Simcoe Water and Wastewater Service Delivery Review

Simcoe Water and Wastewater Service Delivery Review
Final Report
January 26, 2022
Prepared for:
January 26, 2022 RVA 215657
County of Simcoe
1110 Highway 26,
Midhurst, ON
L9X 1N6
Attention: Rob Elliot, MCIP RPP, MBA - General Manager
Dear Mr. Elliot:
Re: County of Simcoe Water and Wastewater Service Delivery Review

Final Report
R.V. Anderson Associated Limited (RVA) is please to submit our final report for the County
of Simcoe’s Water and Wastewater Service Delivery Review. This report summarizes our
engagement with local municipalities to seek input on the current service challenges and
capacities, identifies potential opportunities on coordination, and solicits any opinions on the
potential roles of the County of Simcoe in this regard.
Thank you for this opportunity to work with the County and its sixteen member
municipalities. We trust the information contained in this report meets your expectations
and are available to respond to any questions.
Yours very truly,
R.V. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Mike Benson, MScE, P.Eng. Kim Sayers, MSc, P.Eng., PMP
Associate, Project Coordinator Associate Vice-President
1
Simcoe Water and
Wastewater Service Delivery
Review
Final Report
County of Simcoe
This document is protected by copyright and was prepared by

R.V. Anderson Associates Limited for the account of the County
of Simcoe. It shall not be copied without permission. The
material in it reflects our best judgment in light of the information
available to R.V. Anderson Associates Limited at the time of
preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or
any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the
responsibility of such third parties. R.V. Anderson Associates
Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered
by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based
on this report.
RVA 215657
January 26, 2022
Simcoe W&WW Service Delivery Review TOC - 1
Final Report
Simcoe W&WW Service Delivery Review

Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
2.0 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 2
2.1 County Profile .......................................................................................... 2
2.2 2019 Regional Governance Review ........................................................ 5
2.3 Previous Studies ..................................................................................... 5
2.4 Natural Environment ................................................................................ 7
2.5 Planning Context ....................................................................................11
3.0 CURRENT STATE.............................................................................................17

3.1 Population Density .................................................................................17
3.2 Water and Wastewater Systems ............................................................19
3.3 Spare Capacity Analysis.........................................................................25
3.4 Planned Capacity Increases ...................................................................30
3.5 Governance Structures...........................................................................33
3.6 Cross-Boundary Servicing ......................................................................34
3.7 Master Service Planning Maturity ...........................................................37
3.8 User Rate Structures and Fees ..............................................................38
3.9 Long-Term Expenditures Forecast .........................................................42
3.10 Asset Management Maturity ...................................................................43
3.11 Summary ................................................................................................44
4.0 CHALLENGES ..................................................................................................46

4.1 Challenges Identified ..............................................................................46
4.2 Ranking and Validation...........................................................................50
4.3 Summary ................................................................................................53
5.0 OPPORTUNITIES..............................................................................................54
5.1 Partnerships and Collaboration ..............................................................54
5.2 County Role or Support ..........................................................................77
5.3 Summary ................................................................................................80
6.0 KEY TAKEAWAYS ...........................................................................................83
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................85
8.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................88
County of Simcoe RVA 215657

January 26, 2022 DRAFT
Final Report
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. Individual Water and Wastewater System Details
APPENDIX 2. Planned Capacity Increase Table
APPENDIX 3. Master Service Planning Maturity Table
APPENDIX 4. Long-Term Expenditure Forecast Details
TABLES
Table 2-1. MCR Preliminary Population and Employment Growth Forecasts
Table 3-1. Municipal Drinking Water System Summary
Table 3-2. Water Supply Sources
Table 3-3. Municipal Wastewater System Summary
Table 3-4. Watershed and Receiving Body Summary
Table 3-5. Drinking Water Spare Capacity Analysis Results
Table 3-6. Wastewater Spare Capacity Analysis Results
Table 3-7. Summary of Integrated Spare Capacity
Table 3-8. Planned Water Capacity
Table 3-9. Planned Wastewater Capacity
Table 3-10. Water Rate Structure and Typical Annual Residence Cost
Table 3-11. Wastewater Rate Structure and Typical Annual Residence Cost
Table 3-12. Asset Management Maturity
Table 4-1. Challenges Identified
Table 4-2. Challenges Survey Results
Table 5-1. Regional Utility Candidates
Table 5-3. Regional Utility Candidates Survey Response
Table 5-4. County Role / Support Survey Results Summary
Table 6-1. Summary of Regional Utility Candidates
FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Simcoe County Local Municipalities
Figure 2-2. Tertiary Watershed Boundaries
Figure 2-3. Environmentally Protected Areas
Figure 2-4. Schedule 1 of the GGH Growth Plan (Province of Ontario)
Figure 3-1. 2016 Population Density
Figure 3-2. Water Supply Sources
Figure 3-3. Drinking Water Systems Map
Figure 3-4. Wastewater Systems Map
Figure 3-5. Integrated Spare Capacity Results
Figure 3-6. Cross-Boundary Servicing
Figure 3-7. Master Service Planning Maturity
Figure 3-8. Typical Annual Residential User Fees
Figure 3-9. Total Annual Forecasted Capital Expenditures
Figure 3-10. Total Annual Forecasted O&M Expenditures
Figure 4-1. Challenges Survey Results
Figure 5-1. Two-Tier Water/Wastewater Utility Example (Source: Region of York [7])
Figure 5-3. Local vs. Regional Utility Survey Responses

Final Report
Figure 5-4. Single vs. Two-Tier Regional Utility Survey Responses (All)
Figure 5-5. Single vs. Two-Tier Regional Utility Survey Responses (Regional Utility
Preference Only)
Figure 5-6. Regional Utility Candidate Survey Response
Figure 5-7. County Role / Support Survey Responses

Simcoe W&WW Service Delivery Review Page 1
Final Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The County of Simcoe is an upper-tier municipality in Ontario’s Greater Golden

Horseshoe responsible for a providing wide range of services such as social housing,
emergency, planning, and solid waste management. Water and wastewater services in
the County are delivered at the local level, with each of the 16 local municipalities
responsible for management, oversight, and operations of municipal systems.
Following a Regional Government Review in 2019, Simcoe County Council expressed

an interest in engaging local municipalities to assess how water and wastewater
services are delivered, identify opportunities to improve system resiliency and long-term
sustainability, and seek input on a potential role for the County to support these critical
services.
To support these efforts, the County retained R.V. Anderson Associates Limited (RVA)
to lead a water and wastewater service delivery review in the County. The goal of this
study is to:
• engage with local municipalities to determine local servicing challenges,

• identify opportunities for improved cooperation and collaboration, and
• identify potential roles, if any, for the County to support the delivery of water and
wastewater services.
At a high-level, the water and wastewater service delivery review follows a typical
strategic planning process, guided by four questions:
1. Where are we now?

2. Where could we be?
3. Where do we want to go?
4. How do we get there?
The goal of the service delivery review is to help answer the first two questions: “Where
are we now?” and “Where could we be?”. The review will provide the County with
information and insight into existing water and wastewater service delivery models and
facilitate a discussion on opportunities to address key challenges. Using this information,
the County and its member municipalities will be better equipped to explore and answer
questions 3 & 4: “Where do we want to go?” and “How do we get there?”.
This final report is the culmination of efforts by RVA’s project team and local
municipalities in reviewing existing service delivery models. The report evaluates the
current state of water and wastewater service delivery, identifies challenges facing local

Final Report
utilities, and highlights potential opportunities for partnership and collaboration to

mitigate future challenges.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 County Profile
The County of Simcoe is located north of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Simcoe is
bordered by Lake Simcoe on the east, Georgian Bay and the District of Muskoka on the
north, Grey and Dufferin Counties on the west, Peel and York Regions to the south, and
the City of Kawartha Lakes on the east. Simcoe County forms part of the Greater Golden
Horseshoe area, a densely populated and industrialized region surrounding the GTA.
The southern portion of Simcoe is situated within the Toronto commuter-belt and
includes a relatively high proportion of people commuting to the Greater Toronto Area
(GTA) via Highway 400 and the transit system. Much of the population is focused in
settlement areas, with many rural residential and cottages located throughout the
County.

Final Report
The County is comprised of 16 member municipalities, listed below, and shown in Figure
2-1:
1. Township of Adjala-Tosorontio 9. Township of Oro-Medonte

2. Town of Bradford West 10. Town of Penetanguishene
Gwillimbury 11. Township of Ramara
3. Township of Clearview 12. Township of Severn
4. Town of Collingwood 13. Township of Springwater
5. Township of Essa 14. Township of Tay
6. Town of Innisfil 15. Township of Tiny
7. Town of Midland 16. Town of Wasaga Beach
8. Town of New Tecumseth
In addition to the 16 member municipalities listed above, the County of Simcoe also
includes the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia, Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Borden,
and several First Nations communities. These jurisdictions are separate politically and
administratively from the County but are key stakeholders when considering a regional
approach to the delivery of water and wastewater services.

Final Report
Figure 2-1. Simcoe County Local Municipalities

Final Report
2.2 2019 Regional Governance Review
In 2019 the Province of Ontario conducted a review into regional governments in

Ontario, including Simcoe County, to help ensure local municipalities are working
effectively and efficiently and can sustainably provide services for generations. After
considering the feedback received, the Province of Ontario elected to seek further
engagement with municipalities on alternative service delivery models.
Following the findings of the Regional Governance Review, Simcoe County Council
committed to exploring governance changes within its jurisdiction and conduct a review
of municipal services on its own, including water and wastewater. In January 2020,
County Council passed several resolutions related to governance and service delivery
review. Among them was RGR-19-19 which directs the County to:
“Engage with local municipalities to update the 2012 Water and Wastewater Visioning
Strategy, seek local input on the current service challenges, capacity, identify potential
opportunities on coordination, and solicit any opinions on the potential roles of the
County of Simcoe in this regard.”
This resolution ultimately led to the procurement of a consulting firm (RVA) to conduct a
Water and Wastewater Service Delivery Review.
2.3 Previous Studies
The County of Simcoe has studied water and wastewater services several times in
recent past, and the information in these studies has been considered in the
development of this report. A brief description of the studies completed, and their
associated outcomes is presented below.
2.3.1 2006 Intergovernmental Action Plan
The Intergovernmental Action Plan (IGAP) for Simcoe, Barrie & Orillia was a provincially
led exercise to provide stakeholders with “facts, analysis and the proper tools to assist
them in their planning and development decision-making”. One key element of the plan
was an Infrastructure Assessment Report which included an analysis of water and
wastewater capacities and a description of any issues related to water, wastewater,
stormwater, and transportation infrastructure. Notable challenges identified include:
• Full-service capacity exists in some communities but not all and significant
improvements in servicing capacity are needed to accommodate the growth
demand for the area.

Final Report
• It will be necessary to accommodate some growth on partial services to sustain

existing communities.
• Administrative challenges exist for servicing because cross-municipal sharing of

services is necessary
• Environmental challenges exist because a major receiving body (Lake Simcoe) is

at or near capacity for contaminant loading and some sub-watersheds have
limited capacity.
The plan provided a recommended urban structure which directs most of the growth to
three tiers of fully serviced settlement areas and a fourth tier of partially serviced areas
[1].
2.3.2 2012 W&WW Visioning Strategy
The 2012 Water and Wastewater Visioning Strategy identified current servicing capacity
and future requirements in each local municipality, potential servicing gaps and potential
cooperative opportunities among the lower tier municipalities. The report provided a
detailed inventory of water and wastewater treatment capacity in member municipalities,
the separated cities, and federal lands within the County. The report assessed future
needs and planned expansions and identified gaps and opportunities to meet future
servicing needs.
The study concluded that several opportunities for collaboration existed among
municipalities and suggested cooperative servicing arrangements where appropriate [2].
2.3.3 2016 Septage & Leachate Study
In 2015, County staff were directed by County Council to explore a potential County role
in septage treatment and disposal. The Septage and Landfill Leachate Disposal
Feasibility Study [3] identified current and projected quantities of septage, existing
treatment and disposal infrastructure, potential gaps in treatment capacity and a range of
potential options to address those gaps.
The study concluded there was adequate septage treatment and disposal capacity to
service the County in 2016. However, the study also evaluated several alternatives to
enhance the current management of hauled waste considering potential changes to the
policy framework.

Final Report
2.4 Natural Environment
Simcoe County is an environmentally diverse area, containing many significant natural

environment features. The Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine form much
of the County's western and southern boundaries. The Oro or Bass Lake Moraine is the
dominant landform northwest of Lake Simcoe, while on the east side of the lake there is
an extensive limestone plain. Granitic bedrock occupies the northeast quadrant of the
County [4].
Notable natural environment features in Simcoe County are listed below:
▪ Niagara Escarpment - The Niagara Escarpment includes a variety of topographic

features and land uses extending from the Niagara River to the islands off Tobermory
on the Bruce Peninsula. The Province of Ontario passed the Niagara Escarpment
Planning and Development Act to ensure development protects the natural
environment.
▪ Oak Ridge’s Moraine - The Oak Ridges Moraine is a significant landform with a
concentration of environmental, geological, and hydrological features that help
regulate ecosystems in south-central Ontario. The area extends from Trent River in
the east, to the Niagara Escarpment in the west. The Moraine divides the watersheds
draining south into western Lake Ontario from those draining north into Georgian Bay,
Lake Simcoe, and the Trent River system
▪ Oro or Bass Lake Moraine - The Oro Moraine is a prominent natural environment
feature stretching from Highway 400 to Bass Lake, consisting primarily of forests and
key wetlands.
▪ Greenbelt Area - The Greenbelt is a protected area in Ontario which includes green
spaces, farmlands, forests, wetlands, and watersheds. The area includes over
800,000 hectares of land and extends 325 km from the Oak Ridges Moraine to the
Niagara River in the west.
▪ Minesing Wetland - The Minesing Wetland is an internationally significant wetland

which provides local wetland benefits. The wetland is within the Nottawasaga River
watershed and includes swamp, marsh, and fen communities.
▪ Matchedash Bay – Matchedash Bay is a provincial wildlife area located on the south
shore of Georgian Bay. It is an internationally recognized Important Bird Area and
Ramsar Wetland of International Importance.
▪ Nottawasaga River - The Nottawasaga River extends across Simcoe and Dufferin
County and is a major tributary to the Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. The river is over

Final Report
120 km in length and captures all surface land flows within the Nottawasaga River
watershed.
2.4.1 Watersheds
The County of Simcoe includes two prominent tertiary watersheds, shown in Figure 2-2.
Both watersheds are managed by a separate Conservation Authority:
▪ Lake Simcoe - The Lake Simcoe watershed contains significant natural, urban, and
agricultural systems including parts of the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Greenbelt. It
also holds provincially significant wetlands, woodlands, and prime agricultural areas,
including specialty crop areas such as the Holland Marsh.
▪ Nottawasaga Valley - The Nottawasaga Valley is part of the Great Lakes Basin and is
a tributary of Lake Huron. The river flows from the Orangeville Reservoir in Dufferin
County, through the Niagara Escarpment and the Minesing Wetlands, and empties
into the Nottawasaga Bay, an inlet of Georgian Bay on Lake Huron.
Some shoreline areas in the County bordering Georgian Bay are located within the South
Georgian Bay Shoreline watershed, where surface flows are conveyed directly into
Georgian Bay.
2.4.2 Environmental Protection Plans
The County of Simcoe includes lands which are protected under four (4) major
environmental protection plans:
1. Niagara Escarpment Plan

2. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
3. Greenbelt Plan
4. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan
Notable for wastewater servicing, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan strictly prohibits the
discharge of additional sewage treatment plants in the area by [5]:
• Limiting phosphorus discharges from municipal and industrial sewage treatment

plants, and
• Stopping new sewage treatment plants that would discharge phosphorus from
being established.
Areas which are protected by each of these plans are shown graphically in Figure 2-3.

Final Report
Figure 2-2. Tertiary Watershed Boundaries

Final Report
Figure 2-3. Environmentally Protected Areas

Final Report
2.5 Planning Context
2.5.1 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement
The Planning Act is the provincial legislation which sets out the rules for land use
planning in Ontario. It describes how land uses may be controlled, and who may control
them.
Under the Planning Act, the Province will periodically issue Provincial Policy Statements
(PPS) on matters related to land use planning that are of provincial interest, with the
most recent PPS issued in 2020. Municipal planning decisions are to be consistent with
the policies of the PPS and includes policies which speak to the need for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including:
• Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form
of servicing for settlement areas to support protection of the environment and
minimize potential risks to human health and safety. Within settlement areas with
existing municipal sewage services and municipal water services, intensification
and redevelopment shall be promoted wherever feasible to optimize the use of the
services (section 1.6.6.2).
• At the time of the official plan review or update, planning authorities should assess
the long-term impacts of individual on-site sewage services and individual
on-site water services on the environmental health and the character of rural
settlement areas. Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the
upper-tier municipality should work with lower-tier municipalities at the time of the
official plan review or update to assess the long-term impacts of individual on-site
sewage services and individual on-site water services on the environmental health
and the desired character of rural settlement areas and the feasibility of other forms
of servicing set out in policies 1.6.6.2 and 1.6.6.3.
• Planning for sewage and water services shall accommodate forecasted growth in
a manner that promotes the efficient use and optimization of existing:
o municipal sewage and water services, and

o private communal sewage services and private communal water services,
where municipal sewage services and municipal water services are not
available or feasible (section 1.6.6.1.a)
In summary, the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) emphasizes the Province of

Ontario’s preference to have population and employment growth serviced by municipal
sewage and water systems instead of individual on-site systems. This policy is intended

Final Report
to support the protection of the environment and minimize potential risks to human
health and safety.
2.5.2 Places to Grow: Regional Growth Plan
The Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) is a secondary region in Ontario which is situated
at the western end of Lake Ontario, with outer boundaries extending south to Lake Erie
and north to Lake Scugog and Lake Simcoe. It includes the Greater Toronto Area and
adjacent upper-tier municipalities with substantial urban areas. The region is recognized
as one of North America’s fastest growing areas and is the most densely populated area
in Canada. A map showing the lower and upper-tier municipalities included in the
Greater Golden Horseshoe Region is shown in Figure 2-4.
In 2005 the Province of Ontario passed the Places to Grow Act which enables the
development of regional growth plans to guide government investments and land use
planning policies. Under this Act, the Province developed the Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH Growth Plan) and was the first growth plan in the
region. The Plan establishes a long-term framework for where and how the Region will
grow. The GGH Growth Plan is updated periodically, with the most recent update
occurring in 2019 [6].
The 2019 GGH Growth Plan estimates the total population in the County of Simcoe will
increase from an estimate of 344,000 in 2019 to 555,000 in 2051. Under the GGH
Growth Plan, the “vast majority of growth” will be directed to settlement areas that:
• have a Delineated Built Boundary,

• have existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems, and
• can support the achievement of “complete” communities.
Growth is to be limited in settlement areas that are not serviced by existing or planned
municipal water and wastewater systems.
Simcoe Sub-Area
The GGH Growth Plan provides specific growth management strategies for the Simcoe
Sub-area. The Simcoe Sub-area is comprised of the sixteen local municipalities within
the County of Simcoe and the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia (see Figure 2-5).
Section 6 of the GGH Growth Plan directs a significant portion of growth within the
Simcoe Sub-area to communities where development can be most effectively serviced,
and where growth improves the range of opportunities for people, with a particular
emphasis on primary settlement areas.

Final Report
The City of Barrie is recognized as the principal primary settlement area in the Simcoe
Sub-Area. Other primary settlement areas in the sub-area include:
• Town of Midland and Town of Penetanguishene

• Town of Collingwood
• Alliston (located within the Town of New Tecumseth)
• Alcona (located within the Town of Innisfil)
• Bradford (located within the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury)
• City of Orillia
Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR)

Under the GGH Growth Plan, the County of Simcoe is directed to allocate growth to its
lower-tier municipalities in a manner that implements the policies of the GGH Growth
Plan. This requires a significant portion of population and employment growth to be
directed to lower-tier municipalities that contain primary settlement areas and which
meet the requirements of the PPS, including existing or planned water and wastewater
systems.
The County is currently in the process of conducting the MCR and is engaging with local
municipalities to allocate growth forecasts. Preliminary population and employment
forecasts from the MCR process are presented in Table 2-1. Note, at the time of this
report’s publication the County was still in the process of updating these forecasts and
will likely change.

Final Report
Table 2-1. MCR Preliminary Population and Employment Growth Forecasts
Population Employment
2021 2021-2051 2021 2021-2051
Municipality Estimate Growth Estimate Growth
Adjala-Tosorontio 11,270 1,140 11,740 670
Bradford West Gwillimbury 43,590 42,870 10,250 21,080
Clearview 15,820 3,170 4,410 2,120
Collingwood 26,050 17,180 12,270 5,570
Essa 24,210 10,190 9,410 5,260
Innisfil 45,840 33,700 8,780 15,870
Midland 18,180 4,470 11,250 2,530
New Tecumseth 43,450 42,650 20,440 11,210
Oro-Medonte 23,150 3,890 6,510 4,380
Penetanguishene 9,800 2,310 5,320 1,180
Ramara 10,410 1,970 5,690 1,940
Severn 14,690 3,670 4,340 1,870
Springwater 22,020 12,710 6,460 3,010
Tay 11,020 1,860 2,060 710
Tiny 13,030 2,300 2,150 530
Wasaga Beach 24,450 13,530 4,940 2,700
Total 356,980 197,610 126,020 80,630

Final Report

Final Report

Final Report
3.0 CURRENT STATE
3.1 Population Density
Population density is an important consideration when evaluating the efficiency of water

and wastewater systems. Water and wastewater utilities are a natural monopoly with
significant fixed costs. Generally, it is more affordable to service residential properties
and employment lands which are densely populated with a relatively high number of
customers in a localized area. Delivering treated water and collecting wastewater
effluent across long distances can lead to increased costs, often resulting in higher rates
for property owners.
Population density in the County is geographically diverse, with a combination of rural

and urban regions. Most residents concentrated into urban settlement areas. The
population density in 2016, by Statistics Canada dissemination areas, is shown
graphically in Figure 3-1.
The County is expected to experience significant population and employment growth

over the next thirty years (as discussed in section 2.5.2). Schedule 3 of the Province of
Ontario’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH Growth Plan) estimates
the total population in the County will increase by 61% between 2019 and 2051 [6].
Understanding where this population and employment development will occur, and the
ability of municipalities to service this growth with municipal water and wastewater
services, is a critical component of effective growth management in the County.

Final Report
Figure 3-1. 2016 Population Density

Final Report
3.2 Water and Wastewater Systems
3.2.1 Water
There are 79 municipal drinking water systems owned by local municipalities or

Municipal Service Corporations (MSC) in Simcoe County. Individual drinking water
system capacities range from a low of 50 m3/day to a high of 38,000 m3/day.
A summary of drinking water systems, total operational capacity, and estimated

residential population equivalent that can be serviced for each municipality is presented
in Table 3-1. A complete list of drinking water system details is presented in Appendix 1
and a map showing the geographical location and relative size of each system is shown
in Figure 3-3. Note the equivalent population estimates are shown as a range and has
been estimated based on a range of average day demands and maximum day factors.
Further details of the calculations are contained in Appendix 1.
Table 3-1. Municipal Drinking Water System Summary
# of Total
Approximation of
Drinking Operational
Municipality Equivalent Serviced
Water Capacity
Population 1
Systems (m3/day)
Adjala-Tosorontio 6 6,173 4,200 - 6,700
Bradford West Gwillimbury 1 25,549 31,500 - 52,600
Clearview 6 10,422 10,300 - 17,200
Collingwood 1 31,140 36,400 - 60,700
Essa 3 12,744 13,600 - 22,700
Innisfil 4 44,873 51,500 - 85,900
Midland 1 20,244 17,500 - 29,200
New Tecumseth 2 29,482 35,800 - 59,600
Oro-Medonte 12 18,171 16,000 - 26,400
Penetanguishene 2 11,229 12,400 - 20,700
Ramara 7 5,964 6,400 - 10,600
Severn 6 6,781 8,600 - 14,300
Springwater 9 18,636 15,700 - 26,200
Tay 2 7,674 8,100 - 13,500
Tiny 16 12,344 9,800 - 16,100
Wasaga Beach 1 31,415 28,800 - 47,900
Total 79 292,841 306,300 - 510,700
1 - Assumes an average day residential water demand between 270 and 450 L/person/day. Maximum Day Factor for each system are estimated by taking the
greater of 1) actual 2020 max day factor, or 2) MECP guidelines for number of customers serviced. See Appendix 1 for system-specific values.
In addition to drinking water systems owned by local municipalities and MSCs there are
several private communal drinking water systems throughout the County. These private

Final Report
systems have not been considered in this report. Additional investigation may be
required to confirm the details of these systems.
Drinking water in the County is supplied through a combination of groundwater, surface

water, and combined groundwater and surface water systems. The total number of
systems and their total operational capacity, by source water type, is summarized in
Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2.
Table 3-2. Water Supply Sources
Total
# of Operational
Source Type
Systems Capacity
(m3/day)
Groundwater 65 157,326
Surface Water 11 85,014
Groundwater and Surface Water 3 50,501
TOTAL 79 292,841
Groundwater and
Surface Water
50,501 m3/d
17%
Groundwater
Surface Water 157,326 m3/d
85,014 m3/d 54%
29%
Figure 3-2. Water Supply Sources

Final Report
Figure 3-3. Drinking Water Systems Map

Final Report
3.2.2 Wastewater
There are 27 wastewater systems owned by a local municipality or Municipal Service

Corporation (MSC) in the County of Simcoe. System capacities range in size from a low
of 175 m3/day, to a high of 24,548 m3/day.
A summary of wastewater systems, total operational capacity, and estimated residential

population equivalent that can be serviced for each municipality is presented in Table
3-3. A complete list of wastewater system details is presented in Appendix 1 and a map
showing the geographical location and relative size of each system is shown in Figure
3-4. Note the equivalent population is shown as a range and has been estimated based
on a range of population based average day demands. Further details of the calculations
are contained in Appendix 1.
Table 3-3. Municipal Wastewater System Summary
Total
Approximation of
# of Operational
Municipality Equivalent Serviced
Systems Capacity
Population 1
(m3/day)
Adjala-Tosorontio 1 80 200 - 250
Bradford West Gwillimbury 1 19,400 43,100 - 59,700
Clearview 2 2,970 6,600 - 9,150
Collingwood 1 24,548 54,550 - 75,550
Essa 1 5,511 12,250 - 16,950
Innisfil 2 17,825 39,600 - 54,850
Midland 1 15,665 34,800 - 48,200
New Tecumseth 3 17,358 38,550 - 53,400
Oro-Medonte 1 147 350 - 450
Penetanguishene 2 6,750 15,000 - 20,750
Ramara 2 2,672 5,950 - 8,200
Severn 3 2,539 5,650 - 7,800
Springwater 4 3,164 7,050 - 9,750
Tay 2 4,282 9,500 - 13,200
Tiny 0 0 0-0
Wasaga Beach 1 15,433 34,300 - 47,500
Total 27 138,344 307,450 - 425,700
1 - Assumes an average daily flow demand between 325 and 450 L/person/day and Peak Daily Flows do not limit the
ability of systems to service properties.
In addition to wastewater systems owned by local municipalities and MSCs, there are
several private communal wastewater systems throughout the County. These private
systems have not been considered in this report. Additional investigation may be
required to confirm the details of these systems.

Final Report
Each wastewater treatment plant discharges treated effluent to a nearby receiving body
of water in accordance with their Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) (previously
known as a Certificate of Approval) issued by the MECP. System owners and operators
are responsible for ensuring effluent characteristics meet the treatment requirements as
defined by their ECA.
Wastewater effluent from municipal wastewater systems in the County discharge to

several different receiving bodies, located in three different tertiary watersheds. The total
operational capacity of wastewater systems within each watershed and receiving body is
summarized in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Watershed and Receiving Body Summary
Total
Operational
# of Capacity
Watershed & Receiving Body Systems (m3/day)
Lake Simcoe 6 40,690
Green River 1 228
Lake Couchiching 1 1,390
Lake Simcoe 2 19,273
Spray Irrigation Field 1 399
West Holland River 1 19,400
Nottawasaga River 15 46,409
Beeton Creek 1 4,082
Boyne River 1 5,681
Coldwater River 1 921
Innisfil Creek 1 825
Lamont Creek 1 2,500
Mad River 1 470
Nottawasaga River 3 28,539
Subsurface Disposal Beds 5 1,591
Wye River 1 1,800
South Georgian Bay Shoreline 6 51,245
Georgian Bay 3 28,830
Midland Bay 1 15,665
Penetanguishene Bay 2 6,750
It is important to note that each receiving body is environmentally sensitive and

appropriate measures must be in place to ensure the receiving body’s assimilative
capacity is maintained or improved. The assimilative capacity is the upper limit of a
receiving body’s ability to assimilate (absorb) pollutants and wastewater effluent without
detrimental effects to the environment or those who use of it.

Final Report
Figure 3-4. Wastewater Systems Map

Some municipalities did not provide sewermain GIS data (Innisfil, Severn, Tay, Adjala-
Tosorontio)
Final Report
3.3 Spare Capacity Analysis
3.3.1 Water
The “spare” capacity of each drinking water system under current operating conditions
and populations has been approximated to assess the ability of each municipality to
service future growth. Spare capacity has been estimated by comparing the Maximum
Day Demands (MDD) recorded in 2020 to each system’s total operational capacity. This
assessment is for existing systems only and does not consider a Municipality’s planned
expansions or capital works to increase the capacity of their systems. Note this is a high-
level assessment only and should be interpreted and used with caution. In order to refine
the spare capacity of the existing systems, a more thorough analysis of the last 5 years
of water demands, populations and industrial water demands should be completed.
The spare capacity (m3/day) of each water system has been converted into a range of
residential-equivalent population using the equation below. Key assumptions of this
analysis are:
• Average Domestic Water Demand ranges between 270 to 450 L/person/day.
• Maximum Day Factor for each system is estimated by taking the greater of two
values: 1) actual 2020 Maximum Day Factors, or 2) recommended population-
based Maximum Day Factors listed in the MECP Design Guidelines for Drinking-
Water Systems.
• Drinking water systems can operate efficiently up to 100% of their operational

capacity with no additional limitations other than what has been reported by the
local municipality.
• 10% factor of safety and uncertainty has been applied to 2020 Maximum Day
Demands to account for limited historical data availability.
(𝑆𝑂𝐶 − 1.10 ∗ 𝑀𝐷𝐷2020 )

𝑆𝐶𝑒𝑞.𝑝𝑜𝑝. =
(𝑀𝐷𝐹 ∗ 𝐴𝐷𝑊𝐷)
Where:
SCeq.pop. = Spare Capacity (residential equivalent population)

SOC = System Operational Capacity (m3/day)
MDD2020 = Maximum Day Demand in 2020 (m3/day)
MDF = Maximum Day Factor
ADWD = Average Domestic Water Demand (m3/day) which ranges between 0.270 and 0.450 m3/person/day.

Final Report
The total spare capacity available for each municipality is summarized in Table 3-5. In
summary, the total spare capacity of drinking water in the County is estimated to be
between 121,000 and 229,500 residential-equivalent population.
Table 3-5. Drinking Water Spare Capacity Analysis Results
Demand1 Spare
Total Capacity
as Spare
Operational (equivalent
Municipality % of Capacity
Capacity population)
Operational (m3/day)
(m3/day)
Capacity
Low High
Adjala-Tosorontio 6,173 33% 4,140 2,800 4,800
Bradford West Gwillimbury 25,549 62% 9,726 12,000 23,000
Clearview 10,422 54% 4,787 4,600 8,400
Collingwood 31,140 87% 4,106 4,800 12,800
Essa 12,744 64% 4,559 5,100 9,700
Innisfil 44,873 58% 18,780 21,700 40,600
Midland 20,244 71% 5,956 5,100 10,500
New Tecumseth 29,482 69% 9,285 11,300 22,600
Oro-Medonte 18,171 23% 14,000 12,700 21,600
Penetanguishene 11,229 49% 5,773 6,300 11,500
Ramara 5,964 37% 3,780 4,000 7,200
Severn 6,781 38% 4,227 5,400 9,500
Springwater 18,636 52% 9,016 8,400 15,000
Tay 7,674 74% 2,012 2,100 4,400
Tiny 12,344 54% 5,686 4,600 8,200
Wasaga Beach 31,415 65% 11,088 10,100 19,700
Total 292,841 61% 116,921 121,000 229,500
1 - Representative historical demand is assumed equal to 110% of 2020 Max Day Demand.

Final Report
3.3.2 Wastewater
The “spare” capacity of each wastewater system has been approximated under current
operating conditions and populations to assess the ability of each municipality to service
future growth. Spare capacity has been estimated by comparing the Average Daily
Flows (ADF) recorded in 2020 to each system’s total operational capacity. This
assessment is for existing systems only and does not consider a Municipality’s planned
expansions or capital works to increase the capacity of their systems. Note this is a high-
level assessment only and should be interpreted and used with caution. In order to refine
the spare capacity of the existing systems, a more thorough analysis of the last 5 years
of water demands, populations and industrial water demands should be completed.
The spare capacity (m3/day) of each wastewater system has been converted into a
range of residential-equivalent population using the equation below. Key assumptions of
this analysis include:
• Average Domestic Wastewater Demand (ADWWD) ranges between 325 to

450 L/person/day.
• Peak Daily Flows, Peak Instantaneous Flows and Peak Loading Factors to the
treatment facilities are not a limiting factor.
• The wastewater systems can operate efficiently and continue to meet ECA
requirements up to 100% of their operational capacity with no additional
limitations other than what has been reported by the local municipality.
• 10% factor of safety and uncertainty has been applied to 2020 Average Daily
Flow to account for limited historical data availability and flow variation.
(𝑆𝑂𝐶 − 1.10 ∗ 𝐴𝐷𝐹2020 )

𝑆𝐶𝑒𝑞.𝑝𝑜𝑝. =
(𝐴𝐷𝑊𝑊𝐷)
Where:
SCeq.pop. = Spare Capacity (residential equivalent population)

SOC = System Operational Capacity (m3/day)
ADF2020 = Maximum Day Demand in 2020 (m3/day)
ADWWD = Average Domestic Wastewater Demand which ranges between 0.325 and 0.450 m3/person/day.
The total spare capacity available for each municipality is summarized in Table 3-6. In
summary, the total spare capacity of wastewater systems in the County of Simcoe is
estimated to be between 103,600 and 143,600 residential-equivalent population.

Final Report
Table 3-6. Wastewater Spare Capacity Analysis Results
Demand1 Spare
Total Capacity Estimate
as Spare
Operational (equivalent
Municipality % of Capacity
Capacity population)
Operational (m3/day)
(m3/day)
Capacity Low High
Adjala-Tosorontio 80 100% 0 0 0
Bradford West Gwillimbury 19,400 66% 6,687 14,900 20,600
Clearview 2,970 67% 970 2,200 3,000
Collingwood 24,548 84% 3,809 8,500 11,700
Essa 5,511 49% 2,831 6,300 8,700
Innisfil 17,825 69% 5,571 12,400 17,200
Midland 15,665 55% 7,048 15,700 21,700
New Tecumseth 17,358 73% 4,720 10,500 14,600
Oro-Medonte 147 100% 0 0 0
Penetanguishene 6,750 57% 2,909 6,400 9,000
Ramara 2,672 74% 741 1,600 2,300
Severn 2,539 64% 916 2,000 2,900
Springwater 3,164 52% 1,516 3,400 4,700
Tay 4,282 98% 485 1,100 1,500
Tiny 0 NA 0 0 0
Wasaga Beach 15,433 46% 8,357 18,600 25,700
Total 138,344 67% 46,559 103,600 143,600
1 - Representative historical demand is assumed equal to 110% of 2020 Average Daily Flow.
3.3.3 Integrated Spare Capacity
The Ontario Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the GGH Growth Plan direct
municipalities to allocate the “vast majority” of growth to settlement areas which are
serviced by an existing or planned municipal water and wastewater system. As such,
municipalities should consider the availability of water and wastewater servicing when
considering future population and employment allocations.
A preliminary assessment of the residential equivalent-population which can be serviced

by the existing water and wastewater systems within each municipality is summarized in
Table 3-7 and Figure 3-5. This summary assumes the maximum number of residential
equivalent-population which can be serviced is the lowest of the water or wastewater
systems spare capacity.

Final Report
Note this is a relatively high-level analysis and additional investigations are warranted to
confirm the serviceable population estimates within each municipality and settlement
areas. Results should be used with caution and are only intended for strategic-level
planning discussions. Findings should not be used by the County or local municipalities
to allocate population or employment.
Table 3-7. Summary of Integrated Spare Capacity
Spare Capacity Estimate (equivalent

population) Integrated Spare
Capacity
Municipality Water Wastewater
Low High Low High Low High
Adjala-Tosorontio 2,800 4,800 0 0 0 0
Bradford West Gwillimbury 12,000 23,000 14,900 20,600 12,000 20,600
Clearview 4,600 8,400 2,200 3,000 2,200 3,000
Collingwood 4,800 12,800 8,500 11,700 4,800 11,700
Essa 5,100 9,700 6,300 8,700 5,100 8,700
Innisfil 21,700 40,600 12,400 17,200 12,400 17,200
Midland 5,100 10,500 15,700 21,700 5,100 10,500
New Tecumseth 11,300 22,600 10,500 14,600 10,500 14,600
Oro-Medonte 12,700 21,600 0 0 0 0
Penetanguishene 6,300 11,500 6,400 9,000 6,300 9,000
Ramara 4,000 7,200 1,600 2,300 1,600 2,300
Severn 5,400 9,500 2,000 2,900 2,000 2,900
Springwater 8,400 15,000 3,400 4,700 3,400 4,700
Tay 2,100 4,400 1,100 1,500 1,100 1,500
Tiny 4,600 8,200 0 0 0 0
Wasaga Beach 10,100 19,700 18,600 25,700 10,100 19,700
Total 121,000 229,500 103,600 143,600 76,600 126,400

Final Report
25,000
Integrated Spare Capacity (eq.pop)

20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Low Estimate High Estimate
Figure 3-5. Integrated Spare Capacity Results
3.4 Planned Capacity Increases
In addition to the water and wastewater systems currently in operation, municipalities

throughout the County are in various stages of planning, designing, or constructing
additional capacity. A review of planning documents, studies, and correspondence from
each local municipality was completed to estimate the total planned water and
wastewater capacity for each municipality. Details of this review are provided in
Appendix 2.
In summary, most municipalities have indicated they will likely require additional water
and wastewater capacity to meet the growth requirements in their community. This
planned increase could be at least 90,500 m3/day and 70,900 m3/day for water and
wastewater, respectively. The time horizon for these planned increases varies
depending on the municipality. Generally, the time horizon for planned increases is to
service anticipated growth needs up to 2031, however some municipalities (such as
Innisfil and Collingwood) are planning beyond this time horizon. Additionally, some
municipalities have identified the need for additional capacity, but the documentation
reviewed does not clearly indicate the magnitude of this need. The total planned water
and wastewater capacity for each municipality, as available, is summarized in Table 3-8
and Table 3-9.

Final Report
Table 3-8. Planned Water Capacity
Planned
Current Capacity Total Planned
Capacity Increase Capacity
Municipality (m3/day) (m3/day) (m3/day) % Increase
Adjala-Tosorontio 6,173 1,962 8,135 32%
BWG 25,549 6,351 31,900 25%
Clearview 10,422 5,645 16,067 54%
Collingwood 31,140 69,929 101,069 225%
Essa 12,744 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Innisfil 44,873 47,000 91,873 105%
Midland 20,244 0 20,244 0%
New Tecumseth 29,482 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Oro-Medonte 18,171 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Penetanguishene 11,229 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Ramara 5,964 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Severn 6,781 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Springwater 18,636 14,947 33,583 80%
Tay 7,674 3,480 11,154 45%
Tiny 12,344 0 12,344 0%
Wasaga Beach 31,415 TBD1 TBD TBD1
Total 292,841 149,314 + 326,369 + 51%
1- Staff or documentation reviewed indicates a capacity increase is likely required but the magnitude of this increase is not
well defined at this time.

Final Report
Table 3-9. Planned Wastewater Capacity
Planned
Current Capacity Planned
Capacity Increase Capacity
Municipality (m3/day) (m3/day) (m3/day) % Increase
Adjala-Tosorontio 80 4,218 4,298 5273%
BWG 19,400 3,900 23,300 20%
Clearview 2,970 5,390 8,360 181%
Collingwood 24,548 11,637 36,185 47%
Essa 5,511 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Innisfil 17,825 24,933 42,758 140%
Midland 15,665 5,216 20,881 33%
New Tecumseth 17,358 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Oro-Medonte 147 3,386 3,533 2302%
Penetanguishene 6,750 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Ramara 2,672 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Severn 2,539 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Springwater 3,164 12,314 15,478 389%
Tay 4,282 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Tiny 0 0 0 0%
Wasaga Beach 15,433 TBD1 TBD1 TBD1
Total 138,344 70,994 + 154,794 + 51%
1- Staff or documentation reviewed indicates a capacity increase is likely required but the magnitude of this increase is not
well defined at this time.

Final Report
3.5 Governance Structures
All water and wastewater systems in the County are governed locally by each
municipality. There are three (3) types of governance models adopted by local
municipalities to deliver water & wastewater services:
1. Municipally owned & operated
A municipally owned & operated system is the most popular service delivery
model in the County with 8 local municipalities using this model. In this model the
municipality owns and maintains all water and wastewater infrastructure and
manages, oversees, and employs water & wastewater operators and support
staff to deliver water & wastewater services to meet current and future
regulations. Municipalities using this model include:
1) Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

2) Township of Clearview
3) Town of Collingwood
4) Town of Midland
5) Town of New Tecumseth
6) Town of Penetanguishene
7) Township of Severn
8) Township of Tiny
2. Municipally owned, OCWA support
A municipally owned system with operation or other supplementary support from

a third-party (exclusively OCWA) is a popular service delivery model in the
County with 6 local municipalities. In this model the municipality retains
ownership and control of the infrastructure systems and provides management
and oversight of the system operations, however OCWA is retained as a third-
party contractor to operate, maintain, or manage the systems. This model
requires close collaboration between the local municipality’s management team
and OCWA. This model is more popular among smaller municipalities who may
find it difficult to recruit and retain qualified staff and provide specialized support
services (legal, compliance, procurement, engineering). Municipalities which use
this model include:
1) Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
2) Township of Essa
3) Township of Ramara
4) Township of Springwater
5) Town of Wasaga Beach

Final Report
6) Township of Tay
3. Municipal Service Corporation (MSC)
A Municipal Service Corporation (MSC) is a corporation which is owned by a

municipality and delivers a service that the municipality could otherwise provide.
MSC are unique from the municipally owned & operated model as they are
governed by a skills-based Board of Directors instead of Council and provide
some flexibility on debt borrowing limits. MSCs are regulated under the Municipal
Act - Section 203, and Ontario Regulation 599/06. Municipalities which use this
model include:
1) Town of Innisfil
2) Township of Oro-Medonte
3.6 Cross-Boundary Servicing
Several municipalities in the County have entered contractual relationships with

neighboring municipalities to provide and/or support water and wastewater services. In
one case, there is even a cross-County servicing agreement. The types of partnerships
between these municipalities are summarized below.
1. Collingwood and Blue Mountains - Water Supply
The Town of Blue Mountains (located in Grey County) is supplied with treated
surface water from the Collingwood Water Treatment Plant. The agreement
permits Blue Mountains to receive up to 1,250 m3/day of treated surface water.
2. Collingwood and New Tecumseth - Water Supply
The Alliston drinking water system in New Tecumseth is supplied with treated
surface water through the Collingwood - New Tecumseth transmission line. The
agreement permits New Tecumseth to receive up to 9,500 m3/day of treated
surface water. The agreement permits New Tecumseth to supply water from the
Collingwood - New Tecumseth transmission line to neighbouring municipalities.
At the time of this report’s publication this agreement was in the process of
renegotiation.
3. New Tecumseth and Clearview (New Lowell) - Water Supply
The New Lowell drinking water system in Clearview is supplied with treated
surface water through the Collingwood - New Tecumseth transmission line
through an agreement with the Town of New Tecumseth. The agreement permits
Clearview to receive 250 m3/day of treated surface water.

Final Report
4. New Tecumseth and Essa (Baxter) - Water Supply
The Baxter drinking water systems in Essa are supplied treated surface water
through the Collingwood - New Tecumseth transmission line through an
agreement with the Town of New Tecumseth. The agreement permits Essa to
receive up to 100 m3/day of treated surface water for Baxter.
5. Clearview and Wasaga Beach - Wastewater Treatment
The Stayner settlement area in Clearview will convey wastewater to the Wasaga
Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. The agreement permits Clearview to convey
up to 5,000 m3/day of sewerage. No sewerage is currently being conveyed but is
anticipated to begin in 2022.
6. Innisfil and Bradford-West-Gwillimbury (BWG) - Water Supply
The BWG drinking water system is supplied with treated surface water through a
transmission line supplied by the Innisfil Water Treatment Plant. Treated water is
stored in a large reservoir. The agreement permits BWG to receive up to 19,000
m3/day of treated surface water.
7. Ramara and Severn - Water Supply
The Somerset/Knob Hill drinking water system in the Township of Ramara is

supplied by the Township of Severn’s Washago Water Treatment Plant. It is
unknown what capacity of treated water this agreement permits.
8. Midland and Tay - Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment
Two properties situated along the municipal border of the Township of Tay are
provided with water supply and wastewater treatment services from the Town of
Midland. Water supply is metered and Midland charges the Township of Tay for
the services provided, who in turn invoice the corresponding property owners.
A map showing the location of existing inter-municipal servicing agreements is shown in

Figure 3-6.

Final Report
Figure 3-6. Cross-Boundary Servicing

Final Report
3.7 Master Service Planning Maturity
Master Servicing Plans (MSP) are important planning documents for growing
communities to ensure the municipalities can sustainably provide water and wastewater
services to current and future residents. Ultimately, the MSP identifies long-term
strategies, initiatives, programs, and infrastructure projects to meet water and
wastewater servicing needs up to a specific planning period or development scenario.
MSPs are typically updated every 5 to 10 years as significant changes to servicing or
development may occur. The plans often form the basis for future studies for proposed
infrastructure projects.
Complete MSPs will typically assess all elements of the water and wastewater systems,
including:
Water: Wastewater:
• Supply • Pumping
• Treatment • Storage
• Storage • Treatment and Discharge
• Transmission and Distribution • Collection and Conveyance
A high-level review of each municipality’s MPSs has been performed and are
categorized as follows:
1. Complete - The Municipality has a complete MSP which covers all key elements,
is compiled into a comprehensive planning document, and encompasses the entire
municipality.
2. Partially Complete - The Municipality has performed key elements of a MSP, but
it is:
a) missing one or more key elements and/or

b) only focuses on specific settlement area or secondary plan and/or
c) has not compiled all elements in a comprehensive MSP document.
3. Incomplete - The Municipality has not completed a MSP.
Figure 3-7 presents the overall master planning maturity levels for Simcoe’s
municipalities. In summary, there is a variety of master planning maturity throughout the
County, with 5 municipalities rated as Complete, 6 municipalities rated as Partially
Complete, and 5 municipalities rated as Incomplete.

Final Report
# of municipalities
5
0
Complete Partial Incomplete
Master Service Plan Maturity
Figure 3-7. Master Service Planning Maturity
Additional details of each Municipality’s MSP and planning horizons is presented in

Appendix 3.
3.8 User Rate Structures and Fees
Municipalities in the County of Simcoe use a variety of user rate structures to calculate
user fees for water and wastewater services. Municipalities which have water meters
installed on properties typically rely on a combination of a fixed and volumetric rate
structure.
In summary, there were seven (7) different types of rate structures used in the County,
described below:
1. Constant Fixed - users are only charged a fixed rate each billing period,
regardless of the volume of water consumed or water meter size. This structure is
primarily used when a municipality does not have water meters installed on user
properties. Municipalities which rely on this rate structure include:
a. Township of Tay (Water and Wastewater)

b. Township of Tiny (Water)
2. Constant Volumetric - users are only charged for the water consumed each
billing rate at a constant unit rate. The unit rate does not increase or decrease
depending on the volume of water used. Municipalities which rely on this rate
structure include:
a. Town of New Tecumseth (Water and Wastewater)

Final Report
3. Constant Fixed & Volumetric - users are charged a flat fixed rate each billing
period as well as a consumption charge at a constant unit rate. The fixed and
volumetric rate are constant and does not increase or decrease depending on the
water meter size or volume of water used. Municipalities which rely on this rate
structure include:
a. Town of Innisfil (Water and Wastewater)

b. Town of Midland (Water and Wastewater)
c. Township of Springwater (Wastewater)
d. Township of Adjala-Tosorontio (Water and Wastewater)
e. Town of Penetanguishene (Wastewater)
f. Township of Clearview (Water)
4. Varied Fixed & Constant Volumetric - users are charged a varied fixed rate
depending on their property’s water meter size each billing period, as well as a
consumption charge at a constant unit rate. The volumetric rate is constant and
does not increase or decrease depending on the volume of water used.
Municipalities which rely on this rate structure include:
a. Township of Essa (Water)

b. Town of Penetanguishene (Water)
c. Township of Ramara (Water and Wastewater)
d. Town of Wasaga Beach (Water and Wastewater)
5. Constant Fixed & Varied Volumetric - users are charged a flat fixed rate each
billing period as well as a consumption charge at a varied unit rate. The fixed rate
is constant and does not increase or decrease depending on the water meter size,
however the volumetric rate increases or decreases depending on the volume of
water used. Municipalities which rely on this rate structure include:
a. Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury (Water and Wastewater)

b. Township of Oro-Medonte (Water)
c. Township of Severn (Water and Wastewater)
d. Township of Springwater (Water)
6. Varied Fixed & Volumetric - users are charged a varied fixed rate depending on
their property’s water meter size each billing period, as well as a consumption
charge at a varied unit rate. The volumetric rate increases or decreases depending
on the volume of water used. Municipalities which rely on this rate structure
include:
a. Town of Collingwood (Water and Wastewater)

b. Town of Penetanguishene (Water)

Final Report
7. Water Consumption Surcharge (wastewater only) - users are charged a

surcharge (percentage) of their water bill to determine the fees for wastewater
services. If a property does not receive water services, they are typically charged
a constant fixed rate. Municipalities which rely on this rate structure include:
a. Township of Clearview (Wastewater)

b. Township of Essa (Wastewater)
A summary of the rate structures and typical annual cost (assuming 200 m3 per annum
with 1” meter) for a residence are summarized in Table 3-10, Table 3-11, and Figure 3-8.
Table 3-10. Water Rate Structure and Typical Annual Residence Cost
Typical
Annual
Cost per
Municipality Rate Structure Residence
Adjala-Tosorontio Constant Fixed & Volumetric $988
Bradford West Gwillimbury Constant Fixed & Varied Volumetric $527
Clearview Constant Fixed & Volumetric $706
Collingwood Varied Fixed & Volumetric $409
Essa Varied Fixed & Constant Volumetric $385
Innisfil Constant Fixed & Volumetric $715
Midland Constant Fixed & Volumetric $472
New Tecumseth Constant Volumetric $444
Oro-Medonte Constant Fixed & Varied Volumetric $996
Penetanguishene Varied Fixed & Volumetric $452
Ramara Varied Fixed & Constant Volumetric $1,212
Severn Constant Fixed & Varied Volumetric $782
Springwater Constant Fixed & Varied Volumetric $574
Tay Constant Fixed $833
Tiny Constant Fixed* $932
Wasaga Beach Varied Fixed & Constant Volumetric $250
* Tiny is currently in the process of adding water meters to its drinking water systems.

Final Report
Table 3-11. Wastewater Rate Structure and Typical Annual Residence Cost
Typical
Annual
Cost per
Municipality Description Residence
Adjala-Tosorontio Constant Fixed & Volumetric $1,313
Bradford West Gwillimbury Constant Fixed & Varied Volumetric $469
Clearview Water Surcharge $752
Collingwood Varied Fixed & Volumetric $605
Essa Water Surcharge $477
Innisfil Constant Fixed & Volumetric $507
Midland Constant Fixed & Volumetric $546
New Tecumseth Constant Volumetric $444
Oro-Medonte Constant Fixed $470
Penetanguishene Constant Fixed & Volumetric $747
Ramara Varied Fixed & Constant Volumetric $1,654
Severn Constant Fixed & Varied Volumetric $748
Springwater Constant Fixed & Volumetric $907
Tay Constant Fixed $946
Tiny NA NA
Wasaga Beach Varied Fixed & Constant Volumetric $329
$1,800
Typical Annual Residential Cost
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
Water Wastewater
Figure 3-8. Typical Annual Residential User Fees

Final Report
The typical annual residential user fee calculation assumes:
• 1” residential water meter

• 200 m3 water consumed per annum
• Where applicable, wastewater fees determined using water surcharge rate, not the
fixed rate.
Water and wastewater user rates are expected to change over time as municipalities
achieve a full cost recovery model. Some municipalities currently have, or have
historically had, depressed user fees and the typical residential user fees calculated
above do not necessarily indicate the relative financial health of each municipality’s
water and wastewater systems.
3.9 Long-Term Expenditures Forecast
Capital, operations, and maintenance expenditures for the period 2021-2031 are
estimated thru a comprehensive review of municipal financial planning documents such
as water and sewer rate studies, development charges background studies, budgets, or
long-term financial plans. Generally, most municipalities have identified significant
capital expenditures over this period, whereas operations and maintenance (O&M) are
less readily available. It is assumed future O&M costs will increase at an estimated
inflation rate of 2% per year to overcome this gap.
In summary, total capital and O&M expenditures in the County are estimated to be $1.1
billion and $819 million, respectively. Annual total expenditures are presented in Figure
3-9 and Figure 3-10, and a detailed breakdown of anticipated expenditures within each
municipality is included as Appendix 4.

Final Report
$180
Millions
$160
$140
$120
Amount
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Year
Figure 3-9. Total Annual Forecasted Capital Expenditures
$100
Millions
$90
$80
$70
$60
Amount
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Year
Figure 3-10. Total Annual Forecasted O&M Expenditures
3.10 Asset Management Maturity
Generally, municipalities in the County are at a foundational level of asset management

planning. Most municipalities have adopted an AM Policy and have prepared an Asset
Management Plan (AMP), however information from the plan is not often used in annual

Final Report
decision-making and budgeting. Many municipalities are currently in the process of

updating their AMPs to comply with O.Reg. 588/17. The status of each municipality’s
Asset Management Policy and Asset Management Plan is summarized in Table 3-12.
Table 3-12. Asset Management Maturity
Municipality Policy Plan

Adjala-Tosorontio Yes - 2019 Yes - 2020
Bradford West Gwillimbury Yes - 2019 Yes - 2016
Clearview Yes - 2019 Yes - 2016
Collingwood Yes - 2019 Yes - 2014
Essa Unknown Yes - 2014
Innisfil Yes - 2019 Yes - 2014
Midland Yes - 2019 Yes - 2014
New Tecumseth Yes - 2019 Yes - 2016
Oro-Medonte Yes - 2019 Yes - 2015
Ramara Yes - 2019 Yes - 2013
Severn Yes - 2019 Yes - 2021
Springwater Yes - 2019 In Progress
Tay Unknown Yes - 2018
Tiny Yes - 2019 No
Wasaga Beach Yes - 2020 Yes - 2016
3.11 Summary
The following summarizes the current state of water and wastewater service delivery in
the County of Simcoe:
• Population density in the County is geographically diverse, with a combination of

rural and urban regions. Most residents are concentrated into urban settlement
areas throughout the County (Alliston, Beeton, Tottenham, Alcona, Bradford,
Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Midland, Penetanguishene, Port McNicoll, Victoria
Harbour, Angus).
• There is a high proportion of relatively small municipal water and wastewater

systems servicing a limited number of properties.
o 14 of the 78 drinking systems in the County account for over 80% of the
County’s total water capacity, whereas the remaining 64 municipal
systems account for less than 20% of the total capacity.

Final Report
o 6 of the 27 wastewater systems in the County account for over 70% of the
County’s total wastewater capacity, whereas the remaining systems
account for less than 30% of the total capacity.
• Significant water supply and wastewater treatment capacity expansions and

upgrades are likely required throughout the County to achieve the anticipated
population growth targets identified in the GGH Growth Plan.
• There is a wide range in typical water and wastewater residence user fees
between municipalities, with areas with more fragmented systems spread out to
service smaller population centers generally experiencing the highest user fees.
• All water and wastewater systems are governed at the local level, with three
primary governance structures used: Municipal owned & operated, Municipal
owned & third-party operated, and Municipal Service Corporations. Municipal
owned & operated is the most popular governance model in the County.
• Water and wastewater master planning capabilities are diverse throughout the
County. Larger and more urban areas typically have stronger long-term planning
capabilities whereas smaller groups are planning on an ad-hoc basis.
• Most municipalities have forecasted capital, operations, and maintenance

expenditures over a 10-year period (up to 2030). Total forecasted capital and
O&M expenditures in the County are estimated to be $1.1 billion and $819
million, respectively.
• Most municipalities have identified anticipated expansions and upgrades to their

water and wastewater systems to service short-term growth. Some municipalities
have detailed plans whereas others are identified anecdotally.
• Asset management planning practices throughout the County are at a

foundational level, however many municipalities are expected to make significant
progress in 2022 to meet O.Reg. 588/17’s reporting requirements.

Final Report
4.0 CHALLENGES
Challenges to the sustainable delivery of water and wastewater services were identified
through stakeholder engagement with all 16 local municipalities in the County.
Challenges were identified and validated by RVA’s project team through 4 key
engagement sessions, listed below:
1. Individual Meeting #1 - Sixteen (16) one-on-one interviews with staff from each
municipality to discuss the current state of water and wastewater systems and
potential challenges to sustainable service delivery. Meetings with local
municipalities were held between April and June 2021.
2. Individual Meeting #2 - Sixteen (16) one-on-one interviews with elected officials

and staff from each municipality to review the current state of water and
wastewater systems and discuss potential challenges to sustainable service
delivery. Meetings with local municipalities were held between August and
September 2021.
3. Group Meeting #1 - Two (2) group meetings with staff from eight (8)
municipalities each to review potential challenges, discuss regional utility
opportunities, and identify potential role / support from the County. Two group
meetings were held, one with municipalities in South Simcoe on November 8,
2021, and a second with municipalities in North Simcoe on November 9, 2021.
4. Group Meeting #2 - Two (2) group meetings with elected officials and staff from
eight (8) municipalities each to review potential challenges, discuss regional
utility opportunities, potential role / support from the County, and alternative
governance structures. Two group meetings were held, one with municipalities in
South Simcoe on November 30, 2021, and a second with municipalities in North
Simcoe on November 26, 2021.
4.1 Challenges Identified
Current and future challenges for each municipality were solicited from staff and elected
officials in two rounds of meetings. Responses from stakeholders were reviewed by
RVA’s project team and grouped together into common challenges or concerns. In total,
there were 25 unique challenges identified. Challenges were then categorized as either
Technical, Environmental, Organizational, Financial, or Social/Political and are listed in
Table 4-1.

Final Report
Table 4-1. Challenges Identified
# Challenge Description
Technical
1 Keeping pace with growth Many systems will likely reach their operational limit within the next 30 years and require major
expansions and/or upgrades to service additional residential, commercial, institutional, and
industrial growth.
2 Limited groundwater Some communities have limited groundwater resources available for future water supply. This
availability is particularly a challenge for inland municipalities that anticipate significant growth. These
communities will likely need to obtain additional water supply from larger surface water bodies
(e.g., Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe) from surrounding municipalities in the long-term to
accommodate growth.
3 Aging infrastructure causing Linear infrastructure (watermains, sewermains) constructed before the 1940s and electrical
performance issues and mechanical equipment in facilities constructed before the 1990s are approaching the end
of their service life and beginning to cause performance issues.
4 Limited redundancy in In some areas water supply is limited to an individual source and if this source were to fail
existing water supply (e.g., groundwater contamination, transmission line failure) the community would be
sources challenged to maintain adequate water supply.
5 Coordination and planning Some communities currently rely on partners outside of their jurisdiction to provide water
between municipalities supply or treat wastewater effluent. Coordination and planning with these partners can be a
challenge when competing interests exist.
6 Limited long-term planning Planning horizons for some municipal infrastructure systems is limited, resulting in a lack of
for water and wastewater clarity on the overall direction and financial requirements of the system.
systems
Environmental
7 Strict nutrient loading Several receiving bodies are approaching (or believed to be approaching) their assimilative
requirements and effluent capacity in the short or long-term and as a result, have strict loading requirements. Examples
criteria include Lake Simcoe, Nottawasaga River, Boyne River, Lamont Creek, and Penetanguishene
Harbour. Notably, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan prohibits additional phosphorus loading
into Lake Simcoe, placing additional barriers to growth for communities within its watershed.

Final Report
8 High number of properties A significant portion of property owners rely on private well and septic systems. On-site septic
serviced by private well & systems have the potential to impact local water quality.
septic systems
9 Spreading of hauled septage Spreading of hauled septage on open fields results in increased nutrient surface runoff,
on open fields impacting the quality of local water sources.
10 Increasing threat of climate Increasing threat of climate change which could impact system reliability and overall service
change delivery.
Financial
11 Large investments required Significant investments are anticipated to service population and employment growth.
to service growth needs
12 Limited ability to finance Limited ability (or willingness) to finance investments due to debt borrowing limits, hesitancy
investments from landowners / developers to front-end investments, limited reserves, or hesitancy from
elected officials to take on new debt.
13 New or strict regulatory New or strict regulatory changes likely to result in higher costs to maintain existing systems
requirements resulting in and construct new facilities.
unforeseen costs
14 Aging infrastructure resulting Recent improvements to asset management planning have identified significant investment
in unforeseen costs requirements to renew aging infrastructure. These investments needs were previously
unaccounted for in long-term financial plans.
15 Historical revenues were not Historical water and sewer usage rates were below actual sustainable funding levels. As a
sustainable result, large increases in rates are required to achieve a full-cost recovery model.
16 High proportion of systems A large percentage of systems in the county have relatively few connections & users, resulting
have a small user base in a higher cost per user to maintain these systems.
17 Long distances to connect Long-distances between systems results in higher transmission and conveyance costs for
smaller systems together cross-boundary servicing opportunities.

Final Report
Organizational
18 Access to specialized / Limited ability to hire full-time staff with the expertise, qualifications, or time to complete more
expert personnel and complex and time-consuming duties (e.g., infrastructure planning, engineering, asset
resources management).
19 Recruitment and retention of Some communities are experiencing challenges with the recruitment and retention of qualified
qualified staff staff. This is particularly a challenge with water and wastewater operators.
20 Control and oversight of Some areas in the County are serviced by private communal systems, creating challenges
private communal systems with managing growth and development in the area.
21 Competing interests due to Although regional partnerships may be of interest, local mandates can create conflict as
local mandates municipalities seek to achieve the best possible outcome for their local community.
Social / Political
22 Resistance from private well Resistance from private serviced property landowners to connect to municipal systems,
& septic property owners limiting opportunities to increase the number of users in a system.
23 Increasing user rates beyond As a result of increasing investment needs, use rates have increased beyond what is believed
what is affordable for to be affordable for residents.
residents
24 Risk of annexation or Fear of the risk of annexation or amalgamation if water or wastewater systems connect to
amalgamation if partnerships separated cities of Barrie or Orillia, or other local governments.
occur
25 Lack of servicing is limiting Municipal water and wastewater system limitations can restrict growth in some areas and can
ability to grow (population or be particularly challenging with employment lands where there is limited interest from
employment) developers to front-end investments.

Final Report
4.2 Ranking and Validation
Municipal staff and elected officials from all 16 municipalities were asked to indicate how
strongly they agree or disagree with the challenges listed above. Survey responses
received from staff and elected officials were aggregated to give an overall rating for
each municipality. Overall ratings were then further analyzed to yield an overall rank for
each challenge, rated from highest to lowest priority.
Results were analyzed to determine how strongly a municipality agreed or disagreed

with the challenge. The number of municipalities which agreed with the challenge and
the relative strength of this agreement were used as indicators to identify the most
relevant challenges facing Simcoe’s municipalities. Results of the survey response are
further detailed in Figure 4-1 and Table 4-2.
In summary, the top 10 challenges (ranked by the average strength of agreement) are
listed below. Each challenge includes its identification number in parentheses for ease of
reference when viewing Figure 4-1 and Table 4-2.
1. Large investments required to service growth needs. (11)

2. Long distances to connect smaller systems together. (17)
3. Increasing user rates beyond what is affordable for residents. (23)
4. New or strict regulatory requirements resulting in unforeseen costs. (13)
5. Increasing threat of climate change. (10)
6. Limited ability to finance investments. (12)
7. Keeping pace with growth. (01)
8. Aging infrastructure resulting in unforeseen costs. (14)
9. Strict nutrient loading requirements and effluent criteria. (07)
10. Coordination and planning between municipalities. (05)

Final Report
100% 6.00
Average Score (1 = Strongly Agree, 7 = Strongly Disagree)

80% 5.00
% of Municipalities who responded
4.50
4.31
4.25
60% 4.00
4.06 4.06
4.00 4.00
3.75 3.75 3.75

3.63 3.63
3.50
3.44
3.31
40% 3.19 3.19 3.00
3.13
3.00 3.00
2.94 2.94
2.63
2.56
20% 2.00
2.00
0% 1.00
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Average Score
Figure 4-1. Challenges Survey Results

Final Report
Table 4-2. Challenges Survey Results
Average
1-Strongly 3-Somewhat 5-Somewhat 7-Strongly
Agreement 2-Agree 4-Neutral 6-Disagree No response
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
Challenge Score
Technical
01-Keeping pace with growth. 3.00 2 5 3 4 1 1 0 0
02-Limited groundwater availability. 4.31 1 0 5 3 2 4 1 0
03-Aging infrastructure causing performance issues. 3.63 1 4 2 4 3 2 0 0
04-Redundancy in existing water supply sources. 3.63 0 4 4 3 4 1 0 0
05-Coordination and planning between municipalities. 3.19 2 2 5 5 2 0 0 0
06-Limited long-term planning for water and wastewater systems. 4.00 0 1 5 2 1 3 0 4
Environmental
07-Strict nutrient loading requirements and effluent criteria. 3.19 0 4 6 5 1 0 0 0
08-High number of properties serviced by private well & septic systems. 4.00 1 1 4 5 2 2 1 0
09-Spreading of hauled septage on open fields. 4.25 1 0 3 3 8 1 0 0
10-Increasing threat of climate change. 2.94 2 4 5 3 2 0 0 0
Financial
11-Large investments required to service growth needs. 2.00 5 7 3 1 0 0 0 0
12-Limited ability to finance investments. 3.00 2 4 6 2 0 2 0 0
13-New or strict regulatory requirements resulting in unforeseen costs. 2.94 1 5 6 2 2 0 0 0
14-Aging infrastructure resulting in unforeseen costs. 3.13 1 6 3 3 2 1 0 0
15-Historical revenues were not sustainable. 3.31 2 2 4 6 1 1 0 0
16-High proportion of systems have a small user base. 3.44 2 3 3 3 4 1 0 0
17-Long distances to connect smaller systems together. 2.56 3 5 5 2 1 0 0 0
Organizational
18-Access to specialized / expert personnel and resources. 4.06 0 3 4 2 4 2 1 0
19-Recruitment and retention of qualified staff. 3.75 0 3 4 5 2 2 0 0
20-Control and oversight of private communal systems. 4.50 0 1 2 6 3 3 1 0
21-Competing interests due to local mandates. 4.06 1 1 3 6 2 2 1 0
Social/Political
22-Resistance from private well & septic property owners. 3.50 1 3 5 5 0 0 2 0
23-Increasing user rates beyond what is affordable for residents. 2.63 3 5 5 1 2 0 0 0
24-Risk of annexation or amalgamation if partnerships occur. 3.75 0 5 3 4 1 1 2 0
25-Lack of servicing is limiting ability to grow (population or employment). 3.75 2 2 2 5 3 1 1 0

Final Report
4.3 Summary
The following section summarizes water and wastewater service delivery challenges in
the County of Simcoe:
• In summary, 25 technical, environmental, financial, organizational, and

social/political challenges to the sustainable delivery of water and wastewater
were identified by local municipalities and RVA’s project team.
• The number of municipalities which agreed with the challenges identified ranges
from a low of 4 to high of 15, suggesting municipalities face unique and diverse
challenges which are not common across the County. Careful consideration for
local challenges should be taken when assessing partnership and collaboration
opportunities or potential County roles and supports.
• The most common and highest rated challenges in the County are primarily
related to growth pressures, limited coordination & planning across boundaries,
financing for infrastructure investments, water quality constraints, and limited
servicing.
• Challenges which most municipalities agreed with (9 or more) include:
− Large investments required to service growth needs.

− Long distances to connect smaller systems together.
− Increasing user rates beyond what is affordable for residents.
− New or strict regulatory requirements resulting in unforeseen costs.
− Limited ability to finance investments.
− Increasing threat of climate change.
− Keeping pace with growth.
− Aging infrastructure resulting in unforeseen costs.
− Strict nutrient loading requirements and effluent criteria.
− Coordination and planning between municipalities.
− Resistance from private well & septic property owners.

Final Report
5.0 OPPORTUNITIES
5.1 Partnerships and Collaboration
Currently, all 16 local municipalities in the County of Simcoe manage their own
independent water and wastewater utility. Several municipalities partner with
neighboring jurisdictions through a combination of informal cooperation or contractual
relationships. Alternatively, municipalities in the County may consider forming more
formal partnerships through joint power agencies or regional utilities. It is important to
note that partnerships and collaboration can occur along a spectrum. Recognized forms
of partnership and collaboration are highlighted below [6]:
• Informal cooperation. Two or more utilities work together informally without

being contractually obligated to each other.
• Contractual assistance. Two or more utilities work together formally with a

contractual agreement.
• Joint power agency. Two or more utilities partner to create a joint power agency
to perform administrative, managerial, or operational functions. Ownership of
infrastructure remains with local utilities.
• Regional utility. Consolidation of multiple utilities together to form a new entity

which owns, manages, and operates all or some of the systems. Ownership of
infrastructure is transferred to new regional utility.
Partnerships can also be categorized as physical or organizational:
• Physical partnerships (also referred to as regional cross-boundary servicing

solutions) involve the interconnection of multiple systems together to create a
single larger system.
• Organizational partnerships involve grouping operations, management, planning,

and/or administrative functions of multiple utilities together into a single
organization to deliver services in a coordinated manner. In most instances,
infrastructure assets are transferred to the new entity, although it is not
mandatory.
Currently, most municipalities work together through informal cooperation or contractual

assistance. There are no formal partnerships (joint power agency or regional utility),
which are the focus of opportunities presented in this report.

Final Report
5.1.1 Physical Partnerships
There are several physical partnership opportunities (also known as regional cross-
boundary servicing solutions) identified in the County of Simcoe. These opportunities
connect several smaller-scale systems together and rely on major infrastructure assets
to deliver water and wastewater to multiple communities. These opportunities have been
identified anticipating a 2051 demand scenario and are primarily recognized as long-
term solutions.
In total, 10 regional cross-boundary servicing solutions were identified by RVA’s project

team and from consultation with local municipalities. These opportunities are listed
below and maps describing major components of each solution are presented in the
following pages.
Water Wastewater
• W-1: Georgian Bay Water Supply • WW-1a: Nottawasaga Regional
Wastewater
• W-2: Lake Simcoe Water Supply
System • WW-1b: Nottawasaga Regional
Wastewater (excl. Innisfil & BWG)
• W-3: Newmarket Water Supply
System • WW-2: Georgian Bay Regional
Wastewater
• W-4: Midland Bay Water Supply
System • WW-3: Region of York’s Water
Reclamation Center
• W-5: Lake Couchiching Water
Supply System • WW-4: Midland Bay Regional
Wastewater
• WW-5: Orillia Regional
Wastewater

Final Report
W-1: Georgian Bay Water Supply
Expand the Collingwood

WTP and/or construct a
second WTP to service future
growth requirements in the
region.
Connect the Collingwood and

Wasaga Beach systems to improve
redundancy.
Twin the transmission main between

Collingwood WTP and Alliston to
improve redundancy and increase
capacity.
Add new connections to

transmission line where feasible &
economical.

Final Report
W-2: Lake Simcoe Water Supply
Expand Barrie or Innisfil WTP

to service future growth
requirements.
Connect the Innisfil Heights

employment area to a
surface water supply source.
Extend water supply servicing

along Hwy 400 to improve
availability of water supply in
employment lands and improve
redundancy to the Bradford
system.
Disconnect the Alliston and

Beeton systems. Alliston will
maintain water supply from
Collingwood WTP.
Extend servicing into New

Tecumseth and Adjala-Tosorontio.

Final Report
W-3: Newmarket Water Supply
Connect the Innisfil Heights

employment area to a
surface water supply source.
Extend servicing along Hwy 400 to

improve availability of water supply
in strategic employment lands and
improve redundancy to Bradford
system.
Disconnect Alliston and Beeton

systems. Alliston maintains water
supply to Collingwood WTP.
Connect Bradford to
Newmarket system for
water supply and/or
Extend servicing into New improved redundancy.
Tecumseth and Adjala-Tosorontio.
Expand Region of York system

to service future growth
requirements.

Final Report
W-4: Midland Bay Water Supply
Construct new surface WTP

along Midland Bay to service
future growth requirements.
Connect systems near Midland Bay.

Consider expanding further if economical.

Final Report
W-5: Lake Couchiching Water Supply
Connect West Shore and

Washago systems to
Orillia.
Expand Orillia WTP to service

Extend servicing into
Atherley-Uptergrove and
Rama Road Corridor.

Final Report
WW-1a: Nottawasaga Regional Wastewater
Convey treated
wastewater (greywater)
from New Tecumseth to
Georgian Bay or
discharge locally to
Nottawasaga River.
Convey flows from

Innisfil and Bradford to
minimize phosphorus
loading in Lake Simcoe.
Convey flows from surrounding
communities to New
Tecumseth Regional WWTP.

Final Report
WW-1b: Nottawasaga Regional Wastewater (excl. Innisfil & BWG)
Convey treated
wastewater (greywater)
from New Tecumseth to
Georgian Bay or
discharge locally to
Nottawasaga River.
Convey flows from surrounding

communities to New
Tecumseth Regional WWTP.

Final Report
WW-2: Georgian Bay Regional Wastewater
Expand Collingwood or
Wasaga Beach WWTP to
service future growth
requirements.
Convey flows from outlying

communities to Collingwood or
Wasaga Beach.

Final Report
WW-3: Region of York’s Water Reclamation Center
Convey flows from Innisfil

and Bradford to Region of
York.
Construct Region of York

Water Reclamation Center
to treat wastewater effluent.

Final Report
WW-4: Midland Bay Regional Wastewater
Expand Midland WWTP to

service future growth
requirements.

communities to Midland.

Final Report
WW-5: Orillia Regional Wastewater

communities to Orillia.
Expand Orillia WWTP to service


Final Report
Opportunity Validation and Ranking

Senior staff and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor from all 16 municipalities were asked to
indicate their overall sentiment to each regional cross-boundary servicing solution.
Survey responses received from each municipality were aggregated to yield an “overall
response” for each municipality. Further, overall responses were filtered to only include
responses from municipalities who are key stakeholders within the opportunity listed.
Overall responses from relevant stakeholders are summarized in the following figures
and tables.
Water
100%
Opportunities:
90%
80% W-1: Georgian Bay Water Supply
70% W-2: Lake Simcoe Water Supply
60% W-3: Newmarket Water Supply
50% W-4: Midland Bay Water Supply

40% W-5: Lake Couchiching Water Supply
30%
20%
10%
0%
W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5
Positive Somewhat positive

Neutral Somewhat negative
Negative No response
Overall Response W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5

Positive 1 1
Somewhat positive 3 1 2
Neutral 2 3 4 1
Somewhat negative 1 1 1
Negative 1
No response 1
Total # responses 6 5 5 5 2

Final Report
Wastewater
100%
Opportunities:
90%
WW-1a: Nottawasaga Regional
80% Wastewater
70% WW-1b: Nottawasaga Regional
60% Wastewater (excl. Innisfil & BWG)
50% WW-2: Georgian Bay Regional

Wastewater
40%
WW-3: Region of York’s Water
30%
Reclamation Center
20%
WW-4: Midland Bay Regional
10% Wastewater
0% WW-5: Orillia Regional Wastewater
WW-1a WW-1b WW-2 WW-3 WW-4 WW-5
Positive Somewhat positive

Neutral Somewhat negative
Negative No response
Overall Response WW-1a WW-1b WW-2 WW-3 WW-4 WW-5

Positive 2
Somewhat positive 2
Neutral 2 3 2 1 1 1
Somewhat negative 2 1 1 1
Negative
No response 1
Total # responses 5 3 4 2 4 2
It is assumed that opportunities which most municipalities felt Positive, Somewhat

positive, or Neutral about are worthy of further consideration and investigation. Under
this assumption, the following regional servicing solutions should be further explored:
Water
• W-1: Georgian Bay Water Supply

• W-2: Lake Simcoe Water Supply
• W-4: Midland Bay Water Supply
Wastewater
• WW-1b: Nottawasaga Regional Wastewater

• WW-2: Georgian Bay Regional Wastewater
• WW-4: Midland Bay Regional Wastewater

Final Report
5.1.2 Organizational Partnerships
Organizational partnerships involve grouping operations, management, planning, and/or

administrative functions of multiple utilities together into a single organization. In addition
to physical partnership opportunities (described above), there are several opportunities
for municipalities to partner together and establish regional water and wastewater
utilities or joint power agencies. Where possible, formal partnerships should be
prioritized to align where a regional cross-boundary servicing solution is feasible and
would provide an overall benefit to users.
Single vs. Two-Tier

It is important to note that organizational partnerships are not an “all or nothing” concept.
A traditional approach to regionalization would be establish a single tier utility. This utility
would own all water and wastewater infrastructure and be responsible for delivering
services to all customers.
Alternatively, municipalities may consider a two-tier regional utility model where the
regional utility retains ownership, management, and/or operation responsibilities for
primary infrastructure (e.g., treatment plants, transmission mains, trunk sewers, major
storage, major pumping, etc.) and the local municipal utility maintains ownership,
management, and/or operation responsibilities of secondary infrastructure (local water
distribution and wastewater collection). Although not as common as the single-tier
model, two-tier approaches have been adopted by some jurisdictions in Ontario such as
the Region of York.
The Region of York is

responsible for the supply of
treated water and collection
and treatment of wastewater
for nine municipalities;
however, the nine
municipalities are still r
esponsible for local
water distribution and
wastewater collection. This
concept is shown graphically
in Figure 5-1
Figure 5-1. Two-Tier Water/Wastewater Utility Example (Source:

Region of York [7])

Final Report
Regional Utility Candidates

An initial list of regional utility candidates was prepared by RVA’s project team and
presented to municipalities in Group Meeting #1 and #2. This initial list was adjusted
based on feedback received and the final list of potential candidates is summarized in
Table 5-1 and Table 5-2. These proposed regional utility models are not mutually
exclusive and, if appropriate, municipalities can be added or removed to the groups.
Regional # of # of W # of WW
Utility Stakeholders Utilities Systems Systems
1. Simcoe All 18 81 29
2. South Barrie, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach,
Simcoe Clearview, Essa, New Tecumseth,
9 25 13
Innisfil, Bradford West Gwillimbury,
Adjala-Tosorontio
3. North Orillia, Springwater, Oro-Medonte,
Simcoe Tiny, Penetanguishene, Midland, Tay, 9 56 16
Ramara, Severn
4. Georgian Collingwood, Wasaga Beach,

Bay Clearview, Essa, New Tecumseth, 6 21 10
Adjala-Tosorontio
5. South Lake Barrie, Innisfil, Bradford West

4 8 7
Simcoe Gwillimbury, New Tecumseth
6. Midland Bay Tiny, Penetanguishene, Midland, Tay 4 21 5
7. North Tiny, Tay, Severn, Ramara, Oro-
6 52 12
Simcoe (Rural) Medonte, Springwater
8. North Lake Orillia, Severn, Ramara
3 14 6
Simcoe

Final Report
1 - Simcoe 2 - South Simcoe 3 - North Simcoe 4 - Georgian Bay
5 - South Lake Simcoe 6 - Midland Bay 7 - North Simcoe (Rural) 8 - North Lake Simcoe

Final Report
Municipality Engagement
Senior staff (Chief Administrative Officer) and elected officials (Mayor and Deputy
Mayor) from all 16 municipalities were asked to indicate their preference of a local vs.
regional utility, single tier vs. two tier, and level of interest in each of the regional utility
candidates presented above. Results of this survey are summarized below.
Participants were asked to indicate which type of utility model (Local vs. Regional) they
believe would be best able to deliver services in a sustainable manner over the next 30
years considering technical, environmental, financial, organizational, and social/political
challenges. Results from this survey question are summarized in Figure 5-2.
It is important to note that responses were not aggregated for each municipality (as was
done for previous survey questions) and the findings below are the total counts from all
survey participants. In total, 20 responses were received from 12 different municipalities
(1-3 responses from each municipality), indicating these findings are not comprehensive
and several surveys were not completed. A comprehensive survey would include at least
36 survey responses (2 elected officials + 1 staff for each municipality).
6
# of responses
0
Local utility Small scale regional Large scale regional I don't know
utility (2-7 partners) utility (8-16 partners)
Survey Response
Figure 5-2. Local vs. Regional Utility Survey Responses
In summary, 10 of 20 (50%) of survey participants indicated a regional (small or large-

scale) utility would likely be best able to deliver services in a sustainable manner over
the next 30 years considering various challenges. Between small and large, preference
was overwhelmingly in favor of small-scale utilities (8 vs. 2). 6 of 20 municipalities (30%)
indicated a preference to remain a local utility, and the remaining 4 of 20 (20%) indicated
they were not confident enough to provide a response.

Final Report
These findings are consistent with oral comments received during Group Meeting #2,
where elected officials from municipalities indicated a willingness or preference for small-
scale regional utility opportunities. While small-scale regional utilities were a plurality,
there are still several respondents whose preference is to maintain the existing local
utility model and do not believe a regional utility model is the most sustainable long-term.
In addition to indicating their preference of a local or regional utility, municipalities were

asked to indicate whether they would prefer to join a single or two-tier utility. Results
from this survey question are summarized in Figure 5-3.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Single tier Two tier I don't know
Figure 5-3. Single vs. Two-Tier Regional Utility Survey Responses (All)
0
Single tier Two tier I don't know
Figure 5-4. Single vs. Two-Tier Regional Utility Survey Responses
(Regional Utility Preference Only)
In summary, there is a slight preference among survey respondents for a two-tier vs.
single tier regional utility. However, when responses are filtered to respondents that
believe a regional utility would likely be more sustainable, no consensus on a preference
between a single or two-tier regional model for participants is evident. Single and two-tier
utilities equally received 4 of 10 participant responses (40%) whereas 2 of 10 (20%)
indicated they were not confident enough to provide a response.

Final Report
This finding is consistent with oral comments received during Group Meeting #2, where
a variety of opinions were received. Additional information is likely warranted before all
staff and elected officials can confidently express a preference to a single or two-tier
regional utility model.
Lastly, survey participants were asked to indicate their overall sentiment to seven (7)
small and large-scale regional utility models. The survey question asked participants to
select one of the following sentiments for each utility model:
• Positive
• Somewhat positive
• Neutral
• Somewhat
• Negative
Survey responses received from each municipality were aggregated to yield an “overall
response” for each municipality. Further, overall responses were filtered to only include
responses from municipalities who are identified as key stakeholders in each regional
utility model. Overall responses from relevant stakeholders are summarized in Figure
5-5 and Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Regional Utility Candidates Survey Response
Some. Some. No
Regional Utility Total Positive Positive Neutral Negative Negative response
1. Simcoe 16 1 3 2 1 3 6
2. South Simcoe 8 1 0 1 2 0 4
3. North Simcoe 8 0 2 2 3 0 1
4. Georgian Bay 6 0 2 1 0 0 3
5. South Lake Simcoe 3 0 0 2 0 0 1
6. Midland Bay 4 1 1 1 0 0 1
7. North Simcoe (Rural) 6 Option added after survey. 6
8. North Lake Simcoe 2 0 0 0 1 1 0

Final Report
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1. Simcoe 2. South 3. North 4. Georgian 5. South 6. Midland 7. North 8. North
Simcoe Simcoe Bay Lake Bay Simcoe Lake
Simcoe (Rural) Simcoe
Positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Negative No response
Figure 5-5. Regional Utility Candidate Survey Response
In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn from the responses provided:
• Regional utilities where there is an interest or willingness from most

municipalities to explore further:
o Georgian Bay
o Midland Bay
• Regional utilities which showed a mix of interest/disinterest or

willingness/unwillingness to explore further include:
o Simcoe
o South Simcoe
o North Simcoe
• There is a neutral interest or willingness from municipalities to explore the South

Lake Simcoe regional utility.
• There is a clear disinterest or unwillingness from municipalities to explore the

North Lake Simcoe regional utility.
While these general conclusions can be drawn from the responses received, several
municipalities did not provide a response to the survey question and additional
investigation and consultation is warranted to provide supplementary information to
respond to the survey and determine each municipality’s level of interest.

Final Report
5.1.3 Benefits of Partnerships
Formal partnerships (physical or organizational) should only occur in areas where it is

financially feasible, and the overall benefits outweigh the costs. Each opportunity should
be evaluated independently to assess potential benefits and costs.
Potential benefits to formal partnerships identified by RVA’s project team and local
municipalities are listed below, categorized similarly to challenges.
Technical
• Meet growth demands in multiple jurisdictions with regional solutions.

• Address water supply shortages through cross-boundary delivery of treated
surface water.
• Improve redundancy with interconnected systems and secondary water supply
sources.
• Streamline coordination and planning between local municipalities.
• Standardize long-term planning capabilities and maturity.
Environmental
• Address climate change with regional solutions, enabling economies of scale.

• Overcome strict regulatory requirements and effluent criteria with regional
solutions.
Financial
• Improve access to Provincial or Federal funding grants and programs.

• Improve ability to finance large investments.
• Where feasible, increase the number of users per system, resulting in lower
overall cost per capita.
Organizational
• Improve access to specialized or expert personnel and resources through

resource sharing.
• Mitigate staff recruitment and retention challenges by providing more varied work
opportunities.
• Facilitate collaborative solutions among multiple stakeholders with a regional
mandate.
Social/Political
• Harmonizing rates could result in more affordable user fees for some rate payers.

Final Report
• Improve opportunities to service population or employment centers, facilitating

growth.
5.1.4 Barriers to Partnerships
It is important to recognize that, despite their potential benefits, implementing formal

partnerships can be a challenging and difficult process with several barriers. In 2021 the
American Water Works Association (AWWA) conducted a comprehensive survey of
states and territories in the United States to identify anticipated barriers to
regionalization. The survey identified seven (7) “Likely” barriers. These barriers (ranked
from most likely to least likely) are listed below:
1. Loss of system autonomy

2. Distance or terrain constraints to neighboring utilities
3. Political barriers
4. Fear of increasing rates
5. Trust issues
6. Uncertainty about the process or future outcomes
7. Lack of time, resources, or initiative
Anecdotally, the findings from the AWWA study are consistent with discussions from
staff and elected officials in the County and these barriers will likely be encountered as
municipalities look to explore regional utility models. Recognizing these barriers is
important to mitigating risks of an unsuccessful partnership. Developing strategies to
mitigate these barriers will provide municipalities with the greatest chance of success in
realizing the benefits of a regional utility or joint power agency.
5.2 County Role or Support
Potential roles or supports from the County of Simcoe were solicited from individual
meetings with staff and elected officials from each municipality and were summarized by
RVA’s project team. Opportunities identified during these interviews include:
1. Regional Utility: Assume full or partial ownership, management, and operation

of water and wastewater systems.
2. Regional Planning & Studies: Conduct regional water and wastewater master
plans or studies to support multiple stakeholders.
3. Financing: Establish a water and wastewater infrastructure bank and/or provide

grant funding to municipalities to support solutions which yield a regional benefit.
4. Lobbying: Lobby the Provincial and Federal governments for more funding
and/or accommodations to local municipalities.

Final Report
5. Expert Personnel & Resources: Establish a shared pool of expert personnel

and resources (e.g., engineers, GIS technicians, asset management
professionals) to support municipalities with the planning, management, and
operation of water and wastewater infrastructure.
6. Procurement: Perform bulk purchasing and procurement of goods and services

(e.g., sodium hypochlorite, roster of engineering services).
7. Contract Mediation: Serve as a designated mediator for any cross-boundary

servicing agreements between municipalities.
8. Knowledge Sharing / Group Learning: Organize and/or facilitate inter-

municipal knowledge sharing and training opportunities (e.g., regional
conferences, group training).
9. Phosphorus Off-setting Program: Establish a regional phosphorus off-setting

program to minimize land application of nutrients (agricultural & septage
spreading) thereby reducing phosphorus surface runoff and lowering restrictions
at treatment plants.
5.2.1 Ranking and Validation
In Group Meeting #1 and #2 municipal staff and elected officials from each municipality
were asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree the County should pursue
each of identified role. Staff and elected official’s individual responses were aggregated
together to yield an overall rating for each municipality. Results of this survey and
aggregation are presented in Figure 5-6.

Final Report
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Neutral

Somewhat disagree Disagree Strongly disagree No response
Figure 5-6. County Role / Support Survey Responses
Based on the responses received, RVA’s project team categorized potential County
roles / support into 1 of 5 categories, summarized in Table 5-4. In the event 2 or more
categories have the same number of votes, the category with the least amount of
support was selected.
Table 5-4. County Role / Support Survey Results Summary
Category Description Role / Support

1 - Strong A majority or plurality of Lobbying
Support municipalities Agree or Financing
Strongly Agree
Procurement
2 - Some A majority or plurality of Expert Personnel & Resources
Support municipalities Agree or Regional Planning & Studies
Somewhat agree
Contract Mediation
Knowledge Sharing / Group
Training

Final Report
Category Description Role / Support

3 - Neutral A majority or plurality of Phosphorus Off-setting Program
municipalities Somewhat
disagree, are Neutral, or
Somewhat agree
4 - Some A majority or plurality of None
Opposition municipalities Disagree or
Somewhat disagree
5 - Strong A majority or plurality of Regional Utility
Opposition municipalities Disagree or
Strongly disagree
5.3 Summary
The following summarizes the water and wastewater service delivery opportunities in the
County of Simcoe:
Partnerships and Collaborations
• There are several opportunities for municipal utilities to partner and, in the RVA
project team’s opinion, have the potential to provide an overall net benefit to local
municipalities and help overcome challenges. Additional investigation is
warranted to confirm the feasibility of each opportunity (from both a technical and
financial perspective), compare net benefits to anticipated costs, and engage
stakeholders to address concerns or shortcomings.
• There are four (4) water and three (3) wastewater regional cross-boundary
servicing solutions (physical partnerships) which municipalities indicated an
interest in exploring further. These solutions are summarized as:
Water
o W-1: Georgian Bay Water Supply

o W-2: Lake Simcoe Water Supply
o W-4: Midland Bay Water Supply
Wastewater
o WW-1b: Nottawasaga Regional Wastewater

o WW-2: Georgian Bay Regional Wastewater
o WW-4: Midland Bay Regional Wastewater
• When asked to indicate their preference of a local or regional utility model

(organizational partnership), 50% of municipalities indicated a preference to a
regional model (small or large), 30% of municipalities indicated an initial

Final Report
preference to a local model, and 20% of municipalities indicated they were not
confident enough with the information provided to respond.
• When asked to indicate their preference of a single or two-tier regional utility

model, no consensus was received. An equal number of responses indicated a
preference to a single vs. two-tier.
• Supplementary information is warranted to provide municipalities with insight into

the potential impact and disruption a regional utility model may have for their
community before indicating a final preference of local vs. regional utility or single
vs. two-tier model.
• In total, 8 regional utility model candidates were identified by RVA’s project team
and local municipalities. The size of these regional utility ranges from a low of 3
utilities to a high of 18.
• All 16 municipalities were asked to indicate how positively they perceived each
regional utility model candidate. Results are summarized below.
o There is clear interest in exploring the Georgian Bay and North-West

Simcoe candidates.
o There is a mixed response in exploring the Simcoe, South Simcoe, and

North Simcoe candidate.
o There is a neutral response in exploring the South Lake Simcoe

candidate.
o There is clear disinterest in exploring the North Lake Simcoe candidate.
o No response was received for the North Simcoe (Rural) candidate as it

was added post-survey.
County Role or Support
• In total, 9 potential roles or supports from the County of Simcoe were identified
by local municipalities and RVA’s project team.
• All 16 municipalities were asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree
the County should pursue each potential role or support. Based on the responses
received, potential roles or support were categorized. Results of this are
summarized below:
o There is strong support for the County to pursue a role in Lobbying,

Financing, and Procurement.

Final Report
o There is some support for the County to pursue a role in Expert

Personnel & Resources, Regional Planning & Studies, Contract
Mediation, and Knowledge Sharing / Group Training.
o There is neutral support for the County to pursue a Phosphorus Off-

Setting Program.
o There is strong opposition for the County to pursue a role in becoming a

Regional Utility.

Final Report
6.0 KEY TAKEAWAYS
Key takeaways of the service delivery review are summarized below to give Simcoe
County high-level insight into water and wastewater servicing challenges and
opportunities, and to inform strategic decision-making on future service delivery models.
Current State and Challenges
• There are a high number of relatively small water / wastewater systems with
several opportunities to interconnect across jurisdictional boundaries.
Geographical distances between systems within Municipalities will create
challenges to implement these opportunities and to create centrally serviced
communities.
• Municipalities face several diverse regional and local challenges. The most
prominent challenges include growth pressures, limited coordination & planning
across boundaries, financing for infrastructure investments, water quality
constraints, and limited servicing.
• A lack of servicing (or the ability to service) some areas has the potential to limit
growth, particularly in employment lands which do not receive the same level of
financing interest from private developers.
• Future growth is requiring municipalities to explore solutions which extend

beyond their borders and will likely require a decision on long-term governance.
Leadership from the County and local municipalities to pursue and implement
regional solutions will ensure local stakeholders can maintain control and
autonomy during the process.
• Municipalities forecast more than $1.1 billion in capital expenditures over the next
10 years to meet short-term growth requirements. Additional expenditures will
likely be required beyond the 10-year horizon to service future growth. Given the
magnitude of investments forecasted, investigating opportunities for efficiencies
will be required to maintain public and Provincial support.
Partnerships and Collaboration
• There is a high likelihood that formal partnerships would result in long-term

efficiencies for the delivery of water and wastewater services.
• There is an interest and willingness among municipalities to seek efficiencies

with focused partnerships that result in win-win scenarios for all stakeholders.

Final Report
• Provincial support (both financial or otherwise) will be a critical success factor

where formal partnerships and regional servicing solutions are implemented.
• Municipalities who wish to physically interconnect multiple systems across

jurisdictional boundaries should first consider organizational reform and a
regional utility model.
• The effectiveness of formal water and wastewater partnerships between

municipalities will likely increase long-term as growth pressures and
environmental constraints continue to grow.
• Efficient delivery of water and wastewater servicing (through increased

partnerships and collaboration) will help municipalities achieve objectives of the
Province’s Regional Growth Plan such as promoting complete communities,
supporting intensification and affordable housing, protecting the environment and
natural heritage features, and minimizing overall life-cycle costs.
County Role / Support
• There are several opportunities for the County to provide support municipalities
with the delivery of water and wastewater services, including lobbying, financing,
procurement, expert personnel & resources, regional planning & studies, contract
mediation, and knowledge sharing / group training.
• Simcoe County staff currently have limited insight and knowledge of water and
wastewater servicing in the region due to a lack of mandate, institutional
knowledge, and expertise. This creates challenges for the County to fulfill its
land-use planning mandate, particularly in areas where water and wastewater
serviceability challenges growth targets (e.g., Lake Simcoe area).
• While there are anticipated benefits to a large-scale water and wastewater utility
across all 16 municipalities, Simcoe County pursuing a regional utility will likely
be met with strong resistance from several local municipalities. Collaboration
between local municipalities, the County, and the Province will increase the
chance of successful partnerships.

Final Report
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were prepared by RVA’s project team based on the
information presented above and stakeholder engagement sessions.
1. Lobby for Provincial Support. Simcoe County should engage the Province of
Ontario and lobby for their support (financial or otherwise) in assisting
municipalities with the design, planning and implementation of formal
partnerships and regional servicing solutions.
Additionally, Provincial policy currently limits the ability of some municipalities to

support anticipated growth targets (e.g., Lake Simcoe Protection Plan). The
County should seek opportunities to collaborate with the Province and local
municipalities to overcome these challenges while achieving economic,
environment, and social objectives, as well as Provincially mandated growth
targets.
2. Establish Regional Water and Wastewater Utility Task Forces. Municipalities,

with the County and Province’s support and guidance, should establish Regional
Water and Wastewater Utility Task Forces to advance formal partnerships and
regional servicing solutions. The goal of these Task Forces should be to:
− define alternative governance structures and regional utility models,
− explore regional servicing solutions,
− assess the technical and financial feasibility of regional servicing

solutions,
− perform a cost-benefit and risk analysis of alternatives, and
− provide recommendations to municipal Councils on preferred governance

structures and regional servicing solutions.
Task Forces should consider including stormwater management services in their

mandate. While stormwater services were not included in the scope of this study,
integrating these into a “One Water” utility model will support an integrated
approach to managing water resources. An integrated approach can support
water quantity and quality objectives as stormwater has a direct impact into water
and wastewater systems (e.g., inflow and infiltration, surface contaminant runoff).
Task Forces should adopt a defendable and rational process to preparing

recommendations, including four key-steps:
• Problem / Opportunity Statement

Final Report
• Background Review and Consultation

• Identify Options and Criteria
• Evaluation and Recommendation
Task Forces should engage with Indigenous, environmental advocacy, and other
key stakeholders early in the decision-making process.
A County-wide regional utility is recognized as a feasible alternative and would

likely result in efficiencies in water and wastewater service delivery. However, in
the project team’s opinion, a first step to smaller scale regional utilities is the best
approach to overcome immediate challenges. Smaller scale regional utilities are
anticipated to result in significant benefits and have a sufficient level of support
among local municipalities to gain the necessary buy-in.
More specifically, there are two (2) groups of municipalities which are recognized
as strong regional utility candidates and should be prioritized in the short-term.
Water and wastewater systems within these groups have significant potential to
interconnect, will likely result in improved partnership and collaboration, and
show a sufficient level of support from key stakeholders.
• Midland Bay - Midland, Penetanguishene, Tiny, and Tay.
• South Simcoe - Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Clearview, Essa, New

Tecumseth, Essa, Adjala-Tosorontio, Innisfil, Bradford West Gwillimbury,
and Barrie.
The project team acknowledges the Georgian Bay regional utility candidate
received a higher level of support amongst municipalities compared to South
Simcoe. However, it is recommended that municipalities in the southern region of
Simcoe first explore a larger regional utility model as there are additional
opportunities for cross-boundary servicing and, overall, is anticipated to yield
greater benefits. If a formal partnership between these municipalities is not
feasible, the Georgian Bay and South Lake Simcoe regional utilities are also
recognized as strong candidates and should be considered as alternatives.
3. Increase County Role and Expertise. Simcoe County should increase its role
and expertise to support regional water and wastewater planning, support its
land-use planning mandate, and help coordinate regional servicing solutions
across jurisdictional boundaries.
To support this recommendation, municipalities should provide County planners

with additional insight into water and wastewater servicing capacities, allocations
to future development, and long-term infrastructure planning on a regular basis.

Final Report
Secondly, Simcoe County should consider hiring a Water & Wastewater

Engineer or Planner within the planning group. Responsibilities for this individual
could include, but not necessarily be limited to:
− lead and coordinate regional utility task forces,

− manage regional water and wastewater studies,
− coordinate long-term planning of water and wastewater solutions,
− analyze system capacities and allocations to support the County’s
planning mandate,
− communicate with the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Environment,
Conservation, and Parks (MECP) on regional water and wastewater
matters,
− serve as the County’s representative on any Class EA applications in the
area,
− facilitate regional water/wastewater partnership and collaboration
opportunities, and
− as time permits, support municipalities who require additional guidance or
expertise in administering, managing, or planning their systems.
In summary, this individual will serve as the “champion” for sustainable water and
wastewater servicing in the County.
4. Improve Communication and Collaboration. Simcoe County should create

new opportunities for municipalities to collaborate on water and wastewater
issues and solutions. Opportunities could include establishing a County
water/wastewater committee or hosting regional conferences and seminars.

Final Report
8.0 REFERENCES
[1] Dillon Consulting, "Intergovernmental Action Plan for Simcoe, Barrie & Orillia:
Growth Potentials Assessment Report," 2006.
[2] Greenland Consulting Engineers, "County of Simcoe Water and Wastewater
Visioning Strategy," 2012.
[3] Greenland International Consulting Ltd. & Dillon Consulting Limited , "SEPTAGE
AND LANDFILL LEACHATE DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY STUDY," 2016.
[4] County of Simcoe, "Official Plan of the County of Simcoe," 2016.
[5] Province of Ontario, "Lake Simcoe Protection Plan," 2009.
[6] Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe," 2020.
[7] J. Norriss, M. Cunningham, A. R. DeRosa and S. Vedachalam, "Too Small to
Suceed: State-Level Consolidation of Water Systems," AWWA, 2021.
[8] Region of York, "Water Is," [Online]. Available:
https://www.york.ca/wps/portal/printfriendly/!ut/p/z1/zVTbcpswEP0aP2ItwgbcN0
wSA44vGccX9JIBIhu1RnKEbMLfV6GeTFM39nTSdKoXzR4dHe0erYQIWiHCkw
PbJIoJnmx1HBP7AeOOHZg-
RIObWRfCxcC69ccAMAS0bAjwzvAAEb0ceoMwCIYQTTqur8GJF2HHheuuhRaI
ILLL2COKHSvrmjZYRtbDltGBjmn0cM8y0sxxq. [Accessed 15 December 2021].
[9] Statistics Canada, "Census Profile, 2016 Census," 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-
pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E&HPA=1.
[10] County of Simcoe, "Population & Employment Growth - Simcoe County 2019
Residential Land Budget," 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.simcoe.ca/dpt/pln/growth.

APPENDIX 1
Individual Water and Wastewater System Details

APPENDIX 1-1
Water
Operational 2020 Spare Max Day 2020 Approx. 2020 Approx.
2020 MDD +
# Municipality System Name DWS# Water Supply Source Type Capacity Capacity Factor Population Service
10% (m3/day)
(m3/day) (m3/day) (MDF) Serviced Connections
1 Adjala-Tosorontio Everett 220011680 Groundwater 3,916 1,415 2,501 3.53 1,959 657
2 Adjala-Tosorontio Weca 220010048 Groundwater 1,053 256 797 3.00 339 113
3 Adjala-Tosorontio Lisle 220005438 Groundwater 657 108 549 3.00 237 79
4 Adjala-Tosorontio Colgan 220009933 Groundwater 263 155 108 3.62 216 73
5 Adjala-Tosorontio Hockley 220005036 Groundwater 199 52 147 5.22 42 14
6 Adjala-Tosorontio Rosemont 220003859 Groundwater 85 47 38 3.00 141 47
7 Bradford West Gwillimbury Bradford 210000684 Groundwater and Surface Water 25,549 15,824 9,726 1.80 33,834 11,278
8 Clearview Stayner 220001138 Groundwater 5,850 3,776 2,074 2.00 4,525 1,810
9 Clearview Creemore 220001101 Groundwater 2,600 868 1,732 2.50 1,435 574
10 Clearview Nottawa (McKean) 260005411 Groundwater 950 296 654 3.00 345 138
11 Clearview New Lowell 220003706 Groundwater and Surface Water 500 402 98 2.75 825 330
12 Clearview Colling-Woodlands 260005398 Groundwater 270 179 91 3.00 210 85
13 Clearview Buckingham Woods 250001420 Groundwater 252 114 138 3.71 95 39
14 Collingwood Collingwood WTP 220001165 Surface Water 31,140 27,034 4,106 1.90 24,000 10,725
15 Essa Angus 260001026 Groundwater 10,778 6,419 4,359 1.99 Unknown Unknown
16 Essa Thornton 220006945 Groundwater 1,866 1,666 200 2.78 Unknown Unknown
17 Essa Baxter 260086866 Surface Water 100 116 0 3.18 Unknown Unknown
18 Innisfil Innisfil Lake Simcoe WTP 220007472 Surface Water 38,000 22,110 15,890 1.80 26,600 8,656
19 Innisfil Innisfil Heights 220005081 Groundwater 3,110 1,862 1,248 4.14 400 194
20 Innisfil Stroud 220006204 Groundwater 3,020 1,522 1,498 2.65 1,836 649
21 Innisfil Churchill 220005063 Groundwater 743 598 145 3.72 510 170
22 Midland Midland 220001156 Groundwater 20,244 14,288 5,956 2.57 17,000 5,848
23 New Tecumseth Alliston/Beeton 220001174 Groundwater and Surface Water 24,452 16,100 8,352 1.80 29,503 7,440
24 New Tecumseth Tottenham 220001085 Groundwater 5,030 4,098 933 2.00 9,216 2,939
25 Oro-Medonte Horseshoe Highlands 250001402 Groundwater 7,949 1,081 6,868 2.25 2,700 514
26 Oro-Medonte Sugarbush 220001518 Groundwater 3,910 579 3,331 2.50 1,565 452
27 Oro-Medonte Shanty Bay 220005198 Groundwater 1,220 327 893 2.75 686 195
28 Oro-Medonte Braestone 260095498 Groundwater 1,011 902 109 4.69 441 126
29 Oro-Medonte Harbourwood 220006703 Groundwater 921 220 701 3.00 487 139
30 Oro-Medonte Warminster 220005125 Groundwater 890 525 365 2.50 1,596 456
31 Oro-Medonte Robincrest 220010752 Groundwater 850 147 703 2.75 790 219
32 Oro-Medonte Craighurst 250001322 Groundwater 458 135 323 4.24 179 51
33 Oro-Medonte Medonte Hills 220003920 Groundwater 393 146 247 2.75 550 157
34 Oro-Medonte Canterbury 220007454 Groundwater 209 18 191 3.00 62 18
35 Oro-Medonte Cedarbrook 220006936 Groundwater 196 23 173 3.00 84 24
2020 MDD +
10% (m3/day)
36 Oro-Medonte Maplewood 220004135 Groundwater 164 68 96 3.00 186 54
37 Penetanguishene Payette 220001147 Groundwater 11,000 5,407 5,593 2.00 6,766 3,068
38 Penetanguishene Lepage 220006838 Groundwater 229 49 180 3.00 62 22
39 Ramara Brechin and Lagoon City 210001273 Surface Water 4,000 1,466 2,534 1.97 Unknown Unknown
40 Ramara Bayshore 220012724 Groundwater 1,244 348 896 2.14 Unknown Unknown
41 Ramara South Ramara 220010681 Surface Water 387 193 195 2.99 Unknown Unknown
42 Ramara Val Harbour 220010690 Groundwater 207 89 118 2.29 Unknown Unknown
43 Ramara Davy Drive 220007141 Groundwater 76 39 37 2.09 Unknown Unknown
44 Ramara Park Lane 220007132 Groundwater 50 114 0 9.05 Unknown Unknown
45 Ramara Somerset/Knob Hill 260046137 Surface Water 0 0 0 2.75 Unknown Unknown
46 Severn West Shore 260061958 Surface Water 2,780 1,139 1,642 1.55 Unknown 800
47 Severn Coldwater 220001110 Groundwater 2,141 783 1,358 1.83 Unknown 580
48 Severn Bass Lake Woodlands 220005143 Groundwater 818 307 511 2.25 Unknown 161
49 Severn Washago 220005161 Surface Water 544 234 310 1.72 Unknown 120
50 Severn Sandcastle Estates 220010654 Surface Water 389 75 314 2.00 Unknown 65
51 Severn Severn Estates 220005152 Groundwater 109 17 93 1.67 Unknown 23
52 Springwater Midhurst 220005474 Groundwater 6,480 2,884 3,596 2.77 Unknown Unknown
53 Springwater Elmvale 220000700 Groundwater 4,546 1,122 3,424 1.94 Unknown Unknown
54 Springwater Snow Valley 260048204 Groundwater 2,766 4,015 0 4.13 Unknown Unknown
55 Springwater Hillsdale 220003911 Groundwater 1,434 842 593 2.75 Unknown Unknown
56 Springwater Del Trend 220009149 Groundwater 1,074 640 434 3.27 Unknown Unknown
57 Springwater Anten Mills 220005447 Groundwater 780 626 154 2.98 Unknown Unknown
58 Springwater Minesing 220005465 Groundwater 740 468 273 2.81 Unknown Unknown
59 Springwater Phelpston 260048282 Groundwater 648 155 493 2.42 Unknown Unknown
60 Springwater Vespra Downs 260001786 Groundwater 168 118 50 3.66 Unknown Unknown
61 Tay Tay Area 220001076 Surface Water 7,400 5,602 1,798 2.07 8,000 2,902
62 Tay Rope 220011323 Surface Water 274 59 215 3.00 70 27
63 Tiny Lafontaine 220006277 Groundwater 3,502 1,965 1,537 2.25 2,057 857
64 Tiny Perkinsfield 220005544 Groundwater 1,482 583 899 2.90 502 209
65 Tiny Castle Cove 220005296 Groundwater 1,392 404 988 3.00 374 156
66 Tiny Wyevale 220005410 Groundwater 1,182 845 337 3.08 689 287
67 Tiny Bluewater 220005269 Groundwater 1,176 794 382 3.37 756 315
68 Tiny Georgian Bay Estate 220005287 Groundwater 949 619 330 2.75 586 244
69 Tiny Whippoorwill 220007481 Groundwater 530 396 134 4.62 170 71
70 Tiny Vanier Woods 220005401 Groundwater 360 226 135 3.00 170 71
2020 MDD +
10% (m3/day)
71 Tiny Lefaive 220005321 Groundwater 309 119 190 3.00 166 69
72 Tiny Woodland Beach 260002330 Groundwater 295 124 171 4.35 82 34
73 Tiny Sawlog Bay 220006259 Groundwater 261 109 152 3.09 115 48
74 Tiny Thunder Bay 220006268 Groundwater 200 68 132 4.43 58 24
75 Tiny Cook’s Lake 220005278 Groundwater 200 207 0 3.00 218 91
76 Tiny Rayko 220005367 Groundwater 194 70 124 3.20 94 39
77 Tiny Tee Pee Point 220005394 Groundwater 178 96 82 3.00 226 94
78 Tiny Pennorth 220005358 Groundwater 135 41 94 3.36 77 32
79 Wasaga Beach Wasaga Beach 220002137 Groundwater 31,415 20,327 11,088 2.43 22,321 Unknown
APPENDIX 1-2
Wastewater
2020 2020
Environmental Operational Peak Design 2020 ADF
Approx. Approx.
# Municipality Wastewater System Receiving Body Compliance Capacity Capacity + 10%
Population Service
Approval # (m3/day) (m3/day) (m3/day)
Serviced Connections
1 Adjala-Tosorontio New Horizon WWTP Subsurface Disposal Beds 8860-9N8NCX 80 Unknown 87 300 100
2 Bradford West Gwillimbury Bradford Water Pollution Control Plant West Holland River 3705-BGRP97 19,400 42,400 12,713 32,913 10,971
3 Clearview Stayner WWTP Lamont Creek 3718-A4CQTD 2,500 6,250 1,604 4,500 1558
4 Clearview Creemore WWTP Mad River 3281-AKGR3E 470 2,955 396 1300 520
5 Collingwood Collingwood WWTP Georgian Bay 9825-BPDH52 24,548 60,900 20,739 Unknown Unknown
6 Essa Angus WWTP Nottawasaga River 7826-BRPRAW 5,511 11,904 2,680 Unknown 4,200
7 Innisfil Alcona Lakeshore WWTP Lake Simcoe 6075-BDSKRR 17,000 42,500 11,609 Unknown Unknown
8 Innisfil Cookstown WWTP Innisfil Creek 9741-B4GRWZ 825 2,634 645 Unknown Unknown
9 Midland Midland WWTC Midland Bay 5708-A72SPG 15,665 37,000 8,617 Unknown Unknown
10 New Tecumseth Regional WWTP Nottawasaga River 2085-BC2LFF 7,595 30,000 4,843 7,185 2,972
11 New Tecumseth Alliston WWTP Boyne River 5659-9Q6PTR 5,681 14,203 4,871 12,000 4,428
12 New Tecumseth Tottenham WWTP Beeton Creek 5486-9QCP44 4,082 17,021 2,924 5,143 2,939
13 Oro-Medonte Horseshoe Valley Communal Tile Fields Subsurface Disposal Beds Various 147 NA 162 350 95
14 Penetanguishene Main Street STP Penetanguishene Bay 1303-8H6G8B 5,250 13,635 3,114 5,571 2,457
15 Penetanguishene Fox Street STP Penetanguishene Bay 3-1234-93-006 1,500 4,500 727 1,141 503
16 Ramara Brechin/Lagoon City Lake Simcoe 8497‐8D3TU7 2,273 4,546 1,532 2,441 Unknown
17 Ramara Bayshore Village Spray Irrigation Field 3-1337-81-968 399 Unknown 441 Unknown Unknown
18 Severn West Shore WWTP Lake Couchiching 6791-62EJW5 1,390 4,768 783 Unknown Unknown
19 Severn Cold Water WPCP Coldwater River 3832-6S2QCH 921 3,420 738 Unknown Unknown
20 Severn Washago Lagoon Green River 3-1081-83-006 228 Unknown 101 Unknown Unknown
21 Springwater Elmvale WWTP Wye River 9513-B5WKV6 1,800 5,600 1,120 Unknown Unknown
22 Springwater Stonemanor (Centre Vespra) WWTP Subsurface Disposal Beds 2362-9KPPV6 844 844 259 Unknown Unknown
23 Springwater Snow Valley Highlands WWTP Subsurface Disposal Beds 3351-B24JY4 260 260 177 Unknown Unknown
24 Springwater Royal Oaks Subsurface Disposal Beds 0990-AR5LMB 260 260 92 Unknown Unknown
25 Tay Victoria Harbour WWTP Georgian Bay 1283MC-2012-3047 2,364 6,600 2,772 Unknown Unknown
26 Tay Port McNicoll WWTP Georgian Bay 8421- 9PMHXN 1,918 3,836 1,433 1,855 Unknown
27 Wasaga Beach Wasaga Beach WPCP Nottawasaga River 5523-A3ZQQ8 15,433 38,210 7,076 22,911 14123
APPENDIX 2
Planned Capacity Increase Table

Municipality Water Source(s) Wastewater Source(s)
Adjala-Tosorontio Increase capacity of Colgan system by 845 m3/day. 2016 Colgan Master Add new system to the Colgan settlement area with capacity of 668 2016 Colgan Master
3 Service Plan (page m3/day. Service Plan (page
Increase capacity of Everett system by 1,380 m /day.
15) 16)
Replace existing Everett system (New Horizons WWTP) with a new
2012 Everett Master one with capacity of 3,630 m3/day. 2012 Everett Master
Service Plan (page Service Plan (page
56) 49)
Bradford West Expansion of the Lakeshore WTP (Innisfil) by 8,900 m3/day, to supply a 2011 BWG Master Expand Bradford WPCP to a capacity of 23,300 m3/day. 2011 BWG Master
Gwillimbury total MDD of 31,900 m3/day to BWG. Service Plan (page Service Plan (page
60) 61)
Clearview Increase capacity of Stayner system by constructing a new wellfield, DC Charges Study & Increase capacity of Stayner system by 5,000 m3/day by conveying to DC Charges Study
Capacity is not specified. Ultimate capacity need in Stayner is 27,057 2009 Class EA (page the Wasaga Beach WWTP. (page 5-29)
m3/day. 39)
Upgrade/optimize Creemore WWTP to achieve original capacity of 860 Staff comments
Increase capacity of Creemore system by constructing a new wellfield. DC Charges Study m3/day.
Capacity is not specified. (page 5-36)
Construct new wastewater collection system in Nottawa and convey 2009 Class EA (page
wastewater to the Collingwood WWTP. Ultimate capacity is estimated i)
to be 5,000 m3/day.
Collingwood Increase capacity of Collingwood WTP to 101,069 m3/day. 2020 Class EA Increase capacity of Collingwood WWTP to 36,185 m3/day. 2019 Master Service
(page v) Plan
(page 181)
Essa Township currently undertaking an infrastructure master plan study and Staff comments Township currently undertaking an infrastructure master plan study and Staff comments
items below are subject to change. items below are subject to change.
W&WW Rate Study 2020 W&WW Rate
Purchase an additional 400 m3/day of capacity for Baxter from New (page 131) Upgrade Angus WWTP. Total cost is approximately $3 million. May be Study (page 107)
Tecumseth via treated water from the Collingwood WTP. renewal only with no increase in capacity.
2020 Baxter WW EA
Construct new WWTP in Baxter with a capacity of 227 m3/day. (page 61)
Innisfil Increase capacity of Lakeshore Surface WTP in three phases: 2018 Master Service Increase capacity of the Innisfil WWTP in two phases: 2018 Master Service
• 3A: 38,000 m3/day (at 20⁰C) Plan (page 33) • 3: 25,000 m3/day Plan (page 43)
• 3B: 55,000 m3/day (at 20⁰C) • 4: 40,000 m3/day
• 3C: 85,000 m3/day (at 20⁰C) Increase capacity of the Cookstown WWTP to meet demand of 2,758 2018 Master Service
m3/day. Capacity of new plant is not specified - Class EA underway. Plan (page 109)
Midland No planned capacity increases. 2021 Master Service No planned average daily flow capacity increases. Planned upgrades 2021 Master Service
Plan are primarily intended to improve peak daily flow capacity and Plan
performance.
New Tecumseth Additional water capacity from the Collingwood WTP. Capacity is not 2016 Master Service Increase capacity of the Regional WWTP to a TBD capacity (studies Staff comments
specified. Plan underway).
Oro-Medonte Increase capacity of Craighurst system by an additional 1,296 m3/day 2019 HCC Master Construct new Craighurst WWTP with a rated capacity of 802 m3/day. 2019 HCC Master
(15 L/s). Service Plan (page Service Plan (page
Construct new Horseshoe Valley WWTP with a rated capacity of 2,584
129) 99)
m3/day.
Municipality Water Source(s) Wastewater Source(s)
Penetanguishene Class EA underway to locate secondary water supply source. No Staff comments No anticipated expansions to the wastewater system. Staff comments
planned capacity increases.
Ramara New communal drinking water system in the Rama Road Corridor and 2006 Master Service New communal wastewater system in Rama Road Corridor and 2006 Master Service
Atherley-Uptergrove settlement area. Capacity is not specified. Plan Atherley-Uptergrove settlement area. Capacity is not specified. Plan
Severn Increase capacity of West Shore system. Capacity is not specified 2020 W&WW Rate Increase capacity of West Shore system. Capacity is not specified. 2020 W&WW Rate
Study (page 2-5) Study (page 2-7)
Increase capacity of Severn Estates system. Capacity is not specified. Increase capacity of Cold Water system. Capacity is not specified.
Springwater Add 2 new systems in the Midhurst settlement area to meet “Phase 1” 2020 Midhurst EA Construct new WWTP in Midhurst with a rated capacity of 12,314 2020 Midhurst EA
demand: (page 34) m3/day. (page 72)
• Carson Road Area: 6,307 m3/day (73 L/s)
• Doran Road Area: 8,640 m3/day (100 L/s)
Increase capacity of Minesing system with a new well. Capacity is not 2020 W&WW Rate
specified. Study (page 2-4)
Tay Increase capacity of Tay Area system to 10,880 m3/day. Tay website Increase capacity of Victoria Harbour WWTP. Capacity is not specified. W&WW Rate Study
(page 62)
Tiny No planned capacity increases. Staff comments No planned capacity increases. Staff comments
Wasaga Beach Increase capacity in the late 2030s. Capacity is not specified. Capital Plan Increase capacity in the mid to late 2030s. Capacity is not specified. WPCP Flow Memo
3
Allocating 5,000 m /day of capacity to the Stayner settlement area,
resulting in a net reduction in available capacity.
APPENDIX 3
Master Service Planning Maturity Table

Water Wastewater
Municipality
Overall Rating Checklist Planning Horizon(s) Overall Rating Checklist Planning Horizon(s)
☒ Complete MSP Elements ☒ Complete MSP Elements
Partially Colgan - 2036 (2016) Partially Colgan - 2036 (2016)
Adjala-Tosorontio ☐ Full Jurisdiction ☐ Full Jurisdiction
Complete Everett - “Buildout” (2018) Complete Everett - “Buildout” (2018)
☒ MSP Elements Compiled ☒ MSP Elements Compiled
Bradford West Gwillimbury Complete ☒ Full Jurisdiction 2031 (2011) Complete ☒ Full Jurisdiction 2031 (2011)
☐ Complete MSP Elements ☐ Complete MSP Elements
Clearview Incomplete ☐ Full Jurisdiction Incomplete ☐ Full Jurisdiction
☐ MSP Elements Compiled ☐ MSP Elements Compiled
Collingwood Complete ☒ Full Jurisdiction 2064 (2019) Complete ☒ Full Jurisdiction 2064 (2019)
Partially Angus W/WW Capacity Allocation Partially
Essa ☐ Full Jurisdiction ☐ Full Jurisdiction Angus W/WW Capacity Allocation (2016)
Complete (2016) Complete
Innisfil Complete ☒ Full Jurisdiction 2031 (2018)* Complete ☒ Full Jurisdiction 2031 (2018)*
Midland Complete ☒ Full Jurisdiction 2041 (2021) Complete ☒ Full Jurisdiction 2041 (2021)
Water Distribution & Storage - Partially Alliston - 2026 (2008), Beeton - 2031 (2010),
New Tecumseth Complete ☒ Full Jurisdiction ☐ Full Jurisdiction
2031 (2016) Complete Tottenham - 2031 (2008)
Partially Horseshoe-Craighurst Corridor - Partially Horseshoe-Craighurst Corridor - “Buildout”
Oro-Medonte ☐ Full Jurisdiction ☐ Full Jurisdiction
Complete “Buildout” (2019) Complete (2019)
Water Supply Class EA
Penetanguishene Incomplete ☐ Full Jurisdiction Incomplete ☐ Full Jurisdiction
underway
☒ Complete MSP Elements ☒ Complete MSP Elements Atherley-Uptergrove & Rama Road -
Partially Atherley-Uptergrove & Rama Partially
Ramara ☐ Full Jurisdiction ☐ Full Jurisdiction “Buildout” (2006), Brechin - “Buildout” (2004),
Complete Road - “Buildout” (2006) Complete
☒ MSP Elements Compiled ☒ MSP Elements Compiled Bayshore Class EA (2017)
Water Wastewater
Municipality
Overall Rating Checklist Planning Horizon(s) Overall Rating Checklist Planning Horizon(s)
Severn Incomplete ☐ Full Jurisdiction Incomplete ☐ Full Jurisdiction
Partially Partially
Springwater ☐ Full Jurisdiction Midhurst - 2041 (2006) ☐ Full Jurisdiction Midhurst - 2041 (2006)
Complete Complete
Tay Incomplete ☐ Full Jurisdiction Incomplete ☐ Full Jurisdiction
Tiny Incomplete ☐ Full Jurisdiction Incomplete ☐ Full Jurisdiction
☒ Complete MSP Elements Capacity Assessment, Hydraulic ☒ Complete MSP Elements
Partially Partially Capacity Assessment, Hydraulic Model, Class
Wasaga Beach ☒ Full Jurisdiction Model, Class EA, LT Capital Plan ☒ Full Jurisdiction
Complete Complete EA, LT Capital Plan - 2041 (2020)
☐ MSP Elements Compiled - 2041 (2020) ☐ MSP Elements Compiled
APPENDIX 4
Long-Term Expenditure Forecast Details

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Note Item 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Adjala-Tosorontio $350,750 $2,238,101 $2,091,855 $366,562 $376,123 $5,120,082 $2,724,907 $2,727,739 $509,131 $512,083
1 WASTEWATER $29,600 $81,114 $72,274 $65,039 $76,609 $4,845,026 $80,765 $80,952 $81,146 $81,345
1 WATER $321,150 $2,156,987 $2,019,581 $301,523 $299,514 $275,056 $2,644,142 $2,646,787 $427,985 $430,738
Bradford West Gwillimbury $325,000 $1,406,300 $275,800 $1,035,000 $35,000 $142,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
WASTEWATER
2 WATER $325,000 $1,406,300 $275,800 $1,035,000 $35,000 $142,500
Clearview $8,988,271 $22,362,293 $26,390,652 $11,505,230 $4,799,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
3 WASTEWATER $1,667,239 $4,701,300 $5,696,800 $8,015,900 $558,000
3 WATER $7,321,032 $17,660,993 $20,693,852 $3,489,330 $4,241,100
Collingwood $14,905,400 $26,560,400 $30,957,000 $29,554,400 $19,442,700 $6,864,000 $7,761,000 $6,712,000 $46,264,000 $43,332,600
4 WASTEWATER $2,533,400 $3,538,400 $1,965,000 $2,892,400 $3,614,700 $2,328,000 $3,762,000 $3,954,000 $35,597,000 $34,189,600
4 WATER $12,372,000 $23,022,000 $28,992,000 $26,662,000 $15,828,000 $4,536,000 $3,999,000 $2,758,000 $10,667,000 $9,143,000
Essa $2,994,706 $2,241,392 $298,138 $48,982 $90,851 $0 $1,209,653 $1,081,076 $3,165,980 $2,259,801
5 WASTEWATER $620,000 $220,000 $270,000 $20,000 $61,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,692,792 $142,028
5 WATER $2,374,706 $2,021,392 $28,138 $28,982 $29,851 $0 $1,209,653 $1,081,076 $473,188 $2,117,773
Innisfil $35,936,000 $35,936,000 $35,936,000 $14,543,750 $14,543,750 $14,543,750 $14,543,750 $14,543,750 $14,543,750 $14,543,750
6 WASTEWATER $29,440,000 $29,440,000 $29,440,000 $9,961,250 $9,961,250 $9,961,250 $9,961,250 $9,961,250 $9,961,250 $9,961,250
6 WATER $6,496,000 $6,496,000 $6,496,000 $4,582,500 $4,582,500 $4,582,500 $4,582,500 $4,582,500 $4,582,500 $4,582,500
Midland $1,484,616 $23,969,318 $2,691,081 $2,524,488 $6,421,731 $4,039,145 $543,240 $2,602,430 $7,108,706 $6,078,260
7 MIXED $1,484,616 $23,969,318 $2,691,081 $2,524,488 $6,421,731 $4,039,145 $543,240 $2,602,430 $7,108,706 $6,078,260
New Tecumseth $40,272,526 $20,387,056 $24,489,342 $60,914,092 $10,084,804 $8,971,245 $4,616,960 $17,073,160 $3,234,640 $54,619,119
8 WASTEWATER $1,336,332 $5,160,652 $5,890,712 $35,792,782 $4,511,794 $3,533,985 $1,798,210 $1,513,660 $1,321,640 $48,035,219
8 WATER $38,936,194 $15,226,404 $18,598,630 $25,121,310 $5,573,010 $5,437,260 $2,818,750 $15,559,500 $1,913,000 $6,583,900
Oro-Medonte $1,980,000 $1,680,000 $1,085,000 $710,000 $3,224,000 $1,248,000 $1,273,000 $1,298,000 $1,324,000 $0
10 WASTEWATER $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
9 WATER $1,980,000 $1,680,000 $1,085,000 $710,000 $3,224,000 $1,248,000 $1,273,000 $1,298,000 $1,324,000
Penetanguishene $1,205,777 $722,000 $872,500 $613,500 $876,500 $810,000 $452,000 $1,117,000 $1,577,000 $547,000
11 WASTEWATER $629,376 $360,000 $352,500 $281,250 $455,000 $535,000 $65,000 $617,000 $947,000 $200,000
11 WATER $576,401 $362,000 $520,000 $332,250 $421,500 $275,000 $387,000 $500,000 $630,000 $347,000
Ramara $295,000 $241,800 $245,200 $295,200 $192,000 $236,200 $273,100 $187,400 $230,600 $236,700
WASTEWATER
12 WATER $295,000 $241,800 $245,200 $295,200 $192,000 $236,200 $273,100 $187,400 $230,600 $236,700
Severn $1,288,700 $2,465,000 $2,113,000 $877,000 $641,000 $846,000 $3,453,000 $9,565,000 $8,876,000 $999,000
13 WASTEWATER $479,000 $1,981,000 $1,537,000 $662,000 $295,000 $400,000 $2,270,000 $6,535,000 $6,202,000 $432,000
13 WATER $809,700 $484,000 $576,000 $215,000 $346,000 $446,000 $1,183,000 $3,030,000 $2,674,000 $567,000
Springwater $5,047,000 $15,285,000 $15,925,000 $15,478,000 $15,645,000 $15,329,000 $15,191,000 $15,470,000 $17,326,000 $16,583,000
14 WASTEWATER $4,631,000 $10,947,000 $11,480,000 $10,937,000 $9,932,000 $10,903,000 $10,257,000 $10,689,000 $12,554,000 $11,179,000
Note Item 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
14 WATER $416,000 $4,338,000 $4,445,000 $4,541,000 $5,713,000 $4,426,000 $4,934,000 $4,781,000 $4,772,000 $5,404,000
Tay $4,241,800 $7,057,000 $195,000 $7,823,000 $1,133,000 $1,100,000 $185,000 $3,881,000 $130,000 $2,333,000
15 WASTEWATER $4,075,000 $6,020,000 $80,000 $1,500,000 $55,000 $118,000 $50,000 $20,000 $50,000 $20,000
15 WATER $166,800 $1,037,000 $90,000 $6,298,000 $928,000 $944,000 $135,000 $3,861,000 $80,000 $2,313,000
15 MIXED $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $150,000 $38,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tiny $780,000 $750,000 $700,000 $750,000 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
16 WATER $780,000 $750,000 $700,000 $750,000 $600,000
Wasaga Beach $3,534,583 $3,731,290 $2,819,053 $1,749,150 $416,415 $1,049,260 $1,381,725 $649,003 $1,773,588 $562,925
17 WASTEWATER $1,930,333 $3,511,525 $2,656,213 $1,556,525 $296,700 $422,970 $1,304,100 $489,038 $1,635,013 $450,800
17 WATER $1,604,250 $219,765 $162,840 $192,625 $119,715 $626,290 $77,625 $159,965 $138,575 $112,125
TOTAL $123,630,129 $167,032,950 $147,084,621 $148,788,354 $78,521,974 $60,299,182 $53,608,335 $76,907,558 $106,063,395 $142,607,238
Notes:
1 2021 Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Watson, Table 3-4 & 3-5 (Page 3-9 & 3-10).
2 2020 Water Financial Plan, sum of additions on page 13.
3 2021-2025 Capital Project Workbook (Excel)
4 2019-2029 Capital Budget Forecast Workbook (Excel)
5 2020 Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Sharatt, Appendix B and J, Page 35 and 43
6 2019 Master Service Plan, Table 35, page 138. Annual amounts estimated by taking the average annual for each period. Did not include costs Post 2031.
7 2021-2030 Capital Plan, 2021 Budget Draft, page 215-216, assumed 411 and 431 project codes were W&WW
8 10-Year Capital Expenditures Forecast Workbook (Excel)
9 2019 Water Financial Plan
10 2020 Communal Tile Financial Plan
11 2021 Municipal Budget, 10-year capital plan, page 12-19
12 2020 Water Financial Plan, page 20
13 2021 Water and Sewer Rate Study, Watson, Page 4-14 & 4-16
14 2020 Water and Sewer Rate Study, Watson, Page 4-13 & 4-14
15 2021-2030 Long-Term Plan, page 32
16 2020 Water Financial Plan, page 8 - additions
17 2021 Capital Plan - Update, 15% contingency included
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES
Note Costs 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Adjala-Tosorontio $1,075,080 $1,083,400 $1,428,952 $1,626,882 $1,671,084 $1,731,579 $1,785,827 $1,841,531 $2,161,986 $2,308,292
1 WASTEWATER $217,183 $221,500 $519,652 $668,682 $693,884 $721,979 $753,327 $788,331 $1,087,886 $1,212,792
1 WATER $857,897 $861,900 $909,300 $958,200 $977,200 $1,009,600 $1,032,500 $1,053,200 $1,074,100 $1,095,500
Bradford West Gwillimbury $6,840,100 $6,932,000 $7,000,900 $7,055,300 $7,115,300 $7,192,700 $7,336,554 $7,483,285 $7,632,951 $7,785,610
WASTEWATER
2 WATER $6,840,100 $6,932,000 $7,000,900 $7,055,300 $7,115,300 $7,192,700 $7,336,554 $7,483,285 $7,632,951 $7,785,610
Clearview $3,578,244 $3,964,718 $3,433,756 $3,663,703 $4,020,302 $4,073,545 $4,181,582 $4,256,865 $4,333,261 $4,419,926
4 WASTEWATER $1,697,673 $1,961,296 $1,665,501 $1,856,932 $2,165,134 $2,175,758 $2,214,773 $2,251,088 $2,274,030 $2,319,511
3 WATER $1,880,571 $2,003,422 $1,768,255 $1,806,771 $1,855,168 $1,897,787 $1,966,809 $2,005,777 $2,059,231 $2,100,416
Collingwood $11,595,244 $11,827,149 $12,063,692 $12,304,966 $12,551,065 $12,802,086 $13,058,128 $13,319,291 $13,585,676 $13,857,390
6 WASTEWATER $6,151,686 $6,274,720 $6,400,214 $6,528,218 $6,658,783 $6,791,958 $6,927,798 $7,066,354 $7,207,681 $7,351,834
5 WATER $5,443,558 $5,552,429 $5,663,478 $5,776,747 $5,892,282 $6,010,128 $6,130,330 $6,252,937 $6,377,996 $6,505,556
Essa $2,088,256 $3,990,887 $6,746,301 $2,561,872 $2,682,075 $2,590,002 $2,647,754 $2,707,242 $2,768,534 $2,891,697
7 WASTEWATER $854,267 $2,671,693 $2,839,243 $1,278,095 $1,351,977 $1,382,656 $1,414,256 $1,446,810 $1,480,357 $1,514,932
8 WATER $1,233,989 $1,319,194 $3,907,058 $1,283,777 $1,330,098 $1,207,346 $1,233,498 $1,260,432 $1,288,177 $1,376,765
Innisfil $4,445,231 $4,190,805 $4,284,774 $4,378,570 $4,457,380 $4,904,714 $4,617,546 $4,699,249 $4,786,865 $4,876,798
WASTEWATER
9 WATER $4,445,231 $4,190,805 $4,284,774 $4,378,570 $4,457,380 $4,904,714 $4,617,546 $4,699,249 $4,786,865 $4,876,798
Midland $2,342,004 $2,388,844 $2,436,621 $2,485,353 $2,535,060 $2,585,762 $2,637,477 $2,690,226 $2,744,031 $2,798,912
24 MIXED $2,342,004 $2,388,844 $2,436,621 $2,485,353 $2,535,060 $2,585,762 $2,637,477 $2,690,226 $2,744,031 $2,798,912
New Tecumseth $14,687,539 $14,981,290 $15,280,916 $15,586,534 $15,898,265 $16,216,230 $16,540,554 $16,871,366 $17,208,793 $17,552,969
10 MIXED $14,687,539 $14,981,290 $15,280,916 $15,586,534 $15,898,265 $16,216,230 $16,540,554 $16,871,366 $17,208,793 $17,552,969
Oro-Medonte $1,850,900 $1,918,700 $1,979,700 $2,042,000 $2,105,600 $2,171,600 $2,210,000 $2,309,800 $2,383,000 $2,434,340
12 WASTEWATER $62,900 $66,700 $70,700 $75,000 $78,600 $83,600 $59,000 $94,800 $101,000 $106,700
11 WATER $1,788,000 $1,852,000 $1,909,000 $1,967,000 $2,027,000 $2,088,000 $2,151,000 $2,215,000 $2,282,000 $2,327,640
Penetanguishene $3,081,173 $3,142,797 $3,205,653 $3,269,765 $3,335,160 $3,401,864 $3,469,901 $3,539,300 $3,610,086 $3,682,288
14 WASTEWATER $1,777,043 $1,812,584 $1,848,836 $1,885,812 $1,923,528 $1,961,999 $2,001,239 $2,041,264 $2,082,089 $2,123,731
13 WATER $1,304,130 $1,330,213 $1,356,817 $1,383,953 $1,411,632 $1,439,865 $1,468,662 $1,498,036 $1,527,997 $1,558,557
Ramara $950,200 $971,100 $992,500 $1,014,500 $1,037,000 $1,060,000 $1,083,700 $1,108,000 $1,132,900 $1,158,500
WASTEWATER
15 WATER $950,200 $971,100 $992,500 $1,014,500 $1,037,000 $1,060,000 $1,083,700 $1,108,000 $1,132,900 $1,158,500
Severn $2,788,855 $2,849,009 $2,910,194 $3,025,182 $3,089,773 $3,155,684 $3,223,728 $3,292,572 $3,362,683 $3,434,308
17 WASTEWATER $1,288,370 $1,316,882 $1,345,840 $1,398,800 $1,429,263 $1,460,226 $1,492,700 $1,525,674 $1,559,272 $1,593,573
16 WATER $1,500,485 $1,532,127 $1,564,354 $1,626,382 $1,660,510 $1,695,458 $1,731,028 $1,766,898 $1,803,411 $1,840,735
Note Costs 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Springwater $3,678,622 $3,795,143 $3,912,864 $5,012,985 $7,307,307 $7,732,329 $8,162,152 $8,593,475 $9,026,499 $9,461,523
19 WASTEWATER $1,594,194 $1,655,514 $1,717,334 $1,779,954 $3,341,175 $3,551,396 $3,762,118 $3,973,440 $4,185,463 $4,397,986
18 WATER $2,084,428 $2,139,629 $2,195,530 $3,233,031 $3,966,132 $4,180,933 $4,400,034 $4,620,035 $4,841,036 $5,063,537
Tay $2,704,246 $2,787,824 $3,049,996 $3,076,280 $3,102,601 $3,128,967 $3,155,500 $3,218,610 $3,282,982 $3,348,642
20 WASTEWATER $1,436,646 $1,525,081 $1,786,762 $1,794,098 $1,801,186 $1,808,031 $1,814,750 $1,851,045 $1,888,066 $1,925,827
21 WATER $1,267,600 $1,262,743 $1,263,234 $1,282,182 $1,301,415 $1,320,936 $1,340,750 $1,367,565 $1,394,916 $1,422,815
Tiny $2,204,485 $2,230,389 $2,263,473 $2,285,738 $2,306,185 $2,352,309 $2,399,355 $2,447,342 $2,496,289 $2,546,215
22 WATER $2,204,485 $2,230,389 $2,263,473 $2,285,738 $2,306,185 $2,352,309 $2,399,355 $2,447,342 $2,496,289 $2,546,215
Wasaga Beach $7,449,350 $7,598,337 $7,750,304 $7,905,310 $8,063,416 $8,224,684 $8,389,178 $8,556,962 $8,728,101 $8,902,663
23 Water $3,345,380 $3,412,288 $3,480,533 $3,550,144 $3,621,147 $3,693,570 $3,767,441 $3,842,790 $3,919,646 $3,998,039
23 Wastewater $4,103,970 $4,186,049 $4,269,770 $4,355,166 $4,442,269 $4,531,114 $4,621,737 $4,714,172 $4,808,455 $4,904,624
TOTAL $71,359,529 $74,652,392 $78,740,595 $77,294,940 $81,277,573 $83,324,055 $84,898,936 $86,935,115 $89,244,637 $91,460,071
Indicates value was estimated by applying a 2% annual growth factor.
Notes:
1 2021 Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Watson, Table 5-1 & 5-2 (Page 5-4 & 5-5).
3 2020 Water Financial Plan, Table 5.2, page 17. Only included "day to day" expenses (line 3).
4 2020 Water Financial Plan, Table 6.2, page 26. line 95 - total expenses less amortization (does not match Figure 9?)
5 2021 Budget, page 254. Total expenditures less contributions to reserves
6 2021 Budget, page 262. Total expenditures less contributions to reserves
7 2020 Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Sharatt, page 27. Line 44 - Total non-capital expenditures. Includes capital renewal
8 2020 Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Sharatt, page 27. Line 47 - total expenditures. Includes capital, subtracted capital estimates.
9 2015 Water Financial Plan
10 2021 Approved Budget, page 234. Total expenses less contributions to reserves.
12 2020 Communal Tile Financial Plan, page 13
13 2019 Long Range Financial Plan, page 32
14 2019 Long Range Financial Plan, page 37
16 2021 Water and Sewer Rate Study, page 5-7
17 2021 Water and Sewer Rate Study, page 5-14
18 2020 Water and Wastewater Rate Study, page 5-3
19 2020 Water and Wastewater Rate Study, page 5-6
20 2017 Water and Wastewater Rate Study, page 42, table 7-3a, annual operating expenses
21 2017 Water and Wastewater Rate Study, page 38, table 7-2a, annual operating expenses
23 2021 Final Budget, page 8
24 2022 Draft Budget, page 155. Assumed equal to total expenses less transfer to reserves.

Simcoe Water and Wastewater Service Delivery Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simcoe Water and Wastewater Service Delivery Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simcoe Water and Wastewater Service Delivery Review

January 26, 2022

Attention: Rob Elliot, MCIP RPP, MBA - General Manager

Dear Mr. Elliot:

Re: County of Simcoe Water and Wastewater Service Delivery Review

Yours very truly,

R.V. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

This document is protected by copyright and was prepared by

Simcoe W&WW Service Delivery Review

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

3.0 CURRENT STATE.............................................................................................17

4.0 CHALLENGES ..................................................................................................46

6.0 KEY TAKEAWAYS ...........................................................................................83

8.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................88

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

The County of Simcoe is an upper-tier municipality in Ontario’s Greater Golden

Following a Regional Government Review in 2019, Simcoe County Council expressed

• engage with local municipalities to determine local servicing challenges,

1. Where are we now?

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

utilities, and highlights potential opportunities for partnership and collaboration to

2.1 County Profile

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

1. Township of Adjala-Tosorontio 9. Township of Oro-Medonte

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

Figure 2-1. Simcoe County Local Municipalities

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

2.2 2019 Regional Governance Review

In 2019 the Province of Ontario conducted a review into regional governments in

2.3 Previous Studies

2.3.1 2006 Intergovernmental Action Plan

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

• It will be necessary to accommodate some growth on partial services to sustain

• Administrative challenges exist for servicing because cross-municipal sharing of

• Environmental challenges exist because a major receiving body (Lake Simcoe) is

2.3.2 2012 W&WW Visioning Strategy

2.3.3 2016 Septage & Leachate Study

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

2.4 Natural Environment

Simcoe County is an environmentally diverse area, containing many significant natural

Notable natural environment features in Simcoe County are listed below:

▪ Niagara Escarpment - The Niagara Escarpment includes a variety of topographic

▪ Minesing Wetland - The Minesing Wetland is an internationally significant wetland

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

2.4.2 Environmental Protection Plans

1. Niagara Escarpment Plan

• Limiting phosphorus discharges from municipal and industrial sewage treatment

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

Figure 2-2. Tertiary Watershed Boundaries

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

Figure 2-3. Environmentally Protected Areas

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

2.5 Planning Context

2.5.1 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement

o municipal sewage and water services, and

In summary, the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) emphasizes the Province of

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

2.5.2 Places to Grow: Regional Growth Plan

• have a Delineated Built Boundary,

County of Simcoe RVA 215657

• Town of Midland and Town of Penetanguishene