Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
March 9, 2010 Agenda
ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010 9:00 A.M PAGE ORDER 1st Meeting Called to Order 2nd Adoption of Minutes February 16, 2010 3rd Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 4th Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations 5th Motion to Move Into "Committee Of The Whole Council" 1 -64 6th Reports of Council, Outside Boards and Staff 2010 Capital Budget report from Director of Financial Services and budget enclosed separately 7th Council Correspondence see attached 65 -77 1) Items for Consideration 78 -82 2) Items for Information (Consent Agenda) 8th OTHER BUSINESS 1) Statements /Inquiries by Members 2) Notice of Motion 3) Matters of Urgency 9th Closed Meeting Items see separate Agenda 10th Recess 11th Motion to Rise and Report 12th Motion to Adopt Recommendations from the Committee Of The Whole 13th Consideration of By -Laws 14th ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: March 9, 2010 March 23, 2010 April 13, 2010 LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED Early Bird Registrations for AMO Annual Conference are due by April 30, 2010 County Council Meeting at 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. County Council Meeting 2010 Composite Budget Discussion and By -Law REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF March 9, 2010 Staff Reports (ATTACHED) 2 Manager of Programs and Therapy The County of Elgin Recognizes Earth Hour 2010 4 Director of Engineering Services Ambulance Vehicle Purchase 2010 6 Director of Engineering Services Fire Panel Replacement, Contract No. 2660 -09 -03 8 Director of Engineering Services Motor Vehicle Collision Review on County of Elgin Roads 2009 16 Deputy Director of Engineering Services Oversize /Overweight Moving Permit Update 26 Tourism Development Coordinator; General Manager, Economic Development; Deputy Director, Engineering Services Draft Tourism Signage Policy 41 Financial Analyst Council and Outside Boards Remuneration and Expenses 45 Financial Analyst; Director of Financial Services Capital Projects Budget as of December 31, 2009 49 Manager of Information Technology 2010 Information Technology Plan 56 Director of Financial Services Depreciation Rates 63 Director of Financial Services Revised Charitable Organizations Property Tax Rebate Application Director of Financial Services 2010 Capital Budget Discussion (report and budget enclosed separately) ;F Elgin ~aunt PmglinsMo.bp ti;wtc FROM: Tanya Noble Manager of Programs and Therapy DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: The County of Elgin Recognizes Earth Hour 2010 INTRODUCTION: Earth Hour is an internationally recognized event which promotes environmental awareness and lowered power usage. Earth Hour will take place on Saturday, March 27 at 8:30pm. DISCUSSION: CONCLUSION: REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL To promote the County of Elgin employee participation in Earth Hour 2010 the County of Elgin could initiate the following actions: Advertise Earth Hour on the County of Elgin sign outside the County of Elgin Main site. Provide an e -mail reminder to all staff with the date and time of Earth Hour 2010 including a link to the national and international Earth Hour web -site as well as tips and tools on how to participate both at work and at home. Scheduled power down of computers for various departments at the County building. Provide a small tip sheet on paystubs on March 19 2010 with a list of ways to participate in earth hour as well as links to appropriate web sites. Earth Hour Canada wwf.ca /earthhour Earth Hour International www.earthhour.org The encouragement and promotion of participation in Earth Hour 2010 to the County of Elgin employees, whether at work or at home will demonstrate the County of Elgin's dedication to the environment. Encouragement provided will provide information and facilitate increased participation and awareness. RECOMMENDATION: THAT, the County of Elgin promotes participation of employees in Earth Hour 2010 through the provision of e-mail reminders as well as web site links and tips and tools for honouring Earth Hour 2010. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Su T-a'nya Noble Manager of Programs and Therapy Services Rhonda Roberts Director of Senior Services Bobier Villa and Terrace Lodge Mark G Chief Administrative Officer Vehicle Type Supplier Quoted price (including taxes and trade in Allowance) GM Gasoline Crestline $211,117.90 GM Gasoline Demers $217,484.32 Ford Diesel Crestline $223627.00 GM Diesel Crestline $228,147.00 Ford Gasoline Demers $228,253.22 EIginCour t Progressfve by Nature FROM: Clayton Wafters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: February 17, 2010 SUBJECT: Ambulance Vehicle Purchase 2010 INTRODUCTION: In accordance with the Ministry of Health ambulance vehicle replacement schedule, staff has determined that the replacement of two vehicles would meet the current needs of the County of Elgin. This report is in regards to the proposed purchase of two replacement ambulance vehicles. DISCUSSION: REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL In the proposed 2010 capital budget, there is an allowance for the replacement of two ambulances. A joint Request For Proposal, with the County of Middlesex, was issued and responses were received from three suppliers for vehicles for 2010 gasoline and diesel engines. Also, the County will be trading in two 2003 Ford Diesel, with approximately 275,000 kilometers each. The current prudent philosophy of staff is to balance purchases of both gas and diesel engines vehicles, with gas appearing more advantageous in urban settings and diesel in rural settings. Currently the fleet is comprised of 3 gas and 7 diesel vehicles. With the proposed purchase of two gasoline vehicles the fleet would then be split equally. A RFP was received from Demers Ambulances, Crestline and Tri -Star and the results are below. 2010 Vehicle Chassis GM Gasoline Tri -Star $236,068.30 Ford Gasoline Tri -Star $239,944.76 GM Diesel Demers $240,965.72 Ford Diesel Demers $245,042.76 GM Diesel Tri -Star $255,881.72 The trade in values are: Demers $12,000 Crestline $18,000 and Tri -Star $0. The prices stated above are reduced by the suppliers trade -in values. Staff recommends two 2010 GM gasoline powered vehicle from Crestline Coach from Saskatoon, SK. The service provider for the County of Elgin, Thames EMS, also has reviewed the RFP and also recommended the 2010 GM gasoline from Crestline Coach. CONCLUSION: In the proposed 2010 Budget an allowance was made to replace two ambulance vehicles. A RFP was supplied to three different manufactures and the lowest priced vehicle that meets the needs for the County of Elgin is a 2010 GM, gasoline powered vehicle, from Crestline Coach. RECOMMENDATION: That the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized and directed to purchase two 2010 GM gasoline powered vehicles from Crestline Coach, at their quoted price of $211,117.90 (price includes a credit of $18,000 for the trading in of two vehicles 03 -1243 and 03- 1167), which is in the proposed 2010 Budget; and also That the County trade in two 2003 Ford E -350, 03 -1243 and 03 -1167 to Crestline Coach for $18,000. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission 111111444c Clayton Walters Director, Engineering Services Mark Chief Administrative Officer COMPANY TENDER BID (inclusive of taxes) R. A. Barnes Electrical Contractors Limited 113,117.90 Richardson Fire Systems Inc. 231,000.00 ElgInCounty WiL INTRODUCTION: DISCUSSION: REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director, Engineering Services Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Coordinator DATE: February 12, 2010 SUBJECT: Fire Panel Replacement, Contract No. 2660 -09 -03 As part of the approved 2009 Capital Budget, a tender was advertised as per the County's Procurement Policy and were received until Thursday, February 11, 2010 for Fire Panel Replacement at the County Administration Building, Contract No. 2660- 09 -03. Two companies submitted bids for the Fire Panel Replacement Tender as follows: R.A. Barnes Electrical Contractors Limited submitted the lowest bid for the Fire Panel Replacement Tender at a total price of $113,117.90. The total bid price includes taxes and a $10,000 contingency. The bid includes all labour, material and equipment to replace the fire alarm panel at the Elgin County Administration Building. The capital budget allocation for this project is $80,000. An incremental amount of $40,000 was added to the 2010 capital budget. Therefore the total budget allocation for this project is $120,000. As of this date, Consulting Fees total approximately $6,000. The cost of the project is within the proposed 2010 capital budget allocation. RECOMMENDATION THAT, R. A. Barnes Electric Contractors Limited be selected for the Fire Panel Replacement Tender at a total price of $113,117.90, inclusive of all taxes and $10,000 contingency allowance; and THAT, if the cost increases above the tender amount approved by Council by more than 10 the Director will prepare a further report to Council outlining the expenditures; and THAT, the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to enter into an agreement with R.A. Barnes Electrical Contractors Limited at a total cost of $113,117.90 inclusive of all taxes and a $10,000 contingency allowance. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for on OWN Clayton Walters Mark Chief Administrative Officer Director of Engineering Services Sonia Beavers Purchasing Coordinator E ginC ounty Progressive by Nature FROM: Clayton Wafters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: January 11, 2010 SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Collision Review on County of Elgin Roads 2009 INTRODUCTION: The County has been compiling motor vehicle collision statistics on County of Elgin roads for many years. A report was presented to County Council for the motor vehicle collisions in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Motor vehicle collision information is used for a variety of reasons: a request from Council to review a location, a staff review before a reconstruction is contemplated or addressing a ratepayer concern. In the Province of Ontario few counties proactively complete a thorough review of motor vehicle collisions on a yearly basis. The exception is the Region of Waterloo who has a full time technician that reviews their road system motor vehicle collisions and reports that information to their Council. The most recent complete year of data the County has is for 2009 and this is used to determine if any preventive measures are required on our road system to reduce the severity or number of motor vehicle collisions. Motor vehicle collision history for 2008 cannot be completed due to factors beyond our control. DISCUSSION: REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL The County has been keeping police collision reports that occur on County roads for more than 20 years. Staff has used collision history information when completing capital project planning (i.e. traffic signal warrants, road reconstruction) but only at specific areas. Over the past few years staff has entered the collision report data into an electronic database. Now that the data can be analysed and sorted, staff is able to review trends and identify areas that may benefit from improvements. In an attempt to understand motorist behaviours and address potential areas of concern, staff will be disseminating motor vehicle collision statistics annually and making recommendations to Council (if any) periodically. The statistics of importance for 2009 are: Total motor vehicle collisions on County roads: 429, Motor vehicle collisions per million kilometres driven (County average) 0.89, (Ontario Municipal Roads Bench marking Ontario's municipal road system 1.97 for Counties), Day of the week with the most motor vehicle collisions: Wednesday 84 (Monday 55, Tuesday 51, Thursday 63, Friday 63, Saturday 53 and Sunday 60) Time of day with most motor vehicle collisions: daylight 234, dark 195, Motor vehicle collisions from November 15 to March 15 (winter control season): 173, Motor vehicle collisions at intersections: 94, Motor vehicle collisions at intersections where vehicle failed to stop 16, Motor vehicle collisions involving deer 182; and, Fatalities: 2. For many decades the Ministry of Transportation has provided the individual motor vehicle collision reports on County roads. The practice stopped recently and staff made an arrangement with the local police forces for the motor vehicle collision information. Staff are extremely appreciative of the co- operation provided from the Elgin County OPP detachment and the Aylmer Police Services. The motor vehicle collision information is supplied at regular intervals in the current year, whereas the MTO provided the motor vehicle collision reports mostly a year after the fact. Appendix 'A' lists the motor vehicle collisions in 200 per road. Of importance to the County is the number of motor vehicle collisions per million kilometres driven, which is the last column in the appendix. The motor vehicle collision rate per million kilometre driven is simply the length of the road times the average annual daily traffic (AADT) of that road divided by one million. This number is the benchmark commonly used by the province to determine and compare motor vehicle collision rates. This number is important to use as a comparison, otherwise, lower volume roadways would always appear to be "safer" than higher volume roads which typically have more collisions. Appendix 'B' lists the motor vehicle collisions at all intersections on County roads and Appendix 'C' lists all intersections with three or more motor vehicle collisions. Appendix 'B' and 'C' are important as this information is used when analysing multi -year motor vehicle collisions at intersections, which could determine required improvements such as signalized intersections, flashing beacons, etc. Appendix D lists the comparisons of important statistics. Staff has reviewed all County roads with motor vehicle collisions above the County average. The benchmark used is from the OGRA benchmarking initiative for motor vehicle collisions per million kilometres, which is 1.97 (2009) motor vehicle collisions per million kilometres driven, at intersections with 3 or more motor vehicle collisions and finally all the remaining motor vehicle collisions. Through that review no proactive action is required. Additionally, staff has reviewed the motor vehicle collisions for 2009 with the Elgin County OPP detachment. Staff from the OPP gave valuable insight from their perspective due to patrolling the roadways and observing the system during all environmental conditions and days /nights of the year. The meeting concluded that no roadway required additional attention. Of significance to County staff is the occurrence of a fatality on a County road. Motor vehicle collisions where fatalities have occurred, are reviewed to determine if any engineering design or maintenance deficiencies of the roadway exist. To date as a result of these reviews from an engineering perspective no changes have been made. CONCLUSION: The County of Elgin motor vehicle collision rate for the year 2009 is 55% less than the County average as stated in the `Ontario Municipal Roads 2009 Benchmarking Ontario's municipal road system'. The County's rate is 0.89 motor vehicle collisions per one million kilometres driven verses the provincial average of 1.97. The collision rate using the provincial average would see 953 motor vehicle collisions but the County had only 429 motor vehicle collisions. Therefore, Elgin County roads are safer than the industry average. The County of Elgin has been accumulating motor vehicle collision statistics for more than 20 years. This information is now entered into a database for review, comparison and sorting. Staff will disseminate this data annually and report to County Council periodically regarding our findings and any recommended improvements to the road system in an attempt to reduce the severity or number of collisions that occur on County roads. RECOMMENDATION: That this report `Motor Vehicle Collision Review on County of Elgin Roads 2009' be forwarded to the Elgin County OPP and Aylmer Police Services Boards for their information; and also, That letters from the County of Elgin be forwarded to the Elgin County OPP Police Services Board and the Aylmer Police Services Board thanking them for their support in providing motor vehicle collision information to the County of Elgin. Respectfully Submitted UU G Approve. Clayton Watters Mark Chief Administrative Officer Director, Engineering Services 2009 Collisions Per Million Kilometers Driven jan 11 10 Ranking Road Road Name Length AADT Total Traffic Collisions Collisions Per Year Per One on Road Million 1 6 Johnston Line 9.58 650 2,272,855 0 0.00 2 7 Clachan Road 4.74 850 1,470,585 0 0.00 3 15 Miller Road 1.20 1200 525,600 0 0.00 4 17 Southdel Drive 1.37 750 375,038 0 0.00 5 21 Warren 0.40 2400 350,400 0 0.00 6 34 Willsie Bourne 2.46 1700 1,526,430 0 0.00 7 39 Chatam Street 1.32 1600 770,880 0 0.00 8 41 Fulton Street 0.66 450 108,405 0 0.00 9 49 Whittaker Road 2.76 600 604,440 0 0.00 10 50 Victoria Street 0.56 700 143,080 0 0.00 11 51 Fruit Ridge Line 1.50 700 383,250 0 0.00 12 119 Mill Road 5.85 750 1,601,438 0 0.00 13 32 Glencolin Line/ Hacienda Road 5.80 1550 3,281,350 1 0.30 14 5 Dunborough Road 11.23 650 2,664,318 1 0.38 15 9 Stalker Duff Line 27.79 250 2,535,838 1 0.39 16 47 Putnam Road 8.35 1650 5,028,788 2 0.40 17 18 Third Line /Southminister Bourne 18.52 700 4,731,860 2 0.42 18 22 Fairview Road 8.31 3000 9,099,450 4 0.44 19 103 Furnival Road 21.70 1650 13,068,825 6 0.46 20 28 Cenntenial Road 4.78 3700 6,455,390 3 0.46 21 55 Elgin County Road 14.62 400 2,134,520 1 0.47 22 16 Fingal Line 28.01 1600 16,357,840 8 0.49 23 37 Avon Drive 15.87 1050 6,082,178 3 0.49 24 23 East Road 2.34 2300 1,964,430 1 0.51 25 56 Elm Line 4.92 2150 3,860,970 2 0.52 26 74 Belmont Road 14.09 4050 20,828,543 11 0.53 27 8 Currie Road 19.73 1550 11,162,248 6 0.54 28 30 Highbury Avenue 5.75 13300 27,913,375 16 0.57 29 25 Wellington Road 5.86 10450 22,351,505 13 0.58 30 52 Ron McNeil Line 29.18 2850 30,354,495 20 0.66 31 20 Union Road 24.09 1500 13,189,275 9 0.68 32 76 Graham Road 16.03 1950 11,409,353 8 0.70 33 27 Sparta Line 12.94 1150 5,431,565 4 0.74 34 104 Queens Line 6.81 500 1,242,825 1 0.80 35 48 Lyons Line 29.59 900 9,720,315 8 0.82 36 40 Springfield Road 17.83 1300 8,460,335 7 0.83 37 31 Dalewood Road 1.54 2100 1,180,410 1 0.85 38 4 Sunset Drive 13.55 7800 38,576,850 33 0.86 39 14 Iona Rd 13.71 1100 5,504,565 5 0.91 40 3 Talbot Line 50.55 2350 43,359,263 44 1.01 41 13 Shackleton Line 8.97 900 2,946,645 3 1.02 42 46 Culloden Road 8.52 1250 3,887,250 4 1.03 43 36 Quaker Road 12.41 1400 6,341,510 7 1.10 44 45 John Wise Calton Line 50.48 2000 36,850,400 42 1.14 45 38 Heritage Line 13.77 2050 10,303,403 12 1.16 46 73 Imperial Road John Street 19.18 4600 32,203,220 40 1.24 47 44 Eden Line 7.01 600 1,535,190 2 1.30 48 54 Pigram Road 2.82 1350 1,389,555 2 1.44 49 35 Springwater Road 9.11 1450 4,821,468 7 1.45 50 24 Dexter Line 16.48 950 5,714,440 9 1.57 51 57 Southdale Line 1.02 3200 1,191,360 2 1.68 52 43 Richmond Road 10.66 600 2,334,540 4 1.71 53 53 Beech Elm Street 1.37 3350 1,675,168 3 1.79 54 2 Pioneer Line 18.26 1600 10,663,840 20 1.88 55 42 Nova Scotia Lake Shore Line 22.97 950 7,964,848 15 1.88 56 19 Plank Road 19.90 2250 16,342,875 32 1.96 57 26 St.George Street 1.36 3050 1,514,020 3 1.98 58 11 Clinton Line 2.00 500 365,000 1 2.74 Totals 682.60 483,854,950 429 0.89 Appendix 'A' Road Intersection of motor vehicle collisions of motor vehicle collisions of other intersecting County road 2 Graham Road 2 2 Currie Road 1 2 Dunborough Road 3 3 Coyne Road 1 3 Mill Road 1 3 Union Road 1 3 Willy Road 1 4 Karen Street 1 4 Sparta Line 1 4 Fruit Ridge Line 1 4 John Wise Line 1 8 Aberdeen Line 1 14 Erin Line 1 19 Calton Line 4 19 Eden Line 1 19 Heritage Line 1 19 Jackson Line 1 20 Talbot Line 4 22 Fruit Ridge Line 1 25 McBain Line 2 25 Ron McNeil Line 3 1 27 Stone Church Road 1 30 Mapleton Line 1 35 Southdale Line 1 35 Talbotv Line 1 38 Springer Hill Road 1 40 Chalet Line 1 40 Pressy Line 1 42 County Road 55 1 42 Woodworth Road 1 44 Culloden Road 1 45 Dennis Road 1 45 Mitchell Road 1 45 Fairview Road 1 45 Hacienda Road 1 45 Imperial Road 1 45 Plank Road 1 45 Quaker Road 2 45 Springwater Road 1 45 Sunset Road 1 46 Eden Line 1 46 Pressy Line 1 47 Century Line 1 48 Imperial Road 1 1 48 Putnam Road 1 52 Belmont Road 2 52 Dalewood Road 4 52 Highbury Avenue 1 52 Yarmouth Centre Road 1 52 Wellington Road 1 54 Brownsville Road 2 56 Quaker Road 1 57 Sunset Road 1 73 Glencolin Line 2 73 John Wise Line 1 73 Nova Scotia Line 1 73 Sparta Line 1 73 Ron McNeil Line 2 73 Progress Street 2 73 Spruce Street 1 73 Walnut Street 1 73 Harvey Street 1 73 Pine Street 1 73 Sydenham Street 1 Appendix 'B' Motor vehicle collisions at Intersections 2009 January 11, 2010 73 Oak Street 1 73 Talbot Street 2 74 Union Street 1 74 Yorke Line 1 76 Argyle Line 1 103 Thompson Line 2 Road Location Notes Pioneer Line Dunborough Road Daytime 1, Nightime 2, SMV 3, No capital improvements. Operational items to complete (tree removals) Union Road Talbot Line Daytime 4, Nightime 1, Sideswipe 1, rear end 2, angle 2, Flashing beacon installed more than 25 years ago, No capital improvements. Wellington Road Ron McNeil Line Daytime 4, Nightime 0, Rear end 3, turning movement 1, Signals installed in 2004 No capital improvements Ron McNeil Line Dalewood Road Daytime 3, Nightime 1, Angle 4, No capital improvements. Operational items to complete (keeping grass cut at specific locations) Plank Road Calton Line Daylight 4, Nighttime 0, Angle 3, approach 1, Signals installed in 2009, No capital improvements Appendix `C' Intersections with more than three motor vehicle collisions for 2009 January 11, 2010 Appendix 'D' Statistical Comparisons 2005 2006 2007 2009 Total Motor vehicle collisions 530 497 456 429 Motor vehicle collisions per million kilometres (Ontario average) 0.96 (1.81) 1.00 (1.66) 0.94 (1.72) 0.89 (1.97) Motor vehicle collisions per day Monday 52 68 72 55 Tuesday 59 67 47 51 Wednesday 94 64 54 84 Thursday 85 67 92 63 Friday 101 71 63 63 Saturday 73 99 64 53 Sunday 66 61 65 60 Motor vehicle collisions time of day Daylight 248 231 241 234 Night time 282 214 216 195 Motor vehicle collisions in winter (Nov 15 to Mar 15) 221 171 199 173 Motor vehicle collisions at intersections 102 102 49 94 Motor vehicle collisions at intersections were vehicle failed to stop 20 19 10 16 Motor vehicle collisions with deer 190 214 183 182 Motor vehicle collisions with fatalities 8 2 3 2 Appendix 'D' Statistical Comparisons ElgInCounty FROM: Peter Dutchak Deputy Director of Engineering Services DATE: February 12, 2010 SUBJECT: Oversize Overweight Moving Permit Update INTRODUCTION: A revised and updated Oversize Overweight Moving Permit by -law and application has been prepared by the County solicitor. The new by -law and form will replace the existing ones that has been in use since the year 2000. DISCUSSION CONCLUSION: The Highway Traffic Act dictates dimensional and weight limitations for vehicles. Road authorities have an ability to permit vehicles who exceed these limits to use the roads they have jurisdiction over upon written approval. The County of Elgin has been issuing moving permits for many years. The current Oversize Overweight Moving Permit by -law and form has been in use for the past 10 years under Elgin County By -law 00 -13. The County solicitor has revised and updated the by -law and permit form so that its conditions are legally clear and concise while remaining in the County's best interests. The most significant change is with the process to administer engineering assessments of roads subject to over weight vehicles. Previously, the County requested funds from the applicant and administered the engineering evaluation through a consultant. The new process will place the onus on the applicant to provide an assessment acceptable to the County. A copy of the revised by -law and permit form is attached for Council's information. RECOMMENDATION: THAT a by -law be prepared to provide for the granting of permits to move oversize and overweight loads on County roads and that previous by -laws be repealed. All of -.ch is Respectfully Submitted, Approved Peter Dutchak De uty Dir ctor of Engineering Services fR Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL ChiefAdministra iv- icer COUNTY OF ELGIN By -Law No. "BEING A BY -LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE GRANTING OF PERMITS TO MOVE OVERSIZE OR OVERWEIGHT LOADS ON COUNTY ROADS" WHEREAS pursuant to Section 110, Part VII, of the Highway Traffic Act, being Chapter H.8, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, provides that a municipal corporation may grant a permit for the moving of heavy vehicles, Toads, objects or structures in excess of the dimensional limits set out in Section 109 or the weight limits set out in Part VIII, on roads they have jurisdiction over; and WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin deems it expedient to control and regulate the movement of heavy vehicles, loads and objects or structures on County Roads and to provide for the issuing of permits related thereto. NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin enacts as follows: Part 1 Definitions 1.1 In this By -Law: a) "Corporation" shall mean the Corporation of the County of Elgin. b) "Council" means the Council for the Corporation of the County of Elgin. c) "County Road" means all roads included in the County of Elgin road system as defined in the Corporation of the County of Elgin By -Law entitled "Adopting a Plan of County Road Improvement and Establishing a County Road System" and any amendments thereto. d) "Director of Engineering Services" shall mean the person appointed by Council to such position and his or her authorized representatives or delegates. e) "Person" shall include a corporation. Part 2 General Provisions 2.1 No person shall move upon wheels, rollers, or otherwise over or upon a County Road, heavy vehicles, Toads, objects, or structures in excess of the gross weight, length, width, and height limits prescribed by the Highway Traffic Act (Ontario), without a permit to do so as issued by the Director of Engineering Services. 2.2 A permit to move heavy vehicles, Toads, objects, or structures upon a County Road shall be in the form attached as Schedule "A" hereto and shall be effective only when signed and dated by the Director of Engineering Services. 2.3 Prior to issuance of a permit to move heavy vehicles, loads, objects, or structures upon a County Road, an Applicant for such permit shall file with the Corporation such material as is required by the Director of Engineering Services, including the following: a) Permit Form as attached as Schedule "A" hereto, Sections 1 and 2 to be completed by the Applicant and the Applicant to have signed and dated such Permit Form; b) Proof of paid up property damage and public liability insurance of not less than FIVE MILLION DOLLARS coverage for the time period during which the permit is to be effective, the Corporation of the County of Elgin to be named as an additional insured for purposes of such public liability insurance; c) Written acknowledgment from Engineering Services for the County of Elgin, Ontario Provincial Police and /or any other police force having policing responsibilities over any County Road or a portion thereof to be involved in the proposed move, and any fire department having fire service responsibility in any area through which any County Road or a portion thereof to be involved in the proposed move passes that the scheduled dates, duration, and route of the proposed move will not create unnecessary traffic hazard or delays; d) Written acknowledgment from all utilities and railway companies whose facilities are or are potentially affected by the proposed move that any wires, cable, or poles existing on, over, or adjacent to the County Road or Roads to be used in the proposed move will not hinder such move or that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the removal or raising of such facilities to avoid any such hindrance; e) A performance bond or other security, in an amount acceptable to the Director of Engineering Services and in a form acceptable to the Treasurer of the Corporation, equal to the potential estimated costs of repair and remediation of the County Road or Roads and related facilities at risk as a result of the proposed move; and f) A non refundable administrative fee, payable to the Treasurer of the County of Elgin, in an amount set forth in Schedule "B" hereto. 2.4 If satisfied with the materials filed by the Applicant, the Director of Engineering Services may issue a permit in the form attached as Schedule "A" hereto by signing and dating same, provided always that the said Director of Engineering Services maintains and exercises full and unfettered discretion in determining if a permit is to be issued, the acceptability of materials filed by the Applicant, and the attachment of any and all appropriate conditions to the said permit as issued. 2.5 Without limiting or revising the terms of permits set forth in Schedule "A" hereto or otherwise restricting the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services, the permit to be issued by the Director of Engineering Services shall specify, among other things, the following: 2.5.1 the dates and times to which the permit apply and authorize use of County Road or Roads; 2.5.2 the County Road or Roads authorized for use under the permit and the route to be followed upon such County Road or Roads; 2.5.3 the amount of refundable security deposit required and to be paid by the Applicant; 2.5.4 the type of escort required during use of County Road or Roads pursuant to the said permit; and 2.5.6 any other special condition applicable to the permit and in addition to those set forth in the permit form as attached in Schedule "A" hereto. 2.6 Notwithstanding the issuance of a permit in keeping with this By -Law, the owner, operator, or mover of any heavy vehicle, load, object, or structure shall be subject to and comply with the directions of the Director of Engineering Services or his authorized representatives and delegates and the officer in charge of any police or fire escort associated with the vehicle, load, object, or structure being moved. 2.7 Any permit issued by the Director of Engineering Services shall be nullified and voided by or upon any one or combination of the following incidents: 2.7.1 failure on the part of the Applicant, including any servant, agent, or employee, to comply with any term of such permit; 2.7.2 failure to comply with the directions of the Director of Engineering Services or his representatives or delegates or the officer in charge of any police or fire escort to the vehicle, load, object, or structure being moved; 2.7.3 the discovery or disclosure of any omission or misrepresentation, whether by inadvertence, or otherwise, which is material to the application process or the permit issued in respect thereof; and 2.7.4 at the direction of the Director of Engineering Services or his representatives or delegates. 2.8 The owner, driver, operator, or mover of any heavy vehicle, load, object, or structure being moved on a County Road pursuant to a permit issued hereunder is nevertheless responsibility for all damages of all kinds and nature that may be caused by reason of the driving, operating, or moving of such vehicle, load, object, or structure and, further thereto, the said owner, driver, operator, or mover agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Corporation, including its servants, agents, employees, from and against all loss, costs, and damages suffered by it and from all actions or claims which may be brought or made against the Corporation by reason of the movement of any heavy vehicle, load, object, or structure upon a County Road. Part 3 Enforcement 3.1 Any person who contravenes any provision of this By -Law is, upon conviction, guilty of an offence and is liable to any penalty as provided in the Provincial Offences Act. 3.2 The Court in which a conviction has been entered and any Court of competent jurisdiction thereafter may make an Order prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted, and such Order shall be in addition to any other penalty imposed on the person so convicted. Part 4 Repeal and Enactment 4.1 By -Law 00 -13 for the Corporation of the County of Elgin is hereby repealed. 4.2 This By -Law comes into full force and effect on 2010. -20- READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME AND ENACTED BY COUNCIL FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN THIS DAY OF 2010. Bonnie Vowel Warden Mark McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer SECTION 1 —GENERAL LNTFORMATION APPLICANT CONTACT PERSON APPLICANT'S MAILING ADDRESS POSTAL CODE APPLICANT'S TELEPHONE FAX TRANSPORTING COMPANY CONTACT PERSON TRANSPORTING COMPANY'S ADDRESS TRANSPORTER'S TELEPHONE FAX SECTION 2 —DESCRIPTION OFLOAD/VEHICLE/ROUTE (Please Indicate all dimensions in metric) DESCRIPTION OF LOAD DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE NO. OF AXLES NO. OF WHEELS PER AXLE TOTAL IVIDTHAT TIRES (metres) TOTAL WEIGHT (tonnes) OVERALL HEIGHT (metres) OVERALL WIDTH (metres) OVERALL LENGTH (metres) PRESENT LOCATION DESTINATION EXACTROUTE TO BEFOLLOIVED MOVING DATE PROPOSED TIME OF MOVE NOTE: A MAP SHOWING THE EXACT ROUTE THE ADOVE DESCRIBED LOAD MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION APPLICATIONS FOR ANNUAL PERMITS FOR OVERSIZE VEHICLES ONLYARE TO INCLUDE LIST OF INVOLVED VEHICLES. APPLICATIONS FOR ANNUAL PERMITS FOR OVERSIZE VEHICLES MUST ALSO SPECIFY GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF COUNTY WITHIN WHICH OVERSIZE VEHICLE MOVES ARE TO OCCUR. APPLICATIONS FORPERh1TS FOR ANY OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES hnISTINCLUDE ACCURATE AXLE SPACING DIAGRAMS AND CALCULATIONS Schedule A By -Law No. 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario, N5R 5V1 Phone( 519 )631 -1460 Est. 4 Fax (519)631 -4297 OVERSIZE /OVERWEIGHT MOVING PERMIT ®Please note: Invoice will not be issued —Make cheques payable to the County of Elgin PERMIT FEE: PERMIT FEE: $200.00 [If application submitted more than 5 business days prior to intended dote of move or intended frst date of move] $400.00 [If application submitted less than 5 business days prior to intended date of move or intended first dote of move] ANNUAL PERMIT FEE: $500.00 [Valid Calendar Year .January to December" Refer to Annual Permit Conditions an Reverse.] I have read, understand and agree to the conditions set forth on this application and assume all cost incurred by the County of Elgin, liability for all damages which may be incurred and to indemnify and hold harmless the County of Elgin from any actions, claims, suits or demands made against the County by any person arising out of the issuance of this permit. (REFER TO CONDPTIONS ON REVERSE) Signature of Applicant The Corporation of the County of Elgin Date Signed Permit No. SECTION 3 SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND APPROVAL [OFFICE USE ONLY] REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPOSIT (if applicable) PROOF OF LIABILITY INSURANCE: YES NO AMOUNT OF COVERAE TYPE OF ESCORT REQUIRED (sec conditions on reverse) SPECIAL CONDITIONS Director of Engineering Services/Designate Date Signed CONDITIONS 1. This permit is issued pursuant to Section 110 of the Highway Traffic Act (Ontario) and is subject to the conditions set forth below. The permit holder mast camalywith alt requirements of the Highway Traffic Act (Ontario) and this Permit shall not and does not grant permission to disobey anv such requirement or provision of such Act or any Regulation enacted in relation thereto Where required by the Director of Engineering Services or an authorized designate for the County of Elgin and prior to commencement of any move authorized by a Permit issued therefor, the Applicant, at his, her, or its full expense, shall arrange for and produce an assessment or, if directed, multiple assessments of the structural integrity of any and all County Roads incorporated within the intended route of the permitted move and as to the capacity of such road or roads, or any portion thereof, to withstand and support the size and weight of the load/vehicle to be moved, provided that such assessment or assessments shall at all times be completed by a qualified engineer acceptable to and approved by the Director of Engineering Services prior to commencement of any such assessment or assessments. 3. No portion of any County road shall be closed at any time to accommodate the move for which a Permit is issued. The transporter must at all times cause the least degree of interference with vehicular and pedestrian traffic on any County road during the course of such permitted move. 4. A refundable security deposit as against damage repair costs may be requred by the County of Elgin in respect of any permitted move. The Applicant agrees to pay /submit such deposit in the form and of the amount specified by the Director of Engineering Services or an authorized designate. The Applicant and/or the transporter shall at all times be responsible for and shall arrange for repair of any and all damage caused to any County road through the course of any move for which a Permit is granted. 5. Before submitting any Application for an Oversize/Overweight Moving Permit, the Applicant shall arrange for and thereafter maintain and produce evidence of paid up property damage and public liability insurance of not less than $5,000,000.00 coverage for the period during which the Permit is to be effective, in respect of which policy of insurance the Corporation of the County of Elgin is to be named as an additional insured. 6. This Permit is not valid: a) on roads other than County roads under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the County of Elgin and as defined and identified pursuant to the Elgin County Road Consolidating By -Law, as amended; b) at any time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on such County road are not clearly visible at a distance of 150 metres; c) between one half hour before sunset and one half hour after sunrise; and d) on any Saturday, Sunday, or statutory holiday. 7. This Permit is valid: a) between one half hour after sunrise and one half hour before sunset; and b) on each Monday through Friday of the calendar year save and except for any statutory holiday falling on those days. 8. Overweight Permits are not valid and will not be issued during the months of March and April or at any other date where "half load" season is in force. 9. This Permit must be produced on demand of a police officer or an officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act (Ontario). 10. This Permit is issued on the condition the Permit holder accepts responsibility for any and all damage that may be caused to overhead wires, structures, roads, infrastructure, signs or railway right of ways. The Permit holder must obtain the necessary approvals from all encroachments and /or any provincial or municipal Permits required for the proposed routes. 11. The load/vehicle for which an Ovenveight/Oversize Moving Permit is issued shall be configured in compliance with the following rules: I. Where Permit required due to excess height articles not to be loaded one on top of the other. Where Permit required due to excess width articles not to be loaded side by side or crosswise, 3. Where Permit required due to excess length articles not to be loaded one behind the other and, in the event of any overhand over the rear ofthe support vehicle and trailer, such overhang shall not exceed 4.65 metres from the centre of the rear most axle. 4. Where Permit required due to excess weight— only one article permitted —when crossing bridges, vehicles over 45,400 kg gross weight must be operated at lowest In speed —bridge postings and load restrictions pursuant to Part 8 of the Highway Traffic Act shall apply, 12. Vehicles and loads in excess of the width and/or length prescribed under Section 109 of the Highway Traffic Act (Ontario) shall be marked with four or more flags, one as near as practicable to each corner of the vehicle or load. The flags shall be bright red or orange in colour and shall be not less than 40 cm X 40 cm square. Where a vehicle or load is wider at any point or points on either side than at the corner, it shall, where practicable, be so marked with such a flag at the widest point on each side. 13. Vehicles and loads in excess ofthe length prescribed under Section 109 of the Highway Traffic Aet (Ontario) shall, in addition to the flags required under Condition 11, display on tbn rear, in a clearly visible position, a sign bearing the words "LONG LOAD" in black letters at least 200 mm wide with lines forming the letters at least 30 mm wide on a yellow background. The sign to be removed or covered when not in use. 14. Private and/or police escort shall accompany any overweight/oversize load and/or vehicle where such Load and/or vehicle exceeds the dimensions set forth below: a) Load/Vehicle Width Escort Requirement 1. 2.61mto3.99m 4.0mto4.99m 5.0 m and greater b) Load/VehicleLength 23.01 m to 36.75 m 36.76 m to 4534 m 45.75 and greater Where escort vehicles are required, No escort required Private escort required Police escort required Escort Requirement No escort required Private escort required Police escort requiaed the following rules apply: The escort vehicle or vehicles shall be operated by a person not less than 18 years of age licensed to operate a motor vehicle in the Province of Ontario. 2. The escort vehicle or vehicles shall not have more than 2 axles and awheelbase length of not less than 2.65 metres and shall be equipped with an amber flashing roof light visible from the front and rear for a distance of at least 150 metres and shall precede on a two lane roadway or follow on a four lane roadway at a distance of 60 to I50 metres and shall bear a sign clearly visible for a distance of at least 150 metres, "CAUTION OVERSIZE LOAD FOLLOWS" or "CAUTION OVERSIZE LOAD AHEAD" as the case may be in black letters at least 200 mm high with lines forming the letters at least 30 mm wide on a yellow background. The sign to be removed or covered when not in use. 3. When escorting a load/vehicle in excess of 4.00 metres in width, the escort vehicle or vehicles and towing vehicles shall be equipped with a working two way radio communication device permitting inter communication between vehicles. 4. All escort vehicle or vehicles shall be equipped with a fire extinguisher in effective working order and at least six 45 cm (18') traffic cones. 5. All units involved in the permitted move, including load vehicle and escort vehicles, will be operated with headlights activated when traveling on a County road, 15. This Permit may be terminated at the discretion of the Manager of Engineering Services or an authorized designate for the breach of any condition of this Permit. ANNUAL PERMIT CONDITIONS ANNUAL PERMITS APPLY ONLY TO OVERSIZE VEHICLES/LOADS. All conditions otherwise set Ruth above apply to all moves permitted pursuant to an Annual Permit, Annual Permits will only be issued upon confirmation that the information submitted in Sections 1 and 2 to this Permit Application will apply to all oversize moves to be completed. If the information required in Sections 1 and 2 for any specific move is different to that submitted in Application for Annual Permit, then a new Permit Application must be submitted for such move and which Application shall be considered by the Director of Engineering Services or an authorized designate as a separate Application. The Director of Engineering Services or an authorized designate has the discretion to waive any additional Permit fee for such additional Permit Applications. ElginC_ou Fee;res by !hare REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Kathryn Russell, Tourism Development Coordinator Alan Smith, General Manager, Economic Development Peter Dutchak, Deputy Director, Engineering Services DATE: February .23, 2010 SUBJECT: Draft Tourism Signage Policy INTRODUCTION: The current state of repair of many former St. Thomas Elgin Tourist Association (STETA) tourism directional signs within the County of Elgin necessitates their replacement. Furthermore, the original Canadian Tourist Oriented Directional Signing (TODS) agreement expired in 2007 and as a courtesy the County left these signs in place until a new signing mechanism was implemented. The Canadian TODS agreement with ratepayers ends June 30, 2010. All of which provide an opportunity to create and initiate a new tourism signage policy to define eligibility, use, and design for tourism oriented directional signage on Elgin County road right -of -ways. A draft signage policy is contained in Addendum A for County Council's consideration. DISCUSSION: Tourism directional signage will provide consistent tourism signage information to road users, elevate the County of Elgin's image, inform visitors as to where tourism operations and attractions are located and promote tourism in the County. The signage program will be jointly administered by the County of Elgin's Economic Development office, which will review signage applications and collect fees, according to established criteria; and, the County of Elgin's Engineering office, which will approve signage locations, supply, erect, remove, and replace tourism signage. The implementation of a signage policy in the County will address issues including; establishing criteria to define eligible tourism destinations and operations, create a process for obtaining and implementing tourism directional signage, update and provide a consistent design and image with current Elgin County logo /branding and improve way finding for tourists. The tourism signage will be made of a white reflective header with a full colour engineering grade reflective logo and tagline identifying Elgin County at the top of the sign. The principle body of the sign will be a blue background with engineering grade white reflective legend and border. A maximum of 3 tourist signs will be placed on one post location, with the Elgin County logo at the top of the first sign. The size of the Elgin County sign will be 240 cm x 45 cm and the size of each principle body sign will be 240 cm x 60 cm. The estimated cost to manufacture each sign is. approximately $350.00, and the labour fees to erect, maintain and /or dismantle each sign location are approximately $250.00. Therefore, if full cost recovery is to be achieved a fee of $600.00 per sign post location to each business will be necessary. The sign costs are staff estimates and are subject to change based on actual costs. Unlike for profit organizations that apply for signage, non profit tourism operations that meet the established criteria will be exempt from the tourism directional signage and renewal fees. In order to qualify for this exemption the applicant must submit certification showing registration as a non profit entity, and /or provide satisfactory evidence with their application. The County of Elgin's Economic Development Department will cover the costs on a first come first serve basis for up to a maximum of one (1) tourism directional sign for each non- profit operated tourism attraction. Over a 3 year period it is estimated installing a maximum of 20 non profit tourism directional signs per year will cost approximately $12,000 per year or $36,000 for 3 years to the County. It is expected that during this 3 year period that each non profit organization with a former STETA sign will receive only one (1) new sign funded by the County. Those non profit organizations which were not part of the original STETA signage program will also be accommodated. After this three year time period, for the next 2 years staff anticipates the need for non profit tourism signs will decrease to 10 signs per year at a cost of approximately $6,000 per year or $12,000 for 2 years to the County. After the 5 year time period the costs to maintain the non profit tourism signage will be approximately $5,000 per year to the County. However, non profit tourism operations also have the option at any time to enter into the tourism signage fee schedule at the expense of the applicant. The duration of the tourism signage agreement between the County and the applicant (both for profit and non profit) will be 5 years from the time the sign is installed. After the 5 years a renewal fee of $600 will be paid to maintain the tourism sign for 5 additional years (the renewal fee will be reviewed at this time to determine its viability). After a 10 year term the tourism signage will be removed and the tourism operator may reapply for the signage. Therefore the total estimated cost to the business over the 10 year term would be $1,200. For consideration an adjacent municipality currently charges a fee of $470 for a 24 -month term for the same tourism sign. Over a ten year period, using this fee schedule the total cost to the business would be $2,350. TODS currently charges a one time application fee of $50.00 plus a cost of $153 per year for the same tourism sign. Businesses enter into a 3 year contract, prepaying 2 years and the application fee. Therefore, over a ten year period the total to the business would be $1,580. The former STETA tourism directional signs, Canadian TODS and any non- conforming signs (i.e. Bayham's new signs) within the County of Elgin will be removed by a contractor as new Elgin County tourism signs are being installed to ensure a smooth transition from the old to new signs. Two public meetings will be held at the County of Elgin Administration Building to present the draft tourism signage policy to municipalities, Elgin County Tourism Members and all businesses that currently have the former St. Thomas Elgin Tourist Association signage and TODS signage posted on County roads. Thus, these businesses /organizations will be given the opportunity to provide input into the draft policy, prior to submission to County Council for adoption, while giving notice that the existing signage will be taken down, and the proposed process for purchasing new signs. Notice of the draft tourism signage policy meetings will be given by way of a mailing to these businesses /organizations and newspaper ads in local media. CONCLUSION: A new signage policy will address a number of quality and consistency issues and put in place a process for providing a system of signs to direct traffic to qualified tourism oriented businesses in Elgin County. Therefore enhancing the profile of tourism in Elgin County, and increasing visits to the County's many tourism services and facilities. Under the draft tourism signage policy eligible St. Thomas tourism operators can apply for Elgin County tourism signage on County roads. If the City of St. Thomas contributes fully to the Elgin Tourism program, the Elgin County draft signage policy will be updated to include the City of St. Thomas. The updated policy will then be reviewed with the City of St. Thomas taking the following recommendations into consideration: For tourism businesses located in the City of St. Thomas and signed on a County road or within the City, a City of St. Thomas header will be used. For tourism signs located within the City of St. Thomas, the City will be responsible for approving the sign locations and the County of Elgin Engineering Department will provide the signage to the City for installation. Upon completion of the public meetings a recommended tourism signage policy will be presented to County Council for ratification. Staff plans on having the tourism signage policy ready to be initiated by May 2010 for signs to be installed by August 2010 in time for the International Plowing Match. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the process to develop a County Tourism Signage Policy as described in the February 23` report be approved; and That staff reports back to County Council with a final draft Tourism Signage Policy for Council's ratification. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Kathryn Russell Tourism Development Coordinator, Economic Developmp Alan Smith v General Manager, Economic Development Peter Dutchak Deputy Director, Engineering Services Mark Chief Administrative Officer 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF ELGIN TOURISM SIGNAGE POLICY To define the eligibility, use, design and authority for tourism oriented directional signage on Elgin County road right -of -ways. 1.2 OBJECTIVES 1) Elevate Elgin County's tourist destination image; 2) Inform Elgin County's road users of tourism operations and attractions; 3) Provide roadway directions to Elgin County tourism operations; 4) Increase the frequency and quantity of tourism visits by; i) Providing consistent tourism signage information to road users; ii) Improving the management and delivery of tourism signage to customers; iii) Protecting the safety of road users; iv) Minimizing additional road maintenance costs; v) Recovering program operating costs. 2.0 REGULATIONS 2.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.1.1. Applicability County of Elgin Draft Tourism Signage Policy Addendum "A" The Regulations define the requirements allowing eligible businesses and attractions to obtain tourism signage on County road right -of -ways in approved site locations. Tourism signage shall be located only where sufficient space for signs occurs along a route that will lead motoring tourists to their destination in a reasonably direct manner. County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.elgin- county.on.ca progresses b. azure 2.2 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION County of Elgin Department of Economic Development and Department of Engineering shall jointly administer and implement the Elgin tourism signage program in the following areas: Department of Economic Development i) Approval or denial of tourism signage applications; ii) Approval of signage symbol and content; iii) Collection of fees and payment terms for tourism signage; iv) Receipt and refund of payment for tourism signage; Department of Engineering v) Approval of signage locations; vi) Supply of tourism oriented directional signage; vii) Erection and removal of tourism signage along County road rights -of way; viii) Replacement of signage; and ix) Removal of signage not consistent with this policy. 2.3 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA The following requirements must be met to be eligible to obtain tourism signage on Elgin County road rights -of -way: i) Only those tourist -based businesses and facilities listed in Appendix "A" will be permitted to erect tourism signage on County roads. ii) The tourist -based operation and /or facility must be accessible by a road open to the general public. iii) A seasonal tourist operation must be open during a specific season with set days and hours of operation; no indeterminate tourist operation is eligible for tourism signage. iv) The tourist -based operation must have a reception structure such as a controlled gate, staff reception and orientation point or permanent interpretation panels or displays and have adequate off road parking. v) The operation must comply with all applicable federal, provincial and municipal laws and regulations. vi) The tourism signage must not detract or interfere with other traffic control devices. vii) The signage must not interfere with visibility at intersections or entrances. County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www. e l gi n -c o u nty. o n. ca Progressiv&"lfy 2.4 SIGNAGE CRITERIA 2.4.1 Type of Signage Elgin County tourism operators will have the opportunity to acquire (1) classification of tourism directional signage: Type 1) 24.2 Design Size: Location: 240 cm x 60 cm (8' x 2') Along county roads, 0.5m of the road shoulder and not in front of an existing residential land use. The County determines the exact location and will make a conscious effort to prohibit signs in congested areas. Elgin County tourism directional signage will project a consistent design and image that will be easily identifiable by County road users. a) Elgin County tourism directional signage will contain the following design elements: A white reflective header with a full colour engineering grade reflective logo and tagline identifying Elgin County at the top of the sign (applies to first sign only); The principle body of the sign will be a blue background with engineering grade white reflective legend and border; The sign legend will be a maximum of two lines using Highways font, with one symbol as an option; b) The content of the sign legend shall be limited to the identification of the business by its operating name, the mileage to the business and a directional arrow. c) All sign legends are subject to the approval of the Department of Economic Development. d) Standard General Service Symbols and white Recreational Cultural Interest Symbols as displayed in the MUTCD (Manual of Universal Traffic Control Devices), as revised, may be used to indicate a general class of business. When symbols are used, they must be contained entirely within the border of the legend. If a symbol does not exist for the class of business, no symbol will be included on the sign. e) No business logos or trademarks may be used in the tourism signage legend. County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.elgin-county.on.ca Progressive t tature 2.5 SIGN AND SITE SELECTION CRITERIA a) The location of other official traffic control devices shall take precedence over the location of tourism directional signage. b) The maximum distance allowed to the tourism business from the sign location is 15 km c) A maximum of 3 tourism signs shall be placed on one post location, with the Elgin County logo, branding sign at the top of the first sign. d) For the direction of traffic when approaching an intersection where more than one tourism directional sign is located, the order of the tourism sign shall be: First, businesses signed for the left direction; Second, businesses signed for the right direction; e) Where the total number of tourism signs to both the left and right are less than the maximum allowed for a double post location, the signs will be accommodated in one location. When tourism signs are located in one location, the order of the signs shall g) be: Top, businesses signed for the left direction, Bottom, businesses signed for the right direction. f) Position, height and lateral clearance of tourism signage shall be in accordance with the Ontario Traffic Manual and County Signing Standards. Appendix "B" provides illustrative diagrams as follows: Diagram I. Illustrates typical tourism signage layout. Diagram II. Illustrates location of tourism signage. The Department of Engineering shall give notice of their intention, then will remove permitted tourism signs in the event of the following: The location of tourism signage is needed to be utilized for roadway purposes or activities including construction, reconstruction or maintenance; The tourism operator is no longer in operation; The tourism operator declines renewal of the signage contract; The location of a tourism sign endangers the health, safety or welfare of the public. h) When a tourism sign is removed and cannot be re- erected at an approved substitute location, the tourism operator shall be entitled to an appropriate pro -rata rebate of that part of paid annual fees applicable to the remainder of the term. i) All installation, removal and maintenance of tourism signage will be performed by the Department of Engineering or an approved contractor. At no time shall the tourism operator enter upon County road right -of ways for such purpose or perform any such activities within the roadway right -of -way. j) The granting of tourism directional signage does not convey any rights, title or interest to the County road rights -of -ways. County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.eigi n- county.on.ca Arogressfv6' Nature 2.6 APPLICATION PROCESS 1. Every tourist operator must apply to the Elgin County Department of Economic Development Office for tourism directional signage to be located on County road right of -way. No approval of application or sign installation will occur unless all requirements and criteria for eligibility have been satisfied. 2. Application packages can be obtained from the Department of Economic Development or the Elgin County web site, www.elgincounty.ca. 3. The effective date of applications delivered by mail or facsimile shall be the date and time of receipt by the County Department of Economic Development office rather than the date of mailing or the stated date on the application. Applications will be considered in order of date and time received. 4. The Department of Economic Development will act promptly in the denial or approval of any tourism sign application. The Department of Economic Development office shall deny applications which do not comply with this policy. 5. The Department of Engineering will review the proposed sign location. If the sign location is not approved they will contact the tourism operator with an alternate sign location. 6. The applicant shall provide to the Department of Economic Development office a complete application form. 7. The Department of Economic Development office may reject any application which is incomplete. 8. The approved applicants shall have the right to request a change to their tourism sign during the stated term of agreement, provided that the changes conform to the regulations. Any approval of sign changes will result in the applicant incurring additional expenses related to sign removal, sign production costs and remount. 9. The Department of Engineering office will not accept any signs to be located along local municipal roads, only County roads. 10. If a tourism operator qualifies for tourism directional signage but is observed by County staff that there are existing operational problems created by the business, the applicant will be responsible to correct, at their expense, such problems as a condition of the sign(s) approval. These observed operational problems shall be items such as, but not limited to, the following: 1, Access improvement throat width 2. Radius 3. Relocation of access 4. Reduction in the number of access points 5. Provision of parking prohibitions on an adjacent roadway(s) 11. Upon approval of the tourism signage application, the sign will be installed within 4 -8 weeks. County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.eigin- county.on.ca Progress:a S Nature 2.7 EXEMPTION Upon a satisfactory demonstration of submitting proof of being a non profit tourism operation, as listed in Appendix "A" the operation shall be exempt from the signage and renewalfees for up to a maximum of 1 tourism directional sign for each non profit operated tourism attraction. In order to qualify for this exemption the applicant must submit certification showing registration as a non profit entity, and /or provide satisfactory evidence with their application, which, in the determination of the County of Elgin will grant the exemption. A maximum of 20 tourism signs per year for the first 3 years, and 10 signs per year for the next 2 years will qualify for non profit exemption over a 5 year term on a first come first serve basis. After the 5 year term, 3 signs per year will qualify for non profit exemption. Non profit tourism operations also have the option at any time to enter into the tourism signage fee schedule at the expense of the applicant. 2.8 CONTRACT AND FEE SCHEDULE The Fee Schedule is attached as Appendix "C The Department of Economic Development will only accept payment for tourism directional signage fees in the form of cheques, money orders or certified funds. Payment must accompany the application. The Department of Economic Development shall not accept any payment in the form of cash and shall not be responsible for the transmittal of cash payments. All fees for tourism directional signage are to be based on the cost recovery of administering, supply of new and replacement signs, erecting signs, and maintaining this sign program. The duration of the tourism directional signage agreement between the applicant and the County of Elgin will be 5 years from the time the sign is installed. 2.9 RENEWAL OF CONTRACT The Elgin tourism directional signage term will begin from the installation date. Applications for renewal of Elgin tourism directional signage will be mailed by the Department of Economic Development 60 days prior to the expiry date of the permit /agreement. The tourism operator shall renew their application, accompanied by full payment according to the fee schedule. If the renewal application is not received within 30 days of expiry of the permit /application, the tourism signage will be removed. If an application for renewal is denied, all applicable fees shall be refunded. County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.elgin- county.on.ca rogressitzi'} tIlature 2.10 EXPIRY OF CONTRACT Pending the tourism operators renewal of the Elgin tourism signage application after the 5 year term, the permit /agreement between the applicant and the County of Elgin will remain active for 10 years from the date of sign installation. After the 10 year term the tourism operator signage will be removed. Tourism operators may reapply for signage after the 10 year term, following the same conditions as the initial application. County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.elgin county.on.ca Progressli°23'ature Appendix "A" Tourism Operations Eligible for Directional Signage Antique Dealers Banquet Halls Boat Launches Boat Rentals and Charters (canoes, kayaks, sailboats, rowboats, motorboats) Campgrounds Casinos Conference Centres Craft Centres Cultural Centres Destination accommodations, resorts, and inns Equestrian Facilities Farm -based Tourist Attractions Farmers Market's (over 10,000 sq. ft. in area) Fishing Golf Courses (Open to the Public) Hotels Bed Breakfasts Interpretive Centres Live Theatres Major Tourist Attractions Major Sport Facilities Marinas Motor Speedways Raceways Restaurants or Foodservice Establishments Shopping Store Locations Skiing Sports Fields Swimming Pools Transit Terminals Wineries Zoos County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.elgin county.on.ca Progress► i i►ature Appendix "A" continued Non Profit Tourism Operations Eligible for Directional Signage Non commercial (non profit community owned) operated tourism attractions that provide visitors with an experience in Heritage or Historical, Recreational, Entertainment, Natural, Cultural, Education activities. A categorized listing of qualifying non profit operation types are included below. Archives Arena and Community Centres Churches Conservation Areas Hiking Trails Historic Sites; Historic Heritage Buildings Federal Parks Libraries Murals Museums Parks Public Arts Organizations /Galleries Points of Interest; Plaques Provincial Parks Public Beaches Picnic Areas Scenic Lookouts /Natural Attractions Tourism Information Centres Tourism Related Associations Municipal Airports Note: Signage listed above is exempt from renewal fees County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.elgin- county.on.ca Progress►, -Nature Appendix "C" Contract and Fee Schedule for Directional Signage Type 1) Size: 240 cm x 60 cm (8' x 2') Initial Fee: $600.00 for 5 years applicable taxes Renewal Fee: $600.00 for additional 5 years applicable taxes County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.elgin- county.on.ca Progress v& t DATE: February 25, 2010 REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Lisa Terrio Financial Analyst SUBJECT: Council and Outside Boards Remuneration and Expenses CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED: 1. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability INTRODUCTION: Each year it is required that reports be filed before the end of March on Council's remuneration, mileage, and expenses. In addition, remuneration, mileage and expenses paid for persons appointed to Outside Boards must also be reported As well, a report on convention expenses must be published. DISCUSSION: Warden and Council remuneration and expenses totalled $207,685.26 for the 2009 calendar year and convention expenses were $26,409.84. Remuneration and expenses paid to persons on Outside Boards totalled $19,400.86 for that same time period. Details by member are provided in the attached documents. CONCLUSION: For 2009 the total remuneration and expenses, including conventions, for both Elgin County Council and Outside Boards was $253,495.96. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Treasurer's Statement of Remuneration and Expenses for County Council be received and filed, and THAT the Treasurer's Statement for Remuneration and Expenses for Outside Boards be received and filed, and THAT the Treasurer's Statement on Convention Expenses be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission tLis6 ter '(o Financial Analyst D Chief Administrative Officer TREASURER'S STATEMENT OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES FOR COUNTY COUNCIL March 9 Session, 2010 To the Warden and Members of the Elgin County Council, The following is a statement of the remuneration, mileage, and expenses paid to each member of the Elgin County Council for the period of January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. REMUNERATION and MILEAGE COUNCIL, COMMITTEES and OUTSIDE BOARDS ACRE, LYNN 19,998.10 HABKIRK, ROBERT 19,995.61 HOFHUIS, SYLVIA 12,349.61 MARKS, TOM 19,401.61 McINTYRE, JAMES 19,113.52 MENNILL, DAVID 19,310.53 VOWEL, BONNIE 22,521.81 WARWICK, GRAHAM (2009 Warden) 55,289.92 WILSON, JOHN 19,704.55 TOTAL 207,685.26 By -Law 05 -12, By -Law 05 -13 and By -Law 05 -45. All of which is respectfully submitted. Approved for sub sa Terrio Financial Analyst Mark G. McD Chief Administrative Officer TREASURER'S STATEMENT OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES FOR OUTSIDE BOARDS March 9 Session, 2010 To the Warden and Members of the Elgin County Council, The following is a statement of the remuneration, mileage, and expenses paid to persons appointed to Outside Boards for the period January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 as authorized by the following By -Laws: LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE (By -Law 06 -26) ENS, PAUL 3,326.40 FAULDS, PAUL 3,240.76 McPHAIL, DUNCAN 2,933.70 VAN BRENK, RIEN 2,118.00 WALTERS, BILL 2,948.16 TOTAL 14,567.02 ELGIN ST. THOMAS HEALTH UNIT 3 HRS 3 +HRS MEETINGS TRAVEL MCINTYRE, JAMES 6 4 1,056.00 244.08 1,300.08 VOWEL, BONNIE 6 5 1,188.00 408.36 1,596.36 WILSON, JOHN 8 5 1,614.00 323.40 1,937.40 TOTAL 4,833.84 TOTAL OF OUTSIDE BOARDS ALL which is respectfully submitted. Financial Analyst Approved for su 19,400.86 Mark G. McDona Chief Administrative Officer TREASURER'S STATEMENT ON CONVENTION EXPENSES To the Warden and Members of the Elgin County Council, The following is an itemized statement of the conventions attended and expenses paid to each Member of Elgin County Council, during the calendar year ending December 31, 2009 2009 CONVENTIONS 1 2 3 TOTAL FOR COUNCILLOR ROMA/OGRA AMO ACRO COUNCILLOR Acre, Lynn 2,082.22 0.00 0.00 2,082.22 Habkirk, Bob 673.59 2,360.77 0.00 3,034.36 Hofhuis, Sylvia 475.00 0.00 0.00 475.00 Marks, Tom 2,082.22 0.00 0.00 2,082.22 Mennill, Dave 2,075.19 0.00 0.00 2,075.19 McIntyre, James 0.00 2,103.50 0.00 2,103.50 Vowel, Bonnie 1,966.93 0.00 0.00 1,966.93 Warwick, Graham 8,641.23 1,855.37 0.00 10,496.60 Wilson, John 2,093.82 0.00 0.00 2,093.82 TOTALS All figures include G.S.T. ROMA/OGRA RURAL ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION AMO ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES ACRO AMO COUNTIES AND REGIONS All of which is respectfully submitted. LradTerrio V Director of Financial Services 20,090.20 6,319.64 26,409.84 Approved for Mark Chief Administrative Officer oun cy f•�o ni `�ad.ra FROM: Jennifer Ford, Financial Analyst Jim Bundschuh, Director of Finance DATE: March 1, 2010 SUBJECT: Capital Projects Budget as of December 31, 2009 INTRODUCTION: REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL In 2009, Council approved a carry forward capital budget and a new projects capital budget for 2009. Throughout the year additions and efficiencies to this budget have been reported to and approved by Council. This report serves to update Council on the projects that are completed and those projects that remain outstanding at December 31, 2009. DISCUSSION: A summary of the activity relating to the 2009 capital budget is provided below: Project Budget Council Approved: Carryforward Projects 16,933,214 Council Approved Capital Projects2009 12,458,991 Adjustment to FGT Rev Est to Actual Booked to Talbot Line Project 180,000 Reduction to Ambulance Capital project. Revenue from Municipal partner not required due to adjustments to 24,945 Ambulance vehicle purchases Digital Display Board Library Reserve 30,000 James Town Bridge Bridge Reserve 100,000 Admin Building Accessbility Grant Received 50,000 MDS RAI Funding Homes 61,750 ISF Funding Grant Approved 2,060,000 Total Projects 31,489,010 Summary totals from Appendix A 31,489,010 Open Projects 14,489,218 Closed Projects 16,999,792 Additional COMRIF Provincial /Federal Share received in 2009 2009 Capital Surplus Appendix A has been included to outline of all capital project budgets. Those projects that are complete are indicated by a "C The surplus from the closed projects is $913,093. Staff suggest that this surplus be utilized in the 2010 Capital budget as a source of funding. CONCLUSION: Staff have reviewed the capital projects this year and completed projects have been closed. Staff suggest that the capital surplus from 2009 as well as other fiscal years be used in the 2010 capital budget as a source of funding. RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT the report titled Capital Projects Budget as of December 31, 2009 and dated March 1, 2010 be received and file, and THAT the surplus of $913,093 be utilized as a source of funding for the 2010 Capital Budget. Respectfully Submitted e ifer Ford Mark Chief Administrative Officer Financial Analyst im Bundschuh Director of Finance Project Budget Actual Costs to Date 24,457, 881 8,369,205 16,088,676 Remaining Project budget 7,031,128 6,120,012 911,116 1,977 913,093 Approved fo COUNTY OF ELGIN Capital Projects Appendix A As of December 39, 2009 Contract Description 26600501 26600508 26600604 26600801 26600803 26600901 26600902 26600903 26600904 26600905 26600906 28000901 28300601 28400901 578009 57800901 57800902 58000901 59100901 59100902 59100903 59200709 59200803 59200806 59200901 59200902 59200903 59200904 59200905 59200906 59300802 59300803 59300804 59300805 59300901 60900604 60900701 60900801 60900802 60900803 60900901 60900902 60900903 C Garage Accessibility Upgrades Admin C Renovations for Warden /Admin /Tourism Admin C Valve Pipe Replacement Admin Preventative Maintenance Admin C Office Improvements Admin C Building Envelope Repairs Admin Fire Alarm Upgrades Admin C Sanitary Sewer Service Admin C Misc Prof Services Admin Pumping Station Sunset and Karen Ambulance Vehicles and Equipment C Emergency Measures JEPP C Vehicle Purchase C IT Hardware C Photocopiers IT MDS RAI Funding C Digital Display Board C Parking Lot EM C Interlock Brick Removal EM C Safety Posts Front Ent EM C Main Dining Rm Servery Improvements TL C Card Access System TL C Main Servery TL C Furniture Replacement TL Pool Change Room TL C Parking Lot TL Sloped Roof Replacement TL C Kitchen Equipment and Installation TL C Misc Professional Services TL C Dining Room Upgrades BV C Flooring /Carpet Replacement BV C Furniture BV C Painting BV Roof Replacement BV Miller Road Curb, Gutter and Drainage at School Glen Erie Line Slope Failure C Dexter Line EA C Intersection 30 48 Survey and Engineering Asset Management Project COMRIF 17882 C Road Crack Sealing C Misc Consulting C Co- operative Capital Projects Closed Projects 2009 -47- Project Budget 279,115.99 270, 000.00 275,000.00 40,000.00 50,000.00 100,000.00 15,000.00 80,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 1,100,000.00 195,054.56 7,764.38 30,000.00 75,000.00 15,000.00 95,770.00 30,000.00 10,000.00 80,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 30,000.00 25,000.00 10,000.00 85,000.00 15,000.00 90,000.00 40,000.00 15,000.00 40,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 160,000.00 80,000.00 375,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 11,000.00 204, 000.00 50,000.00 100,000.00 Actual Costs to Date 262,811.42 268,120.86 271,359.05 24,736.95 17,083.75 41,724.10 14,981.81 18,436.00 2,126.69 61,080.11 5,800.98 29,768.04 73,440.54 15,628.40 13,074.23 30, 871.49 9,895.00 77, 972.19 26,900.15 19,727.62 41,162.91 21,441.16 10,005.90 22,168.50 10,125.00 186, 652.42 31,264.84 30, 870.53 10,435.00 9,752.22 15,883.19 1,469.23 29,660.89 59,898.66 55,599.23 29,407.09 8,407.00 204,610.97 47,254.34 105,237.00 1 Remaining Project budget 16,304.57 1,879.14 3,640.95 15,263.05 32,916.25 58,275.90 18.19 80,000.00 1,564.00 12,873.31 ,100,000.00 133,974.45 1,963.40 231.96 1,559.46 (628.40) 82,695.77 (871.49) 105.00 2,027.81 (6,900.15) 272.38 (11,162.91) 3,558.84 (5.90) 62,831.50 4,875.00 (96,652.42) 8,735.16 15,000.00 9,129.47 4,565.00 247.78 4,116.81 158,530.77 50,339.11 315,101.34 44,400.77 20,592.91 2,593.00 (610.97) 2,745.66 (5,237.00) Page 1 of 2 COUNTY OF ELGIN Capital Projects Appendix A As of December 39, 2009 Contract 60900904 C 62000603 C 62001002 62000901 62000902 62100901 C 62600901 C 62900701 C 62900703 62900802 62900901 C 63000901 C 900007 C 900008 C Description Jamestown Bridge EA Talbot Line Rehabilitation Phase 1,2,Part Phase 3 Talbot Line Rehabilitation Phase 3 Completion Calton Line A BCF Intake 1 Calton Line B ISF Land Purchases Road Sign Replacements King George Lift Bridge Mechanical Black's Bridge Rural Initiatives Millcreek Culvert Sparta Sparta Line Culvert Lining Municipal Drains Capital Surplus 2007 Capital Surplus 2008 Closed Projects 2009 _48_ Project Budget 125,000.00 14,029,539.14 1,497,941.80 5,700,000.00 2,060,000.00 50,000.00 25,000.00 100,000.00 1,900,000.00 739,451.80 30,000.00 250,000.00 537,110.83 97, 261.99 31,489,010.49 O Open 14,489,218.16 C Closed 16,999,792.33 Additional COMRIF Provincial /Federal Share received above accrual 2009 Capital Surplus Actual Costs to Date 129, 990.54 14,029,539.14 4,940,448.97 313,533.89 38, 723.10 16,696.81 84,465.44 1,776, 076.75 671,530.55 26,462.46 148,368.80 65,200.00 24,457,881.91 8,369,205.81 16,088,676.10 Remaining Project budget (4,990.54) 1,497,941.80 759,551.03 1,746,466.11 11,276.90 8,303.19 15, 534.56 123,923.25 67,921.25 3,537.54 101,631.20 471,910.83 97,261.99 7,031,128.58 6,120,012.35 911,116.23 1,977.38 913,093.61 Page 2 of 2 f ElgIIiCounty REPORT TO COUNTY COUCIL FROM: Al Reitsma Manager of Information Technology DATE: March 9, 2010 SUBJECT: 2010 Information Technology Plan INTRODUCTION: Each year the Information Technology Department undertakes a number of projects that are aimed at improving service or productivity. This report outlines the projects that are planned by the Information Technology Department for 2010. DISCUSSION: These are the projects planned by the Information Technology Department for 2010: An upgrade of the email system from Microsoft Exchange 2003 to Microsoft Exchange 2010, The development of a Tourism web site, An expansion of the County's Storage Area Network (SAN), The development of an email de- duplication and archiving strategy, Paperless Management and Council Meetings, The completion of server virtualization and The testing of VMware Virtual Desktop. Email System Upgrade The current email platform being used by the County of Elgin is Microsoft Exchange 2003 which was implemented in 2004. The latest version of Microsoft Exchange provides a significant number of enhancements that will improve user productivity. Our email system is the most widely used system within the County and is used by almost all employees. Any improvements to the email system will provide increased staff productivity. The current email system was implemented at a cost of $27,016.17 (licensing and consulting). If that figure is depreciated over five years and 300 users, the cost of using the system for the last five years is $18.01 per user. It is estimated that the licensing and consulting cost to implement Exchange 2010 is $41,900. If depreciated over the same time period and number of users the cost of the system will be $27.93 per user. The above cost does not include the cost of training. It is expected that all users will require no more than one hour of training. The training will be done on -site so as to minimize disruption to staff. The expected roll -out date is June and July of this year. roje Ycl riori erationa osts art: Email System Upgrade 1 $0 Licensing Consulting Total March 1, 2010 July 1,2010 61 Date March 15, 2010 April 16, 2010 May 13, 2010 July 1,2010 $36,900 5,000 $41,900 Milestone 1 test group starts using OWA 2010 2nd test group starts using OWA 2010 Training and migration of all users start All users migrated Tourism Web Site When staff presented the plan to develop a Tourism site to council on September 15, 2009 a number of concerns with having a proprietary web site developed by Yfactor were presented. As part of the strategy to mitigate these concerns it was decided that the Information Technology department would work toward migrating the creative Yfactor design to an Elgin County developed platform. This year the Information Technology department will review the deliverables scheduled to be delivered by Yfactor over the next five years and create a plan for delivering the same functionality using the same tools used to develop the County's web sites. The same functionality that is to be delivered by Yfactor by the middle of this year will be migrated to the Elgin County platform by the end of the year. Since some enhancements, such as add -ons to the current web development platform may be required, $5,000 has been allocated from the Information Technology operational budget for this project. role no ri a eraion os Tourism Web Site 2 $0 Licensing $5,000 April 22, 2010 December 1, 2010 160 Date May 31, 2010 Nov 3, 2010 Nov 19, 2010 Dec 12, 2010 Milestone Yfactor deliverables received Development completed Reviews completed Go live SAN Expansion In 2007 and 2008 a project was completed to implement a Storage Area Network or SAN. Previous to the implementation of SANs, servers used direct attached disk drives that were shareable with other servers but could not be easily transferred from one server to another if a drive was running out of space. Because of this, much of the existing disk space was under utilized. Conceptually a SAN is one large disk drive that can be segmented into smaller virtual drives based on server requirements. This allows more of the disk space to be utilized. The SAN implemented in 2007 and 2008 had a capacity of 2.61 terabytes at a cost of approximately $55,000. It was expected that this would be sufficient capacity to last for five years. Because of a larger than expected increase in email storage requirements and a significant growth in LaserFiche data storage requirements only 15% or 400 gigabytes remains unused and steps must be taken to provide more space. In addition to the County's day -to -day disk requirements there has been a long standing requirement to create an off -site disaster recover storage site for critical data. With the recent expansion of our network capability between the Administration building and Elgin Manor, it is now possible to create a second SAN location that can be used to meet our day -today storage needs and create a location for a disaster recovery backup location. The total capital cost for this project is $54,000 and $6,300 in licensing costs and will deliver 5 terabytes of data storage. rrc j ac riori ap os era tiona s SAN Expansion 3 $54,000 Licensing Consulting Total March 15, 2010 May 7, 2010 13 Date March 19, 2010 March 29, 2010 April 15, 2010 April 24, 2010 May 7, 2010 6,300 5,000 $11,300 Milestone VDR testing completed RFQ issued Deadline for quotes WAN modifications completed SAN installation completed Email De- duplication and Archiving Strategy The County's email storage requirement currently stands at 49 gigabytes and is growing at an average rate of 1.2 gigabytes per month. The majority of this space is attachments to emaiis. Many emails with attachments are mailed to more than one County of Elgin recipient. De- duplication software exists that identifies duplicate attachments and consolidates these attachments into one copy thereby greatly reducing disk usage and increasing the efficiency and speed of the email system. Software also exists that allows attachments to moved outside of the email data store also increasing the efficiency of the email system. In 2010 de- duplication and email archiving software will be assessed and a strategy for their implementation developed. rojec Priorit itch d Email Archiving 4 $0 March 1, 2010 April 30, 2010 32 Date Mar 24, 2010 Apr 30, 2010 Milestone Evaluations of options complete Software installed Paperless Management and Council Meetings Approximately 3,450 sheets of paper are used annually to produce paper copies of management and council agendas. The County has made a significant investment in LaserFiche which could be used to virtually eliminate the need to create paper copies of these agendas. A project will be undertaken to determine the best way to implement the use of LaserFiche for management and council meetings. A process will be developed that addresses the requirements and concerns of staff with regard to ease of use and productivity. Once this process is developed and reviewed it will be first piloted by the management team during their meetings. Once revisions are made it is expected that the process will be adopted by council following elections this October. There will be some capital costs for this green initiative since it is expected all management and council will be required to have a laptop. However, these capital costs should be more than offset by the cost reduction in paper usage, hours required to create agendas, cost of shipping agendas and increased efficiencies. rojec nor' os or Paperless Meetings 5 $13,000 (13 laptops or iPADs) March 16, 2010 November 1, 2010 45 Date Mar 31, 2010 May 5, 2010 Jun 9,2010 Oct 25, 2010 Nov 2010 Milestone Report process developed Process laptops ready for management iPAD vs. laptop evaluation completed Council devices configured Council members trained Server Virtualization In 2009 the Information Technology department implemented server virtualization utilizing VMware. Before this project was initiated the County operated 12 servers most of which were between 5 and 6 years old. With the implementation of server virtualization 8 aging servers have been replaced with 3 new servers currently operating 13 virtual servers. This virtualization has provided better utilization of the remaining servers and has reduced electrical and cooling costs by about 40 This year one more physical server will be virtualized and decommissioned leaving the total number of servers in the server room at 5. As well, a fourth virtual server host server will be added at Elgin Manor. This new server will provide a test environment as well as being the failover location for critical applications should a disaster render the County Administration Building unusable. rro�ect non os i erationa l osts` Server Virtualization 6 $13,000 Consulting April 6, 2010 August 2, 2010 10 Date May 10, 2010 May 27, 2010 Aug 2, 2010 5,000 Milestone RFQ Issued Deadline for quotes Server setup completed VMware Virtual Desktop For over six years the County has been using Citrix to serve applications to staff. Although the use of Citrix has provided significant benefits it continues to present challenges specifically in the areas of printing and desktop customization. VMware has recently emerged as a viable alternative to Citrix. A test environment is being planned in order to determine the benefits and cost of a possible migration away from Citrix. roje ct' �riorr erationa os s� estone a l VMware Virtual Desktop 7 Consulting July 5, 2010 Oct 15, 2010 47 Date Aug 3, 2010 Oct 10, 2010 Oct 15, 2010 5,000 Milestone Research /education completed Testing completed Recommendation completed CONCLUSION: In 2010 the Information Technology Department will complete a number of projects aimed at increasing the efficiency and productivity of staff or reducing operating costs. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the "2010 Information Technology Plan" report be received and filed noting that the funds for these projects have been included in the 2010 capital and operational budgets. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Al Reitsma of Information Technology m Bundschuh Director of Financial Services Chief Administrative Officer ElgIncou y ,r. %;i »Gt d, tl:wie FROM: Jim Bundschuh Director of Financial Services DATE: February 24 2010 SUBJECT: Depreciation Rates INTRODUCTION: With the move to Tangible Capital Asset (Full Accrual) accounting, the County must establish depreciation rates. DISCUSSION: REPORT TO COUNCIL If the levy is set at a rate that pays for all the County's cash expenses as well as its non cash depreciation expense, then the County will be able to set aside the depreciation expense into a reserve for the eventual replacement of the asset. Due to inflation, assets can never be replaced at the cost of their original value. In a typical business, the actual replacement value and the historical value are not materially different, since an average asset in a business is replaced every 5 -10 years. For municipalities the majority of assets have a much longer life cycle extending up to 80 years in the case of a road bed. Hence, for municipalities the reserve will be inadequate to cover the replacement costs. To compensate for this, it is proposed that depreciation rates be set at 80% of the expected life cycle of an asset. The accelerated depreciation results in a higher tax rate being set to allow for enough money being set aside in a reserve for the replacement value. Once the asset has been written off, money equivalent to the depreciation rate should continue to be added to the reserve for the remaining life cycle of the asset. In addition, interest should be added to the reserve each year. An example is found in Attachment I to show the mechanics of how this would provide an adequate reserve. Although there is no definitive answer as to what replacement costs will be, this methodology delivers a reserve amount that is a fair estimate of what that replacement cost might be. The County should still develop and maintain a long -term capital asset plan as changes in inflation rates, or inflation rates unique to a particular asset class, could result in the actual replacement value being different than this estimate. Of course the County's existing assets have depreciated without the benefit of this reserve methodology being in place. Once again, a long term capital asset plan will address this issue. During a Management Team planning session in May, the beginnings of such a plan are to be developed. Attachment II list the various asset classes of the County, along with their expected life cycles, and depreciation rates equal to 80% of the life cycle. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the depreciation rates shown in Attachment II be approved for inclusion in the County's Tangible Capital Asset policy, and THAT a Capital Reserve Policy based on this report be formalized together with a Long Term Capital Asset Plan. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Bundschuh 'rector of Financial Services Chief Administrative Officer as a) L a) cis 0 0 0 N 0 L 0 ccs N 0 a) 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 ca w O 0 O O O O O O 64 O 69- O O 69 (0 M M CO 64 Eft E!} 64 d CO 0 'ct C 0 OO N 64 co M N Eft Ef} Eft Eft 64 CON o 0 ff3 0 00 N r r M M r r 64 69 Eft EA 69. 69 NCO 0 0 N° r r CO (0 r r 64 64 Ef} 69- 69 69 0 C r 0 O Ef? 0 C <1' 69 N CO M 64 N 69- Eft EA- E!} O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69- 0 69. O CO CI CI CO Eft En- Eft 64 0 CD O O O O 69- CO M M (0 EA- U CS U N 0 0 0. U E O U O Q r:.; U co c y Q U cn g W N L t6 O co as h J 2 —58— 00 N O 0 0 0 0 N v}- 0 O 0 69- Eft 64 Eft N 0 N N 0 CO 64 64 r 69- r r Ef} N Eft 64 Eft c0 •t N O N N O Eft 69- r 64 r r 69' Ef} 64 Eft O) CO N O N N 0 69- Eft r 69 r r Ef} (f} 69 H} 60- r fft r Eft 64 6 T 64 Eft N O N O N N O r 69 r 69 r r 69. 6'} Eft 69- EA N N 6 N 6 N N 64 (D CO CO CO c 64 En. 64- En- 0 CX d' 69 d 0 64 d' d' 6 N 6 0 L 0 0 C 0 LO LO 0 LC) 0 (I1 0 0 N 1�• 69 ti O 13 T CO 69 CO CI 69- Eft 69- 69 CO c CO c a c "a O W O O O 0 0 0 0 co 0 M 64 M o0 (0 r^ 64 64 69- 64 64 LU .5 0 L L 1.0 (0 0 CO N L() Q NC) 0 69.N 64 En. 69. 64 c CZ Il W CO .C2 0 En- CO CO CO co ca Q p V a 1 0) c a a U E v 0 cts C 0 u) c) UFO 0 (S3 E 0 O N 0 N 9 0 0 N Ln r C.0 CO CO CO 64 64 Eg 64 69- En. LC) 0 CO 0 0 O CO CO N t CO 64 69 ER CO N EA 64 69. 69• co CA 0) N Ft} N r r 64 Eg 64 En. En- N N 64 r En. ff} En- 64 ER 0 cam- ca En. En- Ef} CO CO 0 64 4 r 6 r En 64 H} 64 61. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO C O O 64 CO O 64 0 C.1 O 64 69 to En- Eft cS r- o o O e C N d' N M 0 c L W O 0 I--- 76 0. •U E 2 E) C o E 0 E N 0 (0 x° cu w W W ro x o 0 2 c E v x a� Q- 0 CO O 03 0 03 co O 00 C� r 0 0 O r 69 r 69- r r Ef} 69 N EF} cfr N N N N N N Ef? 69 69- CO E$ 69• 69- ff} N 0 N 0 N N 0 CO r h O 1.0 LC) N r 69- r 69- r r 69- r 69 r ER c- r 6} r° r r r 64 En- 69- En Ef} Ef} En- Ef} Co 1 1 0 0 0 LO 1.0 C CO O CO r L0 CO 0 NE9- 0 64 0 69- 6 C 69- En 64 69 En 69- Q O 0 O 0 0 0 0 6 LC) (0 LC) 0 69. O r r 69 r r 69- En' E9 Ef} 0 Ln Ln LO O Ef} N N O v 69- En 69 ER 0 0 0 O 0 0 64 0 CO CO N e- 69- En ER 69 Ef) O O O 0 0 O O O O 69 N N O N co o r 0 0. U 4-- O 0 -4-- Co U C CL) Q W O 0 1-0 N ti L O in d 69- d. Ef} CO M 69 ER 69- 69 Eft N 0) N EF} r Ef 69 Eg En ER N O N N- LO N 0 N 69 CV E Ef} E9- 69 o o N rt c M CT W U a ti ef Appendix 11 -1 Category ID Item Land LandInfra SurfRCold CulvCon CulvSt Drain BaseR SurfaceR BaseU SurfaceU BDeckM BDeckR BSubM BSubR ParkingBV ParkingEM ParkingHU ParkingTL RoofAdmin RoofAmb RoofBV RoofEM RoofGar RoofHU RoofTL Capital Work in Progress Land Assets Land Non Infrastructure Land Infrastructure Department Roads Infrastructure Road Surface Cold DepinfrCold Infrastructure Concrete Culverts DepinfrDrCul Infrastructure Steel Culverts DepinfrDrCul Infrastructure Drains Road Base Rural Road Surface Rural Road Base Urban Road Surface Urban Building BldgAdmin Building Administration BldgAmb Building Ambulance BIdgBV Building Bobier Villa BIdgEM Building Elgin Manor BldgGar Building Garage BIdgHU Building Health Unit BIdgTL Building Terrace Lodge ParkingAdmir Parking Lot Admin ParkingAmb Parking Lot Ambulance Parking Lot BV Parking Lot EM Parking Lot Health Unit Parking Lot Terrace Lodge Roof Administrative Building Roof Ambulance Roof Bobier Villa Roof Elgin Manor Roof Garage Roof Health Unit Roof Terrace Lodge No Depreciation Engineering Services No Depreciation Engineering Services DepinfrDrCul DepinfrRural DepinfrRural DepinfrUrban DepinfrUrban Bridges Bridge Deck Multi Span 60+ DepinfrBridg Bridge Deck Rigid Frame <60Ft DepinfrBridg Bridge Sub Multi -Span Structure DepinfrBridg Bridge Sub Rigid Structure DepinfrBridg DepBldgAdmi DepBldgAmb DepBIdgBV DepBIdgEM DepBldgGar DepBIdgHU DepBIdgTL DepBldgAdmin DepBldgAmb DepBIdgBV DepBIdgEM DepBIdgHU DepBIdgTL DepBldgAdmin DepBldgAmb DepBIdgBV DepBIdgEM DepBldgGar DepBIdgHU DepBIdgTL Capital Budget Category Engineering Services Engineering Services Engineering Services Engineering Services Engineering Services Engineering Services Engineering Services Engineering Services Engineering Services Engineering Services Engineering Services Engineering Services Administration Building Ambulance Building Bobier Elgin Manor Garage Health Unit Terrace Lodge Administration Building Ambulance Building Bobier Elgin Manor Health Unit Terrace Lodge Administration Building Ambulance Building Bobier Elgin Manor Garage Health Unit Terrace Lodge Life Cycle Dep Rate 0 0 0 0 7 5 75 60 50 40 50 40 100 80 22 17 100 80 22 17 25 20 25 20 75 60 75 60 50 40 50 40 50 40 50 40 50 40 50 40 50 40 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 Appendix 1I 2 (continued) Category ID Item Department ElecAdmin ElecAmb EIecBV EIecEM ElecGar EIecHU EIecTL MechAdmin MechAmb MechBV MechEM MechGar MechHU STP MechBrid MechTL Furniture Fixtures FurnFixAdmir Furniture Fixtures Administrati. DepFurnFixAd FurnFixAmb Furniture Fixtures Ambulance DepFurnFixAm FurnFixBV Furniture Fixtures Bobier Villa DepFurnFixBV FurnFixEM Furniture Fixtures Elgin Manor DepFurnFixEM FurnFixLib Furniture Fixtures Library DepFurnFixLib FurnFixTL Furniture Fixtures TL DepFurnFixTL Books EquipAdmin EquipAmb EquipBV EquipBV10 EquipEM EquipEM10 EquipIT Software EquipTL VehAmb VehEng VehLib Electrical Systems Electrical Systems Administratioi DepElecAdmin Electrical Systems Ambulance DepElecAmb Electrical Systems Bobier Villa DepElecBV Electrical Systems Elgin Manor DepElecEM Electrical Systems Gar DepElecGar Electrical Systems Health Unit DepElecHU Electrical Systems Terrace Lodg DepElecTL Mechanical Systems Mechanical Systems Administrai Mechanical Systems Ambulance Mechanical Bobier Villa Mechanical Elgin Manor Mechanical Garage Mechanical Health Unit Sewage Treatment Plant Mechanical King George Lift Mechanical Systems Terrace Loy Equipment Books Library Only Equipment Administration Equipment Ambulance Equipment Bobier Villa 20 years Equipment Bobier Villa 10 years Equipment Elgin Manor 20 years Equipment Elgin Manor 10 years Equipment Computer /IT Software IT Equipment Terrace Lodge Vehicles Vehicles Ambulance Vehicles Engineering Vehicles Library DepMechAdmin DepMechAmb DepMechBV DepMechEM DepMechGar DepMechHU DepMechSTP DepMechBrid DepMechTL DepBooksl0 DepEquipAdmi DepEquipAmb DepEquipBV DepEquipBV DepEquipEM DepEquipEM DepEquiplT DepEquiplT DepEquipTL DepVehAmb DepVehEng DepVehLib Capital Budget Category Administration Building Ambulance Building Bobier Elgin Manor Garage Health Unit Terrace Lodge Administration Building Ambulance Building Bobier Elgin Manor Garage Health Unit Sewage Treatment Plant Engineering Services Terrace Lodge Administration Building Ambulance Building Bobier Elgin Manor Library, archive Museu Terrace Lodge Library, archive Museu Administration Building Ambulance Equipment Bobier Bobier Elgin Manor Elgin Manor Information Technologies Information Technologies Terrace Lodge Ambulance Equipment Vehicle Replacement Vehicle Replacement Life Cycle Dep Rate 40 32 30 24 40 32 40 32 40 32 40 32 40 32 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 20 16 20 16 10 8 20 16 10 8 5 4 3 2 20 16 5 4 5 4 5 4 EIginCcunt f•.'4,i :ar: t,tt :u 61 DISCUSSION: REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Jim Bundschuh Director of Financial Services DATE: February 10 2010 SUBJECT: Revised Charitable Organizations Property Tax Rebate Application INTRODUCTION: The Municipal Act 2001 specified changes to Charitable Organizations Property Tax Rebates, however the application form developed by the County in 1998 was never revised to reflect the changes. The form developed in 1998 requires that the applicant has occupied the property since 1998 and the applicant must demonstrate that their lease payments include an increase in taxes as a result of the changes legislated in the Fair Municipal Finance Act. Current legislation contains no allowance for such requirements. The 1998 form allows non registered charities to apply provided they meet certain conditions as outlined in the attached form. The Municipal Act 2001 only requires that the relief be provided to registered charities. Attached is a revised form based on the form used by the City of London which is in compliance with the Municipal Act 2001. It is important to note that this form no longer allows non registered charities to apply, thereby eliminating the need for local treasurers to subjectively determine if an organization meets the standards of a charitable organization. The Treasurer's of the municipalities have reviewed the new form and no issues were raised. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Rev. 2010 -03 form replace the 1998 version for the purpose of registered charitable organizations applying for a property tax rebate. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approve inn Bundschuh ar cDonald Director of Financial Services Chief Administrative Officer !Me certify that the above information is correct. Name (Please print clearly) Title Signature Date Charitable Organizations Property Tax Rebate Application Municipal Act, 2001, Section 361.(1) The deadline for submitting an annual application is the last day of February of the year following the taxation year to which the application relates. Statement of amount of property taxes required to be paid by the Charitable Organization: This is to confirm that in the calendar year (name of charitable organization) will be /was required to pay in property taxes for the period of (year /month /day) to with respect to the property it occupies at the address below. (year /month /day) Landlord Property address: Rentable area occupied by charity: square feet Rentable area of entire building(s) at this property: square feet Full name Address Charitable Organization's Registration Number from Canada Revenue Agency Certification to be signed by an authorized signing charitable organization officer, Charitable Organization Contact Full name Daytime telephone number Title Email address Please include the following with your application: 1. A copy of the lease that sets out the amount of property taxes required to be paid by the charitable organization; and /or 2. A statement /invoice from the landlord of amount of property taxes required to be paid by the charitable organization. This statement and supporting documentation should be mailed to: Rev. 2010 -03 Treasurer Municipality of Address —64— PFO;,i ..ice_ bl Thrufe FROM: Jim Bundschuh Director of Financial Services DATE: February 22 2010 SUBJECT: 2010 Capital Budget INTRODUCTION: REPORT TO COUNCIL The draft capital budget is requesting new capital projects of $8,061,178 and additions to Capital Reserves and Funds of $1,435,735. Grants and other capital project revenue of $2,329,645 are anticipated. The net result is a capital budget request of $7,167,267; an amount equal to the 2009 Capital Budget. DISCUSSION: Highlights of the Capital Budget are contained in Attachment I Table 1. Although the capital budget is at the same level as the prior year, there are important differences. Last year's capital budget contained new capital projects of $12.5 million, or over $4.4 million more than this request, funded by infrastructure stimulus grants that were $3.8 million higher than this year. In addition, this year's budget is paying for the County's $0.7 million share of the Calton Line ISF project that was approved post budget last year. Department level summary information is contained in Attachment II, and details by department are included in the binder tabs. It is also important to note that 2010 is the first year in which municipalities are required to pass their budgets based on the Full- Accrual Accounting methodology. The purpose for changing methodologies is to give Councils a better understanding of the long term implications of their budgeting decisions on the municipality's asset base. With this new system of accounting, capital asset depreciation and maintenance, rather than the capital budget, is recorded as a current period income statement (operating budget) expense. As can be seen on Attachment I Table 2, the new system will generate a net loss of $0.4 million. The $0.4 million loss in net income will generate an equivalent degradation in the Municipal Position, as outlined in Attachment I Table 3, broken down to an improvement in the Capital Reserves /Funds by $1.4 million to $3.8 million balance and a decrease in net capital assets of $1.8 million to $172.7 million balance. Given that the County, as with all municipalities, is facing an infrastructure deficit, Elgin County needs to improve its Municipal Position. A $0.4 million loss means a deepening of the infrastructure deficit. It is important to note that $2.3 million of capital revenue will be received this year for the purpose of addressing the deficit. This deepening of the infrastructure deficit would certainly have been even worse had it not been for that reven ue. Attachment 1 Table 4 provides an analysis of the impact of the proposed Capital Budget on this infrastructure deficit. As discussed in today's report titled "Depreciation Rates depreciation without associated reserve additions to account for the inflationary impact will not provide the estimated funds to replace assets when they are due to retire. Reserve additions equivalent to the depreciation rate are required once an asset has been written off for the remaining life cycle of the asset. For 2010 $1.0 million should be added from Net Income to reserves for this purpose. However, the Net Income impact of this Capital Budget is a loss of $0.4 million for a net addition to the infrastructure deficit of $1.4 million. Capital spending is not only for maintaining the current asset base, but also for new capital needs such as adding a pumping station at Karen and Sunset. Since $1.1 million is being allocated to expansionary projects, taking away potential funding for sustainability, the addition to the infrastructure deficit becomes $2.5 million. Another issue is that the move to Full Accrual Accounting is only taking affect this year resulting in inadequate money being added to reserves in past years. Engineering has attempted to account for the total infrastructure deficit including this issue and the cost of yearly maintenance placing the addition this year to the deficit at close to $9 million. Given the financial constraints facing the County in 2010 resulting from losses in OMPF funding and increased costs in Social Services, 2010 is not the year that this deficit can be addressed without imposing unreasonable tax rate increase. However, it is important that Council and Management understand the deficit being faced and develop a long- term capital plan to address it. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report titled 2010 Capital Budget be received and filed for final approval with the 2010 Operating Budget. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Bundschuh irector of Financial Services Approved for Submission Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer CORRESPONDENCE March 9, 2010 Items for Consideration (ATTACHED) 1. Gayle C. Jackson, CMO, City Clerk, City of Orillia, requesting that County Councils that have Community Futures catchment areas within their geographic jurisdiction, consider passing a resolution petitioning the federal government to continue the funding allocation to Community Futures organizations from the Community Adjustment Fund in the 2010 -2011 fiscal year. 2. Cynthia St. John, Executive Director, Elgin St. Thomas Public Health, with the organization's 2010 budget requiring a County contribution of $851,990, exclusive of the amount required for the West Nile virus. OE±g of ORILLIA CITY CENTRE 50 ANDREW ST. S. ORILLIA, ON. L3V 7T5 January 26, 2010 Mark McDonald, CAO Elgin County 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. McDonald: Sincerely, Gayle ackson, CMO City Clerk GJ: rc Attach. Itr�� `5140, PRO GRES OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Copy to: County and Regional Clerks in Southern Ontario (Mb TELEPHONE (705) 325 -1311 FACSIMILE (705) 325 -5178 DIRECT LINE (705) 329 -7247 Email :gjackson @city.orillia.on.ca 2010 1 :I M1 AGM MET Kfl e "n SERVICES Re: Community Adjustment Fund Allocation to Community Futures Organizations I am enclosing a self explanatory letter to the Minister of State for Science and Technology, the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, urging the federal government to reconsider its decision to discontinue the Community Futures component in the second year of the Community Adjustment Fund initiative. We would respectfully request that County Councils, which have Community Futures catchment areas within their geographic jurisdiction, consider passing similar resolutions supporting continuation of this valuable initiative for smaller communities in the upcoming federal fiscal year. -66- H: \000NSERV\TOMRMS DIRECTORY\C Council, Boards and By- laws \C00 Council, Boards and By- laws \C00 Council \Correspondence\2010 \Jan 18 C \2010 -01.28 Itrs to rnunty Clarks merge dnn ORILLIA CITY CENTRE 50 ANDREW ST. S., SUITE 300 ORILLIA, ON L3V 7T5 January 19, 2010 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR COUNCIL Hon. Gary Goodyear Minister of State for Science and Technology House of Commons Ottawa, ON KIA 0A6 TELEPHONE (705) 325 -1311 FACSIMILE (705) 325 -5178 RECEIVED JAN L 0 2010 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Dear Minister Goodyear: Orillia City Council was delighted with the Prime Minister's announcement last year, as part of Canada's Economic Action Plan, that the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (Fed Dev) was being created. It is our understanding that one of the funding initiatives transferred to the new agency was the Community Adjustment Fund (CAF). This Fund has been of tremendous benefit to our community during the recent and ongoing economic downturn, and City Council wishes to express its appreciation to the federal government for the funding assistance which Orillia has received from CAF. Another key component of CAF in the current federal fiscal year was the allocation of $500,000 to each of the 22 Community Futures organisations in Southern Ontario. We understand that this funding initiative was patterned after a similar initiative which has been in place for a number of years administered by the 15 Community Futures organisations in Eastern Ontario. Orillia City Council wishes to advise you that this Community Futures funding initiative has been an overwhelming success in our area. The Orillia Area Community Development Corporation received more than 100 applications for funding in excess of $1 million, of which more than 40 applications have been approved. The successful applicants represent a broad cross section of small businesses and non profit organisations in our community. Of particular note was that the decisions on these applications were made by local community leaders who are intimately familiar with the needs of our community. It is also important to realize that many of the successful applications were for relatively small sums of money, which would have been unlikely to have been successful in competing as part of the main CAF. Recently, the federal government announced the second intake for CAF was open for applications for the 2010/11 fiscal year with funding of $127.8 million. However, Orillia City Council was stunned to learn that it had been decided to discontinue the Community Futures component of CAF in Southern Ontario, although we understand it is to continue in Eastern Ontario. Although there are signs that the local economic downturn has bottomed out, the need for continuation of this funding initiative through 2010 is clear. Accordingly, at its meeting on January 18, 2010, Orillia City Council unanimously adopted the following resolution: "THAT Council petition the Federal Government to continue the funding allocation to Community Futures organisations in Southern Ontario from the Community Adjustment Fund in the 2010/2011 fiscal year" We urge you and your colleagues to find a way to maintain this funding allocation in the upcoming fiscal year, on the grounds of both need and equity. Yours truly, Ron Stevens Mayor Copy to: Bruce Archibald, Federal Economic Development Agency Bruce Stanton, Member of Parliament, Simcoe North RS /kp -2- January 21, 2010 Mr. Mark McDonald Chief Administrative Officer County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mark: ELGIN ST. THOMAS PUBLIC HEALTH Please be advised that at the December 2009 meeting, the Board of Health of Elgin St. Thomas Public Health approved the organization's 2010 budget with the following resolution: That the Board of Health approves the 2009 Mandatory Programs and Services budget in the amount of $5,776,204. This budget was passed recognizing the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care's budget restriction of a 3% increase and the ongoing fiscal challenges at the municipal level. The increase in municipal levy over last year is 3% or $24,815 above the 2009 levy. The County of Elgin's contribution to this 2010 budget is 59% of the municipal portion. The breakdown is illustrated below: 2010 Budget Total Amount 2010 Budget County of Elgin City of St. Thomas Ministry of Health 5,776,204. 851,990. 592,061. 4,332,153. of Budget Funding Split (75 %/25 59% of 25% of overall budget 41% of 25% of overall budget 100% of 75% of overall budget Elgin St. Thomas Public Health 99 Edward Street, St. Thomas, ON N5P 1Y8 Toll Free 1- 800 922 -0096 Tel: 519-631-9900 Fax: 519-633-0468 Voicemail:519- 631 -3159 www.elgide9ITh.on.ca RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2010 If n k. ELGIN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES As with previous years, please forward the County of Elgin levy in monthly installments. ...2 Please also note that this budget amount does not include any additional West Nile Virus dollars required for the 2010 season. The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care is now putting together the budget format for that program. To assist with your planning, please expect that the County of Elgin will require an amount similar to the 2009 season. Once the expectations are known, a West Nile virus budget will be forwarded to the Board of Health for approval with appropriate correspondence to you after that. Finally, we will forward an approved audited statement of our 2009 fiscal year once that work is completed likely in April 2010. As of this writing, it is anticipated that there will be a surplus in the 2009 financial year. If you have any questions Mark, please contact me at 631 -3159, ext. 202. Kind regards, Cynthia St. John Executive Director copy: Mary Ens, Accounting Supervisor, Elgin St. Thomas Public Health Page 2 SALARIES ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME 2009 BUDGET 2010 BUDGET Difference 5420 Non -Union 1,050,700 1,044,600 (6,100) 5430 Nursing 1,224,000 1,217,500 (6,500) 5440 Inspectors 477,000 493,900 16,900 5450 Nutrition /Health Promo /Hygienist 348,400 325,400 (23,000) 5460 Support 330,100 325,400 (4,700) 5470 Custodian /Security 45,100 32,100 (13,000) TOTAL 3,475,300 3,438,900 (36,400) Percentage of entire 2010 budget _71_ 59.54% 10 FRINGE BENEFITS ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME 2009 BUDGET 2010 BUDGET Difference 5510 Vision 10,000 10,000 0 5515 Employer Health Tax 84,500 86,000 1,500 5520 Extended Health Care 191,000 215,500 24,500 5525 Dental Plan 63,500 72,000 8,500 5530 CPP 147,000 157,000 10,000 5535 OMERS 294,000 313,000 19,000 5540 LTD 81,500 85,500 4,000 5545 WSIB 40,600 41,500 900 5550 El 76,000 78,000 2,000 5555 Life Insurance 21,500 21,500 0 5560 Baby Benefit 43,000 23,000 (20,000) 5565 Employee Assistance Program 5,000 10,700 5,700 5568 Meal Allowance 2,200 2,200 5570 Part -Time Benefits 23,000 23,000 0 5575 Charged to Other Programs (222,769) (225,000) (2,231) TOTAL 860,031 913,900 53,869 Percentage of entire 2010 budget -72® 15.82% 11 PREMISES ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME 2009 BUDGET 2010 BUDGET Difference 4710 Rental Income (69,280) (59,180) 10,100 5710 Rent 99 Edward 513,469 513,469 0 5720 Housekeeping Supplies 8,500 8,500 0 5730 Property Taxes 15,000 16,000 1,000 5740 Grounds Maintenance 7,500 8,500 1,000 5750 Service Repairs 30,000 30,000 0 5760 Garbage/Waste Removal 3,800 4,400 600 5770 Hydro/Water 42,000 42,000 0 5780 Union Gas Heat 16,000 16,000 0 5790 Insurance re: premises 7,700 7,900 200 TOTAL 574,689 587,589 12,900 Percentage of entire 2010 budget _73_ 10.17% 12 HEALTH PROMOTION ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME 2009 BUDGET 2010 BUDGET Difference 4010 Prenatal Fees (3,500) (3,500) 0 5005 Prenatal Materials Supplies 3,500 3,500 0 5010 Materials Supplies 61,000 56,050 (4,950) 5020 Travel /Meeting Expenses 28,000 30,000 2,000 5030 Advertising (Public Awareness /Promotion) 14,525 11,465 (3,060) 0 5040 Memberships /Subscriptions 4,000 4,000 5050 Professional Development 15,000 10,000 (5,000) 5055 Volunteer Recognition/Training 1,870 800 (1,070) 5080 CINOT Consulting Fees 37,000 37,000 0 5085 Cinot Claims 145,000 240,000 95,000 5090 Preventive Dental Services 500 500 0 TOTAL 306,895 389,815 82,920 Percentage of entire 2010 budget -74- 6.75% 13 HEALTH PROTECTION ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME 2009 BUDGET 2010 BUDGET Difference 4110 STI Clinic Grants (16,000) (16,000) 0 5101 STI Fees for Service 16,000 16,000 0 4120 Sale of Pills (24,000) (24,000) 0 5105 Oral Contraceptives 24,000 24,000 0 4150 Food Safe Course Fees (3,500) (3,500) 0 5175 Food Safe Course Expenditures 3,500 3,500 0 4160 Inspection Fees (3,500) (3,500) 0 4140 Fixed Premise Property Searches (350) (350) 0 Meningococcal Program Revenue (6,800) (13,600) 13,600 (6,800) 6,800 Meningococcal Program Expend. 6,800 Influenza Program Revenue (30,000) 30,000 (45,000) 45,000 (15,000) 15,000 Influenza Program Expenditures HPV Campaign (6,375) (10,650) (4,275) HPV Campaign 6,375 10,650 4,275 Mumps Program Revenue (1,000) 1,000 Mumps Program Expenditures 1,000 (1,000) 5110 Materials Supplies Sexual Health /STD /AIDS 12,100 15,000 2,900 5115 Materials Supplies Disease Control 21,200 23,550 2,350 5120 Travel /Meeting Expenses 25,800 27,000 1,200 5130 Advertising (Public Awareness /Promotion) 1,000 1,000 0 5140 Memberships /Subscriptions /Library 1,500 750 (750) 5150 Professional Development 11,000 7,350 (3,650) 5176 Other (Teen Panel) 800 (800) TOTAL 69,550 70,800 1,250 Percentage of entire 2010 budget -75- 1.23% 14 CORPORATE COSTS ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME 2009 BUDGET 2010 BUDGET Difference 4620 Other Revenue 0 0 0 5603 Office Supplies 15,000 16,000 1,000 5607 Printing 24,000 24,000 0 5610 Telephone 30,000 33,000 3,000 5615 Postage 6,000 6,000 0 5617 Courier 2,500 2,500 0 5620 Office Equipment Maintenance 2,000 2,000 0 5625 Office Equipment Rental 7,000 12,700 5,700 5630 Advertising Staff Recruitment 10,000 3,000 (7,000) 5635 Meeting Expense 3,500 3,500 0 5640 Business Insurance Allowance 1,000 1,000 0 5645 Advertising /Promotion /Marketing 4,000 4,000 0 5650 Communications 16,000 16,000 0 5655 Recruitment Expenses 1,000 1,000 0 5660 Legal 30,000 60,000 30,000 5665 Audit 10,000 10,000 0 5670 Bank Charges 8,000 8,000 0 5675 Insurance Excluding Premises 27,800 28,600 800 5680 StaffTrainin•, Wellness Recognition 6,000 6,000 0 5685 Labour Relations 15,000 15,000 0 5687 IT Support 33,500 51,500 18,000 5690 Furniture Equipment 5,000 5,000 0 5695 Computer/Technology /Equipment 25,000 32,050 7,050 TOTAL 282,300 340,850 58,550 Percentage of entire 2010 budget -76- 5.90% 15 BOARD OF HEALTH COSTS ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME 2009 BUDGET 2010 BUDGET Difference 5810 Travel 1,200 1,200 0 5820 Meeting Expense 1,500 1,500 0 5825 Miscellaneous 500 500 0 5830 Honoraria 7,500 7,500 0 5840 Conferences /Conventions 1,000 1,000 0 TOTAL 11,700 11,700 0 ADMINISTRATION COSTS ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NAME 2009 BUDGET 2010 BUDGET Difference 5860 Travel 3,000 3,000 0 5870 Memberships 10,000 10,000 0 5880 Professional Development 14,500 9,650 (4,850) (4,850) TOTAL 27,500 22,650 Percentage of entire 2009 budget Percentage of entire 2010 budget TOTAL TOTAL INCREASE 2009 BUDGET 2010 BUDGET Difference _77_ 5,607,965 5,776,204 0.39% 0.20% 168,239 3.00% 16 CORRESPONDENCE March 9, 2010 Items for Information (Consent Agenda) (ATTACHED) 1. Honourable Peter Fonseca, Minister of Labour, responding to the County's correspondence regarding the role of arbitrators and the outcome of a recent arbitration hearing. 2. Normand Genest, Program Manager, Plant Products, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, apologizing for the delay in responding to the County's letter of July 2, 2009 regarding the Ministerial Order concerning the Emerald Ash Borer and noting staff would be willing to return to Council to answer any outstanding issues or provide other information in a timely manner. Ministry of Labour Office of the Minister 400 University Avenue 14 Floor Toronto ON M7A 1T7 Tel: 416 326 -7600 Fax: 416 326 -1449 FEB 1 9 2010 Ms. Bonnie Vowel Warden County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Dear Ms. Vowel: Ministere du Travail Bureau du ministre 400, avenue University 14° etage Toronto ON M7A 1T7 Tel.: 416 326 -7600 Telec.: 416 326 -1449 R E ED FEB 2 4 2010 COUNTY 01 ELGIN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES f 7151 ISM =Ns Al=211 Ontario Thank you for your correspondence on the role of arbitrators, and the outcome of Elgin County's recent arbitration hearing. I appreciate hearing your concerns. It is not clear from your correspondence whether you are referring to a grievance arbitration or an interest arbitration matter. However, as you indicate the hearing affected one of your bargaining units, as opposed to an individual employee, it appears that you are referring to interest arbitration. Ministry staff have examined the Arbitration Services records and can find nothing to indicate that any member of your arbitration board was appointed as the result of a ministerial appointment. Therefore, it appears that the parties appointed the arbitration board by mutual agreement. The Ontario legislation does require an arbitrator conducting an interest arbitration to consider certain criteria when deciding on a compensation award, including: The employer's ability to pay given its fiscal situation The extent to which services may have to be reduced, in light of an arbitrator's decision and if current funding and taxation levels are not increased A comparison of the tern's and conditions of employment and the nature of the work performed between the affected employees and other, comparable employees in the public and private sectors The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality The employer's ability to attract and retain qualified employees The interest arbitration process is subject to judicial review. For example, a party that believes the process has resulted in a denial of natural justice may challenge it in the courts. .../2 Ministry staff and I are always interested in feedback on the arbitration process. I am always open to suggestions on how to make the interest arbitration process work better. Your input on that subject is greatly appreciated. Thank you again for writing. Sincerely, Peter Fonseca Minister -2- Canadian Food Agence canadienne Inspection Agency d'inspection des aliments Canadian Food Inspection Agency 174 Stone Road West Guelph, Ontario N1G 4S9 February 25, 2010 Mrs. Bonnie Vowel Warden County of Elgin Administrative Services 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Re: Appearance at Elgin County Council February 16, 2010 Dear Mrs. Vowel: Canada -81- R. EC saw "12010 CCU ('Y Cr ELGIN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES I am writing to respond to the request made to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) officials at the recent Elgin County Council meeting and would like to take this opportunity to again apologize for the extended delay in my response to your original letter regarding the July 9, 2009 Ministerial Order. The CFIA greatly values the input received from all stakeholders and especially other levels of governments in the design and implementation of policies related to its mandate. Since first discovered in 2002, CFIA has and continues to direct very significant resources to slow the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB). I regret that the delay in responding to your letter created any perception that we do not take seriously the concerns you raised or the impact that EAB has had on your county. This was certainly never my intention. You asked for an explanation as to why it took some five months to respond to your letter. Because some of the issues raised pertained to policy matters that are dealt with by our headquarters in Ottawa, it was necessary to work with several groups to prepare the response. In addition, I also wanted to provide you with information about the creation of an EAB Task Force to ensure stakeholders across Ontario and in other provinces have the opportunity to input into a longer term strategy to address the spread of EAB. The CFIA sees the creation of the Task Force as a very positive approach to help facilitate discussions between stakeholders and government departments towards developing in a consensus on the general direction for the future management of EAB. While this process took time and there were other urgent plant health issues that had to be dealt with as well, the responsibility for failing to coordinate all this input to respond to you in a timely fashion rests squarely with me and for this failure, I do sincerely apologize. ...12 I hope that the presentation and hand outs provided at the. Council meeting were helpful to further clarify the CFIA' s current approach to EAB and that we might be able to move forward on a more positive footing to discuss any issues or concerns that you may have. As mentioned previously, we are in the process of creating the EAB Task Force to guide future direction of EAB management and would welcome the involvement of Elgin County in this process. We will provide further specifics as soon as they are available. I understand that you may be seeking further clarification on the answers provided to some issues raised in your original letter. In fact, we have already been in touch with Mr. Pullen to follow up on some of his questions he raised after the presentation and would certainly be willing to return to Council to answer any outstanding issues or provide any other information you are seeking in a timely manner. I would like to close by recognizing the efforts put forward by the County of Elgin to address the risks and to prevent the spread of EAB and hope that both County staff and the CFIA can work cooperatively together towards slowing the spread of EAB in the future. Sincerely, ,for and Genest Program Manager, Plant Products Canadian Food Inspection Agency -2- cc: Mary Orr, Plant Health Emergency Program Lead Nitin Verma, Forest Pest Emergency Specialist JoAnne Ford, Area Communications Manager CLOSED MEETING AGENDA March 9, 2010 Staff Reports: (verbal) 1) Director of Financial Services Municipal Act, Section 240.2(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board Update 99 Edward Street fax cover DATE: 3/5/2010 Send to: Warden Vowel and Elgin County Councillors Attention: Office Location: Fax Number: Call Group URGENT REPLY ASAP PLEASE COMMENT X PLEASE REVIEW FOR YOUR INFORMATION COMMENTS: Notice: From: Mark G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer mmcdonald @elgin- county.on.ca Office Location: Administrative Services Phone Number: Ext. 161 Number of Pages, Including Cover: 7 Additional Items for Council Agenda of March 9, 2010 The next meeting of County Council will be March 23, 2010 beginning at 9:00 a.m. Reports of Staff and Council: (attached) 1. Director of Engineering Services Property Transfer John Street in the Town of Aylmer Correspondence Items for Information (Consent Agenda): (attached) 1. Joe Preston MP, Elgin- Middlesex- London, with copy of correspondence from the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities regarding ineligibility of Dexter Line for funding. 2. FCM Members Advisory FCM's Response to the Federal Budget. THE INFORMATION IN THIS FACSIMILE IS FOR THE NAMED RECIPIENT ONLY. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, OR THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS IN TRANSMISSION, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Canada Phone: 519 631 -1460 Fax: 519 633 -7661 www.elgin- county.on.ca Progressive by Nature ElginL FlIga9s v_ by t? rir� FROM: Clayton Wafters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: February 11, 2010 SUBJECT: Property Transfer John Street in the Town of Aylmer INTRODUCTION REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL More than 10 years ago a small piece of property on John Street was transferred from a local business to the Town of Aylmer. The Town of Aylmer required the property, 6 meters by 15 meters, to permit the installation of the municipal infrastructure. Since John Street is now under the jurisdiction of the County of Elgin, it is more appropriate for the ownership to be transferred to the County of Elgin. DISCUSSION More than a decade ago the Town of Aylmer purchased a small piece of land, at the northwest corner John Street and Beech Street, to install municipal services. Since then the County of Elgin has assumed ownership of John Street from the Town of Aylmer. A small piece of property, daylight corner was not transferred at that time. Staff is requesting that since the road is now under the ownership of the County of Elgin, the County should retain ownership of the property. The property is legally known as Part 1 on 11 R -5704. Also, there will be some minor administrative and legal costs to transfer the property, less than $1000, and those costs will be borne by the County of Elgin. CONCLUSION The County of Elgin has jurisdiction for John Street, the location of the small portion of property that the Town of Aylmer purchased more than 10 years ago to install municipal services. Since the County has ownership of the road right of way, Part 1 on 11 R -5704 should be transferred from the Town of Aylmer to the County of Elgin. RECOMMENDATION That the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be directed and authorized to sign the necessary documents to transfer Part 1 on 11 R -5704 from the Town of Aylmer. Respectfully Submitted Clayton D. Watters Director of Engineering Services Approved for Subnnisci. n Mark t__:._ Wonafd Chief Administrative Officer Ottawa Confederation Bldg, Room 142 Ottawa, ON K I A 0A6 Tel: (613) 990 -7769 Fax: (613) 996 -0194 prestj @parl.gc.ca www.joeprestonmp.ca Thursday, February 25, 2010 TO: The County of Elgin RE: Dexter Line Sincerel Joe Preston ember of Parliament /Elgin- Middlesex London HOUSE OF COMMONS fpw.tArt Eight— .Middieae c anclan n Please find a copy a letter received by our office The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities regarding Dexter Line. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 519- 637 -2255. 24 First Avenue, Unit 2 St.Thomas, ON N5R 4M5 Tel: (519) 637 -2255 Fax: (519) 637 -3358 Toll Free: 1 -866- 404 -0406 assist @j o epresto n m p.ca www.joeprestonmp.ca A II I I VL SERVICES 02/18/2010 14: 01 1E1399E0194 icEtY3 6 2010 Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Mr. Joe Preston, MP. House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario kl A 0A6 Dear Ottawa, Canada MA ON5 I am writing in response to your recent correspondence regarding the proposed Dexter Line road works in Elgin County, and with which you enclosed a letter and set of cost estimates from County Councillor Mr. John R. Wilson. At the outset, I should explain that roads and highways in Canada, with few exceptions, fall within provincial, territorial or municipal jurisdiction. Provincial, territorial and municipal governments are therefore responsible for the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and financing of roads and highways within their jurisdictions. This being the case, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to Ontario's Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Jim Bradley. That being said, the federal government recognizes that investments in transportation infrastructure are critical to maintaining Canada's economic productivity and promoting the quality of life and safety of its citizens. The federal government is taking action through the $33-billion Building Canada plan, which represents the largest federal commitment to public infrastructure in history. Budget 2009 contained significant new infrastructure investments designed to provide economic stimulus, including the $4-billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, which will provide funding to provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure projects that can be initiated and completed during the 2009 and 2010 construction seasons. Cad JOE PRESTON MP Ministre des Transports, de !Infrastructure et des Collectivites PAGE 02/03 02/1812010 14:01 16139960194 Local road projects are eligible as provincial/territorial assets under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund. Through the Provincial—Territorial Base Funding Initiative, projects on all roads, regardless of location, status or ownership, are eligible for investment. Finally, under the Building Canada Fund, certain categories of local road projects, including the rehabilitation of roads within a municipal boundary, are eligible for investment. This being the case, it is likely that the new road alignment component of the proposed project would be eligible for funding under these programs. However, it should be noted that a project must be identified as a priority for funding by the province in question before it can be considered for federal investment. I should inform you that several components of the proposed project, namely the erosion protection, groyne and access road construction, and waterline relocation components, do not fall under an eligible investment category of the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund or the Major Infrastructure Component of the Building Canada Fund. For further information on the Building Canada plan and updates on highway projects, I would encourage you to visit the Building Canada website at .buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca. 2 trust that the foregoing will be of assistance. Thank you for writing. Sincerely, c.c. The Honourable Jim Bradley, M.P.P. JOE PRESTON MP PAGE 03/03 John Baird, P.C., M.P. Avis aux Members s bras de Adviso Please distribute to all Members of Council and CAOs MEMBERS' ADVISORY FCM's Response to the Federal Budget Page 1 of 1 From: FCM Communique [mailto:communique ©fcm.ca] Sent: Fri 3/5/2010 10:47 AM To: Mark McDonald Subject: FCM Members Advisory: Federal Budget 2010 2011 /Avis aux membres de la FCM: Budget federal 2010 -2011 Finance Minister Jim Flaherty introduced the 2010 -11 federal budget in Ottawa yesterday. In a statement released immediately following this announcement, FCM President Basil Stewart applauded the federal government for protecting core investments in cities and communities as it reduces the federal budget deficit. These investments will help local governments and Canadian property tax payers build the infrastructure that is the backbone of our economy and quality of life. Specifically and importantly, the government is standing by its promise to permanently invest $2 billion a year in gas tax revenues in safer roads and bridges, quality public transit, and clean drinking water. This commitment, along with the protection of existing funding for affordable housing and the GST Rebate for municipalities, is helping local governments build greener communities that can compete for new jobs, talent, and investment in the post- recession world. Canadians can't afford to relive the 1990s deficit fight, when federal and provincial budget deficits were shifted on to their property tax bills, or paid for with cuts to local services. Today's budget protects Canadians by protecting their communities. The budget also committed to continue the stimulus plan through the end of its planned second year, in March 2011, which will reassure communities undertaking stimulus projects that the partnership forged with the federal government continues. The Government of Canada must now work with provinces and territories to monitor stimulus projects, identify regional challenges, and show flexibility where delays are caused by factors outside of municipal control. As stimulus spending winds down, we will be urging the federal government to put this partnership to work tackling the longer -term problems playing out in our communities, from street gangs to homelessness to climate change. Municipalities had a lot at stake in this budget, with billions of dollars in stimulus funding programs in mid -roll out, as well as billions more in ongoing core funding threatened by the need to eliminate the fiscal deficit. The budget has delivered good news for our sector, and sets us up well to build on our gains in a post- recession and post- deficit environment. For President Stewart's full statement, as well as a more detailed staff analysis of the budget's implications for municipalities, go to http:// www .fcm.ca /englishNiew.asp ?mp =1 &x =1279. Please contact Adam Thompson, Policy Analyst, at athompsonfcm.ca with questions or comments about the budget. https: /mail.elgin- county.on.ca /exchange /sheffren/Drafts/F W: %20FCM %20Members %2... 05/03/2010