 170
THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT OF
SNOWMOBILING
IN ONTARIO
P R E P A R E D B Y : H A R R Y C U M M I N G S & A S S O C I A T E S
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 2018-19 SNOWMOBILE SEASON
Page 44 of 170
Table of Contents
About the Authors ................................................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................. ii
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. iii
Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs ............................................................................................................. 1
Studying the Economic Impact of Snowmobiling ................................................................................................. 2
Overview of Previous Study Findings ............................................................................................................... 2
Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Comparable Jurisdictions ..................................................................... 4
Study Approach ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Ontario’s Tourism Regional Economic Impact Model (TREIM)......................................................................... 7
Survey of Ontario Snowmobilers ...................................................................................................................... 7
Key Informant Interviews ................................................................................................................................. 8
Findings ................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Household Characteristics ................................................................................................................................ 9
Participation in Snowmobiling ........................................................................................................................ 13
Snowmobiles .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Annual Spending ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Day Trip Spending ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Overnight Trip Spending ................................................................................................................................. 22
Tour Spending ................................................................................................................................................. 24
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Economic Impact of Snowmobiling .................................................................................................................... 28
Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................... 28
Economic Impact Using TREIM ....................................................................................................................... 30
Case Study – District 6 .................................................................................................................................... 33
Case Study – District 7 .................................................................................................................................... 34
Estimated Economic Impact for Low, Medium, and High Frequency Seasons ............................................... 35
Summary of Impact Assessment .................................................................................................................... 39
Economic Impact by District ........................................................................................................................... 40
District 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 41
District 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 42
District 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 43
District 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 44
District 5 ..................................................................................................................................................... 45
District 6 ..................................................................................................................................................... 46
District 7 ..................................................................................................................................................... 47
District 8 ..................................................................................................................................................... 48
District 9 ..................................................................................................................................................... 49
District 10 ................................................................................................................................................... 50
District 11 ................................................................................................................................................... 51
District 12 ................................................................................................................................................... 52
District 13 ................................................................................................................................................... 53
District 14 ................................................................................................................................................... 54
District 15 ................................................................................................................................................... 55
District 17 ................................................................................................................................................... 56
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................................... 57
Appendix A: References Cited ........................................................................................................................ 57
Appendix B: Key Informant Interview Guide .................................................................................................. 58
Appendix C: Survey Tool ................................................................................................................................. 61
Page 45 of 170
List of Tables
Household Characteristics
Table 1: Gender of Survey Respondents ............................................................................................................... 9
Table 2: Household Size of Survey Respondents .................................................................................................. 9
Table 3: Marital Status of Survey Respondents .................................................................................................. 10
Table 4: Age of Survey Respondents .................................................................................................................. 10
Table 5: Highest Education Level Attained by Survey Respondents ................................................................... 11
Table 6: Average Household Income of Survey Respondents ............................................................................ 12
Participation in Snowmobiling
Table 7: Participating in Snowmobiling during the 2018‐2019 Season .............................................................. 13
Table 8: Frequency of Day Trips Reported by Survey Respondents ................................................................... 14
Table 9: Frequency of Overnight Trips Reported by Survey Respondents ......................................................... 14
Table 10: Frequency of Tours Reported by Survey Respondents ....................................................................... 15
Table 11: Place of Residence of Survey Respondents ......................................................................................... 16
Table 12: The District Where Survey Respondents Most Commonly Ride ......................................................... 17
Table 13: Districts Where Survey Respondents Most Commonly Ride .............................................................. 17
Snowmobiles
Table 14: Year of Purchase, Snowmobile, as Reported by Survey Respondents ................................................ 18
Table 15: Model Year, Snowmobile, as Reported by Survey Respondents ........................................................ 18
Table 16: Permit Type as reported by Survey Respondents ............................................................................... 19
Annual Spending
Table 17: Cost of Snowmobile Purchases in 2018‐2019 Reported by Survey Respondents .............................. 19
Table 18: Annual Insurance Cost per Household ................................................................................................ 20
Table 19: Repairs and Maintenance Spending, as Reported by Survey Respondents ........................................ 20
Table 20: Amount Spent on Clothing Annually, Reported by Survey Respondents ........................................... 21
Day Trip Spending
Table 21: Spending on Food and Beverage, Day Trips, as Reported by Survey Respondents ............................ 22
Table 22: Spending on Fuel/Oil, Day Trips, as Reported by Survey Respondents .............................................. 22
Overnight Trip Spending
Table 23: Spending on Food and Beverage, Overnight Trips, as Reported by Survey Respondents .................. 23
Table 24: Spending on Fuel/Oil, Overnight Trips, as Reported by Survey Respondents .................................... 23
Tour Spending
Table 25: Accommodation Spending, Overnight Trips, as Reported by Survey Respondents ........................... 24
Table 26: Food and Beverage Spending, Tours, as Reported by Survey Respondents ....................................... 24
Table 27: Fuel/Oil Spending, Tours, as Reported by Survey Respondents ......................................................... 25
Table 28: Accommodation Spending, Tours, as Reported by Survey Respondents ........................................... 25
Economic Impact of Snowmobiling
Table 29: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in Ontario by TREIM model category, 2018‐2019 ............. 30
Table 30: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes ................................................................ 31
Table 31: Economic Impacts of Snowmobiling by Industry ................................................................................ 32
Case Study – District 6
Table 32: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 6 by TREIM model category .............................. 33
Table 33: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 6 ............................................... 33
Case Study – District 7
Table 34: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 7 by TREIM model category .............................. 34
Table 35: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 7 ............................................... 34
Page 46 of 170
Estimated Economic Impact for Low, Medium, and High Frequency Seasons
Table 36: Frequency of Day Trips, Overnight Trips, and Tours in a Typical Season – Estimated Average .......... 35
Table 37: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, Estimated High Frequency Impact ....... 36
Table 38: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, Estimated Medium Frequency Impact . 37
Table 39: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, low frequency impact ........................... 38
Summary of Impact Assessment
Table 40: Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Districts 6 and 7 ...................................................................... 39
Table 41: Economic Impact of Snowmobiling Study Comparisons ..................................................................... 39
Economic Impact by District
Table 42: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 1 by TREIM model category .............................. 41
Table 43: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 1 ............................................... 41
Table 44: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 2 by TREIM model category ............................. 42
Table 45: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 2 .............................................. 42
Table 46: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 3 by TREIM model category .............................. 43
Table 47: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 3 ............................................... 43
Table 48: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 4 by TREIM model category .............................. 44
Table 49: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 4 ............................................... 44
Table 50: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 5 by TREIM model category .............................. 45
Table 51: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 5 ............................................... 45
Table 52: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 6 by TREIM model category .............................. 46
Table 53: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 5 ............................................... 46
Table 54: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 7 by TREIM model category .............................. 47
Table 55: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 7 ............................................... 47
Table 56: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 8 by TREIM model category .............................. 48
Table 57: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 8 ............................................... 48
Table 58: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 9 by TREIM model category .............................. 49
Table 59: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 9 ............................................... 49
Table 60: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 10 by TREIM model category ............................ 50
Table 61: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 10 ............................................. 50
Table 62: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 11 by TREIM model category ............................ 51
Table 63: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 11 ............................................. 51
Table 64: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 12 by TREIM model category ............................ 52
Table 65: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 12 ............................................. 52
Table 66: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 13 by TREIM model category ............................ 53
Table 67: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 13 ............................................. 53
Table 68: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 14 by TREIM model category ............................ 54
Table 69: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 14 ............................................. 54
Table 70: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 15 by TREIM model category ............................ 55
Table 71: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 15 ............................................. 55
Table 72: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 17 by TREIM model category ............................ 56
Table 73: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 17 ............................................. 56
Cover Photo Credit:
Martin Lortz, Destination Ontario
Page 47 of 170
i The Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
About the Authors
Harry Cummings and Associates (HCA) is a planning and evaluation firm based in Guelph, Ontario with a
sister office in Kamloops, British Columbia. Since its inception in 1997, HCA has conducted over 200
projects across Canada and internationally. HCA has extensive experience working with municipal and
regional planning bodies across Canada, providing services and expertise related to strategic planning,
economic impact assessment, community economic development, and policy issues.
Dr. Harry Cummings is the founder and Director of HCA, a Registered Professional Planner, a Credentialed
Evaluator and the past President of the Canadian Evaluation Society (CES). He is an internationally
respected expert in economic development and results‐based management, program evaluation, regional
and community economic analysis and regional development planning. As the Director of HCA, Dr.
Cummings has managed up to 35 staff as part of integrated projects. He has managed large projects ($40
million over 10 years) and small projects ($2,000 over 1.5 months).
Dr. Cummings was a professor at the University of Guelph for over 30 years where he taught graduate‐
level courses in research methods, regional economics and program evaluation in the School of
Environmental Design and Rural Development. He was jointly appointed to the Agricultural Economics
and Rural Planning and Development departments. As a Professor at the University of Guelph, he
supervised Ph.D. and Master’s candidates in the planning, design, implementation, analysis, and
development of strategies for regional and local economies in Canada and internationally. He has also
designed and led numerous training workshops on topics such as healthy communities, program
evaluation, survey design, and social return on investment.
To complete this project, HCA has assembled an experienced and dynamic project team, which collectively
has over 50 years of professional research experience. Team consultants have degrees in planning and
geography and have extensive experience in economic impact assessment, market research, land use
planning, and stakeholder consultation. The project team members include: Dr. Cummings (PhD),
Christine Zwart Cooper (MSc), and Ruth Lokram (MSc).
Page 48 of 170
ii The Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
Acknowledgements
Harry Cummings and Associates would like to thank the thousands of individuals who completed the
online survey and those who participated in the telephone interviews. The information received was
invaluable and we thank everyone for providing their time and experience in support of the study.
We would like to acknowledge the importance of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and their Tourism
Regional Economic Impact Model (TREIM) that was used to complete the impact assessments.
We express our appreciation to the OFSC for their knowledge and experience of snowmobiling in Ontario,
as well as their ongoing responses to questions, big and small, related to the study.
We would also like to acknowledge the financial contribution provided by the International Snowmobile
Manufacturers Association toward the completion of this report.
HCA has enjoyed working on this study, and we appreciate the opportunity to work with the OFSC and
the snowmobile community. We look forward to future partnerships.
Page 49 of 170
iii The Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
Executive Summary
The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC) has retained Harry Cummings and Associates (HCA)
to assess the economic impact of snowmobiling in Ontario during the 2018‐2019 snowmobiling season.
This study is an update to one conducted by HCA in 2014. The OFSC is a volunteer‐led, not‐for‐profit
association that provides a wide range of quality programs and services to its member organizations. The
OFSC manages a provincial network of snowmobiling trails that connects Ontario communities and
provides responsible riding experiences that are safe, enjoyable, and environmentally sustainable.
This study will be the fifth of its kind in Ontario, with the first economic impact study dating back to 1989.
Studies from 1989 to 2014 found that snowmobiling expenditures have steadily risen over the last 2‐3
decades from $241 million to $853 million in direct expenditures.
Given the consistent value that snowmobiling brings to the Ontario economy, as well as the changes in
the economic, social, and environmental landscape that can occur over a five‐year period, the OFSC
requested an update to the 2014 economic impact assessment. Using the same research methods as
those used in 2014, HCA surveyed snowmobilers and completed interviews with OFSC governors and
snowmobilers to determine the habits of snowmobilers and annual expenditures related to snowmobiling
across the province. With this data, HCA was able to calculate the economic impact of snowmobiling using
the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Tourism Regional Economic Impact Model (TREIM).
TREIM produces estimates of the direct, indirect and induced impacts of tourism‐related activities on
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), labour income and employment, as well as estimates of the direct and
total impacts of tourism‐related activities on federal, provincial and municipal tax revenues.
Survey results indicated that many snowmobilers were less active in snowmobiling during the 2013‐2014
season compared to other seasons. This is likely due to poor weather conditions in many areas of
Southwestern Ontario. The 2018‐2019 Ontario snowmobile season had $842,870,778 in expenditures by
snowmobilers riding in the province. Total provincial expenditures are down from those reported in the
2014 study. This can most likely be attributed to a decrease in trip activity as the average number of day
trips have decreased by over 50%. Had the frequency of trips remained the same, as those reported in
2014, the overall economic impact could be as much as doubled.
Snowmobiling expenditures from 2018‐2019 contributed to $403.9 million in direct GDP and a total of
$665.7 million in direct, indirect, and induced GDP impacts. Additionally, direct employment from the
season’s snowmobiling expenditures totaled an estimated 6,436 full‐time equivalent jobs and $216
million in taxes across three levels of government: $92 million in federal taxes, $114 million in provincial
taxes, and $10 million in municipal taxes.
In terms of total economic activity generated by the snowmobile industry, the assessment finds that
$842.8 million in expenditures reported by survey respondents would generate an estimated $1.6 billion
in economic activity in the province in 2018‐2019.1 Despite the poor weather conditions in southwestern
Ontario this year, the overall economic impact has remained consistent over the last five years, with a
total economic impact of between $1.6 and $1.7 billion annually. Furthermore, the two most recent
studies provide benchmarks by which we can measure the economic impact of snowmobiling during years
with particularly good weather conditions (2013‐2014) and years with unusually poor weather conditions
(2018‐2019). With the understanding, the economic impact of snowmobiling has the potential to generate
between $1.6 and $3.3 billion in total economic activity in any given season dependent on factors such as
weather.
1 Based on a multiplier of 2.0
Page 50 of 170
1 The Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs
The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC) is a volunteer‐led, not‐for‐profit association, which,
through strong leadership, provides a wide range of quality programs and services to and on behalf of its
member organizations. The provincial network of organized snowmobile trails connects Ontario
communities, providing responsible riding experiences that are safe, enjoyable and environmentally
sustainable.
This organization is guided by the following mission and vision statements:
“Our Mission is to provide leadership to member organizations in our
commitment to enable exceptional snowmobile trails and rider
experiences throughout the province.”
“Our Vision is that snowmobiling is recognized and celebrated as
Ontario’s premier winter recreation and tourism experience.”
More than 190 community‐based OFSC member snowmobile clubs are organised into 16 operational
districts which together operate more than 30,000 km of signed and groomed trails. Last year there were
over 105,000 registered permits issued to snowmobilers and their families for use in Ontario.
The OFSC’s Board, comprised of the Executive and District Governors, meets throughout the year to set
policy, undertake long‐term planning, and oversee the provincial operations and budget on behalf of the
clubs. As the coordinating body for organized snowmobiling in Ontario, the OFSC provides advice and
guidance to member clubs on a broad range of topics to ensure provincial objectives are met. Proceeds
from the sale of the trail permits required to enter OFSC trails provide primary funding for both the trail
operations of local snowmobile clubs and their provincial organization.
Page 51 of 170
2
Studying the Economic Impact of Snowmobiling
A Review of Economic Impact Studies Completed in Ontario and Comparable Jurisdictions
Snowmobiling is one of the great winter past‐times in North America and a favourite activity among
Canadians, in particular. Since 1990, there have been four major studies examining the economic impact
of snowmobiling in Ontario. These studies found that expenditures from the snowmobiling industry have
been rising steadily over the last 30 years, with estimated expenditures from the snowmobiling industry
increasing from $241 million in 1988‐1989 to $853 million in 2013‐2014.
The impact of snowmobiling is best measured by three different areas of impact: direct, indirect, and
induced impacts on the local economy. Direct impacts measure the actual expenditures of snowmobilers;
indirect impacts refer to the economic value contributed by suppliers to tourism, restaurants, and other
service providers that sell to snowmobilers in Ontario; and induced impacts examine the expenditures of
the employees and firms supported by the snowmobile industry itself. Using these measures, the 2014
study estimated that the $853 million spent by snowmobilers in expenditures directly contributed to an
increase of $369 million in provincial GDP.
Overview of Previous Study Findings
This section provides a brief overview of the four major studies examining the economic impact of
snowmobiling in the province, how they measured relevant snowmobiling expenditures, and the impact
that snowmobiling has on the Ontario economy.
1990: Dr. Paul Eagles et al. – The first major economic impact assessment of the snowmobiling industry
in Ontario was completed by Dr. Paul Eagles and his research team in 1990 during a significant growth
period in the popularity of snowmobiling as a winter sport. This study examined data collected from a
survey sent to 1,000 OFSC permit holders. The survey had a response rate of 43% (431 completed
questionnaires) and included non‐resident snowmobilers who had purchased permits for Ontario trails
(Eagles, et. al., 1990). The survey respondents were comprised mostly of married men who owned an
average of 1.8 sleds and had been participating in snowmobiling for 10 years or more.
The study measured the expenditures made on fixed and variable expenses they made or were planning
on making in Ontario during the season. Fixed expenses were defined as those which are generally
incurred once over a season, including: clothing and accessories, trailers, and insurance. Variable costs
were defined as expenses incurred while on a snowmobile outing, including lodging, food, gas for the
snowmobile and tow vehicle, as well as repairs.
The study found that OFSC members spent $241 million over the 1988‐1989 season, with just over two
million reportedly spent in Ontario on fixed and variable items. The fixed largest expense for
snowmobilers was the purchase and up‐keep of a snowmobile, while the largest variable expense was
found to be fuel costs (Eagles, et. al., 1990).
1998: Winter Gold – The second major economic impact study on snowmobiling in Ontario was
conducted in 1998 when OFSC and the Northern Ontario Heritage fund sponsored the preparation of
“Winter Gold: The Report on the Economic Sustainability and Development in Ontario.” Like the previous
report, this study focused on the fixed and variable expenditures of snowmobilers. However, unlike the
first report, this study used the Tourism Economic Assessment Model (TEAM) to measure the direct,
indirect, and induced economic impacts of snowmobiling activities in the province. The reach of this study
was also significantly greater than the first, with the survey sent to OFSC permit holders from Ontario
(n=3,000), the United States (n=500), and adjacent provinces (n=185) (Ecologistics Limited, 1998).
Page 52 of 170
3
This study found that snowmobilers spent around $585 million in 1998. The majority of spending was on
fixed expenditures (around $399 million), and 70% of fixed costs were spent directly on snowmobiles.
Respondents reported spending $186 million on variable expenditures, such as: food and beverages, fuel,
oil and repairs, and overnight expenditures. Approximately 25% of the variable expenditures went to fuel
and oil and another 25% was spent on food and beverages while snowmobiling.
The study also reviewed a number of issues facing the snowmobiling industry in Ontario at the time, but
ultimately concluded that organized snowmobiling had evolved beyond a localized recreational pursuit to
an important industry in the province (Ecologistics Limited, 1998).
2005: Paula Neice & Associates – In 2005, Paula Neice and Associates conducted the third major
economic impact assessment of the snowmobiling industry. Using the TEAM model, this study combined
results from data collected from OFSC permit holders, insurance records, and data from the Ministry of
Transportation to project the impact of snowmobiling activities on the Ontario economy. In the 2004‐
2005 season, survey results snowed that the average OFSC member household owned 1‐2 snowmobiles
and that more than half of survey respondents lived in rural communities, with 25% of respondents having
been involved in snowmobiling for more than 25 years (Paula Neice and Associates, 2005).
Financial results found that snowmobiling in Ontario generated over one billion dollars in economic
activity throughout the province, with direct expenditures totalling $637 million in the 2004‐2005 season.
The TEAM model was then used to calculate that the 2004‐2005 snowmobiling season had generated $17
million from the sale of 103,867 full‐ and short‐term snowmobile permits. Additionally, snowmobiling in
Ontario supported $274.8 million in total tax revenue among the three levels of government. Direct
employment from snowmobile expenditures resulted in 4,817 equivalent full‐year jobs, primarily in the
service industry, including jobs in restaurants and accommodation. Accounting for indirect and induced
impacts, snowmobile‐related expenditures in the province supported a total of 8,746 equivalent full‐year
jobs. This overall economic impact is based on a combined $664 million in snowmobile‐related
expenditures by Ontario residents and the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (Paula Neice and
Associates, 2005).
2014: Harry Cummings & Associates – The most recent economic impact assessment was conducted
five years ago by Harry Cummings and Associates. For this study, HCA sent a web survey to 60,000
OFSC permit holders – of which 4,588 surveys were completed – and conducted phone interviews
with eight OFSC District Coordinators. Study results showed that snowmobilers spent over $853
million in during the 2013‐2014 season. Many of the respondents reported that they were more
active in the 2013‐2014 season than in previous years. Furthermore, it was estimated that the $853
million in expenditures contributed to an increase of $369.4 million in direct GDP and a total of
$731.3 million in provincial GDP, including direct, indirect, and induced GDP impacts.
This study also measured the impact of snowmobiling on job creation and estimated that the
snowmobiling industry contributed to 11,307 jobs generated through both direct and induced
employment in 2013‐2014. Direct employment from the season’s snowmobile expenditures was
measured at 7,292 full‐year equivalent jobs. The snowmobiling industry also generated $332.8
million in tax revenue across three levels of government (federal, provincial, and municipal).2
2 With the federal government receiving $185.5 million in taxes, followed by the provincial government with $145.0
million, and municipal governments receiving $2.3 million in tax dollars across the province.
Page 53 of 170
4
The study concluded that the total economic activity generated by the $853 million in expenditures
could generate as much as $1.7 billion in economic activity in the 2013‐2014 season. (Estimates were
calculated using a multiplier of 2.0 as suggested by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport).
Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Comparable Jurisdictions
In addition to the Ontario studies, there have been many studies over the past few decades on the impact
of snowmobiling in comparable jurisdictions across Canada and the USA. This section will highlight a few
relevant studies conducted in Alberta (2011); Quebec (2012); Montana (2014); Idaho (2017); and Utah
(2017), and country‐wide data from the United States (2019). Like Ontario, these studies have
demonstrated the value of snowmobiling to the respective provincial or state governments.
Snowmobiling in Alberta & Quebec – In 2011, Econometric Research Ltd. developed an input‐output
model to calculate the economic impact of snowmobiling in Alberta. Unlike the Ontario studies, no direct
survey of snowmobilers was done in favour of using available secondary data. The study estimated that
the total expenditures on snowmobiling and related activities in Alberta in 2009 exceeded $366.5 million.
The total impact on the economy using all multipliers was $810 million. Expenditure estimates included
capital expenditures by snowmobilers and snowmobile clubs/associations (valued at $111.7 million) and
tourism expenditures ($254.7 million). Not included in expenditure estimates was the money raised and
spent by snowmobiling clubs/associations (i.e. permit sales). Based on these findings, the study concluded
that more than 6,574 Albertans owe their full‐time jobs to the recurrent capital and operational
expenditures from the snowmobiling industry. Snowmobiling activities in 2009 alone contributed to an
estimated $213.9 million in wages and salaries. The study found that the economic impact of
snowmobiling is greatest in rural regions of the province where the sport is more prevalent. In these areas,
snowmobiling has developed into a major new source of income and employment for many rural
communities. The authors concluded that the economic impact of snowmobiling stimulates the economy
through job creation and additional expenditures on good and services – providing significant income tax
revenues to the provincial, municipal, and federal governments (Econometric Research Limited, 2011).
Like Ontario, Quebec also has a high population of avid snowmobilers. A 2012 study conducted by Zins
Beauchesne et Associés reported that the Federation des Club de Motoneigistes du Quebec (FCMQ) had
80,000 members and more than 32,000km of trails throughout the province. Quebec is the most
comparable jurisdiction to Ontario given the nature of the climate, location and political environment, as
well as similar club qualities. From the 2011 season, it was found that the snowmobile industry of Quebec
generated economic benefits estimated at $2 billion (Zins, 2012). The Quebec study reviewed the
economic returns related to the following variables:
Spending made by snowmobilers on trips or vacations ($939.8 million)
Manufacturing snowmobiles and groomers in Quebec ($749.7 million)
Sales of new snowmobiles in Quebec ($47 million)
Benefits related to the maintenance of trails ($164 million)
Sales of groomers in Quebec ($138 million)
Across all variables, this study found an increased benefit from snowmobiling activities to the province. It
is important to note that Quebec has a manufacturing industry for snowmobiles and groomers, while
Ontario does not. For the Quebec study, no economic impact model was used. The authors of the study
state that the value of the snowmobile industry in Quebec is based on the quality of the snow and the
32,000km of trails (Zins, 2012).
Snowmobiling in the United States (late 1990s) – The economic impacts of snowmobiling have been
widely studied throughout the states since the late 1990s. Studies conducted in Maine, Michigan, and
Page 54 of 170
5
Minnesota between 1996 – 1998 found that snowmobiling activities generated anywhere between $160‐
400 million USD in direct and indirect expenditures (Reiling, et. al., 1996; Schneider, et. al., 2005; and
Stynes, et. al., 1998).
One of the earliest studies conducted in the United States found that snowmobilers in Maine and New
Hampshire generated over $225 million USD in direct ($152 million USD) and indirect/induced ($73 million
USD) economic impacts during the 1995‐1996 season. This study also provided a description of the socio‐
demographic characteristics of snowmobilers in Maine who, like in Ontario studies, were found to be
predominately male. Snowmobiles, both new and used, accounted for nearly 50% of all expenditures
between 1995 and 1996. Trailers and other accessories, insurance, trip expenses and repair and
maintenance were also included in the study of expenditures (Reiling, et. al., 1996).
In the following year, 1996‐1997, a comprehensive study of snowmobilers in Michigan found that over
100,000 households with permit holders spent $160 million USD on trips and $400 million USD on
equipment‐related expenses. Furthermore, this study found that snowmobiling was a large tourism
attraction for Michigan, with snowmobiling trip spending accounting for approximately 2% of all tourism
trip spending in the state. The study also found that 37% of total spending for overnight or day trips of
more than 100 miles ($132 million USD) were from out‐of‐state snowmobilers (Stynes, et. al., 1998). Like
many jurisdictions, registrations had declined since the 1980s, but it was found that the economic impacts
of the sport in 1996‐1997 were still significant. In Michigan, since the 1970's, a significant snowmobile
industry has developed including snowmobile dealers, resorts, snowmobile clubs, and a statewide system
of trails and facilities, similar to Ontario (Stynes, et. al., 1998).
Another study conducted in Minnesota in 1996 found the economic impacts contributed $300 million
toward Minnesota’s gross state product and approximately 5,900 jobs. Including non‐resident
expenditures, snowmobiling expenditures totaled $199.6 million, of which 92 percent came from resident
expenditures. The study included a survey of registered Minnesota snowmobilers, as well as snowmobile
manufactures and retailers. Approximately 43% or $78.6 million of the total residential expenditures were
spent in the destination area within the state. The remainder of the expenditures ($105.6 million) were
spent at home and en route to the destination. When residents and non‐residents snowmobile
throughout the state, significant direct, indirect and induced impacts flow into the local areas visited
(Schneider, et. al., 2005).
Snowmobiling in the United States (2010s) – Since the studies conducted at the end of the 20th century,
several newer studies measuring the economic impact of snowmobiling have been conducted in the U.S.
In 2014, the Montana State Parks department commissioned a study to examine snowmobiling activity
during the 2013‐2014 season. This study came after Yellowstone National Park officially began limiting
snowmobile access to 318 commercially lead sleds per day. The author noted that non‐resident
snowmobilers typically spent more on their trips (due to food and overnight accommodations) than
resident snowmobilers ($147/day and $56/day respectively). In addition, Yellowstone pass data shows
that only 2% of passes sold during the 2013‐2014 season were purchased by resident snowmobilers. This
study found that there were nearly 57,000 registered snowmobilers in the Montana area. The author
estimated that resident snowmobilers spent approximately $96 million during the 2013‐2014 season and
that non‐resident snowmobilers contributed another $14 million in spending. The largest concern
reported by snowmobilers who participated in this study was access to snowmobiling areas (Sylvester,
2014).
Shortly after the Montana study was completed, a similar study was conducted in Idaho during that 2016‐
2017 season. This study found that snowmobilers spent $197.5 million on expenditures. The largest
expenses included sleds and equipment ($57 million), food and beverages ($44 million) and retail ($31
Page 55 of 170
6
million). Snowmobiling is a popular pastime in Idaho, which had 35,564 registered snowmobiles in 2016‐
2017. As with the previous case study however, the authors noted that snowmobiling activity is
concentrated in specific regions3 – namely populated counties that had favourable terrain and winter
conditions. The authors estimated that snowmobilers took around 190,675 trips during that season and
looked at the direct, indirect, and induced effects of snowmobiling on the greater economy. They conclude
that the $197.5 million spent that year contributed to the generation of 4,062 full‐time equivalent jobs
and an increase in labour income of $108.2 million. In addition, they estimate an increase in the output
of locally produced goods and services in Idaho of $157.3 million.
Another study of the 2016‐2017 snowmobiling season conducted in Utah found that snowmobiling
contributed $88.4 million to Utah’s economy. The study found that there were 22,803 sleds registered to
11,350 households throughout the state and that, when adjusted for population growth, the number of
snowmobilers remained steady over the last 20 years. Snowmobile owner profiles show that the average
age of the snowmobiler was 54, however the age of registered individuals ranged from 18 to 83.
Snowmobilers were also shown to spend an average of $6,086 on snowmobiling activities per year.
Looking at direct, indirect, and induced affects of snowmobiling, the study found that the industry
supported 1,378 full‐time/full‐time equivalent jobs in 2017 and contributed $88.4 million to Utah’s
economy. That being said, the economic impacts of snowmobiling were found to be concentrated in a few
counties, namely: Salt Lake, Summit, Utah, Wasatch, and Weber counties. The study also acknowledged
that the economic impacts of snowmobiling were limited to a few sectors, primarily the motor vehicle and
parts sector and the gasoline and retail sectors (Smith & Lamborn, 2017).
Finally, the American Council of Snowmobile Associations (ACSA) recently released a 2019 report entitled
Facts and Myths About Snowmobiling and Winter Trails. This report states that there are over 137,000
miles of groomed trails across the country. These trails are open to the general public and as such are
used for a variety of winter activities such as: cross‐country skiing, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, dog
sledding, winter hiking, fat tire bicycling, and in some areas, ATV riding. Unsurprisingly, snowmobiling is
most common in the northern regions of the United States, with the report siting the following states
popular snowmobiling destinations: Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. There are an estimated 1.2 million registered
snowmobilers in the US and the average snowmobiler rides up to 1,250 miles per season. Similar to
Ontario, the average age of the American snowmobiler is 45 and 75% of all snowmobilers are male. The
ACSA also sites snowmobiling as an important facet of the economy, stating that it is a catalyst for many
rural communities across the country. In the US, snowmobiling generates over $26 Billion in annual
spending across the country and is responsible for an estimated 100,000 fulltime jobs (ACSA, 2019).
3 Ada, Bannock, Bonneville, Canyon, Kootenai, Twin Falls, and Valley.
Page 56 of 170
7
Study Approach
Ontario’s Tourism Regional Economic Impact Model (TREIM)
The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport supports the TREIM4 process to determine the economic
impact of visitors' and businesses' spending in the tourism sector on the local and provincial economies.
TREIM produces estimates of the direct, indirect and induced impacts of tourism‐related activities on
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), labour income and employment, as well as estimates of the direct and
total impacts of tourism‐related activities on federal, provincial and municipal tax revenues. TREIM is a
multi‐region input‐output model that covers 16 travel regions; 49 counties, districts and regional
municipalities; 43 census metropolitan areas (CMA) and census agglomerations (CA); and the entire
province of Ontario. TRIEM has been used to estimate the impact of the Toronto International Film
Festival, as well as the Trent‐Severn Waterway National Historic Site of Canada (The Centre for Spatial
Economics, 2008; TCI Management Consultants, 2010). TREIM was developed for the Province by the
Conference Board of Canada using their national input‐output models.
TREIM considers four types of new expenditure in an economy:
Visitor Spending –used to estimate the economic impact of tourism spending in a specific region
and/or for a specific event;
Operational Expenses – used to estimate the economic impact of operating an ongoing business,
such as an attraction, retail business, hotel or restaurant;
Investment Expenditures – for estimating the economic impact of investing in or building a
tourism facility, such as an attraction, retail business, hotel or restaurant; and
Convention Centre Activity – for estimating the economic impact of a convention, which includes
the spending of delegates and exhibitors, as well as production costs.
This study uses the Visitor Spending category only, which takes into consideration the expenditures of
visitors, tourists and/or clients who are either drawn into the area where they otherwise would not have
visited or are already in the area but who extend their stay for some period of time as a result of
snowmobiling in Ontario. This study does not include provincial funding provided to improve and maintain
trails but rather looks at the total expenditures of snowmobilers during single‐day and multi‐day trips and
tours.
Throughout the study, there are comparisons to previous studies of the economic impact of snowmobiling
in Ontario. These studies used the TEAM model for the assessment. The TEAM model is a national model
run by the Conference Board of Canada. The TREIM and TEAM models are similar; both are input‐output
models that have been created for the tourism sector. TREIM was developed for the province of Ontario
with the assistance of the Conference Board and uses the same methodology.
Survey of Ontario Snowmobilers
In consultation with the OFSC, HCA developed and implemented an online survey to collect data on
snowmobiling habits and expenditures in the 2018‐2019 season. HCA used a web survey development
cloud‐based program, Survey Monkey, and an updated version of the survey that was developed for the
2013‐2014 study. As the same survey tool was used, the survey was not pre‐tested prior to its release.
The survey was sent out by OFSC to approximately 88,000 individuals using an email database that
included those who purchased an OFSC permit for 2018‐2019, as well as previous permit holders going
back five years. The survey was also shared through OFSC’s social media platforms where it reached of
4 For more information on TREIM please visit: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/research/treim/treim.shtml
Page 57 of 170
8
15,000 individuals. A total of 10,464 individuals completed the survey on behalf of their household and
the surveys had a completion rate of 62%. The survey was open for three weeks between March 21 – April
11, 2019 to mirror the dates of the 2014 survey.
For the survey instrument, please refer to the Appendices.
Key Informant Interviews
In consultation with OFSC, HCA developed guides and facilitated key informant interviews with District
Presidents. An invitation was sent to all 16 District Presidents by OFSC, and HCA followed‐up with
recipients by email or phone. When a District President was unable to participate in a phone interview,
HCA asked them to recommend another avid snowmobiler from their district who they could contact. In
total, 14 interviews were conducted (12 District President interviews and 2 OFSC member interviews) over
the telephone, lasting approximately 15 minutes each.
For the key informant interview guide, please refer to the Appendices.
Page 58 of 170
9
Findings
Household Characteristics
Snowmobiling is a predominantly male dominated activity. Nearly 90% of all survey respondents were
male. However, many of the survey respondents reported sledding with a partner who was most often
female, as well as with their children. Most of the interview respondents were male as well (11 of 13), and
nearly all respondents reported sledding with a partner or other family members. Many of the interview
respondents talked about snowmobiling as a family activity, with 11 of the 13 interviewees saying that
they sled with their family member(s) (i.e. spouse, kids, or grandkids).
Table 1: Gender of Survey Respondents
Gender # %
Male 6,552 89.4%
Female 727 9.9%
Didn't Specify a 53 0.7%
Total 7,332 100.0%
a Participants who responded “me” or “myself” along with the gender of other
family members. Does not include blank responses.
Household size of survey respondents ranged from 2‐4 most frequently, with an average family size of
2.8. The most common household size was 2, followed by 4, and a small number of respondents reported
families of 9 or more (however, it is difficult to say whether this was in reference to immediate family or
extended family). Just under 75% of all survey respondents reported sledding with another family
member, with two active snowmobiles per household being the most common (35.7%), followed by
single‐sled households (27.2%) and three (17.1%) and four (13.8%) sleds per family, respectively.
Table 2: Household Size of Survey Respondents
Household Size # % Cumulative %
1 424 6.7% 6.7%
2 2,868 45.6% 52.4%
3 1,136 18.1% 70.5%
4 1,339 21.3% 91.8%
5 380 6.0% 97.8%
6 101 1.6% 99.4%
7 24 0.4% 99.8%
8 6 0.1% 99.9%
9 or more 5 0.1% 100.0%
Total 6,283 100.0%
Page 59 of 170
10
Just over 85% of the survey respondents were married or in a common law relationship at the time of the
survey. Another 8% reported that they were single, and 4% were divorced or separated. Nearly all of the
interview respondents (10 of 13) were married and most had between 1‐3 children, either living at home
or away at University, who snowmobiled with them as well.
Table 3: Marital Status of Survey Respondents
Marital Status # %
Married/Common law 5,528 85.4%
Single 526 8.1%
Divorced/Separated 262 4.0%
Widowed 63 1.0%
Prefer not to answer 96 1.5%
Total 6,475 100.0%
The average age of the survey respondents was 50.3 years, and over half of the survey respondents were
50 years or older. In addition to the survey members themselves, other household members ranged from
1‐93 years of age. The average age of all household members was 28.8 years. Interestingly, while the
average age of the survey respondent is nearly identical to the average respondent age in the 2014 study
(49.6 years old), the average age of all household members has significantly decreased since 2014 from
40.6 to 28.8. In the previous study, many of the interview respondents commented that snowmobiling is
an aging sport, with only one interviewee noting that it’s becoming more of a family‐oriented activity. In
contrast, several respondents during interviews in 2019 commented that snowmobiling is a family‐
oriented activity (4 of 13). These statements are validated by the data that show a younger average age
of household members in 2019. Only one interview respondent in 2019 commented on challenges
pertaining to the age of snowmobilers, pointing out that the average age of OFSC volunteers is 50 and
voicing concern about the longevity of the organisation if they are unable to attract younger volunteers.
Table 4: Age of Survey Respondents
Survey Respondents All Household Members
Age Category # % Cumulative % # % Cumulative %
0‐19 249 3.0% 3.0% 675 3.7% 3.7%
20‐24 177 2.1% 5.1% 418 2.3% 6.0%
25‐29 286 3.4% 8.5% 595 3.3% 9.2%
30‐34 360 4.3% 12.8% 676 3.7% 12.9%
35‐39 497 5.9% 18.8% 1027 5.6% 18.5%
40‐44 709 8.5% 27.2% 1612 8.8% 27.3%
45‐49 1,056 12.6% 39.8% 2469 13.5% 40.8%
50‐54 1,464 17.5% 57.3% 3219 17.6% 58.4%
55‐59 1,494 17.9% 75.2% 2917 15.9% 74.4%
60‐64 1,178 14.1% 89.3% 2125 11.6% 86.0%
65‐69 521 6.2% 95.5% 925 5.1% 91.1%
70‐74 253 3.0% 98.5% 423 2.3% 93.4%
75‐79 102 1.2% 99.7% 156 0.9% 94.2%
80+ 21 0.3% 100.0% 1056 5.8% 100.0%
Total 8,367 100.0% 18,293 100.0%
Average Age 50.3 28.8
Page 60 of 170
11
Figure 1: Age Comparison, Survey Respondents and Ontario Population5
Survey respondents were asked to specify the highest level of education completed to date. College,
CEGEP, or other non‐university certificate or diploma was the highest level of education reported most
frequently by survey respondents (32.2%), followed by an apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma
(22.4%) and a high school degree (20.2%). These results are similar to those in the 2014 study, which also
found that snowmobiling was less popular among University graduates, as only 15.3% of survey
respondents in 2018 (and 16.6% in 2014) had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Table 5: Highest Education Level Attained by Survey Respondents
Education Level # % Cumulative %
Less than high school 182 3.0% 3.0%
High school 1,244 20.2% 23.2%
Apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma 1,377 22.4% 45.6%
College, CEGEP or other non‐university certificate or diploma 1,982 32.2% 77.8%
University certificate, diploma or degree at bachelor level or above 429 7.0% 84.7%
Bachelor's degree 534 8.7% 93.4%
University certificate, diploma or degree above bachelor level 405 6.6% 100.0%
Total 6,153 100.0%
In comparison to provincial education rates, there is a significantly greater proportion of snowmobilers
who have completed an apprenticeship or trades program, as seen below in Figure 2. Snowmobilers were
also more likely to have completed a college, CEGEP, or other non‐university certificate or diploma but
less likely than the general population to have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Fewer snowmobilers put
down their highest level of education as ‘high school or less’ than the general population.
5 Statistics Canada. Table 17‐10‐0005‐01 Population estimates on July 1st, by age and sex
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
0‐19 20‐24 25‐29 30‐34 35‐39 40‐44 45‐49 50‐54 55‐59 60‐64 65‐69 70‐74 75‐79 80+Percent of PopulationAge
Ontario Population Snowmobilers
Page 61 of 170
12
Figure 2: Education Level Comparison, Survey Respondents and Ontario Population6
Over 90% of survey respondents reported a household income of over 50,000 a year, and over 60% of
snowmobilers had an annual household income of over $100,000 (see Figure 3). Compared to the general
population, there is a greater proportion of snowmobilers in the five income categories above $80,000.
However, income distribution across households is more even for the province than it is with
snowmobilers. The fact that household income is higher among snowmobilers than it is for the general
population is not surprising, as snowmobiling is generally considered to be an expensive sport. Comments
from both interview and survey respondents suggest that the up‐front cost of snowmobiling (i.e.
purchasing a snowmobile) makes it a difficult activity for people to get into.
Table 6: Average Household Income of Survey Respondents
Household Income # % Cumulative %
Under $5,000 12 0.2% 0.2%
$5,000 to $9,999 10 0.2% 0.4%
$10,000 to $14,999 16 0.3% 0.7%
$15,000 to $19,999 18 0.3% 1.1%
$20,000 to $24,999 34 0.6% 1.7%
$25,000 to $29,999 49 0.9% 2.6%
$30,000 to $34,999 58 1.1% 3.7%
$35,000 to $39,999 55 1.0% 4.8%
$40,000 to $44,999 96 1.8% 6.6%
$45,000 to $49,999 116 2.2% 8.8%
$50,000 to $59,999 296 5.6% 14.5%
$60,000 to $69,999 262 5.0% 19.4%
$70,000 to $79,999 303 5.8% 25.2%
$80,000 to $89,999 365 6.9% 32.2%
$90,000 to $99,999 399 7.6% 39.7%
$100,000 to $124,999 887 16.9% 56.6%
$125,000 to $149,999 690 13.1% 69.7%
$150,000 to $199,999 780 14.8% 84.6%
$200,000 and over 810 15.4% 100.0%
Total 5,256 100.0%
6 Statistics Canada. Education Highlight Tables, 2016 Census.
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
> High school High School Apprenticeship or
Trades
College University Below
Bachelor Level
University
Bachelor's Degree
or AbovePercent of PopulationLevel of Education
Ontario Population Snowmobilers
Page 62 of 170
13
Figure 3: Household Income Comparison, Survey Respondents and Ontario Population7
Participation in Snowmobiling
Weather conditions during the 2018‐2019 season varied greatly across snowmobiling districts. Most
notably the northern districts (11‐17) had a particularly long snowmobiling season, with around 17 weeks
of good sledding conditions. By contrast, districts 4 and 5 (2 of the largest districts by population)
experienced more rain/freezing rain than snow, and as a result, the trails were only open between 1‐4
weeks in those districts. These conditions were confirmed by interview respondents and OFSC staff. Likely
related, around a third of snowmobilers reported sledding less than in most seasons. The percentage of
snowmobilers who reported snowmobiling less and/or not at all has gone up significantly since the 2014
study in which 7.4% of survey respondents reported sledding less and only 0.4% said ‘not at all.’
That being said, snowmobiling conditions were reported to be a lot better this year than in recent previous
years for many of the northern snowmobiling districts, with a couple survey respondents noting that this
season was one of the best they’ve ever had. Approximately one third of survey respondents reported
that this year they were able to sled ‘more than most seasons’, and another third reported sledding ‘about
the same as most seasons.’
Table 7: Participating in Snowmobiling during the 2018‐2019 Season
Comparison to Previous Seasons # %
More than most seasons 3,261 31.3%
About the same as most seasons 3,249 31.1%
Less than most seasons 2,992 28.7%
2018‐2019 was my first snowmobile season 252 2.4%
Not at all 678 6.5%
Total 10,432 100.0%
7 Statistics Canada. 2017. Ontario [Province] and Canada [Country] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics
Canada Catalogue no. 98‐316‐X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%Percentage of PopulationIncome Categories
Ontario Population Snowmobilers
Page 63 of 170
14
A total of 8,684 survey respondents reported going on at least one day trip during the 2018‐2019
snowmobiling season. Nearly 23% of survey respondents reported going on day trips 2‐3 times a week,
and another 18% reported going once a week. Due to the substantial variance between districts in the
total number of snowmobiling weeks, a weighted average was used to estimate an average of 8.4 sledding
weeks across the whole province. Using this estimate for the 2018‐2019 season, the average snowmobiler
went on 11 day trips this season.
Table 8: Frequency of Day Trips Reported by Survey Respondents
Day Trips # %
6‐7 per week 112 1.2%
4‐5 per week 379 4.0%
2‐3 per week 2,171 22.8%
Once per week 1,781 18.7%
Three times per month 1283 13.5%
Twice per month 1118 11.8%
Once a month 745 7.8%
Less than once a month 1095 11.5%
Never 819 8.6%
Total 9,503 100.0%
Average: 11 1 day trips in 2018‐2019 a
a Calculated based on the number of people who reported going on one or more day
trips
In total, 4,995 snowmobilers reported going on one or more overnight trips in 2018‐2019. Survey
respondents most frequently sited going on one overnight trip (19%) followed by two overnight trips
(12.6%) of 1‐3 nights away from home. On average, survey respondents went on 1.4 overnight trips this
season.
Table 9: Frequency of Overnight Trips Reported by Survey Respondents
Trips (1‐3 Nights) # %
1 1773 19.1%
2 1172 12.6%
3 852 9.2%
4 481 5.2%
5 282 3.0%
6 168 1.8%
7 59 0.6%
8 68 0.7%
9 19 0.2%
10 or more 124 1.3%
Never 4309 46.3%
Total 9307 100.0%
Average: 1.4 1‐3‐night trips in 2018‐2019 a
a Calculated based on the number of people who reported going on one or more over
night trips
Page 64 of 170
15
Tours refer to overnight trips of more than three nights away from home. Just over 32% of survey
respondents (3,002 individuals) reported that they went on at least one tour in 2018‐2019. Nearly 18% of
respondents said that they went on one tour this season, and just over 7% of respondents said they went
on two tours. Of the 10,464 survey respondents 6,181 never went on a snowmobiling tour during the
2018‐2019 season.
Table 10: Frequency of Tours Reported by Survey Respondents
Tours # %
1 1638 17.8%
2 671 7.3%
3 313 3.4%
4 166 1.8%
5 86 0.9%
6 30 0.3%
7 32 0.3%
8 17 0.2%
9 7 0.1%
10 or more 42 0.5%
Never 6181 67.3%
Total 9183 100.0%
Average: 0.7 tours in 2018‐2019 a
a Calculated based on the number of people who reported going on one or more tours
There were survey respondents from each of the 16 OFSC Districts and an additional 90 respondents with
a primary residence outside of Ontario. District 5 (London, Kitchener, Brantford) had the greatest
representation, with 16.7% of the survey respondents, followed by District 1 (Ottawa, Kingston) and
District 4 (GTA).
Page 65 of 170
16
Figure 4: Map of OFSC Districts
In addition to their home residence, survey respondents were asked to identify if they had a
secondary/vacation residence to which they typically snowmobile. District 5 (London, Kitchener,
Brantford) was the most common district for vacation homes among survey respondents, followed by
Districts 4 (GTA) and 3 (Peterborough, Uxbridge and Belleville), respectively. The Districts with a higher
prevalence of vacation homes are likely to be destinations for overnight trips and tours.
Table 11: Place of Residence of Survey Respondents
District Primary Residence Secondary (Vacation) Residence
# % # %
1 764 12.5% 240 8.8%
2 256 4.2% 108 4.0%
3 623 10.2% 366 13.5%
4 657 10.7% 407 15.0%
5 1019 16.7% 490 18.1%
6 297 4.9% 95 3.5%
7 253 4.1% 109 4.0%
8 524 8.6% 214 7.9%
9 511 8.4% 152 5.6%
10 102 1.7% 40 1.5%
11 246 4.0% 91 3.4%
12 365 6.0% 163 6.0%
13 131 2.1% 52 1.9%
14 125 2.0% 43 1.6%
15 67 1.1% 24 0.9%
17 88 1.4% 39 1.4%
Outside Ontario 90 1.5% 81 3.0%
Total 6,118 100.0% 2,714 100.0%
Survey respondents were also asked to identify the district where they most commonly ride during a
typical season. District 6 (Haliburton, Pembroke) was the most commonly reported district for survey
respondents (11.5%), followed by District 11 (North Bay, Mattawa) and District 7 (Huntsville, Bracebridge)
at 10.4% of survey respondents each. An additional 46 respondents (0.7%) said that they primarily ride
outside of the province (i.e. Quebec or the US) (see Table 12).
In addition to the most common riding destination, survey respondents were asked to identify the areas
where they ride second and third most often. When looking at the districts where respondents ride most
frequently, second most frequently, and third most frequently, District 6 (Haliburton, Pembroke) was
most commonly sited as a riding destination at 11.8% of all reported destinations. District 7 (Huntsville,
Bracebridge) was a close second at 11.2% of all reported destinations, followed by District 11 (North Bay,
Mattawa) as the third most reported destination at 10.8% of survey respondents (see Table 13).
Page 66 of 170
17
Table 12: The District Where Survey Respondents Most Commonly Ride
Districts Primarily Ride %
1 602 9.7%
2 512 8.2%
3 222 3.6%
4 111 1.8%
5 236 3.8%
6 712 11.5%
7 645 10.4%
8 472 7.6%
9 512 8.2%
10 338 5.4%
11 646 10.4%
12 413 6.7%
13 212 3.4%
14 227 3.7%
15 199 3.2%
17 102 1.6%
Outside Ontario 46 0.7%
Total 6,207 100.0%
Table 13: Districts Where Survey Respondents Most Commonly Ride
Districts Primarily Ride 2nd Most Likely
to Ride
3rd Most Likely
to Ride Total %
1 602 374 271 1247 8.4%
2 512 432 348 1292 8.7%
3 222 179 142 543 3.6%
4 111 88 71 270 1.8%
5 236 178 148 562 3.8%
6 712 579 463 1754 11.8%
7 645 557 472 1674 11.2%
8 472 395 328 1195 8.0%
9 512 356 284 1152 7.7%
10 338 291 241 870 5.8%
11 646 527 443 1616 10.8%
12 413 294 224 931 6.2%
13 212 130 107 449 3.0%
14 227 171 140 538 3.6%
15 199 158 140 497 3.3%
17 102 46 39 187 1.3%
Outside
Ontario 46 45 36 127 0.9%
Total 6,207 4,800 3,897 14,904 100.0%
Page 67 of 170
18
Snowmobiles
Survey respondents were asked to provide information on the year in which they purchased their
snowmobile, new or used, as well as the model year8 and type of permit purchased for each sled this
season. Many survey respondents had purchased snowmobiles recently, with approximately a quarter of
respondents (24.2%) reporting that they had purchased a snowmobile within the last year (16.4% in 2018
and 7.8% in 2019). Another 44.3% of respondents reported purchasing their sled within the last three
years (i.e. since 2015), with the remaining 31.5% reporting that they had purchased their snowmobiles in
2010 or earlier.
Table 14: Year of Purchase, Snowmobile, as Reported by Survey Respondents
Year Purchased # %
2019 1,080 7.8%
2018 2,267 16.4%
2017 1,783 12.9%
2016 1,491 10.8%
2015* 2,854 20.6%
2010‐2014 2,806 20.3%
2005‐2009 948 6.9%
2004 or earlier 593 4.3%
Total 13,822 100.0%
Nearly half of survey respondents reported owning snowmobiles that were manufactured within the last
five years (45%). Just over 15% of reported snowmobiles were manufactured within the last year (2018
or 2019 model), with another 30% of snowmobiles manufactured between 2015‐2017.
Table 15: Model Year, Snowmobile, as Reported by Survey Respondents
Model Year # %
2019 890 6.1%
2018 1,360 9.3%
2017 1,203 8.3%
2016 1,289 8.8%
2015* 1,924 13.2%
2010‐2014 3,172 21.8%
2005‐2009 2,353 16.1%
2004 or earlier 2,384 16.4%
Total 14,575 100.0%
The Province of Ontario requires a valid trail permit on every machine that is active on Ontario trails, and
as such, there are various types of permits available to riders for their machines, as listed below. In total,
8 Due to an error in the first run of the survey (which limited survey responses to between 1900‐2015) data for the Purchase and
Model year may be slightly skewed towards 2015. Approximately 25% of the data for year of purchase (3,443 datapoints) and
13% of data for model year (1,852 datapoints) come from the survey before the error was found, fixed, and the updated survey
was sent out. Where possible (from examining end of survey comments) the year of purchase and the model year was updated
during the data cleaning process. In total, 96 comments were identified where the survey respondent indicated that one or more
of the dates was not correct for one or more of their sleds. All but 12 comments provided the correct information and in those
cases the data was updated to reflect the correct year of purchase/model year.
Page 68 of 170
19
respondents reported purchasing 13,624 trail permits for their snowmobiles. Survey respondents as a
whole reported 640 machines without a permit of any kind. A seasonal permit was the most common
permit type reported, with 85.6% of reported snowmobiles attached to a seasonal permit. The province
offers season permits though OFSC for discounted prices depending on time of purchase (i.e. early bird
pricing), and 69.7% of permits were purchased at $190. Another 5% of snowmobiles had the Classic
Permit, and 2% had a “Try Our Trails” Permit. In addition, 3% of snowmobiles were attached to a “multi‐
day” or “special event” permit.
Table 16: Permit Type for snowmobiles owned as reported by Survey Respondents
OFSC Permit Type # %
$0 Try Our Trails Permit 294 2.1%
$150 Classic Permit 707 5.0%
$190 Seasonal Permit 9,943 69.7%
$220 Seasonal Permit 1,377 9.7%
$270 Seasonal Permit 884 6.2%
$35 Multi‐Day Permit 412 2.9%
$35 Special Event Permit 7 0.1%
No Permit 640 4.5%
Total 14,264 100.0%
Annual Spending
Those who participate in snowmobiling are subject to spending on a variety of items on an annual basis,
including insurance and trail permits, occasionally the purchase of a snowmobile, repairs and maintenance
and smaller ticket items, such as clothing.
For the purpose of this assessment, only the snowmobiles purchased in 2018‐2019 were reviewed. A total
of 2,700 households indicated they purchased one or more snowmobiles, new or used, in 2018‐2019. The
average amount spent on the purchase of one or more snowmobiles in 2018‐2019 was $10,723.
Table 17: Cost of Snowmobile Purchases in 2018‐2019 Reported by Survey
Respondents
Cost of Snowmobile(s) Purchased in 2018‐2019 # %
$1‐1,000 36 1.3%
$1,001‐2,000 114 4.2%
$2,001‐3,000 127 4.7%
$3,001‐4,000 106 3.9%
$4,001‐5,000 115 4.3%
$5,001‐7,500 219 8.1%
$7,501‐10,000 367 13.6%
$10,001‐15,000 808 29.9%
$15,001‐20,000 742 27.5%
$20,001‐25,000 63 2.3%
$25,001‐30,000 1 0.0%
More than $30,000 2 0.1%
# of Households that Purchased at Least One Snowmobile in 2018‐2019: 2,700
Average Amount Spent on Purchase in 2018‐2019: $10,723.05
Page 69 of 170
20
Survey respondents were asked to report on their annual insurance costs for their snowmobiles. A total
of 6,612 individuals reported that they purchased insurance for one or more snowmobiles in the 2018‐
2019 season. For survey respondents, the average household reported spending $565.35 on insurance
annually.
Table 18: Annual Insurance Cost per Household
Insurance Cost # %
$1‐100 182 2.8%
$101‐200 657 9.9%
$201‐300 917 13.9%
$301‐400 957 14.5%
$401‐500 932 14.1%
$501‐750 1,436 21.7%
$751‐1,000 811 12.3%
$1,001‐1,500 577 8.7%
$1,501‐2,000 107 1.6%
More than $2,000 36 0.5%
Total 6,612 100.0%
Average $565.35
The annual repairs and maintenance, as well as emergency repairs while on a trip were examined to get
a better understanding of the costs associated with regular maintenance per household. Households
spent, on average, $730.28 repairing and maintaining their snowmobile(s) in 2018‐2019.
Table 19: Repairs and Maintenance Spending, as Reported by Survey
Respondents
Repairs and Maintenance Costs # %
$1‐100 505 9.5%
$101‐200 843 15.9%
$201‐300 688 13.0%
$301‐400 451 8.5%
$401‐500 760 14.4%
$501‐750 405 7.7%
$751‐1,000 710 13.4%
$1,001‐1,250 134 2.5%
$1,251‐1,500 267 5.0%
$1,501‐1,750 33 0.6%
$1,751‐2,000 215 4.1%
More than $2000 281 5.3%
Total 5,292 100.0%
Average $730.28
Page 70 of 170
21
Survey respondents were asked to report how much they spent on snowmobile‐related clothing for the
2018‐2019 season. This clothing could include items such as coats, insulated pants, gloves and boots. A
total of 4,023 respondents reported purchasing new clothing during the 2018‐2019 snowmobiling season.
Amounts spent on clothing varied greatly across households, with some spending under $100 (14.7%)
while others spent several thousand. On average, snowmobiling households spent $600 on clothing in
2018‐2019.
Table 20: Amount Spent on Clothing Annually, Reported by Survey Respondents
Amount Spent on Clothing # %
$1‐100 590 14.7%
$101‐200 717 17.8%
$201‐300 501 12.5%
$301‐400 277 6.9%
$401‐500 517 12.9%
$501‐750 340 8.5%
$751‐1,000 547 13.6%
$1,001‐1,250 123 3.1%
$1,251‐1,500 152 3.8%
$1,501‐1,750 15 0.4%
$1,751‐2,000 147 3.7%
More than $2000 97 2.4%
Total 4,023 100.0%
Average $600.42
Day Trip Spending
Spending on food and beverage and fuel/oil for day trips was examined to get a sense of how much money
households spend on short trips. As stated previously, 8,684 survey respondents indicated that they went
on at least one day trip during the 2018‐2019 snowmobiling season. Under the assumption that there
were 8 weeks9 in the 2018‐2019 season, it is estimated that the average snowmobiler went on 11 day‐
trips this season.
Food and beverage expenditures were split into two categories: restaurant spending and store purchases
(e.g. grocery stories, convenient stores). Snowmobilers typically ate at restaurants during day trips as
opposed to purchasing food and beverages at a store. Several interview respondents noted that
snowmobilers often travel light (with one saying that all he brings on trips is a credit card) and that day
trips will often have a restaurant as a final destination. In total, 5,151 survey respondents reported on
their restaurant purchases and 2,680 respondents reported on store purchases.
Households most commonly spend between $1 and $50 on food and beverages, whether at a store or a
restaurant, during a snowmobiling day trip; however, 31% of households said that they spend up to $100
at a restaurant during a day trip and 16% of survey respondents said that they spend over $100 at
9 Based on a weighted average of total weeks in each district across the province.
Page 71 of 170
22
restaurants per day trip. On average, households spent $83.54 at a restaurant and $39.55 at a store for
food and beverages per trip.
Table 21: Spending on Food and Beverage, Day Trips, as Reported by Survey Respondents
Amount Spent on
Food and
Beverage
Restaurant # Restaurant % Store # Store %
$1‐50 2,711 52.6% 2,246 83.8%
$51‐100 1609 31.2% 313 11.7%
$101‐150 349 6.8% 42 1.6%
$151‐200 189 3.7% 42 1.6%
$201‐250 67 1.3% 16 0.6%
$251‐500 194 3.8% 19 0.7%
$501 and over 32 0.6% 2 0.1%
Total 5,151 100.0% 2,680 100.0%
Average Spent
(Daily) $83.54 $39.55
The cost of fuel and oil for day trips is another major expense. In total, 5,742 survey respondents reported
on their fuel expense for day trips and 3,329 survey respondents reported fuel expenses for a towing
vehicle used for a day trip. On average, households spent $76.51 per day trip on fuel and oil for
snowmobiles and $93.57 for a towing vehicle.
Table 22: Spending on Fuel/Oil, Day Trips, as Reported by Survey Respondents
Amount Spent
Fuel/Oil # Snowmobile % Snowmobile # Towing % Towing
$1‐50 2,994 52.1% 1376 41.3%
$51‐100 1,837 32.0% 1235 37.1%
$101‐150 439.00 7.6% 268 8.1%
$151‐200 233.00 4.1% 232 7.0%
$201‐250 86.00 1.5% 61 1.8%
$251‐300 54.00 0.9% 65 2.0%
$301 and over 99.00 1.7% 92 2.8%
Total 5,742 100.0% 3,329 100.0%
Average $76.51 $93.57
Overnight Trip Spending
Spending on accommodation, food and beverage, and fuel/oil for overnight trips of one to three nights
away were examined to get a sense of how much money households spend on overnight trips. A total of
4,995 survey respondents indicated they went on at least one overnight trip of one to three nights away
from home during the 2018‐2019 season. On average, survey respondents went on 2‐3 overnight trips
this season.
Page 72 of 170
23
As with the day trip analysis, food and beverage purchases at restaurants and stores (e.g. grocery,
convivence stores) were examined for overnight trips. On average, households spent $188.56 at
restaurants and $66.82 in stores on overnight trips of between 2‐3 nights away from home. Approximately
37% of households spent $100 or less in restaurants during overnight trips and 89% of households spent
$100 or less on food and beverage purchases in stores. In total, 21% of respondents reported spending
between $150‐$200 at restaurants during overnight trips and just over 25% of survey respondents
reported spending between $50‐$100 in food and beverage purchases in stores during an overnight trip.
A small proportion of survey respondents reported spending over $500 in food and beverage purchases
during overnight trips.
Table 23: Spending on Food and Beverage, Overnight Trips, as Reported by Survey Respondents
Amount Spent on
Food and Beverage Restaurant # Restaurant % Store # Store %
$1‐50 315 10.6% 1,261 63.6%
$51‐100 776 26.2% 503 25.4%
$101‐150 526 17.8% 98 4.9%
$151‐200 621 21.0% 70 3.5%
$201‐250 150 5.1% 12 0.6%
$251‐500 499 16.9% 33 1.7%
$501 and over 74 2.5% 5 0.3%
Total 2,961 100.0% 1,982 100.0%
Average Spent
(Per Trip) $188.56 $66.82
The fuel and oil costs for snowmobiles are an obvious and necessary expense for snowmobiling. In total,
3,035 survey respondents reported on their fuel/oil spending for their sled and 2,422 reported on their
fuel/oil spending for a towing vehicle. Most survey respondents reported spending between $50 and $200
on fuel for overnight trips, both for their snowmobiles and fuel for towing vehicle. For overnight trips, the
average household spent $187.90 on fuel for their snowmobile and $179.26 on fuel for a towing vehicle.
Table 24: Spending on Fuel/Oil, Overnight Trips, as Reported by Survey Respondents
Amount Spent
Fuel/Oil # Snowmobiles % Snowmobiles # Towing % Towing
$1‐50 278 9.2% 191 7.9%
$51‐100 828 27.3% 743 30.7%
$101‐150 594 19.6% 436 18.0%
$151‐200 573 18.9% 523 21.6%
$201‐250 180 5.9% 119 4.9%
$251‐300 244 8.0% 176 7.3%
$301‐350 55 1.8% 40 1.7%
$351‐400 121 4.0% 97 4.0%
$401‐450 16 0.5% 7 0.3%
$451‐500 64 2.1% 47 1.9%
More than $500 82 2.7% 43 1.8%
Total 3,035 100.0% 2,422 100.0%
Average $187.90 $179.26
Page 73 of 170
24
When participating in overnight trips of one to three nights away from home, snowmobilers have options
for accommodations, including private cottages or vacation homes, hotels or motels, lodges, or bed and
breakfasts. Of the 4,995 survey respondents who indicated going on at least one overnight trip, 2,678
reported on accommodation expenses. Approximately 37% of respondents reported on spending
between $100 and $200 on overnight accommodations with another 21% reporting that they spend
between $200 and $300. Exactly 15% said that they spend $100 or less, while 7.3% said that they spend
over $500 on accommodations for an overnight trip of 1‐3 nights away from home.
Table 25: Accommodation Spending, Overnight Trips, as Reported by Survey
Respondents
Amount Spent on
Accommodation # %
$1‐50 62 2.3%
$51‐100 340 12.7%
$101‐200 993 37.1%
$201‐300 571 21.3%
$301‐400 282 10.5%
$401‐500 234 8.7%
More than $500 196 7.3%
Total 2,678 100.0%
Average $273.24
Tour Spending
Spending on accommodation, food and beverage, fuel/oil, repairs and any rental fees for tours of more
than three nights away were examined to get a sense of how much money households spend on these
extended trips. A total of 3,002 survey respondents indicated they went on at least one tour during the
2018‐2019 season.
On average, survey respondents went on less than 1 tour during the 2018‐2019 season. The amount spent
on food and beverage in restaurants on tours ranged from between $1 to more than $1,000. Of the
snowmobilers who reported going on at least one tour, respondents most often reported going on 1‐2
tours a year. On average, survey respondents reported spending $318.57 on food and beverages from a
restaurant and $114.50 on food and beverages at stores while on a tour.
Table 26: Food and Beverage Spending, Tours, as Reported by Survey Respondents
Amount Spent on
Food and Beverage Restaurant # Restaurant % Store # Store %
$1‐50 55 4.1% 309 31.8%
$51‐100 158 11.8% 357 36.7%
$101‐150 150 11.2% 92 9.5%
$151‐200 221 16.6% 133 13.7%
$201‐250 132 9.9% 25 2.6%
$251‐500 479 35.9% 52 5.3%
$501 and over 139 10.4% 4 0.4%
Total 1,334 100.0% 972 100.0%
Average Spent $318.57 $114.50
Page 74 of 170
25
There were 1,372 survey respondents who reported on their fuel/oil expenses for their snowmobile and
1,168 who reported on their fuel/oil expenses for a towing vehicle. On average, survey respondents spent
$321.13 on fuel or oil for their snowmobile while on a tour of four or more nights away from home and
$242.27 on fuel or oil for their towing vehicle.
Table 27: Fuel/Oil Spending, Tours, as Reported by Survey Respondents
Amount Spent
Fuel/Oil # Snowmobiles % Snowmobiles # Towing % Towing
$1‐50 41 3.0% 46 3.9%
$51‐100 139 10.1% 187 16.0%
$101‐150 156 11.4% 199 17.0%
$151‐200 210 15.3% 266 22.8%
$201‐250 128 9.3% 90 7.7%
$251‐300 214 15.6% 170 14.6%
$301‐350 60 4.4% 37 3.2%
$351‐400 134 9.8% 74 6.3%
$401‐450 29 2.1% 8 0.7%
$451‐500 113 8.2% 41 3.5%
More than $500 148 10.8% 50 4.3%
Total 1,372 100.0% 1,168 100.0%
Average $321.13 $242.27
As with the overnight trips, snowmobilers have various accommodation options while on tours of more
than three nights away from home, including private cottages, vacation homes, hotels or motels, lodges,
or bed and breakfasts. Snowmobilers most often reported spending between $200 to $400 on
accommodations for tours. The average household spends $543.83 on accommodations per tour.
Table 28: Accommodation Spending, Tours, as Reported by Survey Respondents
Amount Spent on
Accommodation # %
$1‐100 50 3.9%
$101‐200 140 11.0%
$201‐300 213 16.7%
$301‐400 205 16.1%
$401‐500 196 15.3%
$501‐600 124 9.7%
$601‐700 76 6.0%
$701‐800 86 6.7%
$801‐900 29 2.3%
$901‐1000 68 5.3%
More than $1000 90 7.0%
Total 1,277 100.0%
Average $543.83
Page 75 of 170
26
Summary of Findings
Household characteristics of the survey population show that most snowmobilers are male, however
many reported sledding with a female partner and/or their children. Evidence from the key informant
interviews suggests that snowmobiling is becoming more of a family‐oriented sport, an idea supported by
the demographics of accompanying household members. Household size typically ranged from between
2‐4 members, and approximately 85% of survey respondents were married or in a common‐law
relationship. On average, snowmobile respondents were 50 years old, which is consistent with the findings
from the 2013‐2014 report. The average age of all household members, however, has gone down in the
last five years from 40 years to 29 years. In comparison to provincial statistics, there is a greater
percentage of snowmobilers between the ages of 40‐70 than people in the general population.
Snowmobilers were more likely to have completed a college or apprenticeship program than the general
population, and the average household income of snowmobilers was higher than provincial averages, with
over 60% of snowmobilers bringing in an annual household income of over $100,000.
Weather conditions varied greatly across districts during the 2018‐2019 snowmobiling season, and as a
result, the total number of sledding weeks varied from between 17 weeks (in the Northern districts) to
just 1 week in District 5, with a weighted average of 8.4 weeks across the province. As a result, the number
of survey respondents who reported that they snowmobiled ‘less than most years’ increased from 7.4%
in 2013‐2014 to 28.7% in 2018‐2019. In total, 8,684 survey respondents indicated going on at least one
day trip in 2018‐2019. Under the assumption that there were 8.4 weeks this season, the average
snowmobiler went on 11 day‐trips in 2018‐2019 (down from 24 day‐trips in 2013‐2014). Another 4,995
snowmobilers reported going on at least one overnight trip of one to three nights away from home, with
the average survey respondent going on 1.4 overnight trips this season. Finally, 3,002 survey respondents
indicated that they went on a least one tour of four or more nights away from home this season. While
the average snowmobiler, across all survey respondents, went on less than 1 tour this year (0.7),
snowmobilers who reported going on tours went on between 1 and 2 this season.
Survey results show a concentration of snowmobilers with homes in District 5 (London, Kitchener,
Brantford area), District 1 (Ottawa and Kingston), and District 4 (the GTA). Vacation homes were also
popular in Districts 4 & 5 and in District 3 (Peterborough, Uxbridge and Belleville). Normally, districts with
a higher prevalence of vacation homes are likely to be destinations or areas where accommodation is
sought for overnight trips and tours. However, Districts 4 & 5 both had poor weather conditions for
snowmobiling this year. It was found that Districts 6 and 7 were the most popular areas to snowmobile
this season, followed by District 11.
The average age of the snowmobiles owned by survey respondents varied greatly, with nearly 25% of
respondents indicating that they purchased their snowmobile within the last year (2018‐2019). Another
44% of snowmobilers reported purchasing their sled between 2015‐2017, and 31% said that they had
purchased their snowmobile in 2010 or earlier. Just over 15% of respondents reported owning a 2018 or
2019 model, and nearly half of survey respondents reported that their snowmobile was manufactured
within the last five years.
Other annual expenses include insurance and permits. The average household spent $565.35 on insurance
in 2018‐2019. The Province of Ontario requires a trail permit on every machine that is active on the OFSC
trails, and there are various types of Ontario snowmobile trail permits available to riders for their
machines as listed below. In total, there were 13,624 snowmobiles reported as having a trail permit.
Survey respondents reported 640 machines without a permit of any kind.
Page 76 of 170
27
The cost of purchasing a snowmobile was also examined. A total of 2,700 households indicated they
purchased one or more snowmobiles, new or used, in 2018‐2019. The average amount spent on the
purchase of one or more snowmobiles in 2018‐2019 was $10,723.
Regarding food and beverage expenses for snowmobiling trips, this study found that, on average,
households spent more on food and beverages at restaurants than in stores on any kind of trip (day trip,
overnight, or tour). For day trips, households most commonly spent between $0‐50 on food and
beverages and spent an average of $83.54 at restaurants and $39.55 in stores. For overnight trips,
respondents spent an average of $188.56 at restaurants and $66.82 in stores. Lastly, survey respondents
reported spending $318.57 on food and beverages at restaurants and $114.50 on food and beverages in
stores while on a tour.
The cost of fuel and oil is also a major expense for snowmobilers. Households spent an average of $76.51
per day trip on fuel and oil for snowmobiles and $93.57 for a towing vehicle. For overnight trips, the cost
of fuel/oil was understandably higher, with respondents reporting that they spent an average of $187.90
on fuel for their snowmobile and $179.26 on fuel for a towing vehicle. For tours of four or more nights
away from home, survey respondents, on average, spent $321.13 on fuel or oil for their snowmobile and
$242.27 on fuel or oil for their towing vehicle.
Finally, snowmobilers reported on their accommodation costs when going on a snowmobiling overnight
trip or tour. On trips or tours, snowmobilers have various options for accommodations, such as private
cottages, vacation homes, hotels, motels, lodges, and bed and breakfasts. A total of 2,678 snowmobilers
reported on accommodation expenses for overnight trips and 1,227 reported on accommodation
expenses for tours. On average, households spent $273.24 on accommodations for trips of 1‐3 nights
away from home and $543.83 on accommodations per tour.
Page 77 of 170
28
Economic Impact of Snowmobiling
The survey results were used to generate estimates of spending by snowmobilers on day trips, overnight
trips and tours. For each of these types of trips, estimates of spending on fuel/oil, food and beverage,
accommodations, repairs, clothing, souvenirs and other items were calculated. In addition, respondents
were asked to estimate household expenditures on snowmobiling during a typical year. For more details
on the survey, please refer to the Appendices.
Assumptions
During the process of collecting the necessary snowmobile‐related input data and conducting the
economic impact analysis, several assumptions and qualifications were made that affected the overall
results.
The survey was sent to a list of contacts provided by the OFSC. This list includes those who
purchased at least one permit over the last five years. As such, some survey respondents may no
longer be active in snowmobiling. To mitigate this risk, survey respondents who indicated that
they ‘never’ went on a snowmobiling trip during the 2018‐2019 season were filtered out when
calculating the financial totals.
The OFSC sold approximately 105,000 permits for Ontario trails in 2018‐2019.
It is estimated that 43,000 snowmobiles were used without a trail permit.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada confirmed that 148,000 snow vehicles were insured in 2018‐
2019. This is an increase from 141,600 snow vehicles insured in 2013‐2014.
In consultation with the OFSC, the 2018‐2019 season was conservatively defined as 2 months or
8 weeks long (based on a weighted average across all 16 districts). This is a significant decrease in
season length from 2013‐2014, which had a season of 14 weeks. Regions in south‐central Ontario
(Districts 4 & 5) were hit particularly hard with poor weather conditions, with some areas having
as little as 1 week of open trails throughout the whole season. As a result, the average number of
snowmobiling days is down from 24 days in 2013‐2014 to 11 days in 2018‐2019, which in turn
affected the estimated economic impact on the province.
No economic impacts were attributed to the purchase of snowmobiles beyond those purchased
in 2018 or 2019.
In consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, the expenditures outlined in Table 29 below were
attributed to the various Visitor Spending categories of the TRIEM model.
In addition to the approximately 105,000 permits issued to individual sleds in 2018‐2019, an estimated
43,000 snowmobiles were used without permits for a total of 148,000 sleds in Ontario in 2018‐2019.
Under the conservative assumption that unpermitted riders would sled 50% less than those who had
purchased permits, the total number of active snowmobiles in 2018‐2019 would then be 126,500. The
survey showed an average of 1.8 sleds per household. From this, it was estimated that, for Ontario, 70,278
households were involved in snowmobiling in the 2018‐2019 season. See the equation used below:
Total # of snowmobiling households ൌ
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 # 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑠 ሺ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 # 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑠 ൊ 2ሻ
# 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑
Based on the estimated number of active snowmobiling households, total expenditure data from a sample
of the survey was then multiplied by a factor in order to get provincial estimates. A total of 10,464
individuals participated in the 2018‐2019 survey with a completion rate of 63%. In reviewing the data set,
it was determined that a sample of 5,740 households, who provided full and complete expenditure data,
Page 78 of 170
29
would be used to calculate provincial estimates. A multiplication factor of 12.24 was calculated by dividing
the total number of snowmobiling households in the province (70,278) by the number of survey
households from the 2018‐2019 survey (5,740). See the below equation:
Multiplication Factor ൌ
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 # 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑚𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠
# 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠
The sample of 5,740 households that provided expenditure data on the survey was then multiplied by a
factor of 12.24 to get provincial estimates (see below).
Total provincial expendutires ൌ 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 ൈ 12.24
In addition, Districts 6 and 7 were reviewed, as it was estimated from the survey that 11.8% of trips took
place in District 6 and 11.2% of trips took place in District 7. The survey produced an estimate of average
expenditure by household. Some adjustments to results were made based on reasonable assumptions
about expenditures per day and per category. During the data cleaning process, it appeared that many of
the survey respondents had provided annual totals rather than trip totals, and so descriptive statistics
were analyzed to estimate reasonable trip maximums in order to determine trip vs. annual totals.
Page 79 of 170
30
Economic Impact Using TREIM
The $842,870,778 in expenditures10 by snowmobilers in Ontario were allocated to the TREIM input‐output
model11 in the following manner, as shown in Table 29.
Table 29: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in Ontario by TREIM model category, 2018‐2019
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $31,230,421
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $2,069,416
Private Transportation ‐ Operation $578,020,988
Accommodation $36,165,013
Food and Beverage ‐ At Stores $18,087,953
Food and Beverage ‐ At Restaurants $74,853,989
Recreation and Entertainment $7,421,626
Retail ‐ Clothing $43,500,458
Retail ‐ Other $51,520,914
Total $842,870,778
Using the above spending, the TREIM model produces estimates of impact on direct, indirect and induced
GDP and employment, as well as total taxes. These results can be found in Table 30. The impact of
snowmobiling in Ontario was calculated as the following:
‐ GDP: $665,704,327
‐ Employment: 6,436 jobs12
‐ Taxes: $216,439,151
GDP refers to the value of goods and services produced by labour and capital located within the province.
This GDP is measured at market prices. Tourism GDP refers to the GDP generated in those businesses that
directly produce or provide goods and services for travelers. Employment refers to number of jobs,
including full‐time, part‐time, and seasonal employment, as well as self‐employment.
Direct impact refers to the impact generated in businesses or sectors that produce or provide goods and
services directly to snowmobilers (accommodations, restaurants, recreation, etc.) Indirect impact refers
to the impact resulting from the expansion of demand from businesses or sectors that directly produce
or provide goods and services to those active in snowmobiling in the province, other businesses or sectors.
Finally, induced impact refers to the impact associated with the re‐spending of labour income and/or
profits earned in the industries that serve snowmobilers directly and indirectly.
10 As a footnote to this year’s study, we note that the number and frequency of trips has decreased dramatically.
Since 2014 the average number of day trips have declined by over 50%. This is largely due to the lack of snow this
year in many areas of southwestern Ontario. If the frequency of trips had stayed the same as the levels found in
2014, one could reasonably expect impact to be twice as large as that recorded in 2019.
11 Available at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/research/treim/treim.shtml
12 It is important to note that although annual expenditures are only down slightly from the 2014 study, many of the
higher expenditure categories, such as fuel costs, do not translate into increased job creation and therefore despite
similar overall impact figures, job creation impact is down by 40% since 2014.
Page 80 of 170
31
Table 30: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $ 403,976,647
Indirect $ 119,099,008
Induced $ 142,628,672
Total $ 665,704,327
Employment (jobs)
Direct 4,325
Indirect 1,022
Induced 1,089
Total 6,436
Total Taxes
Federal $ 92,110,448
Provincial $ 114,205,815
Municipal $ 10,122,888
Total $ 216,439,151
As shown in Table 31 (below), snowmobiling in Ontario directly impacts a variety of industries. The direct
GDP impact was found to be $403,976,647.00. The top four industries impacted by snowmobiling in
Ontario by direct GDP in 2018‐2019 were:
1. Retail Trade: $78,827,805.00
2. Other Services:13 $42,343,291.00
3. Manufacturing: $27,658,465.00
4. Food and Beverage Services: $$27,374,185.00
13 As per the industry categories used by TREIM, ‘other services’ refers to establishments engaged in repairing, or
performing general or routine maintenance, on motor vehicles, machinery, equipment and other products to ensure
that they work efficiently. For this study, this category includes all snowmobile repair and maintenance.
Page 81 of 170
32
Table 31: Economic Impacts of Snowmobiling by Industry
Industry a Impact on Ontario 2018‐2019
Direct GDP Total GDP
Crop and Animal Production $263,904.00 $2,302,320.00
Forestry, Fishing and Hunting $7,556.00 $355,705.00
Mining and Oil and Gas Extraction $0.00 $3,724,714.00
Utilities $0.00 $6,665,761.00
Construction $0.00 $15,843,250.00
Manufacturing $27,658,465.00 $45,505,476.00
Wholesale Trade $18,976,786.00 $34,147,011.00
Retail Trade $78,827,805.00 $95,694,081.00
Other Transportation and Warehousing $511,097.00 $9,279,041.00
Ground Passenger Transportation (excl. Rail) $1,063.00 $1,658,585.00
Information and Cultural Industries $154,281.00 $11,056,805.00
Other Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Renting
and Leasing $110.00 $60,777,680.00
Car Renting and Leasing $1,203,662.00 $2,312,341.00
Owner Occupied Housing $0.00 $21,427,401.00
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services $0.00 $20,981,704.00
Other Administrative and Other Support Services $0.00 $11,662,111.00
Travel Agencies $17,931,677.00 $18,768,478.00
Education Services $825,520.00 $5,283,053.00
Health Care and Social Assistance $171,408.00 $5,330,560.00
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation $3,672,118.00 $5,913,683.00
Accommodation Services $18,536,406.00 $19,189,731.00
Food & Beverage Services $27,374,185.00 $32,363,548.00
Other Services (Except Public Administration)b $42,343,291.00 $47,500,813.00
Operating, Office, Cafeteria, and Laboratory Supplies $0.00 $0.00
Travel & Entertainment, Advertising & Promotion $0.00 $0.00
Transportation Margins $0.00 $0.00
Non‐Profit Institutions Serving Households $1,637,470.00 $3,237,813.00
Government Sector $477,580.00 $5,069,849.00
Net Indirect Taxes on Production $163,402,264.00 $179,652,815.00
Total $403,976,647.00 $665,704,327.00
a The industry follows Statistics Canada’s North America Industry Classification System (NAICS) Input‐Output small
aggregation industry classification. For more information visit Statistics Canada NAICS 2017.
b Establishments (not classified to any other sector) primarily engaged in repairing, or performing general or
routine maintenance, on motor vehicles, machinery, equipment and other products.
Page 82 of 170
33
Case Study – District 6
District 6 (Pembroke area) was reviewed separately from the province as a whole, as a case study, as it
was ranked as the most commonly visited district by survey respondents. Based on the estimation that
11.8% of trips took place in District 6 this year, a total of $99,458,752 in expenditures were allocated to
the TREIM input‐output model using the closest Ontario Tourism Region. Table 32 (below) shows the
expenditure breakdown for District 6.
Table 32: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 6 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $3,685,190
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $244,191
Private Transportation‐ Operation $68,206,477
Accommodation $4,267,472
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $2,134,379
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $8,832,771
Recreation and Entertainment $875,752
Retail‐ Clothing $5,133,054
Retail‐ Other $6,079,468
Total $99,458,752
Using the above spending, the TREIM model produces estimates of impact on direct, indirect and induced
GDP and employment, as well as total taxes. These results can be found in Table 33. The impact of
snowmobiling in District 6 was calculated as the following:
‐ GDP: $63,355,620
‐ Employment: 776 jobs
‐ Taxes: $28,537,990
Table 33: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 6
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $45,775,490
Indirect $7,054,140
Induced $10,525,990
Total $63,355,620
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 637
Indirect 67
Induced 71
Total 776
Total Taxes
Federal $11,829,536
Provincial $14,309,664
Municipal $2,398,791
Total $28,537,990
Page 83 of 170
34
Case Study – District 7
District 7 (Huntsville area) was also reviewed separately from the province as a whole as a case study, as
it was ranked as the second most commonly visited District by survey respondents. Based on the
estimation that 11.4% of trips took place in District 7 this year, a total of $94,410,527 in expenditures
were allocated to the TREIM input‐output model using the closest Ontario Tourism Region. Table 34
(below) shows the expenditure breakdown for District 7.
Table 34: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 7 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $3,497,807
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $231,775
Private Transportation ‐ Operation $64,738,351
Accommodation $4,050,482
Food and Beverage ‐ At Stores $2,025,851
Food and Beverage ‐ At Restaurants $8,383,647
Recreation and Entertainment $831,222
Retail ‐ Clothing $4,872,051
Retail ‐ Other $5,770,342
Total $94,401,527
Using the above spending, the TREIM model produces estimates of impact on direct, indirect and induced
GDP and employment, as well as total taxes. These results can be found in Table 35. The impact of
snowmobiling in District 7 was calculated as the following:
‐ GDP: $57,509,073
‐ Employment: 709 jobs
‐ Taxes: $26,452,916
Table 35: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 7
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $42,948,008
Indirect $5,798,589
Induced $8,762,476
Total $57,509,073
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 602
Indirect 53
Induced 54
Total 709
Total Taxes
Federal $10,845,461
Provincial $13,307,412
Municipal $2,300,044
Total $26,452,916
Page 84 of 170
35
Estimated Economic Impact for Low, Medium, and High Frequency Seasons
When referencing the 2014 report as a baseline for this study it is important to note that consultations
with OFSC staff and key informant interview data tell us that the 2013‐2014 season had particularly good
weather conditions throughout the province for snowmobiling. In contrast, the 2018‐2019 season saw
unusually poor weather conditions for snowmobiling in southwestern Ontario. Taking these two very
different seasons into consideration, it is reasonable to construct a high, medium and low estimate of the
economic impact of snowmobiling in Ontario. We consider 2013‐2014 to be high, 2018‐2019 low and half‐
way between as medium. The high, medium and low estimates correspond to a sensitivity analysis of the
impact under different conditions.
Examining the average frequency of trips from the last two reports, we see that the frequency of day trips
more than doubles in a high frequency season (2013‐2014 data) when compared to a low frequency
season (2018‐2019 data). Using the average between those two seasons, we find that a medium
frequency season would estimate that the average snowmobiler would go on 17.5 day trips, 2 overnight
trips, and just under 1 tour every year.
Table 36: Frequency of Day Trips, Overnight Trips, and Tours in a Typical Season – Estimated Average
2013‐2014 Season
(high frequency averages)
2018‐2019 Season
(low frequency Averages)
Estimated Season
(medium frequency averages)
Day Trips 24 11 17.5
Overnight
Trips 2.6 1.4 2
Tours 0.7 0.7 0.7
Using these high and low frequency benchmarks we can calculate a factor to use in constructing an impact
projection with 2018‐19 being given a factor of 1.0 for low. A medium impact is given a factor of 1.5 and
a high impact year 2.0. Using these factors, the following tables have been constructed to provide a range
of economic impacts based on frequency of snowmobiling trips.
Page 85 of 170
36
Estimated Economic Impact for a high frequency season:
The $842,870,778 in expenditures by snowmobilers in Ontario from the 2018‐2019 study was multiplied
by a factor of 2.0. to estimate expenditure data for a high frequency season. The $1,685,000,000 in
expenditures was then allocated to the TREIM input‐output model.14
Table 37: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, Estimated
High Frequency Impact
High Frequency Estimate
Estimated Total Visitors’ Spending $1,685,000,000
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $844,977,578
Indirect $297,185,626
Induced $348,348,584
Total $1,490,511,788
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 11,244
Indirect 2,658
Induced 2,664
Total 16,566
Total Taxes
Federal $258,905,485
Provincial $281,052,801
Municipal $63,724,002
Total $603,682,287
Using the above spending, the TREIM model produces estimates of impact on direct, indirect and induced
GDP and employment, as well as total taxes. The impact of snowmobiling in Ontario was calculated as the
following:
‐ GDP: $$1,490,511,788
‐ Employment: 16,566 jobs
‐ Taxes: $603,682,287
In addition to these estimates for GDP, employment, and total taxes, an average multiplier of 2.0. can be
applied to the expenditure data in order to estimate the total economic impact on the province.
Therefore, a total of $1,685,000,000 in expenditures would be expected to generate $3,370,000,000 in
economic activity across the province in a high frequency year.
14 Available at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/research/treim/treim.shtml
Page 86 of 170
37
Estimated Economic Impact for a medium frequency season:
In order to estimate the economic impact for a medium frequency season, the $842,870,778 in
expenditures was multiplied by a factor of 1.5. to estimate expenditure data. This resulted in an estimated
$1,264,000,000 in expenditures, which was then allocated to the TREIM input‐output model.
Table 38: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, Estimated
Medium Frequency Impact
Medium Frequency Estimate
Estimated Total Visitors’ Spending $1,264,000,000
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $633,858,551
Indirect $222,933,312
Induced $261,313,122
Total $1,118,104,985
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 8,435
Indirect 1,994
Induced 1,998
Total 12,427
Total Taxes
Federal $194,217,527
Provincial $210,831,300
Municipal $47,802,456
Total $452,851,283
Using the above spending, the TREIM model produces estimates of impact on direct, indirect and induced
GDP and employment, as well as total taxes. The impact of snowmobiling in Ontario was calculated as the
following:
‐ GDP: $1,118,104,985
‐ Employment: 12,427 jobs
‐ Taxes: $452,851,283
In addition to these estimates for GDP, employment, and total taxes, an average multiplier of 2.0. can be
applied to the expenditure data in order to estimate the total economic impact on the province.
Therefore, a total of $1,264,000,000 in expenditures would be expected to generate $2,528,000,000 in
economic activity across the province in a medium frequency year.
Page 87 of 170
38
Economic Impact for a low frequency season (2018‐2019):
As 2018‐2019 represents a benchmark for a low‐frequency season, a multiplication factor of 1.0. would
result in no change in the expenditure data. As seen previously in the report, the $842,870,778 in
expenditures by snowmobilers in Ontario was allocated to the TREIM input‐output model, providing the
following estimates of impact on GDP, employment, and taxes:
Table 39: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, low
frequency impact
Low Frequency (2018‐2019)
Total Visitors’ Spending $842,870,778
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $403,976,647
Indirect $119,099,008
Induced $142,628,672
Total $665,704,327
Employment (jobs)
Direct 4,325
Indirect 1,022
Induced 1,089
Total 6,436
Total Taxes
Federal $92,110,448
Provincial $114,205,815
Municipal $10,122,888
Total $216,439,151
Using the above spending, the impact of snowmobiling in Ontario was calculated as the following:
‐ GDP: $665,704,327
‐ Employment: 6,436 jobs
‐ Taxes: $216,439,151
As with the previous two sections, an average multiplier of 2.0. can be applied to the expenditure data in
order to estimate the total economic impact on the province. A total of $842,870,778 in expenditures
would be expected to generate $1,685,741,556 in economic activity across the province in a low
frequency year.
Page 88 of 170
39
Summary of Impact Assessment
During the 2018‐2019 snowmobiling season, snowmobilers made $842,870,778 worth of expenditures
riding in the province. According to the TREIM output tables, direct employment from the season’s
snowmobiling expenditures resulted in employment totaling an estimated 6,436 full‐time equivalent jobs
and $216 million in taxes across three levels of government: $92 million in federal taxes, $114 million in
provincial taxes, and $10 million in municipal taxes.
Not all industries have been affected equally. Retail Trade, Other Services (e.g. motor vehicle maintenance
and repairs), Manufacturing, and Food and Beverage Services benefitted the most from snowmobiling
activity in Ontario this season, while other industries, such as Utilities or Professional, Scientific and
Technical Services did not see any direct impact on GDP. It is also important to note that many of the
higher expenditure categories, such as fuel costs, do not translate into increased job creation which may
explain why job creation is down by 40% since 2014.
Some areas of the province are also likely to see more direct benefit from snowmobiling activity than
others. According to survey responses, Districts 6 & 7 were the most commonly visited districts in 2018‐
2019. The direct expenditures related to snowmobiling in District 6 and District 7 totaled $99,458,752 and
$94,401,527, respectively. Direct employment from the season’s snowmobile expenditures totaled 637
and 602 full‐time equivalent jobs in District 6 and District 7 respectively. Snowmobiling activity in these
districts supported more than $28 million (in District 6) and $26 million (in District 7) among the three
levels of government across the province for these two districts alone.
Table 40: Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Districts 6 and 7
District 6 District 7
Expenditures $99,458,752 $94,401,527
Direct GDP $45,775,490 $42,948,008
Direct Employment 637 602
Total Taxes $28,537,990 $26,452,916
Regarding the total economic impact of snowmobiling in Ontario, the TREIM model only provides
estimated GDP for their travel regions. However, a total of $842,870,778 in expenditures would generate
$1,685,741,556 in economic activity across the province.15
A comparison to previous study years (2013‐2014, 2004‐2005, and 1996‐1997) was also completed (see
table 37). It should be noted that a different assessment model was used for the first two seasons. In
general, there was a slight decrease in direct expenditures, direct GDP, direct employment and total taxes
since 2014. This decrease in overall economic impact can likely be attributed to poor weather conditions
in the southern districts this year, which resulted in an overall decrease in frequency of trips among
snowmobilers (a decline by over 50% since 2014). If the frequency of trips had stayed at the levels
reported in 2014, one could reasonably expect impact to be twice as large as that recorded in 2019.
Table 41: Economic Impact of Snowmobiling Study Comparisons
2018‐2019 2013‐2014 2004‐2005a 1996‐1997
Direct Expenditures $842,870,778 $853,263,840 $637,218,785 $586 million
Direct GDP $665,704,327 $369,416,786 ‐‐‐‐$322,604,014
Direct Employment 6,436 jobs 7,292 jobs 4,817 jobs ‐‐‐‐
Total Taxes
Total Economic Activity
$216,439,151
1.6 Billion
$332,781,171
1.7 Billion
$274,865,668
$1.2 Billion
‐‐‐‐
a Paula Neice and Associates. (2005); b Ecologistics Limited. (1998).
15 Based on an average multiplier of 2.0.
Page 89 of 170
40
Economic Impact by District
The tables below provide the economic impact of snowmobiling in by district Ontario during the 2018‐
2019 season. These assessments were done using the expenditure data provided by survey respondents.
Visitor spending for each district was calculated by dividing total spending in the province by the
proportion of snowmobiling activity in the district according to the survey (see Table 13). District spending
by category was then inputted into the TREIM model and the model estimated impacts.
The TREIM model allows assessments to be completed at the Ministry’s Travel Region Level. Districts were
aligned as best as possible to travel regions, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport Regional Map
Page 90 of 170
41
District 1
Table 42: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 1 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $2,623,355.38
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $173,831.00
Private Transportation ‐ Operation $48,553,763.00
Accommodation $3,037,861.00
Food and Beverage ‐ At Stores $1,519,388.12
Food and Beverage ‐ At Restaurants $6,287,735.10
Recreation and Entertainment $623,416.59
Retail ‐ Clothing $3,654,038.49
Retail ‐ Other $4,327,756.78
Total $70,801,145
Table 43: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 1
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $34,035,549
Indirect $6,647,278
Induced $9,650,727
Total $50,333,554
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 514
Indirect 65
Induced 70
Total 649
Total Taxes
Federal $8,609,686
Provincial $10,129,363
Municipal $5,466,300
Total $24,205,349
Page 91 of 170
42
District 2
Table 44: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 2 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $2,717,047
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $180,039
Private Transportation ‐ Operation $50,287,826
Accommodation $3,146,356
Food and Beverage ‐ At Stores $1,573,652
Food and Beverage ‐ At Restaurants $6,512,297
Recreation and Entertainment $645,681
Retail ‐ Clothing $3,784,540
Retail ‐ Other $4,482,320
Total $73,329,758
Table 45: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 2
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $33,816,316
Indirect $5,287,501
Induced $7,892,181
Total $46,995,999
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 470
Indirect 50
Induced 54
Total 574
Total Taxes
Federal $8,720,584
Provincial $10,554,578
Municipal $1,959,114
Total $21,234,276
Page 92 of 170
43
District 3
Table 46: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 3 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $1,124,295
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $74,499
Private Transportation ‐ Operation $20,808,756
Accommodation $1,301,941
Food and Beverage ‐ At Stores $651,166
Food and Beverage ‐ At Restaurants $2,694,744
Recreation and Entertainment $267,179
Retail ‐ Clothing $1,566,016
Retail ‐ Other $1,854,753
Total $30,343,348
Table 47: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 3
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $14,635,364
Indirect $2,948,572
Induced $4,131,460
Total $21,715,395
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 199
Indirect 28
Induced 30
Total 257
Total Taxes
Federal $3,909,139
Provincial $4,566,607
Municipal $1,039,613
Total $9,515,360
Page 93 of 170
44
District 4
Table 48: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 4 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $562,148
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $37,250
Private Transportation ‐ Operation $10,404,378
Accommodation $650,970
Food and Beverage ‐ At Stores $325,583
Food and Beverage ‐ At Restaurants $1,347,372
Recreation and Entertainment $133,589
Retail ‐ Clothing $783,008
Retail ‐ Other $927,376
Total $15,171,674
Table 49: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 4
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $7,045,151
Indirect $1,196,329
Induced $1,755,151
Total $9,996,631
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 98
Indirect 11
Induced 12
Total 121
Total Taxes
Federal $1,861,314
Provincial $2,223,087
Municipal $290,592
Total $4,374,993
Page 94 of 170
45
District 5
Table 50: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 5 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $1,186,756
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $78,638
Private Transportation‐ Operation $21,964,798
Accommodation $1,374,271
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $687,342
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $2,844,452
Recreation and Entertainment $282,022
Retail‐ Clothing $1,653,017
Retail‐ Other $1,957,795
Total $32,029,089
Table 51: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 5
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $15,209,913
Indirect $3,064,885
Induced $4,247,889
Total $22,522,687
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 209
Indirect 29
Induced 30
Total 268
Total Taxes
Federal $4,117,399
Provincial $4,821,030
Municipal $721,689
Total $9,660,118
Page 95 of 170
46
District 6
Table 52: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 6 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $3,685,190
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $244,191
Private Transportation‐ Operation $68,206,477
Accommodation $4,267,472
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $2,134,379
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $8,832,771
Recreation and Entertainment $875,752
Retail‐ Clothing $5,133,054
Retail‐ Other $6,079,468
Total $99,458,752
Table 53: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 5
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $45,775,490
Indirect $7,054,140
Induced $10,525,990
Total $63,355,620
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 637
Indirect 67
Induced 71
Total 776
Total Taxes
Federal $11,829,536
Provincial $14,309,664
Municipal $2,398,791
Total $28,537,990
Page 96 of 170
47
District 7
Table 54: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 7 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $3,497,807
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $231,775
Private Transportation‐ Operation $64,738,351
Accommodation $4,050,482
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $2,025,851
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $8,383,647
Recreation and Entertainment $831,222
Retail‐ Clothing $4,872,051
Retail‐ Other $5,770,342
Total $94,401,527
Table 55: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 7
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $42,948,008
Indirect $5,798,589
Induced $8,762,476
Total $57,509,073
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 602
Indirect 53
Induced 54
Total 709
Total Taxes
Federal $10,845,461
Provincial $13,307,412
Municipal $2,300,044
Total $26,452,916
Page 97 of 170
48
District 8
Table 56: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 8 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $2,498,434
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $165,553
Private Transportation‐ Operation $46,241,679
Accommodation $2,893,201
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $1,447,036
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $5,988,319
Recreation and Entertainment $593,730
Retail‐ Clothing $3,480,037
Retail‐ Other $4,121,673
Total $67,429,662
Table 57: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 8
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $31,311,784
Indirect $5,317,016
Induced $7,800,672
Total $44,429,471
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 434
Indirect 50
Induced 54
Total 539
Total Taxes
Federal $8,272,506
Provincial $9,880,387
Municipal $1,291,520
Total $19,444,413
Page 98 of 170
49
District 9
Table 58: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 9 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $2,404,742
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $159,345
Private Transportation‐ Operation $44,507,616
Accommodation $2,784,706
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $1,392,772
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $5,763,757
Recreation and Entertainment $571,465
Retail‐ Clothing $3,349,535
Retail‐ Other $3,967,110
Total $64,901,050
Table 59: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 9
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $32,545,954
Indirect $11,446,682
Induced $13,417,323
Total $57,409,959
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 433
Indirect 102
Induced 103
Total 638
Total Taxes
Federal $9,972,248
Provincial $10,825,295
Municipal $2,454,454
Total $23,251,997
Page 99 of 170
50
District 10
Table 60: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 10 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $1,811,364
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $120,026
Private Transportation‐ Operation $33,525,217
Accommodation $2,097,571
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $1,049,101
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $4,341,531
Recreation and Entertainment $430,454
Retail‐ Clothing $2,523,027
Retail‐ Other $2,988,213
Total $48,886,505
Table 61: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 10
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $22,240,933
Indirect $3,002,840
Induced $4,537,711
Total $29,781,484
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 312
Indirect 27
Induced 28
Total 367
Total Taxes
Federal $5,616,399
Provincial $6,891,338
Municipal $1,191,094
Total $13,698,831
Page 100 of 170
51
District 11
Table 62: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 11 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $3,372,885
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $223,497
Private Transportation‐ Operation $62,426,267
Accommodation $3,905,822
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $1,953,499
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $8,084,231
Recreation and Entertainment $801,536
Retail‐ Clothing $4,698,049
Retail‐ Other $5,564,259
Total $91,030,044
Table 63: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 11
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $40,871,109
Indirect $5,813,375
Induced $9,105,064
Total $55,789,549
Employment (Jobs)
Direct $553
Indirect $51
Induced $61
Total $665
Total Taxes
Federal $11,052,082
Provincial $12,765,442
Municipal $1,583,155
Total $25,400,679
Page 101 of 170
52
District 12
Table 64: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 12 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $1,936,286
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $128,304
Private Transportation‐ Operation $35,837,301
Accommodation $2,242,231
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $1,121,453
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $4,640,947
Recreation and Entertainment $460,141
Retail‐ Clothing $2,697,028
Retail‐ Other $3,194,297
Total $52,257,988
Table 65: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 12
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $23,463,044
Indirect $3,337,308
Induced $5,226,981
Total $32,027,333
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 318
Indirect 29
Induced 35
Total 382
Total Taxes
Federal $6,344,714
Provincial $7,328,309
Municipal $908,848
Total $14,581,871
Page 102 of 170
53
District 13
Table 66: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 13 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $936,913
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $62,083
Private Transportation‐ Operation $17,340,630
Accommodation $1,084,950
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $542,639
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $2,245,620
Recreation and Entertainment $222,649
Retail‐ Clothing $1,305,014
Retail‐ Other $1,545,627
Total $25,286,123
Table 67: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 13
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $11,741,501
Indirect $1,732,015
Induced $2,610,759
Total $16,084,275
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 175
Indirect 16
Induced 17
Total 209
Total Taxes
Federal $3,073,474
Provincial $3,607,872
Municipal $482,417
Total $7,163,763
Page 103 of 170
54
District 14
Table 68: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 14 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $1,124,295
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $74,499
Private Transportation‐ Operation $20,808,756
Accommodation $1,301,941
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $651,166
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $2,694,744
Recreation and Entertainment $267,179
Retail‐ Clothing $1,566,016
Retail‐ Other $1,854,753
Total $30,343,348
Table 69: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 14
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $13,623,703
Indirect $1,937,792
Induced $3,035,021
Total $18,596,516
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 184
Indirect 17
Induced 20
Total 222
Total Taxes
Federal $3,684,027
Provincial $4,255,147
Municipal $527,718
Total $8,466,893
Page 104 of 170
55
District 15
Table 70: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 15 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $1,030,604
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $68,291
Private Transportation‐ Operation $19,074,693
Accommodation $1,193,445
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $596,902
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $2,470,182
Recreation and Entertainment $244,914
Retail‐ Clothing $1,435,515
Retail‐ Other $1,700,190
Total $27,814,735
Table 71: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 15
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $12,488,394
Indirect $1,776,309
Induced $2,782,103
Total $17,046,806
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 169
Indirect 16
Induced 19
Total 203
Total Taxes
Federal $3,377,025
Provincial $3,900,551
Municipal $483,742
Total $7,761,318
Page 105 of 170
56
District 17
Table 72: Inputs of Expenditures by Snowmobilers in District 17 by TREIM model category
Visitor Spending Expenditure(s)
Travel Service $405,995
Private Transportation ‐ Rental $26,902
Private Transportation‐ Operation $7,514,273
Accommodation $470,145
Food and Beverage‐ At Stores $235,143
Food and Beverage‐ At Restaurants $973,102
Recreation and Entertainment $96,481
Retail‐ Clothing $565,506
Retail‐ Other $669,772
Total $10,957,320
Table 73: Total Visitor Spending, GDP, Employment and Total Taxes, District 17
2018‐2019
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Direct $4,902,417
Indirect $724,736
Induced $1,106,345
Total $6,733,498
Employment (Jobs)
Direct 66
Indirect 7
Induced 7
Total 81
Total Taxes
Federal $1,328,942
Provincial $1,534,960
Municipal $230,613
Total $3,094,515
Page 106 of 170
57 The Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
Appendices
Appendix A: References Cited
American Council of Snowmobile Associations. (2019). Facts and Myths About Snowmobiling and Winter
Trails. Retrieved from: http://www.snowmobileinfo.org/snowmobile‐access‐docs/Facts‐and‐
Myths‐About‐Snowmobiling‐and‐Winter‐Trails.pdf
Eagles, Paul F. J., Sherback, Richard S., Ordubegian, Liza N. (1990). A Study of the Expenditures of
Snowmobilers: An Ontario Provincial Study. Occasional Papers‐ Department of Recreation and
Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo.
Ecologistics Limited. (1998). Winter Gold: The Report on the Economic Sustainability and Development of
Snowmobiling in Ontario.
Econometric Research Ltd. (2011). The Economic Impact of Snowmobiles in Alberta in 2009.
Paula Neice and Associates. (2005). An Assessment of the Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario
during the 2004‐2005 Season.
Reiling, S. D., Kotchen, M. J., Bennett, R.L. (1996). The Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Maine.
Schneider, Ingrid E., Elisabeth, P., Salk, R., Schoenecker, T. (2005). Snowmobiling in Minnesota: Economic
Impact and Consumer Profile. University of Minnesota Tourism Center.
Smith, Jordan W., & Chase C. Lamborn (2017). The Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Utah. Prepared
for the Utah Snowmobiling Association. Retrieved from: http://extension.usu.edu/iort/ou‐
files/Snowmobiling_Report.pdf
Stynes, Daniel J., Nelson, Charles M., Lynch, Joel, A. (1998). State and Regional Economic Impacts of
Snowmobiling in Michigan. Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources. Michigan
State University.
Sylvester, James T. (2014). Montana Recreational Snowmobiles: Fuel‐Use and Spending Patterns 2013.
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. Prepared for Montana State
Parks. Retrieved from: www.snowmobileinfo.org/snowmobile‐access‐docs/Montana‐
Recreational‐Snowmobiles‐fuelUse‐and‐Spending‐Patterns‐2013.pdf
The Centre for Spatial Economics for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. (2008). The Ontario Tourism
Regional Economic Impact Model (TREIM).
Zins, Michel. (2012). Impact économique de la motoneige au Québec.
Page 107 of 170
58 The Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
Appendix B: Key Informant Interview Guide
Date: ____________
OFSC District: ___________
Thank you for taking time to speak with me today. As you may know the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile
Clubs has hired Harry Cummings and Associates, as an independent consulting firm, to study the economic
impact of snowmobiling in Ontario as an update to a study completed in 2014.
Your input is very important to us and we hope you will take some time to answer the questions. Your
participation in this survey is completely voluntary and any information you share will remain confidential.
If there are any questions that you do not wish to answer just let me know and we can skip that question.
Section 1: To begin, we would like to learn a bit about your own personal snowmobiling activity:
1. Did you snowmobile this year?
a. Yes
b. No *if no skip to section 3
2. How long have you been snowmobiling? Who else in your household sleds with you?
3. What machines do you have (brand, series)? Do you tow and how do you do that (trailer, truck
etc.)?
4. Where did you snowmobile this winter?
5. How often? About how many days were you snowmobiling this year?
6. How did this compare to other years? If your snowmobiling activity was significantly different this
year compared to other years, what factors contributed to this change?
7. Do you have a cottage or particular destination away from home you visit each year for
snowmobiling?
8. Any particular positive experiences this year?
9. Any particular negative experiences this year?
Page 108 of 170
59
Section 2: The next few questions are about the snowmobiling related purchases you have made this year:
10. Where do you purchase your snowmobiling equipment (store, community)?
11. Where do you purchase your clothing (including boots, helmets, etc.)?
12. Typically where do you have maintenance done? Purchase parts?
13. Do you do overnight trips? If so, where do you stay? Do you eat in restaurants Or buy food and
cook?
Section 3: We’d now to learn more about how you believe snowmobiling affects your community:
14. Which businesses do you believe benefits the most from snowmobiling in your community?
a. Accommodation and related?
b. Dealers?
c. Maintenance?
d. Other retailers?
15. How does the community as a whole benefit from snowmobiling related activities?
16. Are there any particular issues with snowmobiling we should be aware of?
17. Are there any particular trends in snowmobiling?
Section 4: Finally, can you provide some demographic information about yourself (this information will help
us better understand the makeup of the OFSC district administrators).
18. In what year were you born? ________________
19. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
□ Some high school
□ High School diploma or equivalent
□ Registered Apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma
□ College, CEGEP or other non‐university certificate or diploma
□ University certificate or diploma below bachelor's level
□ Bachelor's degree
□ Post graduate degree above bachelor's level
□ Prefer not to say
Page 109 of 170
60
20. Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status?
□ Employed full‐time (35 hours or more per week)
□ Employed part‐time (less than 35 hours per week)
□ Student
□ Retired
□ Homemaker
□ On leave (maternity, disability / health‐related, etc.)
□ Not employed
□ Other, please specify __________________
21. How many people, in total, live in your household, including yourself and other members of your
family, or anyone else living in your household? ________________
22. What is your annual household income from all sources before taxes?
□ Under $5,000
□ $5,000 to $9,999
□ $10,000 to $14,999
□ $15,000 to $19,999
□ $20,000 to $24,999
□ $25,000 to $29,999
□ $30,000 to $34,999
□ $35,000 to $39,999
□ $40,000 to $44,999
□ $45,000 to $49,999
□ $50,000 to $59,999
□ $60,000 to $69,999
□ $70,000 to $79,999
□ $80,000 to $89,999
□ $90,000 to $99,999
□ $100,000 to $124,999
□ $125,000 to $149,999
□ $150,000 to $199,999
□ $200,000 and over
□ Don't know/Prefer not to say
23. Do you have any final comments?
Thank you for participating in this interview!
Page 110 of 170
61 The Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
Appendix C: Survey Tool
Revised Survey ‐ Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
1. OFSC Permit Holder Survey
The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC) has retained Harry Cummings and Associates,
an independent consulting firm, to study the economic impact of snowmobiling in Ontario as an
update to a study completed in 2014.
As part of this study, we are asking snowmobilers from Ontario to complete a short survey. The
survey should take approximately 10‐15 minutes to complete.
Your input is very important to us, and we hope you will take some time to answer the questions.
Your information remains confidential. You may choose not to participate or not to answer a specific
question.
If you have any questions regarding the survey please contact Harry Cummings and Associates at 519‐
823‐1647 or email hca@hcaconsulting.ca. To confirm the validity of this survey, please contact Andrew
Walasek at 705‐739‐7669 ext. 251 or email awalasek@ofsc.on.ca.
Thank you for your participation.
Revised Survey ‐ Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
2. Snowmobiling in 2018‐2019
1. During the 2018‐2019 season, did you snowmobile...
More than most seasons
About the same as most seasons
Less than most seasons
2018‐2019 was my first snowmobile season
Not at all
Page 111 of 170
62
Revised Survey ‐ Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
3. Household Activity
We would like to get an idea of how the members of your household participate in snowmobiling.
Please answer the following questions for yourself and each individual in your household.
Please be CONSISTENT in your answers for each individual (the responses for "Person 1" in Questions
2‐6 refers to you, and "Person 2" should be the same individual in each question).
2. What is the gender of each ACTIVE snowmobiler in your household?
3. What is the age of each ACTIVE snowmobiler in your household?
Page 112 of 170
63
4. On average, how many times did each person participate in a short trip (1 day or less) on a
snowmobile during the 2018‐2019 season?
Less than
5. On average, how many times did each person participate in a trip of 1‐3 nights away from home
on a snowmobile during the 2018‐2019 season?
10 or
Page 113 of 170
64
6. On average, how many times did each person participate in a vacation/tour (more than 3 nights
away from home) on a snowmobile during the 2018‐2019 season?
10 or
Page 114 of 170
65
Revised Survey ‐ Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
4. Snowmobile(s)
We would like to get an idea of the snowmobiles owned by members of your household.
Please answer the following questions for each of the snowmobiles owned by members of your
household.
Please be CONSISTENT in your answers for each snowmobile (the responses for "Snowmobile 1" in
Questions 7‐10 refers to your most recently purchased snowmobile, and "Snowmobile 2" should
refer to the same snowmobile in each question).
7. In what year was each snowmobile manufactured?
8. In what year was each snowmobile purchased?
Page 115 of 170
66
9. How much did each snowmobile cost?
Your answer must be formatted as a whole number without the dollar sign (e.g. 3000)
10. What is the make of each snowmobile and what type of permit is associated with each
snowmobile?
Page 116 of 170
67
Revised Survey ‐ Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
5. Annual Expenses
11. The following are some typical expenses that snowmobilers have in order to participate in the
activity. Please indicate how much money your HOUSEHOLD has spent on any of the items below
during the 2018‐2019 season.
Please note ‐ fuel/oil costs will be recorded in the following question. Please do not record fuel/oil
costs in this question.
Your answer must be formatted as a whole number without the dollar sign (e.g. 102)
12. Please specify "Other" as indicated in the previous question.
Page 117 of 170
68
Revised Survey ‐ Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
6. Trips and Tours
We would like to get an idea of the types of trips in which your household participates, including (A)
day trips, (B) overnight trips of 1‐3 nights away from home, and (C) overnight trips of more than 3
nights away from home.
For the following questions, please only consider trips or tours made in Ontario. Do NOT include trips
made outside of Ontario.
13. This season (2018‐2019), approximately how much did your HOUSEHOLD spend on each of the
following categories during a typical snowmobiling outing of ONE DAY OR LESS?
Your answer must be formatted as a whole number without the dollar sign (e.g. 102)
Page 118 of 170
69
14. Please describe the "Other Goods and Services" you indicated purchasing on a snowmobiling
outing of one (1) day or less.
15. This season (2018‐2019), approximately how much did your HOUSEHOLD spend in total on each
of the following categories during a typical overnight snowmobiling outing of ONE TO THREE
NIGHTS AWAY
FROM HOME?
Your answer must be formatted as a whole number without the dollar sign (e.g. 102)
16. Please describe the "Other Goods and Services" you indicated purchasing on a typical overnight
snowmobiling outing of one to three nights.
Page 119 of 170
70
17. This season (2018‐2019), approximately how much did your HOUSEHOLD spend in total on each
of the following categories during a typical tour/vacation of MORE THAN THREE NIGHTS AWAY
FROM HOME?
Your answer must be formatted as a whole number without the dollar sign (e.g. 102)
18. Please describe the "Other Goods and Services" you indicated purchasing on a typical
vacation/tour snowmobiling outing of more than three nights.
Page 120 of 170
71
Revised Survey ‐ Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
7. Snowmobiler Profile
For questions 19‐21, please refer to the map of the OFSC Districts
19. Which OFSC District do you live in and which 3 OFSC Districts do you snowmobile in most often
during a typical season?
Page 121 of 170
72
20. Which snowmobile club do you currently belong to? (please choose from the drop down menu
below)
21. In which OFSC District(s) did you purchase your OFSC 2018‐2019 Permit(s). You may select more
than one District if the permits were purchased in multiple Districts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10
11 12 13 14 15 17
22. What is your current community of residence? (Note: If you live in a rural area, please respond
with the closest town and/or urban area to you.)
Page 122 of 170
73
Revised Survey ‐ Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
8. Demographics
23. Including yourself, how many people live in your household?
Number of people:
24. Are you...
25. Gender
26. Into which of the following categories does your total household income before taxes fall?
Under $5,000
$5,000 to $9,999
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $44,999
$45,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $69,999
Page 123 of 170
74
$70,000 to $79,999
$80,000 to $89,999
$90,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $124,999
$125,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 and over
Prefer not to answer
27. Please indicate your highest level of education completed.
Less than high school
High school
Apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma
College, CEGEP or other non‐university certificate or diploma
University certificate, diploma or degree at bachelor level or above
Bachelor's degree
University certificate, diploma or degree above bachelor level
Prefer not to answer
28. Are you or is anyone in your household employed by...?
Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs
A snowmobile club or district
A company or organization which manufactures, markets or sells snowmobiles or related products
Revised Survey ‐ Economic Impact of Snowmobiling in Ontario: 2018‐2019
9. Thank You
29. That is the end of the survey. If you have any additional comments, please let us know. Thank
you.
Page 124 of 170
Page 1 of 3
Subject: Remediation of 58 Brock Street
Report Number: CAO 19-13
Author: Ron Shaw, Interim CAO
Meeting Type: Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Monday, November 25, 2019
Recommendation:
THAT Council receive Report CAO 19-13, Remediation of 58 Brock Street;
AND THAT Council authorize A & A Environmental Consultants Inc. to complete the
remediation of 58 Brock Street at a cost not to exceed $42,000 plus HST.
Background:
At the March 1, 2018 Council meeting, Council received a report from the Development
Commissioner and declared 58 Brock Street as surplus to the needs of The Corporation
of the Town of Tillsonburg in accordance with By-law 3549 – Sale of Real Property
Policy subject to:
Rezoning the property by the Town from Open Space 1 to zoning suitable for
development;
Preparation and approval of a Record of Site Condition by the Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change; and
Advertising in accordance with Town Policy.
As the Town proceeded to obtain a Record of Site Condition for the property, the
environmental consultant advised that they have received the water test results from the
additional wells that they installed and all of the groundwater fell below the guideline
limits. However, when they tested the soil from the two additional wells they installed,
the results did come back with exceedances (a small area along the southwest site
boundary). As this was previously a landfill site, apparently it can be very common to
have pockets of contamination. Unfortunately, we will have to address the situation if
the Town is going to proceed with selling the property.
Discussion:
The approximately $20,000 cost of the Phase 1 & 2 ESAs was added to the land
inventory (cost of property) on the balance sheet to be recovered from the ultimate
sale. The additional cost for the remediation (as per attached quote) could range from
$33,000 to $42,000, which would bring the total cost of land up to $53,000 to $62,000.
Page 125 of 170
CAO 19-13 Page 2 of 3
At the time the ESA work was undertaken, our Development Commissioner has advised
that, even an estimated value of $80 - 100,000, the Town should be able to recoup the
estimated upset costs of up to $62,000.
The risk identified at the time was that the Town would have to account for the costs of
the initial studies should a sale not proceed as well as any mitigation costs
incurred. However, since the contamination has been estimated by a qualified
environmental consultant, it would appear that the property will be given a clean “bill of
health” and the Town will be able to proceed with a sale once the identified
contamination is removed.
Given the increased costs of the further environmental costs, we deemed it prudent that
we should have this approved by Council.
Financial Impact/Funding Source:
As indicated above, the sale of the property should cover the estimated clean-up costs
from A & A Environmental Consultants Inc.
Should the Town not proceed with remediation, it will be necessary to expense the
approximate $20,000 in environmental costs incurred to date.
Community Strategic Plan (CSP) Linkage:
1. Excellence in Local Government
☐ Demonstrate strong leadership in Town initiatives
☐ Streamline communication and effectively collaborate within local government
☒ Demonstrate accountability
2. Economic Sustainability
☐ Support new and existing businesses and provide a variety of employment
opportunities
☐ Provide diverse retail services in the downtown core
☐ Provide appropriate education and training opportunities in line with Tillsonburg’s
economy
3. Demographic Balance
☐ Make Tillsonburg an attractive place to live for youth and young professionals
☐ Provide opportunities for families to thrive
☐ Support the aging population and an active senior citizenship
4. Culture and Community
☐ Promote Tillsonburg as a unique and welcoming community
☐ Provide a variety of leisure and cultural opportunities to suit all interests
Page 126 of 170
CAO 19-13 Page 3 of 3
☐ Improve mobility and promote environmentally sustainable living
Attachments:
Appendix A – 58 Brock St E
Appendix B – Remediation Quote
Page 127 of 170
9
2
.
7
1
m50.56 m30.38 m
10.76 m
2.47 m
Harris St
Lisgar AveKing StBrock St E
941.09 m²10129.72 ft²0.23 ac
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG ENGINEERING SERVICES CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE 10 LISGAR AVE, TILLSONBURG, ON, N4G 5A5
SCALE:
TITLE:58 Brock St E (Northeast cornerof Brock St E and Lisgar Ave)
10 0 105 Meters
¯
Page 128 of 170
Page1of7
16 Young Street,
Woodstock, ON N4S 3L4
Tel: 519-266-4680 Fax: 519-266-3666
www.AAenvironmental.ca
November 5, 2019 ref: 4771 – Panschow Tillsonburg
Cephas Panschow
Development Commissioner
Town of Tillsonburg
200 Broadway St, Suite 204,
Tillsonburg, ON, N4G 5A7
Phone: 519-688-3009 Ext. 3250
Email: cpanschow@tillsonburg.ca
Re: Proposed Cleanup of Contaminated Soil 58 Brock Street East, Tillsonburg,
Ontario
Thank you for this opportunity to offer you our services. We can conduct a cleanup operation to
remove the contaminated soil found at the above location in accordance with the The Ministry
of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) and the Canadian Standards Association.
The program is designed to remove impacted soil associated with the previous landfilling
activities on the site.
Scope of Work
Description Cost
Excavation of contaminated material: Based on the initial findings this
work is expected to require excavation and removal of contaminated
materials to a licensed landfill. Impacted soil will be excavated and
hauled away by a licensed haulage company to be disposed of at a
licensed disposal company approved by the MECP. The excavated hole
will be backfilled with imported clean, compatible, granular materials,
packed & graded at the surface as needed. (Note: This contact does not
provide the replacement of asphalt/concrete, grass sodding or finish
landscaping following the work).
$30,000.00
Page 129 of 170
Page2of7
Description Cost
Confirmation Sampling of finished Excavation: Based on the inferred
area of the excavation, we will take an estimated six (6) samples
including quality control from the floor and side walls of the completed
excavation to confirm effective remediation. Samples will be analyzed
for TSSA EMP 2012 required contaminants of concern including PAH.
The samples will be delivered to the lab depot for analysis at an
estimated cost of $115.00 each. One sample of the imported materials
will be taken to confirm that it is clean.
$805.00
A&A Consultant Fees: A&A will supervise the cleanup operation and
provide consultation to all contractors working on the project, and will
collect confirmation soil to support the RSC.
$2,280.00
Total Cost (does not include HST) $33,085.00
Potential Additional Costs
Additional remediation beyond our best estimate with the limited information provided includes;
Foreman with truck per day $ 885.00
Loader + Operator (8 hr day) $ 1450.00
Excavator + Operator (8 hr day) $ 1800.00
Tri-Axle + Operator (each per 8 hr day) $ 1675.00
Hydro Vac + Operator (8 hr day) $ 2685.00
Extra float charges, ground thaw units or other materials will be charged at rate + 10%
Terms and Conditions
A 50 % down-payment ($18,693.03) is required upon signing the letter of engagement. The
remaining payment is due in full upon presentation of the report.
The work will be performed under our standard terms and conditions which you should read
carefully (see attached). Work can be commenced within five working days of receipt of the
Page 130 of 170
Page3of7
signed “Letter of Engagement” acceptance form.
We trust that this proposal meets your needs. We look forward to completing this assignment
for you.
Sincerely,
Victoria Sowden, HBSc. (Geo), Cert. Env. Mgt.
Senior Environmental Consultant
About A & A Environmental Consultants Inc.
A & A Environmental Consultants Inc. is a multi-disciplinary environmental consulting company
operating throughout the Province of Ontario from its offices in London, North Bay, Kirkland Lake,
Toronto and Woodstock. The company employs Provincial Qualified Persons to conduct
Phase One- IV Environmental Site Assessments which include site inspections and cleanups.
The company is licensed by the Ministry of the Environment as a Well Contractor and has a
provincially licensed Well Technicians for the installation of groundwater monitoring wells to
conduct hydrogeological investigations and groundwater monitoring programs. The company
also conducts mould investigations in buildings, asbestos assessments, indoor air quality
investigations and applications for provincial Certificates of Approval (Air).
Page 131 of 170
Page4of7
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
A&A ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS INC. AND CLIENTS
1. Authorization to Proceed
Co-signing of a letter outlining the scope of services to be provided authorizes A&A to proceed with the services
described.
2. Cost Opinions
Cost estimates or cost opinions provided by A&A are based on experience and judgement. Final costs may vary from
these opinions and estimates because A&A has no control over market conditions, bidding procedures or actual site
conditions found during the investigations.
3. Standard of Care
A&A will supply services with the degree of care and diligence normally employed by consultants performing the
same or similar services, at the time those services are rendered. All other warranties, representations or remedies,
express or implied, are hereby disclaimed by A&A and waived by the client, and the client hereby releases and agrees
to defend and indemnify A&A from all other liability, (including but not limited to liability for direct, incidental or
consequential damages including lost profit) arising out of A&A s activities, whether arising in contract, tort or
otherwise.
4. Limitation of Liability
A&A s liability for damages, arising from third party claims, will not exceed the compensation received by A&A under
this agreement regardless of the nature of the claim. A&A is not responsible for the acts or omissions of other
parties associated with the Project who are not employees, agents, or sub-consultants of A&A The client also
indemnifies A&A and its officers, employees, sub-consultants and agents from all claims, damages, losses and
expenses including, without limitation, direct, indirect, or consequential damages and lawyers fees arising out of or
related to the Project, and arising out of or relating to the creation or existence of any hazardous radioactive, toxic,
irritating, polluting or otherwise dangerous or harmful substance or condition at or near the site. A&A is not
providing architectural and/or structural engineering services with respect to the project or the work. Any and all
architectural and/or structural engineering work shall remain the responsibility of the Architect and/or Structural
Engineer. A&A is not commenting on the adequacy of the design or its load-carrying ability.
5. Site Access and Site Conditions
The client shall grant or obtain free access to the site, including snow-plowing, for all equipment and personnel
necessary for A&A to perform the work set forth in this agreement. The client shall notify any and all possessors or
occupiers of the project site that the client has granted A&A free access to the site. A&A will take reasonable
precautions to minimize the damage to the site, but it is understood by the client that, in normal course of work,
damage may occur and the correction of such damage is not part of this agreement unless specified in the proposal.
The client is responsible for accurately delineating on his property the locations of all subterranean structures and
utilities. In addition, the client agrees to compensate A&A for any time spent or expenses incurred by A&A in defense
of any such claim, with compensation to be based upon A&A s prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement
policy.
Page 132 of 170
Page5of7
6. Severability and Survival
If any term of this agreement is held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining terms is
not impaired. Limitations of liability and indemnities survive termination of this agreement for any cause.
7. Interpretation
The limitations of liability and indemnities will apply whether any cause of action arises under breach of contract or
warranty, tort, strict liability, statutory liability, or any other cause of action. The laws of Ontario govern this
agreement.
8. Proprietary Information
All drawings, specification, technical data and other information furnished to the client by A&A or others under this
agreement are, and will remain, the property of A&A, and may not be reproduced or used in any way, or disclosed
to third parties or used in any manner detrimental to the interests of A&A.
The following information will not be subject to the confidentiality requirements:
a) information in the public domain through no action of the client; or
b) information received by the client without restriction from a third party having the right to make such
disclosure.
9. Assignment
This agreement will not be assigned by the client without A&A s prior written approval.
10. Waivers
No waiver by a party of any default by the other in the performance of this agreement will be a waiver of any future
default.
11. Force Majeure
A&A will not be liable to the client for delays in supplying the services, or for the direct or indirect cost resulting from
such delays, resulting from labour strikes, riots, war, acts of government authorities, extraordinary weather
conditions or other natural catastrophe, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of A&A.
12. Winter Snow-cover
In performing any site inspection, A&A accepts no responsibility for failure to detect or investigate visible or olfactory
signs of contamination concealed by winter snow-cover.
Page 133 of 170
LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT
Please complete this page and the credit card payment page if applicable and
scan and email to lcoghill@aaenvironmental.ca or fax to 519-266-3666
From:
Cephas Panschow
Development Commissioner
Town of Tillsonburg
200 Broadway St, Suite 204,
Tillsonburg, ON, N4G 5A7
Phone: 519-688-3009 Ext. 3250
Email: cpanschow@tillsonburg.ca
I accept the above proposal #4771-Panschow Tillsonburg for a remediation and agree to be
bound by its terms and conditions. I certify that I am authorized to sign this agreement and I
request that work commence at the time agreed. A deposit of $18,693.03 is being sent (credit
card payment form attached).
Signed: __________ Print: __________
Date:
Name(s) to appear on invoice: ____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Address* to appear on invoice: ___________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Check here if contact information to appear on report is the same as on the invoice ⃝
OR complete below
Name(s) to appear on report: ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Address* to appear on report: ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
* does not refer to site address, but rather the address of where the document should be sent
Contact Info for Site Visit
Name: ______________________________ Phone: ________________________
Email: __________________________________________________________________
To:
A & A Environmental Consultants Inc.
16 Young Street
Woodstock, Ontario N4S 3L4
Tel: 519-266-4680
Fax: 519-266-3666
www.aaenvironmental.ca
Page 134 of 170
CREDIT CARD PAYMENT FORM
Please complete this page and the Letter of Engagement page and
scan and email to lcoghill@aaenvironmental.ca or fax to 519-266-3666
Method of Payment: Visa MasterCard American Express
Name on Card:
Card #:
Expiry Date: Security Code:
Address of Card Holder:
Email for receipt of payment:
Cardholder’s Signature: Date:
Invoice or Job Number Invoice Date Amount
Total:
For office use only:
Amount Processed: Processed by:
Authorization
Number: Date Received:
Date Processed: Entered:
Page 135 of 170
Page 1 of 3
Subject: 2020 Council Meeting Calendar
Report Number: CLK 19-31
Author: Amelia Jaggard, Deputy Clerk
Meeting Type: Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Monday, November 25, 2019
Recommendation:
THAT Council receive report CLK 19-31 2020 Council Meeting Calendar, as
information;
AND THAT the following regular Council Meetings be re-scheduled for 2020:
1. Monday, February 24, 2020 be re-scheduled to Thursday, February 27, 2020 due
to the OGRA Conference (February 23 to 26, 2020).
2. Monday, April 13, 2020 be re-scheduled to Tuesday, April 14, 2020 due to Easter
Monday.
3. Monday, June 8, 2020 be re-scheduled to Thursday, June 11, 2020 due to the
AMCTO Conference (June 7 to 10, 2020).
4. Monday, October 12, 2020 be re-scheduled to Tuesday, October 13, 2020 due to
Thanksgiving Monday.
AND THAT the following regular Council Meetings be cancelled for 2020:
1. Monday, July 27, 2020
2. Monday, August 24, 2020
3. Monday, December 28, 2020
Background:
Each year the Office of the Clerk provides Council with a calendar of meeting dates for
the upcoming year. In accordance with the Town’s Procedural By-Law, Council
meetings are held on the second and fourth Monday of the month, unless such date
falls on a statutory holiday, in which case the meeting will be rescheduled to the
following business day. For the months of July, August and December, Council does not
meet on the second Monday of the month. Other events may occur throughout the year
which requires a meeting(s) to be rescheduled or cancelled.
Discussion:
A copy of the proposed 2020 Meeting Calendar is attached to this report.
Page 136 of 170
CLK 19-31 Page 2 of 3
Consultation:
Following Council approval, the 2020 Meeting Calendar will be circulated to MP Dave
MacKenzie, MPP Ernie Hardeman, County of Oxford Clerk’s Office and the County of
Oxford Planning Office. The calendar will be shared in the local newspaper and posted
on the Town website.
Financial Impact/Funding Source:
N/A
Community Strategic Plan (CSP) Linkage:
1. Excellence in Local Government
☐ Demonstrate strong leadership in Town initiatives
☐ Streamline communication and effectively collaborate within local government
☒ Demonstrate accountability
Attachments:
Appendix A – 2020 Council Meeting Calendar
Page 137 of 170
CLK 19-31 Page 3 of 3
Report Approval Details
Document Title: CLK 19-31 2020 Council Meeting Calendar.docx
Attachments: - CLK 19-31 Appendix A - 2020 Meeting Calendar.pdf
Final Approval Date: Nov 13, 2019
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:
Ron Shaw - Nov 13, 2019 - 4:36 PM
Page 138 of 170
2020 Meeting Calendar
January
May
September
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
26 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 27 28 29 30 31
February June October
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
March July November
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30
April August December
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31
30 31
Tillsonburg Council Oxford County Council Tillsonburg Council Budget Meeting
Page 139 of 170
Page 1 of 2
Subject: Additional Appointments and Appointment Removal to Tillsonburg Dog Park Advisory Committee Report Number: CLK 19-32 Author: Laura Pickersgill, Legislative Services Coordinator
Meeting Type: Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Monday, November 25, 2019
Recommendation: THAT Council receives Report CLK 19-32 Additional Appointments and Appointment
Removal to the Tillsonburg Dog Park Advisory Committee;
AND THAT By-Law 4360 to amend Schedule A of By-Law 4247, be brought forward for
Council consideration.
Background: At the October 15, 2019 Council meeting, Council passed By-Law 4350 to amend
Schedule A of By-Law 4247. This amendment appointed four members to the
Tillsonburg Dog Park Advisory Commmittee. According to the Tillsonburg Dog Park
Advisory Commmittee Terms of Reference as approved by Council, the Committee will
have a minimum of seven (7) members. Applications to the Tillsonburg Dog Park
Advisory Committee remain open until the miniumum number of members is met.
At the November 12, 2019 Council meeting, Council passed By-Law 4355 to amend
Schedule A of By-Law 4247. This amendment appointed one additional member to the
Tillsonburg Dog Park Advisory Committee.
Discussion:
Following the November 12, 2019 Council meeting, the Office of the Clerk received one
additional application for the Tillsonburg Dog Park Advisory Commmittee. The Office of
the Clerk also received notice from Karen Keller that she cannot accept her
appointment to the Dog Park Advisory Committee at this time. Ms. Keller has not
attended a meeting of the Committee and her name has been removed from By-Law
4247 Schedule A. The attached By-Law 4360, Schedule A, includes the recommended
additional appointment. This recommendation and a by-law to appoint the member will
be brought before Council for consideration.
Page 140 of 170
CLK 19-32 Page 2 of 2
Financial Impact/Funding Source: None
Community Strategic Plan (CSP) Linkage:
1.Excellence in Local Government
☒ Demonstrate strong leadership in Town initiatives
☐ Streamline communication and effectively collaborate within local government
☐ Demonstrate accountability
2.Economic Sustainability
☐ Support new and existing businesses and provide a variety of employment
opportunities
☐ Provide diverse retail services in the downtown core
☐ Provide appropriate education and training opportunities in line with Tillsonburg’s
economy
3.Demographic Balance
☐ Make Tillsonburg an attractive place to live for youth and young professionals
☐ Provide opportunities for families to thrive
☐ Support the aging population and an active senior citizenship
4.Culture and Community
☐ Promote Tillsonburg as a unique and welcoming community
☐ Provide a variety of leisure and cultural opportunities to suit all interests
☐ Improve mobility and promote environmentally sustainable living
Attachments: Appendix A - By-Law 4360, Schedule A
Page 141 of 170
By-law 4360 Schedule A
Board/Committees Citizen Appointments Mandate
Accessibility Advisory Committee
To advise and make recommendations to Council on all matters with respect to the accessibility for persons with disabilities to a municipal building, structure or premises.
Cultural, Heritage and Special
Awards Advisory Committee
To advise and make recommendations to Council on all matters with respect to
tourism and culture in the Town of Tillsonburg. To advise and make
recommendations to Council on all matters related to properties of architectural and historical significance. To receive nominations and make recommendations to Council for the Citizen of the Year and monthly awards. To provide commemorative naming options to Council.
Economic Development Advisory
Committee
To advise on initiatives to attract and retain investment within the community.
To provide advice on:
• The Economic Development Strategy
• The Community Strategic Plan
• Annual Departmental Business Plan
To support the development of alliances and partnerships to advance the
Town’s strategic plan and that assists in the overall growth of the Town.
To provide advice regarding existing and new bylaws that relate to/impact development within the community.
Memorial Park Revitalization Advisory Committee
To advise and make recommendations and provide regular updates to Council on all matters with respect to the Memorial Park Revitalization Project.
Museum Advisory Committee
To make recommendations to Council on policies and procedures pertaining to the Museum. To participate in strategic planning activities, initiate and participate in fundraising activities when and as needed, act as ambassadors for the
museum within the community. To work with the Tillsonburg and District
Historical Society regarding trust for artifact purchases and to act as trustees for
the restoration trust.
Parks, Beautification and Cemeteries Advisory Committee
To advise and make recommendations to Council on all matters with respect to
the utilization and beautification of public parks, trails, trees, green space and Tillsonburg cemeteries.
Page 142 of 170
By-law 4360 Schedule A
Recreation and Sports Advisory
Committee
To advise and make recommendations to Council on matters related to the programming and utilization of Tillsonburg’s recreational facilities. To advise
and make recommendations to Council on implementation of the Community
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Strategic Master Plan.
Tillsonburg Airport Advisory Committee
To advise and make recommendations to Council on matters related to the
Tillsonburg Regional Airport. To provide a forum for receiving input and advice from aviation stakeholder groups and the community with respect to the Airport Master Plan and strategic initiatives and to provide a forum for dialogue and communication. Day to day operations of the airport is the responsibility of Town staff.
Tillsonburg Dog Park Advisory Committee
Brad Holden The objective of the Tillsonburg Dog Park Advisory Committee (TDPAC) is to oversee and advise Town Council on the governance of the Dave Johnson
Memorial Dog Park with representation from all affected groups in the community.
Tillsonburg Transit Advisory
Committee
The objective of the Tillsonburg Transit Advisory Committee (TTAC) is to oversee and advise Town Council on the governance oversite of the Town's service providers contract for transit and specifically the policies and procedures related to service delivery of transit. The TTAC will provide a forum for input, exchange of ideas and debate on conventional and mobility transit related
issues with representation from all affected groups in the community. The committee should use the Mandate to set out a clear plan for the term of the Committee. Create a high level work plan to define the scope and establish the framework and overall approach for transit. Set out goals the committee will
work towards accomplishing.
Page 143 of 170
Page 1 of 3
Subject: Glendale West Subdivision Assumption By-law
Report Number: OPS 19-51
Author: Kevin De Leebeeck, P.Eng., Director of Operations
Meeting Type: Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Monday, November 25, 2019
Recommendation:
THAT Council receive Report OPS 19-51 Glendale West Subdivision Assumption By-
law;
AND THAT a By-law to assume the Municipal Works and Services within the Glendale
West Subdivision, Registered Plan 41M-305 be brought forward for Council
consideration.
Background:
In accordance with the 2015 Subdivision Agreement for the Glendale West Subdivision,
Registered Plan 41M-305, the Developer (Performance Communities Realty Inc.) has
constructed and installed all required underground works and services including a water
distribution system and related appurtenances, sanitary collection system and related
appurtenances, stormwater collection system and related appurtenances, stormwater
management facility and all required above-ground municipal works and services
including a streetlight system, street signage, roadways and sidewalks.
Discussion:
Prior to Preliminary Acceptance an inspection is conducted by Engineering Services to
confirm that the works and services are substantially complete and are in conformance
with applicable standards and specifications. Once all identified deficiencies are
corrected by the Developer, a Certificate of Preliminary Acceptance is issued, triggering
the commencement of the applicable maintenance period and the release of associated
performance securities. At the end of the maintenance period or until such time as
requested by the Developer (whichever is later) a final inspection is conducted by
Engineering Services. Once all identified deficiencies are corrected by the Developer a
Certificate of Final Acceptance is issued, triggering the release of associated
maintenance securities.
Separate certificates of acceptance for the underground and above-ground works and
services can be issued at the request of the Developer to advance building construction
and to reduce the financial burden associated with development.
The following requirements of the Subdivision Agreement have been satisfied:
Page 144 of 170
OPS 19-52 Page 2 of 3
All Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECA’s) and other applicable permits
have been received,
The Town has received notification in writing from the Consulting Engineer
stating that the works and services have been constructed in accordance with the
approved design drawings and specifications,
The Town has received written confirmation from the Ontario Land Surveyor that
all survey monuments and iron bars are in place,
All Certificates of Preliminary and Final Acceptance for Underground and Above-
ground Works and Services have been issued,
The Town is in receipt of a Statutory Declaration from the Developer stating all
accounts for work have been paid and that there are no outstanding claims or
unsatisfied liens,
The Town has received proof that the Plan of Subdivision and Subdivision
Agreement have been registered upon the title of the Lands,
The Town has received the final “As-Constructed” drawings.
Staff are satisfied that the underground and above-ground works are in the required
condition to be assumed and that all other requirements of the Subdivision Agreement
have been satisfied as noted above. It is therefore staff’s recommendation that the
Town approve and pass an Assumption By-law to assume the municipal works and
services within the Glendale West Subdivision.
Consultation
The Developer, Consulting Engineer and Town Engineering Services have worked
collaboratively throughout the duration of this subdivision development to reach the
stage of assumption.
Financial Impact/Funding Source:
Following the passing of the Assumption By-law for the municipal works and services
within the Glendale West Subdivision, the Town will become responsible for the on-
going maintenance and eventual capital reconstruction of the municipal works and
services of which has been loaded into the Town’s Asset Management Plan.
Community Strategic Plan (CSP) Linkage:
1. Excellence in Local Government
☒ Demonstrate accountability
3. Demographic Balance
☒ Make Tillsonburg an attractive place to live for youth and young professionals
☒ Provide opportunities for families to thrive
Page 145 of 170
OPS 19-52 Page 3 of 3
Report Approval Details
Document Title: OPS 19-51 Glendale West Subdivision Assumption By-
law.docx
Attachments:
Final Approval Date: Nov 19, 2019
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:
Ron Shaw - Nov 19, 2019 - 7:47 PM
Page 146 of 170
Page 1 of 3
Subject: Results for Tender RFT 2019-021 Medium Duty Single Axle Cab and Chassis
Report Number: OPS 19-52
Author: Dan Locke, C.E.T., Manager of Public Works
Meeting Type: Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Monday, November 25, 2019
Recommendation
THAT Council receive Report OPS 19-52, Results for Tender RFT 2019-021 Medium
Duty Single Axle Cab and Chassis;
AND THAT Council award Tender RFT 2019-021 to Oxford Dodge Chrysler Ltd. of
London, ON at a cost of $55,761.43 (net HST included), the only bid received.
Discussion
As per the 2019 Operations Business Plan and in accordance with the Purchasing
Policy a tender was issued for the supply and delivery of a new multi-purpose truck to
replace Road Service Truck Unit #47. Originally tender RFT 2019-020 was issued with
the intent that the new unit would be setup to do at height sign work, small asphalt and
concrete repair work and be available as a winter unit. There were seven (7) plan
takers and three (3) bids received, all significantly ($30,000 to $50,000) over the budget
allocation for this project. This tender was subsequently cancelled. Staff then reviewed
the bids and noted that the sign platform provided by the bidders was a significant cost
and the proposed designs would be at a height that would not be functional for the
majority of sign work staff perform. As a result staff developed an alternative that
satisfies most of the multi-purpose truck criteria whereby a tender for just the supply of a
medium duty cab and chassis would be issued, the existing aluminum dump body would
be outsourced for refurbishing, an enclosed trailer to house the equipment for small
asphalt and concrete repair work would be procured separately and the equipment
required to perform small asphalt and concrete repair work would be directly sourced,
all to achieve cost savings. The solution for at heights sign work is still being
investigated.
Tender RFT 2019-021 closed on November 6th 2019 with a total of three (3) plan takers
and one (1) bid received. The tender was advertised on the Tillsonburg website, the
Tillsonburg News, Ebid Solutions and on Biddingo. Results of the tender (including net
HST of 1.76%) are summarized below including a breakdown of estimated component
costs of the alternative solution:
Page 147 of 170
OPS 19-52 Page 2 of 3
Description Est. Cost
Medium Duty Single Axle Cab and Chassis $55,761
Aluminum Dump Body Refurbishment $21,800
Enclosed Trailer and retrofit modifications $28,500
Asphalt and Concrete equipment $12,700
Total $118,761
The additional component costs of the alternative solution totals approximately $63,000
to refurbish the existing aluminum dump body, procure an enclosed trailer and make
some retrofit modifications and to directly source the asphalt and concrete equipment.
The delivery time of the medium duty single axle cab and chassis is approximately six
(6) months. Staff estimate it will take another two (2) months to complete the retrofit
and necessary modifications before the alternative solution could be placed into service.
It is therefore staff’s recommendation to award this RFT to Oxford Dodge Chrysler Ltd.
Financial Impact/Funding Source
The 2019 approved budget of $130,000 consists of $73,500 from debenture and
$56,500 from taxation. The bid price of a new medium duty cab and chassis of $55,761
(net HST included) plus the alternative solution estimated component costs of $63,000
is within the budgeted amount.
Community Strategic Plan (CSP) Linkage
1. Excellence in Local Government
☒ Demonstrate accountability
Page 148 of 170
OPS 19-52 Page 3 of 3
Report Approval Details
Document Title: OPS 19-52 Results for Tender RFT 2019-021 Medium Duty
Single Axle Cab and Chassis.docx
Attachments:
Final Approval Date: Nov 21, 2019
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:
Dave Rushton - Nov 21, 2019 - 9:48 AM
Ron Shaw - Nov 21, 2019 - 10:15 AM
Page 149 of 170
Page 1 of 3
Subject: Tillsonburg Concert Series Update
Report Number: RCP 19-55
Author: Rick Cox, Director of Recreation, Culture & Parks
Meeting Type: Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Monday, November 25, 2019
Recommendation:
THAT Report RCP 19-55 Tillsonburg Concert Series Update is received for information.
Background:
Starting in 2018, a series of concerts was initiated with two goals in mind: first, to use
the series to showcase the Town’s indoor and outdoor venues to event organizers,
promoters and performers as good places to host such events; and second, to grow the
local audience for live performances.
The Town sought partnerships to promote and host the concerts on a shared
risk/reward basis. Two groups (Carruthers Entertainment Services (CES) and
Southbound, a local band) came forward to participate in the 2019 series. The
partnership arrangement with CES is that the Town keeps all of the net proceeds of the
events. The partnership with Southbound was developed as a fundraising event for the
Lake Lisgar Trust where attendees were asked to give a donation rather than buy a
ticket. The event raised almost $650 for the Trust.
The 2019 series schedule includes 10 events:
February 14 - Valentines Dance
March 23 - Spring Hop
May 4 - Who’s Gonna Fill Their Shoes?
July 6 - Magic In The Park
August 10 – Memorial Park Jamboree Sponsored by Marwood Manufacturing
August 17 - Tillsonburg Has Talent in association with the Tri-County Fair
August 23 – Good Vibrations Beach Boys Tribute
September 13 - Motorcycle Madness
November 2 – Shake, Rattle & Rock ‘N Roll
December 31 - New Year’s Eve Gala
The August 17 and September 13 events were cancelled. Bill Carruthers, a partner in
CES passed away suddenly at the end of June, which dramatically impacted CES’
Page 150 of 170
RCP 19-55 Page 2 of 3
capacity and changed the upwards trajectory of the events attendance and profitability.
The New Year’s Eve Gala is the last of the series for 2019.
To date, the only event confirmed for 2020 is the Memorial Park Jamboree, and the
New Year’s Eve Gala for 2020. CES has advised that they are winding down
operations and won’t be scheduling any further events. Discussions with other
organizers are ongoing.
Financial Impact/Funding Source:
The 2019 budget reflects the expectation of year-end positive revenue from the series
of $12,000. Currently, the series is in a deficit position of $3,982.29 but is projected to
achieve break even by the end of the New Year’s event.
Community Strategic Plan (CSP) Linkage:
1. Excellence in Local Government
☒ Demonstrate accountability
2. Economic Sustainability
☒ Support new and existing businesses and provide a variety of employment
opportunities
3. Demographic Balance
☒ Make Tillsonburg an attractive place to live for youth and young professionals
☒ Provide opportunities for families to thrive
☒ Support the aging population and an active senior citizenship
4. Culture and Community
☒ Promote Tillsonburg as a unique and welcoming community
☒ Provide a variety of leisure and cultural opportunities to suit all interests
☒ Improve mobility and promote environmentally sustainable living
Event # Tickets Sold Net Profit(Loss)
Feb 14 Valentines Dance (w CES)58 (916.17)$
March 23 Spring Hop (w CES)184 642.99$
May 4 Country Tribute (w CES)189 887.53$
July 6 Magic in the Park (w CES)Free (1,009.03)$
Aug 10 Lake Lisgar Jamboree (w Southbound)Not ticketed (2,026.28)$
Aug 17 Talent Show (w CES)Cancelled (500.23)$
Aug 23 Good Vibrations (w CES)111 279.41$
Sept 13 Rock Tribute (w CES)Cancelled (500.23)$
Nov 2 Shake, Rattle & Rock'nRoll (w CES)96 (840.32)$
Concert Series Cumulative Net Profit(Loss)(3,982.29)$
Page 151 of 170
RCP 19-55 Page 3 of 3
Report Approval Details
Document Title: RCP 19-55 - Tillsonburg Concert Series update.docx
Attachments:
Final Approval Date: Nov 19, 2019
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:
Ron Shaw - Nov 19, 2019 - 6:24 PM
Page 152 of 170
Page 1 of 3
Subject: F.A.R.E. February TMLA Fundraiser Update
Report Number: RCP 19-56
Author: Rick Cox, Director of Recreation, Culture & Parks
Meeting Type: Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Monday, November 25, 2019
Recommendation:
THAT Report RCP 19-56 – F.A.R.E. February TMLA Fundraiser Update is received for
information.
Background:
In July 2019 Council authorized the Town of Tillsonburg to enter into a contract with the
Toronto Maple Leaf Alumni (TMLA) for a fundraising hockey game on Saturday,
February 15, 2020. The game is intended to raise funds for the Town’s recreation
subsidy program (Fee Assisted Recreation Experience or F.A.R.E.).
Planning for the event is underway. Staff has consulted with TMLA and several other
municipalities that have recently organized this type of event to flesh out the plan and
event budget. Local members of the ‘Leafs Nation’ are engaged to assist with
organizing and promoting the event, with meetings scheduled starting the week of Nov.
18.
Tickets for designated seating and for general admission standing room will go on sale
by the beginning of December through Ticketscene.ca. VIP tickets will follow shortly,
with the expectation that both types of tickets will make excellent Christmas presents for
hockey fans. TMLA has a designated list of sponsors that will be augmented by other
local sponsors upon TMLA approval. Local ice sport organizations are being
approached to play a variety of roles, including providing players for the ‘opposing team’
that will be playing the Leafs Alumni.
Consultation:
Staff checked with MLSE/TMLA staff as well as organizers from Owen Sound, Kenora,
Peterborough and Northumberland. Staff consulted with the Town’s insurance
company on liability coverage.
Financial Impact/Funding Source:
The pro-forma budget provided to Council in July anticipated a net $10,000 fundraising
goal. Other recent games like this in other locations have achieved significantly higher
results for the organizers and it is anticipated that Tillsonburg will be no different.
Page 153 of 170
RCP 19-56 Page 2 of 3
However, the Town is responsible to cover all of the costs of the event, including
providing insurance for the TMLA players.
Community Strategic Plan (CSP) Linkage:
1. Excellence in Local Government
☒ Demonstrate strong leadership in Town initiatives
☒ Demonstrate accountability
2. Economic Sustainability
☒ Support new and existing businesses and provide a variety of employment
opportunities
3. Demographic Balance
☒ Make Tillsonburg an attractive place to live for youth and young professionals
☒ Provide opportunities for families to thrive
☒ Support the aging population and an active senior citizenship
4. Culture and Community
☒ Promote Tillsonburg as a unique and welcoming community
☒ Provide a variety of leisure and cultural opportunities to suit all interests
Page 154 of 170
RCP 19-56 Page 3 of 3
Report Approval Details
Document Title: RCP 19-56 - F.A.R.E. Februrary TMLA Fundraiser
Update.docx
Attachments:
Final Approval Date: Nov 19, 2019
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:
Ron Shaw - Nov 19, 2019 - 6:19 PM
Page 155 of 170
Page 1 of 5
Subject: Comparator Municipalities for RCP Department Service Review
Report Number: RCP 19-57
Author: Rick Cox, Director of Recreation, Culture & Parks
Meeting Type: Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Recommendation:
THAT Report RCP 19-57 Comparator Municipalities for RCP Department Service
Review is received for information.
Background:
The Clarico Group Inc. has been contracted by the Town to carry out a Department
Service Review of the Recreation, Culture & Parks Department. The deliverables of the
project include:
Service Inventory and Profile
Service Level Standards
KPI’s and Benchmarking against key comparators
Review of Rates and Fees
Review organizational Structure
Recommend Efficiency and Effectiveness
Look at Expanded Partnerships
Discussion:
Comparing service levels, service breadth, revenues generated, and service costs
between a number of municipal governments is a necessary step of the service review
process. Because municipalities differ in population, area, location, facilities, services
offered, fees, tax base, etc. it is useful to select a variety for comparison.
Unless directed otherwise by Council, the consultants and staff will include the following
nine Municipalities for benchmarking comparison in this Service Review:
Town of Ingersoll Municipality of Port Hope Town of Cobourg
Town of Aylmer St. Clair Township Town of Bracebridge
Norfolk County City of Woodstock Town of Lincoln
Page 156 of 170
RCP 19-57 Page 2 of 5
Town of Ingersoll
Ingersoll has similar population density
to Tillsonburg, and is located nearby.
Town of Aylmer
Aylmer is located nearby, so that
Tillsonburg residents may already be
using it to informally compare services,
fees, and approach to service delivery.
Norfolk County
Norfolk County is a nearby single-tier
municipality with about four times the
population of Tillsonburg, and spends a
bit less than four times as much for
Recreation and Culture.
City of Woodstock
Woodstock has similar population
density to Tillsonburg, and is located
nearby. It is traditionally used for
comparisons.
Town of Town of
Tillsonburg Ingersoll
Sq km 22.33 12.90
Households 7,532 5,495
Population 16,000 12,597
Youth Pop 1,295 3,135
Pop/sq km 716.52 976.51
Tot Expenses 20,964,788 15,892,696
Rec & cult 5,323,199 4,434,713
F-T employees 113 59
Town of Town of
Tillsonburg Aylmer
Sq km 22.33 6.26
Households 7,532 3,031
Population 16,000 7,492
Youth Pop 1,295 1,490
Pop/sq km 716.52 1,196.81
Tot Expenses 20,964,788 12,185,853
Rec & cult 5,323,199 1,247,924
F-T employees 113 42
Town of Simcoe
Tillsonburg (Norfolk County)
Sq km 22.33 1,607.55
Households 7,532 29,927
Population 16,000 64,044
Youth Pop 1,295 4,160
Pop/sq km 716.52 39.84
Tot Expenses 20,964,788 190,008,411
Rec & cult 5,323,199 17,703,125
F-T employees 113 658
Town of City of
Tillsonburg Woodstock
Sq km 22.33 48.97
Households 7,532 17,976
Population 16,000 40,902
Youth Pop 1,295 2,750
Pop/sq km 716.52 835.25
Tot Expenses 20,964,788 66,869,606
Rec & cult 5,323,199 13,895,894
F-T employees 113 321
Page 157 of 170
RCP 19-57 Page 3 of 5
St. Clair Township
St. Clair is a township south of Sarnia.
Its population and spending on
Recreation and Culture are a bit lower
yet in the same ballpark as
Tillsonburg’s.
Municipality of Port Hope
Located east of the Greater Toronto and
Hamilton Area, on the shore of Lake
Ontario, Port Hope is similar in
population size to Tillsonburg.
Town of Cobourg
Located east Port Hope, also on the
shore of Lake Ontario, the Town of
Cobourg is similar in size and population
density to Tillsonburg. Of interest it
operates an arena with a large twin ice
pad.
Town of Bracebridge
Located in the Muskoka District,
Bracebridge has a population size
nearly identical with that of Tillsonburg.
Town of St. Clair
Tillsonburg Township
Sq km 22.33 619.17
Households 7,532 6,407
Population 16,000 12,527
Youth Pop 1,295 935
Pop/sq km 716.52 20.23
Tot Expenses 20,964,788 28,471,248
Rec & cult 5,323,199 5,011,971
F-T employees 113 68
Town of Municipality
Tillsonburg Port Hope
Sq km 22.33 278.87
Households 7,532 7,305
Population 16,000 16,753
Youth Pop 1,295 2,335
Pop/sq km 716.52 60.07
Tot Expenses 20,964,788 33,498,626
Rec & cult 5,323,199 4,794,428
F-T employees 113 119
Town of Town of
Tillsonburg Cobourg
Sq km 22.33 22.36
Households 7,532 8,958
Population 16,000 19,440
Youth Pop 1,295 1,090
Pop/sq km 716.52 869.41
Tot Expenses 20,964,788 48,565,597
Rec & cult 5,323,199 10,718,893
F-T employees 113 164
Town of Town of
Tillsonburg Bracebridge
Sq km 22.33 628.22
Households 7,532 9,004
Population 16,000 16,010
Youth Pop 1,295 950
Pop/sq km 716.52 25.48
Tot Expenses 20,964,788 21,850,402
Rec & cult 5,323,199 6,470,315
F-T employees 113 75
Page 158 of 170
RCP 19-57 Page 4 of 5
Town of Lincoln
The Town of Lincoln is located in the
Niagara region, and has population size
about 50% higher than Tillsonburg’s.
The Town of Lincoln has a Museum and
Cultural centre with programming,
exhibits, and special events.
Consultation:
Financial Impact/Funding Source:
There is no direct financial impact arising from this report.
Community Strategic Plan (CSP) Linkage:
1. Excellence in Local Government
☒ Demonstrate strong leadership in Town initiatives
☒ Streamline communication and effectively collaborate within local government
☒ Demonstrate accountability
2. Economic Sustainability
☒ Support new and existing businesses and provide a variety of employment
opportunities
3. Demographic Balance
☒ Make Tillsonburg an attractive place to live for youth and young professionals
☒ Provide opportunities for families to thrive
☒ Support the aging population and an active senior citizenship
4. Culture and Community
☒ Promote Tillsonburg as a unique and welcoming community
☒ Provide a variety of leisure and cultural opportunities to suit all interests
☒ Improve mobility and promote environmentally sustainable living
Town of Town of
Tillsonburg Lincoln
Sq km 22.33 162.81
Households 7,532 9,305
Population 16,000 23,787
Youth Pop 1,295 1,690
Pop/sq km 716.52 146.10
Tot Expenses 20,964,788 27,286,868
Rec & cult 5,323,199 7,691,406
F-T employees 113 109
Page 159 of 170
RCP 19-57 Page 5 of 5
Report Approval Details
Document Title: RCP 19-57 - Comparator Municipalities for RCP Department
Service Review.docx
Attachments:
Final Approval Date: Nov 19, 2019
This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:
Ron Shaw - Nov 19, 2019 - 4:07 PM
Page 160 of 170
The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Cultural, Heritage and Special Awards
Advisory Committee
November 6, 2019
5:30 p.m.
Suite 203, 200 Broadway, 2nd Floor
MINUTES
Present:
Colette Takacs, Councillor Esseltine, Terry Fleming, Vernon Fleming, Erin Getty, Carrie
Lewis, Rosemary Dean, Mark Dickson
Staff:
Laura Pickersgill, Legislative Services Coordinator
Amelia Jaggard, Deputy Clerk
Patty Phelps, Culture and Heritage Manager/Curator (arrived at 5:40 p.m.)
Regrets:
Deb Beard, James Murphy
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:31 p.m.
2. Adoption of Agenda
Resolution #1
Moved by: Erin Getty
Seconded by: Terry Fleming
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Cultural, Heritage and Special Awards
Advisory Committee meeting of November 6, 2019, be adopted.
Carried
3. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest declared.
4. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting
Resolution #2
Moved by: Erin Getty
Seconded by: Carrie Lewis
THAT the Minutes of the Cultural, Heritage and Special Awards Advisory Committee
meeting of October 2, 2019, be approved.
Carried
Page 161 of 170
Committee: Cultural, Heritage and Special Awards Advisory Committee Page - 2 - of 3
Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2019
5. Presentations/Deputations
5.1. Cultural Grant Application (South Ridge Public School)
Tracey Davis presented the Cultural Grant Application for South Ridge Public
School.
Patty Phelps arrived at 5:40 p.m.
Tracey Davis left at 5:53 p.m.
6. General Business & Reports
6.1. Cultural Grant Application – South Ridge Public School
The committee reviewed the application and passed the following resolution.
Resolution #3
Moved by: Terry Fleming
Seconded by: Erin Getty
THAT the Cultural, Heritage and Special Awards Advisory Committee approve the
Cultural Grant Application submitted by South Ridge Public School which requests
funds to support the Grade 7 and 8 Band Trip to Canada’s Wonderland to participate
in the Festival of Music;
AND THAT staff forward the Cultural Grant in the amount of $2825 to South Ridge
Public School.
Carried
6.2. Tillsonburg 150
Staff to investigate the possibility of hosting a public forum at the museum for the
public to be able to share their ideas for Tillsonburg 150 celebrations.
Staff to draft a survey which requests the public to share ideas for a potential
Tillsonburg 150 public forum.
It was suggested that a section of the Tillsonburg update section of the newspaper
read “Did You Know” facts about Tillsonburg once a week for an entire year during
Tillsonburg 150.
6.3. Century Plaque Program
Staff to submit an ad to the Tillsonburg update section of the newspaper and post on
the Town’s social media page to promote the Century Plaques as a Christmas gift
idea.
Page 162 of 170
Committee: Cultural, Heritage and Special Awards Advisory Committee Page - 3 - of 3
Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Staff to investigate potential showcase location of the century plaque sample at the
swag shop.
7. Correspondence
7.1. OPS 19-44 Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge Enhanced OSIM Inspection
Councillor Esseltine mentioned that there will be a public consultation held prior to
any changes being made to the existing structure.
8. Other Business
9. Next Meeting
Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. at the Corporate Office in Suite 203.
10. Adjournment
Resolution #4
Moved by: Erin Getty
Seconded by: Rosemary Dean
THAT the November 6, 2019 Cultural, Heritage and Special Awards Advisory
Committee meeting be adjourned at 7:01 p.m.
Carried
Page 163 of 170
The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Parks, Beautification and
Cemetery Advisory Committee
October 29, 2019
3:30 p.m.
Suite 203, 200 Broadway, 2nd Floor
MINUTES
Present: Paul DeCloet, Christine Nagy, Marian Smith, Donna Scanlan, Mike Dean, Ken Butcher,
Penny Esseltine, Robert Verhoeve Paul Wareing & Bob Marsden
Absent with Regrets: Sue Saelens
Also Present: Corey Hill, Rick Cox, Donna Wilson
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
2. General Business
2.1. Procedural Review;
Corey Hill, Staff Liaison, presented a procedural review of how the Committee makes
recommendations to Council and the role of the Staff Liaison and the Committee Chair in that
process.
2.2. History of Committee’s involvement with Scattering Gardens;
Corey Hill, Staff Liaison, presented a historical review of the current Committee’s (as well as the
previous Heritage, Beautification & Cemetery Committee) involvement with the issue of scattering
gardens. This information was presented in a chronological format and included the following
information:
Sept 20/16 – The Committee toured Mount Pleasant Cemetery in London including
scattering gardens area;
May 10/17 – The Committee toured Williamsburg Cemetery in Kitchener including a
scattering garden & ossuary.
Nov 2/17 – Town Councillor Brian Stephenson attended a Committee meeting and inquired
into the Committee pursuing more burial choices. Specifically Councillor Stephenson
identified a desire for a scattering gardens and possibly putting a columbarium into the
Catholic section of cemetery. The Committee requested a review of the Cemetery Master
Plan at the following meeting.
Dec 7/17 – Rick Cox, Director of Recreation, Culture & Parks Dept, attended the Committee
meeting and conducted a presentation including conceptual drawings of the Cemetery
Master Plan. The planned location of a future scattering garden was in the direct vicinity of
the Columbaria area. After discussions, the Committee felt that the scattering gardens
should be in a more secluded area and directed staff to relocate to the proposed scattering
garden to the planned in-ground cremains area. In addition, staff was also directed to
escalate the timing on the creation of the scattering gardens to the next budget year.
2018 Capital Budget - $25,000 was allocated as a part of the 2018 capital budget process
towards the implementation of the Cemetery Master Plan. These dollars were allocated
towards the hiring of a consulting firm to design & create specifications for the scattering
gardens in the updated location.
Page 164 of 170
Committee: Parks, Beautification and Cemetery Advisory Committee Page - 2 - of 3
Date: October 29, 2019
April 2018 - The design work was awarded to Snow Larc Landscape Architects and work
commenced.
Aug 9/18 – Snow Larc conceptual drawings of the scattering gardens were shared with the
Committee. The Committee supported the design.
Sept 27/18 – The Committee meeting was a tour of the Tillsonburg Cemetery and the
updated location of the scattering gardens was reviewed as well as an explanation of the
design and how it would be applied in the specific area. The Committee supported the
location and the plans.
2019 Capital Budget – using the Consultant’s design specifications and cost estimations,
$99,000 capital budget was requested to implement the first 2 of a 3 year plan for the
scattering gardens. This consisted of $67,000 in 2019, $32,000 in 2020 and $40,000 in the
future as needs required.
Mar 7/19 – The Committee meeting included a presentation by Rick Cox, Director of
Recreation, Culture & Parks Dept., of the 2014 Cemetery Master Plan including updates that
were completed in 2018 to the Columbaria area & the Scattering Garden conceptual design.
The meeting also included an update on the capital budget where it was noted the scattering
gardens budget was not approved.
April 4/19 – The Committee struck a sub-committee to determine the success of scattering
gardens, including the demand and potential users, in a similar sized municipality AND to
report its findings back to the committee at the August 2019 committee meeting. The
members of the sub-committee will be Paul Wareing, Ken Butcher, Maurice Verhoeve & Bob
Marsden with Corey Hill acting as staff liaison.
Sept 5/19 – At the Committee Meeting, Ken Butcher, Chair of the Scattering Gardens Sub-
Committee, presented a final summary of the Sub-Committee’s work. It was noted that 43
Cemeteries had been contacted and that approximately 25% either had Scattering Gardens
or were working towards implementing a Scattering Garden. Cemeteries that have
Scattering Gardens reported that scatterings are regularly utilized, although it represents a
small percentage of their overall services. Following the report, the Committee engaged in
a discussion regarding the findings and whether a recommendation would be made
supporting of the development of a Scattering Garden within the Tillsonburg Cemetery.
2.3. Committee’s Recommendation on Scattering Gardens;
Corey Hill, Staff Liaison, presented that as a result of the discussions at the Sept 5/19 meeting, the
following recommendation was tabled at the Sept 5/19 meeting:
Moved by: Ken Butcher & Seconded by: Marian Smith THAT the Parks, Beautification & Cemetery
Advisory Committee recommends that a Scattering Garden is developed within the Tillsonburg
Cemetery as identified within the amended Cemetery Master Plan; and THAT Council allocates
budget for a three (3) year phased implementation of a Scattering Garden commencing with the
2020 capital budget. This was unanimously carried by the Committee. As a result, and in keeping
with the procedure as reviewed in item 2.1, the Staff Liaison drafted a report detailing the
Committee recommendation and it was reviewed by the Chair of the Committee. The report was
submitted to Rick Cox on Sept 6/19 in order to be on the agenda for the Sept 23/19 Council
meeting.
2.4. Council Report on Committee’s Recommendation & Outcome;
Rick Cox spoke to the committee regarding his involvement with the report. Being the report
referenced an item that had previously been submitted to Council as a part of the 2019 Capital
budget considerations, Mr.Cox stated that he followed normal practice by attaching the previous
memo as a historical reference for Council. However, when the item was discussed at the Sept
Page 165 of 170
Committee: Parks, Beautification and Cemetery Advisory Committee Page - 3 - of 3
Date: October 29, 2019
23/19 Council meeting, the memo prompted Council to focus on the costs as included in the
attached 2019 memo and altered the intent of the Committee’s recommendation (which had
purposefully omitted an amount of budget to be allocated). Mr.Cox further reported that this was an
unintended outcome and in retrospect the memo should not have been attached the Committee’s
report. Donna Wilson, Town Clerk, also reported that the report was inserted into the Council
agenda as a departmental report versus a Committee report attached to Committee minutes. This
also contributed to Council treating the recommendation as a departmental request for $139,000
budget allocation based on the 2019 request versus a new and stand-alone Committee
recommendation. As a result of an amendment on the floor, the $139,000 budget referenced within
the 2019 memo was removed and Council deferred the scattering gardens item to 2020 budget
deliberations.
2.5. Open Discussion;
The Committee discussed the information that was presented and expressed a desire to provide an
updated recommendation to Council for a scattering garden to be considered on a smaller scale.
As a result of the discussion, the following direction was issued to staff;
Resolution #1
Moved by: Penny Esseltine
Seconded by: Christine Nagy
THAT the Parks, Beautification & Cemetery Advisory Committee ask staff to bring forward a report
outlining development of a naturalized scattering garden at the Tillsonburg Cemetery, from
beginning through to completion, growing as use grows including an opportunity for name
recognition on a plaque from the beginning.
Carried
3. Next Meeting
There was consensus to change to next meeting to Thursday, November 14, 2019, at 9:00a.m.at
the Corporate Office Annex Suite 203 meeting room.
4. Adjournment
Resolution #2
Moved by: Marian Smith
Seconded by: Christine Nagy
THAT the October 29, 2019, Parks, Beautification and Cemetery Advisory Committee meeting be
adjourned at 4:25p.m.
Carried
Page 166 of 170
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
BY-LAW 4360
A BY-LAW To Amend Schedule A of By-Law 4247, to Define the Mandate and Membership for Committees Established By The Corporation Of The Town of Tillsonburg.
WHERAS it is deemed necessary and expedient to amend Schedule A of By-Law 4247.
BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Tillsonburg as follows:
1. THAT Schedule A of By-Law 4247 be amended as attached hereto;
2. THAT these amendments to Schedule A of By-Law 4247 are hereby declared to
be part of that By-Law as if written therein.
3. THAT this By-law shall come into full force and effect upon passing.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 25th day of NOVEMBER, 2019.
READ A THIRD AND FINAL TIME AND PASSED THIS 25th day of NOVEMBER, 2019.
___________________________
DEPUTY MAYOR – Dave Beres
______________________________
TOWN CLERK – Donna Wilson
Page 167 of 170
By-law 4360 Schedule A
Board/Committees Citizen Appointments Mandate
Accessibility Advisory Committee
To advise and make recommendations to Council on all matters with respect to the accessibility for persons with disabilities to a municipal building, structure or premises.
Cultural, Heritage and Special
Awards Advisory Committee
To advise and make recommendations to Council on all matters with respect to
tourism and culture in the Town of Tillsonburg. To advise and make
recommendations to Council on all matters related to properties of architectural and historical significance. To receive nominations and make recommendations to Council for the Citizen of the Year and monthly awards. To provide commemorative naming options to Council.
Economic Development Advisory
Committee
To advise on initiatives to attract and retain investment within the community.
To provide advice on:
• The Economic Development Strategy
• The Community Strategic Plan
• Annual Departmental Business Plan
To support the development of alliances and partnerships to advance the
Town’s strategic plan and that assists in the overall growth of the Town.
To provide advice regarding existing and new bylaws that relate to/impact development within the community.
Memorial Park Revitalization Advisory Committee
To advise and make recommendations and provide regular updates to Council on all matters with respect to the Memorial Park Revitalization Project.
Museum Advisory Committee
To make recommendations to Council on policies and procedures pertaining to the Museum. To participate in strategic planning activities, initiate and participate in fundraising activities when and as needed, act as ambassadors for the
museum within the community. To work with the Tillsonburg and District
Historical Society regarding trust for artifact purchases and to act as trustees for
the restoration trust.
Parks, Beautification and Cemeteries Advisory Committee
To advise and make recommendations to Council on all matters with respect to
the utilization and beautification of public parks, trails, trees, green space and Tillsonburg cemeteries.
Page 168 of 170
By-law 4360 Schedule A
Recreation and Sports Advisory
Committee
To advise and make recommendations to Council on matters related to the programming and utilization of Tillsonburg’s recreational facilities. To advise
and make recommendations to Council on implementation of the Community
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Strategic Master Plan.
Tillsonburg Airport Advisory Committee
To advise and make recommendations to Council on matters related to the
Tillsonburg Regional Airport. To provide a forum for receiving input and advice from aviation stakeholder groups and the community with respect to the Airport Master Plan and strategic initiatives and to provide a forum for dialogue and communication. Day to day operations of the airport is the responsibility of Town staff.
Tillsonburg Dog Park Advisory Committee
Brad Holden The objective of the Tillsonburg Dog Park Advisory Committee (TDPAC) is to oversee and advise Town Council on the governance of the Dave Johnson
Memorial Dog Park with representation from all affected groups in the community.
Tillsonburg Transit Advisory
Committee
The objective of the Tillsonburg Transit Advisory Committee (TTAC) is to oversee and advise Town Council on the governance oversite of the Town's service providers contract for transit and specifically the policies and procedures related to service delivery of transit. The TTAC will provide a forum for input, exchange of ideas and debate on conventional and mobility transit related
issues with representation from all affected groups in the community. The committee should use the Mandate to set out a clear plan for the term of the Committee. Create a high level work plan to define the scope and establish the framework and overall approach for transit. Set out goals the committee will
work towards accomplishing.
Page 169 of 170
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG BY-LAW 4362 BEING A BY-LAW to confirm the proceedings of Council at its meeting held on the 25th day of November, 2019. WHEREAS Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that the
powers of a municipal corporation shall be exercised by its council;
AND WHEREAS Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that
municipal powers shall be exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the proceedings of the Council of the
Town of Tillsonburg at this meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law;
NOW THEREFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. All actions of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg at its
meeting held on November 25, 2019, with respect to every report, motion, by-law,
or other action passed and taken by the Council, including the exercise of natural
person powers, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed as if all such
proceedings were expressly embodied in this or a separate by-law.
2. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized and directed to do all the things necessary to
give effect to the action of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
referred to in the preceding section.
3. The Mayor and the Clerk are authorized and directed to execute all documents
necessary in that behalf and to affix thereto the seal of The Corporation of the Town
of Tillsonburg.
4. This by-law shall come into full force and effect on the day of passing.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019. READ A THIRD AND FINAL TIME AND PASSED THIS 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019.
________________________________ DEPUTY MAYOR – Dave Beres
________________________________ TOWN CLERK – Donna Wilson
Page 170 of 170